Tag: Uncategorized
Two years young
Peacefare.net is completing its second year today. The Googlestats read as follows:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
First rung on the ladder
The incomparable Bill Durch at Stimson is looking for unpaid interns. I know that’s not what you want or deserve, but these days that’s how almost everyone is starting out.
Those interested should send a cover note indicating any particular area of interest (peace operations, rule of law, and/or civilians in conflict), together with a CV and short writing sample, jointly to Michelle Ker (mker@stimson.org) and Aditi Gorur (agorur@stimson.org).
Here’s the announcement:
Future of Peace Operations Internship
The Future of Peace Operations (FOPO) program at Stimson is offering unpaid internships for fall semester 2012. Stimson is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to enhancing international peace and security. FOPO addresses challenging analytical questions on peace operations, considers their relationship to current policy issues, and tries to build a broader dialogue on what peace operations can and should do.
A FOPO internship is an excellent opportunity for individuals seeking to build upon prior experience relevant to peace operations and conflict mitigation as well as for those with little experience but who can articulate a strong interest in the field. Interns are a vital part of FOPO, working closely with the program’s four member staff. They also engage in the life of Stimson overall, interacting with staff from other Stimson programs and participating in the Center’s events. An internship with FOPO advances participants’ knowledge and skill base and strengthens their understanding of peace operations, conflict resolution, and broader foreign policy issues.
FOPO interns should be prepared to assume administrative and organizing duties as well as research, writing, and editing.
Specific responsibilities can include:
- Providing research support to program staff.
- Creating fact sheets and assisting in the drafting of various documents.
- Proofreading, editing, and assisting in the distribution of FOPO publications.
- Representing FOPO at events around DC and writing meeting summaries.
- Helping to maintain the FOPO project website.
FOPO interns will assist FOPO with its work on:
- Developing a computational model for peacekeeping and peacebuilding
- Engaging community perspectives on security and protection actors
- Measures of effectiveness for peace operations.
- Building the rule of law in post-conflict states.
- Protecting civilians from mass atrocities.
- Tracking US policy toward the UN (particularly US contributions to peace operations and related activities).
Requirements:
- Demonstrated interest in conflict resolution/prevention, international affairs, foreign policy, defense/security policy, humanitarian issues, and/or human rights.
- Research abilities and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively both in writing and speaking.
- The ability to follow multi-step directions and take initiative in doing complex research.
- Attention to research methodology and ability to organize materials logically.
- Attention to detail and commitment to high-quality work.
- Flexibility to work effectively both as part of a team and independently.
- Initiative, maturity, and professionalism.
- Computer skills relevant to an office setting.
Preferred:
- Familiarity with peace operations and their activities.
- Previous research and work experience.
- Familiarity with Microsoft Excel, Access, computer programming, and/or web design.
- Proficiency in French, with the ability to quickly and accurately conduct French-language research.
- International experience.
We welcome applications from undergraduate, graduate, and professional candidates.
Applicants must be able to commit to a minimum of 20 hours per week. Preference is often given to those available 30+ hours per week.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Knock knock
It doesn’t happen often, but it did this morning: 0 pageviews, even at 9 am European time. The Middle East had been up for hours. The Balkans and the rest of Europe for an hour or so. Yet somehow no one had found it necessary to read peacefare.net. How disappointing!
Not really, and the moment did not last, but it does make me wonder whether the effort is worthwhile. I admit that what I publish on peacefare is not much more than what I am thinking at the moment, plus any more serious reflections that have found their way into print elsewhere. And now also wonderful contributions from my Middle East Institute interns, currently the very capable and assiduous Gregor Nazarian and Ilona Gerbakher. They have been writing up Washington events, something I find very helpful since it is impossible to get to all the interesting ones.
The question is whether this is a worthwhile effort. While my WordPress software and Google Analytics provide lots of data on visitors and pageviews, they don’t provide a feel for what people are thinking. Nor do they tell me when you are reading peacefare.net on an RSS feed or an email subscription. I get some feedback in the comments on peacefare and appreciate it, even when it is sharply critical. But often I don’t hear back much, except for the occasional hit on the “like” button or the several tweets per day referencing peacefare, which are always appreciated.
So this post, on what promises to be a slow day, is a plea I guess for a bit more vibe back from readers. There are lots of ways: the like button is the simplest (but not the most nuanced), comments are always welcome (even when they specify that I am an idiot, provided there is good supporting argumentation), tweets (citing @DanielSerwer) and emails (to daniel@peacefare.net) make their way to me, citations and links to peacefare.net are terrific.
What do want you to hear more about? What less? How is what you are reading here useful or interesting? How is it boring or annoying? How could it be improved?
Most of all, I would like to hear from those of you with something to contribute. I never intended peacefare.net to be a one-voice outlet. But I have failed, with some few and warmly welcomed exceptions, to get others to pitch in. Posts are not hard: 500-800 words, focused on a compelling thought or current event connected to peace and war. Send them to me: daniel@peacefare.net I can’t promise to publish everything I get, but I can promise to read it and seriously consider it, with of course the possibility of editorial changes.
Knock knock. Who’s there? Peacefare.net, hoping to hear from YOU!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hat’s on!
Peacefare.net rocks, so now we’ve got hats. Limited production, architect designed (by Jared Serwer, elder son of yours truly). Available to all comers: $15 or three blogposts gets you one. Orders and writing volunteers to daniel@serwer.org
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
More new wine into old bottles
Gregor Nazarian reports from Friday afternoon’s discussion of the QDDR at USIP (I’ve already offered some general reflections on what I heard in the morning):
Friday afternoon the US Institute of Peace and Webster University took a closer look at “The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementary or Cooperation between State, AID and the NGO Community.”
The central question was how the development community should move forward after the QDDR released 18 months ago by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A review designed to identify long-term strategic goals of US diplomacy and development efforts as well as match priorities to limited resources, the Review represents an important opportunity. Ambassador Robert Pearson, IREX president, believes that the QDDR was bound to happen in some form or another, because the community was ready for a serious conversation about diplomacy, development, and defense. According to USIP’s Marcia Wong, this conversation will be long and sustained. The division of labor between the State Department, USAID, and the military remains contentious and will require creative thinking to perfect.
Kathleen Fitzpatrick of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor defended what appears to some as simply bureaucratic reorganization by stressing the value of centralized strategic planning. Diplomacy and development policy has often been put together by teams on the ground across the world, responding to short-term needs and often working at cross-purposes. American interests will be better served with closer communication within the State Department, between State and AID, and with NGOs for both. Cooperation allows bureaus and organizations to work as “force multipliers” for each other. The new model of strategic thinking involves defining vital interests (to be found in a series of major speeches by the secretary of state) and weaving them into local programming. Issues like protection of women, LGBT individuals, religious minorities, and human rights more broadly are being emphasized at all levels now that they are officially issues of policy. One positive effect of the changes has been better project integration between State and AID, limiting the turf battles of the past.
The QDDR also yields a host of challenges. Michael Svetlik of IFES noted that it may highlight (and perhaps ameliorate) but will not solve the underlying problem of insufficient budgetary appropriations, which is likely only to get worse. With luck, it will provide State the opportunity to demonstrate its financial accountability to Congress. Any major changes that come out of the QDDR will have to go through Congress, so USAID’s Kevin Brownawell recommended more civil society and executive branch engagement with congress. He also suggested doing more to explain development and its importance to the American people in order to build up sustained popular support.
For John Norris of the Center for American Progress, the QDDR falls short of fixing what is essentially a broken system. It tinkers at the edges of fundamental problems that can only be addressed by going through Congress. Search for Common Ground’s John Marks echoed some of these concerns: most of our agencies are Cold War leftovers no longer equal to the challenges of modern diplomacy.
One often-repeated concern was the integration of development with conflict prevention. Several panelists suggested that State, USAID, and NGOs are woefully undertrained in conflict prevention and management. The QDDR addresses this problem but doesn’t go far enough in finding solutions.
Panelists turned frequently to other issues that went unmentioned or unstressed in the QDDR. There was a lot of talk about the missing D’s: defense and democracy. Marcia Wong criticized the neglect of the civil-military dimension, given the increasing presence of the military in humanitarian relief. The PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) model employed in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be viable in lower-level conflicts but does suggest the increased importance of integration between military and civilian instruments.
Ambassador Pearson and John Norris both pointed to examples where small numbers of unarmed civilians achieved success in situations where military options were not only prohibitively expensive but also unresponsive to the problems on the ground. State and USAID must actively improve their capacity in this sphere, taking on more responsibility for conflict prevention.
The panels suggested that the impact of the QDDR is still very much undecided. It is not assured that there will even be another one, especially given the possibility of a change in administration. Many speakers were skeptical of the possibility of bringing about serious improvements without more fundamental change. But the greatest value of the review, it seems, is the discussion it has sparked within the government and the NGO community on directions for change in how America approaches diplomacy, development, and defense.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Happy anniversary!
Today marks the first anniversary of www.peacefare.net, more or less. Listen carefully to NPR, where a day sponsorship will mark the occasion! Here are the stats, as of this morning:
- Posts: this is number 562, not counting those I put up as “pages”
- Visits: Googleanalytics says 31,304
- Page views: 59,931
- Unique visitors: 16,790
- Countries of origin: 149
- Visitors from the U.S.: 56%, hence 44% non-U.S. (most from Serbia, Kosovo, Italy, Bosnia, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Poland)
- New visits: 53%
- Pages per visit: about 2
- Minutes on site: about 2
I put all this in the so far, so good category. I might wish for more, but even if the numbers were double I’d likely still wish for more. And that high percentage of new visitors means peacefare is still growing, as do the 1200 or so Twitter followers, with 2-5 added most days.
The one clear area needing improvement is getting other people to write for the peacefare.net I’ve had a few fabulous friends, students and colleagues contribute wonderful pieces, but not as many as I would like. Peacefare is too much a solo act, something I regret. Please help me fix that!
I would also hope for more comments. My Balkans readers have engaged in rough and tumble debate, rarely moderated by my intervention. The Middle East hasn’t yet elicited the same feistiness. I wish it would.
Please accept my sincere thanks for your readership, which is really the only reason I do this almost every day. I could just as well tuck these thoughts away, as I did during more than four decades of diplomatic career at the UN, State Department and U.S. Institute of Peace. It is much more fun to get them out to you, so I sincerely hope you’ll keep reading, commenting and contributing when the spirit moves you.
On to year 2!
RSS - Posts
