â€˜B r i n g i n g P e a c e T o g eth e r â€™
Introduction: the Legacy of Andrew Carnegie and the emergence of the Peacebuilding Conversations
14 A Word from HRH Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands 18 Silos 22 Sustainability 30 Profitable Peace 38 Artificial Intelligence 45 The Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize 46 The Sessions 47 Join the Conversation
P r e fa c e
The Resonance of Andrew Carnegie Inspired by the peacebuilding legacy of Andrew Carnegie, a three-day conference was organised in the Peace Palace in The Hague in September 2018. The conference took place 100 years after the First World War, which ended on 11 November 1918 when the Armistice was signed in the French town of CompiĂ¨gne. Despite the awareness of the necessity for peace in the course of the 19th century, an effort strongly supported by Andrew Carnegie himself, humankind could not prevent the 20th century from becoming the most violent century of all time. Unfortunately, conflict and violence are still present in our modern world. Currently nearly 71 million people, according to the UNCHR, are forcibly displaced worldwide. In the days of Andrew Carnegie conflicts were inter-state in nature and therefore the mechanisms to deal with conflicts were built accordingly (i.e. public international law and its institutions). Whereas nowadays, most conflicts seem to have an intra-state and a regional origin, which require a new approach.
The 17 SDGs set out by the United Nations form an interconnected and universal framework for both public and private entities to support human and ecological progress.
As a further complexity, technology creates a whole new arena for potential conflict, and therefore brand new challenges to peace and justice are emerging in the digital world every day. While peace is more important than ever, a lack of clarity appears to have evolved over time as to the very definition of the word itself â€“ what it even means. In order to make a plan to achieve it, surely we need to re-establish a shared understanding of the concept and fundamentally adopt it within ourselves as human beings â€“ regardless of culture, religion and geography. Do we have the capabilities and capacities to have inner peace in order to maintain and create outer peace? It is a matter of conscious development to collectively create language around the concept of peace and to establish it as a grass-roots practice at the human level. To address peace in the modern context, the Peacebuilding Conversations of last September were initiated by a collaboration of the Carnegie institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, supported by an alliance of public and private partners. The conversations were aimed
at creating a new perspective on the issue of peacebuilding, connected to the important challenges of sustainability and inclusiveness. This publication seeks to provide you with a harvested reflection on the introductions, panel discussions and conversations held with participants during the conference. To achieve that we asked our panel of reflective listeners to go beyond the words exchanged, to distill the recurring themes that touched us the most and to extract the seeds for peacebuilding development that emerged from the three days. The Major Alliance and the 0.0 Foundation organised this publication in close cooperation with the Carnegie Foundation, in order to collect the building blocks for the 21st century peace agenda, and to invite you to become an actor in the ongoing peacebuilding efforts across the world. At the opening of the conversations, the Peace Palace in The Hague was officially declared the Sustainable Development Goal 16 House. The 17 SDGs set out by the United Nations form an interconnected and
universal framework for both public and private entities to support human and ecological progress. Peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) go hand-in-hand with sustainable and inclusive development. Therefore the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations (CPC) aim to connect peacebuilding with: fostering inclusion; supporting growth, jobs, and poverty reduction; ensuring access to justice; engaging in climate action; providing accessibility to clean water and energy for everyone; and creating resilient and regenerative economies and societies. The CPC initiative is thereby aligned to integrate into the roadmap of promising SDG initiatives. By continuing the conversations on the relevant topics addressed in this publication, we want to create inclusive â€˜peace circlesâ€™ that break down the silos between people, organisations and their ways of thinking â€“ to open possibilities for connection, mutual understanding and collaboration, and to inspire future generations. These circles are formed, supported and strengthened by shared values and principles of trust. In the interest of humanity and the future of our world, we challenge you to participate in a true dialogue, with an open and yet critical mind. This will enable us to initiate action ranging from peacebuilding expeditions to creating a community of practice for peace. Carnegie Foundation 0.0 Foundation Major Alliance Missing Chapter Foundation Municipality of The Hague SDG Charter
C ARNEGIE P EA C E B U I L DING C ON V ERSAT IONS The Peace Palace is a unique place. The majestic building embodies the ideal of world peace. The mission of the Peace Palace is both historic, and extremely actual.
Bringing Peace Together Historical background Peace through law was the guiding motto during the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899. This event was hosted by Her Royal Highness Queen Wilhelmina, at the request of the last Russian tsar. The government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to take up this role, as it tied in so well with the Dutch policy of neutrality in various conflicts. The international conference in The Hague lead to the building of the palace in order to host a court, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, that applies international law to find solutions for potentially violent conflicts. The Palace therefore symbolises the common ideal to resolve conflicts peacefully to prevent war. Parties should not turn to the battlefield, but to the courtroom instead. With that same ideal the International Court of Justice of the United Nations was founded and also housed in the Peace Palace, shortly after the end of the second World War. The International Court of Justice is the principal juridical organ of the United Nations. Therewith, the Peace Palace became the only
There are over 200 hearing days per year in the Peace Palace. It is peace in action, on a daily basis. It therefore truly is a global symbol of peace.
building outside of New York that houses a principal organ of the United Nations. The United Nations central aim is to promote world peace. There are many offices of the various UN institutions around the world, but only one principal organ mentioned in the UN Charter is not based at UN Headquarters in the Big Apple, but in The Hague, the legal capital of the world, also known as the International City of Peace and Justice. This reputation of The Hague started with the foundation of the Peace Palace. Under its roof, many conflicts that could have led to violent conflicts have already been peacefully resolved. There are over 200 hearing days per year in the Peace Palace. It is peace in action, on a daily basis. It therefore truly is a global symbol of peace. This is exactly how Andrew Carnegie imagined what the Peace Palace should become, when he decided to donate the $1.5 million US dollars that were needed to build the palace at the beginning of last century. Carnegie was born in Scotland into a poor family of weavers. When the family business went bankrupt during the industrial revolution, his family migrated to the United States when he was still very young. Carnegie managed to fulfil the American dream and became the richest man in the world after selling his immensely successful steel company. Carnegie realised that he had been fortunate and he decided idealistically to give back almost all of his assets for the good of society. He did so by founding institutions that became responsible for translating his ideals into action. All of the institutions, that carry his name, are still very active and relevant today, a century after
Andrew Carnegie passed away. It is inspiring to realise the work these foundations carry out in the field of education, peace, ethics, wellbeing and science. The power Carnegie institutions can generate by joining hands is unique. One of the main goals of his philanthropic endeavour was to promote global peace. The Peace Palace, he envisioned, would therefore become a temple of peace for the world. Introduction to the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations The Carnegie Foundation that owns and manages the Peace Palace, has become aware that the Peace Palace can, in addition to its existing roles, further serve the world using its convening power to bring together actors from different backgrounds, for dialogues on the root causes of conflicts and on contemporary issues in peacebuilding. President of the Carnegie Corporation New York, Vartan Gregorian brought together the Carnegie institutions worldwide in 2001 by creating the bi-annual Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy event. The series of gatherings of the Carnegie Institutions led to the inspiration to organise first-ever joint Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations. This conference was held in the Peace Palace in September 2018. Coordinated by the Carnegie Foundation and Project Director Angus Hogg, a coalition of 21 different organisations developed a programme for a three-day conference consisting of 21 different sessions with a total of 58 speakers. Over those three days, 364 people from 23 different countries attended the event and engaged in thought-provoking dialogues. A plurality of that number followed the dialogues through a livestream online, from all around the world. Sustainable Development Goals All dialogues that took place during the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations addressed issues that are part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals, established by the United Nations, are a blueprint for how to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. One of these important goals is Goal 16, that is focussed on peace, justice and stronger institutions. It was therefore fitting that on the first day of the conference, the Dutch government officially labelled the Peace Palace as international
Erik de Baedts, Director of the Carnegie Foundation – Peace Palace, at the opening of the first joint Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations.
SDG 16 House, the central location in the world for inclusive dialogues that promote progress towards peace, justice and stronger institutions. SDG 16 is cross-cutting. Together with Goal 17, on partnerships, it aims to promote progress on the other SDGs, many of which address root causes for conflicts, such as inequality, poverty, hunger, health, responsible consumption and production, and thus on scarcity of natural resources. Conflicts should be prevented. Peace requires justice. Justice often requires change. Change calls for bringing parties together in order to promote mutual understanding and joint action. Andrew Carnegie invested in peace by founding organisations that work towards a more peaceful world. One prominent discussion during the event was on how these organisations can continue to be of added value in the century to come, how they can continue ‘Forging the Future’, also by working together. Carnegie’s legacy also came back in the sessions Making Peace Profitable and Financing Peace. Both sessions dealt with the questions of how the world can invest in peace, where the money should come from, and in what strands it should be invested, as ‘bankable projects’. Investing in conflict prevention is more sustainable than investing in conflict resolution, that was the consensus. Yet, if we all know this, why does it not happen enough? And what innovative mechanisms can be used to scale up the right efforts? It proved that the connection between philanthropy and peace is one of continued relevance. More efforts are needed today to develop the necessary partnerships.
P e a c e bu i l d i n g 2 0 1 8
P e a c e bu i l d i n g 2 0 1 8
The Carnegie PeaceÂbuilding Conversations formed a suitable start of this new positioning of the Peace Palace, providing fresh energy in the spirit of the legacy of Carnegie, at the beginning of the second century after he passed away. The location and iconic status of the Peace Palace proved its convening power, by drawing an audience consisting of the relevant stakeholders from different backgrounds. Not only was the event attended by diplomats, government officials and representatives of multiple international organisations, there was also a large representation from NGOs, youth organisations and academia. A real added value was the presence of less represented groups in peacebuilding such as refugees that experienced violent conflict themselves, representatives of corporations that are interested in social corporate responsibility, and philanthropic foundations with the ideal to promote peace. Only by connecting all these layers in promoting peace, by having inclusive dialogues, and by using the SDGs as a platform to guide efforts, we can make progress toward a more peaceful world. We need that progress.
Involving youth Youth have been crucial to the success of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations. The involvement of students and young professionals from around the world was not a box-ticking exercise for apparent inclusivity. Youth were included in dialogues for their valuable ideas, for engaging society in a different way, for bringing together the leaders of the future. One of the most unique moments of the conference, was the involvement of a class of children from an international school, none older than 12 years of age. Skilfully moderated by Her Royal Highness Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, the children gave their honest and clear visions on how the world can become more peaceful. Their visions went beyond childlike innocence. In the course of the conference, even during the most serious of discussions, their idealistic approach was referred to by adult participants. Whether children should always be included in these kinds of dialogues is an interesting conceptual discussion, but the young professionals and students that participated in the dialogues over the three days proved that inclusiveness generates fresh insights and is the only sustainable way forward. The added value was even more noticeable when the laureate of the Carnegie Youth Peace Prize that was awarded for the first time, together with the Youth Peace initiative and UNOY, gave his inspiring input during the event. With ideas gathered, new partnerships formed and a benchmark set, the aim is to continue our conversations, and to extend and deepen the dialogues on the various topics. Networks are formed around specific topics, working together based on ideas that came forward in the dialogues.
Mayor of The Hague, Pauline Krikke, welcoming participants of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations in the grand entrance of the Peace Palace.
Now is the time to join those networks, to join the dialogue and to make sure that those promising words are actually translated into action. During one of the sessions a speaker called the Peace Palace a place of pilgrimage. Following the inspiration from Andrew Carnegie, we strive to open our doors to those who come for dialogues on the issues that matter. May the Peace Palace indeed serve the world even more? We welcome partners who want to join in our conversations. May peace prevail throughout the world.
We welcome partners who want to join in our conversations. May peace prevail throughout the world.
We are grateful that this publication is another tangible outcome of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations, and thank those who participated and listened carefully to catch what was exchanged, including the deeper meanings. This publication reflects on the dialogues that were held during the event. It has the aim of deepening the dialogues, by building on the ideas that were put forward. After all, despite bringing forward innovative ideas and fostering new partnerships, the dialogues on these issues in peacebuilding are anything but complete. The dialogue on every topic should continue, attracting more actors to the discussion, especially those who are underrepresented in institutional efforts discussing various root causes for conflicts. On behalf of the Carnegie family of institutions, Erik de Baedts, Director of the Carnegie Foundation â€“ Peace Palace Angus Hogg, MBE Project Director of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations
S e s s i o n E x c e r pt s f r o m
Why Are We Here: The Legacy of Andrew Carnegie 2018 b y D av i d N a s aw “We are here today because of a funny-looking Scotsman who, in his high-heeled boots, stood no more than five foot tall. A strange-looking gnome of a man who resembled Santa Claus in a top hat, or a miniaturised Karl Marx. We are here today because that little man believed in evolution and reason, in humanity and peace. We are here today because that little man had a big voice, and the money to make himself heard. We are here today because in an age too much like our own – an age of advanced weaponry, of reckless leaders, of arms races, of adults who don’t know how to talk to one another – that little man dedicated himself and a good part of his fortune, his welfare, his health, and his reputation to campaigning for peace. We are here today to celebrate, learn from, and carry on his legacy. And what is – what was – that legacy? Well that legacy is in organisations which are represented here today. That legacy is in this building, and all that it stands for. That legacy is – more than that perhaps – in this man’s thoughts, his words, his language about peace.”
“Carnegie got it wrong. The 20th century was not a century of peace. But we are here today because we, like Andrew Carnegie, refuse to give up. The 21st century, maybe the 22nd century will be a century of peace. Might we not take something away from his crusade for peace, failed though it was? Let us pause at this moment in this great palace of peace, and look back across the desolate dark century that has passed – the world wars, the genocides, the killing fields – let us look back to this man of the 19th century, this optimist who believed in evolution, who believed in progress, without forgetting – we must not, we cannot forget – those horrors. And the dismal failures to build a lasting peace. Let us remember, let us celebrate, let us build upon this little man’s dreams. We are here today to renew with him our commitment to work towards a future where reason and humankind take the final step forward on the path from barbarism toward civilisation.”
David Nasaw’s New York Times Bestseller ‘Andrew Carnegie’, offering a fascinating window into the life of the man whose support made the Peace Palace possible.
Portrait of Andrew Carnegie, 1913.
T h e H a g u e , S e pt e m b e r 2 0 1 8 Carnegie Foundation Chairman Dr. Bernard Bot (left) and Hugo von Meijenfeldt (right), SDG Coordinator of the Netherlands, present the banner introducing the Peace Palace as the international SDG 16 House.
S U S TAINA B L E DE V E L O P MEN T GOA L 1 6
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
A FEW WORDS FROM HER ROYA L HIGHNESS P RIN C ESS L A U REN T IEN OF T HE NE T HER L ANDS
Princess Laurentien is a social entrepreneur, author and dialogue facilitator. Having founded the Reading and Writing Foundation in 2004, aimed at preventing and reducing functional illiteracy, she subsequently became UNESCO Special Envoy for Literacy and Development. Within her work on inclusive diversity and sustainability, the princess specialises in child emancipation. In 2009 she established the Missing Chapter Foundation, which connects the thinking power of children with strategic dilemmas of decisionmakers through programmes such as the Kids Council (introducing children’s boards for public and private sector organisations). It was an honour to have Princess Laurentien facilitate two spirited sessions during the three-day peace building conference: A Children’s Vision on Peacebuilding and Next Generation Peacebuilders, which welcomed
young children as well as young adults to the stage, to share their outlooks on peace. The princess energetically donned trainers on both occasions in order to circulate engagingly around the room, allowing the audience to make the most of a two-way conversation with the young panels. Here, she shares with us some of her thoughts on peace and the powerful contributions to be made by the inclusion of young people in the peacebuilding process. New perspectives are invaluable What do children bring to the process? There are obviously no turnkey solutions to achieve peace, which is precisely why we should look at the problem from as many angles as possible. This demands meaningful dialogue with those affected by our decisions today.
Children have the right to participate, and they provide unique and invaluable insights that will improve the depth, breadth and quality of decision-making. Children and young people can start the fire that – if well nurtured and taken care of – we so need to contribute to more sustainable peace. Children are not afraid to talk Do children themselves find it important to be heard and involved in the peacebuilding dialogues? Absolutely – just ask them. The right to express yourself is crucial for peace. Unfortunately, children are not taken seriously by decision makers, even though children have their own ideas about the world. In general they are not afraid to talk, and have a different way of thinking. As they are still learning, they see things more creatively and look at them from a different angle. Their thoughts can shed new light on relevant issues. Decision makers should acknowledge that they were kids once too. Children are the future; change is possible. We need to come together, to introduce new ideas in order to find other ways of solving wicked problems, which can lead to a more efficient way of doing things. War exists because people see things differently. To end inequality, to end fighting, war, and losses of life, we have to come together, bring peace to the conversations and find new ways to work out those differences. Our minds can often become preoccupied by bad things instead of good things. When there is peace, there is less worry. Trust and peace should not be taken for granted What comes to mind when thinking about peace? Peace is about coming together. It is about sharing ideas and being receptive to those that are odd or unfamiliar. Trust is the keystone of peace. It’s a sort of glue that keeps everyone together – and unites us as one. Everyone is unique and thinks individually, but at the same time we need to accept each other’s ideas with an open mind. That said, trust and peace are not a given, they have to be earned. Every little thing counts How can we communicate about peacebuilding, to make it the new normal? We should all start spreading kindness and awareness of peace. Share small heartfelt feelings – to love, to care, to want the best for people – with everybody, so that they too think about the world: the people who are getting hurt by
We need to realise reciprocity, which means that inclusion is not just inviting someone to the party, it’s inviting them to dance, to participate – and that takes both parties. conflict, but also the essence of peace. Every little thing you can do counts. In fact, we can start now – we can all help to bring peace. At school we started by selling tulip bulbs to raise money for girls in India who could not go to school. It’s just a simple example of what you can do to spread peace and develop awareness. Birds Does peace need a physical home like the Peace Palace, or does it need to be all over society? In the end peace needs to be all over society. It is a little odd to designate one location where you can find peace. You should also be able to find peace at your local ice cream shop. At the same time the Peace Palace should be seen as a uniquely peaceful and safe place. Sometimes it can feel too much like a castle. It should be more open. One could, for example, organise more school trips to the Peace Palace. In an abstract sense, the Peace Palace is where the birds fly out from, to spread peace to the rest of the world. Peace begins by writing down thoughts, which are then read by others. People all over the world should go to the Peace Palace and share those thoughts. In the end this could make the world a better place. Listen to your children What is your advice to parents? All the parents in the audience are called upon to listen to their children. You reap what you sow. If you plant bad things, bad things will come back to you. So plant good things to receive good things.
PAR T OF A L ARGER C ON V ERSAT ION Participants kept the conversations going in between sessions over coffee.
C a n w e B r e a k o ut o f o u r s i l o s ? Sitting in the magnificent surroundings of the Peace Palace listening to the unrelenting efforts made by Andrew Carnegie to bring about world peace was inspiring and heartbreaking at the same time. If such a courageous personal commitment wasn’t able to realise its ultimate goal of peace, what would? Perhaps one of the audience members of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations voiced it best: as we sat in Carnegie’s architectural homage to peace almost 100 years after his death, what do we collectively need to do to ensure that 100 years from now we’re not still in the same situation? Over the course of CPC’s three days, it was frequently noted that the statesman approach to peacebuilding that evolved over the 20th century is struggling in the 21st, due to the significant shift we have witnessed from inter-state conflict to intra-state conflict by internal actors. What is the role of our peacebuilding institutions in this new scenario? Their approach to resolving conflict is traditionally top-down, which is then mirrored by states. It has become clear that worldwide we need to reverse that to a bottom-up structure that includes a broader and more diverse set of actors in the conversation – particularly women and youth – the groups most adversely affected by conflict and yet the most voiceless. As Dr. Funmi Olonisakin of King’s College London put it, “There is a massive, growing, widening distance between our institutions that we’ve been familiar with – between state institutions, intergovernmental
How can institutions as well as states make room for influential seats at the table for women, youth, and other locally underrepresented actors? 18
institutions, exemplified by the United Nations if you like – and the ordinary people that are affected by these challenges.” We need our institutions more desperately than ever as a guiding light, but what do they need to look like in our new reality? How can institutions as well as states make room (at all levels) for influential seats at the table for women, youth, and other locally underrepresented actors? The threats to peace worldwide are numerous, and new ones spring up daily. This is currently compounded by the global spread of neo-nationalism, and the recent retreat on many fronts of the United States as a leader in the world peacekeeping sphere. As observed by Jean-Marie Guéhenno, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, “One could say that the American leg of the international structure has gone missing. And the question is, can an international architecture that was largely shaped by the United States after 1945 hold on if the main architect loses interest?” At the same time, Russia, China and India are all emerging as more influential world powers, any of which could potentially step in to help fill that void. Yet to-date, they have demonstrated less of a commitment to human rights than the peacekeeping world is accustomed to – and comfortable with – trusting in such a lead role. In the course of the sessions over three days, these issues came up again and again. There were moments of inspiration and moments of frustration. With such
> Can an international architecture survive when the main architect loses interest? > What does the new role of institutions look like? > How do we broaden and diversify the set of actors? > How can we accelerate our peacebuilding collaboration? a full roster of conflicts worldwide, where do we begin? The need for one obvious step in the right direction manifested itself across several sessions, but also raised a glaring question: can we break out of our silos? Whether between institutions, scientific disciplines, industries, or even between colleagues. We have developed many capabilities that are being unutilised or underutilised to address the world’s problems, which is a luxury we can ill afford. Globally, we have all the tools needed to solve these issues, but we clearly need to become more effective at putting them into a collaborative practice. To that end, it was encouraging to hear from some of the speakers and panelists about a few recently successful collaborations across various arenas. For example: • Frank Heemskerk of the World Bank and Henk-Jan Brinkman of the UN together referred to their two institutions joining forces in Yemen to place a World Bank team member within the UN offices there as the conflict grew, in order to keep Yemen’s institutions running and ensure a closer eye on the conflict – whereas previously the default position would have meant pulling World Bank staff out of such volatile zones. • Dr. Anna Michalak of the Carnegie Institution for Science explained that she had taken part in
a recent initiative that allowed environmental scientists to team up with technologists and policy makers to broaden their available resources, in order to collectively measure the pulse of the world’s water system on an exponentially broader scale than they would have had access to within their respective institutions. • Steve Wilson, Head of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), Europol, described how their cyber criminologists were collaborating with educational institutions in Scotland to introduce a 10-week course in cyber security for secondary school students aged 11 to 12, to equip them with survival skills for the digital world – conflict’s latest frontier. As part of their ‘cyber license’ curriculum, students were given the assignment of educating their less tech-savvy parents and grandparents, thereby further spreading the knowledge. • And notably the Carnegie institutions worldwide, by organising this peacebuilding conference, uniting members of all of their many branches in one place for the first time – historic in itself. The 21st century is crying out for more of this – much more. In a world that has developed very specialised, sectorised, siloed structures, how can we accelerate our peacebuilding collaboration to create the peacebuilding architecture needed for the next 100 years?
N e x t G e n e r at i o n P e a c e bu i l d e r s Her Royal Highness Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands moderates the Next Generation Peacebuilders session with panel delegates from One Young World, UNOY and YPI.
Su s ta i n a b i l i t y
Members of the Prevention of Conflicts Arising from Natural Resources Distribution session, from left to right: Dr. Eric Isaacs, Dr. Anna Michalak, Rutger Hofste, Professor Neelke Doorn and Dr. Timothy Strobel.
Energy. Water. Agriculture. These three key resources provide the longterm underpinnings for peace. They are also unequally distributed around the globe. And essential as they are, all three are under threat from the unsustainable treatment of our planet that is leading us to the brink of climate change disaster. In considering the various challenges to peace around the planet during the CPC, none loomed larger than climate change: it was the unanimous common denominator from one session to the next to the next. And clearly an issue that we are having grave difficulty in addressing as a global community. When we canâ€™t all agree that global warming is even real â€“ as evidenced by climate change deniers (including shockingly some world leaders) â€“ how are we supposed to collectively tackle the problem to avoid the full-on crisis looming directly ahead of us?
In considering the various challenges to peace around the planet during the CPC, none loomed larger than climate change. 22
We have a daunting but mission-critical set of tasks laid out by the UN: the Strategic Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. As has been made even more alarmingly clear in subsequent UN reports, falling short of these goals is simply not an option because the consequences are beyond serious. They are catastrophic and irreversible. The most vulnerable countries to climate change (e.g. droughts, rising sea waters, intense storms) are unfortunately also the ones suffering from the fewest resources, and the most in need of infrastructure development that can lead to better health and economic conditions. But such development could potentially be in conflict with environmental cost. How do we balance the resource needs of individual countries with priorities on a global environmental level? How do we convince aspiring economies who desperately want to follow us down the industrialised rabbit hole of carbonintensive energy and agricultural solutions, of the dire implications of such a move? Who will make the sacrifice for whom? And whose decision is that?
On the path to 2030, there is one SDG that was singled out during the discussions as a building block for almost all others: SDG 6, calling for clean water and sanitation. How do we finally solve the world’s water problem? It was frustrating to hear from the panel of scientists present at the CPC, that we’ve had the scientific models for 50 years that would solve this – yet the lack of political will has kept us from implementing them. Scientists are not politicians, but do they not have a humanitarian obligation as members of society to push through those barriers? Can we not finally clear that hurdle? Reinforcing the need for us to break out of our silos, Professor Neelke Doorn of Technical University Delft advocated organising research efforts on an interdisciplinary basis for better collaboration in solving the problems we face. By setting aside the discipline and focussing instead on the problem, collaborators can focus on interconnectedness, creating an opportunity for technical solutions that fit in the bigger social context, rather than being optimised for just one sector as is our common practice. This way the critical nexus of water, energy and agriculture could be addressed simultaneously rather than in isolation from one another. It was difficult to take in the information of the various experts present at the CPC without feeling... guilt. There is an overwhelming onus on us – ‘the West’ – to compensate for the damage that our industrialised ‘success’ has wrought on the planet.
We need to change not only our trajectory, our habits, and our infrastructure: we need to change our mentality. How do we change the mentality of our current global economy from a disposable/consumer approach, to a thoroughly circular economy? As one compelling CPC session revealed, it turns out we’ve had the framework for 70 years. It just had to be adapted. Renowned architect Thomas Rau, together with his wife, author Sabine Oberhuber, co-wrote the Universal Declaration of Material Rights, which was officially introduced on the second day of the CPC, in a moment that felt historically quite important. The launch of the charter acknowledged the 70year anniversary of the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was introduced in 1948. The idea was to replicate this concept for materials, to ensure that the atrocities of waste and destruction of nature are abolished. It centres around the idea that the planet’s materials merit the same treatment and respect as human beings, in order to ensure the future of humanity. In order to eliminate all waste, the Declaration suggests that we need to vest all material with an identity, to be able to reverse the process when an end product is no longer needed, so that the material it contains can revert to its origins. In doing so we transition our approach from an ownership mentality to a custodianship mentality. In Rau’s estimation, the SDGs are a wonderful initiative to reorganise the relation between humans,
Members of the Universal Declaration of Material Rights session panel, from left to right: Sabine Oberhuber, Dr. Maikel Kuijpers, Nina dos Santos (moderator), Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp and Ezekiel Ole Katato.
however he felt we are still missing one: the 18th SDG, the new relation between humans and every thing that makes life possible, the relationship between us and planet Earth. He therefore saw mind change as an even bigger challenge than climate change. Even when it comes to such important climate initiatives as the Paris Agreement, is there a danger of focussing on what’s possible, rather than what’s necessary? He urged us to focus on what’s necessary.
Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Chair man of the Major Alliance, Jan Peter Balkenende, described what he called an “agenda of hope”: the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, together with the issues of climate change and the circular economy, to ensure quality of life for future generations. As he pointed out, the alternative of continuing to produce and consume as we do now, leaves no future for the next generations, and is therefore not an option. Since it is not an option, rather than being a threat, it becomes a source of hope by virtue of its imperative.
T HE U NI V ERSA L DE C L ARAT ION OF MAT ERIA L RIGH T S Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Materials are the foundation of the fabric of life and form an integral part of it. They are endowed with meaning, purpose and utility and should be treated in a spirit that extends life itself. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No material shall be subjected to treatment that degrades its future ability to contribute to life. Article 15-1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. Every unique aggregation of material has the right to a unique, documented identity. Article 16-3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Materials are the natural and fundamental building blocks of life and are entitled to protection by society and the State.
“The alternative of continuing to produce and consume as we do now, leaves no future for the next generations ...” Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Chairman of the Major Alliance, Jan Peter Balkenende Jan Peter Balkenende (right) invites Major Alliance fellows Thomas Rau and Sabine Oberhuber (left) to present Dr. Bernard Bot (centre) with a copy of the Universal Declaration of Material Rights.
“In my opinion mind change is an even bigger challenge than climate change” Thomas Rau, architect and co-author of the Universal Declaration of Material Rights
Dr. Neelke Doorn, Professor Ethics of Water Engineering at the Technical University Delft
“Let’s try to develop technical solutions that also fit in the social
“In order to reach this goal, nations will need to take measures that seem to contravene national selfinterest, in order to rescue and safeguard – everything.”
Awraham Soetendorp, Rabbi and Founder of the Jacob Soetendorp Institute for Human Values
context, that address both energy AND water issues. Let’s use that nexus, not see it as either/or, but let’s aim for solutions that are not optimised for just one sector. I think that’s
“The SDGs are about communities. We have
where science can
to find ways
of transferring ownership to them.” Ezekiel Ole Katato, Maasai Elder and peace, cultural and environmental activist
Dr. Anna Michalak, Faculty member, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Professor, Department of Earth System Science at Stanford University
Dr. Eric D. Isaacs, President of Carnegie Institution for Science
“One very optimistic note: innovation will play a key role in a lot of these issues. And there’s a lot of creativity in this world. Setting big goals like the UN did is a good thing.”
“If you’re going to
“I think the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, the issue of climate change, and the issue of the circular economy, are an agenda of hope.”
achieve climate mitigation – so reducing the overall scale of climate change – some of the pathways towards that actually have terrible consequences for water quality. It doesn’t just matter where you get to with climate change, it also matters how you get there.”
Jan Peter Balkenende, Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Chairman of the Board, Major Alliance
P e a c e bu i l d i n g 2 0 1 8 28
P e a c e bu i l d i n g 2 0 1 8 29
P r o f i ta bl e P e a c e
We’ve probably all done it ourselves: donated financially to urgent humanitarian need, while pleas for contributions to build stable conditions in potential conflict areas get less of our attention and support.
The intangible challenge faced by peacebuilding parties is that they are trying to generate investment in conflict prevention by pointing to examples of ‘nothing happened’ as proof of a positive result. As a global community, why do we wait for images of starving children amidst war-torn ruins to act? How do we move the needle to create the conditions that facilitate peace, rather than allowing a climate of conflict to fester? As pointed out during a few of the CPC sessions, the same conditions that are good for peace, are good for business.
The current reality is that the world spends far more on reacting to conflict, than it spends on peace building by 2:1 – a sobering statistic delivered by Henk-Jan Brinkman of the UN during one of the CPC sessions. Conflict creates a sense of urgency that draws immediate support and investment – not to mention media coverage – whereas prevention is unfairly disadvantaged to spark a comparable reaction.
To interest the business community in peacebuilding investment, Steve Killelea of the Institute for Econo mics and Peace suggested we should answer the question: “Why is peace good for business?” Whether we like it or not, the simple truth is that business exerts a major influence on governments, particularly in the West, and therefore drives much of the decision-making and policy-setting in the world.
W h y i s p e a c e g o o d f o r bu s i n e s s ? 30
Better articulating the positive economic case to be made for peace could actually help foster the conditions that would lay the groundwork for peace. Is that coldly inverted from a humanitarian point of view? Maybe, however realistically it seems to hold the potential to successfully alter our current path, which ultimately is the humanitarian goal. Listening to the challenges of generating investment in peace, we can’t help wondering: Why are we continuing to ‘reward’ the business of war? The vicious cycle of conflict creates devastation that subsequently requires reconstruction, with lucrative contracts to be had from start to finish – from weapons sold to support the conflict, to rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Along the way there is every opportunity for corruption to come into play, which then undermines the long-term sustainability of peace. The current challenge is to convert the military industrial complex to a complex for peace. So how can we continue to condone the commercial sale of weapons by ‘peaceful’ countries? During a Q&A exchange, a CPC audience member questioned the validity of the current Global Peace Index in the absence of an indicator regarding
The vicious cycle of conflict creates devastation that subsequently requires reconstruction... Along the way there is every opportunity for corruption to come into play, which then undermines the long-term sustainability of peace. weapons exporting. This allows countries like The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Norway to rank quite highly, because there is no negative offset assessed to weapons-exporting countries. Having introduced herself as a member of the Nobel Prize-winning organisation WILPF, she made a well-received proposal to create an export tax on
weapons that would directly fund UN peace initiatives, which Henk-Jan Brinkman then offered to work on together with her. Surely that is a completely feasible measure, isn’t it? While it is likely to barely put a dent in the weapons business worth trillions, it would be a significantly positive step in redressing the current imbalance that rewards conflictperpetuation, to channel funding to a climate that invites stable business investment in social services and products. Once a peaceful economy takes hold, the business community becomes part of the peacekeeping process. The mere suggestion of this idea felt like it collectively lifted the room. How do we ensure this idea becomes reality? How do we divert more funds toward peacebuilding and start rewarding the ‘business’ of peace? Amidst a conversation on alternative ways to finance peace, it was fascinating to hear from Arif Neky from Kenya, Coordinator of the new UNDP Global Post2015 Partnership Platform for Philanthropy project. Through a variety of initiatives, the platform seeks to develop “pathways for bringing philanthropy and other partners into the SDG acceleration game” to create “bankable projects”. Via the United Nations
Once a peaceful economy takes hold, the business community becomes part of the peacekeeping process.
partnership with the government, they are able to bring philanthropy, private sector, and civil society partners to the table together in mainstream discussions. The idea is to “create county by county, block by block, a pipeline of investment projects”. This approach is allowing them to rejuvenate parts of Kenya, whose populations would otherwise funnel into the urban migration drain created by the lack of local opportunity. Can this be successfully replicated elsewhere in fragile contexts? If so, how can we accelerate the process? In fragile areas trying to avoid conflict as well as areas recovering from it, the possibility for corrup-
Panel speakers from the Making Peace Profitable session, from left to right: Frank Heemskerk, Steve Killelea, Erwin van Veen (moderator), H.E. Lamberto Zannier and Dr. Henk-Jan Brinkman.
tion looms large. While this presents a serious threat to stable peace, there is only one of the 169 SDG targets that addresses this – within SDG 16, as pointed out with great concern by Steve Killelea. He noted that corruption in fact is “one of the lead indicators which for the last decade has been deteriorating in more countries than improving”. When this remains a threat in even so-called peaceful nations, what more can we do to avoid it undermining long-term progress in fragile contexts? What other mechanisms need to be introduced to deal with such a pervasive threat, when we the peacekeepers can’t weed it out in our own societies? The importance of SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – cannot be overstated. As Henk-Jan Brinkman observed during the confe rence, “Societies are trying to move from conflicts settled by violence to conflicts settled by non-violent methods, and building up these institutions that can manage conflicts in non-violent ways – so political institutions, judicial institutions, the rule of law, security institutions – are very important.”
But it leads us to an important question that Dr. Bernard Bot, Chairman of Carnegie Foundation – Peace Palace, raised during the Peace through Law session, “What is the applicable law?” Having been part of dialogues with local tribal leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Netherlands had troops stationed in both places in his former capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Bot met with them to discuss ways to move forward to rebuild their countries. He said that the local leaders told him he was looking at the situation through Western eyes, and therefore Western law – but that they had their own laws. It was a very interesting observation, which taking a step back, makes you realise the question currently applies to so many areas. Is there only one answer? From international law, to local laws, to the laws of the Koran, to cyber law, it’s dauntingly complicated. With so many grey areas to be interpreted and adjudicated, what is the applicable law in a given conflict? And who gets to make that decision?
Dr. Riva Kantowitz, Visiting Fellow of the Center on International Cooperation
“Of the 169 targets, one of them refers to corruption – one of them – and that’s in SDG 16. So if we think about corruption, and you think of all the other Sustainable Development Goals and if we’re looking at this from a systemic approach and lifting all these other things – lift peace and create better and more trans parent investment environments – corruption is the nexus, the problem we have to solve.”
Steve Killelea, Founder & Executive Chairman of the Institute for Economics and Peace
“I feel hopeful, because I think part of the ethos of particularly venture capital financing is around experimentation, and action, and then learning from that action. So making mistakes – whereas in the foreign policy community the ethos is more around having lots of meetings, and writing a lot of memos, and being pretty risk-averse to actually investing in things that we don’t know how to measure...”
“Societies are trying to move from conflicts settled by violence to conflicts settled by non-violent methods, and building up these institutions that can manage conflicts in non-violent ways, so political institutions, judicial institutions, the rule of law, security institutions – are very important”
Dr. Henk-Jan Brinkman, Chief of the Policy, Planning and Application Branch, United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office
Arif Neky, Coordinator, UNDP Global Post-2015 Partnership Platform
Her Excellency Judge Xue Hanqin, Vice-President of the International Court of Justice
“I think the important point
“Regarding relevance of
for us is really this message
international law in today’s
of ‘there’s no peace without
world: we have to understand
development, and there’s no
that international law is not
development without peace’.
static, it’s developing (in a historical context). And each time you see its development, the law never leads, it always follows. So it’s not the solution to everything, it is only part of the solution. For a long time, it was mainly about disputes between states, now you have non-state parties. And you have different problems arising from advancement of technology, like cyber crime – so you have to constantly react to reality.”
“I think this dimension of social justice is a blind spot of the human rights practice today, even the practice of the Human Rights Committee. If we do not work on this social justice aspect, we do not work on the root of conflict and this preventive dimension of conflict. It’s not only about territories – most of the time, conflicts have their root in social inequality, and it’s a very significant challenge now.”
So how do you break that cycle? And really linking peace to the broader development ecosystem and not keeping it distinct. Because ultimately, for young states and young democracies like Kenya, what we think we need is the mix of governance, pluralism, and democracy in order to withstand political shocks, and this is part of kind of building that ecosystem in the long term.”
Professor Hélène Tigroudja, Member of the Human Rights Committee (2019-2022)
The Peace Palace’s great hall – a stunning setting for the Peace Through Law session, with panel speakers from left to right: Her Excellency Judge Xue Hanqin, Professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Dr. Bernard Bot and Professor Hélène Tigroudja.
A r t i f i c i a l I n t e ll i g e n c e One very compelling and interactive topic during the CPC was Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare – the panel, the moderator and the audience adopted a fully-engaged approach to a complex subject. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still such uncharted territory, and we are only beginning to discover its capacities as well as its dangers. The unknowns in this field far outweigh the knowns. As pointed out during the session, technology is “value neutral” – it can be used for good, or for bad, which depends entirely on human choices – as illustrated by the example of Facebook and the Arab Spring. The race is on for dominance in the field of AI, to gain the so-called “first mover advantage” as Rem Korteweg of the Clingendael Institute introduced it, to achieve primacy via the “magnitude leap” in the evolution of the technology. Susanne Wirwille of NATO cited Vladimir Putin’s ominous and rather chilling quote on this point that “whoever leads in this sphere will likely be the ruler of the world.” What a terrifying thought. (Semi-) autonomous systems are in development, not only for peaceful purposes but – potentially – for armed conflict applications as well. Machine autonomy is already growing fast for use in the non-combat
No one knows exactly yet what AI will become capable of, and what will happen once it exists in a truly autonomous form. 38
aspects of military life, as well as in defensive weapon systems operated under human supervision. How ever, many parties in the global community are gravely concerned about the next step, which is its fully autonomous use in combat. Capabilities of such autonomous systems may range anywhere from AI-assisted decision-making processes to fully autonomous AI-controlled drone swarms. Currently little to no ‘rules of engagement’ exist yet for AI-weaponised systems, let alone incorporating such rule into the systems themselves. Who will be held responsible for AI action when (inevitably) things go wrong? (Think of the controversy surrounding Tesla as to whether the passenger or Tesla is responsible for the crash of a driverless car, but then theoretically exponential when applied to a warfare context). Further to this point, there was concern that the question of accountability and appropriate use is a largely western-imposed discussion. Are we giving a time advantage to countries not constrained by this ethical self-restriction? If nothing changes, fully autonomous systems will be developed. It is unclear whether the development of such weaponised systems will be more advantage ous for the offensive or the defensive side, but the opportunity to change the offensive-defensive balance is undeniable. One looming question is: Will it make v v war more or less likely? As noted by Tomás Valás ek of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the greatest hope is that the unknown aspect of its potential will act as a deterrent to both sides by its sheer unpredictability, however that remains entirely
What a conversation sounds like: the Artificial Intelligence session. Panel speakers from left to right: Thomas de Waal (moderator), Susanne Wirwille, Tomáš Valášek and Rem Korteweg.
to be seen, and will depend ultimately on the actors involved. There was a lot of discussion during this session about the race to “get there first”, and the implied advantage that this holds – as was the case for the nuclear arms race – but since the technology is digital, it is more easily and rapidly copied by others than in the nuclear scenario, and therefore relative parity between actors could be reached rather quickly. However, will that soon-to-emerge parity lead to another period of peace as the MAD doctrine did with nuclear weapons, or will it lead the ‘winning’ party to press their advantage before it evaporates? So who will get there first? In terms of current actors, China and the U.S. are leading worldwide in terms of research and development of AI, and China has vowed to be the “AI world leader by 2030”. But as observed by the panel, this competition is not taking place
solely at a country level. Rem Korteweg noted that companies like “the Googles, Microsofts and Apples of the world” are in fact where the AI revolution is actually coming from. Corporate entities like these will have a much bigger impact and role to play as AI becomes more and more pervasive, since they are the source of much of its development. And by its very nature, technology evolution is unstoppable because it is not a guided process: it has a dynamic of its own. However, in the case of weaponised autonomous systems, is this not an area where, if only just this once, we should intervene in the march of techno logical ‘progress’? Indeed, there is already an international NGO coalition campaign underway (imaginatively entitled) ‘The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots’ – which admittedly has very little support on the global level due to the perceived threat of others achieving that magnitude leap first.
Aside from its role in determining future military power, will AI pose a challenge to peace on other fronts? Namely in its potential to upset the global order by changing the relative prosperity and stability of the world, either positively or negatively. On the one hand, AI could be a force for good by helping to raise and equalise the average level of prosperity, giving people theoretically less to fight over. On the flipside, there is much speculation about the potential loss of jobs in certain sectors with the introduction of AI which could lead to lack of viable income for certain swathes of the population, and – extrapolated to the extreme – the ensuing vulnera bility to radicalisation that it could create. Another very important question seems to be: Will AI facilitate or debilitate authoritarian regimes? Will it make their oppressive surveillance efforts more efficient, or will people be more empowered by information and inclined to rise up and demand justice? Proliferation of AI-assisted ‘deep fake’ videos may play a part as well, as the next wave of misinfor mation warfare. It is becoming harder and harder to detect what’s fake, which means in our age of post-truth politics, it’s possible to make it look as if anyone has said or done anything, which could prove highly destabilising in its ability to manipulate and
polarise beliefs. Ironically, we will ultimately need AI to detect and counter this problem. While AI may bring the world much good, it may also be a rather perilous development, as the way AI learns it not quite understood. Especially when ‘self-learning’ systems are used, one may select the input of the learning process, but steering what is actually learned is very difficult. Experiments at Google have shown that when two self-learning systems were connected, between them they developed a system for communication that within months was incomprehensible to humans. As such their ‘thinking’ and decision-making process was rendered completely opaque. How do we ensure that machine learning remains transparent, so that humans remain in control of technology and not vice versa? No one knows exactly yet what AI will become capable of, and what will happen once it exists in a truly autonomous form. So far the threats to peace appear much more concrete – or concretely felt – than the possible good AI might bring. Given the far superior speed at which it can think and react relative to human beings, one rather ominous admission from the panel was that “it will take AI to defeat AI”.
The greatest hope is that the unknown aspect of its potential will act as a deterrent to both sides by its sheer unpredictability, however that remains entirely to be seen, and will depend ultimately on the actors involved ....
In the field of artificial intelligence, who will “get there
Is the West
Will AI make war more or less likely?
Will AI facilitate or debilitate authoritarian regimes?
“Whoever leads in this sphere will likely be the ruler of the world.”
How do we ensure machine learning remains transparent?
What are the rules of engagement for fully autonomous AI used in combat?
be held responsible when things go wrong?
at a disadvantage in the AI race because of our self-imposed ethical
Will AI upset the world order?
â€œNowhere is the fog of war thicker than it is in cyberspaceâ€? Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General
Panel speakers from the Cyber Security session, from left to right: Mark Smitham, Steven Wilson, Sally Magnusson (moderator), Hans de Vries and Chelsey Slack.
P e a c e bu i l d i n g 2 0 1 8 44
T h e C a r n e g i e Wat e l e r P e a c e P r i z e
Ru d i V r a n c k x
Journalist and War correspondent at VRT, Laureate of the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize 2018 As a journalist for the Belgian public broadcaster VRT, Rudi Vranckx has shown the effect of conflict on daily life with personal reports. The board of the Carnegie FounÂdation recognises his courage to travel to the most dangerous conflict areas in the world. He started his career as a war correspondent in 1989 reporting on the uprising against Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. Over the past decades he has reported on wars and 5
conflicts around the world, including in the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and North Africa, to draw attention to suffering and injustice in conflict situations. Vranckx was one of the last European journalists to leave Egypt during the violence of the Arab Spring, and he survived an attack in Syria that killed his French colleague, Gilles Jacquier. We were honoured to award the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize 2018 to Rudi Vranckx.
T HE SESSIONS Over the course of three days, we looked at peacebuilding from all different angles. While the content of this publication focusses on the red threads woven throughout our conversations, there were many important session topics discussed: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The Peace Palace: SDG 16 House A Children’s Vision on Peacebuilding Why Are We Here: The Legacy of Andrew Carnegie in 2018 Carnegie Institutions Worldwide: Forging the Future Making Peace Profitable Financing Peace Prevention of Conflicts Arising from Natural Resources Distribution Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare Cyber Security Universal Declaration of Material Rights Education for Peace: The Living Legacy of the First World War Geopolitics Peace through Law Health as a Foundation for Education Organization of American States, including the Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Carnegie Foundation Peace Palace and the Organization of American States Next Generation Peacebuilders Expert Session: A Voice for Future Generations in Peacebuilding Conversations
For a closer look at the 2018 Peacebuilding Conversations, you can listen to the full content of the dialogues for yourself via the session recordings on our YouTube channel. For further information and links please visit our website.
J o i n t h e C o n v e r s at i o n This publication represents our look back at the first edition of the Carnegie Peace building Conversations, however our hope is for many more such sessions to take place in future, with an ever-growing audience of thinkers and doers. We hope you will become an active part of that. With the goal of ultimately fulfilling Andrew Carnegie’s vision for peace – albeit in the 21st century instead of the 20th – we encourage participation from all those interested in fostering a more peaceful world. Collectively we still have a lot to do to get there. As one of many steps needed toward peace, we are eager to share the outcomes of our conversations with all organisations and individuals committed to more inclusive, just and peaceful societies. The desired impact is to create communal ideas, framing and language to serve as the basis for new peacebuilding solutions, and to promote a concrete peace agenda for future generations. We invite you to join the conversation. Please contact us to see how you can get involved!
Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands +31 70 302 28 21 / +31 70 302 42 42 email@example.com
Stay in touch with us via social media:
‘Bringing Peace Toge ther’
@PeacePalace peacepalace.nl @PeacePalaceTheHague
The inaugural edition of the Carnegie Peacebuilding Conversations concluded with a treeplanting ceremony in the courtyard of the Peace Palace â€“ symbolic of an optimistic and sustainable future of peace.
Pa r t n e r s C ARNEGIE P EA C E B U I L DING C ON V ERSAT IONS
Colophon One-off publication of the Carnegie Foundation September 2019
Concept: Dennis Kerkhoven (0.0 Foundation), Guus Kramer (Major Alliance). Editing: Wendy Byrne Texts: Erik de Baedts, Angus Hogg MBE, Dennis Kerkhoven, Guus Kramer, David Nasaw, Wendy Byrne, Mark Zoutekouw. Reflections: Thieu Besselink, Merel Boon, Wendy Byrne, Christine van Eijck, Natasha Hulst, Martin Lok, Olga Plokhooij, Nils Roemen, René Smits, Inge Wallage, Rembrandt Zegers, Mark Zoutekouw, Femke Zwaal.
Sp o n s o r s
Resource Coordination: Lianne van de Schootbrugge (Major Alliance) Photography: Sjoerd van der Hucht, Bart Maat. Cover image of ‘Andrew Carnegie’ by David Nasaw appears with permission from Penguin Random House LLC. Graphic Design: Richard Sluijs With special thanks to: Robin Willing No parts of this magazine may be reproduced without prior permission.
‘ B r i n g i n g P e a c e T o g eth e r ’
“ Peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16), go hand in hand with sustainable development. They give the security required to live in freedom and without fear and to invest in the future. At the same time, sustainable development is the basis for SDG 16, because without faith in the future, a decent income and the hope for a better life for your children, the only way out may seem picking up arms or joining in illegal activities. This contributes to instability and undermines SDG 16. Therefore, it is essential that we focus on SDG 16 and sustainable development (all SDGs) simultaneously, so that they can reinforce each other in a virtuous cycle, towards the future we want, and the stability we need. If you want to get involved in the Dutch approach, please contact the SDG Charter network and/or the SDG Alliances, which include the SDG 16 Alliance.”
Maresa Oosterman director of the SDG Charter The Netherlands www.sdgcharter.nl
From 24 until 26 September 2018 more than 300 participants of all over the world visited the Peace Palace, the icon of Peace and Justice, to...
Published on Oct 3, 2019
From 24 until 26 September 2018 more than 300 participants of all over the world visited the Peace Palace, the icon of Peace and Justice, to...