The Future of Peace | Diplomatic Courier | June 2016 Edition by MG Publishing

INTERVIEW / President Jimmy Carter on the Future of Peace FOREWORD

GALLERY

DIPLOMACY

ON COURIERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S TEN-YEAR ANNIVERSARY /p8

ON THE DROUGHT IN SOMALIA /p26

SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE PHILIPPINES /p77

By Sir Ian Forbes

By Sebastian Rich

By Justin Goldman

TEN-YEAR ANNIVERSARY EDITION VOLUME 10 / ISSUE 3 / JUNE 2016

A Global Affairs Media Network

THE FUTURE OF PEACE HOW THE BUSINESS OF PEACE IS CHANGING THE CULTURE OF CONFLICT

COVER STORY BY ANA ROLD SPECIAL FOREWORD BY SIR IAN FORBES

page 12

A Global Affairs Media Network

MASTHEAD

Publisher: Medauras Global

Editor-in-Chief

Guest Contributors

Ana C. Rold

Johan Bergenas Erica Chenoweth JosĂŠ Luis Chicoma Lance Croffoot-Suede Thomas Debass Melanie Greenberg Erin Helland John Hewko Patrick T. Hiller Lise Kingo Ariella Knight Garee LaFree Grace Mahoney Trust Mamombe Niall Munro Daniel Neale Ulysses Smith Olga Smolenchuk Alexandra Toma Thomas J. Wheeler

Guest Editor Aubrey Fox

Editorial Advisors Andrew M. Beato Fumbi Chima Sir Ian Forbes Lisa Gable Mary D. Kane Greg Lebedev Anita McBride

Contributing Editors Kathryn H. Floyd Michael Kofman Paul Nash

Creative Director Christian Gilliham

Press/Media Press@diplomaticourier.org

UN Correspondent Akshan de Alwis

DC Correspondent Winona Roylance

Photographers Michelle Guillermin Sebastian Rich

Interviews President Jimmy Carter Ambassador Jose L. Cuisia, Jr. Carrie Hessler-Radelet Nancy Lindborg

Special Report on The Philippines Justin Goldman

Guest Cartoonist Matt Wuerker, Politico

Editorial Assistants Hannah Olivieri Yuki Preechabhan Amar Kakirde

Letters to the Editors Editorial Submissions Editors@diplomaticourier.org

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Contributors Madeline Bielski Charles Crawford Katie Crawford Justin Goldman Sarah Jones Oscar Montealegre Arun S. Nair Paul Nash Richard Rousseau Mary Utermohlen

Advertising/Sales Maria San Jose MSJose@diplomaticourier.org

Website & Apps ITsupport@diplomaticourier.org

Mailing Address Diplomatic Courier 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036

Download the DC App for free on your device:

PUBLISHING. Diplomatic Courier magazine is produced by Medauras Global, an independent private publishing firm. The magazine is printed six times a year and publishes a blog and online commentary weekly at www.diplomaticourier.com. PRINT. Print issues of Diplomatic Courier average 100 pages in length. Individual and back issues cost $10.00 per issue (plus S&H). Student rates are available to both part-time and full-time students with proof of school enrollment. New print issues of Diplomatic Courier are published and mailed in January, March, May, July, September, and November. Subscriptions commence with the next issue. PRINT RATES. One year, six issues: $45.00. Two years, 12 issues: $75.00. For bulk, international, and institutional rates email info@ diplomaticourier.org with your request. DIGITAL RATES. One year, six issues: $14.99. Two years, 12 issues: $24.95. Single Digital Edition or Single App download (iStore, Google Play, Amazon): $4.99. EDITORIAL. The articles in Diplomatic Courier both in print and online represent the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. While the editors assume responsibility for the selection, the authors are responsible for the facts and interpretations of their articles. PERMISSIONS. Authors retain all copyrights to their articles. None of the articles can be reproduced without their permission and that of the publishers. For permissions please email info@medauras.com with your written request. ISSN. The Library of Congress has assigned: ISSN 2161-7260 (Print); ISSN 2161-7287 (Online). ISBN: 978-1-942772-01-9 (Print); 978-1-942772-02 (Online). LEGAL. Copyright ÂŠ 2006-2016 Diplomatic Courier and Medauras Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced without written consent of the publishers. All trademarks that appear in this publication are the property of the respective owners. Any and all companies featured in this publication are contacted by Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier to provide advertising and/or services. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier magazine make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. CONTACT. Mailing Address: Diplomatic Courier, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20036, U.S. Fax: 202-659-5234. E-mail: info@diplomaticourier.org and editors@diplomaticourier.org. ADVERTISING/SPONSORSHIP. For inquiries contact us at: info@medauras.com to request the latest Media Kit. ART/PHOTOGRAPHY/ILLUSTRATIONS. In order of appearance in the publication: Cover, Bigstockphotos; page 8, photo Courtesy of the Office of Sir Ian Forbes; page 17, photo courtesy of Aubrey Fox; page 21, photo courtesy of the office of Nancy Lindborg, U.S. Institute of Peace; page 24, photo courtesy of the office of Carrie Hessler-Radelet, Peace Corps; pages 26-31, all photos copyright of Sebastian Rich, commissioned by and republished with permission by UNICEF; page 36, graph courtesy of Thomas J. Wheeler; page 56, graph courtesy of Erica Chenoweth; page 62-63, all graphics courtesy of Rotary International; page 83, photo by the U.S. State Department/Public Domain; pages 84-86, all photos courtesy of the Philippine Tourism Authority; page 90, cartoon by Matt Wuerker. All other images and photos by Bigstockphotos.

{ Yes, our world

needs your ideas and leadership.} SAVE THE DATE Global Action Summit November 14-15, 2016

Accelerate scalable, sustainable urban and rural solutions

“The Global Action Platform represents a powerful coalition of cross-sector leaders dedicated to creating abundance through innovation in food, health, and prosperity.”

–

Dr. Fareed Zakaria, CNN

Foreign affairs program “Fareed Zakaria GPS”

and columnist for The Washington Post

The 4th Annual Global Action Summit is a program of the Global Action Platform and the CumberlandCenter, a 501c3 non profit organization – Creating abundance through innovation in food, health and prosperity. © 2106 CumberlandCenter, Nashville, Tennessee, USA +1 (877) 300-5806

A Global Affairs Media Network

FOREWORD

A CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY BOARD Sir Ian Forbes

“THE COURIER HAS MUCH TO CONTRIBUTE AS IT HEADS INTO THIS CHALLENGING ENVIRONMENT IN ITS NEXT DECADE OF LIFE. IT IS A PUBLICATION THAT HAS MADE ITS MARK, ITS MULTIMEDIA PROFILE DEMONSTRATING VIVIDLY HOW THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY CAN BE ACCESSED AND INFLUENCED.”

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

s the longest standing member of the Diplomatic Courier’s Advisory Board, it is my privilege and pleasure to be asked to write this foreword to the publications 10th Anniversary Edition. The Courier was born out of a vision held by Ana Carcani, now Rold, an Albanian student, who I first met in Prague more than a decade ago when I was presenting to a group of young internationals engaged in conflict resolution studies. In discussion, she articulated her belief that there was a role for a conflict resolution publication that caught the imagination of the younger fraternity engaged in global affairs across the international divide. That she has achieved this in such comprehensive fashion in only 10 years speaks volumes for her and the Courier team. The publication has established a voice for itself that is second to none in its particular niche. It has a print readership of 25,000 and a digital outlet of 2.4 million. Overall, in the last 10 years it has reached out successfully to 178 million people deploying its social media tool. One could say that the vision has truly exceeded its initial expectation. This Anniversary edition, the biggest to date, will be launched at the Future of Peace Summit in June. Its content underlines in full measure just how much the Courier has grown in influence with leadership and organizations across our globalized world. As its centerpiece, it carries an interview with President Jimmy Carter—a man dedicated to peace in all its forms. This is accompanied by a range of other articles embracing the host of geostrategic challenges that nations, institutions, organizations, and communities face as we seek to live together in today’s globalized society. They represent the best of what the Courier can offer— an independent and original voice, unfettered by bias and special interest, providing a candid and honest insight into the realities of hard problems, and what is needed to be done to address them. When the Courier began, the world was in a state of flux. Iraq and Afghanistan still dominated the global security agenda, the global recession had yet to hit, new leaderships offered some cause for optimism following a decade in which control of events, even understanding of them, was faltering at best. Such optimism dissipated quickly in the years that followed. The global village, as it was termed, became bitterly divided, the Arab Spring came and went, and those hopes that existed at the end of the Cold War that the end of global confrontation and the arrival of new technology would usher in an era of peace and prosperity became a distant memory. Today, we are beset by threats and challenges such as religious intolerance, global terrorism, mass migration, ecological irresponsibility, and cybercrime. Poverty and the under development of swathes of humanity highlight the inequalities in our World. Against this, our governance models are struggling, undermined by a creeping corruption amongst elites, causing societies to become more frustrated and angry, resulting in the rise of divisive politics at the fringes. Politics that threaten the values and moral frameworks that we choose to pursue. The international order and the norms it engendered is moving in directions that 10 years ago, we could never have imagined. So, the Courier has much to contribute as it heads into this challenging environment in its next decade of life. It is a publication that has made its mark, its multimedia profile demonstrating vividly how the global community can be accessed and influenced. Such capability—creative and original—will bring important thinking to our pressing global security agenda in the years ahead. Happy Birthday Diplomatic Courier—and good luck. ■

E X P L O R E . E X C H A N G E . E X P E R I M E N T.

A N I N I T I AT I V E O F

Opening Minds to the WorldÂŠ

www.iie.org/summit2016

We are pleased to be a media partner for the 2016 IIE Summit on Generation Study Abroad

A Global Affairs Media Network

CONTENTS

TEN-YEAR ANNIVERSARY EDITION / VOLUME 10 / ISSUE 3 / JUNE 2016

12 / The Future of Peace

ESSAYS

FEATURES

Studies of the dramatic effects of conflict prevention and management are nothing new. They’re never out of vogue and never without new idiosyncrasies. Diplomacy is after all rich, interdisciplinary, and full of complexities. Then again, so is peace.

41 /

46 /

ESSAYS

A Peace Agenda on a Military Mission

by Ana C. Rold

34 /

38 /

A Critical Partner for the Future of Peace

Looking for Reasons to Be Positive About Peace in Mexico

by Lise Kingo

35 / A Simple Question for a Wicked Problem by Melanie Greenberg

36 /

Promoting Peace Through Participation by Thomas Debass

42 / by Johan Bergenas, Grace Mahoney, and Ariella Knight

by José Luis Chicoma

43 /

39 /

To Achieve Peace & Security Don’t Forget Governance

My Positive Peace Journey in Southern Africa by Trust Mamombe

Peace Has Been Made a Global Development Priority. Now What?

40 /

by Thomas J.Wheeler

by Patrick T. Hiller

Give Peace Science a Chance

by Lance Croffoot-Suede and Ulysses Smith

The Evolution of the Global Terrorism Database by Gary LaFree

50 / Peace and Security Philanthropy: Opportunities for All by Alexandra Toma

54 / Why is Non Violent Resistance on the Rise? by Erica Chenoweth

“PEACE ISN’T JUST THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT. TIME AND AGAIN, HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT THE GREATEST TRAGEDY IN OUR WORLD IS LACK OF DIGNITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND HOPE” CARRIE HESSLER-RADELET, DIRECTOR, PEACE CORPS

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

“I look at peace as one of the basic human rights, along with right of people to have good health, education, housing, and so forth—the basic necessities of life.” President Jimmy Carter

58 /

68 /

by Niall Munro

Promoting Peace Through the “Third Place”

62 /

by Erin Helland and Olga Smolenchuk

Creating Sustainable Peace

72 /

Towards a Literature of Peace

by John Hewko

64 / Global Issues Cause Global Cooperation

Panama Papers: A Catalyst for Change by Daniel Neale

by Olga Smolenchuk

“I’M QUITE OPTIMISTIC THAT DESPITE THIS UPTICK OF CONFLICT AND VIOLENT EXTREMISM WE HAVE MOVED POSITIVELY AROUND SHARED VALUES AND NORMS. AFTER A LOT OF HISTORIC WRANGLING, WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE INCLUSION OF GOAL 16 (IN THE UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL FRAMEWORK).” NANCY LINDBORG, PRESIDENT, US INSTITUTE OF PEACE

President Jimmy Carter

INTERVIEWS

IN FOCUS

16 /

08 /

President Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States of America

by Sir Ian Forbes

Interviewed by Aubrey Fox

20 / Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace Interviewed by Aubrey Fox

FOREWORD

26 / GALLERY OF MOMENTS Drought in Somalia by Sebastian Rich

77 /

Carrie Hessler-Radelet, Director, U.S. Peace Corps

SPECIAL REPORT: THE PHILIPPINES Alliance Cooperation Beyond the Elections

Interviewed by Aubrey Fox

by Justin Goldman

82 /

90 /

24 /

H.E. Jose L. Cuisia, Jr. Philippine Ambassador to the United States

MOMENT by Matt Wuerker

Interviewed by Justin Goldman

JUNE 2016

COVER STORY / FUTURE OF PEACE

HOW THE BUSINESS OF PEACE IS CHANGING THE CULTURE OF CONFLICT COVER STORY BY ANA C. ROLD

he year 2016 marks the tenth anniversary of a revolutionary idea. Studies of the dramatic effects of conflict prevention and management are nothing new. They’re never out of vogue and never without new idiosyncrasies. Diplomacy is after all rich, interdisciplinary, and full of complexities. Then again, so is peace. Steve Killelea’s Institute for Economics and Peace decided to try something new. They dared to find a way to measure the benefits of peace. Studying peace was something different; a chance to see not what has gone wrong and how to fix it but what has gone right in pursuit of a perpetuation of the good. Put another way, how can peace be understood as something just as thrilling, as daring, as engaging, as the struggle to deny our darkest paths? That is the future of peace. It is peace as more than a goal. It is peace taking its turn in the circle of hard marketing sells. Killela initiated the first Global Peace Index (GPI) in 2006 in part to display the better business of peace critical to the 21st century. Killelea seized on two entrepreneurial opportunities in creating the GPI. The first and most obvious one was to get peace taken more seriously as a topic by applying a business and metrics mindset to the study of peace. The other, slightly less obvious, was an emphasis on marketing and outreach of peace.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Killelea, speaking with The Diplomatic Courier, reflected on the birth of the GPI in the context of years spent in conflict regions as part of a family foundation. “About eleven years ago…I was in the Congo, North East Kavu to be precise, which is one of the more dangerous places in the world and I started to think: what is the opposite of all these stressed out countries I’m spending time in?” He searched for an answer to the question and found no one asking the right question. “I did some searching on the internet and couldn’t find a thing,” he recalled. Even in studies that purported to examine peace, Killelea found the opposite. “I realized that most of what we study isn’t actually peace. What we’re actually studying is conflict. And the study of peace and the study of conflict are very different things.” He draws an analogy to health. “That which keeps us healthy is very different from what we need to stop pathology when we get sick.” Recognizing the difference, the challenge was to find a new approach. “If you can’t measure something, you can’t truly understand it. If you can’t measure something, how do you know whether your actions (are) achieving your values? That was the basis of how the Global Peace Index came to be.” Killelea sought a positive solution. Specifically he developed the concept of positive peace. “Positive peace is those attitudes, institutions, and structures which create and sustain peace for societies.” ➥

FUTURE OF PEACE

“STUDYING PEACE WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT; A CHANCE TO SEE NOT WHAT HAS GONE WRONG AND HOW TO FIX IT BUT WHAT HAS GONE RIGHT IN PURSUIT OF A PERPETUATION OF THE GOOD.”

JUNE 2016

COVER STORY / FUTURE OF PEACE

➥ “The framework which creates peace creates a whole lot of other things which we think are really important.” Expanding on the concept, he offered, “They’re things like a strong business environment, better performance in ecological measures, better measures of inclusiveness including gender equality.” Think about what a loss of peace costs us: damaged infrastructure, disrupted education systems, eroded public trust, fractured business environments, and innumerable human prices paid. It is an arrow at the heart of positive growth and social progress that can set back developing and developed nation alike centuries. The GPI has quantified those costs. “I think one of the things which really surprised me,” says Killelea “came to the forefront in the last index we did, was the number of countries in the world now which are probably at highly historical levels of peace. We look at their homicide rates; they’re lower than they’ve ever been according to measurement. Percentage of GDP spent on the military is 30-40 percent of what it was in the 50s. So these countries are really at truly historic levels of peace. No one ever talks about that. We go to the bottom of the index and take the bottom 20 countries

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

there and in the time we’ve been measuring this they’ve become far less peaceful. So there’s this growing inequality in peace.” “I think the second point is just how much money the cost of violence has on the global economy, and our figures are very conservative. Within 2014, that was about 14 trillion dollars, the equivalent to 13% of the global GDP.” Those figures are estimated through three factors. “One is direct costs. Another is indirect costs (like) the loss of lifetime earnings of a homicide victim. And the third one is the economic flow on effect, if that money had been there. Homicide victims are a good example. If they’d been there, and earned their lifetime income, they would spend that. That money would then have a flow, an effect through the economy.” But peace is not easy. It takes time, patience; it’s bigger than conflict. As social media and interconnectedness shorten the human attention span, bigger is sometimes not better. Things that require more of our energies and focus can get lost in a sea of new clicks diverting our eyes and hearts. “There’s a need to be able to get a concept out in such a way that it resonates.” Efforts to do so have

been aggressive. “We put a lot of energy into publicizing our major indices. In 2015, for our two major projects, the Global Peace Index and the Global Terrorism Index, we had 3.3 billion media impressions.” Additionally, this marketing of peace has been accomplished through “hundreds of speaking engagements each year. We do a lot and it’s all around the world…engaging with the major multilateral organizations such as the UN, World Bank, OECD, and Commonwealth Secretariat, to further explain to organizations most interested in the global issues these relationships between thriving societies, resilience, and peace. Because we’re back to positive peace, because we’ve got societies which are high in positive peace that creates resilience. And that resilience is what protects them when they get hit with shocks and fall again into cataclysmic conflict.” It’s a concept of particular interest at The Diplomatic Courier as this publication also celebrates its tenth anniversary. The Diplomatic Courier started primarily as a conflict resolution and diplomacy journal. It has grown beyond that and the concept of positive peace is one that demands deep exploration. If peace is something that can be measured, and the GPI has shown us it can, then it is something that can be duplicated. In 1969, John Lennon sold millions of copies of a classic song asking us all to ‘give peace a chance.’ It’s a song that uplifts the listener for four minutes or so. Peace deserves more than that. Looking ahead to the GPI’s next ten years, Killelea is looking to continue to evolve his concept. “One of the things we’ll be doing over the next few years is we’ll be putting a lot more energy into the economic models which we’ve got around peacefulness, looking at the effects on industries such as tourism. Tourism, sustainable tourism, and positive peace at home are highly correlated. So we’ll be looking at how we can make these figures more relevant to various industries as well as understanding how we can look at various interventions through peace-building.” Peace might be a hard sell but it shouldn’t be. For ten years already, and hopefully many more decade anniversaries to come, the GPI can be there to make the sale that much easier. ■

GALLUP ANALYTICS: ANALYZE THE WORLD IN ONE CLICK.

GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT GALLUP ANALYTICS TODAY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EMAIL GALLUPANALYTICS@GALLUP.COM OR CALL +1-202-715-3131

Analytics

INTERVIEW / PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

Interview PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER INTERVIEW BY AUBREY FOX

resident Jimmy Carter served as the 39th President of the United States. In 2002, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the Carter Center, an organization he founded in 1982. President Carter spoke with Institute for Economics and Peace-USA’s Executive Director, Aubrey Fox, about his views on peace. Aubrey Fox: With all the conflict and violence in the world, it can be hard to be an optimist about peace. I wanted to ask if you personally felt optimism, and if so why? Jimmy Carter: That’s a hard question to answer because there are certain countries in which I don’t have any optimism at all, such as Yemen and Libya. Also, the so called Arab Spring, or Arab Awakening, which gave me a lot of hope a couple of years ago has pretty well dissipated. On the other hand, I think one of the most notable advances towards peace is the wonderful progress between Colombia and FARC. The Mideast, Israel and its neighbors, I don’t see

the prospects for progress now that I did even five or ten years ago, when the United States was quite deeply involved in trying to promote the peace process. President Obama has announced that we should not expect any further movement toward peace during his term in office, although I think Secretary of State Kerry has done a notable job. With Syria, for the first time in maybe the last three or four years the United States has modified its previously erroneous position that the first step was for Assad to step down. I have never seen that as a possibility. The United States backing away and forming a partial coalition with Russia is in an important step in the right direction.

“WITH SYRIA, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MAYBE THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS THE UNITED STATES HAS MODIFIED ITS PREVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS POSITION THAT THE FIRST STEP WAS FOR ASSAD TO STEP DOWN.” 16

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

China hasn’t had any armed conflict with its neighbors for the last thirty-five years. Although there are some threats in the Far East, they haven’t taken place. North Korea bothers me a lot because of their high and unexpected technological abilities. Even with starvation, people dying, and with all kinds of economic sanctions on them, they are still able to produce some formidable nuclear weapons and inter-space missiles. So it’s a mix around the world. AF: And speaking a little more broadly, what specific interventions do you think will be most likely to help build peace over the next decade? JC: No matter where we go in the world, whether it’s the Far East or into the Middle East, there’s an overwhelming, overriding need for harmony between the United States and China, and between the United States and Russia. This should be a major consideration, and not let temporary operational events disturb that long-term prospect towards peace. AF: One of the things that I find really striking about the Carter Center is how successful you’ve been in addressing issues like health. I wonder what that suggests about what it takes to build peace, that we often focus on geo-political diplomacy and circumstances in particular countries, but pay less attention to things like improving access to health and improving education. JC: I look at peace as one of the basic human rights, along with right of people to have good health, education, housing, and so forth—the basic necessities of life. If

I’m not mistaken the United States has been at war with about 30 different nations in armed conflicts since the Second World War. Which is in contrast to say China who hasn’t had a war in the last 35 years. And I think the sapping of our economic capabilities in this country to major war commitments has been a strategic error. I noticed that just in recent months President Obama has announced that we are going to spend probably a trillion dollars on just upgrading our nuclear weapon systems. We should be working with other nuclear powers aggressively as we did back in ancient times when I was President to lower the level of nuclear weapons. And we’ve seen this lack of leadership on part of the major nuclear powers to create disarmament in Iran, which I hope has been solved, but is an unsolved problem in North Korea. I think the slippery slope on which we descended was when we permitted Pakistan and India to escape from a stringent promise of a nonproliferation treaty. AF: Just to pick on this theme from a minute. I think you are absolutely right that there is a lot of money being spent on munitions and traditional security approaches, and an important goal would be to try to shift some of that money into health and other services. But in a very practical and political way I’m curious, how does one win that argument? How does one get major countries and major politicians to begin not only to rhetorically accept this idea, but also to flow money into these other areas? That’s a tough question I realize. JC: That is a tough question, but I think the key to it all is

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

the basic policy of the United States of America; we are the world’s leader. And what is a superpower supposed to exemplify? I think we ought to be known in the most remote areas of the world as a champion of peace. So that people know that if they are threatened with a civil war, or a war with a neighbor, they always have that first thought, “why don’t we go to Washington?” It is not enough to have the most formidable weapons system on earth, or the most powerful currency on earth with the dollar, or the most acceptable world language, English. I would say staying at peace would be one of the things that makes a nation great. I think that this is largely a purpose of most Americans and it’s a tone that needs to be

set by our leadership and our scholars. And I am thankful for your organization that seeks to keep peace. AF: One of the arguments my institution makes is that the world spends too much time analyzing and trying to understand the dynamics of conflict and violence, and less time trying to understand the factors that promote peace. JC: It does, that’s why the Carter Center uses the phrase “waging peace”. You have to aggressively seek a peaceful resolution of every issue that comes up, from the very initiation of the problem. And this is not the first priority of our government; it is not the first priority of any other government.

AF: And what’s your personal definition of peace? JC: Living with people who disagree with you in a constructive way. If there is a difference to try and find some accommodation that would leave you both without conflict. I’d say it

is a matter of mutual respect for others. It is not just an absence of war, it is a positive—to use a religious phrase—attempt to love your neighbor, and it put that idealistic phrase into practical application in international policy and domestic policy as well. ➥

“I LOOK AT PEACE AS ONE OF THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, ALONG WITH RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO HAVE GOOD HEALTH, EDUCATION, HOUSING, AND SO FORTH— THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE. ” JUNE 2016

INTERVIEW / PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

➥ AF: You’ve said about your Presidential Administration, “we never went to war, we never dropped a bomb, and we never fired a bullet.” I wonder if you think a modern President can accomplish the same given all the pressures they are under. What it would take politically and practically to do so? JC: An initial and overriding thing is for presidents and leaders is to engender that commitment among the population of country. To try to devise a paragraph or two in every speech on how peace is beneficial to us individually as citizens of the United States, and how war is likely to involve not only our economic sacrifices, but also personal sacrifices. One of the things that makes war so easy now is that we have ways to bomb from 30,000 feet. So it is an attractive way to impose our will on others by using techniques of war that make American causalities minimal. AF: What comes through strongly in your answers is the need to make a case to the American people and others about the moral and economic value of peace. And I wanted to pick up on that. One of the things the Carter Center does so well is to provide data and tools to policymakers. Do you see communicating through data as being a critical way of making that argument? JC: I don’t have a doubt about that. It’s not just the amount of human lives being lost and ancillary suffering of women and children and older people in war zones, like we see happening so vividly and daily now in Syria. But for the wellbeing of our own people—to devote the same trillion dollars or so that we spend in Afghanistan to 18

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

“WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT PLACES THAT WERE FILLED WITH CONFLICT IN THE PAST ARE NOW AT PEACE. I WOULD REALLY INCLUDE THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF COUNTRIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION, AND THAT’S BEEN PRIMARILY BECAUSE CHINA HAS DECIDED NOT USE THEIR MILITARY FORCE APART FROM THE EARLY FORAY INTO VIETNAM.”

helping our own people have a better life, on education and healthcare and things of that kind. I think the general public has to have that message and the impetus coming from the White House on a sustained, genuinely thoughtful and believable basis. AF: In thinking about the Carter Center’s work on peace, are there things that feel like unfinished business? JC: I think the most important one for us is to bring peace between Israel and Israel’s neighbors. I think it is very difficult for either the Palestinians or the Israelis to change their ways, unless the President of the United States is personally and deeply committed to the prospect. So I think that is one of the areas in which the Carter Center has been involved, along with North Korea, Haiti and Bosnia Herzegovina. In all

three of those cases, it was an absence from Washington that induced me to go into those troubled regions. And I found that when I went to North Korea they were very eager to reach an accommodation with the United States and do away with their nuclear weapons and to have harmony with South Korea and so forth. AF: Earlier I talked about how the world tends to focus on flashpoints of conflict rather than areas of peace, you had mentioned Colombia as a bright spot in the world right now. I wonder if in your experience there are other countries that come to mind. JC: We have to remember that places that were filled with conflict in the past are now at peace. I would really include the entire gamut of countries in the Western

Pacific region, and that’s been primarily because China has decided not use their military force apart from the early foray into Vietnam. I think China is trying as best they can to address the threat from North Korea. They have managed in some subtle but effective ways to avoid any armed conflict. So it is just a matter of national commitment, especially when you have been at war for a couple of centuries. AF: As you know the United Nations has just passed the Sustainable Development Goals, which includes an explicit peace goal alongside more traditional humanitarian goals. I wonder if you might comment about what that suggests about these two fields that in some ways consider themselves separate. JC: Well I was really glad to see number 16. If all the children are educated, if all the children are immunized against diseases, if there is adequate housing for poor people—it lowers dramatically the inclination of those people to endanger their own life. So I think that tying peace under the umbrella of other things like human rights is a very good step forward. If you do the same thing for peace that you have done in the past say for child survivability at birth, infant mortality and things like that—that’s making progress. I think that would be a notable achievement. AF: Are there any final thoughts you’d like to share? JC: My comments have been critical of the United States but I see the United States as key. If we are committed to peace then the world is going to be inclined to go along with us. ■

DIPLOMATIC COURIER MAGAZINE PRESENTS

THE WORLD IN 2050 A forum about our future. A Global Affairs Media Network

THE WORLD IN 2050 is a series of Global Summits hosted by Diplomatic Courier, in collaboration with private and public sector partners. The series was conceived in 2012 when the world reached 7 billion people, with the purpose of convening multi-stakeholders and stimulate discussion and solutions about the future. How will megatrends, i.e. major global forces such as demographic changes, resource stress, technology, and economic power shifts change our future? Join global publics and thought leaders from 180 countries on a journey of strategic forecasting for a better future. For more information visit: www.diplomaticourier.com/2050.

INTERVIEW / NANCY LINDBORG

Interview NANCY LINDBORG PRESIDENT US INSTITUTE OF PEACE INTERVIEW BY AUBREY FOX

ancy Lindborg has been the President of the United States Institute of Peace since February 2015. She previously served as Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance as well as President of Mercy Corps. In a wide-ranging conversation, Nancy spoke with Aubrey Fox, Executive Director of the Institute for Economics and Peace-USA, about the challenge of translating rhetorical support for conflict prevention and Positive Peace into practical reality, the refugee crisis as a peace issue, how the US military can be a critical peace partner and her plans for USIP in the years ahead. Aubrey Fox: If peace were a stock, is its price rising or falling? Nancy Linborg: I think the stock of peace is very up. Peace has become inextricably intertwined with development and human rights. This new normal of unsettling crisis around the world serves to underscore how important it

is. And so it gives urgency to create understanding that it’s not just the absence of violence but also a fuller set of factors that creates conditions of peace. AF: What are two or three specific interventions most likely to build peace in the next decade?

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

NL: I’m quite optimistic that despite this uptick of conflict and violent extremism we have moved positively around shared values and norms. After a lot of historic wrangling, we were able to secure the inclusion of Goal 16 (in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Framework). The fact that all the member states signed on starts the journey for those 50-70 countries that are struggling with poverty, conflict, and big disease outbreaks. So if we had unlimited resources I would focus on development that equips people and institutions at every level with the knowledge, tools, and approaches to manage conflict so it doesn’t become violent and to resolve it when it does. AF: I’m glad you mentioned Goal 16. I think certainly it is very symbolic as a milestone of success for the peace field. NL: It’s a victory; it’s critical but not the whole package. AF: So what do you see as the range of possible outcomes from Goal 16 in terms of its implementation and what would worry you? NL: Well I think success five or ten years from now will be positive movement in your Global Peace Index. There is also a big effort to put together indicators for Goal 16 that I hope will enable us to understand when we are having progress. What would be worrying for me is if it’s languished in the corners of international conversation. AF: Lets talk about prevention and Positive Peace for a moment. Rhetorically it seems that there has never been a better time. You have the Secretary General and the World Bank talking about it.

At very high levels, at least rhetorically, people are hammering away at how to prevent conflict. NL: Like never before, it is amazing. AF: Having said that though, the available resources for prevention investments are at risk. For example, you have these grand humanitarian crises that might squeeze out the money available to invest in prevention. NL: Well I think we are still in the early days. USIP is working the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and Center for New American Society on this issue of creating a shared framework on how to tackle fragility within the US government. We are convening a senior study group of about 25 advisors to make recommendations for the next administration. We have not had a shared understanding of how do get from this level of chaos to our goal. Frequently the short-term security objectives undercut what you need for that longer-term realization of peace. It is bringing the evidence base to bear and working on shifting some of the institutional arrangements and practices that we all need to work on. It will not be fast, because we are talking about some gigantic bureaucracies. Nobody should think that this rhetoric is going to translate into wild success tomorrow. AF: Are there other things stewards of the field should be working on? What are some priorities in your mind? NL: I think one of the big priorities is the Humanitarian Summit that is coming up in Istanbul, as well as a whole series of summits underway. We need to bring together our various tools so that we are not

NANCY LINDBORG

doing humanitarian assistance over there and peacebuilding in this corner with development over here and security over here. Instead, we have to bring these approaches and perspectives together. This was apparent in Afghanistan, where we had three separate efforts underway – military, intelligence and humanitarian – and that undercut our ability to make progress.

AF: You spent 14 years at Mercy Corps, so you are someone who cut your teeth by running an NGO. Does that experience bring a special perspective? NL: I recently learned that Landrum Bolling, one of Mercy Corps’ most important supporters, gave the first $25,000 grant around the United States creating an “Academy of Peace” while ➥

“I RECENTLY LEARNED THAT LANDRUM BOLLING, ONE OF MERCY CORPS’ MOST IMPORTANT SUPPORTERS, GAVE THE FIRST $25,000 GRANT AROUND THE UNITED STATES CREATING AN ‘ACADEMY OF PEACE’ WHILE HE WAS AT THE LILY ENDOWMENT.” JUNE 2016

INTERVIEW / NANCY LINDBORG

he was at the Lily Endowment. Isn’t that incredible? I had another wonderful colleague named Ells Culver who would share stories of standing on the border of Ethiopia as people poured across in that terrible famine. He had the recognition that you can’t just do this Band-Aid work. It’s almost an inevitable trajectory that you become focused on how do you deal with the conflict. How do you move these places so that they can mange these conflicts and transform it into something that looks like peace and development?

➥

“WHEN YOU ARE WORKING ON A COMPLICATED PROBLEM WITH A PROCESS-ORIENTED SET OF TOOLS, YOU HAVE THE CHALLENGE OF PROVING THAT IT IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE. IT IS NOT LIKE GIVING A BED NET OR GETTING A VACCINE. AND YET YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IT AT A VERY TANGIBLE LEVEL WHEN YOU ARE OUT IN A COMMUNITY AND THEY’VE JUST SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED AMONG THEMSELVES.”

AF: Since you mentioned it, I thought I would ask: should the refugee crisis be understood as a peace issue? NL: It is completely a peace issue. AF: Do you want to give me your argument? NL: I’ve been saying that we have a refugee crisis but what we really have is a fragility crisis. Because you have 60 million people on the move in search of a better life free of oppression, better economic opportunities—whether they are a migrant or a refugee. We need to be looking at why they are leaving these places and how do you make investments so they don’t need to leave. The million or so that have turned up in Europe are a tiny faction of the pipeline of misery. That’s where we need to be thinking more about peacebuilding and development and security as a package. AF: How do you create realistic expectations about what a peacebuilding approach can accomplish? NL: USIP is an extraordinary platform and I feel unbelievably privileged to have this opportunity. 22

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Everyone has a responsibility to build peace and it is a function of who you are internally as well externally— it can’t seem like this thing that just happens in the halls of the UN. One of my favorite quotes is JFK’s quote about peace as process and you have to work on it each and every day. AF: So let’s talk about USIP for a moment. How do you define your key challenges? What do you most want to accomplish? NL: USIP works best when we link together field programs with training, research, and policy recommendations, both for the conflict affected countries and our government here. Our challenge is leveraging our resources and skills

broadly enough to have an impact. AF: Are there things you think that as a peace building institution USIP should be doing better? NL: One important goal is to make sure that we are able to provide an evidence basis for a new approach to conflict. There are some real fundamentals around peacebuilding, negotiation and reconciliation, and we need to get them more broadly recognized. AF: Who would you say are some of the more unlikely partners you’ve come across who can help solve this problem? NL: One of the most unlikely is the US military. They get it. They are huge champions.

They understand that once they leave the field it isn’t over. To consolidate whatever military gains have been made you need to work on the social cohesion, on reconciliation, on facilitation. AF: That’s an interesting point and something we’ve been thinking about, how do you best take advantage of that relationship? NL: We are often in the same places at the same time. So often they see first hand how important it is. When you are working on a complicated problem with a processoriented set of tools, you have the challenge of proving that it is making a difference. It is not like giving a bed net or getting a vaccine. And yet you can experience it at a very tangible level when you are out in a community and they’ve just successfully negotiated among themselves. AF: Our goal as an institution is to measure peace through indices and empirical analysis. And so what advice do you have for us? What can we be doing to make we are getting the messages to the right people? NL: I start with great appreciation for what you are doing. And I think going back to where we started, there is a lot of conversation around fragility and resilience is often offered as the positive alternative, but it doesn’t quite capture the fullness of what we are all striving for. So I like the idea of Positive Peace as a concept. I think we will collectively need to work to ground it more broadly and deeply in people’s understanding and awareness. So what I would say is thank you for putting us on that path. ■

INTERVIEW / CARRIE HESSLER-RADELET

Interview CARRIE HESSLER-RADELET DIRECTOR PEACE CORPS INTERVIEW BY AUBREY FOX

arrie Hessler-Radelet, the 19th Director of the Peace Corps, was sworn in on June 25, 2014. A member of a four-generation Peace Corps family, Hessler-Radelet began her career in international development as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Western Samoa (1981–83), teaching secondary school with her husband, Steve Radelet. She went on to spend more than two decades working in public health, focusing on HIV/AIDS and maternal and child health. Hessler-Radelet spoke with Institute for Economics and Peace-USA’s Executive Director, Aubrey Fox, about her views on peace. Aubrey Fox: With all the conflict and violence in the world today, it can be hard to be optimistic about the prospects for peace. Do you personally feel optimistic, and if so, why? Carrie Hessler-Radelet: I am completely optimistic. Maybe I’m biased because I work for an agency whose mission is “World Peace and Friendship” but I can truly say that, while those goals are lofty, we’re making headway to achieving them. The Peace Corps is the gold standard for Americans who are drawn to volunteering abroad – who are interested in not just imagining a better world, but rolling up their sleeves and doing something

about it. We are unique among service organizations because our volunteers live and work at the community level – they go the last mile where most development agencies, and even host governments, rarely reach. Through intercultural exchange and capacity building, our volunteers and their communities are laying the groundwork for sustainable change that is integral to stability and peace. AF: Speaking a little more broadly, what specific interventions do you think are most likely to help build peace over the next decade?

“PEACE ISN’T JUST THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT. TIME AND AGAIN, HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT THE GREATEST TRAGEDY IN OUR WORLD IS LACK OF DIGNITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND HOPE” 24

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

CHR: Peace Corps’ unique impact comes from our commitment to promoting a better understanding of Americans on the part of peoples served – as well as better understanding of other people on the part of Americans. Now, promoting better understanding may seem awfully simplistic, even naïve, in the face of urgent development challenges. But if you have any experience leading an organization, working in a community, trying to organize diverse groups, trying to ignite change, you know that there is nothing more difficult – or more powerful – than cultivating understanding and bridging stubborn |divides. And what 55 years of partnership in development has shown us at the Peace Corps is that trust, personal relationships, and meaningful collaboration are utterly essential to addressing the most pressing challenges of our time. AF: What does peace mean to you? How would you define it? Why is it important? CHR: Peace isn’t just the absence of conflict. Time and again, history has shown us that the greatest tragedy in our world is lack of dignity, opportunity, and hope. That’s why Peace Corps nurtures the leaders of tomorrow in the communities we serve – the rural, the undiscovered, those with potential, who with just a little boost could make a huge difference in their communities, their countries and their world. AF: Are you concerned that the changing nature of global conflict and violent threats (including terrorism) will narrow the space that the Peace Corps

is able to operate in? Has that already been happening? Or has that always been a challenge for the Peace Corps and this is nothing different? CHR: Volunteers’ health, safety and security are the agency’s top priorities. Although the world is in many ways a safer, more peaceful place now than it was 20 years ago, we must also consider de-stabilizing political forces, from terrorism to social unrest. So the need for Peace Corps’ work – helping to reduce poverty, fostering economic growth, and building relationships in some of the most vulnerable communities across the globe – matters just as much now, as it did at the time of our founding. From the very beginning, Peace Corps has been committed to helping our partner nations build individual and institutional capacity, so they can achieve their own development objectives. We serve in their communities at their invitation, and our work is driven by the development priorities that they identify for their own people. So as their development policies evolve, our focus and our approaches evolve, too. AF: One of the most wonderful things about the Peace Corps is how well known it is and what it stands for in terms of respect for other cultures. If the Peace Corps didn’t already exist, could it be invented today? What set of political and cultural circumstances needs to be present for such an idealistic institution to come into being? CHR: Absolutely. Peace Corps was founded during the Cold War when there was a distinct need for intercultural

CARRIE HESSLER-RADELET

return with help shape their lives and inform their decisions and oftentimes that means having a deeper appreciating for other people and other cultures. This understanding is crucial as we strive for peace. AF: After much debate, the United Nations added an explicit goal around peace to their recently adopted Sustainable Development Goal framework (Goal #16) alongside more traditional development goals like access to safe drinking water, maternal health and access to education. Do you feel encouraged thatthis peace goal was adopted? What impact, if any, do you think it will have? CHR: I think it is important to recognize that a guaranteeing a safe, dignified life for everyone is what we should be striving to achieve. I’m encouraged by the UN’s desire to integrate Peace specifically into the SDGs. exchange. Our world continues to change and I would say the desire on the part of Americans to serve abroad is growing. This past year, Peace Corps received nearly 23,000 applications from Americans who want to make a difference through service overseas—a 40-year high in application numbers. What this really tells us is that, 55 years after its founding, Peace Corps is as relevant, dynamic and important as it has ever been, and that Americans from all walks of life are passionate about the opportunity to serve others. AF: How does the Peace Corps build peacebuilding into its work? In what ways would you like to improve? CHR: The development of personal relationships and

meaningful collaboration are utterly essential to our peacebuilding efforts. I firmly believe that this approach is not only a hallmark of compassionate service; it is absolutely the key to Peace Corps’ impact around the world. In order to better meet our peacebuilding goals, the agency has undertaken an extensive reform of our in-house technical training and program support to enable volunteers to make a bigger development impact in their communities. We have also launched strategic partnerships and embarked on exciting collaborations – such as Let Girls Learn, the whole-of-government girls’ education initiative led by First Lady Michelle Obama – to strengthen Volunteers’ capacity to respond to community needs.

AF: One of the core beliefs of the organization I work for, the Institute for Economics and Peace, is that too little time is spent analyzing what causes peace as opposed to what causes violence and conflict. Do you agree with that critique? Are their countries the Peace Corps is active in that you think aren’t getting enough credit for their successes? CHR: That’s a very interesting assessment because I think we strive to exemplify what Peace really means in the countries in which we serve. Peace Corps has three primary goals and our third is focused on promoting a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. This is fundamental to what we do. The globalized point of view that volunteers

AF: Our goal as an institution is to measure peace through indices and empirical analysis. And so what advice do you have for us? What can we be doing to make we are getting key messages to the right people? Are there ways inwhich our data could be helpful to the Peace Corps? CHR: While data is essential to measuring impact, we have found that the personal stories behind that data are just as important. We’ve found that illustrating the successes and challenges that people around the world face can greatly shape interest in specific policy and help contextualize the importance of certain issues. We always look forward to seeing the work of likeminded organizations. ■ JUNE 2016

IN FOCUS / SOMALIA

Gallery of Moments DROUGHT IN SOMALIA PHOTOGRAPHY BY SEBASTIAN RICH

n March 31, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Somalia, Peter de Clercq launched a call for aid, seeking $105 million to provide life-saving assistance to nearly two million people affected by the severe drought in Somaliland and Puntland. Mr. de Clercq warned that we have reached a critical point, and the situation will only deteriorate if the rains continue to fail in the next months and if we fail to respond to the suffering now. The drought has put a direct constrain on pastoral and agro-pastoral communities – approximately three-quarters of Somaliland and Puntland’s population. In some areas in the north, almost 90 per cent of crops have failed. Acute water and pasture shortages have weakened animals, making them more susceptible to disease. If communities continue to lose or sell productive assets such as livestock, they will lose the means to the support their children and themselves. Nearly 100,000 children under age five are acutely malnourished. Malnutrition-related deaths have been reported in some areas, such as Awdal region bordering Ethiopia. Award-winning senior photographer, Sebastian Rich was recently in Somalia on assignment for UNICEF. You may find additional photography on his website at www.sebastianrichphotography.com

Above Born into drought. 26

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Right Portrait of a young woman at a maternity ward.

SOMALIA

Above Women walk for miles in search of water. JUNE 2016

IN FOCUS / SOMALIA

Gallery of Moments

Above The searing heat creates a huge dust devil that whips up the dry land causing misery as it cuts a swathe through a small village.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

SOMALIA

Above Malnourished child being fed with a syringe.

Above

A young woman and her newborn displaced by the severe drought.

Family passes one of their dead goats as they look for water.

JUNE 2016

IN FOCUS / SOMALIA

Gallery of Moments

Above Young girl with her mother visits a UNICEF ‘walk-in‘ clinic.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

SOMALIA

Above Elderly man with one of his dead goats.

Above Two young men returning to their village after a round trip of forty kilometers to find and collect water. JUNE 2016

Essa ESSAYS

on the

Future of Peace

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

ys A Critical Partner for the Future of Peace By Lise Kingo

A Simple Question for a Wicked Problem By Melanie Greenberg

Peace Has Been Made a Global Development Priority. Now What? By Thomas J.Wheeler

Looking for Reasons to Be Positive About Peace in Mexico By José Luis Chicoma

My Positive Peace Journey in Southern Africa By Trust Mamombe

Give Peace Science a Chance By Patrick T. Hiller

Promoting Peace Through Participation By Thomas Debass

A Peace Agenda on a Military Mission By Johan Bergenas, Grace Mahoney, and Ariella Knight

To Achieve Peace and Security Don’t Forget Governance By Lance Croffoot-Suede and Ulysses Smith JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

A Critical Partner for the Future of Peace By Lise Kingo

e live in uncertain times. With conflict and instability affecting too many people in too many parts of the world, we face a new urgency and must challenge conventional approaches. While the primary responsibility for peace and security rests with governments, business can and should play a critical role. A company’s decisions on investments, employment, community engagement, environmental protection, and security arrangements can help a community avoid, mitigate and overcome conflict. Businesses that operate across national and cultural lines can act as powerful conveners and bring diverse groups of people together. Companies can create relationships based on a shared sense of identity and purpose, overcoming differences that, in the wider society, may be more difficult to surmount. For example, through the Business Action Pledge in Response to the Refugee Crisis, businesses that operate in countries producing, transiting, or receiving refugees publicly commit to take action. This includes addressing the refugee crisis through core business operations such as hiring practices and sourcing policies, the development of products and services appropriate for refugees, or strategic social investment for NGOs, the UN and multilateral agencies. It is important to acknowledge, in some cases, business activity may exacerbate conflict or instability – even if their intentions are for the best. A business may seek to meet the needs of one group of stakeholders while inadvertently ignoring the needs of another, or they may undermine a government’s ability to provide essential services. This creates a complex set of operational, financial, and trustrelated risks. 34

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Yet companies can be successful agents of peace when they take steps to understand the complex issues in conflict-stricken regions and partner with local governments and other groups to achieve common goals. By minimizing the potential for negative impact, business can ensure the long-term sustainability of their operations and play an important part in supporting development and peace both locally and globally. With the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Member States have set an ambitious agenda to create a more peaceful and just world by 2030. At the UN Global Compact, we are translating these global goals into clear action items for the business community. With an explicit goal, SDG 16, to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,” companies have an opportunity to play an active role in its implementation and achievement. Through our Business for Peace platform, the UN Global Compact helps companies take action on SDG 16. We call on business not only to act responsibly and implement “do no harm” business models, but to make intentional contributions to peace in the communities in which they operate. Achieving a more peaceful, sustainable world cannot be achieved by any one sector alone. Collaboration and partnerships—between business, civil society and government – are essential. Working in partnership for peace will lead to more integrated, systems-based solutions. To deliver the greatest impact, business must be included. In preparing for this year’s Future of Peace Summit, let us be reminded of the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: “It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” At the UN

“IN PREPARING FOR THIS YEAR’S FUTURE OF PEACE SUMMIT, LET US BE REMINDED OF THE WORDS OF ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: ‘IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT PEACE. ONE MUST BELIEVE IN IT. AND IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO BELIEVE IN IT. ONE MUST WORK AT IT.’”

Global Compact, we are committed to doing just that. Our Business for Peace initiative encourages the peace community to engage business around the world. Only by joining forces and working together can we help deliver a future that is more sustainable, peaceful, and prosperous. ■

Lise Kingo is the Executive Director of the UN Global Compact and a recognized expert in corporate sustainability. She leads the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative with more than 12,000 signatories from 170 countries that have committed to aligning strategies and operations with universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption, and taking actions that advance societal goals.

A Simple Question for a Wicked Problem By Melanie Greenberg

t seemed like such a simple question: “What is the most peaceful country in the world?” And yet very few people outside a rarified group of political scientists could answer that question in 2006. I remember the first launch of the Global Peace Index, where a certain sense of skepticism reigned. Experts questioned the indicators, poked holes in the methodology, and anxiously scanned the list to see where their own countries fell in the rankings. I remember my seatmates being outraged that the United States – THE UNITED STATES! – fell dangerously close to Iran and Israel in the rankings, far from the top tier of most peaceful nations. The signal accomplishment of the Institute for Economics and Peace has been the creation of a framework flexible enough to encompass massive changes in the world – witnessing revolutions in politics and technology – and yet consistent enough to show real change over the course of ten years. The Global Peace Index and its sister indices have democratized the economic language of peace, allowing all of us – not just economists and political scientists – to understand in harrowing detail both the costs of violence containment, and the potential dividends for peace. As the leader of a network of 106 peacebuilding organizations working in 153 countries, I use elements of the Global Peace Index in every aspect of my advocacy for peace.

Intellectual Validation for an Entire Field In 2006, when the GPI was born, peacebuilding risked becoming marginalized. Peacebuilding – despite very creative work in reconciliation and dialogue by brilliant practitioners and scholars – still carried a whiff of

Birkenstocks and a thousand flowers blooming. Whereas other fields, such as education and public health took full advantage of the data revolution and developed metrics for measuring impact, peacebuilding lagged behind. From the beginning, the Global Peace Index has provided important intellectual validation and ballast for the entire field of peacebuilding. The Global Peace Index was the first widely popular instrument to measure and quantify peacefulness across a wide range of conflict drivers, giving academics, practitioners and diplomats a numerical vocabulary for peace, and a compelling way to speak about the actual costs of violence. The 2015 Global Peace Index reported that the costs of violence make up a staggering 13.4% of global GDP. That number should make all of us take notice. To be effective advocates for peace, we must be conversant in these numbers! Purveyors of war are never called on to account for the true cost of violence – it is up to the peacebuilders to bring these figures to light, and to argue that peace is a far more costeffective option. These are the arguments that peacebuilders need to attract other donors to our space. For social change entrepreneurs who are drawn to fields like climate change or medical research because the rates of return are clearer, and the metrics are sexier, the Global Peace Index provides the kind of hard numbers that make investors take notice. The people who are skeptical that peace could yield outsized benefits only need to read the Global Peace Index to understand the deep impact of a dollar of conflict prevention, and the benefit of investing in a peace dividend. Hard Truths and Inspiration The Global Peace Index tells us hard

“THE GLOBAL PEACE INDEX TELLS US HARD TRUTHS ABOUT OUR WORLD. IT IS A HEARTBREAKING FACT THAT – LIKE INCOME INEQUALITY – THERE IS ALSO PEACE INEQUALITY.”

truths about our world. It is a heartbreaking fact that – like income inequality – there is also peace inequality. The 2015 GPI highlighted a clear demarcation between the twenty least peaceful countries in the world and the other GPI nations, with 500 million people living in the twenty most peaceful countries, and 3 billion living in the twenty least peaceful. However, the Global Peace Index also highlights hopeful models for peace. It is not only the Icelands and Denmarks of the world that provide models for peace and stability, but also the less-heralded Bhutan (18 in 2015), Poland (19 in 2015) and Mauritius (25 in 2015) that can serve as regional beacons, and repositories for creative experimentation in the elements that make up a peaceful society. I work extensively on “fragile states,” partnering with citizens living in the most dire conflict regions, helping them imagine what a more peaceful future could look like. Being able to draw on the positive examples of countries in their own regions – and to learn from the negative trends, as well – gives citizens ➥ JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

➥ a language for negotiating with

their own governments, a framework for attacking the most pressing peace and security problems in their countries, and a foundation for making difficult economic choices. A Systems Approach to Peace The Global Peace Index and the Positive Peace Index represent two sides of the peace coin – one “negative peace” (measuring violence, weapons, and the absence of peace) and the other “positive peace” (measuring the elements that create a healthy, peaceful society). Together, these two frameworks create a powerful systemic approach to peace. Peace is not simply the absence of war – it is the positive presence of good governance, economic opportunity, lack of corruption, civic voice, and human dignity. This is what we work for in peace – these are the pillars that STOP cycles of violence, put a brake on militarism, give voice and dignity to citizens, and build social cohesion. Conflict is development in reverse – positive peace gives us a new way of thinking about resilience. I am convinced that the Global Peace Index, with its emphasis on quantifying peace, and its systemic approach to peacebuilding, made possible one of the greatest advocacy victories our field has been a part of – the inclusion of peace in the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015. This framework, which will govern poverty reduction efforts globally for the next fifteen years – now has peace as a central pillar, encompassing peaceful, just and inclusive societies. Without the groundwork that the Global Peace Index laid in convincing the world that peace could be quantified, and the specific work that the Institute for Economics and Peace did in developing the indicators for peace in the Goal 16 process, we would never have reached his milestone. I salute the creators of the Global Peace Index on the tenth anniversary, and feel confident that the GPI will rise to the challenges that a turbulent world continually puts before us. ■

Melanie Cohen Greenberg is President and CEO of the Alliance for Peacebuilding. She has spent her career strengthening the field of peacebuilding, with a special focus on empowering civil society level peace efforts. 36

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Peace Has Been Made a Global Development Priority. Now What? By Thomas J.Wheeler

“W

e are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence” states the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. At global level the normative debate on the linkages between peace and development has been won with the identification of peace as one of five cross cutting priorities in new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the inclusion of SDG 16 on peace, justice and accountable governance. But – already 2% of the way to 2030 – what do those working on the intersection between peace and development need to do next? The past is just the prologue We should first recognise that momentum is with us, with regards to both reductions in violence and the factors underpinning positive peace. Peaking in the late 1980s

and early 90s, the number of armed conflicts has fallen significantly. The risk of inter-state war – and the levels of carnage seen in two world wars – has also declined. While stubbornly high in some contexts, homicide rates have fallen. Measures of access to justice by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) initiative show progress for both men and women over the last 50 years. The number of democracies increased from 30 in 1959 to 87 in 2009. We have also seen a significant expansion in measures of freedoms of expression in the same period. We must, nonetheless, be sober about the scale of the challenge ahead. We met the target of halving extreme poverty in the MDG period but the SDGs aim to now end extreme poverty. Those living in extreme poverty will increasingly be concentrated in countries experiencing or at risk of conflict. Worryingly, the number of conflicts jumped from a low of five in

2010 to 11 in 2014, the most deadly year in the past 20. Syria accounts for many of these deaths, but of “the ten conflicts with the most fatalities in 2013, eight became more violent in 2014.” Using 2014 as our baseline year, we will not get back down to 2010 levels by 2030 even with a 75% reduction in conflict deaths. (Figure one) Other recent indicators of positive peace are worrying: One 2010 study suggests that even the 20 fastest reforming ‘fragile’ states would still take 41 years to reach an average score on the World Bank’s rule of law indicator. Over the past 10 years, 105 countries have seen a net decline in democracy as measured by Freedom House; only 61 have experienced a net improvement. Major protests have occurred around the world with increasing frequency since the second half of the 2000s. As for fundamental freedoms, more than 60 countries have passed or drafted laws that curtail the activity of civil society in the last three years while two-thirds of the 180 countries surveyed for the 2015 World Press Freedom Index performed less well than in the previous year. Overall, taking a broad view of positive peace over the past eight years, the Global Peace Index has documented small but significant declines. It is debatable whether the momentum of the past 50 years or so is slowing or even reversing. Spikes in conflict deaths, challenges to democracy, or restrictions on freedoms are not necessarily representative of long-term future trends. Moreover, not all data sets point in the same direction (V-dem, for example, does not present as pessimistic a view on democracy as Freedom House) and we know that data can only tell an incomplete story. Either way, however, it is clear that making progress towards Goal 16 will not happen in the absence of concerted international action. A glance at the global environment hardly installs confidence. To start with, we will increasingly face transnational issues that drive conflict, including illicit financial flows, arms transfers, the drugs trade, climate change and terrorism. On some of these issues the international community has failed to act, on others action has done more harm than good. Meanwhile international relations are uncertain and our systems of global governance are under immense strain, as the UN Security Council’s impasse on Syria tragically demonstrates. In the West,

continued austerity risks discouraging attention to global development while the politics of fear encourages closed societies who build walls and the adoption of a narrow and short-sighed definition of the national interest. Getting back on track Resignation is one option. Another is to think about how the 2030 Agenda’s commitment to peace and Goal 16 can be used. Significant political capital was invested in getting agreement on the goal. This can now be spent on generating momentum for action well beyond New York. We can talk about root causes, but we ultimately know that progress on the issues contained in Goal 16 will come down to political leadership at domestic level within both state and society. Consensus within the development and peacebuilding community on the need to “work politically” risks becoming meaningless if interpreted as merely understanding local politics and working with the grain of the status quo. We should go further and use Goal 16 to channel international support to change-makers at national level, whether they are reformers in the ministry of justice, human rights defenders, or businesses intent on strengthening the rule of law. Working politically may mean taking sides, but 193 member states have signed up to the commitments and language of Goal 16, creating a legitimate basis for engagement across a host of contexts and with a range of actors. With this in mind, it will be important to acknowledge that specific aspects of Goal 16 will be relevant to different actors in different contexts and at different junctures in time. This will mean working flexibly and avoiding the temptation to replicate template programming approaches from one context to another. And the 15 year time span of the SDGs means we can work to sensible long-term time horizons rather than merely hopping from one project to the next. In addition, we now have a means for tracking progress: the global SDG indicators are perfect, but they will generate new data on issues not traditionally tracked officially or in a way that is comparable between countries. This data will be the currency of accountability processes. The world will need to make significant investments in data gathering capacities, both within national statistical systems but

also among multilateral agencies and civil society with the overall aim of creating pluralistic data ecosystems. We will also need to act together. The 2030 Agenda explicitly aims to get government, multilateral, civil society and private sector stakeholders working in concert. Goal 16 could draw the peacebuilding, justice, governance, and rights communities onto one platform, where these highly interdependent issues belong. Silos should be broken through the development of a holistic, shared vision of transformative change. A clear strategy and set of tangible actions driven by a group of influential Goal 16 champions could prove impactful. But acting together will also mean engaging well beyond the like-minded, including with the diplomatic and security actors who have an immense influence on our work. Finally, we will need to act more coherently across three levels. First, support will be needed in countries furthest behind, critically those at risk of or experiencing conflict. Second, decisive collective action is required on transnational issues, such as illicit financial flows, as well as on common global challenges like shrinking civil society space. Third, the universality of the new development agenda must be taken seriously at home if we expect others to do the same and have a genuinely two-way exchange on different models of progress. This should go beyond symbolism, recognising that western societies are at risk of themselves becoming more closed, exclusionary and conflicted; Innovative approaches to cooperation that work at the intersection of bilateral, global and domestic policymaking will become increasingly more relevant than the donor-recipient frameworks of today. ■

Thomas Wheeler is a Conflict and Security Adviser on Saferworld’s Policy Programme where he leads on global conflict prevention policy. His current focus is on the implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda, the New Deal for engagement in fragile states, and transnational stresses. He previously worked on Saferworld’s China and Africa programmes. Thomas holds an MA in Conflict, Security and Development from the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

Looking for Reasons to Be Positive About Peace in Mexico By José Luis Chicoma

exicans always rank among the happiest and the most optimistic populations. No matter what happens, when compared against more developed countries, Mexico ranks above average in terms of general satisfaction with life. But some of us living in Mexico aren’t represented by these statistics and are more skeptical. Much of this skepticism is due to the ongoing feeling of insecurity, lawlessness, and impunity within the country. The front pages of newspapers are filled with news of increased disappearances and violence in states that are already overcome by organized crime, reports on criminal organizations now active in areas of Mexico City that were previously considered safe havens from the violence occurring throughout the rest of the country, and instances of corruption and impunity that are openly documented and proven, and yet never result in anyone being held accountable. Within this context, the Mexico Peace Index, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, offers something of a lifesaver when the feeling of drowning in never ending pessimism is overwhelming. The report defines positive peace as “… the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies,” offering a certain light at the end of the tunnel by focusing on potential and what might occur in the future. Within this context, Mexico scores highly: it has the second largest Positive Peace surplus in the world, indicating that it has the necessary structures and resources to reduce its levels of violence in the future. Various factors help determine the surplus, from a sound business environment and equitable distribution of resources, to high levels of human capital and good relations with neighbors. My attention was drawn in particular to one 38

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

of the indicators where Mexico is the weakest: well-functioning government. Most specifically, how the country manages the resources dedicated to domestic security. Although there has been a 105% increase since 2006, Mexico still dedicates a relatively low percentage of public spending to domestic security (1.5%) in comparison to the OECD average (4.7%), and slightly less than the United States of America (1.6%). Upon analysis, it might actually be better if Mexican security spending stops increasing to avoid compounding the issues and errors that permeate the spending system. A clear example of these issues can be found in the transfer of domestic security funds from the federal to the state and municipal level. Resources managed on a local level face a variety of barriers that impact the transparency and effectiveness of how they are used. The Auditoría Superior de la Federación, the federal auditing authority, has carried out more than 500 audits and made 5,117 recommendations of various types. The processes for the allocation of resources are critiqued not only because of their general unresponsiveness, but also because of the lack of public information regarding the details of the processes. Without this information, one might come to the conclusion that these resources are allocated in line with political purposes rather than technical ones. Additionally, resources continue to be distributed by the government primarily via direct award procurement processes rather than open bidding, based on the argument that an open bidding process presents a security issue. This situation is aggravated by a lack of control mechanisms, as well as the fact that various executing agencies lack supporting documentation for their

“ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN A 105% INCREASE SINCE 2006, MEXICO STILL DEDICATES A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC SPENDING TO DOMESTIC SECURITY (1.5%) IN COMPARISON TO THE OECD AVERAGE (4.7%), AND SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1.6%).”

expenses, in addition to the oversight systems necessary to generate financial reports and maintain the appropriate accounting records. These issues make it even more difficult to determine where the resources end up. The list of issues noted in these audits is long, and includes serious inefficiencies caused by a lack of the skills necessary to create adequate needs assessments, spending and execution reports, results and impact indicators and measurements, and assessments of compliance with stated objectives and goals. Additionally, although the current administration’s political narrative emphasizes its focus on secondary prevention, the reality is very different.

My Positive Peace Journey in Southern Africa By Trust Mamombe

The National Crime Prevention Program (PRONAPRED) manages a budget of $2.5 billion Mexican pesos, however, according to government records, the resources allocated to crime prevention measures totaled $132.6 billion Mexican pesos. A detailed analysis of this second figure shows that some of the activities included within it are not directly tied to crime prevention. For example, this total includes resources earmarked for a program dedicated to comprehensive care for victims of high-impact crimes, implying that intervention in fact occurs after a crime has already been committed. Additionally, there are various programs whose connection to crime prevention is murky, including programs to support public service and good governance. Finally, it is unclear whether or not the activities included in this total were planned and designed for crime prevention, or in fact were pre-existing federal agency programs that were simply shuffled around and relabeled as a crime prevention expense. The Mexican government is ineffective in its domestic security spending and engages in a grandiose rhetoric based on inflated figures and a distorted representation of spending priorities. Considering this, is it possible to be an optimist and imagine a future with potential for positive peace? Of course it is. Within a complex system based on so many external factors that impact peace, this is precisely the type of variable that can be controlled with political will and a lot of pressure from civil society and the media. ■

José Luis Chicoma is the Executive Director of Ethos Public Policy Lab.

ur transformational Positive Peace journey for Zimbabwe began in soulful Bologna, Italy in July 2014. I was given the privilege of introducing Steve Killelea, the man behind the Global Peace Index, to the participants in a symposium organized by the International Peace and Security Institute. That same evening I sat with Steve in a restaurant over a pasta and fish diner. After a conversation about Zimbabwe (my home country) and many other world affairs, Steve took a while to explain to me the work the IEP was doing and before we had our final course, we had agreed to pioneer work on Positive Peace in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia. The first step was to identify a team of highly motivated individuals to identify possible initiatives to build Positive Peace in Southern Africa. And as Steve clearly articulated that same evening, the initiatives had to be premised by firstly, the need to be easy to implement and to be viewed positively by most of society. Secondly, the initiatives had to be crafted in such a way that each initiative would have substantial impact in the respective societies in which they would be implemented and thirdly, the initiatives drawn should be crafted in such a way that it would be possible to execute them in a short period of time. Over the past fourteen months my major realisation is that the domains of Positive Peace, aslo called Pillars of Peace, represent a holistic assessment of what makes and keeps a society peaceful. In this regard, peace building efforts should aim to enhance and build the Pillars of Peace. Further, when applying the Pillars of Peace, the best mechanisms and approaches to adopt need to be culturally sensitive and varied for societies at

“FOR THE FIRST TIME, BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL DIVIDE IN THE COUNTRY FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE CIVIL SOCIETY DRIVEN WORKSHOP.”

different stages of development research in order to contribute to the consolidation and underpinning of peace in the communities, and established legal authorities. There have been several development efforts to ease the plight of Batswana, Zambians, Zimbabweans and the generality of Southern Africa. However, efforts need to be harnessed and galvanized in order to tap the colossal energies of the people into mainstream national discourse on peace and development. A paradigm that is well covered by the Positive Peace framework. The process saw me team up with the 2012 Sydney Peace Prize winner and Chairperson of the National Peace ➥ JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

➥ Trust (NPT), Senator Sekai Holland. We travelled to Zambia and Botswana for extensive meetings and group discussions at high levels. In Zambia, the Positive Peace framework drew the attention of the First President of the country, Dr Kenneth Kaunda and the former Supreme Court Judge President of Zambia and now COMESA Judge President Lombe Chibesakunda. The founding father of Zambia agreed to be the Patron of the regional initiative and drive forward the Positive Peace agenda. In Botswana, we meet and interacted with several high level government officials and intellectuals from the University of Botswana including Professor Molomo and Dr. Malebang. This all, as momentum gathered for the inaugural Pillars of Peace for Southern Africa Workshop in Harare. Experts were preparing papers for presentation and focus group discussions were being held on all of the domains of Positive Peace. Friday the 27th of November 2015 marked a very important day in the Positive Peace discourse for Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. All was set for the one and half day workshop. Framing papers including Historical Perspectives on Positive Peace in Southern Africa and Systems Thinking were prepared together with the papers on the identified initiatives. The workshop was officially opened by the Vice President of Zimbabwe, The Honourable E.D Mnangagwa, who was quick to point out government endorsement of the framework. Also in attendance were delegates from Botswana and Zambia. High level Zimbabwe government officials also attended. Diplomats from the three countries and Australia graced the workshop, together with Camilla Schippa from the IEP and Steve himself. Particularly incredible for Zimbabwe was that for the first time, both sides of the political divide in the country fully participated in the civil society driven workshop. With the polarization in Zimbabwe cutting across political and civil society sectors it was most refreshing to see leaders from both sides of the political divide in full participation and endorsement of the process. ■ Trust Mamombe is Director of the National Peace Trust.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Give Peace Science a Chance By Patrick T. Hiller

ive Peace a Chance has been an anthem of the American anti-war movement since it came out in 1969. The present peace movement looks very different, and so does the notion of peace. For the purposes of this article, I hope John Lennon would have approved of adding the term science to the title of his song. Here is why. We are at a stage in human history where we can say with confidence that there are better and more effective alternatives to war and violence. Despite a perception of overwhelming violence, which is true in parts of the world, humans have also figured out alternatives. Building peace in theory and practice is becoming increasingly professionalized. Peace Science, as one of the founding fathers of the field Johan Galtung states, is the research and theory guiding peace workers to produce a more enduring and positive peace. Rigorous, theory-driven analyses accompanied by quantitative and qualitative empirical data have proven to be useful in explaining the causes of war and the conditions for peace. Peace Science has emerged as an academic discipline now offered worldwide by more than 450 university programs. A myriad of peer-reviewed academic journals, textbooks, and conferences address both the theoretical and practical developments in the peacebuilding arena, as do peace research institutions like the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute or the Peace Research Institute Oslo, and professional associations like the International Peace Research Association and its regional affiliates in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Lastly the Global Peace Index, now going into its 10th year, is probably the most renowned research-based measure of peacefulness or lack thereof. The point is, Peace Science is real and here to stay. Peace Science has many potential

“PEACE SCIENCE DOES NOT OFFER A SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS, AND, LIKE ANY OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO SCRUTINY.” beneficiaries. Peace educators, professional peacebuilding practitioners in the Alliance for Peacebuilding, and funders in the Peace and Security Funders Group can set up their curricula, programming, and funding, respectively, based on insights from the field of Peace Science. Peace activists can strengthen their campaigns to challenge the war system status quo by adding scientific evidence as a force multiplier for reshaping the national and global peace and security discourse. Legislators recently benefited from certain Peace Science analyses. During the Iran Nuclear Deal negotiations several expert policybriefings on the framework of the deal took into consideration Peace Science research, in particular on understanding the nature of negotiation. Two instances stood out following the signing of the deal in 2015: (1) Within less than a day the U.S. Navy sailors who had entered Iranian waters were released, as was a detained Washington Post reporter who had been convicted of espionage. (2) In late 2015, Iran was invited to join the Syria peace talks, a clear shift in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran and a clear result of the nuclear deal. Those developments were predictable and based on what Peace Science tells us about diplomacy and negotiation. In the media the “expertise” related to war and peace provided by members of the intelligentsia is very one-sided. Many

of these eloquent individuals have achieved their legitimacy through academic credentials, military authority, or recognition as political commentators. Their facts, opinions, and advice on matters of war and peace shape the dominant discourse and mostly serve to uphold the status quo of a war system. With growing recognition of the reality of Peace Science, the expertise on war and peace issues will include public peace intellectuals, who offer viable alternatives to the common destructive responses in the war system. Once those alternatives come to light, it has been proven that there will be a decline in public support for war. Peace Science does not offer a solution to all problems, and, like any other social science, it needs to be open to scrutiny. This is particularly important because this discipline does not only provide theoretical and empirical knowledge related to issues of war and peace, but it also has the normative goal of advocating for the prevention of war and the creation of cultures of peace. Peace scientists have to be even more rigorous in their methodology and more practical in their analysis. The long-term, historical trend lines for global war and violence are pointing downwards. While encouraging, these developments should not lead to complacency, especially since we have seen a dramatic increase of internal, armed conflict during the last years. However, by examining how and where long-term, sustainable peace has been achieved, peace scientists can provide orientation and offer relevant advice toward transforming worldwide militarism and intractable conflicts into cultures of peace and peaceful societies. The need to draw upon the strengths of the tools, approaches and methods of Peace Science in domestic and international affairs has become clear. If we give peace science a chance, there is more reason for authentic hope. ■

Patrick Hiller, Ph.D., directs the War Prevention Initiative by Jubitz Family Foundation and teaches Conflict Resolution at Portland State University. He serves on the Executive Committee of the International Peace Research Association, is member of the Peace and Security Funders Group, and founding editor of the Peace Science Digest.

Promoting Peace Through Participation By Thomas Debass

n the world we live in, where global conflict is on the rise, one of the best weapons we have to promote peace is promoting equal public access to policy, resources, and information. With advances in mobile technology in the last 10 years—from the proliferation of social media like Facebook, which now boasts over 1.23 billion monthly active users, to the advent of virtual classrooms— access to the internet has done two very important things: given the disenfranchised a means to amplify their voice, and more importantly, given policymakers broader audiences that is not only receptive to the influx of data and information but which also serve as responsive and interactive virtual participants. Technology is a means to an end, allowing organizations to connect directly with new audiences in a way that would have been impossible even a decade ago. What is perhaps most exciting is the different ways that the private sector, government, and civil society are using technology to further their own goals, as well as increasingly work together to create enabling environments and foster collaborations that hold the key to the future of peace. Academia has long been a collaborator for peace in the broadest sense—creating a safe environment, convening intelligent thinkers, and spreading information and ideas. It’s no surprise that universities have been one of the best partners when it comes to finding new ways to promote peaceful solutions to global problems. With the increasing connectedness of our technological world, colleges and universities are able to connect like never before with the subjects of their studies, bringing real-world examples to their coursework, whether in political science, engineering, or graphic design. Here at the State Department, we’ve recognized the potential of collaborating across sectors, harnessing innovation and using technology to make sure we’re both

“THROUGH THE ONGOING DIPLOMACY LAB PARTNERSHIP, ACADEMICS AND STUDENTS ARE GIVEN DIRECT ACCESS TO POLICY MAKERS AND INFLUENCERS IN FOREIGN POLICY.” getting our message out to as many people as possible, as well as bringing new groups into our policy-making. To that end, we’ve created a public-private partnership that empowers university students across the country to connect to policymakers. Through the ongoing Diplomacy Lab partnership, academics and students are given direct access to policy makers and influencers in foreign policy. Diplomacy Lab allows students and faculty the opportunity to address current global issues identified by the State Department offices here in Washington, as well as all of our embassies and missions overseas. Student teams work on complex policy issues in conjunction with subject matter experts, enabling the State Department to “course-source” research and broaden its engagement with university students across the nation. In the six semesters that Diplomacy Lab has been around, our university partners have delved deep into topics including researching the impact of local peace agreements and conflict prevention, analyzing radical ideology messaging on social media platforms, and using open data and research to produce actionable guidance in public diplomacy. Our colleagues here at the Department are then able to use this research to better inform their programming and policy recommendations around the world. And this spring, teams were invited to ➥ JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

➥ present their findings in person to a larger audience of both their State Department “clients” and the public at the first ever Diplomacy Lab Project Fair and Wonk Tank Competition. An initiative within Diplomacy Lab, the new Wonk Tank student policy pitching platform adds an extra component to our engagement with universities. Wonk Tank reverses the direction of the idea-making that Diplomacy Lab started—rather than giving university teams a research project to work on, it asks students to pitch us their best ideas in foreign policy. The competition was born out of our desire to use challenges and crowdsourcing to foster innovative solutions to the proliferation of today’s global foreign policy challenges, from reforming food assistance to fighting ISIS. By giving university students access to share their innovative ideas with influential decision makers, we hope to empower the next generation of leaders to buy in early and help disrupt the closed -circuit of the policy making process. Our Wonk Tank finalists this year presented to a judging panel of high-level policy makers, subject matter experts, and Diplomacy Lab university delegations to great success. Each student brought her passion to the pitch, from Millicent Smith of the University of Tennessee, who spoke of promoting gender inclusion education programs in India, to Shoshanna Goldin of Yale University who made the case that preparation is needed to prevent a religious extremist-led smallpox epidemic. The encouraging responses we’ve received from students and our partners signal a bright future ahead for the partnership. As Elisabeth Thomas, Wonk Tank finalist and undergraduate chemical engineering major, put it: “Before this competition, State seemed rather inaccessible to students. Now, we have had a chance to directly engage and communicate with the State Department about foreign policies.” We have high hopes that Diplomacy Lab and Wonk Tank will encourage continued collaboration with students and other enthusiastic audiences for peaceful dialogue and discourse to better inform our diplomacy and development worldwide. ■

Thomas Debass is Deputy Representative for Global Partnerships at the U.S. Department of State. 42

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

A Peace Agenda On a Military Mission By Johan Bergenas, Grace Mahoney and Ariella Knight

s the world closed the books on the Millennium Development Goals last year (MDGs), there was much to celebrate. Remarkably, the international community cut extreme poverty in half, 90 percent of countries have more women in parliament since 1995, and 2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water, to name just a few of the many global successes. Yet, other results were not as encouraging. Among the most troubling trends was the inability to build peace as a framework for poverty alleviation. States impacted by armed conflict typically have had the highest rates of poverty over the last fifteen years. In fact, the rate of children not attending school in conflictridden countries increased from 30 percent in 1996 to 36 percent in 2012. Looking ahead, conflict is expected to be a magnet for poverty and where people suffer most threats to global peace and security will rise in the shape of terrorist organizations and transnational organized criminals with regional and sometimes global reach. The links between security and development have been thoroughly and clearly identified by numerous diplomats, analysts, and donor countries, as well as felt first hand in developing nations. However, to date, the peace and development community have not been able to manage the perils of building and maintaining peace as an antidote to poverty. In the last few years, perhaps in recognition of the necessity of outside assistance, unlikely partners – including national militaries and the global security community – have been called upon to contribute. This new approach has been met with some resistance and arguments that engaging security organizations is the ultimate path to militarizing peace and development. These concerns are overstated. In fact, a more holistic and

collaborative approach to peace and development is not only a smart path to achieve those objectives, but have been underway for many years. Most recently peace and security capacity building as a path to development was recently codified in one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 16, which includes targets such as the reduction of illicit finance and arms flows, trafficking, terrorism, and all forms of violence. Consider the following examples of peace, security and military organizations working together or incorporating each other’s mandates to build sustainable peace, security and development for mutual benefit. U.S. SOUTHCOM has prioritized interagency collaboration and partnerships for years to combat illicit trafficking, transnational organized crime, maritime security, disaster preparedness, and humanitarian relief, all which have positive knock-off effects for peace and development. In 2014, for example, and in close coordination with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, SOUTHCOM used $1.7 million civil-military funds to construct disaster relief facilities in Paraguay. In addition to infrastructure, SOUTHCOM provided equipment and training to ensure full operability. In the same vein, the UK published their new global development strategy in November 2015, which allocates resources to security goals in support of sustainable development in fragile states and regions. This was followed by, in early 2016, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) decision to widen its definition of official development assistance (ODA) to include certain security and defense costs, including measures to prevent violent extremism and to provide limited military training. For countries like Japan, this evolution has been underway for quite some time.

Tokyo is executing a hybrid capacitybuilding policy that they refer to as “strategic use of aid,” which transcends the traditional security or development boundaries. Through ODA or other grant aid programs, Japan has donated various defense technologies to developing countries, such as Indonesia and Jordan, not to build military capacity, but rather to address pressing development needs. In Latin America, and using a somewhat different tactic, Brazil launched Operation Agata 5 in 2012, utilizing the military to tackle transnational border crime, such as illegal logging, mining, and drug trafficking, through collaborative law enforcement efforts. The military takes the lead with assistance from environmental protection and customs agencies, intelligence officials, and state and national police. Through Operation Agata 5, Brazil cuts down on criminal activity in an environment that provides lower risk tactical training for its military. Combining incentives from both the security and development communities, this could serve as a cost-effective model for achieving SDG Goal 16 targets. It is not only military and security organizations that implement a more

holistic approach to peace, security and development. Initiatives like the UNDP Joint Rule of Law Programme, which strengthens civilian police, and the UNODC, which counters transnational crime, corruption, and terrorism through various supply chain security projects, also benefit development. While adjusting to the changing relationship between security and development may be challenging, the path forward is clearly a more collaborative approach within and outside of the public sector. Some nongovernmental organizations are already picking up on this trend. For example, a former Special Operations Sniper and Clearance Diver in the Australian Defense Force founded the International Anti-Poaching Foundation to train rangers and integrate modern (and sometimes defense) technology into conservation efforts. In a world where wildlife crime represents a conservation, development and security issues – proceeds from the trade ends up in the hands of transnational criminals and even terrorist organizations – security resources are a welcome addition. To that end, President Barack Obama issued the National Strategy for

Combatting Wildlife Trafficking in 2014, which has spurred extensive interagency cooperation on the issue. For example, AFRICOM, USAID, Department of State, and the CBP are establishing an Ivory and Narcotics Detection Canine Program with the Tanzanian Police Force to tackle trafficking of illegal wildlife and narcotics in Dar es Salaam. AFRICOM also currently partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a needs assessment of anti-poaching and wildlife trafficking efforts in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In fact, AFRICOM has long engaged the private sector and USAID in seeking solutions to threats that emerge from the undercurrents of globalization. In a world where peace, development and security are inarguably connected, we should not only give peace a chance, we must also pragmatically accept and identify new and expanding opportunities to work with militaries and the global security establishments around the world. The Sustainable Development Goals are a great platform from which to further operationalize a more holistic approach to global peace and development. ■

To Achieve Peace and Security in the World, Don’t Forget Governance By Lance Croffoot-Suede and Ulysses Smith

t the heart of much of the unrest in the world today, and its associated threats to peace and security, are long-standing failings of governance. ISIS rises on the rubble of failed states, drawing into its orbit individuals disenfranchised by a globalization that has not served their interests. Corruption blights communities

or entire political systems, causing populations to rise up in anger. Illicit financial flows rob countries of desperately needed resources to support education, health and other means of developing societies, exacerbating poverty and reinforcing social strife, in an amount conservatively estimated at $50 billion annually for Africa alone. Development

and humanitarian interventions fall short of global needs and ambitions, often as a result of being poorly governed. The relationship between peace and security, on the one hand, and overnance, on the other, has been understood since at least Kant. Governance is a critical precursor to peace and security. Societies that feel governed by the rule of law, ➥ JUNE 2016

ESSAYS

“THERE WILL NEED TO BE SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL WILL AND THE EXPENDITURE OF POLITICAL CAPITAL AT ALL LEVELS OF THE GOVERNANCE ‘VALUE’ CHAIN.” ➥ and not the rule of men, generally do not go to war against one another. Failed states, by contrast, do not have the institutions, processes and political systems that foster good governance. As such, they are often breeding grounds for war and insecurity, lacking the structures and the glue that facilitate the peaceful resolution of differences. Efforts to secure the conditions where peace and security can take hold, therefore, require a range of actions, many of which tackle failings of governance first and foremost. Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Agenda recognizes the relationship between the two. It sets forth a vision that is both ambitious in its striving toward peace and security and good governance, while reflecting the interlinked challenges, complexities, sensitivities and ambiguities that are interwoven among them. While Goal 16 goes a long way toward establishing a strong vision, the challenge now is to ensure that the international community collectively, and individual governments specifically, develop a

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

response or series of responses that leverage the full set of tools at their disposal, and deploy them at the right levels and to the right degree. There will need to be bold, imaginative, focused leadership, both to take on the challenge of poor governance and to project a vision of good governance. This will entail a steady and persistent series of messages from world leaders on the critical need to be responsive to calls to reform government at all levels and in all corners of the world. The current groundswell for better governance, from places as diverse as Brazil, Malaysia, India and Guatemala, must be addressed, and exemplars of good governance, where they can be found, should be celebrated. Among the international community, the selection of the next Secretary-General presents an all-too-rare opportunity to consider both the governance of the multilateral system itself, as well as the contribution that that system can and should make to global governance. A highlevel panel on governance in the multilateral system likely should be convened to rally the focused consideration that progress on this issue requires. There will need to be significant political will and the expenditure of political capital at all levels of the governance “value” chain. This will bring to bear political elements across the spectrum of global development, including national, regional and local governments; the private sector; civil society; and communities and citizens to take on the challenges of poor governance

from a multiplicity of directions. Solutions should target judicial system administration, constitutional structures, local and national government systems, internal security agencies, among others, and lessons learned and best practices from the various constituencies should be shared. There will need to be “traditional” development interventions that aid agencies such as USAID and actors like the World Bank and non-governmental organizations have long engaged in, supplemented by contributions from the private sector and reinforced by government. This array of efforts at each of the political, diplomatic and development levels is necessary to tackle the governance failings that have limited progress on peace and security. In a world of globalization, where the volume of information and the level of transparency is increasing exponentially, the activities of poor governance, as well as the unjust desserts it produces, are there for all to see. Until the governance challenge is addressed, conditions of peace and security will not prevail. ■

Lance Croffoot-Suede is head of, and Ulysses Smith is a senior attorney in, Linklaters’ International Governance and Development Practices, which advises the private, public and not-for-profit sectors on all manner of governance issues, including addressing challenges relating to bribery, corruption, fraud and economic sanctions regimes.

From data to discoveries. Power your analytics with Intel® technologies.

Intel® Xeon® processor-based platforms deliver the performance and throughput to handle disparate data sets. Get the most from your analytics efforts with Intel®-based platforms that deliver the exceptional performance, low latency, and high throughput needed to handle big data. Intel helps IT departments manage the increased demands for compute resources with anytime, anywhere data access.

Large-Scale Performance Get the most from your analytics with exceptional performance, low latency, and high throughput.

Hardware-Enhanced Security Accelerate data encryption and harden your platform with technologies such as Intel® AES New Instructions (Intel® AES-NI).

Storage

Learn more at intel.com/healthcare/bigdata

Intel® Solid-State Drives (Intel® SSDs) give you fast, reliable access to data by increased read performance and reduced latency times.

FEATURE / GLOBAL TERRORISM

THE EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL TERRORISM DATABASE:

MEASURING THREATS TO PEACE We cannot do much to reduce or stop terrorism if we cannot first define and count it.

STORY BY GARY LAFREE

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

GLOBAL TERRORISM

or the past three years, the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), maintained by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), has supplied the data on terrorism used to create the Global Terrorism Index (GTI). When we started the GTD data collection in 2001 our goal was to do our best to collect objective information on all terrorist attacks occurring around the world. My colleagues and I argue in a recent book that all science begins with counting things—whether this be stars in the universe, earthquakes, or terrorist violence. In fact, it seems axiomatic that we cannot do much to reduce or stop terrorism if we cannot first define and count it. Collecting world-wide data on terrorism has been a challenging undertaking. Indeed, collecting comprehensive data on any type of human activity is complicated. Consider the fact that the first comprehensive collection of the English language—what we now call a dictionary-did not appear until 1755. Which means that when William Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet he had no dictionary to rely on—which may be why he found it relatively easy to make up a few words! And indeed cataloguing a list of words is far less controversial than cataloguing terrorist attacks. In this article we review how the GTD is produced, how it is used by policymakers, scholars, and the public, and how understanding terrorism can ultimately promote peace.

How has the GTD developed over time? The collection of worldwide terrorism data became much more feasible in the late 1960s when the introduction of portable cameras and satellite technology made it possible for the first time in human history to send pictures and stories almost instantaneously from point to point anywhere in the world. By 1970, there were a handful of individuals and companies in several countries collecting data on terrorist attacks from unclassified media sources. Many of those collecting data in these early days had armed forces backgrounds and had worked for military intelligence before starting new careers collecting data on political violence for private companies. These early terrorism event databases were originally handwritten or typed. Most of the information came from wire services— especially Reuters—and major newspapers with a global focus— The New York Times and the British Financial Times. In 2001, I led a team that gained access to the most comprehensive of these early event databases, which included information on terrorist attacks from 1970 to 1997. We called the digitized version of the original data the Global Terrorism Database. As soon as we had restored the original data our team began making plans to update it. We developed a coding scheme for collecting about 120 pieces of unique information on each terrorist attack we uncovered. As in past efforts, we relied on unclassified information ➥

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / GLOBAL TERRORISM

➥ from newspapers and the media to identify cases. Over time data collection increasingly depended on news media published on the Internet. The collection of the GTD has changed a great deal since we began. Today the data collection process begins with a universe of about 2 million articles published daily worldwide in order to identify the relatively small subset of articles that describe terrorist attacks. To convert this huge pipeline of information into the GTD a team led by veteran GTD managers Erin Miller, Michael Jensen, and Brian Wingenroth goes through four steps. First, we use Boolean filters that identify attack-specific keywords to help us decide which articles to include. Over time we have developed a set of filters that experience has shown are especially likely to identify articles about terrorist attacks. It turns out that three of the best words for correctly identifying terrorist attacks from the print and electronic media are attack, bomb, and blast. However, using search terms like these alone produces numerous irrelevant articles. Too often, they are referring to something like the “New York Islanders blast the Ottawa Senators.” And there are always surprises. For example, we have found that the word “terror” is not a very reliable predictor of a real terrorism event! In fact, the word “terror” is more often used in articles to clarify that a particular violent event was not an act of terrorism. Second, we next use natural language processing to remove duplicate stories. Experience has shown that removing articles that are more than 80 percent similar produces the most robust results. And duplicative publication of articles is a growing challenge for generating the GTD. For example, the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 generated tens of thousands of separate stories around the world. We cannot humanly process this volume so we need to come up with ways of removing duplicates. We have also had to devise scales for ranking the quality of sources so that we treat a story in The New York Times as more authoritative than a source with clear bias like the Voice of Jihad. Third, we use machine-learning models to classify the remaining articles as relevant or not relevant. This works much like Amazon.com classifies product 48

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

IN 2001, I LED A TEAM THAT GAINED ACCESS TO THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OF THESE EARLY EVENT DATABASES, WHICH INCLUDED INFORMATION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM 1970 TO 1997.

recommendations—as our human coders continue to record new cases the information is used to refine the results. Based on these algorithms we reduce the stream of data to about 15,000 to 20,000 articles per month—small enough that we can finish the process manually. Finally, after passing through these three filters the potential cases are turned over to a staff of about 25 researchers for data entry. Data entry is organized around a series of domain specialties defined by the 120 variables being collected. Thus, we have separate teams that specialize in systematically recording the location of attacks, perpetrators, targets, casualties and consequences, and weapons and tactics. Based on these methods the current GTD includes about 142,000 attacks from 1970 to 2014. How is GTD used by policymakers, scholars, and the public? Use of the GTD has increased dramatically over time. Users include government offices and departments in the United States and abroad, scholars and researchers around the world, NGOs and think tanks, and agencies trying to prevent terrorist attacks. A flagship component of START’s website, the GTD portal had more than 219 million page views in 2015, increasing dramatically from the 17 million page views in 2012 and 11 million in 2009. Half of the web traffic is from the United States while more than 20 percent of visitors are from the European Union. The remaining 30 percent of visitors are from all over the world – Japan and China to Pakistan and Israel to Mexico and

Brazil. Government use of START’s website and the GTD’s online portal increased 56% since 2012 (961% since 2009). Since the GTD was made available online in 2007, more than 22,200 people have downloaded the full dataset. In 2015 alone, more than 6,600 individuals in 150 countries and territories around the world downloaded the GTD nearly 9,000 times. Outside of the United States, it was most frequently downloaded in the United Kingdom, Germany, India, China, and Pakistan. The downloads included users in all 50 U.S. states, members of all five branches of the U.S. the military serving in the Americas, Africa, and Europe, and employees of the Intelligence Community, including INTERPOL, the FBI, TSA, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and many others. The number of full downloads by government officials has more than doubled in the last four years. Starting in 2012, the US State Department began using the GTD for its official statistics on terrorism in its Country Reports on Terrorism to Congress each year. In the wake of the November 13, 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, use of the GTD website and dataset surged, illustrating the worldwide craving for objective data to provide context for these horrible events. In November and December, START’s website recorded a record number of page views (more than 50,000), more than doubling the views of the previous two months. The GTD dataset saw a similar trend: in November 2015 alone, it was downloaded 1,663 times and 887 in December; both months topping the 2015 average of 748 downloads a month. It was not just the public who turned to the GTD after the Paris attacks; government usage also spiked as officials sought objective information on the attacks. More than 160 government officials downloaded the dataset in November and December alone. The GTD functions as a common good for policymakers at all levels of government around the world— effectively a force multiplier for those units that do not necessarily have the time or resources to gather and analyze comprehensive, objective data on patterns of terrorist attacks. This is also true of scholarly users who similarly lack

GLOBAL TERRORISM

resources to collect data independently. In fact, scholars from hundreds of universities, including all eight Ivy League institutions, most major state universities and private universities, as well as community colleges, minority serving institutions, and universities around the world have downloaded the GTD. Students and researchers routinely leverage the database for classroom exercises, theses and dissertations, and scholarly presentations and publications. Outside of academia, analysts from a variety of non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and think tanks have used the data to support their efforts. For example, in 2014 a flight co-manager for Médecins Sans Frontières contacted START to let us know that he uses the GTD to help map safe routes for their medical teams in Afghanistan. Journalists often reach out to the GTD to inform their stories and their audiences worldwide. In just the week following the attacks, START researchers responded to more than 65 journalists from a dozen countries seeking data and analysis from the GTD. That information appeared in hundreds – if not thousands – of news stories throughout the world. How can important messages about terrorism and political violence be communicated? As recent reports on the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) have convincingly demonstrated, examining the characteristics of terrorism can provide a powerful argument for peace. Thus, in its 2015 report, the IEP provides a detailed analysis of the changing trends in terrorism since 2000, for 162 countries. It investigates the changing patterns of terrorism by geographic activity, methods of attack, organizations involved, and the national economic and political context. The GTI has also been compared to a range of socioeconomic indicators to determine the key underlying factors that have the closest statistical relationship to terrorism. In 2014 the total number of deaths from terrorism increased by 80% when compared to the prior year. This is the largest yearly increase in the last 15 years. Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been over a nine-fold increase in the number of deaths from terrorism, rising from 3,329 in 2000 to

STARTING IN 2012, THE US STATE DEPARTMENT BEGAN USING THE GTD FOR ITS OFFICIAL STATISTICS ON TERRORISM IN ITS COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM TO CONGRESS EACH YEAR.

32,658 in 2014. Yet terrorism remains highly concentrated with most of the activity occurring in just five countries — Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria. These countries accounted for 78% of the lives lost in 2014. Why are data on terrorism important? To fashion public policies that will promote world peace, we need to measure and understand threats to peace. We continue to work to improve the GTD as an objective source of information for identifying new global hot spots where terrorist threats are increasing as well as success stories where terrorism-related violence is declining. By allowing policymakers, scholars, and the public to link terrorism data to information on broader political, economic, and social processes we hope to provide objective information and facilitate rigorous scientific research to help shift the world’s focus to a more peaceful one. GTD data collection for 2014 is complete and the data are available to the public via START’s website at http://www.start. umd.edu/gtd/. Data collection for 2015 is ongoing, and START will publish an annual update in summer 2016. ■

Dr. Gary LaFree is Director of START at the University of Maryland and a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Much of LaFree’s research is related to understanding criminal violence, and he is the senior member of the team that created and now maintains the Global Terrorism Database. JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACE AND SECURITY

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PEACE AND SECURITY

PEACE AND SECURITY PHILANTHROPY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL Today’s world is filled with incredible stories of resilience that arc toward a more peaceful and stable world. This is why the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) set out to showcase this incredible and impactful work. STORY BY ALEXANDRA TOMA

rom the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Somalia, and South Sudan to the horrors committed by ISIL, we live in a world that is seemingly rife with violence and instability. What we don’t see often enough is another truth: today’s world is also filled with incredible stories of resilience that arc toward a more peaceful and stable world. This is why the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) set out to showcase this incredible and impactful work. On April 5, PSFG launched the Peace & Security Funding Index: An Analysis of Global Foundation Grantmaking, a first-of-its-kind research project that showcases the foundations and philanthropists dedicated to building a safer, more peaceful and prosperous global future. These funders are investing in efforts to prevent, mitigate, and resolve conflict, and to rebuild after conflict. From research on preventing nuclear terrorism to funding locally-led efforts at preventing mass atrocities and genocide, peace and security funders are supporting peace, justice, diplomacy, and dialogue in a variety of ways. In 2013, these 288 foundations supported over 1,200 organizations with more than $283 million spread across nearly 2,000 grants. We undertook this project to better understand who is active in peace and security funding and how that funding is being distributed. What we found is truly encouraging: foundations engage in peace and security funding at every level of giving. Wmadegrants, while This is important because funders with whom I’ve spoken about investing in this field oftentimes feel discouraged that peace and security challenges are too large and that their funding is too small to make a difference. Yet, despite peace and security funders at all levels are having an impact. Let’s consider two case studies: the Iran nuclear agreement and the peace talks in Colombia. The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was an historic diplomatic success that increased American security and may have even helped avoid yet another war in the Middle East. For five years, peace and security funder Ploughshares Fund was quietly supporting these efforts. Beginning in 2010, Ploughshares wired a network of nuclear experts, advocates, and media specialists who would collaborate to support the Iran ➥ JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACE AND SECURITY

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, ITS NEGOTIATING PARTNERS AND CHAMPIONS ON CAPITOL HILL MADE THIS POLICY GOAL A REALITY. CIVIL SOCIETY ALSO PLAYED ITS PART. BY SPENDING YEARS AND $12 MILLION IN GRANTS DOLLARS LAYING THE GROUNDWORK, PLOUGHSHARES FUND WAS A RECOGNIZED LEADER OF OUTSIDE EFFORTS TO BUILD POLITICAL SPACE NEEDED FOR THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT TO SUCCEED. ➥ nuclear negotiations and, eventually, the final agreement. Ploughshares made grants to experts to assess the situation and provide solutions; to grassroots mobilizers to increase understanding and support in Congress; and to media experts to talk about the issue in a way that both ordinary citizens and policymakers could understand. The Obama administration, its negotiating partners and champions on Capitol Hill made this policy goal a reality. Civil society also played its part. By spending years and $12 million in grants dollars laying the groundwork, Ploughshares Fund was a recognized leader of outside efforts to build political space needed for the Iran nuclear agreement to succeed. A second example is the peace talks in Colombia. In December of 2015, as part of its attempt to negotiate the end of 50 years of armed conflict, the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) announced a comprehensive agreement on compensation for victims. The Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), founded in 2012 with seed funding from the Compton Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among others, participated in each part of the talks, as well as in the government delegation’s major strategy and drafting meetings. IFIT’s advice directly shaped the contents of the final accord, which include a special court, truth commission, missing persons unit, reparations package, and integrated set of rules on how each of these mechanisms relates to the other. You don’t have to be a billionaire to make a big difference in this field; there are lots of opportunities for engagement. One specific area of opportunity is in conflict prevention, which comprises just six percent of peace and security funding. We all know the famous saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So, why is there so little money in this area? 52

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

I surveyed PSFG’s Conflict and Atrocities Prevention Working Group for responses to this question. This group of funders has a wealth of knowledge about this space and why it may be underfunded (despite the fact that prevention has been found to be 50 to 100 times more effective than trying to deal with existing armed conflict). First, crises present such an immediate and overwhelming need for resources that it may be a stronger pull for a lot of donors, says Sally Smith, co-chair of the Working Group and founding Executive Director of The Nexus Fund. Milt Lauenstein, an individual philanthropist member of PSFG, agrees: wars are in the news and people want to be identified with places that are recognized. Second, according to both Yifat Susskind, Executive Director of MADRE and co-chair of PSFG’s Women, Peace and Security Working Group, and Andreas Hipple, Senior Program Officer at GHR Foundation and PSFG Steering Committee member, the challenge of funding conflict prevention is – in part – a function of funders’ preoccupation with “measurable outcomes” and a more general tendency to discount things that don’t happen. Because the goal of conflict prevention is essentially to generate a negative – the absence of conflict – proving this counterfactual is nearly impossible. It’s also difficult to attribute a lack of violence to any one program or policy, much less measure or evaluate that absence. Language is another challenge. Many funders don’t identify as “peace and security” funders, though their funding fits squarely within this space. With prevention specifically, some peace and security funders don’t consider their programs – like education, media training, civil society support, migration/ integration, de-radicalization, confidence building – to fall into “conflict prevention,” though all these efforts get

at root causes of conflict and contribute to stable, prosperous, and peaceful societies. Finally, effective conflict prevention is often about building systems (e.g., of effective government that can deal with grievance, or the rule of law to prevent those in power from acting with impunity toward opposition). When done right, this invariably takes a long time and must be a shared investment that can’t be delivered by any single funder. Collaboration is key and collaboration is difficult. Additionally, funders in this space must commit to multi-year funding and staying the course over years, if not decades. The pay-off is incredible – like, for example, the greatest peace deal in recent history – but funders can’t be in it for a quick fix. Part of the remedy in funding conflict prevention specifically and peace and security generally, lies in shifting the frame from “preventing conflict” to “generating peace.” And this is exactly what the Institute for Economics and Peace is trying to establish with its Positive Peace Index. Challenges of monitoring and evaluation, language, visibility of a crisis versus conflict prevention, language, and commitment will no doubt remain, but we won’t have to work our way out of the paradox of assessing a negative if we focus on what makes peace possible. Reframing peace in this way will also allow the peace and security funding community to welcome more funders into our small-but-mighty ranks. And god only knows there’s plenty to do. ■

Alexandra Toma is Executive Director of the Peace and Security Funders Group, a growing network of foundations and philanthropists committed to promoting international peace and security. In 2011, Alex was named a “Top 99 Under 33” by Diplomatic Courier and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

FEATURE / NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

N O N E S C I N Y A H T WESIS R STORY BY ERICA CHENOWETH

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

onviolent or “civil” resistance is a technique of struggle where unarmed civilians use a coordinated variety of methods—like demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of noncooperation— to confront their opponents. This form of struggle eschews physically harming opponents, although it can be highly disruptive. Nonviolent resistance has occurred worldwide, from Guinea-Bissau to Guatemala, from East Germany to

NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

? T E N S I E L R O E I V TH N O Ecuador, from Tunisia to Tonga. With several different co-authors, I’ve been collecting systematic data on this phenomenon for ten years, focusing specifically on popular campaigns aiming to remove incumbent national leaders from power, expel foreign military occupations, or secede. This data collection has resulted in several important findings. First, nonviolent resistance is surprisingly effective compared to its violent counterparts. From 1900-2015,

about 50% of the campaigns of nonviolent struggle succeeded, compared to about 25% of violent insurgencies. This is true even when ones takes into account other reasons why regimes might collapse, such as state weakness, levels of democracy or autocracy, and the regime’s unwillingness to use violence against its own people. This is because nonviolent resistance is more attractive and feasible method of contention for a wider proportion of the population. As a result, the average nonviolent uprising enjoys about 11

times more observed participants than the average violent uprising. As a result, nonviolent campaigns have a wide variety of potentially disruptive tactics at their disposal. For example, general strikes— one of the most effective methods of nonviolent action—are effective only when participation is widespread. The result of such people power is that the opponent’s pillars of support— the security forces, economic elites, civilian bureaucrats, state media, and the like—begin to question whether ➥

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

➥ they should remain loyal to the regime. After all, general strikes and stay-at-homes affect economic elites in their wallets. From El Salvador to South Africa, economic noncooperation has brought about systemic changes because economic elites withdrew their loyalty to the incumbent regime. Demonstrations that feature a large and diverse proportion of the population can have similar effects on conscripted military or police; from Serbia to Tunisia, state security forces defected to the opposition when they recognized their own family members, neighbors, or business associates in the crowds. Hence, nonviolent resistance is less about melting hearts than expanding the political power of a movement from the bottom up. Second, nonviolent resistance often succeeds in circumstances where people would think it quite unlikely—that is, in countries where the opponent regime is brutal toward its populace, where the society is deeply fragmented, or where the population is uneducated. Nonviolent resistance has emerged in every major culture, religion, and political system, suggesting that it is not limited to a particular values system or world region. Third, nonviolent resistance campaigns tend to possess other short- and longterm benefits. As one might imagine, the death tolls for violent campaigns are much higher, both through direct killings during the conflict and through indirect deaths

caused by displacement and interference with day-to-day needs, like clean water, food, shelter, and access to basic health care. Countries in which civilians have waged nonviolent resistance are about 10 times more likely to undergo a democratic transition than those waging armed struggle. They are also significantly less likely to experience a descent into civil war within a decade, in contrast to the notorious conflict trap that plagues many conflict-affected countries. Finally, nonviolent resistance is becoming more common. While many scholars have focused on the stunning decline in violence over the past few decades (or centuries), less commonly understood is the rise of nonviolent resistance. Figure 1 shows a patchy increase in the number of new nonviolent campaigns since Gandhi’s struggle against British colonialism in India, which set on in 1919. But onsets of nonviolent uprisings began to accelerate in the late 1960s, during a wave of anti-colonial struggles that dominated the times. In the late 1980s, we see the dramatic rise of nonviolent uprisings as a function of the iconic Eastern European revolutions, as well as a number of movements against USbacked right-wing military regimes in Latin America. The number of nonviolent uprisings has steadily increased since then, featuring a sustained period of “color revolutions” against post-

communist regimes between 2000 and 2010, followed by geographically diverse set of cases since then. Since 2010 alone, we have seen well over 50 new major nonviolent uprisings around the world, including the Arab Uprisings of 2011. Recent cases of new campaigns include places as diverse as Guatemala, Burkina Faso, and Hong Kong. As nonviolent resistance goes, we live in the most contentious decade witnessed in the past 100 years. There may be several reasons for this trend. First is the potential for growing global recognition about the power of nonviolent resistance. In fact, Andrew Mack has argued that nonviolent uprisings have become the functional substitute for armed struggle, and that this trend is likely to continue over time. This optimistic interpretation is appealing because it explains the upward trajectory of nonviolent resistance over time, as well as its geographic diffusion beyond regional “waves.” And although there are some reported cases of learning across campaigns, systematic data are not yet available to indicate which uprisings are directly inspired by contemporaneous or historical movements. Second, normative changes in the international system may be contributing to this trend. Some suggest that the “rights revolution” has brought with it a growing global awareness of basic human rights. As such knowledge becomes more

RECENT CASES OF NEW CAMPAIGNS INCLUDE PLACES AS DIVERSE AS GUATEMALA, BURKINA FASO, AND HONG KONG. AS NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE GOES, WE LIVE IN THE MOST CONTENTIOUS DECADE WITNESSED IN THE PAST 100 YEARS. Source: Major Episodes of Contention Dataset.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

widespread, populations may be more willing to directly challenge the legitimacy and authority of states that repeatedly violate these rights. Conversely, Daniel Ritter argues that authoritarian regimes may be increasingly constrained in their responses to popular challenges. Because of foreign economic interests and the politics of foreign aid, many authoritarian leaders have had to tout the protection of human rights as a primary interest of the state. Such claims may embolden populations to challenge such regimes when human rights violations becomes especially egregious or insulting, while altering the interests of the economic, business, and security elites whose long-term interests may reside in cooperative relationships with foreign powers. That said, nonviolent campaigns have succeeded in numerous places where human rights were totally absent as national priorities, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Iran under the Shah.

Third, some argue that changes in communication technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly the rise of the Internetâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;may explain the diffusion of nonviolent resistance. The so-called Facebook and Twitter Revolutions, wherein organizers use social media to plan campaigns and communicate actions, make this an appealing explanation. However, the precipitous increase in nonviolent uprisings preceded the arrival of the Internet. Moreover, many skeptics see the Internet as something of a disadvantage for activists today, since regimes can use the Internet for surveillance and entrapment as easily as activists can use it for organization and communication. While each of these explanations may resonate somewhat, scholars have not yet fully uncovered the reasons for the rise of nonviolent resistance. Future work should attempt to do so. In the meantime, one thing is clear from the data: nonviolent resistance is here to stay as a force for challenging entrenched authority and building power from below. â&#x2013;

Dr. Erica Chenoweth is Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. With Maria Stephan, she won the 2013 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order for their book Why Civil Resistance Works. JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACE LITERATURE

TOWARDS A LITERATURE OF PEACE From the Iliad to the present day, the genre has been influential in shaping our responses to conflict, and some would argue that it has even created the conditions for war. STORY BY NIALL MUNRO

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PEACE LITERATURE

ould Tolstoy’s epic 1869 novel have been such a success if it had just been called Peace? There is no doubt that a literature of war is very well established: from the Iliad to the present day, the genre has been influential in shaping our responses to conflict, and some would argue that it has even created the conditions for war. Even if Abraham Lincoln’s famous remark to Harriet Beecher Stowe about her anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (‘So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!’) was never actually spoken by the president in 1862, the literature of war has had far-reaching consequences. Not so the literature of peace. What would a literature of peace even look like? ➥

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACE LITERATURE

HOWEVER RECENT THE CONFLICT, IT MUST INSIST ON ITS ROLE IN THE SAFEGUARDING OF MEMORY AND COMMEMORATION AND IT MUST HIGHLIGHT THE NEED FOR CITIZENS TO ACKNOWLEDGE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. ➥ Yet as the Global Peace Index demonstrates, war is only one part of the story. In its section on Positive Peace, the GPI notes that ‘[u]nderstanding what creates sustainable peace cannot just be found in the study of violence.’ The same might be said of literature. As an academic working on literary representations of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, I am naturally interested in what the literature produced during and after a period of war can tell us about what it is like to experience conflict and remember it in peacetime. Robert Penn Warren once called the Civil War ‘our only “felt” history’ – history lived in the national imagination’, which indicates how deeply the memory of war can penetrate into consciousness, because the effects of war and peace are felt not just on the body, but in the mind as well. In literature, the experience of war is translated into words which bear witness to pain and the most extreme human difficulty. There have been many examples of this kind of writing, but as Carolyn Forché has shown, it is frequently poets who take on this role of witness. According to Forché, poetry has an acute responsibility because ‘the poem might be our only evidence that an event has occurred: it exists for us as the sole trace of an occurrence. Poem as trace, poem as evidence.’ In this way, poetry (and literature more broadly), can help to achieve some measure of postwar reconciliation, since it provides a nonviolent mode for feelings of resistance or expressions of trauma related to conflict. It also has the power to bring about societal cohesion as it draws upon established and respected cultural forms 60

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

to give voice to impulses of peacebuilding, as demonstrated in Somalia, one of the least peaceful countries in the world according to the GPI. When we think about Positive Peace as representing ‘the attitudes and structures which create and sustain peaceful societies’, I think it is essential that we consider the cultural dimensions of those attitudes and structures. How could a future Peace Index measure how far a country fosters a cultural imaginary to promote reconciliation and peace? Could it look, for example, at the extent of literary censorship in the country, or investigate how far cultural figures were appointed to bodies such as truth and reconciliation commissions? If in recent years we have entered a Peace ‘Moment’, then now is the perfect time to emphasize the necessity of literature and culture in sustaining that moment and interrogating the rhetoric surrounding it – aspirations that literature and literary criticism can achieve. For if it is to exist and have efficacy, one of the aims of a literature of peace should be, as the Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe put it, ‘to make humanity uncomfortable’. A literature of peace must challenge. However recent the conflict, it must insist on its role in the safeguarding of memory and commemoration and it must highlight the need for citizens to acknowledge personal responsibility for their actions. Drawing on Jean-Paul Sartre’s writings promoting ‘counter-violence’ after World War II, Antony Adolf has argued that ‘peace literature and especially its criticism become counter-counter-violence; that is, they are wholly nonviolent when considered through the paradigmatic

prisms of individual, social, and collective peace.’ Literature of this type is not passive. Its dynamic quality comes from the presentation of injustice and the expectation that a reader will respond by assessing his or her own role in perpetrating violence – and then acting to counter such aggression. A recent work of poetry like Claudia Rankine’s Citizen: An American Lyric exemplifies that kind of relationship between reader and writer. Documenting the casual, everyday acts of racism experienced in America, the book particularly derives its power from two aspects of the work: firstly, the calm yet forceful way it presents these experiences – it shows, it does not tell. And then the second-person address of the book: ‘you’ are part of this narrative of discrimination and micro-aggressions whether you have experienced them yourself or not. It is a profoundly disturbing book, but just as it disturbs, so it simultaneously inspires in a reader a sense of resilience, a key component of Positive Peace. Reading this book and others like it makes us want to be resilient to the kind of violence it describes, and to commit ourselves to its prevention. As authors and critics seek to fashion a genre of the literature of peace, we need more writing like this, and we need it urgently. ■

Dr. Niall Munro is Senior Lecturer in American Literature and Director of the Oxford Brookes Poetry Centre at Oxford Brookes University, UK. He is the author of Hart Crane’s Queer Modernist Aesthetic and is currently writing a book entitled ‘Our only “felt” history’: American Modernism and the Civil War, 1891-1944.

Targeted strategies, precision and intelligence to resolve any international dispute.

A FO R B ES L EGA L B L AC K B O O K 2 0 1 5 E L I T E U S L AW F I R M

L AW O F F I C ES O F

Charles H. Camp pc C H A R L E S C A M P L A W. C O M â&#x20AC;˘ 2 0 2 - 4 5 7-7 7 8 6 â&#x20AC;˘ W A S H I N G T O N , D C I N T E R N AT I O N A L A R B I T R AT I O N , L I T I G AT I O N A N D D E B T R E C O V E R Y

FEATURE / SUSTAINABLE PEACE

CREATING SUSTAINABLE PEACE Is our world more peaceful than ever before? STORY BY JOHN HEWKO

s our world more peaceful than ever before? The psychologist Stephen Pinker certainly thinks it is. With echoes of Francis Fukuyama’s pronouncement of the “end of history” and the triumph of liberal democracy in 1989, Pinker wrote in 2011 that “today may be the most peaceful era in our species’ history.” He sees a long decline in violence since 1945, with the growth of commerce and institutions of governance such as policing and law courts, and the spread of literacy and education, all having a civilizing and pacifying effect on human relations. But some new trends show that more countries are involved in intrastate conflicts, and in 2014 180,000 people were killed in internal conflicts, a number 3.5 times higher than in 2010. The UN estimates more than 60 million people are now either refugees or internally displaced due to conflict and violence, the highest number since the end of World War II. So while macro trends may still be leading to an overall reduction in the number of violent incidences, these spikes in conflict seem to be urging us towards a different philosophical approach to understand the roots of both violence and sustainable peace. This is why the Global Peace Index (GPI) is so valuable in answering the question of whether the foundations of peace can be fully understood only through the study of violence. For a NGO such as Rotary, which takes on some of the world’s great development challenges —from reducing poverty, to providing clean water and educating and empowering millions of people—we need to know that our work is having a sustainable impact. And where sustainability is concerned, creating the “optimal environment for human potential to flourish”, a core component of the GPI’s “Positive Peace” framework, is a strong measure of success.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE PEACE The eight Positive Peace factors that the Global Peace Index (GPI) identifies correlate strongly to other measures of progress, including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. This makes the GPI useful to NGOs like Rotary in assessing the impact of their development projects. This graphic shows how Rotary’s principles and its six areas of focus connect to the optimal conditions for sustainable peace.

Rotary takes a performancebased approach to development, emphasizing accountability, measurable impact, and sustainability in its projects. Rotary’s Four-Way Test — which asks if an action is true, is fair, builds goodwill and friendship, and benefits all — guides the organization’s members. Rotary also promotes integrity in business environments through youth training and vocational service. Sustainable Goal: 17

BASIC EDUCATION AND LITERACY: Rotary projects train teachers, provide vocational training, supply low-cost textbooks, and integrate technology into curricula. The goal is to build communities’ own capacity to support basic education, reduce gender disparity in education, and increase adult literacy. Sustainable Goals: 1, 4, 5

Rotary was instrumental in the creation of the UN and UNESCO. Five Rotary members have served as presidents of the UN General Assembly, and today Rotary holds top consultative status at ECOSOC. Sustainable Goal: 16

DISEASE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT: Rotary is a partner of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. Since 1988, the GPEI has reduced worldwide polio cases by 99.9 percent. More than 2.5 billion children have been vaccinated against polio. Rotary has also boosted basic health services in thousands of communities. Sustainable Goals: 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 17

Well functioning government Sound business environment

•••

•

Low levels of corruption

•••

PEACE

•

Acceptance of the rights of others

•

Equitable distribution of resources

Free flow of information

••••

Good relations with neighbors High levels of human capital

••

WATER AND SANITATION: Rotary has developed long-term relationships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector to improve access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services in communities around the world. Sustainable Goals: 4, 5, 6

••

PEACE AND CONFLICT PREVENTION/ RESOLUTION: Rotary Peace Fellowships and other initiatives train adults and young leaders to prevent and resolve conflict. Sustainable Goals: 16, 17

MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH: Rotary improves access to essential medical services, provides immunizations and antibiotics for babies, and supports trained health care providers. Sustainable Goals: 3, 5, 10

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Rotary develops opportunities for young and old to do productive work. It also supports entrepreneurs and community leaders, particularly women, in impoverished areas. Sustainable Goals: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

SUSTAINABLE PEACE

So how does this framework relate specifically to Rotary’s work? For Rotary’s peace programs, as well as its activities in the other five Areas of Focus, the GPI and the Positive Peace research help us reframe the question of cause and effect in relation to human development. It does this by identifying key characteristics of, and key interventions that lead to, more peaceful countries. Instead of focusing on “negative peace”, which measures an absence of violence, we look at a more holistic definition of peace. This provides evidence for factors such as equitable distribution of resources and high levels of human capital as the cause (in a complex, interdependent way) of peaceful societies rather than the effect of a decline in violence. Rotary’s work supports directly many of the conditions which are the “pillars of positive peace”, as well as mitigating and preventing violence and conflict. Specifically, in the Peace and Conflict Prevention/Resolution Area of Focus, Rotary does this by: 1) Providing grassroots training opportunities for community leaders to prevent and mediate conflict where they live; 2) Supporting a variety of communitybased peace building programs, from youth leadership workshops to socio-economic and civic education initiatives in communities and regions affected by conflict; 3) Providing fellowship and scholarship opportunities for aspiring global leaders in the field. Rotary is working directly with the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) to help train the next generation of global peacemakers with the tools and framework provided by the GPI. Through the Global Peace Index Ambassadors training, Rotary and IEP are working with peace fellow ambassadors to inform and educate Rotarians, not only on the GPI, but also on the concept of Positive Peace building and specific steps that local Rotary clubs can take to start peace-related projects. So how does the GPI connect with Rotary’s other five Areas of Focus?

Rotary seeks to foster the conditions for Positive Peace by funding and implementing thousands of projects and programs around the world that support education, water and sanitation, maternal and child health, disease prevention and treatment, and community development. Let’s look at two concrete examples of Rotary’s responses to today’s most pressing global challenges, such as the refugee crisis and access to clean water and sanitation. Syria, once on the verge of meeting the Millennium Development Goal targets for education and health care, has now lost “six decades of development gains in five years of conflict” in the words of one observer. If we don’t act now to build the conditions for sustainable peace, then the likelihood and impact of risk factors that undermine it, such as profound social instability, and failures of national governance will only increase. In Europe, Rotary members and peace fellows are responding to the refugee crisis. In Berlin, Anne Kjaer Riechert, a Danish Rotary Peace Fellow alumna, started a computer coding school for refugees, aiding their integration into the local economy, and meeting the need of tech start-ups for qualified coders. Refugees on Rails provides refugees with recycled laptops and teaches them to code from scratch, or helps them expand on existing coding skills. Old laptops are donated to the school, which is run entirely by volunteers. The project is particularly aimed at people whose asylum applications are pending and who are barred from paid work until official asylum is granted. Instead of being wasted, the waiting time is put to good use. Two hundred people have volunteered to help, and tech giants Microsoft, Deutsche Telekom (with the backing of CEO Tim Höttges, also a Rotary member) and collaborating venues in Berlin have donated office space. And all of the above depends on partnerships: The GPI gives primacy to effective partnerships for human development because it interprets peace through the lens of sustainability. If the eight pillars of Positive Peace are to be built, then a society-wide approach is required. No government can singlehandedly create the structural conditions for peaceful societies on its own, and this

is where civil society plays a crucial role. Rotary knew this when it took on another pressing global challenge—the fact that more than 2.5 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation facilities. For example, women’s education is jeopardized by the lack of access to clean water and sanitation. Women and children spend 125 million hours each day collecting water, which takes time away from school, work, or taking care of their families. So Rotary’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) projects aim to provide sustainable WASH solutions that can dramatically improve school attendance levels and basic education and literacy. In collaboration with USAID, Rotary has rolled out pilot programs which use the WASH Sustainability Index Tool. It evaluates four critical factors: institutional arrangements, management practices, financial conditions, and technical operations and support. Much like the GPI methodology, The Sustainability Index Tool uses a rigorous framework for focusing on strategic interventions e.g. training, maintenance of facilities, and not just tactical stopgaps for systemic problems, such as installing a new hand pump without any follow-up actions. And detailed program monitoring is an area where Rotary could help the IEP further develop the GPI over the next decade. As it encourages a model for sustainable peace interventions involving actors across all levels of society, it will require solid data on new projects gathered by NGOs. And of course, Rotary will continue to learn from the insights of the GPI, increasing its integration into programming, and spreading its adoption through our growing bilateral relationship with the IEP. With the help of the GPI, we know it’s naïve to ever predict “peace in our time,” but we can at least try to create the conditions for it to thrive. ■

John Hewko is the general secretary of Rotary International and The Rotary Foundation, leading a staff of 800 at Rotary’s World Headquarters in Evanston, Illinois and seven international offices. Before joining Rotary in 2011, he was vice president of operations and compact development at the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACEKEEPING

GLOBAL ISSUES CAUSE GLOBAL COOPERATION: PEACEKEEPING, 3D, AND R2P In fragile and weak states, 3D (Defense, Diplomacy, and Development) projects can finance police training programs, military forces training programs and even the organization of a peacekeeping mission as a whole. STORY BY OLGA SMOLENCHUK

lobalization and the issues of interdependence and interconnectedness make people perceive daily life in a new way. With the increasing number of international and interstate conflicts and crises, the civilian population has become the most disadvantaged: women, children, and elderly suffer. This is a reality for developing countries (failed and weak states) as well as the states with historic level of peace and security. Twenty years ago, Europe experienced the most terrible human tragedy after World War II—mass killings, assassinations, enormous refugee flows. The humanitarian catastrophe in the Balkan Peninsula posed new questions about the future of peace operations, i.e. the question of peace enforcement concept. Peace enforcement, or “humanitarian intervention” might be considered as a modified armed conflict—it does not fit into the framework of the typical armed conflict. Such changes in the nature of military actions take place not so often. The definition of humanitarian intervention is clearly described in the work Peacekeeping and peacemaking: ➥

PEACE ENFORCEMENT, OR “HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION” MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS A MODIFIED ARMED CONFLICT; IT DOES NOT FIT INTO THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TYPICAL ARMED CONFLICT. SUCH CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF MILITARY ACTIONS TAKE PLACE NOT SO OFTEN.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PEACEKEEPING

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PEACEKEEPING

➥ Towards effective intervention in post-Cold War conflicts (1998). Researchers from Great Britain Tom Woodhouse, Robert Bruce, and Malcolm Dando distinguish two types of humanitarian intervention. The first kind is “coercive humanitarian intervention” that is divided into “coercive militaryforcible intervention” and “coercive non-military humanitarian intervention”. For the second type of humanitarian intervention, the researchers propose “non-coercive humanitarian intervention”, which includes peacemaking itself, assistance from foreign countries, and the support of international governmental organizations and international non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, and states. Here, it is very important that “state negotiators seek the best collective outcome, and are open to changing their beliefs and preferences at the table on their way to a reasoned consensus” (Risse and Kleine, 2010). Nowadays, these kinds of peace operations have become a practice in the system of international relations and are used to prevent human rights violations and acts of violence against the civilian population. To respond to the changing nature of international environment, researchers have resorted to the modern multilateral approach. If the peace operation calls not only for the involvement of more components but also the cessation of activities of the warring party, the civilian component within the structure of the mission is necessary. The mission itself contains the formation of police structures, the development of the legal system with the independent and reliable provision of law enforcement including participation of public prosecutors and lawyers. In their turn, these factors entails social and economic development of the territory. Such integrated approach to implement stability in conflict regions considered as instable hotspots is called the 3D approach (Defense, Diplomacy, and Development). In fragile and weak states, 3D projects can finance police training programs, military forces training programs and even organization of peacekeeping mission at whole. The other component of peacekeeping comprises policy to protect human rights justified as a part providing rule of law 66

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

UN Photo - Mark Garten

PEACEKEEPING

THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED IN 1991-1995 IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SHOW US TODAY HOW FRAGILE PEACE CAN BE.

and stability that is essential. The interdependence between human rights, peace and security based on the concept “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) relates to the main factors. This concept refers that each state is responsible for the security of its own citizens. However, other countries may intervene if the state cannot or will not take on such responsibility. Thus, this principle requires from governments and states “to serve for its citizens”, and the principle of sovereignty cannot be lost. Despite the availability to implement peace-enforcement measures today, the international community has to address also different methods which contain 3D components and R2P. Even security concepts cannot be considered as a subject of a coalition confidence and defense, and the relationship between numerous aspects of the 3D approach shows a set of small actions which meets the definition of human security, in their turn. The events that happened in 1991-1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina show us today how fragile peace can be. Today the international community should undertake a lot of measures including the collaboration states, international governmental institutions, non-governmental actors, transnational companies, human beings to protect human rights, promote peace and stability. ■

Olga Smolenchuk is an Atlas Corps Fellow from Russia serving at Youth For Understanding (YFU) in Washington, DC. She is a PhD Fellow (Tomsk State University, Russia). Her research focuses on the topics of youth development, humanitarian affairs, and international peace and conflict resolution. JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PROMOTING PEACE

PROMOTING PEACE THROUGH THE “THIRD PLACE”

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PROMOTING PEACE

Intercultural Virtual Exchanges Provide Youth Opportunities to Develop Understanding and Create Communities STORY BY ERIN HELLAND AND OLGA SMOLENCHUK

ultural exchange is as vital as ever; it forms the ultimate reality check to a worldview based on stereotypes. Founded in 1951 to offer the world a new beginning after the devastation of World War II, our intercultural exchange organization, Youth For Understanding (YFU), has been altering perceptions one person at a time

through a core program that offers high school students the opportunity to spend up to a year living and studying abroad. Aside from their marriages and the births of their children, YFU alumni cite their time as international exchange students as the most important moment of their lives. Passionate belief in the benefits of intercultural exchange inspires us now to make the model stronger still â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and â&#x17E;Ľ

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PROMOTING PEACE

➥ extend it to meet the needs and aspirations of people who may never be able to participate in a traditional exchange. In 2016 YFU announced the creation of a Virtual Exchange Initiative to expand on its mission to advance intercultural understanding, mutual respect, and social responsibility through educational exchanges for youth, families, and communities. The pilot program encourages online open dialogue among teenagers in the US and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Perhaps most notable is that YFU’s virtual programs aim to be inclusive in nature, ensuring a voice is given to young women, minorities, migrants, the academically vulnerable, socially isolated and underrepresented students. YFU’s Theory of Change asserts that underserved youth who have little or no access to physical exchange benefit from the mind-opening opportunities

the case of a teenager, at home they play the role of child within the family; at school (the equivalent of a work space) they play the role of student within a defined educational structure; in the “Third Place,” they have more freedom to choose their own social role. Historically the “Third Place” has also had a location - the corner café, a bar, the library, and other such physical spaces as defined individually by person. In the United States, Starbucks capitalized on this concept for years, providing a neutral space for Americans across a wide demographic spectrum, in which customers were welcomed as friends, recognized as regulars, and made to feel a part of the “Starbucks community.” We assert that in a modern context, the same experience can be achieved for youth across international boundaries through virtual spaces. For some, like those who have experienced hardship or

“THIRD PLACES” ARE NOTORIOUS FOR ACCEPTING ALL INDIVIDUALS, THEREFORE, IT IS A SPACE WHERE ONE FEELS INCLUDED, AND THE ABSENCE OF PRETENSE AND COMPETITION ENCOURAGE OPEN EXPRESSION. offered through a virtual experience. Further, the accompanying programmatic activities can bring personal growth and empowerment opportunities a) leading to community engagement for peaceful interaction and b) encouraging young leaders to emerge and become peer mentors, leading to peacemaking on a broader scale. In line with the concept of the “Third Place,” participants of YFU’s Virtual Exchange Initiative are invited to engage with students from around the world in a safe environment, one that contributes to the development of cross-cultural understanding and the creation of a sense of community. Broadly defined, the “Third Place” is where one goes to feel free to express her/himself as an individual, while also feeling a sense of belonging within a community. The “Third Place” (or Third Space) is named after its position behind being at work or home. It typically brings a sense of satisfaction or happiness, perhaps in part because it often removes barriers of pre-defined social roles. For example, in 70

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

been impacted by conflict, the virtual sphere provides a peaceful place to express individuality, demonstrate curiosity and develop empathy. Behind the educational and cross-cultural components of the YFU Virtual Exchange Initiative lies the opportunity for students to discover their “Third Space.” American sociologist Ray Oldenburg wrote how community spaces are essential to civic society and engagement. His theory proposes that there are eight hallmarks of the “Third Place” to include: neutral ground, a leveling place, conversation (as the primary activity), accessibility and accommodation, the regulars, a low profile, a playful mood, and a home away from home. These characteristics are applicable to the Virtual Exchange Initiative. YFU’s virtual exchanges are neutral spaces, separate from the formal obligations of work/school and home, where one can come and go at will, especially as related to the asynchronous programs. Each student enters the forum on a level playing field; there are no political,

socio-economic, religious, or demographic factors that limit participation. Each student is provided equal opportunity and support from facilitators to engage with and learn from each other. Conversation, whether through words, images, or video, is the primary activity, and thematic prompts encourage playful, positive, and meaningful dialogue on topics such as culture, conflict and current events. Technology is rapidly becoming more widely available, allowing organizations such as ours to introduce opportunities for intercultural understanding to students from developed countries, remote areas and crisis zones alike. “Third Places” are notorious for accepting all individuals, therefore, it is a space where one feels included, and the absence of pretense and competition encourage open expression. Providing a “home away from home” the virtual exchanges stimulate positive emotions and psychological comfort in feeling like one is rooted within a global community of peers and friends. The YFU Virtual Exchange Initiative promotes our sense of common humanity and reinvents the intercultural exchange movement for the new age, providing students the opportunity to advance communication competencies, grow as individuals, and become active members of our greater global society. By removing barriers to participation within traditional in-person exchanges, we are helping to close a very real gap, and building cross-cultural bridges of understanding amongst individuals who might typically never travel past the borders of their home communities. This program as a “Third Space” enables the teenage voice to get through more clearly than those of seasoned diplomats. Through their everyday interactions, students break down the stereotype of “the other,” while learning to embrace similarities and appreciate differences. The opportunity for interpersonal diplomacy that young people hold in their hands can change the perception of classmates, of communities, and, ultimately, of countries. ■

Erin Helland is the Director of Virtual Exchanges at Youth For Understanding USA (YFU). Olga Smolenchuk is an Atlas Corps Fellow from Russia serving at YFU in Washington, DC and a PhD Student from Tomsk State University in Russia.

WORK AT CHANGING THE WORLD. Be a social hero.™ Our programs prepare you to help people. Explore degrees aligned to careers in marriage and family therapy,* mental health counseling, correctional program support services and more.

phoenix.edu/social-sciences

*States set different education and licensure standards to work as a clinical, family, or marriage and family therapist. Prospective students are strongly encouraged to check with the appropriate professional licensing authority for complete list of requirements in their state. For more information about each of these programs, including on-time completion rates, the median debt incurred by students who completed the program and other important information, please visit: phoenix.edu/programs/gainful-employment. While widely available, not all programs are available in all locations or in both online and on-campus formats. Please check with a University Enrollment Representative. In order to practice as a Counselor in any state, the student must be licensed as an LPC (Licensed Professional Counselor), MFT (Marriage and Family Therapist), or other comparable state license designation. License requirements may vary. It is the student’s responsibility to ascertain and meet licensure requirements in any state in which the student desires to practice. The University’s Central Administration is located at 1625 W. Fountainhead Pkwy., Tempe, AZ 85282. © 2016 University of Phoenix, Inc. All rights reserved. | CSS-5987

FEATURE / PANAMA PAPERS

PANAMA PAPERS: A CATALYST

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PANAMA PAPERS

FOR CHANGE There is a hidden universe available for the super rich and super powerful to conceal the proceeds of tax abuses, criminal activities, corruption, and trade fraud, which goes well beyond the Panamanian borders. STORY BY DANIEL NEALE

ust a few weeks have passed since the biggest ever data leak—the Panama Papers—revealed what had been largely understood for some time: there is a hidden universe available for the super rich and super powerful to conceal the proceeds of tax abuses, criminal activities, corruption, and trade fraud, which goes well beyond the Panamanian borders. But unlike previous scandals that exposed similar practices of financial secrecy such as the Lux Leaks or the HSBC scandal, we are seeing real momentum growing and increasing political capital to curb and prevent the creation of anonymous shell companies. Crucially, it is the realization that addressing the global ills demonstrated by the Panama Papers goes beyond tax abuses. Providing such secrecy undermines democracy and limits broad, economic growth in developing countries; the solution is for governments to make these secret companies illegal. The alarming lesson learned from Mossack Fonseca’s operations is that the formation of anonymous companies is legal in many jurisdictions, because there is simply no robust legislation governing beneficial ownership and the creation of shell companies on a global scale. ➥

JUNE 2016

FEATURE / PANAMA PAPERS

A CENTRAL ELEMENT MERGING ALL THESE PIECES TOGETHER IS POLITICAL WILL. WITHOUT THIS INGREDIENT TO TRANSFORM COMMITMENTS INTO IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT, PANAMA PAPERS RISKS LOSING THE TRACTION THAT IT IS CURRENTLY GAINING.

➥ While these practices are in many cases legally justified, the lack of regulation or due diligence requesting information on the identity of individuals exacerbates such pervasive anonymity and invites tax abuses, government corruption, and criminal activity to persist. Is this the turning point that the international community needed to finally crackdown on global financial secrecy? The answer is still uncertain, and will depend in large part on how political will is increased and maintained in the long run. Various G20 governments such as Australia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the UK have taken steps to go beyond international commitments and engage in actual implementation and enforcement at a national level to request information on the beneficial owners. The most promising steps have been taken by the UK, which is not only one of the major financial centers of the world, but also one the largest providers of financial services to non-residents. From June onwards, the UK government will have the mechanisms in place to require the public disclosure of beneficial owners. According to business secretary Vince Cable, the registry will hold information on individuals with an interest in more than 25% of shares or voting rights in a company, or who otherwise control the way a company is run. Companies will need to supply these details to Companies House when starting up, and update them 74

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

at least once every 12 months. This will include details such as the name, date of birth and nationality. Denmark, Netherlands, Slovenia, and more recently Australia, will be following in the UK’s footsteps. The Australian assistant treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer confirmed that a public register revealing the identities of the beneficial owners of shell companies will be created. Details about how much information or how frequently it must be provided is yet to be confirmed. Nevertheless, the announcement comes at a strategically crucial time ahead of the upcoming London tax summit, which will be held in May. In this sense the fact that both the UK and Australia are taking the lead in creating public registries provides more leverage for other countries to follow suit. A recent letter to the G20 from the Finance Ministers from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the UK explained the government’s commitment to “establishing as soon as possible registers or other mechanisms requiring that beneficial owners of companies, trusts, foundations, shell companies and other relevant entities and arrangements are identified and available for tax administration and enforcement authorities.” While such information will not be made public, efforts are being made to launch a pan-European mechanism for the automatic exchange of information

on beneficial ownership that will “give tax and other relevant authorities full knowledge on vast amounts of information and help them track the complex offshore trails used by criminals,” the letter said. Beneficial ownership ought to be available for public consumption, but access for investigators is constructive progress. The fact that information will not be kept solely by national tax authorities and provided only upon request is also a significant advancement. GFI and other transparency advocates will continue to push for this information to later be opened up for public access.

PANAMA PAPERS

But in order to do so, some key issues must be addressed. First, loopholes identifying who are the beneficial owners, the frequency, and quantity of information providedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;whether public or privateâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; must be tightened to eliminate any room for interpretation. Second, the effectiveness of beneficial ownership rules needs to go hand in hand with a linking of national registers that is built upon a strengthened monitoring mechanism for the automatic exchange of information. The efforts of Australia and the UK will be in vain if they remain in isolation. Last, the 25% interest provision should be eliminated and all company

beneficiaries, regardless of percentage ownership, should be publically available. A central element merging all these pieces together is political will. Without this ingredient to transform commitments into implementation and enforcement, Panama Papers risks losing the traction that it is currently gaining. In particular, the U.S. needs to take steps to require the identification of beneficial owners across all states. The fact that it is lagging behind in beneficial ownership transparency and that the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act is still being discussed years after being introduced and re-introduced is a testament to this. â&#x2013;

Daniel Neale is a Research Fellow at Global Financial Integrity, a Washington, DC-based research and government advisory organization. JUNE 2016

INTERVIEW / Ambassador Jose L. Cuisia on US-Philippine Relations

A Global Affairs Media Network

SPECIAL REPORT THE PHILIPPINES

ALLIANCE COOPERATION BEYOND THE ELECTIONS BY JUSTIN GOLDMAN

SPECIAL REPORT / PHILIPPINES

NAVIGATING UNCERTAINTY

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

PHILIPPINES

ALLIANCE COOPERATION BEYOND THE ELECTIONS There is a strong argument to be made that bilateral relations have flourished under President of the Philippines Benigno Aquino III and U.S. President Barack Obama. STORY BY JUSTIN GOLDMAN

resident Aquino was sworn into office in June 2010 and his opposition to the security policy approach of outgoing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was well known. A major effort driven by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), but with wide consultations across government and with civil society produced the Internal Peace and Security Plan (IPSP) that was launched on January 1, 2011. It laid out a vision that would focus on ending long-running internal conflicts to enable greater resources to be concentrated on building up an external defense capability. Aquino’s secret meeting in August 2011 with Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Chair Murad Ebrahim reinvigorated a sporadic peace process that began under President Fidel V. Ramos in the mid-1990s. The Aquino Administration received strong support for this approach from its U.S. ally and sustained negotiations with the MILF led to the Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro in March 2014. However, the MILF recently marked the second anniversary of the signing of what they perceived a historic breakthrough, but what has proven a frustration as the Philippine Congress has failed to pass the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) that would have enabled the pact. While some criticism was raised on Constitutional grounds of the BBL from the outset, the Mamasapano Clash on January 25, 2015 where a raid conducted by the Special Action Force (SAF) of the Philippine National Police to capture Zulkifi “Marwan” Abdir which led to the deaths of 44 SAF personnel and 18 MILF fighters in Mindanao’s Maguindanao Province has had a lasting impact. The tragic raid made the BBL, submitted in September 2014 and previously expected to pass relatively smoothly, untenable for many Members of Congress. This tragedy became a flashpoint for security cooperation as Marwan had been indicted in U.S. court and under the Rewards for Justice Program information leading to his arrest or conviction offered a reward of up to $5 million. When the SAF encountered stiff resistance, inadequate coordination meant no AFP unit was in a position to rapidly respond in support. The U.S. Embassy in Manila acknowledged that personnel from Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines responded to an AFP request to assist in the evacuation of dead and wounded after the firefight, fueling all kinds of speculation. The draft BBL waits for the next Congressional session. ➥

➥ JUNE 2016

SPECIAL REPORT / PHILIPPINES

➥ The Aquino Administration has focused efforts and allocated additional resources towards an external defense capability, in order to better secure the Philippines vast maritime domain. The intensity of the maritime challenge garners global attention, especially related to its January 2013 submission to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as it seeks to challenge China’s “nine-dashed line” maritime claim in the South China Sea under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. A ruling is expected in the summer of 2016. The pace of Chinese land reclamation and continuing presence of survey ships shows their potential to create an additional artificial island in the Spratly Islands, directly challenging both alliance partners. Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been a key voice for greater cooperation with the Philippines. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative at the 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, but the funding was inserted into the Committee Budget under Chairman McCain and that support has begun to flow, funding capacity-building in the Philippines. However, persistent engagement is necessary to successfully implement such efforts. Japanese development assistance in the form of a loan of approximately 80

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

$200 million to help the Philippine Coast Guard purchase ten new patrol boats was announced in 2012, but the announcement of a contract award was not made until April 2015. In January the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the two allies which will give the U.S. access to key facilities to pre-position equipment and rotationally deploy forces. During their sixth Bilateral Strategic Dialogue with Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of National Defense leaders in Washington this March to meet with their U.S. counterparts, they noted consensus on five EDCA Agreed Locations, including facilities in Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao. While the U.S. will remain consumed with electoral politics, it is crucial the next Philippine President capitalize on security initiatives already in place upon entering office in late June. The six-month period the Aquino Administration had as it developed its approach to national security under the IPSP is a luxury that the current security environment will not afford his successor. ■

Justin Goldman is a Non-Resident Fellow and Young Leader with Pacific Forum CSIS.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, HAS BEEN A KEY VOICE FOR GREATER COOPERATION WITH THE PHILIPPINES.

SPECIAL REPORT / PHILIPPINES

Interview H.E. JOSE L. CUISIA, JR. PHILIPPINE AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES INTERVIEW BY JUSTIN GOLDMAN

mbassador Jose L Cuisa, Jr., Philippine Ambassador to the United States and the Dean of the Asian Diplomatic Corps in Washington is approaching the end of his tenure in this critical post. He can point to tangible progress in the bilateral relationship during a time of great consequence for his country and the alliance relationship with the United States. While the interview was conducted prior to the results of the May 9th Election, questions were raised on just how durable the enhanced bilateral relations would be beyond the term of outgoing President Benigno Aquino III. The Ambassador crucially reminds us that the relationship has weathered turbulence in the past, based upon a friendship founded on shared values and historical experience through the most trying of times. That was certainly reinforced during his February 2015 visit to the MacArthur Memorial in Norfolk, Virginia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Philippines as he opened an exhibit entitled Keeping the Promise: The Liberation of the Philippines, 1944-1945. While matters of security cooperation are often front of mind with a key pillar of the relationship being the Mutual Defense Treaty and issues of maritime security quite newsworthy, efforts from the Aquino Administration and Ambassador Cuisa from his critical post in Washington have taken positive actions to enhance the economic relationship as well. His three decades of business experience as well as his time as Central Bank Governor during the Administration of President Aquino’s Mother had him well suited to do so. His experience serving under President Corazon Aquino provided a perspective of the path the country has travelled since the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 which has described as the “birth of modern Filipino empowerment.” He also acknowledges the challenging road ahead in recognizing more work remains to be done, including on constitutional provisions impacting key sectors of the economy. Quite rightly he feels proud of the efforts during the Aquino Administration and the groundwork that has been laid so that the incoming President can build upon what has led the Philippines to be one of the strongest performing economies in the region.

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Justin Goldman: Your tenure as Ambassador is soon concluding. What are your fondest memories during your time in Washington? What will you miss most? Jose L.Cuisia, Jr.: The fondest memories I have of my time in the United States is witnessing the unmatched talent, industry and hospitality of Filipino and Filipino-American communities all over these fifty (50) states and the territories under my jurisdiction. I will miss all the good friends I have made here but I know that with the many opportunities to connect, these friendships will extend beyond my term and in continued support for the Philippine Embassy. JG: The 2015 PEW Poll found a 92% favorability rating amongst Filipinos polled on their view of the U.S., up from 85% in 2013. Do you see any concerns or potential changes in that positive outlook held by Filipinos? JLC: Founded on a common history and shared values, the friendship between Filipinos and Americans have withstood the test of time. I am confident that the goodwill forged by our two nations will continue to nurture this longstanding friendship. JG: How can ties between Manila and Washington be sustained in the midst of leadership transitions and the coming personnel changes in both capitals? JLC: The Philippines and the United States have been allies and partners in advancing their common interests for decades. The Aquino and Obama Administrations have further expanded the base of our bilateral ties and opened

up fresh avenues for cooperation. Exploration of these new areas, as well as the maintenance of engagement in traditional fields, will provide the momentum necessary to move bilateral relations forward through leadership changes in both countries. JG: President Aquino has expressed a desire to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has sought the support of President Obama in this process. Liberal Party standard-bearer Manuel Roxas II has in the past expressed reservations about the TPP and recently announced it “dead” based on the positions stated by U.S. Presidential candidates. Could you foresee the Philippines pursuing this kind of trade pact, knowing that it would require challenging reforms such as on constitutional provisions restricting foreign ownership? JLC: President Aquino and his economic managers have expressed our keen interest in the TPP on several occasions, and I, too, believe that the Philippines must be part of this 21st century agreement. We are carefully watching the internal acceptance processes of the twelve original TPP participants, including the United States. At the same time, we are also pursuing our own domestic efforts to lay down the necessary groundwork that the next government will need in addressing difficult changes that some sectors may need to undertake, including those relating to constitutional provisions. The TPP will potentially benefit the Philippines by opening up markets, increasing FDI, supporting MSMEs and improving labor/environment standards, and I believe that this

PHILIPPINES

promise of positive welfare effects should give the next administration a reason to seriously consider Philippine participation in the TPP. JG: What do you think about the long term implications of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)? What are they key challenges in its implementation? JLC: The EDCA is designed to promote between the Philippines and its defense treaty ally the United States the following: Interoperability; capacity building towards the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; strengthening AFP for external defense; Maritime Security; Maritime Domain Awareness; and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response (HADR). The Agreement will further benefit the Philippines economically through the provision of jobs and other economic opportunities in the construction activities in the Agreed Locations and procurement of local goods and supplies by the US military and personnel. We have hurdled the greatest challenge to EDCA’s implementation. With the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on 12 January 2016 to uphold the constitutionality of EDCA, the Philippines and the US can fully implement the Agreement and inject dynamism into the alliance. JG: You served in the Administration of President Corazon Aquino following the EDSA People Power Revolution. Earlier this year the 30th anniversary of EDSA was commemorated, what should be remembered from this chapter in Filipino history? JLC: The EDSA People Power Revolution should always be

remembered as the birth of modern Filipino empowerment. It is a proud moment in our history as it showed the world our people’s courage, compassion and love for peace. The People Power Revolution should also be recognized for having inspired peaceful uprisings that ended the oppression and corruption by autocratic regimes in other countries. JG: You are recognized as the Dean of Asian Ambassadors here in town, how do you see the state of U.S.-ASEAN relations and the importance of Southeast Asia in Washington? JLC: The Sunnylands summit signified the high priority that President Obama’s Administration has attached to its engagement with ASEAN, especially within the context of the US strategic rebalance to the Asia Pacific. It is a recognition of Southeast Asia’s key role in promoting peace, security and prosperity in the region, and in building a regional order where all nations play by the same rules. ASEAN is home to 622 million people and has a combined GDP of over US$2.6 trillion. As we approach the “40th/50th milestones” of ASEAN in 2017 with the 40th Anniversary of ASEAN-US relations and the 50th Anniversary of the Establishment of ASEAN, the Philippines is committed to working towards strategically deepening engagement with the US, particularly during our term as ASEAN Chair in 2017, to develop a more cohesive ASEAN firmly rooted in a rules-based order. JG: The U.S.-Philippines Society opened a Washington DC office

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg, left, and Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. Jose L. Cuisia, Jr., right, pose for a photo at Ambassador Goldberg’s swearing-in ceremony at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2013. [State Department photo/Public Domain]

shortly before President Aquino’s visit in June 2012, how would you evaluate efforts to raise the profile of the Philippines in the U.S. and what role do Filipino-Americans have in this effort? JLC: The US-Philippines Society has been a valued partner over the past four years in raising the profile of today’s Philippines among targeted American audiences. Society programs have fostered business networking; showcased progress in our country’s economic development and commitment to good governance; provided insights into the dynamics of Philippine politics, progress toward peace and stability in Mindanao, and responses to maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea; staged a series of cultural programs, including Philippine music,

dance and design; and reminded Americans of how our unique history has matured into a modern, mutually beneficial bilateral relationship. As a non-profit bi-national organization, the Society worked with us to raise more than $2 million for relief and recovery after Typhoon Haiyan, ensuring those funds directly benefitted families in their time of need. In all my travels across the US, I have listened to influential business leaders, local government officials and community builders tell me how Filipino Americans have contributed to building better communities and organizations, proving that the 3.4 million strong Filipino-American community is instrumental in projecting a positive image of the Philippines in this country. ■

JUNE 2016