|
|
|
|
The Financial Battery
Donors can make an important contribution to promoting co-existence and peace-building by providing the financial support which enables individuals or groups from different racial, religious and ethnic groups to participate in shared projects. Without funding, it is likely that these efforts would be significantly diminished © By Hans van de Veen
‘The financial battery of the system’, is how John McDonald and Louise Diamond describe the funding world in their ground-breaking publication, ‘Multi-Track Diplomacy’. Without it, they say, many of the peace-building activities in the world could not take place. The funding world occupies ‘a place of great power in the system because of its essential role and because it is the agenda setter and gatekeeper for who does what in the field’.
The two case-studies which follow this introductory text, both provide excellent illustrations of the potential role of the donor community. They also illustrate the two main segments of society from which funding originates: the private sector (the dominant strand in the USA), and governments (more common in Europe). The multilateral world -dominated by the United Nations, IMF/World Bank as well as regional organisations- could be seen as a third wing of the funding world. Of course, funding by governments or international organisations overlaps to an extent with other traditional Track One initiatives, and can thus be considered a regular element of their peace-building activities.
Some governments, like in Norway, Sweden, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, play an imporant role in supporting peace-building activities. The Dutch government, for instance, supports no less than a dozen of the 35 organisations/projects which are described in this publication. Norway supports the 'People to People' programme, bridging the gap between official peace agreements and the needed dialogue and communication between people (see Box).
The Abraham Fund (see case-study) works on both national and international levels, due in large part to many American Jews’ interest in Israel. Fundraising is centred in the U.S. with supervision of the projects being carried out in Israel. Both offices share the task of soliciting, assessing, and distributing grants. This is a model that the Abraham Fund’s founder, Alan B. Slifka, feels can be used for coexistence programmes in other nations with a large diaspora such as Ireland/Northern Ireland, or for nations such as South Africa that have aroused interest in other parts of the world. Slifka: ‘There are numerous opportunities around the world for organisations modelled after The Abraham Fund.’
A typical governmental initiative -albeit unique in size and extent- is the European Union’s Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland (see case-study). The programme is one of the most important initiatives to grow out of the 1994 halt in the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. The EU Peace Fund runs from 1995 until the end of 1999, and entails a total expenditure of some $750 million. It aims ‘to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation by increasing economic development and employment, promoting urban and rural regeneration, developing cross-border co-operation and extending social inclusion.’
Many feel that the EU’s swift action in order to ‘maintain the momentum for peace’ may have been an important factor in changing the psychology in Northern Ireland. An important motivating factor behind the entire programme was to encourage all of the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly those most marginalised, to make an investment in their common futures. Basically, the programme presumed that people with a financial stake in their future would be far less likely to risk their prosperity through a renewal of sectarian violence than those who had little to lose. It was therefore essential, the EU believed, to exploit the opportunities for economic and social reconstruction that peace presented.
In looking at the role the funding community can play, McDonald and Diamond focus almost exclusively on the charity foundations that dominate the funding landscape in the USA. ‘The assumption on which the work of this community is based is that those with wealth have a responsibility and an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the world through the judicious use of that money to sponsor worthwhile projects. Also underlying much of the philanthropy is the belief that the projects funded will explore critical issues, provide needed action, and contribute to the growth and evolution of humanity as it seeks a more peaceful world.’
Funding activity in the US is dominated by such large, mainstream foundations as the Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie, Mott, and others. These foundations primarily fund major academic and research institutions whose interests lean toward area studies, security, and public policy issues. According to McDonald and Diamond, there are several smaller, more progressive organisations which appear to be more interested in grassroots-action projects, and are more likely to give to environmental, justice, anti-nuclear, and citizen empowerment programmes. Some of these are the Tides Foundation, Treshold, and Plowshares.
Then there are what McDonald and Diamond call ‘quasi-governmental’ organisations, such as the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which also provide funds for a variety of peace-building activities. NGOs in many Western countries working in the fields of human rights, development cooperation or humanitarian assistance, channel a growing amount of their funds into activities that are aimed at preventing the escalation of conflicts, transforming violent conflicts, or encouraging post-conflict reconciliation. Often, their funding comes from a mixture of sources: from governments to the public, and -in growing amounts- the corporate sector.
While concluding that there will always be a greater demand for money than the funding community will ever be able to meet, McDonald and Diamond argue that ‘new sources of funding, through the business community, funding networks, and international sources, will simply have to be found to keep up with this fast-growing field.’
In 1996, due partly to the discrete but powerful initiatives of
the Norwegian government, secret negotiations led to a breakthrough
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the signing of the Oslo
agreements. Contained within the Interim Agreement between the
governments was the concept of a People-to-People Program. The
aim of this programme was to ‘enhance dialogue and relations between
their peoples (Israel and Palestine), based on equality and reciprocity,
as well as in gaining a wider exposure of the two publics to the
peace process, its current situation and predicted results.’ Uniquely this official Israeli-Palestinian programme is being
implemented by NGOs. On the Israeli side, the CRB Foundation is
charged with planning and funding the Israeli part of the programme.
On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian Centre for Peace is vested
with the implementing authority. Norway has commissioned the Norwegian
research institute Fafo to set up and direct the Norwegian secretariat.
In 1996 the programme decided on a policy of funding projects
implemented by non-governmental or grassroots organisations on
both sides. A call for proposals was placed in Israeli and Palestinian
newspapers, resulting in 120 applications for support from approximately
200 NGOs. All in all, by the end of 1997, the programme had considered
more than 180 proposals and had funded 48 projects to the value
of approximately USD 850,000. More projects were funded in 1998
and the programme has continued into 1999. Projects eligible for support under the programme should: • aim at enhancing dialogue and relations between Palestinians
and Israelis; • be implemented jointly by Israeli and Palestinian organisations;
• foster wider exposure of the two publics to the peace process
through education and encourage public discussion and involvement
in the peace process; • increase people-to-people exchange and have the potential to
bridge between large audiences on both sides; • should take place in the region. The programme is also ready to support larger projects as soon
as the two parties are ready to engage in wider activities, such
as, for instance, exchanges between public and private schools
on both sides, as well as between educational institutions including
the Israeli and Palestinian ministries.
People to People
The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, Eugene Weiner (Ed.). An Abraham Fund Publication, Continuum, New York, 1998.
Multi-Track Diplomacy - A Systems Approach to Peace, Louise Diamond and John McDonald.
Feedback please to
j.verhoeven@euconflict.org