SUMMARY. Conceptual Overview of US Government Civil Society Relationships in Conflict-Affected Regions

Transcription

1 august 2010 special report Civil Society and the US Government in Conflict-Affected Regions: Building Better Relationships for Peacebuilding SUMMARY This report summarizes key themes and recommendations discussed in a March 26, 2010 roundtable between US government agencies and civil society organizations engaged in conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts in various regions of the world. No formal endorsement of outcomes was intended. The aim of the roundtable was to discuss comprehensive approaches to preventing violent conflict and peacebuilding and how to improve relationships between the USG and local civil society actors in conflict-affected countries. The organizations listed above co-sponsored the roundtable, which was organized by the 3D Security Initiative. Conceptual Overview of US Government Civil Society Relationships in Conflict-Affected Regions The US government (USG) has put substantial effort into improving coordination between agencies to be better prepared to work in conflict-affected regions in order to prevent and respond to conflict. This interagency and whole of government approach is still in process. One significant achievement is the development of the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF). Civil society organizations (CSOs), such as the members of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) and the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP), also have begun significant work to improve coordination amongst them-

2 Civil Society and the US Government in Conflict-Affected Regions selves to better prevent and respond to conflict. Civil society organizations have a substantial legacy of conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts around the world, particularly over the last three decades. These networks of peacebuilding NGOs are distinct from humanitarian, development or human rights NGOs. Peacebuilding civil society groups are unique in several ways. They are more likely than other CSOs to: Conduct conflict assessments. Recognize roles of religious actors in reconciliation. Emphasize engagement of polarized groups and armed actors. Focus on coordination and collaboration where there are shared interests. International NGOs play important roles in the relationships between the USG and local civil society organizations. Sometimes international NGOs can be a bridge to channel funding from the USG to local civil society organizations. At other times, international NGOs act as gatekeepers between local CSOs and US agencies. Many local CSOs would prefer more direct contact such as offering input into conflict assessments, providing policy recommendations for USG planning, receiving direct funding, and developing meaningful relationships with USG agencies so as to communicate their perspectives in their own words. Groups like 3D Security Initiative, CDA Collaborative Learning Projects and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars work with networks like GPPAC and AfP, international NGOs, and government partners to facilitate greater understanding of how to improve the USG-CSO relationships and to prevent violent conflict. USG and CSO relationships can be mutually beneficial. USG agencies offer partnership and support to civil society organizations. CSOs offer policy recommendations and conflict assessment data for USG strategic level decision-making as well as operational level advice and implementation for some USG priorities. Horizontal efforts to coordinate and build social capital within the USG and between CSOs are essential and separate tasks. However, at the same time, it is important to coordinate and build vertical social capital between the USG and CSOs globally. The diagram on page 3 illustrates that social capital the quality and quantity of relationships is needed both horizontally and vertically to improve conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts in conflict-affected regions. Broad Recommendations to Improve the Relationships between US Government Agencies and Civil Society Organizations 1. Build Trust Participants in the roundtable discussed how relationships between civil society organizations and USG agencies could benefit from a greater sense of trust. Some suggestions on ways to build more trust include: a. Identify and acknowledge past tensions and problems. b. Develop confidence-building measures to demonstrate good intentions. 2

3 special report 3

4 Civil Society and the US Government in Conflict-Affected Regions c. Create more opportunities to build relationships, especially with groups like GPPAC, before the escalation of conflicts. Then make sure that these networks are supported and not undermined. d. Create more fora for senior and former diplomats to engage CSOs on conflict prevention issues. e. Conduct a project to identify and overcome paradigm whiplash so that the USG and CSOs share more terminology, understand each other s theories of change, and develop more areas of shared meaning related to conflict prevention and peacebuilding. 2. Develop Practical and Manageable Relationships that are Mutually Beneficial Participants at the roundtable discussed how improved relationships between USG agencies and CSOs could be beneficial. Yet there are pragmatic challenges to making these relationships practical and manageable. Some suggestions for developing better relationships include: a. Develop manageable ways of consulting, listening, and sharing conflict assessments. For example, carry out a joint exercise to map stakeholders in conflict prevention efforts. b. Develop a wide, diverse set of relationships, as well as a small set of deep relationships with representative CSOs and local actors. c. Find a way to engage Congress to make the case for more investment in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and USG-CSO partnerships. d. Prepare mechanisms to develop a comprehensive approach to joint analysis and coordination of programs based on shared knowledge. e. Document case studies of successful relationships that had a positive effect on conflict prevention and/or peacebuilding efforts. 3. Build Coordination Mechanisms with the International Community Participants at the Roundtable discussed how the work of preventing violent conflict and building peace is so extensive that creating a division of labor is logical. A few suggestions to improve coordination include: a. Map out the unique roles and assets of the USG and CSOs generally, and specifically in each context. b. Develop better understanding and coordination of the capacities that exist locally and those in local and national governments to better leverage existing resources. International actors such as the USG can work with existing platforms to identify and replicate best practices of coordination at the regional as well as country levels. c. Articulate more clearly the possible advantage and shared vision of a multi-lateral military, government and civil society approach to conflict prevention that harmonizes activities across sectors. 4

5 special report Recommendations for US Government Agencies 1. Listen to Local Civil Society Actors More Closely Local civil society actors watch and interpret USG actions (and inactions), and these perceptions shape future interpretations and reactions to USG policies and approaches. a. Local groups are keenly aware of the self-interested nature of international actors involvement in their countries. They ask for more explicit articulation of the national interests that influence external actors actions in their countries as well as a recognition that external interventions (whether security, post-conflict recovery and reconciliation, governance, or development aid) should also meet the interests of local people. b. USG agencies should not assume they know what the problem is or that they completely understand local dynamics. There is a strong feeling among CSOs that USG understanding of local dynamics is often lacking and that programs and policies fail or waste money because not enough time was spent on assessing the local context and listening to insiders. c. Local civil society organizations desire more consultation. If the USG is going to engage in any way in the affairs of another country, they should invite more local participation in the planning and decision-making. These consultations should not rely on just a handful of token civil society voices but rather intentionally seek out diverse perspectives throughout the local population. The results of these consultations should then be institutionalized throughout the USG through the creation of mechanisms to link USG whole Local civil society actors watch and interpret USG actions (and inactions), and these perceptions shape future interpretations and reactions to USG policies and approaches. of government and interagency assessments and planning with civil society input. 2. Acknowledge and deal with policy trade-offs Sometimes US interests in a region seem to conflict. For example, development goals and energy security or drug war goals may conflict in the short term in places like Iraq, Nigeria, and Colombia. These tradeoffs need further discussion. There is a perception that USG actions, even those with good intent, sometimes inadvertently do harm. When asking the go-no go question, USG policy options should consider not intervening in areas where the impacts may be counterproductive to local interests and US interests. More discussion on policy trade-offs would be useful for CSOs to assess how and if their interests overlap with USG interests. 5

6 Civil Society and the US Government in Conflict-Affected Regions 3. Reduce Political Constraints on Local Civil Society In many regions of the world, civil society organizations are facing increasing repression from governments cracking down on dissidents and labeling political opposition groups as terrorists. USG agencies have an important role in pressuring governments to respect freedom of speech and nonviolent efforts to promote development and democracy. There is a sense that USG agencies sometimes elevate national or local governments in a way that actually undermines long term stability. a. Explore ways to institutionalize civil society oversight of security sector reform, e.g. ask civil society to help monitor government and UN projects (e.g. an advisory board). 4. Funding should be suitably flexible to foster local sustainability USG grant programs would be more effective if they relied on more local involvement, rather than funding large amounts to foreign contractors. Local organizations bring local knowledge and relationships to bear, which can truly build long-term relationships and local sustainability. There were four recommendations on this issue. a. Insist on the establishment of a strong local involvement, either in partnership with existing CSOs and Community Based Organizations or establishing a local office. b. Increase the flexibility of grants to respond to changing dynamics. c. Support USAID funding instruments that are long-term. d. Evaluate the long-term impact of short-term actions. 5. Build incentives for USG personnel The system of professional training and evaluation for USG personnel could help to build incentives for them to learn about conflict prevention and civil society. Some suggestions include: a. Send more of the best and brightest to conflictaffected areas, with a focus on prevention. b. Mandate interagency training on conflict sensitivity. c. Integrate both local and international conflict resolution trainers into USG staff training to share existing expertise and techniques. d. Develop mechanisms for USG actors to share a common strategy/approach to conflict prevention based on local conditions. e. Require USG personnel to interact with and learn about local actors capacities and perspectives as optional programmatic partners. 6. Identify Convening authority such as a Civil Society Liaison Office Currently USAID has the closest ties to civil society organizations. But other USG agencies also relate and desire a relationship with local civil society actors. a. Explore whether, particularly in the context of complex operations, a single liaison office should 6

7 special report be designated to institutionalize communication with local civil society organizations. Recommendations for Civil Society Organizations 1. Recognize constraints on the USG Local civil society organizations often lack information on constraints on USG agencies like USAID. While personnel in these agencies may understand the problems, there may be large obstacles to operating more collaboratively and to acting preventively. Civil society organizations should also increase their understanding of the role of Congress in setting legal and budgetary limits to how USG agencies operate, and to educate and inform them of the implications of these policies and procedures on efforts to prevent and respond to conflict. 2. Articulate and press for change in USG- CSO relationships While many within the USG understand the need for change, civil society organizations have an important role in articulating and pressing for these needed changes. Without this pressure, change is less likely. 3. Seek to understand first, then discuss Civil society organizations were advised to not overestimate the ability of the USG to coordinate and achieve its goals. What may look like an intentional outcome or conspiracy to locals may simply be confusion, lack of coordination, or poor performance. Local civil society organizations may be building their capacity at the same time as USG agencies are building their capacity in areas such as conflict prevention and peacebuilding. 4. Build and strengthen local capacity Civil society organizations have important roles to play. Civil society should continue to articulate the roles it plays in supporting security and peacebuilding, as well as offering optional approaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding. CSOs should make a continuous effort both in Washington and in the field to build relationships with USG personnel so as to increase an understanding in USG ranks of the value added of CSOs in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. 7

8 The Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity The Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity was established at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in 2005, by then Director Howard Wolpe and Consulting Director Steve McDonald. The Leadership Project seeks to promote holistic and sustainable approaches to international conflict resolution, prevention, and post-conflict recovery. The Leadership Project s founding methodology is based on the importance of inclusivity, interest-based negotiation training, and demonstration of interdependence to help rebuild fractured government systems and create greater collaborative capacity in post-conflict countries. Under the leadership of Steve McDonald, key Leadership Project programming consists of in-country training interventions for leaders in societies emerging from violent conflict, designed to rebuild trust and foster better communication and negotiation skills. Additionally, the Leadership Project convenes Washington-based public events and country-consultations on specific conflict-prone or affected states which bring together experts, practitioners, and policymakers to provide clarity on complex issues and encourage informed decision making on some of the most persistent policy challenges. Finally, the Project has just launched a major research effort on Southern Voices in the Northern Policy Debate: Including the Global South, funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York, that will engage Africa-based research and policy institutions in providing a southern perspective for the American policy makers on the mutual challenges faced by North and South. The Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity works in close collaboration with the Woodrow Wilson Center s Africa Program, also under McDonald s direction. WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director Board of Trustees Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair Sander R. Gerber, Vice Chair Public members: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; Hillary R. Clinton, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States; James Leach, Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities Private Citizen Members: Charles Cobb, Jr., Robin Cook, Charles L. Glazer, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Susan Hutchison, Barry S. Jackson, Ignacio E. Sanchez Contact The Project on Leadership and Building State Capacity Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC (202) With the generous support of the Open Society Institute One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC