USAID Conflict Prevention Workshop Notes

>> USAID Home >> Conflict Prevention >> June 2000 Workshop

Closing Statements

Ted Morse
June 7, 2000

Photo of Ted Morse It is interesting to note how far the Agency has come on the issue of conflict prevention; congratulations should be offered to everybody who attended and especially those who organized this conference. Conflict prevention has gained momentum; four years ago attempts to create awareness were unsuccessful. Advocates of institutionalizing conflict prevention throughout the agency are no doubt still frustrated about lack of progress in moving this agenda, however, some caution is in order. After the '84-'86 droughts, untold amounts of people died and conflict prevention advocates wanted to start early warning systems. They were derided as being naïve. However, early warning systems helped dramatically reduce the amount of deaths resulting from the '91-'92 droughts.

It is important to not lose heart; much has been done. The next challenge is to take the ideas of conflict prevention to Capitol Hill; senators and congressmen are very interested in this as it could help save money. To get these ideas across, flexibility and political support are needed.

The presentations from the last two days have reinforced the need to move forward on conflict prevention, but with an integrated strategic plan. It is vital to make conflict prevention part of the mission of embassies and the State Department. USAID has not informed desk officers, ambassadors, and the Secretary of State that we have a contribution to make in this field.

Dick McCall

Conflict prevention has consumed a large amount of my professional life; in the past I have been drawn to conflicts and crises. For example, in the 1980's I found myself in El Salvador. One finding about that conflict was how the civil war dehumanized perceptions of combatants. I acted as a conduit among different groups, and saw that with the give and take that occurred, adversaries began to see their opponents in more human terms. In my seven years in this job, I have been able to go to crisis areas and listen to the stories of those involved with or affected by the conflict. It has been like going back to school.

The human race possesses an incredible capacity for resilience and dealing with tragedy. But people should not have to endure these tragedies. I spent lots of time in Rwanda, and spoke to Hutus in camps. I asked them if slaughter on the same scale could happen again, and why. They replied yes, it could happen again, because of bad leadership and bad governance. I also spoke to a Rwandan military leader, who said he wanted democracy for Rwanda, and then equated democracy with the pursuit of power. I asked him if he was a Hutu first or a Rwandan. He replied that they were one and the same. I then asked him where that left the Tutsis. He had no response. Many of these states lack a consensus on fundamental principles that are enshrined in a constitution and institutionalized. There is a sense of local community but not of a national community. There is concern about the future and about one's children, but this does not transfer to a broader sense of societal cohesion. And the donor community is partly at fault. A Belgian counterpart once mentioned that we have destroyed the traditional mechanisms for handling conflict in that society, and that there is no institutional underpinning beyond the veneer of democracy.

I read a lot, and wanted to quote from a book called The New Federalist Papers. The quote mentions that the search for leadership is not just for power but for knowledge. Future historians will note that we flailed away at 'phantoms' without understanding that the real task was to understand a series of profound structural changes in our society and the world. In Geoffrey Hosking's Russia: People and Empire, he notes that the creating of institutions amenable to the Russian people was sacrificed for the sake of empire. This idea can be applied to troubled states throughout the world. With the fall of Communism, there are few institutions in place to help the body politic; Russia and many other countries continue to struggle with the lack of institutions. This can be seen today with Vladimir Putin, who is attempting to centralize power instead of building institutions. Yet despite these setbacks we have a contribution to make, and it is important to be in Russia, just as it is important to be in the Newly Independent States, the Balkans, etc.

USAID is full of curious people, who can make a great contribution to the debate on conflict - not only in the Executive Branch, but also on Capitol Hill. I hope that the last two days have been stimulating, and that this conference is successful in getting people to step back and look at our choices and possibilities.

USAID Workshop on Conflict Prevention Management

Closing Statements

USAID Workshop on
Conflict Prevention Management