RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE MANAGING CHAOS CONFERENCE

NGOS AND CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT

Pamela R. Aall

UNITED STATES

INSTITUTE OF PEACE
Key Points v

Preface 1

1 Reframing the Issues 3

2 The Changing Nature of NGOs 5

3 New Roles for NGOs 7

4 The Challenge of Coordination 11

5 NGOs as Conflict Managers 14

Contributors 15

Managing Chaos Conference Agenda 18

About the Author 24

About the Institute 25

CONTENTS
Reframing the Issues

= The nature of conflict has changed substantially in the post–Cold War era. Instead of wars

among nation-states, conflict most often appears now as struggles for power and dominance within states, pitting ethnic group

against ethnic group, religion against religion,

and neighbor against neighbor.

= This type of virulent subnational conflict typically results in waves of refugees who fall prey

to a deadly combination of starvation, epidemics, and despair that spirals out of control

since governments and the services they provide are on the verge of collapse during such

crises. Moreover, these refugee crises typically

draw neighboring countries into the conflict as

well, and threaten to turn a subnational conflict into a regional and international conflagration. The international community finds itself responding to more and more of these

“complex emergencies”—such as those in

Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia—in the

post–Cold War era.

= Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play

a critical part in the international response to

such crises, offering many different skills and

approaches outside of military intervention,

including humanitarian relief, preventive action and conflict resolution, development assistance, and institution-building.

= Because of the nature of their basic mission,

humanitarian relief NGOs are often the first to

arrive on the scene of complex emergencies.

Consequently, they are often trapped in the

midst of these conflicts as they attempt to

carry out their relief operations. Accordingly,

this type of NGO has had to broaden its traditional role to include ensuring political stability and fulfilling basic governmental functions

in states plagued with severe crisis.

= The changing nature of both conflict and humanitarian relief has sparked an examination

within the NGO community as well as among

officials of the United Nations and its member

governments of the roles that NGOs should

play in preventing, managing, and resolving

conflict.

The Changing Nature of NGOs

= United by a commitment to improving conditions around the world, NGOs otherwise represent a great diversity of objectives, functions,

and organizational structures. The numbers of

NGOs have increased dramatically in recent

years, bringing more resources to more areas

afflicted with crisis. Their activities fall into

two broad categories: direct operations, or “operational” NGOs (including humanitarian relief and conflict resolution NGOs), and advocacy NGOs.

= NGOs that focus on humanitarian relief have

traditionally maintained a strict policy of neutrality in their activities, providing aid to the

destitute or services to antagonists regardless

of their political, ethnic, or religious affiliation. 

= As they find themselves serving expanded

roles during complex emergencies, many

NGOs are reconsidering the circumstances under which they can and should adhere to such

strict neutrality. In these crisis situations,

v

KEY POINTS
vi

NGOs find themselves having to work closely

with governments to carry out their role of

providing assistance.

= The fundamental change in the demands of today’s humanitarian crises may lead NGOs to

consider an equally fundamental change in

their program development—redirecting contributions and other sources of funding from

relief programs alone to those that address the

interdependence of relief, development, and

conflict resolution.

New Roles for NGOs

= While NGOs cannot be expected to solve all

the problems associated with humanitarian

crises, the new environment in which these organizations operate suggests the following

four fundamental roles: early warning functions, human rights monitoring, relief and rehabilitation, and conflict resolution activities.

Yet it may be detrimental for NGOs to assume

all these roles simultaneously.

= Of these four roles, the early warning and conflict resolution functions typically engender

the most debate, not only because of their relative newness in the repertoire of NGO capabilities, but also because both of these roles subsume many other increasingly important—and,

some would argue, controversial—tasks NGOs

must consider in carrying out their primary

missions during complex emergencies.

= Because of their close involvement with local

communities, NGOs are in an excellent position to serve an early warning function, alerting the international community to potential

breakdowns in a distressed country’s government or in relations among the country’s major domestic groups. In such a way, NGOs can

serve as the first step in preventive action to

avert future complex emergencies. 

= Some in the NGO community argue that

NGOs should use their early warning vantage

point to advocate specific policies to their respective governments aimed at stemming

brewing conflicts. Yet the fact remains: Governments must find the political will and 

leadership necessary to translate early warning

into effective interventions.

= In addition, many in the NGO community believe that NGOs and the international community at large should concentrate on techniques

that link crisis management and humanitarian

relief activities to the longer-term goals of conflict resolution and sustainable development

(peacebuilding). Relying on grass-roots and

mid-level approaches that sustain the process

of peacebuilding through the use of indigenous resources and technologies, rather than

the traditional top-down policy of providing

development aid, is a way to ensure that the

conflict accompanying complex emergencies

does not recur once outside actors leave the

country.

The Challenge of Coordination

= With so many actors at different levels of the

international system available to intervene in

complex emergencies, coordination is essential to avoid overlapping, and often counterproductive, responses that result in wasted resources and inefficient operations.

= While the many different types of NGOs arrive

on the scene with a variety of skills and techniques to address different aspects of complex

emergencies, there is little coordination

among them to manage these emergencies in

an integrated way.

= One way of ensuring an effective international

response calls for the NGO community to coordinate its members’ separate responses to

complex emergencies, aiming for a comprehensive strategy that allows major actors to

participate in an integrated fashion. The ultimate challenge to governments and international organizations is to construct a system

that can respond to a complex emergency in a

comprehensive, unified, integrated way, combining diplomatic skill, military power, and

NGO field experience under a UN mandate.

= Coordination is required not only for the overall response, but also at each level of the response as well. The United States government
vii

may want to consider reforming both the way

it deals with the UN and its own fragmented

decision-making apparatus for humanitarian

crises. Such reform would include creating a

single entity responsible for all relief, with one

senior official in charge.

= While NGOs do not share the full degree of accountability that circumscribes the range of actions undertaken by states and international

organizations during complex-emergency interventions, NGOs do not operate entirely independently during these types of crises. In

fact, in any complex emergency, powerful

states usually provide the kind of leadership

and determination to put an end to mass suffering and internecine conflicts, and NGOs

typically perform their functions within such a

context.

NGOs as Conflict Managers

= While NGOs are fast becoming powerful new

actors in complex emergencies by managing

conflict and taking on certain functions of imperiled governments, the question arises: Are

NGOs fully equipped to handle all the dimensions of complex emergencies, including violent conflict?

= Different types of NGOs possess distinct skills

and approaches, and their role as conflict manager is appropriate if the role remains part of a

larger, coordinated effort of relief, helping to

re-establish civil society, and providing a

framework for sustainable development.
I

f the beginning of an era is marked by monumental events, the post–Cold War era certainly

can be said to have begun with the series of

subnational conflicts whose complexities escaped

the familiar order of superpower proxy wars. The

conflicts in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia all share

the horrid manifestations of post–Cold War conflict: the unleashing of historical hatreds, genocide,

unspeakable atrocities, the breakdown of governments and the vital services they provide, and

refugee crises that typically transform subnational

conflicts into regional and international conflagrations. 

The post–Cold War era has also come to be defined by the emergence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as relatively new international

actors that have now joined states and international organizations in the effort to manage these

new “complex emergencies.”

More than other types of NGOs (e.g., those devoted to human rights, democracy-building, economic development, and conflict resolution) humanitarian relief NGOs have been drawn into the

complex emergencies that have come to define the

disorder of the post–Cold War world. Cases such

as Rwanda, Somalia, and now Bosnia present formidable new challenges to relief organizations as

they attempt to perform their fundamental mission of providing aid in the midst of violent internal

conflict and while international political and military interventions are under way. NGOs created to

provide food, shelter, and medical supplies during

humanitarian crises find themselves increasingly

pressed to provide other vital services lacking in

these crisis-ridden societies—including the provision of basic governmental functions in the case of

failed states.

The fall 1994 conference of the United States Institute of Peace, “Managing Chaos: Coping with 

International Conflict into the Twenty-First Century,” provided a timely forum for numerous discussions regarding the changing character of international conflict, the new institutions of conflict

resolution, and the new diplomacy and tools for

conflict management. While the conference focused on the most important foreign affairs issues

of our time, it gave special attention to the changing—and expanding—role of NGOs in managing international conflict. Leading figures of American

humanitarian relief, advocacy, and conflict resolution NGOs were in attendance, as were the government and international organization officials who

work with them.

The question that was foremost on the minds of

all participants was whether these expanded functions are appropriate for all operational NGOs,

which in many cases lack the requisite skills and

resources to handle these new functions. There are

many different types of NGOs, each possessing

unique skills and resources that can be used to

manage different components of complex emergencies. The problem is that there is no single entity to coordinate the separate efforts of these

NGOs with each other and with other intervening

actors. 

Moreover, NGOs also lack the the kind of accountability that circumscribes the actions of

states and international organizations. This concern is heightened as NGOs find it increasingly difficult to maintain their traditional doctrine of impartiality when trying to deliver relief to all parties

affected by complex emergencies, even to those

who are determined to perpetuate conflict.

The staff of the Institute has gone through the

voluminous proceedings of the conference to distill the views expressed by NGO representatives

and others on the emerging role of NGOs in managing international conflict. To our mind, some of

the most interesting and significant thinking of the

conference focused on the new challenges facing

1

PREFACE
humanitarian relief NGOs (sometimes called “operational” NGOs to distinguish them from advocacy groups) during a time when humanitarian

crises and natural disasters are both perpetuated

and made more complex by the animus of subnational and regional conflict.

This report is being published as the international community under U.S. leadership begins to

take up the task of implementing peace in Bosnia.

While NATO troops work to prevent new violence

there, nongovernmental organizations will bear

the complicated burden of reconstruction and reconciliation. All actors involved in this precarious

undertaking—NGOs, states, and international organizations alike—would be well served by studying the experience of nongovernmental organizations in other post–Cold War complex emergencies in order to prepare themselves for the challenge of peacemaking in Bosnia. We believe this report provides a good beginning for the sort of reflection that is necessary.

This the third—and final—installment in the Institute’s Peaceworks series highlighting the proceedings of the “Managing Chaos” conference. The

first in the series (Peaceworks No. 3) contained the

keynote addresses of Les Aspin on the challenges

to values-based military intervention, and Ted

Koppel on the global information revolution and

TV news. The second (Peaceworks No. 4) summarized several views on new and enduring sources

of international conflict, which was one of the principal themes of the conference. G. M. Tamás and

Samuel P. Huntington addressed political identity

and conflict, and Robert Kaplan and Jessica Tuchman Mathews provided their analysis of threats to

the nation-state.

The “Managing Chaos” conference is only part

of the activity the United States Institute of Peace

has devoted to the issues surrounding NGOs and

complex emergencies. In September 1995, it sponsored a one-day conference on “Humanitarian Assistance and Conflict in Africa.” The Institute has

also developed a post-conflict Bosnia initiative focusing on humanitarian, conflict resolution, and

democracy-building NGOs that are sending field

workers to the country to assist in its reconstruction and reconciliation. In addition, the Institute is

working with the U.S. Army War College’s Peacekeeping Institute on a project that will examine

NGO-military relations. The Institute’s Education

and Training program is also developing conflict

resolution training seminars geared specifically to

the needs of the NGO community, in addition to

its current practice of including representatives

from major international NGOs in its International

Conflict Resolution Skills Training (ICREST) programs.

The Institute wishes to thank the men and

women whose reflections are captured here, as

well as many others from the NGO and policy

communities who have provided their helpful

comments in the period since the “Managing

Chaos” conference to clarify and refine the myriad

issues surrounding NGOs and conflict management. Special recognition is due to Institute program officer Pamela Aall for drafting this report

and to editor Peter Pavilionis for rounding it into

shape.

HARRIET HENTGES

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

2
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

involved in humanitarian relief missions

know all too well the devastating effects

of conflict. Fear of violence and retribution produces floods of refugees who fall prey to starvation

and disease. Agricultural systems and infrastructures are destroyed, causing grave short-term hardships and vanquishing hopes for long-term economic development. At times, attempts to deliver

relief to victims of the conflict inadvertently provide aid to their persecutors. The end of violent

conflict brings its own challenges, as refugees seek

safe passage to their villages, and former combatants need help reintegrating into a society that may

be vastly different from the one they knew before

the conflict.

Although many NGOs have had to deal with

these circumstances in the course of their work

over the decades, their exposure to violent conflict

has increased dramatically in the last several years.

While there may be a divergence of opinion on the

fundamental causes of conflict in the post–Cold

War world (see Peaceworks No. 4, August 1995), it

is clear that the nature of conflict has changed,

shifting from confrontations between states to

struggles for power and dominance within states.

These internal struggles often pit ethnic group

against ethnic group, religion against religion, and

neighbor against neighbor, with intensified impact

on selected areas of the country or region. Moreover, refugee crises typically draw neighboring

countries into the conflict as well, and threaten to

turn a subnational conflict into a regional and international conflagration. 

Not only do NGOs respond to the humanitarian crises these internal conflicts produce, but as a

function of their long-term relief and development

work, they are often trapped in the midst of the violence. Increasingly, too, humanitarian crises occur in failed states or in states with only rudimentary governance. In these situations, the

humanitarian relief that NGOs provide usually

serves as a vital supplement to governmental functions, playing a crucial role in the re-establishment

of civil society. The changing nature of both conflict and humanitarian relief has sparked an examination within the NGO community as well as

among officials of the United Nations and its member governments of the roles that NGOs can serve

in preventing, managing, and resolving conflict. 

This topic was a major theme of a conference

sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace

on “Managing Chaos: Coping with International

Conflict into the Twenty-First Century.” This conference brought together representatives of the

United Nations and regional organizations, the

United States government, and NGOs engaged in

relief work and advocacy to discuss the changing

nature of conflict and humanitarian crises and the

capabilities of the international community to respond to these crises.

A key element of an effective response to these

changes, according to several conference participants, lies in the reframing of issues and in the way

members of the international community view

conflict and conflict resolution. Traditionally,

NGOs devoted to humanitarian relief operations

have not considered their activities as contributing

to the amelioration or aggravation of conflict. Yet it

has become apparent that their interventions do

indeed influence the course of a conflict, and that

in making the decision to aid a country in crisis,

NGOs are assuming roles that may go far beyond

their original mission. 

In a separate session on the new post–Cold War

diplomacy, Chester A. Crocker, distinguished

research professor of diplomacy at Georgetown

University’s School of Foreign Service and

3

1REFRAMING THE

ISSUES
chairman of the Institute’s board of directors, set

the stage for the examination of NGO roles by

emphasizing the need to both reconsider the

concept of intervention and widen its definition

beyond the sphere of military action. “The choices

are many: Intervention can be physical, spiritual,

bilateral, multilateral, direct action, skills transfer,

institution

building. We

should recognize

that those who are

managing chaos

have the potential

to manage a fullservice bank.” The

recognition that

NGOs are major

players in this

expanded menu of

intervention

strategies lies at the

heart of the discussion on their role as conflict

managers. 

During the conference, many participants noted

that in the crisis situations occurring almost daily

across the globe, there is a close relationship between NGOs, governments, and international organizations. Phyllis Oakley, assistant secretary of

state for population, refugees, and migration, asserted that in these crises the U.S. government and

NGOs depend on each other to fulfill their respective functions. Jan Eliasson, Swedish undersecretary of state for foreign affairs and former UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, also

pointed out that as the chief response to such

crises has expanded beyond the security functions

of peacekeeping—once the sole province of military forces—into the realm of peacebuilding, including reconciliation, development, and humanitarian action, NGOs are coming to play an

increasingly crucial role.

Peacebuilding activities entail an entirely new

set of complex relations among NGOs, international organizations, and national governments.

The examination of NGOs and peacebuilding, and

how these international actors coordinate their activities, were subjects of intense discussion and

analysis during the two-day conference.

Andrew Natsios, executive director of World 

Vision Relief and Development, a major humanitarian relief NGO, agreed that the world is going

through a turbulent period that has witnessed a

dramatic rise in the number of “complex emergencies”—the devastating combination of subnational

conflict, refugee crises, and breakdown of governmental systems whose intensity

and mass suffering have reached

alarming enough proportions to

attract international attention.

Yet he took issue with the notion

that such emergencies may be a

permanent feature of the new

post–Cold War international system. He noted that at the end of

both world wars, the ensuing

peace conferences and new international institutions created a

diplomatic setting for dealing

with issues arising from their aftermath. The post–Cold War period has not yet

seen the establishment of similar institutions to

structure the contemporary international environment. He predicted, however, that a decade of

global instability would be followed by a period of

equilibrium following the establishment of new international institutions to manage the types of

complex emergencies that have characterized the

immediate post–Cold War period.

This environment has been rendered more

complex and chaotic by a fundamental change in

the nature of conflict. Natsios noted that racial, religious, ethnic, and tribal rivalries have replaced

the Cold War’s ideological clashes as the principal

sources of current conflicts. These rivalries are often rooted in past atrocities and recur from generation to generation, each new conflict building on

the last. As such, the nature of post–Cold War conflict has not only resisted traditional diplomatic

methods for its resolution, but has raised many

challenging theological and psychological questions that are difficult for NGOs and other international institutions to address. Until these questions are resolved, Natsios observed, the cycle of

atrocities will continue.

4

T

he examination of NGOs and

peacebuilding, and how these

international actors coordinate

their activities, were subjects of

intense discussion and analysis

during the two–day conference.
5

I

n his analysis of current foreign policy attitudes, Les Aspin, former U.S. secretary of defense, cited two schools of thought on the issues of intervention for peacekeeping, the

prevention of ethnic cleansing, and the alleviation

of starvation (see Peaceworks No. 3, February

1995). The isolationist school is reluctant to support intervention except for national security purposes. The internationalist school, on the other

hand, supports intervention on the basis of morality and the defense of humanitarian values. Julia

Taft, president of InterAction, took up this theme,

asserting that NGOs embody the internationalist/moralist approach, with a strong commitment

to empowerment, peace, prosperity, and economic

and social justice.

United as they are by their commitment to these

values, NGOs otherwise represent a great diversity

of objectives, functions, and organizational structures. They also differ substantially in their attitudes toward governments and international organizations: Some NGOs are comfortable working

with official institutions to achieve their ends,

while others, dedicated to strengthening the grassroots level, find working with national and international bureaucracies inimical to their objectives.

Operational NGOs serve in the field, mobilizing

resources and technical expertise and working 

directly with the recipients of humanitarian aid

and economic development projects. Some operational NGOs focus on humanitarian relief, some

on economic development, while more and more

of them are beginning to focus on both of these

missions.

NGOs dedicated to humanitarian relief operations have attempted to maintain a policy of strict

neutrality in situations of conflict, defining their

role as providers of aid to those in need without regard to political, ethnic, or religious affiliation.

Even within this group, however, there are growing differences regarding the appropriateness of

this stance. Some members of the NGO community are now challenging the neutrality policy,

pointing to circumstances in Somalia and Rwanda,

in which relief organizations unintentionally aided

individuals and groups who were perpetuating the

conflict. 

NGOs engaged in human rights monitoring and

advocacy, on the other hand, achieve their objective of changing conditions in various countries

through disseminating information and bringing

issues to the attention of both the general public

and policymakers. Unlike operational NGOs, they

are far from neutral, and adopt principled and often adversarial positions with regard to both official institutions and the parties engaged in a conflict. 

NGOs that focus specifically on conflict resolution may work with individuals, community

groups, or official representatives. Like humanitarian relief NGOs, they avoid taking sides in a dispute in order to pursue their goals of promoting dialogue and establishing common ground between

antagonists.

Most of the major humanitarian relief and development NGOs, such as World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, OXFAM, CARE, and Save the Children Fund, were founded decades ago in response

to very specific circumstances. These organizations provided the model for the thousands of

NGOs that have been established since. The NGO

community has witnessed tremendous growth in

its resources over the years—CARE USA has an annual budget of $346 million, while World Vision

has a budget of over $140 million. The 160 NGOs

within InterAction have combined annual revenues of $2.3 billion, five-sixths of which comes

from private donations. The sheer growth in the

2THE CHANGING

NATURE OF NGOS
number of NGOs in recent years has also been

dramatic. Currently, there are approximately fifteen hundred NGOs registered as observers with

the United Nations—and this figure consists primarily of NGOs with international missions and

does not reflect the vast growth of indigenous

NGOs.

The rapid rise in the number of NGOs has resulted in many more institutions that are able to

mobilize resources for humanitarian crises in hitherto inaccessible and neglected parts of the world.

Yet it has also complicated relief efforts by creating

“an extraordinarily complex system which makes

medieval Europe look centralized and ordered by

comparison,” in the words of John Paul Lederach,

director of both the International Conciliation Service of the Mennonite Central Committee and the

Conflict Analysis and Transformation Program at

Eastern Mennonite University. It is a “very diffuse

system,” Lederach said, whose diversity makes it

difficult to develop a comprehensive strategy, especially during complex emergencies, when there is

little time for consensus-building.

The exigencies of complex emergencies have

brought NGOs to the realization that their relief

missions involve both peacemaking and peacebuilding activities. Accordingly, they are forced to

examine closely the issue of whether, under what

conditions, and how they will work with international organizations, governments, and military

units engaged in humanitarian relief efforts. This

realization, however, has not necessarily produced

a consensus within individual NGOs on these new

priorities. Lederach noted that it was easy for an

NGO to fund, for example, a well-digging project

in Kenya, since that particular budget line-item

falls easily within its developmental mission and

thus will find broad acceptance by the NGO’s executive staff. On the other hand, that same staff

could easily find itself divided over the issue of the

NGO’s field workers’ managing disputes that

might arise over access to the well water, since this

is not an activity that easily fits into current NGO

funding categories or program priorities. 

Yet such conflict resolution and conflict management skills are essential to maintaining peace

during complex emergencies, according to Lederach. The change will require a growing awareness

on the part of NGOs that a portion of the money

flowing into their budgets for relief activity alone

should now be redirected to the development of

programs that recognize the interdependent nature of conflict resolution, relief, and development.

“Like it or not, you may think you’re there to do development, but you’re actually doing conflict resolution,” Lederach said, addressing the conference’s

NGO representatives. “It would be wise to develop

the skills to do it more effectively.”

6
7

As a consequence of both their growing

numbers and resources and the variety of

functions they fulfill, NGOs are fast becoming a vital component in the international response mechanism to humanitarian crises, especially in situations of conflict. Operational NGOs

are going beyond their traditional relief objectives

of providing food, water, sanitation, and emergency health measures, to serving as a substitute

for local government, encouraging the growth of

civil society, and using mediation and negotiation

skills to bring antagonists together as part of a relief mission.

While NGOs cannot be expected to solve all the

problems associated with humanitarian crises, Andrew Natsios identified four fundamental roles

NGOs could perform during these types of crises:

; a preventive function through early warning;

; human rights monitoring;

; the relief and rehabilitation functions normally associated with NGOs; and

; conflict resolution activities, such as mediation and reconciliation.

These distinct functions require different sets of

disciplines and skills, some of which already exist

in the NGO community and some of which do not.

Natsios stressed the importance of keeping these

functions separate. “We shouldn’t mix the roles,”

he cautioned. “In a conflict setting, NGOs that are

doing relief and development work should not

also engage in human rights monitoring—that’s a

good way to get your people shot. They need to be

separate functions performed by separate organizations.” Similarly, organizations involved in advocacy should not attempt mediation and reconciliation, and those engaged in relief work should not

be involved in security operations. Making these

distinctions and assigning different functions is an

important component of ensuring effective action

in conflict situations.

Of the four roles that Natsios outlined, the early

warning and conflict resolution functions generated the most debate during the conference. The

intense discussions surrounding these two NGO

roles reflected not only their relative newness in

the repertoire of NGO capabilities, but also the fact

that both of these roles subsume many other increasingly important—and, some would argue,

controversial—tasks NGOs must consider in carrying out their primary missions during complex

emergencies.

Early warning. A recurrent theme during the conference was the role NGOs could play in early

warning and preventive action, alerting the international community to potential breakdowns in a

distressed country’s governance or in relations

among the country’s major domestic groups. Since

many NGOs have deep roots in local communities,

their relief and development workers in the field

have a unique vantage point to identify deteriorating conditions that might lead to conflict.

Jan Eliasson detailed a number of steps, including fact-finding missions, that NGOs and the international community could undertake in order to

provide early warning for looming conflicts. These

actions would precede more formal approaches,

such as peacekeeping operations and peacemaking. According to Eliasson, NGOs can play a key

role in information gathering, early warning, and

peacebuilding, and can help the international community to move from simply responding to crises

to preventing their occurrence. In Eliasson’s

metaphor, such activity among NGOs moves the international community from merely extinguishing

3NEW ROLES FOR

NGOS
fires, to finding the arsonist before the fire breaks

out, to identifying conditions that lead to arson. 

Vivian Lowery Derryck, president of the

African-American Institute, argued that NGOs

should use their early warning

capabilities to advocate governmental policies aimed at stemming the outbreak of further violence during complex

emergencies. In her view, the

executive leaderships of operational NGOs should serve as

advocates to the U.S. government, since their organizations

could combine on-the-ground

experience with access to policymakers. In carrying out their primary missions,

operational NGOs grapple with difficult issues

that give them a unique insight into the dimensions of complex emergencies. These insights can

offer crucial information to policymakers in governments and international organizations. 

In the case of Rwanda, such an advocacy role for

operational NGOs would have meant urging early

U.S. involvement and requesting that the military

stay long enough to complete the job. It also

would have meant sharing with the U.S. administration their views on issues such as disarmament

in the refugee camps and the forcible relocation of

Hutu soldiers. In dealing with questions of

whether to pull out of the refugee camps in the

face of de facto Hutu militia control, or remain and

attempt to aid the starving majority, NGOs gathered information that could have determined policy in a way that promoted conflict management

more decisively. 

Derryck stressed that the responsibility of operational NGOs to act as advocates in governmental

policymaking is crucial, and that failing to fulfill

such a responsibility could result in governments’

loss of political will, failure to intervene in a timely

fashion, and reluctance to provide the appropriate

resources to meet the needs of the crisis situation.

Many at the conference, however, asserted that

the lack of early warning was not the central problem in preventive action. The key—and often missing—element in prevention is developing the political will to act on early warning signals. Here, too,

NGOs play a central role as advocates for action.

Lionel Rosenblatt, president of Refugees International, pointed to recent events in Bosnia as a

tragic example of the international system’s failure

to deal with conflict. Agreeing that “early action

saves lives and it saves resources,” he stressed that

the inability to detect a conflict’s

early warning signals was not the

main impediment

to preventive action. In the cases

of Bosnia and

Rwanda, the challenge was to find

the political will

and leadership

necessary to translate early warning into effective

intervention. The failures inherent in those conflicts demonstrate the need to create a new international mechanism that promotes early action—a

system involving NGOs, governments, and the

United Nations.

To move toward that goal, Rosenblatt identified

six policy initiatives that could make a significant

difference in marshaling resources for early action

in humanitarian crises:

; The international community should focus

on the need for early response, including the

restructuring of intelligence agencies and

diplomatic reporting, to meet the contingencies arising in the post–Cold War world.

; Agencies operating closest to potential conflicts should hone their tools of prevention.

NGOs should work with the UN in building

direct, hands-on partnerships that capitalize

on opportunities for negotiation training,

reconciliation, and the implementation of

other conflict resolution techniques. 

; The United Nations should be given a mandate to form an international rapid deployment force under its control. Rosenblatt recalled the political problems—including

public protests over deaths and casualties in

the ranks of peacekeeping forces—that arise

in the current system of nations’ contributing troops to UN peacekeeping missions.

Providing the UN with the authority and

the forces necessary for quick deployment

in areas of crisis would eliminate political

8

I

n carrying out their primary

missions, operational NGOs

grapple with difficult issues that

give them a unique insight into the

dimensions of complex emergencies.
9

wrangling and costly indecision. All too often, waiting for donor nations to provide

troops in such situations is tantamount to

waiting for another round of genocide to

happen, said Rosenblatt.

; The international community must develop

counterterrorism capabilities that seek to

minimize the problems of mass violence and

assassination of political officials. Serious

thought should be devoted to ways in which

NGOs, states, and the UN could intervene in

situations where a distressed country’s government is incapable of coping with terrorism.

; The international community must develop

an organizational capacity to deal not just

with refugees but with internally displaced

people as well. In many complex emergencies, the internally displaced remain invisible amid waves of refugees and are typically

denied the resources necessary for their own

survival. Recognizing the needs of internally

displaced people would involve new roles

for the military, NGOs, and the UN.

; The international community needs to develop a capacity to reintegrate people displaced by crisis into their societies, Rosenblatt explained, adding that successful

reintegration means much more than simply

returning refugees to their villages. Are their

homes intact and unoccupied? Do their jobs

or farms remain for them to resume their

livelihood?

Conflict resolution, relief, and sustainable development. John Paul Lederach focused his remarks

on the challenges posed to NGOs by the new types

of conflict that have become commonplace in the

post–Cold War era. These challenges clarified the

need for a more comprehensive framework for

conflict resolution and conciliation activities on

the part of NGOs. Based on both his field experience in conflict situations and his work as a practitioner developing conflict resolution programs to

accompany the relief activities sponsored by the

Mennonite Central Committee, Lederach offered

some general observations about the changing nature of the international response to crisis.

In Lederach’s view, the NGO community and

the international community at large should concentrate on techniques that link crisis management

and humanitarian relief activities to the longerterm goals of conflict resolution and sustainable

development. “We need to develop our capacity to

think in decades instead of months to a year,” he

said, “and to develop ways in which our crisis management activities are imbedded within, and

linked to, a broader set of activities which lead to

sustainable development.” However, the context in

which these needs emerge almost always involves

settings of protracted, divisive, and deep-seated

generational conflict. To move beyond the management of an immediate crisis, according to Lederach, NGOs must change their planning time

frames to a long-term perspective. The initial emergency relief response should be linked to a set of

activities that leads to the transformation of those

conflicts in a way that promotes sustained and

comprehensive reconciliation among the warring

parties.

Developing an infrastructure that sustains

peacebuilding within a given conflict is of paramount importance, according to Lederach. In

looking at a situation of long-term conflict and war,

agencies from outside the country, including

NGOs, should recognize that there are many levels

of activity as well as many actors and functions

necessary for peacebuilding. Most peace operations tend to rely on a top-down approach to

peacebuilding, in which the country’s political

leaders and high-level officials from international

organizations make decisions that are supposed to

be implemented throughout the rest of the country. In many cases, however, relying solely on a topdown approach to peacebuilding results in failure

and frustration. 

Lederach recommended focusing instead on

the middle and grass-roots levels of societies in 

crisis, since NGOs are particularly effective working with both a country’s mid-level officials and

the recipients of aid at the community level. Because of their familiarity with the country and its

decision makers, NGO representatives have a keen

understanding of the realities on the ground that

allows them to reach across their counterparts

from other agencies into a web of indigenous officials and resources in order to build and maintain

a sustainable infrastructure that has a better

chance of ameliorating not just the manifestations

but also the causes of conflict.

Building such infrastructures will require the international community to develop another set of
lenses that allow it to recognize and identify local

resources and technologies to be used in the resolution of conflict. Lederach noted that in most crisis situations relief agencies rely on outside resources and view the people in the midst of such

conflict settings simply as recipients of the external donor’s goodwill. He suggested that indigenous people should be viewed as primary resources for conflict resolution and encouraged to

take up the task of building peace themselves in

their own locales. Within any given society, said

Lederach, many valuable resources are available

for use in the process of peacebuilding. Yet most of

these indigenous resources are either overlooked

or denied official sanction for use in the peacebuilding effort. “We have to look for the cultural resources that exist for building peace,” Lederach

concluded. “This assumes that we see culture as a

seedbed and as a resource. It assumes that we see

people as a resource and that we are willing to take

the time to develop respectful relationships.”

In this vein, Vivian Lowery Derryck observed

that an essential component of NGO operations

revolves around expanding their constituencies

and bringing new actors into their domain of activities. She used the example of women’s groups in

Africa, noting that in numerous recent conflicts,

women served neither as primary decision makers

nor as active combatants. Rather, they were interested in participating in the peace process. In one

noteworthy example, women in Uganda began

forming a peace network with women in Rwanda.

Lederach cited as another example the involvement of Somali women’s associations that were

able to play a vital role in establishing communication between the fighting factions, since women

are linked across clans by marriage and are able to

move from one sub-clan back to their clan of origin

without fear of retribution. As part of a concerted

campaign to develop indigenous resources for

peace, both Lederach and Derryck urged the NGO

community to start thinking about specific ways in

which women can become involved in the process

of conflict resolution and conflict management. 

Yet while the use of indigenous resources

should be encouraged, the use of outside resources, such as food shipments, in peacemaking

interventions is often unavoidable and, in many

situations, essential. In these cases, according to

Andrew Natsios, the international community

should realize that putting valuable resources into

a conflict setting can have unintended consequences. If, for instance, NGOs respond to humanitarian crises such as the relief effort for Rwandan

refugees in Goma, they need the support of the

military. Without adequate security, it is almost

guaranteed that the food will be used for purposes

it was not intended for—to buy weapons, to control

populations, or to buy support from various political factions in a conflict. Natsios further explained

that when resources like food are introduced into a

conflict, the political dynamic is altered, and the

presence of these resources could intensify the violence. Too often it is naively assumed that relief

will generate goodwill. The international community should be prepared to deal with the fact that

people fight over the control of valuable resources.

10
11

Another major topic of the conference was

the lack of coordination among the many

actors that typically intervene in humanitarian crises. While many believed that the United

Nations, international NGOs, regional organizations, and individual governments have integrated

and reinforcing roles to play, almost all the conference participants acknowledged that the effectiveness of these roles was diminished by the disjointed nature of the response. 

John Paul Lederach discussed some of the problems of collective responses to complex emergencies caused by the lack of coordination both

within the NGO community and across the various levels of intervention in the international system. He remarked that in a crisis situation, so

many different things occur simultaneously that

one actor often does not know what the others are

doing. People operating at the grass-roots level are

often considered unimportant or peripheral by

those operating at higher levels. A successful intervention, nonetheless, calls for the ability to understand and connect the different levels of activity. 

Addressing issues of cooperation in one specific

realm, Vivian Lowery Derryck emphasized that

undertaking technical assistance projects in conflict situations requires a new working relationship between NGOs and the military. Traditionally, NGOs and the military have perceived their

roles to be distinctly different and separate. NGOs

have felt uneasy working with military forces, either from their own countries or from the country

receiving assistance, particularly when the latter

are employed in the service of dictators with unsavory human rights records. Military leaders, on the

other hand, tend to regard NGOs as undisciplined

and their operations as uncoordinated and disjointed. The experiences in Somalia and Rwanda

showed that closer working relationships between

NGOs and the military could successfully meet

the goal of delivering humanitarian assistance in

situations of conflict.

These new kinds of interventions make it clear

that NGOs must find the means for establishing

improved working relationships with the military,

including better and more rapid communications

and a clear comprehension of the mission’s overall

objectives. This last point is crucial. While they enjoyed a high level of cooperation in the Rwanda

and Somalia operations, the military and NGOs

were motivated by different goals. The military’s

concern with “mission creep” resulted in a desire

to go in, provide emergency technical assistance,

and get out quickly. Conversely, the NGO perspective during these crises was long term, aimed at nation-building and developing education skills.

While it is unlikely that these divergent goals will

change, an appreciation of the other’s perspective

and an agreement on immediate objectives is essential for cooperative action.

Lionel Rosenblatt argued that humanitarian operations should form a key part of training for the

armed forces. Contrary to the belief that humanitarian work erodes military readiness, he suggested, “the deployment of troops for peacekeeping and humanitarian work is good for our

military. This is far better training in preparedness

for post–Cold War realities than training at Fort

Bragg.”

Once a humanitarian crisis is apparent, food,

water, and other life-saving resources need to be

introduced efficiently, cheaply, and quickly. In

Rosenblatt’s opinion, this requires getting away

from the administrative routines of governments

and militaries and fostering a greater degree of cooperation among the relevant actors. In addition,

he recommended the international community establish a chain of command through which all relevant actors—peacekeepers and humanitarian-aid

providers—report their efforts. Given the current

4THE CHALLENGE OF

COORDINATION
practice of disparate groups involved in crisis management reporting to different leaderships, these

complex emergencies desperately demand a single

emergency coordinator.

The case of Somalia demonstrated that achieving such coordination would be a difficult task indeed. Andrew Natsios suggested that one of the

problems in Somalia was a kind of role reversal

among external actors, with NGOs running security operations, which they were not trained to do,

and the military delivering relief and

aiding in development. Lacking a

proper understanding of these unfamiliar roles, both actors were bound to

make inappropriate decisions. Natsios

gave as an example the U.S. military’s

decision to send in its own engineers

and support troops to rebuild roads

and infrastructure at a time when Somali males desperately needed jobs.

The military was not interested in hiring the Somalis, Natsios explained, because they wanted to get the roads

built quickly. The military officers in charge believed that if they let untrained “locals” or NGOs

do the job, it would take longer than a few months.

Thus the potential for encouraging indigenous development was lost, keeping thousands of Somali

males idle and frustrated.

One reason for the lack of coordination lies in

the fact that the actors in humanitarian crises are

very different organizations. International organizations and governments deal with crises at the national level; NGOs operate mainly at the local level.

Military forces assigned to support humanitarian

missions receive their instructions from their governments; NGOs are answerable to their boards

and to the thousands of donors who support their

efforts. In Julia Taft’s words, this difference in organizational character traditionally relegated NGOs

to the status of eccentric relatives whose invitation

to the policymaking party never arrived. This situation has changed, she said: NGOs are now included at the policymaking table and are recognized as key actors in the design and delivery of

humanitarian relief. 

The growing awareness that both public and

private organizations are essential to the success of

any humanitarian venture, however, has not yet resulted in improved coordination, a fact noted in

the many calls for more cooperative action. One

such appeal came from Mohamed Sahnoun, former special representative of the UN secretary-general in Somalia, and former deputy secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity in charge

of political affairs and crisis situations. Sahnoun

proposed the creation of a new international institution for conflict management that would coordinate humanitarian action and foster ties between

organizations and agencies from the international

down to the local level. Such an institution would

be an essential contributor to Sahnoun’s vision of

establishing a global framework for conflict management and peacebuilding by coordinating efforts while simultaneously decentralizing them—

creating, in essence, a synergy between the

regional and international levels. This proposed institution would mobilize all approaches to conflict

resolution and increase communications and networks among different communities in local conflict areas through the integrated efforts of NGOs

and the UN.

Accountability and leadership issues. Amid the

calls for establishing new means to coordinate international responses to these situations, however,

a few voices raised concern over issues of accountability and leadership. John Paul Lederach noted

that in situations of crisis, NGOs assumed responsibilities far exceeding their intended missions.

Two clear examples are Rwanda and Somalia,

where the collapse of central authority resulted in

a political vacuum that was immediately filled by

chaos and internecine warfare. NGOs moved into

these “stateless” situations and took on many of

the services typically provided by the failed governments. “In many ways,” he said, “the NGO ac12

The growing awareness that both public

and private organizations are essential

to the success of any humanitarian

venture, however, has not yet resulted in

improved coordination.
tivity can be seen as replacing the state. This raises

a crucial question for us all: To whom are the

NGOs accountable?”

The issue of accountability extends to governments that take on a large share of the responsibilities in responding to complex emergencies. In

Rosenblatt’s view, the United States government

should reform both the way it deals with the UN

and the way it responds to humanitarian crises in

general, including the integration of humanitarian

assistance functions presently scattered throughout its various agencies—the Agency for International Development, the State Department, and the

Department of Defense among them. He urged the

U.S. government to encompass all these various divisions of responsibility within a single entity with

one senior official in charge. Such a reorganization

would improve not only the U.S. response to complex emergencies but the UN’s role in them as

well. After all, as Rosenblatt observed, the U.S. 

cannot demand a higher level of accountability at

the UN than it is willing to ensure in its own government.

The issue of which institutions should provide

the necessary leadership for a coordinated effort

led Andrew Natsios to remark that NGOs could

not fulfill the functions of world powers in these

situations. “There is no substitute for the influence

and resources of the great powers in these conflicts. The NGO community cannot act like the

United States government. It doesn’t mean the

United States has to intervene all the time, but

there are instances when a power with military

forces and large budgets can intervene diplomatically to make people talk who might not want to

talk,” Natsios observed. “Unless the great powers

have the moral and diplomatic impulse to intervene, we are going to be unsuccessful in dealing

with these conflicts.”

13
Should NGOs be involved in conflict prevention and resolution? If so, how extensive should their involvement be? Effective

responses to post–Cold War humanitarian crises

often means that many NGOs must go beyond

their traditional mission of providing food, water,

and medical assistance, into the realm of ensuring

political stability and fulfilling governmental functions in failed states. Are such expanded roles appropriate for NGOs?

Vivian Lowery Derryck answered this question

with a qualified yes, proposing certain conditions

that must be present before NGOs engage in conflict management activities:

; the NGO knows the country and the regional institutions involved in the conflict

resolution effort;

; the NGO has indigenous partners;

; the NGO staff has a good knowledge of conflict mediation skills; and

; the NGO’s field staff members fully understand the personal risks they are assuming.

John Paul Lederach agreed that NGOs could be

very effective in managing conflict, noting that

they bring several special qualities to peacebuilding, especially through their particular insights

into different cultures, their relationships with local partners, and their understanding of the links

between crisis management and long-term sustainable development. He recalled how NGO representatives often talk about their operations as comprising a continuum of relief efforts, rehabilitation,

reconstruction, and sustainable development. All

of these components are essential to the development of both new and more effective paradigms

for peacebuilding and appropriate strategies to

deal with specific conflicts.

Many of the conference participants acknowledged that NGOs of all varieties are seriously grappling with issues raised by working in situations of

conflict. They also confirmed the need for more coordination among the different types of operational NGOs, and between the NGO community

and other actors involved in complex-emergency

interventions, in order to forge an effective role for

NGOs as conflict managers. There was widespread

recognition that NGOs might unwittingly become

a party to conflict in the course of their humanitarian relief work; that their actions could be part of a

concerted, coordinated effort involving governments, international and regional organizations,

and private groups to avert or resolve conflict; that

they had the ability to both provide early warning

and shore up the political will of governments to

act; and that they could give guidance to policymakers in their own countries and encourage community-building and the development of civil societies in countries decimated by war. In short, the

work of NGOs forms an important part of the entire repertoire of intervention strategies for dealing

with conflict in the post–Cold War era.

5NGOS AS CONFLICT

MANAGERS

14
Chester A. Crocker is chairman of the board of

directors of the United States Institute of Peace and

distinguished research professor of diplomacy at

Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service

in Washington, D.C. During his 1989–90 distinguished fellowship in the Institute’s Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace, Crocker

worked on his book High Noon in Southern

Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood

(Norton, 1992), which focuses on the U.S. conflict

resolution efforts in the region during the 1980s.

From 1981 to 1989, Crocker was assistant secretary of state for African affairs, serving as the principal diplomatic architect and mediator in the prolonged negotiations among Angola, Cuba, and

South Africa that led to the deployment of UN

peacekeeping forces and election observers during

Namibia’s transition to democratic governance

and independence and to the withdrawal of Cuban

forces from Angola. He received the Presidential

Citizen’s Medal in 1989. Before joining the Georgetown University faculty in 1972, Crocker was a

member of the National Security Council staff. He

has written numerous articles for foreign policy

journals and is the coeditor (with David Smock) of

the recently released African Conflict Resolution:

The U.S. Role in Peacemaking (published by the

United States Institute of Peace Press) and South

Africa in the 1980s. Crocker holds a Ph.D. in international politics and African studies from Johns

Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

Vivian Lowery Derryck has been president of

the African-American Institute (AAI) since June

1989. Derryck first went to Africa in 1965 with Operation Crossroads Africa, and has been working

on African affairs since that time, having served in

more than twenty-five countries in Africa, Asia, and

Latin America. Before going to AAI, she was vice

president of the National Democratic Institute for

International Affairs, executive director of the

Washington International Center, and vice president

of Meridian House International. Derryck served

as a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Carter

and Reagan administrations. Prior to this, she

served as executive vice president of the National

Council of Negro Women, where she was also director of its international division, supervising projects in Swaziland, Togo, Senegal, and Mauritania.

Before leaving for Liberia in 1973, where she spent

four years teaching at the University of Liberia and

working with the country’s Ministry of Education,

Derryck taught at New York City Community College.

Jan Eliasson is Sweden’s undersecretary of state

for foreign affairs. Before assuming this position in

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was a visiting

professor at Uppsala University and ambassador

to the Minsk Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh,

which he also served as chairman. From 1992 to

1994, Eliasson served as undersecretary-general

for humanitarian affairs at the United Nations,

where he was Sweden’s permanent representative

from 1988 to 1992. During a diplomatic career

that began in 1965, Eliasson served in Paris, Bonn,

Washington, and Zimbabwe. He also served as director of the Press and Information Division of the

Foreign Ministry; deputy undersecretary for Asian

and African affairs; undersecretary for political affairs; and diplomatic adviser in the prime minister’s office. At the UN, Eliasson served in the mission to the Iran-Iraq conflict during 1980–86;

personal representative of the secretary-general on

Iran-Iraq matters during 1988–92; vice president

of the Economic and Social Council (1988–92);

and chairman of the General Assembly’s working

group on emergency relief in 1991. He has also

served as director of the board of both the Institute

for East-West Security Studies in New York

(1988–93) and the International Peace Academy

from 1988. The author of numerous books, lectures, and articles on foreign policy, diplomacy,

and humanitarian action, Eliasson has been decorated by the governments of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Brazil, Portugal, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Estonia.

Harriet Hentges is executive vice president of

the United States Institute of Peace, where she

oversees the Institute’s interprogram initiative on

nongovernmental organizations. She has over 

15

CONTRIBUTORS
fifteen years of senior management experience in

key positions in business, government, and nonprofit organizations. Prior to coming to the Institute, Hentges was chief operating officer and managing partner at the Clifton Investment Group.

From 1986 to 1988, she was chief operating officer

at the Baskin Financial Corporation. She also

served as the executive director of the League of

Women Voters of the United States for five years,

and as an international economist on the policy

planning staff at the U.S. Department of State.

Hentges received a Ph.D. in international economics from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

John Paul Lederach is director of the Conflict

Analysis and Transformation Program and the Institute for Conflict Studies and Peacebuilding at

Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg,

Virginia. He is also director of the International

Conciliation Service of the Mennonite Central

Committee. He has extensive experience in intercommunal and organizational conflict and has

provided consultation and direct mediation in a

variety of conflicts, including the Miskito-Sandinista negotiations and peacebuilding efforts in Somalia and the Basque region of Spain. Lederach is

the author of nine books in addition to numerous

academic articles on peace education, conflict

transformation, and mediation training. He has

also developed training materials and manuals in

Spanish that are used throughout Latin America

on peace education and conflict resolution and

mediation. Lederach holds a B.A. in history and

peace studies from Bethel College and a Ph.D. in

sociology from the University of Colorado.

Andrew Natsios is vice president of the Washington, D.C.–based relief organization World 

Vision U.S., and executive director of World Vision

Relief and Development, the technical arm of

World Vision U.S. During 1991–93, he was assistant administrator in the Bureau of Food and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he managed U.S.

foreign disaster assistance. Natsios was a lecturer

at Boston College from 1987 to 1989. Prior to that,

he was a representative in the Massachusetts

House of Representatives from 1975. He has published numerous articles on humanitarian 

intervention and disaster relief. Natsios holds a

B.A. from Georgetown University and an M.P.A.

from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of

Government. 

Phyllis Oakley is assistant secretary of the U.S.

Department of State’s Bureau of Population,

Refugees, and Migration. A career foreign service

officer, she became senior deputy assistant secretary in the bureau in September 1993. She was

deputy assistant secretary for regional analysis in

the Bureau of Intelligence and Research from 1991

to 1993, and served as the State Department’s

deputy spokesman from November 1986 to January 1989. From 1989 to mid-1991, she was on loan

to the U.S. Agency for International Development,

working with the Afghanistan Cross-Border Humanitarian Assistance Program in Islamabad, Pakistan. She was the State Department’s Afghanistan

desk officer from 1982 to 1985. Oakley is a Phi

Beta Kappa graduate of Northwestern University

and holds a master’s degree from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of International Law and

Diplomacy. She has taught American history at

Centenary College in Shreveport, Louisiana, and

served as a consultant in international affairs to the

national board of the YWCA in New York City.

Lionel Rosenblatt has been president of

Refugees International, an advocacy organization

for refugees worldwide, since 1990. Rosenblatt has

also served in the U.S. Foreign Service in various

posts, including Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Thailand.

While at the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, he was

chief of the Refugee Section (1975–76) and later

served as refugee coordinator and director of the

Khmer Emergency Group during the region’s

1978–81 refugee crisis. He also served as director

of the Office of Special Concerns, Interagency Task

Force for Indochinese Refugees at the U.S. Department of State.

Mohamed Sahnoun is a Pearson fellow at the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, Canada. He was a visiting fellow at the

United States Institute of Peace in 1993, where he

examined the case of Somalia to determine how

the United Nations can best fulfill its expanded

role in promoting stability and providing humanitarian relief. His project culminated in the 

16
publication of the book Somalia: The Missed Opportunities (United States Institute of Peace Press,

1994). Sahnoun served as special representative of

the UN secretary-general in Somalia during

March–October 1992. Sahnoun has also served in

a variety of posts in the Algerian foreign service, including presidential counselor on foreign affairs;

ambassador to the United States, Morocco, Germany, and France; and permanent representative

of Algeria to the UN. He also served as deputy secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity

in charge of political affairs and crisis situations

(1964–73) and as deputy secretary-general of the

League of Arab States.

Julia Taft is president of InterAction, the American Council for Voluntary International Action.

Taft has served as director of U.S. foreign disaster

assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development; director of refugee programs and acting refugee coordinator at the U.S. Department of

State; and deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition, she has been a consultant on refugee and migration affairs and humanitarian aid to the Ford

Foundation, the World Bank, and various U.S.

agencies and organizations in both the public and

private sectors. Taft has received the World

Hunger Award, the U.S. Agency for International

Development’s Distinguished Service Award, the

USSR Supreme Soviet Award for Personal Courage

in Armenia, and a White House fellowship. She is

currently a member of the board of both the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S.

Agency for International Development’s Advisory

Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.

17
Coping with International

Conflict into the 21st Century

November 30 – December 1, 1994

The Changing Character 

of International Conflict

NOVEMBER 30, MORNING

Welcoming Address Chester A. Crocker, Chairman, Board of 

Directors, United States Institute of Peace

Session 1

The Character of A conceptual assessment of the changing 

Twenty-First Century Conflict character of international conflict designed 

to advance today’s awareness of change and 

the breakdown of institutions created in the 

Cold War era.

Moderator Paul D. Wolfowitz, SAIS, The Johns 

Hopkins University

Speakers Samuel P. Huntington, Center for 

International Affairs, Harvard University

Robert D. Kaplan, author of “The Coming 

Anarchy” and Balkan Ghosts

Session 2

A New Look at Key A focus on known and anticipated sources 

Sources of Conflict of conflict in the coming decades, including 

the resurgence of ethno-religious nationalism; 

environmental and related threats; and the 

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 

and the persistent threat posed by certain 

closed societies.

▼▼▼▼

▼▼ ▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▼▼▼

▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼ ▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

▼▼ ▼▼

18

MANAGING CHAOS

CONFERENCE AGENDA
Moderator Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, American 

Enterprise Institute

Speakers G. M. Tamás, Institute of Philosophy, Hungarian 

Academy of Sciences

Jessica Mathews, Council on Foreign Relations

Lee Hongkoo, Deputy Prime Minister and 

Minister for Unification, Republic of Korea

NOVEMBER 30, LUNCHEON

Challenges to the U.S. Military 

in Post–Cold War Peacekeeping 

and Humanitarian Interventions

Speaker Les Aspin, Former Secretary of Defense 

and Congressman

NOVEMBER 30, AFTERNOON

New Institutions of 

Conflict Resolution

Session 3

NGOs: The New Conflict Managers? An examination of the changing roles of 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) across 

the broad spectrum of conflict-related activity. 

The evolving relationships among NGOs, governments, and international organizations in 

managing international conflict will also be 

addressed.

Moderator Allen Weinstein, Board of Directors, 

United States Institute of Peace, and 

Center for Democracy

Speakers Phyllis E. Oakley, Assistant Secretary of 

State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, 

and Migration

Jan Eliasson, Permanent Undersecretary 

of State for Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of 

Sweden

Julia Taft, InterAction

Vesna Pesic, Visiting Fellow, United States 

Institute of Peace, and Center for Anti-War 

Action, Belgrade 

Session 4

NGO Burdens and Needs This session will ask leaders from various 

as Conflict Managers parts of the NGO community to assess the 

increasing burdens upon—and opportunities 

for—NGOs in managing international conflict 

directly. The speakers will discuss the extent to 

which—and how and why—NGOs with other 

19
mandates and expectations have been called 

upon to be direct conflict managers. Finally, 

speakers will survey their evolving needs as 

international actors, both under their traditional 

mandates and new ones.

Moderator W. Scott Thompson, Board of Directors, 

United States Institute of Peace, and Fletcher 

School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

Speakers John Paul Lederach, Eastern Mennonite 

College

Lionel Rosenblatt, Refugees International

Andrew Natsios, World Vision

Vivian Lowery Derryck, African-American 

Institute

DECEMBER 1, MORNING

Session 5

Key Challenges in International Part 1: Case Study Sessions

Conflict Management (three simultaneous panels)

Panel A

Averting Chaos: Preventive Drawing from preventive diplomacy efforts in East 

Diplomacy in Eurasia and Africa Europe, Asia, and Africa, this panel will explore the 

roles that the UN, the U.S. government, regional 

organizations such as the OSCE and OAU, and 

nongovernmental organizations are playing and 

can play in early warning and preventive action in 

potential crisis spots.

Moderator Michael Lund, Senior Scholar, United States 

Institute of Peace

Speakers John Marks, Search for Common Ground

John J. Maresca, former U.S. Ambassador 

to OSCE

Linda Perkin, Deputy Director for East Asia 

and Pacific Affairs, United Nations

Harold Fleming, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

State for International Organization Affairs

Panel B

NGO Conflict Resolution, Relief, This breakout will examine NGO conflict 

and Rebuilding Activity in resolution, relief, and rebuilding activity in former 

Former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia, with a focus on Bosnia, Croatia, and 

Serbia. Special attention will be given to the 

question of NGO, government, and international 

organization support for the Muslim-Croat agreement in Bosnia. Indigenous NGO activity will be 

discussed along with the activities of those from 

abroad.

20
Moderator Patricia Carley, Program Officer, United 

States Institute of Peace

Speakers Hugh Hamilton, Deputy Coordinator, East 

European Assistance, U.S. Department of State

Max Primorac, Croatian Democracy Project

Nadia Diuk, National Endowment for Democracy

Robert DeVecchi, International Rescue 

Committee

Vesna Pesic, Visiting Fellow, United States 

Institute of Peace, and Center for Anti-War Action, 

Belgrade

Panel C

Bringing Peace to Sudan: The Roles This panel will examine the full range of activity—

of NGOs, Governments, and Regional including the roles of NGOs, governments, and 

Organizations regional organizations—that has been involved in 

efforts to bring peace to Sudan. The panel will also 

assess the prospects for coordinated activity in the 

future, including the relationships between 

internal actors and international actors. Among 

activities to be surveyed will be advocacy, 

mediation, Track II diplomacy, relief work, conflict 

resolution training, and support for mediation. 

Moderator David Smock, Director of the Grant Program, 

United States Institute of Peace

Speakers Francis Deng, Brookings Institution

John Prendergast, Center of Concern

Session 5

The Future of Intervention Part 2: Plenary Session

in Violent Internal Conflicts This session focuses on the recent experience of 

NGOs, governments, and international 

organizations in intervening in violent internal 

conflicts. Focusing on what has actually been 

done in humanitarian, political, and military 

efforts, the speakers will address the future 

prospects of such interventions.

Moderator Denis McLean, Distinguished Fellow, United 

States Institute of Peace

Speakers James Schear, Carnegie Endowment for 

International Peace

J. Brian Atwood, Administrator, U.S. Agency for 

International Development (remarks presented by 

Nan Borton, Director, Office of Foreign Disaster 

Assistance, USAID)

Joseph Kennedy, Africare

John J. Maresca, former U.S. Ambassador 

to OSCE

21
DECEMBER 1, LUNCHEON

An Interactive Forum on the

Global Information Revolution

Speaker Ted Koppel, Anchor and Managing Editor, 

ABC News

DECEMBER 1, AFTERNOON

The New Diplomacy and New

Tools for Conflict Management

Session 6

“The New Diplomacy” Presupposing the need for innovation and 

creativity in diplomacy, this session will examine 

the potential efficacy of new techniques and means 

while evaluating the continuing applicability of 

more traditional tools. The speakers will assess 

whether an international consensus is building, or 

can be built, regarding the future of national and 

multinational intervention in regional conflicts. 

They will also examine the possible utilization of 

the experience and techniques of the NGO and 

business communities by governments and 

international organizations.

Moderator Chester Crocker, Chairman, Board of Directors, 

United States Institute of Peace, and School of 

Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Speakers Chester Crocker

Robert Zoellick, Executive Vice President, 

Fannie Mae

Mohamed Sahnoun, International 

Development Research Centre, Ottawa

Thomas R. Getman, World Vision

Session 7

Conflict Management Tools (three simultaneous panels)

Panel A

International Conflict Resolution This panel will focus on the contribution 

Skills Training (ICREST) negotiation training and conflict resolution skills 

training can make to better prepare international 

affairs professionals (from the diplomatic, military, 

or NGO sectors) to undertake complicated new 

assignments.

Moderator Lawrence P. Taylor, Director, National Foreign 

Training Center, U.S. Department of State

Speakers Hrach Gregorian, Director of Education 

and Training, United States Institute of Peace

Steve Pieczenik, Consultant, United States 

Institute of Peace

22
John Paul Lederach, Eastern Mennonite College

Lewis Rasmussen, Program Officer, United 

States Institute of Peace

Panel B

Cross-Cultural Negotiation This panel explores the impact that culture has 

upon international negotiation and how awareness 

and skills training in national negotiating styles can 

make negotiators more effective.

Moderator Richard H. Solomon, President, United States 

Institute of Peace

Speakers John Graham, University of California, Irvine

Jean Freymond, Centre for Applied Studies in 

International Negotiations, Geneva

Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., Distinguished Fellow, 

United States Institute of Peace

Jerrold Schecter, Peace Fellow, United States 

Institute of Peace

Panel C

Information and Data Management This panel will explore the current and potential 

use of various software programs, informationand data-management systems, and the information highway during negotiations as aids to 

general policy analysis and as tools for early 

warning and preventive action.

Moderator William Wood, Geographer, U.S. Department 

of State

Speakers Lance Antrim, International Negotiating Systems

Chad McDaniel, Center for International 

Development and Conflict Management, 

University of Maryland

John Davies, Center for International 

Development and Conflict Management, 

University of Maryland

DECEMBER 1, DINNER

Perspectives on Diplomacy

in the Twenty–First Century

Speaker Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State

23
Pamela R. Aall is a program officer in the Education and Training Program of the United States Institute of Peace with primary responsibility for college- and university-level activities. She also chairs

the Institute’s interprogram initiative on nongovernmental organizations. Before joining the Institute, she was a consultant to the President’s

Committee on the Arts and the Humanities and to

the Institute of International Education. She held a

number of positions in the international relations division of the Rockefeller

Foundation and managed its International Relations Fellowship Program. In

addition, she has worked for the European Cultural Foundation in Amsterdam

and Brussels, the International Council for Educational Development, and the

New York Botanical Garden. A graduate of Harvard University and Columbia

University, she has also attended the London School of Economics, where her

work focused on Scandinavia and European institutions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

24
25

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by

Congress to promote research, education, and training on the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.

Established in 1984, the Institute meets its congressional mandate through an array of programs, including

research grants, fellowships, professional training programs, conferences and workshops, library services,

publications, and other educational activities. The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

Chairman of the Board: Chester A. Crocker

Vice Chairman: Max M. Kampelman

President: Richard H. Solomon

Executive Vice President: Harriet Hentges

Board of Directors

Chester A. Crocker (Chairman), Distinguished Research Professor of Diplomacy, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University

Max M. Kampelman, Esq. (Vice Chairman), Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson, Washington, D.C.

Dennis L. Bark, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University 

Theodore M. Hesburgh, President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

Seymour Martin Lipset, Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University

Christopher H. Phillips, former U.S. ambassador to Brunei

Mary Louise Smith, civic activist; former chairman, Republican National Committee

W. Scott Thompson, Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts 

University

Allen Weinstein, President, Center for Democracy, Washington, D.C.

Harriet Zimmerman, Vice President, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

Members ex officio

Ralph Earle II, Deputy Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Toby Trister Gati, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

Ervin J. Rokke, Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force; President, National Defense University

Walter B. Slocombe, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)
Peaceworks No. 5. First published February 1996.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors or conference participants alone. 

They do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Institute of Peace.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

1550 M Street NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005-1708

Phone: 202-457-1700

E-mail: usip_requests@usip.org

Internet: gopher.usip.org

Also available from the Managing Chaos conference:

Keynote Addresses by Les Aspin and Ted Koppel (Peaceworks No. 3)

Sources of Conflict: G. M. Tamás and Samuel Huntington on “Identity and Conflict,” and

Robert Kaplan and Jessica Tuchman Mathews on “ ‘The Coming Anarchy’ and the NationState under Siege” (Peaceworks No. 4)
UNITED STATES

INSTITUTE OF PEACE

1550 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20005 Peaceworks No. 5