Increasing UK Security

Through

Non-military Prevention and Resolution of Conflict

Peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities have the potential to enable the defence budget to provide more security at less cost. Although these activities are included within the December 2003 Defence White Paper, they may be squeezed to the margins by decisions currently being made in the Ministry of Defence: decisions which could dictate the main thrust of British foreign policy for decades, by effectively locking the UK into following US military operations and the rapid use of force at long range. There is an urgent need to reassess the place of peacekeeping and peacebuilding in the UK's defence portfolio. This article contributes to this re-assessment by:

1. Reporting on UK government initiatives to date, and the way in which it is committed to monitoring these;

2. Providing clear examples of 12 effective strategies for peacekeeping and peacebuilding, with proven success;

3. Examining the funds the UK has devoted to such initiatives, together with some international comparators;

4. Making six practical recommendations to the UK government for moving forward.

First, what does war prevention actually mean? While the term is in common currency in Europe, it is still unfamiliar in the UK and more so in the US. It means the systematic use of proven non-aggressive methods to prevent or stop killing, and may include:

• peace-keeping
• the introduction of trained inspectors to detect and report killing, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape and other forms of violence
• civilian protection
• control of arms entering the region
• incentive schemes to collect weapons
• law enforcement
• bringing warlords and militias under control
• Track II or 'back channels' diplomacy
• muscular support for locally-based opposition to dictators
• providing independent information daily
• training of mediators and bridge-builders
• active reconciliation measures

UK government initiatives

More will be said later about these methods and how they work. We turn now to the UK – to a unique initiative undertaken by the Blair government in 2001 to foster the prevention and resolution of conflict using non-military means, under which an annual budget was allocated to three ministries - the MoD, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID) -on the understanding that they cooperate. This initiative goes under the rather strange name of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) and almost no-one, even among the broadsheet-reading public, seems to know about it.

The GCPP is chaired by the FCO and its budget for 2003-2004 is £74 million, although the total amount allocated is higher as it also incorporates funds carried over from previous years. Progress to date has focused on geographical, thematic, and international strategies. Then there is the Africa Pool, chaired by DFID, which has been allocated £50 million for programmes in sub-Saharan Africa in 2003-2004. The two are known as the Joint Pools.

Equally unknown is the fact that there is a Public Service Agreement target on conflict prevention¹:

"Improved effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management, as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of people whose lives are affected by violent conflict and a reduction in potential sources of future conflict, where the UK can make a significant contribution." (Joint target with MoD, DFID and FCO.) ²

The PSA goes on to say that, where the UK can make a significant contribution, DFID, FCO and MoD will work in partnership with others to:

• Strengthen international and regional systems and capacity for conflict prevention, early warning, crisis management, conflict resolution/peace making, peacekeeping and peace building.
• Contribute to global and regional conflict prevention initiatives, such as curbing the proliferation of small arms and the diversion of resources to finance conflict.
• Promote initiatives in selected countries, including indigenous capacity building, to help avert conflict, reduce violence and build sustainable security and peace.

Progress will be measured as follows:

1. (At high level) against relevant statistics on the incidence of new conflicts, conflict-related displacement and the number of war-related casualties in countries and regions in which activities are funded by resources from the Joint Pools. Changes in the level of the risk of future conflict will also be assessed in countries funded by the Joint Pools.

2. (At intermediate level) against the achievement of objectives for programmes funded from the Joint Pools.³ Appendix I to this report carries details of how progress against the PSA targets will be measured.

Progress to date

Within the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, it is mainly MoD measures that have been funded so far, as indicated in The Global Conflict Prevention Pool: A Joint UK Government Approach to Reducing Conflict.⁴ Examples include strengthening and training defence forces in conflict areas such as Afghanistan, the Balkans and Nepal, and on some occasions sending military equipment to developing countries.

MoD is quite right to emphasise the importance of conflict prevention activity, as it now frequently does, most recently in the Defence White Paper (December 2003). Confidence and security building measures do indeed help create transparency and trust. There is however now a fundamental inconsistency in British defence policy. It is not coherent to vaunt effort "focused on countering the threat from the proliferation of conventional arms"⁵ when at the same time spending some £426 million to subsidise British arms sales⁶. The UK regularly achieves second or third place in sales of arms to developing countries. MoD does not appear to recognize the inconsistency; indeed, in a diagram to illustrate Defence Relations Objectives in the above White Paper, the "wider British interests" of "Support to UK's Defence Exports" falls right alongside "Conflict Prevention and Conflict Resolution"⁷. This inconsistency must be addressed before the integrity of MoD's Strategy for Defence Relations can be established.

Less attention and funding have been devoted to the development of non-military conflict prevention and resolution measures, and it is this fast-growing expertise which is gaining attention among intergovernmental bodies.

The increasing importance of developing civilian capacities is apparent in the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and European Union over the last decade. The Brahimi report⁸ pointed out the personnel shortfalls within the UN in this area, now being remedied. The OSCE developed guidelines and standards for the recruitment and training of civilians for OSCE missions and encouraged member states to develop their national rosters, training courses and personnel capacities. The EU followed suit in 2002 with the commitment to develop a "Civilian Crisis Management Capacity" (CCM) alongside the Rapid Response Force. The UK played a leading role in the pilot phase of developing CCM by hosting two pilot pre-deployment training courses for future EU mission staff (developed and delivered by Peaceworkers UK) demonstrating their commitment to strengthening capacities in this area.

Other governments have responded effectively to the increasing need for additional qualified personnel. Norway has developed NORDEM, a roster of trained and available personnel for election, democratisation and humanitarian assistance. Canada has a similar system (CANADEM). The Germans have set up ZIF, their centre for international peace operations, fully funded by the German foreign office. It has three departments - training, recruitment and research - organising training courses for OSCE, UN, EU mission staff and election observers, managing a sophisticated personnel database through which they recruit for missions and training courses, and carrying out research into best practice and needs assessment.⁹

The UK is falling behind key international comparator nations in these respects, and could usefully publish an analysis of the UK's civilian personnel capacities for responding effectively to emerging crises and conflicts, including training and recruitment. HMG could build on the innovations described above by establishing a UK Civilian Peace Service to harmonise the training, recruitment and deployment of civilian peace professionals for international conflict work, to work with research centres to develop best practice and to liaise with NGOs/civil society organisations.

How conflict prevention works

The main response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, especially from the United States, has been military, with persistent action in Afghanistan, the extension of military bases into Central Asia, support for counter-insurgency activities in numerous countries, and the war with Iraq. Yet at the same time others have taken quite different approaches to problems of political violence and conflict, approaches that seek to prevent conflict while understanding some of its root causes. In particular, there is a growing understanding of the classic cycle of violence. This cycle has been evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in central Africa and repeatedly in different regions of former Yugoslavia; if unbroken, this cycle ensures that conflict follows conflict.

To break the cycle, effective intervention must address the physical, the political and the psychological security of people trapped in violence; all are equally important, and one without the other is insufficiently strong to break the cycle. In every case, the people involved in situations of violence must be supported in the development of their own resources for transformation.

We now enlarge on some of the examples given above.

Peacekeeping

Where people have murdered, brutalised or tortured each other, the first necessity is to keep them physically separated, to enable a cease-fire to take hold and levels of terror to lessen. Peacekeeping forces are necessary, and it requires special training to transform a soldier into an effective peacekeeper. The British Army has developed highly regarded manuals for the training of peacekeepers, through sometimes bitter experience in many conflicts, most notably Cyprus and the Balkans.

The introduction of trained inspectors to detect and report killing, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape and other forms of violence

When civilians are threatened, driven from their homes, or under attack from militias, they can effectively be protected in a number of ways. One is by the introduction of trained civilian violence monitors, as in the case of Kosovo by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a regional intergovernmental organisation with fifty-five member nations. For the six months prior to the NATO decision to bomb Serbia, the OSCE had deployed 1,300 monitors throughout Kosovo. The monitors were from all over Europe, their job to check and report on instances of intimidation or ethnic violence. There is good evidence to show that everywhere the orange vehicles of the OSCE went, violence stopped. It was precisely when these monitors were withdrawn and the bombing began that the wave of killing and eviction began in earnest.

Civilian protection

Another form of protection is provided by non-governmental organisation initiatives like the Peace Brigades International (PBI) which mobilise and provide trained units of volunteers, in areas of high tension, to help discourage violent outbreaks. This kind of intervention only works when the aggressor knows that enough of the international community supports the protectors. For example, in Columbia in 1995, where there had been 38,000 political assassinations over a four-year period, PBI sent teams to provide round-the-clock unarmed protection for prominent human rights activists whose colleagues had been killed, abducted or tortured¹⁰. At least 19 human rights organisations in Colombia have benefited from PBI accompaniment, and the number of assassinations has dropped dramatically. Indeed PBI's presence in Colombia represents the largest unofficial international observer force in the world.

Control of arms entering the region

Embargoes or sanctions against the supply of arms to areas of conflict rarely work, for a number of reasons. These could effectively be addressed if:

1. Supplier countries agree and police a binding code not to supply to areas where conflict is imminent, an impose penalties for supposed end users who re-sell arms;

2. Substantial funds are provided, possibly through a tax on corporate suppliers, to introduce effective boundary controls on gun-running, and severe and enforceable penalties; and

3. The five permanent members of the Security Council cut their arms exports.

The UK cannot continue to compete to be one of the world's top arms sellers, by subsidizing arms exports, without expecting these arms eventually to be used by people of whom we do not approve. Exactly as in the ending of the slave trade, someone has to stop first, before this vast global double standard can be broken.

Incentive schemes to collect weapons

When a country is awash with weapons after a civil war, effective schemes are needed to collect and destroy them. This has been undertaken in recent years by the United Nations in Albania, by NATO in Macedonia, and by individual initiatives in other countries. For example, in El Salvador in 1995 a group of businessmen whose trucks were being hijacked by heavily armed gangs (as a result of twelve years of civil war) copied a successful initiative from the Dominican Republic. For every gun surrendered they offered food vouchers worth $100. By the end of the second weekend vouchers worth $103,000 had been issued, despite the organisation having only $19,500 in available funds. In view of the success of the programme the President of El Salvador intervened to help, and in three years around 10,000 weapons were handed in.

Law enforcement

This is a prerequisite of stabilisation, whether before, during or after major conflict. It is now widely recognised that strategies for security sector reform must take an integrated approach. The UK government's approach to the security problems in Sierra Leone show that an integrated strategy can be very effective. In this case, four government departments were involved:

• The Department for International Development funded activities in support of civilian control of the security sector;
• The Ministry of Defence helped to develop a national security policy, including the reorganisation of Sierra Leone’s defence ministry, and training the army;
• The Home Office provided personnel skilled in managing reform of police services; and
• The Foreign and Commonwealth Office helped to fund military education and training.

Bringing warlords and militias under control

Armed militias or paramilitaries have to be brought to the negotiating table. This is not necessarily best done by armed forces: in many instances NGOs or respected civilians have succeeded. For example, in Mozambique the Community of Saint'Egidio, supported by the Vatican, became involved in a series of meetings with leaders of FRELIMO and RENAMO culminating in October 1992 in the signing of a comprehensive peace accord. This provided for the demobilisation and reintegration of combatants, the creation of a new Mozambican Defence Force, the creation of political parties, and freedom of the press. The United Nations was given the responsibility of overseeing the transition from war to peace which led to the first free elections in October 1994.

Track II or "back channels" diplomacy

This refers the to the work of individuals or NGOs working in private with government representatives in the fields of consultation, dialogue and training to facilitate creative solutions to major international and internal crises. Track II is a mechanism for advancing diplomatic efforts when official third party mediation is untenable; it has applicability in both intra and interstate crises. A good recent example is the sustained relationship built up by a British intelligence officer with Libyan officials, leading to an official statement renouncing WMD. Track II can be subdivided into three areas: Consultation is the most common form whereby people are brought together in their private capacities for facilitated discussion in order to generate creative problem solving initiatives; Dialogue means facilitated communication between parties to explore deeper understandings of adversaries needs and concerns; Training whereby the skills of "citizen diplomacy" are taught by mediators to generate grassroots support for conflict resolution.

Muscular support for locally-based opposition to dictators

The removal of a dictator and installation of democratic process is a monumental task. This was certainly so in the case of Slobodan Milosovic. In July 1999 the US-based East - West Institute and the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs brought together the representatives of pro-democracy forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including trade unions, NGOs and independent media. A task force was set up to assist all those working for change, who had been active, even against terrible odds during the war. They built a coalition eventually known as the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, which was able to build a common strategy united behind one candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. With extensive election monitoring and a wave of nonviolent protest when Milosovic attempted to annul election results, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia won the Serbian elections¹¹. Bombing failed to remove this dictator, while support for local democratic opposition succeeded, at a cost of approximately $240,000.

Providing independent information daily

An independent media is essential to the prevention of war. Conversely, hate radio can inflame conflict to white heat, as happened in the Rwandan genocide. In nearby Burundi in 1994 violence began to spiral; the main radio station was controlled by the state, whose army had been complicit in the violence. With the aid of the US-based NGO Search for Common Ground,¹² the independent Studio Ijambo was launched early in 1995. In spite of one of the team members being killed by the army, they continued their balanced news coverage, proposing solutions to the crisis facing the country. In two years they produced 2,500 features on peaceful co-existence, and a soap opera to which after four years 85% of the entire population was listening. Studio Ijambo has received many international awards for its role in calming explosive tensions, defusing rumours, and promoting reconciliation.

Training of mediators and bridge-builders

In every conflict, there are those who are willing to risk their lives to build a nonviolent solution. Such people are often community or church leaders, and frequently women. There are a multitude of examples, including the initiative of Liberian women to bring about disarmament before elections from 1993 to 1997¹³; the Women's Organisation of Somalia, who emerged in the midst of war to prepare the groundwork for peace¹⁴; the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (mothers of the 'disappeared') in Argentina, who helped transform a fractured and violent society¹⁵; and the Women of Wajir in north-eastern Kenya¹⁶, whose motto was:

You must commit yourself to continuing the peace work no matter what happens: if my clan were to kill your relatives, would you still work with me for peace? If you can't say yes, don't join our group.

Their intervention was key to ending an inter-clan war by setting up public meetings and rapid-response teams. It was so successful and cost-effective that it has now been copied in other parts of the country, co-ordinated by a special representative in the office of the Kenyan President.

The above initiatives may seem small, but when they receive support they can become replicable models that can transform a potential conflict from the ground up.

The efficacy of bridge-building between communities fractured by decades of violence has been most evident recently in N. Ireland, where it has been recognised as an essential element of efforts to overcome deeply ingrained community hatred and suspicion, with particular attention being paid to schoolchildren. During the late 1980s and early 1990s Education for Mutual Understanding was established to enable children to learn to respect and value themselves and others, appreciate the interdependence of people within society, know about and understand what is shared as well as what is different about their cultural traditions, and appreciate the benefits of resolving conflict by nonviolent means. There are literally hundreds of such examples, now bearing fruit in the changed political climate.

Active reconciliation measures

The lies, suspicion and betrayals which characterise war can fester for decades and erupt in further atrocity if not addressed. This needs to be done in public and in a safe and controlled environment. One of the most effective methods is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. To date there have been twenty of these, each building on the lessons of the last, the best known being held in South Africa from 1995 to 1998. The process, when properly conducted, goes far deeper than any superficial bargaining for amnesty.

Attention to psychological processes in peacebuilding, or "human security" is frequently neglected, perhaps because it is considered 'soft'. Yet the power of change in the human heart is formidable. It is what can transform violent activists into statesmen. The development undergone by Nelson Mandela during his years on Robben Island, after he was convicted of terrorism, made it possible for him to emerge from jail unshakeably committed to negotiation and reconciliation. There were sufficient numbers of people on both sides ready to fight that, had it not been for the depth of his and his colleagues conviction, South Africa could have been plunged into a civil war taking millions of lives.

In a much less famous example, the same is true of Alistair Little who joined a Protestant paramilitary organisation in N. Ireland at the age of seventeen, shot a man point-blank and spent the next twelve years in the Maze prison; it was there that he witnessed the fatal hunger strike of Bobby Sands. It moved him to the core that a Catholic could care as passionately about his cause as he did, and kill himself in the process. The depth of this experience was such that since his release thirteen years ago Alistair has worked full time and often unpaid for reconciliation and bridge-building between Catholic and Protestant communities in N. Ireland.

Evaluation and cost effectiveness: Peace for the pound vs. "bang for the buck".

From the available figures it is likely that non-military interventions, while slower, not only tend to cause less destruction than bombing or armed intervention, but they actually work better in saving lives. They are also far cheaper. In 1999 the Oxford Research Group examined 240 cases of non-violent interventions in conflict in different parts of the world and published the fifty most effective of these in "Conflict Prevention Works: 50 stories of people resolving conflicts" in 2001. These case studies show that small groups of highly motivated people, determined not to use weapons, can achieve extraordinary results in preventing or stopping killing. These interventions cost little. Of the examples mentioned above, successful third party mediation between Renamo and Frelimo in Mozambique in1989-92 cost approximately $350,000; the gun return scheme organized by businessmen in El Salvador (1995-1999) cost $1.3million; and the task force set up in former Yugoslavia in 1999 to forge effective, united democratic opposition to Milosevic cost $240,000.

This is not to say that military intervention is never useful or necessary, but it is to say that to date the value of non-military measures has been insufficiently recognised and that very substantial savings can be made by investing in them.

Having examined briefly some of the effective non-military measures which can be taken or encouraged by governments, we now return to the essential underlying question posed by this final section of the report. That is, given the growing evidence of the cost-effectiveness of non-military intervention to prevent or resolve conflicts, are governments up-to-date in allocating sufficient funding to this, relative to traditional budgetary allocations to ministries of defence and military alliances?

At present the European Union appears to be leading the way. A conflict prevention dimension is to be included in the EU's common training programme within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), so that this !may form an integral part of the common European security culture". Specific conflict prevention assessment missions were carried out in 2002 in order to examine how to bring community instruments to bear on the root causes of conflict in the South Pacific, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Further such missions are planned. The EU's current document¹⁷ on the Prevention of Violent Conflicts details at least seven instruments for long and short-term conflict prevention. To date it has not proved possible to discover the extent of budgetary allocation made to these initiatives.

On the question of evaluation, the difficulties of assessing how many lives have been saved by a particular intervention are self-evident - it is difficult to measure something that did not happen. Nevertheless, it is possible to compare similar situations where different approaches have been taken and assess results; if the GCPP were to undertake this, it would provide the Treasury with an invaluable source of comparative cost-effectiveness. There are now over 50 institutes in the UK alone studying and developing techniques of conflict prevention and resolution (see Appendix II); consequently, large amounts of data are becoming available on the costs of various types of intervention. Putting resources behind those found to be most effective could result in large savings for governments.

Relative UK budget allocations

From the above it is clear that in the UK, progressive policy is in place but in practice the MoD dominates programme design and budget allocation. This result is the continuation of an overwhelmingly military rather than a non-military approach to conflict prevention and resolution, despite the demonstrable cost-effectiveness of the latter.

The amount the UK government currently devotes to conflict resolution is minute compared to amounts allocated for military intervention. The Ministry of Defence budget for 2003 is £32.2 billion¹⁸; the overwhelming majority of this is spent on equipment, troops and infrastructure; only a few million pounds are devoted to the activities described above. The conflict resolution Joint Pools budget, plus the overall peacekeeping and enforcement budget, comes to less than £600 million per annum, in other words, less than 2% of what we spend on military measures.

Fig 1: Comparison of budgets for conflict prevention and resolution (over three ministries) and the total budget of the MoD

Recent experience both in Afghanistan and Iraq has conclusively demonstrated the need for greater emphasis, in Britain's defence and foreign policy forward planning, on non-military measures. These are relatively cheap as well as self-evidently cost-effective ways of preventing war, reducing the destructive effects of conflict, or enabling those caught in a cycle of violence to break out of it.

Example:

The UK currently has 232 Eurofighters on order. One Eurofighter will cost £80 million. For that amount we could:

• Put another 1000 peacekeepers into Afghanistan, organise negotiations with warlords to bring militias and opium production under control, and support local initiatives to restore law and order outside Kabul;
• Set up liaison centers all over Iraq to enable people to get help with the daily trauma which engender hatred for the occupying forces - civilians murdered, destroyed homes, arrested relatives, lack of food and employment.

Example:

The British government currently provides subsidies to arms exporters of £426 million per annum. For that amount we could

• support the setting up of gun collection schemes in every single country where there is local killing, including Sudan, DRC, Colombia, Indonesia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, and Nigeria;
• introduce effective boundary controls on gun-running, with severe and enforceable penalties;
• fully support the EU commitment to develop a "Civilian Crisis Management Capacity" by providing training for civilians ready to join.

Recommendations

1. Research be undertaken by the Conflict Prevention Joint Pools to establish the following:

• A detailed analysis of those conflicts, such as N. Ireland, which have been addressed both through military and non-military means, with cost comparisons of the two approaches.
• An analysis of those conflicts where non-military means did/did not prove effective.
• An analysis of those conflicts where military means did/did not prove effective.

2. Publish an analysis of the UK's civilian personnel capacities for responding effectively to emerging crises and conflicts, including training and recruitment, similar to those set up in Canada, Norway and Germany.

3. Establish a "UK Civilian Peace Service" to harmonise the training, recruitment and deployment of civilian peace professionals for international conflict work, to work with research centres to develop best practice and to liaise with NGOs/civil society organisations.

4. Fully spend the annual budget allocations for conflict prevention and resolution, on non-military methods.

5. Take the necessary measures now to comply with the conflict prevention Public Service Agreement targets by 2006, including "the promotion and funding of indigenous capacity-building to help avert conflict, reduce violence and build sustainable security and peace".

6. Resolve the inconsistency in MoD policy between on the one hand subsidizing British arms exports, and on the other trying to counter the threat from the proliferation of conventional arms.

Scilla Elworthy (Dr)

Oxford Research Group, December 24^th 2003

Tel. 01865 242819

APPENDIX I

Public Service Agreements

Public Service Agreements (PSAs) are at the centre of the Blair government's public service reforms. Introduced in 1998, they are essentially agreements that departments enter into with the Treasury in return for additional resources. These agreements contain targets that are described as SMART - specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed. The implementation details of these objectives now appear in Service Delivery Agreements published in the autumn. Ministers and departments sign up to deliver an agreed set of outcomes or outputs in return for a three-year funding deal. If departments fail to adhere to these agreements, then funds are supposed to be withheld - though this does not seem to happen in practice.

The PSAs are meant to be transparent commitments that the Government can be held accountable for. Progress in delivering these targets is monitored closely and reported in annual departmental reports. Each department also publishes Technical Notes, which specify precisely what will be measured under each target. PSAs are a commitment to the public on what they can expect for their money and each agreement sets out explicitly which minister is accountable for delivery of targets.

Global Conflict Prevention Pool

Public Service Agreement

The conflict prevention PSA joint target with the MoD, FCO, and DFID is:

"Improved effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management, as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of people whose lives are affected by violent conflict and a reduction in potential sources of future conflict, where the UK can make a significant contribution."

The PSA contains two distinct elements requiring measurement: the number of people whose lives are affected by conflict and a reduction in the potential sources of future conflict. Fatalities, Refugees, and IDPs will measure the first element and the new Conflict Level Assessment Tool on variations in the level of conflict will measure the second element.

Service Delivery Agreement

By 2006 the MOD, FCO and DFID will work to:

a) Resolve existing violent conflicts and prevent new conflicts in priority countries and regions e.g. Afghanistan, Balkans, Former Soviet Union, Middle and Near East, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Great Lakes, Sudan, Angola and Nigeria

b) Address the national and regional causes of conflict by:

Strengthening local conflict management e.g. through improved governance and security sector reform in priority countries and regions

Improving local peace support capacity in co-operation with internal partners

e.g. the development of a G8-Africa Peace Support Operations plan by 2003.

c) Improve the international community's response to conflict by:

Strengthening UN Conflict Management capacity e.g. improving peacekeeping deployments

Mobilising and supporting coherent bilateral and international action at UN, G8, EU, Commonwealth and other forums including NEPAD

Implementing agreements to reduce the proliferation of small arms and light weapons e.g. international and national action plans

Tackling the economic and financial causes of conflict e.g. by mobilising national and international agreement to increase oil revenue transparency and corporate social responsibility.

Technical Notes

Progress against the PSA target in 2000-6 will be measured using:

(a) Global Pool sub-targets on Afghanistan, Nepal, Macedonia, Georgia, Israel/Occupied Territories, Sri Lanka, contributing 25% to the overall PSA target

(i) a 10% reduction in fatalities from a SIPRI baseline of 3,825 in 2000 to 3,442 by 2006

(ii) a 10% reduction in fatalities from an IISS baseline of 19,200 in 2000 to 17,280 by 2006

(iii) a 10% reduction in refugees from a UNHCR baseline of 3,722,192 in 2000 to 3,349,973 by 2006

(iv) a 10% reduction in internally displaced persons from a USCR baseline of 924,000 in 2000 to 831,600 by 2006

(b) Africa Pool sub-targets on Sierra Leone, DRC, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, contributing 25% to the overall PSA target

(i) a 20% reduction in fatalities from a SIPRI baseline of 6,500 in 2000 to 5,200 by 2006

(ii) a 20% reduction in fatalities from an IISS baseline of 31,500 in 2000 to 25,200 by 2006

(iii) a 20% reduction in refugees from a UNHCR baseline of 2,229,018 in 2000 to 1,783,214 by 2006

(iv) a 20% reduction in internally displaced people from a USCR baseline of 9,720,000 in 2000 to 7,776,000 by 2006

(c) Conflict Level Assessment Tool sub-targets contribute 50% to the overall PSA target (25% for each Pool) - a new product measuring variations in potential sources of future conflict is being created. Targets and baselines will be set by April 2003.

APPENDIX II

UK institutes developing techniques of conflict prevention and resolution

A directory of organisations and groups working in peace, conflict resolution and transformation from the UK. At the end are links to web pages providing further links to organisations and resources.

Organisations and contacts in the UK:

African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)

ACCORD is an international civil-society organisation working throughout Africa to bring appropriate African solutions to the challenges posed by conflict on the continent. Recognised by the United Nations as a model for Africa, ACCORD's reputation continues to grow, and the knowledge and experience of the organisation is often called on from as far afield as East Timor, Cyprus and Sao Paolo.

 ACCORD Head Office
Private Bag X018,
Umhlanga Rocks,   
4320,
South Africa 

Tel: +27 (31) 502 3908
Fax: +27 (31) 502 4160
Email: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

 ACCORD Cape Town Office
PO Box 388,
Kasselsvlei,
7533,
South Africa  

Tel: +27 (21) 975 0460/1/2
Fax: +27 (21) 975 0466
Email: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Website: www.accord.org.za

Amnesty International (AI)

A worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.
AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

 Amnesty International,
99-119 Rosebery Avenue,
London EC1R 4RE
Tel: +44 20 7814 6200 
Fax: +44 20 7833 1510 
Website: www.amnesty.org

The British Council

www.Britcoun.org.uk

The British Council's core objectives are to bring people and ideas together, and to work to contribute to peace education, training, exchanges and curriculum development in mediation and conflict resolution. To promote a responsible and critical media and through a cross-sectoral approach using creative arts as a vehicle for confidence building and communication between communities experiencing violent conflict.

The British Council have offices all over the world.

For general enquiries:
Tel: +44 (0)161 957 7755
Fax: +44 (0)161 957 7762
Minicom: +44 (0)161 957 7183
Email: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

For educational enquiries:
Tel: +44 (0)131 524 5770
Email: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Belfast
The British Council
Norwich Union House
7 Fountain Street
Belfast BT1 5EG
Tel: +44 (0) 28 9023 3440
Fax: +44 (0) 28 9024 0341

Cardiff
28 Park Place
Cardiff CF1 3QE

Tel: +44 (0) 29 20 397 346
Fax: +44 (0) 29 20 237 494

Edinburgh
The British Council
The Tun, 4 Jackson's Entry
Holyrood Road
Edinburgh EH8 8JP

Tel: +44 (0) 131 524 5700
Fax: +44 (0) 131 524 5701

London
The British Council
10 Spring Gardens
London SW1A 2BN

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7930 8466
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7389 6347

Manchester

Bridgewater House
58 Whitworth Street
Manchester M1 6BB

Tel: +44 (0) 161 957 7000
Fax: +44 (0) 161 957 7111
Minicom: +44 (0) 161 957 7188

Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT)

CAAT is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within arms-producing countries. It supports the promotion of peace, justice and democratic values, and the use of the United Nations and civil society to resolve international disputes by peaceful means. CAAT also encourages policies to reorientate the UK economy away from military industry towards civil production.

 Campaign Against the Arms Trade,
11 Goodwin St,
London N4 3HQ 
Tel: +44-(0)20 7281 0297
Fax: +44-(0)20 7281 4369 
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.caat.org.uk        

Causeway

Causeway is an independent, non-party political, non-sectarian project devoted to conflict resolution through an exploration of the causes and effects of offence arising from the British/Irish conflict. It is inspired by and seeks to formalise the ongoing efforts of a number of former combatants and victims who, in discrete instances, have sought to reach out to the other and are aware of the transformative, healing effects of contact and co-operation.

 Causeway
c/o Intercomm,
290 Antrim Road,
Belfast BT15 5AA
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

Centre for Conflict Resolution

The Centre is located within Bradford University's Peace Studies Department: From the beginning, emphasis has been placed on combining the ideas and experiences of both academics and practitioners and on the transference of research findings into practical applications.

 Centre for Conflict Resolution,
Department of Peace Studies,
University of Bradford
West Yorkshire BD7 1DP
Tel: +44 (0) 1274 235 235
Fax: +44 (0) 1274 235 240
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
          
Website: www.brad.ac.uk/acad/peace

Centre for the Study of Forgiveness and Reconciliation

The Centre focuses on the study of non-violent means of peace-building and, in particular, the significance of processes of reconciliation and forgiveness in conflict transformation. On-going research projects at the Centre include comparative studies of how successor regimes deal with a legacy of violence and gross human rights abuse. Other research has concentrated on South and East Asian approaches to conflict transformation, peace-building in Kosovo, and prospects for peaceful co-existence in the Middle East.

 Centre for the Study of Forgiveness and Reconciliation,
Coventry University,
Priory Street,
Coventry CV1 5FB 
Tel: +44 (0) 24 7688 7448 
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
           
Website: www.coventry.ac.uk

Conciliation Resources

CR's organisational objective is to provide practical and sustained assistance to people and groups in areas of armed conflict or potential violence who work at community or national level in order to prevent violence or transform conflict into opportunities for social, economic and political development based on more just relationships.

 Conciliation Resources
173 Upper Street,
London N1 1RG
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7359 7728
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7359 4081
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.c-r.org

Conflict Trauma Resource Centre (CTRC)

CRTC's mission is to contribute to alleviating the pain, suffering and trauma experienced as a result of the violent conflict in and about N. Ireland by way of cooperation and partnership across and between many boundaries to improve the quality of peoples lives.

 Conflict Trauma Resource Centre,
Unit 9, Clanmill Arts and Small Business Centre,
Morthern Whig House,
3-10 Bridge Street,
Belfast BT1 1LU
Tel: +28 90 926060
Fax: +28 90 296050
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

Dolphinton Dialogue Centre

A very exciting project is unfolding in Scotland close to Edinburgh airport. On a 30-acre site, a centre of excellence will emerge that will offer a creative space for groups to engage in facilitated dialogue, develop best practice and learn the skills of dialogue for extending it to others. Currently funding is being sought for developing the buildings on the site but skilled facilitators of dialogue are available now to work with groups or organisations.

Tricia Boyle
Tel: +44 (0) 131 319 2224 or +44 (0) 131 319 2203 
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

Edinburgh Peace & Justice Resource Centre

Resource centre for individuals and organisations interested in peace, justice and the environment.

 Edinburgh Peace and Justice Resource Centre
St John's Church, 
Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 4BJ 
Tel: +44 (0) 131 229 0993
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

INCORE

INCORE was founded in 1993 in a joint initiative between the University of Ulster and the United Nations University. INCORE aims to address the management and resolution of conflict via a combination of research, training, and other activities which inform and influence national and international organisations working in the field of conflict.

 Aberfoyle House,
Northland Road,
Londonderry, BT48 7JA, N. Ireland
Tel: +44 (0) 28 7137 5500
Fax: +44 (0) 28 7137 5510
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
           
Website: www.incore.ulst.ac.uk

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

The IISS is the primary source of accurate, objective information on international strategic issues for politicians and diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business, economists, the military, defence commentators, journalists, academics and the informed public. The IISS's work is grounded in an appreciation of the various political, economic and social problems that cause instability, as well as the factors that can lead to international cooperation. It is an independent institute and it alone decides what activities to conduct. It owes no allegiance to any government, or to any political or other organisation.

 International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House
13-15 Arundel Street
Temple Place
London WC2R 3DX

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7379 7676
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7836 3108
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.iiss.org

International Alert (IA)

An independent, international, non-governmental organisation that works at local, national, regional and global levels to generate conditions and processes conducive to the cessation of war and the generation of sustainable peace. We currently work with partner organisations and individuals in West Africa, the Great Lakes region of Africa, the Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Philippines. We also conduct advocacy and policy analysis in the fields of Business, Development, Gender, Security and Religion in relation to peacebuilding.

 International Alert,
346 Clapham Road,
London SW9 9AP
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7627 6800
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7627 6900
E-mail: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website:www.international-alert.org

The International Crisis Group

ICG is a private, multinational organisation, with over 80 staff members on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and contain conflict.

The International Crisis Group

London Office,

ICG,
Queen's Wharf, 
Queen Caroline Street, 
London W6 9RJ 
Tel: +44 20 8600 2538 
Fax: +44 20 8600 2539 
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

Justice & Peace, Scotland

 Justice and Peace (Scotland),
65 Bath Street,
Glasgow 
G2 2BX
Tel: +44 (0) 141-333 0238 
Fax: +44 (0) 141-333 0238
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.justiceandpeace.org.uk

Mediation Northern Ireland

Originally founded as the "Northern Ireland Conflict Mediation Association", the "Mediation Network" evolved in the 1990s as an agency to promote the practice of mediation and train mediators in Northern Ireland. In recognition of advances in the Peace Process and the growing diversity of mediation practice, the Mediation Network re-organised itself as "Mediation Northern Ireland" in the Autumn of 2002. We aim to be an independent centre of excellence in mediation and other methods of conflict intervention.

 Mediation Northern Ireland,
10 Upper Crescent,
Belfast BT7 1NT

 Tel: +44 (0) 28 90 438614
Fax: +44 (0) 28 90 314430
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.mediationnorthernireland.org

Mediation UK

Mediation UK is working to promote constructive ways of resolving conflict within communities. Theyseek to ensure that everyone has access to high quality mediation and that the principles and practice of mediation are supported by decision makers and the public, making mediation the first choice of method for resolving conflicts.

 Mediation UK
Alexander House
Telephone Avenue
Bristol BS1 4BS
Tel: +44 (0) 117 904 6661
Fax: +44 (0) 117 904 3331
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.mediationuk.org.uk

Minority Rights Group International

This is a non-governmental organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. Their activities are focussed on international advocacy, training, publishing and outreach.

 Minority Rights Group International,
379 Brixton Road,
London, SW9 7DE
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7978 9498
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7738 6265
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.minorityrights.org

Newham Conflict and Change Project

Runs excellent workshops for schools throughout the country on conflict resolution.

 Newham Conflict and Change Project,
Christopher House,
2A Streatfield Avenue,
East Ham, London E6 2LA
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8552 2050
Fax:+44 (0) 20 8470 5505
Email:
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website:www.conflictandchange.co.uk

Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

It is a process of communication developed by international peacebuilder Marshall Rosenberg to enable people to communicate with respect, compassion and honesty. It leads to being heard and understood, communicating clearly without blame or judgement, and choosing actions that are in harmony with each others needs and values. NVC offer a range of courses nationwide. For more information, contact:

 Bridget Belgrave
Tel: +44 (0) 845 456 1050
Email: 
 This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.LifeResources.org.uk

Nonviolent Direct Action in Britain

This site has been developed to provide cross-movement and online information about nonviolent direct actions taking place in Britain. It aims to offer regular events listings for antimilitarist, environmental and other activists working on a range of different issues. Nonviolent Direct Action also re-publish Britain's only cross-movement, monthly, nonviolent print-magazine, Nonviolent Action. They also offer useful texts and practical resources for nonviolent direct activists.

Website: www.nvda-uk.net

OneWorld

An online civil society network, supporting people's media to help build a more just global society. Offers comprehensive and professional production services to NGOs and charities to build a better world. Training and voluntary work possible all over the world.

OneWorld,

2nd Floor,
River House,
143-145 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3AB
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7833 8347
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7833 3347

Email: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it or This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Website: www.oneworld.net

Oxford Research Group (ORG)

ORG combines rigorous research into nuclear weapons, arms control and conflict resolution with an understanding of the people who make those decisions. The areas of research also include the reduction and control of the arms trade, the 'war on terrorism' and the