In this editorial piece is stated that international NGOs can only really become agents of structural change if they are also rooted in their respective societies. They will have to engage the challenges that Western societies are facing and worrying about. And, again, they must address the common international and global systemic causes behind these challenges. This is the only way that they can create sufficient critical mass – political power – to help solve those problems.
Policy makers and academics have different time horizons. The discrepancy between the short time span of politics and the need for long-term strategic action is potentially dangerous, given the increasing complexity of global processes. What is needed for policy making in ministries and NGOs are people with vision who can rise above the trenches of day-to-day quarrels, trends and emergencies to seize hidden opportunities and make the most of the blessings in disguise that come with every crisis.
The General Conference of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) took place in June 2008. The title of the EADI conference was 'Global governance for sustainable development'. Sustainability, the environment and especially climate change, are closely interlinked with development and global governance. But this field has many barriers. Development specialists and their environmental colleagues move in different circles. But even if clever brains figure out how to achieve sustainable development in theory, realizing it in practice is a different story. Politics and power issues, or what some people call the 'messy side' of development cooperation, are important factors.
Although Europe may be a shining example of a group of states that used to fight each other to the death and now cooperate internally, as an alternative on the world scene to the US and emerging superpowers like China, it still looks like a little calf on wobbly legs. But maybe by sharing views and new insights across national boundaries and creating an arena for true European debate and the exchange of ideas, Europe can realize a common foreign policy that aims more explicitly toward a world that is more equal and socially inclusive.
The current issue explains exactly what those involved in the so-called CDC Initiative mean by CDC (= civic driven change). In short: citizens, moved by values such as inclusiveness, respect for diversity and concern for the planet, organize themselves in their own communities to achieve a more just economic and political order and more sustainable use of the earth, at local, national and global levels. The participants of the CDC Initiative are the first to emphasize that many of their ideas are not new. But even if CDC isn't new, it could become a clear alternative for the current approaches to development. It can provide concrete tools and guidelines for bringing into practice what is already preached by many: that development is essentially a political process, and that human beings – rather than states or markets – should be at its core.
For many decades, the main driver of progress in developing countries was considered to be either the state or the market. Civil society existed only in relation to, and by the grace of, these forces. But people-centred development requires that individuals take control and address the problems in their communities. People and organizations should acquire a stronger position in relation to both the state and the market. Real change can only be achieved through challenging dominant political and economic interests. In January and May of 2008, a group of eight intellectuals, critical scientists and practitioners – each from a different country and background – examined the main elements of a new approach to development in a brainstorming session. The group members formed the Civic Driven Change (CDC) Initiative at the prompting of Alan Fowler and Kees Biekart.
The enormous financial and economic crisis unfolding in December 2008, combined with other urgent issues that can only be solved on a global level – the energy, food and climate crises – is a potential turning point toward an alternative system, perhaps another paradigm. But the actual form this will take is still unknown. Will it be a system based on global justice and sustainable development? Or will we fall back into a struggle of all against all, which is already happening in the fray of global society? Academics, NGOs and policymakers from the development cooperation field could and should seize the opportunities that the current wave of hope and high expectations offers. Although development aid is increasingly ill-equipped to tackle the problems that count, wider global answers and cross-border actions and responses are increasingly important. It is in this global realm that the big chances lie for real changes for the world's poor, for the millions affected by violent conflict and for the planet at large.
Editorial : The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the large NGOs have to deal with enormous quantities of information. But the important thing is how they deal with it: knowledge means giving information meaning. At the moment, far too little attention is devoted to translating information systematically into a broad and coherent strategic vision.
Several EU member states have launched an initiative to set up a European Development Report. Such a report could strengthen Europe's position as a global player. The theme is promising: a globally inclusive society based on fair multilateralism. But the Netherlands government has pulled out: no added value.
The traditional focus of development research on local and national processes has been rendered obsolete by the new global power relations. Researchers must be more concerned about relevance than academic excellence. And open knowledge networks are needed to allow access to knowledge. These are among the ideas discussed at a recent Knowledge on the Move conference. NGOs and other organizations should pressure universities to collaborate more on development issues. Just as governments and companies try to influence the academic world in ways that suit their own best interests, so development researchers should be more assertive in pushing theirs. A new system in the North should focus on development-related research, and emphasize the links between local and global issues. The research should be conducted in global networks with Southerners who can contribute to specific local contexts. These knowledge networks should be open, so that access to knowledge is not dependent on wealth or power.
The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working to create a more knowledge-oriented organizational culture. But at the same time it is losing its internal capacity for strategic thinking, a crucial attribute in an era of globalization, integrated policy and the politicization of development cooperation
Violent conflicts in states such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the Balkans are at the centre of global politics. Do these conflicts require other policy solutions than trying to defeat the supposed enemies, be they 'freedom fighters', 'terrorists' or state armies? The Broker invited two eminent researchers of contemporary civil war to share their views on these issues. Ten years ago, Mary Kaldor wrote her ground-breaking book, New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. The book challenged and shifted the views of many policy makers, but it also sparked discussions about the 'newness' of contemporary war. In her contribution to this special report, Kaldor argues that her ideas are still relevant and that the book continues to influence thinking about issues of human security. Stathis Kalyvas has published widely on issues of civil war. In his most recent book, The Logic of Violence in Civil War, he analyzes the causes and dynamics of civil conflict, separating the concepts of war and violence. In his earlier work he questioned the idea that contemporary wars are 'new'. In his contribution to this report, Kalyvas examines the main trends in civil war research since the Cold War and distinguishes different types of civil war.
