Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for International Development, Gareth
Thomas,
Speech to Development Dilemmas Conference
5 March 2007
There’s an old proverb that says
“Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it”
Conflict exists everywhere, but when it becomes violent, then people begin to really suffer.
Now, the cost of violent conflict is enormous. Estimates suggest that a civil war will cost an average of $54 billion. Decades of weakened government and weakened governance, diminished accountability, increased corruption, break down in law and order.
We know that two-thirds of those countries furthest from achieving the Millennium Development Goals are those which are either suffering, or have recently emerged from, armed conflict.
The right thing to do is also the most cost effective thing to do. And that’s to stop violent conflict before it happens.
But we have a long way to go, And now – believe it or not - most conflicts worldwide are now in South and Central Asia.
We also know that by 2010 half of the world’s poorest people will be in countries at risk of, or recovering from conflict.
But when violent conflict does happen, we need to support moves to a settlement. The international community is getting better at helping to make this happen – in fact if you look at the past 200 years, most negotiated settlements have happened in the past 15 years.
We know that there is a one in three chance of these countries falling back into conflict within the first five years of a conflict ending.
When peace is agreed, the period that immediately follows is the time of greatest uncertainty. It’s also the time when most agreements fail. How you make them work depends on circumstances, there are no easy answers, and plenty of dilemmas.
We have our own experience of this in Northern Ireland – a centuries old conflict. In the end all the major parties eventually acknowledged that there was no alternative but a negotiated peace.
The key players in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments set out to find an accommodation without sacrificing either principles or integrity.
Many different fora were used to help us make progress,
- the peace process was conducted by two Governments establishing a common aim and working in partnership to bring peace and stability where there had been conflict and uncertainty;
- for this process to work it had to be inclusive, involving all the political parties, even - or perhaps especially – those most associated with the conflict;
- it also involved, difficult as it was, direct and indirect involvement with armed groups and
- the active support and engagement of successive American administrations
As we moved forward, we tackled areas where we had common agreement first before moving to more contentious issues like policing.
It involved pragmatism and courage on all sides – and above all strong political leadership, including from our Prime Minister, who has devoted huge amounts of time and energy to the process over the years.
Now, the moment when conflict ends is the time of greatest vulnerability, it is also the time of greatest opportunity, a time when people expect to see change.
It’s a time when it’s possible to re-negotiate the political settlement, to increase legitimacy and confidence.
Take Nepal. A decade of war. Entrenched sides. Entrenched views.
A few years ago, no one would have imagined the Nepalese people would have got to where they are today. With Nepal is standing on the edge of peace, and a process moving forward to negotiate a new constitution and create a new government, one that will represent the interests of everyone.
We are supporting this process, and will continue to do so, just last week I approved £1.5 million as the first part of our contribution to the Nepal Peace Trust Fund – a multi-donor fund, government led and managed - that will support a wide range of activities to help achieve and embed peace.
But we know from experience that while things can go forward, they can reverse too.
We are all saddened by the situation in Sri Lanka The current escalation of conflict there is hindering the country’s development, undermining the quality of democracy and tarnishing the country’s image.
Humanitarian workers have lost their lives, humanitarian space has shrunk, journalists have disappeared and for too many Sri Lankans of all ethnicities life is intolerable and impunity the norm. Those advocating for peace feel threatened and frightened.
How can things progress when politics there is not leading the way to a solution and some on both sides believe military conflict is the solution?
It is only five years since we were celebrating the signing of the cease fire in Sri Lanka, yet an inclusive dialogue for a political settlement that is so badly needed, now seems beyond our grasp at the moment.
The politics of Sri Lanka are polarised and militarised and there appears to be no meeting point between the main protagonists. Both sides will need to accept that there can no military solution to conflict. And without a proper political process, the conflict will not be brought to an end.
We know from our own experience in Northern Ireland – that you need to maintain contacts even in the worst of times – often through back-door channels, so that when you do make some progress you can build high level talks on a platform already discussed. We’ve been working in support of Norwegian facilitators on efforts to bring peace in Sri Lanka, and we are willing to share this experience with all parties to the conflict.
One other challenge is inclusion. All too often “spoilers” exploit grievances and exclusion for their own ends. The chances of success are greatly diminished if some are excluded from the process.
Take Nepal, the Madhesi in the eastern Terai plains bordering India, making up some 40% of the total population, had concerns that they would not be properly represented in the constituent assembly elections, with concerns too that many of the population would not be properly registered for those elections.
Protests erupted, some violent, and much of Nepal came to a standstill. The people wanted a voice. And they will now have it. The interim government has agreed to provide more seats in Parliament, and tensions have reduced.
It is possible to be inclusive, even in the most difficult of circumstances - the creation of an emergency Loya Jirga, a gathering of traditional leaders, in Afghanistan, played a major role there in helping to build progress towards a wider peace and eventually national elections.
In any post-conflict country we need to demobilise soldiers, and turn warring parties into political parties.
But the provision of security and justice can pose difficult dilemmas. Those best placed to provide security or who form the basis of new security services, have often committed crimes in the past. Justice is essential for long-term peace – that need for justice may undermine the short-term political process and security, yet a culture of impunity can also undermine progress too.
Now, while there are no easy answers, I think there are two broad lessons that I want to highlight:
- First, we know that for any peace process to work, it must be nationally owned and led.
- And second, that the international community – donors, but more importantly important neighbours and regional actors – must support and not undermine this.
Take Afghanistan. Presidential and Parliamentary elections have been held with high turnouts – there is a popular will and appetitive for peace.
And in this period, in all these situations, its vital that people see the benefits of peace. We know that it’s these first 5 years that are crucial.
We know from research looking at the experience of many countries, that countries recovering from conflict can begin to absorb greater volumes of aid - in particular from the fourth year onwards.
Now unfortunately the trend has been for donors to reduce their support from around this time – when they think things are getting more stable – but when in fact more aid is needed and when that aid can be best used.
As donors we need to stay for longer, more reliably, and support progress on a sustained basis.
One area where additional money can have some of the greatest impact is in public services. We’ve put £13 million into the Government of Afghanistan’s programme for community-led development.
Take one example of a programme making a real difference, Tamirat is a village in Qarabagh district. Its Community Development Council was formed in 2003 and represents 202 families. Since getting $40,000 in funding from the programme, they’ve built a road and a canal to link their village with local markets. And more confident of their ability to assess their needs and seek support, they’ve got funding for
- micro-credit for a poultry and livestock programme;
- tailoring and carpet making, and
- training for men in welding.
And this programme is reaching all 34 provinces and half of all rural communities, through 15,000 of these locally elected community development councils, it’s helping build the legitimacy of government.
Across Afghanistan, school enrolment has quadrupled in the last four years - 5.1 million Afghan children are now in school; 40% are girls.
So public services are beginning to make a difference. People are beginning to see the benefits of peace.
So, four million refugees have returned since the Taliban were ousted – a good example of things changing for the better.
The people of Afghanistan want change, and the London Conference a year ago saw $10.5 billion in pledges to the Afghan Government to help cement and accelerate that progress.
We also need to consider how we can work better during conflict.
Mothers and children dying needlessly in conflict affected areas, generations of children are missing out on education. Are there ways in which in the international community can do more to try and protect essential services during conflict? Either through ring-fencing support through government - like we have done in education and health in Nepal, or working through coalitions of non-government service providers?
In the case of Nepal, despite 11 years of conflict, there have been improvements in education and health indicators, and this can to some extent be attributed to the resilience of many development partners who worked both through government and through parallel programmes throughout the period of conflict to protect development for poor Nepalis.
As donors we need to look closely at our role in all this.
We need to ensure that, in aiming to do good, we do no harm.
We recognised in Nepal that in the years before armed conflict, development programmes had often reinforced the inequality and exclusion that sowed the seeds of future conflict. Technical fixes, that ignored the social context, that ignored the root causes of conflict. In 2005 we developed a methodology to target support at addressing exclusion and grievance – it meant that instead of avoiding areas of conflict, we increased our work in those areas; worked more inclusively with staff, communities, and were more transparent about what we were doing. It meant that our programmes were accepted by the communities, but also by the Maoists and by the security forces.
In conclusion, when we look ahead to the challenge of expanding our work in conflict affected countries or countries emerging from conflict, we’ll face numerous dilemmas.
Part of the challenge for us is about balancing risk. We have a duty to the UK tax-payer to make sure that their money is effective in fighting poverty. As a minister I have to account to parliament and to the British people for this.
We have to find ways to deliver aid which allows us manage the risk without cutting off aid in a way that seriously damages the lives of very vulnerable people, when problems – and they inevitably will - occur. We know that governments can plan better and deliver more effectively if our aid is predictable. But in conflict situations, how predictable can you be with your aid amidst unpredictability?
We need to be careful that in providing services in difficult environments, often through the UN or NGOs, we do not undermine the capacity of government and create unsustainable parallel bureaucracies.
And as donors we need to work more coherently together in support of peace, both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, but also to prevent spoilers and unsympathetic neighbours from undermining progress.
So – a set of dilemmas for us – predictability versus uncertainty; justice versus immediate progress; speed versus inclusivity; short term inputs versus long term engagement – and many more.
I hope that these two days will give us the opportunity to look at these and other crucial issues – to apply them to our own contexts – and to take back what we learn – and hopefully some of the lessons can help us so we can better move towards lasting peace in Nepal, in Sri Lanka, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I’m delighted to have you here, and I hope we can learn from the experience.
