On August 4, 2004, Chester A. Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Chair in Strategic Studies at Georgetown University and former chairman of the U.S. Institute of Peace's Board of Directors (1992-2004) gave a special address to the Institute on "The Growth of a Unique Federal Agency: Reflections on the Past and Thoughts about the Future of the United States Institute of Peace." Delivered as part of a special event to mark the election of J. Robinson West and María Otero by the Institute's Board of Directors as the new chair and vice-chair (respectively), Crocker discussed the evolution of the Institute during his tenure as chair and outlined some of the challenges facing the Institute on the road ahead.

Last week, as you know, there was a transfer of power to new leadership of the Institute's board of directors. This follows my decision to step down as chairman at the June 17-18, 2004 board retreat, concluding twelve years' service as chairman.

I have strong views about change. I am always positive but wary. I am enthusiastic about change, but only when it is done under adult supervision. Corporate America became addicted to a culture of "change is good for you." Nothing endures. The only important thing-remember the 1990s—is "The New, New Thing," to borrow a phrase from the book about Jim Clark, the founder/inventor of Netscape. That kind of change, or the addiction to creative destruction and endless self-evaluation by management gurus, led directly to the stock market bubble that burst with such seeming suddenness in the year 2000.

However, change that is thwarted or postponed can also be destructive. In my view, the health of dynamic and vital institutions is measured by their capacity for self-renewal, by their ability to engage in succession planning, and by the wisdom of incumbents in stepping aside when they have made their contribution. In my case, I have known for some time that it would be good both for me and for the Institute to step down in favor of a new board leadership team. I wanted this to occur when we had a more or less full complement of directors with a degree of exposure to and experience in Institute programs, capabilities, and potentials. That has taken some doing and careful consultation with management and my board colleagues. Today we are in a position that this board has not experienced since the early 1990s. The time was right. While it is not my task to anoint successors to me and my ailing vice-chair Marty Lipset, I can say with enthusiasm that our ad hoc nominating committee has done a splendid job of identifying leadership for the Institute's board to work with Dick Solomon and his management team in the coming period.

Crocker looks on as J. Robinson West, newly elected chair of the Institute's Board of Directors, addresses the Institute.

You have all seen the announcement of the election of J. Robinson West and Maria Otero as our new chair and vice-chair. I could not be more pleased with this outcome. Robin, as he is known to his friends and colleagues, is an action-oriented leader, a person who gets things done, who focuses on defining the brand, the niche, and the institutional opportunities before us. He is well connected to political Washington and the world of foreign policy, yet he also understands both the severe constraints facing government and the opportunity for private and nongovernmental actors to play an increasingly important role in making a better world. Maria is proof positive of that very point: a distinguished nongovernmental leader who has served or chaired an impressive range of institutions devoted to development, the eradication of poverty, and women's empowerment. She has served as chair of our Finance and Audit Committee, and she has played key roles in our strategic review conducted in 2002-2003 and in the process for managing the Institute's building design competition. While Robin is still quite new to our board, he is a quick study and knows the policy environment in which we work. Maria knows the Institute's evolution and recent history inside-out, and she has a splendid touch on processes for institutional development. I believe Robin and Maria complement each other very well, and I am delighted they have agreed to serve.

For my part, I step down as chair but will remain on the board to lob questions and ideas at the chair and vice-chair from the sidelines—until they throw me off. I care deeply about the United States Institute of Peace, which is so young, so important at this stage in our nation's history, so dependent on the quality and steadiness of leadership in all ranks, so in need of carefully balanced programming and planning between the various priorities and opportunities it faces. The Institute has some terrific accomplishments. It has become quite simply the nation's leading center of excellence for research, education, training, publications, and public outreach to enhance our knowledge and understanding of how to manage international conflict. Neither a think tank nor a foundation, we combine the best of those breeds with the capacity—developed in tandem with our analytical work—to deliver programmatic resources, to transfer skills and knowledge, to help build the capacity of others. By "others," I mean, first, generations of future American leaders in global affairs; second, I mean current policymakers and practitioners already engaged in conflict-related issues; third, I mean those who live and work in zones of conflict; and, fourth, I mean those scholars and practitioners in other lands who become familiar with our analytic work and apply it themselves in zones of conflict.

The Institute is a unique national—and international—resource, and the demands for our work have never been higher. For confirmation, just look at the recent Senate resolution adopted by unanimous consent on the occasion of our twentieth anniversary: we almost could have written it ourselves! At the same time, I am acutely conscious of how stretched our resources and people are, how many opportunities we inevitably miss, and how many conflict situations remain beyond our reach. In this regard, it is extremely heartening to take note of the growing support we have in Congress and in the executive branch. This year's projections are two and one-half times the budget we had when Dick Solomon and I started here. Credit for this positive trend goes partially to this board for pushing management to get better known up on Capitol Hill, and it goes mainly to the Institute's leadership for doing just that. And it goes above all to the professional staff, whose credibility and obvious talent and productivity have impressed everyone who gets to know the Institute. Having said this, we remain in some ways embryonic. We also remain vulnerable to miscues and wrong turns. The Institute's next steps are very, very important.

Crocker relaxes with Elspeth Davies Rostow, then chair of the Institute's Board of Directors, and fellow board member Father Ted Hesburgh after a 1991 meeting of the board.

Before looking ahead, a few comments on the past. I joined this board when it was chaired by a great educator and institutional leader, Elspeth Davies Rostow. She was my role model. For years the only woman on the board, she served for a year as both chair and vice-chair while also serving long-distance as an active leader on the Fellowship Selection Committee and on the Grant Committee (as it was then known). Elspeth impressed me as a doer, a person totally at home with the world of the policymaker. But she was also a scholar who understood and respected the Institute's educational mission as enshrined in our statute.

The Institute has been enriched by many individuals who have served on this board and made important contributions to its work. I cannot do justice to their service—past and continuing—but I am compelled to mention some of them: in particular, Elspeth's predecessor, John Norton Moore, who played a central role in establishing our institutional life and shaping our substantive programs; Dennis Bark whose rigorous focus on issues of governance and accountability gave us the high standards we cherish; Max Kampelman, my former vice-chair, who helped us master the art of finding solutions (to our own problems as well as to those of other people) and trained us to focus on what makes us unique; Sid Lovett and Mary Louise Smith, whose enthusiasm and essential sense of fairness inspired us all to work for the common good; Scott Thompson, Allen Weinstein, Bill Kintner, Holly Burkhalter, Steve Krasner, and Charles Horner, whose rigorous interest in the central role of ideas in our public life has enriched our programs; Father Ted Hesburgh for consistently raising our aspirations and helping us develop institutional traction in our outreach and Capital campaigns; and two ex officio directors who have played a special role in mentoring and supporting our growth: Erv Rokke and Paul Gaffney, former presidents of the National Defense University.

Let me now mention some people who were here on staff and some who are still here when I joined as a board member in November 1991 as the Soviet Union was in its death throes.

• No one has done more to build, create, nurture and protect this institution than our vice president Chick Nelson, who came aboard in 1988. He is a font of experience and institutional memory on Congress, on our procedures and budgets, and on our work in Latin America and in many other fields. Everyone who has served here, who has benefited from Institute programs, who has worked to build and grow our presence and reputation in the outside world—we are all in his debt.
• Joe Klaits, who said his farewell just last week, was here doing his quiet, thoughtful, balanced, and supportive work to bring the analytical and intellectual elements of our programs to life.
• Sheryl Brown was lighting fires under various desks to float ideas, edit books, run conferences, innovate with information technology, and conceptualize how the information revolution could change diplomacy.
• David Smock ran our outstanding Grant Program while also providing leadership on African issues and fostering attention to the role of religion in conflict management. David's work helps us grapple with the challenge of reducing conflict where religion is used to justify violence in all sorts of places, such as Iraq and the Balkans.
• Neil Kritz was the enfant terrible of a new discipline of transitional justice, running circles around others in this increasingly central field, one I came to appreciate largely by seeing him in action.
• April Hall was here supporting Grant Program director Judy Barsalou's predecessor twice removed, Hrach Gregorian, organizing all of the procedures, the paperwork, and the organizational and substantive detail, which have made her program directors look so masterful.
• Chris de Paola was making the trains run and doing the hundreds of practical things needed, in conjunction with former Administrative Director Bernice Carney, to get our systems operating and our meetings up to standard for an important federal institution.
• Nor can I omit George Foote, our external counsel since 1986, who has worked numerous issues and solved many problems of institutional growth and development over the years, and who has given us great support as we have evolved.

Now let me acknowledge some who were here then but no longer.

• Robert Oakley was with us as a special program coordinator on the professionalization of peacekeeping, a person whose unique grasp of running countries in turmoil has been repeatedly recognized by U.S. officials.
• Sam Lewis ran the place and was the leader across the board, charting the course toward the proper balance between theory and practice, and building our credibility with important policy constituencies. Sam, working closely with the original board members, developed and institutionalized our primary program areas.
• Considerable intellectual firepower was to be found among John Richardson, Ken Jensen, Michael Lund, and Hrach Gregorian, who led some of the core programs at that time; we gained from the successful outreach efforts of Charles Smith, who was our founding in-house counsel, and Graeme Bannerman and Greg McCarthy.
• Dan Snodderly was establishing our Publications Program during the time, which, largely under his leadership, has become the finest press in our field and an invaluable resource for both the Institute and practitioners and for scholars and students.

Crocker and Institute president Richard H. Solomon talk with guest speaker Ted Koppel at the Institute's 1994 conference "Managing Chaos."

Shortly after I became chairman, we ran a search for a new president because of Sam Lewis's departure for the State Department. Dick Solomon joined us a year later, coming aboard on the day of the famous Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House South Lawn back in September 1993. Dick has built the modern U.S. Institute of Peace, putting it on the map in the world of policy and leading it through various critical changes, program overhauls, and institutional upgrades. His impact covers the waterfront—from the building project, our collective dream of dramatic institutionalization on the best piece of ground in Washington, to the many substantive contributions: on the Cross-Cultural Negotiations Project, facilitation in the Philippines, and the Korea working group, and in his participation and support for so many other initiatives, such as the Virtual Diplomacy Initiative and the Intractable Conflict Project. He has been my partner these past twelve years, and I have learned many things working with, supporting, responding to, counseling, and interacting with Dick. His vision, his sense of purpose, his determined focus on substance, and his recognition of the growing niche for our work have enabled the Institute to grow and flourish as it has.

Two other people joined the Institute team shortly after I became chairman: Harriet Hentges and Pamela Aall. I think of Harriet as the person who took the lead in shaping our Balkans work, devising innovative roles that could relate our intellectual and analytic resources to the needs of the region, building linkages to the policy community, recruiting top talent such as John Menzies and then Dan Serwer to work with her in articulating a vision for Institute involvement, policy leadership, and operational capability in this zone of conflict. She led the way in making it possible for us to become more operational overseas. Harriet has also played a central leadership role in managing the Institute's strategic review (whose results remain critically relevant today) and other organizational reviews that have pulled us into the modern era.

Pamela Aall, who joined the staff shortly before Dick, assumed charge of Institute programs serving our diverse and demanding educational constituencies. It was Pamela's vision right after our "Managing Chaos" conference in December 1994—organized by Sheryl Brown—that led to the decision to do a much-needed textbook for students and teachers on the post-Cold War conflict management and security paradigm. Through our work together—along with Carleton University's Fen Hampson—we have tried to change the way that international relations and conflict management are taught. To some extent, I think we have succeeded. In this effort, Pamela has played a central leadership role in building knowledge, creating the Institute's scholarly brand, and getting that compendium of groundbreaking research out to the professoriate and, through it, to students across the globe.

I have recognized only those who were here when I started or came immediately thereafter. Our subsequent staff additions are also world class people with whom we on the board are proud to be associated. We have been graced and have grown through the leadership of others who joined us since those early years:

• Dan Serwer, who focused the Institute's attention on the Balkans in the post-conflict period and who is doing the same in Iraq,
• George Ward, who has established the premier professional training program in conflict management.
• Judy Barsalou, whose dedication to the Grant Program reflects both intellect and passion.
• Paul Stares, a big thinker who makes organizing the Institute's complex research agenda look easy.
• And, new to the Institute. Erin Shinsinsuk and Mike Graham—who have already made a big impact on our financial and program management.
• Another newcomer, Kay King, is making her mark broadening our public and congressional outreach.

There are other people I've worked with and who've supported my roles here over a number of years—for instance, Tim Docking on Africa issues, Burt Edwards and Elise Murphy on events, Kay Hechler and Nigel Quinney—in fact, the whole Office of Publications—and the Education Program team, especially Jeff Helsing, who taught me and my students how to conduct simulations, and Raina Kim, who makes her program's leadership happy and effective. And, of course, Maureen Sullivan, my most faithful correspondent, who has kept me oriented and focused as a kind of side job to her main challenge of keeping Dick oriented and focused.

There are many Institute people I haven't worked with closely, but I've seen the quality of your work, and it is superb.

My point in talking about people at some length is that institutions are built by people, with all their unique qualities of vision, passion, drive, focus, commitment, staying power—they are what makes for the successful creation of niches, brands, results, constituencies, followers, and supporters. While there is a time for change, there is also no substitute for continuity of service. Continuity reflects shared values and a sense of mission. In the military, this continuity is called "retention"—holding onto critical skills among noncommissioned and middle-grade officers—and without it, the armed forces would fall apart.

Institutions also are shaped by the context in which they operate. Since its inception, the Institute has faced a changing context—just as the nature of international conflict constantly changes—and that context has helped the Institute broaden its reach and develop its capabilities. Think back to the events and issues that have been part of our working environment over the years:

• The end of the Cold War and the final collapse of empires.
• The rise of so-called ethnic conflict.
• The era of peacemaking in the Middle East . . . and its high-water mark in 1993.
• The ongoing debate on humanitarian intervention, and whether the United States should use force to advance its own values and those of the international community.
• How to professionalize peacekeeping and get it right, which was the precursor to today's debates about how to do post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation, and about whether and how to do nation- or state building.
• How to help stabilize and reconcile societies in transition-via programs in the fields of religion, rule of law, public security reform, educational reform, and through skills training in conflict management and problem-solving capabilities.

These challenges made it logical for us to think, commission original work, and convene the best scholars and practitioners to focus on how best to conduct third-party interventions, how to lead parties toward negotiation, and how to undertake mediation initiatives. We have also explored "best practices" in attempting to mediate intractable conflicts; we are at the cutting edge in this area through our own work—our Education Program, our Grant and Fellowship Programs. We have shaped and defined a field here. Seeing that there would be a growing need for the Institute itself to engage in direct facilitation between warring sides, we gingerly explored this set of challenges: Hal Saunders worked with us on Kashmir, we stepped forward in Kosovo with Harriet, Dan Serwer and George Ward, and Steve Hadley and myself; today, Dick is leading our work to facilitate dialogue in the Philippines, and in Iraq we are becoming operational on the ground through our programs in training, technical assistance on the rule of law, and through other Institute programs such as education. David Smock has done this sort of facilitated dialogue work among religious leaders in the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans—and now in Iraq.

Crocker present Condoleezza Rice with a commemorative baton during the Institute's 2001 "Passing the Baton" conference.

September 11, 2001, and our ensuing engagement in coercive regime change is another watershed in the Institute's evolution. It produced the challenge of relating to post-conflict reconstruction and state building by offering our advisory services to local parties and to our own government at a time when the United States is at war—when we Americans are a direct party to the conflict and when we are in some sense a potential target.

This turning point—our most recent one—offers up a manifold challenge: Are we at the United States Institute of Peace an element of the U.S. government's toolbox in the War on Terror? Are we able to relate to local parties as something distinct from the U.S. government? Should we do all of these things? Can we do them all well and remain true to our mandate? Does it change our nature to be in some sense "on a side"? Precisely whom do we train and educate? Foreigners, as well as Americans?

These are serious issues that require equally serious thought and action on our part. My personal hope is that we learn to do what is fashionably called "multitasking": We are needed—both as a third party engaged in conflict management and as an enlightened and well-prepared component of the toolbox of a conflict party—namely, our own country, the United States. However, it is incumbent on the Institute to think carefully through the connection between conflict management and counterterrorism. That means understanding the logical link between conflict and terrorism. I have more questions than answers but one tentative response is that the Institute should play a lead role in shaping the answer to such questions as:

• Is conflict management the way to "drain the swamp" and counter the risk of terrorism? We appear to know how to win wars, but winning the peace is harder and more taxing.
• Is "Winning the Peace" where we should place the emphasis, or should we attempt to address the conditions that breed conflicts in the first place, on the premise that it is conflict that breeds terrorism?
• Can we do both—win the peace in a post-conflict environment and try to prevent conflict in the first place? If so, what exactly would be the focus of the Institute's work in this arena: Direct mediation or facilitation? Work on countering the dangers posed by failed states and on building the tools for effective state building? The latter has been a vitally important set of issues that board member Steve Krasner is doing some seminal work on, convening people from many quarters.

Returning to my earlier question about whether the Institute can support our nation in both its third-party role as conflict manager and in its conflict-party roles in the War on Terrorism, my sense is that we can and we must. But it is vitally important to grasp the links between these roles: We have to bring these issues forward, stimulate discussion about them, and bring them into our classrooms, our media forums, and our policy debates.

In short, our country needs to learn to wage war and wage peace more effectively, to walk and chew gum at the same time.

When I look back at my own career, there are some clear images of people who have said things to me that stick. The first is that it is not all bad to be independent, speak your mind, stand up for your principles, and fight the good fight. I hope you'll all remember that. It applies to the U.S. Institute of Peace too. We were created independent and autonomous for a reason.

Second, I want to recall what our charter says about us. The statute envisaged that creating "an institute strengthening and symbolizing the fruitful relation between the world of learning and the world of public affairs would be the most efficient and immediate means for the nation to enlarge its capacity to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflicts." Our statutory purpose is defined as follows: "to establish an independent, nonprofit, national institute to serve the people and the government through the widest possible range of education and training, basic and applied research opportunities, and peace information services on the means to promote international peace and the resolution of conflicts. . . ."

At times in recent years, the Institute's staff and board members have debated and discussed whether we should be a think tank or a "do tank." That is a false and dangerous choice. I am passionate about this issue, and I hope you will resist making that choice with all your energy. We cannot, in my judgment, afford to make a choice between being a place of ideas, of research and education—a place that develops analytical insights and deliverable knowledge—and a place with operational capabilities to deliver programs and advisory services—a place that offers hands-on technical assistance and expertise in conflict zones. We must do both. We must develop and disseminate knowledge if we are to engage effectively in capacity building in zones of conflict.

Why do I say this with such vehemence? Because we at this Institute are developers of useful knowledge about making peace. We are exceptionally well placed to harvest lessons learned and best practices and disseminate them to our constituencies. No other federal institution has this mandate, and a case can be made that no private institution has our potential reach and convening power to engage in field-defining work and timely delivery of the results. No other American institution has the potential of the Institute to do this on a global basis, to make ourselves into an international asset for war-torn polities. Doing both links critical constituencies—practitioners, scholars, students, and professionals in conflict zones—and motivates them to enter our field and make a contribution. We must do both because there is a vital two-way feedback between our applied research and analytical work and our operational programs in the field, giving us the basis to test and improve upon best practices as we go forward. In this sense, we are both an applied research lab and an operational entity in those select niches where we are—or have the potential to be—the very best.

Two years ago, we took the Institute through an important strategic review process. That review confirmed a focused and balanced mission, and it laid in place a framework for measuring results. It confirmed that we should continue to unite the world of learning and the world of public affairs. It brought staff, the executive office, and the board of directors together as a "think-and-do tank," centered on the creation and dissemination of knowledge. So, as I step down as chairman of the Institute's board of directors, my message is that I hope the Institute remains committed to the basics of its Strategic Plan, to being a place of reflection and analysis and a place of action in the interests of helping to bring about a more peaceful world.

Chester A. Crocker is the James R. Schlesinger Chair in Strategic Studies at Georgetown University, former chair of the U.S. Institute of Peace's Board of Directors (1992-2004), and a former Institute Distinguished Fellow (1989-90). The views expressed above are not necessarily those of the Institute, which does not advocate specific policies.