USAID Workshop on
Conflict Prevention Management

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

GOING BACK TO THE FRONT LINES: A PERSONAL VIEW By Richard McCall This two-day workshop was one of the more fascinating events in which I have participated over the past two years. It brought together academics, USAID and other development practitioners, and policy-level officials with vast experience in the field of conflict. If there was one single conclusion that was reached, it was how much the world has changed in the past two decades and the difficulty with which the Agency currently struggles to deal effectively with this new, but messy and unstable post Cold-War reality. Whether it is a pre-conflict, crisis response, and/or post-conflict transitions, the workshop agenda allowed participants from Africa, ANE, LAC, and E&E Bureaus discuss both opportunities and constraints they confront in operating in this new environment. We definitely heard about the need for the Agency to have better analytic tools to understand conflict and apply lessons-learned; better designed country strategies; and programmatic interventions to deal with causes of conflict. Our staff also emphasized the frustration over our limited capacity to work in these difficult environments given personnel cutbacks, budgetary earmarks and the changed U.S. foreign policy framework in which we operate. In the keynote address, Jane Holl Lute, former Executive Director of the Carnegie Commission on Deadly Conflict, stated that our overall objective should be to understand better the place and role of foreign assistance within the context of U.S. national security and foreign policy. In noting a frustration felt by members of the development community as we attempt to assess and delineate our role in preventing conflicts, Ms. Holl outlined a framework and role for USAID and development assistance. In this context, there is a role to consider for development assistance in the area of conflict prevention to support what she called the "creation of capable states" that are resilient to instability. This will be a critical focus and policy issue for the next Administration. The goal of U.S. policy since WW II, has been to help construct an international order of countries that can and do cooperate with one another. As was pointed out in a number of panels and papers presented at the workshop, the erosion of this cooperative order and eruption of conflict is today a very serious problem. That breaking down of order and the outbreak of organized, collective violence sustained over long periods has made internal stability in the countries in which we work an issue of great policy importance to the United States, perhaps more than it was at the height of the Cold War. Significant media attention has been devoted to this erosion of political stability and ensuing instability, often resulting in a backlash in public opinion over U.S. policies and crisis management interventions. As I outlined in closing the workshop, using the change emanating from the break up of the former Soviet Union and emergence of Russia as an example, much of the world has failed to understand or react to this new reality and challenge, particularly our own institutions. This presents a challenge for USAID, as an organization, for us as individuals, and for those external oversight bodies that set policy direction and make funding decisions on the use of development, humanitarian and foreign economic assistance resources. To be effective, USAID programs must be conceived of, and designed for, real world conditions to which we are compelled to respond. Emmy Simmons, in discussing economic growth and conflict at the workshop, asked this simple question, "is it possible for USAID to reduce the risk of conflict?" In answering in the affirmative, she outlined both lessons learned and conditions necessary for USAID programs to contribute effectively to the reduction of the risk of conflict and violence. I suggest that you read her remarks carefully as they outline real possibilities and serious constraints. She gives attention the kind of development resources we need in many of these situations, economic growth and democracy governance programs, both of which are in very short supply. Some cynics are beginning to call us a social-welfare agency not well attuned and provisioned to meet real world needs. This is a fundamental challenge that must be addressed. We are considering having a follow-on workshop in the fall after the elections with an external audience to focus discussion on cooperation, instability and conflict and the role of development assistance. I hope this will stimulate a debate within the foreign affairs policy community that will help address some of the many issues raised during the June workshop. The two-day workshop provided me a chance to hear in-depth about much theoretical work that is being applied to our own practical needs by Agency field staff who operate on the front lines. Africa was very much in the forefront because of the enormity of the problems on that continent and crisis prevention work being undertaken by the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative. All geographic regions shared the wealth of their experience. I commend to you the brief synopsis of the two-day workshop in order to give you a better sense on the work that is going on. I invite you to peruse the agenda that is hot linked to the individual sessions. Through links to other web sites outside the Agency you can then get a better sense of the discussions of the actual work being done by our missions. You may even listen to some of the speakers at the workshop to catch the flavor of interactions. Please stay tuned! - Dick

:  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  What's New : FOIA Requests : Privacy Policy : Email This Page : Plug-ins : FAQs : Help Desk : Contact Us : Site Map Last Updated on: April 02, 2001