D7.4 Final workshop Nicosia

D7.4 Final workshop Nicosia
10-11 October 2013
Deliverable submitted November 2013 (M35) in fulfilment of requirements of the FP7 project, CORE –The role of
Governance in the Resolution of Socioeconomic and Political Conflict in India and Europe
(Theme SSH-2010-4.2-1: Cultures of governance and conflict resolution in Europe and India)
CORE Coordinator:
Peace Research Institute
Oslo (PRIO)
PO Box 9229 Grønland
NO-0134 Oslo, Norway
T: +47 22 54 77 00
F: +47 22 54 77 01
www.projectcore.eu
Notice
On 10 October 2013 the CORE Project organized its final workshop in Nicosia to discuss any
outstanding issues or differences regarding thematic aspects. It was also set as a point in time
where the participants would agree on a common coherent approach on the dissemination of the
final results.
On the next day, 11 October 2013, The Advisory Board gave its last recommendations and feedback
on the project. Afterwards, to build upon the opportunity of being in Cyprus, a few key experts
were invited to share their expertise on the subject of reconciliation and conflict resolution in
Cyprus.
The workshop was organized by PRIO with logistical help from the PRIO Cyprus Center.
This deliverable includes the agenda, list of participants and a report on the discussions during the
workshop. It does not include a word-for-word reporting of all interventions, but summarizes per
panel the main interventions, reactions and directions of the discussions.
2
Report of the Nicosia
Final Workshop
10-11 October 2013
Nicosia, Cyprus
3
Table of Contents
1.
Agenda ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Report of Workshop: Introductions, Discussions and Conclusions of the workshop .................. 7
Session I: Presentation from WP leaders of research results ........................................................... 7
Session II: Field work results and thematic analysis ....................................................................... 9
Session III: Discussion on desirable outcomes of final conferences and dissemination activities,
upcoming steps and events in the project....................................................................................... 13
Session IV: Feedback from the Advisory Board ............................................................................ 14
Semi-Open Dissemination Session ................................................................................................ 16
1.
Short introduction of panel speakers .......................................................................................... 18
Annex I: list of participants ........................................................................................................ 19
4
1. Agenda
Final Workshop
10 – 11 October 2013
Nicosia, Cyprus
Meeting Agenda
Thursday 10 October 2013
Venue: Home for Cooperation, Marcou Dracou 28, UN Buffer Zone, Nicosia
09:00 –
10:30
Welcome and Opening of Steering Committee Meeting IV: Chaired by J.
Peter Burgess




Progress of project
Any outstanding issues
Book
Planning of dissemination workshop in December
Coffee break
11:00 –
12:30
Session I: Chaired by J. Peter Burgess
Presentation from WP leaders of research results
Discussion
Lunch
14:00 –
15:30
Session II: Chaired by Oliver Richmond
Field work results and thematic analysis
Discussion
Coffee break
16:00 –
17:00
Session III: Chaired by Roger Mac Ginty
Discussion on desirable outcomes of final conferences and
dissemination activities, upcoming steps and events in the project
17:00
End of Day 1
17:00 –
18:00
19:15
Advisory Board meeting preparation
Working dinner
5
Friday 11 October 2013
Venue: The Classic Hotel, Rigensis Street 94, 1513 Nicosia
09:00 – 10:30
10:30
11:00
11:15 – 13:00
Session IV: Chaired by J. Peter Burgess
Feedback from Advisory Board: Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh and Chetan
Bhatt
Coffee break
Semi-Open Dissemination Session
Welcome coffee for participants to semi-open dissemination session
Welcome and introduction to the project by Oliver Richmond
Panel discussion, chaired by Olga Demetriou, Senior Researcher, PRIO
Cyprus Centre
Panel discussion around the introduction by Oliver Richmond and the following
questions:
1. If reconciliation / conflict resolution (CR) has been achieved in some aspects
or levels, but not others, can governance (or peacebuilding) identify and
remove blockages?
2. What kind of issues need to be addressed and what kind of agency
exercised?
-
13:00
13:15
Panel speakers:
Maria Hadjipavlou, Professor at the Social and Political Science
Department of the University of Cyprus
Ahmet Sözen, Professor at the Department of Political Science and
International Relations, Eastern Mediterranean University
Q&A
Concluding remarks by Roger McGinty
End of workshop and lunch
6
2. Report of Workshop: Introductions,
Conclusions of the workshop
Discussions
and
Welcome to the workshop:
J. Peter Burgess (PRIO), Project Coordinator for CORE, welcomed the participants and opened
the workshop. The workshop started with the Steering Committee Meeting IV where the
minutes from the previous meeting were reiterated, and approved by all. For further
information please refer to the report from the SC-IV.
Session I: Presentation of research results from WP leaders
J. Peter Burgess as chair of Session I invited the workpackage leaders to present the main
research results within their WP.
Elena Stavrevska, CEU, as coordinator of WP2 on Theory and Methodology suggested updating
the theoretical framework by having contributions from all the partners, based on their
fieldwork and analysis of findings so far. It was further argued that, based on the common
themes that have emerged from the case studies, the scope of the framework needs to be
narrowed down, resulting in a more refined theoretical framework. The question was raised
whether the book might be a more appropriate avenue to update the theoretical framework
instead of revising the framework itself. Stavrevska also suggested a possible methodological
piece that would involve auto-ethnography and would reflect on the different positionalities of
the project researchers in approaching the field.
Oliver Richmond, University of Manchester, Scientific Coordinator of the CORE project,
7
presented the research results from WP3 Analysis of Policy. Currently, UoM is leading the work
on D6.6. Academic scholarship display a curious disconnect between two trends, connecting
peace and governance issues. At the same time when conflicts tended to shift inwards (from
inter-state to civil wars), global governance approaches seemed to decentre the management
of peace and conflict outwards (from the nation state to international forums). This paper
investigates this disjuncture by examining the EU’s and India’s governance strategies in
different conflict contexts. It studies whether their strategies operate close to the global
governance model or whether they are able to connect with and effectively support local
peace initiatives in conflict-ridden areas.
Berghof Foundation, leader of WP4 Thematic Analysis, happily reported that all assignments
and deliverables of the work package have been completed. Two thematic reports (D.4.2. and
D.4.3.) were submitted for internal review in February and then submitted to the European
Commission in March/April. Berghof is satisfied with the results of the reports in spite of the
various and well-known difficulties of the WP. Lessons have been learned in terms of how
logical it ultimately is to write analytical reports based on one others’ field research – which
was a very difficult task. That being said, they appreciated greatly the time and effort that the
partners who carried out field research committed to reading their draft chapters for the
reports. It was a time-consuming but generally very constructive process.
Moreover, although Berghof appreciated the extension of 2 months for the submission of the
reports, such an extension doesn’t make a huge difference when the field research reports
were turned in 6 or more months late. This could also be a lesson learned for the planning of
such projects in the future. Furthermore, the internal review process for the reports could have
been a bit more transparent in terms of knowing who was reading the reports and what
revisions they were expected to make to the report after the review process.
In terms of specific findings of the workpackage, Berghof have shown in their reports that
dialogical relations are imperative for successful conflict resolution measures as well as the fact
that the consideration of local agency (although difficult and time-consuming) can be hugely
beneficial for conflict resolution. Furthermore, some very interesting examples of ‘everyday
resistance’ to and modification of conflict resolution initiatives were examined – this is
something that deserves more research and attention.
In light of the discussion on how difficult it is to “compare” the EU and the Indian government
in terms of main governance actors involved in conflict resolution measures, Berghof’s reports
actually showed how similarly the actors conduct themselves and carry out their initiatives – in
a very top-down manner, with a lack of dialogical interaction and little consideration of local
attitudes and agency. The research did a good job of looking at the conflict resolution initiatives
at different levels of governance – and the links between these levels within the process of
conflict resolution. However, because the initiatives were so diverse, it is not possible to claim
that they are representative of certain levels, certain actors, etc. This is the main reason why it
is so difficult to compare.
In the framework of WP6 Assessment of Governance Initiatives, led by IAI, four papers/reports
8
have been submitted: 6.1 Scholarly article on post-national conflict resolution. The questions
addressed were the following: How are identity, democracy and human rights understood in
the six case studies and what policy implications can be drawn for culturally sensitive conflict
resolution policies? 6.3 Scholarly article on the European governance agenda. Questions
addressed: How has the EU implemented its governance initiatives in conflict settings? 6.4
Policy report on regimes of global governance, Europe and India. Questions addressed: Is there
a distinct Indian and/or European approach to conflict resolution? What are the similarities and
differences in their approaches to governance in conflict settings? 6.5 Comparative report on
empirical basis for global governance, Europe and India. Questions addressed: On the basis of
the project case studies, what lessons can be drawn from the various governance initiatives?
What has been the impact of these initiatives on conflict resolution? There are two
forthcoming papers: 6.2 Scholarly article on the Indian governance agenda. Questions
addressed: How has India implemented its governance initiatives in conflict settings? 6.6
Scholarly article on re-conceptualizing global governance based on new findings. Questions
addressed: How can governance be reconceptualised and what policy recommendations can be
drawn from the six case studies?
The Consortium partners have looked at different issues in their fieldwork, with some of the
themes outlined in the initial theoretical framework not being looked at. For instance, issues of
local agency and social justice have been extensively covered in the case studies, which should
be reflected in the revised framework. It was pointed out that the theoretical framework
should have been a living document, updated as the fieldwork progresses, but this has not
been the case.
Session II: Field work results and thematic analysis
Oliver Richmond as chair of Session II invited the partners to present the main fieldwork results
in the framework of WP5 Systematic Case Surveys.
IAI: From a peacebuilding perspective, EU support for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in
conflict ridden countries and in particular in Georgia can be criticized for artificially boosting a
liberal, ‘bourgeois’ civil society at the expense of more representative, established and
effective organizations at the grassroots. Seen from a governance perspective, however, this
criticism conceals the actual rationale and effects of these practices by underplaying the way in
which EU investments in ‘local ownership and participation’ are constrained by general foreign
policy objectives. As a basis for a more relevant and realistic debate on sub-national
dimensions of peacebuilding, the field work therefore investigates what the character and
effects of EU ‘peacebuilding’ support for CSOs in Georgia actually are: how does it affect the
relations between the supported organizations and (1) the state; (2) other societal groups; and
(3) the EU? How ought these effects to be interpreted in political terms?
UoM: Fieldwork in Cyprus has focused on both, bottom-up and top-down governance
initiatives driven by the EU. Most state actors and international organizations involved in the
conflict resolution process believe that a solution to the Cyprus issue can only be found at the
9
top level with questions of governance and power sharing as the main obstacle. Both elite and
nationalist governance and the possibility of reconciliation and a solution have become
mutually self-sustaining. Top-down, right-based governance reforms, such as the right to trade
over the Green Line, apply for compensation for lost property or attempts to harmonize laws in
the Turkish Cypriot community have not led to the expected results and instead face resistance
by local actors by producers and customers alike as they are not in line with local norms or
interests. As long has those tools and governance mechanisms are largely opposed by one side
of the conflict party, or abused for one sides advantage, they can hardy contribute to conflict
resolution. Equally, if they do not meet peoples’ local needs they remain ineffective. Local
conflict resolution processes and donor support for civil society have tried persistently to break
this deadlock by supporting the conflict resolution process through bi-communal NGOs and
fostering dialogue between the two communities which has largely resulted in the creation of a
peace-industry. Peace orientated civil society however, has quietly mobilised to achieve
peaceful coexistence despite their isolated from the societies and political elites. Yet, instead of
obtaining the support they would need changing funding policies in conflict governance,
namely the concentration on only a few key actors, further limits the outreach of their
activities beyond the Buffer Zone.
JNU: The field study in Bihar and Jharkhand aimed to look at the interaction between various
social actors and institutions, including those of state, in course of the practice of various
governance initiatives directed against the Naxal conflict. A review of governance initiatives in
these conflict areas revealed that the government deployed a ‘dual strategy’ of addressing
security concerns as well as ensuring socially just and democratic development. Accordingly, an
extensive fieldwork was carried out in 5 of the 16 most Naxal-affected districts in
Bihar/Jharkhand with a focus on one block and two panchayats from each of the five districts,
namely, Gaya and Jamui in Bihar and Chatra, Hazaribag and Lohardaga in Jharkhand. Extensive
semi-structured interviews and group discussions were conducted, with respondents including
common villagers, PRI members, bureaucrats, politicians, Naxal activists and area commanders,
business elites, NGO workers and members of Women Self-help Group, police official as well as
para-military and Special Forces officials at different levels across these 5 districts.
CRG has successfully delivered on all the responsibilities assigned to it by the CORE work
package leaders. It has participated in report writings, bibliographic work, comparative studies,
dissemination of the work done, and most importantly conducted extensive fieldwork towards
preparing scientific reports and academic and analytical writings under the project. Fieldwork
conducted by researchers of the CRG in the Indian Northeast and Bihar was guided by two
basic quests: (a) to understand the interaction between various social actors and institutions,
including those of the state, in the transforming the economy of conflict and peace in the
Northeast and to some extent Bihar; and (b) to bring to light and scribe the subaltern quests
for peace and justice in the narratives of conflict management and peacemaking. Extensive
research was carried out in the four North-eastern states of Assam (Samir K. Das), Mizoram
(Sajal Nag), Nagaland (Paula Banerjee & Ishita Dey) and Tripura (Subir Bhaumik) and in Bihar
(by Pushpendra, Manish Jha, and Mithilesh Kumar). Since most of the researchers were either
from the Northeast or were located in the Northeast professionally, extensive group
interactions, semi-structured interviews and participatory action research could be organized.
10
Collective data produced by dialogic engagement with bureaucrats and politicians, military and
police officials, villagers- men and women alike- and the business elite made possible the
publication of a series of Policies and Practices. Also CRG could gather a large quantity of data
and local literature through fieldwork. The same is true of fieldwork in Bihar, which was
conducted by scholars hailing from Bihar and with experience of work in the area. The research
finds have been put together in a comprehensive commentary by Ranabir Samaddar, who held
extensive discussion with local political and peace activists so that CRG could design the
programme of the fieldwork. With the dwindling of the acute form of conflict in this region,
'new' subjects and 'new' modes of political activism are emerging. Intense interaction with
these new actors in the Northeast has thrown novel light on how we understand the
northeaster polity and the allied questions of ethnicity and autonomy. The fieldwork enabled a
dialogic research mode, which was reflected in the deliberations in the Guwahati workshop
held early this year. It will be important to recall in this context some of the vital aspects of the
preparatory note that CRG had prepared for its fieldwork and had shared with other partners.
Thus, CRG had planned to focus part of its work on women's participation in governance and
peace, trace the insistent issues of justice in popular politics of peace, the significance of the
issue of displacement and protection in governance measures towards peace building in the
Northeast, and the impact of political economy and a developmental state on the history of
conflict and peace building. CRG is convinced that the successful conclusion of the CORE
project has generated a wealth of policy-relevant studies. It has also enabled CRG to make
meaningful comparisons under the project, collect new data, undertake new analyses, and
develop new critiques of governance in conflict-torn situations.
BHU: BHU successfully completed its fieldwork research conducted in the North-eastern state
of Meghalaya (Shillong- Khasi hills and Tura - Garo hills) on issues relating to ethnic disaffection
and insurgency, and the cultures of governance employed in conflict resolution. The objective
of the field research, undertaken by BHU, has been to explore the generic causes of ethnic
disaffections and insurgency, and whether existing peacebuilding initiatives have been able to
adequately and appropriately address these through dialogue, negotiation and rehabilitation
strategies as well as in governance processes. In accordance with the above objective, BHU
designed and conducted a series of interviews with state officials, rebels, and members of the
organized civil society, opinion leaders and academics from both Shillong and Tura. This report
is the synthesis, or the collective narrative, of the fieldwork conducted by the Malaviya Centre
for Peace Research (MCPR) in the Banaras Hindu University (BHU). The research team observed
in case of insurgency a strong local need to move away from short term pacification efforts,
achieved through monetary compensations, in favour of a comprehensive approach towards
rehabilitation and development schemes applied as part of a peacebuilding strategy. As the
initial findings indicated that while the local political culture offers a range of norms for
dialogue and negotiation towards building peace in the region, their success in procuring a
workable and positive peace has been rather inadequate. However, while looking into the case
of minorities in the state, wide neglect has been reflected. Since the first ethnic riots, no
compensation has been awarded to the affected minorities. Moreover the indifference of the
government of Meghalaya towards the minorities had further accentuated fear and anxiety
among the latter in the state. As a result, survival instinct propelled many minorities to
abandon their homes and move out of the state of Meghalaya.
11
CEU: In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main focus was on outlining the governing
rationalities and technologies, as well as plurality of grassroots agency and the different types
of responses. The existence of ‘ethnic spaces’ around the country, for instance, and their
perpetual reconstitution and spatialisation of ethnicity through everyday practices was
examined. Within that context, the research zeroed in on the lives of the people complying
and/or resisting the ethnic spaces, as well as of those living near the Inter-Entity Boundary Line,
where jurisdiction and governing boundaries between the two entities are often blurred or
easy to surpass. It is in these small villages along the line where we witness cases of genuine
grassroots reconciliation and conflict resolution occurring. This sheds light on the interplay
between governance and conflict resolution, and the hindrance that the former poses to the
latter. The governing rationalities of the international community were also examined and
placed in a historical perspective in an attempt to uncover some of the assumptions that have
driven the involvement in BiH so far. These, inter alia, include the assumption that the
international community is perceived as a neutral actor by the local population, which
negatively affects their initiatives on the ground. Finally, the role of the civil society was also
researched, starting off from what the concept means, why there is a disconnect with the
society-at-large, its interaction with the governing structures, the international community and
the grassroots, and the reasons for the inability to significantly contribute to longer lasting
conflict resolution efforts in the country.
PRIA: The PRIA team focused on two aspects of conflict and governance in Jammu and
Kashmir: the institutional innovation that was introduced in 2011 by holding elections to village
councils across the state of Jammu and Kashmir (Halqa Panchayats); and the governance
measures that have been undertaken at the border and line of control that separates Indian
administered Kashmir from Pakistan administered Kashmir. For both these strands the focus
was on how these initiatives have affected the lives and livelihoods of people in local
communities (village communities, traders, business people, farmers …). In the first case, the
fieldwork sought to understand how different players in the system understand the significance
of the Halqa Panchayat elections and its role in ushering change as well as some of the
opportunities and challenges. The fieldwork, and in particular the interviews with elected
representatives across the state, pointed to the dialogue gap between the political leadership
of the state and its functionaries and the people at the community level and found that an
excellent governance initiative very well executed at the first stage could be virtually turned
around on its head if expectations were not managed and if the state and its functionaries
were not alert and attentive to the perceived gap between the promise of devolution
generated by the elections and the reality of operationalizing this devolution on the ground.
Continuing with this overall theme of dialogue, trust and confidence building in Jammu and
Kashmir a second strand of the PRIA field research looked at the series of steps that had been
taken in border areas by way of cross border trade and travel. Two field visits were made to
conduct archival and field material on governing the border and its interface with the conflict
in Jammu and Kashmir. The visits particularly focused on the theme of cross Line of control
(LoC) trade which was started as a confidence building measure in 2008. Some of the findings
were: customs officials often decide arbitrarily whether trade on a specific item should be
banned or not; government should not leave this important CBM to traders alone and must get
12
involved so that the trade can be transparent and profitable; friendly relations had indeed
increased as a result of this cross LoC trade but the constant losses were straining this; the
opening up of trade route had increased trust and friendly relations.
DU: The extensive field work done in Kashmir was equally presented to the consortium.
Session III: Discussion on desirable outcomes of final conferences and dissemination
activities, upcoming steps and events in the project
Roger MacGinty, as chair of Session III invited the partners to each suggest headlines for
dissemination of the project results. Here are some of the suggested headlines:
• Resistance can be constructive and we should take care not to dismiss it as merely
oppositional activity.
• Governance can hinder conflict resolution.
• Local political dynamics determine the outcomes of all governance initiatives.
• Governance and conflict resolution dynamics change with time.
• Conflict resolution is always governance. Governance is not always conflict resolution.
• There is a lack of understanding on what peacebuilding actually is within many conflict
resolution schemes.
• Governance for peace is undergoing a crisis of legitimacy and representation
• Governance responds by governance initiatives and calls it ‘peace’
• Governance agency in development does not necessarily lead to conflict resolution. The
type of governance is important.
• Governance may pacify while creating a conflict potential.
• Pacification/stabilization are not peace. Where is the dialogue?
• Some local initiatives are like little flowers. We need to protect them but not expose them
because they will get trampled.
Chetan Bhatt from the Advisory Board suggested, when thinking about that the headlines, to
think about what the CORE project would like to see changed in local governance. This would
probably change the construction of the headlines.
There was much discussion of whether there really should be headlines. It was discussed what
it was that CORE wanted policy makers to do as a result of the research and the consensus was
that the Consortium was not really in the business of policy advice, but rather that should
emphasise the theory and concept building in the project’s work.
A number of common themes emerged from the discussions about the project’s research:
• Nearly all of the headlines point to how liberal ideas on toleration are contested or
complicated when they enacted through governance agendas.
• Many of the headlines pointed to the limits of the state.
13
• There were concerns about the artificial nature of NGOs, or their lack of connection with
the communities on whose behalf they claimed to be working.
• The same governance ‘errors’ (e.g., top-down programming with a lack of local
consultation) were seen in all of the cases.
Session IV: Feedback from the Advisory Board
As this was the last Advisory Board Feedback, Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh and Chetan Bhatt were
invited to give their last recommendations on the project.
Chetan Bhatt underlined that some terms were not understood by all partners in the same way,
for instance the concept of Liberal Peace, which has a different meaning in former colonies.
Another meaning that is differently understood is “post-colonial” – where some (typically in
the West) understand it as postcolonial theory, orientalism etc. but some (typically in India) see
it as a more critical approach. Similarly, he noted that it seems that some ideas bear different
conceptions. Chetan Bhatt further noticed that though the project produced vast theoretical
and empirical cases, little had been done between both. He concluded by recommending to go
further with the discussions beyond the timeframe of the project.
Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh invited a reflection on the added-value of the project by raising several
questions:
1. Is there a main message or not? The message should be a coherent not too simplistic
one in order to avoid being labelled as being “just about conflicts”.
2. What is the project about? It seems like some people believe the project is about local
agency, others think it’s about top-down forms of governance. A better formulated
message will give more identity to the project.
3. Did the project teach anything to anyone? It seems like we were hearing “business as
14
usual” – each side used the same theories and terms they normally do, and there was
no exchange. It doesn’t seem there was a mirror effect – partners came from different
angles and stopped. The reflection should start now after the end of the project.
4. Did you get new empirics from this project? Did you learn something new from the
fieldwork?
5. Do you think there was a good correlation between the theory and the case studies?
Did you use the theory to go to the field or did you use the field to make a theory?
Should/could comparative analysis really be done?
6. Was there an exchange? Yes, that seemed to have worked.
7. What is the practical applicability? The EU didn’t fund this project to have a practical
application – doesn’t search for recommendations from this project. Should work on
the communication strategy, not towards policy makers but for your own research
environments.
15
Semi-Open Dissemination Session
The Panel discussion was chaired by Olga Demetriou, Senior Researcher, PRIO Cyprus Centre. The
discussion was centred on the following questions:
1. If reconciliation / conflict resolution (CR) has been achieved in some aspects or levels, but not
others, can governance (or peacebuilding) identify and remove blockages?
2. What kind of issues need to be addressed and what kind of agency exercised?
Conclusions of the workshop
Roger MacGinty, University of Manchester, summarized the discussions of the workshop at the
end of this day.
I should begin by noting how outsiders usually fall into the trap of thinking that other peoples’
conflicts are straightforward. There is a risk that the remarks here come across as glib and underestimate the complexity of the Cyprus conflict. The remarks were made in response to two
presentations by long-term civil society actors in Cyprus – one resident on the Greek Cypriot side,
and the other resident in the Turkish Cypriot side.
1. The establishment of a pro-peace civil society, especially one that asks difficult questions,
requires significant individual bravery. We can too easily overlook the risks that individuals,
families and small groups take in putting their head above the parapet. Often this bravery,
individualism and iconoclasm takes place at the intra-group level. This is where there is a
real risk of being branded a ‘traitor’ and being marginalized and ‘marked out’ from one’s
own community. This bravery is often part of a personal evolution.
2. Both speakers noted that there was no rush for peace; that many people in Cyprus inhabit a
comfort zone of ‘no war, no peace’. This suggests that it is worth investigating arguments in
favour of the status quo: it seems to be popular, or at least is regarded by many people as
being the least worst option for Cyprus’ future. An argument in favour of the status quo can
be dismissed as defeatist, as accepting nationalism and division. It is certainly not an
argument that one hears from those with an interest in peace studies or reconciliation. But
the status quo need not necessarily champion nationalism. It accepts it but is not beholden
by it. It may simply be a rational calculation that the status quo offers benefits (including
calm and safety) and therefore should be prolonged.
3. Both speakers noted that the peacebuilding sector was often isolated from 1. Grassroots
16
opinion and 2. Track I or elite level politics. There was a sense of dissatisfaction with this
situation. Failure to connect with the grassroots level seemed to suggest that the
peacebuilding sector was inauthentic. Failure connect with Track suggested that the
peacebuilding sector was somehow irrelevant. But maybe we should stop and reflect if this
sense of ‘isolation’ is really so bad. The peacebuilding sector is often internationally
networked and influenced. It uses an internationalized vernacular and is often immersed in
concepts that have their origins from the US. To seek some sort of ‘authenticity’ via a
meaningful connection with the grassroots seems impossible and something of a wild
goose chase. Similarly, to seek ‘approval’ or ‘acceptance’ from Track I elements seems to
miss the point of a peacebuilding sector to act as a bridge or connector between top-down
and bottom-up. Trying to become one of the other seems a step too far.
4. Our speakers mentioned that the ideas for an agreement are already out there; the
parameters for a settlement are broadly accepted by political leaders and publics, but
neither has reached a position where they can publicly support them. This reminded me of
the case of Northern Ireland in which a major power-sharing agreement was reached in the
mid-1970s. It quickly collapsed amid mass protests and violence, only for a very similar
agreement to be reached in 1998 in the form of the Good Friday Agreement/Belfast
Agreement. The 1998 Agreement was called ‘peace for slow learners’. The learning process
is open to subversion by political leaders who want to be seen as the ‘true defenders’ of
their own group. It is very risky for political leaders to suggest conciliation and compromise,
and such positions are easily undercut by ethnic entrepreneurs. This suggests that the
impetus for change may come from exogenous sources. The 2012 bailout was a missed
chance by the international community. They did not use it to compel Cypriot actors to
amend their behaviour on the constitutional issue. Perhaps the discovery of energy
reserves off the Cyprus coast will provide another opportunity for change?
5. Both speakers mentioned the multitude of confidence building measures at work. In one
light, these measures are very valuable. They allow an evolutionary way in which two
communities can become acclimatized to each other. They are small steps that might allow
for bigger ones to follow. But given that there are thousands of CBMs in place, and little
sign of a major constitutional agreement, it is worth asking: do these CBMs actually work?
Might they actually be contributing to the ‘no war, no peace’ situation? Are they too timid?
17
1. Short introduction of panel speakers
Olga Demetriou is Senior Research Consultant at the PRIO Cyprus Centre. She is a social
anthropologist and holds a PhD (2002) from the London School of Economics. She has carried out
fieldwork in western Thrace and Cyprus and has been working on issues of human rights, minoritystate relations, refugeehood, gender, and migration. She is particularly interested in processes of
subjectivisation in conditions of conflict and inequality. She has been involved in a number of social
justice initiatives in Cyprus, most recently the Gender Advisory Team (since 2009) which seeks to
mainstream gender equality concerns in the peace building agenda.
Maria Hadjipavlou is Professor at the Social and Political Science Department of the University of
Cyprus. She is a well-known expert in conflict resolution and feminism. She has promoted peace
across the divide in Cyprus for the last twenty-five years. She is a trainer in conflict resolution and
gender-raising consciousness. She has published widely in the fields of conflict resolution, Cyprus
and gender issues. She holds a PhD in Comparative Social and Political Change from Boston
University. Her research interests are centred around Conflict Resolution (theory and practice), the
relationship between official and unofficial diplomacy, gender, conflict and peace, memory and
reconciliation, feminist theories and methodologies, gender and migration, narrative and
reconciliation.
Ahmet Sözen is Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, at the
Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU). He holds a BA from Boğaziçi University (İstanbul), a MA in
from Syracuse University (USA) and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Missouri (USA).
He is the Founding Director of the political think-tank CPC (Cyprus Policy Center) and the founding
Turkish Cypriot Co-Director of the UNDP funded program Cyprus 2015 which became the first
inter-communal think-tank called SeeD – Center for Sustainable Peace and Democratic
Development. He published extensively on the Cyprus conflict and Turkish foreign policy and has
been very active on the policy and advocacy fronts.
18
Annex I: list of participants
Hans-Joachim Giessmann
Berghof
Janel Galvanek
Berghof
Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya
BHU
Priyankar Upadhyaya
BHU
Elena Stravrenska
CEU
Navnita Chadha Behera
DU
Nona Mikhelidze
IAI
Amit Prakash
JNU
Ranabir Samaddar
MCRG
Atig Ghosh
MCRG
Sumona DasGupta
PRIA
Rajesh Tandon
PRIA
J. Peter Burgess
PRIO
Kristoffer Liden
PRIO
Anne Duquenne
PRIO
Oliver Richmond
UNIMAN
Birte Vogel
UNIMAN
Roger MacGinty
UNIMAN
Sandra Pogodda
UNIMAN
Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
Adv. Board
Chetan Bhatt
Adv. Board
Panel Speakers:
Olga Demetriou
PRIO Cyprus Centre
Maria Hadjipavlou
University of Cyprus
Ahmet Sözen
Eastern
Mediterranean
University
19