Memorandum submitted by Conciliation
Resources
1. Conciliation Resources - Who
we are
Conciliation Resources (CR) is an international
non-governmental organization registered in the UK as a charity
(No. 1055436). Our goal is to prevent violence, promote justice
and transform conflict into opportunities for development. Conciliation
Resources works mainly in the Caucasus, Fiji, Uganda and West
Africa in partnership with local and international civil society
organizations and with governments. In addition we publish Accord:
an international review of peace initiatives. CR is funded
through grants from governments (HMG is our largest donor), independent
trusts and foundations. CR is based in London (Islington), with
offices in Sierra Leone.
2. Recommendations based on our
experience
While we at CR have strongly-held views
about a multitude of issues which fall under the remit of the
IDC enquiry, we have sought to limit ourselves to making recommendations
which are directly informed by our concrete experiences
of working in the field of peacebuilding over the last decade.
3. We summarize our recommendations
as follows:
Conciliation Resources urges the UK
government to:
A. Commit far greater political and
financial resources to non-military responses to armed conflict;
B. Mainstream public participation
as an essential ingredient of effective conflict policy and peacebuilding
practice.
4. Rationale
21st Century policies for
conflict prevention and peacebuilding need to address the demanding
realities of this new century and the changed nature of armed
conflicts. CR believes that the responsibilities and capacities
to prevent conflict and build peace do not rest exclusively with
governments and multi-lateral institutions. It is societies as
well as states that are affected by armed conflict; it is therefore
both legitimate and essential that those in so-called 'civil society'
- especially those most directly affected by violence - should
be encouraged and enabled to play their various parts in resolving
conflict and building peace. CR's work with active proponents
of peace and the rule of law (religious and traditional leaders,
women and youth groups, active citizens) have shown us that civil
society actors are essential partners in the global peacebuilding
project.
Recommendations on how the UK can make
its policies more 'conflict sensitive':
5. Strengthen inter-ministerial
and departmental commitment to the conflict prevention pools as
an important mechanism to promote policy coherence with a focus
on non-military responses to conflict.
i. We congratulate the UK government
for the creation of the Africa and Global Conflict pools. We have
enjoyed very successful partnerships with HMG through this mechanism
for our programmes in Uganda and the southern Caucasus. We would
recommend building on the success of the pools by a more focused
definition of conflict prevention which excludes the gifting of
military hardware. Secondly, these pools should not be depleted
through extensive investment in the particular development and
security challenges for the UK in Afghanistan and Iraq at the
expense of smaller but influential peacebuilding work elsewhere.
Thirdly, the pools should have an increased ability to provide
flexible resources for emerging peacebuilding opportunities.
ii. We welcome the creation of further
instruments for 'joined up' governance such as the Post Conflict
Reconstruction Unit. In the interests of promoting further necessary
policy coherence, there may be a case for enhancing the institutional
links to include the Home Office, the Department of Trade and
Industry and the Prime Ministers Office.
6. Review and improve the tools
for setting, promoting and achieving country peacebuilding priorities.
We have seen the value of
tools such as 'Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers' and the 'Strategic
Conflict Assessments', and we think there is room for a more strategic
focus on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The UK should
consider introduction of methodologies to increase commitment
to and coordination of the use of aid and development funds in
ways that effectively and directly support a peaceful resolution
of armed conflicts. Such methodologies must be developed through
processes of active engagement with all stakeholders in conflicts,
especially representatives of civil society, including marginalized
groups such as women, young people and the poor.
7. Review the use of sanctions
from a peacebuilding perspective. When helping others to construct
durable peace processes, the UK needs to develop more nuanced
instruments in order to encourage changes in behaviour on the
part of belligerent governments and/or armed groups. Blunt instruments
such as proscription often have an unintended consequence of undermining
peace initiatives (see our website on our recent issue on 'engaging
armed groups in peace processes' www.c-r.org). It is time for
more sophisticated sanctions regimes designed to prevent violence,
punish atrocities and encourage efforts to resolve the conflict
through dialogue.
Recommendations on improving UK
peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction policies:
8. Promote greater public participation.
Effective political participation is essential for determining
the will of the people, which is the basis of the authority of
government. Participation has been mainstreamed as an integral
principle of good development practice. It now needs to be systematically
integrated into the UK's policies to address armed conflict. The
right to participate should be promoted during peace negotiations
and other peacebuilding initiatives, as well as in other forms
of political decision-making. In case studies from all over the
world we have found that innovative mechanisms for direct and
indirect public participation have led to better peace agreements
and more durable settlements. Within this, it is important to
encourage women's participation as outlined in 2000 in UN Resolution
1325, as well as supporting an active voice for other groups such
as youth, displaced communities, and where appropriate so called
traditional authorities.
9. Re-think policies for engaging
armed groups in peace processes If we are committed to ending
violent conflicts, preventing 'failed states', protecting civilians
and promoting democracy, we must explore how best to engage with
non-state armed groups (and state-like actors). They are key protagonists
in internal conflicts and therefore critical to ending violence.
Non-state armed groups are often an expression of real and perceived
political, social or economic exclusion, or the result of poorly
addressed historical grievances. Furthermore, military responses
often fuel antagonism and further violence, which results in civilian
casualties and entrenches a 'language of violence'. A lack of
engagement can strengthen hardliners who believe that force is
the only effective strategy. This is particularly evident in long-running
conflicts such as in the Middle East, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and
the Democratic Republic of Congo.
10. Uphold international standards
and conventions in peace processes. Policies for conflict
prevention and peacebuilding need to put access to rights and
justice, at the centre of the agenda, especially for the vulnerable.
This involves opening up non-exploitative relationships, accessible
and equitable opportunities for more just development, and promoting
transparency and accountability of participatory governance. Upholding
international human rights standards and humanitarian law in peace
processes remains a cornerstone of a viable transition from periods
of violence and impunity for abuses to cultures of peace and respect
for human rights. Adherence to standards helps to demonstrate
impartiality, a commitment to a future based on the rule of law
and respect of human rights, and facilitates setting boundaries
for unacceptable behaviour as part of the peace process as it
moves forward.
11. Strengthen the UK's institutional
capacities (including its civil capacities) for conflict prevention
and peacebuilding. This means
strengthening public service capacities for engagement, dialogue
and facilitation/mediation, particularly through greater institutional
backstopping for the government's Special Envoys or its so-called
'Track I and Track II'.
12. Peacebuilding should be a
priority in all UK emergency operations in conflict contexts.
Conflict sensitive emergency relief is essential - and more
needs to be done to strengthen this commitment and these methodologies
- but it not enough to meet the basic human needs of conflict-affected
populations and then hope for peace. It is also not always appropriate
to play mixed roles in delivering assistance and peacebuilding,
nevertheless much more monies and commitment needs to go into
promoting non-violent military alternatives to war - particularly
in times of crisis.
Recommendations on how the UK could better support
global peacebuilding efforts:
13. Develop the UK's capacities
to participate in conflict-specific multi-lateral cooperative
mechanisms. Specifically, we have seen that the UK's role
in diplomatic "friends groups" or donor groups can be
very effective and flexible mechanisms for cooperation and coherence
when convened around a shared commitment to promote peacebuilding
and conflict prevention.
14. Build on the leadership role
the UK has played in the formation of the UN Peacebuilding Commission
and the Human Rights Council. CR welcomes the UK's role in
these bodies, and recognizes the enormous challenges ahead to
ensure these two new institutions fulfil the aspirations of their
mandate. We also support the UK's commitment to developing the
instruments for realizing important international commitments
like the "responsibility to protect".
15. Draw on the competence of
UK non-governmental organizations. The UK is lucky to have
some of the world's leading organizations in the emerging field
of conflict prevention and peacebuilding: International Alert,
Responding to Conflict, Saferworld, Quaker Peace and Social Witness,
Conciliation Resources, INCORE, the International Centre for Reconciliation,
the Universities of Bradford, and Kent and the LSE, Concordis
International, Peace Direct (to name a few). We encourage the
IDC to consult with this sector as a key and competent partner
in the UK's capacities to respond to violent conflicts.
22 January 2006
| 
