On her last day in Washington,Kimberly Greenberg of NewYork attended a briefing by Rep.Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), had aprivate meeting with her district’scongressman, Democrat GaryAckerman, toured the SupremeCourt, visited all the monumentsalong the National Mall, gotcompletely lost, and landed in the middle of a crowded outdoorpress conference with the TV

Inside

UN I T E D STAT E S IN S T I T U T E O F PE AC E ■ WA S H I N G TO N, DC

AUGUST 2 0 0 1

Vol. VII, No. 5

Students Study Pe a c eForty-five winners of this year’s National Peace Essay Contest visit

their representatives on Capitol Hill and study the effectiveness

of third parties in civil conflict.

Left: Essay Con-test winners atthe FinnishEmbassy onawards night.

Below: Rep.Ralph Regulaaddresses thestudents onCapitol Hill.

cameras rolling and the dome ofthe Capitol looming in the back-ground.

“It was so amazing,” said thesoon-to-be junior at Great NeckNorth High School on LongIsland.

Greenberg came to Washing-ton on June 23–28 for a five-dayintensive working tour of the cityalong with 44 other first-place

4 FELLOWSHIPPROJECTPeacekeeping in the 1990s

5 The Future of Peace Operations

6 Making SENSE

1 0 Grant Awards

See Students Study Peace, page 2

2

state winners in the U.S. Instituteof Peace’s National Peace EssayContest.

Among their many activities,the students participated in athree-day simulation exercisefocused on the conflict in SriLanka. As part of the exercise,they attended briefings by SriLankan officials at that country’sembassy and by officials from theState Department and the WorldBank at the bank’s headquarters.

On their final day, the studentsmet with their representatives onCapitol Hill, had free time toexplore the Mall monuments andmuseums, and ended the day witha banquet at the FinnishEmbassy, where the top threenational winners were announced.About 5,000 students from acrossthe United States, includingPuerto Rico and American highschool students studying overseas,wrote essays for this year’s PeaceEssay Contest, and of those about1,200 submitted theirs. The firstplace nationally was awarded toStefanie Nelson of Bountiful,Utah, with a $10,000 scholarship;second place to SuzanneHopcroft of Woodstock, Conn.,$5,000; and third place to Scott

Students Study Pe a c eContinued from page 1

Above, left toright: StefanieNelson andSuzanneHopcroft.

Moore of Louisville, Ky., $2,500.The state winners received a$1,000 scholarship.

Visiting Capitol Hill

Greenberg said she was mostimpressed by Regula’s talk. The15-term Republican from Ohiospent over an hour with the stu-dents discussing the fast-pacedlife of America’s political leadersin Congress and the issues theywrestle with. The items he dis-cussed included the conflicts inthe Middle East and the Balkans,and his recent visit to Macedonia.Political leaders need to make dif-ficult decisions about when tointervene in a crisis to preventfurther suffering, and they have tobalance many competing interestsand demands, he said. “We are arich nation surrounded by anocean. But we are a people whocare about our neighbors, aboutthe people of the world and help-ing them.”

“Regula was very open andhonest,” Greenberg said after histalk. “Not everything is perfect inWashington, but trust in govern-ment is important. We take it forgranted how stable our country is.It meant a lot to me that he spoketo us so openly. He was reallycool.”

After Regula’s talk, AdamFigueira of Delaware and hisfriend Matthew Holbreich ofIndiana dropped by the office ofSen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) on awhim. The senator had a busyschedule that day, and Figueiradidn’t have an appointment, butbeing an outgoing fellow, Figueiratold Biden’s staff that he had goneto high school with the senator’sdaughter. “They got right on thephone and called him,” Figueirasaid. One thing led to another,and soon Figueira and Holbreich

were riding on the trolley thatruns under the Capitol alongsidethe senator, who was on his wayto cast a vote.

From there, Biden took theyouths to a staff meeting, wherehis staff briefed him for a pressconference on topics ranging fromthe Balkans to the Middle East toEast Asia and national securitymore broadly. “The senator needsto be an expert on all those sub-jects in order to do a press confer-ence,” Figueira said. “You couldtell everything the staff said wasgoing right into his head.”

That evening at the award cer-emony at the Finnish Embassy,Chris Belcik of Hallettsville,Tex., population 2,700, said hehad been completely surprised todiscover that he was one of theessay contest winners. There are24 sophomores and 18 juniors inhis entire high school, SacredHeart Academy, where he will bea junior. At first, he didn’t wantto come to Washington, in partbecause he had never been outsideTexas before, but his teacher, IdaBludan, encouraged him toattend. Before writing the essay,his main interest was agriculture,as he works after school on thefamily farm hauling hay, feedingcattle, and fixing fences. Writingthe essay and participating in theevents in Washington “opened upa window for me,” he said. “Ilearned a lot about the peaceprocess and diplomatic relations.”

After the national winnerswere announced, Stefanie Nelson,who will be a senior at BountifulHigh School, said that winningthe first place scholarship hadcompletely changed her optionsfor college. Her first choice is nowHarvard. “I’m shaking,” she said.“It’s wonderful.”

33

Peace Watch (ISSN 1080-9864) is published six times a year by theUnited States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonpartisan feder-al institution created by Congress to promote research, education,and training on the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Institute or its board of directors.To receive Peace Watch, write to the Editor, Peace Watch, United

States Institute of Peace, 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200, Washing-ton, DC 20036-3011. For general information call 2 0 2 - 4 5 7 - 1 7 0 0 ,fax 202-429-6063, e-mail: usip_requests@usip.org,or check our web site: www.usip.org.

President: Richard H. Solomon Executive Vice President: Harriet Hentges

Publications Director: Dan SnodderlyEditor: Cynthia Roderick

Production Manager: Marie MarrPhoto Credits: Staff, Bill Fitz-Patrick

Board of DirectorsChairman: Chester A. Crocker. Vice Chairman: Seymour MartinLipset. Members: Betty F. Bumpers, Holly J. Burkhalter, Marc E.Leland, Mora L. McLean, María Otero, Barbara W. Snelling, ShibleyTelhami, Harriet Zimmerman. Members ex officio: Paul G. GaffneyII, National Defense University; Lorne W. Craner, Department ofState; Donald H. Rumsfeld, Department of Defense; Richard H.Solomon, Institute president (nonvoting).

Top: Studentsparticipate in acall-in radio pro-gram at the V o i c eof America.

Middle, left:Stefanie Nelsonat VOA. Middle,right: Studentsprepare for abriefing at the SriLankan Embassy.

Bottom, left toright: JoshuaHershbergermeets with Sen.Richard C. Shelby(R-Ala.) at hisoffice on CapitolHill.

4

In the 1990s, the internationalcommunity deployed nearly 40peacekeeping operations repre-

senting the largest outlay of energy,money, and troops in the area ofpeacekeeping to date, notes J e a n -Marc Coicaud, a senior fellow atthe U.S. Institute of Peace in 2000–2001. “These peacekeeping opera-tions represented a willingness onthe part of the international com-munity to extend a sense of solidarityand responsibility regarding humanrights and humanitarian issues,”says Coicaud. At the same time,however, there were definite limitsto international solidarity aroundpeace operations—for example, theWestern democracies, in particularthe United States, became increas-ingly reluctant to put their soldiers’lives at risk. Such limits to solidari-ty led to ambiguous directives andcommitments and mixed results.

Right: Jean-Marc Coicaud

F E L L OWSHIP P R O J E C TR E P O RT

For his fellowship project,Coicaud, a senior academic officerin the Peace and Governance Pro-gram at the United Nations Uni-versity in Tokyo, uses peacekeepingas a lens through which to assessthe emerging post–Cold Warinternational order. He worked atthe United Nations in 1992–96 asFrench language speechwriter forSecretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his executive office.

Essentially Coicaud, whosebackground is in political scienceand philosophy, looks at the evolu-tion of the international system,describing its successes, failures,and ambiguities, as well as the ethi-cal and political dilemmas that itfaces. His ultimate concern iswhether the international commu-nity will maintain some degree ofsolidarity over humanitarian issues,human rights values, and democra-tic principles, or whether it willretreat to a more traditional modeof operation based on competitionand strategic interests.

Coicaud notes that the peace-keeping missions of the 1990sinvolved a range of initiatives pre-viously unthinkable: humanitarianinterventions, mixtures of humani-tarian aid and peace enforcement,cooperation between the UN andthe North Atlantic Treaty Organi-zation (NATO), and the UNSecurity Council’s establishment ofinternational criminal tribunals.“And yet, for all the expansivenessof these operations, the resultsappear in retrospect to be quitemodest,” he says. “Moreover, com-pared to the unmatched issues thatwere addressed, and the visibilityof peacekeeping in the newsmedia, the UN peacekeeping oper-ations budget was a ‘mere’ $17 billion over 10 years.” During thesame period, for example, thedefense spending of the UnitedKingdom and France was some$400 billion each, and of the United States, about $3 trillion.

“We’re hearing that UN peace-keeping is costly, which it is. How-ever, the cost is quite low, relativelyspeaking. There’s a total lack ofproportionality between the visibil-ity of peacekeeping operations andthe real numbers behind it,”Coicaud says.

Critics tend to blame the short-comings of UN peacekeeping oper-ations on problems within the UN, a lack of political will amongmember states, and a reluctance tomultilateral action on the part ofthe United States, the sole globalpower. Coicaud explores each ofthese explanations in depth. Henotes that the United States essen-tially created the post–World WarII international architecture andgave its own liberal principles andvalues to the new international system. Once the East-West com-petition of the Cold War was gone,the United States and other West-ern democratic powers had anincentive to respond to thesedemocratic and humanitarianimperatives.

However, their desire to do soran into competing interests andvalues. In the United States, forexample, there is an inherent ten-sion between Congress’s primaryfocus on domestic issues and thecountry’s power and influence glob-ally. In Western democracies, therealso is a tension between an increas-ing sense of international responsi-bility to respond to humanitarianand human rights crises whiledomestically a growing sense ofindividual entitlement underminessocial solidarity.

In what direction might suchtensions lead? Coicaud concludesthat the international order will notdevelop in just one direction or theother. Instead, we will likely see ahybrid international world unfold,one in which countries face a con-stant struggle to balance the com-peting demands of the national andinternational realms.

Pe a c e ke e p i n gin the 1 9 90s and theDilemmas of theI n t e r n a t i o n a l

Sys t e m

5

The demand for peacekeepingoperations will likely remainconstant or increase over the

next five years, say a group ofinternational peacekeeping experts.However, most of these expertsagree that the United Nations willconduct only those operationswhere the parties invite outsideintervention and the internationalcommunity agrees on the opera-tion. This will leave the more diffi-cult and dangerous peace enforce-ment operations to “coalitions ofthe willing” such as regional orga-nizations or states, thus risking therecurrence of a genocide similar toRwanda’s 1994 massacre.

Some 35 peacekeeping expertsdiscussed “The Future of Peace-keeping Operations” at a U.S.Institute of Peace workshop held on July 9–10. The Institutecosponsored the event with theNational Intelligence Council andthe United Nations Association ofthe United States. Patrick Cronin,director of the Institute’s Research

The Future of Peace OperationsIn the future, the United Nations is likely to conduct peace operations only

where the parties invite intervention and the international community agrees,

thus risking the recurrence of genocide similar to Rwanda’s 1994 massacre.

and Studies Program, helped toorganize the event, which was heldon a not-for-attribution basis. Par-ticipants included representativesof the five permanent members ofthe UN (the “Perm Five”) and 15other UN member states, theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organiza-tion (NATO) and other opera-tional missions, secretariat officials,embassy and UN mission person-nel, and others.

Among these were Major-

General Martin Luther Agwai,deputy force commander of theUN mission in Sierra Leone; Z. R.Zeif Al-Hussein, Jordan’s perma-nent representative to the UnitedNations, and General S a t i s hN a m b i a r (ret.), former first forcecommander and head of missionwith the UN forces in the formerY u g o s l a v i a .

The meeting sought to estab-lish an international dialogue on

Top, left toright: JocelynCoulon, GrahamDay, HeranSong, JacquesPaul Klein, andJan Eliasson.Above, left toright: SatyabrataPal, MartinAgwai, andPeter Wallensteen.See Peace Operations, page 9

6

he “country” of Akrona has recentlyemerged from a long period of strife. Itsthree ethnic groups—the Akroni, Brecni,and Zebzedi—have longstanding griev-

ances. The country’s infrastructure is ashambles. Healthcare is rudimentary andHIV/AIDS on the rise. The economy, neverstrong, barely functions. Natural resources arebeing depleted. Unemployment is at 40 percent.Corruption is rampant. And Akrona has

become dependent on the generosity of theinternational community. What measures areneeded to foster stability in this country?

Some 55 country directors and other personnel at the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID) were asked to answer that question as partof a simulation exercise—based on human interactionsand specially designed software—held on July30–August 2 at the Institute for Defense Analyses(IDA) in Alexandria, Va. George Ward, director of

the Training Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace,and Ray Caldwell, program officer, facilitated thetraining exercise in cooperation with IDA.

The simulation software—called SENSE, orStrategic Economic Needs and Security SimulationExercise, and developed by Richard White o fIDA—provides exercise participants with the oppor-tunity to realistically confront problems a country intransition is likely to experience and to discover theconditions and measures that will help it to becomea stable, market-based, democratic society. The soft-ware is an experiential learning tool; it does not pre-scribe specific actions to take in the real world.

“SENSE is the most effective training tool formanaging post-conflict transition that I’ve ever seen,”Ward says. “Participants learn micro-skills such asnegotiation, apply them in a very realistic setting,

and get immediate feedback about the impact of theirdecisions. None of the results are preprogrammed.The participants can try whatever they want—testtheir policies and ideas for governance and economicgrowth and see if they work.” Ward and Caldwellhelped to add political, social, health, and environ-mental components to the simulation, which also fac-tors in the interrelationships and interdependencies ofeconomic, military, infrastructure, and related issues.

Andrew Natsios, administrator of USAID and asenior fellow at the Institute of Peace in 1998–99, isconsidering using the SENSE simulation as a trainingtool to strengthen the ability of host country leaders tobuild economic, social, and political stability. The lackof such stability often leads to conflict. “In the last fiveyears, over two-thirds of the countries in whichUSAID has missions have been involved in civil waror conflict,” Natsios said on the last day of the exer-cise. The agency’s work may be cancelled out ifUSAID doesn’t strengthen the foundations for security, stability, and progress. Among other goals,

SENSEMaking

The

Institute’s

Training

Program

facilitates a

simulation

exercise to

help

USAID

personnel

confront

problems

a country

in transi-

tion is

likely to

experience.

tradeoffs, Caldwell says. The interactions help toincrease mutual understanding and respect whilehighlighting contentious issues and various approach-es to dealing with them.

Franklin Moore, acting director of the environ-mental center at USAID and exercise participant,said the simulation shows “how difficult it is fordonors to figure out how they can contribute to theoverall well-being of a country.” The exercise alsorevealed the impact of environmental degradation on social and economic factors in a country, he said.For example, in the hypothetical country of Akrona,excessive forest cutting led to water degradation,which led to decreased life expectancy in general and increased child mortality.

The exercise also helped to reveal the role of ethnicity in decision-making, Moore said. “We eachidentify with our ethnicities. Sometimes we act forthe good of our ethnic group, sometimes for the goodof our country, and sometimes those are at odds witheach other.”

USAID seeks to use the simulation to build a workethic of collaboration among its personnel, countryteams, and host country nationals and to develop anintegrated framework of analysis among them to fosterstability, economic growth, and democratic gover-nance.

Under the auspices of IDA, leaders of East Euro-pean and Eurasian nations transitioning from central-ly planned authoritarian regimes to market-baseddemocracies, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, theRepublic of Georgia, and Montenegro, have also par-ticipated in the simulation.

Essentially, up to 64 participants in the simulationexercise assume various roles such as representatives ofthe executive, legislature, national bank, World Bankand International Monetary Fund, local and interna-tional companies, local and international nongovern-mental organizations, European Union, and UnitedStates. Each participant receives a playbook, whichgives a baseline of information about each role and itsavailable resources and describes the current status ofAkrona, including such things as the unemploymentrate, resource depletion rate, HIV infection rate, andso forth. Personal interactions are a necessary part ofthe exercise, as participants negotiate policies, loans,contracts, and related matters. The software processestheir inputs about every three minutes, which is theequivalent of one month, and displays the impact oftheir decisions on such things as health, public order,government finance, and even stability. Participantsthen have to deal with the new situation they havecreated. They negotiate with each other, build con-sensus, and attend mock donor conferences, nationalforums, and press conferences. There also is an after-action review.

The game helps participants identify policies nec-essary to encourage investment and to further eco-nomic opportunities, and to weigh military and social See Making SENSE, page 9

Opposite page:Participantsreview theimpacts of theirdecisions duringthe simulation.

Top left, left toright: HarrietHentges, GeorgeWard, andAndrew Natsios.

Top right: MarcLeland (center)discusses finan-cial issues dur-ing a simulationmeeting.

7

Patrick M. Cronin . . .director of the Institute’s Research and StudiesProgram, has been confirmed as assistantadministrator for policy and program coordina-tion at the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID). He will serve underadminstrator Andrew S. Natsios, who was asenior fellow at the Institute in 1988–89.

Willliam A. Drennan, an Institute programofficer and Korea expert, will serve as acting director of the Researchand Studies Program when Cronin leaves in September.

The U.S. and the UN: Narrow-ing the Gap on Human Rights

Although the United States hasput human rights into the

mainstream of foreign policy, itstill has not developed a coherentstrategy on human rights, accord-ing to a group of human rightspolicy experts. They discussed theUnited States’ recent loss of its seaton the United Nations Commis-sion on Human Rights (UNCHR)and related issues at a U.S. Insti-tute of Peace meeting held on June8. The Institute’s Human RightsImplementation Project, headedby Debra Liang-Fenton, o r g a-nized the meeting, entitled “The

8

U.S. and the UN: Narrowing theGap on Human Rights.”

Participants included P a u l aD o b r i a n s k y , undersecretary ofstate for global affairs; John Shat-t u c k , former assistant secretary ofstate for democracy, human rights,and labor; Jan Eliasson, S w e d i s hambassador to the United States;and Mark Lagon of the SenateForeign Relations Committee.The roundtable discussion was offthe record. Participants discussedthe implications of the U.S. ousterfrom the UNCHR for humanrights policy implementation, asthe United States becomesincreasingly isolated on humanrights issues. And they exploredwhether the United Nations willbe able to promote human rightseffectively without U.S. participa-tion. For example, while the Unit-ed States does not hold a seat onthe commission, authoritarian andoppressive governments do, whichwill likely impact the credibilityand effectiveness of the UNCHR.

One participant suggested thatU.S. policymakers must recognizethe costs of U.S. exceptionalism,unilateralism, and ultimately iso-lationism, and that it must applyits human rights standards athome. It can accomplish some ofthese goals by, for example, ratify-ing key UN treaties—treaties thatthe United States may have been asignatory to but has delayed rati-fying, such as the convention onthe elimination of discriminationagainst women. The UnitedStates also can be more proactivein engaging developing countriesand expanding the membership ofthe UN Security Council. Someparticipants also encouraged theUnited States to play an active,constructive role in the then-upcoming UN conference on

AIDS and its World ConferenceAgainst Racism, using theseforums to work multilaterally onissues important to the protectionof rights.

Faith-based NGOs Meet

The Rev. Burgess Carr ofLiberia shared his experiences

in the Nigerian and Sudanese civilwars during a workshop for faith-based nongovernmental organiza-

tions (NGOs) held at the Insti-tute on June 20. The meeting was organized by David Smock,director of the Religion andPeacemaking Initiative. Theworkshop enabled participants to share experiences and lessonslearned from their work on medi-ation, reconciliation, training inpeacebuilding, interfaith dialogue,and functional approaches topeacemaking conducted in zonesof conflict.

Carr discussed his experiencescarrying messages between thetwo sides during the Nigerian civilwar in the 1960s. Later, as secre-tary general of the All-AfricaConference of Churches, hismediation during the Sudan civilwar led to the interim peaceagreement signed in Addis Ababain 1972.

S h ortTakes

Seung-soo Han, minister of for-eign affairs and trade for the Repub-lic of Korea (ROK), met with Insti-tute president Richard H. Solomonon June 12 to discuss recent devel-opments on the Korean Peninsula.Afterward, he addressed the Insti-tute’s Korea Working Group, focus-ing on the status of North/SouthKorean rapprochement and the cen-trality of the U.S.-ROK alliance forthe future of the peninsula.

▲

9

Sadiq Al-Mahdi, head of Sudan’sUmma Party and former Sudaneseprime minister, discussed the issueof the restoration of democracy inSudan and proposals for securingpeace and stability there at an Insti-tute meeting on June 11.

▲

the issue of peacekeeping at a timewhen some of the most pressingconcerns related to peacekeepingmissions are not being debated,Cronin says.

Workshop participants notedthat the UN had led only 18 of the55 peacekeeping operations con-ducted last year. The others wereled by multilateral coalitions as inEast Timor and Kosovo, with theUN coming in later as a transi-tional authority. “Peace enforce-ment boils down to, Can you dothe job? As soon as another toughcase comes along, the system islikely to bog down,” notes Cronin.“That’s why the conventional wis-dom that there will not be anotherRwanda-type genocide is wrong.”

The North/South divide domi-nated much of the discussion.Many UN members resent thedominant position of Europe andAmerica, the wealthier Westerncountries that make the majordecisions regarding UN involve-ment in an operation. “You decide,we deploy and die,” they complain.For example, India and Jordan donot want to contribute troops toAfrican missions unless thewealthier countries also partici-pate—they pulled out of SierraLeone for that reason. Yet, someparticipants noted, while Indiablames the Perm Five for theirunwillingness to lead peace opera-tions in Africa, India also wants tokeep UN troops out of South Asia.

Africans said they are willing toconduct African operations them-selves, but they need training andmateriel. However, proximityplays a role in Africa as well, withSouth Africa more willing toengage in the south and WestAfrican nations in the west.

There is also an East/Westdivide in the United Nations: Asiais still not part of the decision-

Peace OperationsContinued from page 5

Toni Christiansen-Wagner,director of USAID’s Jordan mis-sion, said she had learned a greatdeal from the exercise. “SENSEgives you the ability to get anoverview of a country and to fac-tor in various assets and liabilitiesinvolved in rebuilding a societythat is emerging from conflict,”she said. Ethnic, religious, or ideological factors often get over-looked but are evident in the sim-ulation. Beyond that, the simula-tion also provides an opportunityto “better understand the rolesand responsibilities of colleaguesand the impact of their decisionson the overall well-being of thecountry and the achievement ofgoals, be they political, economic,or social.”

making, nor does it contributetroops in the numbers that itcould.

However, participants general-ly recognized that outside ofEurope, there is no regional secu-rity organization that can provideeffective peace enforcement, sowhile there is a desire to letregional organizations handletheir own conflicts, there is a bigcapability gap. Still, sometimesvery little is needed. An endlessarray of coalitions of the willingmay be practical.

Meeting participants conclud-ed that it remains unclear if therewill be more effective support forUN and regional peace operationsgenerally to ensure more timelyresponses, thus averting tragedieslike that of Rwanda. But therewas consensus that the UnitedStates should actively participatein preventing such tragedies, or, ifit cannot prevent them, in helpingto restore the peace.

Making SenseContinued from page 7

Tonino Picula, foreign ministerof Croatia, met with members ofthe Institute’s Balkans WorkingGroup on June 7 to discuss recentdevelopments in his country. Healso discussed Croatia’s aspirationsconcerning the North AtlanticTreaty Organization and the Euro-pean Union, how Croatia is dealingwith minority rights and economicreforms, and the role Croatia canplay in regional compliance withthe International Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia at The Hague,among other topics.

▲

The Institute’s Board ofDirectors approved thefollowing grants in January.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Washington,D.C. “Peacebuilding in Islamic Contexts:Values and Applications.” MohammedAbu-Nimer. $20,000.

ASIA SOCIETY, New York, N.Y.“Building Peace and Civil Society inAfghanistan: Challenges andOpportunities.” Robert Radtke. $35,000.

BOSTON COLLEGE, Weston, Mass.“Deterrence in East Asia: The UnitedStates, China, and Regional Conflict.”Robert S. Ross. $38,000.

CARNEGIE COUNCIL ON ETHICS ANDINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, New York,N.Y. “Making Human Rights Work: AResearch and Dialogue Project.” JoanneBauer. $40,000.

CENTER FOR CONFLICTMANAGEMENT, Almaty, Kazakhstan.Conflict Studies, Summer University:“Contemporary Situation and FuturePerspectives.” Lada Zimina. $35,000.

CENTER FOR PEACE STUDIES, Zagreb,Croatia. “MIRamiDA Plus Partnership.”Jasmina Papa Stubbs. $37,000.

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC ANDINTERNATIONAL STUDIES,Washington, D.C. “Conflict ResolutionTraining for Religious and CommunityLeaders in Kosovo.” David Steele.$30,000.

CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMANRIGHTS ACTION, New York, N.Y.“Central American Training DevelopmentProject.” Wendy-Maria Jacques. $33,000.

CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENCEAND RECONCILIATION, Braanfontein,South Africa. “Assessment of Truth andReconciliation within the AmnestyHearings of the Truth and ReconciliationCommission of South Africa.” Hugo vander Merwe. $35,000.

CONCILIATION RESOURCES, London,United Kingdom. “Accord: Papua NewGuinea/Bougainville Peace Process.” AndyCarl. $35,000.

GINO COSTA, Lima, Peru. “The RootCauses of Political Violence in PeruAccording to its Practitioners.” $30,000.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,Washington, D.C. “Overcoming Europe’s

Divide: NATO Enlargement and theSearch for a New Security Order inEurope.” Ronald D. Asmus. $35,000.

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONFLICTPREVENTION, Utrecht, The Netherlands.“Searching for Peace in the Middle East.”Juliette Verhoeven. $32,000.

FOUNDATION FOR MIDDLE EASTPEACE, Washington, D.C. “TowardsPalestinian Revisionism.” Philip Mattar$38,000.

GROUP MOST, Center for Anti-WarAction, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. “BalkanBridges.” Dragan Popadic. $33,000.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Cambridge,Mass. “Terror in the Name of God.”Jessica Stern. $35,000.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, WOMEN ANDPUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM, Cambridge,Mass. “Mobilizing Civil Society for Peace:What Role for Women?” RitaManchanda. $30,000.

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ANDRECONCILIATION, Rondebosch, SouthAfrica. “Working for Reconciliation inPost-TRC South Africa.” Charles Villa-Vicencio, S. F. Du Toit. $35,000.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTSLAW GROUP, Washington, D.C.“Human Rights and Peace Training inBurundi.” Paul Simo. $35,000.

INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACADEMY,New York, N.Y. “Freedom from Fear:The United Nations and Global Securityin the 21st Century.” Andrew Mack.$35,000.

INTERNEWS NETWORK, Washington,D.C. “Genocide on Trial: Bringing Justiceto Rwandans.” Mark Frohardt. $40,000.

JERUSALEM INSTITUTE FOR ISRAELSTUDIES, Jerusalem, Israel. “Mediationand Arbitration Between Israelis andPalestinians.” Ora Ahimeir. $30,000.

JUSTICE AFRICA, London, UnitedKingdom. “Sudan Peace Process MonthlyBriefing.” Yoanes Ajawin. $30,360.

KATHA ORGANIZATION, Colombo, SriLanka. “Building Communities of Peace:Working Towards the SubalternResolution of Sri Lanka’s Civil War.”Arjuna Parakrama. $38,000.

MCGILL UNIVERSITY, Montreal,Canada. “The Bureaucratic Politics ofPeacebuilding.” Rex Brynen. $15,363.

SAMAJIK SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS,Munirka, New Delhi, India. “Towards aPeaceful Indian Ocean: A Study ofCoastal Conflicts in South Asia.” MukulSharma. $41,800.

SEEDS OF PEACE, New York, N.Y.“Caught in the Crossfire: YoungPalestinian and Israeli Peacemakers WagePeace in Time of War.” Dafna Hochman.$10,900.

SPRING ARBOR COLLEGE, SpringArbor, Mich. “Lessons from Rwanda.”David Rawson. $35,000.

WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATINAMERICA, Washington, D.C. “PublicSecurity Reform in Transitional Societies:Defining Success and Learning fromFailure.” Rachel Neild. $25,000.

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, Detroit,Mich. “Arms to Conflict-Event Database,1990–2000.” Frederic Pearson. $30,000.

The Institute’s Board ofDirectors approved thefollowing grants in March.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Washington,D.C. “Religion and Civil Society inPakistan.” Mustapha Kamal Pasha.$25,000.

ASIA CENTER, Harvard University,Cambridge, Mass. “Sino-Japanese War(1931–45): Local Government.” Ezra F.Vogel. $40,000.

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION,Washington, D.C. “Expanding GlobalCapacity for Humanitarian Interventionand Peace Operations.” MichaelO’Hanlon. $30,000.

CAMBODIAN INSTITUTE OF HUMANRIGHTS, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. “GoodGovernance Training for Peace, Demo-cracy, Citizen Participation, and the Growthof Civil Society.” Kassie Neou. $38,000.

CARNEGIE COUNCIL ON ETHICS ANDINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, New York,N.Y. “The Education and ReconciliationResearch Project.” Elizabeth Cole.$40,000.

CENTRE FOR STRATEGIC ANDINTERNATIONAL STUDIES, Jakarta,Indonesia. “Indonesia’s DemocraticTransition: Domestic Reform,International Engagement.” RoddMcGibbon. $39,995.

10

COALITION FOR INTERNATIONALJUSTICE, Washington, D.C. “SerbianMedia Symposium.” Stefanie Frease.$25,200.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, New York,N.Y. “An Inter-Ethnic ConflictTransformation Training Program forBurma’s Minority Ethnic Groups.”Andrea Bartoli. $38,485.

THE CORRYMEELA COMMUNITY,County Antrim, Northern Ireland.“Corrymeela Interface Peace BuildingProject.” Colin Craig. $30,000.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,Washington, D.C. “Building Conflict orBuilding Community: AmeliorativeFactors and the Future of Asian Security.”Robert A. Manning. $35,000.

CUNY CENTER, Arlington, Va. “LinkingPeacebuilding to Short-TermProgramming.” Kimberly A. Maynard.$35,000.

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, Chicago, Ill.“Bridging the Gap: The Military andHumanitarian Organizations in Bosniaand Kosovo.” Thomas Mockaitis. $40,000.

EASTERN MENNONITE UNIVERSITY,Harrisonburg, Va. “International Scholarand Practitioner Participation at SummerPeacebuilding Institute.” Pat HostetterMartin. $20,000.

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MINORITYISSUES, Flensburg, Germany.“Montenegro Conflict ManagementProject.” Marc Weller. $40,000.

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, Fairfax,Va. “Case Study: Day-to-Day DecisionMaking in Peace Implementation.” RobertW. Farrand. $40,172.

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION, Atlanta, Ga.“Warlords into Democrats? The Impact ofElectoral Processes and Decentralizationon Party Development in BosniaHerzegovina and Kosovo.” CarrieManning. $22,050.

INSTITUTE FOR RESOURCE ANDSECURITY STUDIES, Cambridge, Mass.“Trauma Recovery and CommunityReconciliation: Building a Healthy CivilSociety in the Former Yugoslavia.” PaulaGutlove. $40,000.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FORPREVENTIVE ACTIVITIES ANDCONFLICT RESOLUTION, Skopje,

Macedonia. “Dialogue on the Promotionof Common Values.” Saso Georgievski.$32,000.

KARUNA CENTER FORPEACEBUILDING, Leverett, Mass.“Project DiaCom (a training program).”Paula Green. $40,000.

KINGS COLLEGE, London, UnitedKingdom. “Cooperation in ComplexEmergencies: A UN Office forHumanitarian Affairs/NATOHandbook.” John Mackinlay. $40,000.

KOREA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE OFAMERICA, Washington, D.C. “Inter-Korean Reconciliation and the Role of theMajor Powers.” Peter Beck. $10,000.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCEDSTUDIES, Bangalore, Kamataka, India.“Prospects for Stability in a Nuclear Sub-Continent.” S. Rajagopal. $29,565.

NEVE SHALOM/WAHAT AL-SALAM,SCHOOL FOR PEACE, Doar NaShimshon, Israel. “Dealing with Groups inConflict: The School for Peace Method.”Rabah Halabi. $38,500.

NEW SCHOOL UNIVERSITY, Beer Sheva,Israel. “Israel Between War and Peace:Global and Local Dimensions.” Uri Ram.$42,900.

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio.“Forecasting the Future on the KoreanPeninsula: Avenues to Reconciliation.”Richard Herrmann. $40,000.

PEACE THROUGH LAW EDUCATIONFUND, Washington, D.C. “A Force forPeace, Second Edition.” Beth C.DeGrasse. $20,000.

SACRAMENTO FOUNDATION,California State University, Sacramento,Calif. “Advanced/Basic AlternativeDispute Resolution Training and Seminarin West Africa (Nigeria and Ghana).”Ernest E. Uwazie. $40,000.

SCHOOL FOR ADVANCEDINTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JohnsHopkins University, Washington, D.C.“Retribution and Reconciliation inCambodia.” Craig Etcheson. $40,000.

TRAINING FOR CHANGE, Philadelphia,Penn. “Training Curriculum for ThirdParty Non-Violent Intervention.” GeorgeLakey. $30,000.

TRAINING WORKSHOPSINTERNATIONAL FOR THE CHILDREN,Springfield, Va. “Post-Conflict TraumaResource Workbook.” Philippe Dupont.$33,280.

UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL, Montreal,Canada. “A Peace That Lasts: ForeignIntervention and the Strength of Post-Conflict States.” Marie Joëlle Zahar.$38,487.

UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL, Montreal,Canada. “Falungong and China’s Future.”David Ownby. $29,966.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, Columbia,Mo. “Teachers as Therapists, TreatingWar-Traumatized Children in Kosovoand Ingushetia.” Syed Arshad Husain.$35,000.

UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND,Brisbane, Australia. “From Confrontationto Cooperation: The Role of Identity inthe Formation of Security Policy.” RolandBleiker. $35,000.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, Madison,Wis. “Local Autocracies in NationalDemocracies: Making Societies Civil inSoutheast Asia.” Paul D. Hutchcroft.$20,000.

WATSON INSTITUTE FORINTERNATIONAL STUDIES, BrownUniversity, Providence, R.I. “LocalDimensions of Democracy-Building:Inter-Ethnicity in Macedonia.” KeithBrown. $38,000.

WATSON INSTITUTE FORINTERNATIONAL STUDIES, BrownUniversity, Providence, R.I. “ConstructingJustice and Security after Wars.” CharlesT. Call. $35,000.

WOODROW WILSONINTERNATIONAL CENTER FORSCHOLARS, Washington, D.C.“Genocide and the Politics of Diplomacy:The Burundi Peace Process.” Howard E.Wolpe. $44,000.

YORK UNIVERSITY, Toronto, Canada.“Ethiopian and Eritrean Refugee andInternally Displaced Persons Return andReintegration in Relation to the Cessationof Hostilities and the Peace Agreement.”Howard Adelman. $36,000.

11

United States Institute of Peace1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20036-3011w w w . u s i p . o r g

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

Washington, DC

Permit No. 2806

Tu r b u l e n tPe a c eThe Challenges of Managing InternationalConflictedited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall

“An invaluable guide to conflictin the world today. From theoryto causes, to prevention andnation building after the fightingstops, this volume covers it all.”

—Jessica Tuchman Mathews,President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Fifty of the most influential and innovative analysts of internationalaffairs present multiple perspectives on how best to prevent, manage, or resolve conflicts around the world.

September 2001 ■ 936 pp. ■ 7 x 10$35.00 (paper) ■ 1-929223-27-7$59.00 (cloth) ■ 1-929223-29-3

Customers gave the U.S. Institute ofPeace a 98 percent positive rating on its performance in 2000 in four key

areas—timeliness of response, clarity ofinformation and applications, accessibility of publications, and overall performance.

The Institute implemented an annual sur-vey in 1996 to evaluate its performance andto assess how well it meets its published per-formance standards as part of its ongoingeffort to increase customer satisfaction. Read-ers of Peace Watch rated the Institute’s per-formance for 2000 in relation to these stan-dards on a survey response card included inthe December 2000 issue. The responses andcomments provided the basis for the Insti-tute’s fifth annual customer service report.

Of 340 responses, 58 percent indicatedthat the Institute’s performance was excel-lent, 32 percent said it was above average,and 8 percent rated it as average.

The Institute believes that a 98 percentsatisfaction rate among its customers andclients indicates strong appreciation for theway in which we serve our constituents.Thank you for your continuing interest in theInstitute’s work and in our commitment toserving you.

We invite you to evaluate our customerperformance during 2001 on the form thatwill be included in the December 2001 issueof Peace Watch.

To order, call 800-868-8064 (U.S. only) or 703-661-1590N e w B o o ksN e wB o o ksUSIP PRESS