RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTHIGHLIGHTS FROM THE MANAGING CHAOS CONFERENCE

NGOS AND CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT

Pamela R. Aall

UNITED STATESINSTITUTE OF PEACE

Key Points v

Preface 1

1 Reframing the Issues 3

2 The Changing Nature of NGOs 5

3 New Roles for NGOs 7

4 The Challenge of Coordination 11

5 NGOs as Conflict Managers 14

Contributors 15

Managing Chaos Conference Agenda 18

About the Author 24

About the Institute 25

CONTENTS

Reframing the Issues

= The nature of conflict has changed substan-tially in the post–Cold War era. Instead of warsamong nation-states, conflict most often ap-pears now as struggles for power and domi-nance within states, pitting ethnic groupagainst ethnic group, religion against religion,and neighbor against neighbor.

= This type of virulent subnational conflict typi-cally results in waves of refugees who fall preyto a deadly combination of starvation, epi-demics, and despair that spirals out of controlsince governments and the services they pro-vide are on the verge of collapse during suchcrises. Moreover, these refugee crises typicallydraw neighboring countries into the conflict aswell, and threaten to turn a subnational con-flict into a regional and international confla-gration. The international community finds it-self responding to more and more of these“complex emergencies”—such as those inRwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia—in thepost–Cold War era.

= Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) playa critical part in the international response tosuch crises, offering many different skills and

approaches outside of military intervention,including humanitarian relief, preventive ac-tion and conflict resolution, development as-sistance, and institution-building.

= Because of the nature of their basic mission,humanitarian relief NGOs are often the first toarrive on the scene of complex emergencies.Consequently, they are often trapped in themidst of these conflicts as they attempt tocarry out their relief operations. Accordingly,this type of NGO has had to broaden its tradi-tional role to include ensuring political stabil-ity and fulfilling basic governmental functionsin states plagued with severe crisis.

= The changing nature of both conflict and hu-manitarian relief has sparked an examinationwithin the NGO community as well as amongofficials of the United Nations and its membergovernments of the roles that NGOs shouldplay in preventing, managing, and resolvingconflict.

The Changing Nature of NGOs

= United by a commitment to improving condi-tions around the world, NGOs otherwise rep-resent a great diversity of objectives, functions,and organizational structures. The numbers ofNGOs have increased dramatically in recentyears, bringing more resources to more areasafflicted with crisis. Their activities fall intotwo broad categories: direct operations, or “op-erational” NGOs (including humanitarian re-lief and conflict resolution NGOs), and advo-cacy NGOs.

= NGOs that focus on humanitarian relief havetraditionally maintained a strict policy of neu-trality in their activities, providing aid to thedestitute or services to antagonists regardlessof their political, ethnic, or religious affiliation.

= As they find themselves serving expandedroles during complex emergencies, manyNGOs are reconsidering the circumstances un-der which they can and should adhere to suchstrict neutrality. In these crisis situations,

v

KEY POINTS

vi

NGOs find themselves having to work closelywith governments to carry out their role ofproviding assistance.

= The fundamental change in the demands of to-day’s humanitarian crises may lead NGOs toconsider an equally fundamental change intheir program development—redirecting con-tributions and other sources of funding fromrelief programs alone to those that address theinterdependence of relief, development, andconflict resolution.

New Roles for NGOs

= While NGOs cannot be expected to solve allthe problems associated with humanitariancrises, the new environment in which these or-ganizations operate suggests the followingfour fundamental roles: early warning func-tions, human rights monitoring, relief and re-habilitation, and conflict resolution activities.Yet it may be detrimental for NGOs to assumeall these roles simultaneously.

= Of these four roles, the early warning and con-flict resolution functions typically engenderthe most debate, not only because of their rela-tive newness in the repertoire of NGO capabili-ties, but also because both of these roles sub-sume many other increasingly important—and,some would argue, controversial—tasks NGOsmust consider in carrying out their primarymissions during complex emergencies.

= Because of their close involvement with localcommunities, NGOs are in an excellent posi-tion to serve an early warning function, alert-ing the international community to potentialbreakdowns in a distressed country’s govern-ment or in relations among the country’s ma-jor domestic groups. In such a way, NGOs canserve as the first step in preventive action toavert future complex emergencies.

= Some in the NGO community argue thatNGOs should use their early warning vantagepoint to advocate specific policies to their re-spective governments aimed at stemmingbrewing conflicts. Yet the fact remains: Gov-ernments must find the political will and

leadership necessary to translate early warninginto effective interventions.

= In addition, many in the NGO community be-lieve that NGOs and the international commu-nity at large should concentrate on techniquesthat link crisis management and humanitarianrelief activities to the longer-term goals of con-flict resolution and sustainable development(peacebuilding). Relying on grass-roots andmid-level approaches that sustain the processof peacebuilding through the use of indige-nous resources and technologies, rather thanthe traditional top-down policy of providingdevelopment aid, is a way to ensure that theconflict accompanying complex emergenciesdoes not recur once outside actors leave thecountry.

The Challenge of Coordination

= With so many actors at different levels of theinternational system available to intervene incomplex emergencies, coordination is essen-tial to avoid overlapping, and often counter-productive, responses that result in wasted re-sources and inefficient operations.

= While the many different types of NGOs arriveon the scene with a variety of skills and tech-niques to address different aspects of complexemergencies, there is little coordinationamong them to manage these emergencies inan integrated way.

= One way of ensuring an effective internationalresponse calls for the NGO community to co-ordinate its members’ separate responses tocomplex emergencies, aiming for a compre-hensive strategy that allows major actors toparticipate in an integrated fashion. The ulti-mate challenge to governments and interna-tional organizations is to construct a systemthat can respond to a complex emergency in acomprehensive, unified, integrated way, com-bining diplomatic skill, military power, andNGO field experience under a UN mandate.

= Coordination is required not only for the over-all response, but also at each level of the re-sponse as well. The United States government

vii

may want to consider reforming both the wayit deals with the UN and its own fragmenteddecision-making apparatus for humanitariancrises. Such reform would include creating asingle entity responsible for all relief, with onesenior official in charge.

= While NGOs do not share the full degree of ac-countability that circumscribes the range of ac-tions undertaken by states and internationalorganizations during complex-emergency in-terventions, NGOs do not operate entirely in-dependently during these types of crises. Infact, in any complex emergency, powerfulstates usually provide the kind of leadershipand determination to put an end to mass suf-fering and internecine conflicts, and NGOstypically perform their functions within such acontext.

NGOs as Conflict Managers

= While NGOs are fast becoming powerful newactors in complex emergencies by managingconflict and taking on certain functions of im-periled governments, the question arises: AreNGOs fully equipped to handle all the dimen-sions of complex emergencies, including vio-lent conflict?

= Different types of NGOs possess distinct skillsand approaches, and their role as conflict man-ager is appropriate if the role remains part of alarger, coordinated effort of relief, helping tore-establish civil society, and providing aframework for sustainable development.

If the beginning of an era is marked by monu-mental events, the post–Cold War era certainlycan be said to have begun with the series of

subnational conflicts whose complexities escapedthe familiar order of superpower proxy wars. Theconflicts in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia all sharethe horrid manifestations of post–Cold War con-flict: the unleashing of historical hatreds, genocide,unspeakable atrocities, the breakdown of govern-ments and the vital services they provide, andrefugee crises that typically transform subnationalconflicts into regional and international conflagra-tions.

The post–Cold War era has also come to be de-fined by the emergence of nongovernmental orga-nizations (NGOs) as relatively new internationalactors that have now joined states and interna-tional organizations in the effort to manage thesenew “complex emergencies.”

More than other types of NGOs (e.g., those de-voted to human rights, democracy-building, eco-nomic development, and conflict resolution) hu-manitarian relief NGOs have been drawn into thecomplex emergencies that have come to define thedisorder of the post–Cold War world. Cases suchas Rwanda, Somalia, and now Bosnia present for-midable new challenges to relief organizations asthey attempt to perform their fundamental mis-sion of providing aid in the midst of violent internal

conflict and while international political and mili-tary interventions are under way. NGOs created toprovide food, shelter, and medical supplies duringhumanitarian crises find themselves increasinglypressed to provide other vital services lacking inthese crisis-ridden societies—including the provi-sion of basic governmental functions in the case offailed states.

The fall 1994 conference of the United States In-stitute of Peace, “Managing Chaos: Coping with International Conflict into the Twenty-First Cen-tury,” provided a timely forum for numerous dis-cussions regarding the changing character of inter-national conflict, the new institutions of conflictresolution, and the new diplomacy and tools forconflict management. While the conference fo-cused on the most important foreign affairs issuesof our time, it gave special attention to the chang-ing—and expanding—role of NGOs in managing in-ternational conflict. Leading figures of Americanhumanitarian relief, advocacy, and conflict resolu-tion NGOs were in attendance, as were the govern-ment and international organization officials whowork with them.

The question that was foremost on the minds ofall participants was whether these expanded func-tions are appropriate for all operational NGOs,which in many cases lack the requisite skills andresources to handle these new functions. There aremany different types of NGOs, each possessingunique skills and resources that can be used tomanage different components of complex emer-gencies. The problem is that there is no single en-tity to coordinate the separate efforts of theseNGOs with each other and with other interveningactors.

Moreover, NGOs also lack the the kind of ac-countability that circumscribes the actions ofstates and international organizations. This con-cern is heightened as NGOs find it increasingly dif-ficult to maintain their traditional doctrine of im-partiality when trying to deliver relief to all partiesaffected by complex emergencies, even to thosewho are determined to perpetuate conflict.

The staff of the Institute has gone through thevoluminous proceedings of the conference to dis-till the views expressed by NGO representativesand others on the emerging role of NGOs in man-aging international conflict. To our mind, some ofthe most interesting and significant thinking of theconference focused on the new challenges facing

1

PREFACE

humanitarian relief NGOs (sometimes called “op-erational” NGOs to distinguish them from advo-cacy groups) during a time when humanitariancrises and natural disasters are both perpetuatedand made more complex by the animus of subna-tional and regional conflict.

This report is being published as the interna-tional community under U.S. leadership begins totake up the task of implementing peace in Bosnia.While NATO troops work to prevent new violencethere, nongovernmental organizations will bearthe complicated burden of reconstruction and rec-onciliation. All actors involved in this precariousundertaking—NGOs, states, and international or-ganizations alike—would be well served by study-ing the experience of nongovernmental organiza-tions in other post–Cold War complex emergen-cies in order to prepare themselves for the chal-lenge of peacemaking in Bosnia. We believe this re-port provides a good beginning for the sort of re-flection that is necessary.

This the third—and final—installment in the In-stitute’s Peaceworks series highlighting the pro-ceedings of the “Managing Chaos” conference. Thefirst in the series (Peaceworks No. 3) contained thekeynote addresses of Les Aspin on the challengesto values-based military intervention, and TedKoppel on the global information revolution andTV news. The second (Peaceworks No. 4) summa-rized several views on new and enduring sourcesof international conflict, which was one of the prin-cipal themes of the conference. G. M. Tamás andSamuel P. Huntington addressed political identityand conflict, and Robert Kaplan and Jessica Tuch-man Mathews provided their analysis of threats tothe nation-state.

The “Managing Chaos” conference is only partof the activity the United States Institute of Peacehas devoted to the issues surrounding NGOs andcomplex emergencies. In September 1995, it spon-sored a one-day conference on “Humanitarian As-sistance and Conflict in Africa.” The Institute hasalso developed a post-conflict Bosnia initiative fo-cusing on humanitarian, conflict resolution, anddemocracy-building NGOs that are sending fieldworkers to the country to assist in its reconstruc-tion and reconciliation. In addition, the Institute isworking with the U.S. Army War College’s Peace-keeping Institute on a project that will examineNGO-military relations. The Institute’s Educationand Training program is also developing conflictresolution training seminars geared specifically tothe needs of the NGO community, in addition toits current practice of including representativesfrom major international NGOs in its InternationalConflict Resolution Skills Training (ICREST) pro-grams.

The Institute wishes to thank the men andwomen whose reflections are captured here, aswell as many others from the NGO and policycommunities who have provided their helpfulcomments in the period since the “ManagingChaos” conference to clarify and refine the myriadissues surrounding NGOs and conflict manage-ment. Special recognition is due to Institute pro-gram officer Pamela Aall for drafting this reportand to editor Peter Pavilionis for rounding it intoshape.

HARRIET HENTGES

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

2

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)involved in humanitarian relief missionsknow all too well the devastating effects

of conflict. Fear of violence and retribution pro-duces floods of refugees who fall prey to starvationand disease. Agricultural systems and infrastruc-tures are destroyed, causing grave short-term hard-ships and vanquishing hopes for long-term eco-nomic development. At times, attempts to deliverrelief to victims of the conflict inadvertently pro-vide aid to their persecutors. The end of violentconflict brings its own challenges, as refugees seeksafe passage to their villages, and former combat-ants need help reintegrating into a society that maybe vastly different from the one they knew beforethe conflict.

Although many NGOs have had to deal withthese circumstances in the course of their workover the decades, their exposure to violent conflicthas increased dramatically in the last several years.While there may be a divergence of opinion on thefundamental causes of conflict in the post–ColdWar world (see Peaceworks No. 4, August 1995), itis clear that the nature of conflict has changed,shifting from confrontations between states tostruggles for power and dominance within states.These internal struggles often pit ethnic groupagainst ethnic group, religion against religion, and

neighbor against neighbor, with intensified impacton selected areas of the country or region. More-over, refugee crises typically draw neighboringcountries into the conflict as well, and threaten toturn a subnational conflict into a regional and in-ternational conflagration.

Not only do NGOs respond to the humanitar-ian crises these internal conflicts produce, but as afunction of their long-term relief and developmentwork, they are often trapped in the midst of the vi-olence. Increasingly, too, humanitarian crises oc-cur in failed states or in states with only rudimen-tary governance. In these situations, thehumanitarian relief that NGOs provide usuallyserves as a vital supplement to governmental func-tions, playing a crucial role in the re-establishmentof civil society. The changing nature of both con-flict and humanitarian relief has sparked an exami-nation within the NGO community as well asamong officials of the United Nations and its mem-ber governments of the roles that NGOs can servein preventing, managing, and resolving conflict.

This topic was a major theme of a conferencesponsored by the United States Institute of Peaceon “Managing Chaos: Coping with InternationalConflict into the Twenty-First Century.” This con-ference brought together representatives of theUnited Nations and regional organizations, theUnited States government, and NGOs engaged inrelief work and advocacy to discuss the changingnature of conflict and humanitarian crises and thecapabilities of the international community to re-spond to these crises.

A key element of an effective response to thesechanges, according to several conference partici-pants, lies in the reframing of issues and in the waymembers of the international community viewconflict and conflict resolution. Traditionally,NGOs devoted to humanitarian relief operationshave not considered their activities as contributingto the amelioration or aggravation of conflict. Yet ithas become apparent that their interventions doindeed influence the course of a conflict, and thatin making the decision to aid a country in crisis,NGOs are assuming roles that may go far beyondtheir original mission.

In a separate session on the new post–Cold Wardiplomacy, Chester A. Crocker, distinguishedresearch professor of diplomacy at GeorgetownUniversity’s School of Foreign Service and

3

1REFRAMING THE

ISSUES

chairman of the Institute’s board of directors, setthe stage for the examination of NGO roles byemphasizing the need to both reconsider theconcept of intervention and widen its definitionbeyond the sphere of military action. “The choicesare many: Intervention can be physical, spiritual,bilateral, multilateral, direct action, skills transfer,institutionbuilding. Weshould recognizethat those who aremanaging chaoshave the potentialto manage a full-service bank.” Therecognition thatNGOs are majorplayers in thisexpanded menu ofinterventionstrategies lies at theheart of the discussion on their role as conflictmanagers.

During the conference, many participants notedthat in the crisis situations occurring almost dailyacross the globe, there is a close relationship be-tween NGOs, governments, and international or-ganizations. Phyllis Oakley, assistant secretary ofstate for population, refugees, and migration, as-serted that in these crises the U.S. government andNGOs depend on each other to fulfill their respec-tive functions. Jan Eliasson, Swedish undersecre-tary of state for foreign affairs and former UN un-dersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, alsopointed out that as the chief response to suchcrises has expanded beyond the security functionsof peacekeeping—once the sole province of mili-tary forces—into the realm of peacebuilding, in-cluding reconciliation, development, and humani-tarian action, NGOs are coming to play anincreasingly crucial role.

Peacebuilding activities entail an entirely newset of complex relations among NGOs, interna-tional organizations, and national governments.The examination of NGOs and peacebuilding, andhow these international actors coordinate their ac-tivities, were subjects of intense discussion andanalysis during the two-day conference.

Andrew Natsios, executive director of World Vision Relief and Development, a major humani-tarian relief NGO, agreed that the world is goingthrough a turbulent period that has witnessed adramatic rise in the number of “complex emergen-cies”—the devastating combination of subnationalconflict, refugee crises, and breakdown of govern-

mental systems whose intensityand mass suffering have reachedalarming enough proportions toattract international attention.Yet he took issue with the notionthat such emergencies may be apermanent feature of the newpost–Cold War international sys-tem. He noted that at the end ofboth world wars, the ensuingpeace conferences and new in-ternational institutions created adiplomatic setting for dealingwith issues arising from their af-

termath. The post–Cold War period has not yetseen the establishment of similar institutions tostructure the contemporary international environ-ment. He predicted, however, that a decade ofglobal instability would be followed by a period ofequilibrium following the establishment of new in-ternational institutions to manage the types ofcomplex emergencies that have characterized theimmediate post–Cold War period.

This environment has been rendered morecomplex and chaotic by a fundamental change inthe nature of conflict. Natsios noted that racial, re-ligious, ethnic, and tribal rivalries have replacedthe Cold War’s ideological clashes as the principalsources of current conflicts. These rivalries are of-ten rooted in past atrocities and recur from genera-tion to generation, each new conflict building onthe last. As such, the nature of post–Cold War con-flict has not only resisted traditional diplomaticmethods for its resolution, but has raised manychallenging theological and psychological ques-tions that are difficult for NGOs and other interna-tional institutions to address. Until these ques-tions are resolved, Natsios observed, the cycle ofatrocities will continue.

4

The examination of NGOs and

peacebuilding, and how these

international actors coordinate

their activities, were subjects of

intense discussion and analysis

during the two–day conference.

5

In his analysis of current foreign policy atti-tudes, Les Aspin, former U.S. secretary of de-fense, cited two schools of thought on the is-

sues of intervention for peacekeeping, theprevention of ethnic cleansing, and the alleviationof starvation (see Peaceworks No. 3, February1995). The isolationist school is reluctant to sup-port intervention except for national security pur-poses. The internationalist school, on the otherhand, supports intervention on the basis of moral-ity and the defense of humanitarian values. JuliaTaft, president of InterAction, took up this theme,asserting that NGOs embody the international-ist/moralist approach, with a strong commitmentto empowerment, peace, prosperity, and economicand social justice.

United as they are by their commitment to thesevalues, NGOs otherwise represent a great diversityof objectives, functions, and organizational struc-tures. They also differ substantially in their atti-tudes toward governments and international orga-nizations: Some NGOs are comfortable workingwith official institutions to achieve their ends,while others, dedicated to strengthening the grass-roots level, find working with national and interna-tional bureaucracies inimical to their objectives.

Operational NGOs serve in the field, mobilizingresources and technical expertise and working

directly with the recipients of humanitarian aidand economic development projects. Some opera-tional NGOs focus on humanitarian relief, someon economic development, while more and moreof them are beginning to focus on both of thesemissions.

NGOs dedicated to humanitarian relief opera-tions have attempted to maintain a policy of strictneutrality in situations of conflict, defining theirrole as providers of aid to those in need without re-gard to political, ethnic, or religious affiliation.Even within this group, however, there are grow-ing differences regarding the appropriateness ofthis stance. Some members of the NGO commu-nity are now challenging the neutrality policy,pointing to circumstances in Somalia and Rwanda,in which relief organizations unintentionally aidedindividuals and groups who were perpetuating theconflict.

NGOs engaged in human rights monitoring andadvocacy, on the other hand, achieve their objec-tive of changing conditions in various countriesthrough disseminating information and bringingissues to the attention of both the general publicand policymakers. Unlike operational NGOs, theyare far from neutral, and adopt principled and of-ten adversarial positions with regard to both offi-cial institutions and the parties engaged in a con-flict.

NGOs that focus specifically on conflict resolu-tion may work with individuals, communitygroups, or official representatives. Like humanitar-ian relief NGOs, they avoid taking sides in a dis-pute in order to pursue their goals of promoting di-alogue and establishing common ground betweenantagonists.

Most of the major humanitarian relief and devel-opment NGOs, such as World Vision, Catholic Re-lief Services, OXFAM, CARE, and Save the Chil-dren Fund, were founded decades ago in responseto very specific circumstances. These organiza-tions provided the model for the thousands ofNGOs that have been established since. The NGOcommunity has witnessed tremendous growth inits resources over the years—CARE USA has an an-nual budget of $346 million, while World Visionhas a budget of over $140 million. The 160 NGOswithin InterAction have combined annual rev-enues of $2.3 billion, five-sixths of which comesfrom private donations. The sheer growth in the

2THE CHANGING

NATURE OF NGOS

number of NGOs in recent years has also beendramatic. Currently, there are approximately fif-teen hundred NGOs registered as observers withthe United Nations—and this figure consists pri-marily of NGOs with international missions anddoes not reflect the vast growth of indigenousNGOs.

The rapid rise in the number of NGOs has re-sulted in many more institutions that are able tomobilize resources for humanitarian crises in hith-erto inaccessible and neglected parts of the world.Yet it has also complicated relief efforts by creating“an extraordinarily complex system which makesmedieval Europe look centralized and ordered bycomparison,” in the words of John Paul Lederach,director of both the International Conciliation Ser-vice of the Mennonite Central Committee and theConflict Analysis and Transformation Program atEastern Mennonite University. It is a “very diffusesystem,” Lederach said, whose diversity makes itdifficult to develop a comprehensive strategy, espe-cially during complex emergencies, when there islittle time for consensus-building.

The exigencies of complex emergencies havebrought NGOs to the realization that their reliefmissions involve both peacemaking and peace-building activities. Accordingly, they are forced toexamine closely the issue of whether, under whatconditions, and how they will work with interna-

tional organizations, governments, and militaryunits engaged in humanitarian relief efforts. Thisrealization, however, has not necessarily produceda consensus within individual NGOs on these newpriorities. Lederach noted that it was easy for anNGO to fund, for example, a well-digging projectin Kenya, since that particular budget line-itemfalls easily within its developmental mission andthus will find broad acceptance by the NGO’s ex-ecutive staff. On the other hand, that same staffcould easily find itself divided over the issue of theNGO’s field workers’ managing disputes thatmight arise over access to the well water, since thisis not an activity that easily fits into current NGOfunding categories or program priorities.

Yet such conflict resolution and conflict man-agement skills are essential to maintaining peaceduring complex emergencies, according to Leder-ach. The change will require a growing awarenesson the part of NGOs that a portion of the moneyflowing into their budgets for relief activity aloneshould now be redirected to the development ofprograms that recognize the interdependent na-ture of conflict resolution, relief, and development.“Like it or not, you may think you’re there to do de-velopment, but you’re actually doing conflict reso-lution,” Lederach said, addressing the conference’sNGO representatives. “It would be wise to developthe skills to do it more effectively.”

6

7

As a consequence of both their growingnumbers and resources and the variety offunctions they fulfill, NGOs are fast be-

coming a vital component in the international re-sponse mechanism to humanitarian crises, espe-cially in situations of conflict. Operational NGOsare going beyond their traditional relief objectivesof providing food, water, sanitation, and emer-gency health measures, to serving as a substitutefor local government, encouraging the growth ofcivil society, and using mediation and negotiationskills to bring antagonists together as part of a re-lief mission.

While NGOs cannot be expected to solve all theproblems associated with humanitarian crises, An-drew Natsios identified four fundamental rolesNGOs could perform during these types of crises:

; a preventive function through early warning;; human rights monitoring;; the relief and rehabilitation functions nor-

mally associated with NGOs; and; conflict resolution activities, such as media-

tion and reconciliation.

These distinct functions require different sets ofdisciplines and skills, some of which already existin the NGO community and some of which do not.

Natsios stressed the importance of keeping thesefunctions separate. “We shouldn’t mix the roles,”he cautioned. “In a conflict setting, NGOs that aredoing relief and development work should notalso engage in human rights monitoring—that’s agood way to get your people shot. They need to beseparate functions performed by separate organi-zations.” Similarly, organizations involved in advo-cacy should not attempt mediation and reconcilia-tion, and those engaged in relief work should notbe involved in security operations. Making thesedistinctions and assigning different functions is animportant component of ensuring effective actionin conflict situations.

Of the four roles that Natsios outlined, the earlywarning and conflict resolution functions gener-ated the most debate during the conference. Theintense discussions surrounding these two NGOroles reflected not only their relative newness inthe repertoire of NGO capabilities, but also the factthat both of these roles subsume many other in-creasingly important—and, some would argue,controversial—tasks NGOs must consider in carry-ing out their primary missions during complexemergencies.

Early warning. A recurrent theme during the con-ference was the role NGOs could play in earlywarning and preventive action, alerting the inter-national community to potential breakdowns in adistressed country’s governance or in relationsamong the country’s major domestic groups. Sincemany NGOs have deep roots in local communities,their relief and development workers in the fieldhave a unique vantage point to identify deteriorat-ing conditions that might lead to conflict.

Jan Eliasson detailed a number of steps, includ-ing fact-finding missions, that NGOs and the inter-national community could undertake in order toprovide early warning for looming conflicts. Theseactions would precede more formal approaches,such as peacekeeping operations and peacemak-ing. According to Eliasson, NGOs can play a keyrole in information gathering, early warning, andpeacebuilding, and can help the international com-munity to move from simply responding to crisesto preventing their occurrence. In Eliasson’smetaphor, such activity among NGOs moves the in-ternational community from merely extinguishing

3NEW ROLES FOR

NGOS

fires, to finding the arsonist before the fire breaksout, to identifying conditions that lead to arson.

Vivian Lowery Derryck, president of theAfrican-American Institute, argued that NGOsshould use their early warningcapabilities to advocate govern-mental policies aimed at stem-ming the outbreak of further vi-olence during complexemergencies. In her view, theexecutive leaderships of opera-tional NGOs should serve asadvocates to the U.S. govern-ment, since their organizationscould combine on-the-groundexperience with access to poli-cymakers. In carrying out their primary missions,operational NGOs grapple with difficult issuesthat give them a unique insight into the dimen-sions of complex emergencies. These insights canoffer crucial information to policymakers in gov-ernments and international organizations.

In the case of Rwanda, such an advocacy role foroperational NGOs would have meant urging earlyU.S. involvement and requesting that the militarystay long enough to complete the job. It alsowould have meant sharing with the U.S. adminis-tration their views on issues such as disarmamentin the refugee camps and the forcible relocation ofHutu soldiers. In dealing with questions ofwhether to pull out of the refugee camps in theface of de facto Hutu militia control, or remain andattempt to aid the starving majority, NGOs gath-ered information that could have determined pol-icy in a way that promoted conflict managementmore decisively.

Derryck stressed that the responsibility of oper-ational NGOs to act as advocates in governmentalpolicymaking is crucial, and that failing to fulfillsuch a responsibility could result in governments’loss of political will, failure to intervene in a timelyfashion, and reluctance to provide the appropriateresources to meet the needs of the crisis situation.

Many at the conference, however, asserted thatthe lack of early warning was not the central prob-lem in preventive action. The key—and often miss-ing—element in prevention is developing the politi-cal will to act on early warning signals. Here, too,NGOs play a central role as advocates for action.Lionel Rosenblatt, president of Refugees Inter-

national, pointed to recent events in Bosnia as atragic example of the international system’s failureto deal with conflict. Agreeing that “early actionsaves lives and it saves resources,” he stressed that

the inability to de-tect a conflict’searly warning sig-nals was not themain impedimentto preventive ac-tion. In the casesof Bosnia andRwanda, the chal-lenge was to findthe political willand leadership

necessary to translate early warning into effectiveintervention. The failures inherent in those con-flicts demonstrate the need to create a new interna-tional mechanism that promotes early action—asystem involving NGOs, governments, and theUnited Nations.

To move toward that goal, Rosenblatt identifiedsix policy initiatives that could make a significantdifference in marshaling resources for early actionin humanitarian crises:

; The international community should focuson the need for early response, including therestructuring of intelligence agencies anddiplomatic reporting, to meet the contingen-cies arising in the post–Cold War world.

; Agencies operating closest to potential con-flicts should hone their tools of prevention.NGOs should work with the UN in buildingdirect, hands-on partnerships that capitalizeon opportunities for negotiation training,reconciliation, and the implementation ofother conflict resolution techniques.

; The United Nations should be given a man-date to form an international rapid deploy-ment force under its control. Rosenblatt re-called the political problems—includingpublic protests over deaths and casualties inthe ranks of peacekeeping forces—that arisein the current system of nations’ contribut-ing troops to UN peacekeeping missions.Providing the UN with the authority andthe forces necessary for quick deploymentin areas of crisis would eliminate political

8

In carrying out their primary

missions, operational NGOs

grapple with difficult issues that

give them a unique insight into the

dimensions of complex emergencies.

9

wrangling and costly indecision. All too of-ten, waiting for donor nations to providetroops in such situations is tantamount towaiting for another round of genocide tohappen, said Rosenblatt.

; The international community must developcounterterrorism capabilities that seek tominimize the problems of mass violence andassassination of political officials. Seriousthought should be devoted to ways in whichNGOs, states, and the UN could intervene insituations where a distressed country’s gov-ernment is incapable of coping with terror-ism.

; The international community must developan organizational capacity to deal not justwith refugees but with internally displacedpeople as well. In many complex emergen-cies, the internally displaced remain invisi-ble amid waves of refugees and are typicallydenied the resources necessary for their ownsurvival. Recognizing the needs of internallydisplaced people would involve new rolesfor the military, NGOs, and the UN.

; The international community needs to de-velop a capacity to reintegrate people dis-placed by crisis into their societies, Rosen-blatt explained, adding that successfulreintegration means much more than simplyreturning refugees to their villages. Are theirhomes intact and unoccupied? Do their jobsor farms remain for them to resume theirlivelihood?

Conflict resolution, relief, and sustainable devel-opment. John Paul Lederach focused his remarkson the challenges posed to NGOs by the new typesof conflict that have become commonplace in thepost–Cold War era. These challenges clarified theneed for a more comprehensive framework forconflict resolution and conciliation activities onthe part of NGOs. Based on both his field experi-ence in conflict situations and his work as a practi-tioner developing conflict resolution programs toaccompany the relief activities sponsored by theMennonite Central Committee, Lederach offeredsome general observations about the changing na-ture of the international response to crisis.

In Lederach’s view, the NGO community andthe international community at large should con-centrate on techniques that link crisis management

and humanitarian relief activities to the longer-term goals of conflict resolution and sustainabledevelopment. “We need to develop our capacity tothink in decades instead of months to a year,” hesaid, “and to develop ways in which our crisis man-agement activities are imbedded within, andlinked to, a broader set of activities which lead tosustainable development.” However, the context inwhich these needs emerge almost always involvessettings of protracted, divisive, and deep-seatedgenerational conflict. To move beyond the man-agement of an immediate crisis, according to Led-erach, NGOs must change their planning timeframes to a long-term perspective. The initial emer-gency relief response should be linked to a set ofactivities that leads to the transformation of thoseconflicts in a way that promotes sustained andcomprehensive reconciliation among the warringparties.

Developing an infrastructure that sustainspeacebuilding within a given conflict is of para-mount importance, according to Lederach. Inlooking at a situation of long-term conflict and war,agencies from outside the country, includingNGOs, should recognize that there are many levelsof activity as well as many actors and functionsnecessary for peacebuilding. Most peace opera-tions tend to rely on a top-down approach topeacebuilding, in which the country’s politicalleaders and high-level officials from internationalorganizations make decisions that are supposed tobe implemented throughout the rest of the coun-try. In many cases, however, relying solely on a top-down approach to peacebuilding results in failureand frustration.

Lederach recommended focusing instead onthe middle and grass-roots levels of societies in crisis, since NGOs are particularly effective work-ing with both a country’s mid-level officials andthe recipients of aid at the community level. Be-cause of their familiarity with the country and itsdecision makers, NGO representatives have a keenunderstanding of the realities on the ground thatallows them to reach across their counterpartsfrom other agencies into a web of indigenous offi-cials and resources in order to build and maintaina sustainable infrastructure that has a betterchance of ameliorating not just the manifestationsbut also the causes of conflict.

Building such infrastructures will require the in-ternational community to develop another set of

lenses that allow it to recognize and identify localresources and technologies to be used in the reso-lution of conflict. Lederach noted that in most cri-sis situations relief agencies rely on outside re-sources and view the people in the midst of suchconflict settings simply as recipients of the exter-nal donor’s goodwill. He suggested that indige-nous people should be viewed as primary re-sources for conflict resolution and encouraged totake up the task of building peace themselves intheir own locales. Within any given society, saidLederach, many valuable resources are availablefor use in the process of peacebuilding. Yet most ofthese indigenous resources are either overlookedor denied official sanction for use in the peace-building effort. “We have to look for the cultural re-sources that exist for building peace,” Lederachconcluded. “This assumes that we see culture as aseedbed and as a resource. It assumes that we seepeople as a resource and that we are willing to takethe time to develop respectful relationships.”

In this vein, Vivian Lowery Derryck observedthat an essential component of NGO operationsrevolves around expanding their constituenciesand bringing new actors into their domain of activ-ities. She used the example of women’s groups inAfrica, noting that in numerous recent conflicts,women served neither as primary decision makersnor as active combatants. Rather, they were inter-ested in participating in the peace process. In onenoteworthy example, women in Uganda beganforming a peace network with women in Rwanda.Lederach cited as another example the involve-ment of Somali women’s associations that were

able to play a vital role in establishing communica-tion between the fighting factions, since womenare linked across clans by marriage and are able tomove from one sub-clan back to their clan of originwithout fear of retribution. As part of a concertedcampaign to develop indigenous resources forpeace, both Lederach and Derryck urged the NGOcommunity to start thinking about specific ways inwhich women can become involved in the processof conflict resolution and conflict management.

Yet while the use of indigenous resourcesshould be encouraged, the use of outside re-sources, such as food shipments, in peacemakinginterventions is often unavoidable and, in manysituations, essential. In these cases, according toAndrew Natsios, the international communityshould realize that putting valuable resources intoa conflict setting can have unintended conse-quences. If, for instance, NGOs respond to human-itarian crises such as the relief effort for Rwandanrefugees in Goma, they need the support of themilitary. Without adequate security, it is almostguaranteed that the food will be used for purposesit was not intended for—to buy weapons, to controlpopulations, or to buy support from various politi-cal factions in a conflict. Natsios further explainedthat when resources like food are introduced into aconflict, the political dynamic is altered, and thepresence of these resources could intensify the vio-lence. Too often it is naively assumed that reliefwill generate goodwill. The international commu-nity should be prepared to deal with the fact thatpeople fight over the control of valuable resources.

10

11

Another major topic of the conference wasthe lack of coordination among the manyactors that typically intervene in humani-

tarian crises. While many believed that the UnitedNations, international NGOs, regional organiza-tions, and individual governments have integratedand reinforcing roles to play, almost all the confer-ence participants acknowledged that the effective-ness of these roles was diminished by the dis-jointed nature of the response.

John Paul Lederach discussed some of the prob-lems of collective responses to complex emergen-cies caused by the lack of coordination bothwithin the NGO community and across the vari-ous levels of intervention in the international sys-tem. He remarked that in a crisis situation, somany different things occur simultaneously thatone actor often does not know what the others aredoing. People operating at the grass-roots level areoften considered unimportant or peripheral bythose operating at higher levels. A successful inter-vention, nonetheless, calls for the ability to under-stand and connect the different levels of activity.

Addressing issues of cooperation in one specificrealm, Vivian Lowery Derryck emphasized thatundertaking technical assistance projects in con-flict situations requires a new working relation-ship between NGOs and the military. Tradition-ally, NGOs and the military have perceived their

roles to be distinctly different and separate. NGOshave felt uneasy working with military forces, ei-ther from their own countries or from the countryreceiving assistance, particularly when the latterare employed in the service of dictators with unsa-vory human rights records. Military leaders, on theother hand, tend to regard NGOs as undisciplinedand their operations as uncoordinated and dis-jointed. The experiences in Somalia and Rwandashowed that closer working relationships betweenNGOs and the military could successfully meetthe goal of delivering humanitarian assistance insituations of conflict.

These new kinds of interventions make it clearthat NGOs must find the means for establishingimproved working relationships with the military,including better and more rapid communicationsand a clear comprehension of the mission’s overallobjectives. This last point is crucial. While they en-joyed a high level of cooperation in the Rwandaand Somalia operations, the military and NGOswere motivated by different goals. The military’sconcern with “mission creep” resulted in a desireto go in, provide emergency technical assistance,and get out quickly. Conversely, the NGO perspec-tive during these crises was long term, aimed at na-tion-building and developing education skills.While it is unlikely that these divergent goals willchange, an appreciation of the other’s perspectiveand an agreement on immediate objectives is es-sential for cooperative action.

Lionel Rosenblatt argued that humanitarian op-erations should form a key part of training for thearmed forces. Contrary to the belief that humani-tarian work erodes military readiness, he sug-gested, “the deployment of troops for peacekeep-ing and humanitarian work is good for ourmilitary. This is far better training in preparednessfor post–Cold War realities than training at FortBragg.”

Once a humanitarian crisis is apparent, food,water, and other life-saving resources need to beintroduced efficiently, cheaply, and quickly. InRosenblatt’s opinion, this requires getting awayfrom the administrative routines of governmentsand militaries and fostering a greater degree of co-operation among the relevant actors. In addition,he recommended the international community es-tablish a chain of command through which all rel-evant actors—peacekeepers and humanitarian-aidproviders—report their efforts. Given the current

4THE CHALLENGE OF

COORDINATION

practice of disparate groups involved in crisis man-agement reporting to different leaderships, thesecomplex emergencies desperately demand a singleemergency coordinator.

The case of Somalia demonstrated that achiev-ing such coordination would be a difficult task in-deed. Andrew Natsios suggested that one of theproblems in Somalia was a kind of role reversalamong external actors, with NGOs running secu-rity operations, which they were not trained to do,and the military delivering relief andaiding in development. Lacking aproper understanding of these unfa-miliar roles, both actors were bound tomake inappropriate decisions. Natsiosgave as an example the U.S. military’sdecision to send in its own engineersand support troops to rebuild roadsand infrastructure at a time when So-mali males desperately needed jobs.The military was not interested in hir-ing the Somalis, Natsios explained, be-cause they wanted to get the roadsbuilt quickly. The military officers in charge be-lieved that if they let untrained “locals” or NGOsdo the job, it would take longer than a few months.Thus the potential for encouraging indigenous de-velopment was lost, keeping thousands of Somalimales idle and frustrated.

One reason for the lack of coordination lies inthe fact that the actors in humanitarian crises arevery different organizations. International organi-zations and governments deal with crises at the na-tional level; NGOs operate mainly at the local level.Military forces assigned to support humanitarianmissions receive their instructions from their gov-ernments; NGOs are answerable to their boardsand to the thousands of donors who support theirefforts. In Julia Taft’s words, this difference in orga-nizational character traditionally relegated NGOsto the status of eccentric relatives whose invitationto the policymaking party never arrived. This situa-tion has changed, she said: NGOs are now in-cluded at the policymaking table and are recog-nized as key actors in the design and delivery ofhumanitarian relief.

The growing awareness that both public andprivate organizations are essential to the success ofany humanitarian venture, however, has not yet re-sulted in improved coordination, a fact noted in

the many calls for more cooperative action. Onesuch appeal came from Mohamed Sahnoun, for-mer special representative of the UN secretary-gen-eral in Somalia, and former deputy secretary-gen-eral of the Organization of African Unity in chargeof political affairs and crisis situations. Sahnounproposed the creation of a new international insti-tution for conflict management that would coordi-nate humanitarian action and foster ties betweenorganizations and agencies from the international

down to the local level. Such an institution wouldbe an essential contributor to Sahnoun’s vision ofestablishing a global framework for conflict man-agement and peacebuilding by coordinating ef-forts while simultaneously decentralizing them—creating, in essence, a synergy between theregional and international levels. This proposed in-stitution would mobilize all approaches to conflictresolution and increase communications and net-works among different communities in local con-flict areas through the integrated efforts of NGOsand the UN.

Accountability and leadership issues. Amid thecalls for establishing new means to coordinate in-ternational responses to these situations, however,a few voices raised concern over issues of account-ability and leadership. John Paul Lederach notedthat in situations of crisis, NGOs assumed respon-sibilities far exceeding their intended missions.Two clear examples are Rwanda and Somalia,where the collapse of central authority resulted ina political vacuum that was immediately filled bychaos and internecine warfare. NGOs moved intothese “stateless” situations and took on many ofthe services typically provided by the failed gov-ernments. “In many ways,” he said, “the NGO ac-

12

The growing awareness that both public

and private organizations are essential

to the success of any humanitarian

venture, however, has not yet resulted in

improved coordination.

tivity can be seen as replacing the state. This raisesa crucial question for us all: To whom are theNGOs accountable?”

The issue of accountability extends to govern-ments that take on a large share of the responsibili-ties in responding to complex emergencies. InRosenblatt’s view, the United States governmentshould reform both the way it deals with the UNand the way it responds to humanitarian crises ingeneral, including the integration of humanitarianassistance functions presently scattered through-out its various agencies—the Agency for Interna-tional Development, the State Department, and theDepartment of Defense among them. He urged theU.S. government to encompass all these various di-visions of responsibility within a single entity withone senior official in charge. Such a reorganizationwould improve not only the U.S. response to com-plex emergencies but the UN’s role in them aswell. After all, as Rosenblatt observed, the U.S.

cannot demand a higher level of accountability atthe UN than it is willing to ensure in its own gov-ernment.

The issue of which institutions should providethe necessary leadership for a coordinated effortled Andrew Natsios to remark that NGOs couldnot fulfill the functions of world powers in thesesituations. “There is no substitute for the influenceand resources of the great powers in these con-flicts. The NGO community cannot act like theUnited States government. It doesn’t mean theUnited States has to intervene all the time, butthere are instances when a power with militaryforces and large budgets can intervene diplomati-cally to make people talk who might not want totalk,” Natsios observed. “Unless the great powershave the moral and diplomatic impulse to inter-vene, we are going to be unsuccessful in dealingwith these conflicts.”

13

Should NGOs be involved in conflict pre-vention and resolution? If so, how exten-sive should their involvement be? Effective

responses to post–Cold War humanitarian crisesoften means that many NGOs must go beyondtheir traditional mission of providing food, water,and medical assistance, into the realm of ensuringpolitical stability and fulfilling governmental func-tions in failed states. Are such expanded roles ap-propriate for NGOs?

Vivian Lowery Derryck answered this questionwith a qualified yes, proposing certain conditionsthat must be present before NGOs engage in con-flict management activities:

; the NGO knows the country and the re-gional institutions involved in the conflictresolution effort;

; the NGO has indigenous partners;; the NGO staff has a good knowledge of con-

flict mediation skills; and; the NGO’s field staff members fully under-

stand the personal risks they are assuming.

John Paul Lederach agreed that NGOs could bevery effective in managing conflict, noting thatthey bring several special qualities to peacebuild-ing, especially through their particular insightsinto different cultures, their relationships with lo-cal partners, and their understanding of the links

between crisis management and long-term sustain-able development. He recalled how NGO repre-sentatives often talk about their operations as com-prising a continuum of relief efforts, rehabilitation,reconstruction, and sustainable development. Allof these components are essential to the develop-ment of both new and more effective paradigmsfor peacebuilding and appropriate strategies todeal with specific conflicts.

Many of the conference participants acknowl-edged that NGOs of all varieties are seriously grap-pling with issues raised by working in situations ofconflict. They also confirmed the need for more co-ordination among the different types of opera-tional NGOs, and between the NGO communityand other actors involved in complex-emergencyinterventions, in order to forge an effective role forNGOs as conflict managers. There was widespreadrecognition that NGOs might unwittingly becomea party to conflict in the course of their humanitar-ian relief work; that their actions could be part of aconcerted, coordinated effort involving govern-ments, international and regional organizations,and private groups to avert or resolve conflict; thatthey had the ability to both provide early warningand shore up the political will of governments toact; and that they could give guidance to policy-makers in their own countries and encourage com-munity-building and the development of civil soci-eties in countries decimated by war. In short, thework of NGOs forms an important part of the en-tire repertoire of intervention strategies for dealingwith conflict in the post–Cold War era.

5NGOS AS CONFLICT

MANAGERS

14

Chester A. Crocker is chairman of the board ofdirectors of the United States Institute of Peace anddistinguished research professor of diplomacy atGeorgetown University’s School of Foreign Servicein Washington, D.C. During his 1989–90 distin-guished fellowship in the Institute’s Jennings Ran-dolph Program for International Peace, Crockerworked on his book High Noon in SouthernAfrica: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood(Norton, 1992), which focuses on the U.S. conflictresolution efforts in the region during the 1980s.From 1981 to 1989, Crocker was assistant secre-tary of state for African affairs, serving as the prin-cipal diplomatic architect and mediator in the pro-longed negotiations among Angola, Cuba, andSouth Africa that led to the deployment of UNpeacekeeping forces and election observers duringNamibia’s transition to democratic governanceand independence and to the withdrawal of Cubanforces from Angola. He received the PresidentialCitizen’s Medal in 1989. Before joining the George-town University faculty in 1972, Crocker was amember of the National Security Council staff. Hehas written numerous articles for foreign policyjournals and is the coeditor (with David Smock) ofthe recently released African Conflict Resolution:The U.S. Role in Peacemaking (published by theUnited States Institute of Peace Press) and SouthAfrica in the 1980s. Crocker holds a Ph.D. in inter-national politics and African studies from JohnsHopkins University’s School of Advanced Interna-tional Studies.

Vivian Lowery Derryck has been president ofthe African-American Institute (AAI) since June1989. Derryck first went to Africa in 1965 with Op-eration Crossroads Africa, and has been workingon African affairs since that time, having served inmore than twenty-five countries in Africa, Asia, andLatin America. Before going to AAI, she was vicepresident of the National Democratic Institute forInternational Affairs, executive director of theWashington International Center, and vice president

of Meridian House International. Derryck servedas a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Carterand Reagan administrations. Prior to this, sheserved as executive vice president of the NationalCouncil of Negro Women, where she was also di-rector of its international division, supervising pro-jects in Swaziland, Togo, Senegal, and Mauritania.Before leaving for Liberia in 1973, where she spentfour years teaching at the University of Liberia andworking with the country’s Ministry of Education,Derryck taught at New York City Community Col-lege.

Jan Eliasson is Sweden’s undersecretary of statefor foreign affairs. Before assuming this position inthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was a visitingprofessor at Uppsala University and ambassadorto the Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh,which he also served as chairman. From 1992 to1994, Eliasson served as undersecretary-generalfor humanitarian affairs at the United Nations,where he was Sweden’s permanent representativefrom 1988 to 1992. During a diplomatic careerthat began in 1965, Eliasson served in Paris, Bonn,Washington, and Zimbabwe. He also served as di-rector of the Press and Information Division of theForeign Ministry; deputy undersecretary for Asianand African affairs; undersecretary for political af-fairs; and diplomatic adviser in the prime minis-ter’s office. At the UN, Eliasson served in the mis-sion to the Iran-Iraq conflict during 1980–86;personal representative of the secretary-general onIran-Iraq matters during 1988–92; vice presidentof the Economic and Social Council (1988–92);and chairman of the General Assembly’s workinggroup on emergency relief in 1991. He has alsoserved as director of the board of both the Institutefor East-West Security Studies in New York(1988–93) and the International Peace Academyfrom 1988. The author of numerous books, lec-tures, and articles on foreign policy, diplomacy,and humanitarian action, Eliasson has been deco-rated by the governments of France, the Nether-lands, Germany, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Brazil, Portu-gal, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Estonia.

Harriet Hentges is executive vice president ofthe United States Institute of Peace, where sheoversees the Institute’s interprogram initiative onnongovernmental organizations. She has over

15

CONTRIBUTORS

fifteen years of senior management experience inkey positions in business, government, and non-profit organizations. Prior to coming to the Insti-tute, Hentges was chief operating officer and man-aging partner at the Clifton Investment Group.From 1986 to 1988, she was chief operating officerat the Baskin Financial Corporation. She alsoserved as the executive director of the League ofWomen Voters of the United States for five years,and as an international economist on the policyplanning staff at the U.S. Department of State.Hentges received a Ph.D. in international econom-ics from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Ad-vanced International Studies.

John Paul Lederach is director of the ConflictAnalysis and Transformation Program and the In-stitute for Conflict Studies and Peacebuilding atEastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg,Virginia. He is also director of the InternationalConciliation Service of the Mennonite CentralCommittee. He has extensive experience in inter-communal and organizational conflict and hasprovided consultation and direct mediation in avariety of conflicts, including the Miskito-Sandin-ista negotiations and peacebuilding efforts in So-malia and the Basque region of Spain. Lederach isthe author of nine books in addition to numerousacademic articles on peace education, conflicttransformation, and mediation training. He hasalso developed training materials and manuals inSpanish that are used throughout Latin Americaon peace education and conflict resolution andmediation. Lederach holds a B.A. in history andpeace studies from Bethel College and a Ph.D. insociology from the University of Colorado.

Andrew Natsios is vice president of the Wash-ington, D.C.–based relief organization World Vision U.S., and executive director of World VisionRelief and Development, the technical arm ofWorld Vision U.S. During 1991–93, he was assis-tant administrator in the Bureau of Food and Hu-manitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development, where he managed U.S.foreign disaster assistance. Natsios was a lecturerat Boston College from 1987 to 1989. Prior to that,he was a representative in the MassachusettsHouse of Representatives from 1975. He has pub-lished numerous articles on humanitarian

intervention and disaster relief. Natsios holds aB.A. from Georgetown University and an M.P.A.from Harvard University’s Kennedy School ofGovernment.

Phyllis Oakley is assistant secretary of the U.S.Department of State’s Bureau of Population,Refugees, and Migration. A career foreign serviceofficer, she became senior deputy assistant secre-tary in the bureau in September 1993. She wasdeputy assistant secretary for regional analysis inthe Bureau of Intelligence and Research from 1991to 1993, and served as the State Department’sdeputy spokesman from November 1986 to Janu-ary 1989. From 1989 to mid-1991, she was on loanto the U.S. Agency for International Development,working with the Afghanistan Cross-Border Hu-manitarian Assistance Program in Islamabad, Pak-istan. She was the State Department’s Afghanistandesk officer from 1982 to 1985. Oakley is a PhiBeta Kappa graduate of Northwestern Universityand holds a master’s degree from Tufts Universi-ty’s Fletcher School of International Law andDiplomacy. She has taught American history atCentenary College in Shreveport, Louisiana, andserved as a consultant in international affairs to thenational board of the YWCA in New York City.

Lionel Rosenblatt has been president ofRefugees International, an advocacy organizationfor refugees worldwide, since 1990. Rosenblatt hasalso served in the U.S. Foreign Service in variousposts, including Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Thailand.While at the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, he waschief of the Refugee Section (1975–76) and laterserved as refugee coordinator and director of theKhmer Emergency Group during the region’s1978–81 refugee crisis. He also served as directorof the Office of Special Concerns, Interagency TaskForce for Indochinese Refugees at the U.S. Depart-ment of State.

Mohamed Sahnoun is a Pearson fellow at the In-ternational Development Research Centre in Ot-tawa, Canada. He was a visiting fellow at theUnited States Institute of Peace in 1993, where heexamined the case of Somalia to determine howthe United Nations can best fulfill its expandedrole in promoting stability and providing humani-tarian relief. His project culminated in the

16

publication of the book Somalia: The Missed Op-portunities (United States Institute of Peace Press,1994). Sahnoun served as special representative ofthe UN secretary-general in Somalia duringMarch–October 1992. Sahnoun has also served ina variety of posts in the Algerian foreign service, in-cluding presidential counselor on foreign affairs;ambassador to the United States, Morocco, Ger-many, and France; and permanent representativeof Algeria to the UN. He also served as deputy sec-retary-general of the Organization of African Unityin charge of political affairs and crisis situations(1964–73) and as deputy secretary-general of theLeague of Arab States.

Julia Taft is president of InterAction, the Ameri-can Council for Voluntary International Action.Taft has served as director of U.S. foreign disaster

assistance at the U.S. Agency for International De-velopment; director of refugee programs and act-ing refugee coordinator at the U.S. Department ofState; and deputy assistant secretary of the Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addi-tion, she has been a consultant on refugee and mi-gration affairs and humanitarian aid to the FordFoundation, the World Bank, and various U.S.agencies and organizations in both the public andprivate sectors. Taft has received the WorldHunger Award, the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment’s Distinguished Service Award, theUSSR Supreme Soviet Award for Personal Couragein Armenia, and a White House fellowship. She iscurrently a member of the board of both the Na-tional Endowment for Democracy and the U.S.Agency for International Development’s AdvisoryCommittee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.

17

Coping with InternationalConflict into the 21st Century

November 30 – December 1, 1994

The Changing Character of International Conflict

NOVEMBER 30, MORNING

Welcoming Address Chester A. Crocker, Chairman, Board of Directors, United States Institute of Peace

Session 1The Character of A conceptual assessment of the changing Twenty-First Century Conflict character of international conflict designed

to advance today’s awareness of change and the breakdown of institutions created in the Cold War era.

Moderator Paul D. Wolfowitz, SAIS, The Johns Hopkins University

Speakers Samuel P. Huntington, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University

Robert D. Kaplan, author of “The Coming Anarchy” and Balkan Ghosts

Session 2A New Look at Key A focus on known and anticipated sources Sources of Conflict of conflict in the coming decades, including

the resurgence of ethno-religious nationalism; environmental and related threats; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the persistent threat posed by certain closed societies.

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼

▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼▼

▼

▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

18

MANAGING CHAOS

CONFERENCE AGENDA

Moderator Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, American Enterprise Institute

Speakers G. M. Tamás, Institute of Philosophy, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Jessica Mathews, Council on Foreign Relations

Lee Hongkoo, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Unification, Republic of Korea

NOVEMBER 30, LUNCHEON

Challenges to the U.S. Military in Post–Cold War Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Interventions

Speaker Les Aspin, Former Secretary of Defense and Congressman

NOVEMBER 30, AFTERNOON

New Institutions of Conflict Resolution

Session 3NGOs: The New Conflict Managers? An examination of the changing roles of

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) across the broad spectrum of conflict-related activity. The evolving relationships among NGOs, govern-ments, and international organizations in managing international conflict will also be addressed.

Moderator Allen Weinstein, Board of Directors, United States Institute of Peace, and Center for Democracy

Speakers Phyllis E. Oakley, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Jan Eliasson, Permanent Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Sweden

Julia Taft, InterAction

Vesna Pesic, Visiting Fellow, United States Institute of Peace, and Center for Anti-War Action, Belgrade

Session 4NGO Burdens and Needs This session will ask leaders from various as Conflict Managers parts of the NGO community to assess the

increasing burdens upon—and opportunities for—NGOs in managing international conflict directly. The speakers will discuss the extent to which—and how and why—NGOs with other

19

mandates and expectations have been called upon to be direct conflict managers. Finally, speakers will survey their evolving needs as international actors, both under their traditional mandates and new ones.

Moderator W. Scott Thompson, Board of Directors, United States Institute of Peace, and Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

Speakers John Paul Lederach, Eastern Mennonite College

Lionel Rosenblatt, Refugees International

Andrew Natsios, World Vision

Vivian Lowery Derryck, African-American Institute

DECEMBER 1, MORNING

Session 5Key Challenges in International Part 1: Case Study SessionsConflict Management (three simultaneous panels)

Panel AAverting Chaos: Preventive Drawing from preventive diplomacy efforts in East Diplomacy in Eurasia and Africa Europe, Asia, and Africa, this panel will explore the

roles that the UN, the U.S. government, regional organizations such as the OSCE and OAU, and nongovernmental organizations are playing and can play in early warning and preventive action in potential crisis spots.

Moderator Michael Lund, Senior Scholar, United States Institute of Peace

Speakers John Marks, Search for Common Ground

John J. Maresca, former U.S. Ambassador to OSCE

Linda Perkin, Deputy Director for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, United Nations

Harold Fleming, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

Panel BNGO Conflict Resolution, Relief, This breakout will examine NGO conflict and Rebuilding Activity in resolution, relief, and rebuilding activity in former Former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia, with a focus on Bosnia, Croatia, and

Serbia. Special attention will be given to the question of NGO, government, and international organization support for the Muslim-Croat agree-ment in Bosnia. Indigenous NGO activity will be discussed along with the activities of those from abroad.

20

Moderator Patricia Carley, Program Officer, United States Institute of Peace

Speakers Hugh Hamilton, Deputy Coordinator, East European Assistance, U.S. Department of State

Max Primorac, Croatian Democracy Project

Nadia Diuk, National Endowment for Democracy

Robert DeVecchi, International Rescue Committee

Vesna Pesic, Visiting Fellow, United States Institute of Peace, and Center for Anti-War Action, Belgrade

Panel CBringing Peace to Sudan: The Roles This panel will examine the full range of activity—of NGOs, Governments, and Regional including the roles of NGOs, governments, and Organizations regional organizations—that has been involved in

efforts to bring peace to Sudan. The panel will also assess the prospects for coordinated activity in the future, including the relationships between internal actors and international actors. Among activities to be surveyed will be advocacy, mediation, Track II diplomacy, relief work, conflict resolution training, and support for mediation.

Moderator David Smock, Director of the Grant Program, United States Institute of Peace

Speakers Francis Deng, Brookings Institution

John Prendergast, Center of Concern

Session 5The Future of Intervention Part 2: Plenary Sessionin Violent Internal Conflicts This session focuses on the recent experience of

NGOs, governments, and international organizations in intervening in violent internal conflicts. Focusing on what has actually been done in humanitarian, political, and military efforts, the speakers will address the future prospects of such interventions.

Moderator Denis McLean, Distinguished Fellow, United States Institute of Peace

Speakers James Schear, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

J. Brian Atwood, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development (remarks presented by Nan Borton, Director, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, USAID)

Joseph Kennedy, Africare

John J. Maresca, former U.S. Ambassador to OSCE

21

DECEMBER 1, LUNCHEON

An Interactive Forum on theGlobal Information Revolution

Speaker Ted Koppel, Anchor and Managing Editor, ABC News

DECEMBER 1, AFTERNOON

The New Diplomacy and NewTools for Conflict Management

Session 6“The New Diplomacy” Presupposing the need for innovation and

creativity in diplomacy, this session will examine the potential efficacy of new techniques and means while evaluating the continuing applicability of more traditional tools. The speakers will assess whether an international consensus is building, or can be built, regarding the future of national and multinational intervention in regional conflicts. They will also examine the possible utilization of the experience and techniques of the NGO and business communities by governments and international organizations.

Moderator Chester Crocker, Chairman, Board of Directors, United States Institute of Peace, and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Speakers Chester Crocker

Robert Zoellick, Executive Vice President, Fannie Mae

Mohamed Sahnoun, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa

Thomas R. Getman, World Vision

Session 7Conflict Management Tools (three simultaneous panels)

Panel AInternational Conflict Resolution This panel will focus on the contribution Skills Training (ICREST) negotiation training and conflict resolution skills

training can make to better prepare international affairs professionals (from the diplomatic, military, or NGO sectors) to undertake complicated new assignments.

Moderator Lawrence P. Taylor, Director, National Foreign Training Center, U.S. Department of State

Speakers Hrach Gregorian, Director of Education and Training, United States Institute of Peace

Steve Pieczenik, Consultant, United States Institute of Peace

22

John Paul Lederach, Eastern Mennonite College

Lewis Rasmussen, Program Officer, United States Institute of Peace

Panel BCross-Cultural Negotiation This panel explores the impact that culture has

upon international negotiation and how awareness and skills training in national negotiating styles can make negotiators more effective.

Moderator Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace

Speakers John Graham, University of California, Irvine

Jean Freymond, Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations, Geneva

Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., Distinguished Fellow, United States Institute of Peace

Jerrold Schecter, Peace Fellow, United States Institute of Peace

Panel CInformation and Data Management This panel will explore the current and potential

use of various software programs, information- and data-management systems, and the infor-mation highway during negotiations as aids to general policy analysis and as tools for early warning and preventive action.

Moderator William Wood, Geographer, U.S. Department of State

Speakers Lance Antrim, International Negotiating Systems

Chad McDaniel, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland

John Davies, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland

DECEMBER 1, DINNER

Perspectives on Diplomacyin the Twenty–First Century

Speaker Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State

23

Pamela R. Aall is a program officer in the Educa-tion and Training Program of the United States In-stitute of Peace with primary responsibility for col-lege- and university-level activities. She also chairsthe Institute’s interprogram initiative on non-governmental organizations. Before joining the In-stitute, she was a consultant to the President’sCommittee on the Arts and the Humanities and tothe Institute of International Education. She held a

number of positions in the international relations division of the RockefellerFoundation and managed its International Relations Fellowship Program. Inaddition, she has worked for the European Cultural Foundation in Amsterdamand Brussels, the International Council for Educational Development, and theNew York Botanical Garden. A graduate of Harvard University and ColumbiaUniversity, she has also attended the London School of Economics, where herwork focused on Scandinavia and European institutions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

24

25

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created byCongress to promote research, education, and training on the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.Established in 1984, the Institute meets its congressional mandate through an array of programs, includingresearch grants, fellowships, professional training programs, conferences and workshops, library services,publications, and other educational activities. The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by the Presi-dent of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

Chairman of the Board: Chester A. CrockerVice Chairman: Max M. KampelmanPresident: Richard H. SolomonExecutive Vice President: Harriet Hentges

Board of Directors

Chester A. Crocker (Chairman), Distinguished Research Professor of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Max M. Kampelman, Esq. (Vice Chairman), Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson, Washington, D.C.

Dennis L. Bark, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University

Theodore M. Hesburgh, President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

Seymour Martin Lipset, Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University

Christopher H. Phillips, former U.S. ambassador to Brunei

Mary Louise Smith, civic activist; former chairman, Republican National Committee

W. Scott Thompson, Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

Allen Weinstein, President, Center for Democracy, Washington, D.C.

Harriet Zimmerman, Vice President, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

Members ex officio

Ralph Earle II, Deputy Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Toby Trister Gati, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

Ervin J. Rokke, Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force; President, National Defense University

Walter B. Slocombe, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

Peaceworks No. 5. First published February 1996.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors or conference participants alone. They do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Institute of Peace.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

1550 M Street NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20005-1708

Phone: 202-457-1700E-mail: usip_requests@usip.orgInternet: gopher.usip.org

Also available from the Managing Chaos conference:

Keynote Addresses by Les Aspin and Ted Koppel (Peaceworks No. 3)Sources of Conflict: G. M. Tamás and Samuel Huntington on “Identity and Conflict,” andRobert Kaplan and Jessica Tuchman Mathews on “ ‘The Coming Anarchy’ and the Nation-State under Siege” (Peaceworks No. 4)

UNITED STATESINSTITUTE OF PEACE

1550 M Street NWWashington, DC 20005 Peaceworks No. 5