The Role of NGOs in Conflict Prevention
国際シンポジウム「紛争予防におけるＮＧＯの役割」

June 9-10, 2000
平成 12 年 6 月 9-10 日

Takanawa Prince Hotel
高輪プリンスホテル

Organized by
The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
日本国際問題研究所主催

In cooperation withThe Japan Center for Preventive Diplomacy (JCPD)
日本予防外交センター協力

Supported by
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA),The Mainichi Newspapers
The Japan Times
外務省、毎日新聞社、ジャパンタイムズ後援

は しが き１．当研究所は、平成 12 年度に外務省の委託を受け、国際シンポジウム「紛争予防におけるNGO の役割」を開催したが、本報告書は、同シンポジウムの基調報告及び議論の概要をまとめたものである。
２．冷戦の終結は、様々な要因に基づく国内紛争の増加をもたらしたといわれている。国内
紛争の影響は、単に紛争発生国一国に留まるものではなく、周辺国や地域を巻き込むという意味において、国家間の戦争と同様、国際社会全体の問題としてこれに対処し、かつ可能な限り紛争の発生を予防する必要があることはいうまでもない。

国内紛争の多発とその解決、そして紛争そのものの予防において特徴的なことは、国家や国連などの国際機関に加え、いわゆる「非政府機関（Non Governmental Organizations: NGO）」が重要な役割を担うようになってきたということである。紛争地域での人道援助活動、紛争後の平和構築活動、そして紛争のない社会を創るための地道な社会開発のいずれを取っても、NGO の活動
なくしては十分な効果をあげ得ないことは明らかになっている。その一方で、NGO は組織･活動の規模がまさに千差万別であり、紛争予防における積極的な役割とともにその限界も指摘されるところである。
３．かかる観点から、当研究所は、本シンポジウムを開催して、内外より 100 余の NGO の代
表者参加を得て、幅広い観点から紛争予防における NGO の役割について議論を行った。本
報告書に表明されている見解は、全て参加者個人のものであり、参加者の所属する組織あるいは当研究所の意見を反映するものではないが、我が国の今後の紛争予防研究にあたって貴重な資料となり得るものと確信するものである。
４．最後に、本シンポジウム開催にあたりご協力頂いた外務省総合外交政策局国連政策課他
関係各位に対し、改めて深甚なる謝意を表明するものである。
平成 12 年７月
財団法人

日本国際問題研究所
理事長

i

小和田

恆

Preface
The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) held an international symposium entitled “TheRole of NGOs in Conflict Prevention” sponsored by the Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June
2000. This is a report on the symposium proceedings comprising the six keynote addresses andthe summaries of two panel discussions.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world community has witnessed an increase in the numberof internal conflicts. Such conflicts rarely remain within the country concerned, however, andusually have serious, disastrous effects on neighboring countries and regions; thus, how to prevent
internal conflicts and how to build confidence in post-conflict situations are crucial issues that theinternational society must address.
One notable development in the area of conflict resolution has been the emergence of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as important actors alongside nation-states(governments) and regional and international organizations. NGOs are playing an increasingly
large role throughout the process of conflict prevention -- early warning, emergency humanitarianrelief, peace-building activities (e.g., mine clearing and small arms reduction), socio-economic
development for peaceful, stable societies, and civil society building – and their efforts have been
well received. On the other hand, however, the limitations of NGOs, which may arise from theirvery nature as voluntary, non-profit civil society associations, have also become clear.
JIIA aimed to provide a unique opportunity to the more than 100 participating NGO
representatives, both from Japan and abroad, to share their experiences and to discuss theircapabilities and limitations in preventing conflict. The views presented in this report are personal,
and do not necessary reflect the opinions of either JIIA or the organization to which the participants
belong. I do hope, nonetheless, that this report will be an important contribution to future
discussions and analyses of conflict prevention.
Finally, I would like to express again my sincere gratitude to the Foreign Policy Bureau of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the participants, and to all those who assisted us in hosting the
symposium.
Hisashi Owada
President
Japan Institute of International Affairs
December 2000

ii

目 次
Table of Contents

はしがき･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ i
Preface････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ ii
河野外務大臣挨拶･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 1
Remarks by Mr. Yohei Kono, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan ･････････････････ 3会議の概要････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 5
Summary of Discussions ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 9
Keynote addresses（基調報告） ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････ 13
Mr. Kensaku HOGEN, Under-Secretary-General,･････････････････････････････ 13
the United Nations
Prof. Kevin P. CLEMENTS, Professor, Secretary General, ･････････････････････ 19International Alert
Mr. THUN Saray, President, Cambodian Human Rights and ･･･････････････････ 26
Development Association ADHOC
Prof. Nobuhiko SUTO, President, InterBand･････････････････････････････････ 32
Mr. Kensuke ONISHI, Chief Coordinator, Peace Winds Japan･･･････････････････ 37
Mr. Paul van TONGEREN, Executive Director, European Centre for ･････････････ 39
Conflict Prevention
Appendixes（付録） ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 45
議事次第･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 45
Agenda ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 47
List of Participants（参加者リスト）･･････････････････････････････････････ 50
2000 年６月 22 日掲載

毎日新聞社提供記事 ･････････････････････････････ 55

2000 年６月 17 日掲載 The Japan Times 提供記事 ･････････････････････････ 56

国際シンポジウム「紛争予防における NGO の役割」
レセプションにおける河野外務大臣挨拶（竹内外務省総合外交政策局長代読）
ご列席のみなさま
本日、ここに国際問題研究所主催国際シンポジウム「紛争予防におけるＮＧＯの役割」参加者のためのレセプションに際し、一言ご挨拶を申し上げます。
本年はご承知のように九州・沖縄サミットが開催されます。私は、昨年ベルリンで開催されました紛争予防に関するＧ８外相会合で、紛争を予防するためには、あらゆる政策手段を利用して地道な努力を積み重ねることが重要である旨主張して参りました。また、私は昨年 12 月にコソヴ
ォを、今年４月に東チモールを訪問し、紛争の爪跡が今なお生々しく残されている現場を視察し、紛争予防の重要性を改めて痛感しました。本年の宮崎でのＧ８外相会合においても、紛争予防は
主要テーマの一つであり、これまでの議論を大いに深めていきたいと思っております。
紛争予防には、国連その他の国際機関、地域機関、国家、ＮＧＯ、個人といった様々な主体が連携しつつそれぞれの役割を果たすことが重要です。今日の世界では、国内の民族間の争いが武力紛争に発展する事態が頻発しています。ＮＧＯの皆様の中には、こうした紛争の火種を抱える
地域社会の中にも積極的に入り込み、国家ではなかなか行い得ない草の根レベルで、当事者の相互理解の促進や和解に努めるなど大きな役割を果たされている方も多数いらっしゃると承知しております。私が訪問したコソヴォや東チモールでも多くのＮＧＯの方々が活躍をされており、大変心強く思いました。今日、こうしたＮＧＯの皆様の地道な努力がより成果をあげられるような市民社会と政府との一層の連携が早急に求められております。私は政府の一員としてこのようなシンポジウムの機会を通して、そうした連携を探求していきたいと思います。
こうした観点から、本日、国際シンポジウム「紛争予防におけるＮＧＯの役割」に参加頂いた
ＮＧＯの皆様の意見についても、十分に拝聴させて頂き、日本のそしてＧ８の政策に反映できるように努めて参りたいと思います。
2000 年という節目の年を迎え、私は、私たちが私たちの未来の世代の幸福を見据えながら、現在の政策を策定し、実施していかなければならないとの思いを強くしております。紛争のない未来を造り出すためにも、私はあらゆる機会を利用して、繰り返し紛争予防の重要性を各般に訴えていきたいと思います。

1

私は、本日のシンポジウムや来週日本国際問題研究所が主催するもう一つの国際シンポジウム「包括的紛争予防を目指して」などにおいて、紛争予防の議論がますます深められることを期待しております。最後に、ＮＧＯの皆様方と私たち政府、それに国際機関・地域機関などとの間の協力が、より平和な世界の構築に大きく貢献していくことを祈念し、ご挨拶とさせていただきます。

2Remarks
By Mr. Yohei Kono, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan for the Reception forInternational Symposium “The Role of NGOs in Conflict Prevention” hosted by theJapan Institute of International Affairs(Read by Director-General of Foreign Policy Bureau Mr. Yukio Takeuchi on behalfof Foreign Minister Kono)
Amb. Owada, President of the Japan Institute for International Affairs, Distinguished participants to
the Symposium, Representatives of

Non-Governmental Organizations from all over the world,

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my great honour and pleasure to address at this reception held for the distinguishedparticipants in the symposium whose theme is the “Role of NGOs in Conflict Prevention” hosted by
the Japan Institute of International Affairs.
G8 Kyushu-Okinawa Summit is going to be held in July this year.

Last December, the Foreign

Ministers of G8 gathered in Berlin to discuss the issue of conflict prevention.

In this meeting, I

expressed my view that, for conflict prevention to be successful, steady and consistent efforts
mobilizing all policy tools available are required at each stage of conflict, from peacetime to post
conflict stage. I also had an opportunity to visit Kosovo last December and East Timor this April,where I was shocked to see the sheer illustration of damages inflicted upon the local community by
conflicts.

This experience brought home to me afresh the vital importance of conflict prevention.

Conflict prevention is expected to be one of the main agenda items of G8 Foreign Ministers'
meeting in Miyazaki next month.

I sincerely hope and will try my best to bring the present

discussions on conflict prevention further forward.
Successful conflict prevention requires collaboration among the actors such as the United Nations,international and regional organizations, states, and civil societies including NGOs, and individuals,
with each actor making its own contribution. In today's world we frequently witness ethnic hatreddeveloping into armed conflicts, and many NGOs are playing a vital role on glass-root level, by goingto the spots of potential conflicts with a view to promoting mutual understanding and reconciliation
among the parties concerned.
governments.

These grass-root functions cannot easily be shouldered by state

I was encouraged very much both in Kosovo and East Timor to see many NGO

members playing very active and important roles.
Today, further collaboration between the civil societies and states governments is urgently required,
which will make NGOs' steady and significant efforts still more fruitful.
3

I, as a member of thegovernment, would like to explore ways to develop such collaboration by making the best use of suchopportunities as this symposium.
I am very much interested in the views expressed in this Symposium and I will try to reflect themwhere possible in formulating the government policy of Japan as well as that of G8.
At this important juncture of year 2000, I feel more strongly than ever that when we formulate andimplement policies of today, we should look for the happiness and well-being of our future generations.
I will take every opportunity to emphasize the importance of conflict prevention with a view tocreating a future that is free from tragedy of conflicts.
I expect that discussions on conflict prevention will be further deepened at this symposium as wellas another international symposium titled “A Search for Comprehensive Conflict Prevention” which
will be organized by the Japan Institute for International Affairs next week.
I would like to conclude my remarks with my sincere wish that cooperation and collaboration
among us, NGOs, governments, international and regional organizations, and other actors, will
significantly contribute to building a world which is more peaceful.
Thank you for your attention.

4

会 議 の 概 要
１．2000 年６月９、10 日、日本国際問題研究所は、日本予防外交センター（JCPD）の協力を得て、国際シンポジウム「紛争予防における NGO の役割」を開催した。本シンポジウムは、
九州・沖縄サミットにおいて「紛争予防」が重点事項の一つとされていた中で、紛争予防において、NGO が国家や国際機関と並んで重要な役割を果たしていることから、とくに NGOに焦点をあてたシンポジウムとして企画したものである。本シンポジウムの開催にあたっては、事前に国内の有力 NGO のメンバーも交えた「紛争予防研究会」を４回開催し、そこでの問題提起も踏まえて論点の絞り込みを行うと同時に、研究所関係者が国外の NGO や関連の国連機関を訪問して、参加依頼やあり得べき論点について事前の議論を行った。
結果的には、内外から 100 名以上の NGO 関係者が出席することとなった。JCPD や国内
NGO から提供された情報も参考にしつつ、また現地出張を踏まえて、シンポジウムへの招請を行い、当日はアフリカから３団体、アメリカ（南・北）６団体、中央アジア２団体、中国
３団体、南アジア８団体、東南アジア 13 団体、ヨーロッパ８団体の合計 43 の NGO の代表が来日し、これに国際機関等の 12 団体（駐日事務所からの参加を含む）の代表と日本のNGO25 団体から 48 名が参加し、会議参加者数が 100 名を超える大規模なシンポジウムとなった。
２．議事次第は本報告書にも収録したが、初日午前、小和田恆・当研究所理事長による開会挨
拶の後、法眼健作・国連事務次長（広報・NGO 担当）、ケヴィン・クレメンツ・インターナ
ショナル・アラート（英国）事務局長、トン・サライ・カンボジア人権･開発協会（カンボジア）理事長、首藤信彦・インターバンド代表、大西健丞・ピースウインズ・ジャパン主任調整員およびポール・ファン・トンヘラン・ヨーロピアン・センター・フォア・コンフリクト・
プリヴェンション（オランダ）所長により、それぞれの立場から、紛争予防と NGO の役割について包括的に問題提起が行われ、議論の枠組を提供する基調報告が行われた。それぞれの基調報告は、本人の同意に基づき、本報告書に収めてあるのでご覧頂きたい。
午後から会議参加者は五つのグループに分かれ、分科会（非公開）形式のディスカッションを行った。各分科会に提示されたテーマは、紛争の予防において NGO が果たすべき役割が増大する一方、NGO 自身の人的財政的限界や NGO 自身が担う責任、関係国や国際機関との連携という新たな問題が認識されるようになっており、NGO 間のネットワークを構築する
ことがこれらの問題を解決・改善し得るか、というきわめて広範なものであった。
また、二日目の午前には、グループとテーマを入れ替え、小型武器、緊急人道援助、社会開発、市民社会構築と東南アジアの５グループのなかで、それぞれの NGO の活動領域との関係において初日同様、ネットワーク構築の意義について議論が行われた。
３．二日目の午後は、各々の分科会の議長をパネリストとするパネル・ディスカッションが行
われ、各グループ内での議論が紹介されるとともに、紛争予防における NGO の役割とあるべきネットワークの姿について、出席者全員による議論が行われた。
5

(1) 午後の前半では、二日目午前に行われた、個別の活動分野に基づく分科会で議長を務めた参加者がパネリストとなった。
「小型武器」グループからは、紛争予防活動が対象とする多くの紛争において小型武器が主たる武器であることから、その数を減らし、流通を監視することが紛争予防の第一歩であるとの認識が示された。この分野での NGO の活動として、小型武器の取引状況の監視とともに、反・小型武器キャンペーンを通じての世論形成が挙げられる。また、これらの監視活動を通じて、関係国政府に対する政策提言的活動も重要である。また、紛争後の不安定な状況の中で、NGO が小型武器の回収などに役割を果たすことを通じて、他国政府による復興支援のための経済協力を実施しやすい環境を整備することが可能であるとの認識が示された。
「緊急人道援助」グループからは、紛争状況下における NGO の「公平性（impartiality）、
透明性、予見可能性（predictability）」こそが、活動において全当事者から信頼を得るために重要であるという議論があったことが紹介された。和平交渉の早い段階から NGO の関与を求めるのか、それとも NGO は「人道的な活動」に特化すべきであるか、という点については、南東欧の事例とフィリピンの事例を比較しても明らかなように確たる結論は無い。また、NGO 間及び NGO と政府の間での信頼性及び透明性の確保が重要である。さらに、NGO 自身の「政治化」に関連して、NGO が特定の当事者や地域情勢に優れた知見を持つに至ることそのものは排除されるべきではないが、その結果として中立性や公平性を損なう恐れがあることは予め認識しておくべきであろう。従って、NGO の「ネットワーク」
を考える場合でも、特定の活動目的のためのネットワークと、それ以外の一般的なネット
ワークを区別する必要があるとの指摘が紹介された。
「社会開発」グループからは、「社会開発を通じての紛争予防」ということの意味と、そのための具体的な活動について議論があった旨紹介された。前者については、単なる経済発展というだけではなく、開発の政治的及び文化的側面も含めて理解されるべきである。
従って、紛争「予防」も広義に解釈される必要がある。また、具体的な支援にあたっては、
包括的（inclusive）かつ住民による参加型のアプローチが必要であると同時に、社会の構造的問題の改善に取組む必要がある。同グループは、「社会開発」の究極的なゴールは、人種･種族・宗教的な背景に拘らず個人の尊厳を確保し、尊厳ある生活を確保することにあり、それを NGO の活動の指導的原則とすべきであるとの結論に達した。
「市民社会構築」グループは、紛争の予防と社会の発展のためには、「健全な」市民社会が必須であり、国家や軍隊では必ずしも紛争を解決できない、という観点で「市民社会」
を理解するところから議論が行われた。具体的には、自らの利害を自律的に表明できる団体――女性団体、労働組合、NGO など――のネットワークである。このような市民社会と国家との関係については、国家の姿勢如何によって、対立型であったり、協調型であった
りすることになる。従って、市民社会自身は、社会の非軍事的部分であり、人道主義・平和主義・同胞主義を基調とするものとなる。また、紛争によって破壊された市民社会を紛争後に再構築することは極めて困難であり、多大の労力を必要とすることがカンボジアの経験などからも指摘された。また、近年「国際的市民社会」という概念の有無が議論され6

るが、今回のシンポジウムに多くの NGO が参加していることは、伝統的な「国境の中に留まる」市民社会を超えた「市民社会」が生成されつつある証左であるとの発言があった。
最後に、地域問題を扱った唯一のグループである「東南アジア」グループからは、東南
アジアの紛争の何が問題で、NGO は何を為し得るか、という観点からの議論が紹介された。
東南アジア地域での紛争の背景は様々であり、一部には国家間の枠組みでの対応が為されているものもあるが、同時に NGO 間のネットワークを通じて、状況を監視し、紛争を予防することも有益であろう。また宗教や民族、さらには天然資源の有無が、時として地域の人々を分断する道具として用いられることがある。その結果として紛争が発生するということは、民主主義システムの問題というよりも、市民社会の脆弱性と市民社会の声に適切に対応できない国家の問題ということになる。また、東南アジアで最大の問題はミャンマーであり、NGO 間の協力が必要であるが、その際に注意しなければならないことは、ミャンマー「のために」活動するのではなく、ミャンマー「と共に」活動するという姿勢が必要である、という意見が表明された。
(2) 午後の後半は、初日午後に行われた分科会の議長がパネリストとなり、「紛争予防における NGO の役割」についての総括的な報告が行われた。各パネリストからは、進行役の提案により、グループ毎ではなく、テーマ別に発言が行われた。
「他のアクターとの協力」について、NGO だけを切り離して考えることは不適当であるにも拘らず、特定の NGO を取り上げて一般化する傾向があることへの懸念が示された。
また個別の状況において NGO の役割も変わり得るし、各 NGO の活動分野によっても分けて考える必要があると指摘された。これは、平和構築における軍隊の役割が紛争地域によって異なることと同じ状況である。政府との関係については、紛争下で活動する NGO、紛争後に活動する NGO 及び民主制が根付いたところで活動する NGO を区別し、それぞれのNGO と政府との関係のあり方を議論する必要があるとの議論があったことが紹介された。
この点に関連して、NGO の活動については、相互補完的な関係があり一義的に「役割分担」
を考えるのは難しいとの意見もあった。NGO が国（政府）や国連機関から資金援助を受けることで、NGO がこれらの「執行機関」になってしまうことについては、否定的であった。
「NGO のネットワーク」に関しては、国によって状況に差はあるが、紛争予防に限らず、一般的な意味でのネットワークが構築されつつある状況であることが紹介された。その場
合、３つのレベル――国内、地域、国際――でのネットワークが考えられる。その中で最も重要なものは、国内のネットワークである。但し、なぜネットワークを構築する必要があるのかについて意見の一致があることが重要である。また、国際的なネットワークについては、参加者が平等の地位に立つ必要がある。同時に、自由に意見を交換できる体制を確保することが肝要であろう。その一方で、ネットワークの有用性を認めつつ、現状では、
国際 NGO がネットワーク構築の中心になっていることへの懸念が、ローカルな NGO を中心に示された。
「NGO の行動規範」について、透明性とプロフェッショナリズム、責任の所在の明確化という観点から肯定的な意見が大勢を占めた。その一方で、行動規範を策定しても、活動7

の過程でそれが破られること――すなわち、実効性の確保――への懸念も示された。他方、行動規範を策定し、それがネットワーク上で公開されることで、NGO の責任や差別化が行われるようになり、結果的には、どの団体がどのような活動に適しているかがわかりやす
くなる、との意見もあった。また、UNHCR なども協力して、既に国際的な行動規範作りが進行中であることも紹介された。
「早期警戒メカニズム」については、メカニズムそのものの問題に加えて、その実効性が議論となった。情報の存在と同時に、その情報を的確に分析し、かつ実行に移すことが困難だからである。従って、異なるセクターが円滑に情報交換を行うことが、より重要であるという見解が示された。また、ある種のメカニズムは必要であるが、システムとして構築されたものである必要は無く、必要に応じて情報を収集し、その内容を検証できるようなものがあれば有益であろうとの意見も出された。
４．本シンポジウムの最大の目的は、NGO が数的にも増加し、活動領域も広がりを見せつつあるなか、何らかのネットワークが構築されていることの有用性を NGO と共に検討することにあった。全体の結論として、NGO 相互の情報交換や他のアクターとの連携においてネット
ワークは、有益と考えられる一方で、すでにネットワークが存在する地域とそうではない地
域の間で格差があり、これから新たにネットワークを立ち上げる場合には、既存のものと競合しない、相互補完的なネットワークとする必要があるということであろう。その一方で、現実においては、豊富な人的財政的資源を有する NGO（主として欧米）はネットワークに頼らずとも活動を行うことができ、これに対して潜在的紛争発生国で地道な活動を行っている
ローカルな NGO は国際的なネットワークを通じて財政的な支援を得たいという、NGO 間でのネットワークに対する需要にギャップが存在すること、また、ローカルな NGO が国際的なネットワークに組み込まれることで、現地の文化的伝統に根ざした活動が脅かされる恐れもあることには注意が必要である。
５．今回のシンポジウムの企画では、紛争予防の分野で先進的な活動をしている欧米の NGOの話を聞く一方で、日本にも立派な活動を行っている NGO があることを広報し、同時にアジアのローカルな NGO との連携関係の構築に寄与していくという目的もあった。100 名以上が参加し、和気藹々とした雰囲気の中で活発な議論が行われたことは、新聞にも取り上げられ、議論の中身においても、また、NGO が一堂に会する、という意味でも、本シンポジウムは成功だったと考えられる。改めて、参加者にお礼を申し上げたい。
（山田

哲也

8

（財）日本国際問題研究所研究員）

Summary of Discussions
1. On June 9 and 10, the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), in cooperation with The Japan
Center for Preventive Diplomacy (JCPD), held an international symposium on the “Role of NGOs in
Conflict Prevention”. While the topic was an important agenda item at the Kyushu/Okinawa Summit, thesymposium was designed to focus on NGOs, based on the fact that not only states and internationalorganizations, but NGOs as well play an important role in preventing conflicts. A JIIA study group on
conflict prevention, including representatives from leading domestic NGOs, met four times before thesymposium to narrow down the points for discussion. Using information provided by the JCPD andJapanese NGOs, members of JIIA personally visited each NGO and related UN bodies to ask for their
participation in the symposium and to discuss the topics to be covered.
The symposium featured a large number of participating NGOs, both from Japan and abroad. In the end,
43 NGOs -- three in Africa, six (total) in North and South America, two in Central Asia, three in China,
eight in South Asia, 18 in Southeast Asia, and eight in Europe -- sent representatives. Twenty-five
Japanese NGOs sent 48 representatives, and 12 international organizations participated as well (some fromtheir representative offices in Japan). Total participants thus numbered more than a hundred, making the
symposium a rather large-scale one.

2. In the morning of the first day, following an opening address by Ambassador Hisashi Owada, thePresident of JIIA, keynote speeches were delivered by Mr. Kensaku Hogen, UN Under-Secretary-General
for Communications and Public Information, Mr. Kevin Clements, Secretary General of International Alert(United Kingdom), Mr. Thun Saray, President of Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association
ADHOC (Cambodia), Mr. Nobuhiko Suto, President of Inter Band, Mr. Kensuke Onishi, Chief Coordinatorof Peace Winds Japan, and Mr. Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director of the European Center for Conflict
Prevention (Netherlands). The agenda, and all of these speeches are included in this Report. In theirremarks, the keynote speakers raised a number of issues related to conflict prevention and NGOs, providing
the framework for subsequent discussions.
In the afternoon, the participants were divided into five groups for discussions in closed workshops.
Given that NGOs now have a greater role to play in preventing conflicts, various new problems have beenrecognized -- limits on human and financial resources, questions as to what the precise responsibilities of
the NGOs should be, coordination with the countries involved and international organizations, etc. -- and it
was considered whether it would be possible to solve such problems, or at least improve the situation, by
establishing a network among NGOs.
In the morning of the second day, the participants were re-divided into five new groups -- small arms,
emergency humanitarian relief, social development, civil society building, and Southeast Asia -- discussing
again the significance of a network in terms of each NGO's area of involvement.

3. In the afternoon of the second day, two panel discussions were held among the chairpersons of theindividual workshop groups, including presentations of the results from each group, followed by a9

discussion among all participants on the role of NGOs in conflict prevention and on the forms and nature of
NGO networks.

(1) Chairpersons of the workshops served as panelists for the first Panel Discussions, held in the morningof the second day.
From the “Small Arms” group, it was pointed out that small arms are a prime tool being used inconflicts so that reducing the number of such weapons by restricting supply would be a first step for
conflict prevention.

For the role and activities of NGOs in this field there would be, prima facie,

watchdog-type activities towards illicit smuggling and anti-small arms campaigns for the general public.
It would be also important for NGOs to make policy recommendations to the governments as advocacy.
Also, it was pointed out that the NGOs could play a very useful role as a link between local grassroots
activities and economic assistance for reconstruction provided by the public sector.
From the “Emergency Humanitarian Relief” group, it was pointed out that impartiality, transparency
and predictability of NGOs in their activities would be crucially important in conflict situations to build
trust with all parties concerned. There would be no fixed answer whether the NGOs should be involved ina peace process or peace negotiations or whether the NGOs should instead limit themselves to humanitarian
endeavors, according to the lessons learnt from what has been happened in Southeast Europe and thePhilippines.

Furthermore, regarding the “politicization” of the NGOs, it was pointed out that we must

keep in mind that some NGOs might undermine their neutrality and their impartiality in their activities -and that there are risks involved in that -- when they had a good knowledge of local circumstances orgroups in a particular area. Therefore, in terms of networking, maybe two different sorts of networks
should be identified, i.e., one of like-minded organizations and the other based on exchanges of
information.
The “Social Development” group started to discuss the meaning of “conflict prevention through social
development” and, further, the concrete role of NGOs in this field. For the former, it was understood that
not only economic development but also political and cultural aspects of development should be includedin this context. It also meant that the term “conflict prevention” should be understood in its broader sense.
It was pointed out that a participatory and inclusive approach was needed and the structural problems must
be addressed in the course of the NGOs’ activities. In conclusion, the group felt that the ultimate goal ofsocial development was to enhance the dignity of each and every person, regardless of race, ethnic andreligious background, in leading a life of dignity, and that this should be the guiding principle of NGOs in
conflict prevention.
The “Civil Society Building” group declared that there was a general agreement among the group that ahealthy civil society was simply essential for preventing conflicts and for development in general, and thatneither the State nor the military were capable of resolving conflicts on their own. Therefore, what isneeded is a network that articulates the interests and needs of a wide range of autonomous groups,
including women’s groups, trade unions and NGOs. Regarding the relationship with States, NGO could
cooperate at some times and could be a counterbalance to them at others. Therefore, civil society could bebetter defined as the non-military component of society that focuses on humanism, pacifism and10

cosmopolitanism. It was also pointed out that the reconstruction of civil society in a post-conflict period
is a highly difficult and time-consuming process, as can be seen from the experience in Cambodia.

Also,

the group pointed out that there have been some discussions of the role of the emerging international civilsociety, and, if there is such a thing, it could be said that gatherings such as this Symposium would
represent an emerging international society that transcends traditional country boundaries.
Finally, the “Southeast Asia ” group, which was the only group dealing with a regional topic, stated thatthey had discussed the role of NGOs in the region from the viewpoint of potential causes of conflict in theregion. It is known that there have been various causes for the conflicts in the region. While some havebeen dealt with at the governmental level, it would also be helpful for NGOs to build a network aroundthose issues to monitor situations and to prevent further conflicts. Moreover, religion, ethnicity andnatural resources may be used as tools for dividing people. If these factors do bring about conflicts, it ismore likely because of the weakness of the civil society and the inability of the government to deal with thesituation appropriately than because of the weakness of the democracy. There has been a big concern
about Myanmar. In this connection, the view was expressed that NGOs in the region should liaise; at thesame time, it was pointed out that it is important for them not to “work for” but to “work with” local
officials.

(2) At the second Panel, chairpersons of the workshops held in the afternoon of the first day served as
panelists. As the topic was the “role of NGOs for conflict prevention” in general, the moderator asked thepanelists to offer observations on specific topics.
Regarding “working with other actors,” it was pointed out that there was a tendency to lump all NGOs
together and generalize from the examples offered by specific NGOs. Also, the view was expressed thatthe roles of NGOs could depend upon the circumstances and the characteristics of each NGO. This issimilar to the fact that the role of military varies in accordance with the region of conflict. Regarding
cooperation with governments, it was pointed out that it is necessary to divide NGOs into 3 categories –NGOs operating in conflict situations, NGOs operating in post-conflict situations and NGOs operating in
long-established democracies. It was suggested that relations with government should be discussed in thecontext of these categories.

In this connection, it was pointed out that the activities of NGOs arecomplementary in nature. However, a critical view was also expressed that it would be dangerous forNGOs to become tied to the executive branches of governments or international organizations or to be
totally financed by them.
Regarding “networking”, networks have emerged that are not limited to conflict prevention but are
more general in nature, despite differences among countries. Three different levels of networking –national, regional and global – were identified. Though most important is networking in national level,
we had to establish a common ground of understanding on why we needed such a network. Concerninginternational networks, it was pointed out that all the participants thereof should have equal status and full
liberty in information exchange. On the other hand, concerns were expressed by local NGOs that, in theireagerness to build networks, international NGOs might end up treating local NGOs as branch offices.
Regarding “the code of conduct”, many participants agreed, in principle, that each NGO should develop
11its own code of conduct with a view to increasing the transparency and professionalism of their activities aswell as clarifying their accountability. At the same time, a view was expressed about the binding power ofsuch codes over NGOs that might violate them in practice. It was pointed out that once NGOs haveestablished codes of conduct and been placed in the network structure, accountability and differentiation
among NGOs would make it easier to identify which NGO was doing what. It was suggested that thedrafting of codes of conduct be done with assistance and cooperation from relevant internationalorganizations.
Regarding “the early warning mechanism”, the effectiveness of such a mechanism was discussed, as
was the mechanism itself, because verifying facts accurately and taking concrete steps is sometimes moredifficult than just getting information. Also, it was pointed out that it is very important to think aboutsome kind of a mechanism, not necessarily a systemized and structured mechanism. A mechanism bywhich we can collect and verify information would be a very useful thing to consider.

4. The main purpose of this Symposium was to consider, together with NGOs, the usefulness of havingsome kind of network among NGOs as the number of NGOs increase and their spheres of activity expand.
There was general agreement that some areas had networks in place of one sort or another; and that any
newly created network should not conflict with an existing one but instead be complementary.

It was also

noted that the purposes of any network would have to be made clear, in the sense that there would naturally
be differences between ones that simply listed NGOs around the world, and others linking NGOs withspecific positions on specific issues. In reality, the degree of interest in a new network also varies with theNGO. Those with sufficient human and financial resources (mainly in Europe and the United States), forexample, can function well more or less on their own, while NGOs in countries where there is greater riskof conflict are looking for financial assistance through an international network. The concern was also
expressed that an international network might erode the sensitivity to cultural traditions now shown by
local NGOs, thereby impeding their activities.

5. Other objectives of this Symposium were to hear from the ‘international NGOs’ already involved
extensively in conflict prevention, to publicize the fact that there are NGOs in Japan also doing good work,and to build cooperative relationships among NGOs in Asia. The media covered this Symposium, both inJapanese and in English, reporting that lively discussions were conducted in a friendly atmosphere withfrank discussions among more than 100 participants. It could be said that the Symposium was successful
in both the number of participants and the substance of the discussions. Taking this opportunity, JIIA
would like to express its deepest appreciation to all the participants again.

(Tetsuya Yamada, Research Fellow, the Japan Institute of International Affairs)

12NGOs and Conflict Prevention: A United Nations Perspective
Mr. Kensaku Hogen
Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information,
United Nations Department of Public Information
Ladies, Gentlemen, Distinguished NGO Representatives. I am honoured to have been invited toaddress this symposium on the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

in conflict

prevention, and am pleased to bring to you some thoughts on the subject from a United Nations
perspective.
The decision to build this capacity and understanding among non-governmental actors reveals
remarkable foresight on the part of the organizers of this symposium. I salute Ambassador Hisashi
Owada and the Japan Institute of International Affairs for putting these valuable consultations inmotion. There is no doubt that effective conflict prevention, with input from many partners, will help
avoid untold suffering in the years ahead.
While the United Nations was established in l945 precisely to avoid the scourge of war for future
generations, the elimination of violent conflicts between nations remains all elusive goal even for thisuniquely representative and universal organization.

Indeed in recent years, the tasks before theUnited Nations in addressing violent conflicts have become steadily more complex and demanding.
For one thing, the very nature of conflicts has changed, becoming more local in nature.

Our

understanding of the roots of conflicts has also become more complex, and our approach to theirresolutions enormously more complicated and demanding.
I will limit my remarks to you this morning to some observations, drawn largely from recent
experiences on the current concerns of the United Nations regarding conflict prevention in thecontemporary context.
I will also emphasize the central role that we believe civil society organizations and in particular
non-governmental organizations involved in economic and social development, human rights andpeace and security issues, may play in the long-term efforts to eliminate the causes of violent conflicts
among nations and, especially, among peoples. I will also cite some of the experiences in conflict
prevention that we have witnessed in other parts of the world, and suggest some of the areas which we
believe will require special attention in the years to come.
One of the vital links between the global and the local, between the international community andthe communities that comprise our city neighbourhoods around the world, is the community of NGOs.
NGOs can act as intermediaries between the glo bal and the local and can be dynamic facilitators ofpeople-centered development. Their role in conflict prevention is a logical extension of this thinking.
In the face of violent conflict, the, United Nations has long argued that prevention is better thancure; that we must address the root causes, not merely their symptoms. In most cases, however, ouraspiration has yet to be matched by effective action. As a consequence, the international community
13

today confronts unprecedented humanitarian challenges.
Conflict prevention is, first and foremost, a challenge of political leadership. As United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan points out in his visionary Millennium Report to the General Assembly
entitled “We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 2lst century", released last April,poltica1 leaders find it hard to sell conflict prevention policies abroad to their public at home. The
costs of conflict prevention, he says, are “palpable and immediate, while the benefits - an undesirable
or tragic future event that does riot occur - are more difficult for the leaders to convey and the public
to grasp.” He calls on NGOs to press for this political commitment at the national level.
What had seemed a gradual but hopeful trend towards a world with fewer and less deadly wars
seems to have lost momentum in the past two years. Moreover, the impact of wars on civilians has
worsened because internal wars, now the most frequent type of armed conflict, typically take a heavier
toll on civilia ns than inter-State wars, and because combatants increasingly have made targeting
civilians, particularly women and children, a strategic objective. This brutal disregard for humanitariannorms and for the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war, also extends to treatment of humanitarian
workers -from NGOs and international civil servants alike -- who are all too frequently denied accessto victims in conflict zones or are themselves attacked.
Confronted with the rapidly escalating human and financial costs of renewed armed conflicts, ourtask is twofold. The immediate priority is to bring relief to victims and to ensure the protection ofcivilians. But the long-term and far more effective effort should be focused on devising strategies toprevent emergencies from arising in the first place.
It is not realistic or acceptable that we simply address violent conflicts after the damage is done.
Conflict prevention is clearly where the NGOs are essential to emerging strategies, whether in making
policy decisions, or carrying out programmes in the field.
The causes of war are inherently more difficult to explain than those of natural events.
Social behaviour is not subject to physical laws in the same way as cyclones or earthquakes; people
make their own history, often violently and sometimes inexplicably. Those that are particularly tragic
and unacceptable are those conflicts that arise from scarcity of resources, of land, of water, of gainful
employment, that pit neighbours and friends and even families against each other. Causality istherefore complex and multidimensional and it differs, often fundamemtally, from conflict to conflict,
war to war.
A study recently completed by the United Nations Universit y shows that countries that are afflictedby war typically also suffer from inequality among domestic social groups. It is this inequality,
rather than poverty, that seems to be the critical factor. The inequality may be based on ethnicity,religion, national identity or economic class, but it tends to be reflected in unequal access to politicalpower that too often forecloses paths to peaceful change. These are problems whose solutions lay inlarge part with Governments and macro-economic policies and partly, though perhaps principally withlocal players, NGOs among them. The United Nations gladly takes on the role of bringing theseparties together.
14

Economic decline is also strongly associated with violent conflict, not least because the politics ofa shrinking economy are inherently more conflictual than those of economic growth.

In someinstances the impact of radical market-oriented economic reforms and structural adjustment
programmes imposed without compensating social policies can undermine political stability. Moregenerally, weak Governments -- and, of course, so-called failed States -- have little capacity to stop the
eruption and spread of violence that better organized and more legitimate Governments could have
prevented or contained.
Conflicts also arise over scarcity of resources. The United Nations, together with many NGOs'
are acutely aware of these problems as they affect economic and social development and theenvironment. United Nations funds and programmes are hard at work identifying the many areas
which are probable cause for civil conflicts where neighbour turns against neighbour over access to,and control of, dwindling resources like farmland and water. Water disputes take place not justbetween states, but also within them. The growing scarcity of water and regional disparities, have
either caused or could cause conflict.
A 1991 study of the Horn of Africa by the World Conservation Union found that “thedisenfranchisement of local peoples from traditional land and water rights has been a major factor
fuelling conflict and instability. ” Unable to affect the larger forces at work, in several cases they
have struck against closer targets - other groups of pastoralists or small farmers, all of whom findthemselves in greater competition for water and land. Examples of this pattern can be found in otherparts of Africa.
The United Nations makes the argument that prevention is far less costly than conflicts and should
be seen in this light. The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict estimates that thecost to the international community of the seven major wars in the 1990s, not including Kosovo, was$199 billion. Last month, the reputable British publication Jane 's Intelligence Digest, calculated theNATO intervention in Kosovo, including the military, humanitarian and reconstruction, cost a total of$48 billion. The Carnegie researchers argue that most of these costs could have been saved if greaterattention had been paid to prevention.
More effective prevention strategies would not only save tens of billions of dollars, but hundredsof thousands of lives as well. Funds currently spent on intervention and relief could be devoted toenhancing equitable and sustainable development instead, which would further reduce the risks of war
and disaster.
Building a culture of prevention is not easy, however. While the costs of prevention have to be
paid in the present, its benefits lie in the distant future. Moreover, the benefits are not tangible; they
are the wars and disasters that do not happen. So we should not be surprised that preventive policies
receive support that is more often rhetorical than substantive.
There is more. History tells us that single -cause explanations of war are invariably too simplistic.
This also means that no simple, all-embracing, solutions are possible. To address complex causes weneed complex, interdisciplinary solutions. The fundamental point is that implementing prevention
15

strategies requires cooperation across a broad range of different agencies and creative newpartnerships between governments, intergovernmental organizations and civil society organizations.
For the United Nations, the main short- and medium-term strategies for preventing non-violent
conflicts from escalating into war, and preventing earlier wars from erupting again, are preventive
diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament. “Post-conflict peace-building” is abroad policy approach that embraces all of these as well as other initiatives. Longer-term prevention
strategies address the root causes of armed conflict.
Whether it takes the form of mediation, conciliation or negotiation, preventive diplomacy isnorma11y non-coercive, low-key and confidential in its approach. Its quie t achievements are mostly
unheralded; indeed it suffers from the irony that when it does succeed, nothing happens. Sometimes,
the need for confidentiality means that success stories can never be told.

As former

Secretary-General U Thant once remarked, “the perfect good offices operation is one which is notheard of until it is successfully concluded or even never heard of at all”. It is not surprising, therefore,that preventive diplomacy is so often unappreciated by the pubic at large.
Preventive dip lomacy must draw on the talents and good will of many players, including NGOs.
Private individuals as well as national and international civi1 society organizations have played anincreasingly active role in conflict prevention, management and resolution.
diplomacy” sometimes paves the way for subsequent official agreements.

So-called “citizen

For example, in the

Middle East peace process, it was a small Norwegian research institute that played the critical initialrole in paving the way for the 1993 Oslo Agreement. One of the little known but striking examplesof NGO and civil society mobilizations for peace that has evolved over the past decade is in Colombia,
a country that has been battered by nearly four decades of civil war. Here, as everywhere else in theworld, the principal victims of the conflict are civilians. In the early 1990s, in response to thedeteriorating situation, a national network of regional and local peace initiatives coalesced under thename Redepaz, a national organization that has given strength and resonance to citizen’s actions.
Today, Redepaz is the largest peace network Colombia has ever known. It is backed by two
hundred non-governmental organizations, including business associations and the Catholic church aswell as by national and regional authorities. Popular demonstrations have rallied up to five million
Colombians in unprecedented protests, offering citizens an alternative logic to the war’s logic ofviolence as a solution to conflicts. In October l996, together with UNICEF and NGOs, Redepazorganized the votes of 2,700,000 children in a ‘Mandate of Children for Peace’ which resulted in apermanent ‘Childrens Movement for Peace’. This Children’s Crusade was nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1999.
The active participation of women in virtually all these conflict prevention initiatives is essential.
The United Nations, at its world conferences and in the elaboration of international law, has steadily
integrated the special needs and contributions of women in conflict situations. Many United Nationsorganizations work closely with women’s NGOs. UNIFEM, for example, has undertaken studies
which explore ways to draw on women’s expertise around conflict situations.
16

With a clear

international mandate and wealth of practical experience in building peace within communities,
women are taking their rightfu1 place at the peace tables, promoting a community-based vision ofpeace and social justice.
What has come to be known as post-conflict peace-building is a major and relatively recent
innovation in preventive strategy. During the 1990s, the United Nations developed a more holistic
approach to implementing the comprehensive peace agreements it negotiated. From Namibia to
Guatemala, post-conflict peace-building has involved inter-agency teams working alongside
non-governmental organizations and local citizens' groups to help provide emergency relief,
demobilize combatants, clear mines, run elections, build impartial police forces and set in motion
longer-term development efforts. The premise of this broad strategy is that human security, good
governance, equitable development and respect for human rights are interdependent and mutually
reinforcing.
Long-term prevention strategies, in addressing the root causes of conflict, seek to prevent
destructive conflicts from arising in the first place. They embrace the same holistic approach toprevention that characterizes post-conflict peace-building. Their approach is reflected in the recent
United Nations University study that found that inclusive government is the best guarantor againstinternal violent conflicts. Inclusiveness requires that all the major groups in a society participate inits major institutions – government, administration, police and the military.
These conclusions are consistent with the so-called “democratic peace thesis”, which states that
democracies rarely go to war against each other, and that they have low levels of internal violencecompared with non-democracies. The former proposition is still the subject of lively debate among
academic experts -- in part because of the changing meanings of “democracy” across time andgeography. The later proposition is less controversial: in essence, democracy is a non-violent formof internal conflict management.
The international community should do more to encourage policies that enhance people -centred
security in conflict-prone States. Equitable and sustainable development is a necessary condition for
security, but minimum standards of security are also a precondition for development. Pursuing one,in isolation from the other, makes little sense. Security from organized violence is a priority concernof people everywhere, and ensuring democratic accountability and transparency in the security sector
should receive greater support and encouragement from donor States and the international financial
institutions.
I would like to conclude my remarks by pointing out to you that today virtually every United
Nations organization has an NGO liaison component that is actively seeking academic, programmaticand policy oriented partnerships with civil society. Often these collaborations specifically target
conflict prevention and work hard to identify local initiatives that are the basis in effective andsustainable efforts.

This is especially true, of course, for the Department of Peace Keeping

Operations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. UNICEF, UNESCO, UNDP
and UNIFEM as well as UNEP and the World Bank all recognize the central role that NGOs must play17

in achieving progress in this critical area.
NGOs, for their part, are reciprocating and working closely with the United Nations to create newprogrammes, especially at the local levels. NGO conferences, such as last year's Hague Appeal for
Peace and the just-concluded Millennium Forum of civil society which met last month to adopt
proposals for consideration at this September’s Millennium General Assembly, are examples of this.
I can also say that my own Department, which maintains working relations with over 1,600 NGOs
around the world, is addressing this issue at the 53rd annual DPI/NGO conference in August. Thisconference is entitled “Global Solidarity: The Way to Peace and International Cooperation” and willaddress the growing role of NGOs in international decision making. I would like to conclude byextending an invitation to each of you to come to New York to participate in this conference from28-30 August.
Thank you.

18

Civil Society and Conflict Prevention
Prof. Kevin P Clements
Secretary General, International Alert and Professor of Conflict Resolution,
George Mason University
Thank you very much, Mr. Ozawa, and thank you, Ambassador Owada. Thank you to the Japan
Institute of International Affairs also for initiating and organizing this conference, which I think is avery important step in terms of the development and enhancement of conflict resolution capacity in the
Asia-Pacific region.
I hope you've had a chance to look at your list of attendees, because the very first thing I want to
do is to compliment and congratulate and salute all of you who are here, from all of your different
organizations and from all of your different backgrounds, for the individual work that each of you isdoing for peace. It's an honor to be asked to help articulate and represent some of your interests, but
I'm equally in debt to the ways in which each one of you, whichever part of the world you're from, isworking for peace and for justice. I have a long paper, which you are going to get, so I don't propose
to read it, but I'd just like to say at the very outset that the business of peace-building and peacemaking
is extraordinarily complex, and requires high levels of courage, high levels of intelligence, and highlevels of imagination and creativity. I think it's extremely important at the outset to acknowledge thediverse contributions that each of us makes, and to get some greater sense of the ways in which thoseindividual contributions do or do not add up to a meaningful whole. You can, for example, argue thatthe most important and primal peace-building is the successful relationship of a mother and child.
Indeed, there is an aphorism that “there is no way to peace, peace is the way.” I think we need tounderline that we generate a peaceable world by the ways in which we individually act, and the ways
in which our organizations and the different movements of which we are a part do or do not act.

So, I

want just to highlight this fact at the beginning, and to reiterate what my colleague from the UN has
already said, that there is no single path to peace and no magic solution to any of the violent
challenges facing the world community and, because of that, it's really crucial to acknowledge thediverse contributions of many diverse forces, and to adopt a multifaceted, multilevel, integrated
strategy toward Pre- and Post-conflict peace building.
The second point I want to make is that until the beginning of this millennium, we labored under
the illusion that state systems, both politically and militarily, could deliver peace. While they makean absolutely invaluable contribution to local and national law and order, and, indeed, can make apowerful contribution to whether there is or is not peace between nations, I think that what we havediscovered over the course of the 20th century is that state systems alone, either in terms of theirpolitical or military activities, cannot generate stable, peaceful relationships.

It requires much morecommitment than that, and it certainly, and most importantly requires a major contribution from civilsociety. There will be no peace as long as civil society-that plurality of non-governmental interests
19and groups-remains at odds with itself and at war with each other. The third point I want to make,therefore, is that adding civil society and non-governmental organizations to the business ofpeace-building is not an optional extra; it is an absolute prerequisite for any possibility of generating
stable, peaceful relationships. State systems alone cannot generate peace.

Civil societies alone andNGOs cannot generate peace. What we need is an adequate understanding of the ways in which both
sectors contribute to peace; the specific contributions of state and civil society organizations, somerecognition of their competence and their incompetence, and some greater understanding of the ways
in which all of us can work together in this enterprise. So I very fervently hope, at the beginning of
this millennium, that there is a recognition that we're all in this together, and that any one party alone
will not be able to succeed in the difficult task of peace-building. As I say in my paper, that will
require a certain softening of state systems and equally, an acknowledgement on the part of civilsociety of the specific roles that the state and governmental systems can play in law and order because,
as we know, without effective governance, without democratization, without institutions that facilitate
the participation of all members of society, there will be no structural stability or lasting peace.
So there are my first three points.

The fourth point is: What are the specific roles of thedifferent civil society groups in this enterprise? I want to highlight that there are a large number thatare working in this area, some of which don't even acknowledge that they are working for peace.

Therole of academic research institutions, for example, and the role of institutes of international affairs are,in their own ways, making contributions to a peaceful world.

There are religious organizations and avariety of philanthropic and humanitarian organizations which make their own contributions. We
need to understand the specific roles and contributions of each in relation to the peace-building
process. Those groups working in conflict zones can be divided into four groups: those who supply
the absolutely essential emergency relief and assistance; those who work on medium- to long-term
economic and social development issues; those concerned with social justice, human rights andadvocacy, and the monitoring of these; and, finally, those specifically focused on the nonviolent
resolution of conflict and long-term peace-building.

Whether or not there should be efforts tocombine all of these different kinds of activities is an interesting question. At minimum, there should
be awareness of what each is doing and an attempt to try to develop high levels of conceptual
integration among the activities of these groups; at maximum, there is a need for much, much higher
levels of coordination and combined planning.
One of the things which I think irritates the hell out of the United Nations and regionalorganizations is when we get a complex emergency, and all of a sudden 15, 20, 60 NGOs materialize
from somewhere in the world, helicopter in and offer their good services, and simply confuse
everybody.

So, it's very important that we get some awareness of the ways in which we can combine

and coordinate our activities and make the best use of the scarce resources available. The groups thatare available have now developed, I think, a good track record of experience:

Oxfam, Médecins sans

Frontières, Save the Children Fund, CARE, International Alert, the Carter Centre, ACCORD, theConflict Management Group, Conciliation Resources, the community of Sant' Egidio, Search for
20Common Ground, the Centre for Conflict Management, and many, many others that are represented inthis room, have developed a track record in conflict zones. We know what works and we know what
doesn't work. We're getting some sense of what constitutes good and best practice.

We're becoming

much more professional in the delivery of conflict prevention processes and we're becoming much
more aware, or humble, about what we can and cannot contribute.

For example, International Alert,

Conciliation Resources and many people in Australia and New Zealand were very actively involved in
the facilitation of processes to help negotiate a new constitution after the last Fijian coup.

Wethought we had one that worked, and it did work for a while, but now it has been overturned in anarmed coup.
One of the other sobering things about coming back to this side of the world is that there is noroom for complacency in the Asia -Pacific region.

Those areas that we once thought were stable aredemonstrating signs of instability, and there is what I call an arc of instability which goes from Sri
Lanka through Indonesia, through Papua New Guinea and Melanesia, into the South Pacific. I wantto say right now that a major challenge to organizations in the Asia -Pacific region is going to bedealing with this arc of instability in a preemptive and proactive fashion.

It may be too late forpreemption and prevention, but it is not too late for designing and catalyzing regional and global
responses to this new perceived social and political fault line which is manifesting itself in this part of
the world. My fifth point is that those of us who are fortunate enough to live in zones of peace haveto acknowledge that the zones of instability and unpeacefulness are actually expanding and becoming
more intractable. That means that there is no long-term security for us in the zones of peace until wehave dealt with the sources and causes of the instability in those not-so-peaceful areas of the world.
So what do conflict transformation NGOs do?

My definition is as follows: We are national orinternational, nonprofit, charitable organizations committed to working with local and international
actors in analyzing, understanding and responding to violent conflict in constructive and creative ways.
I want to underline the importance of analysis in this process.

There can be no effective intentional

engagement in any conflict unless there is a detailed analysis.

My colleague Ed Garcia is fond ofsaying “text without context is pretext”. It is really important for us to understand that glib analysis,quick analysis, or analysis which doesn't take into account deep, historical, cultural and linguistic
contexts and doesn't take into account all the diverse variables influencing conflict zones is not helpful.
Without decent analysis we cannot design effective conflict resolution processes.
NGOs work at multiple levels of engagement and deal with the short- and long-term consequencesof violence, but they try to enable locals-and I want to underline this-to catalyze the changes that willremove the structural, behavioural and attitudinal conditions conducive to violence.

One of thelearnings that I think International Alert has made over the last few years is that external organizations
do not solve other people's problems.

If they try to persuade you that they do, they are engaged in a

deception. All that external organizations can do is to provide a safe space, or some space, within
which the local parties to conflict themselves might be able to begin addressing the sources of theirconflict and solving them themselves. So, the most important principle in this work is that it is those21

parties in conflict, the locals themselves, that will get to solve their own problems.
representatives of those locals cannot deliver solutions either.

The elite

Richard Holbrook, for example,

knocked heads together at Dayton and got a Bosnian agreement which was absolutely critic al in termsof stopping ethnic cleansing, but it did not resolve the underlying sources of the conflict in the Balkans.
It did not remove the animosities from the different groups at civil society level that still exist. It did
not address the underlying sources of the violence and, most importantly, it didn't address the historic
grievances in the Balkans which to some extent continue to surface today.
challenging issues confronting any organization dealing with this.

That's one of the most

Governments and politicians arelooking for quick-fix solutions. A friend in the State Department said: “You know, we don't have any
chance to do forward planning; we're dealing with the crisis from yesterday and it has to be solved
today.” Well, what we are discovering in this kind of work is that unless you deal with the historic
sources of the problems, and they are laid to rest in ways that are satisfactory to people, there will be
no solution to the immediate presenting problems.
I want to highlight the fact also that this is a very multitrack approach. This is confirming what I
said at the beginning.

We need the intergovernmental organizations. We need bilateral engagements.

We need the unofficial forums that have already been mentioned.

We need citizen diplomacy,

economic diplomacy and we need better targeting of assistance through overseas aid and development
to promote structural stability and sustainable peace. Our organization and others are now doing a lotof work on peace and conflict impact assessment in order to ensure that development assistance yields
more stable, peaceful relationships.
We need to incorporate the private sector much more. As part of corporate social responsibility,
it is absolutely vital that the private sector is involved in these activities. International Alert, thePrince of Wales Business Leaders Forum and the Council on Economic Priorities have just produced abook called The Business of Peace, which is on the role of business and corporates in conflict
prevention, conflict management and crisis management.

If we let the corporate sphere think that it

can do business in zones of instability without assuming any responsibility for that instability, we
leave a critically important actor out in the cold.

So, at minimum, companies shouldn't contribute toconflict escalation; at maximum, it's really vital that they play a crucial role in conflict prevention, andwe're trying to work out ways in for them to do that.
There is peace diplomacy through religious organizatio ns.

There are good examples of this: Sant'

Egidio, the Quakers, the World Council of Churches, Buddhist organizations and so forth.

We needto make sure that they have a place in all of this.
Diplomacy through women's movements has already been mentioned, and I just want to highlightthe fact that women are and can be effective peacemakers, and they have been excluded for far too
long from negotiating processes and from peace and security discussions. We, along with about 108
other women's organizations, have got a whole campaign now called “Women Building Peace-From
the Village Council to the Negotiating Table,” and we are trying to bring more women into negotiatingprocesses.
22

Then there is communications diplomacy, and my colleague John Marks and Search for Common
Ground do wonderful things here with their Radio Ujamba and Radio Talking Drum and otherprograms like that.

They use the media to quell rumors and to encourage people to think ofpeaceable solutions and deal with problems in a creative and nonviolent fashion.
Then there is peace diplomacy through social movements. Here, our Filipino colleagues havemade great moves in terms of “peace zones” and “peace corridors.” The Community Relations
Council in Ireland has done good work in this area also.

We mobilize people's movements andneighborhood groups to start building peace from the bottom up, as well as from the top down.
And then there is the whole issue of peace through education and training, and I want to remind
you that this is the year of the “Culture of Peace” and the decade of the “Culture of Nonviolence.”
Let's try to give it some shape, some meaning and some substance.
Finally, there is creative diplomacy using art and theater and entertainment.
So, there are many tasks and many groups that can play a role here, and we need to develop amuch more imaginative way of incorporating these groups into the activities.
So what are some of the lessons we've learned?

I've already mentioned the necessity ofincorporating a whole variety of different groups in the process. Second, I think I need to mention
that we will not deal with these problems effectively unless we deal with the structural sources ofviolence. As much attention needs to be given to the structural underly ing sources of the conflict as
to the presenting symptoms. Here, the OECD DAC Committee on Economic Assistance is making avery powerful contribution.

It was interesting, incidentally, in relation to the discussions between

FARC and the government of Colombia, that the first items they wanted on the negotiating table had
to do with economic justice, rather than political participation and security. They wanted access tohealth, education and land.

So, we need to begin getting a much more nuanced view of the key

issues that need to be addressed first.
Third, I think we need to understand that there is no such thing as permanent peace, as Fiji has
reminded us. Rather, there are a series of negotiated agreements or plateaus or understandings whichenable us to consolidate or provide spaces for the consolidation of economic, social and political
relationships.

That's why I think it's important to think in terms of conflict transformation, rather

than conflict resolution. We change relationships in order to enable alternative possibilities. Also, it's
absolutely important in all of this work that those of us who are doing it never claim credit for positive
outcomes.

There is a conflict resolution jinx. The moment any organization or individual claims

credit for peace, there is a high probability that peace will immediately unravel. I have a theory
about this, which is the Clements inverse law of conflict prevention. The more your ego and concern
for your own reputation is involved, the less effective you are going to be as a peace builder and apeacemaker.

The less your ego and concern for your own reputation are involved, the more effective

you are going to be because you will allow those who are party to the conflict to get the recognition
for the successes and you can assume responsibility for the negative consequences, that's all to the
good.
23

Fourth, it is really important to focus on healing and reconciliation issues. I don't know how you
put Sierra Leone back together again.

It's not Humpty Dumpty. There are people wandering aroundthere who've got no limbs-no legs, no arms.

This is a graphic example and constant reminder of thesavagery and brutality of most current conflicts. How can we bring people who have suffered to thepoint where they can acknowledge those who have perpetrated the harm, and begin contemplating thenext step, when they might begin to accept the others as human beings. This is a long and painfulprocess. So the question is, how do we prevent vicious cycles from taking over and contradicting
virtuous cycles?

Parallel to any of these processes has to be a real concern for healing andreconciliation, and that is a long-term, desperately difficult process.
I've already mentioned the essential importance of establishing the primacy of people in thesolution of their own conflicts.

The sixth problem is how to develop equal and emancipatory

partnerships with those in conflict, and this is a fundamental problem; especially for organizations
based in the North. It is very sobering doing work with partners on the ground in Burundi andelsewhere, and coming with resources which are sometimes greater than those available to government
ministries. So how can we say we have an equal partnership when we're coming with highly unequal
resources?

This is also another highly critical area that I hope we can address over the course of thismeeting-how do we develop equal and emancipatory partnerships? We're beginning to frame thisproblem in terms of how to stand alongside those in conflict-not in front of, not leading, not directing,
not providing solutions, but accompanying those in conflict in ways which are going to be genuinely
liberating and will enable them to generate stable peace.

This is a very, very difficult task. It'sdifficult for NGOs, but it's more difficult for governments, because governments come in with lots ofcarrots and lots of sticks.

But it is a really crucial issue. It's difficult when you're dealing withpeople who've encountered slavery and colonialism, and the lingering suspicions that these generate
about humanitarian groups.
Eighth, the whole issue of safe spaces for dialogue is another important goal. Ninth, and this is a
critical task, is how to strengthen the institutional capacity of public and private institutions in conflictzone in order to begin and sustain ant post-conflict peace. There is a need for safe spaces for
dialogue, but there's also the necessity to develop and strengthen civil society and state mechanisms.
Finally, there is the question of how to close the early warning-early response gap.
I want to finish with a poem, because poets can say these things better than we can. Seamus
Heaney says, in an extract from his poem The Cure at Troy:
History says, Don't hopeOn this side of the grave
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed for tidal wave
Of Justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme
24

So hope for a great sea change
On the far side of revenge
Believe that a further shore
Is reachable from here
Believe in miracles
And cures and healing wells
Thanks very much.

25

The Role of NGOs in Conflictct Prevention
Cambodian Experience
Mr. Thun SARAY
President, Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association ADHOCDistinguished and respected representatives,
Ladies and gentlemen,First or all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Japan Institute of International Affairs
which organizes this important and useful symposium and invited me to give a speech on the role ofCambodian NGOs in the conflict prevention. It’s a great honor for me to be present today here withall of you.
Situated in the quarreling South East Asian region between the West and the East during 1970-80,
Cambodia could no longer maintain its peaceful situation and fell down in war in 1970. Since then,Cambodian people received very negative affects from the Cold War and they suffered a lot from all
kinds of violence and human rights violations in a period of more than 2 decades. In this period, 5
political regimes succeeded each other.
After the Cold War had ended, Cambodia had a chance to find the conflict settlement with thePeace Agreement signed on October 23, 1991 in Paris by the 4 Cambodian warring factions and 19
countries who had been involved in the Cambodian conflict. A sizable intervention of more than
20,000 UN peace keepers were taken place in Cambodia from 1992 to 1993 (around 18 months) for
implementing the Peace Agreement. It was conflict settlement and not conflict resolution, because
the UN mission just came to Cambodia for organizing the general election in order to interrupt
hostilities for the time being without attemps to eliminate the root causes of destructive conflict andleft immediately after the 1993 election. The failure to disarm all factions in conflict, the failure to
insure a minimum standards of security and the failure to create trust between the different factions
were the important factors of the failure to solve the conflict. The time constraint was the main causeof the conflict resolution’s failure of the UN mission. Since the root cause of conflict was not solved,
the fighting between the Khmer Rouge force and government force still continued after the election.
And the power competition conflict between the two main political parties (royalists and former
communists) in the first coalition government had increased until explosion by violence in July 1997.
The Cambodian people have enjoyed a full peace situation only after the 1998 general election.
Despite of those weak aspects of the UN intervention, some elements of the post-conflict
peace-building emerged during that period especially the emergence of NGOs and civil society, theadoption of a liberal democratic constitution, freedom of expression and press, etc. The emergenceand development of NGOs and civil society has played a great role in contributing to solve andprevent conflict. I would like to raise six aspects of NGO’s activities which contribute to prevent the26conflict as follow:-

Provide and improve the human rights understanding to the people-

Insure the security from organized violence-Strengthen democratic institutions and electoral process-

Promote the good governance-Insure development policies do not exacerbate the risks of conflict-

Justice and peace; Khmer Rouge Tribunal

From their first days of activities, Cambodian NGOs considered respect for human rights a very
important factor to ease the tension and conflict between the different quarrel factions. A wide rangeof human rights education activities are curried out by human rights activists for the police, military,
gendarme, students, government officials, teachers, farmers, monks and grass roots people. The mostpopular forms of human rights education are training, publication of human rights materials and radio,
TV broadcasting programs.

In the beginning, human rights activists met a lot of difficulties andobstacles because the existing government officials , they didn’t understand what is NGO or what arehuman rights. For example, in December 1992, one provincial authority used more than one hundred
soldiers, police and one tank to close down the office of my organization in that province. This act
showed us clearly that even human rights activists were considered by the authority as their enemy.
But through their human rights education program implementation in the last several years, humanrights activists have successfully changed the old enemy’s behavior of the warring factors to become
more cooperative to each other today. Even though, NGOs could not prevent the factional fighting inJuly 1997, but NGOs contributed to calm down the tension and improve the political atmosphere andconditions of the 1998 elections.

And now, everybody agrees that the political situation has

improved a lot and 1999 was considered the first year in the last 3 decades that Cambodian people
have enjoyed full peace.
Human rights activities cannot only contribute to solve the political conflict but also contribute tosolve and prevent the family conflic t and the conflict in the community. Women rights education andother activities of different NGOs have positive impact to promote the role of women in the family,community and the society which contribute to reduce domestic violence and the violence against
women.
Security from organized violence is a priority concern of people everywhere. Cambodian NGOs
have put this issue as their priority concern in their activities because security is an important factor
for conflict prevention and conflict resolution. NGOs have done serious investigations of politicallymotivated killings, harassment cases and have made strong public condemnations of those acts. They
have also lobbied with the international community and have made appeals to the international humanrights organizations to help stopping those organized violence acts. The result of the investigation of
those cases was also documented and NGOs filed complaints to the court. Now, the political cases27

have almost disappeared but we still worry they would reappear when the commune election
approaches. Taking into account the positive impact of the NGOs activities and the increased level ofpeople awareness, we expect, from one to another election, the political violence will be decreased
every time.
After almost 30 years of wars and internal armed conflict, the overwhelming presence of smallarms and their widespread use is one of the many crucial issues that Cambodia must deal with as it
emerges as a post-conflict society.

The Working Group for Weapons Reduction in Cambodia(WGWR), a coalition of local and international NGOs was established to address this issue throughadvocacy, networking, public education. This working group has closely watched the government
weapons collection campaign and has actively lobbied with the government to organize public
destruction of collected weapons, integrate disarmament as part of the demobilization plan, address
issues of police and military reform and respect for rule of law.
Democracy is a non-violent form of internal conflict management, improving and strengthening
the democratization process is another important factor for conflict prevention. Separation of powerand democratic institutions must be strengthened and developed.

Through many workshops,

seminars and lobby-advocacy activities, NGOs have worked hard in contributing to achieve the above
objectives.

Election alone is not democracy, but election is an important element of democracy,

NGOs have made a lot of efforts to improve the electoral process through their monitoring and voter
education activities.

Round table discussion among the different political party representatives,election authority, government and NGO people have been arranged by NGOs in order to findappropriate measures for preventing violence and irregularities at each step of the electoral process.
Monitoring activities for improving the political atmosphere of each election is also the priority
concern of the election watchdog organizations. Voter education represents an important contribution
to empower the voters to become the real masters of the power in the democratic society and to makeelection meaningful.
Another conflict prevention policy is the need to pursue what is generally referred to as good
governance. In practice good governance involves promoting the rule of law, tolerance of minority
and opposition groups, transparent political process, a commitment to eradiate corruption, an
independent judiciary, an impartial police force, a military that is strictly subject to civilian control, afree press and vibrant civil society institutions. Preventive strategy is predicated on the assumptionof good faith, the belief that Government will seek to place the welfare of the people as a whole overnarrow sectional interests. Sadly, we know that this is often not the case in practice. This is a big
challenge for Cambodian NGOs to change the behavior of Cambodian politicians to put welfare of thepeople as a whole over political party interests.
Through the process of the Consultative Group Meeting (CG Meeting in which donors, NGOs andthe Government annually discuss on the Reconstruction and Development of Cambodia, NGOs haveplayed an active role to lobby with the donors to establish a formal working group on rule of law orgood governance.
28

At the CG Meeting in February 1999, the Meeting decided to create different working groups inorder to facilitate the reform process. Until now, they established already 5 formal working groups
on forestry, demobilization, administrative reform, fiscal reform and social reform with theGovernment, donor and NGOs representatives. But rule of law or good governance remains until
now an informal contact group composed by the representatives of donors only. Why NGOs would
like to formalize this working group because we think the formal working group will elaborate
benchmarks of progress for the reform of this aspect concretely and we can measure the progress later
on. This is better than an informal contact group which only provides recommendations to thegovernment without any concrete plan of action for improving the reform. Even though this working
group has not yet been established, NGOs have worked hard through many workshops, seminars andlobby-advocacy activities in order to improve the situation by requesting the government to transformthe judiciary to become independent, the military and police to become impartial. This process takes
time and can improve only step by step.
Last year, human rights NGOs produced a report on impunity in Cambodia and formulated several
recommendations for reducing impunity and strengthening the rule of law. The report was used tosensitize the public opinion about the impunity issue inside and outside the country. It was also used
for lobbying with the donor community to establish a formal working group on rule of law or good
governance. A group of Cambodian NGOs had drafted one anti-corruption law and proposed it to thegovernment. But the government rejected the NGO’s draft law and proposed a new one which could
not eliminate or reduce the corruption. One important reason that the government does not like tohave a good anti-corruption law is that the government does not yet have the political will to combat
corruption seriously. NGOs have to work with the donor community to create this political will in
the government.

One national seminar on good governance was organized already by thegovernment with participation of NGOs, government people and donors. It’s a good start but notenough, NGOs have to continue and increase their efforts to get a good law and enforce it effectively.
Freedom of press for written media is relatively acceptable but broadcasting media (radio andtelevision) is still strongly controlled by the Government. NGOs continue to pay more attention inorder to provide more freedom to the public to get access to the broadcasting media. Cambodian
civil society has grown up and developed very fast in the last several years but they still lack of humanand financial resources and legal framework. Among 600 local NGOs, less than half of this number
can operate regularly and they have absorbed this year around 15% of the total funds for NGOs.
Almost 200 international NGOs still absorb a big portion of 85%.

Despite of this weakness,

Cambodian NGOs and civil society have done a lot of activities like the peace marches and haveplayed an important role in contributing on conflict prevention as described above.
Another long-term strategy to prevent conflict is to put greater effort into insuring thatdevelopment policies do not exacerbate the risks of conflict - by increasing inequality between socialgroups, for example. In this aspect, NGOs have lobbied with the Government to decrease as soon as
possible the military and security’s expenditure in the national budget and increase the social budget29

(health and education especially) in order to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, between
cities and the country side. NGOs have lobbied also with the financ ial institutions by requesting tothem to consult with civil society during the process of elaborating and adopting their country
assistance strategies for Cambodia. NGOs have participated closely in the reform process whichstarted recently to make sure that the reform is going in the right direction and does not increase theinequality between the different groups of the society. They have proposed to the Government many
recommendations to improve the new draft land law in order to protect the land rights of the poor
people in the country side and the highland people in the north east region of the country. They havealso done a study on the situation of land-less people, the causes of this phenomenon and havesensitized the result of this study to the public.

Apart from this, they have provided material

assistance and services to the marginalized, vulnerable people and to the poorest of the poor in order toalleviate the poverty and reduce inequality between the rich and the poor.
The question justice and peace has posed recently in Cambodian society when the problem to try
the Khmer Rouge leaders or not came up. After the Khmer Rouge movement was dismantled
completely, the Government proposed to the public, earlier last year, to forget the past that means
forget the genocide by the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979. The Government used theargument that we need the peace now and if we go to try the Khmer Rouge leaders, we will haveanother war. But, NGOs didn’t agree with the Government proposition, they had consulted with thepeople by collecting signature and thump print from the people who would like to try the Khmer
Rouge leaders by an international tribunal and they collected one hundred thousand signature andthump prints in two weeks. Since then, NGOs have lobbied with the international community to help
to establish a credible tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge leaders. Why we would like to have thetribunal for those leaders now? Because we think that we cannot have the sustainable peace without
justice, the purpose of a trial is firstly to bring justice to the Cambodian people and to the society; andsecondly to prevent the genocide in the future. Who will guarantee that genocide does not happen
again in Cambodia if we don’t prosecute now? We must all act to prevent the attitude: “ If I am thebig boss I can do whatever I want because if Pol Pot killed two million people, and I just kill 5,000,
why punish me?”. Now, the agreement to establish a mixed tribunal under international standards
between the Cambodian Government and the UN is almost reached. NGOs still continue to watch
closely this process of dialogue whether the international standards of fair trial will be met or not.
The fair trial will be realized only when the conditio ns of international standard of the tribunal arerespected.
Why we didn’t succeed to have an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge leaders, because
Cambodian Government didn’t agree to establish an ad hoc tribunal by using the argument to protect
the national sovereignty. Further more at least one of the permanent members of security counsel of
the UN will veto to the proposition to establish an international tribunal. The reason why the UN
Secretary General proposed to the Cambodian Government to establish a mixed tribunal withinternational standard.
30

In summary, Cambodian NGOs and civil society have contributed in many aspects to strengthen
the peace-building during this post-conflict period in order to prevent the conflict in the future. This
contribution could not achieve its objectives in preventing conflict without the support andcollaboration of bilateral, multilateral donors and international NGOs especially Japanese Government
and NGOs included JVC (one of Japanese NGOs which has been working hard for peace and stability
in Cambodia). Cambodian NGOs still need more support and collaboration from donors for theiractivities in contributing to conflict prevention because the present stability and peace are still fragile.
A lot of things have to be done more to strengthen the elements of the peace-building in thispost-conflict period.

Better collaboration between Cambodian NGOs and Government can also

contribute further in this peace-building process.
Thank you for your attention.

31Perspectives of Japanese NGOs in the Efforts of PCPB and DDR
Prof. Nobuhiko Suto
Professor, Tokai University and President, InterBand
Thank you very much for the kind introduction, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk about PCCB, or

Post-conflict peace building, and then DDR, or demobilization, disarmament and reintegration, which are
expected to solve serious and complex problems idiosyncratic to the contemporary conflict-affected areas,
and to hinder the outbreak of future conflicts. At the same time, I would outline what Japanese NGOs
have achieved in these fields, as well as our future prospects in tackling the problems.
To begin with, I would like to refer to the general misunderstanding, actual difficulties and some hopein peace-building.

The first and common misunderstanding is that, as most people believe, with the endof conflicts, there will be peace.

Frankly speaking, I, too, subscribed to that view initially. In reality,

however, our efforts and hope for the quest of peace have been betrayed in most cases and we finally cameto understand that peace and restoration take a long time after the ceasefire.

Sometimes, conflicts resume

frequently, and even new conflicts occur during the peace-building process and as a result of it.

In otherwords, there is a significant and enormous gap between the end of conflict and the start of peace, so wehave to address this “gap”.
Since the collapse of Cold War System which had stabilized the World by the threat of nuclear warfare,
we have seen a large number of violent conflicts around the world, triggered by ethnic, religious, political,
social and economic reasons. In 1992, former Secretary-General Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali issued his
landmark achievement in peace-building, An Agenda for Peace, which advocated the active participation of
the United Nations in peacekeeping operations.

Many people working in the field of peace-building had

hope in these initiatives to restore peace in conflict-torn areas.

With the rampant increase in PKO costs

and the failure in Somalia and Rwanda missions, however, such optimistic hope is now waning. There areareas that have experienced long-term killing, destruction and mass violation of human rights, and in areas
such as Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda, even after the ceasefire, peace treaty, resumption of foreign aid,
economies have not yet been rebuilt and new governments have found it difficult to become fully capablein maintaining fundamental economic structure. Actually, they are exposed to another internal or external
political conflicts with poor economy on the verge of collapse. What this means is that peace cannot be
achieved with poor economic capacity and without proper governance.

The potential for conflict still

exists even within this very precarious state of peace. Again, the fundamental misunderstanding in theinternational community is that with the end of violent conflict, political stability will ensue automatically,
democracy will be restored by the new government, and the sustainable economic development will beachieved.

This is totally untrue, though.

It takes a long time after the intervention of the UN

peacekeepers and others, and the establishment of a new stable society which may lead to the economic
development resume.

In other words, there is a big gap between ceasefire and development, which iscalled the “Gap Theory”.
32

My contention is that this is not merely a physical and temporal gap that we can reclaim with former
elements.

What is really missing is that we do not know what is really needed to fill the gap. In otherwords, there is a missing link between ceasefire and economic development—not a gap, but a missing
link—because we have no idea what is needed to fill the gap. We have to create a whole new package tolink the past and the present.
I represent a Japan-based NGO called InterBand, which has been involved in PCPB since 1992.

I

have learned , in particular, through the reconciliation process in Rwanda that we have been tackling since
the Genocide in 1994, that what is missing there is not just political or economic means for reconstructing
the country, but the total package of social system including something that were missing in the former
society before the conflict. In other words, in order to restore the society, time is not on your side. You
have to create it as soon as possible before serious problems and contradictions emerge, and for that wehave to have a minimum social package in search for future sustainable social development.

A

comprehensive “germ” or “seed” of society is needed to restore the social, economic and political systems.
I think there is a lot that various NGOs can contribute in order to create such “MSP: Minimum Social
Package”.

Large-scale aid using massive resources for the reconstruction of infrastructure is difficult forNGOs, but the provision of a MSP —including the reuniting of family members who have been separated,
construction of shelters and community buildings, the establishment of a minimum justice and ethics
system making the best use of traditional social systems, and the provision of local jobs yielding income
and providing training and chances to the local people—are the area where NGOs, which are close to the
problem and people, can play the significant and crucial role in peace-building.

I would add in thiscontext, in the scope of NGOs in the early post-conflict stage, the support for the newly- born infant
governmental organizations and institutions could also be involved as one of new tasks charged on theshoulder of NGOs.
I came to this conclusion as a result of several personal experiences. For example, I worked for thereconstruction of Mozambique in 1993.

We had a small and experimental project called “From Guns toHoes,” the objective of which was to collect guns, melt them down and transform them into productive
tools, such as hoes and ploughs.

We partnered with Mr. Masaru Kataoka, who heads an NGO called theThird-World Shop in Japan, and with Ms. Graca Machel, who is now the wife of President Nelson Mandelaof the Republic of South Africa, to implement this project.

As you are aware, even when a conflict ends

in one region, guns can be transported to other parts of the world to create new conflicts. In other words,
there is a recycling of guns.

The aim of our project was to put an end to that vicious recycling.

From the very beginning, we confronted with complexity of elements involved in DDR. Even in sucha small scale project, we had to face the reality of small arms issues. Today, this project to collect guns
and other small arms is still going on, to some extent, by the hand of Cristian Council of Mozambique andis considered to be one of the few successful DDR activities in the World.

Back in 1993, however, larger

Western NGOs considered it too unrealistic, too provincial and too idyllic, so European and American
NGOs suffering from aid fatigue were not extensively involved in this project. In fact, collecting guns is avery costly and sensitive process, as you can easily imagine. Moreover, you have to have military33

professionels’ involvement—amateurs and private citizens cannot do it on their own. When you look at
the guns that have been collected, most of them are rusted and thus no longer usable. In other words,
although guns are being collected, many are guns that would have been disposed of anyway.

We knowthat the reusable, recyclable guns are being taken care of well and stored in somewhere for the next
conflict.
In reality, hoes and other agricultural tools were not very attractive for ex-combatants. These tools
were not regarded as sexy items that they may be willing to throw guns and exchange to it. Then, wecollected at minimum cost, abandoned bicycles around railway stations which had been giving troubles tolocal government, and transported them to Mozambique to exchange for the guns.

In this way, JapaneseNGO’s initiative could play a marginal but meaningful role in order to attract more attentions of theWestern society.
Another area in which we, InterBand, were involved was the Social Impact Assessment of theLandmine Removal activities in Cambodia.

To our great disappointment, as you may be aware of,landmine clearance activities are losing support Today. Interest of the International Community is waning
with the death of Princess Diana and with the award of Nobel Peace Prize to ICBL (International Campaign
for Ban of Landmines), but mines are still there giving threat to local people and actually hindering farmers
to cultivate fertile lands and even the access to water supplies. At one point in time, landmine removal
activities attracted a great deal of attention, but unfortunately, that is no longer true. On the contrary,corruptions within the mine clearing public organization has surfaced in Cambodia, and that accelerated
people’s apathy for demining.
My question to you, though, is whether it is really a good thing to clear landmines.
“Are you stupid?

Of course landmine clearance is good!”

You might say,

However, when I went to the state ofBattambang, near Pailin, the strong hold of ex-Khmer Rouge in Northwestern Cambodia, I saw many
refugees and IDPs rushing to return to their native villages where landmine clearance is said to be starting,but actual demined areas are too small and limited compared with the number of returnees and their
expected activities as villagers. Some had settled in places that had not been cleared, meaning their lives
were in even more danger. As a result, many hit mines and yielded casualties.
Another gruesome reality is that you cannot really clear all the landmines.
clear landmines on hillsides or water ways.

It is particularly difficult to

You can afford to clear only those in flat areas, and as thedemined flat areas are usually arable and productive, they are usually claimed by influential Generals, local
political leaders and capitalists, meaning that the original villagers who owned the land lose it. People arethus afraid that once landmines are cleared, they will lose the land that they have inherited from theirancestors.

To prevent this, many tried to block mine-clearing activities, re-building their house just in the

midst of mine fields, which are really counterproductive in terms of what International Society are trying todo.
There are lots of Aw areness Programs for landmine education, and field seminars are attended by lotsof people, but most of them are women and children.

Why?

Because, even if men know well the dangerof landmines and where they are, they do not care since they have families to support.
34

When I visited a village called Chisan, the village chief mentioned at my field interview that the
number of death, especially those of children, by Malaria far exceeds the casualties by mines. They needto engage farming in minefields and they need to collect firewood in mountains to obtain cash for buying
medicine, and in doing so they expose themselves to the danger of landmines again.

What is reallyneeded is a social impact assessment of landmine clearance, so we decided to address this.

For details,

please refer to the brochures on our organization outside.
The bottom line is human resources to be needed in this field.

After all, this is again a very complex

issue. Most of those who have interest in preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution are traditionallythose who majored in international relations, politics, ethnic or regional studies, and economic development
at best. However, the problem that we are trying to resolve is in the field of complexity. For instance,
DDR or the collection of guns, once involved, you will soon find that you also need expertise in marketing,campaign and social psychology etc .

My point is that people with different backgrounds and in different

disciplines such as management, marketing, small enterprise, gender, social care etc. are all needed, since
they have to make up a new small society in harsh and chaotic environment after the conflict.
I would like to take the next five minutes to speak on future prospects for Japanese NGOs and theiractivities.

Because of the reflection of military invasion to Asian neighbors, and due to the severe

constraints within the framework of Article 9 of the Constitution which prohibits any military activity toprotect national interest, Japan does not have experience in dispatching armed combat forces for conflict
resolution and peace-building.

This is the very difference between Western NGO staff members who

have fundamental military knowledge and experience somehow and Japanese counterparts who are almost
complete amateur.

However, I still think that there are several areas in which we can make contributions.

Number one, we have non-Western, non-Christian values to judge the situations and behave different ways .
For example, at countryside in Cambodia, I saw some people asking to a Western NGO working forlandmine clearance to start demining from a narrow path leading to a ruined Buddhist temple destroyed by
Khmer Rouge.

But the Western NGO said, “No, we need to clear the landmines from this farmland at

first, for the benefit of people of this village”.

The local people responded, “No. We need to clear thelandmines from this path leading to the Buddhist temple and that is the symbol of the recovery of peace”,
and that was quite understandable for me.
Another advantage we have is that we have the experience of disarming people completely on threedifferent occasions in history i.e. after World War II, after the Meiji Restoration, and after the Warring
States Period in the 16 Century. In fact, absolute authority of military government and its strict policy
implication were needed. Simultaneously, however, they used social technique and paid enormous social
campaign efforts so that to make the population convince that arms are no more needed. Perhaps wemight be able to put this expertise to use in contemporary conflict resolution.
The point I am trying to make Today is that we need new thinking.

What is also needed is anexperimental, trial-and-error process, as well as practical approaches.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that not only NGOs but also civil society itself is still vulnerable andpremature here in Japan.

Currently, most of Japanese NGOs have to rely either on the government or35

business enterprises for financial support. In Japan, civil society is still undeveloped and it is neither
capable nor accustomed to support NGO activities. With all hardships, however, what I do expect forJapanese NGOs, is to maintain the moral or spiritual independence. The empowerment of NGOs is theurgent task and the civil society has to develop as the third pillar, in addition to the two existing pillars,
namely the public and private sectors, to support our society. This third pillar should not easily align itself
with either the government or the business sector; rather, it must be autonomous in order to establish analternative and new stabilizer function in this crisis-prone society.

In that sense, Japanese NGOs, withsuch a short history, still have a long way to go although future is bright and promising.
Perhaps , we can take advantage of being a late comer and will rapidly catch up with new thinking andnew resources that have yet to be tapped.

Civil society is one area in which Japan lags far behind, but

wisdom, courage and effort—not money—is where we would like our focus to be.
Thank you.

36

In Search of a New Partnership: Japanese NGOs in Networking
Mr. Kensuke Onishi
Chief Coordinator, Peace Winds Japan
Thank you very much for your kind introduction.

My name is Onishi.

Timor, I have worked very long without taking any breaks.
did not happen.

Since I came back from East

I thought I would lose weight, but that

Instead, I have fallen a bit ill, but I would like to thank you for giving me theopportunity to speak to this audience here today. Before I begin, I would especially like to thank thepeople at JIIA for paying special attention to conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and the roleof NGOs in this area, and also for giving us the opportunity to promote our activities in this area.
You had to deal with a large number of documents and so on, but you have done a wonderful job.
When we think about conflict resolution in the post-Cold War era, we cannot ignore the role ofNGOs. One reason for this is that the nature of conflicts has changed, as we see in the cases of
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, where the states themselves collapsed.

In other words,

NGOs—we call them non-governable organizations!—have played a role because many of theconflicts today are internal wars and thus cannot be dealt with at the governmental level.
act rather freely in responding to the needs of the victims of war on the ground.

About 10 JapaneseNGOs are now working in the areas of conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
Emergency NGOs, is working in Kosovo, for instance.

NGOs canJEN, or Japan

Associations to aid refugees are also

working in the Kosovo area to deliver goods to minority civilians.

I understand this area is very, very

dangerous, with rock-throwing and gunfire not uncommon.

In Asia, the Japan International

Volunteer Center is providing a workshop service for skill training in Cambodia.
also working in that country.

Watch in Action is

In Myanmar, KARAMOSIA, an NGO based in Kagoshima Prefecture,

in Kyushu, is working in the mountainous areas— the so-called Golden Triangle —helping produce
alternative crops to narcotics. The governments of different countries are trying to negotiate with the
Myanmar government, without success, but this organization is working very hard in this area. In
Mozambique, in Africa, another organization, Ehime Global Network has also taken up the “FromGuns to Hoes” project initiated by InterBand and The Third World Shop.

The Japan Center for

Preventive Diplomacy is working in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
I see some familiar faces here.

Reverend Terasawa is a Buddhist priest who, when the Chechen

conflict escalated in 1995, went there on a fact-finding mission together with Russian staff. The
Asian Human Rights Fund, where I used to work, was, I think, a coorganizer.

While there, Reverend

Terasawa was arrested and disappeared. As it happens, I was in Kanazawa at that time on vacation,and the local paper interviewed Reverend Terasawa’s mother and she said something very impressive.
She said, “My son believes in what he does, so I believe in my son.”
There are a number of NGOs involved in the field, although not in an organizational manner.
Why is it that I am involved in conflict resolution, rather than prevention?
37

I would like to allude tomy personal experiences.

At Peace Winds, we have organized five refugee camps in the northern

Kurdish Autonomous Region in Iraq, providing shelter and medical and social services.

This is anongovernmental- level humanitarian intervention whic h is not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.

Ihope that no one from the Iraqi government is here today, because if anyone is here representing Iraq,
my ranking on their blacklist is sure to go up! Why are we doing this in Iraq to help the Kurdish
refugees? Our organization, by nature, focuses on emergency relief efforts.
are a number of violent conflicts.

In northern Iraq, there

Every time we organize refugee camps for food, water and othersupplies to be given out, I feel as if I have to swallow sand in the desert because it seems like there isno end to what we are doing. That is why we felt that in addition to the emergency relief efforts; weneeded to be involved in more continuous, long-term efforts there, namely to put an end to the conflict
itself.

Since we are there, we do have the advantage of being able to contact the parties to theconflict.
This is a new field for Japanese NGOs, and we are really suffering from the lack of human andfinancial resources.

We are also suffering from a shortage of experienced workers and from thelimited sharing of information.

I am not feeling too well, and I am beginning to sound a little

pessimistic. I apologize for this. Anyway, we have been trying to address these deficiencies by
setting up a new network of NGOs.

We call this the Japan Platform, using a term borrowed from thecomputer and automobile industries. In other words, individuals and organizations with different
backgrounds—NGOs, government agencies, corporations, media, research institutes—can all cometogether to share their expertise in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, as well as in emergency
relief. The key characteristic of this new initiative is that not just NGOs are involved.

There isparticipation from other sectors as well, including the government and the private sector, in the formof both moral and financial support.

We have good models, such as the European Platform, whereNGOs are involved in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
here in Japan.

We still have a long way to go

We are also trying to create a global network so that Japanese NGOs can make agreater contribution. This is still a new initiative, but before closing, I would like to thank the Japan
Institute of International Affairs for giving us the support that will facilitate our efforts.

38

Significance of NGO Networking
Mr. Paul Van Tongeren
Executive Director of the European Centre for Conflict Prevention

Thank you.

Thanks also to the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and especia lly to Ambassador

Owada and Mr. Ozawa for inviting me.

I think it is very important that this conference has beenorganized.
Being the sixth speaker—and a lot has been said by important speakers—I will try to summarize
some of my points.

I hope that it is not too long for you to listen to six speeches!

First, I would like to give you some sense of the great importance of conflict prevention.

We areaware of it, but I would like to stress some points.
In his important report to the UN, Kofi Annan said: “Today, no one disputes that prevention isbetter, and cheaper, than reacting to crises after the fact.

Yet, our political and organizational culturesand practices remain oriented far more towards reaction than prevention...

The transition from aculture of reaction to a culture of prevention will not be easy, but the difficulty of our task does notmake it any less imperative.”

I would like to look at what should be done to help, to better support,that culture of prevention, and to give it more tools.
Civil wars today cause massive suffering and gross violations of human rights among the
population.

The costs of such humanitarian disasters are not only visible in human suffering, but also

in the political and social costs of the destructio n of a democratic or other political system or, in somecases, the disintegration of a state.

Violent conflicts threaten international security, and the traditional

answers of the international community are inadequate.
Measures to prevent conflict from escalating into violence are much less risky than military action
for restoring peace once violence has become rampant.

Moreover, the costs of prevention are manytimes cheaper than responding to or after a conflict.

In the past few years, there has been adevelopment within many northern governments and development organizations, like the World Bank,i.e., the setting up of Conflict Resolution units, from where policy is focused on conflict prevention
and peace building.

More and more, governments are starting to see the importance of this, but

NGOs too have a key role to fulfill.
Kevin Clements already gave a very good presentation about the role of civil society. I think his
presentation and Mr. Thun’s summary of the important roles NGOs played in Cambodia were good
illustrations of how civil society and NGOs really have a crucial role to play, so I will summarize
some of my points.
I think NGOs play a very important role in this respect.

One way of describing it the way thatJohn McDonald, in his book on multitrack diplomacy, divides society into 12 different sectors, such as
NGOs, the media, women’s organizations, and so on, and looks at how those sectors have additional,
complementary functions and advantages, and how they should fulfill the ir roles. As an organization,39

we put out a book titled People Building Peace, which we will put on the table outside.

In this book,

we described a lot of those sectors, particularly women’s organizations, churches and so on, and theroles they can play, with some inspiring stories.
to fulfill.

That is, I think, an important way of describing roles

Another way is more issue-based, and less concerned about describing sectors.

I think NGOs have a very important role in early warning and in early preventive action, because
they are much more related to grassroots movements and are aware earlier of what is happening.
Governments can’t fulfill that role so well:

They are not in the rural areas and so on.

Second,NGOs, especially development NGOs, often have long-standing relationships with groups.

Theyknow what is happening. They know the differences. They know from developments how tensions
are growing. They can see the difference, and, because of the drift of the local people, they can see
them earlier, and with openness and frankness.

They hear what is happening, and they can send out

early warning signals.
Related to that is also the monitoring of the human rights situation, and how NGOs can link what
is happening at the local level with the mobilization of support in other regions.

NGOs have really tobring the attention of the broader public, the media and politicians, to these facts and to warn them
about what should be done.

Another important role is to strengthen civil society.

As Kevin alsosaid, finding solutions for peace and the solving of conflicts are the roles of the local actors.
can’t be done by groups outside. But such groups can strengthen and facilitate processes.
facilitate training.

This

They can

They can support the local actors in a lot of ways—by organizing exposure

programs, for example, in which persons from a conflict zone are invited to South Africa or Northern
Ireland or some other place to study how the people there solved similar problems.
meaningful.

This is very

You can learn a lot, and it can be very stimulating to learn how others in similar

situations accomplished this.

So, these are the types of activities that can be really helpful.

Another thing, also, in the Cambodian example that was given, was educational work, i.e., how to
educate, for example, the policy officers, the administrators and the officials, so that they are moreaware of what they are doing, and so that they don’t, as you see so often, come to your office to close
it with 100 men and a tank! So that they see that you are different, and that there is no need to invade
your office with tanks.

I think that the educational part is very important, as well.

Last, just to mention some examples.
reintegration and reconciliation.

NGOs also have crucial roles to play in the field ofCollectively, when you look to the roles that NGOs are especiallyqualified for, often they are ones that governments and others can’t fulfill.
constrained by narrow mandates of, say, foreign policy imperatives.
They have more access to areas inaccessible to official actors.
without losing their credibility.

NGOs are less

They have a broader mandate.

They can talk to several parties

They can directly deal with grassroots populations, which is often

not possible for government officials. And, it is more possible for them to act in obscurity, without
media or public scrutiny. Also, because they often have long-standing relationships, build on trust,with civil society, they can better see the differences, or the growing tensions, and can put them in a
broader perspective and context. That is also a very important difference, because a lot of media and40politicians are just looking for very short notices.

They are not looking for a long-term perspective,

but are just looking until the next elections, or the papers they’d like to publish the next day. But the
NGO attitude is much more toward to long-lasting relationships and trust and finding ways to build
sustainable peace.

These are important differences and, in general, I think that NGOs, especially, canfulfill important roles in implementing this long-term perspective.
I know that there are also a lot of possible criticisms about what NGOs can do, and that they are
not saints.

But I would like to stress that these are important roles—and I think that this should be

more recognized—and that there is really a need, also, for governments and NGOs to have take a more
coherent, integrated approach, to cooperate in terms of the different, complementary roles they canplay and in formulating this into a more integrated policy.

To mention an example, I’d like to look at

how our European Platform was established and what the different functions we, as a national
platform and a European platform, should fulfill.
The European Platform was established three years ago, after a large conference with 1,200
participants in Amsterdam.

There was a clear demand at the conference, a need expressed for thedifferent organizations in Europe—in Germany, in Sweden, in Holland, in Portugal, in Greece—tomeet more often and know each other better, because the different conflict resolution and peacebuilding organizations were not meeting.

They had very little contact, and a lot of different

languages. Unlike the development NGOs and human rights NGOs and so on, which had their own
secretariats and networks, these NGOs in Europe had nothing, so they asked me if I could identify the
key organizations in Germany, in Sweden, in the UK, to bring them together. So that is what we did.
In 1997–1998, we had some 30 or 40 key organizations. Now, we have an expanding network ofcontacts—about 130, just including the key contacts—in Europe, and we try to convene meetings
twice a year—although sometimes it’s once a year—to bring those groups together to discuss common
concerns, common interests and how we can cooperate.

This is seen more and more—if you havewatched the processes of the past three or four years—as a very, very important task.
Another key task is to facilitate networking among organizations working in this field.

Because it

is a new field, nearly all the organizations are very small and totally understaffed. In a lot ofcountries, they only have one or two people, or just volunteers.

So, covering this field, with all thedisciplines, with all the things happening, with the very broad issues, is a hell of a job. None of hasthat kind of staff.

We don’t have a research department and a library, with 10 people in the libraryand 20 in the research department.

I think that the majority of conflict prevention and conflict

resolution organizations in Europe have perhaps one or two people, no more.
they are the exceptions.

Some are larger, but

So, a lot has to be done, and it is very good to share information with others,

and thus important that you have e-mail and Web sites into which this information is put.
point is to facilitate networking and share information.

So the key

We published a book, for instance, a

directory of the 500 key organizations in the world in this field.

This was seen as very valuable

because that information had not been available previously.
A second point is to provide an overview of conflicts and increased knowledge of conflicts and41

their impact through the production of conflict surveys that describe the textual dynamics of conflicts
and the organizations involved in the resolution.

You can find information on the background of

conflicts, but it is very difficult to know, for example, what are the key organizations involved inbringing peace and reconciliation in Algeria or in Rwanda, or who are the key actors in Sudan.

Wethought it was very important to make concise surveys of these conflicts, and also have surface
information on the key organizations involved.

It is very difficult to obtain such information, and it

is a really great help and support for local organizations, because when they are in Africa or other,sometimes remote countries, with few contacts, it is very important that the key organizations, which
are doing a wonderful job, are exposed more to the international audience.

Then, when media ordevelopment organizations approaching those countries come for humanitarian or relief work, theyknow directly which are the most important groups.

So we started a project. Searching for Peacein Africa was the first book, together with ACCORD and Vasu Gounden, who is sitting there, and wealways look for cooperation with groups in the region.

We will publish a similar book on Europe inspring next year, and we are planning to put out one—and I think it will be perhaps twice as thick as
this one—on the conflicts and who is working for peace in Asia. I think this is a very challenging
and very important project, and I hope that with a lot of you present, we can discuss ways to cooperate
to make this book on who is searching for peace in Asia, because such an overview, such a book,doesn’t exist.
That was another task for us as a European Platform: To try to catalyze and stimulate activities inthis field.

The third important task is to increase the profile and reputation of conflict prevention andinformation through publications, media productions and other activities. The fourth, and I will be alittle bit shorter, is to raise conflict presentation issues in the politic al arena, though advocacy andlobbying activities aimed at the European Union and governments.
which I think fits very well with this audience.

I’d like to mention one example,

Hearing that there would be a summit next July in

Okinawa that would deal also with conflict presentations and that the G8 would meet there and thatthey would discuss conflict prevention, after a declaration made in December last year in Berlin, we
thought that it would be very good and a challenge to make a document from the conf lict resolution
community.

There are a lot of conflict resolution and peace building organizations in the world, andwe should address the G8 and tell them what we demand from them, what our wishes are. So,
together with International Alert and Safer World, the European Platform made a document, which
will be presented to the ministries of foreign affairs of the G8 countries.

The document is quite new,and those who are interested in endorsing it, please contact me. We would like really to have a list of
200 NGOs, mainly from the G8 countries, but also other NGOs, and say to the G8 what is important infield of conflict prevention, and we really expect that when you address this in Okinawa, you will
focus on these areas.
Now we come to the significance of NGO networking.

I have already mentioned several of thetasks we developed as the European Platform, but I think these tasks should be taken to a higher level.
I think that there is a need not only for a European network.
42

I’m just expounding what I understoodfrom Vasu, but in Africa you have a lot of activities aimed at building up networks.

I heard here in

Japan last year, at the Japan Center for Preventive Diplomacy, that they are building up some kindplatform, first at the national level, and are also planning to work on a sort of network for the Asia –Pacific region.

So I think it is really time for us to build more on international networking, goinghigher than the national or regional level, and looking at how we can organize this.
I think there are six crucial tasks for such an international network. The first is the networking
itself, and how to organize it. This is just an anecdote, but when I talked to the organizers the day
before yesterday about the G8 document, they were not so pleased that we from Europe committed theG8 document to this conference, and that there had not been earlier consultation. And they wereright. They were totally right.

I think that at this moment we lack the structures at the international

level to have conceptualization and planning on how to deal with such topics.

So, these things

should also be done more on the international level, and not coming from one region, from the Statesor Europe.

International networking is the first task.

The second is to provide support to national

platforms. I think it’s crucial in such a structure that we have more national platforms and key
contacts in countries, and that they can disseminate information in their country, in their language.
You can’t do that from Washington or Brussels or Tokyo. It is really important that you also havenational contacts and national platforms. Third, encourage cooperation and the exchange of information
among the members of such networks.
activities—take the example of G8.

Fourth, support coordinated advocacy and lobbying

Fifth, indicate innovative activities, such as educational, media

and advocacy projects. Last, strengthen capacity and expertise.

This is a very new, weak field; wereally lack staff capacity and resources, and I think it is very important that we look at how we canenhance and strengthen our field, so that more people are knowledgeable, so that you can study it atuniversity, that you can get relevant training, and so on.

So these are tasks, but you also get morecredit, get more weight, when it is done at the national and international level.
I’ve seen that I have to summarize, to close.
points—in Asia is crucial.

I think that coalition building—the last two

I hope also that this conference can be substantive in supporting andsimulating work on coalition-building in this field in Asia, and that the key organizations from conflictzones, as well as those from Japan and other countries not in conflict zones, come together to look for
a common agenda and for ways to support each other, and look to those six tasks I described.

I think

that really this step should be taken, and I really hope that this conference can play some role in this.
Because when you look at what is happening now in Asia —for example, the developments of the past
one or two years in Pakistan and Kashmir, with the nuclear issue, in Indonesia and Fiji, and I won’t
even talk about China—there are a lot of potential problems.
And where is the community in Asia concerned in this?
dealing with it?

We have to organize our field.

Potential problems are big problems.

Where are the programs and plans for

We have to organize our constituency and look at

how we can plan these things. I don’t think that after tomorrow, it will be more peaceful. I thinkthat there is a great risk, even looking just at those examples, that there will be more tensions, more
conflicts.

It is our responsibility, our task, to come with concrete plans to organize this and also to43

work for coalition-building, because when we don’t have an infrastructure for conflict prevention,
when we don’t have an infrastructure of committed and experienced organizations—we can learn a lot
from each other, but if we don’t have that infrastructure—everybody is looking at the other and saying,“This one has to do this, and they have to do this...”And the government, and also yourselves andyour community, has an important task to fulfill. So I hope that this conference will play a role inmoving closer to coalition building in Asia.
Thank you.

44

国際シンポジウム「紛争予防におけるＮＧＯの役割」（平成 12 年 6 月 9 日−10 日 於：高輪プリンスホテル）
主催：日本国際問題研究所
協力：日本予防外交センター／後援：外務省、毎日新聞社、ジャパン

タイムズ

６月９日（金）
午前：全体会合 （公開：日・英同時通訳付）
9:00‑9:20

9:20‑9:40
9:40‑10:00
10:00‑10:20

10:20‑10:40
10:40‑11:05

11:05‑11:20

11:20‑11:50
11:50‑12:00
12:10‑13:30

国際館パミール２階

福寿の間

開会挨拶
小和田 恆 （日本国際問題研究所理事長）
基調講演「ＮＧＯと紛争予防：国連の展望」
法眼 健作 （国際連合事務次長）「市民社会と紛争予防」
ケビン・クレメンツ （ｲﾝﾀｰﾅｼｮﾅﾙ･ｱﾗｰﾄ事務局長）「カンボジアの経験」
トン・サライ（ｶﾝﾎﾞｼﾞｱ人権・開発協会理事長）
ｺｰﾋｰ･ﾌﾞﾚｲｸ「紛争後平和再建及び武装解除・再統合における日本のＮＧＯの展望」
首藤 信彦 （東海大学教授・ｲﾝﾀｰﾊﾞﾝﾄﾞ代表）「日本のＮＧＯとネットワークの模索」
大西 健丞 （ﾋﾟｰｽｳｨﾝｽﾞ･ｼﾞｬﾊﾟﾝ主任調整員）「ＮＧＯネットワークの意義」
ポール・ファン・トンヘラン（ﾖｰﾛﾋﾟｱﾝﾌﾟﾗｯﾄﾌｫｰﾑ所長）
質疑応答
分科会取り進め方についての説明
昼 食

国際館パミール２階

末広の間

午後：分科会セッション１ （非公開：英語のみ）
さくらタワー２階ｺﾝﾌｧﾚﾝｽﾌﾛｱ＊参加者は５グループに分かれ、共通のテーマについてディスカッションを行う。
13:30‑17:30

セッション１
共通テーマ「ＮＧＯの役割と限界」− 国家や国際機関との連携のあり方− ネットワークの必要性、あるべき姿− ＮＧＯの（現場での）責任と保護− ＮＧＯによる早期警戒
議長：第１グループ：遠山 清彦（ﾋﾟｰｽｳｨﾝｽﾞ･ｼﾞｬﾊﾟﾝ 平和政策ﾕﾆｯﾄｺｰﾃﾞｨﾈｰﾀｰ）
第２グループ：長 有紀枝（難民を助ける会常務理事）
第３グループ：ジョン・マークス (ｻｰﾁ･ﾌｫｱ･ｺﾓﾝ･ｸﾞﾗｳﾝﾄﾞ理事長 )第４グループ：バージニア・ガンバ (ＩＳＳ軍備管理プログラム長)
第５グループ：アーヌルフ・トブジョンセン (UNHCR･NGO ｺｰﾃﾞｨﾈ‑ﾀｰ)（15:20‑15:40
18:00‑

ｺｰﾋｰﾌﾞﾚｲｸ）
小和田恆・日本国際問題研究所理事長主催 レセプション
国際館パミール１階

45

曉光の間

６月１０日（土）午前：分科会セッション２ （非公開：英語のみ）＊参加者は５グループに分かれ、各テーマについてディスカションを行う。
9:00‑12:30

さくらタワー２階ｺﾝﾌｧﾚﾝｽﾌﾛｱ

セッション２
第１グループ：「小型武器」
議長: 堂之脇 光朗（日本予防外交センター副会長）
第２グループ：「緊急人道救援」
議長:フランシス・アマー（赤十字国際委員会国際機関課長）
第３グループ：「社会開発」
議長:長谷川 祐弘(ＵＮＤＰ東京事務所駐日代表)
第４グループ：「市民社会構築」
議長: ベン・レイリー(ｲﾝﾀｰﾅｼｮﾅﾙ IDEA ｼﾆｱ･ﾌﾟﾛｸﾞﾗﾑｵﾌｨｻｰ)
第 5 グループ：「東南アジア」
議長: テレサ・ブシャ−ル (ＣＥＣＩ人権部長)(10:40‑11:00

ｺｰﾋｰﾌﾞﾚｲｸ)

12:30‑14:00

昼 食

午後：総括全体会合
14:00‑15:20

さくらタワー３階（公開：日・英同時通訳付）

国際館パミール２階

七軒茶屋”

福寿の間

パネル・ディスカッション（分科会セッション２について）
ﾓﾃﾞﾚｰﾀｰ ：明石 康（日本予防外交センター会長）
ﾊﾟﾈﾘｽﾄ：堂之脇 光朗（日本予防外交センター副会長）
フランシス・アマー (赤十字国際委員会国際機関課長)
長谷川 祐弘 (ＵＮＤＰ東京事務所 駐日代表)
ベン・レイリー (ｲﾝﾀｰﾅｼｮﾅﾙ IDEA ｼﾆｱ･ﾌﾟﾛｸﾞﾗﾑｵﾌｨｻｰ)
テレサ・ブシャ−ル (ＣＥＣＩ人権部長)

15:20‑15:40

ｺｰﾋｰ･ﾌﾞﾚｲｸ

15:40‑17:00

パネル・ディスカッション（分科会セッション１について）
ﾓﾃﾞﾚｰﾀｰ ：小和田 恆（日本国際問題研究所理事長）
ﾊﾟﾈﾘｽﾄ：遠山 清彦（ﾋﾟｰｽｳｨﾝｽﾞ･ｼﾞｬﾊﾟﾝ 平和政策ﾕﾆｯﾄ･ｺｰﾃﾞｨﾈｰﾀｰ ）長 有紀枝（難民を助ける会 常務理事）
ジョン・マークス (ｻｰﾁ･ﾌｫｱ･ｺﾓﾝ･ｸﾞﾗｳﾝﾄﾞ 理事長)
バージニア・ガンバ (ＩＳＳ軍備管理プログラム長)
アーヌルフ・トブジョンセン (UNHCR NGO ｺｰﾃﾞｨﾈｰﾀｰ)

17:00‑17:30

質疑応答

17:30

終了

46

International Symposium“The Role of NGOs in Conflict Prevention”
June 9‑10, 2000
The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
In cooperation with The Japan Center for Preventive Diplomacy (JCPD)
Supported by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), The Mainichi Newspapers and The Japan Times

Ａｇｅｎｄａ9 June, Friday
Opening Plenary (English/Japanese)
Venue: Fukuju Room, 2nd Floor, PAMIR

09:00‑09:20

09:20‑09:40

Opening Remark:Ambassador Hisashi OWADA, President,
The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
Keynote Speeches:“NGOs and Conflict Prevention: A United Nations Perspective”

09:40‑10:00

Mr. Kensaku HOGEN, Under‑Secretary‑General, the United Nations“Civil Society and Conflict Prevention”
Prof. Kevin P. CLEMENTS, Professor,

10:00‑10:20

Secretary General, International Alert“Cambodian Experience”
Mr. THUN Saray, President
Human Rights and Development Association ADHOC

10:20‑10:40

Coffee Break

10:40‑11:05“Perspectives of Japanese NGOs in the Efforts of PCPB*1 and DDR*2 ”
Prof. Nobuhiko SUTO, President, InterBand

11:05‑11:20“In Search of a New Partnership: Japanese NGOs in Networking”
Mr. Kensuke ONISHI, Chief Coordinator, Peace Winds Japan“Significance of NGO Networking”
Mr. Paul van TONGEREN, Executive Director, European
Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation

11:20‑11:50

Questions and Answers

11:50‑12:00

Explanation of Closed Working Group Sessions

12:10‑13:30

Lunch for Participants
Venue: Suehiro Room, 2 nd Floor, PAMIR

47

Closed Working Group Sessions (English only)
Venue: Conference Floor, 2nd Floor, SAKURA TOWER*Participants will be divided into 5 small groups.

13:30‑17:30

Each group will discuss suggested topics.

Session 1“The Potentials and Limitations of NGOs”‑ Working with Other Actors (States, Regional Organizations,International Organizations)‑ Networking of NGOs (especially in Asia)‑ What should the Code of Conduct be?
‑ What is an effective Early Warning Mechanism？
ChairsGroup 1: Dr. Kiyohiko TOYAMA,
Coordinator of Peace Research Unit, Peace Winds Japan
Group 2: Ms. Yukie OSA, Managing Director,
Association for Aid and Relief (AAR), Japan
Group 3: Mr. John MARKS, President, Search for Common Ground
Group 4: Ms. Virginia GAMBA, Head of Arms Management Programme,
Institute for Security Studies (ISS)Group 5: Mr. Arnulv TORBJORNSEN, NGO Coordinator, UNHCR(15:20‑15:40

Coffee Break)

18:00‑

Reception hosted by Ambassador Hisashi OWADA, President of JIIA
Venue: Gyoukoh Room, 1 st Floor, PAMIR

10 June (Saturday)
Closed Working Group Sessions (English only)
Venue: Conference Floor, 2nd Floor, SAKURA TOWER*Participants will be asked to join one of five different groups. Each group will discuss a specifictopic.

09:00‑12:30

Session 2
Group 1: Small Arms
Chair: Ambassador Mitsuro DONOWAKI, Vice Chairman, JCPD
Group 2: Emergency Humanitarian Relief
Chair: Mr. Francis AMAR, Head of International Organization
Division, ICRCGroup 3: Social Development
Chair: Mr. Sukehiro HASEGAWA, Director of Tokyo Office, UNDP,
Group 4: Civil Society Building
Chair: Dr. Ben REILLY,
48

Senior Programme Officer, International IDEA
Group 5: Southeast Asia
Chair: Mrs. Therese BOUCHARD,
Director of Human Rights Department, CECI
(10:40‑11:00

Coffee Break)

12:30‑14:00

Lunch for Participants
Venue: Shichikenjaya Restaurant, 3 rd Floor, SAKURA TOWER

Closing Plenary (English/Japanese)
Venue: Fukuju Room, 2 nd Floor, PAMIR

14:00‑15:20

Wrap‑up Panel Discussion (Session 2)
Moderator: Mr. Yasushi AKASHI, Chairman, JCPD
Panelists: Ambassador Mitsuro DONOWAKI, Vice Chairman, JCPD
Mr. Francis AMAR, Head of International Organization
Division, ICRC
Mr. Sukehiro HASEGAWA, Director of Tokyo Office, UNDP
Dr. Ben REILLY, Senior Programme Officer, International
IDEA
Mrs. Therese BOUCHARD,
Director of Human Rights Department, CECI

15:20‑15:40

Coffee Break

15:40‑17:00

Wrap‑up Panel Discussion (Session 1)
Moderator: Ambassador Hisashi OWADA, JIIA
Panelists: Dr. Kiyohiko TOYAMA
Coordinator of Peace Research Unit, Peace Winds, Japan
Ms. Yukie OSA,Managing Director, Association for Aid and Relief (AAR),Japan
Mr. John MARKS, President, Search for Common Ground
Ms. Virginia GAMBA, Head of Arms Management Programme,
Institute for Security Studies (ISS)Mr. Arnulv TORBJORNSEN, NGO Coordinator, UNHCR

17:00‑17:30

Questions and Answers

17:30

End of Symposium*1 PCPB: Post‑Conflict Peace Building*2 DDR: Disarmament, Demobilization and Re‑integration
49

International Symposium
The Role of NGOs in Conflict Prevention
June 9‑10, 2000
The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)
In cooperation with The Japan Center for Preventive Diplomacy (JCPD)
Supported by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), The Mainichi Newspapers and The Japan Times

List of ParticipantsSouth Africa ACCORDAFRICA
Mr. Vasu GOUNDEN

South Africa Institute for Security Studies Ms. Virginia GAMBA(ISS)
SenegalCanadaCanadaCanadaGuatemala

USA

USA
USA

Kazakhstan
Tajikistan

China

China

China

Department of Political Science, Dr. Ousmane KANE
University of St‑Louis in Senegal
AMERICAN CONTINENTS
Alternatives
Mr. Robert DAVID

Executive Director
Deputy Director andHead of Arms
Management ProgrammeProfessor

Project Officer ‑ East
Asia
Program Manager

Canadian Bureau for International Ms. Karen DALKIE
Education (CBIE)The Canadian Centre forMrs. Therese BOUCHARD Director of the Human
International Studies andRights Department
Cooperation (CECI)
Centro de Mediacion Negociacion Mrs. Lucrecia ARRIOLA de Senior Adviser inInternacional (CMN)
Paniagua
Negotiation andMediation
Program Quality and Support Mr. Jaco CILLIERS
Justice andDepartment, Catholic Relief
Peacebuilding Senior
ServicesTechnical Adviser
Global Coalition for Africa (GCA) Amb. Ahmedou
Executive Secretary
OULD‑ABDALLAH
Search For Common Ground
Mr. John MARKS
President
ASIA (CENTRAL)
Centre for Conflict Management Dr. Elena SADOVSKAYA
President(CCM)
Tajik Center for Citizenship Mrs. Gulchekhra NOSIROVA Director
Education
ASIA (EAST)
China Foundation For
Mr. PENG Hongwei
Deputy Secretary
International and Strategic
GeneralStudies (CFISS)
Non‑Governmental Organization Mr. WANG Ming
Director
Research Center (NGORC), Tsinghua
University
Dept. of Political Science and Prof. SHI Hexing
Associate Professor
Public Administration, Peking
and Deputy Chairman
University50

Afganistan
India
India
India
India
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka

Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
East Timor

Indonesia
Indonesia

Malaysia
Philippines
Philippines

ThailandThailand

Vietnam

ASIA (SOUTH)
Norwegian Church Aid Afghanistan Mr. Mohammed Haneef ATMAR Programme Manager
Programme (NCA)
Institute for Conflict Management Dr. Ajai SAHNI
Executive Director(ICM)
Institute of Peace and Conflict Mr. P. R. CHARI
Director
Studies (IPCS)
International Center for Peace Mr. Karan R. SAWHNY
Director
Initiative (ICPI)International Centre for Peace Dr. Ashok K. BEHURIA
Assistant Director
Studies
Center for Development
Mr. Sathivale
Executive Director
Alternatives (CDA)BALAKRISHNAN
National Peace Council of Sri Mr. Tyrol FERDINANDS
General SecretaryLanka (NPC)
Sewa Lanka Foundation (SLF) Ms. Lakshi S. ABEYASEKERA Director Special
Projects
ASIA (SOUTHEAST)
Cambodian Centre for Conflict Mr. Sopheak OKSEREI
Co‑Chairman and
Resolution (CCCR)
Coordinator
Cambodian Human Rights and Mr. THUN Saray
President
Development Association ADHOC
WorkingGroupforWeapons Mr. Edgar JANZWGWR advisor
Reduction in Cambodia (WGWR)
WorkingGroupforWeapons Mr. Sinthay NEB
Excective Coordinator
Reduction in Cambodia (WGWR)
Catholic Relief Services
Ms. Maria Ida (Deng) Project Manager for
GIGUIENTO
Peace andReconciliation
Programs
Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Mr. Rachland NASHIDIK Vice‑President
Rights Association (PBHI)
Volunteer Team for Humanity (TRK) Ms. Ayu RATIH
Staff at the Education
and Public Campaign
Division
Research and Education for Peace Dr. Kamarulzaman ASKANDAR Coordinator(REP)
Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute Mr. Esmeraldo B. LAMPAUOG Deputy Executive(GZO‑PI)
Director
National Council of Churches in Ms. Maureen Belen LOSTE Program Secretary
the Philippines (NCCP)(Program Unit of
Faith, Witness andService)
Asian Network for Free Elections Ms. Somsri BERGERInternational(ANFREL), Forum‑Asia
Coordinator for
ANFRELFoundation for International Dr. Chira HONGLADAROM Secretary‑General
Human
Resource
Development(FIHRD)
Vietnam Marine Science and Mr. NGUYEN Huy Mac
Member of Standing
Technology Association (VIMASTA)
Committee of VAMASTA,
Editor‑in‑chief ofOcean Magazine

51

Belgium
Belgium

Netherlands

Netherlands
Netherlands
Sweden

UK
UK

EUROPE
European Centre for Common Ground Ms. Sandra MELONE

Executive Director

Institute for International Rv. Junsei TERASAWA
Assistance and Solidarity (IFIAS)
Brussels asbl
European Centre for Conflict Ms. Monique MEKENKAMP
Prevention

Field Activist andConflict Mediator in
Caucasus
Project
co‑coordinatorregional programme,
Asia
European Centre for Conflict Mr. Paul van TONGEREN Executive Director
Prevention
European Centre for Conflict Mr. Hans van de VEEN
Researcher
Prevention
International IDEA (Institute for Dr. Ben REILLY
Senior Programme
Democracy and Electoral
Officer
Assistance)
Department of Peace Studies, Dr. Owen GREENE
Professor
University of Bradford
International Alert
Prof. Kevin P. CLEMENTS Secretary General
JAPANThe Africa Society of Japan(ASJ) Mr. Yasushi KUROKOCHI Vice‑President
Amnesty International Japanese Mr. Shin FURUYA
SectionAmnesty International Japanese Ms. Juli MORIZAWA
Section
Asian Community Trust
Mr. Toshihiro MENJU
Association for Aid and Relief Mr. Tadamasa FUKIURA(AAR), Japan
Association for Aid and Relief Ms. Hiroko NIIMURA(AAR), Japan
Association for Aid and Relief Ms. Yukie OSA(AAR), JapanFASID International Development Dr. Kazuo TAKAHASHI
Research InstituteHeisei International University Prof. Naoki SAITO
Hiroshima Peace Institute

Mr. Masamichi KAMIYA

Institute for International
Policy Studies (IIPS)InterBandMr. Tetsuo SHIOGUCHI
Ms. Kae MATSUURA

InterBand, African
Prof. Nobuhiko SUTO
Reconciliation Committee
International Movement Against Mr. Ryo ONOYAMAAll Forms of Discrimination andRacism (IMADR)
Japan Alliance for Humanitarian Mr. Tetsuya KANAZAWA
Demining Support (JAHDS)Japan Alliance for Humanitarian Mr. Hiroshi TOMITA
Demining Support (JAHDS)The Japan Center for P reventive Mr. Yasushi AKASHI
Diplomacy (JCPD)

52

Staff member,Campaign & Action
Department
Secretary General
Acting Executive
Secretary
Vice‑President
Programme Officer
Managing Director
Director
Professor
Visiting Research
Fellow
Senior Research
Fellow
Secretary General
PresidentInternational
Secretariat,
Secretariat
Staff member
Executive Director,
Secretary General
Chairman

Diplomacy (JCPD)
The Japan Center for Preventive Ambassador Kuniaki
Executive Director
Diplomacy (JCPD)ASOMURAThe Japan Center for Preventive Ambassador Mitsuro
Vice‑Chairman
Diplomacy (JCPD)DONOWAKIThe Japan Center for Preventive Mr. Ichiji ISHII
Vice‑Chairman
Diplomacy (JCPD)
The Japan Center for Preventive Prof. Kenichi ITO
President
Diplomacy (JCPD)
The Japan Center for Preventive Mr. Naoki TOMITA
Acting Executive
Diplomacy (JCPD)
Secretary
The
Japan
Instituteof Ambassador Shinsuke
Adjunct ResearchInternational Affairs (JIIA) HORIUCHI
Fellow
The
Japan
Instituteof Prof. Toshiya HOSHINO Adjunct ResearchInternational Affairs (JIIA)
Fellow
The
Japan
Instituteof Prof. Tsutomu KIKUCHI Adjunct ResearchInternational Affairs (JIIA)
Fellow
The
Japan
Instituteof Ambassador Hisashi OWADA PresidentInternational Affairs (JIIA)
The
Japan
Instituteof Mr. Toshiro OZAWA
Acting Director
International Affairs (JIIA)
Japan International Volunteer Mr. Kyung Mook KIM
Research Fellow,
Center (JVC)
Watch & Action for FR
Yugoslavia
Japan International Volunteer Mr. Michiya KUMAOKA
President
Center (JVC)
Japan International Volunteer Mr. Maki SATO
Director of Palestine
Center (JVC)
OfficeJapan International Volunteer Mr. Kiyotaka TAKAHASHI Research and Policy
Center (JVC)
AdvisorJapan
NGO
Centerfor Mr. Michio ITOManaging Director
International
Cooperation(JANIC)JEN
Ms. Yoko ASAKAWA
Programme Officer
JEN

Mr. Yuji MORI

Secretary General

KARAMOSIA International

Mr. Kenichi KATO

President

Medecins Sans Frontieres Japan Mr. Hajime SEKIGUCHI

Vice‑President

MeRU Medical Relief Unit, Japan Mr. Yasujuro KAMATA

Chairman & C.E.O

MeRU Medical Relief Unit, Japan Mr. Kenya KUWAHATA

Deputy Executive
Secretary
Senior Researcher

National Institute for Research Dr. Akiko FUKUSHIMA
Advancement (NIRA)OISCA‑International
Mr. Hiroshi HAYASHI

PARinAC Japan Forum

Mr. Hiroaki ISHII

Programme
Coordinator,
International Affairs
Division
Focal Point

Peace Winds Japan (PWJ)

Ms. Miho KISHITANI

Project Officer

Peace Winds Japan (PWJ)

Mr. Kensuke ONISHI

Chief Coordinator

53

USA

Japan
Switzerland
Japan

USA

Switzerland

Japan

Japan

Japan

Japan

Japan

Peace Winds Japan (PWJ)

Dr. Kiyohiko TOYAMA

Peace Research Unit
Coordinator

Peace Winds Japan (PWJ)

Mr. Koichi YAMAUCHI

Project Officer

Refugee Assistance Headquarters Ms. Yumiko FUJIWARA(RHQ), Foundation for the Welfare
and Education of the Asian People
Refugee Assistance Headquarters Mr. Kazumi SUZUKI(RHQ), Foundation for the Welfare
and Education of the Asian People
Soka Gakkai, Office of Activities Mr. Kimiaki KAWAI
for Peace and Culture
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
United Nations
Mr. Kensaku HOGEN

Director, Planning &Coordination Division
Director‑General

Program Coordinator

Under‑Secretary‑Gene
ral forCommunications andPublic Information,
Department of PublicInformation
UnitedNations
Development Mr. Sukehiro HASEGAWA Director
Programme (UNDP Tokyo Office)United Nations High Commissioner Mr. Arnulv TORBJORNSEN NGO Coordinatorfor Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations High Commissioner Mr. James KOVAR
Senior Liaison
for Refugees （UNHCR), Regional
Officer
Office for Japan and the Republicof Korea
The World Bank
Mr. Kazuhide KURODA
Knowledge Management& Partnership
Coordinator, Social
Development
Department,
Post‑Conflict Unit
OTHERSInternational Committee of the Mr. Francis AMAR
Head, International
Red Cross (ICRC)
Organizations
Division
Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS) Mr. Akira NAKATA
Director ofDevelopment
Cooperation Division,
International
Relations Department
Operations Sector
Japan Committee for UNICEF
Mr. Akihiko MORITA
Head of theInformation andPublic Affairs
Division
Japan International Cooperation Mr. Yuichi SASAOKA
SeniorAgency (JICA)
Advisor/Development
Planning Specialist
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Katsuhiko OKU
Director of the United(MOFA)
Nations Policy
Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Yukio TAKEUCHI
Director‑General of(MOFA)
the Foreign Policy

54

(MOFA)
Singapore

United Nations Development Fund Dr. Kanwaljit SOIN
for Women (UNIFEM), Singapore

55

the Foreign Policy
BureauChairperson