Preventing Violent Conflict and Building Peace

Preventing Violent
Conflict & Peace
Building
On Interaction between State Actors
and Voluntary Organisations
The European Centre for Conflict Prevention
and the Swedish Peace Team Forum
Swedish Peace Team Forum c/o Swedish Red Cross
Box 17563, SE-118 91 STOCKHOLM
Tel: 08-452 46 00
Produced with the assistance of the Secretariat for Conflict Prevention,
Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
2
Editor:
Bernt Jonsson
with the assistance of Anna Widepalm
Layout:
Jonas Nilsson, UD-PIK-INFO
Print:
XBS Grafisk Service, Stockholm 2002
ISBN 91-7496-290-6
Artikelnummer UD 02.053
Table of Contents
Foreword.................................................................................6
Göran Bäckstrand, Kerstin Grebäck, Margareta Ingelstam and Bo Wirmark
Conference Statement to the Swedish Presidency of the European Union, the
Member States and the European Commission..................................11
Introductory Address...........................................................17
Christina Magnuson
Solidarity and Security – Probing the Meaning of Nonviolence
Personal and Spiritual Perspective on Nonviolence and Peace..........19
Jayanti Kirpalani
For Peace. An Islamic perspective..............................................25
Tariq Ramadan
Creative Forces in a Multidimensional World
UN Sanctions Regimes. The Case of Angola.................................38
Anders Möllander
The Necessity of Changing Male Values
Nicklas Kelemen......................................................................42
What do State Actors and Voluntary Organisations Expect from
Each Other as Concrete Contributions?
Jan Cedergren..........................................................................47
Jörgen Johansen........................................................................51
Gay Rosenblom-Kumar..............................................................54
The European Union: From Crisis Management to Conflict
Prevention
Patrick Simonnet......................................................................59
Terhi Lehtinen..........................................................................63
Paul Eavis..............................................................................65
3
Promoting Prevention of Violent Conflict and Building Peace by
Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary Organisations
Lena Hjelm-Wallén...................................................................69
Lessons Learned from Peace Building
Assignment.................................................73
Report.......................................................77
Working Group 1
The European Union and Policies for Preventing Violent Conflict
Working Group 2
Assignment.................................................82
Report.......................................................86
National Infrastructures for Conflict Prevention and Peace
Building
Working Group 3
Assignment.................................................89
Report.......................................................94
Developing Civilian Peace Services
Working Group 4
Assignment...............................................103
Report....................................................107
Conflict Prevention as a Government-NGO Joint Venture
A postscript comment............................................................110
Ragnar Ängeby
Appendices:
Preventing violent conflict. Opportunities for the Swedish and Belgian
Presidencies of the European Union in 2001..............................115
Conference Programme..........................................................146
Participants..........................................................................151
Inviting organisations:
The European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation.......161
Peace Team Forum, Sweden and Member Organisations.....................166
4
Report from a Conference at Gripsholm, Mariefred, Sweden,
May 1-4, 2001 on Promoting Prevention of Violent Conflict and
Building Peace by Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations.
Organizers: The European Centre for Conflict Prevention and
the Swedish Peace Team Forum with financial support from the
Dutch, German and Swedish governments and the Swedish
International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida)
Editor: Bernt Jonsson with the assistance of Anna Widepalm.
5
Foreword
During its European Union Presidency, the Swedish Government
gave priority to the subject long and short term prevention of
violent conflicts. As a corollary to these efforts, Peace Team
Forum, with the Swedish Red Cross as executing organisation
co-organised with the European Centre for Conflict Prevention
the conference ”Promoting the Prevention of Violent Conflict
and Building Peace” at the Red Cross Educational and Training
centre in Gripsholm. In many ways it was a follow-up of a
conference held in 1997 on “Government-NGO Relations in
Preventing Violence, Transforming Conflict and Building Peace”.
Since then new experiences and insights have been achieved
among both governments and voluntary organisations. As a
result, this event focused on four main items:
•
Lessons learned from Peacebuilding
•
The European Union and Policies for Preventing Violent
Conflict
•
National Infrastructures for Sustainable Peace
•
Developing Civilian Peace Services
The lectures and introductions to the sessions, the deliberations
from Working Groups and finally the recommendations to the
Swedish Presidency of the European Union, the Member States
and the European Commission, make up the content of this book.
In this introduction we want to highlight some factors, which
we believe need to be stressed in order to explore new ways to
meet today’s extraordinary challenging dark shadows of violence
and threats to principles of democracy and human rights.
The fragility of international co-operation and endeavours as a
system of state relations have been exposed in images, which
were until last September thought of belonging to a virtual
6
world. In spite of progress in living conditions thereby raising
material living standards in many countries, poverty still creates a
background for more violence and serious difficulties for
building peaceful conditions. The demand for “new ways” to
meet violence is thus more striking than ever before.
On the one hand, the European Union and its member states
have devoted considerable time, energy and resources to
develop the concept of ”crisis management” during recent years,
and are now also turning the concept into practical means of
education, stand-by personnel and operations. On the other
hand, we do not yet see the materialisation of a genuine understanding for national infrastructures with a deeper commitment
for education and training to address the vaster subject of a
general prevention of violence and search for building peace.
The efforts of the member states of the European Union to
build national infrastructures for conflict prevention and peace
building must be given a much more serious consideration than
in the past.
The role of Voluntary Organisations
Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations often express
the importance of a greater role for Voluntary Organisations in
building a more peaceful environment.
In this context, it is important to define some of their
comparative advantages to justify a higher degree of participation of Voluntary organisations in the necessary work to prevent violent conflicts and build peace:
•
Small-scale, financially efficient, quick and responsive
•
High degree of long-term commitment
•
Can create scope for dialogue and may be felt as less
threatening facilitators or mediators
•
Can reach both parties to a conflict
•
Is less gender blind
The expressions of confidence - implicating that governments,
inter-governmental organisations and voluntary organisations
7
should work closely together - must also be followed by
appropriate action in channelling much needed resources. It is
evident that the resources asked for are quite small compared to
the costs of the military or mixed military/civil build up to
handle ”crisis management”.
In a communication from the European Commission on
Conflict Prevention (COM 2001:211), voluntary organisations
are acknowledged as key actors.
A shift in the allocation of resources, concentrating towards prevention of violent conflicts, would enable Voluntary Organisations
to develop this role in many aspects of prevention of violence
and peace building. Governments often refer to Voluntary
Organisations as key actors. We look forward to see words
followed by action. The common goal should be more firmly
established and recognised by acknowledging that “more and
more peacebuilding would result in less and less crisismanagement”.
Nonviolence
“Nonviolence is a holistic theory and practice that rejects
aggression and violence in order to achieve goals or resolve
conflicts in a constructive way” (Nonviolence, UNESCO). The
concept of nonviolence should be integrated in all discussions
and practice. Existing and acknowledged methods and strategies
should be integrated in the work of Voluntary Organisations.
Raising awareness on methods of nonviolence should be part of
education at all levels. ”One of the main stakes of non-violent
education is teaching human beings how to resolve conflicts
from an early age.”(UNESCO)
In promoting nonviolence it is paramount to see the role of
women as decisive partners in implementing participatory democracy and directly involve women in all aspects regarding the
prevention of violent conflict and peacebuilding.
New aspects
Under the general heading of prevention of violence, an
additional aim of the conference was to indicate new aspects,
8
which, at first sight, may not be seen as related to the subject
matter. However, if we consider basic human health as a decisive
factor in creating a culture of prevention and nonviolence, these
factors should more consciously be part of peacebuilding, both
in the long and short term.
•
Peace building and prevention is not only about building
a theoretical framework; it must be complemented by
very practical exercises as well. Aggression and violence is
mostly related to emotions related to ”the other” – a person,
a group of people or society at large. Violence has to be
countered on many levels, not only on an intellectual/
factual level but also on the emotional one. The programme
“Peaceful Touch” – Massage in schools against violence, was
introduced to the participants.
•
While acknowledging that women must be given voice
and space in the broad discussion about People’s Security,
it should also be recognised that men must engage in
discussions on male gender roles and root causes of violence.
Change will only come by looking at gender from these two
complementary perspectives. This necessity of changing
male values was presented to the conference by the
“Dialogue Project”.
•
Silence too has to be present in order to give the needed
result. The great world religions have recognised that
outer peace demands also a conscious inner peace.
Peaceful states rest of course finally on peaceful minds!
Moments of silence and contemplation were integrated in
the conference programme. The importance of silence and
stillness is closely related to the issue of time. How do we
use our common resource of time? Stressful situations cause
unnecessary tensions and contribute to an unhealthy
environment.
An urgent need in all societies of the world is to develop
additional and more efficient efforts to prevent violence. The
recommendations by the conference Gripsholm II to the
European Union and its member states concentrate on supporting
9
infrastructures for conflict prevention and peacebuilding by
allocating more resources to prevention, strengthening the role
of voluntary organisations, securing increased participation by
women, improving education in peacebuilding and integrating
the concept of nonviolence. The above-mentioned “new“ aspects
could prove to be a valuable contribution in finding new methods
to address the problems of violence in society.
On behalf of Peace Team Forum:
Göran Bäckstrand, Swedish Red Cross
Kerstin Grebäck, The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation
Margareta Ingelstam, Christian Council of Sweden
Bo Wirmark, Swedish Peace Council
10
To the Swedish Presidency of
the European Union, the
Member States and the
European Commission
Meeting at Gripsholm, Sweden, May 1-4, 2001 at a conference
with participants representing national and international
governmental and voluntary/non-governmental organisations;
Considering the intentions of the European Union to establish a
programme for the prevention of violent conflicts at the
forthcoming Council Summit meeting in Gothenburg,
Sweden, in June 2001;
Having discussed ways and means of Promoting Prevention of
Violent Conflicts and Building Peace by Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary Organisations;
Being convinced that new insights create new methods for
addressing tension and aggression;
Recognizing the necessity in all countries of establishing an
ongoing dialogue between state actors and relevant
voluntary organisations (VOs)/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) dealing with the complex subject of prevention of violent conflicts;
Declaring our willingness to participate in, and facilitate, such a
dialogue;
Committing ourselves to actively mobilize public support, not
the least among young people, to the need of conflict prevention measures through awareness-building and public
information programmes;
11
Emphasizing the importance to incorporate VOs and NGOs in
an early phase and at the highest levels into the analysis of
violent conflicts and in the design and development of
country/regional strategies to deal with violent conflicts;
Underlining the necessity of active involvement of affected
people in conflict-prone areas in the development and
implementation of such strategies;
Stressing that there is no real democracy and sustainable peace
without the equal participation of both women and men,
including at all decision-making levels, guaranteed through
a process of continuous gender analysis;
Recognizing the need for research, formal and informal education
and training at all levels for peace building and prevention
of violent conflicts; and the importance of how individuals shall live their values;
Being convinced that a culture of preventing violence is expressed
by long-term efforts to transform violent conflicts and to
build peace;
the participants of the “Gripsholm II” conference have the pleasure
to present the following comments and recommendations:
I. The European Union and Policies for Preventing Violent Conflict
We welcome the important steps made by the EU in promoting
conflict prevention and peace building, especially recognizing
the lead given by the Swedish Presidency.
12
1.
We urge the EU, and especially its member states, to
demonstrate a stronger political commitment to the
implementation of the Nice Council Declaration on
mainstreaming conflict prevention in all its activities and
programmes including the relevant clauses in the Cotonou
Agreement and other external assistance programmes.
2.
In addition to existing country strategies, encourage the
EU and the EC to approach conflict prevention on a
regional and sub-regional basis with programmes, which
strengthen the regional and sub-regional capacities at
governmental, parliamentary and civil society levels. This
will involve greater decentralization to delegations.
3.
Ensure that EU conflict prevention policies and programmes
recognize the need and advantage of working with civil
society – especially the role of VOs/NGOs; and that
mechanisms for involving civil society in policy-formulation
and programme-implementation are strengthened.
II. Evaluation of Peace Building Experiences
1.
In order to accumulate the knowledge on strategies and
tactics for conflict prevention and peace-making and to
increase efficiency of programmes and projects, we
strongly recommend the institutionalisation of a processoriented evaluation at all relevant levels. The results of
these evaluations are useful input and will improve the
quality of training, project identification and design,
policy development, and academic studies.
2.
The criteria and methodology of evaluation must in
addition include and strongly depend on local situations
and local needs, including time frame. Evaluations have to
be performed in close co-operation between local
organisations themselves, international agencies and bilateral donor organisations. We therefore recommend the
European Union to take the initiative to co-ordinate and
promote the evaluation of peace building efforts to the
member states and relevant international organisations.
There is a need for the international community to recognize the important role, competence, views and
feelings of local stakeholders. Therefore the international
community must work in close partnership with local
stakeholders straight from the early phases of intervention.
3.
We further recommend that the European Union coordinate meetings where VOs/NGOs involved in peace
building and agencies implementing EU peace building
programmes can exchange and enhance learning through
a continuous dialogue. We recommend that such meetings
13
be held in all the member states and that funding be made
available for VO/NGO participation from EU member
countries as well as from areas of violent conflict outside
of the EU.
III. National Infrastructures for Conflict Prevention and Peace
Building
1.
State and non-state actors have shown a growing interest
in conflict prevention and peace building. However, there
is a need for deeper dialogue and closer co-operation for
the development and implementation of policy and
practice. Within the field of conflict prevention there are
still many gaps: there is often a lack of adequate mechanisms
to act effectively on early warning signals, of solid conflict
analyses, of expertise and capacity, of overviews of the
different stakeholders in this field, or of governmentNGO forums.
2.
Therefore, we call upon EU governments and VOs/NGOs
to support infrastructures for conflict prevention and
peace building at national and EU-levels. To take this
forward, the creation of national platforms for conflict
prevention and peace building, with sufficient capacity in
staff and financial resources, is essential. In countries
where national platforms for conflict prevention and
peace building are already active, these platforms should
be supported.
3.
National infrastructures can provide mechanisms for
governments to enhance their knowledge, policy and
practice in conflict prevention and peace building, and act
as a catalyst for initiatives to fulfill the gaps in the field.
Core tasks of a national infrastructure include:
–
–
–
14
Stimulating networking amongst VOs/NGOs and
with governments;
Raising awareness for the opportunities for conflict
prevention and peace building;
Acting as an information clearinghouse.
IV. Civilian Peace Services
Many civilian programmes and initiatives have contributed to
the prevention of violent conflict and peace building around
the world and have accumulated a wealth of experience. There is
a need however for trained and experienced people in greater
numbers for a wide range of assignments, including missions
organised by intergovernmental organisations, governments and
VOs/NGOs.
We therefore have the following recommendations:
1.
EU member states should, in co-operation with VOs/
NGOs, support the development of national civilian
peace services, in order to contribute to a resource of
5,000 trained European civilians (e.g. monitors, observers,
mediators, trainers) in addition to the 5,000 police already
decided.
They should be made available to the EU, OSCE and UN
and to other inter-governmental and non-governmental
organisations to assist in initiatives for the prevention of
violent conflict, civilian crisis management and peace
building, in partnership with civilians from other parts of
the world, as appropriate.
2.
EU member states should support the development of
further training for civilian peace service personnel,
including co-operating with training programmes of other
countries and international organisations.
3.
In these efforts, co-operation among intergovernmental,
governmental and non-governmental organisations is
crucial.
V. Financial resources
Prevention of violent conflict is an ethical imperative that puts
demands on financial resources, besides being cost-effective. It
requires only a fraction of the costs of crisis management and
enforcement. Over time, this will save both lives and money.
Consequently, there is a strong rationale for the allocation of
resources to conflict prevention.
15
If the European Union and its member states want to see VOs/
NGOs as active partners in the prevention of violence and
human suffering, it is necessary:
–
to acknowledge the need for additional resources to be
directed at long-term conflict prevention;
–
to make financial and other resources available to civil
society and its relevant VOs/NGOs
–
to enhance and expand competence and capacity in
peace-building.
16
Promoting the Prevention of
Violent Conflict and Building
Peace
by Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations
Introductory Address
by Ms Christina Magnuson1
Many historians and writers have already given their judgement
of the past century as a particularly violent and cruel one. New
and old technologies have in surprising combinations made it
possible to commit atrocities on a very large scale. How shall we
come out of vicious circles of revenge? How shall we be able to
transform all conflicts, which are part of the human adventure,
and build more peaceful societies?
Four years ago I had the pleasure to welcome a similar forum
to this Red Cross centre and some of you were present on that
occasion. I am happy to be with you again as a demonstration
that we are collectively engaged in a long term undertaking. In
1999 States signatories to the Geneva Conventions and the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement adopted a
Plan of Action at its 27th International Conference. This conference
has in principle met every four year in order to promote International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Actions.
I believe that we have to be inspired by such a perspective and
recognize that States and Voluntary Organisations need many
more meetings of this kind, in Gripsholm and in other places all
over the world, to be able to reach the goal of sustainable peace
for all people.
We in the Red Cross and Red Crescent are mourning these
days. Last week six staff members of the International
Committee of the Red Cross were killed in the Democratic
17
republic of Congo during an assignment to bring assistance to
victims of the ongoing conflict in that country. Every one of
these tragedies, which have become quite frequent during
recent years, should not only bring home that the International
Humanitarian Law is not respected and due action has to be
taken by all States. It is also a strong reminder that we have to
devote more energies and resources to prevent these violent
conflicts. And for these preventive actions there is no easy fix.
We have to build the necessary infrastructure in all countries, to
reach out for knowledge and insight and patiently learn to live
our values! The common humanitarian values!
I hope that you will have constructive and useful discussions
in this little town, Mariefred. As some of you know, the origin of
the name is a Carthusian monastery founded in the 15th century,
Pax Mariae or Mary´s Peace. The Carthusian brotherhood, one of
the few Voluntary Organisations of its time, was dissolved in the
following century and the bricks of the monastery buildings
were used to build the castle of Gripsholm.
We do hope that the present Red Cross environment will
prove congenial for building lasting and constructive interaction
between States and our present Voluntary Organisations. If our
new and still fresh century shall be remembered as a contrast to
what we have lived, we need to be inventive and vigorous. I look
forward to seeing this dialogue between States and Voluntary
Organisations be part of building the desired sustainable peace in
Europe and elsewhere.
18
Solidarity and Security –
Probing the Meaning of
Nonviolence
The Personal and Spiritual Perspective on Nonviolence
and Peace
By Jayanti Kirpalani2
I would like to thank the organisers here for their vision and
courage in inviting us to share the personal and spiritual
component within the subject of prevention of conflict, and to
probe the meaning of nonviolence.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the
enormous effort that has been put into peacemaking and trying
to create a culture of nonviolence by all those gathered here. I
will leave that side of the subject to all of you – the experts –
and focus my remarks towards the spiritual dimension, for this is
my particular area of experience.
A spiritual truth which is a basic principle, is that whatever is
within is reflected without. The inner state of human beings
creates the outer state of the world. When there is peace within;
peace in the world is not impossible. However whilst there is
aggression within, then even sticks and stones become weapons
of war. So in order to establish a world of peace, it is essential to
return to the state of peace within.
Today the norm for people seems to be a state of ‘peacelessness’.
Yet, in fact, the natural state of the human being is that of peace.
For those who belong to a faith tradition there will be the
awareness of the teaching that ‘human beings are created in the
image of God’. Recognizing that the Divine Creator is the
embodiment of absolute peace, then surely the Creation also has
this quality in its origin. Interestingly, from the scientific point
of view this also holds true. In 1986 UNESCO held a conference
19
in Seville where experts presented the results of research that
showed aggression and violence were not inherent in the human
species but rather were acquired later, and that peace and
nonviolence were the natural conditions of the human being.
This leads us to another question - Is the original nature of the
human good or evil or a combination of both? Today we see a
combination, we see divine and devilish traits functioning
together in human life and yet so often it is the devilish traits
that dominate. However, if we are the creation of the Divine
then surely divine qualities are the original inherent state of the
human being. We often too have this experience of the inherent
goodness of the soul.
Given the conditions of violence today in every sphere and
level of society in the world, the question arises, well, what has
gone wrong? Globalisation is the reality of today’s world, with
its pluses and minuses. Major factors of globalisation are
materialism and consumerism. There has been a loss of the
awareness of spiritual identity, being replaced with an identification only with the external material world. Television has
been a major force in the globalisation of the culture of
materialism. Research in the USA indicates that there is a direct
correlation between the number of TV viewing hours and the
individual violence. This fact is fairly well recognised. However
another statistic that isn’t so well known is that there is also a
direct correlation between the number of TV viewing hours and
financial debt. The advertising and consumer culture of TV
promotes spending money which often leads to debt.
In this materialistic culture, peace has been forgotten because
the inner self has been forgotten. A loss of awareness of that
inner state of being and identification with the external material
world leads to a loss of inner peace and the equilibrium of
nonviolence. Into the emptiness of the spirit comes anger and
violence. Just as darkness doesn’t have a reality of its own
existence but is simply the absence of light, in the same way,
when peace disappears, violence comes into its own. One
doesn’t need to fight the darkness, rather one just has to light a
candle, and the greater the power of the candle, or the greater
20
the number of candles, the greater the intensity of the light. So
too, when we become aware of our spiritual identity and come
to the awareness of the inner being, there is peace and this peace
can grow. As people of peace gather together, just as we have
done here, the power of peace multiplies.
In fact if we wish to transform the world and create a world of
peace this is truly the only way. There has never been a majority
that has changed the world, it has always only been a handful. A
small group of committed individuals have impacted history and
made a difference. We come together as revolutionaries committed to positive change. The transformation of the minority
reaching the point of critical mass will shift the majority and
create a culture of peace.
Another aspect of violence has been the increase in
discrimination of race, religion and culture. A UN event in
Geneva in 1984 looked at the subject of discrimination in
matters of belief; and there were such opposing views that the
seminar did not come to any conclusion at all. However
representatives from the University of Minnesota decided to
carry out research on the subject. They interviewed young
people in several countries and found that where an individual
had self-respect, there was little discriminatory behaviour, and
where there was lack of self-respect there was greater
discriminatory behaviour.
We see a situation where humanity is trapped in a vicious
circle. There is a general lack of value for the self, leading to
cycles of dependency and addictive behaviour patterns to
compensate. If there is no knowledge of the inner being, there is
discontentment within and a search for happiness in temporary
supports, people, possessions, places, position or even alcohol
and drugs. Emotional addictions of ego and anger are part of this
cycle of vicious behaviour patterns leading to the conditions we
see around us on every continent.
There also seems to be a general state of helplessness in which
many feel disempowered. We often see that multinationals have
even greater power than governments today and so we question
whether the individual can have any power. The Charter of the
21
UN begins with the declaration of ‘we the people’. The return
to true self-awareness and self-dignity reminds us of the real
value of the self. Respect for the self leads to respect for human
life and value for the dignity of each human being around me.
Where there is violence there is usually fear born out of
ignorance. When I don’t know my neighbour, and I am afraid
because he or she looks different, smells different, eats differently
and behaves differently, I am likely to be discriminatory in my
dealings. When I take the time to know and understand my
neighbour there will be respect. To know others with clarity, I
need to give time to know myself first for only then will I learn
about others.
Peace is very much linked with love, understanding, respect
and truth. In fact we find that all positive values are
interconnected and these form the basis of civilisation. The
breakdown in society today is a direct result of the loss of values.
To return to peace we need to return to a culture of values. The
family structure used to be the vehicle for the transmission of
values, where values were not ‘taught’ but rather ‘caught’
through the relationships within the family. Storytelling, time
spent together as a family meant that a child grew up with a
code of conduct and ethics, and with heroes and heroines to
guide him or her along life’s journey.
I lived in India until the age of eight, before moving to
London, and my family there consisted of my parents,
grandmother and great grandmother, who was a great storyteller.
Today it is common for parents to leave the child to be minded
by the TV set and we see the influence that this has. To create a
culture of values needs the support of both formal and informal
education – teachers and parents alike.
I have been sharing the philosophy of the Brahma Kumaris to
indicate the spiritual guidelines with which we are working for
inner peace and peace in the world. Let me now share some of
the activities that the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
has co-ordinated to give you an idea of how this translates into
the reality of today’s world.
In 1986 the Brahma Kumaris co-ordinated the Million
22
Minutes of Peace, which reached 88 countries and became the
largest non-fund raising project for the United Nations’
International Year of Peace. We were asking people for something
more valuable than money – themselves – their time. We asked
them to give a minute of their time for meditation, positive
thoughts or prayers for peace. Over a billion minutes were
collected within a month and presented to the UN Secretary
General.
Following this the UN Peace Studies Unit requested us to do
a follow up project and we initiated and coordinated ‘Global Cooperation for a Better World’. This took place in 129 countries
across the globe, in which we asked people to share their vision
of a better world. The project reached out across all levels of
social strata – princes and prime ministers, aboriginal elders in
central Australia, shoeshine boys in Brazil and leper colonies in
the Philippines, to name just a few. There were many ideas
generated yet the overwhelming response can be summed up in
one word – values. People all over the world said that a better
world was a world based on values such as peace, love, respect,
joy and truth. In 1993 the book that documented the results of
the project was published, ‘Visions for a Better World’.
In 1990 people of the world began to tell us that they were
interested in values and since then the word ‘values’ has come
into focus in business, politics, education, health care, in fact in
all areas of life. Having seen the result of a world without values
we are again recognising the need for values. At the point when
there is motivation to practise values we recognise the need for
spiritual power to enable us to do this. The present discussion
around the world on values seems to be a bridge to spirituality
and the journey within.
In 1995 a book entitled ‘Living Values – a Guidebook’ was
published by the Brahma Kumaris to honour the 50th anniversary of the UN, celebrating the dignity and worth of the
human being. The values that we carry within the self and
follow in our lives determine the quality of our own dignity and
self esteem. The book describes twelve universal values, which
are the bedrock of human life and civilization. This book became
23
the basis for the ‘Living Values: an Educational Programme’ which
is now running in over 70 countries. Books for this have been
published and contain activities to promote the development of
values for children and young people of different age ranges – 37yrs, 7-14yrs and 15-22yrs.
Our latest international project was to honour the International
Year for the Culture of Peace designated by the UN for the year
2000. UNESCO, which was given the mandate to implement this
programme, created Manifesto 2000 and requested people’s
signatures as a sign of their personal commitment to nonviolence
and peace. During 2000, UNESCO collected 75 million signatures
worldwide; of these 35 million were collected by the Brahma
Kumaris, with a large proportion from India.
The motivation and commitment of the organisation for these
projects has come from the experience of personal inner peace
and the desire to share this gift with all others. Each one of us
has an impact on at least one hundred others that we are in
contact with. There is a saying in India that 1+1 do not make 2
but rather 11, and 1+1+1 make 111. The energy multiplies as we
come together.
The project of Global Cooperation also underlines another
important factor. The old paradigm for the world is that conflict
and competition are the modes necessary for survival and
progress. Poignantly we see in the world the critical conditions
that have been created through this. It is now clear that the old
paradigm is no longer functional and a new paradigm is
necessary – that of co-operation. Co-operation requires letting
go of ego and external differences and coming together recognising the specialities of each and every one. In doing so we
value each other so that our energies work together in constructing a better world of peace.
24
Solidarity and Security –
Probing the Meaning of
Nonviolence
For Peace. An Islamic Perspective
By Tariq Ramadan3
Peace is what we all hope for, and yet in these times of violence
and turbulence, sustainable peace seems like an elusive dream.
Peace requires renewed, tireless and continued efforts by all
human beings. Conflict is a reality in our personal life, in
relations with neighbours or strangers. It is also a challenge that
must be overcome, if a state of harmony and peace between
human beings is to be achieved and maintained. This state of
tranquillity is what the Islamic tradition as well as other religious
and spiritual traditions teach us to seek.
It is therefore necessary for all of us, to make an effort, to work
within our own respective traditions, but also to work together
with other populations and the media to change our ways of
thinking in order to build bridges and open up new horizons
towards a state of peace for all.
Through it all it is necessary to remain hopeful but also to be
realistic and see things clearly; it is in the mixture of faith and
realism that dreams are eventually transformed into reality. Faith
without realism can mislead us; clarity without belief could
prevent us from acting – two extremes that, when not put
together, produce more words than actions.
Personal experience has taught me the valuable lesson that
peace cannot be attained without social, political and economic
justice. To disassociate them is dangerous, for that allows one
human being to achieve peace while exploiting another and
denying him/her dignity and human value. The present state of
the world is a testimony to the fact: no justice, no peace.
25
In the ensuing sections I would like to share some personal
lessons, and to present some of the areas where, in my view,
urgent action is needed. Through common efforts we could find
a possible way of living our lives together.
Lessons drawn from an experience
I once invited the Catholic human rights activist Pierre
Dufresne to a conference that we organised. At that time he was
very ill, but he came anyway for the sake of friendship. He made
a simple yet profound statement: You mustn’t be mistaken about
your enemy. With each day, I gain a deeper understanding of his
words. I reflect upon them, and ask you to join me.
How many Muslim women and men today are making the
mistake in considering those belonging to a different faith,
Christian, Jewish and in a wider sense all those who represent
humanism as being true enemies with whom one should not get
involved? How many humanists, Christians, and Jews are mistaken by considering Muslims as a potential threat, and an
enemy who is likely to invade their country or cause bloodshed?
All are mistaken about their enemies; all those traditions –
humanistic and religious – are based on common values, which
include the always-present concern about conscience and
human dignity. What unifies them is more significant than what
divides them.
Should we not make a collective effort based on everything
we have in common and ought we not “compete in the
application of what is good”, as the Qur’an commands us to do
and where we distinguish ourselves?
Finally, we must carefully reflect upon concepts such as
“Islamic civilisation” and “Western civilisation”, for not only do
they caricature all of us but they could also be used to promote
confrontation and conflict. What is overlooked is that both are
the civilisations of the children of Abraham and as such are
common grounds that hold many opportunities to cross bridges
and to meet.
Who is then the enemy in the Abrahamic traditions; the Jew?
The Christian? The Muslim? The humanist? None of them, of
26
course. Our most likely common enemy is the emerging worship of productivity at all cost, the passionate individualism, and
the uncontrolled and inhumane progress.
Together we have to struggle against the prevalence of lack of
meaning and lack of conscience, the death of spirituality, and the
economic and educational inequalities present in the heart of
every society. As defenders of justice, humanists and members of
the extended family of people of faith, we must assume our
responsibilities. We must engage in honest and sincere dialogue,
which will not be easy, for true dialogues and profound debates
are never easy, but they are essential.
When I started to teach I was just 18 years old. I taught French.
I was also involved in associations with a special concern for Third
World issues. I transformed this commitment into a special
“pedagogy of solidarity” within the school system. We worked in
two directions: one was working against marginalisation and
exclusion from the Swiss society, and the other was focused on
developing countries and included carrying out humanitarian
projects and by travelling to these countries.
At that time I was working for a number of solidarity
organisations such as ATD Quart Monde, Médecins sans Frontiers
(Physicians without Borders) and Terre des Hommes. I was
working together with small communities in South America,
where I collaborated with working class priests, with Dom
Helder Camara, and in Africa and as well as in India. At an early
stage I started working with humanists that declared themselves
atheists or agnostics, and with Christians. Along my journey, I
met with Abbé Pierre, Father Guy Gilbert, Soeur Emmanuelle
and Mother Teresa as well as Edmond Kaiser, Albert Jacquard,
Hubert Reeves, Jean Ziegler, Rene Dumont and many, many
others.
I was very critical in regard to school systems, because I felt
they failed to help young people to develop social and human
concerns and to become involved. An incident, which has
marked me deeply, was the loss of one of my students, Thierry,
with whom I worked for three years. He died from an overdose.
We had made a journey to Mali together. His death put me into a
27
state of deep reflection. During these years I lived with a religious
conviction, which I did not make public for professional reasons; I
advanced quickly in my career and eventually became head of the
Institute for Secondary Education at the age of 25.
At the end of the eighties, I became cognisant of something; I
suggested to young people that they should acknowledge and
respect other cultures, but at the same time I felt almost forced
to deny my own, and since I had never actually cared that much
about making my culture and convictions public, people started
talking about it, and became suspicious. To maintain credibility, I
had to modify what I was saying, and in that sense minimise the
specifics about my conviction.
I eventually resigned from my post as head of the Institute,
because being part of management meant that my involvement
should not have a religious connotation. At the same time I
resigned as President of the School Association of Solidarity. I
wanted to become more independent and to be able to go
deeper into the issue of mutual understanding of different
religions and cultures. I clearly understood one thing: without
the promotion of knowledge, without dialogue and mutual trust,
we will never be able to reach our goals. I believe that these are
the fields where we have to concentrate our efforts.
What can we do?
a)
School and education
As we get swept away by the high speed of our lives today, we
seem to lose touch with the past. In many respects, modern ways
of thinking have diminished the significance of true knowledge;
which means we will end up living free in a state of ignorance.
Being trapped in ignorance is a complicated situation, because
one is unaware of the obstacles ahead. This is true in the spheres
of religion where our societies illustrate our religious illiteracy,
as well as the social, economic and political areas and the media.
It is not unusual in our societies that people, ignorant of their
own culture and history, are being pushed to get to know the
culture and history of others. That makes no sense!
28
Today, education is not only a concern for parents and
teachers; it must be of concern for the society as a whole. People
of all faiths, humanists, and everybody who feels a responsibility
for the future, need to come together to develop the kind of
education that will meet the demands of our time. The overall
aim, at home and in the school, is to build the character of a
human being. The distinction between the family’s role to raise
the individual and school as a place of instruction and education
is no longer valid; what do we suggest instead? I propose, that
we view the home and the school as an open field, where the
freedom of each citizen and the future perspectives for peace
are being deliberated and decided.
There is no shortage of those who criticize schools and paint
teachers as lazy and incompetent, but what is being overlooked
is that today’s teachers are expected to be fathers, mothers, social
assistants, educators, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and very often
confidants.
Our societies have to find citizens who take their responsibilities seriously, and dedicate themselves to improving the
schools and preventing them from becoming isolated, closed
institutions that could be likely breeding grounds for tendencies
of extreme-right, as the less desirable ghettos and dysfunctional
suburbs.
It is essential to have a positive interaction between society
and schools, which must be supported by the public at large. The
schools should be living places at the very heart of the
community. Local communities, parents and teachers have to cooperate at all times, instead of wasting time trying to find out
what has not been done, and who is at fault. We all have to get
involved in the field of education in a wider sense that involves
us in projects that range from after-school activities to general
training/education programs for all citizens.
For ten years, I have been working closely within the community, and I cannot think of any other way to pursue this
mission. It is necessary to work together; we cannot afford to
continue to have teachers on one side, politicians on the other,
social workers in between, or to separating Christians, Jews,
29
Muslims and humanists. If we continue in that path, we are
mistaken both in terms of methods and partners.
It is also imperative that we teach about the essential beliefs,
practices and history of the different religious traditions. Public
discussion about religion has been long avoided for fear of
confrontation or conversion, but we can no longer afford that.
Ignorance of simple historical facts is prevalent in the work place
and in the classroom. Students are reaching university level
without mastering the most basic historical information; I was
amazed to find myself having to repeat over and again these
elementary information in my classes because student lacked
such foundational knowledge.
The schools have to respond to this, in one way or the other.
Our multicultural societies require an education, which prepare
citizens with deeper understanding of themselves and the
society in which they live. Without knowing our history, our
past, our diverse religious traditions, it would be difficult to
envision a future or a true pluralistic society.
To advocate a better knowledge about various faiths is not the
same as promoting one religion or the other. It is more of a call
for an effort to gain deeper knowledge of facts and references.
This has implication for those who teach within this discipline;
they need to be qualified both in terms of knowledge and
pedagogy. The teachers have to be able to provide the students
with enough knowledge so as to counter the upsurge of
prejudice and misunderstanding. What is needed is teaching in a
scientific manner, and to have even greater impact, the students
should engage in dialogues with people who are devoted to
different faiths. This should be integrated into the educational
curriculum at all stages of the student’s education.
Today, some students are seeking these opportunities for
dialogue, but it is always outside their regular school schedule.
This is certainly a positive step, but these students are not
usually the ones who are most in need of this knowledge,
because they are those whose home environment heightened
their awareness to the importance of such knowledge. This
knowledge must be available to all students and this can only be
30
done by making it part of regular curriculum. Only then can we
provide students with equal educational opportunities and live
up to the ethos of democracy rooted in securing proper
education for all.
To those who do not recognize the necessity of the knowledge
of world religions and history and whose opposition is based on
the fear of being convinced to convert to another faith, I say:
Yours is a call for the “freedom to be ignorant” which is mendacious
and dangerous. Whatever faith or religion we might follow, or
even in the absence of a faith for that matter, we must never
work against “more and deeper knowledge”. Freedom, as it pertains
to religion, is so intimately related to knowledge, yet freedom
has been so often evoked to perpetuate restrict knowledge, so
much so that we are about to create free “ignorant” societies.
b) Debates and dialogues
It is imperative that we move towards a renewed culture of
dialogue. What do we want by that, and why is this necessary?
The answer lies in the gloomy predictions of “imminent catastrophe” that will be the result of the clash of civilizations. But
what is not realized is that this perspective is imposing questions
that we have refused to ask ourselves for decades. For those who
belong to a religious tradition, the questions being asked constitute the essential elements upon which their faith is built: the
meaning of life, ethics, a critical mind, and solidarity. Many of
those who take a humanist stance are also concerned with these
questions.
Together we must strive to ask these questions, to call for
dialogue, to intervene in social, educational, political and economic
life in order to find common grounds, propose solutions and
develop alternative strategies.
Our situation does not require “a re-structuring move”, which
we sometimes try to pursue, in the name of “reform” and which
often is only a matter of re-arrangements and a change in management. Very often those reforms are being pursued for budgetary
reasons.
When we carry out these so called reforms, we seem content
31
that “things are moving”, but they turn out to be reforms that
only make us go around, rather than move us forward.
These movements of reform are optical illusions; and we are
blinded by the excitement about the change that is believed to
have occurred, while the basic problems remain.
The question might be: What should we invest in today to
ensure a better future of our children? Some people immediately
think of the human dimension: the spiritual, emotional, and
knowledge sharing. Others think of the economic aspects. When
even the question is not understood in the same way, how can
we expect common answers? This is the root of our problem:
the level of understanding, reflection and involvement.
What we need is a new kind of fundamental reform based
upon humanity and justice. A reform where, in my view, it is
necessary for us to envision a “breakthrough”, a different way of
being and a new perspective in how we deal with important
issues. Every person, according to her/his values, conscience, and
level of individual involvement should be able to contribute in
some way. Once we have started to move in this direction it is
essential that we strengthen our ability to avoid deviations and
divisions.
We have to fight against a leadership that does not fully
incorporate soul and conscience. This matter cannot be left to
few specialists who conduct a dialogue: it is of utmost importance
to involve the public at large in these discussions. Opposing a
leadership, that usurps the publics’ right to such an engagement,
is not only necessary but it is a proof of true citizenship.
To be with God is to remind ourselves of the true place of
human beings: of humanity, brotherhood, and to celebrate the
diversity of our thoughts. The faith of today is a marriage between an intense spirituality and a determined resistance. We
have to conscientiously resist a world without conscience. That
is the core meaning of our determined resistance.
Faith is about the heart and the intelligence. In Islam the
concept of testimony “Shahada”, is to bear witness that humanity
lives up to these ideals. The West is also a partner in this testimony.
Having passed the stage of isolation, the Muslim communities
32
of Europe have formed a network whose mission is, in my view,
to call upon all individuals and organisations who posses the
good will and who strive to live up to those ideal, to participate
in a new debate about society. This collaboration should lead to
a project of societal change.
Alone, none of us has the best solution, but together we could
make one step in the right direction, and set up short, middle
and long-term goals. We should all strongly oppose any attempts
of “forced” conversion, but this opposition should not mean that
we refrain from dialogue and engagement. Social fractions and
exclusion of young as well as elderly people are obstacles to the
return and appreciation of our respective values, and our
demand for human dignity and social justice.
c) North-South justice
We also have to remind ourselves about a world where 17% of
the population holds 80% of the total wealth. These figures
hold within them violence. They are acts of violence committed
without the conventional weapons, but nevertheless they are
terrible and destructive violent acts. Human beings are suffering
from numerous atrocities and are being stripped of their dignity.
This is where all decent people of the world, those who
understand their religion, their duties, and their commitment to
social justice must stand united. Their solidarity and collaboration
and their refusal to accept simplifications, caricatures, rumours and
pettiness, are essential to reclaim dignity for humanity.
We can not afford to sit idle and waste time, while countless
women and men live with the discrimination prevalent in our
societies, while many are humiliated every day because they do
not have the necessary means for daily life, while others suffer
from torture in the prisons of dictatorships, while the young
people lose hope for the future. In the name of all those who
have been dehumanised, disenfranchised and demoralized, WE
MUST ACT NOW.
We must dare to strongly reaffirm our convictions without
closing our minds, to be determined without being violent, to
be powerful without being oppressive.
33
At a time when we need to take grand stance and exert
maximum efforts, we seem to be facing for the moment a state
of “minimum consensus”, where attempts to open one’s mind
are dampened by doubt and expressed in the mind’s hesitations
to commit. So we hear: “I no longer really know”, “I really can’t
say anything”, “I can’t be explicit”. We are living in some kind of
“approximation” where “maybe yes, maybe no” and statements of
non-commitment are the dominant speech. The inability to
make decision is being mistaken for or misrepresented as
freedom.
The prevalence of indecisiveness is a source of great concern
for me, because it leads to indifference and lack of involvement.
We have to dare to make a decision today, and risk being wrong;
we have to speak, to question and to breath new life into the
debates of different opinions, while respecting one another
enough to address deeper questions and get to the bottom of
our problems.
I do respect the hesitation, the need for time to reflect, and I
understand that at times the task at hand is so daunting that it
seems easier to just carry on with our daily lives rather than
pause to ponder. But it pains me to see this used as an excuse for
intellectual laziness, where we sit in front of our television sets
and judge people, or complain about the state of the world at
meal time between cheese and dessert. Self-satisfied with what/
where they are, and sure of what ought to be done, without ever
doing it, nothing ever disturbs these judges, for they participate
in the High Mass of relativity, offered by the absolute power of
the trends.
I am sometimes embarrassed to see some Christian friends so
afraid of being judged that they hide what they believe in, or
disguise it as something else. They do not dare to live out their
convictions for they fear shattering the image of being “modern”
that they want to portray; an image that is not usually associated
with the religious.
I think responsibility, not only to others but also first and
foremost to themselves, dictates that they act differently. We
must not hesitate to translate our convictions into actions, to
34
express our faith and our spirituality, to be open and take part in
all initiatives that allow our societies to be places where diverse
ideas flourish, where ideals have the potential to be reality,
where citizens are allowed to live out their convictions.
d) Learn again about spirituality
Spirituality is a subject matter that is very close to my heart. Our
modern world may seem harsh and cruel, a place where a woman
and a man are anxious to protect their spirituality and as a result
face numerous challenges in that attempt. The question put
before us is simple: How do we today live and preserve a
spiritual life, the inner life of meditation that enables us to
rediscover the essence of life? That is not an easy task; it is even
more difficult to transmit to the next generation. How do we
pass on to our own children the meaning of inner life, the
essence of a relationship with God and His creation?
These are questions posed to all us, concerns common to all of
us; they should serve as starting point, an introduction if you
will, to address issues regarding values, meaning and ethics. It is
of common concern to all citizens, and we have to promote the
reflection upon them through local resources. For the last
decade, the efforts have multiplied within this area, and I am
happy to see all the European citizens of the Muslim faith,
taking part in these initiatives.
A way to peace
Living in the West, our honour obligates us to never forget the
people of the South, and the injustices they are suffering. Our
ethics of citizenship demand that we take to task our governments and remind them to uphold the principles of “liberty and
justice for all”. We must demand that they terminate relationships with dictators and encourage pluralism and democratic
rights in all countries. We, the people of the West who even
today engage in ongoing struggle for justice at home, have a past
and present history that invites us to be the voice for the
voiceless.
We will not succeed in creating societies, that are truly
35
pluralistic, unless we make concentrated and continued efforts.
Mutual respect and trust require that we listen to one another
and improve our mutual understanding. In this regard, our
school programs are not always adapted to the current demands
of pluralistic societies, and too many of our citizens accept
superficial explanations and hasty judgements.
It is impossible to live together in ignorance. Our societies
have changed, and we all have to make an effort to get to know
our neighbour. We must get beyond the efforts of “mediation”
exerted by the media and others, where very little, or worse yet
misleading, information is given about who our neighbour is, his
convictions and hopes. It is an understatement to say that Islam
is misrepresented today; it is true that the Muslims themselves
are responsible for that, but it is nevertheless necessary that their
fellow citizens do not accept the caricatures and simplistic
portraits that are spread.
We have to remain hopeful; during the last years a profound
evolution has been taking place among the Muslim communities
in Europe. Media has not paid attention to the progress that has
been achieved, and the progress is by necessity slow, but it exists.
Among the second or third generation, more and more Muslims
uphold at the same time their Muslim conviction and their
Western culture. With regard to constitutions, they defend
citizenship, call for an open identity and promote an American
or European Muslim culture. At the time of my last visit to
Canada and the United States, this summer, as well as the last
years in Europe, I have been a witness to changes that illustrate
that this process is already well underway. Are we ready to get
involved, and face the challenge of living together?
If we want to build strong bridges and build up the mutual
trust that is needed, we have to simultaneously engage in honest
self-critique and in reflective dialogue that does not leave aside
any questions. We have been warned about the dark picture of a
“clash of civilisations”; in response, we are obligated to build up
areas of common involvement and to refuse a lecture from a
world of Manicheism. Our best response to the “logic of war”,
and to those who promote the caricature confrontation
36
between the West and the Muslim world, is to live the exchange
and enrichment that is taking place in the daily lives of our
towns and districts. We have many values that are common and
universal.
Islam, in standing before the Creator, calls for self respect and
respect for others, for love of our fellow human beings and for
justice. Adherents to all faiths, citizens of all persuasions and
affiliations: It is time to escape from our intellectual and social
ghettos, to learn how to approach one another in each other’s
complexity, and to respect the differences without compromising the fundamental principles of diversity, justice and
equality. The challenge before us and my message to all of us is
this: Take the necessary risk to promote critical self examination
and to have the humility to recognize that without each other,
we can neither do anything nor hope for peace.
37
Creative Forces in a
Multidimensional World
UN Sanctions Regimes. The case of Angola
by Anders Möllander4
The war in Angola is one of Africa’s most longstanding violent
conflicts, but there is hope. The comprehensive regime of
sanction measures from 1993, decided by the Security Council
and directed against UNITA’s war efforts, is beginning to make
an impact. “Smart sanctions” are possible.
Prior to 1999 the general feeling about Angola sanctions in
the corridors of the UN was one of malaise. The rebel movement
UNITA under the leadership of Jonas Savimbi5 had resumed war
after the elections in 1992. The Security Council had reacted
with unanimous decisions on sanctions in order to bring UNITA
back to the democratic, political process. In 1993 sanctions
related to the procurement of arms, military equipment and fuel
were adopted.
Following the signing of the Lusaka Protocol on 20 November
1994, an uneasy peace ensued. However, UNITA´s failure to
comply with its obligations under the protocol soon prompted
the Security Council to threaten and then, in 1997, to impose
additional sanctions. These included freezing of bank accounts,
prohibition of travel by senior officials and closing of UNITA
offices abroad. In 1998 the purchase of diamonds from UNITA
controlled territory was prohibited.
The malaise felt in New York related to the apparent
impunity with which UNITA was able to circumvent the
sanctions regime. Apart from encouraging the movement to
continue its war effort, the lack of follow-up reflected badly on
the ability of the Security Council, the UN secretariat and,
indeed, the international community to enforce its decisions.
38
This was especially so as the decisions of the council had been
taken with reference to the situation as a threat to international
peace and security. Continued and increasing human suffering in
Angola as a result of the war underlined the urgency of the
situation.
Canada had in January 1999 taken over the responsibility in
the Security Council for chairing the Sanctions Committee on
Angola and the Canadian UN envoy, Ambassador Robert
Fowler, embarked on an ambitious consultation and fact-finding
mission which resulted in two reports to the council. The
reports contained a total of 19 recommendations aimed at
strengthening the implementation of the decisions taken by the
council.
In February 1999 the council supported a recommendation that
there should be studies “to trace violations in arms trafficking, oil
supplies and the diamond trade, as well as the movement of
UNITA funds”. In May a Panel of Experts was established under
my chairmanship to carry out this task. The panel consisted of
ten international experts and got a six months’ mandate.
Common wisdom at the time was that little could be expected
of the Panel’s work. It was considered next to impossible to
establish how weapons were bought and brought into the
conflict area and equally, if not more, difficult to ascertain how
diamonds were exported to finance arms purchases. However,
the panel was able to report with some detail on these matters.
We were greatly helped by the fact that the government of
Angola during the latter half of 1999 managed to oust UNITA’s
forces from its strongholds Andulo and Bailundo on the
Angolan High Plateau. Defectors were coming over to the
government side, and some soldiers were captured. These, as
well as some captured materiel, were eventually made available
to the panel and were useful in corroborating information
received from other sources.
Through interviews with some key officers who had left
Savimbi and through discussion with experts in the field, the
panel was able to piece together a picture of the diamonds-forarms business of the movement. The panel could thus in its
39
report of 10 March 2000 (S/2000/203) present a credible
account of how UNITA had procured arms and military materiel.
It had apparently worked mainly through international
brokers who were supplied with end-user certificates acquired
from friendly governments, notably Togo and Burkina Faso in
West Africa, which also gave refuge to UNITA officials and their
families. In exchange, the heads of state in these countries received
diamonds and funds. The arms brokers had apparently mainly
procured arms in or through Bulgaria. The government of
Bulgaria decided to co-operate with the Panel in investigating
the deals.
The diamonds were mined in areas controlled by UNITA
using local labour or workers brought from neighbouring Zaire
(now the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC). The diamonds
were used mainly to pay for the purchase of arms and other
goods. Diamond brokers would be engaged to evaluate packages
needed for the purchases of goods. A major operator of cargo
flights in African countries was identified as the main carrier of
goods to UNITA territory.
A result of this work is that the culture of impunity has been
broken. Many reports point to the fact that it has been made
more difficult and less profitable for UNITA to sell its diamonds
and more difficult and costly to acquire arms. A follow-up
mechanism has been working on leads established but not fully
investigated by the panel (Reports: S/2000/1225 and S/2001/
363).
Other panels have followed in the footsteps of the Angolapanel, notably on Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of
Congo, where illegal exploitation of natural resources is also
funding the activities of rebel groups. An international diamond
certification scheme is being prepared by an international
working group – the Kimberley group – named after its first
meeting place in South Africa. The work of the group is based
on a resolution in the UN General Assembly. It aims at identifying
diamonds legally mined and exported, through a system of
certification and controls, thus isolating illegal export and
import of diamonds.
40
A discussion is taking place in New York on the strengthening
of the capacity of the council and the secretariat to follow up on
the council’s decisions on sanctions. It should finally be noted
that the design of the sanctions regime against UNITA has not
been questioned during the process and that the sanctions, and
efforts to render them more effective, continue to enjoy unanimous support within the Council. The sanctions are clearly
defined to target the military capacity of UNITA under Jonas
Savimbi and are largely without negative humanitarian effects.
Humanitarian aid to victims of the war has thus not been
affected by the sanctions decisions or their implementation.
The effect of the work of the Panel of Experts has thus been i.
a. increased awareness of the sanctions regime directed against
the war effort of UNITA in Angola. It has apparently also
affected UNITA’s capacity to continue the war. At the same
time, it has contributed to the strengthening of the capacity of
the UN to follow up also other decisions by the Security Council
on sanctions.
The methods used – panel of experts which report to the
sanctions committee, “naming and shaming”, and follow up
through a so called follow-up mechanism – have already been
widely copied to good effect. The discussion on the design of
sanctions regimes has been influenced by the Angola case.
“Smart sanctions” is becoming a recognized and applied discipline.
To try to end the war in Angola and to alleviate the longstanding suffering of the Angolan population has long been an
imperative for the UN and for most of its member states,
including for Sweden. For someone who has viaddressd, as I did
in 1993, two then recently besieged cities, Malanje and Kuito,
and seen aid-workers having to sort starving children into
possible survivors and hopeless cases, the motivation to work
towards these ends is strong.
41
The Necessity of Changing
Male Values
By Nicklas Kelemen6
I would like to say some ugly and vicious things about men and
traditional masculine attitudes and I will do it - not because I am
a masochist, nor because I am against men. It is, in fact, on the
contrary.
Let me give a short background to the question of why it is
important that man should take part to a considerably greater
extent in the work against violence and in the work for equal
rights of women. It concerns the need of a reconsideration of
our past and the need of creating a new male role model for our
children.
So what is wrong with men? Nothing - except the fact that
men stand for about 95% of all physical violence. Let us make a
distinction of three different kinds of violence.
42
1.
The greatest amount of violence occurs in the course of
wars; to wage war has always been an exclusively male
task. What is different now, compared to the past, is that
men are not any more fighting in the “old chivalrous
manner”, that is face to face; in using modern arms, they
may not even see their own enemies. The great majority
of the victims of modern wars are civilians, including
children and women. The last century was the bloodiest
the humankind ever experienced (more than 110 million
people were killed during that century according to a UN
report.)
2.
The violence we are exposed to in all peaceful societies is
criminality. Male individuals stand for about 95% of it. In
no country the rates of the female prisoners are higher
then just a very few percent. We have to admit that
criminality is also a job for men - though, needless to say,
most men are not criminals.
3.
The most shameful form of violence, which we men have
difficulties to talk about, is male violence against women,
in terms of battering and raping women. These subjects
are still often taboo. Statistics, if and when available, show
that at least 10% of women are exposed to severe male
violence.
Then, why do men so often handle conflicts with violence?
Without underestimating the importance of the discussion so
far concerning the social, political, economic, ethnic, religious
and psychological issues, I think we men have to realize, that it is
highly unsatisfactory that only the feminists are questioning “the
male identity” - we men need to question it as well.
In this respect, the great disease men suffer from is – as I
would call it - “The John Wayne Syndrome”. It is an important
indication that close to 80 % of the male population of the
United States regards John Wayne as a male role model No 1.
But, of course, even if the media and the film industry pollute
the souls of young men all over the world with the images of
the trigger-happy heroes, still, we cannot put the blame on
Hollywood for all the tremendous amount of bloodshed’s and
violence of the world.
The roots of embarrassing masculine symbols like John
Wayne., Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Rambo, James Bond,
Superman, Swartzenegger and equals go back to the history of
male traditions of ancient times. These shallow-minded modern
heroes are in fact only the pale inheritors of the actual male
heroes of our past ages:
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, William the
Conqueror, Richard the Lionhearted, Genghis Khan, Suleiman
the Magnificent, Wallenstein, Charles XII, Napoleon, Kutusov,
Nelson, Wellington and so on.
And it was the endless line of these kinds of leaders who did
set the examples for the young boys, generation after generation,
43
what masculinity should be all about. These leaders were
guided, basically, by one principle: The more you conquer the
greater you are.
For me personally, it became an important experience to
listen to the famous peace and conflict researcher, the Norwegian
professor Johan Galtung. He is an old man, who has spent most
of his life studying different cultures. His conclusion is that the
main responsibility for the violence of the ages falls upon the
nobility. (He himself is from a very old noble family). Societies
were governed by the nobility, and their teaching was: Men
solve conflicts by violence. Individual conflicts were to be settled
by duels and conflicts between groups or nations by wars. Men
were educated to be conflict-illiterates.
The influential philosopher Nietzsche, in his famous book on
Zarathustra, says: “Man should be educated for war and a woman
for the recreation of the warrior. Everything else is foolish”.
These wives were generally alive until the first World War. In
August 1914 happy masses – together with most of the
intellectuals – greeted the war with cheers.
To my surprise – I learned it quite recently – even the novelist,
whom I may value most, Thomas Mann, greeted this war as “the
possibility of the purification of the European soul”. But,
because of the invention of the machine-gun and the incredible
mass slaughters as a result, it did not take long time to realize
that the old ideas of chivalry had gone for ever.
The great novel by Eric Maria Remarque, “Nothing new on the
Western front”, was a start for a new anti-violent male hero. And
still, it took another World War and Hiroshima to get a larger
number of men to understand that wars should not be the
masculine way to settle conflicts. (Nevertheless, we are still having
more than 30 armed conflicts going on.)
When it comes to the traditional male views on women, it is
again nothing to be proud of. In the wonderful culture of the
ancient Greece, women were like slaves. They were not allowed
to interfere in the affairs of the state and were not even allowed
to go the theatres. The Church of the Middle Ages continued
the line of the ancient belief, as Aristotle thought, that women
44
are incomplete, half-men and the Church regarded women
during the course of menstruation as unclean, so during this
period, they were not even allowed to go to church.
In many places, the members of nobility had the lawful right
to “Prima noctra” - the first night - that is, in practice, the right to
rape virgin girls. And even during the age of the Enlightenment,
when the fight for human rights and equality had started,
women were not included.
The great philosopher J. J. Rousseau, who was courageous
enough to deny the divine rights of the kings and therefore had
to flee from France, in his famous Social Contract (1755) writes:
“...it is in the nature of life, that the family ought to be
commanded by the father. Since the woman necessarily having
occasions of intervals of inaction (menstruation), this is a
sufficient reason for excluding her from the supreme authority.”
More than a 100 years later another great and a very influential
thinker, Schopenhauer, says the following: “Women are suited to
being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely
because they themselves are childish, silly and short sighted, a
kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, so
the actual human being is a MAN.”
About 200 years ago, in her book “A vindication of the rights
of women”, Mary Wollstonecraft had pointed out that denying
women rationality is denying their human rights. During the last
100 years strong feminist movements came to life and in the last
50 years more and more women have high social positions in the
democratic societies.
In Scandinavia the female participation in the parliaments is
close to 50%; elsewhere it is about 10 - 15 %, while outside of
the democratic world there are hardly any women in executive
positions. Globally, still even today, more than 90% of the
political, economic, military and religious power belongs to MEN.
It is a shame. And even more, this unequal state of the affairs is
not only a shame, but, as history shows, a terrible danger too.
Our children, in particular boys, need a new male role model.
Without active male involvement it will take too long time for
women to change patriarchy into societies, where real equality
45
between the sexes could be achieved. Therefore it is necessary
that men form alliance with the progressive part of the feminist
movements. And even if it might be more difficult to change
traditional male attitudes than what it was for Wellington to
defeat Napoleon, it is a challenge we men have to face.
46
What do State Actors and
Voluntary Organisations Expect
from Each Other as Concrete
Contributions?
by Jan Cedergren7
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak at this conference
on the important subject of how we as governments see the role of
voluntary organisations in conflict prevention and peace building.
From the Swedish government we welcome that the conference
is taking place in Sweden during our EU Presidency and we give
it our active support.
The Swedish democratic development over the last 100 years
or so is largely based on an active civil society. In Sweden we
have a long tradition of close co-operation between government
and civil society actors. We see the strength and vitality of civil
society groups and organisations as an essential part of our
democracy. Through our external relations – not the least
through our development co-operation – we have the ability to
draw on this experience when working with partners in other
parts of the world.
Voluntary organisations were active in Swedish aid projects in
Africa, Asia and Latin America long before the government took
a role as a provider of development assistance. Voluntary organisations continue to play an important role, not least in humanitarian
and development assistance work.
A great proportion of the Swedish development assistance is
channelled through NGO:s. There is also a large share, which
goes to supporting civil society project in partner countries,
47
aimed at strengthening democratic development and ensuring a
pluralistic society.
The number of NGO:s and their activities in a country can, to
a certain extent, be seen as an indicator of the well-being of that
society. Civil society has the role of channelling popular
participation in society. Civil society organisations can enable
people to make their voices heard, which will reduce their sense
of powerlessness and increase their chances to influence
developments in their own community and country. This is a
precondition for strengthening democratic values and the respect
for democratic institutions. Democratic institutions can then
provide the tools by which a society can manage differences and
solve conflicts, without resorting to violence.
Civil society is thus an essential part of efforts to prevent the
outbreak of violent conflict and ensure sustainable and lasting
peace. Solutions to violent conflict can seldom be imposed from
the outside. It must be the parties themselves - including a range
of civil society actors - that own the process of change. However,
it is important that they are also provided with the right kind of
support from regional and international actors.
As external governments and NGO:s, working with partners
in the field, we must distinguish between different actors in a
given context and see the heterogeneous nature of civil society.
Not all groups are working for democratic and peaceful development in society. It is also important to avoid contributing to the
creation of or increased imbalances between interest groups in
society. We as governments, as well as non-governmental organisations from the North, must scrutinise our own role, as well as the
role, played by co-operation partners working with development,
human rights or peace building.
The role of civil society actors, including NGO:s is increasingly
recognised by governments and international organisations. The
Cotonou agreement which was reached last year between EU
and 77 ACP-countries, as well as the UN Millennium Declaration,
recognise the importance of dialogue between governments and
civil society actors. The inclusion of civil society and economic and
social actors in the Cotonou Agreement is a new feature in the
48
ACP-EU partnership. The objective is to involve these actors in
defining strategies and in setting priorities, which so far has been
the exclusive jurisdiction of governments. Hereby, mechanisms
are established which reconcile the responsibilities of governments
by recognising the increased role played by the voluntary sector.
As you are probably aware of, the Swedish EU presidency
hopes that a concrete EU programme for conflict prevention can
be adopted at the European Council next month in Gothenburg.
In order to be able to strengthen the conflict prevention
capacity of the Union, partnership with other international and
regional organisation, including voluntary organisations is seen
as an essential part.
Last week in Brussels, the Presidency had a constructive
dialogue with a group of NGO:s on the present work of the
Union’s conflict prevention capacity. We hope that future
presidencies will have regular meetings with NGO:s, in order to
secure the exchange of information, building coherence in
activities and fostering common visions and values.
At the same time, the co-operation between non-state and
state actors must be based on mutual respect and recognition of
the independence of the other. There must also be a clear
division of labour based on the principle of comparative advantage.
Let me therefore end by giving you some ideas on where I see
the role of NGO:s to be especially important, not least in the
context of the EU capacity:
–
in early warning, picking up important information in the
field that signals the risk of violent conflict
–
in implementing policies and support at the local level,
addressing the root causes of conflict
–
in norm-setting, carrying and safeguarding important
values in society
–
in mediation and negotiations, based on impartiality and
trust
–
in support to civil society actors, working for democracy
and peace
49
–
in collecting Lessons Learned, which can be a basis for
improved policy-making
–
and finally, in education and training.
Thank you.
50
What do State Actors and
Voluntary Organisations Expect
from Each Other as Concrete
Contributions?
by Jörgen Johansen8
Political Courage
The last years the concept of Early Warning has been in focus of
the international discussion on conflict handling. This has been
an important and useful discussion. The idea to prevent the
violent phases of conflicts by intervening at an early stage is of
course a good one. It is easier to act at an early stage.
In my view Early Warning is not the main obstacle any more. It
is good and necessary but not sufficient. There is seldom a lack
of warnings in areas of potential violent conflicts. International
Alert and others are doing excellent work even if there is more to
be done on refining the tools. The problem is that warnings are
not acted on. What we need more is Early Action.
The reason why we have a lack of Early Action is the lack of
possible political credit for efforts in this field. When politicians
are considering an Early Action, they are faced with two possible
outcomes:
Either violence starts in spite of the efforts to prevent it and
the decision-makers will at best be ignored. It could also be that
they can be accused of a complete disaster or even worse, they
can be blamed for what happened. The other option is that no
violence occurs in the conflict. Then the main problem is that it
is almost impossible to prove that the effort taken on was the
reason that no violence took place. It is not easy to convince
anyone that what was done prevented the tense situation to
51
turn into a violent conflict.
In both these cases it is very difficult to get any political credit
for such efforts. So in order to take on such duties we need more
political courage from the politicians.
We also need too se more political will to try other options
than bombing from an altitude of 5000 meter or economical
boycotts. Politicians took enormous risk when they, despite
many warnings from the military experts, started to eliminate
large parts of the Serbian infrastructure. It was a complete failure
and the result catastrophic. The willingness to fulfil the OSCEmission in Kosova was not near the willingness to start a large scale
three months of bombings to a price of at least 50 billion dollars.
When do we see politicians taking risks to test other means in a
large scale and the willingness to allocate sufficient resources?
I would like to quote the subtitle of the autobiography of MK
Gandhi: My Experiments with Truth. That could be a good
guideline. I would like to see many more experiments.
More Resources
There is an urgent need for more than ideas and good
intentions. In most cases we need to be much more concrete and
specific. The ideas on Early Action needs to be tested, modified,
improved further, in short to be developed from the level of
ideas to workable tools for handling potential violent conflicts.
More people need to be trained in conflict-work. There is a
gigantic need for education and training. The work to be done in
conflict areas must include all levels of the actors. The present
focus on the top-level representatives is far from enough.
Without including the grassroots and the important middle
level people the possibility for a fiasco is huge. We have seen too
many examples of so called “Peace Agreements” being signed by
top-level representatives. Most of them are violated before the
ink has dried. Without involvement from the whole societies
any peace-effort will face enormous difficulties.
There is an urgent need for more resources to be allocated to
research and development of conflict handling. In these times
when the military establishment are searching for tasks to justify
52
their existence the shift from guns and bombs to more peaceful
means are a realistic option. In order to implement such means
we need to allocate much more resources to research, education,
development, training as well as large-scale exercises.
We need to do a considerable job in order to have workable
alternatives for present and coming alternatives. It would not be
unfair to ask for 10% of the present military budgets as a start.
When we can prove that we are on the track to good alternatives
the split could grow from 10-90 to 50-50 as the next step.
53
What Do State Actors and
Voluntary Organisations
Expect from Each Other as
Concrete Contributions?
by Gay Rosenblom-Kumar9
When asked to speak on this panel about the UN´s interaction
with NGOs and what the UN expects from them in the field of
conflict prevention or peacebuilding, I hesitated for two reasons:
1.
Because one person can only give a small part of the
answer for the 10.000 at the Headquarters in New York
or 40.000 worldwide. I don´t know everything the UN
does with NGOs, not even my own department, let alone
the whole system. You may have very many contacts,
especially with UN in the field and know better than I.
2.
I represent a minority view that sees conflict prevention
as needing to be South-motivated, South-owned, noninterventionist, cross-sectoral, multi-level (IGO, State,
NGO), starting earlier than at the sign of violence, infused
and mainstreamed into all our work, and truly inclusive
and integrated. The UN has been saying that in its rhetoric,
developing a strategy, but hasn´t figured out a way to implement it yet. We are struggling, and I believe, need help.
So if I give the official UN perspective, please bear with me, if
I am schizophrenic and if my UN hat slips off and on.
I would like to touch on a number of points: What UN has
done; very new and relevant movement that indicates what we
may do; my department´s projects; and my personal ideas on
how we might move together.
54
1.
UN has moved a lot, and is seized with the issue. Many
new activities, relationships and forums with NGOs,
Brahimi, Prevention team, Frame-work on Coordination
on prevention, IASC, UN Staff College. My grip is that
while we have worked with NGOs, usually Northern and
if not, use Southern NGOs for implementation, but almost
exclusively Northern ones for analysis and mostly in political and humanitarian areas, not long-term prevention.
2.
The UN in the process of completing two reports for
release this month. Peacebuilding action plan – outgrowth
of Brahimi´s and Secretary General´s report to the
Security Council on the prevention of armed conflict.
The action plan is mainly about what UN should do, but
does say that UN should look for gaps in partnerships and
how to fill. Also, a new PB unit should recommend ways
of strengthening internal structures with external peacebuilding actors, should collect lessons learned and create a
database of all potential and create a roster of peacebuilders (in staff) but could also include outsiders.
3.
Out of 50 pages in the report on Armed conflict, under
the subject of NGOs and civil society there are six
paragraphs and three recommendations in the latest draft,
all of which rather general and doesn´t say anything new.
But, it does; those paragraphs say that the capabilities of
NGOs need to be further explored and evaluated for
their potential as possible partners or to influence
situations. Further, it recommends that NGOs interested in
conflict prevention organize an international conference
on their role in conflict prevention and future interaction
with the UN in this field. One could take this as an
invitation to explore linkages has been offered.
4.
My department´s projects, mainly in conjunction with
UNDP, take a capacity-building approach based on the
premise that managing conflict is everyday work of a
government. UNDP is unable to take early action because
that is when it is too sensitive. We leave that for OCHA
55
and DPA. But our department can do a kind of early, early
action, well before situations slide toward violence. Based
on the premise that the management of disputes and
conflict in society is one of the primary and enduring responsibilities of all governments and, therefore, one of the
pre-eminent areas in which the UN can serve its Member
States.
One aspect of the increasing United Nations system-wide
priority given to conflict prevention and management is the
strengthening of the governance capacities of States to manage
and regulate conflicts in constructive and nonviolent ways. As
such, several capacity-building projects are being undertaken to
impart awareness and skills to government officials and their
civil society counterparts, to assist them to anticipate and respond
to crises, to work effectively in conflict-prone environments and
to increase their ability to defuse tension and address the
inequalities that may lead to violence. The projects involve
strengthening governance institutions, enhancing mechanisms
for participation, supporting the development of mediation
facilities and other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and
providing skills training to enrich national development policy
and practiced with conflict resolution principles, tools and
techniques so as to better harness development as a vehicle for
sustainable peace.
To do this, the project is collaborating with African conflict
resolution practitioners to develop training material in four areas:
A/ Conflict analysis and early response development
B/ Skills development for conflict transformation
C/ Conflict sensitive approaches to development
D/ National capacity-building in conflict management
The training workshops will be delivered to African
government officials and their civil society counterparts in
partnership with training institutions on the continent, such as
public administration and management institutes, universities,
NGOs, civil service training institutes.
56
I will be more than happy to give you our webaddress address
for more information10. The project is built on the premise of
full collaboration with NGOs and with local institutions. We are
seeking funding for the second phase to partner with local
institutions and imbed these courses in their curriculum so that
it is sustainable. My dream is to replicate the model in East/
Central Europe, in Asia and in Latin America. I would welcome
your suggestions and ideas.
5.
What do we expect and/or want? On this, I only speak for
myself.
Knock at our doors, share your wisdom, knowledge,
experience even if we don´t think we need it.
Work at cooperating with us not matter how frustrating
or slow or seemingly ineffective it is, understand our
caution and our limitations. Don´t trash us, and most
important, don´t give up on us.
Encourage your own governments to strengthen links and
ties, try to influence us directly and through your
governments, i.e. position papers, reports, policy advice to
governments and the European Community etc could
especially mention how to interact with or influence the
UN.
–
Know what you want from us and what you are
willing to give.
–
Send us reports, they are read by some.
–
Read our reports to know what they say.
Specifically,
–
Figure out the UN to connect to the right places in
DPA, in UNDP there´s ERD, the Framework, the
Prevention Team, the field offices – there´s usually a
governance person, sometimes a peacebuilding
person.
–
Invite lots of UN people to the October meeting on
lessons learned. Make that conference recommended
57
in the prevention report and make it in New York
so that the UN cannot use the excuse that it cannot
afford to send people.
With regard to conflict prevention there is a Lessons
Learned Unit that will struggle to take on more than what
it now does. There is supposed to be a new peacebuilding
unit in DPA.
–
Help build national and regional infrastructures and
networks for peacebuilding in developing countries.
–
Partner with us to jointly seek funding from bilaterals or mujlti-laterals for joint conflict prevention
and peacebuilding projects.
–
Add to the roster of peacebuilding staff and resources.
Finally, hold the vision.
Last century has seen violence of untold proportions, but it
has also seen humanity rally together and attempt to address and
palliate such tragedy in myriad ways unknown in previous time.
That´s why I´m optimistic. Because we have so many actors –
states, IGOs, international and national NGOs, networks and we
are finally beginning to talk with each other and organize.
Opportunities for self-reflection like this conference are very
inspiring.
Keep present in our consciousness the balance of heart and
head in the work we do.
58
The European Union:
From Crisis Management to
Conflict Prevention
by Patrick Simonnet11
Everybody knows broadly what Conflict Prevention and Crisis
Management are about. (Those who need to refresh their
knowledge can consult the very good charts provided by the
Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs).
What people are perhaps less familiar with is:
–
what EU can already do
–
what more it can do in the future.
•
Let me start by saying that the EU is not new to conflict
prevention, crisis management and even post-conflict
reconstruction.
•
If you take conflict prevention – and there is a good reason
to start with that; all regional co-operation programmes
vis-à-vis the Balkans, the Mediterranean, Central and
Eastern Europe, the NIS - they all contain conflict
prevention provisions. Conflict prevention is a general
goal of these agreements alongside economic and social
development and this is supported by concrete actions.
•
Rehabilitation programmes in Rwanda, projects for
democracy or the rule of law in Central America, projects
aiming at the strengthening of the judiciary in Colombia,
human rights training programmes for police forces in
Algeria or South Africa – they all have a clear conflict
prevention perspective. And they have been implemented
by the Commission for years.
59
60
•
But much more can be done and the EU is working hard
for that. Conflict Prevention has come to the fore thanks
to the Swedish Presidency of the EU, and this is also a
high priority for our external action.
•
How can that be done: The Commission and the Council
have jointly made different recommendations at the Nice
European Council. The Commission has also specified its
proposals in a recent Communication (COM(2001)211),
and at the Gothenburg European Council the EU as a
whole is going to adopt a European Programme for the
Prevention of Violent Conflicts.
•
To make it very simple, there are two types of instruments
that can be used and developed for conflict prevention.
1.
Community instruments: They include development
policy in a broad sense e.g. HIPC initiative (in 1999
the Commission committed one billion ecu for ACP
countries and 54 millions for Latin America and
South-East Asia), all our co-operation programmes
(Phare, Tacis etc) and our trade policy (GSP,
Everything but arms etc).
These mainly serve for long term prevention to
address root causes of conflict (poverty, social inequalities, regional or ethnic disputes etc) but also
for short term prevention (emergency economic
aid e.g. Cash Facility for the Palestinian Authority,
Oil for democracy programme to Serbia etc).
We have also now the Rapid Reaction Mechanism.
All these instruments are managed by the
Commission, which is responsible for the EU budget
and for the development of Community policies.
2.
Political, diplomatic or crisis management instruments
under the CFSP/ESDP (so managed by the 15
member states acting together). They include political
dialogue, the deployment of special envoys (EU
Special Representatives) or the Secretary General of
the Council/High representative, Mr. Solana.
They will also include in the near future the new
crisis management mechanisms (see below).
There is also international co-operation, which is necessary
for a coherent impact at global level.
•
Clearly the most powerful instruments at the EU’s disposal
for long term prevention are the external co-operation
programmes run by the Commission, and our Communication makes a few specific recommendations. Let
me underline just two of them:
1.
We want to use external co-operation programmes
to address root causes of conflict in a more coordinated way. In particular we want to use conflict
indicators and new programming tools to better
integrate conflict prevention in the strategies
designed for each beneficiary country of our
assistance. If proved necessary, we also want to
engage more in activities supporting democratic
institutions, the civil society and the security sector.
Let’s note that in the field many of these activities
are implemented by NGOs.
2.
We want to improve the efficiency of actions
targeting specific causes of conflict such as drug
trafficking, conflict diamonds, spread of small arms,
destabilizing population flows. We are already doing
things in these fields but we can do more (certification, scheme for conflict diamonds).
•
Let’s come now to crisis management, as of course we are
not living in an ideal world and crises that have not been
prevented have to be managed. Our capacity to address
situations of conflict is also a key challenge in building a
credible and effective external policy. Since 1999 (Cologne/
Helsinki) we have advanced by loops and bounds.
•
There has been a lot of attention on the progress made in
developing the military headline goal and on creating the
necessary new structures. However, I won’t insist on that
61
because the Commission is not involved at all; that’s
something for the 15 Member States acting together.
•
Beside military capabilities, we also want to develop
civilian capabilities starting in the four priority fields,
which are policing (deployment of police officers), rule of
law (deployment of judges, prosecutors etc.), civilian
administration and civil protection. Even if we have a
certain experience of intervention in crisis locations, the
development of these capabilities is still quite a challenge.
•
We know that there are at least three problems:
•
1.
to react more quickly in crisis situations (in this
respect we have developed the Rapid Reaction
Mechanism);
2.
to be able to deploy appropriate personnel in
sufficient numbers which requires strong efforts in
terms of training and
3.
to ensure more effective co-ordination (at headquarters level between EU actors, in the field and
between the field and headquarters).
Let me stop there and conclude by saying that a coherent
approach to conflict prevention and crisis management
depends on three factors:
a clear definition of objectives,
capacity to act and
the political will to act.
The last point is crucial. The effectiveness of the Union’s
actions will depend, above all, on the extent to which this action
expresses a common political approach by the Member States.
62
The European Union:
From Crisis Management to
Conflict Prevention
by Terhi Lehtinen12
It is likely that the EU continues to intervene in crisis
management activities, particularly in neighboring areas in the
future. Therefore, the main challenge in the area of conflict
prevention is to adopt a more proactive approach in using existing
community instruments, such as development cooperation, in an
integrated way to address the root causes of conflicts. The
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) budget is very
limited, so the use of the community budget and the European
Development Fund (EDF) for African, Caribbean and Pacific
countries is crucial in developing preventive actions on the
ground.
The challenge of integrated approach is in dealing with interpillar complexity between community instruments, the CFSP
and the third pillar issues, such as police, rule of law and
migration. Also, the institutional complexity (General affairs
Council, Political and Security Committee, High representative
for CFSP, DG RELEX etc.) requires a special attention to the
coherence in designing the EU conflict prevention policy.
This also requires a full support from Member States and the
European Parliament, which is in charge of the community
budget, where priorities are finally translated into financial
flows. Finally, it is important to ensure that the EC Delegations
and the Member States embassies on the ground contribute to
the EU analysis of situations and provide early input into the
discussions in Brussels-based committees.
63
The European leaders have shown political will to “mainstream”
conflict prevention, and the main challenge is its implementation.
It would be useful to designate few “pilot areas” of implementation (such as human rights, democracy, security sector
reform). The special attention should be paid to capacity
building and training of local police forces, judges in the civilian
policing and the rule of law.
There is a need for an integrated approach to unstable regions,
which would require a special attention to regional context,
including cross-border phenomena (refugees, diamonds, arms),
to adapted country strategies and even to different areas in the
countries (stable areas in the midst of war), where targeted
development activities could promote structural prevention of
future conflicts. The special challenge is to design a coherent
approach to divided countries, where interventions take place
both on government and opposition-held areas. The use of
common strategies, political dialogue and special envoys may be
useful in addressing some key sources of instability. The link
between ECHO’s activities and “civilian protection” should be
clarified. Also, the potential for using new Rapid Reaction
Mechanism for rapid interventions is to be explored in the near
future.
Although it is important to monitor the potential shift of EU
resources towards conflict prevention, the main attention
should be paid to “result”-indicators and conflict impact assessments of different community programmes, instead of only
measuring financial inputs.
Although the Cotonou Agreement now includes an explicit
article 11 on conflict prevention as a part of political dialogue,
other co-operation agreements (such as ALA, MED) should also
pay a special attention to the area of conflict prevention.
Finally, there is a clear linkage between poverty and conflict,
and therefore, the EU programmes could involve structural
intervention in the area of poverty by linking to the countries’
own Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP), where they are
available.
64
The European Union:
From Crisis Management to
Conflict Prevention
Taking Stock and Next Steps
by Paul Eavis13
The current situation
The EU has many instruments at its disposal to help address
conflict prevention. While there has been a certain amount of
success, there has also been criticism levelled at the EU’s
approach to preventing conflict for being ineffective. This brief
presentation summarises the strengths and weaknesses of
existing EU initiatives for conflict prevention, and outlines
priority areas to improve the EU’s capacity to prevent conflict.
Strengths and weaknesses
The EU has made progress with several initiatives in the area of
conflict prevention:
Strengths:
•
Good policy framework for conflict prevention – e.g.
paper by Javier Solana, High Representative of CFSP and
Commissioner Patten, presented to the EU Nice summit,
2001, which outlines effective measures for EU action in
the field of conflict prevention14; new Commission Communication on Conflict Prevention (April 2001).
•
The EU has a wide range of CFSP (Common Foreign and
Security Policy) and development co-operation instruments,
which could help to prevent the onset of violent conflict.
65
•
Conflict prevention initiatives have increasingly been
given a higher profile in successive presidencies, in particular
the Swedish presidency.
•
The Cotonou Agreement (the aid and trade partnership
agreement between African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
countries and the EU) prioritises conflict prevention
within political dialogue and allows political dialogue to
focus on issues such as the arms trade, excessive military
spending, democracy and the rule of law; the agreement
also provides a framework to work with civil society
groups in the development and implementation of
policies and programmes.
•
Existence of EC country delegations, and commitment to
strengthen delegations with more regional political advisers.
Weaknesses:
66
•
The EU has concentrated on reacting to conflict in
strategic, visible locations, such as the Balkans, as opposed
to the poorest countries where most violent conflict takes
place. More attention should be paid to less strategically
important locations.
•
Conflict prevention still hasn’t really been mainstreamed
into EU development programming.
•
There has been no discernible shift in EU resources
available for conflict prevention. There has also been a
reluctance on the part of the EC to engage in certain
thematic areas, such as promoting reformation of the
security sector, an essential measure for attaining stability
in post-conflict societies.
•
There has been little attention paid to the impact of trade
policies risks of conflict, and hence on their potential to
contribute to long-term conflict prevention;
•
Whilst there is specific reference in the Cotonou Agreement
for engaging civil society in development initiatives and
conflict prevention measures, no mechanisms have been
developed to realise this.
Priorities for action
The need for detailed analysis to guide EU engagement
EU Country Support Strategies (CSS) should include a
thorough analysis of the risks of conflict, which can then inform
appropriate conflict prevention programmes. This requires the
EC delegations to draw upon a wide range of information sources,
including taking information from the field via civil society
bodies and NGOs working in the regions concerned. Furthermore, these papers should be shared among all institutions and
civil society actors.
Commitment to improve coherence and co-ordination
Effective coherence and co-ordination has not been realised yet.
Within the EU all officials should be fully aware of the
importance of co-ordinating action to allow relevant bodies to
implement programmes efficiently. In addition to this, the EU’s
in-country delegations must be given more authority in
programme development and implementation. This will maximise
the potential for field-defined strategies to be appropriately
implemented in the area of conflict prevention. To assist this, an
inventory of skilled personnel needs improvement.
Improve coherence between Member States, the Commission and
the Corporate Sector
Incoherence between Member States, and between Member
States and the Commission, seriously restricts the effectiveness
of initiatives at the political level. Furthermore, there is a need
to develop co-operation between Member States and the
corporate sector to, amongst other things, tackle the issue of war
economies. The example of oil companies operating in Sudan is
illustrative.
EU companies are directly involved in the oil business in
Sudan, and hence compliant in the human rights abuses being
perpetrated by all actors in the conflict, and involved in
providing revenue for the Government and thereby the means
to prolong the war. The EU and its Member States should exert
67
more influence over the corporate sector to adhere to their
corporate responsibilities, and take active steps to initiate
dialogue between companies and civil society.
Focus support on the poorest countries
Poverty and unequal access to social and economic opportunities
is an important root cause of conflict. Efforts should, therefore,
be devoted to reducing poverty in the poorest countries rather
than concentrating on the more strategic, visible conflicts of the
near abroad. There has been a downward trend in development
assistance to the HIPC countries, illustrated by the ACP
countries’ share of the budget allocation for development
assistance falling from 45% to 14% between 1992 and 1997. A
significant amount in this budget was dedicated to the
reconstruction of Kosovo, at the expense of the poorest regions.
Improve targeting of development assistance
The impact of the Commission’s development assistance is
dependent not only on the quantity of assistance provided
(although this is important), but on the quality of assistance
provided too. The effectiveness of development aid as a tool to
prevent violent conflict is likely to increase if it is targeted
appropriately to programmes dedicated to good governance or
democratisation projects.
The EU should also provide assistance to enhance governance
in the security sector. A commitment to developing an
accountable army and police force, judicial system, civilian
administration and democratic government is essential for maximising the potential for countries to achieve sustainable peace
and stability.
68
Promoting the Prevention of
Violent Conflict and Building
Peace
by Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations
Concluding remarks by Ms Lena Hjelm-Wallén15 on behalf of the
Swedish EU Presidency
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends of prevention,
I am very pleased and honoured to receive the recommendations of this conference on behalf of the Swedish
Government and the Presidency of the European Union.
Civil society and its organisations are exponents of our
commonly held values, based on the principle of each individual’s
equal value and a vision of a better world for all.
Conflict prevention is one of the priorities of Swedish foreign
policy.
We are currently looking at ways of enhancing our own
capacity by integrating a conflict prevention approach into all
Swedish international actions.
Sweden is also working for the gradual integration of a
conflict prevention perspective into the policies of international
organisations and into intergovernmental co-operation. We
believe in the possibility to foster a culture of prevention
worldwide. Our strong commitment to the UN and our active
contribution to the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
and the European Security and Defence Policy offer special
opportunities in this connection.
It is our hope that the European Council in Gothenburg in
June can adopt a concrete programme for conflict prevention.
The work to develop such a programme is currently under way,
69
in close co-operation with our European partners.
The European Union, in co-operation with other key actors
including the UN, OSCE, other regional actors and NGO:s, has
an important role to play in conflict prevention. The fifteen
member states and the European Commission have a unique
range of preventive instruments at their disposal.
The Union holds the biggest share of international trade and is
providing more that 50% of the world’s official development
aid. Through trade agreements and development assistance
programmes the Union has a considerable potential to influence
processes of change in specific countries and regions and in
global multilateral organisations like the UN, the World Trade
Organization and the International Financial Institutions,
including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
In changing from a pattern of reaction to one of prevention, the
Union can make a clear difference on how those organisations
are acting in their operations.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is
an important partner to the EU, with its well established conflict
prevention capacity. In other regions, for example in Africa, the
partnership and collaboration with the OAU, SADC and
ECOWAS can enhance the peace-building capacities and
improve co-ordination between actors at different levels.
In discussing the EU capacity for conflict prevention it is
essential to have a close dialogue with civil society and its organisations, as important partners in policy development and
policy implementation in the field. We know that there is deep
knowledge and firm commitment within the NGO community
to prevent the outbreak of violent conflicts. The Swedish government sees the recommendations of this conference as an
important contribution to our efforts to enhance the capacity of
the European Union, as well as the national capabilities of
individual states, within the area of conflict prevention and
peace building.
We need to recognise that the key to preventing violent
conflict is held by the parties themselves. Solutions to violent
conflicts cannot be imposed from outside. They must be
70
developed and nourished by the parties involved in a process of
change. Thus, efficient conflict prevention demands engagement
first of all at the local level – by governments, politicians, local
authorities and civil society. The role of external actors, such as
the European Union, must be to support locally and regionally
led conflict prevention processes. But we can also inspire, by
good examples and good arguments, through concrete dialogue
about values, objectives and means.
As I am sure that you would all agree, conflict prevention is
not really about preventing all forms of conflict that occur in
human society. But it is about avoiding violence and channelling
change through peaceful procedures where all stakeholders in
society have a say. To achieve results however, we must be very
concrete and down to earth. The challenge is to link vision and
values with concrete policy options, based on realities on the
ground.
The outcome of this conference also reflects the importance
of developing ways of sharing experiences and information by
systematically collecting Lessons Learned, based on peacebuilding activities in the field. This can then be collated into a
Common Catalogue of Lessons Learned and become an important
tool for both policy development and implementation.
Co-operation and co-ordination between actors, which also
has been a central theme of this conference, lies at the heart of
effective and timely conflict prevention, given the complexity
of issues involved.
Effective partnership requires common objectives and
reinforced co-ordination at a number of levels:
–
in early warning, where partners, not least NGO:s, have a
field presence and access to information which should be
fully utilised in building early warning capacity,
–
in situation analysis and policy planning, where effective
implementation requires collaboration among partners,
–
in implementation, where state actors, the Commission of
the European Union and non-governmental organisations
play leading roles.
71
Effective partnership also requires co-ordination in the area of
evaluation.
As the result of the conference has shown, the division of
labour between actors working in this field, need to be based on
the principle of comparative advantages and transparency.
One very important aspect, which has been dealt with at the
conference, is the need for training and education as an
important way to enhance national and international conflict
prevention capabilities. This is one key area for future cooperation between NGO:s, governments and international
organisations. It is a way of bringing about a common understanding of what we need to achieve through concrete action and
it can provide us with the necessary tools to be able to carry it out.
Finally, I would like to say that the findings of this conference
is an important contribution to a common effort to strengthen
the conflict capacity of the European Union, but also the UN,
other regional organisations and nation states.
Sometimes we all feel frustrated by the slow pace of change.
At the same time, it is only through hard work and
determination that we can achieve results in the long run. The
contribution of non-governmental organisations is essential in
the process to strengthen our conflict prevention capacity. As
governments we have the responsibility to ensure that your
efforts and capabilities are fully taken into account and utilised
in the best of ways.
I will share the recommendations with my colleagues in the
Swedish Government, as well as with colleagues in the European
Union and with other Governments. The summit in Gothenburg,
I am hopeful, will adopt a comprehensive programme for conflict
prevention. It will be an important step to strengthen the capacity
of the Union in this field. I am also convinced that the next EUpresidency, through the Belgian Government will continue this
process, as well as other presidencies to come.
The follow up of a EU programme for the prevention of
violent conflict will be a real proof of the sustainability of the
policy of peaceful change globally. We look forward to work
together with you in this process.
72
Lessons Learned from Peace
Building
16
Assignment of the Working Group
I. Rationale
It is often acknowledged that the field of conflict prevention
and peace building is in need of greater coherence and that it
lacks an integrated body of knowledge. In an attempt to
overcome this gap, several works have been published recently
that explore lessons learned in the fields of conflict prevention
and peace building. These valuable publications show that the
field is more or less moving into a stage of increased knowledge,
insight and understanding. Some even say the field is moving
from its infancy into adolescence.
For the field in general, it is of utmost importance to collect
lessons learned, to develop an analytical framework and to look
for common features in the diverse approaches and sectors.
Therefore the European Platform for Conflict Prevention and
Transformation has taken the initiative to start the “Lessons
Learned on Peace Building” project.
II. The “Lessons Learned on Peace Building” Project
The project started with the organisation of an expert meeting
in Northern Ireland in the beginning of February this year,
where some 35 experts came together to discuss lessons learned
on peace building. One outcome was the general conclusion
that there is much more happening in terms of lessons learned
within governments, NGOs/Voluntary Organisations and institutions than most of us were aware of. Because these initiatives are
very scattered, it was seen as of great importance to attempt to
link the different initiatives to promote learning from each
other.
73
There have been a number of different initiatives and
approaches to promote lessons learned in peace building. These
have included; Codes of Conduct within organisations, general
do’s and don’ts in peace building, conclusions derived from
impact studies on peace building, descriptions of general
instruments of intervention, programmes or activities as well as
reflections at meta-level on ways to deal with the complex
nature of the field of conflict prevention and peace building.
Ultimately, however, it would be useful to develop a framework
for these different approaches and sectors that would encompass
specific contexts.
One result of the expert meeting in Northern Ireland was the
initiative of the European Platform to facilitate an open
international network for lessons learned in peace building. The
aim of this network is the sharing of experiences and findings of
lessons learned from conflict interventions. This initiative is the
beginning of a long-term programme on conflict prevention and
peace building.
The working group on ‘Lessons Learned on Peace Building’ at
this conference is the next step in this trajectory. Furthermore,
several regional seminars will be organised in conflict zones
together with local Voluntary Organisations/NGOs to discuss
their view(s) on learned lessons. Also, a large international
conference will be organised in October 2001 on ‘Lessons Learned
in Peace building’ at ‘Kontakt der Kontinenten’ in the Netherlands.
Finally, a document will be published integrating different
experiences and comments from different conferences and
regional seminars. The intention is to widely discuss the draft
documents and the publication. It is important not only to
stimulate the exchange of information and discussion in the
conflict prevention field, but also to raise political and public
interest for these issues. The publication will also be placed on
the webaddress of the European Platform.
III. Discussion Points
Professor Mari Fitzduff, Executive Director of INCORE
(Initiative on Conflict Resolution & Ethnicity), Northern
74
Ireland, will give a short introduction to the conference, in
relation to the working document for this conference. Three
specific sessions will follow.
Session 1
We will have a general discussion on lessons learned and the
project of the European Platform.
Discussion points
–
lessons learned, evaluation and impact of peace
building
–
what do we know?
–
what are the main ‘unanswered questions’?
–
where do we need to focus on urgently?
Session 2
The second session will focus on conflict zones in the Balkans
with presentations of:
–
Igballe Rogova from Kosovo, leader the organisation
‘Mutrat Qiriazi’ and is the initiator of Women’s
network in Kosovo.
–
Madeleine Rees, Head of office, UN Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sarajevo.
–
Saso Ordanoski, Center for Strategic Research and
Documentation in Macedonia.
In this session, special attention will be given to the role of
women in peace building.
Session 3
The third session will focus on the following:
Discussion points
–
Some general lessons learned and Do’s and Don’ts
–
Lessons on the specific roles of governments,
NGOs/Voluntary
75
-
Organisations interaction and their complementary
relationships and roles.
-
Ideas for follow up for the project of the European
Platform and the international network for lessons
learned in peace building.
Chair: Professor Enno Hommes, chair of the European Centre
for Conflict Prevention
IV. Possible Outcomes
One of the aims of this international conference is to formulate
recommendations for EU presidencies. Following are some
elements, which can be used for recommendations related to
lessons learned on peace building.
1.
It is very important that lessons learned on conflict
prevention and peace building are further researched,
analysed, collected and integrated into a framework.
2.
In this effort it is important to bring together the
following different constituencies working on these issues:
-
Governments and International Governmental
Organisations
-
Voluntary Organisations/NGOs and practitioners
-
The academic field
Special attention should be given to involve as much as
possible the experiences from conflict regions.
3.
76
Finally it is important to disseminate the outcome to a
large audience such as governments, Voluntary
Organisations/NGOs working with conflict resolution,
peace building, human rights, development and humanitarian aid, academic field, donors and the media.
Report of the Working Group
It is widely acknowledged that the field of conflict prevention
and peacebuilding is in need of greater coherence and that it
lacks an integrated body of knowledge. To meet this need,
several publications have recently been issued, which draw on
years of experience. These valuable publications show a movement
from a pioneer into a more reflective stage of increased
professionalism. It is now time to capitalise on this and stimulate
the development of a more coherent analytical frame. Clearer
insights into what does and what doesn’t work will not only
increase the support for the field itself. It will also raise political
and public interest in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
The aim of the working group on lessons learned in peacebuilding was to explore lessons learned from own experiences.
Several people shared their personal experiences and / or from
their organisations in different conflict zones such as in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Northern Ireland. What follows
below is the summary of the presentation of David Wiking on
the evaluation from Sida support to conflict management and
peacebuilding. This is followed by the recommendations that
were concluded after the discussions.
Assessing Lessons Learned by Sida
Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency) has given support to an increasing number of
peacebuilding initiatives during the last decade. In Spring 2000,
Sida commissioned an evaluation with the purpose of
identifying lessons learned and draw conclusions for future
initiatives in the sector of conflict management and peace
building. One of the conclusions is that the nature of peace
building is rather different than that of development projects
and so is their approach in evaluation practice. Peace building
initiatives are processes that are not easy to grasp, while
development work is visible in concrete results.17
Two projects were undertaken. First of all a bibliographical
survey ‘The state of the art’ is made with an overview on the
77
literature contributing to the debate on evaluation and lessons
learned. It outlines two evaluation methodologies, which are
commonly used in current evaluations of conflict management
and peace building.
The first could be characterised as a ‘mainstream’ approach
exemplified by the criteria of the OECD (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development). The criteria outlining this kind of evaluation are efficiency, effectiveness,
impact, sustainability and relevance.
The second methodology often used is the ALNAP (Active
Learning Network on Accountability and Performance in
Humanitarian Assistance). This approach focuses more on the
impact of activities on personal rather than project levels.
ALNAP outlines eight different issues that should guide the
research. The project of Sida focused on five different case
studies:
•
the Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information
•
the Olof Palme International Centre in the West Balkans
•
the Conciliation Resources project on women’s empowerment and the Star Radio project in Liberia
•
Diakonia in South Africa
•
the East Timor dialogue project of the Department of
Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University.
The ALNAP methodology proved to be a useful tool in
conducting evaluation on conflict related projects. Therefore,
the eight categories or issues outlined below show a possible
framework through which an organisation, outsider or insider,
can collect lessons learned.
78
1.
Appropriateness: How appropriate are the proposed
activities to the circumstances that not only change in
terms of the conflict but also in terms of the relation
between the donors and the recipients?
2.
Coherence: Coherence should be analysed under two
dimensions. External (overlap, linkage, duplication and
contradiction with other activities or projects in the same
region) and internal (between the overall policies,
strategies and project proposals).
3.
Connectedness: this issue relates to the sustainability of
the project. Is the short-term activity compatible with the
long-term development considerations?
4.
Gender equality: images of self-identity, modes of communicating, models of organisation and traditions of participation are related to gender.
5.
Flexibility: the willingness of both donors and NGOs
working in the field to adapt to changing circumstances as
is often the case in conflict areas, and to add and delete
activities if necessary.
6.
Location of responsibility: is there a clear division of tasks
and responsibilities?
7.
Pressure for success/possibility of failure: the refusal to
accept failure could lead to misleading reports which in
their turn will lead to bad policy making
8.
Institutional competence: this issue focuses on the extent to
which the organisation is capable of institutional learning
and the ability to sustain new competence for future
projects.
Furthermore the study comes up with some general conclusions and some interesting general ‘lessons learned’:
–
There is a growing body of theories and concepts on the
underlying causes of conflict and their symptoms, and
there is also a considerable literature on conflict resolution
as well as a growing amount of experience. However, there
remains a gap between theory and practice. Much of what
is done in the field is designed on the basis of untested
assumptions. There is little academic work that helps identify
on-the-ground activities that can help to transform and
reconcile antagonistic reactions.
–
The state of current knowledge implies that it would be
79
counter-productive to attempt to generate a template for
Sida peacebuilding activities. There is no formula of conflict
resolution and peacebuilding waiting to be applied.
–
There is a cultural clash between the general field of development cooperation and the field of peace and conflict.
Recommendations for EU presidencies
General considerations
It is very important that Lessons Learned on Conflict Prevention
and Peacebuilding are further researched, analysed, collected
and integrated into a framework.
In this effort it is important to bring together the following
different constituencies working on these issues:
–
Governments and international governmental organisations
–
Voluntary organisations/NGOs and practitioners
–
The academic field
Special attention should be given to involve as much as possible
the experiences from conflict regions.
Finally it is important to disseminate the outcome to a large
audience such as governments, voluntary organisations/NGOs
working with conflict resolution, peacebuilding, human rights,
development and humanitarian aid organisations, academic field,
donors and the media.
1.
Lessons learned – evaluations
In order to accumulate the knowledge on strategies and tactics
for conflict prevention and peacemaking, to increase efficiency
of programmes and projects we strongly recommend to promote institutionalising process oriented evaluation at all
relevant levels.
The results of these evaluations are useful input and will
improve quality of training, project identification and design,
policy development and academic studies.
The criteria and methodology of evaluation must strongly
80
depend on local situations and local needs, including time frame.
Evaluations have to be performed by local organisations
themselves as well as by international agencies and bilateral
donor organisations, in close cooperation.
We therefore recommend the European Union to take the
initiative to co-ordinate and promote the evaluation of peacebuilding efforts to member states.
We further recommend that the European Union co-ordinate
meetings where NGOs involved in peacebuilding and agencies
implementing EU peacebuilding programmes can exchange and
enhance learning through a continuous dialogue. We recommend that such meetings be held in all parts of the Europe and
that funding be made available for NGO participation from
European countries as well from areas of violent conflict.
2. Lessons learned – security and civil society
In order to be more effective in peacemaking we recognise that
every level of society (such as business, media and other relevant
stakeholders) have a role to play in creating all forms of security
and peace. Military interventions have to be looked at in this
perspective. We therefore recommend a balanced approach,
recognising the civilian contribution in peacemaking, which will
also be reflected in the budget.
There is a need for the international community to recognise
the important role, competence, views and feelings of local
stakeholders. The international community must work in close
partnership with local stakeholders straight from the early
phases of intervention.
81
The European Union and
Policies for Preventing Violent
Conflict
18
Assignment of the Working Group
I. Rationale
The European Union is one of the most powerful actors
internationally in terms of trade, foreign affairs and
development assistance. It has been widely acknowledged,
however, that despite its policy commitments it has thus far
failed to maximise its potential for conflict prevention and
resolution. In recent years there has been a growing awareness
both within EU institutions, among member-states and also
more widely that there is an urgent need to address this
weakness both at the policy and the operational level.
Recent attempts to address institutional weaknesses have
included a report to the Nice Council in December 2000, by the
Commission and the High Representative, which recommends
the need to address conflict in external relations and co-operative
agreements with ACP states, in addition to highlighting it as an
issue within CARDS, MEDA, ALA, PHARE and TACIS
cooperation programmes. The Commission is also preparing a
Communication on conflict prevention to be presented to the
Council in April focusing on addressing the root causes of
conflict through the use of the development and external aid
instruments available to the Community.
For these initiatives to be both effective and coherent across
the full range of EU instruments, a number of reforms as well as
additional resources will be required. Implementation of these
reforms will present considerable challenges for the European
Commission and Member States.
82
II. Aim
To suggest recommendations for how the EU could enhance its
policies and practices in order to ensure long term and sustainable approaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding across
the range of its available instruments.
The workshop, therefore, will explore the strengths and
weakness of EU approaches to conflict prevention and peace
building and will suggest ways in which current policy positions
can be more effectively mainstreamed.
Session 1: Developing EU policy frameworks for conflict prevention
Aim: This session will look at existing policy frameworks for
conflict prevention and peace building used by the EU and will
determine to what extent they are being implemented. It will
also look at the impediments to implementation in order to
make recommendations for mainstreaming policy objectives
across all areas of external engagement. (See annex 1: summary
of EU policy papers and resolutions)
Discussion Points
–
Which EU instruments can be used most effectively for
conflict prevention?
–
What are the institutional capacities and organisational
challenges that need to be addressed if conflict
prevention and peace building are to be mainstreamed?
Session 2: Informing policy with practice - case study experiences
Aim: This session will seek to draw out the lessons from the EU’s
engagement with countries in 2-3 regions of the world in order
to identify recommendations for ‘best practice’ to inform the
EU’s approach. The workshop will examine relevant conflict
themes derived from case study research, which can provide
valuable lessons for the EU and its member states. Participants
will draw out lessons from the studies and will develop practical
recommendations for implementation. These recommendations
will complement the findings from session 1 in order to ensure
83
that proposals are coherent with EU agreed mandate and policy
frameworks.
Discussion Points
–
How has the EU sought to integrate conflict prevention
objectives within regional/country programmes (CFSP
and development co-operation)?
–
What experience has been gained in integrating conflict
prevention into the development programming cycles
and what are the implications of the newly established
Europe aid?
–
How has the EU sought to ensure a coherent engagement
(with different policy interventions and different actors)?
Session 3: Priorities for future engagement
Aim: To identify key priorities for enhancing EU engagement in
the field of conflict prevention and peace building based on the
findings of the first 2 sessions of the workshop. The workshop
will seek to identify not only key priorities but also how best
the priorities and recommendation may be implemented: thus it
is envisaged that the workshop will address:
–
Enhancing the EU’s institutional capacity for conflict
prevention
–
How the EU can work more effectively with other international, regional and national bodies in mainstreaming
conflict prevention and peace building
–
Prioritising conflict prevention within the EU’s CFSP
–
Prioritising conflict prevention within the EU’s trade and
development co-operation programmes, including regional
agreements such as Cotonou.
–
Ensuring coherence across EU pillars and instruments.
Discussion Points
–
84
What are the key priorities for the EU regarding conflict
prevention?
–
How can these best be taken forward?
III. Possible outcomes
1.
That the EU builds its own institutional capacity in conflict
related issues by enhancing its human resources through
specialist recruitment and training and through decentralisation from the headquarters to the Delegation level.
2.
That the EU fosters appropriate forums in which crosscutting issues related to conflict prevention and peace
building can be addressed by officials working in different
member states, directorates and arms of the Commission.
3.
That the EU specifically task the Inter-Service Quality
Support Group, which will be responsible for mainstreaming Development Policy and lessons learned across
all external assistance programmes, with mainstreaming
conflict prevention and publicizing lessons learned.
Ensure that reviews of the EU policy on Coherence are
published and that DG Development’s role as “coherence
focal point” is strengthened with the introduction of a
complaints procedure, which could receive reports from
non-EU state and non-state actors.
4.
Increase the capacity of civil society both within the
European Union and in conflict-affected countries by
channelling resources to them, ensuring they have the
political space and appropriate access to advocate and
undertake conflict prevention activities.
5.
Support the development of international frameworks
which ensures the private sector both nationally and internationally contributes effectively to conflict prevention
and to socially responsible policies particularly in conflictaffected areas.
6.
Develop shared regional analysis with member states,
which prioritises conflict prevention and provides a
framework on which to build a coherent strategy for EU
engagement which is best able to support the building of
85
sustainable peace and development in regions at risk of
conflict. And to strengthen, enhance, and development
EU initiatives around the control of light weapons.
Ensure that gender considerations are an integral part of EU
policies and practice related to conflict prevention and resolution
and that this is monitored.
Report of the Working Group19
Recommendations for EU presidencies
86
1.
That the EU builds its own institutional capacity in
conflict related issues by enhancing its human resources
through specialist recruitment and training and through
decentralization from the headquarters to the Delegation
level.
2.
That the EU fosters appropriate forums in which crosscutting issues related to conflict prevention and peace
building can be addressed by officials working in different
member states, directorates and arms of the Commission.
3.
That the EU specifically task the Inter-Service Quality
Support Group, which will be responsible for mainstreaming Development Policy and lessons learned across
all external assistance programmes, with mainstreaming
conflict prevention and publicizing lessons learned.
Ensure that reviews of the EU policy on Coherence are
published and that DG Development’s role as “coherence
focal point” is strengthened with the introduction of a
complaints procedure, which could receive reports from
non-EU state and non-state actors.
4.
Increase the capacity of civil society both within the
European Union and in conflict-affected countries by
channelling resources to them, ensuring they have the
political space and appropriate access to advocate and
undertake conflict prevention activities.
5.
Support the development of international frameworks,
which ensure the private sector both nationally and internationally contribute effectively to conflict prevention
and to socially responsible policies particularly in conflictaffected areas.
6.
Develop shared regional analysis with member states,
which prioritizes conflict prevention and provides a
framework on which to build a coherent strategy for EU
engagement which is best able to support the building of
sustainable peace and development in regions at risk of
conflict. And to strengthen, enhance, and development
EU initiatives around the control of light weapons.
7.
Ensure that gender considerations are an integral part of
EU policies and practice related to conflict prevention
and resolution and that this is monitored.
8.
That the EU adopts a culture of accountability through
the creation of an Ombudsman’s office for programme
and affected countries.
9.
That the EU develops a more coherent vertical and
horizontal policy and decision-making framework across
separate sectors to ensure the greater effectiveness,
efficiency and coordination of policy strategies.
10.
That the EU works to ensure that NGO’s and national
governments of vulnerable partner countries are directly
involved in the development of country and regional
strategies.
11.
That the EU quickly develop and mainstream a set of
appropriate tools and methodologies for conflict analysis
for the working and decision-making levels of the
organization.
12.
That the EU make the necessary changes to ensure that
the comparative advantages of bilateral and multilateral
strategies are better understood and implemented in a
more coherent manner.
87
88
13.
That the EU look to establishing procedures which allow
decisions and action to prevent conflicts to take place in
the absence of the required political will.
14.
That the EU find a more appropriate balance of resources
from “crisis management” to “conflict prevention”.
15.
That the EU enact and move forward towards the
completion of all follow-on activities for already agreed
to initiatives before embarking on new lists of forthcoming initiatives.
16.
That the EU find an appropriate balance between large
sectoral support projects and multi-sectoral local community projects.
National Infrastructures for
Conflict Prevention and Peace
Building
20
Assignment of the Working Group21
I. Rationale
Conflict prevention has grown out of its infancy. Recently, the
EU, the United Nations and the G8 voiced their belief in the
need to do more to reduce the potential for violence and to
support mechanisms that will ensure peace.
This new interest in conflict prevention is promising, but
some critical remarks should be made. The fields of violent
conflict prevention and peace building are still relatively new
and developing. However, between words and deeds stands
implementation. The question is:
How could conflict prevention and peace building measures
be incorporated into the structures, the strategy, and the
operating policies of international governmental organisations,
governments or voluntary and non-governmental organisations
(VOs/NGOs)?
Another issue is that of coherence. The progress in integrating
conflict prevention and peace building measures in all relevant
sectors (foreign policy, trade, development co-operation,
humanitarian aid, and so on) differs significantly amongst EU
member states. It is however possible to identify several
common prerequiaddresss that should be fulfilled to come to a
coherent and integrative approach towards conflict prevention
and peace building. However, in most of the EU countries there
are clearly some major gaps in this field. There is:
–
Lack of early warning mechanisms. There is a need to
identify rising tensions and emerging conflicts, mechanisms
89
to pick-up and analyse signals;
–
Lack of good up-to-date on-going conflict analysis. There
is a need for day-to-day analysis of conflict dynamics to
translate early warning signals into concrete policy options
required for intervention;
–
Lack of expertise and capacity to undertake the analyses and
to carry out policy options, both within the governmental
apparatus and within Voluntary Organisations/NGOs;
–
In order to get capacity to understand, analyse and work
with the vast subject of prevention of violent conflict and
building sustainable peace government support must be
given to training and education on all levels in society;
schools and colleges, educational institutions and academic
fora;
–
No overview of who is doing what in the field of violent
conflict prevention and peace building. An overview is
not only needed to avoid duplication or competition, but
also to identify the gaps in this field;
–
Lack of interdisciplinary networks and fora connecting
teachers, academics, civil servants and practitioners. This
could be helpful to share experiences and views from a
different angle;
–
Lack of monitoring and evaluation of interventions. Only
in the last few years has more attention been paid to the
actual impact(s) of our interventions and the ‘Do no Harm
’ approach is gaining in importance;
–
Need for more resources to make possible all kinds of
projects supporting: the prevention of violent conflicts,
reconciliation, and post conflict peace building.
II. Aim
What needs to be done
Below we would like to make some suggestions for a framework
or infrastructure, necessary to fulfil a number of these needs.
90
Besides creating several new institutions, we consider it even
more important to incorporate the existing governmental
apparatus, academic institutions, colleges and Voluntary
Organisations/NGOs into such an infrastructure. For especially
the Northern countries, actively involved in conflict regions by
intervening in many different ways (e.g. development cooperation, humanitarian aid, political support to peace processes),
implementation or institutionalisation of conflict prevention
and peace building measures is needed in all sectors, at all levels,
both in the governmental apparatus and in Voluntary
Organisations/NGOs.
An infrastructure that incorporates state and non-state actors
would ease a clear division of labour, which is an absolute precondition to be effective in the prevention of violent conflicts.
And of course, a related infrastructure is also needed in the
conflict zones as well. Within such an infrastructure, the special
role of women in peace building should be emphasised.
III. Organisation of the workshop programme
The article on national infrastructures for conflict prevention
and peace building is a starting point for discussion at the
‘Gripsholm-II’ workshop. Although some speakers will be
invited to shortly introduce the topic (ten minutes at maximum), the main goal of the workshop is to have an open and
interactive debate. The workshop will be divided into three
rounds. Each should end up with some recommendations. In the
third round we should have some time to extract general
conclusions out of the recommendations of the three rounds.
Session I: The role of the government
The first session will introduce the topic and a start will be made
to take a look at the state of affairs in different EU member
states, with a specific focus on the conflict prevention policy of
several governments.
Chair: Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director, European
Centre for Conflict Prevention
91
•
Rationale & importance of an infrastructure for conflict
prevention and peace building
Introduction by Thania Paffenholz, Swiss Peace Foundation &
Peace-building Centre in Switzerland
•
Exploring the state of affairs in different countries,
Introduction by Georg Frerks, Conflict Research Unit,
Netherlands Institute for International Relations ‘Clingendael’
Discussion points
–
Which tasks should be fulfilled by the government?
–
Which tasks should be fulfilled by others, non-state
actors?
Session II: The role of Voluntary Organisations/NGOs
The second session will carry on with the inventory of state of
affairs, but with a focus on the role of Voluntary Organisations/
NGOs and NGO-networks.
Chair: Thania Paffenholz, Swiss Peace Foundation &
Peacebuilding Centre in Switzerland.
Introductions by: Ian White, representing the Irish Peace and
Reconciliation Platform; Barbara Müller, representing the
German Platform for the Peaceful Management of Conflicts;
Anne Palm, representing the Finnish Platform KATU
Discussion points
92
–
What is the situation regarding infrastructure for conflict
prevention and peace building in your country? What is
still needed in your country? Which tasks are and which
are not being fulfilled yet? Do you see other gaps in this
field?
–
What is the relationship between these actors, and in what
form could a relationship take shape?
–
What is/could be the role of national networks on conflict
prevention and peace building?
Session III: The role of the European Union
The final session will focus on the role of the European Union
and on the relationship between national and international
policy.
Chair: Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director European
Centre for Conflict Prevention
Speakers: a governmental representative and an EU
representative
Discussion points
–
Which tasks should be fulfilled at a European level and
which should (also) be fulfilled at a national level?
–
How to best link the national with the international level?
IV. Recommendations
Elements for an infrastructure for conflict prevention and peace
building:
Pillar 1: Building the community
1.
Raising awareness of the possibilities and importance of
conflict prevention and peace building
2.
Introducing conflict resolution programmes in schools
and other learning institutions
3.
Conducting advocacy activities
4.
Streamlining of information - information clearinghouse
5.
Stimulating the creation of interdisciplinary networks and
fora
Pillar 2: Building the capacity for conflict prevention and peace
building
6.
Supporting the incorporation of conflict prevention
measures in all relevant activities,
7.
Creating more professional capacity within governmental
93
institutions and Voluntary Organisations/NGOs.
8.
Introducing university programmes and training on
conflict prevention, peace building and reconciliation
9.
Establishing expert pools & resources banks
10.
Stimulating early warning-early action networks/systems
11.
Analysing Lessons Learned and Best Practices
Pillar 3: Operational activities
12.
Creating rapid reaction facilities (mechanisms for quick
financing) on a national level
13.
Creating and stimulating conflict resolution organisations
14.
Creating central focal points as a co-ordinating body for
conflict prevention and peace building
Report of the Working Group
Introduction
Governments and NGOs have shown a growing interest in conflict
prevention and peace building. However, there is a need for deeper
dialogue and closer co-operation between governments and NGOs
for the development and implementation of policy and practice.
Within the field of conflict prevention there are still many gaps:
there is often a lack of adequate mechanisms to act effectively
on early warning signals, of solid conflict analyses, of expertise
and capacity, of overviews of the various stakeholders in this
field, or of government-NGO forums. This working group tried
to look from different angles how to bring about this dialogue
in order to fill these gaps and to come to an infrastructure for
conflict prevention and peace building.
At the first session, the role of the government and the role of
NGOs were at the centre of the discussion. Which tasks should
be fulfilled by governments, and which tasks by other, non-state
actors?
Thania Paffenholz introduced the recently created Swiss
94
Center for Peacebuilding, based in Bern. This Center was
created by the Swiss government and the Swiss Peace
Foundation after broad consultation with Swiss peace and
development NGOs. (Paid) membership is open for all NGOs
active in or related to the field of conflict prevention, transformation, reconciliation, peace building et cetera. The staff of
the Center consists of five full-time persons and two to three
persons for support. The Center is funded by the Swiss
government.
The objective of the Center is to support the constructive role
of Switzerland in settling international conflicts. This
presupposes a coherent Swiss peace policy. The Center has a
unique ‘in-between role’: it is expected to promote synergies
between the various actors involved in peacebuilding governmental and non-governmental, national and international.
The Center also wants to develop cooperation among Swiss
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), their cooperation
with international NGOs and their links to official Swiss policy.
The following kind of activities are foreseen:
–
Platform and facilitator: The Center will provide a platform
for the exchange of experiences and information and act as
a facilitator with regard to the common resolution of
problems by its partners in the area of peace building. It
will link its partners to relevant international actors;
–
Information and documentation: The Center will gather
information and documentation related to peace building,
hold events and write publications for specific target groups;
–
Analyses and advice: The Center will offer its partners
services such as conflict analyses, strategy advice for peace
building interventions, and gather lessons learned in civil
peace building.
Paffenholz also identified the main difficulties to be tackled
when facilitating dialogue and co-operation between the
government and NGOs: the issue of confidentiality and mutual
trust and the problem of talking a ‘different language’.
Georg Frerks, head of the Conflict Research Unit of the
95
Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’
focused on the state of affairs of governmental policy of some
EU and other countries towards conflict prevention and peace
building. Although almost every EU country produced policy
documents on these issues, the implementation of these
documents is hardly documented. Therefore, Frerks based himself on the policy documents of different EU-member states and
some other countries, referring to comparative research on this
subject by his institute, and to a comprehensive and critical
study on six different interventions by the Dutch government.
According to Frerks, the policy documents demonstrate a clear
similarity in discourse: they speak of international law, human
rights, democracy, good governance and so on. The (proposed)
embedding differs however, which reflects the different emphases
or focuses governments put on these issues. In some countries it is
embedded in Foreign Affairs, others place it into Development
Co-operation or even Defence. At the same time the need for a
‘coherent and integrative approach’ is repeatedly stressed. In
addressing the root causes of conflict more differences appear:
some put emphasis on poverty reduction, others focus more on
political issues, such as democratisation, good governance or
human rights.
These policy documents say however little about the
implementation and the practices of the different governments
in the field of conflict prevention and peace building. The study
on the Dutch interventions showed that there is a major gap
between policy and practice. In sum, the main conclusion was
that the interventions were all reactive, too little and too late. A
clear framework of how to act on early warning signals was still
lacking, analyses of conflicts were poor, institutional memory or
long term strategy absent.
In order to get a better overview of the state of affairs in
conflict-prevention and peace-building policies of different EU
member states, it could be an interesting idea to conduct a
comparative research on the budgets of different governments:
what do they actually fund? Is the main financial focus on, for
example, multilateral organisations, NGOs, Track I diplomacy, or
on the military approach?
96
National Platforms for Conflict Prevention and Peace Building
The working group further focused on the role of NGOnetworks or national platforms for conflict prevention and
peace building. Representatives from five networks or national
platforms indicated which tasks their network or platform is
fulfilling, or could fulfil in the proposed infrastructure for conflict
prevention and peace building.
The Irish Peace and Reconciliation Platform differs from the
other national platforms or networks in the fact that this
platform is not working with conflicts far away, but with an
indigenous conflict: the Irish – British conflict. Ian White,
Chairperson of the Platform, explained how this influences the
position of the Platform towards the Irish (and British)
government. Being part of the conflict, the Irish government is
seen as a client. Therefore, a formal relation with the government
would be welcomed, but not as a partner in a joint organisation
or platform.
The main focuses of the Irish Platform are on the sharing of
information and on training facilitators in peace processes. At
present, less attention is being paid to advocacy and lobby. One
of the main difficulties of the Irish Platform – and of other
platforms as well - is the different background and nature of the
NGOs participating in the Platform. In the words of White:
How to build peace amongst peace builders?
Although the Platform managed to achieve some considerable
successes in the field of advocacy and lobby by acting together,
the Platform decided to contract a consultant to do research on
the needs of Ireland and the future role of the Platform. For the
time being the Platform’s policy tends to move from total
inclusiveness and agreement of all partners, to a more go-ahead
policy. As a part of this, White would favour a more open
attitude of the Platform towards other conflicts and conflict
regions. This would help the Platform to learn from other,
sometimes similar, experiences in other countries in conflict,
and would enable the sharing of its own experiences with others.
The German Platform for the Peaceful Management of
Conflicts was established in November 1998 as a loose and open
97
network of individuals, organisations, and institutions. According
to Barbara Müller, head of the secretariat of the German
Platform, it consists of approximately 100 individuals, 43 NGOs
(semi-state) and institutions respectively. Participants originate
from organisations in a wide variety of fields, including human
rights, peace work, humanitarian aid and development cooperation, church organisations and related academic institutions.
The Platform works in a consensus-based manner and is geared
to the principles of subsidiarity, decentralisation, and the
division of labour. The main mode of operation is to work
together in joint project groups, which should display a clear
element of “added value”.
The German Platform does not accept funding from the
government and depends on voluntary contributions and
funding from other organisations; a large percentage is being
paid by the Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany. The
central tasks and functions of the Platform are: Information
exchange/Clearing house function; Public relations/education;
Lobby/advocacy; Advisory, support and training; International
networking.
One of the main activities of the German Platform presently
is related to the incorporation of conflict prevention and
resolution mechanisms into the governmental apparatus and
development and humanitarian NGOs. The German government
contracted Mary B. Anderson from the Collaborative Development
Action to help (primarily) development and humanitarian
organisations to implement the ‘Do No Harm’ approach into
their policy, strategy and operational activities. This process is
also subsidised by the Ministry of Development Co-operation.
The Platform uses the recently launched web-address
(www.konfliktbearbeitung.net). to promote this kind of activities
and to share relevant information about it
The Finnish Citizens’ Security Council (in Finnish: Kansalaisten
turvallisuusneuvosto, KATU) acts as a network combining the
efforts of Finnish NGOs to prevent the outbreak and escalation
of violent conflicts. At this moment, some 50 Finnish nongovernmental organisations and research institutes participate in
98
KATU, varying from churches, human rights, peace, women,
youth, and student organisations, to development and humanitarian agencies. Although the creation of a more formal structure
to strengthen the network is under debate for some time
already, KATU remains an open and loose network. One of the
reasons for this, explained Anne Palm, secretary general of
KATU, is that especially the larger organisations have a problem
to ‘belong to another organisation’ (and therefore running the
risk of loosing the profile). KATU depends totally on the
funding of the government. Although KATU is very free to
spend the money according its own views, some problems do
occur when trying to get activities funded in Finland itself.
KATU Citizens’ Security Council has an ongoing project in
Southern Africa for four years now, assisting the creation of a
regional conflict prevention network. This network, established
last December, includes NGOs from ten countries in Southern
Africa. KATU also promoted the creation of national networks
in that region, which has already happened in five of the ten
countries. Other focal points and activities of KATU at the
moment are small arms and the gathering of a database for
NGOs involved in conflict prevention issues to find the key
people and organisations to gather more information about
conflicts.
Discussion and conclusions
In general, the working group concluded that there is no
blueprint for a national infrastructure for conflict prevention
and peace building. The comprehensive lists of tasks as mentioned
in the background material should be seen as objectives. These
objectives should be pursued in each country, but should also be
approached with some flexibility. The state of affairs and the
situation in the EU counties differ a lot.
A need for dialogue
There is however an obvious need for deeper dialogue and
closer co-operation between NGOs and governments for the
development and implementation of policy and practice. Within
99
the field of conflict prevention there are still many gaps: there is
often a lack of adequate mechanisms to act effectively on early
warning signals, of solid conflict analyses, of expertise and
capacity, of overviews of the different stakeholders in this field,
or of government-NGO forums. National infrastructures can
provide mechanisms for governments to enhance their knowledge, policy and practice in conflict prevention and peace
building, and act as a catalyst for initiatives to fulfil the gaps in
the field.
Core Tasks for National Platforms
In several countries of the EU a network or national platform
for conflict prevention and peace building has been created.
These networks and platforms vary a lot. Some networks put
more emphasis on training and education, others focus more on
lobby and awareness raising. The working group identified however some core tasks for each network or platform:
–
Stimulating networking amongst NGOs and with
governments;
–
Raising awareness for the opportunities for conflict
prevention and peace building;
–
Acting as an information clearinghouse.
There is a need for further research on and evaluation of
networks in this field. Kathleen Armstrong mentioned that her
organisation, the UK based network CODEP, is currently doing
research on this. The main conclusions will be published on its
webaddress (www.codep.org.uk). This issue will also be on the
agenda of the European Platform’s conference on Peace Building
Practice in October 2001. For this meeting the European Platform
will produce a background document, reviewing in a more
systematic way the existing networks and national platforms, in
combination with some lessons learned on networking.
The representatives of the networks and platforms expressed
their wish to have stronger linkages between each other. Within
the framework of the European Platform more meetings should
be organised to have an exchange of information and experiences.
100
Besides this, it is equally or even more important to stimulate
networking in conflict areas and to create linkages between the
northern networks and the networks in conflict zones.
The role of the corporate sector
Several times the role of the corporate sector in peace building
was emphasised. It is seen as one of the main challenges for the
future to involve the corporate sector in peace-building
processes. They should be part of the infrastructure for conflict
prevention and peace building. ‘Giving money is the easiest
thing for them to do’, as one of the participants said. How to
change their behaviour and to convince them to play a
constructive role is a different matter. More dialogue between
these worlds is needed.
Education
The working group stressed the importance of education in the
field of conflict prevention and peace building. Conflict
resolution/transformation programmes must become an integral
part of the curricula at all levels of education. At this moment it
is at best extra-curricular.
More attention should be paid to textbooks in conflict prone
areas. Research in for example Croatia and Serbia proved that
textbooks are still full of prejudices and hatred towards each other.
The participants expressed their wish to organise an international conference on education and peace building. This
conference should focus on peace studies at universities, peace
education in conflict regions and peace education in northern
countries. To take this idea forward, an international working
group of the European Platform for Conflict Prevention and
Transformation may be established.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
We call upon EU governments and NGOs to support
infrastructures for conflict prevention and peace building at
national and EU-levels. To take this forward, the creation of
101
national platforms for conflict prevention and peace building,
with sufficient capacity in staff and financial resources, is
essential. In countries where national platforms for conflict prevention and peace building are already active, these platforms
should be supported.
National infrastructures can provide mechanisms for
governments and NGOs to enhance their knowledge, policy and
practice in conflict prevention and peace building, and act as a
catalyst for initiatives to fulfil the gaps in the field. Core tasks of
a national infrastructure include:
–
Stimulating networking amongst NGOs and with governments;
–
Raising awareness for the opportunities for conflict
prevention and peace building;
–
Acting as an information clearinghouse.
Recommendation 2
Besides creating networks within and between northern
countries, networks in conflict prone areas must be stimulated as
well. More work has to be done to create linkages between these
networks and northern networks.
Recommendation 3
The corporate sector has an important role to play in peacebuilding processes. In order to stimulate a more proactive
involvement in these peace processes, more dialogue is needed
between the business and NGO community.
Recommendation 4
Conflict resolution / transformation programmes must become
an integral part of the curricula at all levels of education. The
participants expressed their wish to organise an international
conference on education and peace building. This conference
should focus on peace studies at universities, peace education in
conflict regions and peace education in northern countries.
102
Developing Civilian Peace
Services
22
Assignment of the Working Group
I. Rationale
Today there is enough evidence arising from hundreds of
examples of nonviolent transformation of conflicts which show
that not only internal but also international conflicts can be
diffused or even resolved through various forms of short-term
or long-term peace initiatives, on local, national and international levels.
Experiences from conflict areas in different parts of the world
prove that voluntary organisations, including churches, cooperating across national borders, can make indispensable
contributions to peace-building processes.
World Peace Brigade, Peace Brigade International, Witness for
Peace and Christian Peacemaker Teams are examples of
international peace-building programmes. Peace Monitoring in
South Africa, Escort Guatemala, Peace Service in Chiapaz,
Balkan Peace Team, Peace and Development Teams in Eastern
Slavonia are examples of programmes involving development
agencies, labour unions, churches and other organisations.
The contributions of voluntary organisations in preventing
violent conflicts are acknowledged by many governments, e.g.
by the Swedish government: “Popular movements and NGOs
have gained increased importance in recent years, partly because
it is easier for them to act in undemocratic environments where
individual governments may not want to get involved for
varying reasons. Moreover, NGOs can be on the spot quickly
when complex catastrophes occur, already in co-ordination with
local organisations.”23
In line with the new security thinking there is a great and
103
urgent need for developing civilian peace services (CPS),
i.e. educating and preparing women and men to serve in
organised ways in preventing violence, transforming conflicts and
building peace in areas of conflict, contributing to nonviolent social
transformation and common, comprehensive, just and sustainable
peace and security at home and abroad.
The establishment of CPS - and other similar initiatives24 - on
a large scale is gaining wide support by voluntary organisations,
including churches and other faith-based groups25. Networks
and coalitions for establishing CPS are therefore developing in
many countries. The networks include a variety of developmental,
peace, human rights and environmental organisations26.
In the document, Preventing violent conflict – Opportunities for
the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies of the European Union in
200127, European peace institutes and voluntary organisations
recommend that EU and member states should:
–
Support the development of civilian peace services
–
Undertake studies of how they can best make use of CPS
–
Implement existing educational programmes for the
training of national and international peace workers for
service in conflict areas
–
Establish a European regional resource comprising 10,000
men and women who can be drawn upon to work in
conflict areas.
II. Aim
To explore a more intensive development of CPS, a cooperation between Voluntary Organisations, governments and
IGOs.
III. Discussion Points
One key issue is the education, training, preparation and
commitment needed for people working in conflict areas. All
over the world voluntary organisations, churches, universities
and institutes have been developing various methods, models
104
and curricula for long and short courses28.
The education and training for a “European regional resource”
is dependent on various factors to be discussed. Examples are:
Discussion points
–
The main focus, in accordance with relevant documents of
the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the EU,
especially the new European programme for prevention of
violent conflicts;
–
The conditions, roles and functions of the local organisations
and people living in the midst of the conflict;
–
The roles and functions of the peace-workers, addressing
the root causes of conflicts and targeting the structural risk
factors;
–
The role and functions of women in preventing violent
conflicts;
–
The role and functions of youth in preventing violent
conflicts;
–
Partnership, co-operation and division of labour between
the actors involved in working with the conflict, including
actors from the media and the business world;
–
The code of conduct, providing an ethical framework for
the education and training as well as for the field work;
–
An emphasis on facilitating skills, enabling the participants
to share their knowledge and empowerment skills in the
local communities in the conflict areas, contributing to “a
culture of prevention” on different levels of society29;
–
An integration of “nonviolence”30 into capacity building
processes, utilising the stories of people and movements
that used and lived nonviolence against injustice, violence
and oppressive regimes.
A second issue is the need for national, European and
international infrastructures/mechanisms/organisations promoting
the development of a civilian peace service31.
105
Process
The three sessions will be used for a creative and constructive
participatory process, supported by a professional facilitator
(provided sufficient funding is secured), and will bring in
people with experience and expertise.
IV. Possible Outcomes
Recommendations will focus on:
–
Aims, principles, implementation plan, etc. for the cooperation between Voluntary Organisations, governments
and IGOs on the education and training of people
working in conflict areas, integrating the prevention of
violent conflict into most assignments.
–
Aims, principles, implementation plan, etc. for an
independent European non-governmental resource bank
of civilians, with knowledge, experience and skills in preventing violent conflicts and peace-building. This resource,
which can be used by IGOs, governments and voluntary
organisations as a way to identify qualified candidates for
particular missions or posts, should be linked to similar
resource banks, with financial support from national
governments to provide this kind of service.
–
Aims, principles and implementation plan for education
and training (approximately 10 weeks) to prepare women
and men to serve in organised nonviolent ways, contributing to human rights, democracy, reconciliation and just
and sustainable peace, at home and abroad.
–
Aims, principles and implementation plan for building
“cultures of prevention” at all levels, thus contributing to
the development of “a culture of prevention” in Europe
and internationally.
–
Forming one or more working groups with participants
from governments, IGOs and Voluntary Organisations,
who are able to follow up the recommendations in constructive work.
106
Report of the Working Group
Proposed Follow-up Meeting on Civilian Peace Services
What
CPS Meeting of (xx) number of days and (yy)
number of participants.
Concerning agenda topics – see next pages!
Why
To advance the conceptualisation of, cooperation of
and further development of civilian peace services,
including training curriculum and design, and to
map next steps for implementation.
When
Proposed for Winter 2001/02
Where
Location?
Who
Proposed Convenor(s) of CPS Meeting
CPS Meeting Preparatory Group
Lead agency: Peace Team Forum, Sweden
Chairperson
Member(s)
Preparatory Working Groups – to include
representatives of European Network of Civilian
Peace Services and Global Nonviolent Peace Force
Convenor(s) / lead organisation?
Chair(s)
Members
CPS Meeting participants to include representatives
of UN, OSCE, EU and governments,.
Role of non-European participants?
Immediate next steps
What?
By whom?
How
Agenda Topics
I.
Concepts and Content
•
Define civilian peace service concept
107
–
An umbrella for pools and standing services/teams,
or defined as one or the other?
–
Relationship/interface of civilian pools and CPS
standing structures
–
Difference between CPS operations and military
and humanitarian operations and development
efforts
–
Terms, roles and qualification issues (e.g. expert,
civilian, non-violence)
•
Inventory of earlier and present CPS experiences and
networks
•
Case studies (as scenarios for deployment) – How many
and which case studies?
•
Possible phases of CPS development
•
Focus on prevention of violent conflict
•
Focal point for values clarification and for sharing of
experiences and methods for broad dissemination and use
by other operational actors in their roles in prevention of
violent conflict
II.
Strategies and Goals
•
Justify need for civilian peace services
•
Elevate CPS concept on agendas of major players in
European peace-building community
•
Develop political support for civilian peace service
•
Develop political will for early intervention (= for
prevention of violent conflict vs. crisis response)
•
Raise popular awareness
•
Relationship and communication/coordination/cooperation
among
–
108
political entities (governments, IGOs)
–
various actors (public entities, INGOs, NGOs)
–
various national, regional, global CPS infrastructures
–
EU Task Force and other possible military peacekeeping structures
–
work in partnership with local actors in conflict zones
•
New structure(s) for coordination and decision-making
III.
Preparation
•
Criteria for peace team involvement
–
Terms of engagement
–
Code of conduct
•
Roster development
•
Education/training
–
Internationals, nationals, locals
•
Funding
IV.
Operationalization
•
Peace team mandate, composition and design
•
Recruitment
•
Maintaining individual group identity/autonomy (e.g.
faith-based groups, Red Cross)
•
Assessment
109
Conflict Prevention as a
Government-NGO Joint Venture
A Postscript Comment
By Ragnar Ängeby32
In today’s world there is an increasing awareness that relationships are genuinely more important than things and that the
wholes are primordial to parts. We talk about a holistic and
integrated approach. In this light we talk about globalisation of
trade, global public goods and of global values.
We also increasingly recognise the community nature of the
self that challenges us to see the inter-relatedness that exist
between us and which makes us see ourselves not merely as
individuals with equal worth but also as parts of a community
where we relate to others and where we are sharing common
interests globally. When we do not take other human beings as
objects of our use but rather as fellow human beings with whom
we can learn and change, we open the possibilities for being
ourselves more fully.
We are also increasingly aware of the generative power of
language, which allows us to freshly interpret our experiences,
together and in dialogue with other human beings, thus giving
us the possibility to create new realities.
Looking back at the Gripsholm II Conference, one can clearly
see that the event had all the elements of those guiding ideas for
the future global society in which we are going to live, hopefully
more harmoniously than in the past.
The prevention of violent conflict is in this context probably
the most cost-saving measure to take in order to bring about a
fair and sustainable global economy and a decent life for the
people in the world. We know that the main reason for poverty
and famine is destruction, caused by violence and war, which
ruins culture, social and economic structures, communication
110
and material assets.
For those of you who know Swedish history, it is evident that
the remarkable development from poverty to affluence which
took place over the last 150 years, was very much a result of our
ability to preserve peace within the borders of our own country,
and with peace to develop democracy and the rule of law. In
spite of extreme violence in our neighbourhood, we basically
managed to keep a climate of dialogue and common learning
within our society.
The civil society and its different organisations played a key
role in the Swedish process of change. They were based on a set
of core values, which were voiced by a number of individuals of
different social and political backgrounds. The core values were
intimately linked to the basic ethics and values of Christian
thinking as they were expressed, mainly by broad social
movements such as the temperance, revival and labour movements,
which tried to liberate the ethics and the values from the
conservatism of the old power structures.
The Gripsholm II Conference came about at a moment when
Global Society is looking for guidance to handle a situation
where traditional structures ruling our lives are questioned but
new ones are not yet clearly identified. I believe that, in a way,
the global challenge today is similar to the challenges that
Sweden faced by the end of the nineteenth century. People, in
those days, saw the need for change based on visions for a better
world and on values in which they believed.
The focus of the introduction of the Gripsholm II Conference
on solidarity and security – probing the meaning of nonviolence
with speakers of different faiths – gave the conference stability,
consolidating the global message of peace. The common values
transformed into practice, was the substantial message of all the
sessions of the seminar. The Swedish Presidency of the
European Union was happy to receive the Comments and
Recommendations of the conference.
There is a growing awareness of the complexity of preserving
and building peace globally and of the need to interact with all
stakeholders. In addition to the strong role of the state is added
111
the creativity of other actors in conflict situations. Awareness
and sensibilities are influencing attitudes and beliefs creating
conditions for the development of skills and capabilities to act
for change. The voluntary organisations of the civil society, based
on personal commitment of a number of individuals, are
increasingly important parties in the processes of preventing
conflict and building peace, also recognised by the Governments
of the European Union, the European Commission and the UN.
In his remarks on Conflict Prevention to the Council for
Foreign Relations in New York on March 6, 2002, Kofi Annan,
the Secretary General of the UN concluded:
“The policies of conflict prevention that I have outlined today
will succeed only if the root causes are addressed as well – and
not just by Governments or the UN, but also by civil society, the
private sector…” “You can help us convince the parties of the
folly of conflict, and deepen the work of prevention by
supporting local, civil society prevention programmes, which are
often more effective – and more acutely needed – than
Government initiatives:”.
Those words, in retrospect, serve as a good piece of inspiration
of those who made the Gripsholm II Conference possible and
to all of us who will participate in the follow up.
112
Appendices
113
114
Preventing violent conflict
Opportunities for the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies
of the European Union in 200133
Introduction
Violent conflict causes massive humanitarian suffering, undermines development, stifles economic growth and prevents the
maturation of political institutions.
The need for conflict prevention is now well accepted by the
EU and it has a key potential role. However, political realities mean
that the focus of EU action is invariably on crisis management
(often military) rather than on longer-term action to prevent
conflicts erupting in the first place. The Swedish and Belgian
presidencies of the EU offer a vital opportunity to put measures
in place to increase the EU’s capacity to prevent violent conflicts
and promote a culture of prevention. This briefing paper sets out
key proposals for action
Costs of failing to prevent violent conflict
The costs of failing to act to prevent recent wars such as those in
Kosovo, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and others
are stark:
•
Humanitarian suffering – In Rwanda alone, an estimated
800,000 people were slaughtered in the 1994 genocide,
1.5 million people were internally displaced and a further
800,000 made refugees.
•
Financial costs – The Carnegie Commission on Preventing
Deadly Conflict has estimated that the costs to the
international community of the seven major wars in the
1990s (excluding Kosovo and calculated before the close
of the decade) had been $199 billion. This is in addition
to the costs to the countries actually at war.
115
•
Political costs – The inability of the EU to prevent the
crises in Bosnia and Kosovo have damaged its credibility,
provoked worrying dis-agreements between Member
States and placed strains on the NATO alliance.
•
Late action is costly and risky – experience shows that the
earlier action is taken, the higher chance of success.
Violent conflicts are very difficult to stop once they are
underway, crisis management (especially troop deployment)
is more expensive, and the failure rate is higher.
The EU and conflict prevention
The EU has the potential to play a crucial role in preventing
violent conflict. It has the world’s biggest single market, the
largest aid budget, an unparalleled web of historic and cultural
ties, and representation at the top tables of diplomacy and
economic planning. Used carefully, these economic and political
levers could be targeted more effectively to help address the
root-causes the tensions that can so often lead to violent
conflict. However, this is clearly not happening.
The EU, the United Nations and the G8, have all agreed that
much more should be done to reduce the potential for violence
and to support mechanisms to ensure lasting peace. The G8
Communiqué Okinawa 2000 called for the promotion of a
‘Culture of Prevention’34. And the EU has agreed a number of
important conflict prevention initiatives in recent years35.
The Amsterdam Treaty established a Policy Planning and Early
Warning Unit (PPEWU) which has the potential to increase the
Union’s capacity for prevention. It also paved the way for the
incorporation of the Western European Union (WEU) into the
EU. At the Helsinki summit on 10–11 December 1999, within
the context of a revised European Security and Defence Policy
(ESDP), the European Council agreed the creation of a Rapid
Reaction Force for military crisis intervention, to operate where
NATO is unable or unwilling to.
The resolutions of the Helsinki summit also provided for the
improvement and more effective use of the instruments of non116
military crisis management. The EU commissioner charged with
bringing this about, Christopher Patten, has stated that the EU
will have to launch initiatives in a range of sectors: humanitarian
aid and rescue services; mine clearance and disarmament; the
supply of police personnel; the provision of legal and
administrative support for democratisation; monitoring of
elections and human rights; and conflict mediation in crisis regions.
Focus on the civilian aspects and long-term conflict prevention
This flurry of recent initiatives is encouraging. In theory, these
institutional changes could develop the coherent integrated
approach to aid, trade and development policy for which many
in the NGO sector have long called. In practice, however, there
are already indications of an unbalanced approach.
Political pressures are forcing crisis management to the top of
the agenda and the emphasis is on the development of a military
rapid reaction force. Some attention has been given to nonmilitary crisis management but here the focus is on the creation
of a police rapid reaction force. There is a danger that resources
will be focused on the military side of crisis management. The
Commission is talking of a draft budget for civilian crisis
management of 15 million Euros. This is approximately equal to
the amount earmarked for crisis prevention and civilian conflict
resolution by the German foreign ministry36.
This focus on crisis management also means that longer-term
conflict prevention is in danger of being sidelined. This would
be a mistake. There is undoubtedly a need for the EU to develop
the capacity to react to crises. But surely equal, if not greater
effort is needed to prevent them from occurring in the first
place?
Opportunity of the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies
The aim of this document is to highlight practical steps, which
the EU could take to put the commitments on conflict
prevention into practice during the forthcoming Swedish and
Belgian Presidencies. The paper proposes several non-military
117
headline goals, for national and EU policy-makers.
Sweden has traditionally played a leading role in conflict
prevention and has declared that it will be a priority for its
forthcoming Presidency. The government published a
comprehensive action plan in 1999 on ‘Preventing Violent
Conflict’. NGOs are therefore looking to the Swedish Presidency
to lead concrete progress at the European level.
Belgium has also developed initiatives for conflict prevention,
notably in the field of small arms control. NGOs therefore call
upon the Belgian government to pick up the challenge of
ensuring EU action to prevent violent conflict when it takes
over the EU Presidency in the second half of 2001.
Key issues for the EU to address
This paper outlines issues for the EU to address in four main
areas:
•
Development co-operation, trade, international financial
institutions and the private sector.
•
Common Foreign and Security Policy.
•
Institutional changes needed to enhance EU and national
capacity.
•
Working with civil society
1. Development co-operation, trade, investment and
international financial institutions
Inequitable economic development, declining economic
performance, macro-economic instability and reductions in
human development can all contribute to the risks of violent
conflict. Much of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has seen a
decline in macro-economic performance and worsening social
indicators over the last 15 years. It is no coincidence that many
of these same countries are experiencing ongoing conflict or are
suffering in the aftermath of civil war.
Conflict is most likely to manifest itself when social and
political structures are unable to cope with macro-economic
118
shocks. Socio-economic decline invariably leads to deepening
stratification in society whereby poorer or marginalized groups
are further isolated from the political and economic mainstream
leading to increased tension and violence. Violence can also
occur as economic shocks impact on those with a stake in the
economic system and political power. The violence that
accompanied and followed the market collapse in Indonesia is a
recent example of this phenomenon.
The EU’s development and trade policies, and relations with
the IFIs (World Bank and IMF), however, have failed to fully
recognise these linkages and the key role they can play in
promoting sustainable development and peace. In the past, EU
economic policies have often exacerbated tensions in society
and increased the risk of violent conflict. For example, unevenly
distributed development assistance has increased tensions
between groups, protectionist trade policies have hindered the
access of developing countries to international markets and created
economic shocks, and IFI structural adjustment programmes have
forced cuts in spending on social services and fuelled instability.
The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies provide an opportunity to
ensure that the EU’s economic instruments and policies are
targeted to help prevent violent conflict.
a) Development co-operation
There is a worrying potential move in European development
policy away from a focus on conflict. The reform of the European
Commission (EC) and the new draft of the European
Community’s Development Policy appear to signal a move away
from the comprehensive policy framework for conflict prevention
and peace-building in Africa and beyond37, which the EU has
developed since 1995.
The Foreign Policy Unit of the former DGVIII, for example,
which promoted much of this work within the EC, has been
dissolved and there seems to be a decreased interest within the
EC in conflicts occurring outside Europe and a refocusing of
development co-operation towards economic issues. There also
seems to be a concerning transfer of responsibilities away from
119
DG Development which needs to be addressed (see section 3,
Institutional changes to enhance the capacity of the EU and
Member States to prevent violent conflict).
The EU is currently setting new parameters for its development
co-operation with developing countries through such documents
as the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000 on ACP-EU relations,
the draft European Community’s Development Policy of 26 April
2000, and the Commission Communication on co-operation with
ACP countries in conflict. These will shape EU development
assistance policy to countries in conflict in this decade. As such
they raise a number of important issues for conflict prevention:
Give priority to the LDCs
Most violent conflicts are in the developing world, particularly
in the poorest countries in Africa. From a conflict prevention
perspective, there is reason for concern about the long-term
trend in the reduced proportion of EU development aid going
to ACP countries. This is at a time when the proportion of
assistance directed to the regions in the immediate vicinity of
Europe (the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe and countries of
the Former Soviet Union) is increasing dramatically. While
51.3% of all community aid went to least developed countries
(LDCs) in 1986/87, it was only 33.6% in 1996/97. Furthermore,
funds from the EC’s 2001 draft budget that were originally set
aside for LDCs have been reallocated to the reconstruction of
Kosovo. Discussions are currently underway over how to fund
the aid promised to Serbia. Support to the Balkans is vital but it
must not be at the expense of support to the world’s poorest
countries.
The Communication on EC Development Policy proposes
that increased selectivity should be applied in the allocation of
resources to countries. Disbursement will relate to results
obtained on the basis of impact indicators approved beforehand.
This is linked to a move away from a “stop-go” disbursement
system towards a continuous one (“more/less”). Increasing the
impact of development assistance is welcome but this new model
must be carefully developed to ensure that countries in conflict
120
or who do not meet the criteria are not disadvantaged. The
Communication says that in fragile situations the EC will
develop direct support for the populations concerned by paying
particular attention to the most vulnerable groups. This is vital
but it is also important that the EC engages with governments
who are willing, but unable to meet the criteria.
Focus on conflict
The latest policy documents on development clearly identify
trade liberalisation and foreign direct investments as the primary
motors for growth in developing countries. However, neoliberal
economic polices and economic growth alone are not enough to
achieve stability. The need for development assistance to focus
on conflict prevention, peacebuilding and ‘structural stability’
contained in previous Commission papers is largely absent.
Without a focus on conflict it will be impossible for the EC to
achieve its objective of poverty reduction. Another key issue to
be addressed is the need to create a secure and just environment
in which development can flourish (see section 2b, ‘Strengthening
the rule of law and reforming the security sector’).
Targeting development assistance on promoting integration
into the world economy means shifting the focus away from
other areas which have the potential to contribute to stability
and conflict management. Previous Commission documents
have focused on how development assistance can address root
causes of conflict but this approach is not fully reflected in the
new Communication. The Commission proposes to apply and
mainstream a number of cross-cutting principles (e.g. gender
equality and the environment) throughout the policy but
conflict prevention is not included.
Good governance and civil society
The Development Policy makes a welcome commitment to
good governance, human rights, promotion of civil society and a
dialogue with a wide range of social actors, including local
government and the private sector. These developments provide
scope for a more proactive EU role in terms of conflict prevention
121
and peacebuilding. However, it is unclear how these commitments
will be put into practice. Greater clarity is needed on the type of
support for good governance which the EC will provide, and
concrete mechanisms must be established that enable sustained
engagement with both southern and northern civil society.
Support for democratisation in developing countries is vital.
Democracy rooted in civil society is an important system for
non-violent conflict prevention and management.
Conflict analysis and impact assessment
The EC needs to strengthen its capacity to strategically plan and
monitor its development co-operation, particularly with
countries at risk of or affected by violent conflict. For this, it
requires analytical tools for conflict analysis and better strategic
planning in conflict situations. It is also crucial to develop
systems to monitor and learn from current projects in conflictaffected countries. This will require the EU to seek the views of
a wide range of stakeholders and develop mechanisms for
dialogue with civil society. Promising steps towards developing
tools for assessing the impact of EU policies were made by the
Foreign Policy Unit of the former DGVIII, although little has
been done in terms of implementation. One issue to be
addressed is the small number of staff in the EC who have
responsibility for administering a large budget. To ensure that
EU assistance really tackles the root causes of conflict in an
effective manner, it is important to recruit more staff with solid
practical and regional experience to oversee the implementation
of aid programmes.
Improving disbursement
Although the EU is the world’s largest donor of development
assistance, with an annual budget of approximately 8.6bn Euros,
a significant proportion of these funds never reach their
destinations due to inefficient disbursement procedures and
other political, bureaucratic and financial control problems. A
recent report from Commissioner Patten’s staff detailed almost
2,000 unfinished projects which had cost a total of 1.2bn Euros
122
and put the average time required by the EU to deliver aid at a
staggering four years and two months.
Whilst many projects never reach the implementation stage,
others, which rely on funding to be provided in tranches, are
curtailed due to poor disbursement methods, with a risk that
this may lead to heightened tensions in conflict-prone areas and
increased levels of poverty in recipient communities. Currently,
EU funding priorities in developing countries are agreed with
national governments, who are then responsible for overseeing
distribution. There are no mechanisms to allow civil society
groups and other bodies working in the field more direct access
to EU funds, nor to file complaints if the resources allocated to
projects in their area do not arrive.
Recommendations
The EU should:
•
Increase the proportion of development assistance it
provides to LDCs, especially those threatened by violent
conflict.
•
Explicitly state that conflict prevention and structural
stability are key objectives of EC development policy.
They should be mainstreamed into programme objectives
and into approaches to development in politically fragile
situations.
•
Focus assistance at helping governments to meet agreed
impact indicators and support vulnerable communities.
•
Implement conflict impact assessment frameworks and
work towards mainstreaming these as part of all planning
and evaluation processes in all countries threatened by
violent conflict. Independent evaluations of the impact
of EU projects should also be commissioned.
•
Develop concrete mechanisms to engage with civil
society, particularly in the South in order to get their
input into development policy and programmes.
•
Increase its capacity for the efficient and timely delivery
123
of development assistance by shifting resources out of
unwieldy bureaucratic procedures to allow more money
to be spent on the implementation of projects.
•
Allocate significant special budget-lines for conflict
prevention and peacebuilding activities.
b) T
rade policy
Trade
Conflicts have been triggered by economic shocks, as well as
long-term impoverishment linked to a country’s unequal
integration into the global economy. In many cases, these
triggers have been linked to falling commodity prices and
revenues from agricultural or mineral exports. Ongoing conflicts,
on the other hand, are frequently fuelled or sustained by
regional and global war economies based on trade in illegal
goods. The EU should promote equitable trade arrangements
and to regulate this illicit trade.
Although the Cotonou Agreement has been finalised, the
Regional Economic Partnership Agreements have still to be
worked out. It is vital that these grant ACP countries better
access to European markets. The EU is still upholding
protectionist measures, effectively barring developing countries
from exporting industrial and agricultural products to the EU.
Commissioner Lamy has just put forward important proposals
to grant the world’s poorest countries duty-free access to Union
markets. However, there is reported opposition from some
Member States.
The consequences of trade liberalisation in conflict regions
need to be carefully addressed. Neo-liberal economic policies
can lead to social exclusion, economic instability, increased
inequalities and reduced opportunities. Moreover, there is a
danger that opening up borders and creating free trade areas
could make it easier for the illicit trade which is fuelling many
conflicts to flourish. The EU needs to match its push towards
liberalisation with efforts to help tackle the illicit trade in arms,
precious stones, minerals and hard woods.
124
Recommendations
The EU should:
•
Support the Commission’s proposals to grant duty-free
market access to LDCs.
•
Press for more equal trade relations on a global level and
create an “enabling environment” for the economic
development of the poorest countries. This includes
lobbying the WTO for trade agreements favourable to
southern countries and pushing for increased democracy and
transparency within the organisation. Poverty eradication
should be established as an objective of the WTO.
•
Assist developing countries to tackle illicit trade by
increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to
police their borders and enforce controls. The liberalisation
of economies in conflict areas should only happen if such
parallel steps are taken to ensure that the illicit trade will
not flourish.
c) Relations with International Financial Institutions
While there is an imperative for developing countries to reform
their economies and integrate into the global economy, the
polices that they have often been encouraged to pursue by the
IFIs (World Bank and particular IMF hostility towards postconflict grants (including the EU’s) due to IMF), have often
contributed to greater instability and consequently the risk of
violence. In their inflationary effect can severely hamper
reconstruction efforts. There has been some reorientation of IFI
policies towards poverty reduction, but much more needs to be
done. With the establishment of the Post Conflict Unit, and
encouragement from its Development Committee, the World
Bank has increased its post-conflict work and has funded some
useful projects in this area. But there is still a lot more that can
be done to integrate conflict prevention objectives into IFI
programmes. The EU’s experience and analysis could play an
instrumental role in this regard
125
In countries emerging from conflict, IFIs can play an important
role in ensuring that financial assistance is geared towards
rehabilitation, reconstruction and reintegration that will form
the foundation of building sustainable peace. The EU must play
a lead role in promoting the reform of the IFIs so that their
assistance focuses on preventing the re-emergence of conflict.
The EU and its Member States have frequently engaged in
development programmes under bilateral funding arrangements
with IFIs. Although this arrangement has the potential to ensure
co-ordinated efforts among donors, it can also transfer policy
and implementation responsibility to IFIs and thus reduce EU
control and accountability.
Recommendations
The EU should:
•
Ensure that IFI poverty reduction policies do not just aim
to meet urgent social-economic needs, but also address
the underlying causes of structural inequality hat exacerbate
the potential for violent conflict.
•
Ensure that co-financing agreements prioritise the
inclusion of civil society in the formation of conflict
prevention and good governance policies and projects.
•
Encourage IFIs to shift their policies away from shortterm goals towards long-term commitments aimed at
preventing violent conflict and building good governance
•
Ensure that when co-financing arrangements are
undertaken with IFIs that responsibility for policy,
management and implementation are not handed over
unless clearly accountable structures and complaints
procedures are in place.
•
Ensure the IMF removes its “deficit before grants” policy
for post-conflict countries.
126
d) W
orking with the private sector
Working
The changing nature of conflict and the rapid globalisation of
the world’s economy over the last decade have combined to
make the private sector an important actor in many conflictthreatened or afflicted societies. But as the perceived power and
influence of the private sector has grown, so has its potential to
contribute to sustainable development and the prevention and
resolution of violent conflict.
There has always been a strong moral argument for
appropriate action, particularly in the well-documented cases in
which company operations have created or exacerbated conflict.
However, there is now also a compelling argument that
contributing to conflict prevention is in fact a business interest
which goes beyond presentational concerns. Conflict has a
damaging impact on the core operations and bottom line
financial considerations of the private sector. From Azerbaijan
to Zimbabwe, the potential and reality of violent conflict is
becoming an unavoidable business issue.
With many of the world’s leading multinational corporations
headquartered in the EU, the EU has a strong interest in
harnessing the potential of the private sector to contribute to
sustainable development and conflict prevention. Partnerships
with the private sector and civil society are increasingly being
seen as a way that international concerns can be tackled more
effectively as indicated by the recent launch of the Global
Compact by the UN. The EU is well placed to exert a positive
influence over the multinational companies based within its
member states.
Recommendations
The EU should:
•
Endorse and support the UN Global Compact and include
a commitment in EU policy documents to engage the
private sector as a partner in furthering EU development
and conflict prevention objectives and make such a
commitment explicit in an EU Declaration;
127
•
Consult and work with the private sector on issues which
address the root causes of conflict, including: institutionbuilding, equitable distribution of resources, anti-corruption
measures, poverty eradication, human rights promotion
and protection, security sector reform.
•
Implement the recommendation of the European
Parliament to create a legally binding framework for
regulating European transnational corporations (TNCs)
operating in developing countries.
e) Controlling the diamond trade
The illegal trade in diamonds and other precious stones is a key
factor fuelling a number of ongoing conflicts. Rebel forces in
Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) use diamonds to finance their war efforts by exchanging
the gemstones for arms and military support.
International outcry has meant that efforts to curb the illegal
trade of “conflict diamonds” have gained momentum recently.
The issue has been debated at the UN Security Council and the
G8 summit. And the diamond industry has taken action to deny
“conflict diamonds” access to world markets. These are positive
steps. However, there is a limit to how effective industry selfregulation will be and more needs to be done by the EU and its
member states.
European companies and citizens are major miners, traders
and consumers of diamonds and EU countries have a responsibility
and a moral imperative to help curb the illegal sale of diamonds
from conflict zones. Precious stones are a source of wealth. It is
therefore urgent to develop relevant mechanisms to control this
trade in order to allow the African continent to benefit from
this industry.
Recommendations:
EU Member States should:
•
128
Introduce national legislation that specifies a rough
diamond’s original country of extraction at every point of
export and import. Support international efforts towards
the creation of an internationally binding treaty or
convention that would establish a Global Certification
System for rough diamonds.
•
Establish a credible and effective monitoring system for
the identification, certification and independent control
of diamonds.
•
Apply sanctions against countries, companies and
individuals discovered to be breaking UN sanctions traders should lose their registration, be barred from any
involvement in the diamond industry and prosecuted.
•
Declare dealing in undeclared rough diamonds illegal.
•
Support the ‘Kimberley process’, launched by the
government of South Africa, to stop the import of all
uncertified rough diamonds and to establish clear
standards in the diamond trade industry.
•
Support the efforts to pursue this process through the
55th session of the UN General Assembly.
2. Foreign and Security Policy
Recent progress in developing the EU’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy has been largely focused on strengthening the
Common European Policy on Security and Defence for crisis
management. This work is welcome but it needs to be balanced
with equal efforts to prevent conflicts and crises arising in the
first place. There is a stark contrast between the swift and costly
initiatives for building up EU military capabilities and the
hesitant and modest efforts to prevent conflicts and crises
arising in the first place. A major shift of resources into the
civilian prevention field is urgently needed.
On the military crisis management level, an Interim Military
Body and an Interim Political and Security Committee have
been established to help the EU develop the capacity to respond
to the full range of Petersberg tasks. A Capability Commitment
Conference is also being planned.
129
A non-military crisis management capability is being
developed. A study on concrete targets was published at the
Feira European Council, which identifies four priority areas:
police; strengthening the rule of law; strengthening civilian
administration; and civil protection. Member States aim to be
able to provide up to 5000 police officers for international
missions by 2003.
It is important that conflict prevention issues do not get
sidelined with this focus on crisis management. The notion of
human security, which emphasises non-military aspects of
security, is gaining greater credence in international affairs and
should be at the heart of EU policy in this regard. There is a
wide range of issues for the EU to address:
a) Controlling small arms and light weapons
The proliferation and illicit trafficking of small arms and light
weapons are exacerbating conflict, fuelling crime, undermining
development and creating instability in many regions of the
world. Tackling the small arms issue requires comprehensive
action in a number of areas: strengthening legal controls on
possession and transfer, combating illicit trafficking, reducing
the number of weapons in circulation, and addressing the wider
justice and development issues which drive the demand for
arms. International attention to the problems caused by the
proliferation and mis-use of small arms has heightened in recent
years. The UN will be holding an international conference on
the Illicit Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its
Aspects in 2001.
The EU has a particular responsibility to address the issue as
many of its member states are major arms exporters and transit
countries. The EU also has the potential to play a key role in
working with affected countries to help reduce the demand for
arms as it is a major donor of development assistance. And a
number of policy initiatives have been agreed which pave the
way for comprehensive EU action in this area.
130
Recommendations
EU member states should:
•
Strengthen the EU Code of Conduct on arms transfers by
making it mandatory for each member state to publish a
detailed annual report of their arms transfers and to
introduce prior parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports.
•
Work with the EU Associate countries to help them
a)
implement the Code of Conduct by exchanging
information on destinations of concern and
notifications of all arms export licences which have
been denied;
b)
tackle illicit trafficking by supporting action to
manage stock-piles, destroy surplus weapons and
strengthen end-use controls.
•
Agree strict common controls on arms brokering and
shipping agents which require that all agents are
registered and have to apply for a licence for each
individual transaction from their national government.
•
Implement the Joint Action on the EU’s contribution to
combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of
small arms and light weapons. Financial and technical
assistance should be prioritised to Western, Eastern and
Southern Africa to help implement the ECOWAS
moratorium, the Southern Africa Regional action
Programme and the Nairobi Declaration.
•
Push for the adoption of a comprehensive action
programme at the UN 2001 conference on the illicit trade
in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. Such a
programme should include measures to control the licit as
well as the illicit trade and should set clear deadlines and
resources to ensure its implementation.
b) Strengthening the rule of law and reforming the security sector
Countries with unprofessional and unaccountable or abusive
security forces, weak justice systems and inappropriate levels of
131
military expenditure are particularly susceptible to violent
conflict. There is increasing recognition amongst the donor
community that tackling these issues and reforming security
institutions is vital for conflict prevention and sustainable
development. Whilst in the past targeting development assistance
to the security sector was thought to be counter productive, it is
now increasingly seen as a key development objective. To ensure
that assistance does not simply support abusive forces, ensuring
respect for human rights should be a key element of SSR
programmes. The OECD has recently published a policy paper
on the issue entitled ‘Security Sector Reform and Development
Co-operation: A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing Policy
Coherence.’
There is much that the EU could do to incorporate security
sector reform (SSR) objectives into development programmes.
However, there is still a reluctance in some EU governments and
the EU Commission to use development assistance to support
SSR projects that urgently needs to be rectified. Attention
should also be given as to whether the recently announced
police and military rapid reaction forces could play a role in
security sector reform in the countries they are deployed to.
Recommendations:
EU member states should:
•
Agree a Development Council resolution stating that it is
appropriate for money from the EC development budget
to be used for SSR. This resolution should also include a
comprehensive definition of the security sector, which
includes military and paramilitary forces, intelligence
services, police forces (together with border guards and
customs services), judicial and penal systems, and civil
structures responsible for the management and oversight
of the above.
•
Work within the World Bank and the OECD to revise
their development assistance guidelines to include support
for reforming the security sector.
132
•
Examine how the recently announced EU military and
police rapid reaction forces could play a role in SSR in
their operations. For example, they could provide human
rights and democracy training for local police and military
forces and support projects to build police-community
and civil-military relations.
•
Provide assistance to developing countries to help better
manage military expenditure and encourage increased
openness in defence and security budgets.
•
Support civil society organisations to help define security
needs, monitor the conduct of security forces and hold
them accountable
c) Supporting demilitarisation, demobilisation and reintegration
Effective demilitarisation demobilisation, and reintegration
(DDR) programmes are an essential element of security sector
reform and peacebuilding. In post-conflict situations the need
to demobilise former combatants and reintegrate them into
society is particularly acute. If soldiers are not properly disarmed
and reintegrated into society they can be a trigger for further
conflict. It is particularly important that demobilisation and
reintegration initiatives are implemented promptly, backed by
adequate resources, and include the destruction of surplus
weapons and ammunition.
A number of EU-funded demobilisation and reintegration
programmes have been undertaken, but these have often been
carried out predominantly for financial reasons, (to reduce
government expenditure on the military) or to quickly reduce
the size of armies after the signing of a peace agreement. The
focus is too often just on reducing the number of soldiers and
not on their disarmament and reintegration into society. There
has been little attempt to build the programmes into the wider
social, economic and political environment in which they are
carried out. For example, in Djibouti, an EC-funded
demobilisation programme started in 1994, however, there has
been no support for reintegration until recently. Even now, the
133
new World Bank-funded reintegration programme is only initially
targeting 25% of those demobilised. This is in an environment of
high unemployment.
Recommendations
EU member states should:
•
Ensure that DDR programmes are adequately funded and
that funds are quickly released to enable the speedy
demobilisation and reintegration of combatants.
•
Ensure that sufficient emphasis is given to reintegration
and that DDR programmes are rooted within broader
long-term social and economic development programmes.
•
Place DDR programmes within a wider context of the
reform of security forces, especially their democratic
oversight.
•
Include a comprehensive disarmament element within
any demobilisation and reintegration programme which
ensures the initiation of a process to collect and destroy all
weapons.
d) Regulating mercenaries and private military activity
EU countries have been a traditional source of mercenaries
which continue to fight in many ongoing conflicts despite
international laws prohibiting their use. Many private security
and military companies are based in EU Member States and
supply a range of security and military-related services to governments, corporations and humanitarian agencies in regions of
conflict. There are legitimate uses of these companies, but also
concerns because the unregulated nature of their activities
means that their actions can seriously undermine prospects for
achieving sustainable peace and economic development.
The EU partners have always made it clear that they
unequivocally condemn mercenary activity. Italy and Germany
are, however, the only European countries that have ratified and
signed the International Convention against the Recruitment,
134
Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. Few EU countries
have appropriate domestic laws relating to mercenaries, let alone
regulations to control the activities of the private security and
military companies operating out of their territory. The British
government is to launch a policy consultation document on the
issue in November 2000. It is important that other EU Member
States do likewise and begin to discuss the problem in appropriate
EU fora.
Recommendations
EU member states should:
•
Ratify the International Convention against the
Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and
support the review of international legislation pertaining to
mercenaries currently taking place in the UN.
•
Introduce or strengthen national legislation relating to
mercenary activity and the export of military and security
services, and take steps to harmonise common standards
across the EU.
•
Adopt an EU Common Position on mercenaries and the
restrained and responsible use of private security and
military companies.
e) Stopping the use of child soldiers
It is estimated that there are over 300,000 children under the age
of 18 currently fighting in conflicts around the world. Hundreds
of thousands more have been recruited, either in governmental
armed forces or opposition armed groups. Although most child
soldiers are between 15 and 18 years of age, many are recruited
from the age of 10 upwards, and the use of even younger children
has been recorded. Preventing the use of child soldiers should be
a key priority for EU policy to address conflicts.
135
Recommendations:
EU Member States should:
•
Sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child increasing the minimum age for
participation in the armed forces to 18 years.
•
Ensure that special provisions are made in DDR
programmes for the demobilisation and reintegration of
child soldiers.
•
Support locally-based, culturally-sensitive programmes
for former child combatants which address trauma and
brutalisation, including programmes which pay special
attention to the needs of girl soldiers.
•
Ratify the International Criminal Court statute that
makes it a war crime to conscript, enlist or actively use in
hostilities children under 15. Member States should also
urge partner countries to sign and ratify the statute.
3. Institutional changes to enhance the capacity of the
European Union and Member States to prevent
violent conflict
a) Strengthening the PPEWU
The Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit, provided for in the
Amsterdam Treaty and established within the Secretariat
General of the Council, is charged with improving the EU’s
early warning and analysis capacity by monitoring potential
conflict situations and drawing the attention of member state
governments to rising tensions at an early stage.
However, there are signs that the unit is not fulfilling its
mandate. Of the 20 staff currently employed by the PPEWU, 11
are engaged on the Balkans, with only one member of staff
assigned to the world’s most conflict-prone region, Africa. There
is a danger that the unit will only focus on the ‘strategic’ regions
of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean,
with Africa, the Caucusus and other volatile regions neglected.
136
Furthermore, political imperatives within the EU could lead the
Unit to focus primarily on military crisis management response
mechanisms, restricting its capacity to respond to, and prevent
conflict in the long-term.
Since its inception in October 1999, the Unit has suffered
from a severe lack of funding from EU member states, and is
only provided with financial support on a yearly basis, restricting
its ability to plan an effective long-term strategy.
Recommendations
EU member states should:
•
Task the PPEWU to concentrate on developing nonmilitary mechanisms for conflict prevention and response,
and to ensure that the current resource emphasis on
military response is shifted to prioritise conflict prevention.
•
Shift the PPEWU’s resources into non-military policies
and programmes in conflict-prone regions outside of
Europe, in particular the high risk areas of sub-Saharan
Africa. A priority should be to develop common strategies
for West Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes
region and Southern Africa.
•
Provide funding to the Unit on a sufficiently long-term
basis to enable it to plan and implement effective conflict
prevention strategies.
b) Enhancing the capacity of country delegations
Country delegations are able to exercise a large degree of
judgement over the form and content of EC-funded programmes
and have the potential to impact positively on the risks of
violent conflict. However, the EU has not prioritised the
enhancement of delegation capacity or the employment of
country delegation staff with experience and expertise in
conflict prevention. Partly as a result, projects have often failed
to take account of the priorities of local populations, increasing
the risks of violent conflict emerging between them. It has also
restricted the EU’s ability to assess the impact that previous
137
development programmes have had on conflict and to feed the
results into the formation of new projects.
The small size and limited capacities of many country
delegations also means that they have a tendency to support
large-scale infrastructure projects as the funds are easier to
disburse. This mitigates against EC support for smaller
community-focused projects which could help prevent conflict.
In conflict-prone regions, it is essential that the work of
country delegations is co-ordinated in order to maximise the
potential for conflict prevention at national and regional levels.
The EU has appointed a number of regional advisers to help
with co-ordination but this relies upon receiving sufficiently
detailed and timely information from the country delegations to
enable the effective monitoring of conflict risks, which they
have neither the resources nor the expertise to do. Furthermore,
it is unclear how regional analysis feeds into the EC in Brussels
to inform programming. There is no focal point within the
Commission to perform this role.
A further problem is that there is also no mechanism which
allows non-EU citizens to make complaints directly to Brussels
regarding the activities of EC projects or delegations. The EU
Ombudsmen are only able to receive official complaints from
citizens of the EU. This makes it more difficult for EU policy to
be informed by the views of people living in the countries
where the policy is actually implemented.
Recommendations
The European Commission should:
•
Enhance the size and capacity of country delegations to
enable conflict prevention and peace-building practices to
be carried out in line with policy.
•
Introduce training for delegation staff in mainstreaming
conflict prevention into EU policies and programmes.
•
Expand the remit of regional advisers to allow the
development of shared regional analyses, including
significant input from all stakeholder groups.
138
•
Establish clear channels for review and complaint to
which non-EU state and non-state actors have direct
access. This would assist in assessing the impact of EUfunded programmes on the risks of conflict, allowing
criticisms to be fed into the development of new policies
and projects.
c) Restructuring the Commission
The restructuring of Commission’s Directorate Generals (DGs)
and the strengthened co-ordinating role of the Commissioner
responsible for External Relations have the potential to
improve the EU’s ability to develop better integrated and
coherent conflict prevention policies. However, there is a
concerning shift of responsibilities away from DG Development
and a worrying lack of clarity over mandates, roles and
responsibilities.
Since restructuring, foreign policy and political analysis in
support of conflict prevention previously undertaken within a
central unit in the EC’s DG VIII, have been assigned to country
desks within DG Development and DG RELEX. This is leading
to a concerning lack of coherence. The extent to which RELEX
is able to positively affect the prioritising of conflict prevention
initiatives in development projects is clearly limited. This is
especially true in Africa because RELEX has few African
specialists.
There is a danger that these changes mean that the EC will
lose the potential to link development assistance to conflict
prevention. The lack of political analysis in development
programming means that there is a risk that development aid
will become a tool for neo-liberal economic growth and the
focus on conflict prevention will be lost.
There is also talk of establishing a new body, Europe Aid
which will be responsible for the implementation of all EU
external programmes. EU delegations would then liase directly
with this new body, with DG Development retaining
responsibility for overall programming.
DG Development’s capacity is decreasing as some of its core
139
functions are transferred. For example, the number of advisers
in the Human and Social Development Unit will be almost
halved. There is a concern that this trend could lead to the end
of a post for Commissioner for Development which is separate
from those dealing with political and trade policies. If that does
happen, there would be no distinct institutional capacity within
the Commission to formulate development policy.
Recommendations
The European Commission should:
•
Clarify the different roles and responsibilities of the
different DGs within the Commission with regard to
conflict prevention.
•
Maintain a strong DG Development, with its own
commissioner, which has primary responsibility for the
EU’s relations with developing countries.
•
Establish a mechanism to ensure that political analysis is
included in development programming to allow the
mainstreaming of conflict prevention during all stages of
the project management cycle.
d) National infrastructures for conflict prevention and peacebuilding
As the Common Foreign and Security Policy is intergovernmental, it is important for national governments to build
up an adequate infrastructure for conflict prevention and peace
building. All Member States have an equally important role to
play in conflict prevention and peace building. Many EU
governments have a long tradition of bilateral contacts with
countries vulnerable for conflicts, by for example a common
history, by trade agreements or long term development projects.
Several countries recognise conflict prevention as an integral
part of their foreign policy and are exploring ways to implement
conflict prevention strategies into their foreign, development,
security and economic policies.
140
In most of the presented policies, the role of civil society is
recognised, and the need for co-operation and co-ordination is
emphasised. However, the mechanisms to ensure that this
happens do not exist. An infrastructure for conflict prevention
and peace building is needed to establish an coherent policy and
co-ordinated across a range of government department and
priority issues towards emerging crises.
Recommendations:
EU Member States should establish national infrastructures for
conflict prevention which contain the following elements:
•
Early warning-early action focal points for organisations
that receive early signals of growing tensions in a region to
report to. A desk that collects and analyses this information,
develops policy options and passes these onto a network of
policy makers, civil servants, and relevant people and
organisations would be useful to help translate early
warning into early action.
•
Networks and forums, which bring together civil servants,
non-governmental organisations, academics and research
institutes. Regular seminars could be held to develop the
network and discuss strategies towards particular countries,
regions or issues of concern.
•
Greater capacity in the field of conflict prevention and
peace-building – member states should introduce
programmes at universities on conflict prevention and
resolution, mediation and training. Expert pools and
databases of practitioners and research experts should be
developed.
4. Working with civil society
Civil society organisations such as NGOs, trade unions, the
media, women and youth groups and religious organisations
have a key role to play in conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
Despite often greater obstacles, civil society is a powerful force
for helping to build peace in fragile war-torn societies. They can
141
also ensure that policies accurately reflect the needs of
individuals and communities. The EU and member states are
increasingly acknowledging the need and value of working with
civil society groups and establishing effective partnerships. This
is welcome, however, there are not yet effective mechanisms to
enable the EU to dialogue with civil society groups in the North
and South, and it is difficult for such organisations to access the
necessary financial and technical resources.
a) Support for women’
women’ss groups
Women are often the main victims of conflict. They suffer
human rights abuses such as rape, forced pregnancy and abortion
and they are often the highest percentage of refugees and
internally displaced people. They are however more often than
not excluded from decision-making process during the peace
negotiations and in the reconstruction of society. Yet women
have a key role to play in conflict prevention and peacebuilding
as evidenced by the activities, against all odds, of many women
and women’s organisations.
The UN has begun to recognise the need to integrate a gender
perspective into peace and security polices as evident in the
Beijing Platform for Action and the more recent Beijing +5
outcomes document. The EU, too, has made mention of gender
concerns in various resolutions on development and conflict
prevention. This has however not led to concrete proposals nor
explicit inclusion of gender in practical initiatives.
Recommendations
EU Member States should:
•
Support the adoption of the forthcoming EU Parliament
resolution on Women, Peacebuilding and Security Issues.
•
Ensure that women are equal participants as decisionmakers in all phases and at all levels of conflict prevention,
resolution, peacekeeping, peace-making, peacebuilding
and post-conflict recovery;
142
•
Develop gender impact assessments for post-conflict
recovery programmes and ensure that civil society, especially
women’s groups are consulted and included in their
design, implementation and evaluation;
•
Support the development and implementation of a
comprehensive research programme on women’s roles,
needs and contributions in post-conflict reconstruction
processes;
•
Create an innovative European Institute for Women
Leadership in conflict management and peacebuilding.
b) Support for youth and developing a culture of peace and
non-violence
The majority of the world’s population is below 25 years of age.
Youth are increasingly getting caught up in conflict – both as
protagonists and victims. However, in many parts of the world,
they have also taken on a proactive role for change. If EU
conflict prevention strategies are to be effective therefore they
must target youth. A key part of this is encouraging the
development of a culture of peace and non-violence. The UN
has declared an ‘International decade for a Culture of Peace and
Non-violence for the Children of the World’ from 2001-2010.
The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, therefore, provide an
opportunity to help put this into practice:
Recommendations:
The EU and Member States should:
•
Develop national, EU and international programmes to
strengthen the capacity of youth to participate in peacebuilding in conflict areas.
•
Develop curricula and programmes ensuring that the
practice of peace and non-violence is taught in schools
and in other educational institutions.
143
c) Support for independent media
The media have a critical role to play in conflict. In Rwanda, for
example, ‘hate’ radio stations disseminated anti-Tutsi propaganda
and were a factor in creating the climate for genocide. However,
in other parts of the world, the media plays an important role in
bringing communities together, providing independent
information, creating a critical public, and acting as an institution
of control against arbitrary or repressive state measures. The
media can be a powerful force for change and a guardian of
democracy.
Recommendations:
The EU and member states should:
•
Develop programmes of support for independent,
democratic and decentralised media.
d) Supporting civilian peace services
Networks and coalitions for violence prevention and peacebuilding are developing in many countries which include a
variety of development, peace, human rights and environment
organisations. These organisations perform a number of key
roles: for example, accompanying people or groups in danger,
election monitoring, confidence-building, mediation, negotiation,
education, and democracy and human rights training.
It is important that EU support for civilian peace services
helps build, rather than takes support away from, local capacities
for peace in Southern countries.
Recommendations:
The EU and member states should:
•
Support the development of civilian peace services.
•
Undertake studies of how they can best make use of
civilian peace services.
•
Implement existing educational programmes for the
144
training of national and international peace workers for
service in conflict areas.
•
Establish a European regional resource comprising 10,000
men and women who can be drawn upon to work in
conflict areas.
This paper has been edited by Andrew McLean of Saferworld and compiled by
staff at Saferworld and International Alert. For further information please contact
Andrew McLean
Tel: +44 207 881 9290, Fax: +44 207 881 9291.
e-mail: amclean@saferworld.demon.co.uk
or Damien Lilly
Tel: +44 207 793 8383, Fax: +44 207 793 7975
e-mail: dlilly@international-alert.org
145
Promoting the Prevention of
Violent Conflict and Building
Peace
by Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations
“Gripsholm II”
Gripsholm, Sweden, May 1-4, 2001
Programme of European Platform (European Centre for
Conflict Prevention, ECCP) & Swedish Peace Team Forum
(PTF) conference
Tuesday 1 May 2001:
Arrival at Swedish Red Cross Educational and Training Centre.
18.30
Buffet welcoming dinner.
20.00
“Peaceful touch”. Massage against
experience from Swedish Schools
Mr Hans Axelson, Axelsons
InstitutLecture hall building
violence,
an
Gymnastiska
Wednesday 2 May 2001:
09.30
A short time of silence inspired by Dag Hammarskjöld
Welcome addresses
–
146
Ms Christina Magnuson, President of the Swedish
Red Cross
–
Mr Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director of the
European Centre for Conflict Prevention and
Transformation
Plenary Session 1:
09.45
Solidarity and Security – Probing the Meaning of
Nonviolence
Voices challenging People and Political Leaders to
make a breakthrough.
–
Sister Jayanti Kirpalani, European Director, Brahma
Kumaris World Spiritual University
–
Dr Tariq Ramadan, Professor of
Islamology,
University of Fribourg
11.00-11.30 Break
Plenary Session 2:
11.30
Creative forces in a multidimensional world.
Two examples of good practices:
–
The OSCE High Commissioner on National
Minorities, Mr John Packer, Director, OSCE
HCNM, the Hague
–
UN Sanction Regimes. The Case of Angola, Mr
Anders Möllander, Ambassador, Swedish Ministry
for Foreign Affairs
How can Voluntary organisations promote examples like these
two?
13.00-14.30 Lunch
Plenary Session 3:
14.30-17.30 Working Groups
Introduction of main subjects (followed by Session 1 - Working
Groups):
–
Lessons Learned from Peacebuilding
Ms Mari Fitzduff - INCORE
147
–
–
–
The European Union and Policies for Preventing Violent
Conflict
Mr KevinClements – International.Alert/Saferworld
National Infrastructures for Sustainable Peace
Mr Paul van Tongeren – ECCP
Developing Civilian Peace Services
Ms Margareta Ingelstam – PTF
18.00
Dinner
20.00
Social events including notions on indigenous cultures
and nonviolence: Some Buddhist nonviolence
practices and Tibetan peace songs
Soenam Jamyangling and Lobsang Sherlhokangsar
Venue: Gripsholm Castle
Thursday 3 May 2001:
08.45
A short time of silence inspired by Dalai Lama – Nobel
Peace Prize Laureate
09.00-11.00
Working Groups – Session 2
11.00-11.30
Break
Plenary Session 4:
11.30
148
Panel: What do State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations expect from each other as concrete
contributions?
–
Mr
Jan
Cedergren, Political-Director
for
Development co-operation, Swedish Ministry for
Foreign Affairs
_
Mr Christoper Cushing, Senior Policy Advisor,
Peacebuilding and Human Security Division,
Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, Canada
_
Mr Jörgen Johansen, Peace and Development
Research Institute, Gothenburg University
–
_
Ms Eugenia Piz-Lopez, International Alert
Ms Gay Rosenblum-Kumar, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
13.00-14.30
Lunch
14.30-16.00
Working Groups - Session 3
16.00-16.30
Break
Plenary session 5 :
16.30 Working with Men and Boys.
The Traditional Male Role as a Root Cause of Violence
Mr Nicklas Kelemen and Mr Vidar Vetterfalk,
Male network: The Dialogue Project
18.15-18.30 Break
Plenary Session 6:
18.30
Working Group reports
20.00
Dinner with music
Friday 4 May 2001:
Plenary session 7:
09.00
Presentation and debate of draft recommendations
10.13-11.00 Break
Plenary session 8 :
11.00
The European Union: From Crisis Management to
Conflict Prevention
A debate on the new Common Foreign and Security EU Policy.
–
Mr Patrick Simonnet, Crisis Management Unit,
EU Commission
–
Ms Terhi Lehtinen, European Centre for
Development Policy Management, The Netherlands
–
Mr Paul Eavis, Saferworld
149
12.30
Presentation of recommendations to the EU Presidency,
Ms Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Deputy Prime Minister of
Sweden
Luncheon and Farewell
150
Participants
Lucia Alonso
Seminario de Investigación para la Paz,
P de la Constitución 6, 50008 Zaragoza Spain
tel: 34-976- 217 217, e-mail: lalonso@ seipaz.org
Kathleen Armstrong
Conflict Development & Peace Network (CODEP),
52, Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF, United Kingdom
tel: 44-20- 7799 2477, e-mail: kathleena@ codep.org.uk
Hans Axelson
Axelsons Gymnastiska Institut
P.O. Box 6475, 113 82 Stockholm Sweden
tel: 46-8- 54 54 59 00, e-mail: info@ axelsons.se
Teresa Barnes
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA),
Strömsborg, 103 34 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 698 37 40,E-mail: t.barnes@idea.int
Cristina Barrios
Spanish Embassy
Djurgårdsvägen 21, 115 21 Stockholm Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 667 94 30, E-mail:spain.amb.stockh@ telia.com
Cora Bastiaansen
European Platform for Conflict Prevention
P.O. Box 10469, 3508 SC Utrecht,The Netherlands
Phone: 31-30-242 7777, E-mail: c.bastiaansen@conflict-prevention.net
Sybille Bauer
International Security Information Service, Europé (ISIS),
Rue Stévin 115,1000 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2-230 0015,E-mail: isis-europe@ping.be
151
Inger Björk
Red Cross Educational and Training Centre
Gripsholm, 647 81 Mariefred, Sweden
Phone: 46-159- 36100, E-mail: inger.bjork@ forumsyd.se
Thérèse Björk
Swedish NGO Foundation for Human Rights,
Drottninggatan 101, 113 60 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 54 54 99 70, E-mail: therese.bjork@ humanrights.se
Frida Blom
Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
P.O. Box 4134, 102 63 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 702 18 30, E-mail: frida.blom@ svenska-freds.se
Anna Bornstein
Finn Malmgrens väg 112 121 50 Johanneshov, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 659 8406, E-mail: anna.bornstein@ telia.com
Peter Brune
Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SWEFOR),
P.O. Box 1768, 111 87 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 453 68 40, E-mail: peter.brune@ krf.se
Niall Burgess
EU Council Secretariat, Policy Unit,
Rue de la Loi, 175, 1048 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2- 285 58 42, E-mail: niall.burgess@ consilium.eu.int
Inger Buxton
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
103 39 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 405 46 74, E-mail: inger.buxton@ foreign.ministry.se
Göran Bäckstrand
Swedish Red Cross,
Box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 46 08, E-mail: goran.backstrand @redcross.se
Arne Piel Christensen
Consultant to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Silkesborggade 30, 2100 Copenhagen East, Denmark
Phone: 45-35- 26 59 44, E-mail: arnepiel@ hotmail.com
Kevin Clements
International Alert
1 Glyn Street, London SE11 5HT UIC, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20- 779 38383, E-mail: kevin.clements@ international.alert. org
152
Eric Cleven
Centre for Conflict Management,
Norway Jørudbakken 8, 2608 Lillehammer, Norway
Phone: 47-61- 25 05 59, E-mail: erik.cleven@ lillehammer. online.no
Geoffrey Corry
Glencree Centre for Reconciliation
Glencree, Wicklow, NR. Enniskerry Co., Ireland
Phone: 35-31-288 41 90, E-mail: corry@indigo.ie
Maria Cruz-Guzman
Spanish Embassy
Djurgårdsvägen 21, 115 21 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 667 94 30, E-mail: spain.amb.stockh @telia.com
Christopher Cushing
Department of Foreign Affairs and Intern. Trade (DFAIT),
125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A-0G2, Canada
Phone: 1-613- 992 8942, E-mail: christopher.cushing @dfait-maeci.gc.ca
Yves-Jean Duméril
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
19 Avenue de la Paix, 1202 Genève, Switzerland
Phone: 41-22- 733 23 26, E-mail: ydumeril@icrc.org
Paul Eavis
Saferworld
46 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0EB, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20-7881 9290, E-mail: peavis@ saferworld.demon.co.uk
Ina Engelbrektson
Swedish Red Cross,
Box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-70- 401 40 34,E-mail: ina@gfs.gu.se
Hanne Engelstad
Campus for Peace, UOC,
Av. Tibidabo 39-43, 080 25 Barcelona, Spain
Phone: 34-93- 211 22 44, E-mail: hengelstad@ campus.uoc.es
Mari Fitzduff
Initiative in Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity (INCORE),
Aberfoyle House, Northland Road, Londonderry BT48 7JA, Northern Ireland
Phone: 44-28-7137 5500, E-mail: mfitzd@ ncore.ulst.ac.uk
Birgitta Fredholm
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University,
Styrmansgatan 3, 114 54 Stockholm, Sweden
153
Phone: 46-8-663 7959, E-mail: bk.sweden@ telia.com
Georg Frerks
Instituut Clingendael
P. O. Box 93080, 2509 AB The Hague, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-70- 324 5384, E-mail: gfrerks@ clingendael.nl
Maude Fröberg
Swedish Red Cross,
Box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 48 01, E-mail: maude.froberg@ redcross.se
Cynthia Gaigals
Saferworld,
46 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W OEB, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20- 7881 9290, E-mail: cgaigals@ saferworld.demon. co.uk
Urban Gibson
OSCE-network in Sweden
Polhemsvägen 43, 191 34 Sollentuna, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 35 58 3, E-mail: Urban.gibson@ swipnet.se
Maureen Goodman
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Global Co-operation House, 65 Pound Lane London NW10 2HH, UK
Phone: 44-20- 8727 3357, E-mail: maureen@ bkwsu.gch.demon. co.uk
Guido de Graaf Bierbrauwer
European Platform for Conflict Prevention
P.O. Box 10469, 3508 SC Utrecht The Netherlands
Phone: 31-30-242 7777, E-mail: g.bierbrauwer@conflict-prevention.net
Kerstin Grebäck
The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation
Tjärhovsgatan 9, 116 21 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 702 98 20, E-mail: kerstin.greback@ iktk.se
Lena B Hansson
Swedish Red Cross
Box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 47 38, E-mail: lena.birgitta. hansson@ redcross.se
Jos de la Haye
Field Diplomacy Initiative
Laar 8, 2140 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: 32-3-2352 419, E-mail: fdi@online.be
Henrik Herber
Swedish Red Cross
154
Box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 47 68, E-mail: henrik.herber@ redcross.se
Anna P:son Holmström
Co-operation on Education and Capacity Building for Work in Crisis &
Conflict Areas,
Studentvägen 3, 752 34 Uppsala, Sweden
Phone: 46-18-55 59 74, E-mail: anna.holmstrom@ teol.uu.se
Enno Hommes
European Centre for Conflict Prevention
P.O. Box 10469, 3508 SC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-30- 242 7777, E-mail: info@ conflict-prevention.net
Margareta Ingelstam
Christian Council of Sweden
Box 1764, 111 87 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8-453 68 14, E-mail: margareta. ingelstam@ skr.org
Ingrid Inglander
Teachers for Peace
Vegavägen 37, 184 50 Åkersberga, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 540 612 84, E,-mail: ingrid.inglander@ swipnet.se
Jorma Inki
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Unity Pol-23,
Helsinki, Finland
Phone: 358-40- 52111 63, E-mail: jorma.inki@ formin.fi
Soenam Jamyangling
Swedish Tibetan Society for School and Culture
Allhelgonagatan 5 (ö.g.), 118 58 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 643 49 47, E-mail: tibet-schools@ swipnet.se
Ann-Cathrin Jarl
Womens International League for Peace and Freedom
Svartbäcksgatan 46 J, 753 33 Uppsala, Sweden
Phone: 46-18- 24 39 94, E-mail: ann-cathrin.jarl@ teol.uu.se
Kishore Jayabalan
Pontificial Council for Justice and Peace
Att: Frank Dewane, 00120 Vatikan City State, Italy
Phone: 39-06-6987 9911, E-mail: pcjustpax@justpeace.va Att: K. Jayabalan
Jörgen Johansen
Peace and Development Research Institute University of Gothenburg
P.O. Box 700, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
Phone: 46-31-773 43 10, E-mail: jj_ahimsa@ hotmail.com
155
Bernt Jonsson
Rotegatan 17, 753 37 Uppsala, Sweden
Phone: 46-703-22 33 86, E-mail: bernt.e.jonsson@ telia.com
Sanna Johnsson
Olof Palme International Centre
P.O. Box 863, 101 36 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8-677 57 70, E-mail: sanna.johnsson@ palmecenter.se
Nicklas Kelemen
Male Network
Holländargatan 29, 113 59 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 33 84 44, E-mail: dialog.kelemen@ emaila.nu
Sister Jayanti Kirpalani
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Global Co-operation House, 65 Pound Lane, London NW10 2HH, UK
Phone: 44-20-8727 3350, Phone: london@ bkwsu.com
Terhi Lehtinen
European Centre for Dev. Policy Management, (ECDPM),
Onze Lieve Vrouweplein 21, 6211 HE Maastricht, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-43- 350 2903, E-mail: p2@ecdpm.org
Hans Levander
Life-Link Friendship-Schools Programme
Uppsala Science Park, 751 83 Uppsala, Sweden
Phone: 46-18- 50 43 44, E-mail: friendship-schools @life-link.org
Mikael Lindgren
Civis
Järntorget 3, 413 04 Gothenburg, Sweden
Phone: 46-31- 775 09 44, E-mail: civis@civis.nu
Sandra Melone
European Centre for Common Ground
Rue Belliard 205, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2- 736 7262, E-mail: sandra.melone@ eccg.be
Barbara Müeller
German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management
Haupstrasse 35, 55491 Wahlenau, Germany
Phone: 49-6543- 980 096, E-mail: jetztistgu@aol.com
Anders Möllander
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
103 39 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 405 10 00,E-mail: anders.mollander@ foreign.ministry.se
156
Vivianna Nyroos
Danish UN Association
Willemoesgade 54, 3 th, 2100 Copenhagen East, Denmark
Phone: 45-22- 49 44 72, E-mail: viviannan@ hotmail.com
Jessica Olausson
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
103 39 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 405 57 85, E-mail: jessica.olausson@ foreign.ministry.se
Kristina Oskarsson
Swedish Mission Council
P.O. Box 1767, 111 87 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 453 68 94, E-mail: k.oskarsson@ ekuc.se
John Packer
Office of the OSCE HCNM
P.O. Box 20062, 2500 EB, The Hague, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-70- 312 5512, E-mail: jpacker@hcnm.org
Thania Paffenholz
Swiss Peace Foundation
P.O. Box 517, 3000 Bern 8, Switzerland
Phone: 41-31- 310 2727, E-mail: paffenholz@ swisspeace. unibe.ch
Millius Palayiwa
Quaker Peace & Service Friends House
173 Euston Road, NW1 2BJ London, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20- 7663 1000, E-mail: milliusp@ quaker.org.uk
Anne Palm
KATU, c/o Finnish UN Association
Unioninkatu 45B, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
Phone: 358-9- 6220 1223, E-mail: anne.palm@ katu-network.fi
Peter Penfold
Department for International Development (DFID)
94 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JL, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20-79177000, E-mail: p-penfold@ dfid.gov.uk
Eugenia Piza-Lopez
International Alert 1
Glynn Street, London SE11 5HT United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20- 7793 8383, E-mail: epiza-lopez@ international-alert. org
Tariq Ramadan
Bureau de Tariq Ramadan - APAM
39 rue de la Boulangerie, 93200 Saint-Denis, France
Phone: 33-1- 49 22 01 12, E-mail: tariq.ramadan@ span.ch
157
Igballe Rogova
MOTRAT QIRIAZI
Ali Hadri 23, Prishtina, Kosova
Phone: 381-38- 548 272, E-mail: motratqiriazi@ ipko.org
Gay Rosenblum-Kumar
UNDESA
1 UN Plaza, Rm. 936, New York, NY 10017, USA
Phone: 1-212- 963 8381, E-mail: rosenblum-kumar @un.org
Mark Salter
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA),
Strömsborg, 10334 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 698 37 14, E-mail: m.salter@idea.int
Cynthia Sampson
Peace Discovery Initiative
3305 B North 17th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22201 5248, USA
Phone: 1-703- 243 0929,E-mail: cysampson@ aol.com
Lobsang Sherlhokangsar
Swedish Tibetan Society for School and Culture
Allhelgonagatan 5 (ö.g.), 118 58 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 643 49 47, E-mail: tibet-schools@ swipnet.se
Patrick Simonnet
EU Commission, External Relations Dept
200 rue de la Loi, 100 49 Brussels, CHAR, Office 110, Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2- 296 42 93, E-mail: patrick.simonnet @cec.eu.int
Gudrun Steinacker
OSCE-secretariat, Kärntner Ring 5-7, A 1010 Wien, Austria
Phone: 43-1- 514 36 242, E-mail: gsteinacker@ osce.org
Bibbi Steinertz
Women for Peace,
P.O. Box 100 98, 100 55 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 667 97 27, E-mail: kff@telia.com
Kalevi Suomela
International Peace Bureau
Sidovindsbågen 3, G 57, 00850 Helsinki, Finland
Phone: 358-9- 698 60 39, E-mail: kalevi.suomela@ kaapeli.fi
Luc Timmermans
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DGCI
rue Brederodetraat 6, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2- 519 06 86, E-mail: ltimmermans@ badc.fgov.be
158
László Tóth
Szeged Centre for Security Policy
Oroszlán u.2, 6720 Szeged, Hungary
Phone: 36-62- 564 363, E-mail: laszlo.toth@ polghiu.szeged.hu
Paul van Tongeren
European Platform for Conflict Prevention
P. O. Box 10469, 3508 SC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-30- 242 7777, E-mail: p.vantongeren@ conflict-prevention.net
Fineke van der Veen
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Bezuidenhoutseweg 67, 2594 AC Den Haag, The Netherlands
Phone: 31-70- 348 61 27, E-mail: fineke-vander. veen@ minbuza.nl
Juliette Verhoeven
European Platform for Conflict Prevention
P. O. Box 10469, 3508 SC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Phone:31-30- 242 7777, E-mail: j.verhoeven@ conflict-prevention.net
Vidar Vetterfalk
Male Network
Saltvägen 6, 123 56 Farsta, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 722 77 68, E-mail: vidarvfalk@ hotmail.com
Tim Wallis
Peaceworkers UK
162 Holloway Road, London N7 8DD, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20- 7609 2777, E-mail: tim@ peaceworkers. fsnet.co.uk
Karin Wegsjö
Kungsklippan 14, 112 25 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-707- 81 13 72, E-mail: wegsjo@algonet
Ian White
Irish Peace and Reconciliation Platform
Glencree, NR. Enniskerry Co., Wicklow, Ireland
Phone: 353-1- 282 97 11, E-mail: info@ glencree-cfr.ie
Anna Widepalm
Swedish Red Cross
P. O. box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 46 09, E-mail: anna.widepalm@ redcross.se
Lisen Wijkman
Stavgårdsgatan 23 167 56 Bromma, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 26 91 77
159
David Wiking
Swedish Int. Dev. Co-operation Agency (Sida), 105 25 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 698 50 00, E-mail: David.wiking@ sida.se
Bo Wirmark
Swedish Peace Council
Övre Slottsgatan 8A, 753 10 Uppsala Sweden
Phone: 46-18- 71 49 89, E-mail: bwirmark@ algonet.se
Eva Zillén
The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation
Tjärhovsgatan 9, 116 21 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 702 98 20, E-mail: eva.zillen@ iktk.se
Anna Åkerlund
Swedish NGO Centre for Dev. Co-operation, Forum Syd
P.O. Box 15407, 104 65 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 506 371 63, E-mail: anna.akerlund@ krf.se
Ragnar Ängeby
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
103 39 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 405 57 24, E-mail: ragnar.angeby@ foreign.ministry.se
Peter Örn
Swedish Red Cross
P. O. box 17563, 118 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 46-8- 452 46 10, E-mail: peter.orn@ redcross.se
160
Inviting organisations
The European Platform for Conflict Prevention and
Transformation38
Mission
The European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation is an open network of some 150 key European
nongovernmental organisations involved in the prevention and/
or resolution of violent conflicts in the international arena. Its
mission is to facilitate the exchange of information and experience
among participating organisations, as well as to stimulate cooperation and synergy.
The European Centre for Conflict Prevention is an independent
non-governmental organisation based in the Netherlands. Its
mission is to contribute to prevention and resolution of violent
conflicts in the world, like in Kosovo and Rwanda. The Centre
acts as the secretariat of the European Platform for Conflict
Prevention and Transformation and initiates, co-ordinates and
implements the activities of the Platform. Apart from that, the
Centre has specific networking and awareness-raising objectives
focused on the Netherlands.
Prevention is better than cure
While the ending of the Cold War has eased confrontation
between the superpowers, international stability has eroded
since 1991. There has been an outbreak of intra-state conflicts in
many countries and regions of the world, to which the
international community appears to have no adequate response.
The costs of this conflict in human, economic, material,
ecological, and other, terms, are enormous. A glance at the poor
results of international efforts to prevent escalation of these
conflicts, makes it obvious that far more energy and finance
should be devoted, in the first place, into prevention. But to be
161
effective, preventative policy demands a broad approach which
integrates as many actors as possible. International NGOs, as well
as local organisations, can play a decisive role in preventing or
de-escalating conflicts.
The Amsterdam Appeal
In February 1997, the largest-ever public gathering on conflict
prevention was held in Amsterdam. The European Conference
on Conflict Prevention was hosted by the Dutch National
Committee for International Co-operation and Sustainable
Development (NCDO), and organised in co-operation with the
Liaison Committee of Development NGOs to the European
Union. The Amsterdam Appeal, an Action Plan for European
leaders, was drawn up.
This Appeal presents terms for an effective EU approach to
preventing conflict, and outlines key advocacy issues for NGOs.
It stresses the need for participation by a range of actors,
including NGOs, and urges coalition-building among NGOs and
with national governments and European institutions. At two
subsequent meetings, proposals for the establishment of effective
coalitions were developed: the outcome is the European
Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation.
National Platforms
The Platform strives to be an open network of key organisations
working in this field, and aims to include participant
organisations in all European countries. Optimally, these should
be national platforms or networks, such as have already been
established – or are being established – in Belgium, Finland,
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Where no such
national focal point exists, the Platform aims to support the
creation of one. Apart from national platforms, international
NGO networks are also invited to participate.
162
Objectives
Having, as its ultimate goal, the building of support for conflict
prevention in general, and for relevant policy initiatives at EU
level in particular, the European Platform seeks to
•
facilitate networking
•
support (the establishment of) national platforms/contacts
•
encourage co-operation and facilitate exchange of
•
information as well as advocacy and lobbying activities
among participating organisations
•
initiate catalysing and innovative activities
•
initiate educational activities
•
initiate media activities
•
enhance capacity and expertise in this field in Europe
•
encourage transatlantic information exchange and cooperation.
163
Peace Team Forum (PTF)
Peace Team Forum is a network of 50 Swedish organisations
working for the prevention of violent conflicts, conflict
management and peace building.
The primary aim of the network is
•
To develop a capacity to prevent violent conflicts
•
To manage conflicts and build peace in Sweden and the
world
•
To contribute more effectively to a non-military structure
for peace and security in Europe and the world.
•
To improve and develop new methods of education and
training in the field of prevention of violent conflicts and
peace building.
This aim can be achieved by, for example:
•
Exchange of information and experience in the area
•
Enhancing competence and raising levels of preparedness
within member organisations by arranging courses on
prevention of violence and peace-building
•
Broadening and deepening the debate in Sweden by
organising seminars and conferences
•
Contributing to a broader, in-depth discussion of the new
security concept and the need for efforts at different
levels - local, national and international.
The Network offers a forum for consultation and co-operative
efforts. The responsibility for projects carried out on behalf of
Peace Team Forum will be assumed by a number of member
organisations. A working group is normally established for each
particular project :
•
164
Within the framework of Peace Team Forum a working
group – focusing on Education, Training and Capacitybuilding for work in conflict areas – has produced a book,
“Empowerment for Peace Service. A Curriculum for
Education and Training in Violence Prevention, Nonviolent
Conflict Transformation and Peace-building”, and a
manual, “Learning to Work with Conflicts”, in Swedish
and English.
•
Courses, seminars and workshops, directed mainly
towards people active in Voluntary Organisations, have
been arranged. During spring 2002 the working group is
responsible for a university course in educating and
training of educators, “Conflict Transformation, Human
Rights and Democracy”, in co-operation with the Stockholm
School of Theology, the Academy of Democracy and Sida
Civil Society Center.
•
A report with the purpose to examine and describe the
work of Swedish voluntary organisations in the field of
prevention of violent conflicts and building peace has
been produced by Anna Åkerlund, Forum Syd, on behalf
of Peace Team Forum.
•
A number of member organisations have participated in a
common project, where the aim was to explore how the
concept ”Do No Harm” could be integrated into the
projects of each organisation. This concept has been
elaborated by Mary B Anderson, Collaborative for
Development Action, as a framework for considering the
impact of aid on conflict.
165
PTF Member organisations
Africa Groups of Sweden
Afrikagrupperna i Sverige
Tegelviksgatan 40, SE-116 41 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)84 42 70 60; fax: +46(0)84 42 70 60
E-mail: info@afrikagrupperna.se;
web address: www.afrikagrupperna.se
Amnesty International
Box 234 00,
SE-104 35 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)87 29 02 00; fax: +46(0)87 29 02 01
E-mail: info@amnesty.se; web address: www.amnesty.se
Artists for Peace
Artister för Fred
c/o Monika Lilja
Källängsvägen 28, SE-181 44 Lidingö
Phone: + 46(0)87 67 99 21
E-mail: monikalilja@hotmail.com
Base Tech For Daily Life
c/o Georgios Papapostolou
Cervins väg 17 B, SE-163 42 Spånga
Phone: + 46(0)87 60 20 38; fax. + 46(0)84 74 76 65
E-mail: georgios@mkfc
Caritas Sweden
Ölandsgatan 42, SE-116 63 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)85 560 20 00; fax: +46(0)85 560 20 20
E-mail: info@caritas.se; web address: www.caritas.se
Centre Party International Foundation
Centerpartiets Internationella Stiftelse
Box 2200,
SE-103 15 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 17 38 66; fax: +46(0)86 17 38 10
E-mail: siv.ramsell@centerpartiet.se; web address: www.cis.centerpartiet.se
Christian Council of Sweden
Sveriges Kristna Råd
Starrbäcksgatan 11, SE-172 99 SUNDBYBERG
Phone: +46(0)84 53 68 00; fax: +46(0)84 53 68 29
E-mail: info@skr.org; web address: www.skr.org
166
Christian Socialists in Sweden
Broderskapsrörelsen
Box 704 03,
SE-107 25 Stockholm
Phone: +46(0)85 45 55 330; fax:+46(0)84 11 17 95
E-mail: marie@broderskap.se; web address: www.broderskap.se
Church of Sweden Mission
Sysslomansgatan 4
SE-751 70 Uppsala
Phone: + 46(0)18-16 95 00; fax. + 46(0)18-16 96 40
E-mail: info@svenskakyrkan.se; web address: www.svenskakyrkan.se/skm
Church of Sweden Aid
Sysslomansgatan 4
SE-751 70 Uppsala
Phone: + 46(0)18-16 95 00; fax: + 46(0)18-16 97 00
E-mail: lutherhjalpen@svenskakyrkan.se;
web address: www.svenskakyrkan.se/lutherhjalpen
Civis
Järntorget 3 , 3 tr., SE-413 04 Göteborg
Phone: + 46(0)31-775 09 41; fax: + 46(0)31-775 09 49
contact person: Barbara Lindell
E-mail: civis@civis.nu; web address: www.civis.nu
Committee for Women in Western Sahara
Kommittén för Västsaharas kvinnor
c/o Sonja Gardefjord
SE-Tomtebogatan 43, 113 38 Stockholm
tel.+ 46(0)83 05 639
E-mail: gardefjord@spray.se
Diakonia
Starrbäcksgatan 11, 172 99 Sundbyberg
Phone: +46(0)84 53 69 00; fax: +46(0)84 53 69 29
E-mail: diakonia@diakonia.se: web address: www.diakonia.se
European Law Students’ Association (ELSA)
Box 50048, SE-104 05 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)81 628 29; fax: +46(0)81 611 78
E-mail: elsa.sverige@juridicum.su.se; web address: www.elsa.su.se
Fatima Union
Box 2078, SE-103 12 Stockholm
Phone: + 46(0)86 59 85 21
167
Justitia et Pax
Västmannagatan 83 ö g, SE-113 26 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)83 204 48; fax: +46(0)83 427 41
E-mail: justitia.pax@swipnet.se;
web address: home.swipnet.se/justitiaetpax
Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation
Tjärhovsgatan 9, SE-116 21 Stockholm
Phone: +46(0)87 02 98 20; fax: +46(0)86 43 23 60
E-mail: info@iktk.se; web address: www.iktk.se
Left Association of Swedish Women
Svenska Kvinnors Vänsterförbund
c/o Zaida Hagman, SKV, Linnégatan 21B, SE-413 04 Göteborg
Phone: +46(0)31-14 40 28; fax: +46(0)31-14 40 28
E-mail: info@svenskakvinnor.nu; web address: www.svenskakvinnor.nu
Left Solidarity Forum
C/o Vänsterpartiet
Kungsgatan 84, SE- 112 27 Stockholm
Phone: +46(0)86 54 08 20
Liberia Dujar Association
Solidaritetshuset
Tegelviksgatan 40
116 41 Stockholm
Phone: + 46(0)81 583 00
E-mail: liberia.dujar@spray.se; web address: www.liberiadujar.org
Life-Link Friendship-Schools
Uppsala Science Park-Glunten, SE-751 83 Uppsala
Phone: +46(0)18-50 43 44; fax +46(0)18-50 85 03
E-mail: friendship-schools@life-link.org; web address: www.life-link.org
Life & Peace Institute
Liv & Fred- institutet
Box 1520,
SE-751 45 UPPSALA
Phone: +46(0)18-16 95 00, fax: +46(0)18-69 30 59
E-mail: info@life-peace.org; web address: www.life-peace.org
MDM-Sweden
Läkare i Världen
Södra Kungsvägen 65, SE-181 82 Lidingö
Phone: + 46(0)86 64 66 87
E-mail: info@lakareivarlden.org;
web address: www.lakareivarlden.org
168
Mission Covenant Church of Sweden
Svenska Missionsförbundet
Box 6302, SE-113 81 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)81 518 30; fax: +46(0)86 74 07 93
E-mail: info@smf.se; web address: www.smf.se
National Council of Swedish Youth Organisations
Landsrådet för Sveriges Ungdomsorganisationer (LSU)
Kungsgatan 74, 5 tr, SE-111 22 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)84 40 86 70; fax: +46(0)82 035 30
E-mail: info@lsu.se; web address: www.lsu.se
Olof Palme International Center
Box 836,
SE-101 36 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 77 57 70; fax: +46(0)86 77 57 71
E-mail: info@palmecenter.se; web address: www.palmecenter.se
Peace Brigades International
PBI Sverige
Blomstigen 10, SE-424 37 Angered
Phone: +46(0)31-330 75 09
E-mail: info@pbi.nu web address: www.pbi.nu
PeaceQuest, Sweden
Lundagatan 56, SE-117 27 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 69 75 20; fax: +46(0)88 490 16
E-mail: info@peacequest.se; web address: www.peacequest.se
PMU-Interlife
Pingstmissionens utvecklingssamarbete
Box 4093, SE-141 04 Huddinge
Phone: + 46(0)86 08 96 00; fax: +46(0)86 08 96 50
E-mail.pmu@pmu.se; web address: www.pmu.se
Religious Society of Friends in Sweden, (Quakers)
Vännernas Samfund i Sverige, Kväkarna
Box 9166, SE-102 72 STOCKHOLM
Phone and fax: +46(0)86 68 68 16
E-mail: info@kvakare.org; web address: www.kvakare.org
Saami Council
Samerådet
Råsundavägen 29, SE-171 52 Solna
tel.+ 46(0)88 22 388; fax: + 46(0)88 22 388
169
The Swallows, India Bangladesh Section
Svalorna, Spolegatan 5, SE-222 20 Lund
phone: + 46(0)46-12 10 05
E-mail: swallows@algonet.se; web address: www.svalorna.org
Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SWEFOR)
Kristna Fredsrörelsen
Starrbäcksgatan 11, SE-172 99 Sundbyberg
Phone: +46(0)84 53 68 40; fax: +46(0)84 53 68 29
E-mail: kristna.freds@krf.se; web address: www.krf.se
Swedish International Liberal Centre
Box 6508,
SE-113 83 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)82 09 452; fax: +46(0)82 08 395
E-mail: silc@liberal.se; web address: www.silc.liberal.se
Swedish Mission Council
Svenska Missionsrådet
Starrbäcksgatan 11, SE-172 99 Sundbyberg
Phone: + 46(0)84 53 68 80; fax: +46(0)84 53 68 29
E-mail: smr@ekuc.se; web address: www.missioncouncil.se
Swedish NGO Center for Development Co-operation
Forum Syd
Box 15407, SE-104 65 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)85 06 37 000; fax: +46(0)85 06 37 099
E-mail: forum.syd@forumsyd.se; web address: www.forumsyd.se
Swedish NGO Foundation for Human Rights
Frivilligorganisationernas Fond för mänskliga rättigheter
Drottninggatan 101, SE-113 60 Stockholm
Phone: +46(0)85 45 49 970; fax: +46(0)83 03 031
E-mail: info@humanrights.se; web address: www.humanrights.se
Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS)
Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsföreningen (SFSF)
Box 4134, SE-102 63 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)87 02 18 30; fax: +46(0)87 02 18 46
E-mail: info@svenska-freds.se; web address: www.svenska-freds.se
Swedish Peace Committee
Svenska Fredskommittén
Tegelviksgatan 40, SE-116 41 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 40 90 65; fax: +46(0)86 41 11 35
E-mail: svenska.fredskommitten@stockholm.mail.telia.com;
web address: www.svenskafredskommitten.nu
170
Swedish Peace Council
Sveriges Fredsråd
Tegelviksgatan 40, SE-116 41 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 44 72 91; fax: +46(0)86 41 26 55
E-mail: sfr@algonet.se
Swedish Red Cross
Svenska Röda Korset
Box 17563, SE-118 91 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)84 52 46 00; fax: +46(0)84 52 46 11
E-mail: postmaster@redcross.se; web address; www.redcross.se
Swedish Save the Children
Rädda Barnen
Torsgatan 4, SE-107 88 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)86 98 90 00; fax: +46(0)86 98 90 10
E-mail: info@rb.se; web address: www.rb.se
Teachers for Peace, Sweden
Lärare för fred
c/o Ingrid Inglander, Vegavägen 37, SE-184 50 ÅKERSBERGA
Phone: +46(0)85 40 61 284; fax: +46(0)85 40 66 909
E-mail: ingrid.inglander@swipnet.se; web address: www.welcome.to/ymk
United Nations Association of Sweden (UNA)
Svenska FN-förbundet
Box 15115, SE-104 65 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)84 62 25 40; fax: +46(0)86 41 88 76
E-mail: kansli@sfn.se; web address: www.sfn.se
Women’s Association of the Centre Party
Centerkvinnorna
Box 22 039, SE-104 22 STOCKHOLM
Phone: + 46(0)86 17 38 00
E-mail: centerkvinnorna@centerpartiet.se;
web address: www.centerkvinnorna.se
Women for Peace, Sweden
Kvinnor för fred
Box 100 98, SE-100 55 STOCKHOLM
Phone and fax: +46(0)86 67 97 27
E-mail: wfp@telia.com; web address: www.kvinnorforfred.com
Women´s International League for Peace and Freedom, Sweden
Internationella Kvinnoförbundet för Fred och Frihet, svenska sektionen
Box 23239, SE-104 35 STOCKHOLM
Phone: +46(0)87 02 98 10; fax: +46(0)87 02 19 73
E-mail: wilpfsweden@ikff.se; web address: www.ikff.se
171
WEA - Worker´s Educational Association
ABF- Arbetarnas Bildningsförbund
Box 522, SE-101 30 STOCHOLM
Phone +46(0)86 13 50 00; fax: +46(0)82 15 276
E-mail: studier@sthlm.abf.se; web address: www.abf.se
Young Men´s Christian Association - Young Women´s Christian
Association (YMCA-YWCA)
KFUK-KFUM
Box 2054, SE-103 12 STOCKHOLM.
Phone: +46(0)86 77 30 00; fax: +46(0)86 77 30 10
E-mail: kfuriks@kfuk-kfum.se; web address: www.kfuk-kfum.se
172
Notes
1
President of the Swedish Red Cross
2
European Director, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
3
Professor of Islamology, University of Fribourg
4
Ambassador, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
5
The death of Jonas Savimbi early in 2002 does not change the
principled analysis of the Angola sanctions and the possibilities to
develop “smart sanctions” / Editor´s note
6
Social worker and member of the Male network, Sweden
7
Political-Director for Development Cooperation, Swedish Ministry for
Foreign Affairs
8
Researcher, Department of Peace and Development Research,
Gothenburg University
9
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
10
www.un.org/esa
11
Crisis Management Unit, EU Commission
12
The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)
13
Saferworld
14
“Improving the coherence and effectiveness of EU action in the field of
conflict prevention”, report presented by Solana and Patten at the EU
summit, Nice 2000.
15
Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden
16
Working group 1 organised by European Platform for Conflict
Prevention and Transformation with Paul van Tongeren and Guido de
Graaf Bierbrauwer in charge.
17
Sida Evaluation Report (00/37) Assessment of Lessons Learned from
Sida Support to Conflict Management and Peacebuilding can be found
of the webaddress of Sida (http://www.sida.se/evaluation)
173
18
Working group 2 organised by Saferworld and International Alert with
Kevin Clements in charge
19
For more – see appendix Preventing violent conflict – Opportunities
for the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies of the European Union in
2001, a paper produced by Saferworld and International Alert for the
European Platform on Conflict Prevention and Transformation
20
Working group 3 organised by European Platform for Conflict
Prevention and Transformation with Paul van Tongeren and Guido de
Graaf Bierbrauwer in charge
21
This background document draws on material from an article published
in the Conflict Prevention Newsletter, Volume 4, No. 1, March 2001.
pages 19-21.
22
Working Group 4 organised by Peace Team Forum with Margareta
Ingelstam and Cynthia Sampson in charge
23
Preventing Violent Conflict – A Swedish Action Plan. Ds 1999:24.
24
An American initiative, a proposal for a “Global Nonviolent Peace
Force”, has been endorsed by organisations, scholars and politicians
from different parts of the world.
25
Examples of support: Government-NGO Relations in Preventing
Violence, Transforming Conflict and Building Peace, a report from a
Conference in Mariefred, Sweden, Sept.1997; Hague Agenda for Peace
and Justice for the 21st Century; Swedish Assembly for the Future of the
United Nations, held in Stockholm in May, 2000.
26
The Peace Team Forum, PTF, in Sweden is a network of 50
organisations (March 2001), e.g. Amnesty, Swedish development
agencies, the Christian Council of Sweden, the Red Cross, Save the
Children, the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, Swedish Peace and
Arbitration Society, the UN Association and WILPF).
27
The paper, which was prepared by Saferworld and International Alert
for the European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation,
has been endorsed by over 30 organisations.
28
An example of a curriculum is Empowerment for Peace Service – A
Curriculum for Education and Training in Violence Prevention,
Nonviolent Conflict Transformation and Peace-building. Prepared by a
working group with representatives of the Peace Team Forum and
published by the Christian Council of Sweden.
174
29
See the UN declaration for an International Decade for a Culture of
Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World, supporting “that
the practise of peace and non-violence is taught at all levels in their
(member states) respective societies, including in educational
institutions”.
30
Nonviolence without dash is used to signify the active meaning of the
word. Se A Force more Powerful, A Century of Nonviolent Conflict, by
Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall, a companion to a new PBS series
depicting powerful examples from the history of nonviolence.
31
Coordination with the working group on Infrastructures is needed.
32
Ambassador, Head of Secretariat for Conflict Prevention, Swedish
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
33
Paper by Saferworld and International Alert for the European Platform
on Conflict Prevention and Transformation
34
The leaders of the G8 countries stated that “the international
community should act urgently and effectively to prevent and resolve
armed conflict. Many people have been sacrificed and injured, many
economies have been impoverished, and much devastation has been
viaddressd upon the environment. In an ever more interdependent
world such negative effects spread rapidly. Therefore, a ‘Culture of
Prevention’ should be promoted throughout the global community. All
members of the international community should seek to promote the
settlement of disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations”.
35
The Council agreed Conclusions on ‘Preventive Diplomacy, Conflict
Resolution and Peacekeeping in Africa’ in December 1995; a Common
Position ‘Concerning Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa’ and
a Resolution on ‘Coherence of the EC’s Development Cooperation with
its Other Policies’ in June 1997. The Development Council agreed
Conclusions on an ‘EU Approach to Peacebuilding, Conflict
Prevention and Resolution’ in December 1998. The Commission agreed
a Communication on “The EU and the Issue of Conflicts in Africa:
Peacebuilding, Conflict Prevention and Resolution and Beyond’ in
March 1996, and a Communication on ‘Engagement with ACP countries
in Conflict’ this year.
175
36
Tobias Debiel/Martina Fischer, Crisis Prevention and Civilian
Conflict Management by the European Union -Concepts, Capacities
and Problems of Coherence. Berghof Report No. 5 (September 2000,
Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict
Management).
37
A landmark document in this regard was the conclusions of the
European Council of 4 December 1995 on Preventive Diplomacy,
Conflict Resolution and Peacekeeping in Africa. In December 1998,
the Council reaffirmed its commitment to conflict prevention and
widened its mandate beyond Africa in its conclusions on The Role of
Development Co-operation in Strengthening Peace-building,
Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Several EC budget lines now
include conflict-relevant areas. The former DGVIII worked together
with the Conflict Prevention Network to develop conflict analysis tools
for desk officers dealing with conflict countries as well as a draft
practical handbook.
38
For more information, see www.conflict-prevention.net
176
177