Peace is possible

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

...Description...... more. less.

to stability When a society is traumatized by warfare and widespread violence, a delicate social balance is destroyed. A lack of mutual trust and cooperation makes post-conOict regions exceptionally susceptible to future hostilities. It is this trust that Interpeace seeks to re-establish in order to help local populations build lasting peace. This can only be accomplished if that fragile balance is repaired, inevitably a difNcult and time- consuming process. This is where Interpeace makes a difference. Its approach to local ownership is something that, in my long career as an international peace negotiator, I have not seen elsewhere. I initially joined the Interpeace Governing Council for one year, but seven years later I am proud to continue to be associated with this organization and the valuable work it does. With growing international recognition and acceptance of peacebuilding as a vital tool in conOict prevention, 2006 saw signiNcant validation of Interpeace. The year also witnessed crucial institutional growth, both for our local operations and within the organization itself. Interpeace achieved several notable benchmarks of success, including selection by President Bill Clinton as an innovative model for conOict prevention at the annual Clinton Global Initiative, and by the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) to become one of its few ceminent partners d in the promotion of democracy around the world. While this acknowledgement of our methods and goals is certainly welcome and appreciated, it is important to remember that a great deal of work lies before us. The countries and regions in which our programmes operate remain high-tension areas. Our local partners require full support in their efforts to promote and maintain the stability that is our ultimate goal. It is my hope that this report highlights for you the important work that Interpeace does and that you will be encouraged to learn more about us and give us your support. Former President of Finland; Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the future status process for Kosovo. Chairman of Interpeace since 2000. 6 Message from the Director-General SCOTT M. WEBER, INTERPEACE DIRECTOR-GENERAL © JEAN-MARC FERRÉ/INTERPEACE 7 MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL Creating hope In so many parts of the world today, generation after generation perpetuates a deadly cycle of violence, handing down to their children societies torn apart by conOict. And yet it is remarkable how even the most bitter enemies in war most often share a common hope that their children may live in a peaceful society. This universal wish is an important starting point in efforts to break the vicious cycle of conOict. It is an opportunity that must be seized and acted upon if one is to hope to create a peaceful future. Interpeace helps fragile societies to look themselves in the mirror, identify their true problems and overcome them in a manner that builds sustainable peace. In essence, we help to transform despair and mistrust into hope and a brighter future for this and the next generation. __________________________________ A few months ago I visited our Palestinian team and travelled with them throughout the West Bank. The journey was very challenging, having to navigate and negoti- ate our way through the many checkpoints that stiOe day-to-day life for ordinary Palestinians. One day, we visited a refugee camp for meetings with community leaders and civil society groups. To outsiders, the camp, set on the outskirts of a larger urban centre, is surreal. The city streets and lamp-posts are covered with colorful advertisements and billboards, but these aren 9t for cell phones, soft drinks or new cars. The walls are plastered with large posters of cmartyrs d 3 young men and women alike 3 pictured brandishing weapons in their struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Poverty in the camp 3 just as it is throughout the Palestinian territories 3 is crush- ing. Jobs are extremely scarce. Hope is at best an occasional visitor there. As we were leaving the camp, we had an unplanned encounter with a leader of an armed group, the strongman of the area. I quickly realized that we were the same age, and thoughts of fate, and how in another life the tables could be turned, Nlled my mind. Driving away, I was told that in his youth, he had been one of a prominent group of Palestinian teenagers who symbolized the hope of peace. Of that group, he is the only one still alive. Today, his use of violence has earned him the status of a leader in the community and crole model d to many Palestinian children in the area. How is it that this former prodigy of peace, now leader of an armed group 3 who admitted to me that he didn 9t expect to live out the year 3 could become an inspiration for a new generation of young men in the camp? What is it that breaks down in societies to make this pos- sible and, in many cases, commonplace? __________________________________ War tears societies apart in every conceivable way. Infrastructure is devastated, entrenching poverty and setting countries back decades in their development. The 8 average civil war causes USD 50 Billion in damages to assets and business alone. The scale of human suffering and long-term trauma is, for its part, inestimable. Trust in government or any other form of centralized authority often erodes to the point of rendering the country de facto structure-less; the existence of Ministry buildings often blinding one to the fact that those institutions carry little, if any, legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Trust between people tends to give way to brutal survival instincts. Old social taboos, such as the condemnation of rape, the respect for elders and socially unacceptable levels of violence, go straight out the window. Without these mental, political, social and physical structures intact, humanity is capable of the most tremendous acts of violence. And as a culture of impunity gradually sets in, more violence usually ensues. And this is where the cycle begins. Societies without structures to channel and defuse tensions undergo further violence which deepens mistrust and makes putting those structures in place ever more difNcult. Conflict-affected societies around the world have a particularly hard time breaking out of this paradigm. Trying to rebuild state structures and the legitimacy of institutions of governance in a context where the main ethnic, religious or social groups fundamentally mistrust each other is tremendously challenging. And yet, for statebuilding to be successful, the society as a whole must come together to deNne what the role of a government should be and what form of governance is best adapted to their culture, history and their vision of a peaceful society. They must agree on just how much they are willing to forgive and what form of justice is appropriate and necessary for the society to be able to move forward. Agreeing on where you want to go in a context where everything is political, everything is urgent, where resources are scarce and where mistrust is one of the only common denominators means that the entire process rests on setting limited, common priorities. Indeed, a vision emerges through the process of making choices. Almost as important as agreeing what should be done is the process of building consensus on what should not be done. All too often and despite the best of intentions, the international community imposes its own models of government and justice on fractured societies, and in so doing sows the seeds of future conOict. Moreover, in many cases national governments were the primary predators of the conOict (Rwanda and Guatemala are but two examples). So to rebuild the State as it was would in fact mean recreating the power structures and dis-functionalities that led to the conOict in the Nrst place. Understandably, these complex challenges seem daunting. So, where does one begin? The key to building peace is not so much what is done but how it is done. The process of developing a blueprint for a new society cannot be carried out by experts from foreign capitals, no matter how bright they may be. It must be the focus of a broadly inclusive process that engages all groups in the fractured society. Whoever matters in the eyes of local people must be involved. If they have the potential to become spoilers, they also must be involved. By involving them, they can be diluted and be made to show their cards. Excluded, they can easily derail the peace. Our experience shows that those on the extremes of the political spectrum can, and must, be drawn into the peacebuilding process as it creates a dynamic that forces them to become more responsible. 9 MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL Scott M. Weber Interpeace Director-General And, crucially, the process must be locally-owned. Initiatives perceived to be owned by foreign bodies such as the UN or Western governments rarely hold. Our experience shows time and again that societies must truly own the process for agreements to be implemented and for results to be sustainable. Lastly, peace is more about changing mind-sets than removing weapons from circulation. If a young man wants to procure a weapon, most often he will succeed. The point is to create an environment of physical, social and political security that will make him not want nor need to do so. He has to have sufNcient trust in his authori- ties, his neighbors and in his future to make that crucial choice. Building trust is, in the end, the core of the challenge of building peace and is central to Interpeace 9s mission. One of the common threads throughout all of Interpeace 9s programmes is the high degree of national ownership that we help to instill through the engagement of all sectors of society and the discrete and supportive role that we play behind the scenes. Achieving this is not easy. It requires patience, the careful cultivation of relationships of trust with all groups and a great deal of consultation and listening. As you will see from the pages that follow, our local partners have demonstrated true leadership on the forefront of peacebuilding in their societies. We honor their commitment and drive to keep everyone engaged and focused. It is their work that we try to highlight, although never quite doing it justice, in this Annual Report. 2006 was a very busy year of successes, challenges and growth. 2007 and 2008 are dedicated primarily to building on our successful initiatives in new countries and to consolidating our systems and capacities to maintain high standards of quality. None of this would have been possible without the outstanding dedication of our staff and partners, but also the support, wisdom and guidance of our Governing Council and Advisory Council of donors. To all of you we express our deepest grati- tude and invite you to continue to share in our achievements and to help us through the difNculties. We are creating hope in these societies and there is nothing more motivating. 10 Highlights of 2006 © RYAN ANSON/INTERPEACE 11 HIGHLIGHTS OF 2006 In 2006 Interpeace and its partners made signiNcant progress in helping to lay the foundations for sustainable peace. In addition, patient and thorough exploratory work has led to the establishment of new peacebuilding programmes. Highlights include: " Interpeace and its Somali partners, the Academy for Peace and Development (APD), Puntland Development and Research Center (PDRC) and the Center for Research and Dialogue (CRD), have pulled together the results of the Nrst phase of their work in the Dialogue for Peace and Democratization programmes . One of the spin-offs from this was a successful reconciliation process to end prolonged violent conOict in Mudug and Galgaduud in central Somalia, which had claimed hundreds of lives, exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, threatened the north-south trade corridor, and reportedly contributed to piracy of international vessels off the coast of the central regions. In addition the programme contributed to Democratization in Somaliland through extensive negotiations in collaboration with the National Electoral Commission (NEC), and key stakeholders towards agreement on codes of conduct by the political parties and the media, lists of candidates, and establishment of polling stations. " The Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace (IRDP), Interpeace 9s local partner in Rwanda , has wrapped up the Nrst Nve years of its research and peacebuilding dialogue. It has received a strong mandate from national, social and political lead- ers to facilitate and monitor the implementation of recommendations and reforms. IRDP is acknowledged as an important civil society entity supporting reconciliation and democratization in Rwanda today and for the foreseeable future. " In Guinea-Bissau , Interpeace was invited by the Representative of the UN Sec- retary-General to develop a peacebuilding programme. The joint Interpeace/INEP cVoices of Peace d programme is now a core component of the UN 9s peacebuilding strategy for Guinea-Bissau. " In Liberia the Joint Programme Unit for UN/Interpeace Initiatives has developed a programme to Nll the void of initiatives seeking to address the deep-rooted sources of instability in the country. The programme will be carried out in partnership with the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and eight Liberian local partners. " The President of Guatemala has strongly endorsed, and has begun implementing, a consensus National Security System developed as a result of work facilitated by the Interpeace FOSS programme and its eight national partner organizations. The President acknowledges this area of work to be the #1 priority for Guatemala. " The programme in Palestine made contributions to the development of the cNa- tional Accord Document/ dPrisoner 9s Accord, d that formed the basis for the Unity Government. " The Israeli programme, together with the National Committee of the Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel and through its chairman, Mr. Shawki Khatib, facilitated the creation of an internal dialogue process involving the different sections of the Palestinian Arab community in Israel. The result was a Future Vision Document 12 on establishing a common agenda and strategy vis-à-vis the Israeli state. The programme also received the support of Yossi Beilin, a key Ngure in the Israeli peace movement, who considers that it brings a necessary but elusive element to any peace process: a link between the political process itself and the different groups in Israeli society. " In Burundi , President Nkurunziza has given the green light to the initiation of an Interpeace programme in his country. A local partner, CENAP has been identiNed and the programme is now in its pilot phase. " In Aceh, Indonesia , together with Interpeace 9s local partner, the Indonesian Peace Institute 3 IPI, the programme seeks to contribute to consolidating an enabling environment for the continued implementation of the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the government and the GAM movement, while bringing about social reconciliation and good governance in Aceh. " In Timor Leste , the government has formally endorsed Interpeace 9s role in putting in place a national peacebuilding process to address the deep-rooted sources of instability. A partnership has been formed with the Peace and Democracy Foundation (PDF) to carry out a Programme of Research and Dialogue for Peace (PRDP). " In Cyprus , the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General and former Governing Council member of Interpeace invited the Joint Programme Unit for UN/Interpeace Initiatives to develop a peacebuilding programme. The programme, Cyprus 2010 will be implemented in partnership with the Cyprus Sociological Association and the Political Science Association-Cyprus. " The Regional OfNce for Latin America has developed a programme to help bring together capacities to deal with the scourge of youth gangs across Central America together with 6 partner organizations in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Several institutional highlights include: " The organization managed the formal transition of its name from WSP International to Interpeace 3 International Peacebuilding Alliance in order to better reOect its focus and nature. " Interpeace was awarded OfHcial Development Assistance (ODA)-eligibility status from the OECD-DAC Statistical Committee in recognition of the contribution that its work makes to development. " In September 2006, Interpeace and its Rwandan partner, the IRDP, were showcased by President Bill Clinton as an innovative model for conOict prevention at the annual Clinton Global Initiative . 13 HIGHLIGHTS OF 2006 " The UN Secretary-General nominated Carolyn McAskie , Assistant Secretary- General for Peacebuilding Support and former SRSG in Burundi, to represent him on the Interpeace Governing Council (replacing Michael Møller, current Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Cyprus). Ms. McAskie 9s appointment to the Governing Council is a further acknowledgement of the importance of the partnership between the UN and Interpeace in operational peacebuilding. " Interpeace was selected by the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) to become one of its few ceminent partners d in the promotion of Democracy around the world. " Interpeace has entered into a partnership with International IDEA on the joint development of a handbook for practitioners on the process and substance of developing constitutions in post-conOict and conOict affected societies. cInterpeace is an organization of great value to the United Nations and its peacebuilding efforts, bringing innovative thinking and successful new practices to a dif:cult and complex :eld. I recommend all our colleagues involved, even marginally, in peacebuilding to learn from their experience and to interact with them. d Michael Møller, former Director for Political, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Affairs in the UN Secretary-General 9s OfNce and current Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General to Cyprus 14 Interpeace at a glance THE INEP-COORDINATED TEAM OF RESEARCHERS DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL SPACES FOR DIALOGUE IN EMPADA, REGION QUINARA, GUINEA-BISSAU, MAY 2007. © INEP/INTERPEACE 15 INTERPEACE AT A GLANCE Interpeace is a Swiss-based international non-governmental organization, working in close partnership with the United Nations, that assists societies torn by war to overcome conOict and to build lasting peace. Established in May 2000 in order to expand on the pioneering peacebuilding work initiated under the pilot War-torn So- cieties Project (1994-1998), Interpeace seeks to facilitate the active involvement of local, national and international actors in ongoing collective dialogue and research that allows societies emerging from conOict to better respond to the challenges of social, economic and political rehabilitation. With headquarters in Geneva, Interpeace is building on 13 years of operational experience. Current peacebuilding programmes include: Guatemala, a programme to address youth gangs in Central America, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi, the Somali programme, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, Aceh, Indonesia, Timor-Leste and a programme on constitution building processes. Past programmes include: Eritrea, Mozambique and Macedonia. It has regional ofNces in Guatemala and Nairobi and representation ofNces in New York and Brussels. Our mission Interpeace is dedicated to building lasting peace by reinforcing the capacities of societies to overcome deep divisions and to address conOict in non-violent ways. We are rooted in local realities, drawing strength from an alliance of national teams with a long-term commitment to building peace in their own societies. We believe in the wisdom of listening, the power of participation and the strength of informed dialogue to build understanding and trust 3 the foundations of peace- building. Our approach Interpeace works in partnership with local teams to reinforce existing structures to manage conOict peacefully. We help societies address the most fundamental issues that make or break the peace, help them to solve these differences through construc- tive dialogue and create home grown solutions for a more peaceful future. Starting a peacebuilding project (Country Research and Analysis) Our work is demand driven. We receive requests to engage in conOicted societies from a range of sources 3 the government and/or civil society of the country concerned, from donor countries, UN agencies, international organizations and our Governing Council members. On the basis of consultations with these parties, priorities are set by the Interpeace Governing Council. 16 Before accepting to engage in a given country, we assess whether our approach would have a positive impact. Our analysis is based on in-depth consultations with local, national and international sources and through exploratory visits. We initiate projects when the key national players are willing to participate in the process, when the political and security situation permits, and if the necessary human and Nnancial resources are available. We work in close partnership with the United Nations, formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding and in our structure as a Joint Programme Unit for UN/Interpeace Initiatives. This enables us to act either as an independent non-governmental orga- nization or as a UN initiative, depending on the prevailing conditions in the country under consideration. Creating the change agent for peace: Forming a local peacebuilding team To form a peacebuilding team we often partner with an existing NGO or research centre, or work closely with UN missions on the ground. Our teams are made up of researchers and facilitators under the leadership of a consensus Ngure. Consensus Ngures are known for their integrity, fairness, independence and command respect from all parties. Teams vary in size depending on the situation and are selected from a broad range of local professionals aiming to ensure a credible balance of the con- Oicting forces. A painstaking vetting process is undertaken to ensure that the national team is of high calibre and is seen as credible and trustworthy by all sides. RWANDAN STUDENTS IN ONE OF IRDP 9S SCHOOL DIALOGUE CLUB PROGRAMMES. © STEPHAN ROVA 17 INTERPEACE AT A GLANCE The selection and preparation of the peacebuilding team is one of the most important elements in the preparation of a project since the team 9s credibility and reputation is key to its success. Finding common solutions to common problems The local peacebuilding teams seek out and collect views on the most pressing is- sues that will make or break the peace from all sectors in society: the government, opposition, civil society, private sector and even the diaspora. This interactive dialogue and cresearch d lays the foundation for a national self- portrait that documents the history of the conOict, details the current state of relations between people and deNnes the priority issues. Our role is to facilitate this process, and to support the deliberations with objective, veriNable research conducted by our team made up of nationals of the country con- cerned and supported by Interpeace international staff. We help people understand the often complex challenges to peace, prioritize main issue areas, Nnd agreement on the solutions, and assist with their implementation. Creating sustainable institutions Interpeace is committed to ensuring that local people and organizations carry on the work once the programme is complete. These institutions become a national resource to sustain peace and stability and to respond effectively to new challenges as they arise over the long run. PARTICIPANTS IN A SEMINAR ON YOUTH GANGS. © SANDRA SEBASTIAN 18 Interpeace around the world Eastern Africa 1 Somali Programme 3 Somaliland, Puntland, and South-Central Somalia Local partners: Academy for Peace and Development (APD) in Hargeisa, Somaliland; Puntland Development Research Center (PDRC) in Garowe, Puntland; Center for Research and Dialogue (CRD) in Mogadishu (South-Central Somalia) Purpose: The Somali programme is engaging in a Somali- wide community-based reconciliation process known as the Dialogue for Peace, to address critical issues, build participatory forms of governance, and put a deLnitive end to conMict in Somalia. The programme also has a role in legislative change, mediation and civic education, all aimed at a positive transformation of this collapsed state. Central Africa 2 Rwanda Local partner: Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace (IRDP), Kigali Purpose: To continue to establish open dialogue and build trust within the Rwandan population, which is still marked by the aftermaths of the genocide. 3 Burundi Local partner: CENAP Purpose: The programme will provide Burundians with tools to collectively examine the challenges of reconciliation including ethnicity, justice and impunity, dealing with the past, land and property, and power-sharing. West Africa 4 Guinea-Bissau Local partner: National Institute of Studies and Research (INEP), Bissau Purpose: To make a tangible contribution to the consolida- tion of peace and stability in Guinea-Bissau, as a key pre- requisite for sustainable post-conMict development. 5 Liberia Implemented by the Joint Programme Unit for UN/Inter- peace Initiatives 3 UNOPS. In partnership with the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). Local partners: KoL Annan International Centre for ConMict Transformation (KAICT), Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI), Foundation for International Dignity (FIND), Interreligious Council of Liberia (IRCL), Women NGO 9s Secretariat of Liberia, Peacebuilding Resource Center (PBRC), West Africa Network for Peace (WANEP), and Initiatives for Positive Change. Purpose: To support the consolidation of peace in Liberia through the development of key elements for social cohe- sion: trust, shared understanding, channels of communica- tion, and capacities for dialogue and research. Latin America 6 Guatemala Local partners: Asociación de Investigación y Estudios Sociales (ASIES), Asociación para el Estudio y Promoción de la Seguridad Democrática (SEDEM), Centro de Estudios de Guatemala (CEG), Fundación Myrna Mack (FMM), Incidencia Democ- rática (IDEM), Instituto de Enseñanza para el De- sarrollo Sostenible (IEPADES), Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales de Guatemala (ICCPG), Universidad Rafael Landívar (URL) Purpose: The FOSS project has created a space for key actors to discuss and formulate policy recommendations for reforming the Guatemalan security sector. It is also acts as a link between the state and civil society. 7 Central America: Organized youth gangs Local partners: Guatemala: Instituto de Estudios Comparado en Ciencias Penales de Guatemala 3 ICCPG; El Salvador: UCA / IUDOP, FESPAD y Centro de Atención Padre Palacios; Honduras: Unidos por la Vida y Organización JHA-JA. Purpose: Interpeace will use its broad-based par- ticipatory approach to address the problem of the Maras, transnational youth gangs linked to organ- ized crime across the region, aiming to identify and prioritize sectoral and national solutions to reduce conMict. 19 INTERPEACE AT A GLANCE Asia 8 Aceh, Indonesia Local partner: Indonesian Peace Institute (IPI) Purpose: To contribute to consolidating an enabling envi- ronment for the continued implementation of the Memoran- dum of Understanding (MoU) while bringing about social reconciliation and good governance in Aceh. 9 Timor-Leste Local partner: Peace and Democracy Foundation (PDF) Purpose: To engage in an inclusive long-term process of peaceful dialogue, reconciliation and effective problem- solving between key local and national stakeholders, and international assistance actors. Middle East 10 Israel Implemented by the Joint Programme Unit for UN/Inter- peace Initiatives - UNOPS. In partnership with UNDP. Local partners: The National Committee of the Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel; SHAS social movement. Purpose: To work with groups traditionally excluded from the peace process, but who have a strong inMuence on Israeli society to develop a peaceful vision of the future and a plan to achieve this vision. 11 Occupied Palestinian Territories Implemented by UN OfLce for Project Services-Switzerland Operations Centre. In partnership with UNDP. Purpose: To promote dialogue within Palestinian society and across the whole spectrum of social actors, including those marginalized in previous processes, on a future vi- sion of Palestine. Europe 12 Cyprus Implemented by the Joint Programme Unit for UN/Interpeace Initiatives - UNOPS In partnership with the OfLce of the Special Rep- resentative of the Secretary General of the United Nations in Cyprus. Local partners: the Cyprus Sociologists As- sociation and the Political Science Association- Cyprus Purpose: To contribute to the development of a public atmosphere and social dynamic that pro- motes and sustains a constructive inter-communal engagement for the discussion of and solution to the Cyprus problem. New York, USA 13 Interpeace Representation OfHce Brussels, Belgium 14 Interpeace Liaison OfHce Geneva, Switzerland 15 Interpeace Headquarters Nairobi, Kenya 16 Regional OfHce for Eastern and Central Africa Guatemala City, Guatemala 17 Regional OfHce for Latin America 20 Eastern Africa Interpeace in Somali Programme 21 EASTERN AFRICA SOMALI PROGRAMME Current situation Operating in a region in con- stant state of change, Inter- peace 9s Dialogue for Peace programme continued to play an important role in 2006 in alleviating the worsening tur- moil, notably in Mogadishu and southern and central parts of the country. The main chal- lenge was to identify effective opportunities for peacebuild- ing interventions as tensions grew between the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and the Transitional Federal Govern- ment (TFG). Interpeace sought to capitalize on various critical developments as the greatest hope for the Somali people. The majority of Somalis are clearly tired of conflict and desperately wish for a return to peace and stability. Hon- est political brokering, collective Somali goodwill, and the momentum created by sustained efforts of various government infrastructures, civil society and the media, all suggested the possibility of developing favourable long-term conditions toward re-establishing a Somali state. Crucial progress was made in consolidating peace in local and regional zones of stability, with the long-range objective of ensuring that such steps forward are preserved as much as possible, given current power struggles that have persisted into 2007. Targeted support for the stable institutions of Somaliland and Puntland, both Somali regions well-positioned to consolidate their own peace, was another key aspect of the Dialogue for Peace 9s work. While the potential for sliding back into total conOict in the South loomed, Interpeace sustained its important engagement in peacebuilding initia- tives in these two regions, focusing on state-building initiatives. Population: 10.7 million (UN, 2005) Area: 637,657 sq km (246,201 sq miles) Life expectancy: 45 years (men), 47 years (women) GNI per capita: Not available for 2006 Main exports: Livestock, bananas, hides, Lsh © CRD MILITIA LEADERS WITH THEIR GUNS PRIOR TO A SYMBOLIC HANDOVER OF WEAPONS DURING THE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP, GALKAYO 2006. 22 Interpeace activities The Dialogue for Peace continues to be led and managed by the three Interpeace Somali partner institutions, namely: " The Academy for Peace and Development (APD) in Somaliland " The Puntland Development Research Center (PDRC) in Puntland " The Center for Research and Dialogue (CRD) in Mogadishu The Dialogue for Peace programme involves extensive consultations with all sectors of society 3 from national-level political and business leaders to local elders, youth, women 9s groups, and civil society organizations 3 led by local actors and fa- cilitated by Somali research teams from the partner institutions. The discussions are documented and Nlmed, with local media helping to disseminate the Nndings. Initial consultations by each partner enabled the programme to identify respected leaders to guide the process. Priorities for dialogue include: democratization, decentraliza- tion of governance, and resource-based conOict (for APD); democratization, public fund management and consolidation of the Mudug Peace Agreement (for PDRC); security and stabilization and the roles of the business sector and civil society in peacebuilding (for CRD). Each partner also organizes regular fora for public discus- sion of topical issues of concern, as well as engaging as an informal liaison as a means of conOict prevention. Towards the latter part of 2006, Interpeace 9s Dialogue for Peace programme began moving into its second phase. Interpeace, in collaboration with its local partners, Local partners: Academy for Peace and Development (APD) in Hargeisa, Somaliland; Center for Research and Dialogue (CRD) in Mogadishu (South- Central Somalia); Puntland Development and Research Center (PDRC) in Garowe, Puntland. Purpose: The Interpeace Somali programme is engaging in a Somali-wide community-based reconciliation process known as the cDialogue for Peace, d to address critical issues, build participatory forms of governance, and put a deLnitive end to conMict in Somalia. The programme also has a role in legislative change, mediation and civic education, all aimed at a positive transformation of this collapsed state. 2006 expenditure: 3,380,774 USD 2006 donors: Denmark, Development Alternatives Inc., European Commission, European Union, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, UNDP Programme staff : Team members (70), programme support (16), support staff (61) 23 EASTERN AFRICA published 9 documents that highlight the research and impact of its Nrst phase of this programme (see section on Publications). These publications are also supported by documentary video productions which capture their work in the region. Interpeace concluded the first phase by commissioning an external evaluation of their activities in order to gauge actual progress and impact. These Nndings are being incorporated into the sec- ond phase. Impact Impact is perhaps one of the most difNcult aspects to mea- sure, nevertheless, the progress made is widely recognized. cThere is a high degree of own- ership by the communities of the work done by Interpeace and the partners 3 and sustainability. How does Interpeace and the partners manage to generate this? This is something we are always looking for in our programmes and as donors we need to learn lessons here, d stated one donor representative at a meeting in Nairobi. The APD, Interpeace 9s partner based in Hargeisa, is focused primarily on Somalil- and. It recently held its Annual General Meeting and elected a new board. Many of its members were re-elected, a validation of their crucial service to the organization. cThe Academy is our memory and its doors are always open to us, d noted one in- terlocutor in the Dialogue for Peace evaluation. Acting Chairman, Dr. Adan Abokor, was ofNcially elected Chairman of the Board. Interpeace 9s partner has reafNrmed that it would seek to strengthen and create new opportunities for dialogue and peace- building in 2006 and 2007. The CRD, which operates out of Mogadishu, South-Central Somalia, continued to support reconciliation efforts in the disputed Mudug region. Available evidence suggests that this initiative has had considerable impact despite the positioning of various militia groups representing Puntland, the TFG, ICU, local clans, and the more recent incursion of the Ethiopian military in late 2006. The PDRC has been working with young people, not only to establish a stronger relationship with this vital sector of the population, but to stimulate greater public awareness of peacebuilding efforts in Puntland and other parts of the Somali region. PDRC also played an important role in the UN-World Bank Joint Needs Assessment (JNA) as the lead organization in cross-cutting peacebuilding, reconciliation and conOict prevention issues. In addition, the PDRC conducted a validation workshop, which gave the JNA an opportunity to share Nndings and receive critical feedback from local Somalis. With such initiatives, maintained one observer in the 2006 Dia- logue for Peace evaluation, Interpeace and its partners should aim to become a cthink tank with a human face. d cThere is a high degree of ownership by the communities of the work done by Interpeace and the partners 3 and sustainability. How does Interpeace and the partners manage to generate this? This is something we are always looking for in our programmes and as donors we need to learn lessons here. d Donor representative, Nairobi 24 Finally, the PDRC continued to support CRD 9s efforts in the Mudug peace initiative by pro- viding logistical and programme support from Peace House, its satellite ofNce in Galkayo. cThe current peace and stability that Adado district is enjoying today is a result of the skills militia lead- ers acquired from the Galkayo workshop, d said a senior local elder speaking about a conOict management skills training work- shop for militia held by the CRD in April 2006. All three Interpeace partners have continued to develop and strengthen their capacity to man- age the risks that constantly arise within the overall programme. Equally encouraging is that all three have demonstrated a Nrm collective commitment toward engaging beyond their regions of activity. They have respected regional sensitivities but have deliberately sought each other out to collaborate in their efforts to support the Dialogue for Peace, and beyond. Somaliland, for example, is enjoying an unprecedented growth of construction, noted Mohammed Ibrahim of the APD. cNew buildings are going up constantly which is a healthy sign but this also means that there is absolutely no urban planning which also needs to be done, d he said. cHowever, for the moment, our main concern is to maintain stability and to ensure what exists is not destroyed. d He added that crucial for Somaliland 9s own long-term sustainability was that the two other regional enti- ties also remain stable. This, he said, is a strong incentive for working together with Interpeace 9s two other local partners. From the Somali point of view, too, each partner is seen as representing local insti- tutional leadership. This leadership, commented one observer in the 2006 Dialogue for Peace evaluation, cis one of the key reasons for their success. There is commitment and they enjoy widespread respect both locally and internationally. d Another noted that the partners serve as a unique cpublic space and public resource. d One of the emerging strengths of the partners has been the creation of Nve low- cost and highly effective satellite ofNces (Galkayo, Burao, Beltweyne, Baidoa and Kismayo) to sustain key activities in locations outside their regional capitals. Each of the three main partner and satellite ofNces is strategically located to support local, regional and national peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives. © CRD A MEMBER OF THE WOMEN 9S PRESSURE GROUP LOBBIES THE ELDERS FOR PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN CENTRAL REGIONS, ADDAADO, FEBRUARY 2007. 25 EASTERN AFRICA Some highlights from Phase I of the Dialogue for Peace include: " Public fund management in Puntland (PDRC) 3 SigniNcant inOuence on the regional budgetary process, notably a parliamentary agreement to adopt the recommenda- tions of the PDRC Public Fund Management Working Group. It also persuaded parliament to increase the budget provision to the social sector from 3% to 15% (in real terms, an increase from 100 to 300 salaried teachers) while reducing al- locations for security and 8political funds 9. " Democratization in Somaliland (APD) 3 Extensive negotiations in collaboration with the National Electoral Commission (NEC) and key stakeholders towards agreement on codes of conduct by the political parties and the media, lists of candidates, establishment of polling stations. " Security and Stabilization in Mogadishu 3 The work undertaken over four years at multiple levels by the CRD with civic groups, business sector, media, po- litical Ngures and opinion makers set the scene for a collaborative effort to oust faction leaders from Mogadishu in mid-2006. Local initiatives included technical support for civic groups working for suc- cessful demobilization of militia as well as conOict management training for militia leaders in the Medina district south of the city and Galkayo as part of the Mudug-Galgaduud reconciliation etc. " Consolidation of the 1993 Mudug peace agreement (CRD and PDRC) 3 This resulted in a successful reconciliation process to end prolonged violent conOict in Mudug and Galgaduud in central Somalia, which had claimed hundreds of lives, exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, threatened the north-south trade corridor, and reportedly contributed to piracy of international vessels off the coast of the central regions. Interpeace has now embarked on Phase II of the Dialogue for Peace. Its four main objectives, particularly given new events at the end of 2006 and early 2007 are to: " Facilitate genuine dialogue through established neutral spaces " Ensure strategic engagement through the dialogue process " Transfer peacebuilding capacity to civil society and community leaders " Catalyze material contributions to peacebuilding and state building. This second phase will continue to be a Neld-driven exercise, guided and sup- ported by the Interpeace Regional OfNce in Nairobi, Kenya. This ofNce will oversee the regional process through a proven 8mentoring 9 approach which ensures both the transfer of skills to local partners and a strengthening of their institutions. cThe current peace and stability that Adado district is enjoying today is a result of the skills militia leaders acquired from the Galkayo workshop. d Senior Somali elder 26 The Dialogue for Peace support team, which is made up of donors and repre- sentatives of other like-minded and interested institutions, will provide both direction and support. The support group meetings also provide a unique opportunity for a large number of the international community to better coordinate their efforts, espe- cially those related to Interpeace 9s work in the region. The combination of a strong network of local institutions, a well-established programme management ofNce in Nairobi and an oversight donor support team give Interpeace a strategic advantage to engage in high-level, impact-driven peacebuilding initiatives in the Somali region. This capacity represents the culmination of over ten years of developing peacebuild- ing competences in the Somali context. The next phase of peacebuilding will allow Interpeace to sustain the dialogue pro- cess while extending its reach. Much emphasis will be placed on utilizing Interpeace 9s participatory action research methodologies to carry out its ongoing Dialogue for Peace initiatives. The key types of activities include: peace process mapping; civil society peacebuilding support; action-oriented state and peacebuilding initiatives; conOict prevention and reconciliation; dissemination of information materials; and the second phase of the Somali Democratization Programme. The overall vision of the Democratization Programme is to offer all Somalis the opportunity to participate through democratic processes in the governance and development of the Somali region. This would improve better understanding and commitment to the governance of their society. The Nrst part of Interpeace 9s Somali Democratization Programme was developed and anchored in the now-completed Nrst phase of the Dialogue for Peace. Interpeace was able to support infrastructure © CRD ELDERS ARE BRIEFED ON PROGRESS IN THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS BETWEEN PARTIES IN CONFLICT IN MUDUG AND GALGADUUD, CEEL HUUR, JUNE 2006. 27 EASTERN AFRICA upgrades in both the Somaliland House of Representatives and the Puntland Par- liament. This included a new facility in Somaliland, fully furnished and IT-equipped. Both of these initiatives followed the successful implementation of the Somaliland Parliamentary elections in September 2005 and the evaluation workshops that followed. By early 2007, for example, both Somaliland and Puntland had not only achieved a certain degree of security and functioning administrations, but also the establish- ment of political, institutional and constitutional frameworks that have set a prec- edent for the wider Somali region. This is most noticeable in Somaliland, where the population has supported three free and fair elections since December 2002. Here the Interpeace engagement has proven to be one of the most visible and concrete of all the Dialogue for Peace processes; paradoxically, because APD adopted such a low proNle. Its efforts were primarily focused on facilitating processes and dialogue critical to the success of the 2005 elections. APD also brought together a core team capable of providing full support to the National Election Commission. The roles of both Interpeace and APD were universally praised. cWe took a risk funding WSP (Interpeace) to lead the international support for the Somaliland parliamentary elections and its turned out to be one the best invest- ments we 9ve made in the last Nve years, d noted Richard Hands, Somali Operations Manager of the European Commission in October 2006. For its part, Puntland has made signiNcant process in laying the foundation for more democratic processes. It appears ready to stay the course over the next several years, but will clearly require continued support. However, the transition from acute conOict (aggravated by the arrival of the Islamic Courts movement in mid-2006 followed by their overthrow in Mogadishu nearly six- months later) to peace in the wider Somali region will require patience and sustained commitment. This long-term and often arduous process includes trust-building, dialogue on substantive issues as well as constitutional and institution-building by all local stakeholders and the international community. For many Somalis, but also the international community, Interpeace offers a unique approach for integrating peacebuilding into post-conOict and nation-building efforts. Equally crucial is its insistence on working with local partners. Interpeace 9s association and collaboration with its three widely respected institutions has already demonstrated its competence. It is this long-term approach that will help develop state institutions through initiatives broadly supported by dialogue at all levels. 28 Central Africa Interpeace in Rwanda Burundi 29 CENTRAL AFRICA RWANDA Current situation Thirteen years later, Rwanda continues to recover slowly from the genocide. By the end of 2006, it was clear that for the people of this hilly and lushly verdant Great Lakes nation it might still take years 3 if not a lifetime 3 to heal psychologically. Rec- onciliation, strengthening the rule of law and understanding democracy are all critical issues if Rwandans are to embrace a new and sustainable future based on mutual trust, tolerance, and security. As a country, Rwanda appears relatively stable and is looking forward by working on economic development. However, numerous problems remain which threaten sus- tained stability and the consolidation of long-lasting peace. The perception of safety varies among ordinary Rwandans. There are continuing signs of fragility and mistrust. Many Rwandans living abroad refuse to return for fear of being persecuted. The local gacaca courts have also revived fears among those who suffered and who are afraid of being killed by genocide perpetrators in an effort to eliminate witnesses. Oth- ers fear being accused of having participated in the genocide by jealous neighbours or by other villagers with whom they have had a quarrel. So far, the International Crimi- nal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Tanzania has only tried 27 suspects, a frustratingly sluggish and expensive process that has prompted Rwanda to demand their transfer to face trial at home. An additional 18 suspects remain at large and are wanted by the same UN body. For its part, Rwanda has been using the traditional gacaca community courts to try 8ordinary 9 genocide suspects. However, those accused of orchestrating the slaughter have been appearing before the ICTR. Interpeace activities Over the past six years, Interpeace 9s local partner, the Institute of Research and Dia- logue for Peace (IRDP), has been promoting a culture of dialogue aimed at helping Rwandans both at home and abroad to come to terms with the events of 1994, lay the foundations for economic development and explore ways to make post-genocide Rwanda more stable. At the beginning of 2006, the IRDP completed its second phase of work. Between 2004 and 2006 the team facilitated dialogue and debate on Nve key themes that were identiNed by the population as priority issues to ensure lasting peace in Rwanda. These are: democracy and ethnicity; the genocide, its planning and execution; successive Population: 8.6 million (UN, 2005) Area: 26,338 sq km (10,169 sq miles) Life expectancy: 42 years (men), 45 years (women) (UN) GNI per capita: 230 USD (World Bank, 2006) Main exports: Coffee, tea, hides, tin ore 30 conOicts in Rwanda 9s history; economic development and poverty reduction; and justice and the rule of law. Recommendations on each theme were identiNed and endorsed by a group of key stakeholders. The Institute will disseminate the recommendations to the public at large and is working with inOuential stakeholders and decision makers (in the form of a Steering Committee) to implement these solutions. Key recommendations include: ensuring effective power sharing; guaranteeing immunity to outgo- ing heads of state as a means of encouraging them not to hang on to power; recognizing the rights of genocide survivors, including the right to reparations; setting up a genocide commission; advocating for matching priorities identiNed by the population with the national budget; and calling upon appropri- ate authorities to improve water management and irrigation. As part of its activities, IRDP is also establishing uruvugiro 3 permanent platforms for debate-across the country (local, provincial and national level) as well as with the MATTHIAS STIEFEL, INTERPEACE FOUNDER AND VICE CHAIRMAN, MARTTI AHTISAARI, INTERPEACE CHAIRMAN, FORMER US PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, PROFESSOR PIERRE RWANDYINDO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE IRDP, SCOTT WEBER, INTERPEACE DIRECTOR- GENERAL AT THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE. © CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE cI know of no country that has been braver in coming to grips with its sad history or one that is making more progress more quickly. I am grateful to these people [Interpeace and the IRDP] for the contribution they will make. d Former US President Bill Clinton 31 CENTRAL AFRICA diaspora. By offering a space for safe and neutral public meetings, IRDP has enabled Rwandans from all walks of life to overcome their reluc- tance to confront their past. The meetings encourage them to speak openly about the genocide, its impact on their lives and other critical issues that affect long-last- ing peace. IRDP 9s approach has enhanced the credibility of such discussions by intro- ducing objective data, which signiNcantly helped dissipate rumors and persuade Rwan- dans to deal with realities rather than misperceptions. The platforms also provide Rwandans with a practical means of identifying their own solutions for dealing with endemic poverty, such as through the creation of non-agricultural jobs, irrigation, land management, and micro-credit schemes. Such open discussion serves as a key element for re-building the social fabric and has helped IRDP attain a nation-wide reputation for objectivity and transparency. The dialogue platforms engage Rwandans from the grass-roots level to the urban elite. At the national and provincial level, IRDP has organized and facilitated open discussions on very important, but previously taboo issues including the role of political parties in democracy in Rwanda, revisionism, reparation for genocide victims, and the gap between population and economic growth. All of Rwanda 9s political parties have expressed their support for the IRDP initiative, which, they acknowledge, is critical for facilitating public debate. As one parliamentarian noted: cIt is important to recognize that words can heal the wounds of the past and that a society that doesn 9t exorcise its problems is doomed to extinction. d To date uruvugiro is already making an impact by breaking taboos and helping important issues be put on the national agenda. For example, following the forums on the role of political parties, the issue was discussed within the Senate and within the Political Bureau of the ruling party. Following the debates in the forums on the issue of demography, the different ministries within the government decided to make it a national priority and two senators who participated in uruvugiro introduced a bill on birth control in the Senate thereafter. Furthermore, President Kagame openly stated his willingness to tackle the issue of the gap between population and economic development growth rates. At the community level, the dialogue platforms are referred to as Dialogue Clubs. They already exist in Nve regions of Rwanda and are now spreading elsewhere. The clubs bring together Rwandans from very different backgrounds (Hutu, Tutsi, Twa, genocide survivors, families of prisoners accused of having participating in the Local partner: Institute of Re- search and Dialogue for Peace (IRDP), Kigali Purpose: To continue to establish open dialogue and build trust within the Rwandan population, which is still marked by the aftermaths of the genocide. 2006 expenditure: 786,131 USD 2006 donors: Belgium, Japan, Norway, Commission and Switzerland (funding directly to IRDP) Programme staff: Team members (9), programme support (6), support staff (7) as well as the European 32 IRDP DIALOGUE CLUB MEET IN A SCHOOL IN KABAGARI IN RWANDA 9S SOUTH PROVINCE. © STEPHAN ROVA © STEPHAN ROVA YOUNG BOYS COLLECT GRASS TO FEED CATTLE AS PART OF A REVENUE GENERATING ACTIVITY OF THE KABAGARI DIALOGUE CLUB. 33 CENTRAL AFRICA genocide, youth, elders, refugees coming back from exile, etc.). Meeting twice a month, villagers discuss the causes of conflict and the problems facing their communities. All of the dialogue clubs have now started income-generating activities such as collective herds and cultivation which the dialogue club members wanted to initiate in order to strengthen the reconciliation process. Important bonds now exist between the dialogue club members and show how suspicion and mistrust can be overcome. For example, in the club in Maraba, dialogue club members pooled their limited resources to help a sick member get to the provincial hospital (about 30 km away from Maraba). They also took turns with the family to regularly bring him food which was not provided by the hospital. During a meeting of all the dialogue clubs in July 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture hailed the initiative and expressed his willingness to have this experience extended to the whole country. As part of its approach, IRDP openly Nlms many of these dialogue events and then screens the productions to other stakeholders in both urban and rural areas. In a country where nearly two-thirds of the population is illiterate, video screenings are an important tool in disseminating the message of the dialogue clubs. It also helps establish the credibility of IRDP as a debate catalyst and neutral facilitator. Talking to ordinary people in towns and villages is also considered vital for disseminating such information. It was this sector of society that was most vulnerable to both the propaganda of the genocide regime and the ensuing violence. Another exciting initiative is the creation of 50 dialogue forums in secondary schools to raise youth awareness of democratic principles and tolerance. This critical activity is considered vital for the promotion of a democratic culture and is the continuation of IRDP 9s involvement in the development of teaching materials on Rwandan history and governance. Since 1994, history has not been taught either in primary or secondary schools in the country, as existing textbooks were believed to promote division and ethnic discrimination. IRDP and Interpeace took the lead in designing the new educational material. Based on the positive response, IRDP and Interpeace plan to organize an annual competition to promote tolerance where students from across the country will submit poems, drawings, and plays. Partnerships with private Nrms will be sought to provide awards to the winners. The IRDP will also build a Centre for Peace. The objective is to provide an established site, where opinions from the general public, the authorities and the diaspora can be shared and where Rwandans can have access to written and audiovisual documentation related to peace. Given the broad impact of the IRDP 9s work, the proposed permanent Centre for Peace will prove to be a critical asset. In February, 2006, President Kagame gave his backing to the Institute 9s recommendations, which clearly demonstrated the need for such a permanent institution. cIRDP is adding value to everything that is being done to rebuild Rwanda, d the President said. Shortly afterwards, the government contributed a strategic piece of land in Kigali for the building of this Centre. cIRDP is adding value to everything that is being done to rebuild Rwanda. d H.E. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda 34 BURUNDI Current situation Burundi ranks as one of the world 9s poorest nations. It is also emerging from a 12-year civil war which devasted the country. This has left a deep-seated feeling of mistrust and bitterness among many Burundians. As in its mirror Great Lake neighbour to the north, Rwanda, Burundians urgently need to come to terms with their past and to address post-conOict challenges, such as strengthening democracy, transitional justice and land issues. Burundi 9s peaceful elections in 2005 provided a signiNcant impetus for a new way forward. This was followed by the signing of a ceaseNre in September 2006 between the government and the last active rebel group, the FNL. While much of what was achieved in the way of peacebuilding was brought about by outside mediation and support, both events have contributed enor- mously toward restoring conNdence among ordinary Burundians. They also decisively launched the rebuild- ing process. Burundians now need to put their shattered country back on a Population: 7.3 million (UN, 2005) Area: 27,816 sq km (10,740 sq miles) Life expectancy: 42 years (men), 44 years (women) (UN) GNI per capita: 100 USD (World Bank, 2006) Main exports: Coffee, tea, sugar, cotton, hides Impact More than 10% of Rwandans, approximately 900,000 people, already have been af- fected by IRDP 9s peacebuilding efforts. Such initiatives have contributed signiNcantly toward helping resolve conOict in a society riddled with mistrust. Rwandans, who were not accustomed to expressing their views openly, have quickly grasped both the need and the power of dialogue as a means of healing a divided society. The impact of IRDP 9s work was personally recognized by former US President Bill Clinton at the second Clinton Global Initiative as the IRDP and Interpeace made a commitment to the uruvugiro initiative. He praised the work of Interpeace and IRDP, remarking that c I know of no country that has been braver in coming to grips with its sad history or one that is making more progress more quickly. I am grateful to these people for the contribution they will make. d Interpeace estimates that by the end of 2008, over half the population, an esti- mated 4.5 million out of 8.6 million people, will be affected by the work of IRDP and Interpeace in Rwanda. This includes engaging with the government, civil society and the international community as part of its efforts to continue instilling the spirit of dialogue and debate in Rwandan society and supporting efforts to implement the recommendations brought forth for long-lasting peace in Rwanda. 35 CENTRAL AFRICA strong economic footing. Many feel this will prove key to the success of long-term reconciliation. This means obtaining new and more diversiNed investment, particularly in rural areas where the majority of people live. The country, too, faces the massive task of raising over half the population from beneath the poverty level. For the moment, the bulk of Burundi 9s foreign exchange earnings come from coffee and tea, but this will prove insufNcient to promote any dramatic change. Equally critical to long-term reconciliation and peacebuilding, Burundians must deal with other enormous challenges such as national unity, land reform, security and democratization. It is in this environment that Interpeace is seeking to help make a difference. The government appears willing to tackle many of the country 9s enormous chal- lenges, but it lacks the Nnancial resources and expertise to effectively develop and rule a country rebounding from a devastating civil war. At the same time, however,

less