The United States played a leading role in ending wars that gripped the Balkans more than 20 years ago. Amid growing interest in the possibility of a peacekeeping mission in eastern Ukraine, a fresh look at American efforts in the former Yugoslavia is timely: What can be learned from the U.S. diplomatic experience in the Balkans that might be applied in the Ukrainian conflict? Ambassador James Pardew, former member of Richard Holbrooke’s negotiating team on the Balkans, will discuss insights captured in his new book, Peacemakers: American Leadership and the End of Genocide in the Balkans, in a discussion at the U.S. Institute of Peace on February 15.
Reparations for victims and reintegration of combatants are key provisions of Colombian law and of the year-old peace agreement that ended a half century of war between the government and the country’s largest rebel group. The effect of the conflict and how the government is fulfilling its commitments was the focus of a discussion on October 31st at the U.S. Institute of Peace, co-hosted with the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Latin American Program.
The new U.S. effort to stabilize Afghanistan includes a more confrontational approach toward neighboring Pakistan. What are the advantages and costs of that approach, and how should the United States now calibrate its engagement with Pakistan? On October 18, USIP held this discussion. Four senior American officials, who collectively have worked through decades of turbulent U.S.-Pakistan relations, debated these questions and the impact of the new U.S. approach on Pakistan and the region.
The first day of the 2017 conference of the Alliance for Peacebuilding was held at the U.S. Institute of Peace on Oct. 11, as experts explored new ideas for preventing and resolving violent conflict.
New research highlights how communities use cohesion and social structures to non-violently influence armed groups—a capacity that governments and institutions often fail to recognize. On October 2, USIP convened a discussion on such community self-protection, and how policymaking might better support it in conflict zones such as in Syria or Afghanistan.
After decades in which the fields of nonviolent action and conflict resolution have evolved separately, new reports underscore that they need to collaborate to prevent social conflicts from turning violent and to build more inclusive societies. On July 26, USIP and its partners reviewed this research and discussed how these distinct paths for seeking sustainable peace can be better combined.
The U.S. Institute of Peace discussed recent research, practice and policy on gender and mediation on Friday, March 31.
When Northern Ireland’s combatants finally made peace in the 1990s, they did so on a broad foundation of grassroots reconciliation and economic development work, built over more than a decade by the International Fund for Ireland. On March 13, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Embassy of Ireland gathered former government officials, peacebuilding practitioners and scholars to examine what worked in advancing peace in Northern Ireland—and what lessons might be applied to the difficult process of peacemaking and peacebuilding between Israelis and Palestinians. Former Senator George Mitchell, who served as an envoy in both peace processes, was the keynote speaker.
On March 7, the U.S. Institute of Peace hosted a discussion with analysts and former diplomats about the viability of the two-state model, and the possibility of alternatives for a sustainable peace.
In countries worldwide, governmental and private agencies run programs to prevent violent conflicts and reduce their causes—notably broad social injustices, corruption and human rights abuses. But how effective are these programs? On March 7, a consortium of peacebuilding organizations presented improved ways to measure and maximize the impact of programs to prevent violence, stabilize conflict zones and build peace and security abroad.