THE PEACE APPEAL FOUNDATION
  • Home
  • About Us
    • History & Shared Values
    • People & Partners
    • Timeline
  • Our Work
    • What We're Learning
    • Processes We Support >
      • Processes We Support
      • Burma/Myanmar
      • Cyprus
      • Lebanon
      • Nepal
      • Sri Lanka
      • South Africa
      • Syria
      • USA
      • Zimbabwe
    • Children's Voices
  • Knowledge Resources
    • Recent Publications
    • P&D Platform >
      • P&D Platform
      • P&D Platform Facebook
    • Children and War
    • Decentralization
    • Federalism
    • Healing and Reconciliation
    • Land Reform
    • Natural Resources
    • Security Sector Reform
    • Music4Peace
  • Donate
  • Blog - Culture of Peace
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • Work With Us

New Challenges to Peace: Artificial Intelligence and Weapons of War

12/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Sahana Bhagat

Technological advances are rapidly outpacing our ability to reflect and decide whether a
particular new technology is one that serves our public good. Technologists, entrepreneurs,
policymakers, ethicists and legal scholars from Microsoft to MIT are now openly questioning
how artificial intelligence and what is called “machine learning” can be designed and/or
regulated to ensure such automated systems don’t do harm, from entrenching racial stereotypes,
or other forms of discrimination, in insurance, criminal justice, healthcare, or in many other
applications.

Nowhere is the dystopian vision of machines increasingly taking over human agency more
frightening than in the current research on lethal autonomous weapons systems, known as
“LAWS”. LAWS are weapons that utilize artificial intelligence to locate, identify, and attack
targets without human intervention. Dubbed ‘killer robots’ their critics argue these technologies
lack human morality and judgement, and point out the danger in assuming that the automation of
the exercise of lethal force is more ‘objective’ than human rationale.

While it is generally assumed that lethal autonomous weapons systems have not yet been
deployed, existing weapons systems that are deployed, particularly defensive weapons, share
some of the same characteristics. A Turkish state-owned defense company, STM, recently
unveiled a “kamikaze drone” complete with facial recognition technology.  Increasing military
investment in artificial intelligence, and what are known as “loitering munitions” (weapons
systems that can “loiter” in a target area for some time before automatically identifying a target
and striking) could make LAWS a reality within the next few years.

Those who advocate for the development of LAWS cite their several advantages. As
autonomous weapons lack a ‘control-and-communication link’ between system and operator,
they are seen as more secure, i.e. less likely to be vulnerable to interception and attack.  They
also point out that in addition to being more secure, autonomous weapons can act without the
delay between command from the operator and interpretation and execution by the system.
Countering critics concerns about their use, proponents argue that because these systems do not
feel fear, they are capable of making more rational decisions than human combatants.  The
argument here is that systems will not react to a threat with an intense need for self-preservation,
and will therefore be less violent and show greater restraint than a soldier.

The weaponization of this new technology raises questions of how that technology should be
governed and regulated. LAWS mark a paradigm shift in warfare. They challenge long standing
views on the morality of war and blur existing conceptions of responsibility in war. As
technology moves further from direct automation and towards systems that can adapt, learn, and adjust, their actions become increasingly unpredictable. By definition, imbuing a system with
autonomous functions means humans cannot control how they will react. The real issue here,
then, is that there is an unprecedented degree of autonomy in a weapons system, and no legal,
moral, ethical, or technological infrastructure to support, regulate, or govern it.

At present, debates on these challenges are taking place under the United Nation’s Convention
on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres has
called for their prohibition in March of this year. The UN’s Group of Governmental Experts, a
subsidiary body of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, began meeting in 2016 to
bring together state signatories, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and
academic institutions in discussions on LAWS. Their most recent meeting was in November of
20129. Though the GGE has been discussing LAWS since 2016, little has been achieved
beyond defining LAWS and outlining ‘best practices’ for their use. In the GGE’s August 2018
meeting, 26 states advocated for a ban on fully autonomous weapons, while 12 states including
the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, opposed a treaty on LAWS.

A report by the Human Rights Watch issued last year argues machines are unable to distinguish
between combatants and civilians, especially in armed conflicts where the lines between friend
and foe are unclear.  In these situations, the report argues, the opportunity for fratricide and
civilian death is high, and the pace of such an attack would be too fast for human intervention to
prevent it once it begins. From a legal perspective, the question of responsibility poses a major
challenge. How can a machine be held accountable for civilian deaths, or fratricide? Is it the
programmer who will be persecuted, even though the machine acts autonomously?

Experts have also expressed concerns over the unreliability of fully autonomous weapons and the
high risk of uncontrolled proliferation that would inevitably accompany development of LAWS.
In 2015, a large group of AI researchers and robotic engineers released an open letter calling for
a ban on lethal autonomous weapons.  As of 2018, the letter had over 20,000 signatures,
including those of Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak.

Advocacy efforts are largely centered in nongovernmental organizations. Campaign to Stop
Killer Robots, formed in October 2012, is a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
that is working to ban fully autonomous weapons and thereby retain meaningful human control over the use of force. 30 countries and the European Parliament have signed on to a call to ban
the technology.

For more information see PAX’s report titled “Slippery Slope: The Arms Industry and
Increasingly Autonomous Weapons” published on Nov. 11, 2019.

For how you can become engaged in advocacy against LAWS, please visit
www.stopkillerrobots.org
0 Comments

​Children and War - Guide

11/29/2019

0 Comments

 
This recently created guide on children and war as part of the Peace and Dialogue Platform compiles essential knowledge resources and information on the subject. It is aimed to be an ongoing knowledge sharing space and accumulation of information around this issue.
0 Comments

USIP Publishes "Nonformal Dialogues in National Peacemaking: Complementary Approaches"

11/29/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
 The United State Institute of Peace published a report by Derek Brown, our co-director, entitled "Nonformal Dialogues in National Peacemaking: Complementary Approaches." The report draws extensively on the experiences of national stakeholders in both nonformal and formal national dialogue processes who participated in two international conferences on national dialogues in April 2014 and November 2015 that were hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
0 Comments

Partner Report:Common Space Initiative Issues "Conditions of Return of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon"

11/29/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Beirut, Lebanon.  The Common Space Initiative for Shared Knowledge and Consensus Building hosted a conference on August 14th on Syrian Refugees in Lebanon: Challenges for Return and Realities Back Home.  The conference issued a summary booklet in September "Conditions of Return for the Syrian Refugees in Lebanon," highlighting the results of a study assessing seven major criteria impacting the possibility of the return of Syrian refugees to their country of origin.  Among its many findings, the report concludes that although their are pockets of stability within Syria, most of the refugees within Lebanon to not come from those areas.   The report presents a detailed map of Syria, the number of refugees from each region, and the status of those areas.   The booklet may be found here.
0 Comments

Peace Education:World Press Photo Award Winning "Where the Children Sleep" Anchors New Initiative on Displacement & Belonging

1/1/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
The photos in Magnus Wennman’s series Where the Children Sleep show the individual suffering of the youngest refugees. The project recently won third place in the People/Stories division of the 2016 World Press Photo Contest.
Charlottesville, Virginia.   A multi-month educational initiative featuring Swedish photographer Magnus Wennman's World Press Photo Award Winning photo essay of Syrian refugee children "Where the Children Sleep" held its opening celebration on December 12th.  The initiative, titled (W)HERE TO STAY?! explores the stories of displacement and belonging through exhibits, film screenings, & educational programming in the  Charlottesville, Virginia, the U.S. community where white supremacists rallied in 2017, resulting in mass injury and fatalities.   The initiative involves a broad consortium of local and international partners, including the Peace Appeal, UNHCR,  The University of Virginia's Humanitarian Collaborative and the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center. 
0 Comments

Our Year End/Year Beginning Message.

12/31/2018

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Peace Con 2018 - Alliance for Peacebuilding Annual Conference features Peace Appeal Members

11/30/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Dr. Donna Hicks at PeaceCon 2018.
Washington, D.C.  The Alliance for Peacebuilding's Annual Conference was held October 3-5th in Washington D.C..   Organized on the theme of "The Power of Collective Action" the conference featured keynotes and panels with Peace Appeal staff, board and adviers.  Dr. Donna Hicks of Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and  author of "Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict" gave a keynote talk as part of the The Future of Peace Lecture Series.   PAF Board member Jayne Docherty and Co-Director, Derek Brown presented on a panel titled "Americans Cannot Dialogue Their Way Out of this Conflict, How Do We Address Structural Grievances?"  While Co-Chair Jeff Seul spoke on a panel on religious peacemaking.  The three day conference was held in conjunction with the United States Institute of Peace and attracts eminent members of the peacebuilding community, diplomats, scholars, business leaders, military strategists and other specialists gathered from hundreds of organizations across dozens of countries.  
0 Comments

In Memoriam: Padma Ratna Tuladhar - A Remarkable Peacemaker

11/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Nepal and the world lost a remarkable peacemaker this past November.   Padma Ratna Tuladhar passed in Kathmandu, Nepal at the age of 78.   A long time human rights activist and a former independent parliamentarian who never affiliated  with a single party, Patma Ratna played a key role in Nepal's peace process, along with his colleague, Daman Nath Dhunghana.  He served as a facilitator and mediator in talks with the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists.   A long-time collaborator and member of the Peace Appeal's Advisory Board, he is remembered by the Peace Appeal's co-founder, Hannes Siebert:

"A dear friend, mentor and one of the world’s most extraordinary peacemaker departed today. He taught us what it is to LIVE peace and respect both ally, friend and enemy.  We traveled many journeys together.  The most significant was serving the Nepal Peace Process together. His moral and political compass was a guide I can never forget. Today  Nepal lost one of its most respected statesmen and peacemakers.  Padma Ratna helped guide most of its leaders, never stopped in his work to negotiate peace, and listened to all — from the downtrodden, the poor, and the country's top leadership.  Padma Ratna’s compassion, empathy and selfless service inspired us.  Thank you for the privilege to hold your hand and to be your friend. Will miss you dearly!"
0 Comments

30 Days of Facts and Reflections on Displacement Launched

11/1/2018

0 Comments

 
Are refugee numbers the highest ever?  What were the origins of US Non-governmental support for refugees? What are the latest statistics from the Rohingya refugee crisis?  How do Mexicans view the "migrant caravan" traveling to the United States border?    These questions and more are featured in a new blog (W)HERE TO STAY?! featuring 30 Days of Posts in November to Educate and Inspire Action on refugees and the internally displaced.   To learn more visit the blog here, or on Facebook.
Picture
0 Comments

Zimbabwe's Contested Election, and a Call for Dialogue

8/11/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Dr. Mulanda Juma of the Mennonite Central Committee & Peace Appeal Co-Chair, Shirley Moulder at Ruwa township polling station.
August 10, 2018.   Earlier today Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (“MDC”), formally contested the election results of the July 30th presidential and parliamentary elections.   Official election results were announced this past Thursday, August 2, giving sitting president Emmerson Mnangagwa, the head of the ruling ZANU-PF party, a slender victory with just 50.8% of the vote.  

Last month’s elections were the first since former President Robert Mugabe was ousted in November of 2017.  While hotly contested, the legitimacy of the poll has been seriously questioned for months with concerns raised about the independence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, a system that favored incumbents, a biased media landscape and potential fraud in the conduct of the election, both in the lead-up to the actual poll and the counting and recording of ballots.   

For the last 18 months, the Peace Appeal has been supporting our partner, the Zimbabwe Council for Churches (“ZCC”), as it worked across political, religious, tribal, gender and class  lines to  foster renewed civic engagement in Zimbabwe, and more recently to mount a robust election monitoring campaign.   In the lead-up to the election, ZCC mobilized over 1,000 volunteers from across the country to participate in election monitoring.  It also recruited dozens of international observers from Europe, Africa and Australia, including the Peace Appeal’s co-chair, Shirley Moulder, to join their national counterparts. 
Picture
One of the many local polling stations set up in army tents.
As reported by local and international observers, election day itself was relatively peaceful.  However the post-election period was marred by violence as Zimbabwe’s Army sent tanks into the streets of its capital Harare and killed a number of opposition protestors who had taken to the streets in advance of the final election results being announced.   When those results were announced, the electoral commission reported that Mnangagwa had received just above the threshold that would have result in a second ballot.  The opposition believes the results are fraudulent,  and the courts have two weeks to make a ruling on the petition submitted today.

In this tense environment, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called for non-violence and dialogue.  In a pastoral statement  issued last Friday, the ZCC called upon the ruling party to engage with the MDC Alliance through dialogue, offering the churches services as needed.    The statement further asked the ruling party, ZANU-PF recognize the complaints of the opposition, and reform the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.  It calls upon the MDC itself to address their concerns through the courts, and pursue nonviolent action.  

​In the coming months, the Peace Appeal will continue its support of the efforts of the ZCC and its local partners, as they work for national renewal.
0 Comments

Zimbabweans Work to Seize an Historic Opportunity

12/12/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
December, 2017.   ​A coalition of civil society groups, representing Zimbabwe’s leading religious bodies, labor and human rights organizations, women, youth and disabilities movements, Media associations, students and more have come together to advance democratic reforms at this historic moment in Zimbabwe’s history. Calling themselves the National People’s Convention, their new effort is to launch a National Envisioning Process, which seeks to rally together citizens of Zimbabwe to make the most of the opening of the democratic space in Zimbabwe.

The Peace Appeal and our partners have been working with one of the lead organizers in this effort, the Zimbabwean Council of Churches (“ZCC”) whose General Secretary attended the Third Conference on National Dialogues in Helsinki in April.   Plans for advancing inclusive dialogue in anticipation of elections in 2018 were accelerated with the dramatic developments leading to the resignation of Mugabe last month.

In the last few weeks, four gatherings have been convened in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, as well as the cities Bulawayo and Mutare.   As the year comes to a close, organizers are developing a long term structured initiative to galvanize public participation in developing a cohesive vision for the nation both in advance of next year’s elections and to continue over the next several years.   
0 Comments

Reflections on the Possibilities and Limitations of Dialogue

9/20/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
​On the one year anniversary of the “Unite the Right” rally and protests in Charlottesville, Virginia held in 2017, we revisit the reflections of our board colleagues, Derek Brown and Jeff Seul.  Derek offered his reflections on the events in the community that he calls home. Jeff offered his thoughts on the challenging question of whether dialogue was a sufficient mechanism for social change, following the rallies held in Boston the weekend following Charlottesville's events.  

Reflections from our Hometown
by Derek Brown

On a Friday evening last August, my wife and I attended a standing room only ecumenical service at St. Paul’s Memorial Church here in Charlottesville, which was organized in response to the “Unite the Right” rally scheduled for the following day.  The rally, as most in this country now know, involved dozens of self-identified white nationalists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, including the National Socialist Movement, Vanguard America, Identity Europa..                                                                           continued

Is Dialogue Enough
by Jeff Seul

We received many appreciative reactions to Derek Brown’s August 28th reflections on recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, his family’s home.  A few people also questioned whether dialogue is sufficient for promoting change in polarized societies.  What about the role of organized protest, advocacy before legislatures and executive agencies, and even litigation?  Can dialogue really contribute to positive change?
continued


0 Comments

Crisis in Myanmar: Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu Writes Open Appeal to Fellow Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi

9/7/2017

0 Comments

 
September 7, 2017.    Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu wrote an open letter to his fellow Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi in response to the crisis in Myanmar affecting hundreds of thousands of Rohingya, many of whom have fled catastrophic violence in Burma's Rakhine state to take refuge neighboring Bangladesh.   In his closing paragraph, Archbishop Tutu calls on his friend to speak out.  "We pray for your to speak out for justice, human rights and the unity of your people.  We pray for you to intervene in the escalating crisis and guide your people back towards the path of righteousness."   
0 Comments

Burma's Union Peace Conference - the 21rst Century Panglong Reconvenes

5/31/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
May 30, 2017.   This past week, Burma’s Union Peace Conference reconvened for the third time in 18 months.   Known as the “21rst Century Panglong” (a reference to the 1947 meeting between Burma's interim head of government, Aung San - father of today's State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi - and ethnic leaders from the Shan, Kachin and Chin), the conference brought together an estimated 740 delegates, plus many non-seated observers, from throughout the country to engage in a comprehensive dialogue seeking to end the country’s ongoing violent political conflicts and establish a new federal structure for a unified, peaceful Burma.

After extending discussions by an additional day in an attempt to find solutions to contentious issues, the conference concluded Monday with a first phase agreement.  The “Pyidaungsu Accord" incorporated 37 high level principles that emerged from state and regional dialogues, including basic commitments to democracy and federalism, and fundamental principles covering economic, social sector, regional development and land and the natural environment.   Key sticking points among parties remain (including commitments to “non-secession”).   Not all parties to the nation's conflict were present, 7 ethnic parties had left early.   In the next phase all parties will need to be engaged, and key issues and the modalities of power sharing and the country’s future federal structure will need to be addressed.
0 Comments

"Self-Mediation" Structures and Procedures of National Dialogues

5/29/2017

0 Comments

 
"Managing Complexity, Breaking Deadlocks and Building Consensus "
A Background Paper for the Third Conference on National Dialogues, April 5-6, 2017


Perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of National Dialogues, as seen from a planning and facilitation perspective, is its bewildering complexity. In Burma the Panglong conference that met for the first time in January 2016 consisted of 900 representatives from the government and army; ethnic minorities and 18 armed groups; and more than 90 democratic parties/groups. In Yemen, the National Dialogue Conference had 565 representatives, representing political parties and movements, ethnic representatives, women and youth, 50% to represent the South and 30% women. Not only is the sheer size of such meetings intimidating, but more so the range of political interests, the depth of distrust, the seeming irreconcilability of competing interests and issues, and the fragility of the arrangement that must hold all together. 

It is accepted that, given the homegrown quality of National Dialogues, there will and should be no one-size-fits all answer to the above questions. There seems to be an almost naïve assumption that dialogue will be successful if only protagonists can be brought into the same room (or hall). This is not the case, as the list of National Dialogues that did not have any lasting impact is considered, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Togo, Yemen, Bahrain, Swaziland, Sudan – to name but a few.

The following dynamics regarding planning for and managing National Dialogues deserve ongoing attention:

1.    Many National Dialogues fail because of political capture. This happens when the ruling party or external actors seek to control the outcome of the process by exerting undue pressure on who to include, the formulation of the agenda, and the procedures adopted. What options are available for facilitators when faced with political capture? What rules of engagement need to be in place to ensure a level playing field?

​2.    The inclusion of the military, armed or highly radicalized groups that may resort again to armed resistance or violent disruptions, is a particularly complex and important issue. It is important to understand the drivers and root causes behind radicalization, but also how to engage in dialogue with radicalized groups given circumstances of international policies and sanctions. It is equally important to understand the dynamics of changing the “instruments” of dealing with existential conflicts (from military tools to dialogue tools). This is an acute dilemma faced by facilitators of dialogue. Ongoing reflection and research is very critical.

3.    The process of fostering confidence in dialogue as a viable option needs much attention. Military actors in particular must be convinced to move their conflict from the battlefield to the dialogue table. It implies the existence of a “table” that inspires confidence and promises better alternatives to military strategies. But what precisely does confidence-building entail? What does confidence-building mean in a context of terror attacks, drones and clandestine or open external support for military options? Is a “mutually hurting stalemate” indeed a precondition for successful talks?
 
4.    Interference in or pressure by external actors add to the stress placed on National Dialogues. The management of external actors therefore poses considerable challenges to the facilitators of National Dialogues. At the same time, few National Dialogues could take place without some form of external support, whether political, technical or financial. It is important to develop a better understanding of risks associated with undue external interference, but also of international indifference. It may also imply the development of codes of conduct for INGOs who seek to provide support, but without consideration of what is already in place and without respect for the principles of collaboration and national ownership.

5.    Essential elements that need to be agreed on in the initial dialogue framework agreement that precedes the start of the National Dialogue, include: criteria for inclusive participation; mandating of dialogue structure and outcome, and establishing formal links to constitutional, governance and change instruments; inclusive political managing structure(s) and accountability mechanisms; decision-making procedures; core principles and values; agreement on its purpose, objectives and what it is intended to change and agree on – developing an inclusive broad agenda framework; appointment of a multi-partial, non-stakeholder-driven secretariat and management; financial and administrative responsibilities; etc.

“Self-mediation” procedures and design elements in National Dialogues

One of the many consistent patterns in failed or weak formal National Dialogue processes is the absence or under-development of deliberate, integrated and coherent designs of “self-mediation” components and procedures. We will outline a few here for discussion:
 
a.    The strategic process, dialogue roadmap and facilitation strategy that is implemented has been shown to have a determining impact on the outcome of dialogue processes. There are various matters in need of ongoing discussions and joint learning in this respect, including:
•    The most appropriate and contextual infrastructure for the talks, including the formation of management and facilitation task teams, the structure of the table (or conference room), facilitation strategies, committees, expert panels, and procedural rules.
•    Consistent and structured practices regarding the generation of options (research, consultations, comparative studies, stakeholder proposals, hidden messages, technical committees, drafting committees, etc.)
•    The procedures, techniques and structures for decision-making, deadlock-breaking and consensus building (One Text, technical experts, options generation, indabas, dialogue circles and trees, interactive multi-track processes, etc.).
•    Decision-making arrangements (full consensus, sufficient consensus, voting for consensus, 2/3 majority, or a scale or combination of options).

b.    The role of shared knowledge creation to enable dialogue participants to operate from a basis of credible and jointly owned knowledge is increasingly recognized.  Attention to this aspect would include:
•    identify information gaps; 
•    Structured and systematic ongoing mapping of stakeholder proposals, positions, interests; their common ground and differences (to feed into the facilitation strategy design and One-Text decision-making process)
•    enable joint knowledge creation and “fact discovery”; 
•    move from “facts and perceptions”, to “facts and facts” — acknowledging and seeing each other’s realities; 
•    technical information and common understanding of conceptual frameworks and systems; 
•    jointly developing inclusive agenda frames that acknowledge the needs, hopes, brokenness and expectations from all sides;
•    Ongoing joint conflict assessment and facilitation strategy development by Secretariat, Facilitation Task Groups, Technical Committees and Consensus-building bodies.

c.    The National Dialogue should also enable people’s voices to be heard. This includes linking tracks 1, 2 and 3; welcoming and respecting submissions from the public; and ensuring a constructive media policy.

Working towards a working definition of formal National Dialogues – evolving common understandings from past two conferences:

Following the discussions and reports from the Helsinki National Dialogue Conferences in 2014 and 2015, some shared understandings have emerged that we cover in this section.  There remain, however, significant areas that needs joint reflection and research to capture the extent of these instruments’ extraordinary complexity.  The recent publication of the Berghof/Swisspeace handbook for practitioners, the HD publication for third parties support, and the ongoing development of the Peace and Dialogue Platform have all contributed significantly to the evolving body of knowledge emerging from these processes.

In order to define formal National Dialogues a number of distinctions were made during the past conferences. First, a National Dialogue is a highly inclusive process involving, as far as is possible, the complete spectrum of political diversity in a society. It is therefore to be distinguished from processes, often conducted by external mediators, that engage only with armed actors or the most prominent protagonists. 

Second, the objective with National Dialogues is to arrive at a new constitutional dispensation or a fundamental re-organisation of the political and statutory landscape. It can therefore be distinguished from, for example, international mediation interventions that have the intention to achieve a very specific political or military settlement (such as, for example, SADC’s mediation of the crisis in Madagascar) that do not necessarily require a substantive revision of the constitutional foundation of a society. 

Third, these dialogues, as in Myanmar, South Africa, Yemen and Lebanon, have a formal character, meaning that they are set up in order to impact on the statutory landscape and that have, therefore, to feed into formal legal procedures. They are therefore to be distinguished from informal or Track Two dialogue processes. 

Fourth, formal National Dialogue processes, especially those that have been successful, may not be restricted to a once-off event, but may evolve through different formats and conclude in a constituent assembly. In both South Africa and Nepal the National Dialogue took a decade to produce a new constitution, relying on different iterations of the dialogue platform across this period. In some countries, such as Lebanon, a National Dialogue platform has been established to pursue ongoing dialogue in the aftermath of a political settlement. 

Fifth, and very important, National Dialogues are homegrown and self-managed processes. In Myanmar 5 stakeholder groups from more than 90 parties, government, army and armed groups designed their own dialogue frameworks. Collectively, they spent the last two years negotiating the final dialogue and change instruments. While national stakeholders may accept external support in some or other form, a National Dialogue is not mediated by external actors nor designed to meet international interests or concerns. It is, first and foremost, a national attempt at solving its own contradictions. Part from its formal constitutional role, the National Dialogue also becomes a shared space for reconciliation and to develop common visions for their future.

A working definition of a National Dialogue is, therefore, that it is a formally mandated process of political dialogue that is inclusive, self-mediated and aimed at forging broad consensus in a highly diverse and polarized society on the values, principles and rules that should govern peaceful co-existence. A National Dialogue may take place at various stages of a peacemaking process and need not take place in the same format. It is therefore an open, adaptive process that should be defined by its broad objective and thrust and not by the particular format it takes. 
________________________________________________________

The questions and considerations for this session include: 

-    what are the planning, management, facilitation, shared knowledge and procedural measures that must be in place in order to manage the complexity of National Dialogues? 
-    what are the key structural and “self-mediation” elements that needs to be built-into formal National Dialogues to enable consensus-building, common understanding of issues, and deadlock-breaking?
-    National Dialogues as third-party instruments for mediation; and National Dialogues as sovereign “self-mediation” instruments;
-    comparing negotiation, mediation and dialogue across tracks.
0 Comments

Humanitarian and Peacebuilding Efforts Impacted by ​Counter-terrorism & Money Laundering Regulations

5/27/2017

0 Comments

 
​May 25, 2017.   Our partners at the Charity and Security Network continue to monitor and work to reverse the closing regulatory space for humanitarian relief and peacebuilding organizations.  They've just highlighted three new reports studying the impact on civil society of new counter-terrorism and money-laundering regulations, and the efforts of civil society coalitions to the improve the regulatory environment that impedes charitable organizations' humanitarian work.   The reports include a study released by Chatham House, the other by Bread for the World, and a third by UN Special Rapporteur Miana Kiai. 
0 Comments

New Challenges to Peace Support

2/28/2017

0 Comments

 
Washington, February 7, 2017.  Two-thirds of U.S.-based nonprofit organizations working abroad are facing problems accessing financial services, according to a comprehensive report released today by the Charity and Security Network.  The study illustrates a growing challenge to peacebuilding and humanitarian relief organizations working in conflict zones globally.
0 Comments

New Report Highlights Challenges to Peace Support

2/9/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Two-thirds of U.S.-based nonprofit organizations working abroad are facing problems accessing financial services, according to a comprehensive report released by the Charity and Security Network.  (The Peace Appeal Foundation is a member of the network, and serves on its Executive Board.)  The study illustrates a growing challenge to peacebuilding and humanitarian relief organizations working in conflict zones globally.  Though focused on US-based organizations, the challenge to US  organizations is part of a broader trend restricting the operations of civil society organizations globally.

The report, Financial Access for U.S. Nonprofits, is based on the first-ever empirical study of the global phenomenon known as “derisking,” as it relates to U.S.-based NPOs. Derisking refers to financial institutions terminating or restricting business relationships to avoid rather than manage risk. The report also reflects information from numerous focus group sessions and interviews with stakeholders over the last year. It outlines and analyzes the scope, frequency, and prevalence of various financial access problems, including delayed wire transfers, account refusals and closures, and unusual additional documentation requests. The report also provides recommendations to address these challenges. Author Sue E. Eckert of the Center for New American Security noted, “At a time of unprecedented need in regions of conflict, humanitarian crises, and natural disaster, American charities’ efforts to save lives and prevent the further erosion of democracy and human rights are being stymied unnecessarily. The data are clear: there is a serious and systemic problem that must be addressed.”

Among the major findings:
  • 2/3 of all U.S. nonprofits that work abroad are having financial access difficulties
  • Delays in wire transfers, which can last up to several months, are the most common problem, affecting 37% of nonprofits
  • Problems opening and maintaining accounts affect 9.5% and 6.3% of NPOs, respectively
  • 15% of nonprofits report having these problems constantly or regularly. Transfers to all parts of the globe are impacted; the problem is not limited to conflict zones or fragile and failing states
  • NPOs, categorically treated as high-risk, are sometimes forced to move money through opaque channels as a result of delays in wire transfers and requests for additional documentation.
  • When money cannot be transmitted in a timely manner, 42% of nonprofits report that they sometimes carry cash.
“The details here are frankly disturbing. We are undermining the networks that support development and that hold the world together. Most policymakers in Washington have no idea how bad this is,” said Brian Atwood, Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, and former Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

These challenges have made it difficult for nonprofits to access the financial services necessary to provide life-saving aid to people in global hot spots where the need is greatest. For example:
  • One NPO was prevented from sending immediate relief to populations in Myanmar, in the midst of a dire humanitarian crisis. Timely transmittal of those funds might have saved lives, the charity’s director explained.
  • Two clinics for Syrian refugees, one in Saida and another Akkar, were forced to close because NPOs could not get funds to the clinics.
  • Working in dangerous and uniquely challenging environments, NPO staff and contractors can face physical jeopardy when funds are not available. One recounted a situation in the field where people expecting to be paid showed up with guns.
  • A children’s charity was informed by their financial institution that operating in Afghanistan raised their risk profile, and would lead to difficulties with their other accounts globally. So the charity reluctantly closed down the Afghan literacy program for nomadic children and returned funds to the donor. “If we’re not in there, the Taliban will be,” a representative from the charity said.
These examples are representative of the consequences of NPOs’ financial access difficulties, which stem from excessive regulatory expectations and lack of clarity. Without greater certainty, enabling banks to offer services to NPOs, financial institutions’ risk-reward calculation will continue to be weighted towards derisking. “Financial access is essential to the global economy and the banking industry needs regulatory clarity in their risk management process for it to occur,” according to John Byrne EVP of the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, “and that certainty does not exist today.”
Because nonprofits contribute to peace and security around the world, “finding a solution to the problem should be a priority for the U.S. government,” said Kay Guinane, director of the Charity & Security Network.

Regulators are tasked with ensuring the safety and security of the banking system,” explained Scott Paul, senior humanitarian policy advisor at Oxfam America. “In doing so, they impose steep penalties for undercompliance but none for overcompliance.”

To read the report, go to charityandsecurity.org/FinAccessReport



0 Comments

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Nepal's Comprehensive Peace Accord (2006-2016)

1/6/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
International Peace Conference Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of Nepals' Comprehensive Peace Accord.
This past November, Nepal celebrated the 10th Anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord, which brought a formal end to Nepal’s decade long civil war.  To commemorate the occasion, the Nepal Transitions to Peace Institute with the support of the United States Agency for International Development, the Swiss Foreign Ministry and the European Union, hosted a multi-day international conference in Kathmandu from November 16-18.    Attending were many of the inside actors who participated in formal and back channel talks and negotiations, as well as national and international advisers and facilitators.  The Peace Appeal’s Hannes Siebert and Andries Odendaal were invited speakers.   Siebert, who along with Swiss Envoys Guenther Bachler, and later Markus Heiniger, played a senior advisory role in supporting many of the talks leading up to the Accord and in the months and years following.  Odendaal worked extensively with Nepali counterparts in the preparation and planning for a nationwide network of local peace committees.

10 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord, Nepal's path towards peace is still a work in progress.  The country only approved a new constitution in 2015.  It was met with significant opposition by some parties in the country.  This past year saw the much delayed launch of official processes of the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has in the last months received over 57,000 complaints, and it’s Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared (an estimated 1,300 people disappeared in the country’s civil war).  Transitional justice processes are slow and difficult, and are under great scrutiny by both Nepalese and the international community.  Though there are inspiring examples of community level reconciliation efforts, too few communities have been reached. Justice in Nepal, and greater opportunity for its deeply impoverished rural communities, will require sustained effort for years to come. ​
0 Comments

Historic Progress, Daunting Challenges

9/30/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Burma's Historic National Dialogue
​

Update from Yangon
September 30, 2016

After 50 plus years of conflict between Myanmar/Burma's central government and many of its ethnic minorities, the newly elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League of Democracy (the "NLD") hopes to fulfill the promise of the country's fledgling peace process.  Earlier this month, 700 representatives of the country’s ethnic parties, armed groups, the Myanmar Army, and the Burmese government concluded the second round of the Union Peace Conference.   This historic conference and the ongoing political dialogue processes taking place nationally and regionally within Burma is mandated to resolve the ethnic conflict and design the structure of the new “Democratic Federal Union”.  The gathering highlighted new challenges to the peace process, as Burma's ethnic alliances continued to splinter. Though substantial progress has been made over the last three years, the NLD government must navigate a political transition that has entered a more complicated and challenging phase.   

The increasing complexity of Burma's political transition has deep historical roots, as well as more recent origins.  Prior to the inauguration of National League of Democracy government, the government of former General Thein Sein had entered into a national ceasefire negotiation with the country’s ethnic armed groups, many of whom had negotiated separate, individual bi-lateral ceasefires with the government previously.  Despite broad agreement on core principles by nearly all parties, ultimately only eight groups signed the "nationwide ceasefire agreement" with the government.  Others opted out, some indicating that they preferred to wait for Aung San Suu Kyi’s party to assume leadership of the country before proceeding.  However in the months since the NLD government took office, no new signatories have been added, and in several areas of the country occupied or controlled by the non-signatories to the ceasefire, violence has flared up, most recently resulting in the dislocation of thousands of civilians along the country’s border with Thailand.

How to move the peace process forward at both the national and state/regional level at this juncture is the central challenge.  Both the nationwide ceasefire agreement and subsequent talks laid out plans for a national dialogue process, of which the recently concluded session of Union Peace Conference is one part.   With the changing environment, these plans are being revised, but it is anticipated that Burma's national dialogue process will continue for at least three to five years at both the national and sub-national levels.  Its fundamental purpose is to provide a forum for a more consensus driven redrawing of a federal Burmese State.   Bringing all parties to the table is critical.   In the initial session of the Union Peace Conference held last January (before the NLD assumed leadership of the government), only those ethnic armed groups who were signatories to the ceasefire attended as full members.   In this month’s sessions, after much government outreach and support from international governments, including China, nearly all ethnic armed groups attended in some capacity.

However the Union Peace Conference showed that the envisioned participation of Burma’s many ethnic armed groups and political parties in the current national process will not be as a unified entity.  Indeed some walked out of the Union Peace Conference.  Three likely blocs are emerging; each with distinct views on how to engage in the future process and varying ideas of what a new Burmese State should look like.   These blocs include: the signatories to the original ceasefire (comprising some of the largest  ethnic armed groups, including the Karen National Union and others); a second bloc representing those non-signatories to the original process who are nonetheless willing to engage with the NLD government, including the Kachin, Mon, and Kayah ethnic groups; and a third set of parties, representing ethnic armed groups, such as the United Wa State Army (an ethnic armed group located in territory bordering China), who are more reticent to join in the process.  Balancing these interests, those of the military which still holds 25% of the seats in Parliament, and those of her own constituents in the National League of Democracy, will be a massive challenge for Aung San Suu Kyi, in her capacity as State Counselor.  Much support has been given to date, but even more will be needed if this transition is to be successful.    


Picture
​
Photos: Aung San Suu Kyi addressing Union Peace Conference and delegates at the Union Peace Conference courtesy of KNU Headquarters.

0 Comments

Kristiina Rintakoski Joins the Peace Appeal’s Board of Directors

5/11/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
Kristiina Rintakoski
The Peace Appeal Foundation is pleased to announce that Kristiina Rintakoski has joined the organization’s Board of Directors. Kristiina brings a wealth of experience in peacebuilding globally. She presently works as a Director for Peacebuilding and Advocacy at the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission, one of the largest Finish civil society organizations working in global development. She has over 15 years of experience in policy analysis and programme planning in mediation support, peacebuilding and national dialogue processes. Regionally much of her work has focused on Myanmar, Syria and Nepal. Before joining FELM, she served as Programme Director at the Crisis Management Initiative for 10 years, leading the development of CMI’s crisis management, conflict resolution and peacebuilding projects and activities. Prior to that, she worked at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. She holds Master’s degrees in International Relations from the University of Tampere, Finland and in Human Rights from the University of Padova, Italy. 
1 Comment

David Matthews Joins the Peace Appeal's Board of Directors

5/11/2016

 
Picture
The Peace Appeal is pleased to announce that Dave Matthews has joined the organization's Board of Directors.   Born in Johannesburg, South Africa, Dave became a naturalized citizen in 1980.  His family moved frequently during his childhood, spending time in the U.S. and England, in addition to South Africa.  Dave and his family moved to Charlottesville, Virginia in 1986 where he formed the Dave Matthews Band in 1991.

Born in Johannesburg, South Africa, Dave became a naturalized American citizen in 1980. His family moved frequently during his childhood, spending time in the U.S. and England, in addition to South Africa.  Dave and his family moved to Charlottesville, Virginia in 1986 where he formed Dave Matthews Band in 1991. Now celebrating their 25th year, Dave Matthews Band is one of the most influential bands in rock history. Dave Matthews Band’s infectious and distinctive sound garnered lots of early attention and a die-hard loyal fan base, catapulting the band into one of the most successful touring acts of the past two decades. Their latest studio release, Away From The World, bowed at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, making Dave Matthews Band the first group in chart history to have six consecutive studio albums debut atop the chart.  Matthews’ solo debut, 2003’s Some Devil, was certified Platinum and its lead single, “Gravedigger,” won a GRAMMY® award for “Best Male Rock Vocal Performance.” 


In 2000, Matthews co-founded ATO Records, an independent label now home to Alabama Shakes, Brandi Carlile and more.  Matthews owns Blenheim Vineyards, a winery in Charlottesville, VA designed to have minimal impact on the environment.  He is also a partner in The Dreaming Tree Wines, which has raised over $1M for environmental groups since its inception in 2011.  A member of Farm Aid’s Board of Directors since 2001 (along with Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp), and The Wilderness Society’s Governing Council since 2010, Matthews is dedicated to conservation and environmental protection. In 2014, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation honored him with its Chairman’s Award commending his environmental dedication.  Matthews serves as an ambassador for Turnaround Arts, a program of the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities.  Additionally, Matthews is a Presidential Ambassador for Citizenship and Naturalization. Matthews has played numerous benefit concerts and the band’s Bama Works Fund, along with his own Horton Foundation, have raised more than $45 million dollars for a wide variety of humanitarian and environmental initiatives.  ​​

A New Beginning: Forgiveness & Hope

1/4/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Peace 2015 Lanterns: Paper lanterns in front of the Atomic Bomb Dome, Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. Credits: AP/CC BY

​In this season during which people of many cultures and faiths celebrate renewal, we share with you a poem written by Fr Michael Weeder, a board member of the Peace Appeal Foundation.   Michael is Dean of St. George's Cathedral in Cape Town, a church once led by Archbishop Tutu. The poem was written in Helsinki, Finland at a conference on the role of dialogue in peace and national change processes.   It was started in the hours after the attacks in Paris and Beirut.   

Michael's poem echoes the work and values of many, including Aung San Suu Kyi's recent remarks on the need to reach out to Myanmar's former rulers, as well as to the words of Archbishop Tutu and his daughter Mpho, in their powerful recent book, The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World. Its theme of forgiveness is central to the work of peacemakers everywhere, to the possibility of renewal more broadly, and to hopes for peaceful coexistence in our tumultuous world. 
When We Forgive

When we forgive,
the shrapnel of the bombs -

assigned to Paris, today
Beirut, yesterday
Palestine, Syria...
every other day

will never pierce
will never pierce

our soft, invincible hearts
when we forgive.



(Helsinki, Monday, 16 November 2015)
The Very Reverend Michael Weeder
 
Wishing you a peaceful and blessed new year filled with hope.
0 Comments

Emerging “Common Spaces” and Safety Nets

12/24/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
In the days following the tragic suicide bombings in Beirut and the horrific attacks in Paris in mid-November, peacebuilders from 12 countries met in Helsinki to share and jointly reflect on their peace and dialogue initiatives. The common thread was their creation of safe spaces and safety nets – known as “Common Spaces.” These spaces serve multiple purposes, from hosting confidential dialogues among leaders in deeply divided societies to supporting formal negotiations in peace and constitutional reform processes. With the emergence of these sustained dialogue initiatives following long periods of civil war or during intractable conflicts, we are witnessing the creation of groundbreaking joint mechanisms that simultaneously help catalyze, accompany and support fundamental political and social change processes in divided societies.
1 Comment

Peace Appeal Year End Update - 2015

12/23/2015

0 Comments

 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    BLOG:
    ​
    Culture of Peace

    ​

    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Appeal For Peace
    Books
    Burma/Myanmar
    Common Spaces
    Conflict Assessment
    Cyprus
    Infographics
    Lebanon
    Media And Conflict
    National Dialogue Conference
    National Dialogues
    Nepal
    News
    Nobel Laureates
    Nobel Prize
    Peace And Dialogue Platform
    Peace Appeal Updates
    Peace Building
    Peace Changemakers
    Peace Resources
    Religion
    Sri Lanka
    Syria
    Truth And Reconciliation
    USA

    Archives

    December 2019
    November 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    August 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    January 2012
    May 2011
    December 2010
    August 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    November 2007
    September 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    October 2004
    November 2001
    December 2000
    November 2000
    January 2000
    December 1999
    September 1999
    June 1999
    October 1995
    April 1983

    RSS Feed

Copyright 2019, Peace Appeal Foundation.  All rights reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
    • History & Shared Values
    • People & Partners
    • Timeline
  • Our Work
    • What We're Learning
    • Processes We Support >
      • Processes We Support
      • Burma/Myanmar
      • Cyprus
      • Lebanon
      • Nepal
      • Sri Lanka
      • South Africa
      • Syria
      • USA
      • Zimbabwe
    • Children's Voices
  • Knowledge Resources
    • Recent Publications
    • P&D Platform >
      • P&D Platform
      • P&D Platform Facebook
    • Children and War
    • Decentralization
    • Federalism
    • Healing and Reconciliation
    • Land Reform
    • Natural Resources
    • Security Sector Reform
    • Music4Peace
  • Donate
  • Blog - Culture of Peace
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • Work With Us