|
June 2003
Vol. IX, No. 4
    Top to bottom: Marie Smyth, Vivien Hart, Ray Jennings, Michael Hartmann, Dipankar Banerjee |
Senior Fellows Report: Jennings Randolph's Legacy
Young Militants and Peace
Lack of attention to young combatants in conflict situations ignores their number, importance, and ability to disrupt peace processes, says senior fellow Marie Smyth. In her April 24 project report at the Institute, she described her extensive field research among young militants, their parents, and political leaders in Northern Ireland, South Africa, and the Middle East. Smyth said understanding the nature of adolescence and power bestowed by militant activities is necessary to appreciate why young people play such a volatile role. Effective demobilization of young militants is necessary to stem violence after a settlement, Smyth concluded. "If we are to improve the long-term viability of peace settlements, the role of young people must be at the heart of the delivery of the agreements."
Available online: Event summary and audio.
A New Constitutionalism
Vivien Hart reported on an emerging "participatory constitutionalism" on April 30. Hart examined the potential and problems of public participation in constitution making, as well as public ownership's contribution to conflict transformation and sustainable democracy. She provided examples of extensive and vibrant public participation in the drafting of the newest South Africa constitution in contrast to examples of "cosmetic" participation, as in Zimbabwe. Participatory constitution making is gaining momentum. However, drafters must still find ways to clarify and implement the most effective processes. There is no going backward. "The call for participation will not go away," concluded Hart.
Available online: Event summary and audio.
Winning the Peace in Iraq
Winning a war—in Iraq or elsewhere—is followed by the responsibility for winning the peace, says senior fellow Ray Jennings. Lessons from past post-war experiences in Germany, Japan, and the on-going conflict in Afghanistan can be applied to post-war Iraq if the United States has the political will to make a long-term commitment. Jennings presented his project report on May 22 at the Institute. He said that the United States has fundamentally re-shaped its military doctrine without similarly reforming its commitments and capacities to stabilize and transform post-conflict environments. Post-war Iraq finds the United States in an unfamiliar position—in an international fishbowl, an unstable region, and amid growing anti-Americanism. Nation-building experience and expertise are plentiful within the American military, he said, but it is less certain if the United States is willing to make the commitment to apply these lessons over the long term in Iraq.
Available online: Event summary and audio.
Post-Conflict Courtroom Lessons
At the turn of the 21st century, the only international judges and prosecutors were part of international tribunals at The Hague and Arusha. This changed quickly. In February 2000, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo inserted international judges and prosecutors into the local criminal justice system. Senior fellow Michael Hartmann presented several lessons from his experience as an international prosecutor in Kosovo during his proj-ect report on May 29 at the Institute. The main lesson, said Hartmann, is that international participation should have been robust and immediate, rather than incremental and crisis-driven. This would have inhibited the growth of criminal power structures. Hartmann advised that future missions should base initial deployment and international intervention upon a worst-case scenario of public security disorder and the inability of local jurists to be impartial because of threats and coercion.
Available online: Event summary and audio.
Indian Lessons in Internal Conflicts
A state's ability to identify and assess situations of potential instability are critical, according to senior fellow Dipankar Banerjee, who presented his project report at the Institute on June 5. Banerjee drew lessons from three cases of India's use of its military in internal conflicts: containing a separatist conflict in Nagaland, countering terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, and peacekeeping in Sri Lanka. States must identify potential instability, assess their options and possible outcomes, and take appropriate levels of action. The primary goal must be to ensure that people are convinced to accept a course of action that is in their long-term best interests. Authorities, meanwhile, must be prepared to accept and adjust their own objectives based on feedback from the people.
Available online: Event summary and audio.
This excerpt is from the commencement speech by Jennings Randolph Fellowship Program director Joseph Klaits at Sen. Jennings Randolph's alma mater, Salem International University, in Salem, West Virginia, May 4, 2003. Throughout his long life—he died five years ago at age 96—Jennings Randolph had enormous confidence in young people. His greatest achievement was his principal sponsorship of the 26th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, giving the vote to 18-year-olds. The formative event in Sen. Randolph's youth was World War I, with its unimaginable carnage and destruction of an entire generation of young men. Jennings Randolph was 16 when that war ended, and it had a profound impact on him. The franchise, he thought, would empower youth against old political leaders, who might send the young off to war against their will. But young people need to be educated and properly guided in alternatives to war. So beginning in the 1940s, Jennings Randolph introduced legislation to create a federal academy of peace, analogous to the military academies, to promote research and teaching about conflict resolution by means other than war, and to instruct young people about the arts of peace. His efforts eventually resulted in the creation in 1984 of the United States Institute of Peace, a federal organization supported by congressional appropriations. Each year, every man, woman, and child in this country contributes five cents of tax money to support the Institute's efforts at international conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. And I can assure you that you get a lot for your nickel. Of course a nickel isn't much when compared to the more than $2,000 on average that each citizen contributes in taxes toward the Pentagon's current annual budget. Senator Randolph knew that among its other problems, war is very expensive, and that peace is cheap. Of course we all know that sometimes the cheaper item is not a bargain. We need a large military for our security. But if we can achieve that security at reduced costs, that would be better all around. In the end, world stability is the best guarantee of American security. Our power is based not only on our military strength but also on America's support of the principles of democracy and human rights and the quest for peace. We should never forget our core values of tolerance and equality before the law, because in these values lies our true strength against those who hate our freedom. This was the faith of Jennings Randolph when he invested his confidence in the young. |
Other Institute Resources:
