DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN PEACE PROCESSES: THE CENTER FOR HUMANITARIAN DIALOGUE

Note: This chapter is built upon open-source material and interviews with actors directly involved in the NGO.

Emerging out of the world of the human­itarian concerns, expressed faithfully by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the humanitarian movement that followed its lead, the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD or “the Center”) is a more recent attempt to constructively engage the international system by offering a variety of services that would complement the activities of traditional state actors and international organizations (Anderson 1996).

The Center was established in 1999 as a Swiss foundation intended to explore new concepts of humanitarian dialogue, in which discreet discussions could take place among those who could have a practical impact on humanitarian policy and practice. Early engagements in Aceh, Indonesia, led to an expansion of the organization’s mandate to include mediation and conflict prevention activities (Martin 2006). The Center found its comparative advantage in its ability to remain a small, impartial, and independent NGO focusing on bringing to the table senior­level diplomats and leaders of armed groups to resolve their differences peacefully, while discreetly managing these processes.

Unlike the Carter Center and the Crisis Management Initiative, which utilize interna­tionally known, former heads of state as a key element in obtaining legitimacy, the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue has established its position through long-term, rigorous, and continuous engagements on the ground, cultivating and developing its reputation with relevant actors (Edwards & Hulme 1996). This commitment to long-term investment, as well as the preeminence of confidentiality, has allowed the Center to politically engage conflict in a proactive manner - something the humanitarian movement from which it grew has struggled with due to issues of neutrality (Griffiths 2005). This relational strategy has proven successful. Since 1999, the Center has been involved in peace­building activities, including mediation, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East, and developed humanitarian ceasefire agreements in Darfur and “cessation of hostility” agreements in Aceh. Due to the confidentiality of many of the Center’s initiatives, it is difficult to ascertain the full effect of the Center's contributions to peace.

The Center employs a full-time staff ded­icated to programs including mediation and policy research and analysis. Policy research is conducted to inform the Center's staff of important themes related to conflict resolution processes and to identify and horizontally disseminate policy recommendations to the wider conflict resolution community. The Policy Program addresses four major themes: conflict mediation, civilian protection, justice and peace-building, and arms and security issues. This self-described “investment in academically relevant knowledge” illustrates an attempt by the Center to understand the relevant processes related to conflict, rather than simply “do” them.

The Center for Humanitarian Dialogue became involved in the Aceh, Indonesia, conflict in 1999 when it initiated dialogue between the Indonesian Government and the leadership of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Observing states began to take notice of the Center's engagement and important linkages were formed, adding to the Center's credibility. Although seen by some as a “weak” mediator, actors were quick to recognize the formidable connections that the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue brought to the mediation. The notion of power is interesting in this context as it was the Center's perceived access to power, rather than actual power it possessed, that lent credibility to its initiative (Akashi 1995-96). Similar to the Community of Sant'Egidio in Mozambique, armed groups perceive the relationship between the NGO and the more powerful state as their access point. Sant'Egidio's linkages with the Vatican and the HD's linkages to the United Nations and the US State Department, perceived or legit­imate, exemplified this power connection in the eyes of the actors. (See www.hdcentre.org)