Today is also the first day of the last week we will spend in Bologna, therefore marking the beginning of the end for the 2010 IPSI Symposium. As I sit on top of the roof of the hotel and look over the city, I have started reflecting about the past three weeks and come to the realization that I have learned an immense amount about conflicts, peace processes, and negotiation. I also think about how valuable my newfound knowledge will be in the future and how applicable it will be, no matter what field I may enter. Finally, I think about how even though I will be happy to be back home with my family, I will miss Bologna. Two weekends ago I went to Florence and this past weekend I visited Venice, yet each time I come back to Bologna to start the week, I feel as though I am back home. I will be sad to leave it behind, but at the same time, I think about all the friends I have made here and the possibilities that lie ahead for all of us.

Lee Todd, Canada

For instance, when Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) demanded an amnesty as a precondition for entering into peace negotiations, even the communities most affected by the LRA’s atrocities in Northern Uganda supported granting his demand, because they saw it as a necessary concession in the interests of peace.  The problem was that during the peace process the International Criminal Court  (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Kony on account of the war crimes and crimes against humanity he has orchestrated during the conflict, and consequently he has essentially refused to participate in peace negotiations.

This is a seriously contentious issue in the field of conflict resolution, especially given that the international community has put so much effort into developing norms around international law, human rights, the protection of civilians, and justice.  Can we, or should we, sometimes put these norms aside in the interests of securing the end to a conflict?

It’s also been the source of many discussions, both inside the classroom and out, especially since Thursday’s presentation by Dr. Rod Rastan, a legal advisor to the Prosecutor of the ICC. His seminar challenged a lot of our underlying assumptions about the role of the ICC in the international peace and security arena – especially those that saw the ICC as just one cog in the broader peace and security machine; a cog that should work collaboratively with all others.

Dr. Rastan argued that the ICC operates in a different, albeit linked, sphere to peace-makers and peace-builders.  His presentation was particularly interesting in that he shifted key questions away from the pragmatism of just ending violence to focus on the broader issues of developing and maintaining international legal norms of justice, human rights and protection of civilians.  Basically, his position was that even if this makes peace more difficult to achieve in the short term, it will result in a stronger and fairer peace in the longer term.

Friday’s session on reconciliation with Valerie Rosoux changed the dynamics of this debate about peace and justice again, focusing on the issue of reconciliation, and the needs of the victims of violent conflict.  Is retributive justice essential to reconciliation, or is restorative justice more so?  Should the focus be on international standards of justice, or on what is most constructive for those affected by the conflict?

All these discussions have highlighted the complexities of peace processes, and demonstrate the need to find new, creative and multifaceted approaches that satisfy the competing demands of peace, justice and reconciliation.  The international community has to start thinking outside the box if we’re going to successfully respond to the challenges posed by contemporary civil wars.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf, Australia

Hearing Valerie Rosoux’s lecture regarding memory and international relations was rather thought provoking for me, in how something so intangible (as thoughts, memories, and emotions) can have a significant impact on the relations between (as well as within) states. Too often we eschew intangible concepts from analysis for being indefinable, instead choosing to highlight what we can see, hear, touch, and measure. While something such as memory (and the values attached to one’s memory) may not contain describable boundaries, it was nonetheless intriguing to hear Rosoux’s perspective regarding the role of memory in conflict resolution. While something as memory may not be a variable that can be described in any generalizable detail, there appears something sincere in how memories/interpretations of the past can significantly assist (as well as inhibit) processes of conflict resolution and reconciliation.

Nicholas Knowlton, USA

Yesterday afternoon I shared my experiences and views from my 2008-2009 deployment to Iraq as an embedded military advisor. Mostly through pictures, I illustrated my interpretation of the delicate nuances of positive organizational change i.e. advising the Iraqi military. The informal atmosphere and candid exchange from fellow participants helped everyone better understand the difficulties and pitfalls associated with external actors attempting change within the context of conflict.

During the afternoon session Rod Rastan, Legal Advisor, Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC, discussed the structure, procedures and controversy surrounding the ICC. Three points resonant following his presentation: the concern over ICC independent prosecutor latitude, the far-reaching effects of ICC indictments and using ICC indictments as a negotiating tool.

First, of the three scenarios’ in which the ICC can accept cases (requests by states, discretion of the independent prosecutor, and the United Nations Security Council) several actors were concerned over the latitude given to the independent prosecutor. Two structural components of the ICC, judicial oversight and limited resources, encourage the independent prosecutor to select cases in the best interest of serving justice. Second, the ICC acknowledges the far-reaching effects of its indictments and seeks to mitigate some of the possible negative side-effects. Mitigation efforts include briefing the Security Council semiannually and creating predictable procedures thus creating reliable international norms. Finally, since ICC indictments can be suspended (by the Security Council) a debate over using suspensions as a negotiating tool rages on. Some argue indictment suspension could encourage more productive peace processes. Alternatively while the ICC values productive peace processes, they contend suspending indictments is a form of judicial blackmail which creates negatives consequences for the legitimacy and weight of future indictments. In sum the ICC is filling a judicial void by encouraging domestic judicial systems to prosecute terrible crimes and by attempting to administer justice in where injustice reins supreme.

Anthony Cerella, USA

Since we recently discussed the Bosnia-Herzegovina War, it was a great opportunity to go through all its related issues, such as identity and construction of mythology, in addition to our previous lectures. Professor William Stuebner, Former Special Adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Former Chief of Staff and Senior Deputy for Human Rights of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, led the discussions.

Mr. Stuebner highlighted ICTY’s failure in Bosnia to break the cycle of violence. According to him, the main problem was that the ICTY forgot their real clients: the victims of the Balkans. Moreover, for years the ICTY’s decisions were transcribed in English and French, completely ignoring the local languages and consequently people involved couldn’t read them. Furthermore, our speaker illustrated the problem of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: first of all, reconciliation is something extremely personal; second of all, there’s too much truth, too many PhDs in Sarajevo (basically, too much talking and not enough action).

In addition, we talked about media’s participation in conflict. It was mentioned how media can encourage the local population to engage and to participate actively of their community’s political life. On the other hand, they may reproduce stereotypes that can perpetuate rivalries, besides establishing a particular view of a war’s history that does not necessarily represents reality. In such situations, it may end up becoming a tool to legitimize violent regimes and make the chaotic scenario even worse.

Winston Churchill once said that the Balkans produce more History than they can consume, no one forgets anything there. Regardless, the Balkans weren’t the first genocide in History, nor the last. What is surprising, however, is the remaining silence of the international community towards these atrocities committed.

As someone said in relation to the Jewish genocide: “We must not forget the past, but if we are not motivated to action, then we are doomed to repeat it”. Until some kind of “do no harm” strategy is adopted, where the local population can actually take part of reconciliation and delegitimize any current politics of fear, the Balkans (as others) will keep producing “History”.

Moving from Bosnia to Iraq after lunch, we had an extraordinary presentation by Major Anthony Cerella, one of our own Bologna Symposium’s students. Tony talked about the US Army’s modus operandi and his experiences after 10 years of military service – stationed in Texas and Kansas (USA), South Korea and, more recently, Iraq. He explained how to engage the local population in order to gain trust and help the establishment of peace, as well as humanizing the military, exceeding all the expected limitations.

With a huge mustache, a.k.a Fred, Tony showed a great deal of humility during his time in the Middle East. He emphasized the importance of establishing an Iraqi Military Doctrine, not an American one, respecting its own particularities and forms of operating. According to him, the best way to accomplish a mission in a completely different cultural (and political) environment is stepping out of your comfort zone and diving into the new world in front of you. Major Cerella broke all stereotypes I’ve had about an American soldier, and I truly hope he’s not an exception.

Finally, to end a beautiful journey, about 20 students – myself included – went to play soccer in one of Bologna’s parks. Like in a duel of titans, or not so much, the team wearing dark clothes won the light ones by 8-0 – thanks to Usman, Mike, Renad and an Italian dude. Actually, it might have been more than 8 goals – we stopped counting as a strategy to prevent conflict. After all, that’s a part of what we came here for, right?

Bárbara Tigre Maia, Brazil

Wednesday morning was spent listening and posing questions to William Stuebner. Mr. Stuebner has extensive experience in the Balkans including working for the US Department of Defense, USAID and the ICTY. I really enjoyed his discussion about the aspects of the ICTY and the interactions between the many players when it comes to international criminal justice. Although we clearly didn’t see eye to eye on certain aspects and certain individuals, we were lucky to have someone who was able to speak so frankly about his experiences in so many prominent organizations.

Wednesday afternoons, after our breakout groups, are free. So of course, being in Italy, this has meant a few afternoons shopping (when the shops re-open around 4). I spent the late afternoon with Katharine (US-UK-Japan), Marcy (US-Japan) and Ourania (Cyprus) wandering in and out of the many wonderful shops and hoping to cash in on some of the great sales (the big sale season started this past weekend). Ourania and I were very good at spending Katharine’s money for her, helping her find an Italy outfit for a friend’s upcoming wedding.

After returning from the shopping excursion, Kat and I met up with Maria and Usman (both from Pakistan) for dinner. We decided to go to one of the wonderful Indian restaurants and as soon as Maria opened the menu, she was very excited. As much as I love Italian food, I am now on 4 weeks of it, and I am a little tired of pasta and pizza and Indian is pretty much the complete opposite, so it was welcome by me as well.

It was, by far, one of the most fun dinners I have had, with so many laughs that my stomach hurt by the end of it. One of the things that made me laugh the most were the cultural misunderstandings between the two from Pakistan, particularly about drinking milk straight from the cow.

Having a great time here. Learning lots, eating lots, shopping lots.

Alison Hopkins, Canada

I am constantly amazed by the stories of my classmates, from one student getting saved from a Pakistani police station by his embassy to hiking the border areas between India and Pakistan, from building schools in Uganda to working in Rwanda. The diversity of experience offered by this group is phenomenal. This week, though, I’ve been noticing the importance of family.

Last night, Maria, a staff member from Pakistan, gave perhaps the best one-sentence summation of the knowledge we’re taking away from this: you have to let go of your pre-conceived perceptions. She told me about the first time she went to India, a country which is, according to conventional wisdom, an enemy and existential threat to Pakistan. Everyone warned her to be careful and watch out, because she would be a target. Except her father, who told her to go with an open mind, which she did. Now, she counts Indians among her best friends. That is how we’re going to have peace: by talking, understanding, and having an open mind.  And she’s able to pass these lessons of cultural understanding to her students at the National Defense University in Islamabad. It is amazing the lessons we can take from our parents. Maria’s father understood what so many in his country and mine have been unable to grasp.

Other parents have been important this week. John Prendergast, who spoke on Tuesday about the conflicts in the Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) brought his mother to Italy for the symposium. Claire is an absolute delight, and her influence on her son is apparent (her other son is a teacher in a low-income school in Philadelphia). John has been instrumental in mobilizing my generation for positive action in Africa and has been active in the Big Brother programs in Philadelphia and Washington for nearly 30 years. Lives are changing all over the world because of Mrs. Prendergast and the love she passed on to her sons.

My own family has played a slightly larger role than usual this week. Monday afternoon, I had the opportunity to present a short documentary that my younger sister made while in Uganda earlier this year looking at the “gay bill” currently under consideration in the Ugandan parliament. We then had a Skype discussion with her (from 9 time zones away) and about a dozen of the students here. As a proud big brother, it was a great moment; and as an American — so often viewed as arrogant and closed-minded – it was a relief to see that there are people like her who care, and who are literally willing to risk harm to look at tough issues. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t recognize how much that outlook came from our parents. It’s my and my sister’s generation that will change the world, but we are who we are because they are who they are.

My two and a half weeks in Italy have been amazing, and I know the final week and a half will be equally exciting. The learning experiences are incomparable. But for as much as I’m learning about the theory and practice of peace and reconciliation, perhaps the most important things I’m learning about myself (and I’d wager it’s the same for many of us). When I step off the plane in Washington this month, I’ll be better prepared to take these lessons and use them for the positive change that I know we can make.

Matt Hughes, USA

P.S. Mom, you can stop crying now.

Said John Prendergast at the beginning of his lecture on the conflicts in the DR Congo and The Sudan (Darfur to be exact). John is the brain behind the Enough Project which works in conflict zones to influence peaceful outcomes. He works to amass political will for conflict situations with a view to achieving a speedy and final end to war. I got to ask him a question that I had intended to ask Betty Bigombe; Why the peace process in northern Uganda had not yet yielded anything. His answer was that there was a lack of leverage. He went on to say that leverage is a very dynamic concept. One has to create it through incentives and pressure (carrots and sticks). He observed that the biggest US failure has been failure to spend diplomatic capital to lead peacekeeping efforts (especially in the region).

For the case of Sudan the points of leverage could be various.

a) The Sudan government is not averse to maintaining good relations with the US; that normalization would be a carrot for improved behavior (read peace).

b) Ruling party’s quest for the suspension of the ICC warrants against the Sudan president Bashir.

c) The government of Sudan is heavily indebted and would greatly welcome a move that will ensure debt relief

d) The role of China. China has heavy investments in the Sudan and peace would be in its interests a factor which is rarely recognized when actors criticize the role of china in the Sudan peace arrangement.

e) Egypt which is largely dependent on the River Nile (which passes through the Sudan)

He reiterated that the US is a game changer in the set up of things in the Sudan. If it could get to speak to Beijing (where it would actually find out that what they are most interested in is peace) and also to Egypt and other affected African countries, the peace process would be far ahead or even resolved. He however was not certain about the strength (and willpower as such) of the Obama administration team in charge of African affairs to handle this role.

With regard to the conflict in the DR Congo he observed that unless the economic sources of the conflict are dealt  with, there can be no final solution to bring peace in the country. That this war completely about economy and not about any set political agenda. That rape is used as a weapon of war and control. He also talked about the consumer awareness that was started in the 1990s to ensure the origin of diamonds and other precious metals. That this move greatly reduced the ‘fuel for the fire’ and as such wars like those in Sierra Leone. Liberia and Angola were reduced or ended completely. That now it should be Congo’s turn. He noted that increasing political will in the Congo can be done (and is being done) through pressurizing the US congress, through the DR Congo president, YouTube, films, music and other media. Prendergast for me personifies the people who see a need and get others to see it as a need. Instead of lamenting about it from afar he gets down to the areas and finds a way of working with the local governments as well as the international players who obviously have leverage but are not willing to use it for.

I thoroughly enjoyed the day though I didn’t get to talk to him one on one.

Lucy Ladira, Uganda

Ambassador de Soto referred to Peacemaking operations as the deployment of armed personnel in a war zone to create the geographical and political space for the involved parties in the conflict to discuss and address the underlined issues that caused the conflict and achieve a successful agreement through mediation by the international community. He also discussed the role of former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Galhi and his Agenda for Peace that paved the way for the UN upcoming peace operations. Besides that, he also discussed the formation of the Department of PeaceKeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Department of Political Affairs that would assist and create the conditions for the necessary interventions. Finally, he explained the context of the conflicts in Cyprus and El Salvador and the successes and failures of the Peace Agreements and how the local civil societies are dealing with the reconciliation process.

Thiago Wolfer, Brazil

Our speakers today challenged this assertion, confronting us with questions such as ‘what is peace?’, ‘how do we measure it?’, and ‘when is it present?’. In some ways, the topic of this week, Conflict Resolution and International Justice, is the most highly charged topic of this Symposium: while it is clear that violent conflict should be prevented or managed in a way that stops people from being killed, building a positive peace (where violence doesn’t occur again) rather than just a negative peace (where violence isn’t happening now) after violent conflict is a highly politicised process with major and long-lasting effects on the populations that it targets.

Our first speaker, Ambassador Alvaro de Soto problematised the idea of peace by explaining how the norm of ‘post-conflict peacebuilding’ developed in the UN at the end of the Cold War.  Growing from the lessons learnt in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Boutros-Ghali first articulated it as a policy concept within the UN in Agenda for Peace in 1992, aiming to both to stop violence and prevent it from reoccurring.     Yet, this has remained a difficult task to implement, not least because of a lack of unified political will in the international community, and clear yardsticks of success.   Additionally, the transitions from war to peace are usually multi-pronged, with concurrent societal transitions from war economies to market economies, from chaos to democracy, from instability to security, and transitions within people themselves, from combatant to citizen, from victim to voter, from hatred to forgiveness.

Our second speaker, John McNamara, described more about the specific complexities of implementing postconflictpeacebuilding.  Speaking of his own experience in the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, he highlighted the difficulty of running a process conceived by external actors but implemented locally.  In particular, he demonstrated the tension between responding to the uniqueness of each conflict while working from a blue-print that allows for immediate deployment of civilian forces and is coherent enough for policy-makers to make decisions quickly.  In spite of this need for streamlining, his PowerPoint slides featured complex matrixes, diagrams and conflict maps that demonstrated all too clearly the interdependency of many parts of post-conflict peacebuilding processes.  Responding to some of the cohort’s concerns about whether these activities were possible or would resolve the conflict, he told us of a Haitian proverb: “beyond the mountains lie more mountains”.

I am sorry to disagree with Boutros-Ghali: but I think peace is far from “easy to grasp”.  Instead, peace depends on a complex web of other conditions, and the lack of clear answers means we have to prioritise what we value and can do, rather than knowing what may make the most difference.  Today’s presentations showed us that the international community still has long distances to traverse, and the mountains that we, in this class, face in our future work may be endless.  Yet, the hope for the future is also present in this group: if there are mountains to cross, then this group can do it.

Rachel Hart, Australia