|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Guiding principles for encouraging stability
>> Foreign Aid in the National Interest >> Chapter 4 >> Guiding principles for encouraging stability Jump to Chapter 4 Sections:
>> Conflicts since the Cold War >> Understanding conflict >> Windows of vulnerability and opportunity >> Foreign assistance, conflict management and conflict mitigation >> Guiding principles for encouraging stability >> Notes >> Background paper >> References
As important as it is for donors to be aware of and use this research, it is even more critical that they invest in strengthening the capacity of local institutions to conduct research on conflict, and support local discussions on these issues. Unless all the major actors in a society are able to discuss what they believe to be the central causes of conflict, it will be extremely difficult to set priorities and devise effective solutions.
Many donors have programs that take this basic approach to identifying problems at the local level. While these local and subnational initiatives are an essential component of efforts to address conflict, national and regional efforts should be pursued as well, because local peace initiatives can easily be undermined by elites at higher levels.
Donors need to focus as much on engaging groups and individuals with incentives to engage in violence as on those committed to peace. Because of the difficulty of working in environments of conflict, donors tend to seek out like-minded groups: human rights organizations, religious groups, and women’s groups committed to dialogue and peace. These groups have an important role to play in the search for solutions, but civil society groups have been asked to carry far too much of the burden in addressing conflict. Donors need to focus on the institutions and actors driving the violence, whether political elites and their followers, religious leaders, or the police. Arguing that most political elites are corrupt, for example, is not adequate justification for turning away from reformist elements in these institutions and working with them to find ways to constrain the behavior of their colleagues-either by raising the costs of using violence or lowering the costs of nonviolent political participation.
Finally, a cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary perspective is crucial when designing programs in environments of conflict. Every major focus area in foreign assistance from economic growth to agriculture to democracy and governance has some bearing on the causes of conflict. A conflict lens should be applied to every active area in highrisk countries, rather than assuming that some areas are more relevant to conflict than others. This is probably the most important principle to keep in mind when designing a country program. Indeed, unless all the different sectors in a country work together, they often pursue programs that work at cross-purposes and undercut many of the important gains of recent decades.
page 3
 |
|||
Last Updated on: October 07, 2009 |
