It facilitates a locally staffed action research component to provide relevant data, analysis and substantive expertise to the collective decision-making effort. WSP is consistent with the paradigm in its adoption of a neutral position, providing for international support, but keeping the problem-solving impetus on the indigenous community. Once the process has taken root in both rehabilitation and reconciliation, WSP representatives withdraw but remain on-call to deal with potential future problems. In the past, implementation of conflict prevention programs has been problematic. While the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict recently generated considerable discussion on this issue, very little progress has been made to institutionalize a conflict prevention process with the U.S. government.
Few departments have a plan for preventive diplomacy or preventive action.
The European Union and the United Nations Secretary General have also been unable to institutionalize conflict prevention plans. A major obstacle is the difficulty of defining and focusing on what conflict prevention means specifically in application. Under GHAI there was too much focus on money, at the expense of the prism of prevention. The main lesson of future international intervention is the importance of catching problems before they explode . One possible reason for the lack of implementation of effective conflict prevention plans is governmental skepticism about the feasibility of conflict prevention.