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.
January 2006
| 
