P ACE · 2010-10-08 · International Parliamentary Conference on Peacebuilding CPA UK 1 – 5 February 2010 5 Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s

P ACEBUILDING

Tackling State Fragility 31 January – 6 February 2010 London & beLFast

International Parliamentary Conference on Peacebuilding:

CPA UK

in partnership with the Northern Ireland Assembly

International Parliamentary Conference

on Peacebuilding: Tackling State Fragility

Summary Report

1 – 5 February 2010 London and Belfast

http://www.cpaukbranch.org/2010/02/12/cpa-uk-gathers-international-mps-in-the-uk-to-discuss-peace-in-fragile-states/



International Parliamentary Conference on Peacebuilding CPA UK

1 – 5 February 2010 2

Contents

MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London .................................................................... 4

Welcome and Introductions ............................................................................................................... 4

Keynote Addresses: Pathways to Peace, Security and Democracy – The Role of Parliamentarians . 8

Implementing Peace and Security Policy: Cross‐Government Approaches and International Engagement ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Scrutinising Multilateral Peacebuilding Actors: Parliamentary Networks in Action ........................ 25

TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London ................................................................... 31

Keynote Address: Sustainable Peace, Security and Development ................................................... 31

Rebuilding Public Financial Management Systems: Moving Beyond Aid Dependence ................... 36

Harnessing the Power of Business: Part of the Solution? ................................................................ 40

Reinstating Rule of Law: The Foundations for Development and Community Security .................. 46

Effective Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) of Conflict Actors: Women and Men, Girls and Boys .......................................................................................................................... 52

WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London ............................................................. 58

Keynote Address: Parliamentarians and Transitional Justice: No Peace Without Justice? ............. 58

Negotiating Justice and Reconciliation: Perspectives and Experiences ........................................... 62

Peacekeeping for the Long Term: Strengthening Effectiveness and Accountability........................ 67

Parallel Workshops Session 1 ........................................................................................................... 72

THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2010: Stormont, Belfast ...................................................................... 73

Keynote Address: Rebuilding Citizen‐State Relations: Governance Challenges and Opportunities 73

Rebuilding Public Confidence After Violent Conflict: Northern Ireland Assembly Case Study ........ 78

Parallel Workshops Session 2 ........................................................................................................... 88

FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2010: Stormont, Belfast ............................................................................ 89

Workshop Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 89


1 – 5 February 2010 3

Community Visits .............................................................................................................................. 93

Discussion Session: Summing Up and Agreement of Conference Communiqué ............................. 96

Closing Keynote: The Commonwealth, International Parliamentary Diplomacy and Building Peace ........................................................................................................................................................... 99


1 – 5 February 2010 4

SUMMARY REPORT

MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London

Welcome and Introductions

Chair

• Mr Andrew Tuggey DL – Secretary, CPA UK

Session Introduction

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, warmly welcomed all conference delegates, who came from across the breadth of the Commonwealth and beyond. He noted from the outset that the programme was demanding, both physically and mentally. Mr Tuggey explained that the conference would be moving to Northern Ireland midway through the week, and would coincide with the hopefully successful outcome of the peace talks currently taking place there.

Mr Tuggey outlined the security and administrative arrangements for the delegates, and the culture of the Palace of Westminster. He explained that the conference programme offered expert presentations as well as the opportunity for the delegates to contribute through interactive sessions. Workshops would be facilitated by experts trained in the relevant issues, but all sessions were the ‘property’ of the delegates. All the delegates were invited to introduce themselves.

Expectations

After introductions, Mr Tuggey asked the delegates to describe why they had decided to attend the conference and what they expected from it. Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, stated that she was attending the conference because of the tremendous challenges her country was facing. The military was fighting gallantly on Pakistan’s borders; the nation stood on the brink of civil war. She hoped that by sharing the delegates’ ideas for reconciliation she would learn what was best for her country.

Hon. Dr Raphael Masunga Chegeni MP from Tanzania, and member of the AMANI Forum – the Great Lakes Parliamentary Forum on Peace, explained how the Forum was founded to champion peace and stability. He expected the delegates at the conference to work together to identify what powers parliamentarians had to help further these aims.

http://www.cpaukbranch.org/


1 – 5 February 2010 5

Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, came to the conference in the hope that its discussions would not be purely academic, but would address the active involvement of Western countries in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only by talking about such problems honestly and clearly might some tangible changes be agreed.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MPA from Pakistan advocated individuals helping one another to bring about security.

Mr Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik MP from the Maldives told the group that his parliament was very young and could learn about peacebuilding from hearing the experiences of the different delegates from around the world.

Major General Abdus Salam MP, Chairman of the Bangladeshi Parliament’s Standing Committee on the Ministry of Home Affairs, recalled that, upon receiving the invitation to attend, he had been struck by three phrases contained within – ‘the role of parliament’, ‘the role of parliamentarians’ and ‘the parliamentary process’. Ten years into the 21st century, conflict and peacebuilding still held a primary position in the international arena, which meant that they had not been properly tackled. He believed in the role of parliament, and that successful parliamentarians were experts at checking the activities of the Executive branch.

Hon. Alex Adroa Onzima MP from Uganda shared his hope that, helped by the conference, sustainable peace might be brought to all countries of the Commonwealth and that peace might be pursued in those countries outside membership.

Another delegate from Uganda, Hon. Winifred Kiiza MP, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurances, related how the northern part of her country had been at war for the last 20 years. She had taken office in order to seize the opportunity to negotiate peace, but suggested she had not always taken the right approach. As such, she was attending the conference to seek advice.

Hon. Mohamed Shafeek Mohamed Rajabdeen MP from Sri Lanka related how it had taken his country 30 years to defeat terrorism but that it was now experiencing a period of peace, and so parliamentarians must study the finer points of peacebuilding and political stability.

Deputy Cecilia Chacón, First Vice President of the Congress of the Republic of Peru, explained that, although the major terrorist groups in her country had been defeated, pockets of violence still remained. She wanted to find out how to preserve that peace and take this learning around the world.

Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda echoed these ideas. A key question in his mind was how peace could be kept in Darfur and Somalia – areas neglected by the Commonwealth.

Mr Raj Babbar MP from India told the delegates he held close the maxim ‘live and let live’. He believed peace was required for success and development; it was food for civilisation.


1 – 5 February 2010 6

Hon. Theoneste Begumisa Safari MP from Rwanda, recounted the violence his country suffered. He had come to the conference to form with colleagues and friends one voice that said ‘never again’ to genocide.

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho said he found the topic of the conference intriguing, and wanted to understand what was most important to the delegates of the different countries represented.

Dr Ibrahim Gashi MP, Vice Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, described how he was faced with the challenge not only of building peace, but also of building a nation. He wanted to learn from others more experienced in such issues.

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, stated that all countries of East Africa had faced conflict in the last 20 years. Now, there was relative peace and stability, but could it be sustained? He had attended the conference to learn of the causes of conflict in other parts of the world, and what was necessary to attain and sustain peace. Even relatively stable societies had the potential to fall into disunity without the right mechanisms in place. Knowledge of experiences from elsewhere was preparation for the future.

Mr Declan O’Loan MLA from the Northern Ireland Assembly expressed his hope that the current peace talks would reach an agreement and rescue his system of government by the time of the delegates’ arrival in Belfast. He related some of the history of the Assembly, saying it had at times stumbled in the past. He also described how issues such as the devolution of policing and the hosting of parades could cause deep divisions.

Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda thanked all for supporting her country’s entry into the Commonwealth. She was attending the conference to learn how Commonwealth membership could help attract support for the AMANI Forum, which she considered a lone voice in the region.

Dr Mudawi Muhamed Hamed El Turabi MP, Chairperson of the Security and Defence Sub‐committee of the Sudanese Parliament, stated that many African and Asian countries were still divided along ethnic or religious lines. All those attending the conference had an important role to play in removing these divisions and ensuring equal opportunities. He had come to the conference to explore how best to achieve this from the cumulative knowledge of others, and with this help build peaceful nations.

Hon. Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, remembered how, when studying in England in the 1970s, very few people he encountered knew where Malaysia was. Now everyone he met was familiar with his country and, meanwhile, Malaysia had reduced the proportion of its population in poverty from 60% to just 5%. He wanted to learn how to continue managing this success.

Ms Moana Mackey MP from New Zealand was hesitant in addressing the conference, coming from a country that enjoyed continued peace and stability. However, she was attending the conference to learn what she could do to assist countries where peace was fragile or non‐existent. A big issue for New Zealand was helping its Pacific Island neighbours, many of which lacked the infrastructure to develop their economies.


1 – 5 February 2010 7

Conference Communiqué

Mr Tuggey drew the delegates’ attention to the draft conference communiqué. This was not intended as a binding statement or a commitment to action, but as a reflection of the view of the conference. He sought a working group of nine delegates to help finalise this document.


1 – 5 February 2010 8

Opening Keynote Addresses

Pathways to Peace, Security and Democracy – The Role of Parliamentarians

How important are parliaments, parliamentarians and parliamentary processes to establishing sustainable peace and security in fragile states? What is the role of a parliamentarian within a fragile state, within the region and as part of the broader international community?

Speakers

• Ms Geraldine Fraser‐Moleketi – Director, Democratic Governance Practice, UNDP; Former Minister and MP, South Africa

• Mr Donald Steinberg – Deputy President, International Crisis Group, Brussels

Chair

• Rt Hon. the Lord Anderson of Swansea DL – Labour; former Chair of the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Select Committee

Sesssion Introduction The Chair of the session, Rt Hon. the Lord Anderson of Swansea DL, noted how impressed he was by the delegates’ previous introductions. The delegates were clearly attending the conference to learn and share their experiences. He related some of his own from working in southern Africa, Rwanda and Somaliland. He was pleased to see how the parliamentary spirit of understanding and compromise was increasingly recognised by aid agencies as being of importance. Good governance was a handmaid to good development, he said. Lord Anderson said he believed that some new and helpful alliances could be formed from the conference. In a globalised world, the failure of one country could spread: whatever happened in Yemen would affect trade routes elsewhere; the drugs or terrorists leaving Afghanistan could harm the rest of the world. Lord Anderson hoped the delegates would work together and take home the lessons they learned.

http://www.undp.org/governance/

http://www.crisisgroup.org/

http://www.parliament.uk/facom/

http://www.parliament.uk/facom/


1 – 5 February 2010 9

Presentations The first keynote speaker, Mr Donald Steinberg, Deputy President of the International Crisis Group based in Brussels, began by noting how timely the conference was, following as it did the disaster in Haiti and the new threats emanating from the Red Sea states. He commented that the International Crisis Group reported on 70 worldwide conflicts every week. His presentation would focus on an overview of the challenges in rebuilding societies after conflict or disaster.

There were six requirements to build stability in a post‐conflict society, Mr Steinberg stated: restore national and human security; build a responsive political system; kick start the economy; ensure a balance of reconciliation and accountability for abuses during the conflict; promote civil society; and achieve the right regional and international balance.

The division between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ issues was now gone. The global implications for failure were now more profound, as a failure to create peace and democratic governance in Afghanistan, Colombia or Somalia, for example, could open the doors to terrorist training camps, promote drugs or foster piracy. At the same time, the resources of the international community, of peacekeepers and observers, were less able to help, as the economic crisis had closed the door to large donors. It was also now understood that, without local ownership of problems and their solutions, the peacebuilding process was doomed to failure.

When looking at countries at risk of suffering from conflict, the International Crisis Group would ask a number of questions. Was governance responsive and did it provide opportunity for political participation? Was the economic system accommodating the ‘youth bulge’ to avoid jobless young men being open to fanatic movements? Leaders loved the policy of ‘divide and rule’, which could characterise conflict‐prone societies. Another consideration was whether a country was located in a stable region, or if it risked violent overflow from neighbouring conflicts. Other indicators were whether violence had been normalised in society, and whether that society was open internationally. Conflict could be considered a mushroom; it grew best in darkness, Mr Steinberg thought. Lastly, past performance was an indicator of future performance. These clues could help determine how prevention should be focused.

Going into greater detail on each of his above‐mentioned points, Mr Steinberg used Haiti as an example. The key to stability there was putting trained, native police on the ground quickly. Alongside this, the country needed disarmament and rehabilitation programmes. In restoring the political framework, it was important to remember that a culture of accountability and transparency was usually the second victim of conflict. Legislative and judicial bodies had a larger role to play in countering this, keeping the Executive honest at the same time. In Mr Steinberg’s view, the quick‐fixes of establishing a unity government or holding snap elections usually did not work.

Following a period of conflict, a country’s central government would have to play a prominent role in mobilising international support and rebuilding the economy. Long‐term development meant reviving agriculture, creating the conditions to attract local and international investment, ensuring the conditions for the equal distribution of investment and, most importantly, creating jobs.

Mr Steinberg noted that one of the more difficult challenges for an economy emerging from conflict was to address past abuses and accountability. All too often, peacemakers would provide


1 – 5 February 2010 10

blanket amnesties, forgiving men with guns for the crimes they had committed against women and children. Through whatever system, ensuring accountability was essential to restoring the rule of law.

Another challenge, too often ignored, was to rebuild civil society within a country. Academics, lawyers, teachers and women were the glue that held together societies, Mr Steinberg said. Too often women were viewed as the victim of armed conflict, but Mr Steinberg had learned they were the key to whether the process worked. By bringing women to the table, you could improve the quality of an agreement reached and reduce the likelihood of a return to war. The single best investment a country could make was in a girl’s education because, if you taught one girl, you taught an entire community.

Mr Steinberg reported that, in his view, comprehensive peacebuilding must recognise the differing but synergistic roles that each country of a region could play. Formal structures, like a friends’ group or conflict resolution committee, could usually help. Haitians would have to come together to remove racial conflict, but the international community had to join then, understand the magnitude of the challenge ahead and show themselves willing to coordinate the different powers.

Frequently parliamentarians assumed that citizens ignored peacebuilding processes. Mr Steinberg warned against this attitude, recounting an example from America’s involvement in Somalia, where in US citizens’ eyes the strategic imperative was negligible compared to America’s duty to help save the lives of those who could not help themselves. We underestimate the importance of citizens’ involvement at our peril.

Lord Anderson introduced the next speaker, Ms Geraldine Fraser‐Moleketi, Director of the Democratic Governance Practice for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and a former Minister and MP in South Africa.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi began by reminding the delegates that the following day, 2 February, would mark the 20‐year anniversary of the lifting of the ban on liberation movements in South Africa and the announcement of the release of Nelson Mandela. Many of those events reflected the importance of people‐to‐people movements across the world and what they could achieve.

The Harare Declaration of 14 December 1989 set the Commonwealth on a new course, that of ‘promoting democracy and good governance, human rights and the rule of law, gender equality and sustainable economic and social development’. It established that the people of Africa were engaged in ending all conflicts through negotiations, based on the principles of peace for all. Peacebuilding had reached a new high on the international agenda, but it was not entirely new. Although the specific contexts of any peacebuilding programmes had to be examined, so too should the will of the region and of the global community to engage. Ms Fraser‐Moleketi thanked the world and the Commonwealth for the part it played in adopting that Declaration. It showed how the convergence of international interests was conducive to peacebuilding.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi emphasised the role and importance of political actors and strong civil institutions in driving peace and stability. The role of parliamentarians was crucial in rebuilding citizens’ trust in such institutions, strengthening accountability mechanisms and reconnecting citizens to the state. Similarly important was the role of parliament and political parties in


1 – 5 February 2010 11

reflecting diversity. Parliaments provided a forum for national dialogue and allowed the aspirations of women and minority groups to be brought to the fore.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi reported that it was estimated that about 40% of post‐conflict countries would regrettably slide back into conflict within 10 years. The challenge to parliamentarians was not only that of achieving peace at a given moment, but sustaining that peace into the future. Parliaments had an essential oversight role to play in reconstruction and in ensuring legislation was passed to address human rights and security. Parliaments could only do that when there was a strong and clear peace agreement, which engaged all political parties and other societal leaders. Success after conflict could not take place without ensuring that the route causes of conflict were addressed by parliament.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi referred to the current crisis in Haiti. In her view, Haiti’s problem was not simply the earthquake, but also the history of uncontrolled international involvement in the country. A parliament must enact policies that address the cause of conflict, establish social justice and promote inclusive participation for all citizens. Ms Fraser‐Moleketi related some of the UNDP’s work in Iraq, where she had learned that communities did not always understand the issue of parliamentary protection – that debates in the house should not translate into conflict outside parliament.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi stated that all laws coming through parliament should be considered with an aim to reduce or avert conflict, giving the example from 1999, when Rwandan women ensured the passage of an enfranchising law on marriage rights. Ms Fraser‐Moleketi also provided an example from Pakistan, where a series of consultations on parliamentary processes had shown some significant improvements that had resulted in better scrutiny. The UNDP recognised national ownership and provided support based on the values of the UN and entrenched in their charters.

Discussion

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, disputed the point made by Mr Steinberg that unity governments would fail after conflict. She agreed, however, with Ms Fraser‐Moleketi that women‐centric legislation had helped to increase political participation in her native Pakistan.

Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda then questioned Mr Steinberg’s point about conflict thriving in darkness; in his view, an open media system could itself promote conflict.

Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, explained that her country was currently amending its electoral constitution, but that attempts to install an electoral system based on a proportional majority had caused a lot of conflict.

Mr Steinberg answered that a unity government could be positive if all the parties involved cooperated. Too frequently, however, parties would not cooperate and so the government could not function. Mr Steinberg conceded the question of media involvement was very difficult. He gave an example of when he had been working for the Clinton administration, and had tried to jam the radio station that had called on Rwandans to kill their brothers and sisters. There had to


1 – 5 February 2010 12

be a limit to free speech, but Mr Steinberg pointed out that the most responsible media was attained through self‐censorship.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi argued that many African countries understood the drawbacks of first past the post, and were increasingly reforming their electoral systems to make them more proportional. A winner‐takes‐all model could exacerbate conflict should there be divisive challengers to leadership. On the media question, Ms Fraser‐Moleketi was concerned about all forms of hate speech, whether they came from the media or not. Regarding unity governments, she felt that they could not resolve all differences, but were capable of helping to release tension if they had the complete buy‐in of all parties.

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, had noticed a trend for coalition governments to be established in countries of conflict, but was unsure whether they were a solution or could be an additional problem.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta wondered if it were really possible to identify the main causes of conflict or if each situation should be treated uniquely.

Deputy Karina Juliza Beteta Rubin from Peru asked if peacebuilding efforts were developed with reference to the contexts of terrorism, people‐ and drug‐trafficking, rape and gender‐based violence.

Mr Steinberg replied with specific reference to Kenya and Zimbabwe. In both cases, the decision to create unity governments in these countries had been taken in order to deal with immediate crises; the unity governments were mechanisms that would draw society together. However, in both cases, more permanent rifts had begun to grow between the government and society, as the former forgot its formative agenda, which was to resolve urgent problems. There had to be recognition that such a short‐term fix could lead to long‐term problems. Mr Steinberg said he thought that fragile societies could be identified through looking at some of the indicators he had identified in his presentation: the rule of law, the unemployment situation, the divisions in society, the stability of the region, the normalisation of violence and the society’s history of conflict.

It was also true that, at times, political parties formed from the legitimate needs of a nation might outlive their usefulness. For example, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was no longer considered a spokesperson for rural people; they were now seen as anarchist terrorists who needed to be defeated. On the issue of women, Mr Steinberg stated that the way in which peace was established within a society was fundamental to the shaping of attitudes about women that that society would hold afterwards. Unless this was recognised and men were given a more active role to play, participating in the reconstruction of society, the random violence of the battlefield could be transferred to systematic violence in homes.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi pointed out the difference between coalition and unity governments. National ownership of the latter was vital, and it must come from organic growth and not be imposed. To Mr Steinberg’s list of conflict indicators, Ms Fraser‐Moleketi added the lack of resources and infrastructure. She also cautioned that care should be taken to ensure that no one was excluded from the table when there were intentions to resolve conflict.


1 – 5 February 2010 13

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland confessed that he had come to the conference with few expectations. His country had forgiven actors in its conflict on both sides, and had formed a unity government, which appeared to contradict Mr Steinberg’s advice. People in Northern Ireland seemed to believe their problems were entrenched, so he asked what could be done for them to see that conflict was transient.

Dr Fanie du Toit, Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation of South Africa, asked what those pursuing peace should do if they found Mr Steinberg’s advice contradictory. Peace should be locally owned but amnesty was never acceptable, so what if local leaders said amnesty was the way forward?

Mr Steinberg clarified his statement: he did not believe amnesty was unacceptable. Very frequently, it was a necessary step to draw people together in forgetting the past. However, Mr Steinberg supported the UN’s position that it should never be offered to perpetrators of genocide or war crimes. It should also always be explained to a society in order to gain support, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) had done in South Africa. It must also reflect local conditions. On Northern Ireland, Mr Steinberg underlined the importance of finding common ground crossing religious or ethnic divisions.

Ms Fraser‐Moleketi stated that there were no quick fixes to end conflict in society. Context was very important, but each situation could draw on lessons from elsewhere. In South Africa, the ‘sunset clause’ was used to force the closure of specific transition arrangements. It would not stop a government from being formed of different parties, but did ensure the Executive was held to account and that MPs were reminded of the timeframes attached to their intentions.


1 – 5 February 2010 14

Policy Priorities for Tackling State Fragility: Perspectives

What are the causes of fragility? What are the drivers of violent and non‐violent change? How can state resilience be built up to avoid a return to violent conflict? What policy areas should parliamentarians prioritise to tackle state fragility? What principles should guide policy development and scrutiny?

Speaker

• Professor James Putzel – Director, Crisis States Research Centre, London School of Economics

Chair

• Baroness Verma – Conservative; Opposition Whip and Spokesperson for Children, Schools and Families, and Universities and Skills

Session Introduction Chair of the session Baroness Verma, UK Opposition Whip and Spokesperson for Children, Schools and Families, and for Universities and Skills, introduced the first speaker, Prof. James Putzel, Director of the Crisis States Research Centre from the London School of Economics. Presentations Prof. Putzel began by emphasising the importance and capability of the Commonwealth to tackle state fragility by focusing on specific problems, such as those addressed earlier – voting systems and coalition governments.

Firstly, no one agreed on what state fragility was, Prof. Putzel said. The OECD’s definition was qualitative, whereas the World Bank’s was quantitative, as it was based on financial indicators. Recognising the problem of fragility was crucial to attract aid and international development, he commented. Some definitions linked fragility to poverty, yet many poor countries had been stable for a long time and, contrastingly, economic development might cause instability. A state needed to be able to maintain stability to protect the population from physical violence and it required some ability to raise revenue, particularly if faced by rivals with money. State rules had to become the predominant rules of the land.

Prof. Putzel stated that resilience ultimately caused economic development. The factor determining the trajectory of a state was its political organisation. To be resilient, a state needed to include the elite members of society to ensure they followed the legitimate state rules, but a more disciplined form of action was needed for development. Politics had to be arranged in a

http://www.crisisstates.com/

http://www.crisisstates.com/


1 – 5 February 2010 15

way that supported dynamic processes for development. This was not all about good governance, Prof. Putzel thought, and eliminating patronage, because parliamentary members were also expected to deliver programmes of development to their local electorates. The parliament’s role to shape the organisation of the state required standards of probity concerning finances and behaviour. It was important to talk practically about the dimensions of intervention that could make a difference.

Prof. Putzel therefore thought it prudent to pursue politics in a way that appealed to constituents as citizens, rather than appealing directly to different groups based on their ethnicity, identity, language or religion. Identity politics could promote fragility by mobilising alliances that were based on minority rights. Rwanda had needed to introduce curbs on its rules determining political competition in order to ensure that minority rights were better protected. Historically, the most important and resilient political organisations had emerged from within government, rather than shifting behind personalities of the day, Prof. Putzel commented.

Prof. Putzel had seen how parliamentarians were asked to contribute a lot: to promote probity, promote society, instil gender equality, ensure free markets, etc. From the lessons of research and experience, to capture peace and built it into a development process, strategic choices had to be made. A parliament must develop the capacity to scrutinise its country’s security arrangements, including those governing the military and police. A second priority was for parliaments to review and supervise governmental budgets, particularly in fragile states that had to direct the inflow of foreign aid. Ministries of finance had to be empowered with the capacity to check their financial processes in order to make key political decisions about how resources should be spent.

Prof. Putzel had seen how aid being sent to productive sectors in developing economies had sharply fallen while the aid going to governance and humanitarian purposes had increased. Simultaneously, the number of government experts in agriculture or manufacturing, for example, had decreased. Prof. Putzel stressed how important it was for parliamentarians to have knowledge of the economic bases of their countries and the patterns of development that were most deserving of financial support. Investment anywhere required the active involvement of the state in promoting a strategic view, whether it was to transform the coffee sector or to improve urban infrastructure. Parliamentarians also needed the capacity to design and implement law, if they were to tackle state fragility seriously.

Discussion

The first point from the floor came from Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, who noted that developing countries had different priorities to the developed world. She could not create enough jobs for the people of Pakistan, and wanted help from the international community to initiate greater agrarian reforms.

Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda highlighted that the problems of Africa could derive from the partitioning that went on in the colonial era. He thought that outside involvement could undermine Africa’s own attempts to secure peace, as the international community might attempt


1 – 5 February 2010 16

contradictory and therefore conflicting approaches. Hon. Banyenzaki asked how a democracy could promote Africanisation, without leading to tribalism and states fighting each other.

Bard Hoksrud MP from Norway requested some comment on the financial crisis, and whether it had affected countries’ efforts to secure peace and stability.

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho wanted more detail on how different countries divided their state powers, particularly from South Africa, where the president was also the leader of the ruling party and therefore controlled both the Parliament and Executive. He thus thought members of the political party were inclined to vote with the president and not permitted to exercise their independence.

Addressing first Pakistan, Prof. Putzel stated that there was a need to look at the country’s potential, specifically its agricultural sector. Some international aid was required, but more attention also had to be paid to the northwest of the country, the development of which was being ignored while conflict persisted there.

Turning to Africa, Prof. Putzel’s research had shown that one of the biggest blocks to the development of democracy around the world had been international military intervention. Democracies did not attack each other, he stated; they attacked developing countries, and they had experienced little success in trying to remove fragility from such countries. Africa offered hope with its history of strong local statesmen rising out of their own conditions.

It was Prof. Putzel’s view that fragile states had not been as affected by the financial crisis as other parts of the world, because their banking sectors were not as developed. However, he had seen in different countries’ mining sectors, for example, that plans for exploration and development had immediately been halted when their foreign owners’ investment resources had begun depleting. Again, this was pointing to the need to better understand processes of production.

Prof. Putzel stated that the determinant of economic success was not the strength of the Executive authority but its foundation. A strong Executive was necessary to preside over development, but at the same time those leaders had to be responsible to political or parliamentary organisations.

Hon. Wavel Ramkalawan MNA, leader of the opposition party in the Seychelles, asked for Prof. Putzel’s view on the new EU policy to award aid intended as budgetary support without ensuring it was controlled by supervisory restrictions. He asked how that would help when control processes were weak, and a ruling party might control the direction of that aid.

Hon. Surendra Dayal MP, Chief Government Whip from Mauritius, quoted Gandhi, who had said that, ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.’

Mr Imthiyaz Fahmy MP from the Maldives reminded the delegates that 2008 had seen the first democratic constitution and multi‐party election in his country. Now, the Maldives faced the requirement to reshape its civil service, but Mr Fahmy thought the opposition party was not cooperating. What would be the best way to handle this situation?


1 – 5 February 2010 17

Hon. Juliet Kavetuna MP from Namibia asked what mechanisms could be used to control aid arriving from Western countries.

On questions of aid and NGOs, Prof. Putzel recalled a study showing how aid would very often arrive without accountability. Wherever that aid eventually went would become an important site for decision‐making and patronage. He thought there had been some positive examples from Afghanistan and Liberia of donors working with government officials to create co‐management systems.

Responding to the quotation from Gandhi, Prof. Putzel pointed out that, in the face of the proposition that conflict would emerge from greed, to do away with conflict one also had to remove the unmet needs of the population. Turning to the Maldives, Prof. Putzel cautioned against any reduction in the civil service that was too sudden, and advised that any changes had to be introduced gradually.


1 – 5 February 2010 18

Implementing Peace and Security Policy: Cross‐Government Approaches and International Engagement

How can international engagement better support local peacebuilding strategies? What strategies do governments adopt to coordinate responses to state fragility? What are the benefits and challenges associated with implementing cross‐government approaches? How can parliamentarians work to strengthen government peacebuilding strategies? How can the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding support this?

Speakers

• Mr David Ashley – Regional Conflict Advisor – South Asia, British High Commission, Sri Lanka

• Mr Rory Keane – Team Leader, International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

• Mr Phil Vernon – Director of Programmes, International Alert, London

Chair

• Baroness Faulkner of Margravine – Liberal Democrat; Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for Home Office

Sesssion Introduction Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, introduced the three speakers for the session: Mr David Ashley, Regional Conflict Advisor for South Asia and British High Commissioner for Sri Lanka; Dr Rory Keane, Team Leader for the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) of the OECD; and Mr Phil Vernon, Director of Programmes for International Alert in London. The session was being chaired by Baroness Faulkner, UK Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Home Office issues. Baroness Faulkner began by outlining some of the work Britain and other countries had done on transitional economies. She thought such studies had often ignored the human dimensions of post‐conflict areas and had neglected the work of other states. Presentations

Mr Ashley began his presentation by defining the role of a regional conflict advisor as someone who worked to promote peace through cooperation with local people in a fragile region. They were part of the Conflict Pool, an experiment by the British Government in which the Department for International Development (DFID), the FCO and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) were working

http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3343,en_2649_33693550_41840710_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.international-alert.org/


1 – 5 February 2010 19

together to prevent conflict. This was rationalised by the notion that prevention was cheaper than cure.

Mr Ashley continued by outlining the five broad programmes of the Conflict Pool – Africa, Middle East, Wider Europe, South Asia, and a thematic programme of support for international organisations. All decisions required of the Pool were made together by the three above‐mentioned governmental departments. From Mr Ashley’s own experience some of the programmes included: supporting confidence‐building measures, such as those at Kashmir’s line of control between India and Pakistan; funding and supporting peace processes, such as AMANI’s; and supporting grassroots reconciliation initiatives. The Conflict Pool would fund other initiatives, too, such as those working to reform different country’s military and improve civilian oversight of that military. Key to all this work was the need to understand a conflict through joint local/international analysis of that conflict, then to prioritise what action was most likely to achieve the goal of preventing or reducing future or current conflict.

Mr Ashley confirmed that the Conflict Pool was genuinely cross‐governmental, even though there were differences in approach between the three partners. Co‐location of members of each department, the capability of IT and a strong ministerial steer were cited as important factors supporting this project’s goals. This combination of factors had resulted in a quick and flexible funding resource, which itself was a critical determinant of success in fast‐moving crisis situations. The approach taken by the Conflict Pool had also resulted in certain advantages in working quickly across borders and in supporting activities that did not qualify for inclusion into the remit of the Office for Development Assistance (ODA). The Pool could therefore engage in pre‐emptive diplomacy and effective peacekeeping.

Mr Ashley reported that the Pool’s funding had been reduced and was inconsistently awarded. It should be able to improve its monitoring and evaluation activities, but this was difficult when conflict areas were distant and dangerous and the contributions it made could only be small. The amount of money allocated might be based on the size of the conflict or its perceived importance, he explained. Another challenge was to determine the Pool’s goal either to fund a number of small projects or to engage in one specific area. This was difficult when DFID already had a large role in conflict prevention.

Mr Ashley said that he hoped the work of the Conflict Pool would help the delegates to appreciate that donor governments could be useful in supporting conflict prevention and that cross‐governmental work brought practical benefits if it was appropriately encouraged and its goals were modest. The UK and other governments could make a contribution, but it should be recognised that this contribution was likely always to be small. War and peace were ultimately in the hands of the country and their parliamentarians, Mr Ashley concluded.

Dr Keane began his presentation with an explanation of the purpose of INCAF, which he said was to bring donors and the international community together in developing best practice and a coordinated approach to dealing with issues relating to conflict and fragility in the developing world. The goal was for donors to speak with one voice and to learn from their mistakes. He said he hoped to share some of INCAF’s good practice and add to the debate defining the role of parliamentarians.


1 – 5 February 2010 20

Dr Keane summarised how the international community comprised experts in the field of peacebuilding, like Interpeace and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. Too often, mid‐ranking civil servants would take on the role of peacemaker and post‐conflict states when better forms of international expertise were available for them to utilise, he thought. Peace agreements would tend to be overly politicised and formed as a result of the bargaining of numerous agents. Dr Keane believed it was more important to involve development actors from the outset. Without a ‘peace dividend’, there could be no sustainable peace. It was not helpful in achieving that sustainability if those involved in the implementation of peace were the same people involved in negotiating it.

Dr Keane also encouraged parliamentarians to gain a stronger grasp of the causes of conflict. He had seen that research was sometimes too superficial and would fail to identify the champions of change. For example, it was too easy to see Darfur as a conflict of Arab versus Africa, and sideline more nuanced issues such as the availability of grazing land, the regional dynamic and many others, in favour of this more simplistic narrative. Peace could only be given a chance through support of grassroots opportunities and when local leaders were willing to take a chance.

Dr Keane clarified that donors and the international community should not think of themselves as ‘doing’ peacebuilding; they could only ever support peacebuilding. As such, a greater awareness of a policy of ‘do no harm’ needed to be front and centre to all actions. The international community should also try harder to appreciate and learn what the specific sources of legitimacy in a country or region were. They differed from nation to nation.

To deal with state fragility, governments needed comprehensive, sustainable and holistic solutions, Dr Keane believed. The OECD’s work seemed to recommend certain lessons, the first of which was to acknowledge that statebuilding had to be an endogenous process. Dr Keane took the example of Haiti and gave three ways the international community could support the work going on there: by enhancing cooperation on the ground; by helping the private sector to engage with that work; and by supporting the government to put a strategy in place that would rebuild the country. Mr Ashley had shown that the international community also needed to work across governments to be effective on the ground, and Dr Keane agreed this was evermore important when there was no longer a division between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ security across the world. The easiest way to create this incentive for cross‐working among civil servants would be through a unified whole‐of‐government budget line.

Dr Keane also advocated the promotion of integrated peacebuilding programmes on the ground. Maybe these could decommission weapons, improve livelihoods and reduce crime, he suggested. The international community knew of ways to do this, so must begin considering different, less obvious routes to supporting peace.

Dr Keane believed it that appeared, from the studies of the OECD, that parliament and parliamentarians had a large role to play in scrutinising the effectiveness of development aid. There was no better way to operationalise local ownership than by ensuring international aid was spent effectively and sustainably. A secondary role for parliamentarians was in general oversight and control mechanisms, which were nowhere more important than in the reform of security systems, by which Dr Keane meant democratic and hence independent control of the armed forces, police and judiciary. Finally, parliaments had an important role in building the capacity of


1 – 5 February 2010 21

other parliaments, because parliamentarians’ experiences made them better placed than any other group of people to do this. A well functioning legitimate state should have a strong relationship with its society, but only if parliamentarians channelled this role.

The OECD was supporting an International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding to enable donors and partners to come to a shared understanding of what those terms meant, what their objectives were and how they related to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Dr Keane hoped the countries of the Commonwealth would be represented in April’s inaugural meeting of this Dialogue.

Mr Vernon took over with a focus on gender, beginning with some definitions. Who we were and how we acted were shaped by how society viewed us and expected us to act, he said. For example, most statues in London were of men on horses holding weapons. Britain was a martial society and this was how it represented men. Mr Vernon focused on the ‘building’ element in his definition of ‘peacebuilding’, which he saw as the construction of the ability to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence. No society was as good as it could be and each had to learn how to improve itself without competing in conflict. The international community had a role to play, but really this was the duty of the fragile states themselves, Dr Keane thought. He encouraged the delegates to use the experts available to them, and reminded them that many of those experts were the delegates themselves.

Mr Vernon examined Security Council Resolution 1325, which explained that women and girls were particular victims in times of conflict, whose needs had to be taken into account more than normal. Many different national action plans put these ideas into the local context, as a way to hold government to account for their implementation. However, Mr Vernon saw this Resolution as a limit to the gender issue, for it focused on women as victims with quiet voices, when instead they should be active participants in the process of building a peaceful society. Another problem was that action plans were governmental, but governments were not active agents. Mr Vernon thought it important for ministries of gender to be adequately resourced if they were to take the lead in implementing peacebuilding plans.

Mr Vernon stressed that peacebuilding was a societal endeavour and thus it was vital for political policies and programmes to be focused on societal change. Such programmes needed to look deeply at how society and all of its institutions functioned in forming the long‐term views of the populace. Gender and identity issues were central to such an analysis if societal change was to be enabled.

Mr Vernon recalled a community from western Sudan, in which growing boys were shaped to respond to what they perceived as aggression with violence, and women were required to hold them to account for implementing this role effectively. Men perceived by the senior women not to have met these standards of aggression would be publicly goaded. There was therefore a role for both men and women to perpetuate a pattern of violence. A university had worked with this society by using the same kind of shaping mechanisms to encourage women to encourage men to find peaceful resolutions to problems instead. Mr Vernon urged the delegates to think of creative solutions such as this to manage conflicts and help make progress towards peace.


1 – 5 February 2010 22

Discussion

Mr George Munyasa Khaniri MP from Kenya asked Dr Keane to expound on the leading role parliaments could play in exploring the communication between state and society.

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan of Pakistan, wondered what the international community could do to bring India to her country’s negotiation table. Her second question was on how strong governments’ role could be when working to attain peace by making changes to gender roles.

Hon. Adan Kenyan Wehliye MP from Kenya looked at the issue of piracy and explained that some of the attempts to prevent this attempted over the last 20 years had not been possible because of divergent interests. His country had recently decided to put this issue aside in order to resolve its differences with neighbouring states.

On the first question, Dr Keane gave an example from the EU which, for a long time, had been trying to close the gap between Brussels bureaucrats and the citizens of the continent. Recently the parliament had worked on legislation that would reduce and harmonise mobile phone roaming charges. This might have had a greater effect on people’s appreciation of the parliament than any changes made before, Dr Keane said. Make legislation relevant to what people really want, he concluded. Another approach might be to invite civil leaders to attend parliamentary sittings; parliament should not be seen as an exclusionary zone.

Mr Ashley prefaced his remarks on Pakistan and India with the view that this was one conflict in which the international community needed to act behind the scenes, because of the complicated sensitivities involved. It was to everyone’s benefit that the relationship between these two countries had improved and there was a rising public goodwill to make it even better. Pakistan sympathised with what had happened in Mumbai, Mr Ashley commented, but they were seeing similar terrorist attacks within their own borders. It was also understandable that India wanted action against those who had supported the bombings. Baroness Faulkner advised that smaller countries could also offer the hand of friendship.

Mr Vernon thought it possible for governments to create an enabling framework that would foster creative ideas for change. He thought that deeper investigations into the causes of piracy around Africa were required, as a resolution of conflict in Somalia would be insufficient to address the issue. Governments were likely to be limited in their scope, so problems of this scale had to be discussed more broadly.

Senator Mobina Jaffer QC from Canada continued on Darfur, where she thought the hardest challenge had been to involve women and issues of their gender in the peacebuilding discussions.

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland had detected a disconnect, in which international aid agencies worked with governments but those governments ignored parliamentarians – a problem that affected developed as much as developing nations. It was not enough just to reduce roaming charges, he commented.


1 – 5 February 2010 23

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland said he was disturbed by the question of how someone could participate in peacebuilding without being labelled a ‘sell‐out’ by their own people.

Dr Keane described how the OECD’s network on gender was also trying to move outside of the traditional focus on women as victims, and instead was looking at aid effectiveness, empowerment and how to bring women to the negotiating table. They had seen how the rhetoric in this area had often failed to match the reality. He went on to advocate the importance of parliamentary oversight, although he had often found that one of parliaments’ biggest enemies could be the Executive, when that Executive did not take its Legislature seriously.

Mr Vernon had also found it difficult to involve women more in peacemaking processes, although it was almost more important that they were involved in peacebuilding, he thought. He saw that the real leaders of societal change were those who took the risk of being labelled as a ‘sell‐out’ in order to enact the changes that they believed were required. How these changes were creatively framed was important; for example, by calling them ‘economic improvements’, they might be seen to better meet a community’s perceived desires.

Hon. Ibrahim Matolo MP from Malawi asked if the Conflict Pool split funding equally between the three governmental departments involved in this programme. He also asked what could be done to improve the sensitive areas where parliament had no oversight, such as defence ministries.

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya believed that the money given by the international community to solve conflicts usually went to logistics instead. Foreign governments could give with one hand and take away with the other. She had also seen that conflicts rarely started overnight, and wondered what the international community could do to intervene before they began. It was the view of panellists that society would prescribe gender roles, but poorer governments could only emulate what the international community was doing.

Sharjeel Inam Memon MPA from Pakistan questioned what the CPA was doing to prevent drone attacks in his country.

Hon. Dr Raphael Masunga Chegeni MP from Tanzania, and member of the AMANI Forum, stated that he had never seen an African or third‐world country manufacturing weapons; this business was owned by the international community. He asked how they could be the ones accountable for aid support on this basis.

Mr Ashley explained that the Conflict Pool comprised of equal contributions from the three UK partner departments. In addition, the British Development Fund, which was controlled by DFID, was far larger than the Conflict Pool. The problem was not that the Pool had to share the burden with the British Development Fund, but that its ambitions were restricted by the amount it could contribute when compared to the totality of this country’s international aid funding.

It was also clear to Mr Ashley that parliaments must spend a lot of time scrutinising departmental budgets. It was not his experience that the international community was taking back the money it gave as aid, although he admitted much of this money came with significant overheads. The Conflict Pool had been trying to prevent conflicts before they began by assessing the local situation carefully when events in a country seemed to indicate a risk. However, if those


1 – 5 February 2010 24

countries’ governments themselves did not accept there was a problem, it could be very difficult for any international agent to intervene.

Dr Keane agreed that presidents or security chiefs often did not permit parliamentary oversight of their areas of control, but parliaments could help by trying to establish a security committee, instigate a national security strategy and push for development of an accountable national security council that included a representative from parliament.

Mr Vernon highlighted that many of the delegates’ questions had touched on the subject of hypocrisy. He hoped that this conference could have an honest discussion not dictated by geo‐political protocols, and stated that aid should not be separated from foreign policy. Foreign policy should enshrine any nation’s ambition. He hoped that everyone in the UK would ask their government questions about where that country’s aid was going.

On the question of drone attacks, Baroness Faulkner believed it the responsibility of Pakistan’s government to take up diplomacy and reassure the US it was in control of its borders.


1 – 5 February 2010 25

Scrutinising Multilateral Peacebuilding Actors: Parliamentary Networks in Action

What roles have multilateral organisations played in peacebuilding? How have parliamentarians in donor and fragile states scrutinised the activities of these international actors (UN, IMF, World Bank) and better held them to account? What innovative peacebuilding initiatives have emerged from international, regional and national parliamentary networks and partnerships?

Speakers

• Rt Hon. the Baroness D’Souza – Crossbench; Convenor of the Independent Crossbench Peers, UK

• Hon. Dr Juliana Kantengwa MP – Former Secretary General, AMANI Forum – The Great Lakes Parliamentary Forum on Peace, Rwanda

• Dr Sara Pantuliano – Research Fellow and Programme Leader, Overseas Development Institute, London

Chair

• Mr Simon Hughes MP – Liberal Democrat; Co‐Chair, All‐Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues

Session Introduction Before introducing members of the panel, Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, stressed the importance of parliamentarian‐to‐parliamentarian exchanges in strengthening the capacity of post‐conflict states. Presentations Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda began her presentation by explaining that amani was the Swahili word for ‘peace’, and shorthand for the Great Lakes Parliamentary Forum on Peace in Rwanda.

Hon. Kantengwa described how, in fragile states, national budgets were usually drawn up as a result of negotiation between each country’s Executive and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank. Recurrent development budgets were largely donor‐dependent, so national priorities could be defined by donor priorities. This was the case in the Great Lakes region, and had resulted in parliaments being undermined or their roles eroded. This meant that their oversight of the security sector was inadequate or non‐existent.

http://www.amaniforum.org/

http://www.amaniforum.org/

http://www.odi.org.uk/


http://www.conflictissues.org.uk/



1 – 5 February 2010 26

The AMANI Forum was a voluntary independent initiative. Its membership comprised eight nations. Hon. Kantengwa said that AMANI cherished the principles of democratic governance, transparency, accountability, volunteerism, inclusiveness, cross‐party engagement, gender responsiveness and dialogue. In short, it was trying to domesticate the mantra of African solutions to African problems.

The AMANI Forum recognised that instability in one of its countries could affect the others, because conflicts often stemmed from inter‐related causes. Parliaments had insufficient checks and balances on their Executives, because of the inherent weaknesses already mentioned. The exclusion of MPs from political processes could often undermine democratic governance and accountability. AMANI promoted solidarity, peace and stability by using existing channels to lobby for new policies. Hon. Kantengwa believed that, if the network could grow and become stronger, it could strengthen the role of MPs and thus reduce conflict in the region it covered.

Currently, AMANI was using parliamentary activism to spread the message of solidarity, through regional forums and strategic partnerships, for example. Its strength lay in its home‐grown roots, which enabled it to respond quickly to problems, Hon. Kantengwa reported. However, it was challenged by resource constraints – namely it lacked the time and money for decisive action. There was also a high turnover of MPs due to elections and varied different paces of institutional growth among the Forum’s different chapters.

Hon. Kantengwa saw conflict prevention and resolution as collective responsibilities, in which parliamentarians could build bridges of dialogue. The oversight of elections was another goal that parliamentarians were struggling to achieve. However, there was no doubt that regional platforms like the AMANI Forum could be used as mechanisms to strengthen and promote the role of parliamentarians in contributing to sustainable peace in fragile states by holding their Executives to account.

The Chair of the session, Simon Hughes MP from the UK, welcomed Rt Hon. Baroness D’Souza, crossbench peer to the UK House of Lords and leader of independent members. She continued by expressing the general belief that failed and fragile states could act as recruiting grounds for social diseases, including terrorism, economic meltdown, mass migration and criminality. She thought that the clear remedy for this problem was to build more effective states, but this then prompted the question of how to begin doing that.

Baroness D’Souza recounted how new research was beginning to provide some ideas about what a state required and could provide, as well as the nature of the contract between state and citizen. The state had core functions, such as devising and imposing the rule of law, monitoring the legitimate use of violence, administrative control, the management of finances, the creation of citizenship rights and infrastructure services. Should these elements be present, so too would be the prospect of growing trust between the citizenry and its parliament, which would allow for participation, accountability and transparency. Above all, states should allow human endeavour to prosper.

Baroness D’Souza expressed her view that the rule of law should serve as the glue binding all citizens to a distinct set of rules and duties. The citizen should exist in a predictable environment, where they were encouraged to partake in society to contribute to the collective good. Singapore provided an example of how society could develop, as it had from its corrupt 1950s to the global


1 – 5 February 2010 27

economic powerhouse it was now. This was largely attributed to the rule of law, but states could not always change like this. Dysfunctional states could foster divisiveness and tensions, informal judicial procedures and dissonance. The citizen then had to focus on survival, diverting his or her talent from more productive and useful activities. Should we accept that only the state could organise power, it would be judicious to ask what institutions would allow the state to function.

Despite the amount of aid it had received, Baroness D’Souza thought that Haiti remained impoverished politically, because institutional development had made no impact due to inappropriate conditionality, ineffective capacity building, faulty implementation and delusions about what constituted success. This was by no means an isolated example, stated Baroness D’Souza, citing Afghanistan, where government agencies had failed to incorporate local people in building the state. Dozens of donors, agencies and NGOs, with their own priorities, rules and preferences, had created chaos. What people wanted was clear to Baroness D’Souza: reliable water, power, sanitation and local government structures. Instead what people were given was free food. Higher and secondary education were not made priorities, because the MDGs emphasised primary education, but how far‐sighted were they, Baroness D’Souza asked. The major part of the aid budget to Afghanistan was taken up by providing technical assistance to a country with what she saw as a dearth of professional staff.

Baroness D’Souza believed that donor agencies often provided what was expedient politically or economically, before what was actually required. This lack of coordination inevitably resulted in working at cross‐purposes, cancelling out benefits and resulting in wasted resources. Foreign aid, if used incorrectly, could undermine the incipient state, exclude the citizen and disrupt the possibility of a constructive relationship between citizen and state.

Baroness D’Souza insisted that any government was entitled to insist on aid packages that would genuinely assist its country’s long‐term infrastructure. Above all, it was incumbent on any international participant to understand the function of states and how they might be built or enhanced. Failing states were, by definition, unstable and destabilising not only to the region but also globally. Therefore, the international donor community was obliged to take responsibility to ensure that aid worked and that democratic institutions emerged.

The session turned to Dr Sara Pantuliano, Research Fellow and Programme Leader for the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), who had worked in Tanzania and Sudan. She began by stressing the greater level of accountability parliaments could demand from multilateral assistance. The last few years had seen a movement to more integrated approaches between local parliaments and international actors. The Peacebuilding Commission had tried to bring more political attention to coordinating these efforts, but Dr Pantuliano thought its engagement with parliaments had been virtually non‐existent, focused instead on international structures and traditional international partners, like the UN. This was not just its limitation but common to most actors in peacebuilding processes.

Despite the often clear role of parliamentarians, Dr Pantuliano reported that most international assistance would focus on elections, as if they were the end point of a fundamental process of transformation. The result was that parliaments would emerge weak, without the engagement that should follow elections, missing the potential for a forum to mandate the peaceful resolution of problems.


1 – 5 February 2010 28

While Dr Pantuliano believed it true that international donors would tend to bypass parliaments, funding was not essential for parliamentarians to perform to their requirements, she said, as parliamentarians had an inherent mandate of social leadership. Dr Pantuliano had seen from the All‐party Parliamentary Group in Sudan that funding was only needed for travel. She had seen, for example, how women’s caucuses had been active in the promotion of a series of initiatives, across parties and conflict divides, to engage with society and those affected by the conflict in Darfur. They were perceived as being more open than their male colleagues in trying to bridge the divide between the north and south in this country. She continued to advocate for international actors to provide more meaningful support, but it was incumbent on parliamentarians to recognise their own mandate to act.

Discussion

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan queried how the UK was addressing the above‐mentioned problem with donors in Afghanistan.

Dr Muhammad Serajul Akbar MP from Bangladesh agreed with the concept that aid alone could not create good governance, but how could those inside unstable countries work to end a crisis?

Dr Mudawi Muhamed Hamed El Turabi MP, Chairperson of the Security and Defence Sub‐committee of the Sudanese Parliament, then questioned whether the international community had missed an opportunity following the signing of his country’s 2005 peace agreement, by encouraging some of the rebel groups not to sign. He said that, in the approach to the elections of April, there had been no time to discuss a formula for the sharing of power and wealth with the central government.

Hon. Kantengwa was asked by Hon. Juliet Kavetuna MP from Namibia how AMANI had facilitated the various peacebuilding agencies across the Great Lakes region.

This last question was addressed first, with Hon. Kantengwa clarifying that AMANI was the first local initiative in what she described as ‘uncharted waters’. AMANI had insisted on partnering with incumbent international institutions.

Dr Pantuliano agreed with the questioner about the shortcomings of international engagement, but disagreed that there had been moves to discourage the rebel movement from signing. On the contrary, the aim had been for those involved to discuss and create their own agreement, but this approach may have led to the failure of negotiations. The media campaign surrounding the rebel movement had distracted their interest from the peace process, Dr Pantuliano thought.

Baroness D’Souza continued by stressing the fundamental importance of not attempting to impose the view of outside on a local problem. To be effective, she continued, aid had to focus on the triangulation of parliament, government and the aid community, through precise rules and a shared understanding. Everyone must also be more stringent in measuring the impact of what had not worked in order to learn from the past, and budgetary support must be given to show governments could be trusted. Additionally, Baroness D’Souza reported that evidence now showed that rapid economic development was key to bringing a country out of conflict.


1 – 5 February 2010 29

Increasing the military deployment in Afghanistan was not going to win the war, in Baroness D’Souza’s view.

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya described the AMANI Forum as a home‐grown initiative started by the people, yet she thought it lacked the capacity and strength to make changes on this ground. Many countries had come together to do something for the region, but what was the international community doing in support?

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho asked at what point in a peacebuilding process would public outcry or majority rule endanger parliamentary accountability and how the donor community should react to this.

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland submitted a query on the situation in Haiti: specifically, was aid given in small or large quantities?

Hon. Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, questioned how parliamentarians in fragile states had scrutinised the activities of international actors such as the IMF and World Bank. Their help, and thus their money, often came with conditions, he cautioned.

The work of parliamentarians from fragile states was undermined when their budgets were a result of negotiations with international agencies, Hon. Kantengwa explained. The AMANI Forum was gaining external support, but not enough. If this could be scaled up, more parliamentarians could be involved across the African continent.

Dr Pantuliano pointed out that the AMANI Forum was little known outside of Tanzania. The problem as she perceived it was that the frameworks and targets of the international aid community were decided in the north, rather than through discussion with the countries in which they worked. Dr Pantuliano thought the issue raised from Lesotho was similar: it was difficult to make a difference when international negotiation did not exist. However, allies could be found if the time was invested to start an endogenous process of change.

Baroness D’Souza believed that the AMANI Forum and local accountability were part of the same issue. In her view, the former should be better supported. Baroness D’Souza stated that the problem of international aid was a scandal: billions were being spent that sometimes facilitated the failure of certain states. Perhaps the only way to address this was to constantly expose the way in which that aid was not working. One approach suggested by Baroness D’Souza was to establish an international commission that could report impartially and publicly from collated research on the successes and failures of aid programmes.

Ms Irma Specht, Director of Transition International from the Netherlands, highlighted a specific example of bad practice that she had witnessed: many international agencies and NGOs would brand their interventions. Could aid instead be provided as if it was coming from the local government, so it would also help rebuild trust?

Hon. Adan Kenyan Wehliye MP from Kenya addressed the two UK members of the panel and asked whether a political approach had been taken to force donor institutions together and unite their objectives.


1 – 5 February 2010 30

Dr Keane was concerned it might not be constructive to criticise donors. Baroness D’Souza’s point on the accountability of aid was valid, but did she believe that mechanisms to provide that accountability already existed in many parliaments, but needed to be taken more seriously by those who enforced them?

Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, believed that the fragility of some nations today was a result of various local conditions. The solutions to such problems seemed to require funding and so could not come from the endangered societies themselves. This might undermine the local parliamentary force.

Hon. Kantengwa had also seen the international aid branding referred to above when Rwandan refugees were flooding into camps in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Aid agencies had wanted to take charge and put up transit camps. This had led to people settling down in their hundreds without proper sanitary conditions, spreading diseases like cholera. She reported that Rwandan participants had reacted by driving away the aid agencies and sending people back home. She reasoned that, if a strong authority was similarly lacking in Haiti, the situation there might be similar. International agencies needed branding to raise money, so Hon. Kantengwa admitted she did not know what could be done to stop it from undermining governmental efforts.

Dr Pantuliano said she thought there had been progress made to improve the quality of the aid that was being provided, but the situation was still not satisfactory. North/South thinking was becoming more harmonious, yet this was often not reflected on the ground. She had yet to find one country where the analysis of local context had driven a change of action following that conflict. It was often not even clear who should provide such an analysis; the UN did not, Dr Pantuliano said. She had seen how donors supported pooled funds, but only because these allowed them to avoid transaction costs and accountability for their funding allocation.

Baroness D’Souza thought that governments could become more influential through a number of mechanisms, such as media and research. She did not believe her criticisms of donor organisations were unfair, as they had reported their own failings to enact change. Baroness D’Souza reported that some smaller organisations were doing some fantastic work locally, yet major organisations could spend billions without generating any results. However, Baroness D’Souza agreed there was a need to strengthen the monitoring capabilities of parliaments.

Mr Hughes also agreed with this last point: parliaments should not only hold ministers, but outsiders, to account. Many sports relied on an independent referee to challenge what had been decided on the pitch. Perhaps there also needed to be mechanisms that prevented parliamentarians from escaping with untruths.


1 – 5 February 2010 31

TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London

Keynote Address

Sustainable Peace, Security and Development

How does violent conflict sustain underdevelopment? What are the challenges to rebuilding the economy after conflict? How can priorities and budgets for security and public service provision be balanced to meet public expectations? What role can parliamentarians in donor and fragile states play in scrutinising peacebuilding initiatives for the transition to peace, security and development?

Speakers

• Keynote by Video: His Excellency Paul Kagame – President of the Republic of Rwanda

• Keynote: Mr Andrew Mitchell MP – Conservative; Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, UK

• Discussant: Dr Alina Rocha Menocal – Research Fellow, Overseas Development Institute, UK

Chair

• Lord Alton of Liverpool – Crossbench, UK Session Introduction The Chair of the session, Lord Alton of Liverpool, a UK crossbench peer, introduced the first speaker of the session who was joining by video: His Excellency Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda. He was to share his country’s experience of peacebuilding, reconciliation and the reconstruction of the state and economy since the genocide. Presentations Peacebuilding, reconciliation and the reconstruction of the state and economy were everybody’s concern, President Kagame said. He encouraged all citizens of the world to take ownership of their country’s democratic developments.

However, President Kagame urged the delegates to remember that each situation was specific to its context. In Rwanda, the conventional delivery of justice had not survived after the country’s

http://www.gov.rw/



1 – 5 February 2010 32

infrastructure had collapsed, nor had it been capable of conciliation when national traitors were living in the same villages as the survivors. A unique solution had been required, and a new constitution was written to allow for inclusiveness and power‐sharing. For example, only half of ministers were from the ruling party. President Kagame additionally commented that 56% of the Rwandan parliament’s members were women.

President Kagame reported that conventional thinking was that governments should provide the right environment for economic growth, while private enterprises brought the money. This had not been possible in Rwanda, so the government had instead built their own hotels in order to create a tourism sector, then transferred these assets to the private sector later. Tourism was now one of the leading contributors to this country’s economy.

President Kagame cautioned all that success in peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts were ultimately measured by improvements in quality of life. He shared some of the country’s modest accomplishments in making a more informed, healthy and literate society. The Commonwealth defined its values as democracy, peace, the rule of law and equal opportunity for all. These values were critical to all people and the peacebuilding process but, if there was any lesson to be learned from the Rwandan experience, President Kagame thought that it was the need to address the root causes of conflict and use these to find home‐grown solutions to problems.

Mr Andrew Mitchell MP, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, started his presentation by sharing how he had been using the last four years of his role to try to understand what could make international development successful. He had visited Rwanda many times, for example, to participate in projects in the healthcare, educational and private sectors there.

Mr Mitchell reported that political parties in Britain largely agreed when discussing topics related to international development. He had learned that aid worked, but only when it was accountable, both to British taxpayers and those who it was going to assist. Secondly, Mr Mitchell stated that an important ladder to lift people out of poverty was wealth creation. Ultimately, conflict and dysfunctional leaders could mire a people in poverty. Someone caught in a refugee camp, no matter how much access to money and aid they had, would remain poor, miserable and hungry.

Mr Mitchell gave three approaches to tackling conflict, the first of which was to spot the warning signs and stop that conflict from starting. If that had failed, stop it after its start. The final approach was to reconcile people once that conflict was finished. Mr Mitchell thought anyone’s moral obligation to participate in these three areas quite clear. It was even in the self‐interest of the developed world. Mr Mitchell challenged the traditional vocabulary that divided the world into developed and developing, as he believed the majority of the world was still developing, and that countries in conflict were regressing.

The Conservative Party manifesto expressed goals that tried to reinforce regional security. For example, the Conservatives wished to invite the most senior military officers of the African Union countries to train and fight together, so a command‐and‐control structure could be assembled capable of responding in an event of crisis. Mr Mitchell considered the Commonwealth a useful family of nations that could assist with development and resolution in post‐conflict societies. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) was in its infancy, it should become a vital part of the world’s justice architecture, Mr Mitchell thought. The Security Council had made clear that any national borders of sovereignty did not offer protection: it was the duty of the international


1 – 5 February 2010 33

community to intervene in any events of genocide or strife, like those in Rwanda, even when they existed solely within one country’s borders. Mr Mitchell considered this ruling by the Security Council a clarion call that asked everyone to engage in matters of international importance.

Ms Alina Rocha Menocal, Research Fellow for the ODI, then took the podium, beginning by outlining some challenges firstly to promote peace and secondly to build more effective, responsive and inclusive states. She saw emerging international consensus about the need to make political systems more legitimate, to strengthen the core functions of the state and to help it meet its parliamentary obligations. Ms Menocal believed these three tenets were mutually dependent.

Ms Menocal stated that the challenge to create formal institutions in response to a crisis was more difficult than the theory. In her view, the state must focus on three core functions: security, rules‐based enforcement and administrative and financial management. It must fulfil the public’s expectations, which might be to enable an infrastructure to promote market growth, such as by providing key services like health and water, or access to justice and anti‐corruption measures. If the international community was to intervene and help in this area, it should not overshadow the strong presence of the state. Ms Menocal considered statebuilding inherently a process of conflict, in which different actors would compete for power. There had to be some trade‐off between this risk and the requirement for development.

Ms Menocal reported that the international community could only support peacebuilding; it could not manufacture it from outside. Parliamentarians were the key institution that could link a state with its society, that could hold the Executive to account and also listen and respond to citizens’ needs. In this way, parliamentarians could help strengthen state institutions and make a political system more inclusive. Parliaments should be the base for international fora that aimed to share best practice, and that held others to account for poor practices.

Discussion

Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda was concerned about the emphasis he had heard being placed on the role of parliamentarians, when sometimes their positions in‐country were already weak. They would turn to the international community for help, which could cause corruption – itself a possible cause of conflict.

Dr Muhammad Serajul Akbar MP from Bangladesh agreed with the definition of the parliamentary role expressed by Ms Menocal, but thought many others needed convincing. Parliamentarians had little visibility over the sources and destinations of international aid, he said.

Hon. Rosemary Najjemba Muyinda MP from Uganda stressed the fundamental importance of finding the root causes of conflict. These were often related to hunger, in her view.

Mr Mitchell agreed with this last point, adding that conflict could have many other causes too. On the views about parliamentarians, the Conservatives in Britain had been trying to boost the voice of the Legislative body to monitor the way in which the Executive was dispersing funding and to instil systems of accountability for international aid. This oversight was essential to conflict resolution, he concluded.


1 – 5 February 2010 34

Ms Menocal thought it important for participants in peacebuilding processes to address what donors could do from the outside as well as what was already going on within countries. Such a process must be joined‐up and dynamic. Strong parliamentary systems should be employed to ensure both parties were working towards the same interests, while building the economy and ensuring parliaments functioned as a counterpoint to Executive dominance.

Deputy Cecilia Chacón, First Vice President of the Congress of the Republic of Peru, sympathised with Mr Mitchell’s position in opposition, as opposition parliamentarians were often able to think a lot but not able to act. He did not have the budget to build strong institutions, she said. What could parliamentarians do generally without a budget? Although they had this checking role referred to above, the Executive was equally able to attack parliament and blame them for their own failings.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta had seen how governments would always find someone to blame. He pointed out that, even in places without conflict, finding and keeping a job could be difficult. In such instances, should the government intervene to create jobs artificially, he asked.

Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, was a member of the governmental Executive of her country, and spoke out for the importance of this role. She asked what she should be doing in a time of peace in her country.

Ms Menocal had sometimes been amazed, as had others, when conflicts had begun unexpectedly. With this in mind, parliamentarians, whether their party was in power or not, had an obligation to continue monitoring peaceful states in order to prevent future conflicts. Problems of parliaments were endemic around the world: President Obama was having trouble passing his healthcare reforms now he had lost the majority. This only proved to Ms Menocal the power the Legislature could have.

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya said she had witnessed the hidden hand of the international community in certain African conflicts, particularly in her country. Many times the prospect of power‐sharing had been raised in Kenya, but always by someone from elsewhere, which had caused problems when people of different agendas and platforms had come together. Such problems only the people of that country themselves could solve.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MPA from Pakistan reviewed his country’s current conflict. Innocent people were being killed every day there, but the topic had not been discussed in this forum. He asked how it should be tackled.

Mr Edgar Munachilemba Sing’ombe MP from Zambia drew to the delegates’ attention the rising unemployment in his country after Western powers had taken over the mines.

Hon. Winifred Kiiza MP, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Government Assurances of Uganda, focused on the idea that the fragility of African states was often caused by the Western world, which made the weapons used in conflicts, and so asked how the ICC had the hypocrisy to make African leaders appear before it.


1 – 5 February 2010 35

Ms Menocal thought any attempts at resolution between the interests of local people and the international community had to be slow and careful. Such attempts required assertive local ownership over what was needed for each country. There were many brands of international crime, like weapons and drugs, Ms Menocal continued. The global community was trying to build mechanisms to bring them under control, but developing countries could help by assuring their national stability. She believed part of this involved the role the state could play in building an environment that promoted job creation and training.


1 – 5 February 2010 36

Rebuilding Public Financial Management Systems: Moving Beyond Aid Dependence

How can domestic revenue collection in fragile states be strengthened to reduce foreign aid dependency? How can large numbers of international donors be coordinated without compromising local ownership of reconstruction? What are the challenges and opportunities for parliamentarians?

Speakers

• Ms Mary Baine – Commissioner General, Rwanda Revenue Authority

• Professor Thandika Mkandawire – Chair in African Development, London School of Economics

• Mr Nicola Pontara – Senior Economist, Fragile and Conflict‐Affected Countries Group, World Bank

Chair

• Mr Tony Cunningham MP – Labour; Government Whip Presentations The session started with Ms Mary Baine, Commissioner General of the Rwanda Revenue Authority, who was to address the progress being made by her country’s tax administration to move away from aid dependency by mobilising domestic revenue. This was linked to attempts to reconstruct the country by sustaining ownership of its economic development.

Ms Baine stated that the overriding factors in Rwanda’s political and economic success were social leadership. These concentrated on two areas: the national ownership of policy design and implementation; and the engagement of partners through non‐conventional, innovative ways that built into the existing Rwandan agenda. The years 1994‐2000 were considered an emergency period, but had resulted in a policy framework that now guided everything Rwanda that did. Another one of the benefits was the sense of dignity the people had acquired from themselves halting their country’s ruin.

Ms Baine described how the UK and Rwandan Governments had formed a mutual strategic partnership to pool money received in a predictable way, which had broadened Rwanda’s tax and economic bases and strengthened national institutions. Rwanda had decreased its reliance on international aid by focusing on the improvement of trade by: revamping the investment climate; building a regulatory framework; creating supervisory roles through parliament; integrating into the East African market; and promoting community self‐policing.

http://www.rra.gov.rw/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/DESTIN/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/DESTIN/

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/EXTLICUS/0,,menuPK:511784%7EpagePK:64171540%7EpiPK:64171528%7EtheSitePK:511778,00.html


1 – 5 February 2010 37

Ms Baine concluded by stating that no country should be predetermined to remain fragile or dependent on other country’s taxpayers. For economic development, strong leadership and the resilience of the people were needed. An additional imperative was the availability of partners committed to supporting local efforts.

Prof. Thandika Mkandawire, Chair in African Development from the London School of Economics, took over with an analysis that linked the state to taxation: by paying tax, one could establish citizenship. He argued that fiscal policy could often be at the centre of conflicts. States could be considered either rentier or mercantile. If they earned a lot of money offshore, the pressure for peace would be much less than if collecting taxes from small villages. Fiscal capacity dictated the extent to which a state could respond to local needs, whereas economic fluctuations could be destabilising in themselves, Prof. Mkandawire argued.

Prof. Mkandawire dealt with some of the pressure to allocate funds within countries of conflict. He urged that instrumental actors take a long‐term view to building economies, which should be formed from dialogue and a reliance on internal funding. One positive effect following periods of conflict was that citizens were often willing to pay higher taxes. Countries should exploit this opportunity by mobilising their inherent resources, rather than begging for money entirely from outside. There was very little awareness among policymakers of the links between a state’s ability to manage conflicts and manage their public resources. Government policies could be simultaneously economic and social, Prof. Mkandawire stated. Governmental mismanagement of such policies could lead to low growth and waste. At the close of a conflict, it was important for a country to engage in fiscal pacts that would determine how its peacebuilding strategy would proceed and conclude, as South Africa had with their ‘sunset clauses’. The state may be weakened in this moment, but it needed to regain credibility among its citizens first, before worrying about whether it was following any rules imposed by outside.

Prof. Mkandawire explained how the Marshall Plan for post‐conflict support had focused on a high growth rate and the creation of a welfare state, i.e. the social conditions for peace. At the same time, Morgenthau had wanted to reduce Germany to a pastoral state that was never again able to fight. It had been concluded that without progress people would resort to crime, so it was important to push for growth and also to design structural adjustment programmes around the specifics of a country. If countries were pushed too hard to stabilise, however, there would be a danger of an overly intense focus on resolving their short‐term problems.

Prof. Mkandawire had found that many African conflicts had been caused by the inadequate representation of a diversity of ethnic groups. However, countries experiencing these conflicts had also been laden with inappropriate taxation structures. Do not allow external agencies to decide your country’s budget, Prof. Mkandawire warned. The taxes applied should depend on the structure of the economy itself. Broad‐based isolated rents usually had better consequences. Trade taxes were easy to collect and established the extent of territories, Prof. Mkandawire advised.

After emergence from conflict it could be difficult for a people to feel like citizens. This could be addressed, Prof. Mkandawire had found, by creating a shared sense of ownership of national education, for example. Some monetary exchange would help the construction of a new social contract, acting both as an instrument for growth and for political stability.


1 – 5 February 2010 38

The final speaker in the session was Mr Nicola Pontara, Senior Economist from the Fragile and Conflict‐Affected Countries Group of the World Bank. He recounted how, in recent years, the international community had focused more of its attention on weak or failing states, perhaps because it had discerned that the impact of well designed aid programmes could be powerful and a successful exit from conflict could have a positive impact on neighbouring countries. However, there was more to be done to make aid more effective, particularly when that aid engendered local ownership.

Mr Pontara announced that a key issue for budgetary support was to ensure consistency in the assistance provided. With a number of international partner agencies, the World Bank had looked retrospectively at emergency aid situations to see what lessons could be applied to the future. It had emerged that decisions to engage in support were normally taken on an ad hoc basis and were not systematic. They would rely on a window of opportunity or would only respond in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the support package provided had not always allowed the analysis and technical assistance accompanying it to address the underlying causes of fragility or to strengthen that country’s capacity. Most support related to central governance arrangements, procurement and anti‐corruption measures. Mr Pontara had also seen how the arrival of aid was often subject to delays. It tended to focus on fiduciary risk when there were other risks to take into account.

Mr Pontara had concluded that a stronger case needed to be made for the provision of budgetary aid in situations of fragility, alongside more efforts to convince the World Bank shareholders and EU member states that it would help in the transition to resilience and was not merely a fiscal transfer. Aid could stabilise the macro framework and support peacebuilding, but greater attention needed to be given to the risks that came with it, including what could happen if engagement was late or absent. The tension between aid predictability and effectiveness could be addressed through back‐up mechanisms to ensure recurrent costs. Mr Pontara thought that more focus also needed to be given to the need to create jobs, on monitoring the fragility of countries, the multiple causes of conflicts, the dangers of exclusion and the requirements the state had to demonstrate towards its citizenry. The results of political analysis could be used to inform such interventions.

Discussion

Hon. Dr Raphael Masunga Chegeni MP from Tanzania, and member of the AMANI Forum, commended the work of the Rwandan Revenue Authority and asked for details of its financing arrangements. He considered that most conflicts in the region were based on resources.

Ms Baine explained that the budgets for Rwanda were entrenched in their Vision 2020 document. More than half of those budgets were now financed through domestic resources. The decreasing reliance on international help the country had shown had been achieved gradually.

Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda advocated the union of parliamentarians from international and fragile states in building bridges that would hold not just fragile but donor governments to account. Money must not be wasted on disorganising fragile states, she advocated.


1 – 5 February 2010 39

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, also considered Rwanda’s example instructive, but that it highlighted a problem: dependence on international aid for budgetary needs was the worst modern enslavement conceivable. Donors would make promises of support but, by the time the funds had been released, the need to implement the projects for which they were intended would have lapsed. For over 20 years, Kenya was denied the support of the international community and, even today, its dependence on foreign aid was only 10%. Where donor support was offered, there must also be parliamentary intervention to decide when that aid would arrive and how it had been used, in Hon. Akhaabi’s view.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta thought there had been examples of success heard in the conference, and so asked what source of reference countries could use to replicate these examples at home.

Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, had seen fragile states following the World Bank’s prescriptions quite closely. Her country, for example, had sold their mines and now had a huge problem with unemployment. She wondered what the Bank’s role had been in creating that fragility.

Ms Baine agreed with the comparison of aid dependency to enslavement, and therefore argued that countries must not accept money without devising a clear strategy preventing their future reliance on such aid. This planning was often lacking, but it must be applied in order to ensure the predictability of that aid. The recipient country must determine the aid agenda, Ms Baine said, because they knew best their priorities.

Prof. Mkandawire emphasised that parliamentarians were responsible for any intervention in their country. Aid could force an ideological position, and many Africans had disputed the role of the World Bank, but the people had not learned to listen to their academics. Notions of good governance had been discussed for a long time in African universities before the World Bank had started to employ them. As well as this accountability role, Prof. Mkandawire urged that parliamentarians use their internal resources and incorporate them in the aid debate. Aid‐receipt boards could thus correctly determine the direction of resources.

Mr Pontara did not entirely agree with the description of aid dependency as ‘modern enslavement’, but conceded that there were many ways in which aid could be improved. Should it be dispersed on the basis of prior action or because an opportunity existed to achieve outcomes in a country, for example? Mr Pontara recommended that the World Bank’s own policy framework should include the need for discussions with intended aid recipients. He also agreed that The Bank had reversed its recommendations on the direction of aid at times, but it was now listening more to African institutions. The impact on the mines of Zambia could have been a result of the financial crisis, so he was hopeful for improvements as the world’s economy recovered.


1 – 5 February 2010 40

Harnessing the Power of Business: Part of the Solution?

What happens to the private sector during conflict and how can it support peacebuilding? How can local entrepreneurship be developed? How can the private sector be monitored and encouraged to avoid aggravating violent conflict?

Speakers

• Mr Richard Dion – Policy and External Relations, Shell International

• Ms Canan Gündüz – Senior Programme Officer, International Alert

• Dr Hugo Slim – Director, CforC Group

Chair

• Mr Brooks Newmark MP – Conservative; Opposition Whip Session Introduction Mr Brooks Newmark MP, Opposition Whip and Chair of the session, introduced the first speaker, Mr Richard Dion from the Policy and External Relations department of Shell International. Presentation Mr Dion said he was going to focus on the role of the private sector in conflict zones, and firstly explained that Shell’s industrial plans were very long term, with some projects exceeding 40 years in duration.

Mr Dion thought it could sometimes be difficult for private enterprises to open in fragile states. This situation was not beneficial for the economy of these countries. Tax and stabilisation clauses in these businesses could ensure continued investment, and multi‐stakeholder initiatives would allow for the involvement of the public sector. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) meant that enterprises like Shell could contribute to an economy through payments to governments. Longstanding and voluntary principles on security and human rights determined the rules of engagement for operations like this which, more often than not, employed private or national security forces.

Mr Dion explained that the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights had devised a three‐pronged framework towards responsible investment: governments had a duty to protect human rights; businesses had a responsibility to protect human rights; and both should be united by access to revenue. This same work discussed the criteria determining how companies should be involved in conflict zones. Mr Dion stressed both the large role Shell had played in the world’s

http://www.shell.com/


http://www.cforcgroup.com/


1 – 5 February 2010 41

economy, and countries’ own role to maximise the potential of their natural resources and minerals.

Mr Dion believed that governments often wanted extraction projects to come on stream very quickly and employ large numbers of local people. This could be difficult when insufficient infrastructure was in place. Decades often passed from the discovery of natural resources to their production, so it was important all schemes were evaluated according to their long‐term gain. Shell had access to many sales outlets and brought a strong record of success. By working with countries the countries could also improve their credit rating, leading to better rates of borrowing. Mr Dion described how Shell had been looking at forming international alliances with external organisations like International Alert to utilise their expertise on geographical and development issues. All were working for long‐term stability.

The Senior Programme Officer from International Alert in London, Ms Canan Gündüz, spoke next on how to harness the power of business. Her experience was that peacebuilding strategies often omitted sufficient involvement of the private sector.

In addressing the role of business in conflict and peacebuilding, Ms Gündüz explained that we should firstly understand what ‘business’ was. For parliamentarians, businesspeople may be their constituents or they may not; they may recognise them as businesses already or they could be invisible. Sometimes business could be used as a way for people separated by geographical borders and political divisions to unite, in pursuit of their common interests.

Ms Gündüz had heard other speakers encourage the need to harness the potential of business, but asked why. Was business used an engine for growth or did it contribute to peace? Ms Gündüz thought there was a danger of business feeding a conflict if, for example, the security provisions around it neglected human rights. There was a range of problems that could develop, and a patchwork of solutions to avoid physical and material harm and an insecure investment environment. More positively, businesses could contribute to peace through wealth and job creation, which could stimulate the general economic recovery. They could also bring benefits not of an economic but of a social nature.

Ms Gündüz thought that a strategic approach must be taken. She advised that participants start encouraging businesses to comply with the applicable laws and regulations, which increasingly were international as well as local. Ms Gündüz directed the delegates to the Red Flags Initiative, which was a brief summary of the international crimes for which a company could be culpable. Even when investors were compliant with the regulations, the scope for harm still existed, but human rights and conflict impact assessments might be able to add some positive value and help businesses contribute towards efforts at peace in a country.

Ms Gündüz advised parliamentarians, if they wanted to harness the power of business, first to engage within their constituencies to understand the needs and concerns of that business. Any legislation must promote business but at the same time protect communities and the environment. It had to be coupled with due diligence assessments of the possible impacts on the environment, society, human rights and conflict.

Dr Hugo Slim, the Director of CforC Ltd in London, opened with some advice recently given to him by the Chinese Ambassador: the British must not impose their own methods of building


1 – 5 February 2010 42

construction but let people build their own houses and environments. Dr Slim explained that his company worked to advise others considering investing in fragile states. He thought it important that commercial engagement required big changes in economies, for people and governments to prioritise continuity in times of crisis and to set some ‘golden rules’ necessary for their involvement.

After times of conflict, an economy would have to move from one of remittance to one of investment, from dependency to self‐reliance, Dr Slim said. Additionally, rather than being based on war, that economy must become single and integrated. Peace was a greater incentive than war, because more money could be made in times of peace. Economies also had to move from being rentier to finding diverse sources of income.

Dr Slim had seen how the world of donors, when working with governments, had been successful in assisting the survival of micro enterprises, but less successful when working with medium‐sized companies. He thought it vital for governments to help businesses exist both during and after conflicts. Often the challenge after war was one of qualitative easing. If roads, for example, could be repaired, businesses could move around with greater ease. If governments could ensure the stability of the power supply, businesses would be more likely to remain and use that power. Dr Slim advised that the temporary provision of capital could also work to the same ends, allowing businesses to continue to function.

When talking to investors interested in Africa, Dr Slim would always encourage two goals: to make a profitable business; and to think of how they could run that business in a way that enabled it to drive wider recovery in the chosen African country. Attention should also be paid to how to phase investment. Companies could make small positioning investments during times of conflict and then, after that transition had taken place, gradually expand. Such a strategy required a foundation of good relationships. Dr Slim also urged companies in post‐conflict countries to grow local value chains, instead of relying too much on international imports. Major corruption could also be problematic, so people must strive for honest and transparent business practices. Investors were more interested when they were supported by international finance groups, which provided some stability. Another important point made by Dr Slim was to train, educate and utilise young people as an incentive for a society to maintain their peace. Businesses should avoid taking workers from specific pools based on a particular ethnicity or gender, as doing so could contribute to community fragmentation.

Discussion

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, queried whether CforC Ltd focused only on the needs of the investor but neglected the requirements of the countries in which they invested. She thought the fragility of a nation could partly be determined by how its businesses functioned.

Ms Moana Mackey MP from New Zealand mentioned that the conference had discussed the importance of fragile states maintaining control of their own police force. She asked if it was dangerous to use private security forces, and also questioned what could be done to encourage the creation of big businesses internally.


1 – 5 February 2010 43

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland asked Dr Slim if businesses could help countries not experiencing conflict, and more generally how companies could encourage the interests of small businesses, like a man collecting and selling firewood.

Dr Slim outlined how his organisation would direct investors to specific countries based on a common understanding of both parties’ needs. He saw how it was a priority to focus on the ‘missing middle’, those businesses at the mid‐cap level, as it was easier to encourage large companies or incentivise individuals. Some countries not in conflict still had closed economies and were wary of sharing power.

Ms Gündüz was increasingly hearing that an early and exclusive focus on foreign investment could avoid the gains desired by fragile states. Many countries had found it difficult to attract investment when they were leaving conflict, unless they had particularly attractive natural resources on offer. International organisations such as hers were not able to focus on the needs of a very small business, such as the man who collected firewood, but instead advocated greater understanding of different types of business needs. Perhaps a micro‐finance institution could provide this man with the funding he needed to buy a bicycle, which would make it easier for him to gather wood.

Mr Dion spoke on Shell’s voluntary principles for human rights and security, and lamented that only four OECD countries had subscribed. It was vital for Western resources to work in compliance with national governments, he stated.

Deputy Cecilia Chacón, First Vice President of the Congress of the Republic of Peru, explained that the problem in Peru was not so much how to attract businesses but how to retain those already there. Natural resources companies operated in her country, which she believed deteriorated Peru’s political stability and fostered crimes like drugs trafficking. Large companies were important because they paid taxes and smaller ones because they provided jobs, so Peru needed to keep all of them.

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho explained that investors would always negotiate with whichever political party was in power at the time. What mechanism could be used to ensure the contract formed was in the long‐term interests of the country and its citizens, and was not just to the advantage of those in charge?

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland developed this point by expressing his disappointment. The conference had discussed ways to strengthen parliamentarians to support democracies in conflict situations, when majoritarian rule did not always work. Government’s role in distributing wealth was not always sustainable, so Mr McCrea asked what could be done to provide resources to improve the situation for everyone in a country.

Mr Dion espoused the view that civil society and NGOs often knew more about businesses’ actions than parliamentarians. There could be a lot of misinformation about how the business cycle worked, so parliament had an important role to play in providing oversight and implementation. MPs must equip themselves with an understanding of investment contracts, Mr Dion advised.


1 – 5 February 2010 44

International Alert had been working with parliaments on specific economic issues, such as planning ahead to manage oil revenues. These were only small steps towards harmonisation, however. Ms Gündüz thought it at the heart of the governance question to ensure that foreign investors worked with the country they invested in and not merely the existing government. There was a lot companies could do to ensure due diligence arrangements. Her NGO could advocate, investigate and ask governments to increase their accountability, but there was also an opportunity for the rule of law to demonstrate its involvement in the economic sphere.

On Lesotho, Dr Slim pointed to a problem in ownership models. The City of London was a bastion for arrangements in which individuals shared in the ownership of companies. This had advantages for oversight and risk‐taking. Somehow there had to be an economic change in foreign investment methods so that citizens had a financial interest in foreign companies’ involvement in their country. Dr Slim explained that his company always consulted MPs when considering investments. Sometimes he would find that their expertise was lacking, and that they only wanted a private partner who could help them build up their capacity. On this, Mr Dion emphasised that investment in natural resources had few short‐term political gains. If this property were more widely known, people might be prevented from acting out of the desire for immediate remuneration.

Dr Ibrahim Gashi MP, Vice Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, submitted a question about corruption in Sarajevo, where it had seemed to him that local businesses were more powerful in implementing their own principles for rule. He said that there were few measures being taken to prevent this.

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, said that a problem in his region was that businesses funded conflict, either directly or through their working practices. The agreements made by extractive industries with fragile states were often shrouded in mystery. Why were these agreements not disclosed? Hon. Akhaabi suggested they should be tabled for each parliament’s consideration.

Hon. Dr Banadzem Joseph Lukong MP from Cameroon wanted to find out what was necessary to prevent peaceful countries from falling into conflict. Companies like Shell were making huge profits, but he had not seen the populations of the countries in which they invested benefiting to the same extent. He asked whether Shell paid the same royalties to African countries as they did in the West, particularly as this company had a large role in determining the policies of regions whose parliaments were weak.

Ms Gündüz thought that many of the above questions highlighted some of the problems of why it could be difficult to work effectively with business. She had witnessed some powerful business interests working against peacebuilding priorities in Kosovo, but hoped that even in such situations some business champions could be found to support the develop of these communities. People were needed who had both a local background and understood the mechanics of business, she said.

Mr Dion agreed that the link between business and politics was strong in the Balkans. He hoped that administrative procedures would change to encourage greater external involvement. Mr Dion continued by explaining that commodity prices were very high at the moment, but governments always received the cost of a barrel of oil minus around $6.50, so normally 80‐90%


1 – 5 February 2010 45

of the market value of that oil. Shell was one of the first oil companies to publish its revenue split, he added.

Dr Slim thought the campaign to publish what was paid to governments was very important and exactly the sort of question every parliamentarian should be asking. There were two sides to every contract, however, so Cameroon must ask the same question of the governments of their region.


1 – 5 February 2010 46

Reinstating Rule of Law: The Foundations for Development and Community Security

How does reinstating rule of law produce peace dividends – create the space for investment as well as human security? How can rule of law be re‐established where resources are scarce and systems are fragmented and un‐coordinated?

Speakers

• Dr Phil Clark – Convenor, Oxford Transitional Justice Research, University of Oxford

• Mr Graham Mathias – Policing and Security Adviser, Saferworld

• Ms Yasmine Sherif – Senior Rule of Law, Justice & Security Adviser, Bureau for Crisis Prevention & Recovery, UNDP

Chair

• Mr Gary Streeter MP – Conservative; Co‐Chair, All‐Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues

Session Introduction Mr Gary Streeter MP, Co‐Chair of the UK’s All‐party Conflict Issues group and of the session, introduced the first speaker, Mr Graham Mathias, a Policing and Security Adviser for Saferworld in London. Presentations Mr Mathias said he would focus on the security priorities following periods of conflict and how the international community could engage without compromising local ownership. He stressed the importance of democratic policing in this process.

Mr Mathias started with an example from London. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police force, announcing the principle that ‘the police are the public and the public are the police’. Policing in a democracy was far too important to be left to the police alone. Mr Mathias had recently spoken to a woman from Northern Ireland who had close experience of the atrocities committed on her family by the police, and the atrocities committed by her family on the police. She had conveyed the same sentiment to Mr Mathias: the public made the police.

The community policing model put the public in partnership with the police, mobilising resources to solve problems that affected public safety, Mr Mathias explained. He thought international assistance could help instigate reforms to any police service, the first of which was for the police to be accountable to the people, not the government; they should enforce the law, not make it. The police must protect human rights, but with this role came responsibilities. Parliamentarians

http://www.csls.ox.ac.uk/otjr.php

http://www.saferworld.org.uk/

http://www.undp.org/cpr/




1 – 5 February 2010 47

had an obligation of oversight for this role. Another reform Mr Mathias suggested was for the police to give operational priority to servicing the needs of individual citizens.

Mr Mathias detected the increasing challenge to balance national security and individual rights. Information should be shared, but privacy must be protected. There had to be transparency, yet the police had to protect their sources. Mr Mathias thought these balances difficult to find. The realisation of these principles in operational practices was dependent on acceptance of and commitment to them by every officer in the community. This commitment had to be supported by adequate resources and a proactive, rather than reactive, approach. The challenge in Northern Ireland was to secure the support of the local community that would allow this to happen.

The United Nations had produced agreements and declarations it was incumbent on member states and their citizens to follow, some of which defined community policing. Mr Mathias believed this and other factors showed that the will and methods for reform of the police were there, and that these international standards did work when tailored to the circumstances of each country.

The discussion now turned to Ms Yasmine Sherif, Senior Rule of Law, Justice and Security Adviser for the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery of the UNDP. She began by looking at the concept of the rule of law, which she defined as concrete, practical and people‐orientated. This was the framework for justice and security, both of which must work together to avoid law being either wholly theoretical or practical.

Ms Sherif narrated an example from the DRC of a woman who had fled her secure community when militants had begun closing in. Eventually the villagers were tracked down and their leader was executed. When her brother refused to rape this woman, he too was executed. When one of her children slipped, she was forced to kill her. In captivity she was raped by 19 men. The law of this country had meant nothing without physical protection. ‘Protection’ could be broken down as physical, legal, psychological and material.

Crimes against humanity were a daily occurrence in most conflict states. In the absence of state protection, people had to protect themselves. Another result of conflict was that the frustrated youth would pick up arms, and women would often fall prey to their violence. Ms Sherif said she had never met a refugee whose primary priority was not physical protection.

Ms Sherif described how legal protection addressed different ways to submit grievances and address crimes. There was often an overlap with the physical when the legal networks were lacking. The requirement for psychological protection might often be forgotten after conflicts had finished, but victims of sexual violence, child soldiers and the breakdown of trust these people had experienced required rehabilitation. A peace agreement was often insufficient to bring back trust between civilians and the state, Ms Sherif thought. Material protection referred to a population’s ability to survive through access to basic services. The rule of law and the protection it afforded had to come before attempts to rebuild the infrastructure and economy of a country to help them out of conflict.

The MDGs had committed to halving world poverty and giving everyone access to primary education. Ms Sherif believed it would be very hard for these goals to be realised when schools were closed and people’s main objectives were survival. Those countries furthest away from


1 – 5 February 2010 48

reaching these targets happened to be those enduring conflicts. The picture was clear to her: the rule of law was the foundation for development; a country could not be developed when its people were fleeing. Ms Sherif thought that the biggest challenge was to bridge the gap between law and reality, but this could only be done through community intervention. This meant working with local government institutions, the police system and the traditional leaders of civil society but, most of all, it meant working with displaced people who brought first‐hand experience of what needed to be done. Their empowerment to reclaim justice would bring their ownership of the rule of law.

Ms Sherif’s also advised that the international community must be there when people needed them the most – at times of conflict, not afterwards. Secondly, she urged the delegates not to neglect the women who were most endangered during or after conflicts. Give capacity to local institutions so that they can address their country’s future. The rule of law could be defined as the trust between these people and the state.

Ms Sherif recounted how, in the DRC, the UNDP had given women the tools they needed, the legal aid and understanding, to pursue their grievances. A few years later when a girl was raped by a policeman, her mother was able to find legal representation; she was helped to indict the policeman and he was jailed for 10 years. Accountability had been established for a security provider. Justice was served. The gap between the law and reality had been bridged.

Dr Phil Clark, from the Oxford Transitional Justice Research unit of the University of Oxford, began his presentation, based on fieldwork from the Great Lakes area of Africa. He encouraged the delegates to familiarise themselves with the work of the ICC. His presentation would address the role of community actors in the rule of law, redressing the tendency of discussions to focus only on institutions.

Dr Clark explained how a consideration of the rule of law posed more questions about collective consciences than it did the mechanisms of specific institutions. How could people’s attitudes be changed? How could the root causes of conflict be addressed to prevent conflict from becoming an issue? Dr Clark saw how conflict could often be determined by the attitudes that people in the country undergoing conflict held towards one another.

Dr Phil Clark recounted how, when the EU travelled to the eastern area of the DRC in 2002, they were trying to analyse the peace and security situation by looking at how robust the courts were. The visitors found that the most effective tool for justice was a local community‐based practice, which would bring together the leaders of the main ethnic groups. The EU had discovered that, since its origination, there had been no security outbreaks in the area. One of the reasons for that was that these community leaders knew their people, knew what problems were likely to arise, were very mobile, and could talk to people and put in place successful mediation practices.

The rule of community law was very much the trend elsewhere in the Great Lakes, Dr Clark said. This was often the result of the scarcity of resources and a lack of national will. Dr Clark said he was not attempting to romanticise the notion of customary leaders, with their questionable legitimacy, but arguing instead for their inclusion in partnership with the police and other state actors in enforcing the rule of law. There was a danger of the state being overly influential; a fine balance must be found. Too much state involvement could overly politicise many of these issues, Dr Clark cautioned.


1 – 5 February 2010 49

Discussion

Mr Imthiyaz Fahmy MP from the Maldives explained how his country had moved from an authoritarian to a democratic government. The former had been accused of a gross abuse of human rights. The people had lost confidence in its judiciary arrangements because the same judges were in place before and after their country’s transition. How could this problem be corrected?

Hon. Adan Kenyan Wehliye MP from Kenya asked about how successful the ICC had been in protecting human rights.

Senator Mobina Jaffer QC from Canada wondered how societal attitudes to the rule of law could be changed.

Ms Sherif drew attention to some of the weaknesses of the ICC. Although it had international jurisdiction, there was some concern that it lacked partiality and depended too much on the Security Council. She strongly felt that social attitudes were often the root causes of instability and likewise of security. Recalling a Mujahideen commander from Afghanistan who was much more humane than his peers, she had learned that everyone had humanity inside themselves, but cultural trends might forbid its expression.

Mr Mathias suggested people’s behaviour could be changed more easily than their attitudes, which were often deeply entrenched. Compliance with established standards might eventually lead to a change of attitudes, he advised.

Dr Clark considered that faith in a judiciary could be built through that judiciary demonstrating a consistent track record, sustained years of high performance and believability. People could just as easily lose faith in their community leaders as they could with their state institutions, as had eventually happened to the legal system he described from the Congo. He had seen too that the ICC was struggling to act in Africa. Some Congolese warlords had gone before the international court even when the domestic structure itself had the capacity to prosecute them. This had caused some considerable frustration domestically.

Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, said that Sudan’s national court had been operational for over a century and had been quite successful. He considered most human rights abuses the result of external states acting illegally, as he said was the case with the invasion of Iraq and death of many of its citizens. Furthermore, the proposition that Afghanistan posed a threat to national security was ‘laughable’, thought Mr Mudawi.

The next question came from Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda, representing the AMANI Forum, who was concerned about women being subjected to sexual violence. Many Rwandan women lived with the trauma of their stories not being recognised, and now she thought this pattern was being repeated in the DRC. What was the international community doing to stop it?

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho linked the three panellists’ advice about policing and justice systems that were based on the public, but asked how this could work on the ground when party politics divided many fragile states.


1 – 5 February 2010 50

Mr Mathias considered the police the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system; they were therefore responsible for its accountability. There would always be a fine line between government’s influence, oversight of policing, and its independence. Trends were shifting this balance so that the police were more answerable to the public. This may require changes to nations’ constitutions and their legal frameworks, and also to the way the police operated.

Dr Clark observed that the instruments of the rule of law had in the past been used for oppression, resulting in police forces and institutions themselves contributing to the conflict. It was difficult enough for the police to fulfil their basic expectations, before transforming and extending their remit, he said.

Ms Sherif advocated for local courts to handle their crimes themselves before they were tried internationally. She agreed that Sudan had a long history of a strong judiciary. The delegate’s position on Rwanda attracted her agreement, as Ms Sherif agreed that the international community should have intervened earlier. One solution to prevent such a situation from occurring again in the future was for parliamentarians to take their grievances back to the UN and remind them of the original terms of their constitution.

Mr Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik MP from the Maldives suggested that Commonwealth countries could form a police organisation in support of the rule of law.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta asked Ms Sherif about her experiences of child trafficking in the developed world.

Mr Mathias supported the idea of a Commonwealth police association. However, he reminded all that the UN already had a peacekeeping police service, which could be better used and supported, and to which countries could send their representatives.

Ms Sherif had not personally worked on child trafficking in the developed world as she worked mostly with refugees, so thought that question would be better directed to organisations like UNICEF. She added that this was a global problem for which we were all responsible.

Mr Mathias stated that human trafficking was a major crime that the police was responsible for preventing. A democratic model of policing did not advocate being soft on crime. The very aim of this work was to arrest more dangerous and destructive criminals.

Dr Clark outlined that the ICC was addressing Somalia, but the majority view tended to be that it was too difficult to intervene because of the security situation there. One could argue that this was precisely the sort of case that should attract the ICC’s interest, when the local capacity was poor and it was definitely recognised that there were cases to try. The ICC was also alarmed by the number of African cases on its books, and was likely to focus more on Latin America soon.

Ms Sherif explained that discussions in the UN on Somalia were asking whether it would be the best solution to try pirates for their crimes. Socio‐economic solutions could instead focus on the causes of this problem. The rule of law, thought Ms Sherif, was broader than just prosecution.


1 – 5 February 2010 51

Mr Streeter concluded with the sentiment that every country, including the UK, had a lot of progress to make on this subject. Maintaining the rule of law with sufficient systems for accountability required constant effort and vigilance.


1 – 5 February 2010 52

Effective Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) of Conflict Actors:

Women and Men, Girls and Boys

What can we learn from the Integrated Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS) in terms of good practice and policy guidance? At its tenth anniversary, how effectively has Security Council Resolution 1325 been implemented in DDR? How can parliamentarians scrutinise DDR strategies to ensure they curb violence and address the human rights and needs of former combatants in all their diversity – women, men, girls and boys?

Speakers

• Dr Jaremey McMullin – School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, Scotland

• Ms Irma Specht – Director, Transition International, the Netherlands

Chair

• Professor the Baroness Afshar OBE – Crossbench; Department of Politics, University of York

Session Introduction The Chair of the session and UK Crossbench peer, Professor the Baroness Afshar, introduced the first speaker, Dr Jaremey McMullin, who taught International Relations at the University of St Andrews and would give an overview of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR), and the responsibilities of state governments and the international community. Presentations Dr McMullin began by stating that the objective of DDR, according to the UN, was ‘to contribute to security and stability in post‐conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin’. This mandated the monitoring of potential or actual threats that ex‐combatants might pose in fragile states. Dr McMullin explained that there was also an understanding that DDR also supported the transition of states from war to peace. Through increased awareness of the process, ex‐combatants could be better supported as a group as a whole.

However, Dr McMullin reported that several weaknesses to such programmes remained. Eligibility for programming tended to be ad hoc, rather than considered and systematised. Additionally, the process for participation would often be collapsed from the months planned to a

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/home/

http://www.transitioninternational.com/

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/poli/

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/poli/


1 – 5 February 2010 53

matter of days. Following that, the potential or actual threats would be insufficiently monitored. One way the UN had been successful in addressing this was through instituting a series of regular hot‐spot assessments. This had also identified ways in which ex‐combatants could contribute to peace as well as remove the threats posed by these people.

Reintegration was often conceived of as a return to poverty, so policymakers needed to be more active in understanding why programmes that just returned former soldiers to their old homes and jobs were unacceptable. The peacemaking process aspired to something greater than the status quo that had existed prior to conflict. In addition, ex‐combatants might be demonised by others in their society. Although there was an admission that rehabilitation was necessary, there was often a feeling in society that it was undeserved.

Dr McMullin thought it vital that programmes of support were given an endpoint, so that jobs could be transferred out of international bureaucracy and into responsibility of stage governments. There had to be a realisation that ex‐combatants, just like anyone else, tended to migrate to where natural resources were strongest, and so governments should provide effective livelihoods and social services at those sites. This realisation often came late in a peace processes. Dr McMullin also thought it prudent for state governments to adopt labour‐ rather than capital‐intensive processes covering various sectors of production that targeted increasing the number of jobs available to the population before thinking about increasing a government’s income.

Dr McMullin stated that the international community must monitor and support DDR efforts for the long term. There was a need to finance and carry out strategic assessments that ensured programmes remained responsive to each economy’s needs. A greater presence of the international community in conflict‐affected areas was also an important requirement. There was a large scope for parliamentarians to represent the youth in such areas as being instrumental to a country’s future, instead of depicting them as a threat. Much of that work started from more jobs.

The Integrated Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS) were adopted in 2006 by a large working group of the UN to unite the approaches being taken by forming guidelines, and emphasising the national ownership and monitoring of DDR programmes. These standards were also inclusive of women and children. However, Dr McMullin was unsure whether the Standards had resolved much of the debate. He cautioned that inclusiveness must be a factor of differentiation in programming rather than a tool to increase numbers. Communities must not see DDR programmes as corrupt, as easy to access or to gain from; Dr McMullin advised that the focus instead must be on a frank discussion of needs, resources, goals and what the unintended consequences of inclusion might be.

Ms Irma Specht, Director of Transition International from the Netherlands, then took the podium and explained her presentation would look specifically on the reintegration element of DDR, including women. She thought the IDDRS a very useful tool in holding governments to account.

Ms Specht stated that disarmament and demobilisation were predominantly military issues. The aim of reintegration was to give ex‐soldiers a job they liked so much that they would not turn to arms again, nor would they be able to willing to help others start a conflict. A problem was the lack of solid assessments meant that there were few context‐specific approaches showing why,


1 – 5 February 2010 54

for example, people joined militias in the first place. DDR approaches had to be so focused that multiple programmes within one country could be quite different. With few resources, there were not enough people to carry out these kinds of assessments. However, Ms Specht believed there were some examples of good practice to be seen.

The kinds of questions organisations setting up DDR programmes should ask included why combatants had fought, the attitudes of receiving communities and the labour market opportunities for reintegration. Planning for such programmes had to start earlier in the process, Ms Specht advised, at least a year before the programme started. She added the caution that this was a political process often driven by political decisions. The international community could start planning how to begin DDR in Iraq now, for example, by looking at the labour market, the aid organisations present and the age of combatants.

Ms Specht had seen how, at the governmental level, a DDR commission was usually composed from the ministry of defence but, when it came to reintegration, ministries of agriculture, labour, health and others ought to be involved. She suggested parliamentarians lobby for their participation, too. Ms Specht had found that women often did not attend programmes of disarmament and demobilisation, usually because their communities were telling them they must stay at home. A special effort had to be made to find and assist missing women.

Ms Specht explained how parliaments could help provide for the needs of ex‐combatants by using the Integrated Standards and remembering that the primary beneficiaries to DDR were the communities in which the programmes were installed. Ms Specht was wondering whether reintegration could be successful if it only included combatants. She had found that children were being encouraged to enlist in DDR programmes because they allowed them to access educational materials. Ms Specht hoped community‐based reintegration schemes would be open to everyone.

Discussion

Baroness Afshar’s view was that the only way to achieve real post‐war reintegration was to bring participants to the negotiating table and include them in parliaments. This was truer for women, who were often ignored in such processes.

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya drew attention to countries that bordered conflict areas. Unemployment could turn youth towards conflict areas while the government tended to ignore this problem.

Hon. Ibrahim Matolo MP from Malawi had seen how international organisations would apply specific rules to certain regions. He asked what was being done when countries were found to be supplying weapons to their youth.

Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda spoke up for women and children in DDR programmes. Not just the combatants but the victims of combat, either physically or socially through the ostracisation of their families, also needed to be recognised as a category within DDR.

Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, reasoned that DDR programmes were often initiated closely following the peace


1 – 5 February 2010 55

agreements that had brought those periods of conflict to an end. When these peace agreements were themselves inadequate or had failed to involve all parties, the DDR programme would be likewise weakened.

On this last point, Dr McMullin thought the DDR process could anticipate and thus better manage such problems with peace agreements. The Standards allowed for increased ministerial inclusion in DDR programmes’ design, for example. An impartial arbiter could also be used who would oversee the national commission process. However, this arrangement needed the support of a political process that could bring parties together for discussion. Dr McMullin conceded that the West was quite willing to disown its history in conflict. One step parliamentarians could do was place increasing pressure on their governments and the Security Council in order to curb the supply of arms to fragile states and refuse immunity to those involved in this trade.

On Kenya, Ms Specht thought the international community was improving its recognition of how frequently combatants and their arms crossed borders. Only areas of conflict would have DDR programmes, so the questioner was right: if Kenyans left their country to fight in Somalia, they would not receive assistance from such programmes on their return to Kenya. This oversight, inherent to the current design of DDR, needed to be addressed.

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, queried how DDR addressed those groups who sought the continuation of conflict.

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland requested some examples from outside of Africa.

Sigfrido Reyes Morales, Vice President of El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly, explained that his country was usually cited as a success case for nation‐building and reintegration. This year El Salvador was celebrating 18 years of peace and progress. 18 years ago Mr Reyes Morales and his colleague, Deputy Alberto Armando Romero Rodriguez, were themselves combatants. The above presentations had reminded him how difficult the process of change, of reintegration, had been. He hoped others would learn from this and offered to share his experiences of reintegration in private conversations afterwards.

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland admitted he had never heard of the ‘R’ of DDR before, and asked how the public could be convinced it was necessary. Did the panel think that those injured by terrorist atrocities should have the same level of protection as those who had carried them out? Could the head of a terrorist organisation ever be truly accepted as a head of parliament, Mr McCrea asked.

Any conflict demonstrated differing views and people who considered themselves martyred by the other side. These had to be put aside in the pursuit of peace, Baroness Afshar urged. Ms Specht had always thought Northern Ireland needed a DDR programme. The people of this country often claimed they were different from other areas of conflict, but she had seen many similarities with some of the other fragile states being discussed at this conference. The victims and the combatants of Northern Ireland had not been properly integrated; they were still psychologically affected by the Troubles. Furthermore, the reintegration of ex‐combatants would ensure longer‐term security to this area.


1 – 5 February 2010 56

Dr McMullin had a problem with perceiving the public as ‘victim’, when they were very much implicated in the creation of conflict. In various African settings, he had found a remarkable capacity for communities to understand the value of reintegration without them requiring much convincing. This willingness to participate came both from the desire for security but also the recognition that many soldiers had been forced to fight. To suggest that the community was a victim and the combatants were perpetrators was disingenuous, in Dr McMullin’s view. He agreed with the perception that community‐wide reintegration required more resources and longer‐term support, but the alternative to this was for no DDR programme at all. NGOs must assist by providing parallel programmes.

Dr McMullin did not believe that a DDR process could continue if a political situation was unstable or parties were not demobilising in good faith. Peace must come first, otherwise DDR would have to end or be completely rethought. The UN’s hot‐spot monitoring had been particularly useful in observing activities in post‐conflict states and making recommendations for changes to programmes.

Ms Specht was also unsure that DDR could succeed alongside conflict. She thought it important for those being rehabilitated to be included alongside those in opposition to ongoing violence. One of the barriers to greater recruitment was the lack of devices forcing people to join programmes; they only had incentives. The threat of police or legal intervention for non‐participation was often not taken seriously. Ms Specht stressed that reintegration was properly a process, not a programme. Mozambique had recently installed a ministry for ex‐combatants, even though the DDR process there had begun 20 years ago. It was very important to build capacities for national actors to carry on after international assistance had left, Ms Specht said. Zimbabwe’s DDR was thought to have been the most successful programme ever: its intention was to make ex‐combatants so well integrated that they lost this ‘ex‐combatant’ status over time. However, it now appeared that they were passing the status on to their children, thus the success of the programme questionable.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta related experiences of refugees trying to enter Europe and asked whether there were similar UN programmes to return people to their home state and if recipient nations would be helped with their reintegration.

Hon. Motumi Anthony Ralejoe MP from Lesotho agreed that DDR targeting that was too individualised could foster resentment. The liberation movement in his country had not introduced a DDR, and now the ex‐combatants had been forgotten. Was it possible to introduce such a process many years after the conflict had ended?

Hon. Tuyisenge Solange MP from Rwanda shared some of the successes from reintegration programmes in her home country, which had resulted in stories of forgiveness, with ex‐combatants instead turning their efforts towards the promotion of peace.

Ms Specht explained that women associated with armed forces should be included as part of DDR programmes; however, they would not always be given the same kind of assistance as the overall target group, the core combatants. Children should always be part of DDR, but should not be treated in the same way as the adults. UNICEF would always help the national government disarm and demobilise but, even if the country was not fighting, they would be eligible for assistance. Additionally, anyone under 18 should be removed from violence and reintegrated as


1 – 5 February 2010 57

soon as possible, before the end of a conflict. There were programmes to reintegrate refugees, but not through DDR. They could be trained and employed before returning to their country, for example.

Long after the cessation of conflict, Namibia had likewise struggled with the need for reintegration. Lesotho could study how this had been dealt with, specifically the low tolerance shown towards non‐combatants attempting to claim from DDR programmes. Dr McMullin emphasised that the DDR process must be considered very long term. IDDRS had sometimes proven insufficient for implementation on the ground, particularly when it came to keeping children satisfied yet preserving the integrity of the process. The situation in reality could often be significantly more complicated than the preferred process. Dr McMullin explained that refugees were usually exempted from DDR after they had left their home country. There may be obligations on the host country not to send them back to areas where they could suffer. Often, the refugee and ex‐combatant issues could become intertwined, but the UN and other organisations were working actively with UNHCR to discuss such issues.

Ms Specht concluded by urging parliamentarians to take control over the mass of organisations coming to their country to install DDR programmes. By familiarising themselves with their aims and processes, DDR could have an active and valuable role.


1 – 5 February 2010 58

WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2010: Westminster, London

Keynote Address

Parliamentarians and Transitional Justice: No Peace Without Justice?

How can issues of justice and rule of law be broached in the aftermath of violent conflict without re‐igniting old tensions and hostilities? How can the ICC serve justice and support peacebuilding together?

Speakers

• Keynote: Mr Paul Van Zyl – Former Executive Vice‐President, International Centre for Transitional Justice

• Discussant: Ms Nita Yawanarajah – Adviser and Head, Good Offices Section, Political Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat

Chair

• Mr Geoffrey Clifton‐Brown MP – Conservative; Shadow Minister for International Development

Session Introduction The Chair of the session, Mr Geoffrey Clifton‐Brown MP, Shadow Minister for International Development, introduced the first speaker, Mr Paul Van Zyl, Executive Vice‐President of the International Centre for Transitional Justice. Presentations Mr Van Zyl started by defining ‘transitional justice’ as the study of how society should deal with the legacy of atrocity and come to terms with the violence that had occurred. It encompassed more than just prosecution for war crimes, but also truth‐seeking, giving victims the chance to tell their stories as part of an official record, reparation programmes and efforts to reform the laws and institutions that were responsible for or had contributed to the atrocities of the past. Those goals of reconciliation and accountability had to be pursued in a way that did not re‐ignite the conflict, Mr Van Zyl said.

http://www.ictj.org/en/index.html


http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/151471/pad/


1 – 5 February 2010 59

Mr Van Zyl described how the last 20 years had seen a shift away from amnesty and impunity, and towards justice and accountability, for violations of human rights. Regional courts had added prosecution and prevention to their powers, and decreed amnesties impermissible. The UN had supported this trend by instructing its representatives not to participate in agreements that included amnesty clauses. The ICC was able to overturn amnesties awarded by state courts. With these factors, regardless of their attractions, amnesties were now less binding and enforceable elements of peace processes.

Mr Van Zyl explained that this was resulting in a move away from de jure to de facto amnesties; in other words, amnesties were still being achieved practically by other means – by prosecutorial inaction, by burying the evidence or threatening witnesses. There was also a trend for mediation efforts to intervene, when the UN was now unable to give amnesties.

A study Mr Van Zyl had carried out among refugees showed that those most affected by conflict sought food and peace before justice. However, they were only prepared to delay justice for a short time, once that food and peace had been supplied. Mr Van Zyl concluded that people affected by conflict were not prepared to forsake justice for the crimes they had seen forever. Peace and justice should therefore not be seen as binary alternatives, but as stages of a sequence.

Another consequence of this trend detected by Mr Van Zyl was that the terms of acceptable compromise had shifted. The TRC of South Africa had granted amnesty to those who had come forward and confessed of their crimes. A similar alliance formed 12 years later in Colombia had been found impermissible by law. There had to be some reparation, some criminal justice and thorough checks on whether declared perpetrators were telling the truth. Complete impunity no longer satisfied the threshold for international law, Mr Van Zyl reminded the delegates. However, there were shades of nuance in the approaches being taken in different areas of the world. Mr Van Zyl stated that it was very important to preserve the space for human rights groups and NGOs to campaign for justice, and also not to try to achieve both truth and justice in a very short time.

Ms Nita Yawanarajah, from the Political Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat, continued as a discussant, reflecting on how the experiences of her career had linked to the issues Mr Van Zyl had raised. She remembered a trip she had taken to Rwanda, where she had overseen a prison that had a death rate of up to 10 inmates a day. Was justice there proportional to the crimes committed? Ms Yawanarajah asked how one could accept a justice system that was leaving perpetrators of crimes with a better life than the free and innocent.

Ms Yawanarajah gave an example from Uganda where an indictment was pursued only when it was politically expedient, not as a planned part of the peace process. In Kosovo, the international community was negotiating with Serbians while they were still committing atrocities. Ms Yawanarajah wondered how sometimes terrorists groups could be called ‘rebels’; at other times they were known as ‘freedom fighters’. What determined how the media portrayed them?

Ms Yawanarajah explained that the possibility existed for a murderer to declare themselves guilty of war crimes to be tried internationally and thus receive a more lenient sentence. In the Ethiopia/Eritrea peace agreement, the parties had delegated the task of deciding their territories to the impartial Border Commission, which was forbidden from following principles of justice but instead had to rely on existing statute and conventions. When Vietnam had invaded Cambodia in


1 – 5 February 2010 60

an attempt to throw out the Khmer Rouge, the UN was not in agreement with their plans, and many Western powers were in support of Pol Pot, Ms Yawanarajah said. Eventually a truth and reconciliation programme was set up, but only for those who had been fighting on the ground. She concluded that any attempts of reconciliation must rely on the belief systems of the countries in question. The Cambodian people, for example, were Buddhists. Their satisfaction had come from knowing that justice would be served naturally at the time of reincarnation.

Discussion

Deputy Cecilia Chacón, First Vice President of the Congress of the Republic of Peru, explained that Alberto Fujimori had not asked for amnesty. He was judged by a Peruvian court, but the majority of the population had believed the case had not been tried objectively, that it had lacked proof and individual specificity.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MPA from Pakistan expressed how his country had been faced with frequent takeovers. Their generals might remove basic rights from the people, but the justice system condoned this behaviour.

Dr Muhammad Serajul Akbar MP from Bangladesh thought his country’s liberation had long been forgotten, yet the present government wanted to try old war criminals and their army, for the mass killings and torture they had perpetrated. What was the opportunity for international organisations to begin war crimes trials now and bring justice for the victims of Bangladesh?

Mr Van Zyl explained that Fujimori had been granted two amnesties to excuse crimes committed by a government‐sponsored hit squad. A number of international organisations had found state agents to be responsible. It was Mr Van Zyl’s experience that, when governments passed more than one amnesty, they were culpable of trying to conceal their actions. These trials were rigorously scrutinised by a wide range of international observers and there was little evidence the judges were biased or acting improperly. The Peruvian Truth Commission had found more crimes committed by Sendero Luminoso than the military, which to Mr Van Zyl pointed to the need for the same standards to be applied to non‐state actors, who may have committed crimes of international law.

Mr Van Zyl stressed how important it was for Pakistan to establish credible judicial bodies, rather than set a dangerous precedent for crimes to be treated with impunity. He also thought it possible that war crimes cases could be reopened in Bangladesh, so long as those investigations were carried out impartially and independently, divorced from the political context. It was a terrible blight on the country that millions had died with no justice done.

On the question of Peru, Ms Yawanarajah pointed out that often rebel forces would excuse their actions through the impotence of the government. However, they would lose legitimacy if they acted oppressively in order to remove oppression. She urged Pakistan to extricate the military from their politics, and for its people to step up and demand this. Parliamentarians had to take up the challenge first. Many years had passed since the crimes of Bangladesh, but there were still various ways in which Ms Yawanarajah thought they could be acknowledged. Doing so should not be seen as a political act but something that brought psychological benefits to the population.


1 – 5 February 2010 61

Sigfrido Reyes Morales, Vice President of El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly, explained that, even though his country’s civil war had long finished, issues of truth and justice were ongoing. Justice was not about revenge, but knowing the truth – making criminals accountable and allowing society to award their pardon. Another argument being made in his country was that a truth commission would only reopen old wounds.

Hon. Theoneste Begumisa Safari MP from Rwanda reported how people in his country were asking war criminals to be tried at home, so that they could see the results of the justice system.

Dr Ibrahim Gashi MP, Vice Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, explained how the international community’s view of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) would not change overnight. International observers had seen the Serbian army committing massacres and decided that their intervention had to be military.

Ms Yawanarajah explained how difficult it could be for peace mediators to discuss reconciliation until peace had been found. However, she doubted it was possible for a peaceful post‐conflict society to exist without a review of its past. In some measure, the past always had to be dealt with, but the approach taken depended on the specific society. The court in Rwanda was set up with the best of intentions, but there was clearly more the international community could learn from there.

If the past were not confronted, it could come back to haunt you, Mr Van Zyl warned. It may be painful to do this, but a proactive approach to managing the past, in Bangladesh or El Salvador, would always be preferable. Mr Van Zyl also thought it better for people to attest to their crimes in situ, as long as the following prosecution was fair and even‐handed according to international standards. If local actors could assure that, they should be everybody’s first choice.

Mr Clifton‐Brown MP united the messages of the speakers: you must confront the past. He had seen how Rwanda was doing this through its exemplary genocide museum and the efforts of its truth commission.


1 – 5 February 2010 62

Negotiating Justice and Reconciliation: Perspectives and Experiences

What local, national and international tools and strategies can support justice and reconciliation? What lessons can be learned from experiences of implementing truth and reconciliation commissions/hearings? How can gender‐based violence issues be better tackled? How can parliamentarians support these processes?

Speakers

• Dr Fanie du Toit – Director, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, South Africa

• Rt Rev the Lord Eames OM – Crossbench; Co‐chair to Consultative Group on Legacy of Northern Ireland Conflict 2008‐09

• Dr Sari Kouvo – Head, Afghanistan Program, International Centre for Transitional Justice

Chair

• Ms Anne McKechin MP – Labour Session Introduction Ms Anne McKechin MP, Chair of the session, introduced Dr Fanie du Toit, Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation of South Africa. Presentations Dr du Toit explained that his Institute was founded at the conclusion of the TRC with the core assumption that these aims remained continuous objectives of any transitional society. He questioned how peace could be found without some form of amnesty.

Dr du Toit thought the challenge for African law was to define their aims. The international legal framework was changing to declare amnesty illegal, but people were granting it de facto. Perhaps there was a way to develop more sophisticated kinds of amnesty, he suggested. In South Africa, amnesty was often negotiated before human rights activists had arrived to add some measure of accountability. Dr du Toit considered allowing people to walk free a terrible but necessary compromise, but less so if applied consistently.

Dr du Toit defined a society with justice as one that reflected the equality of all people in the way power was organised across different zones. Reconciliation could be given without forgiveness, as post‐conflict societies might require enemies to come together to work for the common good. Transitional justice was defined as the impact of mass atrocity to ensure non‐repetition. Peace was a pre‐requisite for justice, but amnesty may have to be a pre‐requisite for peace.

http://www.ijr.org.za/



1 – 5 February 2010 63

Dr du Toit explained that a national leadership had to set the agenda for truth and reconciliation, and must ensure it had sufficient capacity to prevent over‐intrusive advice from foreign parties. Mass atrocity could silence, divide and fragment a population. In the case of such events, there would be a need to re‐establish conditions for dialogue before any attempts at prosecution could begin. A key priority for national leadership was therefore to create the ability for citizens to engage in national processes. There was no better place than parliament to do this. National leadership was described by Dr du Toit as being the precondition for the development of transitional justice in fragile states.

The majority of black South African respondents to a survey the results of which Dr du Toit shared had thought that their country’s TRC was essential to rebuilding the society, but only a minority of whites had agreed. It had been difficult for them to accept this symbol of a new world and the overturn of the apartheid hierarchy, despite the amnesty given to white perpetrators. Fragile states needed powerful statements of this kind, Dr du Toit concluded.

The Rt Rev. Lord Eames OM, UK Crossbench peer, continued by sharing the application of his legal and pastoral knowledge to the people of Northern Ireland from his involvement in their peace process. He suggested that the 30 years of violence experienced in that country were difficult to compare to experiences from Rwanda and other parts of the world, but there were still lessons that could be shared.

Rev. Lord Eames was part of the team that had negotiated the ceasefire of Loyalist paramilitaries. His invitation to become involved in that process had arrived very suddenly. He had learned how important it was to build trust in such situations, irrelevant of whether you agreed or not with those with whom you were negotiating. Also, he advised the delegates not to be overcome by disappointment and, should they finally reach what might appear to be the ‘promised land’, to grasp every opportunity to cement an agreement. This point was a fragile stage in any negotiation.

A position of peace would then lead to reconciliation. It was essential, Rev. Lord Eames suggested, not to separate the political process from any other reconciliation efforts. They were interlocked but not self‐dependent. You could never legislate for or impose reconciliation, but only create the conditions in society and elsewhere in which reconciliation could be recommended. True reconciliation came from the heart, from the mind and from experience – when people want a better future or to understand one another in clearer terms.

Rev. Lord Eames had been asked to form a consultative group on Northern Ireland’s past in order to ‘heal the wounds’ in society. The Commission had looked at the question of victimhood, which had become organised in the country almost to the extent of a miniature political party, with its own impetus and agenda. A judicial order had allowed anyone affected by the Troubles to be treated as a ‘victim’, even relatives of the murdered or the murderers, instead of just innocents caught up in violence. The Commission had recommended a recognition payment for anyone who had been victimised on the grounds of this order.

The work of this group had brought its members face to face with human tragedy in its rawest state; relatives of the killed had asked to watch their killers being sentenced. Rev. Lord Eames begged the parliamentarians not to lose the human touch in their efforts of reconciliation, because these programmes dealt with a humanitarian process. Memory meant who we are and


1 – 5 February 2010 64

often who we are to become, and Rev. Lord Eames believed shared memories had to be talked about realistically for any progress to be made at all.

I. Peace and Justice in Afghanistan

The next speaker was Dr Sari Kouvo, of the International Centre for Transitional Justice and a think tank called the Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN), which aimed to find local solutions to the country’s problems. She found this country one in which perpetrators knew they could get away with murder, which made the enactment of justice difficult, although the creation of a narrative of what had happened to people was considered a good start. In this way, Dr Kouvo was working with victims’ groups to tell their stories in theatres. People were able to recognise themselves in stories of individual suffering.

An Afghan poet had written that ‘We are accidentally alive in Afghanistan’ as, after decades of war, death seemed more likely a prospect to those people who ‘live in the streets of the dead’. Despite being so close to suffering, people often felt close to any small chance of peace. Dr Kouvo gave a brief outline of Afghanistan’s history since the communist coup in 1978, covering the Taliban takeover from 1996 and international military intervention in 2001. She thought that the story of the last nine years had been dominated by an understanding that, if the evil Taliban were ousted from power, a strong and righteous Afghan government could be created. This was far from what Dr Kouvo perceived of as the truth, however.

The 2001 Bonn Agreement had included some but not all Afghani war leaders. There had been discussion of reconciliation then, but the politics of accommodation and the state‐building agenda had not been accompanied by comprehensive disarmament, according to Dr Kouvo. A politician in Afghanistan might have one foot in parliament, the other in his militia. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission had consulted with the people to ask how they wanted to deal with the past. This had formed a national action plan that was never implemented, an amnesty law and thus a culture of impunity.

Dr Kouvo advised that much pragmatism was needed when engaging in post‐conflict societies, but this should never overrule the common sense that dictated the demands of justice. You could not contribute to peace by supporting just one of two warring factions; everyone must be involved. There could be no justice‐building without comprehensive disarmament, the disbandment of militias and cessation of the conflict. Peace was never traded for justice in Afghanistan. Both peace and justice were traded for short‐term stability.

II. Discussion

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan began the questions by asking how amnesty must be required before peace yet amnesty could not be a part of justice, when justice required peace. She also considered Afghanistan one of the hardest countries in the world to disarm, because guns were part of its culture.

Hon. Adan Kenyan Wehliye MP from Kenya questioned whether an international justice system could bring peace to every corner of the world.


1 – 5 February 2010 65

Hon. Wavel Ramkalawan MNA, leader of the opposition party in the Seychelles, thought his country had an image of a place of paradise, even though it had gone through a period of human rights abuses. As an Anglican priest, he had often asked himself at what point one should bury the past, even if no commissions of enquiries had forgiven that past.

Dr du Toit answered that a de jure amnesty was one systematically incorporated into the law. They had become outlawed, while de facto amnesties were inconsistently applied outside of the law. He thought there were some circumstances in which de jure amnesties must still be applied. Any system to prevent atrocities had to be both realistic and fair.

One of Dr Kouvo’s experiences from Afghanistan was of the number and range of mistakes the international community had made in this country. We all had much to learn. She explained the disarmament was not about collecting every Kalashnikov, but breaking the loyalties between command structures and militias, particularly when those commanders were moving into government. It may be too late for this now, with the persisting conflict in Afghanistan.

Rev. Lord Eames expressed that every individual made their own assessment of when they could draw a line in the sand and put the past behind them. His personal view was that the past had to be addressed or it would return to haunt you. The suggestions of the commission into Northern Ireland’s past had been rejected but, as yet, no alternatives had been put forward.

Hon. Juliet Kavetuna MP from Namibia, a country with a history similar to South Africa, asked whether amnesty or reconciliation was the core aspect of justice.

Mr Kiramatullah Khan MP, Speaker of Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province Assembly, explained that his constituency adjoined the Afghan border, and he had visited this neighbouring country many times, finding it a peaceful but gloomy place. Since the Russian invasion, the rest of the world had retreated, leaving Afghanistan at the mercy of its warlords. His own city’s population had been increased massively by fleeing Afghans. It was time the world did more to address these sufferings.

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland considered that his country could learn much from the other countries represented at the conference. He had always been told that conflicts required reconciliation. Previously, he had discovered the importance of reintegration; now he was learning that amnesty was impermissible, yet his country’s parliament was about to appoint as its leader a terrorist. He asked Rev. Lord Eames whether he considered the peace process in Northern Ireland to have worked.

Dr du Toit was clear that his argument for amnesty was not one for impunity. For example, a court interdict had forbidden a pardon to Eugene de Kock, as this would have been irregular to the principles of the reconciliation process. Dr du Toit thought amnesty must be a step towards the law, rather than one away.

Rev. Lord Eames understood Mr McCrea’s comments, and believed that Northern Ireland’s peace process had been entirely political, neglecting what was happening in the streets, in homes and to ordinary people. The community was being asked to accept as a political leader someone who was widely rejected. The peace process had made some progress, but it still had a long way to go.


1 – 5 February 2010 66

Dr Kouvo believed that certain governments and institutions of the world were capable of pursuing issues of justice, but these tended not to top the political agenda, certainly not in Afghanistan. The local and personal stories of Afghanistan seldom altered the political narrative.


1 – 5 February 2010 67

Peacekeeping for the Long Term: Strengthening Effectiveness and Accountability

How does peacekeeping relate to peacebuilding? How has the expanding mandate of peacekeeping operations (civilian protection, DDR, security sector reform, return and reintegration of internally displaced persons and refugees) been matched with developments in training and coordination? What mechanisms exist for holding peacekeepers to account?

Speakers

• Dr Kwesi Aning – Head, Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Department, Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC), Accra, Ghana

• Dr Marsha Henry – Gender Institute, London School of Economics

• Lord Robertson of Port Ellen – Labour; Secretary‐General, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), 1999‐2003; Secretary of State for Defence, 1997‐99

Chair

• Rt Hon. Bruce George MP – Labour; Leader, UK Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly

Presentations The first speaker was Dr Kwesi Aning, Head of Conflict Prevention from the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) in Accra. He was present to discuss how to ensure a rebuilt state was responsible for the needs of its citizens.

Peacekeeping had changed its objectives from finding common ground between two warring forces to bringing stability afterwards. Dr Aning emphasised that peace could be more expensive than war. Peacekeeping mandates tended first to negotiate a ceasefire, then take away weapons, then police a buffer zone. However, civilians were more often the targets of conflicts today, meaning that more humanitarian assistance was required in war or post‐war zones, as well as institution building.

Dr Aning believed that, more often than not, those who had committed atrocities were those who had been charged by the state to ensure protection, like police forces. There was a need for oversight to ensure the infrastructure allowed for the provision of the protection intended. In most African conflicts, elections could be routes to violence, hence the increased observation of elections in this region.

http://www.kaiptc.org/contact/default.asp

http://www.kaiptc.org/contact/default.asp

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/genderInstitute/

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm

http://www.nato-pa.int/

http://www.nato-pa.int/


1 – 5 February 2010 68

Peacekeeping mandates were expanding, Dr Aning thought, but with a lack of adequate planning or insufficient resources, such as over the military. There was also often a lack of requisite skills and experience. Peacekeepers could be subject to bribes, Dr Aning added, and their means would not match their mandate. The use of force was still inhibiting peacekeepers’ ability to implement this expanded mandate. Part of the challenge was to close the gap between excessively ambitious mandates and the available resources. In Dr Aning’s view, the troops were just not fit for purpose, but this was being addressed through the KAIPTC’s training.

Dr Aning explained how civilian training was now taking a bigger role in efforts to improve peacekeeping, with multiple components being utilised to standardise the training and operations of peacekeeping officers. Increasingly in the African continent, peacekeeping was treated as supplementary and not essential for peacebuilding. Dr Aning thought this trend had to be addressed in order to increase pride and the effectiveness to meet challenges. The new African Standby Force had rapid capabilities, and their training was being matched and standardised against the expanded mandate. In‐mission monitoring mechanisms were assuring this.

More often than not, in Dr Aning’s experience, the choice of peacekeepers reflected the same challenges as their home country. The KAIPTC was trying to improve accountability, for example by not permitting ignorance as an excuse for crimes. Use of force must be clearly defined in these mandates. Peacekeeping was time‐bound, but peacebuilding should be for the long term. The priorities of the former should be properly coordinated between respective stakeholders. If the transition to the latter could be smooth, Africa would be proud.

The second speaker was Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, formerly UK Secretary of State for Defence for the Labour Government and Secretary‐General of NATO. He outlined how parliamentarians could often work so closely on national issues that they lost sight of the bigger picture. He reminded the delegates of the extent to which the number of conflicts in the world had declined, and thus the number of casualties in modern times. The mass media had made us more aware of those wars that were occurring. Lord Robertson said he had mentioned this to give some perspective.

Lord Robertson explained how the end of the Cold War meant that many potential conflicts had been deprived of the financing that might have made them a reality. Secondly, there was more awareness of and responsibility being taken for conflicts around the world today by the international community. No conflict would not attract heavy engagement from the UN, NATO and other international agents, whether economic, diplomatic or charitable. In past centuries, arguments between bordering nations would always be resolved by war. This was no longer the case. To take Dr Aning’s example, the world was learning its lessons and improving through training.

A basic truth of the world today, perceived by Lord Robertson, was that it was easier to make war than peace. The military could pursue a truce through intervention very efficiently, yet they tended to leave behind a vacuum, making peacekeeping and then peacebuilding more difficult. The world was proving able to learn its lessons, but less capable of implementing what it had learned. Every parliamentarian should know that governments and their actions were only ever remembered based on their outcomes, not their plans, platforms, networks or systems. The results were what mattered.


1 – 5 February 2010 69

It was another truism of the military, repeated by Lord Robertson, that a high‐intensity soldier could become a peacekeeper, but the same was not true in reverse. In the 1999 invasion of Kosovo, high‐intensity troops were deployed to ensure they could tackle any possible insurgency while, at the same time, protect grandmothers and escort children to school. Lord Robertson thought that their training would have to cover these multiple elements to avoid putting peacekeepers in danger. Key to this was the inclusion of civilian roles in every military deployment, like tax collectors, water engineers and lawyers. This would mean that, while the military was taking action, they were accounting for what was likely happen afterwards. The civilians could lend their advice so that decisions were taken solely based on immediate need.

Lord Robertson stated that, sometimes, wide‐scale changes were needed in the face of corruption. The military had to be well reimbursed for their actions, and the nation required a robust and independent judicial system for its success. NATO was an example of how collective security could be made to work successfully.

The final speaker of the session was Dr Marsha Henry from the London School of Economics. She had been asked to comment on the two previous presentations and would apply her academic knowledge to some of the practical problems of peacekeeping, while making a plea for consideration of gender in all of these issues.

Dr Henry explained that the UN had been trying to increase the number of women holding peacekeeping roles. Several years ago, the Indian Government had sent an all‐women contingent to its peacekeeping mission in Liberia – held up by many as the successful implementation of UN Resolution 1325. In a BBC documentary, these women had shared what they felt from being part of that mission. Their experience had been sex‐segregated. These women had been trained militarily, in riot control, civil disobedience and policing, but not in how to deal with a traumatised population or in how to address gender‐specific issues. Their interaction with the local population was consequently minor, Dr Henry summarised. They were involved in many close‐protective activities that had precluded much involvement or discovery of the issues of importance.

Dr Henry outlined how India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka contributed significant manpower to peacekeeping missions, yet had a relatively small voice in UN negotiations in New York. One of the impacts these countries could have was as role models in the communities they were policing. There had been some anecdotal evidence of a reduction of sexual exploitation and abuse where women had been deployed in higher numbers. However, notions that an automatic connection would be formed between female peacekeepers and women in the community, when such peacekeepers might not actually have the skills or remit to engage, should be avoided, Dr Henry insisted. Additionally in Liberia, there was an assumption of shared understandings because the Indian women, like the Liberians, were from the developing world. There were in fact many gaps between their experiences.

Dr Henry said it had been traditional to think of women as the victims in conflict and of men as the perpetrators – a pattern repeated in peacekeeping missions. Not all male peacekeepers were involved in exploitative relationships, however, so it could be helpful to think of multiple masculinities, where some men considered themselves members of other moral codes. Men could also be victims of gender‐based violence, as in the way that children were forcibly abducted


1 – 5 February 2010 70

into military experiences to become perpetrators. A local view of men and women was also an important consideration to remember.

Dr Henry relayed the strong concerns about the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. Before peacekeepers were held accountable, Dr Henry recommended that the term ‘abuse’ be rethought, as such abuse could take many forms,. What was the UN policy to help victims of such exploitation? Dr Henry thought that national governments needed to be challenged to recruit more women into their militaries, not just into their police forces, although such a measure alone would not solve the problem of women not having enough interaction with their populations. There was a need for specifically gender‐trained personnel. Discussions about the kinds of power that peacekeepers held needed to be ongoing in order to prevent exploitation and abuse.

Discussion

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, asked about the poor conduct Dr Aning had referred to regarding African peacekeeping soldiers. Kenyan peacekeepers had been sent all around the continent, yet he had heard no complaints. Instead, he thought their efforts should be commended.

Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda agreed with the above sentiment and asked for Dr Aning’s indictment of African peacekeepers to be withdrawn, specifically as Dr Henry had drawn attention to the insufficiencies of peacekeeping forces from other countries. Next Lord Robertson was asked what his greatest challenge was when the US had wanted to work outside of a UN mandate, and had instead looked to NATO for assistance.

Lord Robertson said that politics was the art of the possible. In some conflicts the international community could act; in others, it could not. Lord Robertson reminded the delegates that the US did not take charge of NATO and, for NATO to act anywhere, unanimity was required. In 1999, NATO had acted without a UN Security Council Resolution, even though many were aware of the humanitarian crisis and the atrocities and violence taking place. The 19 nations of NATO, not forced by the Americans, had decided to take action. Lord Robertson felt that every situation of conflict had to be evaluated based on its individual circumstances, and a balance was needed between the nature of the problem and what could be done to address it. Since the Cold War, international organisations had been able to cooperate to a greater extent than ever before.

Dr Aning’s reply was that there was sufficient evidence of the atrocities committed by peacekeeping troops. There were cases of EU troops raping women in Darfur. His role as a trainer was to use the experiences and shared stories of troops at the KAIPTC to build training models to avoid a repetition of such atrocities. They were not just unique to forces in Africa, but across the world and had to be recognised by the parliamentarians who had deployed some of these troops. Dr Aning did not believe this was an area in which a national flag could be hoisted; the obligation must be shared.

Dr Ibrahim Gashi MP, Vice Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, expressed his appreciation for Lord Robertson’s work in beginning the peacekeeping process in Kosovo. His experience had shown that, when such a process was successful, chances for successful peacebuilding were also


1 – 5 February 2010 71

improved. Without the secure environment created by NATO, Dr Gashi thought it would have been very difficult for Kosovo to gain the independence and stability it now enjoyed.

Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, wondered how serious anyone was about attaining peace, when she had detected a trend for increased funding of armies. Dr Aning had highlighted the extent of conflict that surrounded electoral processes, and she had seen evidence of this in Zambia.

Hon. Ibrahim Matolo MP from Malawi posed a question about the role of observers and armed forces during elections, asking why African parliamentarians could not, in return, visit developed countries to observe their election processes.

Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, asked what the legal basis was for NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan, when the Taliban had not been involved in the 9/11 attacks. He also stated that the charter determining UN action was illegal, when only five of its members had the power of veto.

Lord Robertson stated that the Taliban had given shelter to Al Qaeda, which organised the attacks of 9/11, and had previously organised attacks in Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen and Turkey. These were all atrocities, mainly directed against civilians. Their base was in Afghanistan. The international community had allowed the Taliban the opportunity to give up Al Qaeda and, it was only when they had refused, that the international community had invaded, supported by a UN Security Council Resolution. NATO had taken over the peacekeeping role there after the international military force had defeated the Taliban.

There remained five permanent members of the UN, because countries could not agree on a different constitution, in Lord Robertson’s opinion. Latin America, Africa and Asia could not agree on which one country from each of these continents could take permanent membership.

Lord Robertson explained that part of the increased training for the military, such as that being seen in Zambia, was directed at improving their accountability and training. He advised that delegates should not be pessimistic in the belief that a richer military force was more likely to be engaged in coups; disorganised militia would be far more susceptible to such activities.

The Chair, Bruce George MP, closed the session by commenting that the 2010 elections would be the first in Britain’s history to be overseen by external observers.


1 – 5 February 2010 72

Parallel Workshops Session 1

Facilitator‐guided workshops giving delegates the opportunity to explore key issues and to share personal experiences, challenges and lessons learned. With the aim of developing strategies and follow‐up action at the national, regional and international level, the following workshops took place:

Workshops

• Conflict Sensitive Policy Making ‐ Part 1 Facilitators: Mrs Fleur Just, Training and Learning Team Manager; and Mr Aurélien Tobie, Programme Officer, International Alert

• Negotiating Peacemaking Strategies: Engaging Armed Groups and Civil Society Facilitators: Mr Jonathan Cohen, Director of Programmes; and Ms Cynthia Petrigh, Director of Policy and Comparative Learning, Conciliation Resources

• Managing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding Facilitator: Dr Ulrike Joras, Senior Programme Officer, International Alert

• Working for a More Accountable Security Sector ‐ Police, Military and Intelligence Facilitators: Ms Chamila Hemmathagama, Team Leader; and Mr Graham Mathias, Security and Justice Sector Development Adviser, Saferworld


http://www.c-r.org/


http://www.saferworld.org.uk/


1 – 5 February 2010 73

THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2010: Stormont, Belfast

Keynote Address

Rebuilding Citizen‐State Relations: Governance Challenges and Opportunities

What is the role of national dialogue mechanisms and processes in sustainable peacebuilding? How can an inclusive and transparent state, active civil society and professional media rebuild public trust and reduce the risk of a return to violence? How can parliamentarians support the construction or restoration of systems for national dialogues? How can decentralisation of political decision‐making help? What role can traditional leadership structures play?

Speakers

• Welcome: Mr William Hay MLA – Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly

• Keynote: Dr Sina Odugbemi – Program Head, Communication for Governance & Accountability Program (CommGAP), World Bank

Chair

• Mr David McClarty MLA – Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly

Welcome

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, introduced to the delegates Mr William Hay MLA, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Speaker Hay expressed his gratitude for the good will that CPA members had brought. He considered visits to this Assembly by no means a one‐way process from home parliamentarians and visitors; rather an opportunity to learn from others. The political process of Northern Ireland was a work in progress, Speaker Hay said, in which challenges continued to be faced. Some of those challenges were known to the delegates from countries represented at the conference. It was this shared experience that made the conference so important, in Speaker Hay’s view. It was his hope that the conference would also allow him to demonstrate the belief that, with hard work, all could commit to making their countries peaceful and stable, and all could play a part in realising a better democratic future.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEVCOMMENG/EXTGOVACC/0,,contentMDK:21219377%7EmenuPK:3452872%7EpagePK:64168445%7EpiPK:64168309%7EtheSitePK:3252001,00.html


1 – 5 February 2010 74


Speaker Hay introduced Mr David McClarty MLA, Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as Chair of the session. He expressed his great pleasure in welcoming the delegates, and thought the conference a wonderful opportunity to bring together parliamentarians from across the world and political spectrum, for debate and the exchange of ideas. This first session was to explore the role national dialogue mechanisms could play in supporting a lasting peace and building an inclusive state.

The Good Friday or Belfast Agreement had created a number of bodies charged with promoting human rights and equality issues. Mr McClarty reported how Northern Ireland had recognised the significance of civil society in building peace, and the Assembly was looking at ways to develop its own engagement with that society, by reaching out to all citizens to invite their interaction, as well as through engagement with international partners in Europe and the Commonwealth. Continuous sustenance of these relationships was imperative to avoid the risk of returning to violence. There was no doubt in Mr McClarty’s mind that this strategy had helped to make the Northern Ireland of today a much better and safer place than that which the delegates would have visited 12 years ago.

Mr McClarty introduced the keynote speaker, Dr Sina Odugbemi, Programme Head for the Communication for Governance & Accountability Program (CommGAP) for the World Bank. CommGAP aimed to promote the use of communication to help governance reform programmes work more effectively.

Presentation

Dr Odugbemi was to address media/state relations and the role of public relations in peacebuilding. In a typical post‐conflict environment, there was little consensus on how to run the country and set its future. Dr Odugbemi distinguished between a deep consensus and an operative consensus, the latter only allowed agreement on the essential framework that would be required to move forward. With this agreed, the hope was that a deep consensus could later be formed. Dr Odugbemi explained how, when a nation was in flux, its status would be contested, with multiple ideas of where it should be going and how, competing against one another. There would be some participants considering departure from the community, a move likely to further fragment the political situation and the public sphere. Dr Odugbemi thought that, ideally in such situations, one should be working to rebuild the national media system to help cultivate a shared sense of identity, and thus restore state loyalty.

One of the first casualties of conflict was the destruction of the means of communication that the entire state could share. Dr Odugbemi believed that the ability to rebuild this communication system was always a fundamental part of states’ effectiveness. Such a requirement was ancient, even recognised as significant in the days of Rome. If you could not rebuild the communication infrastructure, spheres of messaging would reside scattered across the territory, which would not be constructive to a cohesive nation‐building project. Whether radio or television, Dr Odugbemi thought any means of restructuring communication could be used, as long they covered the entire country. The question of access was also very important. Often elites would sit in the capital presuming that all their citizens had access to media when this may not be the case in fact.


1 – 5 February 2010 75

Without access to media, their minds would be open for others to play with, Dr Odugbemi warned.

Dr Odugbemi explained that a nation could be considered ‘an imagined political community’, in part created, with people’s joint sense of belonging, by the media through targeting a mass audience. This was important because, in a post‐conflict environment, narratives would arise of ‘we’ versus ‘they’, whatever the nature of the divide. Dr Odugbemi described how, in many countries, such a divided media could be utilised to create a war of the airwaves; a sectarian media could introduce bias deepening an already‐existing societal division. If given the choice, whether in war or peace, a populace would not turn to any media that caused them discomfort, but media that reinforced their prejudices, that told them exactly what they already believed. Opposing views caused ‘cognitive dissonance’. The problem of selective exposure was that it could reinforce divisions, instead of building peace through a common vision of where to take a country.

Dr Odugbemi stated that governments and leaders must take proactive communication very seriously as a part of rebuilding peace. Those in power can be helped by media events, which could concentrate the minds of those watching to focus on a single moment. Classic examples included: the televised coronation of Queen Elizabeth, a moment of national communion and remembering; the beginning of South Africa’s TRC; and the US President’s State of the Union Address, which had drawn 48 million viewers on its last occasion. Modern media was fragmented, but these rare events had the ability to attract people from across society to share in the same narrative. In most societies, the only opportunities for comparable moments were when national sports teams were playing but skilled communicators, Dr Odugbemi advised, could use even these events to focus the country on a unified narrative.

Dr Odugbemi recounted how, after Apartheid had ended and Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa, he had used the Rugby World Cup of 1995 to help the nation‐building process. Although it had appeared to have little to do with politics or society, this event had helped for divisions to be set aside. President Mandela had used sport to unite the nation.

The Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume taught that public opinion was the basis of power. Dr Odugbemi explained that, whatever weapons a dictator used, to hold their regime together they would need people of power to yield to their role and will. Rulers had always known that force could not be continually applied. For legitimate government, Dr Odugbemi said, those within a territory must believe their leader had a right to rule over them. Secondly, they must agree that the government was acting in their interests, whether those people were members of a majority or a minority group. Thirdly, the people must believe their property rights – their house, cattle or family – were secure. If these three elements were not in place, a government would be open to the minds of its citizens.

Dr Odugbemi stated that the substantive challenge was for the state to deliver services to its citizens. When religious groups have sought to challenge a state, they have done so through moving into poor areas where they could start to provide health and water, before recruiting people into their processes. Dr Odugbemi suggested that not only must the state be a foundation of justice to all citizens and community groups, it must also be seen to be doing so. To do so required a daily communication effort. If such a message was not being conveyed, the state


1 – 5 February 2010 76

would begin losing this battle. If the citizens were lacking a voice, if they did not feel part of the community, they would be tempted to leave.

The delegates’ colleagues around the world had been trying to rebuild media systems in post‐conflict environments. Dr Odugbemi showed that studies had suggested that media must be plural to encourage broad debate. If possible, a public broadcasting system should belong fairly to the people, following the models of the BBC and post‐Apartheid South Africa. Additionally, a code should regulate how the media reacted with sensitivity to difficult issues.

The problem, as Dr Odugbemi saw it, was that the international community would try to set up such media systems after a period of violence had recently ended then, after the departure of international agents, domestic leaders would revert to the media control they had either before or during the conflict. Authoritarians tended to forget that they could not control common talk, in mosques, workplaces and the dinner table, and that public opinion would be formed that could sew the seeds of a revitalised conflict.

Dr Odugbemi stressed how important it was to build a genuinely national media system in the public sphere. This system should support the idea of a shared and inclusive nation. Media events could help to unite divisions between the people. Dr Odugbemi advised the delegates always to ensure that public opinion supported the joint enterprise of building one nation. Information hegemony was tempting, but it could encourage more people to exit the community than show loyalty to the state.

Discussion

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho MNA, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Defence of the National Assembly of Pakistan, related that Pakistan’s history showed how dictators not only ruled by force, but would also focus on a common agenda, usually of religion. This could cause fragmentation.

Major General Abdus Salam MP, Chairman of the Bangladeshi Parliament’s Standing Committee on the Ministry of Home Affairs, did not consider either Britain or Northern Ireland fragile states, although they had suffered conflicts. Media here were characteristically impartial; however, they could be seen to act out of their own desires, rather than according to state secrecy, for example. He asked what the limits to their freedom were and the extent of their accountability.

Mr Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik MP from the Maldives recounted how every leader would try to use media as a tool for control. The Maldives had recently progressed from dictatorial to democratic power, yet their two television channels were still controlled by the state. He said it was very difficult to build up an independent television or radio network there, and asked whether the World Bank or a similar international organisation could help fund or advise media operations in the Maldives.

Dr Odugbemi explained that leaders would often try to subvert public opinion to convince the populace that they deserved their position in charge. Any channel might be utilised in an attempt to bolster their chances of survival but, if disingenuous, such an approach would eventually falter. In Bangladesh, laws of defamation and responsibility might hold the media to account, but issues


1 – 5 February 2010 77

of national security could be more divisive, Dr Odugbemi warned. By creating a plural media environment, the public would be able to monitor the media and cry out falsehood when they suspected it. Dr Odugbemi knew of pillars of the Maldives community who could advise the parliamentary representatives, and the World Bank could also lend its assistance. No country had a sealed media space; with satellite and the internet, BBC World and the Voice of America, every media environment was now porous; every country could break out of authoritarian control. The problem that Dr Odugbemi detected was one of short‐sighted leaders who could not see that attempts to control the media would always lead to conflict.

Hon. Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, expressed how his country was at a crossroads. It was utilising new means of media technology while becoming excessively capitalistic, with the government interested in media for its financial returns.

Senator Bonisile Queeneth Mngometulu from Swaziland stated that the media were vital to communication processes within any country, but in most African countries they could be a voice of opposition that caused chaos. She felt media freedom had to be limited in developing countries.

Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda thought her compatriots were anxious about seeing a repetition of the signs that had led to the Rwandan genocide of 1994. How could they tread this fragile ground between freedom and chaos, as far as their media was concerned?

Dr Odugbemi stated that anyone in government must be ready for their lives to be made uncomfortable by media, because that was the media’s role. He disagreed African media needed more control, but asked who would guard the guardians. Authoritarian leaders were entirely fallible but media acted as a check and balance to their actions, as did independent parliaments. Both were based on the notion that you should never place all your trust in one side, one person or one party. Dr Odugbemi encouraged all the delegates to be sceptical about the goodness of humanity. Codes of media ethics were already in place, and these were sufficient to monitor such systems. Giving people the voice to be included in a nation was the best guarantee of building that nation, Dr Odugbemi concluded.


1 – 5 February 2010 78

Rebuilding Public Confidence After Violent Conflict: Northern Ireland Assembly Case Study

How have parliamentarians elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly worked to build an inclusive and transparent political system in Northern Ireland? How have they negotiated public expectations through transition? How do parliamentarians perform their role of scrutiny without undermining fragile peace? What have been the challenges and political breakthroughs? What lessons have been learned from working with civil society and the media?

Speakers

• Rt Hon. Jeffrey Donaldson MP MLA – Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)

• Mr Francie Molloy MLA – Sinn Féin

• Mr Danny Kennedy MLA Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)

• Mr Alban Maginness MLA Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)

• Mr David Ford MLA – Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

• Ms Dawn Purvis MLA – Progressive Unionist Party (PUP)

Chair

• Mr William Hay MLA – Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly Session Introduction

Mr William Hay MLA, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, chaired the session. The Northern Ireland Assembly received many overseas visitors. Some came to express support and some to learn, but Speaker Hay had seen how all such visitors wanted to work together towards common ends. Parliaments in Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Dublin had been supportive of members and had shared their expertise. Facilitated by the CPA, a number of parliamentary officials from Northern Ireland had gained insight into how similar processes worked around the world. For this and more, the Assembly owed a great deal of gratitude, and would seek to repay it by opening its doors to other countries to see how aspects of the Northern Ireland experience could help them.

When talking to any delegates, Speaker Hay said he was always careful not to uphold Northern Ireland’s parliamentary process as a perfect one, but as a work in progress. He was hopeful his guests today and tomorrow would find something from sharing experiences, a practical step or a principle, that they could apply to their home environments. The theme of this morning’s case study was the role the Assembly and its members had played in building political confidence in Northern Ireland. Each representative would speak about their party’s part in the peace process.


1 – 5 February 2010 79

The Assembly Commission was the corporate body that chaired the Assembly. Its central task was to provide the staff necessary for the Northern Ireland Assembly to function. It had agreed on a vision that strengthened democracy and engaged the people of Northern Ireland in building a better future for its citizens. These aims required ongoing engagement between real people and parliamentarians, such as through an educational programme in which school groups could learn about these institutions. Visitor facilities and internet streaming had improved access, and a youth assembly was being designed to give young people the opportunity to have their say on matters of importance. Speaker Hay believed the Commission’s programme was ambitious but should capture the views of all people of Northern Ireland. To gain confidence and support in political institutions, which was important to countries moving beyond conflict and division, engagement with the populace was vital.

This was the first time the main chamber of Stormont had hosted an event of this sort. The delegates gave their support for this gesture.

Presentations

The first speaker was Rt Hon. Jeffrey Donaldson MP MLA, of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). It was his view and the view of his party that the political process was the only way to resolve division, through policy, democracy, dialogue and agreement, rather than through violence. Building public confidence was an important part of the peacebuilding process, in order to bring people with you when forming agreements. To do so required leadership, which encompassed compromises, risks and patience.

Mr Donaldson believed that consultation was an important tool by which politicians could engage with the public, to explain and communicate, and avoid forming a gap between what the people wanted and what the politicians were doing. Mr Donaldson had learned that not consulting enough with the wider community could lead to difficulties, but consulting sufficiently would build trust. He explained some of the complexities of Northern Ireland’s cross‐party process, which had built in safeguards to ensure that people’s rights were protected.

Alluding to the Speaker’s opening remarks, Mr Donaldson said that the DUP did not pretend that their process was an exemplar; however, he hoped that some of its key principles could be shared and replicated in conflict situations. He would often be asked how he could sit in government with people who supported terrorism. Many people had put the violence of Northern Ireland behind them, but it remained the country’s legacy. He was a member of this Assembly so that he could work towards a better future for the country’s children by ensuring the wrongs of the past were never repeated.

Mr Francie Molloy MLA from Sinn Féin was then asked to speak. He began by explaining some of the history of his political organisation, which was separatist in that it argued for freedom from Britain in order to exercise Irish independence. On this basis, it also questioned the terms of the Commonwealth.

Mr Molloy said that the peacebuilding process was continuous. It would meet setbacks, but these should be expected. In January of this year, Mr Molloy’s movement had boycotted the Assembly and had taken no part in partition assemblies in Belfast, as they saw them as contrary to their needs. The Good Friday Agreement had given Sinn Féin the opportunity to participate in


1 – 5 February 2010 80

parliamentary processes and try to build trust with opposition parties, working together to look forward, bound by a structure that incorporated every voice of the community. There was no doubt that that work would have failed if there had been divisions in the Assembly.

Mr Molloy believed that building trust was part of working together: sharing experiences, negotiating conclusions and fulfilling agreements. At times, as part of such activities, there could be too much dependency on outside influences, when ultimately it was the people of the Assembly, supported by the people of Northern Ireland, who were empowered to build a lasting peace. To be in this Assembly and to be a part of a structure that included differences was vital for peace to succeed and trust to be built with the people.

The following speaker was Mr Danny Kennedy MLA, the Deputy Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). He said that his party was extremely proud of the role it had played in constructing peace and devolving democratic institutions. Although the system was far from perfect, it had given the people of Northern Ireland the capability to contemplate a future in which prosperity and community would prevail over violence and hatred.

Mr Kennedy explained that the Belfast Agreement was constructed based on the following premises: Executive power could only be devolved if it was shared across both traditional communities; the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could only be changed if the majority of people wanted and agreed to it; and the basic identities of the two main traditions were recognised. When the Agreement was signed, many issues were still outstanding. However, the fact that some viewed the Agreement as part of an ongoing process meant that not all the benefits of peace had been implemented. There were many difficulties to instituting power‐sharing arrangements, but such agreements were more likely to succeed if politicians were prepared to work together to build good governance. One of Mr Kennedy’s main messages was that, after agreement had been reached, politicians must work hard to deliver the positive outcomes that that agreement represented.

Mr Kennedy also outlined some of the detailed work that was being undertaken by Assembly Committees, which had helped to build personal and professional relationships. This had been to the good of the people of Northern Ireland; they had defined national approaches to child poverty and to working with the European community, for example. Mr Kennedy believed that the more honest and consensual the Executive, the more honest and open its scrutiny would be. The more focused the Executive was on delivering outcomes that would improve people’s lives, the more focused the Assembly would be on ensuring those policies were the best available.

Next to speak was Mr Alban Maginness MLA, from the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), who also thought it vital to share experiences of conflict from around the world, whatever the bases of those conflicts. He explained how, for many years, the Stormont building was seen as a symbol of repression and division for its people. Now, it had become a symbol of unity, of reconciliation and of hope. Moreover, it was a source of pride for this reason: because people had come together to try to resolve the divisions in society that had existed for hundreds of years, in the island’s troubled history of divided people.

Mr Maginness explained that the 1998 Good Friday Agreement was based on an analysis that said that the relationship between Catholics and Protestants, nationalists and unionists, in Northern Ireland, was dysfunctional and it had to be repaired. The way that reparation was to take place


1 – 5 February 2010 81

was to establish certain institutions such as this National Assembly to bring everybody together to work in partnership. Mr Maginness thought it could only be through partnership that the conditions would be created in which reconciliation could be achieved. The people of Northern Ireland had hated and killed one another, so they had to work together in order to achieve true reconciliation.

Much of the SDLP’s inspiration was drawn from the experiences of the American civil rights movement, which had asked all people of a nation to show tolerance to one another. In communities that were divided on racial or ethnic lines, any decisions affecting them had to be consensual. Mr Maginness argued that, by building consensus, you could create the partnership necessary that would effect reconciliation. Not only was the aim of the SDLP to repair age‐old relationships, but also to unite the two parts of this divided island to work together and create the conditions in which reconciliation could take place. The same was true between Ireland and Britain, and Mr Macguinnes felt much could be achieved in this particular area through the British Irish Council.

Speaker Hay then invited Mr David Ford MLA, a member of the Alliance Party, to speak. He explained that his party stood outside of normal politics specifically to promote partnership and reconciliation. That gave it a particular focus on building confidence in political institutions.

In 1998 Mr Ford had worked to build a personal relationship with every member of the National Assembly, at a time when many of its members were not even on speaking terms. He saw his role as a constructive obligation – not to oppose for the sake of it, but to make legislation better and to argue a case constructively. Even though the Alliance Party was not part of the Executive, it had proposed the necessary policies to ensure a department of justice that could deliver for the future of Northern Ireland’s people.

The Alliance Party had criticised the details of the Agreement, but accepted the importance of building confidence and working with the institutions that existed in good faith. The arrangements of government were set up as a result of this peace process. Mr Ford thought them cumbersome and that some had produced bad governance but, nevertheless, they had been necessary. He was hopeful, now that confidence had been demonstrated in joint ownership, that the parties involved could move forward with new arrangements. To demonstrate to the people that politics was working, it was essential to have robust scrutiny in this Assembly building. Mr Ford said that his role in pushing politicians to make agreement had helped move towards that progress and sustain it in the years ahead.

The final speaker was Ms Dawn Purvis MLA from the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), who began by expressing how it was never easy to build peace and confidence. The founders of her Party had come to this conflict as young men from deprived neighbourhoods, with a developed and coherent understanding that violence could not achieve their ends and would no help them meet their political ambitions. The PUP was working on the front line to build confidence in peace and political processes, to address issues of poverty, isolation and the limited expectations that made these poor areas flashpoints for conflict.

The last few weeks had undermined faith in Northern Ireland’s peace process, Ms Purvis said. The reaction had been particularly acute in working class communities, where the peace dividend had not been as high as expected. Many key institutions in the country, such as education, remained


1 – 5 February 2010 82

unequal. However, Ms Purvis thought all such institutions had worked hard to remove violence so that negotiations could take place. This was not to say that violence was no longer an issue. There were individuals who would never believe in the political process and who would always prefer violence. The responsibility of this generation of political leaders, as Ms Purvis saw it, was to create a society that was fair, just and based on human rights in order to render the violent powerless.

The most valuable lesson Ms Purvis could offer was the importance of inclusion. A number of agreements over Northern Ireland’s history had been forged from hand‐picked organisations and leaders and ignored those who had been most involved in conflict. All of them had failed. It was only with the inclusion of everyone that a sustainable agreement had now been reached. The Good Friday or Belfast Agreement was a triumph, but it had left a number of issues unresolved, such as DDR, or the devolution of policing and justice systems. This had allowed a degree of uncertainty that had led to the constant reintroduction of negotiation. Uncertainty could be destabilising to the entire political process, which was how today’s situation had arisen.

Northern Ireland was not doing enough to address its past. The fault lines of the conflict would not be sealed until they had been dealt with directly. Ms Purvis believed that the road ahead for the country was now to move to the next step of political maturity. This required it to show that the peace process was the sole possession of the people of Northern Ireland. Ms Purvis stated that politicians had been elected to service the people’s wants and at their discretion.

Discussion

The floor was now open to questions, the first of which came from Hon. Henry Banyenzaki MP from Uganda, who asked how a free and fair election could be delivered with a multi‐party parliamentary system, and how Northern Ireland’s oversight Commission was comprised.

The next question came from Hon. Adan Tarabi Ogle MP from Somaliland, who stressed how important it was to form trust between opposing political groups. He asked how this could best be done.

Hon. Ferial Ashraff MP, Minister of Housing and Common Alliances from Sri Lanka, queried what had caused Northern Ireland to decide it was ready to leave conflict behind and work together for the betterment of future generations.

On the question of elections, Mr Kennedy’s view was that Northern Ireland had always been a part of the British democratic tradition, which meant elections could be fought freely and fairly with the participation of those who wished it. There had been worries about non‐participation, but the mind of the electorate had always been openly expressed. The issue of trust was key in a post‐conflict situation, although Mr Kennedy thought that establishing that trust in Northern Ireland had taken longer than expected. Personalities were very important in politics, so building a relationship could always be challenging. On the last question, Mr Kennedy explained that a great deal of work had been done behind the scenes in enabling paramilitary organisations to agree to ceasefire. The peace process was designed to end the violence, before handing over to the political process to build the country’s future.


1 – 5 February 2010 83

Mr Ford agreed elections in Northern Ireland had always been free, but he was not sure they had been similarly fair. To build trust, Mr Ford’s party had taken the view that it was important to seize on any opportunities for engagement and hope that gesture could be reciprocated by those who may have been engaged in violence.

Mr Molloy described Northern Ireland’s election process as gerrymandered. He said trust could be built in small ways, working with people and getting to know them. There was not one particular moment when the violence had ended, but involving people in all‐party talks had helped.

Ms Purvis considered that trust had to be built over time and to different degrees. As long as a politician could work with someone in the belief that they would deliver what was agreed, that trust could be built upon. Northern Ireland’s violent conflict had been long and protracted, sending many to prison. On their release, they had returned to their paramilitary organisations to tell them violence was wrong and would not achieve the desired outcomes. Alongside this, organisations and wider society had been transformed, with people now being encouraged to have a voice in their country’s future.

The SDLP had never participated in violence, because they felt it further divided people, was morally wrong and counterproductive. Violence was no solution to a problem; instead it became the problem, said Mr Maginness. His view of why the violence had ended was that, after 30 years, people were exhausted by it and realised it was going nowhere. His party and others had participated in a political process and dialogue that had replaced the violence of the past. This context of non‐violence had allowed political negotiations to take place. Finally, Mr Maginness said it was very important in a divided society to ensure everyone that participated in its reconstruction.

Building trust was a personal process, Mr Donaldson said. Recognising the common humanity of your opponent even if you despised them was an important step in that process. A political party that was engaged in negotiations needed to understand their goals and also show that they were willing to make compromises. Knowledge of what your own party and its opposition needed and wanted were the basic elements to agreement.

Dr Ibrahim Gashi MP, Vice Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly, shared some of the methods by which his country’s success had prevailed. With the support of the international community, Kosovo had worked hard to engage minority groups in all their institutions. He asked whether the 1998 Agreement had altered national legislation.

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya queried whether Northern Ireland’s youth assembly was legally recognised across society, and what role it and the country’s women had in forming peace.

Dr Muhammad Serajul Akbar MP from Bangladesh referred to the role of external actors in any country’s conflicts. He asked whether they were more important than internal actors.

Speaker Hay outlined that Northern Ireland’s young people were involved in designing the model of their assembly, which should be established by the end of 2010. It would have a role in scrutinising the operations of the adult Assembly.


1 – 5 February 2010 84

Mr Donaldson explained that the 1998 Agreement was enacted into law, making changes to the country’s constitution. The operation of the Assembly and its relationship with Britain were all regulated by law. External players, specifically Britain, the EU Government and the Clinton administration, had played an important part in encouraging and facilitating that Agreement. Ultimately however, he thought that agreements of this sort had always to be reached by those involved in the conflict and their communities.

Mr Kennedy expressed that external help was always welcome, so long as it was even‐handed and impartial. He commented that the Assembly was under‐represented by young people and women, but all parties were engaged in rectifying that situation.

Mrs Jacqueline Isobel Dean MP from New Zealand queried Mr Ford’s position, which appeared to be outside of the normal parliamentary structure and its role to scrutinise activities. She asked whether this excluded him from taking a position in the Executive, if offered.

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland queried what efforts were being made to include political actors who were not part of the Agreement.

Hon. Anthony Agius Decelis MP from Malta asked Mr Molloy what event had caused his party to lift its boycott on the Assembly and start attending Assembly meetings. Had this been more fruitful than non‐participation?

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MPA from Pakistan was reminded of his constituency in Larkana by descriptions of the problems in Northern Ireland. Through conflict, people there had been deprived of the right to rule. He asked what the most important step was to change conflict into peace.

Mr Ford explained that all Assembly Committees had a scrutiny role and, in this current difficult phase, the make‐up of the Executive might be changing. While not all parties were part of the 1998 Agreement, all had some form of proxy representation. One of the successes of the peace process had been their continuing involvement.

Mr Molloy explained that Stormont used to represent a one‐party state, but greater involvement had followed the all‐party talks. He thought it had been more fruitful to be engaged in these than not. Oppression would only result in more violence, so what was needed was more time in negotiations and within the parliamentary structure in order to deliver results for the people.

Ms Purvis related that some of Northern Ireland’s political parties were not involved in this Assembly, while others had continued to be involved in violence. This situation might be changed if the importance of politics in building a just and fair society could be better demonstrated. It would show parties in the political extremes that there was another way.

Mr Maginness agreed that people had to believe that politics produced outcomes – that there was an alternative to violence. He was not so sure a post‐conflict situation could ever be reached. The violence might end but, if divisions still existed, so too would violence. Some people believed that the Agreement was only a substitution process, transferring conflict from violence to politics. However, it was his view that partnership would lead to reconciliation and the end of fighting.


1 – 5 February 2010 85

Mrs Christine Muttonen MP, Government Spokesperson on EU Affairs and Foreign Policy from Austria, reinforced the above statement about including a greater involvement of women in any peace process. Women’s role in such negotiations was vital.

Hon. Tuyisenge Solange MP from Rwanda expressed how hard it had been to witness the genocide in her country. However, her people had made a choice: they had asked whether to dwell in their past or move to their future. Whatever their stance on a political issue, they were all working to the same objectives.

Hon. Surendra Dayal MP, Chief Government Whip from Mauritius, thought the Northern Irish politicians’ initiative to work for their country’s children laudable, but asked whether the real problems had been solved or were just being ignored because the combatants were tired.

Mr Donaldson stated that the reality was that the underlying problems of his country had not been solved. All they had was a framework with which to address them; the negotiations continued. He said that there was no agreement on how the legacy of the past should be dealt with, but parliamentarians hoped to focus people on the future, while also acknowledging that they had to understand what had happened and bring some reparation for that. More than anything, the community needed to know what was being done about education, roads and housing and other visible signs of their future. Importantly now, they had a structure to do this, for debate and eventually resolution of these issues. Mr Donaldson stressed that those who stood for violence did not have popular support. These people would not detract the politicians from building a better future for their people.

Ms Purvis agreed with all of the above comments. There was still religious division in Northern Irish society, which needed to be addressed, particularly as the locations of those divisions were some of the most deprived areas. Ms Purvis also explained that it was the responsibility of all parties to ensure that women were selected as candidates and elected to civic institutions, but were also more involved in work going on in grassroots institutions.

Mr Kennedy said that the peace process had largely succeeded in moving communities away from violence, despite the enormous challenges. However, reconciliation was equally important. As Mandela said, ‘If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.’

Mr Molloy did not believe the conflict in his country had ended for the reason that its perpetrators were tired, but because they had worked towards a solution. One of the outside influences referred to was the British Government. Most world powers were engaged in wars, so it was hardly surprising that communities knew to turn so quickly to killing as a way to resolve issues. He wondered if maybe the major world powers also needed to be reminded of the need to talk to people to resolve issues.

Mr Ford believed that women were informally active in many communities in Northern Ireland, but not adequately represented in political life. When compared to the genocide in Rwanda, Mr Ford described the Troubles as more of a ‘nagging conflict’ that had dragged on over many years. He did not feel Northern Ireland had fully resolved its issues. The Agreement was not the ceiling of their ambitions, but the foundation on which those ambitions must now be built.


1 – 5 February 2010 86

Hon. Ibrahim Matolo MP from Malawi queried whether Northern Ireland’s political parties would only emerge at election time and not endure the hard times too.

Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, gave his view that the divisions of Northern Ireland needed to be addressed to prevent relapse in the near future. He asked what was being done to do this.

Hon. Eunice Tamanda Napolo MP from Malawi believed the media had the power either to integrate or divide, and asked how they had contributed to peacebuilding in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kiramatullah Khan MP, Speaker of Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province Assembly, described the ongoing violence in his province as ‘collateral damage’ from the war on terror. He did not know how to lessen this damage.

Mr Maginness explained that political parties had not emerged newly for this Assembly, but had existed since before the Agreement. As far as divisions went, he stated that political violence, apart from being destructive and divisive, would disguise the underlying causes of conflict, as people would often instead be consumed by the fighting itself. Political partnership would establish the conditions for a sustained reconciliation, which should heal those divisions over time, as long as all participants kept working together. Mr Maginness thought the media had accurately reflected the different views of society and reported the truth of the conflict.

Ms Purvis disagreed with this last point: she did not think the media had played a constructive role, particularly newspapers, which were less restricted than other forms. They had not reported on the good work of the Assembly and had forgotten that the war was over, she said. The difficulty the Assembly faced, in trying to address the divisions in society through its policies and strategies, was that many parties could not agree on the causes of the conflict. There were ideological differences as to who was involved, and whether the conflict was religious or territorial. Ms Purvis explained that there had been numerous different political experiments in Northern Ireland, but usually as a result of splits from existing parties, so any new bodies tended to be formed by experienced politicians. On Pakistan, Ms Purvis commented that calling even one death ‘collateral damage’ could be very hurtful to those who had suffered. A security problem should warrant the response of the military force of the state. If the violence being caused was ideological or religious, a different response would be required, in order to ensure that the minority’s issues were being addressed by the government. It was up to the state to respond in a way that addressed the violence, rather than being focused on reducing collateral damage.

Mr Donaldson’s view was that a system of voluntary coalition would enable further progress, for new parties to emerge and for realignments to take place. The current system in Northern Ireland was necessary during this period of transition, but should not be permanent when it was capable of stunting the capacity of the political process to change. While there was power‐sharing in the Assembly, there was still disunion in the community. A shared future strategy was fundamental to healing present divisions, Mr Donaldson thought.

Mr Kennedy stated that the primary concern of Northern Ireland’s politicians should be the legacy of bitterness arising from the conflict. The best ways to address this were at the grassroots level and by leading by example. His view was that journalists had largely acted responsibly during and


1 – 5 February 2010 87

after the conflict; they had been firmly of the view that the atrocities must end. However, the media were still too large and had published some stories that were unhelpful.

Mr Molloy doubted the media were a positive aspect in the resolution of the conflict. They were as critical of attempts to end the conflict as they were of the conflict itself, and had sometimes encouraged divisions. Mr Molloy did not accept that the conflict was based on religious differences. He said his knowledge of insurrections in Pakistan was limited, but he knew from Northern Ireland that repressing violence could sometimes encourage it further.

Mr Ford could remember occasions when the media had come together to share positive news, but cautioned that journalists were more interested in dissent, because it made better television. References to the ongoing divisions were a constant reminder to the politicians present that they should continue doing as they were. People were asking for integration, and the country had seen some success, for example through the fair employment reforms of the 1980s.

Closing Remarks

Speaker Hay asked the delegate and Northern Ireland Assembly Member Mr Basil McCrea MLA to close the session. Mr McCrea expressed how humbling his experiences of the conference had been over the last four days. There was a tendency for colleagues to think they were the only people who had experienced conflict and the consequent need for peacebuilding, but strategies had been brought to his attention that he was previously unaware of, such as transitional arrangements, reintegration of ex‐combatants and the need for justice. The conflicts he had discussed with fellow parliamentarians from around the world told him that Northern Ireland was not alone. Others had suffered and knew how to end suffering. The delegates were present at the conference to learn about the Northern Ireland peace process, but Northern Ireland had much to learn too, if all could work together for the benefit of their nations.

Mr Tuggey thanked Speaker Hay for the privilege of inviting the delegation to this Assembly, and Speaker Hay thanked Assembly Members for taking time out of their busy schedules to attend.


1 – 5 February 2010 88

Parallel Workshops Session 2

Facilitator‐guided workshops giving delegates the opportunity to explore key issues and to share personal experiences, challenges and lessons learned. With the aim of developing strategies and follow‐up action at the national, regional and international level, the following workshops took place:

Workshops

• Conflict Sensitive Policy Making ‐ Part 2 Facilitators: Mrs Fleur Just, Training and Learning Team Manager; and Mr Aurélien Tobie, Programme Officer, International Alert

• Negotiating Peacemaking Strategies: Engaging Armed Groups and Civil Society Facilitators: Mr Jonathan Cohen, Director of Programmes; and Ms Cynthia Petrigh, Director of Policy and Comparative Learning, Conciliation Resources

• Working with Civil Society: Where next for UN Security Council Resolution 1325? Facilitators: Ms Cynthia Gaigals, Manager, Peacebuilding Issues Programme; and Ms Minna Lyytikainen, Programme Officer, International Alert

• The Role of Media and Communications in Transition to Stability Facilitators: Mr Gordon Adam, Director; and Mr Emrys Schoemaker, Director, iMedia Associates


http://www.c-r.org/


http://imediaassociates.org/

http://imediaassociates.org/


1 – 5 February 2010 89

FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2010: Stormont, Belfast

Workshop Feedback

A delegate‐led session to present the outcomes of workshops held on the previous two days.

Rapporteurs

• Managing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding Rapporteur: Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP – Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, Zambia

• Conflict Sensitive Policy Making – Parts 1 & 2 Rapporteur: Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP – Kenya

• The Role of Media and Communications in Transition to Stability Rapporteur: Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP – East African Legislative Assembly (Kenya)

• Negotiating Peacemaking Strategies: Engaging Armed Groups and Civil Society Rapporteur: Hon. Eunice Tamanda Napolo MP – Malawi

• Working for a More Accountable Security Sector ‐ Police, Military and Intelligence Rapporteur: Ms Jacqueline Isobel Dean MP – New Zealand

• Working with Civil Society: Where next for UN Security Council Resolution 1325? Rapporteur: Mrs Christine Muttonen MP – Government Spokesperson on EU Affairs and Foreign Policy, Austria

Chair

• Mr Andrew Tuggey DL – Secretary, CPA UK


Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, thanked colleagues from New Zealand, Peru and Ghana for appearing on television interviews. There had been an historic agreement formed in the previous night to devolve policing to Northern Ireland from April. As a result of which, the Prime Minister of the UK and the Taoiseach of Ireland would be arriving at Hillsborough Castle to endorse these plans.

http://www.cpaukbranch.org/


1 – 5 February 2010 90

1. Managing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding

This workshop had divided their topic into three strands : the ways in which natural resources could contribute to conflict; to peace; and who was involved. The spokesperson for the group, Hon. Angela Njodo Cifire MP of Zambia, Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development, explained that case studies had been taken from Sudan and Norway, whose deteriorating economies had contributed to instability.

The principal players involved in extraction were identified as multilateral institutions, citizens and society. When working together, parliamentarians were capable of finding solutions, Hon. Cifire reported. Their obligations covered the roles of legislation, representation, oversight and budgeting. Any laws they introduced had to avoid sending the benefits of natural resources to different parts of the citizenry unequally. If parliamentarians could ensure their constituents had fair input into the legislation formed, they could avoid blame for any errors, because all would be implicated. Their duty of oversight was to ensure that what was planned would pass as planned. If these steps were put in place, national budgets would benefit, Hon. Cifire concluded.

2. Conflict Sensitive Policy Making, Parts 1 & 2

Hon. Sophia Abdi Noor MP from Kenya explained that this workshop had been facilitated by staff from International Alert. It first aimed to provide definitions for ‘violence’, ‘conflict’ and ‘peace, without reference to dictionaries. ‘Violence’ was defined as physical confrontation between individuals or groups. It could be caused by discrimination, lack of basic needs and exclusion from decision‐making, or might also be the psychological clash of competing thoughts. ‘Conflict’ was based on different interests, values or history. It could start from mistrust or misunderstanding that then caused some disagreement. Actors in conflict would have different positions, goals, capacities or relationships. They could be expressed personally or through groups or parties. Peace was considered the requirement for everything, for progress and development. Peace was likened to love. Hon. Noor said that if you could extend your love for yourself to your neighbour, there would be neither conflict nor violence.

Hon. Noor pointed out that some policies could cease conflict while others might cause conflict. They might be unintentional, such as a policy to build a new road dividing a community. The second session of this workshop sought to analyse conflict, looking at the possible risks, causes and solutions. Better education could rationalise political decisions.

3. The Role of Media and Communications in Transition to Stability

This group was facilitated by iMedia Associates. From the outset it had agreed that communication and new technology – especially the internet and mobile telephony – had greatly transformed the way information was transmitted in various communities today. The distribution of mobile phones worldwide was dramatic. The growth of this technology was highest in Africa and Asia, where there were many cases of instability. The role of media communication to resolve conflicts therefore had become extremely important.

Spokesperson for this group, Hon. Gervase Buluma Akhaabi MP, Kenyan representative of the East African Legislative Assembly, recounted that the delegates had shared their experiences from


1 – 5 February 2010 91

their home countries. The view was that the media could play a stabilising role, for example by disseminating information about a government’s development plans. The media can be used to shape public opinion and help hold the government and public authorities to account, as they were doing in the UK with MPs’ expenses claims. The media might play a more destabilising role if they were partisan or were using propaganda as a tool to serve sectarian interests, advancing hate in society. In this case, Rwanda was cited.

The group had considered immediate broadcasting, like the news of the peace deal signed in Stormont the previous night. There was also a role for social media. For example, the people of Tanzania were demanding services from the public authorities. If not received, they would complain to the media. Another project allowed citizens to submit their own reports of trouble spots in order to stave off possible violence around elections. The entire group was of the view that the media and telecommunications industries ought to be free to allow for better competition. This could be assisted by regulation of the policy framework. Hon. Akhaabi asked if the conference was resolved to establish a Commonwealth Media Charter for training, capacity‐building and free access to information throughout member countries.

4. Negotiating Peacemaking Strategies: Engaging Armed Groups and Civil Society

The first group to investigate this topic was represented by Hon. Eunice Tamanda Napolo MP from Malawi. They had decided that a peace process could create the basis for a new political statement. To be effective, it should encompass broad public participation. It was also important to integrate armed groups in this process to improve understanding of the conflict and build mutual confidence. Marginalised stakeholders must be invited to the negotiations too, like women, youth and minorities. International actors could strengthen and complement capacities for conflict resolution, and promote the transparency and accountability of those involved in the negotiations.

Poverty was seen as the main cause of societal conflicts, Hon. Napolo said. Struggles for power and equality were really struggles for rights. Those in conflict would need to negotiate peace directly, rather than allow themselves to be forced by the will of external actors. Parliamentarians had an essential scrutiny role.

Senator Mobina Jaffer QC from Canada was also involved in a workshop looking at this topic. This group had discussed the duty of parliament to ensure inclusiveness and engage with many different groups, including enemies, to build a long‐term peace process. Find out about armed groups, what they were made up of and how they were funded, Senator Jaffer advised.

Women should not simply be grouped with general society when trying to increase their involvement, but should be reached out to specifically. This group had discussed the sequencing of peacebuilding, and when to involve each sector. This was considered a continuous process. Senator Jaffer advised the inclusion of social groups below the elites, so that talks could continue. She reminded the delegates of an old African proverb: if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.


1 – 5 February 2010 92

4. Working for a More Accountable Security Sector: Police, Military and Intelligence

Ms Jacqueline Isobel Dean MP from New Zealand spoke for a group that had focused on the foundations for a police force. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Handbook on Security Sector Reform was recommended as a best practice guide. The most discussed issues were the balance between the force of the police and the rights of the people and the adoption of a community‐based policing model.

The question was posed: how could an individual police officer be held accountable for the consequences of his actions? This group had decided that training would instil values; the police should be accountable to their public and environment; they should be paid and resourced well; promotion should be merit‐based; and there must be clear legal and administrative rules around behaviour and conduct. As a result of their workshop, Ms Dean said, this group had decided the one change they would make would be for MPs to visit their police forces. This could be a motivating experience and provide a good link between a government and its population. This group also aimed to improve reporting and better police working conditions. Some emphasis was placed on equipping police so that they were better able to serve their communities.

5. Working with Civil Society: Where Next for UN Security Council Resolution 1325?

Mrs Christine Muttonen MP, Government Spokesperson on EU Affairs and Foreign Policy from Austria, said that her group had been passionate and interesting. An analysis of case studies had led to intense and sometimes controversial discussions on gender equality, society, cultural background, institutionalised social constructs, education, the glass ceiling and power.

Resolution 1325 had been set up 10 years ago as a political framework to include the relevance of gender in all aspects of peacebuilding. For a sustainable peace, the group was united in its view that women had to be fully involved in prevention, protection and reconstruction. It was the responsibility of parliamentarians to set up action plans for the implementation and monitoring of Resolution 1325.

Mrs Muttonen recalled the words of a former UN Peacekeeping Operations Commander, who had said it was more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict. The delegates were reminded of the need to keep working together to change this situation.


1 – 5 February 2010 93

Community Visits

An opportunity for delegates to see examples of peacebuilding in action by visiting cross community projects or integrated schools in and around Belfast.

Visits

• Visit 1: Visit to Cross‐Community Projects Inter Community Development Project Belfast Conflict Resolution Consortium Mount Vernon Community Development Forum

The Inter Community Development Project, Intercomm, was established in 1995 as the result of growing community concerns about the lack of formal structures to deal with political and sectarian unrest in the absence of meaningful intercommunity contact in the North Belfast area. Intercomm is driven by a fundamental ethos of co‐operation and partnership. Founded in 1995 by community activists Liam Maskey and Billy Mitchell, the project’s core aim is to forge fruitful links between Catholic/Nationalist and Protestant/ Unionist community groups through long term strategic development work, community inspired peace building initiatives, youth programmes and job creation programmes. The cornerstone of Intercomm’s peace building strategy is most importantly the people of North Belfast. Those who have intimately experienced the effects of conflict are the key resource in the project’s aim to transcend community division through dialogue. The Peace Building Programme, as a means of community empowerment, is a pioneering programme which intends to enhance the peacebuilding skills of community workers through informed discussion and debate, assessment of good practice and international experience of conflict resolution. It is an innovative venture combining workshops, seminars, skills training and field trips, with a vision to build capacity within the community for conflicts to be managed and resolved without violence in accordance with universally agreed standards and practices. Intercomm’s Director, Liam Maskey has been a part of many delegations to Brussels, meeting EU politicians and civil servants stressing the importance of civil society organisations developing an income generation strategy to underpin their community development work. He has also developed innovative and empirical models and approaches that advance the process of peace‐building in Northern Ireland and throughout the world, and was instrumental in forging a new partnership with a leading American based Centre for Conflict and Negotiation, as well as locally with Queens and Ulster Universities in Belfast. The Belfast Conflict Resolution Consortium (BCRC) project is an innovative city‐wide cross community partnership approach to conflict transformation at interfaces.

http://www.charterni.com/projects/belfast-conflict-resolution-consortium/

http://l-cap.org/members/mvcdf/index.html


1 – 5 February 2010 94

Set up in April 2007, the BCRC is made up of loyalist, republican, and community activists who, for many years, have been working at the interfaces where they live, to manage and prevent violent outbreaks and potentially violent situations. Throughout the project, BCRC has cultivated tentative contacts between activists to create effective working relationships and develop a cross‐community steering group, response network, and staff. The aims of the BCRC project are twofold: • To provide an integrated response to tensions at interfaces and prevent outbreaks of violence through fostering and expanding cross‐community strategic alliances; • To enhance within interface communities the conflict resolution skills, local leadership capacity, democratic involvement, and reconciliation efforts and share future work on the legacy of the conflict and social problems faced by these working class communities. Mount Vernon, a working class loyalist area in North Belfast which is often perceived by outsiders and the media as a stronghold of paramilitary and criminal activity. The people of Mount Vernon want to change this image and so members of the Mount Vernon Community Development Forum have embarked on a project to create a strategy and vision for the area. This involves encouraging local people to have greater ownership and responsibility for their area by setting out priorities for development for the next five years, and also engaging service providers, the voluntary sector and funders in high quality delivery. Billy Hutchinson is the leading community worker in the area helping to develop the strategy and is also a key driver in building trust and pragmatic relationships between communities in North Belfast. Billy is a member of the Progressive Unionist Party and a former member of the Legislative Assembly and Councilor at Belfast City Hall. • Visit 2: Hazelwood Integrated College

Hazelwood College was the second post‐primary integrated school to be established in Northern Ireland. It was founded in 1985, against a background of sectarian violence, by a group of Protestant and Catholic parents from North Belfast and funded originally by the major charities and the fundraising efforts of parents. Despite receiving no government funding for the first three years, its numbers grew from an initial enrolment of 17 students in 1985 to 858 in 2009. Hazelwood College was founded as an all ability inclusive integrated school that promotes reconciliation and mutual understanding through educational excellence. It accepts students with a wide range of talents and ability, and promotes personal achievement and the realisation of each child’s potential irrespective of religion, gender, race or social background. All areas of school life both inside and outside the classroom are constructed to realise integration. Good relationships are promoted between members of the school community, parents, staff and students. Each subject area reflects, both through content and process, the ethos of integration.

http://www.hazelwoodcollege.co.uk/


1 – 5 February 2010 95

A programme of school events celebrates the integrated ethos of the College. School assemblies provide an opportunity to reflect on the College mission and an annual Peace Assembly takes place to celebrate, with parents and friends, the success of the Hazelwood integrated community. A structured programme of workshops allows students to explore contentious issues. In addition, student involvement in innovative projects and in global links communicates the work of the College to a broader audience. The work of Hazelwood has achieved international recognition. In 1999 the College received the Team Harmony Award in a video linked conference with President Clinton in the White House, and in 2002 the College received both the NICIE Cross Community Award and the NICCI Award for cross community relations.

• Visit 3: Lagan College

Lagan College was founded in 1981 as a religious response to the challenge of community conflict and a religiously divided school system in Northern Ireland. Since 1974 the All Children Together Movement (ACT) had been lobbying the Churches and the Government to take the initiative in educating Protestant and Catholic children together. In 1981 a small group of parents with children at the age of transfer from primary to secondary school decided to take the initiative. With the support of ACT they called a public meeting in February 1981 and founded Lagan College. The college opened with 28 pupils. For the first three years, the College, which aimed to serve the whole community – rich and poor alike – received no Government funding. Parents of pupils contributed what they could afford towards the costs. Following new legislation in 1989 concerned with the development of integrated education, the College became a Grant‐Maintained Integrated School in 1991. This means that 100% of the costs, recurrent and capital, are now funded directly by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. By September 2008 the number of pupils at the college had grown to 1200, with more than 80 teachers. The founders of Lagan College aimed to create an integrated, all‐ability Christian school which would ‘educate to the highest standards Catholics, Protestants and others of goodwill together under the same roof’. This aim remains as important in 2010 as it was in 1981.

http://www.lagancollege.com/


1 – 5 February 2010 96

Discussion Session: Summing Up and Agreement of Conference Communiqué

Chair

• Lord Dubs – Labour; Member, UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights; Parliamentary Under‐Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office 1997‐99


The Chair of the session was Lord Dubs, Labour peer and UK Parliamentary Under‐Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office, 1997‐99. He stated that the timing of this meeting was perfect, closely following the agreement to devolve policing and justice powers to Belfast. This was an important breakthrough. The session would first gather the delegates’ feedback about the conference.

Feedback

Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, described the week as ‘wonderful’ for bringing people together from all over the world for the exchange of views. His only misgiving, which was minor, was that the delegates had wanted more space and time to contribute in a meaningful way. However, this had not detracted from the significance of the gathering.

Hon. Qedusizi Enock Ndlovu MP from Swaziland thought he was would go away much wiser about approaches to peacekeeping, and praised the organisers for their efforts.

Ms Kari Henriksen MP from Norway was very satisfied with the content and organisation of the conference. She addressed two vital outcomes, the first of which was a preventative focus, with an inclusion of women and children; and the second was the dangerous contribution drugs‐ and arms‐trafficking was making on causing conflict.

Dr Muhammad Serajul Akbar MP from Bangladesh also thought that by hearing from shared experiences he could better help to grow Bangladesh economically. He suggested CPA UK organise another conference on how to deal with issues relating to global warming.

Dr Jakup Krasniqi MP, President of the Kosovo Assembly, thanked CPA UK and CPA NI for inviting the delegates from the newest state in the world. The conference had been of great interest and provided the opportunity to listen to well prepared presentations on fragile states. He had heard from peacebuilding and statebuilding processes around the world. His presence at the conference had allowed him to thank representatives of the 65 countries that so far had recognised Kosovo. Dr Krasniqi said he would appreciate attending further Commonwealth events.

http://www.parliament.uk/jchr/


1 – 5 February 2010 97

Hon. Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, spoke as the only representative of Southeast Asia. He thanked CPA UK and CPA NI on behalf of his region and also for showing the foresight to invite nations from outside the Commonwealth. He hoped all could apply what they had learned from the conference to their own countries.

Mr Sigfrido Reyes Morales, Vice President of El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly, expressed gratitude on behalf of the El Salvadorian delegation. Although his country was not a member of the Commonwealth, it had experience in difficult negotiations and peace agreements. Mr Reyes Morales thought the conference agenda had been intense but usefully so. He and the previous speaker expressed their hope for lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MPA from Pakistan also gave his appreciation, with the hope that CPA UK could organise such events more frequently. He spoke about the peace required in his province following the overspill from Afghanistan.

Hon. Juliana Kantengwa MP from Rwanda recognised that her understanding of humanity had been improved from her learning of conflicts around the world. Seeing these events on the BBC was one thing, but meeting the people involved had given her and could give others another perspective. Her experience of Northern Ireland had only demonstrated that, by working together, humans can achieve what was needed.

Hon. Dr Raphael Masunga Chegeni MP from Tanzania, and member of the AMANI Forum, outlined parliamentarians’ role to provide oversight and set governments’ budgets, and requested that the next CPA UK conference should be held in Nairobi or nearby, so that people’s experiences could be put to effect in the region.

Hon. Adan Kenyan Wehliye MP from Kenya repeated this invitation for a conference in Kenya, thanked CPA UK and CPA NI and reiterated that the basic tenets of any democratically elected parliament remained the same, wherever they came from: to serve the people. Not long ago, his region had been disadvantaged, but it no longer considered this to be the case. This change had proven that no situation was permanent.

Hon. Eunice Tamanda Napolo MP from Malawi thanked CPA UK for extending an invitation to her country, and expressed how much she had learned from the experiences shared.

Hon. Captain George Kofi Nfojoh MP, Vice Chairman of the Committee on Defence and the Interior of Ghana, thanked CPA UK and reviewed the peacekeeping missions he had been involved in, explaining that, even though his country was at peace, its people took nothing for granted. The CPA was urged to continue doing its work so that changes could be made which people could believe in.

Senator Malik Salah Ud Din Dogar from Pakistan expressed his happiness at attending the conference and his desire for peace in Pakistan.

Mr Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik MP from the Maldives said the conference had brought great enlightenment.


1 – 5 February 2010 98

Hon. Theoneste Begumisa Safari MP from Rwanda also thanked the Commonwealth for accepting Rwanda into its membership.

Mrs Christine Muttonen MP, Government Spokesperson on EU Affairs and Foreign Policy from Austria, thought the conference had also been important for those countries not in conflict, in learning how to prevent it.

Mr Basil McCrea MLA from Northern Ireland rose to express his farewell. He felt it had been a privilege to entertain the delegates and hoped that, in future visits, they could find more time to enjoy his country. He was grateful for the invitations he had received to visit other countries, and thanked all the delegates for attending the conference.

Conference Communiqué

Lord Dubs moved to ask for adoption of the communiqué, which had seen a number of changes since its first draft five days ago in London. He drew attention to paragraph 6, and sections (h) and (m). The amendment to establish an international and Commonwealth media and telecommunications charter to encourage peacebuilding had been changed to include non‐Commonwealth countries. Lord Dubs advised that this communiqué would not be statutory or binding and urged its speedy adoption.

Hon. Khuhro wondered if the word ‘Executive’ ought to be included in honour of this office’s efforts towards peacebuilding. Lord Dubs appreciated the point, but reminded all that this was a parliamentary forum and so had to confine its remit.

A delegate moved to adopt the communiqué. Lord Dubs put the question and the delegation found unanimously in favour. He thanked all for their cooperation and good humour, and said that chairing this session had been a positive and illuminating experience for him.

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, explained that the communiqué would be published on CPA UK’s website, while the summary and presentations would be distributed electronically. He thanked Ms Sheila McClelland and her team from the Northern Ireland Assembly for their organisational efforts, and gave particular thanks to Mr McCrea who had remained a part of the conference for the entire week, while very important events were unfolding. He also gave thanks to the organisers in London and to all the delegates for their hard work.


1 – 5 February 2010 99

Closing Keynote Address:

The Commonwealth, International Parliamentary Diplomacy and Building Peace

How has the Commonwealth at its 60th anniversary facilitated inclusive and multilayered international diplomacy and supported transitions from violent conflict to peace? What lessons have been learned? How can the Commonwealth contribute over the next 60 years and what role can parliamentarians play in international diplomacy for sustainable development, peace and security?

Speakers

• Comments: Mr William Hay MLA – Speaker, Northern Ireland Assembly

• Comments: Ms Caitríona Ruane MLA – Minister of Education, Northern Ireland Executive; Sinn Féin

• Keynote: HE Kamalesh Sharma – Secretary‐General, Commonwealth Secretariat

Chair

• Mr Declan O’Loan MLA – Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)

Comments

Mr William Hay MLA, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, introduced Ms Caitríona Ruane MLA, who was to give a few closing remarks.

Ms Ruane had spent many years working in human rights in Central America, at a very difficult time for many of those countries, and also had worked as a UN observer for the first free and fair elections in South Africa, when Nelson Mandela was elected. She said that it was through the work of people like Mandela that President Obama had come to power. Although he could only be judged on the way he used this power, at least his leadership had meant that people who had never voted before were voting now. Ms Ruane gave her thanks to the people of Africa, Asia and Latin America, from whom she realised how much she had to learn from the global South.

Ms Ruane also paid tribute to Speaker Hay for the important role he had played in the peace process for Northern Ireland. The key components of the devolution agreement launched in the morning included policing, parades, rights, justice, equality and language. The parliament of Northern Ireland was now at a different place to 10 days ago, Ms Ruane stated.

As the final session moved to conclude the conference, Speaker Hay wished to say a few brief words. He thanked all those who had been involved in planning and delivering the detailed

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/


1 – 5 February 2010 100

arrangements for the conference, both in Belfast and London. He thanked his own staff, Westminster staff, guest speakers, the organisations that the delegates had visited, and the delegates themselves for taking part so actively and inspirationally.

The conference had offered all on opportunity to share their setbacks and successes, their challenges and breakthroughs. Speaker Hay hoped that all would go home better able to serve their citizens having done so. It was with this spirit that he welcomed His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, Commonwealth Secretary‐General, hoping that all the delegates would take with them a better impression of Northern Ireland. He handed over to Mr Declan O’Loan MLA from the Northern Ireland Assembly, who would be chairing the final session.


Mr O’Loan expressed his pleasure and gratitude at being present at the conference again. He recounted that the CPA had done important work in bringing together representatives from different parliaments and strengthening international ties. Participation in such a body would assist the development of a more coordinated, consistent and cohesive peacebuilding initiative, through sharing and reporting of the advances made.

A recent speech by the Secretary‐General had quoted from the original foundation document of the Commonwealth: ‘We place our hope and trust in the following: international peace and security, democracy, human rights, tolerance, respect and understanding, the separation of powers, the rule of law, freedom of expression, development, gender equality, access to health and education, good governance, civil society.’ Mr O’Loan did not think these easy principles to practise, but it was only on such foundations that the peace so desperately sought in Northern Ireland could be built.

Presentation

HE Kamalesh Sharma began his presentation by stating ‘A Parliament is that to the Commonwealth which the soul is to the body. It behoves us therefore to keep the facility of that soul from distemper.’ Those words were written by John Pym in the late 1640s, but it was now Mr Sharma’s task to nourish the delegates’ souls in the 21st century. He applauded the contribution of Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary of CPA UK, and his staff, as second to none.

As globalists in a globalising world, the Commonwealth welcomed all, whose challenges and solutions were collective and whose humanity was shared. Mr Sharma took this opportunity to salute the people and parliamentarians of Northern Ireland on this happy day for the province. Through sheer force of will, they had secured commitments to pluralism and peace. Mr Sharma conveyed his good wishes to the members of the Assembly, who had been determined to bring benefits to the people. He said it was too easy to forget the importance of parliament to the transformation of conflict; today was another Good Friday to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

Mr Sharma asked all to go away from this event having reflected on the role that parliamentarians could play in tackling state fragility. Peace was more than the absence of conflict, and fragility had multiple layers. All nations were on a journey, and solidarity in that journey was part of the healing touch given to members of a family of nations, such as the Commonwealth – home to countries rich and poor, large and small, new and old, and human kind in all its diversity.


1 – 5 February 2010 101

Mr Sharma explained that state fragility was a relative concept with different gradations. There were over 50 fragile, failing or failed states in the world. This categorisation meant that their governments could or would not deliver the most basic functions to the majority of people. This number represented one quarter of the world’s states, one seventh of its population or one third of its poor. Fragility was defined by challenges yet to be overcome, just as strength was defined by challenges successfully overcome. There were competing reasons why the Millennium Development Goals had not yet been met, but as big a reason as any was that these fragile and failing states were home to disproportionate numbers of the impoverished, the uneducated and diseased, Mr Sharma said. Furthermore, fragility was known to be contagious and no respecter of borders. It was a threat to both regional and global security.

This was why fragile states mattered so much. Mr Sharma quoted an estimate that for every £1 spent on conflict prevention, £4 would be saved in conflict resolution. Beyond time and money, there was also the moral argument that fragile states provided the key to the success of a global community. None could afford to turn their backs on them. In a conference on peacebuilding, Mr Sharma was required to state the obvious fact that the Commonwealth had known and still knew its share of violence. Nine Commonwealth countries were among those considered at the highest level of risk of conflict. Most country members were young and the roots of their democratic culture and institutions were not strong. Decolonisation was not without violent struggle, but the Commonwealth fought tenaciously against any form of state‐sanctioned racism and violence wherever it was found.

Instead a Commonwealth response should be guided by the constancy of its values, which transcended bonds of shared history, language, institutions and even of collective challenges. On the Association’s 60th anniversary, a defining document was composed, ‘The Affirmation on Commonwealth Values and Principles’. Those values were a constant beacon: when seriously or repeatedly violated to the extent that peace was under threat, the Commonwealth had a mechanism to react, based on peer review. One of the first actions of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) had been to suspend Nigeria after the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and others. Mr Sharma emphasised that adherence to these values constituted a commitment to peace and a readiness to work with a country to restore democracy.

Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, the Gambia and the Solomon Islands had all been removed from the CMAG agenda after sustained engagement by the inter‐governmental Commonwealth. After their restoration, Mr Sharma recalled, some of these democratic governments had thanked the Association for suspending their unconstitutional regimes. These suspensions were based on the constitutionality of governments; they did not encompass conflicts or grievances to human rights. There were many who called for the Commonwealth to be more actively engaged in such situations. The new Affirmation asked for a new definition of ‘serious or persistent violation’ of its values. The Commonwealth was therefore examining how to strengthen the hand of CMAG to encourage closer adherence. This was the first element of the Commonwealth’s work to address fragility – to defend its values and strengthen the way they were applied.

Mr Sharma described Good Offices as good political news that did not always make for good media news. Behind‐the‐scenes Commonwealth diplomacy would seek to avoid conflict, and advance dialogue for longer‐term reform. Good Offices had to be instigated by invitation, not interference, which explained why the Commonwealth had not competed with the peacekeeping


1 – 5 February 2010 102

work of international partners. The essence of this work was to open doors, remove bottlenecks and begin political dialogue. The earlier the engagement, the better. Good Offices work had tended to focus on new or revised constitutions, or parliamentary and electoral systems. Mr Sharma explained that the first would create the framework for democracy, while the second built the institutions that could best sustain it.

Underlying both streams of activity was the aim to ensure that people had a sense of pride in and ownership of the institutions that governed them. In general, Mr Sharma reported, the special envoys of the Commonwealth had the experience to engage with real empathy at the highest political levels. Good Offices work was an intuitive process of ebb and flow between relationships, requiring time. A quick‐fix was rarely available. Mr Sharma thought that hurried solutions to longstanding tensions rarely lasted, and the aftermath of failed agreements could be harder to overcome than the original problem. Objectives could change and no two mediations were the same but, throughout, the qualities of inclusiveness, impartiality, local ownership and international partnership were constant.

Mr Sharma defined how inclusiveness meant direct contact with all leading groups in society, not just those in parliament. It meant consultation with church groups, political actors, human rights activists, the media and women’s groups, to gain widespread support for the task in hand. Impartiality meant that the envoy must give equal time to parliament’s governing and opposition parties. The local ownership requirement encompassed the commitment to reach a solution led by the head of the government involved. Good Officers work had been at its strongest when supporting an ongoing programme of domestic work. International partnership would give the work of Commonwealth envoys extra weight from sharing it with others.

Mr Sharma reported that almost all the Good Offices work was supplemented by longer‐term programmes of technical assistance designed to support reform initiatives and strengthen democratic institutions. This work could rarely be measured by what it was, but by what it was part of.

Mr Sharma thought that the results of peacebuilding in action could be remarkable, and could constitute far more than the absence of conflict and tension. Commonwealth peacebuilding advice and work could be seen in almost every aspect of its programmes. Gender equality, youth and media training programmes would all develop practical projects to build peace. A network of Commonwealth universities was sharing best peacebuilding practice, and citizenship courses had been developed.

All countries had elements of fragility, Mr Sharma felt, but the greatest secret of long‐term stability was in building local ownership of democracy and the institutions it supported. That was why the work to support election and human rights commissions, ombudsmen, youth councils and media regulatory bodies was so very important. If the ownership and implementation of peacebuilding belonged anywhere it was with the delegates of the conference and thousands of other Commonwealth parliamentarians. A delegation like this was an agent of stability.

Mr Sharma stated that the Commonwealth extolled the Legislature as one of the three strictly independent pillars of government. Parliaments were the very expression of national sovereignty and unity; they were the conscience of the people and the protector of their rights, freedoms and aspirations. Parliamentarians were looked on as partners. They held responsibilities as the


1 – 5 February 2010 103

guardians of democratic principles, to protect the interest of minorities, to advance the role of women and youth, to provide a legitimate venue for grievances to be aired, to channel debate until it had reached consensus, and to ensure to the people the proper workings of government. Mr Sharma stressed that this was indeed a sacred role, the soul to the body.

Parliament had a role in dissolving conflict and in holding to account government plans to do so. Yet Mr Sharma had seen how some parliaments had been helpless bystanders in such situations, while others might not have helpfully reflected their societies. This was why so many Commonwealth peacebuilding activities aimed to transcend some of these difficult changes, through standing orders and cross‐party committees, for example. Opposition was an integral and creative force of a functioning democracy, and was not to be sidelined or emasculated, Mr Sharma said. This was why the Commonwealth had supported parliaments’ core functions. The joy of an international network was in sharing best practice and bringing people together.

Mr Sharma thought it must surely be of comfort to the parliamentarians of one country to know that their fellow members were discussing their concerns. Parliaments were crucial to democracy, but that democracy had a twin: development. Where democracy flourished, so too would development. This was the overarching finding of the Commonwealth Commission headed by Dr Manmohan Singh, and why state fragility should be assessed through economic as well as political measures. So many Commonwealth states were inherently vulnerable, and beholden to their own limitations. This economic work was as important to the Commonwealth’s membership as its work to strengthen state and democratic institutions was.

One example of a state that had failed but was now making progress, was at war and was now at peace, was the newest member of the Commonwealth, Rwanda. All were aware of the chilling events of 1994, yet this country was now on the move. The Commonwealth could take no credit for this country’s extraordinary transformation, other than that perhaps the prospect of membership to had spurred Rwanda’s development. While acknowledging some of the deficits to the new state, Mr Sharma was able to praise its newly adopted constitution, which was based on power‐sharing and consensus, and matched by practical commitments that ensured the representation of women, young people, independent voices and opposition parties. He had found an independent judiciary, accountable institutional structures, good governance, human rights and evidence of the theory that democracy bred good development, with the steady rise in national outputs. Rwanda deserved recognition that its success in building peace and prosperity was its own and that this marked a considerable achievement, yet all acknowledged that there was much further to go. Deep wounds remained, but so too did the will to bring justice and, with it, truth and reconciliation.

The decision to accept Rwanda was both a response to and an act of good will, an affirmation of partnership, in Mr Sharma’s words. Each Commonwealth country was climbing hills on the often‐rugged and winding path to democracy, development and diversity. In their commitment to support Rwanda to meet its goals, these countries were also in effect re‐committing to reach their own and to do so collectively. Fragility was relative, but tackling fragility was more absolute. It was an exercise built on values, institutions and the home‐grown will of nations and peoples to pull themselves out of the mire and to walk free. Mr Sharma wished all strength and courage in their work, for those whom they represented depended on it.


1 – 5 February 2010 104

Closing Remarks

Mr O’Loan said would be leaving this conference with an expanded understanding of peacebuilding and a strong sense of encouragement, because of the good will demonstrated in people’s want to help others. He wished all the delegates would also leave with this hope, and thanked them for attending.

This Summary was produced by Ubiqus +44 (0) 20 7269 0370

Documents

P ACE · 2010-10-08 · International Parliamentary Conference on Peacebuilding CPA UK 1 – 5 February 2010 5 Mr Osman Khalid Mudawi MP, Chairperson of the Sudanese Parliament’s