Inside UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE ■ WASHINGTON, DC OCTOBER/DECEMBER 2002 Vol. VIII, No. 6/Vol. IX, No. 1 Foreign policy experts review the past year and preview the road ahead at a recent U.S. Institute of Peace conference. 3 Richard Armitage 4 Brent Scowcroft and Samuel Berger 5 Sen. Chuck Hagel 6 Conference Panel Discussions 8 Chester Crocker and Richard Solomon 10 BALKANS Building Regional Cooperation 12 Summer Institute 13 AFGHANISTAN Free Voices 15 On the Hill 18 Institute Awards America’s Challenges in a Changed World Top, left to right: Richard Armitage, Christina Rocca, and Chuck Hagel. Special Double Issue
Transcript
Inside
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE ■ WASHINGTON, DC
OCTOBER/DECEMBER2002
Vol. VIII, No. 6/Vol. IX, No. 1
Foreign policy
experts
review the
past year
and preview
the road
ahead at a
recent U.S.
Institute
of Peace
conference.
3 Richard Armitage
4 Brent Scowcroftand Samuel Berger
5 Sen. Chuck Hagel
6 Conference PanelDiscussions
8 Chester Crockerand RichardSolomon
10 BALKANSBuilding RegionalCooperation
12 Summer Institute
13 AFGHANISTANFree Voices
15 On the Hill
18 Institute Awards
America’s
Challenges
in a
Changed
World
Top, left to right:Richard Armitage,Christina Rocca,and Chuck Hagel.
Special Double Issue
2
Top: Cong.Nancy Pelosi,Sen. ArlenSpecter.
Bottom, left toright: Firemenraise the Ameri-can flag overthe World TradeCenter rubble;Arlen Specter,Chester Crock-er, HarrietHentges, andRichardSolomon; MarcLeland withconference par-ticipants; NancyPelosi, MarcLeland, and con-ference partici-pant.
“Our objective is to go beyondthe specific issues of the dayand look at the fundamental,long-term issues raised by thechallenge of global terrorism.”With these words, Institute pres-ident Richard Solomon openeda day-long conference on Sep-tember 5 to spark dialogue,debate, and brainstorming onpolicy development for thenation’s post-9/11 agenda.
The conference was organizedby the Institute’s Research andStudies Program, led by directorPaul Stares, with the support ofthe entire Institute. Its purposewas to further the Institute’scommitment “to encourage theevolution of foreign and securitypolicies that deal with interna-tional conflict by politicalmeans,” continued Solomon.
Chester Crocker, chairman of theInstitute’s Board of Directors,emphasized these themes as he
summed up the day. ■ “You need power to engagein diplomacy,” said Crocker.Diplomacy and force are notmutually exclusive. As Brent
Scowcroft remarked, “This is thehour for grand strategy.” Strategyincludes isolating sectarian Islamicextremists from the wider mass ofthe Muslim world and developingleverage for diplomacy.■ Developing strategy requires“strong and unapologetic Americanleadership,” noted RichardArmitage, but also “singular andconcerted efforts of many nations.”■ Endurance is one of the mostimportant political attributes. Zalmay Khalilzad, speaking ofAfghanistan as an example, said,“We are in it for the duration, forthe long haul.” ■ Countering terrorism is aboutworking in what Crocker called“zones of turbulence.” The strugglewill go beyond Afghanistan andIraq. Military action is but one ele-ment of the battle. Upgrading sta-bility in zones of turbulence is apriority. The globalization para-digm requires better performancein the political arena, particularly as patterns of turbulence lead toexploitation by “bad actors.” Fur-ther, America’s role in combatingterrorism goes beyond rooting outthe terrorists and their supporters.As Samuel Berger noted, “Ourfuture will be defined not by whatwe destroy but by what we build.”■ Our engagement should be driven by a vision of hope for
prosperity and good governance.As Senator Chuck Hagel said,“Democratic reform is the onlyanswer to the politics of hatred,radicalism, and violence.”■ However we define terms suchas “multilateralism,” “cooperation,”and “coalition,” these actions are agiven, whether the United Statesacts more-or-less unilaterally withinternational support or as part of agroup. Interdependence is real andrecognized in the post-9/11 world.America discovered a sense of itsvulnerability in September 2001. Italso affirmed its leadership role incollective action against global ter-ror and in galvanizing support forunilateral action.
At a reception following theconference, CongresswomanNancy Pelosi and Senator ArlenSpecter emphasized the impor-tance of addressing these long-term issues and cited the confer-ence as an example of theInstitute’s vital role in supportingpolicymakers in these difficulttimes.
How should the United Statesharness its unprecedentedpower and influence to meet
long-term challenges to peace andat the same time deal with theimmediate and overwhelmingthreat of terrorism?
“With the right blend of leader-ship, cooperation, and forethought,we’ll not only win the war againstterrorism, we will be placing thisnation in a far better posture tomeet every other challenge to oursecurity in the 21st century,” saiddeputy secretary of state RichardArmitage in his address to the“9/11 a Year On” conference.
Armitage pointed out that thechallenges for the State Depart-ment are the same as they werebefore September 11—violence inthe Middle East; the spread ofweapons of mass destruction; culti-vation of China, Russia, and India
Turning Vulnerability into StrengthStrong American leadership and the concerted efforts of many nations are the
best ways to meet the challenges of the 21st century, says deputy secretary
of state Richard Armitage.
3
as partners rather than competi-tors; and extending the opportuni-ties of globalization for all.
However, there has been a fun-damental change in the way weview these challenges. Armitagedescribed the change as “some-thing of a conundrum”: Americanpreeminence is unprecedented butAmerican vulnerability is morepalpable than ever before.
Armitage noted Secretary Pow-ell’s comment that America maynot be the world’s policeman, but911 emergency calls are routed tothe United States. The UnitedStates has the capacity to quicklymobilize an array of resources.American leadership is vital to thestruggle against terrorism as well as its underlying causes.
But leadership is not synony-mous with unilateralism, cautionedArmitage. “We act and will contin-ue to act in our own interestswhenever necessary without askingfor permission, but the fact is werarely act alone. . . . Today, wewould not be winning the waragainst terrorism without effectivemultilateral cooperation.” He notedthat the profound internationalimplications of the September 11attacks were evident soon there-after, as al Qaeda cells were nestedin 60 countries and the victimsincluded nationalsof 90 countries.
In the short term, internationalmilitary forces, diplomacy, finance,and policy came together, with 180countries signing onto the coalitionand contributing varied forms ofcooperation. In the longer term,the anti-terror effort is leading topatterns of cooperation for facingdown future global challenges.
Patterns of cooperation will benecessary to secure lasting andpeaceful prosperity, said Armitage.“It will take strong and unapolo-getic American leadership. But itwill also take the singular and con-certed efforts of many nations; andit will take global remedies for theunderlying pathologies, such aspoverty, disease, and tyranny thatgive rise to anger and to hopeless-ness and violence.”
Looking forward, Armitageexplained how building on sharedvalues of security, family, and faithis the best long-term strategy. “Weare building a baseline that mightlead to richer bilateral engagementon a cross-section of issues, fromeconomic development to humanrights.
“It is better and cheaper—interms of blood and money—toresolve some of the problems thatcan feed and sustain terrorism thanto have military operations againstit,” concluded Armitage.
Top left:RichardArmitage.
Bottom, left toright: Max Kam-pelman, ChesterCrocker, andSamuel Berger;Arlen Specterand CharlesSmith; ChesterCrocker, NancyPelosi, andRichardSolomon; PaulStares and Paul Pillar.
4as regional or a response to specificgrievances.”
Scowcroft said the greatestchange is in the United Statesitself. The attacks were unexpectedand Americans felt an unfamiliarvulnerability. The attackers werenot another state, which confusedexisting ideas about warfare anddeterrence. The suicidal compo-nent in particular is horrific anddifficult to combat. However,Americans rallied. Flags werewaved rather than burned. Fire-men and policemen replaced Wallstreet tycoons as national heroes.
After September 11, there wasa great coming together in theUnited States and in the world.However, this response is waning:beyond the East Coast, “9/11” nolonger has its previous galvanizingeffect, trans-Atlantic drift is againapparent, and friction over ongo-ing problems in such regions asSouth Asia, Korea, and the Mid-dle East is growing.
Scowcroft pointed out that thesecond phase of the war on terror-ism requires dramatically up-scaled intelligence—in both tech-nology and human intelligence. Itcan only be won on the offensive,says Scowcroft. “Homeland securi-ty can reduce the impact of terror-ism, but winning requires us totake the war to the terrorists.”
Scowcroft is confident that thewar on terrorism can be won, in
How Deep Is theChange?Collective, global offenseand cooperative, high-techintelligence are requiredto break the back ofterrorism, says formernational security adviserBrent Scowcroft.
“What has changed? How much ofthe change is in the world and howmuch is in us?” asked Brent Scow-croft, Forum for InternationalSecurity and former national secu-rity adviser, opening the Institute’s“9/11 a Year On” conference.
Before the events of September2001, a pair of contradictory butrelated phenomena was occurring.One was globalization. The otherwas a breaking down into evermore intolerant political entities,including groups “seeking purityagainst the onslaught of alienforces.” Scowcroft believes thiscombination of phenomena was anunexpected breeding ground forterrorism. “We didn’t see it, partlybecause we tended to see terrorism
The Purpose of PowerSeptember 11 taughtimportant lessons about our vulnerability,resilience, and futurechallenges, says formernational security adviserSamuel Berger.
What are the lessons of theattacks and how do weapply them?
The first and most shockinglesson is that we are not invulner-able, said Samuel “Sandy” Berger,president of Stonebridge Interna-tional and former national securityadviser, in his speech at the “9/11a Year On” conference. However,our response also built confidencein America’s resilience.
“In this war,” said Berger, “Ourstaying power will be
Peace Watch (ISSN 1080-9864) is published six times a year bythe United States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonparti-san federal institution created by Congress to promote thepeaceful resolution of international conflicts. The viewsexpressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of theInstitute or its board of directors.
To receive Peace Watch, write to the United States Institute of Peace, 1200 17th Street NW,Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011, call 202-429-3832, fax 202-429-6063, or [email protected].
President: Richard H. Solomon Executive Vice President: Harriet HentgesPublications Director: Dan Snodderly Editor: Renee Y. StorteboomProduction Manager: Marie Marr Photo Credits: Bill Fitz-Patrick, Staff, AP/Wide
World Photos
Board of DirectorsChairman: Chester A. Crocker. Vice Chairman: Seymour Martin Lipset. Members: Betty F.Bumpers, Holly J. Burkhalter, Marc E. Leland, Mora L. McLean, María Otero, Barbara W.Snelling, Harriet Zimmerman. Members ex officio: Lorne W. Craner, Department of State;Douglas J. Feith, Department of Defense; Paul G. Gaffney II, National Defense University;Richard H. Solomon, Institute president (nonvoting).
See How Deep, page 9
world that we must live in andlead.”
In addition to disillusionmentwith globalization and resentmentof American power and policy, lackof open societies, democratic insti-tutions, and economic develop-ment in regions such as the MiddleEast have also contributed to therise of such groups as al Qaeda.
Terrorism and weapons of massdestruction are our greatest dan-gers, shared with most of the restof the world. As common inter-ests, these dangers should notcause division among allies.“America cannot defeat thesethreats alone,” said Hagel.
The responsibilities and conse-quences of American leadershiphave widened since September 11,Hagel noted. America’s role is“inescapable and irreplaceable” in shaping global politics.
“The war on terrorism is along-term endeavor which willrequire deep and wide levels ofcooperation with many nationsover many years in many areas:diplomatic, humanitarian, eco-nomic, trade, law enforcement,intelligence, and military force,”continued Hagel.
5
For Senator Chuck Hagel theSeptember 2001 attacks“brought home the depth and
complexities of the challenges ofglobal American leadership.”
Suddenly, there was newurgency to American leadershipbeyond its borders. “During theprevious decade, American leader-ship relied on riding the waves ofthe American economic miracle,maintaining alliances, and manag-ing regional conflicts that nevertouched our shores. It was moremanagement than leadership,”Hagel explained at the “9/11 aYear On” conference.
Taking a broader perspectivereveals that “in many ways thebenefits of globalization may reachonly those who read The Econo-mist,” said Hagel. “Current eco-nomic and demographic indicatorsare a sobering reminder of the
Meeting the Challenges of Global LeadershipWe have an historic opportunity to build a better world through
strong partnerships of common interests, says Senator Chuck Hagel
as important as our firepower.” The attacks also opened up a
“home front” and a shift in theAmerican security philosophy.This means shifting from “threat-based” defense to “vulnerability-based” defense: “Where can theyhurt us the most? And how can we act now to lower the risks?”
The second lesson is the impor-tance of interdependence. “Wecan’t walk away from the world,not least because the world willnot walk away from us,” said Berger.
Berger then turned to thefuture, ruminating on the purposeof power. “Our power is a blessing,built on sweat and sacrifice. Ithelps to define us in the world, forbetter and for worse.” He reiterat-ed the importance of pursuingAmerican interests in a global con-text, adding that America mustlead by building coalitions.
Finally, while terrorism mustremain at the heart of the securityagenda, according to Berger, itmust not be the entire agenda.Berger outlined five specific chal-
lenges and opportuni-ties within a broadagenda for America. ■ Stop the spread ofthe most dangerousweapons into volatileregions and irrespon-sible hands.■ Use Americaninfluence for peace-building in enduring
conflicts that often fuel the forcesof terrorism. Berger cited theBalkans, South Asia, Korea, andthe overriding challenge in theMiddle East.■ Offer American leadership toemerging countries in economiccrisis, beginning in the westernhemisphere. “America cannot besafe in a world where the gapbetween rich and poor is growingwider,” noted Berger.
See Global Leadership, page 9See The Purpose of Power, page 9
For the full textof conferencespeeches andpanel presenta-tions, see ourwebsite:www.usip.org
6Afghanistan through militarymeans and a weakening of thecommunication and financialresources of the terror network.He defined terrorism as an “enter-prise”—a system or process—rather than an organization thatcan be defeated. Disrupting opera-tions and growth of al Qaeda’senterprise must remain the prima-ry objective of the war on terror.
Both Jenkins and Bremer saidthat there are new elements to themost threatening of the terroristgroups. Jenkins noted a statedwillingness to go beyond previous-ly self-imposed limits against usingweapons of mass destruction. Bre-mer agreed, adding that the im-portance of religious extremism
Looking Back on aYear of WarA panel of experts reviewsthe accomplishments andchallenges of the war onterrorism.
Much has been accomplished,much needs to be done.This was the consensus of
the panel discussion on “The Waron Terrorism: A Year On” at theInstitute’s “9/11 a Year On” con-ference.
The Institute’s Research andStudies Program director, PaulStares, chaired the panel, whichincluded Paul Pillar, NationalIntelligence Council, Brian Jenk-ins, RAND, and Paul Bremer,Marsh and McLennan Companies.
Stares set the agenda with fourquestions: Where are we? Whathave we accomplished? What arethe challenges of the next phase?Are we “winning” or at least on theright trajectory?
Pillar emphasized, “The neteffect on how well we do in thiseffort rests first of all on the depthof commitment of the Americanpublic and how that commitmentgets expressed in Congress andelsewhere in our government.” TheUnited States must use all availabletools in the coming phase, beaware of the contributions andactivities of other countries in theeffort, and sustain public interestand commitment.
Jenkins reminded listeners thatal Qaeda remains a for-midable threat in spite ofthe Taliban’s ouster from
SecuringAfghanistan’sFutureAs the political and eco-nomic rehabilitation ofAfghanistan continues, theinternational communityneeds to give more atten-tion to security issues.
Security is the top priority. Apanel on “Afghanistan and theFuture of Post-Conflict
Reconstruction” at the Institute’s“9/11 a Year On” conferenceagreed that rehabilitation will notmove forward without basic secu-
rity. Proving the point, a foiledattack on Afghan president HamidKarzai and two bomb blastsrocked Kabul that same day.
Richard Kauzlarich, directorof the Institute’s Special Initiativeon the Muslim World, moderatedthe panel, which included BarnettRubin, New York University,Michael Sheehan, UN assistantsecretary general, and ZalmayKhalilzad, U.S. special envoy toAfghanistan.
Rubin began by categorizingAfghanistan not as a post-conflictstate but rather as one of “disorderand violence.” He pointed to threekey issues that hinder Afghan-istan’s recovery: breakdown oforder, lack of policing, and a voidof security. Rubin also providedreasons for optimism, notably thereturn of refugees, the establish-ment of a government in Kabul, anemerging media, good relationswith neighboring states, and theUnited States’ pledge to continueto support the international securi-ty assistance force (ISAF) andconsider its expansion beyond thecapital.
“A swamp of terrorism” is howSheehan described Afghanistan.He cited several conditions leadingto this status before September2001. Afghanistan is geographical-ly isolated, without adequate com-munication systems and a centralauthority. The Taliban welcomedand supported al Qaeda, allowingthem to operate with impunity.Sheehan, in agreement withRubin, emphasized the impor-
See Looking Back, page 9
See Afghanistan, page 16
Bottom, left toright: GeoffreyKemp; BrianJenkins; DeepaOllapally listensto ChristinaRocca; Paul Pil-lar; Paul Bremer.
7vision of a democratic Palestinianstate living in peace alongsideIsrael.
While he agrees with Indyk ona number of issues, Telhami is lessoptimistic about the possibility ofpeace. He acknowledges a near-term opportunity for peacefulprogress on some issues. However,he contends that the combinationof past experience and presentpracticalities make real progress onmost issues unlikely. Ongoing vio-lence, perpetrated by both sides;poor Palestinian living conditions;and the psychological impacts ofthe conflict make peace an unfath-omable concept to many.
Telhami stated that break-throughs in peace processes occur
Prospects forPeace in the Middle EastPeace in the region ispossible, but much workneeds to be done and theUnited States must take alead role.
In the midst of continuing vio-lence, donor fatigue, and numer-ous other impediments, hope for
peace in the Middle East is stillalive, says a panel of experts. RitaHauser of the Hauser Foundationmoderated the panel at the Insti-tute’s “9/11 a Year On” confer-ence. The panel included MartinIndyk of the Brookings Institu-tion, Shibley Telhami of the Uni-versity of Maryland, and GeoffreyKemp of the Nixon Center.
Indyk cited four reasons forhope in spite of the seeminglyhopeless situation between theIsraelis and Palestinians. First,there is a sense of exhaustion andwar-weariness on the part of thePalestinians. Second, this battlefatigue is shared by Israelis, as citi-zens express a growing willingnessto make painful compromises toachieve peace and security. Third,Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharonhas political reasons for seekingpeace to build a solid platform forre-election. Finally, the UnitedStates began more active engage-
ment, shifting towhat PresidentBush called a
Prospects forPeace in South AsiaParadoxically, the eventsof 9/11 may have throwna much-needed spotlighton a region rife withconflict and a dangerouslevel of arms.
“Throughout South Asia, thesearch for prosperity and democra-cy is too often overshadowed bythe specter of war,” said ChristinaRocca, assistant secretary of statefor South Asian affairs, at a panelduring the Institute’s “9/11 a YearOn” conference.
Deepa Ollapally, program officerin the Institute’s Special Initiativeon the Muslim World, moderatedthe panel, which included Roccaas well as Strobe Talbott, presi-dent of the Brookings Institution,and Nayan Chanda of Yale Uni-versity.
Rocca described recent admin-istration interactions with Pakistanand India, noting that both sideshave reaffirmed their desire for apeaceful political solution to theirconflict. Kashmir is now firmly onthe international agenda, as isencouraging continued India-Pak-istan dialogue.
Rocca reminded listeners ofconflicts in Sri Lanka and Nepal.While there is hope for a cessationof hostilities in Sri Lanka, Rocca isless optimistic about events inNepal. She said that the adminis-tration hopes to play a productiverole in assisting these nations tosettle their differences, “not as ameddler nor as a mediator, but assomebody whose good offices canhelp bring people to the table.”
Talbott zeroed in on arms con-trol in the region, specifically thenuclear programs of feuding Indiaand Pakistan. He listed five“benchmark issues” of past dia-logue between the United Statesand both India and Pakistan. ■ Getting India and Pakistan tosign the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty; ■ Breathing new life into the Fis-sile Material Cutoff Treaty;■ Engaging both countries on theexport controls on dangerous tech-nology and nuclear know-how; ■ Encouraging strategic restraintto bring the danger of fall-out
See Middle East, page 16
See South Asia, page 16
Bottom, left toright: BarnettRubin; MartinIndyk and Shib-ley Telhami; Zal-may Khalilzad;ZalmayKhalilzad, Barnett Rubin,and MichaelSheehan; RitaHauser.
Another Main Chance forAmerican Leadership
CHESTER A. CROCKER AND RICHARD H. SOLOMON
8
The terrorist attack of a yearago had much the same effecton our country as the attack
on Pearl Harbor of December 7,1941. Overnight it exposed ournational security vulnerabilities,galvanized the American people toembrace a new defense agenda,and laid the basis for global U.S.leadership. What is not clear todayis whether the administration,Congress, and the American peo-ple can come together around acomprehensive, long-term strategyfor international leadershipdesigned to create the conditionsfor global security as well as eco-nomic and political progress in the21st century.
One year into the war on terror-ism, we are demonstrating againthe capacity to deal, alone if needbe, coercively with immediateenemy targets. But, as professionalsoldiers are the first to recognize,successful military actions createbrief windows of opportunity, not
lasting political results. To have enduring strategicimpact, a successful militarycampaign should be viewed asbuying time for constructingpolitical solutions and institu-tional frameworks to copewith challenges and threats.
No nation has more atstake than the United Statesin making a success of thewar on terrorism, and nonation has more to lose if wewaste today’s unique opportu-nity to galvanize international
cooperation. A comprehensivenational security strategy must knittogether responses to the terroristthreat with anti-proliferation mea-sures, the global war on the drugtrade and other criminal businessnetworks (which finance much ter-rorist activity), a program of post-conflict reconstruction and eco-nomic reform for failed and failingstates, and promotion of democra-cy, rule of law, and human rights.
The war on terrorism, thus far,has achieved some remarkable suc-cesses. But these victories could beshort-lived unless we prosecutethis war in a robust political con-text, and implement a broad-basedstrategy to shape surroundingregions. That means using thepanoply of our security-relatedtools: alliances and military assis-tance programs to bolster friendsand train local forces; our lead rolein international and regional secu-rity organizations, such as theUnited Nations and NATO, to
build workable restraints onweapons proliferation and to sharethe costs and burdens of peaceoperations and conflict manage-ment; negotiation and mediationresources; and public diplomacytools and media and educationalresources.
President Bush has successfullygalvanized a major national effortfocusing on the immediate perpe-trators of September 11. As heand the American people weighthe next set of momentous deci-sions, we will do well to focus,first, on how to make the post-conflict phase succeed inAfghanistan. Allies in Europe, theMiddle East, and Central Asiawant to know if we have the willto see this enterprise through tosome acceptable conclusion.
The more fundamental chal-lenge—working with those in theIslamic world who share our val-ues and goals as we confront theextremists—is likely to be a gener-ation-long struggle. We have aprofound, long-term commitmentto achieving a satisfactory MiddleEast settlement. We must contin-ue to do so, basing our approachon the merits of the situation, noton the timing and tactics of possi-ble U.S.-led efforts at regimechange in Iraq. By the same token,a possible U.S. decision to over-turn the regime of Saddam Hus-sein cannot be based on an Arab-Israeli calculus. It should flowfrom a strategic assessment of how best to bring about a positive
9realignment of political forces inthe Persian Gulf/Arabian Peninsu-la. Removing Saddam Hussein isonly one potential stroke on awider canvas—are we going tooccupy and run this region directly,for how long, with what instru-ments, and with what companions?
Similar choices confront Amer-icans and our allies on a range ofrelated issues. Can we develop theideas and instruments for a serious,long-term conversation aboutchange, modernization, anddemocracy with the varied societiesof the Islamic world? How can webest engage the Pakistans, Indone-sias, Irans, and Nigerias? In howmany situations—apart from theMiddle East—should the U.S.play a lead role as peacemaker? InSudan? In Kashmir?
Underlying these questions arestrategic choices for preventing theemergence of evil regimes anddealing with those which arealready with us. We have onlybegun the post–September 11debate on issues of engagementversus containment and isolation,deterrence versus preemption andregime change. This debate needsto be grounded in a sense of whatis politically and strategically sus-tainable in the context of each caseand of the broader network ofglobal relations at the center ofwhich we stand as a superpower.
In sum, there is no quick anddirty military solution to the terror-ism and turmoil brought home tous on September 11. Fifty yearsago this country responded to adirect attack on American territoryby mobilizing for a long-termstruggle. Today, in a very differentworld, we have another uniqueopportunity to build upon ourrecent military success by develop-ing a comprehensive strategy formobilizing domestic resources anda global coalition in support of amore stable and secure internation-al system.
The relationships, collectivesecurity agreements, and multina-tional organizations that, alongwith American power, have main-tained international stability sinceWorld War II must continue to benourished and strengthened,according to Hagel. “These associ-ations and institutions have repre-sented common denominator self-interests through coalitions ofcommon interests.”
Hagel averred that the world is
Global Leadershipcontinued from page 5
the same way the war on organizedcrime can be won. “There will notbe a treaty signed aboard the bat-tleship Missouri, but we can breakits back so that it is only a horriblenuisance and not a paralyzinginfluence on our societies.”
But winning the war is notenough. We have to try to findnew ways to reach out to thosepeople who have not benefitedfrom globalization. “We mustlearn to walk and chew gum at thesame time.”
How Deep Is theChange?continued from page 4
■ Continue to integrate formeradversaries Russia and China intothe international community. ■ Bring a greater sense of urgencyto the environment that we areleaving to future generations.
Concluding, Berger remindedlisteners of these words, spoken byPresident Franklin Roosevelt in1940 and inscribed on the Capi-tol: “We defend and we build away of life, not for America alone,but for all mankind.”
The Purpose of Powercontinued from page 5
Looking Back continued from page 6—as in the case of al Qaeda—represents a shift in motives.
Bremer added that the realquestions might be “Has anythingreally changed? Have we reallylearned a lesson?” He pointed to aneed for improved domestic intel-ligence and for being prepared totake bold—even preemptive—steps.
In sum, terrorist groups havebeen put on notice, and on themost-wanted list. All agreed thatthe initial military phase had beena success. Both international anddomestic mobilization against ter-rorism contributed to that successand remain important for the nextphase. As a result, Afghanistan is aless hospitable place for terroristsand sees a brighter future.
ready to work with the UnitedStates when the cause is clear andjust. He cited the Cold War, theGulf War, and Afghanistan asexamples. “Very few questionedour right to wage war against theTaliban and al Qaeda. It was notonly our right, it was the responsi-bility of the United States to endthat regime and the use ofAfghanistan as a base for globalterrorism.”
Hagel called for engagementdriven by more than cold securitycalculations, but also by a visionoffering hope for prosperity andgood governance. “This is especial-ly critical in the Middle East,where democratic reform is theonly answer to the politics ofhatred, radicalism, and violence,”he said.
Hagel concluded, “The chal-lenges before us are great. But so isthe potential for progress and anhistoric opportunity to help build abetter world. This potential willnot be fulfilled without Americancoalition-building and strong part-nerships of common interests.”
SERBIA
ALBANIA
BOSNIA
CROATIA
MACEDONIA
MONTENEGROKOSOVO
he Institute brought 30young leaders from Ser-
bia and Kosovo together lastSeptember in Washington,D.C., for a week of team-building exercises, skills
training, and dialogue on regionalcooperation as well as appoint-ments with government and non-governmental leaders. The groupincluded leaders of the high-profile Kosovo nongovernmentalorganization The Forum and the Serbian organization Otpor(“Resistance”), which played a keyrole in bringing down SlobodanMilosevic.
The young leaders have metprivately since July 2001 as part ofa continuing program called Part-nerships for Peace (PFP), spon-sored by the Department of Stateand the Institute and overseen byits founder, Institute consultantAlbert Cevallos. PFP aimsinclude building regional coopera-tion by strengthening communica-tion and dialogue, encouragingidentification of common inter-
ests, and facilitating the develop-ment of habits of collaborationand compromise.
Participants first devoted a dayin the northern Virginia country-side for team-building exercises inwhich mutual trust and collabora-tive effort were essential to over-come a variety of physical obsta-cles. These activities built onprevious interaction among theparticipants under the auspices ofthe PFP program, and served tostrengthen ties within this diversegroup.
These intense outdoor activitieswere followed by a day-long prob-lem-solving and negotiation skillsworkshop led by George Wardand Curtis Morris of the Insti-tute’s Training Program. Thisworkshop set the stage and pre-pared participants for a complexthree-day, computer-based exer-cise simulating the resource alloca-tion challenges confrontingnational and international deci-sion-makers in a post-conflict sit-uation. This innovative role-play,
10
Building Regional Cooperation in the Balkans
Young political and civic leaders from Serbia and Kosovo build partnerships
for peace through dialogue facilitated by the Institute.
“The Strategic Economic Needsand Security Simulation Exercise”(SENSE), was created by RichardWhite of the Institute for DefenseAnalyses (IDA), in collaborationwith the Institute, and was madepossible by the support of the U.S.Agency for International Develop-ment (USAID). SENSE modelsthe conditions in an imaginary(but eerily familiar) post-conflictcountry. Players representing gov-ernment officials, private firms,and international donors are chal-lenged to identify and coordinateeconomic, social, and politicalpolicies aimed at bringing aboutrecovery and reconstruction.
For the simulation, the youngSerbs and Kosovars were joined byan additional 19 participants fromUSAID. Some participants playedinternational roles and the restwere divided into three competingand mutually suspicious ethnicgroups. The conflict-seasonedBalkan participants and experi-enced USAID officials appliedtheir real world experiences to the
11
During the recent election season, a strong protest vote hurt moder-ates in Bosnia and Serbia, helped them in Macedonia and failed tounseat them in Montenegro. The voters seem to be protesting the
lack of economic progress rather than returning to virulent nationalism.A Balkans Working Group meeting on September 6 focused on “The
Balkans Election Season: Intractable Problems, Persistent Nationalism.”That meeting and subsequent post-election discussions yield the follow-ing conclusions. The fact that these elections occurred under relativelyfree and fair conditions sends a hopeful signal. In much of the region,however, nationalists hold the upper hand despite the declining threat ofviolence and increased attention to economic issues. Unfulfilled expecta-tions fuel voter apathy and hostility to reform.
■ In Bosnia, economic concerns surpass ethnic identification andnationalism, although the Bosnian Croat community still dreams of itsown entity and nationalists remain dominant in Republika Srpska.Nationalist parties did better than Prime Minister Zlatko Lagumdzijapredicted in a July appearance at the Institute, but a return to violence isnot expected.■ Kosovo enjoyed some of the best-implemented elections in theregion, marred by the post-election murder of Uke Bytygi, a mayor whohad participated in Institute activities. The municipal institutions thoseelections are supposed to empower remain weak. ■ The elections in Macedonia were deemed a success. They were “freeand fair.” Moderate Macedonian parties will govern with an Albanianparty led by a former guerrilla leader. Challenges remain in meetingrequirements of the peace agreement and responding to social and eco-nomic troubles. ■ Having survived his decision to keep Montenegro at least temporarilywithin a common governing structure with Serbia, PresidentDjukanovic’s pro-independence coalition won an absolute majority inParliament, where it will face major economic challenges. ■ Many of Serbia’s voters (approximately 25 percent of the population)are disheartened with politics, leading to an invalid presidential electionbecause more than 50 percent of registered voters did not go to the polls.
Election Season in the BalkansBalkan-watchers review autumn elections in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia.
simulation with enthusiasm,sophistication, and creativity,noted one of the facilitators,Training program officer RayCaldwell. They showed great skillin overcoming differences andfinding collaborative solutions toproblems, even as they played par-ticular roles and wrestled with eth-nic histories and identities.
Members of the group roundedout the week in an open meetingof the Institute’s Balkans WorkingGroup. The young leaders detailedplans for a regional anti-corruptioncampaign and a get-out-the-votedrive specifically targeting Serbs inKosovo and Albanians in southernSerbia. They pledged to help facil-itate inter-ethnic dialogue. Theirlong-term goals include strength-ening government institutions,improving human rights, andassisting the return of displacedpersons. The participants complet-ed their stay in Washington bymeeting with members of theNational Security Council, theU.S. Department of State, andother governmental and interna-tional organizations to discuss thechallenges they all face in theBalkans.
PFP’s work continues and willremain a peace-building resourcein the region. PFP participantsnow constitute a growing networkof activists contributing to theeffort to find non-violent and justsolutions to the many problemsconfronting the people of Serbiaand Kosovo.
Opposite: APartnerships forPeace partici-pant placeshimself in thehands of otherparticipants in atrust-buildingexercise.
Bottom: Part-nerships forPeace andUSAID partici-pants in theSENSE training. See Balkans, page 16
12
My passion for teaching is to make the deep-er connections by asking why history mat-
ters,” says Esther Adams, of the WalworthBarbour American School in Israel, a 2002Summer Institute participant.
The eleventh Summer Institute was the first oneafter the events of September 11, 2001 and echoes ofrelated issues were felt during the 2002 seminar.Twenty-seven teachers from seventeen states, Israel,and Canada gathered for the Summer Institute forSecondary School Teachers on July 28–August 2 tolearn about international conflict issues and integrat-ing those issues into the classroom.
Julie Hansen, a founder of the Stevens School ofPeacham (Vermont), said that her rural students hadnot understood how global events touch their livesbefore the terrorist attack. This has changed. “It hasbrought them closer to adulthood in a way. It is clearthey are needed in the world. They are eager to learnand know it is important to understand. In my class-room I constantly try to remind myself and reinforceto the students that we can be constructive and notdestructive.”
Teaching PeaceChanging
WorldSummer Institute for Secondary
School Teachers connects global
drama to local classrooms.
The teachersspent the week engaging with educational and politi-cal experts from the Institute and Washington’s policycommunity, sharing techniques and experiences, andlearning about new information technologies andtools.
The intensive seminar included both teachingmethods and content:
■ John Rossi of the School of Education, VirginiaCommonwealth University, demonstrated “scoreddiscussion”—a technique whereby students score thequality of their discussions—as one of a number ofteaching techniques presented that would engage students in critical debate on current global issues.■ International affairs experts on various regions andpolicymakers briefed the teachers on current events,conflicts, and global problems. One session focusedspecifically on terrorism. Among others were conflictand the environment, the ethics of military interven-tion, and peace and conflict in Africa. ■ Several participants appeared on Voice of Ameri-ca’s Talk to America to discuss how global issuesimpact their various school settings, from public,urban schools to small, private schools.■ Sessions on new library and information technolo-gies demonstrated tools for connecting students to abroader world. Hansen commented, “I don’t want kidsto feel powerless; they’re not. We can get informationto question why things are and what seems wrong.” ■ Institute executive vice president Harriet Hentges
Bottom: Partici-pants and orga-nizers of the2002 SummerInstitute forSecondarySchool Teach-ers.
There is nothing to read in Afghanistan,” saysAhmed Rashid. With a dearth of radio and TV
stations, an illiteracy rate of some eighty percent, anda nation decimated by war, Afghans ignore mediadevelopment at their peril.
Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and best-sellingauthor, described the prospects for free and indepen-dent media in Afghanistan at a Current Issues Brief-ing, organized with Internews, at the Institute onSeptember 24. Richard Kauzlarich, director of theInstitute’s Special Initiative on the Muslim World,moderated the discussion.
“There are two conflicting needs for media,” saysRashid. First, the central government needs to sendout its messages of peace, reconciliation, and recon-struction. However, the government is hampered bythe lack of necessary infrastructure. Second, a paralleleffort is needed to promote independent media: radioand TV stations, newspapers, and so on. Rashid saysprogress has been slow and it is very difficult to findAfghan groups willing and able to set up radio sta-tions and other media outlets.
Hamid Karzai’s new central government has com-mitted itself to free expression and free press. Bureau-cratic support for starting newspapers and radio sta-tions is limited but there is open encouragement forAfghans to become involved in media. “The trendcertainly is very correct,” says Rashid. “That now hasto be exploited by Afghans and donors to the maxi-mum.”
Rashid described several challenges. A concept ofindependent journalism must be agreed on and incul-cated in the culture. Also, the central governmentmust be pressured to keep its promises on openmedia by enshrining freedom of expression and of the press in the constitution as it is being drafted.
Further, infrastructure requires huge investment.Everything from electricity to tape recorders to print-ing presses is needed. Reliable roads and transport areneeded to build distribution networks. Rashid notedthat in Kandahar and Mazar, cities of more than amillion people each, there is not a single press. “Howare you going to be able to influence people there if
13
you are not going to have media, including some sortof print media?” asked Rashid.
There is also a political challenge in the form ofconflict within the central government over factionalcontrol of government media. Karzai cannot tacklethis challenge alone. Rashid says American pressureis needed to “allow a genuine central government-runTV and radio to project the view of the central gov-ernment rather than the views of one faction.
“Extending the writ of the central governmentacross the country needs media,” added Rashid.Media plays an integral role in building peace anddealing with warlordism, ethnicity, and tribalism.Indeed, everything the Afghans and the internationalcommunity are trying to do to rebuild Afghanistanrequires media—literacy, elections, a new constitu-tion, reconstruction, education, and healthcare.
Some progress has been made. Rashid himselffounded the Open Media Fund for Afghanistan(OMFA), a small fund to promote print media. Theyare funding publications for children, women, andmultiple language constituencies. OMFA funded thefirst satirical magazine in Afghanistan. “It’s annoyedall the warlords,” said Rashid, smiling.
Rashid believes that the development of a free andindependent media in Afghanistan would have alarge impact in the broader Muslim world, and espe-cially in the Central Asia region, by setting a prece-dent for others to follow.
Free Voices in AfghanistanMedia in Afghanistan needs infrastructure, bureaucratic coop-
eration, and political will to aid in the country’s reconstruction.
“
“There are two conflicting
needs for media,” says Rashid.
First, the central government
needs to send out its messages
of peace, reconciliation, and reconstruction. . . . Second, a paral-
lel effort is needed to promote independent media: radio and
TV stations, newspapers, and so on. —Ahmed Rashid
14The “Odd Jobs” CorpsSpecial Police Units fill peace-keeping security niche in Kosovo.
Asemblance of civil administra-tion was beginning to develop
in Kosovo by the time the SpecialPolice Units (SPUs) deployed tothe area between 2000 and 2002.Nonetheless, the SPUs—a con-stabulary force that was part ofthe UN police—landed amonghostile forces, suspicious citizens,and doubtful colleagues. Trainedprimarily for public disordermanagement, the SPUs ultimate-ly became a kind of “odd jobs”corps among peacekeeping actorsin Kosovo, who also included theUnited Nations Mission in Koso-vo (UNMIK) and the interna-
tional security force known asKFOR.
Senior fellow Robert Perito,recently returned from Kosovo,described the original plans forand the eventual reality of theSPUs at a July 25 meeting at theInstitute.
The ten units of 115 officerseach from eight countries weretrained in their own countries, ascomplete units, for crowd controlin the face of public demonstra-tions and violence. Their actualresponsibilities included staticguard duty at events, prisons, fac-tories, and UN facilities; escorting
tary support for “peace stabiliza-tion” to peacekeepers inAfghanistan. Further, Americansupport for the international secu-rity assistance force (ISAF) inAfghanistan and consideration ofits expansion beyond the capital“signal substantial U.S. engage-ment.” This bolstered his descrip-tion of a new-found consensusthat “these issues can often be ofcritical importance to U.S. nation-al security.”
Education and Peace for Mindanao
The Institute’s Education Pro-gram joined the Asian Institute
of Management in Manila in Sep-tember for a certificate course onthe role of peace education inresponse to conflict in Mindanao,Philippines. Education programofficer Alan Tidwell and programdirector Pamela Aall facilitatedthe seminar. Former Institute fel-low Amina Rasul-Bernardo alsoparticipated in the seminar.
Representatives from four uni-versities, mostly based in Min-danao, took part in the meeting.Four tangible outcomes resulted:
When it came to fulfillingtheir original mandate, the SPUsfaced serious obstacles, includinglogistical challenges, miscommu-nication with KFOR, and anever-changing scene on theground. These problems causedmisunderstandings, impactedcooperation and preparedness,and ultimately caused causalities,Perito said.
As the area stabilizes, the ser-vices of the SPUs and otherpeacekeepers are giving way to anascent local administration. TheSPUs will be replaced by similarunits of the Kosovo Police Service(KPS).
Humanitarian Tools of Engagement
Senior fellow Eric Schwartzpresented a project report on
September 24 on “Tools ofEngagement: Saving Lives,Restoring Community, and theChallenge of HumanitarianResponse.”
Do failed states really matter?asked Schwartz. They do matter,he said, but which ones and howto respond remain open questionsamong policymakers.
Schwartz reviewed policy fromthe Clinton administration, withwhich he served, and the Bushadministration—particularly sinceSeptember 11, 2001. He said that the American response inAfghanistan suggests someimportant changes in doctrine, if not in practice.
Schwartz bemoaned the factthat the international communityhas been slow to make good ontheir pledges for Afghan recon-struction. He said that only 30percent of promised assistancehad actually come through.
The Bush administration,though reluctant to commitAmerican troops to internationalpeacekeeping, has provided mili-
Short
Take
s
and Institute president RichardSolomon sought input from theteachers, as frontline educators,into the plans for the Institute’sfuture new headquarters.
The Summer Institute is anannual opportunity to make glob-al and local connections, to learnfrom the past, and to help teach-ers prepare their students for thechanging world they will inherit.
The deadline for applications forthe 2003 Summer Institute is Feb-ruary 2003. For a free brochure,please contact the Education Pro-gram at [email protected] or call202-429-3854.
Teaching PeaceContinued from page 12
Above: RobertPerito, thirdfrom the left, inKosovo.
15■ a rapporteur’s report describ-ing the highlights of the meeting;■ an additional meeting amongthe heads and representatives offive universities to talk about pos-sible next steps including estab-lishment of a peace educationnetwork, a regional or nationalpeace institute, and a peace edu-cation program in Mindanao;■ a listserv of all participants thatremains active; and■ keen interest from the vicegovernor of the AutonomousRegion of Muslim Mindanao,who is also the secretary of educa-tion, in setting up a peace educa-tion program for high schoolprincipals in Mindanao whocould then train their high schoolteachers.
Naoto Kan Discusses JapaneseForeign Policy
An effective Japanese foreignand security policy needs
informed, active citizens and asuccessful relationship with theUnited States, according toNaoto Kan, secretary general ofthe Democratic Party of Japan(DPJ) and seven-term member of the House of Representatives.
Kan spoke at an August 14briefing with Washington-areaAsia experts co-hosted by theInstitute’s Research and StudiesProgram with the MansfieldCenter for Pacific Affairs. Kanwas accompanied by MotohisaIkeda, also a DPJ member of theHouse of Representatives.
The DPJ was originally estab-lished by Kan in 1996 and the“new” DPJ was formed in April1998, unifying four existing parties.
Kan emphasized that the suc-cess of the U.S.-Japanese rela-tionship is a central priority of theDPJ’s foreign policy agenda. Heexplained that his vision for thefuture includes increasing thecapacity of Japanese citizens tomake responsible and informed
On the Hill
decisions regarding their coun-try’s foreign and security policies.
Virtual Diplomacy DirectorsContribute to Security Conference
In July 2002, Virtual DiplomacyInitiative co-directors Sheryl
Brown and Margarita Stude-meister helped develop themesfor the 2002 Dwight D. Eisen-hower National Security Confer-ence, entitled “National Securityfor the 21st Century: Anticipat-ing Challenges, Seizing Opportu-
nities, Building Capabilities,”held in September in Washing-ton, D.C. The conference wasco-sponsored by the WoodrowWilson International Center forScholars, the Conference Board,the Peter F. Drucker Foundationfor Non-Profit Management, theLexington Institute, the UnitedStates Army, and the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (NetAssessment).
Planning,
commitment,
and cash are
vital to
American
contributions
to post-
conflict
reconstruc-
tion.
Planning, commitment, and cash are vital to American contributionsto post-conflict reconstruction. This was the consensus of panelists
at an October 7 briefing, “The Challenges and Lessons of Post-Conflict Reconstruction.” The Institute organized the briefing to pre-sent and discuss potential responsibilities in Iraq, current commitmentsin Afghanistan, and ongoing efforts in the Balkans to congressionalforeign policy staff. Senators Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter spon-sored the meeting.
Panelists included George Joulwan, former commander in chief ofthe United States European Command and the 11th supreme Alliedcommander for Europe, Frederick Barton, former United Nationsdeputy high commissioner for refugees and a founder of the U.S.Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initia-tives, and Daniel Serwer, director of the Institute’s Balkans Initiative.Serwer subsequently published an opinion article in the October 28 Los Angeles Times. Institute president Richard Solomon moderated the panel.
The panel drew on experience in Bosnia and Afghanistan forlessons to apply in a post-conflict scenario in Iraq, as well as moregenerally.
■ Power after war grows from the barrel of a gun. The burden ofadministration, however, should be lifted from the military and handedover to civilian actors as soon as feasible. This requires careful civilian-military cooperation and scheduling.■ Who do you work with on the ground? How do you undo havingbacked the warlords or others for expediency? ■ Conflict prevention remains a priority for managing competing eth-nic groups and building security.■ Civilian police should be on the ground at the same time as the mili-tary. “Rule of law cannot wait,” said Serwer. It is important to preemptthe growth of organized crime and corruption.
Barton summed up the four pillars of reconstruction that are simul-taneously vital: security, governance, economics, and the rule of law.
16
tance of security, noting that theassistance mission will remain astep behind in the reconstructionprocess until security is estab-lished.
The United States’ three maingoals in Afghanistan, according toKhalilzad, were to root out alQaeda, remove the Taliban frompower, and ensure that conditionsfostering terrorism do not resume.He noted that these objectives hadbeen largely accomplished in addi-tion to providing an opening forthe people of Afghanistan to par-ticipate in government.
Khalilzad is concerned that thecomplicated process of movingfrom total instability to transition-al government, Loya Jirga, andelection of a new government hasgone too quickly. On the otherhand, he is frustrated by the slowpace of improving economic con-ditions, establishing an indigenouspolice force, and building a func-tioning judicial system. He calledfor the international community tocome through on the aid promisesmade in Tokyo.
In addition to the vital issues ofsecurity and rebuilding Afghanforces and institutions, Khalilzadnoted two key areas to beaddressed: isolation and capacity.To respond to isolation, trade andeconomic development betweenAfghanistan and other countries inthe region require improvement.Direct financial assistance to thecentral government is necessary tobuild the capacity of the new gov-ernment. He also said we need todiligently pursue the remnants ofal Qaeda.
Finally, Khalilzad focused onthe political track that Afghanistanis currently taking. He is encour-aged that the Bonn Agreementand transitional government weresuccessful. He cautioned that theUnited States must remain com-
Afghanistancontinued from page 6
most often due to courageousleadership rather than the fact thatparties have learned from the past.He is not confident that the cur-rent leadership can or will makesuch a breakthrough, unless theUnited States gets involved.
The panel also considered theregional implications of this con-flict. Kemp argued that Iraq andIran have a vested interest indestroying the Arab-Israeli peaceprocess, while the opposite is truefor Saudi Arabia. Asked about warin Iraq, he said that a quick deci-sive campaign would not changethe situation between Israel andthe Palestinians but if the war goesbadly it could destabilize theregion, particularly Jordan.
All the panelists agreed thatthere is much work to be done tolay and re-lay the groundwork forpeace. Trust between belligerentsmust be built before there isprogress. The United States canplay a role in building trust, as nei-ther Sharon nor Palestinian leaderYasir Arafat can gain the trust ofthe other side alone. Also, theUnited States must recognize andprepare for the effect its actions inother parts of the region have onthe peace process. Finally, theUnited States must pursue its rela-tions in the region with cautionand a careful strategy, being awarethat even small mistakes can havelarge and negative implications.
Middle Eastcontinued from page 7
under control; and■ Promoting continued India-Pakistan dialogue, to diffuse theconflict.
South Asiacontinued from page 7
mitted in the long-term to seeingsuccess in Afghanistan. “The suc-cess of Afghanistan is the successof the United States.”
President Kostunica’s appeal tonational continuity and stabilityproved more reassuring to manyvoters than the plans of reformers,which have not produced visiblegains in the short time since theirimplementation.
To help secure the still fragilepeace in the Balkans, theinternational community can:
■ Re-emphasize engagement andtransition rather than exit strate-gies;■ Improve the rule of law, break-ing nationalists’ link to illegalsources of revenue and endingimmunity for reformers;■ Strengthen self-governance,making elections a means ofbuilding up indigenous institu-tions with real power over policiesthat affect citizens’ lives; and■ Encourage responsible, inde-pendent investigative journalism.
Balkanscontinued from page 11
Talbott said it was sobering tosee how little progress had beenmade on these benchmark issues,with the exception of export con-trols and India-Pakistan dialogue.
Chanda called September 11 abolt of lightening that illuminatedthe key issues in South Asia. Hespecifically cited the new allianceforged between Pakistan and theUnited States and the fact thatthis has brought much-neededattention to the Kashmir issue. Asfor steps toward peace, Chandasaid Pakistan needed to continueits efforts to stop infiltration andcontrol militants in Kashmir, andIndia needed to ensure an impar-tial environment for elections inKashmir.
17InstitutePeopleResearch and Studies programofficer TIM DOCKING appearedon National Public Radio’s (NPR)All Things Considered, speakingabout the Bush administration'spolicy toward Africa on August25. On August 30, he spoke onNPR’s Tavis Smiley Show aboutthe World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg.On the September 20 Africa Jour-nal, a Voice of America televisionshow, he was interviewed aboutSharia law in northern Nigeria.Finally, Radio France Interna-tional interviewed Docking onOctober 3 about ECOWAS’s rolein mediating between the rebelsand government forces in theIvory Coast.
ANNE HENDERSON, programofficer in the Institute’s TrainingProgram, presented a talk onwomen’s leadership and peace-building at the Center for Devel-opment and Population Activitiesin Washington, D.C., on Sep-tember 23.
DEEPA OLLAPALLY, program offi-cer in the Muslim World Initia-tive, published an article, “Path-ways to Security,” in a specialissue, “Securing South Asia,” ofthe New Delhi journal Seminar,published in September 2002.
Senior fellow ROBERT PERITO
briefed a bipartisan workinggroup of congressional staff onSeptember 9 on “Policing thePeace: Lessons Learned andWeapons Required.” The discus-sion focused on the specialrequirements of American peace-keeping and policing operations,including appropriate tools.
On August 6, senior fellow ERIC
SCHWARTZ gave a presentation at
the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies on the Bushadministration’s approach towardpeacekeeping. On September 16,he gave a presentation at theArmy War College on theNational Security Council andforeign policy decision-making.
Grants program officer TAYLOR
SEYBOLT presented a paper enti-tled “Transnational Conflict Con-tagion: Alternative Theories onthe Spread of War” at the Ameri-can Political Science Associationannual meeting in Boston onAugust 31. He also chaired andparticipated as a discussant on apanel called “Can External Inter-vention Control Intra-State Con-flict?”
Director of the Religion andPeacemaking Initiative DAVID
SMOCK addressed a gathering of350 religious leaders from aroundthe world in Palermo, Sicily, onSeptember 2. The Community ofSant’Egidio organized the confer-ence. He gave the keynote at ameeting of the Association ofMuslim Social Scientists in Dallason September 28. His address wastitled “Clash of Civilizations orOpportunity for Dialogue?”
On September 17, Institute presi-dent RICHARD SOLOMON con-tributed remarks to the PoliticsSubcommittee of the Council onForeign Relations’ Task Force onChinese Military Power. On Sep-tember 26, he taped a testimonialto the life and accomplishmentsof Landrum Bolling, a longtimeInstitute supporter and foreignpolicy community icon. The testi-monial is to be used at the dedica-tion of a center named in honor ofBolling at Earlham College inRichmond, Ind.
Education program officer ALAN
TIDWELL gave a public address atthe Centre for Peace and ConflictStudies, University of Sydney,Australia entitled “Ruminating ona Big Mac: Globalization andConflict” on September 18. OnSeptember 23 and 24 he partici-pated in a seminar entitled “Con-flict and Post Conflict: AsiaPacific Dimensions,” and gave thekeynote address on “ConflictAnalysis and Peacebuilding.”
IN MEMORIAM
Ehud SprinzakFormer Jennings Ran-
dolph senior fellowEhud Sprinzak died ofcancer near Tel Aviv,Israel on November 8.He was 62 years old.
Sprinzak was a1997–98 fellow at theInstitute, focusing on“The Dynamics of Politi-cal Terrorism: Toward anEvolutionary Theory.”He was an expert on terrorism, religious radicalism,and the far right in Israel. He served as an adviser tothe late Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
In the last several years, Sprinzak was founderand dean of the Lauder School of Government Poli-cy and Diplomacy at the Interdisciplinary Center inHerzliya, Israel.
“He was trusted by the Israeli right for his will-ingness to understand the Likud perspective andthat of the religious settler communities on thefringe of Israeli political life,” said Institute presidentRichard Solomon.
New Grant Awards
In June and September, the Institute’sBoard of Directors approved the
following new grants.
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, Martin S.Indyk, Washington, D.C. “South AsiaConference: U.S. Policy Towards theIslamic World.” ($30,000)
BROWN UNIVERSITY, Susan Graseck,Providence, R.I. “Choices for the 21stCentury Education Program: Curriculumand Professional Development for HighSchool.” ($20,000)
CARE, D. Paul O’Brien, Atlanta, Ga.“Promoting Human Rights andPeacebuilding in Afghanistan.” ($32,754)
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, AndrewRosauer, Baltimore, Md. “PeacebuildingTraining for Social Change in Mitrovica,Kosovo.” ($40,000)
CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES,Lewis Rasmussen, Washington, D.C.“Kashmir Conflict TransformationWorkshop.” ($35,000)
CENTER ON INTERNATIONALCOOPERATION, Teresa Whitfield,Brooklyn, N.Y. “Friends Indeed: The UNGroup of Friends and the Resolution ofConflict.” ($40,000)
CENTRE FOR POPULATION ANDENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT,Gideon E. D. Omuta, Benin City,Nigeria. “Training for Community-BasedConflict Management in Nigeria’s NigerDelta Region.” ($38,000)
CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY,Elazar Barkan, Claremont, Calif.“Disputed Histories: The Role ofHistorians’ Commissions in ConflictManagement.” ($42,000)
COBBAN, HELENA, Charlottesville, Va.“Violence and Its Legacies: Challenges forGlobal Policy.” ($34,400)
COMMISSION FOR RECEPTION, Truthand Reconciliation, Aniceto GuterresLopes, Deli, East Timor. “Support forResearch on the Nature of Past HumanRights Violations and Recommendationsfor Reform in East Timor.” ($40,000)
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT GROUP,Elizabeth McClintock, Cambridge, Mass.“Enhancing the Conflict ResolutionCapacity of Universities in Northern Iraq:A Curriculum Development Project.”($35,000)
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY, Clifford Bob,Pittsburgh, Pa. “The Marketing of Non-Violence: Movements, Media, andInternational Support.” ($35,000)
FOUNDATION OF INDEPENDENTRADIO BROADCASTING, AndreiAllakhverdov, Moscow, Russia. “RaisingPublic Awareness on the Problems ofEthnic Tolerance and Peaceful Solution ofConflicts.” ($45,000)
FROWICK, ROBERT H., Santa Rosa,Calif. “Mission to Bosnia: An OSCEQuest for Peace with Justice.” ($30,000)
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Herbert C.Kelman, Cambridge, Mass. “RebuildingIsraeli-Palestinian Trust in the Availabilityof a Negotiating Partner.” ($38,000)
HELVEY, ROBERT L., South Charleston,W.Va. “Waging Strategic Non-ViolentConflict.” ($23,800)
INSTITUTE OF PEACE AND CONFLICTSTUDIES, P. R. Chari, New Delhi, India.“Limited War Between India and PakistanUnder the Nuclear Shadow.” ($40,000)
INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP,ROBERT MALLEY, Washington, D.C.“Israel/Palestinian Territories Project.”($30,000)
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTSLAW GROUP, Gaston Chillier,Washington, D.C. “Enhancing CivilSociety Advocacy in the Inter-AmericanSystem of Human Rights.” ($36,900)
INTERNATIONAL MONITORINSTITUTE, Anne K. Harringer, LosAngeles, Calif. “Archives for Peace in theBalkans.” ($40,000)
INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACADEMY,David M. Malone, New York, N.Y. “TheUN Security Council in the Post–ColdWar Era: Boom or Bust?” ($40,000)
IVAN, OROZCO ABAD, Notre Dame,Ind. “Transition to Peace in Colombia:Between Justice and Reconciliation.”($40,000)
MAGHRAOUI, Abdeslam E., Princeton,N.J. “Giving Politics a Chance in theMuslim World.” ($38,000)
MCGILL UNIVERSITY, Middle EastProgram in Civil Society and PeaceBuilding, Jim L. Torczyner, Outremount,Quebec, Canada. “Maintaining CivilSociety and Building Peace Relationshipsin Times of Warfare.” ($40,000)
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ASIANRESEARCH, Donald K. Emmerson,Stanford, Calif. “Uncivil Islam? Muslims,Politics, and Violence in Indonesia.”($43,000)
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW ANDPOLICY GROUP, Paul Williams andJames Hooper, Arlington, Va.“Negotiation Simulations for Kosovo FinalStatus Talks: Part Two.” ($38,150)
RADIO KAMELEON FOUNDATION,Zlatko Berbic, Tuzla, Bosnia andHerzegovina. “Democratic Dialogue: AStep into the Future.” ($38,000)
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, Kurt Schock,Newark, N.J. “Struggling to Reform.”($40,000)
SMYSER, WILLIAM RICHARD,Washington, D.C. “The Refugee Crisis.”($39,500)
STIFTUNG WISSENSCHAFT UNDPOLITIK, Volker Perthes, Berlin,Germany. “Elite Change in the ArabWorld.” ($38,000)
THURSTON, ANNE F., Alexandria, Va.“The Dilemma of Political Reform inChina: Democracy versus Stability.”($40,000)
UNION WOMEN OF THE DONREGION, Valentina I. Cherevatenko,Rostov Region, Russia. “Post-ConflictPeacebuilding.” ($40,000)
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, LorraineBayard de Volo, Lawrence, Kans.“Women’s Non-Violent Action in LatinAmerica.” ($35,000)
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, CindyBergeman and Joseph Buttigieg, NotreDame, Ind. “Teachers as ScholarsProgram.” ($42,866)
18Ins
tituteA
wards
19InstituteAwards
WALDNER, DAVID A., Charlottesville,Va. “Democracy and Dictatorship in theMiddle East.” ($28,000)
Senior Fellows,2002–2003
The Institute’s Board of Directors has selected the 2002–2003 senior
fellows (resident awards) and peacescholars (non-resident dissertationawards) in the Jennings RandolphProgram for International Peace.
MAJ. GEN. DIPANKAR BANERJEE (IndianArmy, ret.), Executive Director, Center forStrategic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka,“Countering Internal Conflict: Lessonsfrom the Indian Army’s Experience,” inresidence through July 2003.
FRANCIS DENG, UN Secretary GeneralSpecial Representative for InternallyDisplaced Persons, “Dilemmas of Self-Determination: A Challenge to AfricanConstitutionalism,” in residence throughJuly 2003.
ROY GUTMAN, DiplomaticCorrespondent, Newsweek, “InternationalHumanitarian Law and the Media: TheCase of Afghanistan,” in residence throughJuly 2003.
VIVIEN HART, Professor of English andAmerican Studies, University of Sussex,“Making Constitutions, Seeking Peace,” inresidence through July 2003.
MICHAEL HARTMANN, InternationalPublic Prosecutor, United Nations Missionin Kosovo, “International Prosecutors andJudges in Post-Conflict Societies,” inresidence January through September2003.
RAY JENNINGS, Former Senior FieldAdviser, Office of Transition Initiatives,U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment, “Participatory Community Revital-ization Projects and Conflict Manage-ment,” in residence through July 2003.
GEN. JEHANGIR KARAMAT (ret.),Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs andChief of Army Staff, Pakistan, “ConflictResolution in South and Southwest Asia,”in residence April through September2003.
COMDR. MARGARET G. KIBBEN, UnitedStates Navy Chaplain Corps, “MilitaryChaplains as Advisers on Religion andDiplomacy,” in residence through July.
PHILIP MATTAR, President, PalestinianAmerican Research Center, “PalestinianMissed Opportunities,” in residencethrough July 2003.
MASIPULA SITHOLE, Professor ofPolitical and Administrative Studies,University of Zimbabwe, “Risk Taking inZimbabwe: The Impact of Mugabe’sPolicies in Southern Africa,” in residencethrough July 2003.
MARIE SMYTH, Chief Executive, Institutefor Conflict Research, Northern Ireland,“The Political and Martial Role of Youthin Violently Divided Societies and theImplications for Peace Processes,” inresidence through July 2003.
JONATHAN TUCKER, Director, CBWNonproliferation Program, MontereyInstitute, “Biosecurity: The Nexus ofPublic Health and International Security,”in residence through July 2003.
LT. COL. GARLAND H. WILLIAMS,United States Army, “Post-Conflict
Reconstruction in PeacekeepingOperations: Redefining the Military Role,”in residence through June 2003.
Peace Scholars, 2002–2003
JOSIP DASOVIC, Department of PoliticalScience, Brown University, “SocialNetworks as a Bulwark against Inter-Ethnic Violence at the Community Levelin the Former Yugoslavia.”
GABRIELA M. FRIED, Department ofSociology, University of California, LosAngeles, “Reconciling Past Legacies:Collective Memory and Trauma inUruguay.”
SUZANNE E. FRY, Department of PoliticalScience, New York University, “WhenStates Kill Their Own: Understanding theLegitimation Process.”
NAVEEDA KHAN, Department ofAnthropology, Columbia University,“Authorizing the Muslim SpeakingSubject: Ideological Formations andReligious Speech in ContemporaryPakistan.”
JOHN T. KING, Department ofEducation, University of Washington,“Education for Mutual Understanding:The Case of a Cross-Cultural ContactProgram in Northern Ireland.”
BETSY O. KONEFAL, Department ofHistory, University of Pittsburgh, “Rights,Identity, and the Politics of Concientiza-ción: Organizing for Racial and SocialJustice in the Guatemalan Highlands,1960–2000.”
ERIN L. MCCANDLESS, School ofInternational Service, American University,“Rights or Redistribution? Resistance orParticipation? Civic Dilemmas, Strategies,and Impacts on Peace and HumanDevelopment in Zimbabwe.”
DANIEL MONTERESCU, Department ofAnthropology, University of Chicago,“Jewish-Arab Relations, Urban Space, andthe State in Palestinian-Israeli MixedTowns, 1948–2002.”
VICTOR A. PESKIN, Department ofPolitical Science, University of California,Berkeley, “Conflicts of Justice:International Criminal Tribunals and thePolitics of State Cooperation.”
REBECCA P. SEWALL, Institute forConflict Analysis and Resolution, GeorgeMason University, “Bartered Peace:Women and Conflict ManagementStrategies.”
Left: The2002–2003 classof senior fellows.
United States Institute of Peace1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20036-3011www.usip.org
FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Washington, DC
Permit No. 2806
Recen
t Pub
licatio
nshe following Institute publications are available
free of charge. Write to the Institute’s Office ofPublic Outreach, call 202-429-3832, or download
them from our website at www.usip.org.
■ The Israeli Military and Israel’s Palestinian Policy: FromOslo to the Al Aqsa Intifada, by Yoram Peri (Peaceworks47, November 2002)
■ Putting Peace into Practice: Can Macedonia’s NewGovernment Meet the Challenge? by Brenda Pearson(Special Report 96, November 2002)
■ Simulating Kosovo: Lessons for Final Status Negotiation(Special Report 95, November 2002)
■ U.S. Negotiating Behavior (Special Report 94, October2002)
■ Islam and Democracy (Special Report 93, September2002)
■ The Chaplain’s Evolving Role in Peace and HumanitarianRelief Operations, by Captain Paul McLaughlin(Peaceworks 46, September 2002)
■ Kosovo Final Status: Options and Cross-BorderRequirements (Special Report 91, August 2002)
■ Islamic Extremists: How Do They Mobilize Support?, byJudy Barsalou (Special Report 89, July 2002)
■ Smart Partnerships for African Development: A NewStrategic Framework, by Richard Joseph (Special Report88, May 2002)
■ Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Lessons from the Past,Ideas for the Future (Special Report 87, May 2002)
■ Advancing Human Rights and Peace in a Complex World(Special Report 86, April 2002)
■ Training for Peace and Humanitarian Relief Operations:Advancing Best Practices, by Robert Schoenhaus(Peaceworks 43, April 2002)
■ Enhancing International Civilian Police in PeaceOperations (Special Report 85, April 2002)
■ Serbia Still at the Crossroads (Special Report 84, March2002)
How GermansNegotiateLogical Goals, PracticalSolutionsW. R. Smyser
Offers diplomats and business-people an incisive portrait oftheir German counterparts and
illustrates Germany’s abiding search for security, sta-bility, and community. A separate chapter focuses onbusiness and economic negotiations. The conclusionlays out basic strategies and tactical pointers andexplains how to avoid mistakes. January 2003 ■ 268 pp. ■ 6 x 9$17.50 (paper) ■ 1-929223-40-4
Case Studies in Japanese Negotiating BehaviorMichael Blaker, Paul Giarra, and Ezra Vogel
Explores four recent U.S.-Japanese negotiations—two over trade, two over security-related issues—and explains the cultural as well as political, institu-tional, and personal factors. A concluding chapterdraws out common threads and suggests how U.S.negotiators can maximize negotiating efficacy.November 2002 ■ 178 pp. ■ 6 x 9$12.50 (paper) ■ 1-929223-10-2
To order, call 800-868-8064 (U.S. only) or 703-661-1590
