A robust commitment to and investment in peacebuilding to advance peace and mitigate crises is essential for U.S. foreign assistance goals to succeed. Without a safe and stable environment, all other development efforts are vulnerable. Civil wars and regional violence have destroyed development projects, costing tens of billions of dollars.

There are long-term costs to foreign assistance guided by short-term goals and chronic underfunding of civilian agencies. Too many resources go to short-term, crisis-response strategies. Too few are appropriated to long-term sustainable development strategies that advance peace and help mitigate crises. A more robust commitment to and investment in peacebuilding will save money and lives. It will help establish secure foundations for more effective long-term development.

Peacebuilding as an Essential Element of U.S. Foreign Assistance

1. Definitions: Peacebuilding includes a wide range of efforts by diverse actors in government and civil society to address the root causes of violence and protect civilians before, during, and after violent conflict. Before conflict becomes violent, preventive peacebuilding efforts–such as diplomatic, economic, social, legal and security sector reform programs – address potential sources of instability and violence. This is also termed “conflict prevention.” In the midst of a violent crisis, a range of peacebuilding efforts aims to manage, mitigate, resolve and transform central aspects of the conflict through official diplomacy, as well as through civil society peace processes and informal dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. In the post-crisis phase, a range of peacebuilding efforts addresses root causes of violence and fosters stabilization, reconstruction, and reconciliation to prevent the return of instability and violence.
2. Peacebuilding costs less than expensive, complex military operations after a crisis emerges. In comparative studies, researchers find peacebuilding programs to prevent violent conflict cost far less than waiting to intervene after conflicts turn into crises and violence. Research shows that, on average, one dollar spent on preventive programs compares with approximately sixty dollars of program costs to respond to crises once violence erupts. For this reason, governments, inter-governmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations are making serious commitments to advancing peace and mitigating crises through effective peacebuilding programs.
3. A U.S. capacity for peacebuilding requires a comprehensive rethinking of U.S. foreign assistance and security interests, but it does not require a radical overhaul of infrastructure or costly new programs within U.S. foreign assistance. Proportionately small increases in U.S. foreign assistance budgets could have dramatic effects in mitigating crises and advancing peace, and should correspond with reductions in the military budget. Effective peacebuilding requires effective early warning systems, flexible funding for rapid response and organizational capacity to coordinate strategy and operations.
4. Given the complex nature of most violent conflicts, peacebuilding requires a systemic, comprehensive approach with multiple stakeholders actively partnering with other sectors. Effective peacebuilding requires coordination among the U.S. government and other actors including: the United Nations; regional organizations like the OSCE, the African Union and ECOWAS multilateral partners of the U.S.; national governments in the crisis regions, and international and local NGOs involved in development and conflict prevention. Coordinated conflict assessment, strategic planning and program implementation for peacebuilding among diverse government agencies and civil society actors is imperative. In spite of efforts to coordinate the newly established governmental programs in peacebuilding at the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and USAID, little communication occurs between these governmental bodies and well-established peacebuilding programs in civil society. A comprehensive approach requires a better infrastructure for communication and coordination.
5. Peacebuilding requires recalibrating civil-military roles and relationships and developing a clearly articulated shared mission of building global human security consistent with national interests. Global perceptions of a militarized U.S. foreign policy hamper U.S. foreign assistance goals aiming at long-term development, human rights, and good governance. Currently there are severe imbalances between civilian and military actors’ resources, capacity and expertise. This requires new measures to fund, identify, recruit, train and deploy civilian experts in both government and civil society at both the strategic planning and operational planning levels. Strategic planning for civilian missions requires knowledge of and experience in the areas of civilian-crisis response, such as strengthening police, the rule of law, civilian administration and civilian protection.
6. The sustainability of peacebuilding efforts rests on local ownership, leadership, and capacity that upholds the dignity of men, women, boys and girls. Peacebuilding should first and foremost identify and strengthen existing social capital and sources of community resilience that can and do withstand and mitigate violence and promote peace and social cohesion. Foreign assistance has an important role in supporting local government and civil society efforts. Too often, however, foreign assistance is not connected to local peacebuilding initiatives and ends up inadvertently undermining these through short-term, quick-impact projects implemented by consultants who do not understand the local context and language and who fail to earn the respect and support of local people. Foreign assistance supports peacebuilding when it exhibits understanding of and respect for local history and culture, while appreciating the dynamic ways cultures and conflicts change over time. The principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and more recent international laws should inform U.S. foreign assistance, ensuring that traditionally marginalized social groups (e.g., women, youth, minorities) are fully respected and included in all processes — in ways that they themselves determine most appropriate.
7. Peacebuilding necessitates a balance between strengthening weak and failing states and empowering civil society, which has proven to be an effective moderating force. State capacity to perform its essential functions is important to peacebuilding. Yet often development and peacebuilding efforts to support new governments have excluded and undermined local civil society. In many regions of the world, robust and innovative civil society-led peacebuilding efforts are already underway. Civil society helps to transform non-democratic countries through informing public opinion, mobilizing constituencies for reform, and engaging government and political parties in policy debate. Civil society organizations lay foundations for development, human rights, and foster cross-cultural exchange, often through the arts. They mediate between armed groups or opponents to help reach ceasefire agreements. They facilitate dialogue and promote tolerance between groups. They deliver humanitarian relief to, and foster trauma healing in, war-affected communities. Civil society’s strengths lie in their long-term cultural and linguistic knowledge of and commitment to the local context. Civil society works to ensure governments act on behalf of everyone’s best interests and not just the interests of a few.
8. Peacebuilding depends upon operational and political space for civil society. Civil society organizations working against extremism by promoting human rights, development, and peacebuilding can be themselves hampered, deterred and unfairly punished under current counterterrorism laws and restrictions. U.S. foreign assistance must recognize and take actions to protect the vital roles of civil society, ensuring they have the political and operational space necessary to fulfil their important missions.
9. Peacebuilding requires accountability mechanisms for transparency and evaluation. Accountability mechanisms also facilitate local participation, information sharing, and dealing effectively with unintended outcomes. Evaluations should capture lessons learned and best practices and be shared widely to inform future peacebuilding initiatives.

The Relationship Between Development Assistance and Peace

1. Violent conflict is “development in reverse.” Countries with low per capita incomes and low rates of economic growth are more likely to experience civil war and pose larger security threats to the global community. Violent conflict often channels resources toward war rather than development, creates refugees, fuels traffic in drugs and weapons, causes environmental damage, and destroys livelihoods and lives. Without a safe and stable environment, development efforts tend to be nullified, wasting the investment.
2. The relationship between poverty, state fragility and conflict is complex. Poverty can contribute to conflicts, particularly those stemming from ethnic dominance and perceived political, social, and economic exclusion and humiliation. Most people who pick up a gun or strap on explosives are motivated by local and immediate issues such as daily security, discrimination, inadequate basic services, pervasive corruption, impunity for well-connected elites, denial of a political voice, inadequate justice, and lack of employment opportunities. They are different from the relative handful of extremists wishing to advance their global ideological agenda through massive destruction and disruption; the locals can be de-coupled from the globally oriented extremists, if positive alternatives are offered. Conflict-sensitive foreign assistance can offer such alternatives.
3. Fragile and failed states are more likely to experience civil wars that threaten development and undermine global security. Fragile and failed states serve as hothouses for the growth of ethnic, sectarian, secessionist, and other internal wars, as well as sanctuaries, recruiting areas, and havens for drug- and weapons-trafficking, often linked to insurgencies. Peacebuilding helps rebuild failed and failing states.
4. Conflict-sensitive foreign assistance programs can help to reduce poverty while advancing peace and mitigating crises through peacebuilding programs. Development programs can:
   1. Disrupt the patterns of civil war that threaten security and undermine efforts to reduce poverty in a variety of ways.
   2. Pre-empt the ability of extremist groups to mobilize support from the population in need of basic services.
   3. Empower local change agents who can make demands on their government for transparency and accountability.
   4. Discourage violence by addressing perceived grievances and offering better economic alternatives than the incentives provided by armed groups.
   5. Weaken local support for violence by spreading the economic benefits of peace.
   6. Foster middle class and civil society actors who can put a brake on political violence.
5. Humanitarian and development programs can inadvertently contribute to conflict and violence. The impact of development programs on preventing conflict depends on both the level of investment and the quality of development programs. Underfunded or misconceived programs can worsen problems in four ways:
   1. When development resources are perceived to benefit some groups but not others, they can exacerbate existing tensions between groups.
   2. Inadequate funding relative to population size can inflate expectations and lead to competition and conflict over development assistance programs and resources. Lack of consultation and local ownership in development projects can miss important insights into how to address locally identified needs of those sympathetic to terrorist groups.
   3. When development assistance is suddenly withheld or repeatedly used as a “stick” to punish support for specific groups, it can actually increase support for these groups if they are providing aid and charity in the vacuum of international humanitarian support.
   4. If external development assistance frees up local resources for war, it can relieve local leaders of their responsibilities to provide basic services and aid to their citizens and thus undermine efforts at building state capacity and legitimacy necessary for stability.
6. Foreign assistance should include development programs that take into account the impacts of conflict on development projects and the effects of development projects on conflicts. This can be ensured by:
   1. Identifying the impacts of conflict and violence on humanitarian assistance.
   2. Avoiding inadvertently worsening tensions or exacerbating conflict.
   3. Designing programming aimed at both reducing poverty and preventing violent conflict by addressing key divisions between groups and underlying grievances that fuel conflict.
   4. Supporting local capacities for peace and community resilience to conflict.
   5. Generating options for improving program quality in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, so that development efforts address key divisions between groups and underlying grievances that fuel conflict.

The 3D Security Initiative’s and Alliance for Peacebuilding’s full, official document of recommendations for the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act in 2010 can be found at . These recommendations represent the views of the authors and their organizations and should not be construed as being the official position of .

“Many people in peacebuilding are naïve or unaware of how to engage policymakers. They are clueless about the kind of impact they can have. They are intimidated by the idea of meeting with a member of Congress,” says Eric Ham.

Ham is changing that.

As policy director for EMU’s 3D Security Initiative, Ham spends most of his week organizing and leading delegations of concerned individuals, often straight from their grassroots organizations around the world, to Congress. He thinks the elected representatives of the United States need to hear fresh insights into policy matters, based on real-life experiences, often supplemented by extensive study. And he seems to be right, judging by the growing numbers of Congressional offices opening their doors to Ham, as well as to the woman he reports to, 3D Security Director Lisa Schirch.

Since Labor Day (9/07/09), Ham has taken three delegations to the Hill, focusing sequentially on Burma, global health issues, and Pakistan. On Oct. 2, 2009, Ham’s Congressional visitors – Azhar Hussain of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy and Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution – advocated more support for the establishment of an educational infrastructure in Pakistan to fill the space now occupied by militant religious groups, who are cultivating violent extremism in the schools they run.

This type of aid – for educational rather than military purposes – typifies the core argument of the 3D Security Initiative that the United States needs to have a more even-handed approach to the three “Ds” of foreign policy – development, diplomacy and defense – instead of relying mainly on the “hard-power” approach of funding military might.

Hired by Schirch in April 2008, Ham heads up the Washington office of 3D Security Initiative. When Washington policymakers were debating whether to send more troops to Afghanistan in the summer of 2008, the Inititative took Afghan and Pakistani students and alumni from EMU’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding (CJP) to speak to Congressional staffers about the need to shift funding toward civil society organizations in their countries. These visitors offered a preview of the findings Schirch reported in an article distributed by Common Ground News Service on Feb. 3, 2009.

Citing a survey of nearly three dozen civil society leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan, Schirch found that they “want a shift in military strategy. They warn a troop surge alone will result in more civilian casualties, more village raids, further alienation of the local population and growing local resistance to foreign troops. The leaders also fear that the Taliban could use a troop surge as an opportunity to recruit local people to their cause.”

Those surveyed also criticized the funding of “highly paid experts who know little of local culture and design projects with minimal long-term impact.” Instead they recommended “direct support for Afghan organizations that understand local languages, cultures and religious dynamics. There are many Afghans doing frontline work in economic development, human rights, good governance and independent media. Yet they receive little recognition or financial support for their work.”

Eight months after Schirch made her report, validated by CJP students and alumni from that area of the world, her warnings seemed prescient. With matters going from bad to worse in Afghanistan as of October 2009, certain military leaders sought a massive increase in U.S. troops there, while key elected representatives questioned the wisdom of that course of action.

“We’re trying to alter the foreign policy landscape,” says Ham. Though the 3D Security Initiative is only four years old, Ham sees signs that it is succeeding, little by little. For one thing, the language used in Congress is shifting, with more references to “building civilian capacity” and funding “conflict-prevention” efforts. For another, an amendment offered by Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) was passed restoring $3 billion for development to the foreign aid budget, as advocated by 3D Security.

For Ham, working in a David-sized organization to address a Goliath-sized U.S government is exciting and downright inspiring. He’s been on the other side of the meeting table as a Congressional staffer himself in the office of U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). One of his best memories from that period is finding himself next to then U.S. Senator Barack Obama at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Obama’s first day in the Senate in January 2005. To Ham’s delight, Obama recognized Ham, who (as a graduate student in public policy) had audited then-professor Obama’s constitutional law class at the University of Chicago in 2002. “He was absolutely phenomenal as a teacher, earth shattering,” recalls Ham. “He was funny, engaging, articulate, brilliant.”

Ham, who is a native of Detroit, previously worked for two much larger non-profits: the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. When Schirch sat down with him to talk about the mission, vision and goals of the 3D Security Initiative, Ham was surprised at how closely it meshed with his own hopes for his country, especially since he had never heard of the philosophy or programs of ��ݮ����, where Schirch teaches graduate students.

“EMU is one of this country’s best-kept secrets,” Ham said after attending the 2009 session of EMU’s Summer Peacebuilding Institute. “I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being there. You’ve got this small, religious, Christian university neatly tucked away in the Shenandoah Valley, and it brings in people from all over the world and many religions and puts them in classrooms together. It was like being at the United Nations.

“You’re talking to a doctor from Afghanistan and he is talking about how the U.S.-led war has ravaged his country and then you talk to a deputy mayor from Jerusalem… It was a phenomenal experience.

“I kept thinking, ‘Washington policy makers just need to come here.’ It would help them to see all the problems they face through new lens.”

Note: In 2011, the 3D Security Initiative became 3P Human Security. For more information on 3P, visit . At time of publication, the Initiative is supported by the Ploughshares Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Colombe Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and private donors.

From Queen Noor to Congress

When CJP professor launched the 3D Security Initiative in November 2006, she had no way of knowing how long it might take for 3D to gain the attention of top decisionmakers in this country.

Regardless of the months, years or even decades that might be required, Schirch committed herself to advocating for a different approach to national security – one which doesn’t rely on simply one “D” in the “3D toolkit,” the tool of Defense. Real security, Schirch argued, rests on a foundation of two more “D” tools: Diplomacy and Development.

“I felt I owed it to the students I teach, who often come from war zones in foreign countries,” she told Peacebuilder. “They’d say, ‘It is great you’re teaching us about peacebuilding, but what is EMU doing to change U.S. foreign policy?’ I came to feel that I had a duty to work directly at influencing the policies and actions of the United States.”

Surprisingly, Schirch’s campaign on behalf of diplomacy and development garnered attention almost immediately. Six months after 3D Security was launched, Schirch was named “Modern Mother of Peace” by the Ploughshares Foundation, one of seven women in the world to receive this recognition. (One of the others recognized was Susan Granada, .)

Major Foundation Honors Schirch

Announcing the honor on the occasion of “Rediscover Mothers Day,” the Ploughshares Foundation noted: “Starting when she was a 20-year-old college student volunteering in a Costa Rican refugee camp for Nicaraguans, Lisa has worked to end conflict and build security, applying her commitment and skills to projects in Lebanon, Taiwan, Ghana and other countries.”

Queen Noor of Jordan, the honorary chair of the “Rediscover Mothers Day” campaign, praised Schirch on CNN for her efforts to use “development projects, like building schools and water wells, to disarm conflicts from Lebanon to Ghana.” Schirch and her husband William Goldberg have two children, a 7-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son.

Schirch directs the program from her base at EMU’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding in Harrisonburg, Va., while 3D Policy Director Lynn Kunkle is based in Washington D.C. “Some of my students have been a great help in this effort, as have my academic colleagues, whose advice I particularly welcome,” says Schirch. The 3D Security Initiative has collaborated with respected thinktanks to persuade policymakers to work with other countries to solve problems diplomatically. The Initiative also urges leaders to address the economic roots of many conflicts.

In a letter published December 5, 2007, in the Congressional newspaper The Hill, Schirch argued for aid programs to receive more federal dollars, noting that “USAID programs in good governance, economic development, education and healthcare are a humanitarian imperative, but they also create an architecture that grows security from the ground up.”

Growing List of Accomplishments

With funding from the Ploughshares Foundation and Compton Foundation, over the last year, the 3D Security Initiative:

•  Issued seven policy briefs on topics ranging from conflict prevention with Iran, to the security implications of climate change. The most recent brief calls for the federal government’s new African initiative to be lodged under the State Department rather then the Defense Department because “Africa’s security challenges share a common denominator – poverty” and thus development solutions rather than military ones will yield the most long-term results.
• Held meetings with 50 lawmakers or their aides on Capitol Hill to recommend improved strategies on Iraq and Iran that would lead to more security.
• Arranged for conflict-prevention experts from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uganda, Kosovo and other countries to visit Congressional offices to argue for more emphasis on development and diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy.
• Helped design a national survey on public attitudes toward security, which found that “most Americans believe the military should only be used as a last resort,” says Schirch. “There is a broad consensus that first we should use nonviolent ways of engaging the world through economic development and robust diplomacy.”
• Hosted or co-hosted several meetings of coalitions and advocacy groups that have complementary ideas on ways to address global conflicts; the meetings were designed to foster partnership in approaching policy- and decision-makers, making alternative solutions more likely to be heard, appreciated and acted upon.
• Conferred with military leaders at the National Defense University, the Army War College and the Joint Forces Command on practical, effective alternatives to military force in conflict zones.
• Accepted an invitation to participate in developing conflict analysis tools and peacebuilding frameworks with Department of Defense and State Department analysts and policy-shapers.
• Received broadcast coverage on more than 20 radio and TV outlets, including an appearance by Schirch on Heartland with John Kasich, aired nationally by Fox.
• Gave 16 public presentations before nearly 3,000 people.
• Launched the website www.3Dsecurity.org, which carries more details on all of the above.

Sidebar:

Signs of New Tide

The tide is beginning to turn. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is now calling for a dramatic increase in U.S. foreign aid. Opinion-writers Richard L. Armitage and Joseph S. Nye Jr. called for “smart security” and “smart power” in a December 9, 2007 article in The Washington Post. The United States should become “a smarter power by once again investing in the global good, by providing things that people and governments want but cannot attain without U.S. leadership,” they wrote. “By complementing U.S. military and economic strength with greater investments in soft power, Washington can build the framework to tackle tough global challenges.”

In support of the calls for new approaches to foreign policy, the 3D Security Initiative brings the experiences and wisdom of people working at the frontlines of peacebuilding around the world to our nation’s leaders.

“When I took three persons working in Iraq and one Afghani to Congressional offices last summer, U.S. officials were very interested in hearing about what worked – and didn’t work – on the ground in conflict zones,” said Schirch. “It is very unusual for Congressional officials to meet someone like Hero Anwar, a courageous woman who works for an Iraqi community development organization. She knew first-hand what it takes to prevent violence and build security, which gave her great credibility.”

[Note: In 2011, the 3D Security Initiative became .]

1. Engage in immediate direct talks without preconditions.
2. Support regional diplomatic efforts to lay the necessary groundwork for addressing the root causes.
3. Take a “carrot” – rather than punitive “stick” – approach approach to negotiation. Coercive diplomacy and sanctions will not solve the deeper issues.
4. Understand that cultural, historical, psychological and political factors require the U.S. to demonstrate “respectful engagement,” or risk heightening Iranian fears for their sovereignty and security (which have played a role in the larger nuclear security question).
5. Move focus from Iran’s nuclear program to the promotion of regional security.
6. Recognize and address Iranian concerns about national sovereignty.
7. Take regime-change off the table. Due to past U.S. intervention in Iranian politics, the focus on regime-change actually strengthens the Iranian leadership.
8. Focus on trust-building measures to prepare the soil for more substantial negotiations and to undermine antagonistic leaders.