In the following sections you will find:
Early in 2001, I decided to try to find a way I might contribute to the reduction of organized violence. My first thought was to look for worthy research projects to fund. However, after funding such projects and immersing myself in the peace and security world, I observed that much was already known about the causes and cures of violence. Promoting the more effective use of resources already available seemed to merit more support than adding to the large amount of existing knowledge. Moreover, preventing violence can be much more cost-effective than trying to deal with situations in which violence has already erupted, to say nothing of the lives and suffering saved. So now I am trying to contribute to the prevention of mass violence in fragile states.
I initiated and since 2004 have been funding an effort called International Peace and Prosperity Project (IPPP) to help the people of a small West African nation, Guinea-Bissau, to avoid violence and to build a stable society in which economic progress can be made. In 2006, I convened a small group of international experts to devise a way to provide prompt, effective responses to warnings of impending violence. Until now, no such mechanism has existed. In February, 2008, the group succeeded in establishing the Global Conflict Prevention Mechanism (GCPM) to provide effective responses to warnings of impending violence. IPPP has now been absorbed into GCPM.
IPPP
In recent decades, hundreds of billions of dollars of aid has been poured into Africa. Nevertheless, the continent’s economy has deteriorated, while violence and suffering have continued. Massive aid clearly has not ameliorated the lives of most Africans. A better approach is needed.
The project in Guinea-Bissau, represents a different approach. It was conceived by a group of professionals in the field to demonstrate what could be accomplished following a methodology, elements of which had been widely recommended, but which had never been tried together. It involves selecting a country in danger of falling into violence, identifying reliable local leaders, working with them to determine what is most urgently required to prevent the violence, arranging to get the collaborative assistance from the most appropriate sources, covering the whole range of needs, integrating the various initiatives, and continuing the support for as many years as needed. IPPP was conceived as a test case to demonstrate what this approach can accomplish and to make this information available to others in the field.
The project is being led by an experienced professional in the field, Dr. Ben Hoffman. Dr. Michael Lund prepared the methodology to be followed. IPPP has no office in Guinea-Bissau, to help make it clear that the activity there is locally owned.
It was widely feared that a national election, held in June, 2005, might trigger violence. Dr. Hoffman arranged for representatives of the leading local civil society organizations to meet in April. They formed a task force headed by Macaria Barai, one of the local leaders. It decided that its first task should be to work for an orderly, peaceful election. It mounted an aggressive campaign to that end. The first election and then a run-off were held without violence.
IPPP also worked with the leadership of the army. A mutiny in October, 2004, had led to the assassination of the head of the army and his replacement. The new chief has demonstrated his commitment to keep the army out of politics and to support proper civil government. IPPP brought in military professionals to consult with the head of the army. Because the soldiers’ deplorable living conditions had undoubtedly contributed to the mutiny, first priority was given to providing the soldiers with toilets, showers, and weatherproof barracks, which they had not had. IPPP offered to fund the improvements.
In February, 2006, Dr. Hoffman convened a broader group, including representatives of government, the army, civil society, interested non-governmental organizations, the UN, and others, to formulate a national plan for political and economic development. Four days of enthusiastic participation resulted in identifying eight key problems, plans for addressing them, and a program for implementing them, along with assignments of responsibility and target dates for progress. The meeting contributed to a feeling of optimism about the future of the country.
IPPP’s early success appears to validate the theory that providing modest but integrated help to local leaders’ actions to prevent violence may be an effective way to help fragile states achieve stability. Such initiatives are free of the political constraints that often make it difficult or impossible for multinational organizations to respond promptly, if ever, to early warnings of pending violence. The project has attracted widespread attention. Drs. Hoffman and Lund have been invited to tell about it at such places as the UN and the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Evaluations of the IPPP work have been done by three independent organizations to confirm its accomplishments and to identify aspects of its work that need improvement.
Early Response Mechanism
Several capable organizations monitor all or parts of the world and regularly issue reports warning of the likelihood of the outbreak of violence in specific places. Occasionally, one or more organizations may take action to head off the violence, but until now there has been no established mechanism to provide prompt, effective responses to these warnings. The problem is widely recognized, but for the most part, no effective preventive actions have followed the warnings.
To address that problem I, along with two colleagues, assembled a group of international experts to address the problem and to find a way to establish an effective mechanism to respond effectively to reliable warnings of impending violence. The first meeting of this group took place in Ottawa on Oct. 2, 2006. Since then, members of the group have developed a detailed plan for establishing an early response mechanism called the Global Conflict Prevention Mechanism (GCPM). Implementation has begun. A secretariat has been established in Bern, Switzerland with a second office being set up at the Alliance for Peacebuilding in Washington, DC. Funds for supporting engagement in a second threatened country are in hand.
GCPM will form regional steering committees to identify countries most in need of help and will then recruit in-country project teams to help prevent violence, informed by the experience in Guinea-Bissau, The first regional steering committee, for West Africa has been formed. Its members include three distinguished leaders from developed countries and four from West Africa.
The GCPM Governing Board has prepared a detailed proposal for expanding the program, including the preparation of a web site with warning information from various reliable sources. It is being sent to potential donors. By arranging for effective preventive actions, GCPM promises to save many lives and much suffering.
When as a young man, I read Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, I was impressed at how similar the motivations and actions of ancient leaders were to those of today. Apparently, man had learned almost nothing about how to refrain from participating in groups that engage in killing those in other groups. That has bothered me all my life.
With time and money available to devote to the task, in early 2001, I decided to try to contribute to solving that terrible problem. I now define my mission as follows:
My objective is to contribute to the prevention of the suffering and death associated with organized political violence. I intend to do this by collaborating with well-qualified professionals to:
- Promote, initiate, and fund effective collaborative actions to prevent political violence.
- Promote local leadership and control of these violence prevention activities.
- Fund local initiatives likely to prevent violence.
- Widely disseminate information on the results of our activities, both positive and negative, to add to man's knowledge of what is and is not effective in preventing violence in at-risk countries.
I am seeking to provide long-term continuity of this effort by enlisting others to participate in leading it and by arranging for my family to continue the funding for years after I am no longer able. I want to initiate and to fund useful activities that might not have taken place without my involvement.
As of 2007 year-end, the main elements of my activities to implement the mission include:
- Continuing to support the project in Guinea-Bissau, which appears to have helped to improve the outlook for peace there.
- Initiating a review of what the experience there may have contributed to knowledge about how best to prevent mass violence in at-risk countries and disseminating such knowledge widely.
- Supporting the Global Conflict Prevention Mechanism (GCPM), which has been formed by a group of experts that I helped to convene to establish a mechanism to provide prompt, effective responses to early warnings of impending violence.
- Supporting the development of ways to learn more about violence prevention through actual in-country engagements.
- Funding a second intervention in West Africa under the aegis of GCPM.
- As a director of the Alliance for Peacebuilding, contributing to the increasing effectiveness of that organization in promoting effective collaborative actions to prevent violence.
November, 2007
Professionals in the peace and security field generally agree that:
- Violence prevention is much more cost-effective than trying to put the pieces back together after it has broken out.
- To be effective, prevention requires an integrated, multi-faceted, multi-year program.
- This rarely happens.
- Various organizations working independently are often ineffective and sometimes work at cross-purposes.
One of the basic problems is that NGOs compete for funding and resist "being coordinated" with each other. As the source of funding, foundations and donor governments are in a position to promote more coherent and more effective violence prevention activities. Some specific actions they could take include:
- Refuse to accept grant applications from any organization that does not have an explicit policy for cooperating with others.
- Require that any grant application identify others doing work in the same area and describe how the applicant proposes to cooperate with them.
- Encourage applications for multi-year proposals (subject to annual or semi-annual review).
- Encourage joint applications by consortiums representing the spectrum of capabilities needed to get a job done.
- Promote the formation of a group of grantees pledged to cooperate with others.
- Collaborate with other donors to support long-term, multi-faceted projects needed to establish stability in unstable states.
- Give preference to applications that include a clear, credible scenario according to which the proposed project will lead to a reduction of organized violence.
- Support institutional initiatives such as the Packer/van der Stoel program to establish offices in five regional multinational organizations parallel to the OSCE office of High Commissioner on National Minorities.
- Form an organization to find ways for donors to collaborate for greater effectiveness (or have PSFG do it).
November, 2007