Sorry for the delay in this post everyone, I realized I had a lot more to reflect on, and a lot more questions. But anyway, here is the start of Day 2 "in this town" of Dear D.C --> that short quote is from EVERYONE in DC:
We awoke early for breakfast the next morning. Yes. Breakfast. And more importantly, breakfast that was (included). So in my mind that was practically FREE BREAKFAST. Which means a significantly quicker shower time. Which helps out the environment. I think every hotel should follow this model.
After I talked with the roommates about outfits and what looked professional enough, I went to the lobby for a nice breakfast of orange juice, fruit, eggs and bacon. And pancakes? I don't know maybe I am making that up, but the breakfast was really good. This was officially the first day where we would rush out to the first speaker right after breakfast. Our team captains for the day had some big tasks on their hands and they did an amazing job keeping us all together as much as possible.
Our first meeting was with the United States Institute for Peace. I do not have any pictures to describe to you what it looked like, but I can certainly describe the experience. For the first time, our members pinned on their customized nametags. For the first time, we readied our bags for a thorough security check. For the first time, we discussed what back-up questions we would ask in case nobody in the group could think of a good question fast enough, along with the second and third back-up questions. And for the first time, we readied our notebooks, as I will describe the notes I am about to forward to you now.
Entering USIP was like entering a world of well-organized peace-planning. Sanitized international affairs. A bright marbled floors that echoes the sound of your feet stepping into an important meeting. I thought it was one of the most beautiful interiors I had ever seen. The sun was shining in all the right spots of the building. You feel so important to be there. And you assume you are working with angels of Capitol Hill. That is indeed a lot to be said but, that's what it felt like to step into the building for the first time, for me at least. And we got extra nametags from them that I saved in my notebook! How much more official could it get??
We had two speakers, a man and a woman. I will not disclose any names for now. The woman used to work for the US Academy Training Arm with USIP in 1984. The man was formally a college professor who took students on educational trips to Bosnia, Kosovo, N. Ireland, places like that - including Israel with an Arab-Israeli team. These trips were meant to be educational and promote dialogue overseas in countries experiencing conflict. They spoke to us first, and later we followed with our own questions after their brief introductions.
We asked how we should be viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their advice was to view it as unique, and yet, as not unique. We were also encouraged to know that there were peace-makers out there, just not on our radar. Having independent and nonpartisan conversations would help avoid conflicts internationally.
USIP used to be viewed as a think tank. The vision was to create a world without violence or conflict. The core principles was to engage in civil society, facilitate a dialogue between government and civil societies. The advice was to respect pluralism, diversity, and conflict resolution. They spoke about the process of doing something to be effective. It needs to be done over time, through buildings relationships in a holistic way. One example of this is a civil education project that was done in Iraq. This project took over 4 years. It was based on a curriculum that Iraqis themselves adopted as their own. The people from USIP helped train Iraqis to teach such curriculum themselves.
Further questions were asked . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we make these into projects?
It needs to be tailored to local circumstances - it must be inclusive and engage a full range of people to achieve peace, including those who may not have a voice. There needs to be backup modules with monitoring, research, etc. There must also be a commitment to quality.
The woman told us about her path that led her to work for an organization like USIP. She was a US mediator on the federal and community level. She then tranferred into doing work on the international level with her graduate degree in conflict resolution. She spoke about using real dialogue in her work.
What does real dialogue mean?
It is a dialogue of peace, based on a process of peace. Yet it is something more robust and relevant.
An example of a design was to engage students over 7 weeks on social identity and percieved weaknesses. She then sought to introduce dialogue into a classroom to talk about the sensitive issues that would come up. She found ways to make it safe for people to engage in dialogue: Building bridges through intergroup dialogue.
USIP draws from an illicitive model, drawing forth from people. No presentations or lectures but more from and interactive style. They would replicate types of scenarios that people would encounter when working overseas. At a school for professionals that included diplomats, military, NGOs. They used the model that was meant for the professionals to fail in the scenario. So that they could recognize what they have seen before and pay attention and be aware on purpose.
Issues of culture and identity . . .
Rebuilding a country after war . . .
_________________________________________________
As you can see there is a lot of information I took from this meeting. I had even more meetings to follow this one, but I must say, this was one of my favorite meetings. Here is why:
Popular opinion in our group found this meeting to be pacifist in nature, and realists would call it an unrealistic approach. I had my suspicions before, as I do for many of the meetings on our trip, however this one is very interesting especially in my upbringing at the UCI Public Health school. Most of the topics and projects that were presented were quite in line with public health practice on a global scale: analyzing the needs, involving the community, encouraging leadership roles on the ground level, creating a sustainable system, and most of all creating an organic atmosphere. (Of course, this does not include their model for professionals seeking more training in international humanitarianism).
Earlier today I had a meeting with a public health administrator. She informed me that most U.S. organizations going abroad to do public health work are greeted with negativity and suspicion as to the real purpose of that organization and their motives. It is funny because, I have always thought about working with an organization like this. However, I wonder if I am willing to accept the limitations that come with working for the United States government in regards to funding, and which issues are focused on the most. A big takeaway from this meeting was that the issues focused on the most tend to be what the US government and international media draw their attention towards the most. If I remember correctly, there even seemed to be an aura that conflicts in the Middle East were overworked. That more attention needed to be on the Democratic Republic of Congo. That more people were being affected there. And here is the weird part . . .
In public health, there is a question of a need, and a question of "measurable learning outcomes that are more likely to achieve effective results" Because this obviously is better for the organization. In popular public health opinion, the more contained a disaster or a conflict can be, the less numbers involved, creates a higher percentage of people helped. Sometimes I wonder, are peace people like me trying to save as many people as We can, or just trying to save as many people as possible under a budget, limited resources due to political backing, and international law of not engaging with terrorists? The rules themselves can make helping people more difficult. People who had no blame or fault to a conflict or disaster. Yet seem to suffer the most from it.
Soon, we were going to meet with the other side . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment