Read the full story on the Huffington Post!
Another Continuing Resolution: A Real Life Fairy Tale in Washington
At the stroke of midnight tonight -- Friday, March 18th, Cindarella's coach might have turned back into a pumpkin and the White House could have shut down the government. But fairy tales are true to form, and so we have a Continuing Resolution that lets everyone live happily ever after -- at least for 3 weeks.
Regardless of how this next chapter of the budget morality tale ends, the moral of the story is the same: we all need a bit of magic in our lives or a handsome prince with a glass slipper. Reality is just too hard. Watching Washington wrestle with how to cut another swatch from the national budget cloth is getting darn depressing.
All this debate makes you hate conflict when, truthfully, conflict is not inherently bad. In fact, "conflict' is inherent in the human condition and can be good when it leads to civil discourse, friendly competition, healthy argumentation, and an enriched democracy. Where it gets ugly is when it leads to seemingly contradictory states of paralysis and panic, which is where we are today. What is sad about this real life story of fiscal fighting in the nation's capital is that some very good things are getting lost in the shuffle.
Like peace.
Ironically, one of the casualties of the Congressional financial conflict may be the United States Institute of Peace -- (USIP) an organization that works to prevent the escalation of conflicts overseas where disputes often become violently unmanageable and the parties cannot reconcile differences. The House of Representatives actually voted to de-fund the institute.
The twist on this tale is that USIP often steps in to bring about reconciliation in conflict zones overseas through the art and science of managing even deeply embedded conflicts with long histories. Such skills in mediation, conflict resolution, and peace-building are now taught by USIP in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and throughout the Middle East. The work takes time, effort and perseverance. Often the parties to a conflict reach a state of peace -- only to fall back into old grievances that reignite tensions. The Institute returns, again and again, to these conflict zones because the alternatives to solving these problems are far worse in terms of loss of life.
People often ask why we don't hear more about the United States Institute of Peace. The answer is that success stories that prevent war never make front page news; peace is hardly worth a picture. It is hard, with conflict prevention, to prove a negative -- that you stopped something bad from happening. Like disease, you don't worry until it comes calling. Like good health, we take peace for granted.
So back in Washington, our nation is in the midst of an ugly conflict and it is not clear who can bring about reconciliation. America may continue to fight this huge budget battle in Congress with no good outcome. We may lose our "sense" just to save a few "cents."
It would be more than unfortunate if peace becomes a casualty of a domestic war. And it would be expensive in the long-term. Wars cost money and lives. If we don't stop wars overseas, we pay for them at home. We have to look beyond the heat of the moment and not sacrifice what is truly significant. That is, if we believe in happy endings.
Tara Sonenshine is Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Gen. Zinni in NYT: USIP "behind practically every American success in Iraq and Afghanistan."
In today's NYT Zinni calls USIP the "special forces for foreign affairs and peace-building." Read the full article on NYT!
Peace-Building That Pays Off
By ANTHONY C. ZINNI
Williamsburg, Va.
IN voting last month to eliminate financing for the United States Institute of Peace, members of the House of Representatives did not do their research. You will find the institute’s competent work behind practically every American success in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has undertaken missions from the Balkans and Sudan to the Philippines and Somalia, where I supported the institute’s efforts to mediate conflicts, promote the rule of law and encourage democracy.
This week, as the Senate considers alternatives to the House budget bill, we should remember that the stakes for national security and peace-building are high. The institute was created in 1984, when the cold war was still at its height. Congressional leaders guided by Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, a Hawaii Democrat, saw the need for an institution that would strengthen the nation’s ability to limit international violence and manage global conflict. President Ronald Reagan signed the act creating the institute. A bipartisan majority of Congress has supported it since — until now.
The Institute of Peace is like the Marine Corps or special forces for foreign affairs and peace-building. When others are fleeing conflict around the world, you’ll usually find institute staff members going in. They were working in Afghanistan before 9/11 and were among the first nonmilitary personnel on the ground after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The institute’s headquarters in Baghdad has twice been damaged by rocket and mortar attacks. At the height of the Iraq insurgency, when virtually every other American and international group pulled out their personnel, the State and Defense Departments requested that the institute stay. Under fire regularly, it was the only United States organization outside of those departments that did not flee Baghdad.
But the institute’s value goes beyond the bravery and commitment of its staff. In 2007, when the Army’s 10th Mountain Division arrived in Mahmudiya, a city of half a million in the “triangle of death” dominated by Al Qaeda south of Baghdad, officers asked the institute to mediate between Shiite civil authorities and the Sunni sheiks who controlled the area. Institute-trained negotiators convened warring Iraqis to consolidate security, restore services, develop the local economy, enhance local governance and improve the rule of law. Gen. David H. Petraeus called it a turning point in the war.
In the six months before the institute’s intervention, there had been 93 attacks on American forces in the area with homemade bombs; in the six months after, just one. Mahmudiya became a cornerstone of peace in the district, allowing the Army to reduce its strength from a brigade combat team of 3,500 soldiers to a battalion of 650, with corresponding savings and reductions in casualties.
In Afghanistan, the institute conducts mediations on issues from refugees to property and water disputes. In the last year, these operations have resolved 18 tribal disputes throughout the country, mostly involving the abuse of women, and included 30 training programs for government officials, lawyers, mullahs, tribal councils and community leaders. The network is even supporting dialogue along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the earth’s most dangerous frontier — home to Taliban and Qaeda attacks and a wellspring of religious and political extremism.
Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does more with less. The institute’s entire budget would not pay for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of a fighter plane, and wouldn’t sustain even 40 American troops in Afghanistan for a year. Within the budget, peace-building is financed as part of national security programs, and is recognized as an important adjunct to conventional defense spending and diplomacy. The institute’s share of the proposed international affairs budget, $43 million, is minuscule: less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State Department’s budget, and one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s.
The idea that eliminating the United States Institute of Peace would benefit taxpayers is extremely shortsighted and ill informed. America deserves better from Congress than eliminating something that saves American lives and taxpayer dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)