University for Peace Université pour la Paix

Expert Forum Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora

Final Report Toronto, Canada, October 19-20, 2006

2

Index

Executive Summary p. 3Acknowledgements p. 4Keynote Speech p. 61. Introduction p. 72. Forum Deliberations

2.1 Theoretical Concepts p. 9Defining Diaspora p. 10Heterogeneity p. 11Multiplicity and Fluidity p. 11Subjectivity p. 11

2.2 Roles of Diaspora: Social, Political and Economic p. 13Social: Human Resource Transfer and Sources of Ideas and Best Practices p. 13Political: Pressure and Advocacy Groups p. 15Economic: Sources of Funding p. 16

2.3 Mechanisms of Engagement p. 183. Findings and Recommendations

3.1 Community Development p. 19Youth Initiatives p. 19Community Data Bank p. 20Creative Reconciliation Techniques p. 22Conclusion p. 24

3.2 Policy Innovation p. 24Diasporic Circulation as Citizenship p. 25“The Good Host Challenge” p. 25Funding for Peacebuilding p. 27Remittances p. 27Conclusion p. 28

3.3 Foreign Policy p. 29Infrastructures for Peace p. 29Diaspora as Policy Shapers p. 30Conclusion p. 31

3.4 New Research Areas p. 31Suggested Fields of Research p. 31Research Methodologies p. 32

4. Conclusion p. 33Appendices Appendix A: Forum Agenda p. 34

Appendix B: List of Participants p. 42Appendix C: Commissioned Background Papers and Community Research p. 47

References p. 49

3

Executive Summary With the increasing movement of transnational populations, a growing body of multi-disciplinary academic research seeks to analyze and explain the underlying factors that encourage diasporas to engage in activities that can either support or obstruct peacebuilding and development in their countries of origin. Absent from this discourse are sustained and systematic examinations of the potentials for different diaspora groups to contribute to sustainable peace and development – whether in their country of origin or country of residence. In order to address this gap in research the University for Peace organized an Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora” in Toronto, Canada, from October 19-20 2006. The Forum brought together close to 100 expert participants including senior government officials; representatives of international organizations; representatives of civil society organizations; and researchers from around the world for an in-depth discussion regarding roles of diasporas. The Forum commissioned research in partnership with Canadian diaspora communities to identify the challenges and opportunities that support and impede their engagement in peacebuilding and development and commissioned academic research that was directed to filling some of the acknowledged research gaps. Forum participants identified specific characteristics that were particular to diaspora identity including diaspora heterogeneity, multiplicity and fluidity, and, ultimately, the willingness to self-identify. Over the Forum’s two days participants acknowledged potential roles for diaspora in peacebuilding in three areas;

• Social: human resource transfers and sources of ideas and best practices • Political: pressure and advocacy groups • Economic: sources of funding

Forum participants identified the route to winning conditions in these roles so that governments, the private sector and civil society have a map of the ways in which they can invest in the under-utilized energy and potential capacity of diaspora communities. The Forum made recommendations in three broad areas in which supportive frameworks can be advanced;

• Community Development: Youth initiatives, establishment of community data banks, and creative reconciliation techniques.

• Policy Innovation: Diasporic circulation as citizenship, “the Good Host Challenge”, funding for peacebuilding, remittances and foreign policy.

• New Research Areas: Suggested areas of research and research methodologies. Diasporas in partnership with local civil society and supported by various levels of government, should continue to engage in policy changes and grassroots initiatives in their country of residence and abroad. It is hoped that this conference has acted as a catalyst and starting place for more diaspora research and engagement.

4

Acknowledgements

The University for Peace acknowledges the Government of Canada and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, who funded the Expert Forum on Capacity Building for Peace and

Development, and the Zoryan Institute for their invaluable contribution to the content and proceedings of the Forum. We are grateful to the United Way of Greater Toronto for facilitating the Forum and are indebted to the Accented Cinema Film Festival for providing a unique cultural

experience to conference participants.

5

Keynote Speech By: H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa

The President of the United Nations General Assembly To the Expert Forum on Capacity Building for Peace and Development

Roles of Diaspora Ladies and gentlemen, Good morning to you all. I am honored to be here with you today. I would like to thank Ms. Julia Marton-Lefèvre for inviting me to address the important contribution diaspora communities have made to peace and development around the world. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the close links between the University for Peace and the United Nations and to thank the University for its many contributions to international debates on peace and security. It is fitting that Toronto, a true hub of multiculturalism, is the venue for this Forum. Historically, diaspora communities have been agents of progress. Today they continue to contribute to the richness and diversity of the countries in which they settle: making valuable contributions to intellectual, scientific, political, economic and cultural life. Diaspora communities aspire to a peaceful and prosperous existence, having often emerged from situations of conflict and poverty. As many of you in Toronto will be aware, diaspora communities are particularly successful entrepreneurs. We must bear these important contributions in mind, as new communities arrive. I believe that the older generations of diaspora have a crucial role to play in welcoming newcomers. Beginning a new life, in a new country, can be a daunting challenge. Those who have already lived through this are best equipped to assist those experiencing this transition. However, we all have a responsibility – governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, and the media – to help new diaspora communities achieve their hopes and aspirations. Ladies and gentlemen, world leaders gathered at the 2005 World Summit at the United Nations reaffirmed the three interlinked pillars of the United Nations – peace and security, development and human rights. They adopted an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen the United Nations in implementing its goals. World leaders also accepted the principle of the Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. By upholding our commitment to this principle we can address some of the key drivers that force communities to emigrate. Furthermore, in September, at the beginning of its 61st Session, the General Assembly held the first High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development. The High-level Dialogue noted that diaspora have a positive impact on economic development in both their country of origin and in their new homes. This sentiment was shared by governments, the private sector and civil society. Diaspora communities experience the challenges and the potentials of the different societies and cultures to which they belong. This insight is political, economic, social and personal. We must ensure that diaspora communities are given the opportunity to engage constructively and

6

harmoniously in society and in policy making. Quality education and equal work opportunities must be available to diaspora communities. To create these conditions we must work together to overcome negative stereotypes and discrimination in all levels of society, especially in schools and in the work place. Academic institutions from primary school to Universities and the media, also have an important role and responsibility to dispel misperceptions and promote positive images of diversity. We can formulate social policy by learning from societies that have long been home to and welcomed diaspora communities and, most importantly, from the members of the diaspora themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, advances in transportation and communication during the 20th century paved the way for the creation of multicultural societies, that included vibrant diaspora communities. Multiculturalism is now valued more than ever. Multiculturalism is both the hope of globalization and its challenge. It should represent the peaceful coexistence and celebration of diversity, and not the loss of cultural identity. We cannot allow cultural differences to be used as the basis or pretext for conflict. Diaspora communities are uniquely endowed with the multi cultural experiences which allow us to transcend false perceptions of “the other.” They must raise their voices for peace and development. Ladies and gentlemen, during my tenure as President of the General Assembly, I shall organize three thematic debates of the General Assembly on development, gender issues and the dialogue of civilizations. These debates shall provide an opportunity for Member States to come together with all other relevant stakeholders, to identify new partnerships and innovative solutions. We need global solutions to global challenges and I believe that global solutions can only be found through multilateral and multi-stakeholder cooperation. Diaspora communities are key stakeholders. Within the UN system we will continue to work to provide a platform for diaspora communities to be heard. I would like to end by paraphrasing a quote from Henry Miller: “When we travel from one place to another, we are not simply travelling to another location; we are changing the angle from which we view the world.” In our common quest for peace and development, the ability to shape our world view to reflect the diversity of cultures and needs that exist is the key to success. Thank you.

7

Introduction With the rapid globalization of transnational populations a growing body of multi-disciplinary academic research seeks to analyze and explain the logic and underlying factors that encourage diasporas to engage in activities that can either support or obstruct peacebuilding and development in their countries of origin. Some analyses examine how the divisions, polarization and animosities generated by violent conflicts in homelands are reproduced within diaspora communities in host countries. Other research frames diasporas as significant support constituencies for political and military actors back in their homelands, and point to their role in generating material, political and moral support that subsidizes and sustains violent conflict. Absent from these discourses are sustained and systematic examinations of the potentials for different diaspora groups to contribute to sustainable peace and development – whether in their country of origin or country of residence. The Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora” is a first step in addressing this lacuna. As communities worldwide have begun to focus more systematically on how to harness diversity as an asset rather than a liability, there has been increased interest from many quarters in tapping the creativity, energy and resources of diasporas to build peace and promote development. However, given the ad hoc nature of research and analyses on this subject as well as the complexity of diaspora dynamics, there is still widespread uncertainty regarding effective strategies to expand or enhance constructive diaspora contributions to peace and development. In order to address this gap in research the University for Peace organized the Forum in Toronto, Canada from October 19-20 2006. The Forum brought together close to 100 expert participants including senior government officials; representatives of international organizations; representatives of civil society organizations; and researchers from around the world for an in-depth discussion regarding roles of diasporas. Consisting of keynote speeches, plenary sessions, panel discussions and working groups, it was chaired by Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of the UN and Executive Committee member of UPEACE and officially inaugurated by Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, President of the 61st session of the UN General Assembly. The Forum’s morning plenary sessions provided space for broad discussions that framed the day’s debates. The October 19th plenary sessions included opening remarks and framing of the debate while October 20th sessions consisted on illuminating challenges, supportive frameworks and the closing next steps. Parallel working groups in the afternoon sessions drew on case studies that were presented to discuss issues more intensively, map actors and roles, analyse strategies and brainstorm opportunities. The five working groups were broken up into;

Conflict Prevention During Conflict: Track II, People-to-People Diplomacy and Long Distance Nationalism Post-Conflict: Reconstruction and Peacebuilding Reconciliation and Healing Economic and Social Development

Present during the Forum’s sessions were chairs and rapporteurs whose documented outputs of discussions have been adapted for this report.

8

The Forum initiated participatory action research in partnership with Canadian diaspora communities to identify the challenges and opportunities that support and impede their engagement in peacebuilding and development and commissioned academic research that was directed to filling some of the identified research gaps. By combining these two different approaches to research, it was hoped that a more holistic perspective could be developed. Among the community organizations involved were Toronto based Ethiopian/Canadian “Young Diplomats,” the Hispanic Development Council from Columbia University, the Jamaican diaspora “Citizens for Advancement of Community Development,” the “Selam Peacebuilding Network” of the Eritrean diaspora, and the Afghan Women’s Counselling and Community Integration and Support Organization. Over the course of two days participants engaged in a number of stimulating debates between policymakers, academics and practitioners that has deepened our understanding of the assumptions and complexities surrounding diaspora engagement in peacebuilding and development. Forum participants focused on identifying the opportunities to expand or enhance the effectiveness of diaspora contributions to peace and development including through community development initiatives and improved policy frameworks.

9

1. Forum Deliberations

1.1 Theoretical Concepts Until recently much of the research on diaspora roles has been done in support of national security measures as part of the ‘global war on terror.’ Cases of diaspora supporting homeland nationalist extremists through economic means, or through the direct provision of arms for conflict, have been the major political concerns for international and domestic bodies. These perspectives have monopolized many mainstream media in a one-dimensional way that depicts diasporas as a homogenous and vilified group. The Forum is based on the assumption that members of diaspora communities, particularly those settled in the industrialized countries, may be well positioned to play vital roles as catalysts for peacebuilding and social and economic development. This underlies recent policy interest within Canada and elsewhere in recognising and fostering diaspora as significant potential actors in peace and development. Such interest stems from a belief that countries such as Canada could be making better use of their highly and increasingly diverse populations to achieve foreign and domestic policy objectives. In this respect, their cultural, social and language links put diasporas in a unique position. In other cases, governments engaged in post-conflict reconstruction in countries such as Afghanistan have recognised that the experiences and skills acquired by diasporas in their country of residence may be valuable assets for peacebuilding. For instance, because of the thick and intimate web of relationships between diaspora and their homeland communities, diasporas may be highly sensitive to changes in the ebb and flow of conflict as well as to evolving possibilities for nurturing peace. Such early warning and monitoring capacities may be essential for catalyzing effective responses from the international community whether in the prevention, management, reduction or resolution of violent conflict. In circumstances where conflict has already turned violent, we have seen diaspora communities urge conflicting parties to end hostilities and resolve their differences through dialogue, lobby host governments to support conflict reduction and peacebuilding efforts within their homelands, and engage in track two or track three (people-to-people) diplomacy. After the acute phase of violent conflict has ended, diasporas may contribute to the political, economic and social dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding, including facilitating processes of reconciliation and healing between individuals, groups, and within and between communities. In this context, diasporas may also play critical roles in easing inter-ethnic, religious and political tensions transplanted to their country of residence, thus their potential roles in strengthening peaceful coexistence should not only be framed in terms of their country of origin. Research presented at the Forum and much of the discussion that took place in both plenary sessions and workshops provided evidence of numerous diaspora roles and ways in which diaspora can be enabled to provide peacebuilding and development strategies. But much unlike the public discourse, Forum participants realized a need to address the debate over the contested definition of diaspora communities and their descriptive characteristics. Being able to agree on who constitutes a diaspora would enable academics, policy makers and practitioners to better analyze potential diaspora contributions in social, political and economic processes. Specific effort was made throughout the Forum discussions to avoid framing diaspora groups as monolithic entities with a collective desire, will and capacity to engage in peace and development activities. Diasporas have varying and sometimes conflicting interests and perspectives on how to

10

participate in peace and development in their country of origin. This may be particularly evident in tensions between the worldviews and experiences of first and second generations within a diaspora. Inevitably, each segment of the diaspora maintains different historical and social attachments to the country of origin as well as country of residence. In some instances social exclusion, economic hardships and other more immediate concerns in their country of residence may preoccupy the focus and energy of diasporas. In other cases, diasporas may be highly motivated and enthusiastic about participating in peacebuilding and development, but may not possess easily transferable skills sets or may be hindered by language, cultural or psychological barriers. Heightening the effectiveness of potential diaspora contributions to peace and development therefore requires a nuanced understanding of the unique potential of different actors, the particular constraints and obstacles they face, and the resulting capacity building needs. Defining Diaspora On the morning of the opening of the Forum an article on the cover of the Globe and Mail read, “A number of Canadian immigrant groups say fear is building in their communities over whether a federal review of dual citizenship will lead to people having to choose which passport to keep,” (Fong, A1). The article was a perfect link for participants to discuss the definition and theoretical concepts of diaspora since the debate on dual citizenship challenges the notion of multiple national identities within the Canadian state. Many participants argued that the Canadian identity itself is characterized by its multicultural or diasporic makeup, and therefore at the core of the Canadian identity is recognition of the legitimacy of dual or multiple citizenships. Defining diasporas was a common concern from the opening discussion of the Forum. The dialogue began with the need to identify the members of diaspora in order to come up with approaches that would promote and support their engagement in peacebuilding and development. The second plenary session of the Forum opened up with the aim of framing the debate by focusing primarily on the definition and conceptual considerations of diaspora. While the term diaspora has often been used synonymously with other transnational identities including, immigrants, refugees and uprooted populations, it was clear that there were determining characteristics. As Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun noted, diasporas have three integral characteristics: they are conscious of, and claim to have some form of specific ethnic or national origin; they associate one way or the other with some kind of movement with people of the same origin, and; they have contacts with people in the area of origin. Other facets of diaspora identity that were discussed related to diaspora heterogeneity, multiplicity and fluidity, and ultimately the willingness to self-identify. Heterogeneity During the Forum’s opening session, Kenneth Bush of Saint Paul University offered a definition of diaspora which highlighted differences within these communities, defining diaspora as “…a collection of heterogeneous sub-groups which shares one thing in common: an attachment to the same country of origin by a group which is no longer resident in that country”. Diasporas coming from areas of conflict can be vastly diverse and at times even conflicting. For example, Tamils and Sinhalese from Sri Lanka, migrants from the same country of origin, can hold competing and multiple conceptions of their homeland. As Kenneth Bush illustrated:

Consider for example, the different possible conceptions of homeland within the Sri Lankan diaspora between Sinhalese and Tamil sub-groups. Within each of these

11

sub-groups, there are likely to be further variations on the idea of homeland according to political, paramilitary, regional, caste and social affinities. And, let’s not forget in the Sri Lankan case, that not only are there politically significant variations within the Tamil diaspora, but a crude Tamil-Sinhalese bifurcation of “the Sri-Lankan Diaspora” inhibits us from seeing or hearing – and therefore working with – other significant diasporic subgroups such as the Sri Lanka Muslim communities, Burhgers, and the ever invisible Plantation Tamil community (with significant presence in South India). (Bush, 2006)

To define diaspora based on ties to territory becomes increasingly more complicated with the diminishing power of and personal attachment to nation-states. During the Forum there was an obvious dissatisfaction with specific terminology such as ‘homeland’ and ‘hostland’ as noted by one respondent, “…in many cases diaspora see both countries as their homeland”. For some diaspora, defining themselves based on a territory is more challenging if the place they once called home has been drastically changed through years of conflict. As His Excellency Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s Foreign Minister, explained, the Armenian diaspora itself is older and larger than the ‘homeland,’ with three sources of identity: the host country in which it lives; the homeland it represents, even though it may not be the country of birth; and the country of origin which offered refugee between the homeland and hostland. Although it was agreed that these terms are not inclusive, no new definitions were developed – for the sake of reference this report will use ‘homeland’ and ‘hostland’ in hopes that more descriptive terms will be inspired.

H.E Vartan Oskanian, Foreign Minister of Armenia

Multiplicity and Fluidity Many studies of transnational populations have explored the idea that identities are often multiple and fluid. This recognizes that people possess various identifying characteristics (such as gender, race, class, age etc.) that are not mutually exclusive but intersect to create a whole. Forum participants noted that multiple identities are constantly in a state of flux and are negotiable throughout ones life. Kathleen Newland of the Migration Policy Institute emphasized that the discussion of diaspora identity should not only take into account dual identity of home and hostland but also multiple identities. She explained that identity is fluid and changing, with people giving priority to different aspects of their identity at different times. On occasion during the Forum people who were born in Canada identified themselves as Eritrean or Jamaicans first; on the other hand, others who were born outside of Canada in Sri Lanka or China considered themselves Canadian first. Alternatively some people adopt hyphenated identities or multiple identities that underscore numerous country and ethnic memberships. It is doubtful whether it is possible to define diaspora as based on state boundaries when through much of history so many of these territorial borders are themselves blurred. Necla Tschirgi

12

explained that many diaspora or transnationals do not always identify primarily by territory but have other identity triggers that are more relevant to their engagement. She provided the example that many individuals might not identify themselves based on their diaspora, some individuals for instance will identify as being Middle Eastern or Muslim before they will identify as being from Iraq. The age or generation of a diaspora was another identity component found to influence diaspora engagement. On one hand, as pointed out by former UN Under Secretary-General Olara Otunnu, newer generations were found to be a positive source of peacebuilding due to their distance from the prejudices of conflict in their homelands and their desire to be rooted to their cultures and histories. On the other, as pointed out by Kenneth Menkhaus, with the tightening of immigration policies in the 1980’s countries may have a difficult time replenishing their diasporas, leading to uncertainty as to whether second generation diasporas will have the same level of commitment to their home countries as their parents. While the issue of multiple identities is often a source of conflict in many countries of diaspora, for example the polarization of religious identities within states, many participants suggested that the multicultural environment of Canada could act as a safe place where multiple identities are no longer a point of conflict but considered legitimate. People migrate to places like U.S and Canada where multiple identities are the norm and where many people have hyphenated identities. In this respect diaspora might be encouraged to take this lesson back to their homeland as a base for peacebuilding and development. Subjectivity

“You are only a diaspora when you say you are” – H.E Vartan Oskanian

Due to the transnational relationships that diaspora maintain, the only way diasporas can be defined is through self-identification. By objectively defining diaspora the assumption is that descent, or country of origin, is the main condition of membership. However, this does not take into account heterogeneity and multiplicity of identity and that diasporas may define themselves outside of territorial or nation-state boundaries. Forum participants agreed that the definition of diaspora would have to go beyond borders, nation-states and passports and could only be ascribed by members’ own self-identification of belonging to a particular diaspora. Defining diaspora in a scientific way could become problematic. This process involves delineating who the ‘rightful’ members of diaspora are then proceeding to outline their roles and responsibilities. This task potentially threatens to replicate relationships of power by separating the ‘us’ from the ‘them,’ which further exacerbates diaspora unity and engagement in peacebuilding. As Ranibar Samaddar pointed out, the conversation of defining diaspora becomes essentially politicized since behind the discussion on diaspora the main focus is on the existence of a third-world diaspora in the first world and, consequently, an exploration of the problems this poses. These analyses led participants to question whether defining diaspora objectively could ever be inclusive of their heterogeneous nature, and hence if it was even possible to create such a systemic definition. As Simon Turner suggested, diaspora are defined when someone wants be defined as being diasporic. Thomas Turay provided a fine example of diasporic self-identification and self-description in his own personal narrative:

13

What I have been trying to teach my family is that I consider both Canada and Sierra Leone our home. I don’t consider Canada as a host country; otherwise I wouldn’t feel as though I could take advantage of the opportunities that are available in this country, not only to contribute to Canada but also to Sierra Leone. Don’t put us in a box – let us focus on various identities and definitions.

Cheran Rudhramoorthy picked up on the problematic dichotomy of homeland and hostland, explaining that forcing diaspora to delineate one home or the other by a sense of permanency rather than leaving an open space for the circulation of movement and engagement forces diaspora or transnational groups to always feel like they are guests in their ‘adopted homeland.’ He suggested looking at diaspora and citizenship through a transnational perspective that recognizes nomadic structures of mobility and transnationalism as a practice, in essence a reconstruction of diaspora identity into something more than a national affiliation, understanding that these groups maintain a personal connection to their ethno-cultural origin that is internalised into a diasporic consciousness. This would recognize that while not all diaspora want to move back ‘home,’ they have the possibility of being transnational and carry deeper knowledge of their homeland that can be used for innovative peacebuilding measures. This flexibility would give diaspora the space to engage in the opportunities of their hostland as full citizens and feel at home, and the ability to transfer their skills to developing the structures of peace in their homelands, a circulation of diaspora capacity. As concluded by Robin Higham, the notion of diaspora is a highly complex and fluid concept which remains open for debate and eventual agreement regarding a clear definition. For the purpose of discovering how diaspora might contribute to peacebuilding and development, there is a need to identify ways to engage those migrants who self-declare “diaspora status” through their own engagements and actions which demonstrate concern for the well-being of their first homelands, their countries of origin and the well-being of their adopted countries. As the plenary session on diaspora definition and framing the debate was wrapping up, Vahan Kololian perhaps stated it best, “I am less curious about how we define diaspora than what we can do with it as an instrument of peace.” The Forum’s purpose was to draw on the capacity of diaspora to engage in peacebuilding and development both in their homeland and hostland. After conceptualizing diaspora the next step was to illuminate challenges for building capacity and developing supportive frameworks to overcome barriers.

2.2 Roles of Diaspora: Social, Political and Economic

Forum participants explored ways in which diaspora can influence social, political and economic structures in their home countries. Over the Forum’s two days participants acknowledged ways in which diaspora have contributed to conflict sustaining initiatives in their homeland, both intentionally and unintentionally but the primary focus was given to the peacebuilding potential of diasporas. While diaspora roles can be separated into three areas, social, political and economic, distinctive roles can be grouped into four categories: human resource transfers, pressure or advocacy groups, sources of ideas or best practices, and sources of funding. Social: Human Resource Transfers and Sources of Ideas and Best Practices There are two ways in which diaspora provide social support. First diaspora members may physically return to their country of origin to provide expertise in a post conflict environment as

14

peacebuilders, business investors, or to work with local NGO’s. Secondly, those who do not return may serve as a source of guidance, information, new ideas, best practices, and appropriate technology. Many examples were presented of ways in which various diasporas in Canada have helped contribute to or initiate peacebuilding in their homelands. Richard Weeks provided a telling example in the Canadian context of just how diasporas can transfer beneficial skills, telling the story of a man he met years ago who worked as a security guard in his local bank. As Mr. Weeks had the opportunity to get to know this man he found that he was a refugee from Sudan who once held a senior position at the Ministry of Education in Khartoum. He helped him set up a small NGO called the ‘Sudan Civil Society Peacebuilding Initiative’ and the man was also offered training through the Canadian Institute of Conflict Resolution and went on to study his masters in conflict studies. This individual has since taken part in delivering training in Sudan and is now back in Sudan for talks between the Uganda government and the Lord’s Resistance Army. It was pointed out that underlying the discussion on diaspora as human resource transfers was a belief that individuals from diasporas are particularly well placed to transfer their skills to the homeland states because of shared linguistic and cultural characteristics. However, some representatives of diasporas argued that these characteristics were not sufficient to meet the needs of hostland conflicts. Participants suggested that the distance of diaspora from homeland conflict can at times decrease their level of sensitivity and real knowledge of the needs of their homeland communities’ historical, economic and social contexts. Kevin Clements explained that one of the big issues of diaspora returning home to post-conflict nations is the “re-entry problem.” Diaspora come back with either a nostalgic view of the past or with minds influenced by what they know from their host countries. There can be a deep mismatch between these views and current reality. His Excellency Omar Samad, Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada, provided the audience with his own challenging experience with the re-entry problem. As he explained, the Afghan diaspora was regarded as the hope for the revival of the country after decades of war and occupation. However, with almost 4 million Afghans returning from abroad over the last 5 years, the subcultures they are bringing back are proving to be both beneficial and challenging for post-conflict reconstruction. The reality is that many social and economic changes take place in their absence, so diasporas need to re-educate themselves about their own home context. Self-identified diaspora members at the Forum explained that this phenomenon of ‘re-educating’ oneself to the changing homeland context is a notion characterized as ‘diaspora humility’. The re-entry challenge experienced by Thomas Turay on returning to Sierra Leone was emblematic:

My family and I are at this moment engaged in this challenge. We need to be humble enough when we go back to our communities, I have been going back over the last three years to re-learn, because I have become ignorant to the changes. Even though I have a PhD in conflict studies, when I went back I realized that that my degree does not give me all the information I require, even though I am the only graduate with this degree in my community of 84 villages. So I need to recognize my ignorance and not assume that I am going back with answers.

An implicit assumption underlying the social role of diasporas is that the skills they have developed in their host countries are a desirable asset in their home countries. As a few participants noted, it is important not to assume that a western or post-graduate education implies a higher degree of education or better capacity to address particular problems in home countries.

15

To find a solution to this problem, Mr. Turay is engaging his community of elders, youth and women to determine what role he can play. After completing a ‘needs assessment’ Mr. Turay was able to link the community with a Canadian organization willing to help. Currently they are building a peace institute that will help to rebuild the community and engage the perpetrators of violence in the reconciliation process. This response itself is an example of a broader conclusion reached by the Forum’s working group on post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding. External actors who want to engage in post-conflict reconstruction need to first align behind domestic forces.

Thomas Turay and Amanuel Melles

As was noted, “instead of looking at the actors we need to look at the dynamics on the ground, what are the dynamics of the conflict, and how can we better synchronize the efforts of the actors. If we can do that then diasporas become richer and more useful.” An additional social challenge to involving diaspora in conflict in their homelands is the need to recognize the heterogeneity of diaspora populations abroad. Even in multicultural Canada diaspora groups remain heterogeneous and at times highly divided. As the working group on conflict discussed, the Colombia diaspora in Canada presents implicit hierarchies and divisive agendas with a split between Colombian skilled workers and refugees. Maria Eriksson Baaz pointed out that in the Congolese diaspora there is an element of distrust towards fellow Congolese that makes it difficult to even create a dialogue for change. This leads one to question which community engagement is the most effective and how different subgroups may be united. It was recognized that diasporas have the potential to play a key role in peacebuilding since they have the ability to link the efforts of external actors including their homeland and hostland governments and civil societies. The challenge lies in finding approaches to unite diaspora in order to apply their perspective and potential for capacity building within the hostland and also in their homeland. The recommendations section of this report provides suggestions on ways in which diaspora can build community cohesiveness across diversity. Political: Pressure and Advocacy Groups Being migrant populations, diasporas, particularly involuntarily diasporas, have been regarded as being a disadvantaged or marginalized populations with minimal resources. But, as Kenneth Menkhaus pointed out, this inward looking perspective tends to overlook that there are diasporas who can be very empowered groups, “a muscular force in the home countries’ affairs.” There are several ways in which diasporas have taken part in political affairs in both their homelands and hostlands. As Ryerson University’s Myer Siemiatycki explained, many of Toronto’ forty different

16

diaspora communities have been involved in the promotion of homeland identity. Among the examples of mechanisms he presented: retention of values from their country of origin; promotion of homeland development; provision of support for emergency relief; and participation in homeland politics. As Olara Otunnu emphasized, diaspora can be important in the latter instance as agents of pressure or as advocacy group. Political advocacy is necessary and useful both in the homeland and the hostland. In relation to their host governments Mohamed Gilao, of the Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi-Service Centre, mentioned candidly during the conference that diaspora and external stakeholders have a role to play in Canada’s contribution to international development. He offered the example of a project to restore a hospital in Mogadishu which had been abandoned for 15 years, accomplished through Project Peace Bridge in partnership with the Canadian government.

This type of engagement has serious systemic barriers which decrease its effectiveness. As Adeena Niazi, of the Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support Organization, raised in the working group on post-conflict reconstruction, characteristics of diaspora demographics in Canada are a challenge. She explained that barriers to international engagement of diaspora include personal factors such as the lack of economic resources within diaspora. Although not all diasporic communities in Canada arrive economically unstable, many of those fleeing conflict homelands do share this characteristic. Their capacity to be politically involved while at the same time trying to establish a home in Canada is compromised by a lack of resources and time. Ms. Niazi’s research indicated that Afghani newcomers are less involved and less confident in peacebuilding initiatives. As the working group on reconciliation and healing suggested, it is necessary to understand the level of organization of particular diasporas and the human, conceptual and financial resources its organization can muster. This includes the age and endurance of diaspora – simply being born outside of the country of residence is not an identifying factor which contributes to the energy that can be capitalized on for peacebuilding and development. Olara Otunnu also outlined the political force that diaspora can offer during post-conflict reconstruction in their homelands. At the critical moment when protagonists in the host country end their conflict, diasporas can play a significant role as a catalyst for peace. He explained that due to their political, intellectual and economic influence diasporas can generally have a lot of influence on protagonists. For the homeland population in the post-conflict context, this lobbying for reconciliation is much more difficult due to the level of bloodshed and trauma experienced during conflict. Diasporas, because they have assumed a certain amount of distance, can be very helpful in encouraging reconciliation. As many diaspora members in Canada come from conflict-ridden nations, their capacity for trust has been diminished by homeland experiences with authoritarian regimes that systemically silence dissenters. As the second working group illustrated, post 9/11 various Islamic diasporas have been the target of national security measures which has made it difficult for them to engage in community development in the homeland. Personal security was repeatedly found to be a concern for the peacebuilding capacity of diaspora. The degree to which homeland governments are willing to reshape their institutions and policies has a significant impact on the degree to which diaspora can be utilized to make a difference.

17

Economic : Sources of Funding Diasporas’ economic potential to support both families through remittances and political initiatives with direct monetary funding has been well researched. Carlo Dade of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas delineated three ways in which diaspora contribute to the economies of their homelands. First, diasporas fuel foreign direct investment (FDI), an example being China in the 1990’s where roughly 60% of the FDI flowed from diaspora. The second role diasporas play is through trade. Cross-cultural exchange has played a crucial role in human history and the development of international trade in general (Curtin, 1984). Finally, diaspora remittances, the transaction of funds from diaspora to homeland households, are used to invest in human capital such as education, housing, and health. Remittances have been central to the debate on roles of diasporas. But diaspora remittances can have negative impacts in home countries. Terrance Lyons raised the issue of conflict-generated diasporas – with their origins in violent displacement and identities linked to symbolically important territory – who often play critical roles with regard to homeland conflicts. He explained that the remittances delivered from these diasporas often sustain parties engaged in civil war but are also critical to the basic survival of the most vulnerable in conflict and post conflict contexts (Lyons, 2006, p.2). Carlo Dade presented an important argument based upon the role of diaspora in post-conflict Cuba, a case study on the negative impacts of diasporic economic contribution. He associated the role of diasporas in private sector development within developing countries as the ‘canary in the coalmine’, diaspora being the first to invest specific knowledge, make use of insider connections, and better able to judge risk than foreign firms. Cases such as Cuba show that remittances can flow according to race, jeopardizing homeland security by increasing the level of inequality amongst citizens. Mr. Dade explained this phenomenon in detail:

In Cuba during the special period when money from Eastern Europe ended, Cuba went through an economic crisis. GDP reduced by estimated 40% opened the economy to foreign investment, as a result remittances estimated at close to 1 billion dollars a year took on a much larger importance than in the past which had impacts on the society. These flows were not geographic but were based on race. According to the 1990 census in the U.S, 85% of Cubans self-identified as white while the remaining 15% were split between Mulato and Afro-Cuban. This caused a major disturbance of horizontal inequality in Cuba. To make clear, a rising impact of remittances based upon race, 85 % of 1 billion dollars is about 850 million going to one segment of the Cuba population, the white Cubans, while 150 million to the remaining, Afro-Cuban and Mulato.

Although this economic inequality is a subconscious and unintentional negative by-product of diaspora economic support, this example illustrates the severe effects that can take place. As David Dewitt of York University explained, there is a real push and pull between positive economic contributions in terms of development finance and the negatives lurking in the shadows where diaspora can add to conflict, such as the remittance example in Cuba, Jamaica and Haiti.

18

In Jamaica, remittances represented 17% of GDP in 2004. These remittances go for immediate consumption and do not represent a direct form of public finance. Some of this remittance money also ends up financing gang violence in Jamaica.

However, increased group violence in homelands cannot be correlated directly with diaspora financial support since much of the criminal activity pre-exists diaspora influence. Even though these concerns are very real, as provided by evidence from the working groups, they also have structural roots that need to be analyzed in further detail. In the recommendation section of this report suggestions will be given for alternative mechanisms for remittances that can potentially avoid the economic polarization of homeland populations and help post-conflict reconstruction.

2.3 Mechanisms of Engagement Debates over diaspora, as Necla Tschirgi suggested, occur at three levels – the historical, the academic, including concepts and definitions, and the policy level. At the policy level direct changes can be made to enable diasporas to assist in peacebuilding efforts and post-conflict reconstruction.

Plenary Session on Mapping Potential Roles Before, During and After Conflict

In addition to policy innovation, stakeholders can boost diaspora engagement through capacity building, be it by community development or by conducting new research on diaspora peacebuilding potential. The important question of who has the responsibility and ability to tap the potential of diaspora communities was posed by Feargal Cochrane. What strategies can diaspora communities develop that will help them achieve their goal? Cochrane proposed that the responsibility is shared between the host and homeland societies, the international community, and civil society of nations involved as well as the diaspora members themselves.

For diaspora to maximize their effectiveness as agents for peaceful development certain support should be available in their hostland. These include support for capacity building, the development of a peacebuilding skill set, and a deeper understanding of the context of the conflict in the homeland. The emphasis must be to identify stakeholders and their roles in developing supportive frameworks for diaspora engagement in order to strengthen the capacities of diaspora to enable them to serve their own home countries and transfer skills or provide aid in post-conflict countries. The Forum made recommendations in three broad areas in which supportive frameworks can be advanced: community development, policy innovation, and new research areas. The potential influence that diasporas have in the social, political and economic processes of both their homelands and hostlands can no longer be contested. The next step is to explore structural and supportive frameworks for engaging this underutilized resource for peacebuilding and development.

19

3. Findings and Recommendations

“Promise or Peril?” asked one delegate; “Proceed with caution - but proceed” said others. During two full days of intensive discussions, Forum participants examined from every angle and perspective the potential role for diaspora in assisting in the development of both their countries of origin and residence. Papers commissioned for the Forum together with the record of discussions comprise a thorough and contemporary review of this highly complex issue – one of relevance to public policy makers in Canada and other diaspora host countries, as well as for diaspora community leaders everywhere. Many participants agreed that when the winning conditions are in place diaspora are capable of engaging in peacebuilding and post conflict reconstruction in ways that are creative and reflective of the needs of their home communities. The final role for the participants in the Forum was to identify the route to these winning conditions so that governments, the private sector and civil society have a map of the ways in which they can invest in the energy and potential capacity of diaspora communities.

3.1 Community Development While the Forum demonstrated what one working group called the “mainstreaming of diaspora,” many participants indicated that there was not a real process of empowerment for these communities at the grassroots level. Some participants and diaspora community representatives felt that exclusionary practices are not only found between diaspora communities from common homelands but are also practiced by hostland and homeland governments. As expressed earlier, diaspora members carry with them a plurality of perspectives, consequently Forum deliberations concluded that no single approach for peacebuilding and development could be determined as the most effective. On the contrary, the participants’ consensus was that a ‘one size fits all’ approach was bound to fail. Robin Higham emphasized the need to “tailor each initiative to respond to the particular needs of the targeted diaspora homeland and to the particular strengths and shortcomings of the diaspora which is about to be employed in an initiative.” Under the rubric of community development three broad policies – youth initiatives, establishment of community data banks, and creative reconciliation techniques – serve as ways in which policy can be informed by grassroots community initiatives. Youth Initiatives Olara Otunnu pointed out that in discussions of peacebuilding much lip service is paid to the potential of youth diaspora roles but that this potential is highly undervalued. The Eritrean ‘Selam Peacebuilding Network’ and the Ethiopian ‘Young Diplomats Group’ made a particularly poignant impression on Forum delegates. On numerous occasions these two groups were found sitting around the same table in collective discussion about their shared desire to build the capacity of their diasporas whose two nations have been in conflict for decades. The coming together of these two diaspora groups functioned as a microcosm for the change that is possible when a safe space is available for peacebuilding dialogue. The Selam Peacebuilding Network undertook the informative case study The Role of the Eritrean Diaspora in Peacebuilding Development: Challenges and Opportunities. Being the first community-based peacebuilding research project in the Eritrean diaspora made their findings especially significant in

20

understanding the complex issues related to the potential of the Eritrean diaspora involvement in peacebuilding and development. They found that:

For the majority of respondents, the Eritrean diaspora is a fragmented society based on socio-political, economic, religious, regional, linguistic lines. This idea was strongly expressed by all the different groups, regardless of their age or gender. More than 84% of online respondents identified their community as non-cohesive and ineffective.

This lack of community cohesion was brought up on various occasions by participants and diaspora members at the Forum who offered structural causes for the lack of organization within diaspora. In the case study, Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development in the Ethiopian Community, the Young Diplomats Group identified five structural challenges that have most compromised the capacity building of the Ethiopian community in Toronto: poverty, employment, education, discrimination and culture-related issues such as language barriers.

The Young Diplomats As proposed by the Young Diplomats Group, the implementation of targeted internships for youth diaspora would act as a transfer of human capital to home countries. The Young Diplomats explained that it was far easier for them to secure short-term internships in countries other than their countries of origin – there is a need for a government supported program that would focus on sending youth diaspora to participate in international development initiatives in their country of origin. They recommended that governments should establish specific programs that provide opportunities for members of diasporas to return to their homelands to work on peacebuilding projects for periods of at least one year. Community Data Bank Although the Forum discussions confirmed that diasporas have the desire to use the knowledge and experiences gained in their hostland and apply it to development in their homeland some diaspora have no hopes of physically returning to their countries of origin to do so. The pragmatic issue of distance and a lack of desire, or inability, to return does not mean that diasporas are unwilling to make a difference or be inactive in peacebuilding. The distance issue, recurrent throughout Forum discussions, was summarized by Olara Otunnu:

They are commuter citizens, they have two homes, the real challenge is a really practical one that no successful practical arrangement has yet been developed to tap the talent of these people to contribute to their homeland in a way that is sustainable. They have the will and means but the modalities are ad hoc… the expertise and knowledge and the brain gain has so far failed.

One mechanism that was proposed by various participants of the Forum is the creation of a community data bank or internet space where diaspora can share their various resources and skills,

21

including financial investments, research findings, and approaches to capacity building and development. There are four ways in which this data bank could be positive for diaspora peacebuilding. Skills Bank This space would function as a skills bank where academics, practitioners, policy makers and diasporas abroad can draw on internationally for advice on specific issues such as legal proceedings or simply to network. This concept is not new, as pointed out in the working group on conflict prevention. Ghana has been at the lead in establishing a network of individuals whose skills can be called upon to meet the economic and social development needs of the state. According to the Ghana Skills bank website:

The primary goal of the Skills Bank, an initiative of the Ghana Embassy in Washington D.C., is to provide the Government of Ghana and the international donor community with a centralized database of information about the skills base of Ghanaian professionals, business leaders and successful entrepreneurs from around the world. It is a census of our professional capacities as a nation, and will serve as a pool for executive and talent search, and a Forum for the exchange of ideas on approaches to confront the development challenges facing our nation. (Ghana Skills Bank, 2006)

Diaspora communities can follow this model and establish job banks within and across communities by identifying people who have specialized skills and linking them with community or government needs in their homelands. As pointed out by the working group on conflict prevention, the guiding principle behind such a skills bank is “right skill at the right time in the right place.” Along with offering human resources, this community data bank could provide educational materials such as journals and manuals to which homeland populations otherwise might not have access. Investment Data Bank Kenneth Menkhaus noted that in his work with diaspora the most common question he hears is “Who can I give my money to where it will be the most effective?” It is widely accepted that non-governmental organizations (NGO) have the ability through their services or advocacy to foster greater capacity in individuals and diaspora communities both in homelands and hostlands. However, as noted by the working group on conflict prevention, empowering organizations can run the same risks as empowering conflict-generated diaspora. Without sufficient research and monitoring it is impossible to ensure that NGO’s abroad are not conducting work that is against the human rights principles defended by the United Nations. Not only is there the potential that diaspora financial investment might be used for conflict sustaining initiatives, but the general lack of capacity for foreign NGO’s to utilize donor funding due to shortages of policy planners and project and financial managers can lead to general misuse of funds. Jean Bosco-Butera suggested that a community data bank could provide diaspora with information on homeland organizations that are most effective, so that if diaspora have the capacity to invest financially they know where their money would go the farthest, a variation on one of the roles played by the United Way in Canada. Development and Fundraising An additional problem that both the Selam Peacebuilding Network and the Young Diplomats Group identified was that financial investment in capacity building is very minimal. There is a need to encourage both private and public funders to invest their capital in community based projects that are capable of conducting grassroots research authentically within their own communities, as a

22

means of determining real needs and ideas for change. The community data bank can provide the space for youth diaspora or any diaspora community to network with potential funders or individuals willing to invest both human and monetary resources in grassroots research. Regional Peacebuilding & Partnerships As proposed by the Selam Peacebuilding Network, “an active Eritrean diaspora in Canada can be an asset for extending peacebuilding work in the Horn of Africa. If the different communities (Ethiopian, Somali, and Eritrean) can work together in looking for ways to build peace then this culture or “social capital” can be transferred and used for attaining regional peace and stability as well” (Selam Peacebuilding Network, 2006, p.30). Similarly, Juan Amaya-Castro of the University for Peace supported the immense potential of inter-diasporic connections, where different diaspora communities could exchange information of their own experiences and approaches to peace and capacity building initiatives. As Olara Otunnu noted, “I think we could do a youth to youth diplomacy, a youth to youth movement, linking up the youth of the diaspora with the youth that are still caught in this cauldron back at home and make a very positive contribution”. This would also open up the potential for dialogue between diaspora abroad and populations in the homeland. The community data bank would also offer diasporas a place where they could address issues related to the ‘re-entry problem’. As Ambassador Omar Samad noted, this multilateral engagement could be vital in post-conflict reconstruction as it would enable skilled returnees and people who have lived through the conflict to reacquaint themselves, bringing these two worldviews together to agree on a creative ways to reshape the country with the potential for direct management of these relationships. This mechanism could prove vital for diaspora members who are unsure of which role they want to take in their homeland development, whether it be to contribute to the current regime, to contribute to international peacebuilding more broadly, or some combination of the two. A further potential role could be facilitated by the community data bank – diaspora along with multinational members could engage in a multifaceted joint analysis of issues that is the product of a combination of partnerships and worldviews. Although this electronic space would provide opportunities for an international dialogue between various groups, it was recognized by many participants that this mechanism would not be fully inclusive. A particular barrier that was discussed was the limited access that some populations, particularly those in conflict areas, would have to the internet. The community data bank could host a continuous dialogue between various members of civil society, from diaspora community members at home and abroad, to inter-diasporas, policy makers, and academics. Creative Reconciliation Techniques Diaspora involvement in the resolution of conflicts is highly interlinked with foreign affairs. How do you begin building working relationships across deeply divided societies? Can they agree on a starting point for constructive dialogue? Ammanuel Melles and others answered such questions by emphasizing the notion of human rights as a foundation for diaspora engagment. From this perspective alienated diasporas can find a common cause. In conflict situations around the world where there has been evidence of extreme brutalization of human life, diasporas have a role in ensuring that this type of criminal behaviour is accountable to justice. Human rights works beyond the politics of identity, having a transcendent function which seeks to realize the social justice goals of advocates. Numerous Forum delegates presented ideas, background papers and their own frameworks for practical approaches in peacebuilding and development rooted in human rights,

23

from which examples of ways in which diasporas can begin to work together for a common cause can be drawn. Peacemaking Circles Eva Marszewski of Peacebuilders International presented her organization’s Peacemaking Circles pilot project from the Toronto neighbourhoods of St. James Town and Regent Park to the Forum. While Peacebuilders International’s mission is “to create cross-cultural partnerships amongst youth and adults through capacity building for peaceful and sustainable communities” their tools of choice are peacemaking circles rooted in aboriginal culture that serve to empower community members by exploring holistic solutions to crime and conflict through a restorative justice approach that includes victims, offenders, families and communities within a re-integrative context. The facilitated peacemaking circles encourage participants to listen to each other’s stories and perspectives and work towards a common goal. They create a space for respectful dialogue which aims to facilitate the resolution of differences among diverse community members, examine options and develop consensus related to community issues, help those at-risk to accept responsibility and move towards personal change, and make group decisions, brainstorm and build community (Paiement, 2006). Although youth participation in the project was voluntary, many of them were recommended to attend by legal authorities. By the final phase of the project almost all of the youth had their criminal charges dropped, evidence of the potential success of this approach. Reconciliation Model Similar to the peacemaking circles, Vern Neufeld Redekop also presented a reconciliation model that includes the perpetrator as part of the solution during the working group on reconciliation and healing. This model helps to consider points of intervention on the diaspora level, how to lessen the shame and the fear of the perpetrator, as well as how to support, encourage and empower the victim. In this working group representatives of the Armenian diaspora suggested practical ways in which diaspora could produce this reconciliation. Greg Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan Institute and self identified Armenian diaspora member, provided a narrative in which he suggested that one such approach could include a joint documentation of history collaborated on by both Turkish and Armenian historians, beginning at the level of one town. By developing this common body of knowledge, these two historically hostile diaspora could begin to bridge a gap by creating documentation in the language of both parties. This dialogue of shared history could provide an end to the vicious cycle of violence that often provides a barrier to reconciliation between combating diaspora. “Extended Dialogue Process” At the beginning of his address to the plenary session on supportive policy and capacity building frameworks, Chetan Kumar offered a piece of advice he had been given when he first began to work for the UN: “there is no better clarifying experience than understanding the depth of your own ignorance.” The final example of creative reconciliation techniques explored this area by focusing on how conflict-generated diasporas reinforce conflicts in their homelands, intentionally or unintentionally, through inaccurate perceptions of homeland conflict. Terrance Lyons explained the “Extended Dialogue Process” developed at George Mason University and the potential of this process to reframe Ethiopian conflict-generated diasporas’ perception of homeland so that their role could be revised to create peace rather than sustain conflict. For five years students at the George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution conducted an “extended dialogue” with members of the Ethiopian diaspora through facilitated group meetings. As noted in the Forum

24

background paper, “Over time, however, the discussions became more complicated and nuanced as participants increasingly recognized how other groups also had legitimate grievances, how principles sometimes were in tension, and how as common members of a diaspora all had interest in promoting a just and sustainable peace in the homeland.” (Lyons, p.31) Although all of these examples are unique and different, they share some common factors. First, change can not occur with the engagement of only one side, whether that be individual, group or nation-state reconciliation. For a genuine reconciliation, all sides need to be involved in the development of solutions so that the process itself can be a safe place for healing and the end product is inclusive and collaborative. Second, the involvement of third party neutrals can be very effective in creating a safe trusting space where both victim and perpetrator have a venue to try to reconcile their perspectives. Finally, these examples again support that access to education can be a transformative process even for the most ‘extremist’ perspectives. Conclusion Due to the location of the Forum in Toronto, access to case studies and background papers from developing countries was very limited and the majority that were presented were ‘south diaspora’ living in industrialized nations. As the working group on conflict summarized, while having this information is important for the capacity building of diasporas in developed nations, in order to develop a more holistic perspective on the issues we must also consider south to south diasporas and north to south diasporas. The potential of community research and organization to create alternative methods of reconciliation is endless. It has often been noted that the best solutions come from those who have lived experiences. The need to particularly focus on building the capacity of youth diaspora is essential since they are the generation of peacebuilding leaders to come. The Selam Peacebuilding Network and the Young Diplomats Group’s community research revealed that structural factors such as poverty and unemployment and social factors such as low level community cohesion act as a major hindrance to the real participation of diaspora in the Toronto community. These two youth groups recognized that although they have a desire to lend their ideas and participate in proactive initiatives in their homeland they first need to focus on ways to build the capacity of their diaspora in their hostland. As Ammanuel Melles noted, “We can’t play as role models for folks back in our countries of origin if we can’t get our acts together here.”

3.2 Policy Innovation Participants in the Forum agreed that for effective engagement of diaspora their potential and contribution needs to be supported by concrete national and international policies. Diaspora communities require support from both their hostland governments and from broad-based NGO’s in order to access positions that make them relevant to the development aspirations of their countries of origin. Mobilizing ethnic newcomers to support a major public policy priority such as international development assistance and other aspects of foreign relations is not only beneficial to homeland development and diaspora capacity building but can generate a sense of belonging and allegiance to their new homeland. Diaspora related issues and capacity should be a more significant issue on the Canadian policy agenda.

25

Although many of the Forum’s policy recommendations are from a Canadian context many can be adapted to nations abroad. Areas where policy recommendations were made include the diasporic circulation as citizenship, “the Good Host Challenge,” funding for peacebuilding, remittances and foreign policy. Diasporic Circulation as Citizenship The Forum recommended a very broad umbrella concept that seeks to alter the way in which diaspora is analysed in order for all other concrete solutions to become less complex to apply. As Cheran Rudharmoorthy explained, historically migration was for labour purposes, such as the transfer of labour by imperial powers to create infrastructure in colonies. Today diaspora movement for voluntary and involuntary reasons is more complex, with the rapid globalization of populations causing major challenges to notions of national citizenship. Various immigrant-receiving nations such as Canada have been negotiating the degree to which transnational populations can play a negative or positive role within their states. Mr. Rudharmoorthy proposed that diaspora movement no longer be perceived as a linear process of movement but that nations and NGO’s view transnational populations as being in a continuous state of circulation. This refers not only to the physical circulation of diasporas but also to the circulation of diaspora knowledge capital, capacity building and investment, and peacebuilding and strengthening of civil society. He suggested that nations and the international community view diaspora circulation as beneficial and provide supportive frameworks from which diaspora can begin to deepen their capacity for providing their capital. He pointed to the phenomenon of the brain drain, a negative by-product of transnational mobility in which the most skilled and educated individuals are the most likely and free to move, as an example. While the brain drain impacts developing nations most, since these highly skilled individuals are often few and far between, and can’t be fully reversed, diaspora circulation can facilitate the circulation of human capital, enabling homelands to maintain a connection to their skilled diaspora and benefit from the accumulated knowledge and skills resulting from migration. This reconstruction of citizenship opens the possibility of developing a global citizenship where citizenship is viewed not only as a right but also as a practice. The policy recommendations that follow are rooted in this perspective of citizenship as a consciousness and the need to recognize the nomadic structures of mobility that diaspora practice, creating policies that enhance these relationships for international development “The Good Host Challenge” Forum participants agreed that one of the main responsibilities of host countries is to foster diaspora as more than just a residual population, encouraging them to become full citizens in their adopted countries and to take on political, social and economic roles. One participant explained this as the “Good Host Challenge,” the degree to which the host country provides a supportive environment that enables individuals and diasporas to take part in initiatives back home. This requires a two way process. As the working group on conflict prevention noted, diasporas need to be engaged by host institutions in a way that encourages them to participate in political/economic life of their new communities. Yet this includes getting the broader host community to engage with the diaspora as well. Olara Otunnu explained that the consequences of perceiving diaspora hostland citizenship as a one-way process by which diasporas are forced to assimilate without actually engaging in hostland activities are severe:

26

I think much of the diaspora understandably are grateful to have that piece of paper, to have a stable status, to have personal stability but quite often in their mind they still remain guests in adopted countries. Now at the domestic level this can lead to a diaspora ghetto, it is very important for diaspora to have a sense of belonging.

Olara Otunnu, HE Mohamed Sahnoun, Nisar Sheraly

Case studies and community research presented at the Forum demonstrated the immense potential for transnational identities to import new possibilities for alternative development and creative approaches to governance, economy and civil society proceedings. Failure to incorporate diasporas’ capacity and participation in Canadian politics would rob the country of the potential of this new transference of knowledge and skills. This is not a new conversation in the Canadian context. Numerous studies over the years have pushed for more inclusive policies that would reflect a true respect for diversity in Canadian politics. It was proposed during the Forum that the relationship between citizenship and diaspora calls for an international paradigm shift in notions of transnational identities and border control, as recommended by Cheran Rudharmoorthy’s notion of diasporic circulation. The Forum began with a conversation on why Canada was chosen as a focus for this dialogue on diaspora. Much had to do with its already multicultural and diverse make-up, but additionally Canada was seen as a safe space. As the working group on reconciliation and healing expressed, the responsibility to nurture this country as a safe space includes attending to the pain and immediate survival needs of diasporas. This requires supporting diaspora use of freedom of speech to emphasize issues that cannot be dealt with by people on the ground in their homelands. Diasporas can be leaders in the development of global citizenship since they are frequently citizens who think and act beyond traditional or established nation-state frontiers. It is important that host country diaspora themselves showcase social inclusion and the benefits of building communities across their differences if they wish to be credible exporters of the arguments and processes for conflict resolution and peaceful development. Diaspora communities require the support of structures such as governments, institutions and the private sector, in order for them to have the resources to mobilize effectively. Canadian Member of Parliament Rahim Jaffer provided an example in one of the final plenary sessions. He informed Forum participants that the government of Canada would announce the following week the launch of the Global Centre for Pluralism in partnership with the Agha Khan Foundation.

The mission of the Global Centre for Pluralism is to promote pluralism as a fundamental human value and cornerstone of peace, stability and development. Ensuring that every individual – irrespective of cultural, ethnic or religious differences – has the opportunity to realize his or her full potential as a citizen is a vital part of this mission. To this end, the

27

Centre will function as a global repository and source for knowledge and know-how about fostering pluralistic values, policies, and practices in a variety of settings. (Global Centre for Pluralism, 2006)

According to the Centre’s website, the Centre aims to create solutions in a practical way using examples of the success of pluralism in Canada, engaging those diasporas who are involved to take their work into various countries in a more meaningful way. Initiatives such as the Global Centre for Pluralism identify Canada’s strong commitment to and respect for diversity. Both the government and diasporas must evaluate such mechanisms and use them as vehicles to establish the roles, rights and responsibilities of diasporas globally. Funding for Peacebuilding It is well recognized, both domestically and abroad, that Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Yet the commitment to peacekeeping that Canada has demonstrated was a topic of concern during the conference. The suggestion was made that the Canadian government needs to place more effort on the proactive roles that diaspora can play in conflict prevention rather than solely focusing on investing public money in military priorities. This was premised on the notion that conflict avoidance abroad and peace building without the need for military force saves scarce resources for other national priorities both domestically and internationally. David Lord emphasized that the capacity of the NGO sector in Canada to support network activities is limited. He pointed out that the recent governmental framework seems to have increased its trend in military capacities, counter to NGO beliefs that the nerve centre of Canadian peacebuilding requires an increase in funds for peacebuilding and creative non-military interventions. There is an overall need for the Canadian government to invest more funds and attention in recognizing the positive potential of diaspora to improve host and home countries before and after conflict. There is a tremendous need to assess and build the capacities of diasporas who actually want to be involved in post-conflict peacebuilding. Mapping capacities and providing both country-specific and professional skills training would be extremely useful. Several participants noted a need for professional peacebuilding training for individuals wishing to return home. As discussed in several working groups, there are various programs around the globe that provide skills training in conflict prevention and mediation and in peacebuilding. However, in Canada most of these programs are aimed at people in the Canadian community. States should seek to provide these forms of programs to the diaspora communities within their own states. As an example, the working group on conflict prevention suggested that the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre could offer targeted courses in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver to members of diaspora communities. Such programs could also be offered, with government funding, through a variety of universities and other intermediary organizations such as CANADEM and World University Services of Canada. Remittances As Kenneth Bush explained during the Forum, the World Bank estimates that cash remittances from migrants in 2005 exceeded $232 billion (Bush, 2006). Other participants noted that focusing on diaspora remittances avoids the benefit the Global North seems to be making through the

28

corruption and economic marginalization of the Global South. Bush also referenced a World Bank report which stated that approximately:

5 trillion dollars has been corruptly removed from the worlds poorest countries and lodged permanently in the world’s richest countries…through the [Global North’s] maintenance of the financial and political infrastructure which siphon resources out of the Global South, whether by predatory dictators of kleptocratic regimes or silk-suited businessman profiteering from an anarchic neoliberal economic dispensation. (p.26)

Remittances play an important role in the economies of the developing nations states and, particularly on an individual level, diaspora remittances ensure that extended families in the homeland have access to the necessities of life. However, remittances are limited in their impact on broad community-wide development and have the potential to reproduce and further exacerbate social divisions within societies. His Excellency Vartan Oskanian concluded, “Individual remittances continue to be significant for Armenia’s economy. Funds sent regularly to families by individual diasporas are often the difference between survival and destitution for many in the homeland. The numbers are very high – nearly half a billion dollars a year - but they are from individuals to individuals. They are indispensable for immediate relief, but not long-term sustainability. It’s economic investment that fuels long-term sustainability.” Government Reduction in Remittance Fees As Myer Siemiatycki suggested, a quick solution to increasing remittance rates overseas is for the government of Canada to intervene and reduce the transference fee that wire-transfer institutions charge clients to send money overseas. An alternative mode suggested was the use of Canada Post rather than wire-transfers. Remittances through NGO’s Several participants suggested that as an alternative to person-to-person remittances diasporas could contribute their financial capacity to already established NGO’s that are capable of dispersing money for community development. But, as members of Toronto diaspora communities commented in one working group, the whole point of diasporas contributing remittances to their families is to ensure that the financial contribution is utilized for their direct benefit. “There is a sense that contributing to NGO’s will not necessarily result in projects for their communities, because large international groups can not guarantee where funding will be sent, and that small local NGO’s may not be reliable.” This caveat aside, the working group on post-conflict development suggested channelling money though established mechanisms such as United Nations trust funds or through Trust Africa. Similarly, a large respected International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) could take on a similar role in providing oversight of smaller NGO activity in a given country. Conclusion As participants in the working group on conflict analysed, remittance-based economies re-shape household survival strategies as well as policy within the homeland. Research on diasporas economic roles is significant to understand the potential that diaspora have in international development. However, more sustainable and collective ways in which diaspora could provide monetary provisions for peacebuilding initiatives should be constructed. The following section provides an example of how diaspora have the potential in partnership with civil society and national

29

governments to target their money and social and political capacity in a way that is beneficial for peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction.

3.3 Foreign Policy Although Canada was a main focus of the Forum, it was recognized that many of the issues discussed had a greater potential for international application. Two recommendations in particular provide concrete examples of ways in which diaspora involvement can further international development through alignment with various other forces including national governments and civil society. They included case studies of successful infrastructures for peace done in partnership with diaspora and an example of how diasporas can provide direct support as advocates for specific international policies. Infrastructures for Peace Chetan Kumar defined infrastructures for peace as the capacities that countries have to manage conflict and the sustainable strategies that they implement in rebuilding institutions post-conflict. This approach to infrastructures for peace includes more than just the pragmatic rebuilding that occurs post-conflict, it includes the rebuilding of institutions and communities in a way that is sustainable to prevent further conflict and enhance democratic structures. He explained the linkage with diasporas:

We build many things in the aftermath of conflict, and we rebuild many things but not this infrastructure. It can take many forms. It can take the form of more conventional institutions like parliaments, judiciary, and leadership of the government to actually manage tensions that will reoccur in ways that will not lead to violence. It can take the form of traditional systems, the management of conflicts that have existed within that society and need to be revived, strengthened or reformed, can take the form of special and new institutions that are created. It can take the form of a shift, in terms of attitude, behaviours and skills that different actors bring in resolving the issues that they may still face in their societies. Because you have had a conflict when it is over it doesn’t mean you won’t differ on the same issue. The key way that we hope is the way in which those conflicts are dealt with. This is an area where there is a huge role for diaspora roles to play.

Kumar suggested that these specific strategies include a strong sense of economic motivation and draw upon both public sector and private enterprise. He provided examples of initiatives worldwide that have drawn on establishing these infrastructures of peace by including diaspora who have acquired different ways of doing things, both in terms of economic enterprise as well as conflict management, and UN and other partners to deliver concrete initiatives on the ground. The main difference in this approach to international development is that key initiatives are delivered through local structures such as communities, governments and private sector organizations in the country of development, with the aim of addressing issues of sustainability. In this way, conflict resolution occurs systemically through “a marriage between economic interest with technical competency by the management of conflicts at the local level, increasing the ownership on part of local institutions.” Diasporas are engaged to provide either financial investment or technical skills while the actual application of the initiative happens through local energies, empowering the communities to have a say in the changes they need while at the same time delivering on responsibilities for

30

sustaining initiatives. Two international examples were provided by Chetan Kumar of ways in which this complex equation of multilateral initiatives has assisted in creating sustainable infrastructures for peace:

• In Sierra Leone, Celtel, one of the biggest cell phone networks is run primarily by members of the diaspora from sub-Sahara Africa. They have partnered with Search For Common Ground, a Washington based NGO that works on reconciliation issues, to establish cell phone coverage in the most poor and deprived areas in Sierra Leone initially held by rebels. Citizens not only have cell phone coverage but also receive messages on their cell phones that relate to their culture and traditions and how to deal with issues and conflict at their level. This initiative is an example of ways in which profitability can be combined with conflict management.

• In May 2006 Rene Preval became President of Haiti. The inauguration of his cabinet was

surprisingly balanced, bringing together key figures from both the left and right. What is less well known is the huge influence that the Haitian diaspora had on this selection process through a very specific inter-Haitian dialogue that was begun informally among different communities in New York by the American Friends Service Committee (the Quakers) and the United Nations.

These examples illustrate a need to focus systemically on establishment of these sorts of institutions, their cost effectiveness within the UN and at home and abroad, and to actually deliver on the promise. Rather than focusing solely on the problems of remittance based economies more effort should be placed on global initiatives. Infrastructures for peace are delivered with community needs at the core of the project and focus on increasing economic profitability to ensure sustainability of projects. This area requires far more research and attention in order to deliver systemic approaches that can be integrated in various regions globally. Diaspora as Policy Shapers It is undeniable that diaspora are able to offer concrete and innovative policy suggestions through dialogue and opportunities to voice their experiences. But it is important to emphasize the role that diaspora have in holding governments and organizations accountable to already established policies. Olara Otunnu spoke of the not only political but moral obligation that diasporas have to use their influence in their countries of origin and host countries to hold perpetrators of violence towards women and children accountable through UN Security Council resolution 1612. He suggested that all people become friends of resolution 1612, which acts as a naming and shaming list of perpetrators (to date there are 54 names on this list). Diasporas can provide a monitoring eye and external force in situations where those in their homeland may lack the opportunity. Their safe position abroad offers them mobility to lobby and pressure various levels of government to become aware and hold accountable those individuals who are responsible for the brutalization of innocent lives.

31

Working Group on Conflict Prevention Conclusion Since diaspora engagement in peacebuilding and development is a relatively new area of study, it is predictable that policy suggestions for diaspora roles will continue to grow. Ultimately the strongest recommendation that came from the Forum was the incontestable need for governments at all levels to include diaspora and local civil society in international and national policy development. Diasporic organizations can offer their overwhelming energy and knowledge to policy makers regarding creative reconciliation techniques and innovative approaches to post-conflict reconstruction. But much more research is required in these areas to ensure that multilateral relationships are created on authentic levels. As poignantly expressed by one student participant, “There are three policy options; do nothing, do something positive, do something negative. There is no way to narrow it down yet, more research is needed.”

3.4 New Research Areas The contemporary role of diasporas has been heightened due to characteristics of the global environment such as the rapid mobilization of transnational identities. Throughout this report one major shift proposed is that research and perspectives on diasporas move from focusing on conflict-sustaining cases to ways in which diaspora are capable of providing their skills and experience to peacebuilding and development. As Kenneth Bush pointed out, peacebuilding is a twofold process requiring both the deconstruction of the structures of violence and the construction of the structures of peace (Bush 1998). While the Forum provided a space for mutual communication, it came to a close with participants feeling that numerous questions remained to be explored. The result is a final set of recommendations that inspires new areas of research on diaspora in order to further develop strategies for engagement and capacity building. Suggested Fields of Research As Susan McGrath emphasized during the closing plenary session, there is a real need for research that focuses on peace rather than conflict, and more specifically comparative case studies which document success stories of conflict prevention or innovative approaches to peacebuilding. Some of the specific research questions identified as gaps in diaspora literature include

32

• Basic research on remittances: Their national and individual impacts and the potential benefits remittances provide to the Global North

• Healing and reconciliation: Both theoretical and practical approaches to post-conflict healing and reconciliation. There was also a specific desire for more research on models which incorporate both the victim and the perpetrator.

• Gender Inclusion in the peace process • Inter-Generational Groups: How the various generations, cohorts and ages of diaspora affect

their engagement in peacebuilding initiatives. • Faith Diaspora: Study and analyze the work of faith groups and their role in mobilizing

diaspora communities Research Methodologies There is an expectation today that for NGOs to receive any significant level of funding for projects, their proposals contain supporting research as justification. The requirement for research can be a major obstacle to groups within new diaspora communities which lack the technical expertise to conduct such studies. They require training projects that include a basic overview of statistical methods, surveys, results based management, and research techniques. Discussion also centred on research done by neutral third parties and the necessity for this to be done in partnership with members of diaspora so that methodologies and findings can be transferred to the homeland in an accessible language. There needs to be a more community based focus on diaspora research, ‘research on diaspora by diaspora’ so that the issue of transferability can be approached in a sustainable manner. As expressed by Susan McGrath, “diasporas are the vehicle for new information and dissemination, the knowledge that is being developed needs to have applied knowledge that is in a format that can be taken elsewhere.” Finally, as suggested in the community development section of this report, many of the concerns over research methodology can be approached through the establishment of an internet portal where information can be readily shared through a central database of diaspora research. This database would need to be searchable and would ideally contain academic, government, and NGO papers. The site would also benefit from a space designated to the sharing of ‘best-practices’ and ‘lessons learned’ in project delivery. Adequate funding would insure a comprehensive, up-to-date, and well organized data-base. This type of initiative can ideally be run by either a large international donor organization, INGO, or research centre.

33

4. Conclusion The starting point for capitalizing on the under-valued resources of diaspora is to talk about it. Informed and intelligent public debate is a pre-condition for employing the diaspora resource and for generating leaders in the diaspora communities who gain the confidence of their diaspora counterparts in their adoptive home and in their country of origin. This Forum offered a space for many people to come together and discuss issues related to the peacebuilding capacity of diasporas. Khachig Tololyan summarized it well, “Bilateral or multilateral conferences, brokered, arranged, organized and funded by joint diasporic and international organizations that bring together scholars, intellectuals, and journalists as well as officials of small organizations not formally allied with the government of the combatant countries are an obvious first step. As we have already seen, these can blaze the path of understanding and dialogue, revealing causes of, and perhaps reducing, some tensions.” (Tololyan, 2006, p.45) Diaspora mobilization should be an important component in the tool box of policy instruments for governing, for diversity, and for capitalizing on citizens who understand the elements of peaceful coexistence, human rights, democratic processes and the cultural and value reference points of those communities abroad which we would seek to assist. There are many ways to get it wrong. But when it is possible to identify the existence of winning conditions, the potential payback for successful diaspora engagement justifies investment in the idea by governments, private sector and civil society. Diaspora mobilization for peace building and development can become a key factor in generating trust amongst citizens at home and abroad. In situations where a diaspora is large, extensive and engaged, its members become no longer disconnected from their homeland but instead, an international extension of it. These multiple-identity citizens (often armed with dual or multiple citizenship as well), constitute an emerging new “diversity advantage” for their host country foreign-policy and domestic-policy makers. Supported by the new communications technologies and easy international travel, these “citoyens sans frontiers” may be amongst the precursors of the notion of global citizenship.

This Forum explored various key theoretical concepts and developed some recommendations that are designed to increase capacity building within diasporas and their homeland communities. One of the most important findings of the Forum was the obvious necessity and interest for more discussion and research on diaspora engagement, particularly the need for more comparative case studies, and the exchange of knowledge between diaspora through an electronic mechanism. It is strongly recommended that diaspora in partnership with local civil society and supported by various levels of government continue to engage in policy changes and grassroots initiatives in their country of residence and abroad. It is hoped that this conference has acted as a catalyst and starting place for more diaspora research and engagement. As expressed by Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa “the idea of diaspora is more of a celebration of diversity than a loss of identity.”

34

Appendices

Appendix A Agenda

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2006

12:00-5:30 pm The Ballroom Foyer (3rd Floor)

Registration Desk Open at Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral 249 Queens Quay West, Toronto

7:00-9:00 pm The Ballroom Foyer

Welcome Reception at Radisson Plaza Hotel

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2006

8:00-8:45 am Registration, Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral

249 Queens Quay West, Toronto PLENARY SESSION 1: OPENING 8:45-9:30 am The Ballroom

Chair: Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun: Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Africa, Vice Chair of the Council of the University for Peace Welcoming Remarks: Ms. Julia Marton-Lefèvre: Rector, University for Peace Keynote: HE Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa: President, UN General Assembly 61st session

PLENARY SESSION 2: FRAMING THE DEBATE 9:30-10:30 am Acknowledging Contested Meanings, Fragmented Identities and

Uncertainty Panellists: Dr. Kenneth Bush: Professor, Saint Paul University, Canada: A Critical Overview of Current Thinking among Policymakers, Academics, and Practioners Related to Diaspora Engagement in Peacebuilding and Development Dr. Myer Siemiatycki: Program Director, MA in Immigration & Settlement Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto Discussants: Dr. Vern Neufeld Redekop: Professor, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada Dr. Ken Menkhaus: Associate Professor, Davidson College, USA Mr. Richard Weeks: Initiatives of Change, Ottawa Chair’s Conclusion – A Working Definition of Diaspora: Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun

10:30-10:45 am Break

35

10:45-11:00 am Group Photo 11:00-12:00 am The Ballroom

Transnational Communities: The Challenges and Opportunities of Dual Identity Keynote: HE Vartan Oskanian: Foreign Minister of Armenia Panellists: Mr. Carlo Dade: Deputy Director, Canadian Foundation for the Americas, (FOCAL) Mr. Yuen Pau Woo: President & Co-CEO of Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (TBC) Dr. Vern Neufeld Redekop: Professor, Saint Paul University, Canada Discussants: Dr. Cheran Rudhramoorthy: Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, Canada Dr. Simon Turner: Senior Researcher Department for Globalisation and Governance, Danish Institute for International Studies Ms. Kathleen Newland: Director and Board Member, Migration Policy Institute (MPI), USA

12:00-1:00 pm The Ballroom

Mapping Potential Roles: Before, During and After Conflict

• Dynamics of diaspora involvement in conflict and peace • Different actors: Private sector, youth, women, teachers • Building peace in the country of origin and the country of residence • Sharing experiences on governance and conflict resolution

Keynote: HE Ambassador Omar Samad, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada Discussants: Dr. Kevin Clements: Director, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Dr Feargal Cochrane: Director of the Richardson Institute for Peace and Conflict Research Lancaster University, UK Dr. Necla Tschirgi: Policy Analyst Security and Development, USA

1:00-2:00 pm The Ballroom Foyer

Lunch

WORKING GROUPS 1: MAPPING ACTORS, ROLES AND STRATEGIES 2:00-5:00 pm The Ballroom (3:30-3:45 Break)

V. Conflict Prevention Chair: Dr. Jean-Bosco Butera: Director UPEACE Africa Programme Rapporteur : Mr. Farouk S. Jiwa : Global Youth Fellow, Walter and Gordon Duncan Foundation, Canada Case Study 1: The Ethiopian Diaspora and Homeland Conflict, Dr. Terrence Lyons: Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University, USA Case Study 2: The Role of the Eritrean Diaspora in Peacebuilding and Development – Challenges and Opportunities, Ms. Helen Tewolde, University of Toronto Case Study 3: Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development in the Ethiopian Community, Ms. Helena Shimeles: “Young Diplomats Group” Ethiopian Youth Group, Toronto Roundtable on Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and

36

Strategies: Ambassador David Shinn: Adjunct Professor, Elliott School of International Affairs, USA Mr. David Lord: Coordinator, Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC) Dr. Simon Turner: Senior Researcher Department for Globalisation and Governance, Danish Institute for International Studies Dr. Ashok Swain: Professor, Uppsala University, Sweden

The Raindance Room (Room 2)

II. During Conflict: Track II, People-to-People Diplomacy and Long Distance Nationalism Chair: Dr Minelle Mahtani : Assistant Professor University of Toronto Rapporteur : Mr. Rafael Velasquez : UPEACE Africa Case Study 1: “The Role of the Colombian Diaspora in Empowering Peace and Development in the Homeland”, Mr. Duberlis Ramos: Executive Director, Hispanic Development Council & Mr. Gustavo Neme, Romero House, Canada Case Study 2: The Colombian Diaspora: Characteristics, Tensions and Challenges for Transnational Political Arrangements. Dr. Pilar Riaño-Alcalá: Assistant Professor, University of British Colombia & Dr. Luin Goldring, Associate Professor York University Case Study 3: The Rise of Somalia as a Diaspora Nation: Impact on Peacebuilding, Governance and Development, Professor Dr Ken Menkahus, Davidson College USA Case Study 4: Lessons from Irish-America in Building Constituencies for Peace, Dr Feargal Cochrane: Director of the Richardson Institute for Peace and Conflict Research Lancaster University Roundtable on Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: Dr. Sharryn Aiken: Professor Faculty of Law Queen’s University, Canada Dr. Cheran Rudhramoorthy, Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Canada, Canada Mr. Paul Davidson: President World University Service of Canada Dr. Camilla Orjuela: Department of Peace and Development Research Göteborg University Dr. Mohamed Gilao: Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi-Service Centre, Executive Director Ms. Eva Marszewski: Founder & Executive Director, Peacebuilders International Mr. Juan Amaya Castro: Deputy Head of Department, Assistant Professor, Department of International Law and Human Rights, University for Peace Dr. Anne Goodman: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Ms. Catalina Chause: Consul of Colombia in Toronto

The Rainbow Room (Room 3)

III. Post-conflict Reconstruction and Peacebuilding Chair: Dr. Necla Tschirgi: Policy Analyst Security and Development, USA Rapporteur : Mr Israel Jigba, UPEACE Alumni, Sierre Leone Case Study 1: Distant Warriors, Distant Peace Workers? Multiple Diaspora Roles in Sri Lanka’s Violent Conflict. Dr. Camilla Orjuela: Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University, Sweden Case Study 2: Peace and Development Initiatives within the Afghan-Canadian Diaspora Ms. Adeena Niazi: Executive Director, Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support Organization, Toronto Case Study 3: Rebuilding the Congo (DRC): Challenges and Possibilities Facing the

37

Congolese Diaspora Dr. Maria Eriksson Baaz: Department of Peace and Development Research(PADRIGU), Goteborg University, Sweden Roundtable regarding Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: HE Omar Samad: Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada Mr. Mark Schneider: Senior Vice President; Special Advisor on Latin America, International Crisis Group, USA Dr. Kevin Clements: Director, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Dr. Pamela Scholey: Senior Program Specialist – Peace, Conflict and Development, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa Dr. Kenneth Bush: Associate Professor, Saint Paul University, Ottawa Mr. Ehsan Masood: Project Director, Gateway Trust, UK

The Windsong Room (Room 4)

IV. Reconciliation and Healing Chair: Dr Susan McGrath: Director, York University Centre for Refugee Studies, Toronto Rapporteur : Mr. Hovig Etyemezian : Arab Centre for the Development of the Rule of Law and Integrity (ACRLI), Lebanon Case Study 1: The Armenian Diaspora’s Engagement with the Republic of Armenia, Dr. Khachig Tololyan: Professor, Wesleyan University, USA Case Study 2: Community Based Responses to Trauma, Dr Susan McGrath, York University Centre for Refugee Studies, Toronto Roundtable regarding Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: Hon. Vartan Oskanian : Foreign Minister of Armenia Mr. Greg Sarkissian: President, Zoryan Institute, Canada Mr. Razmik Panossian: Co-ordinator Democratic Development for Rights and Democracy, Montreal Mr. George Shirinian: Director, Zoryan Institute, Canada Mr. Thomas Saras: President/CEO, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Dr. Sikander Mehdi: Professor, Dept. of International Relations, Karachi University, Pakistan Dr. Myer Siemiatycki: Program Director MA in Immigration & Settlement Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto

The Waters Edge Room (Room 5)

V. Economic and Social Development Chair: Dr. David Dewitt: Associate Vice-President Research, York University, Toronto Rapporteur: Mr Assong Undah: UNESCO, Cameroon Case Study 1 : Jamaica, Haiti, Diasporas and Peacebuilding, Mr Carlo Dade (FOCAL) & Dr. David Carment : Carleton University School of International Affairs, Ottawa Case Study 2 : Canadian Jamaican Diaspora and Peacebuilding, Mr Ron Cunningham: President, Citizens for Advancement of Community Development, Canada Case Study 3 : Diaspora, Mainland China and Hong Kong, Mr Yuen Pao Woo : President & Co-CEO of Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Roundtable regarding Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies:

38

Dr. Ranabir Samaddar: Director, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, India Dr. Maria Eriksson: Researcher, Department of Peace and Development Research, School of Global Studies, Goteborg University, Sweden Ms. Kathleen Newland: Director and Board Member, Migration Policy Institute, USA Dr. Parvin Ghorayshi: Professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada Ms. Lisa Wolff: Advocacy Specialist, UNICEF Canada Mr. Stewart Prest: Senior Research Analyst Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Carleton University, Ottawa Mr. Andrew Harrington: Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Ottawa Mr. Per Unheim: Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Ottawa

6:00 pm Bus leaves from Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral to Glendon Campus 7:30-9:30 pm Forum Dinner at Glendon Campus

Address: Julia Marton-Lefèvre: Rector University for Peace

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2006

PLENARY SESSION 3: ILLUMINATING CHALLENGES 8:30-9:45 am The Ballroom

Challenges of Diaspora Engagement: Political Agendas, Motivation and Capacity Panellists: Ambassador Omar Samad: Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada Ambassador Karel de Beer: Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Canada Dr. Ayman Al- Yassini: Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Ms. Patricia Weiss-Fagen: Senior Research Associate, Institute for the Study of International Migration, USA Mr. Amanuel Melles: Director Organizational Capacity Building, United Way of Greater Toronto Discussants: Dr. Terrence Lyons: Professor, Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University, USA Dr. Alok Mukherjee: Chair, Toronto Police Services Board Mr. Juan Amaya Castro: Assistant Professor, Department of International Law and Human Rights, University for Peace

9:45-10:15 am Break

39

PLENARY SESSION 4: SUPPORTIVE FRAMEWORKS 10:15-11:30 am The Ballroom

Supportive Policy and Capacity Building Frameworks Chair: Hon. Rahim Jaffer: Member of Parliament, Canada Panellists: Mr. Olara Otunnu: UN Under-Secretary General and Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, President LBL Foundation for Children Mr. David Lord: Coordinator, Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC) Mr. Chetan Kumar, Political Liason/Conflict Prevention Advisor, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, United Nations Development Programme Ms. Eva Marszewski: Founder and Executive Director, Peacebuilders International Discussants: Dr. Kenneth Bush: Professor, Saint Paul University, Ottawa (TBA) Mr. Amanuel Melles: Director Organizational Capacity Building, United Way of Greater Toronto Professor Dr Ken Menkahus, Davidson College USA (TBA)

11:30-1:00 pm. The Ballroom Foyer

Lunch Movie screening Binta and the Great Idea, directed by Javier Fesser (30 minutes, The Ballroom – optional)

WORKING GROUPS 2: BUILDING CAPACITY 1:00-2:45 pm The Ballroom

V. Conflict Prevention Chair: Dr. Jean-Bosco Butera: Director, UPEACE Africa Programme Rapporteurs : Mr. Farouk S. Jiwa : Global Youth Fellow, Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation & Mr. Ryerson Christie, York University Roundtable on Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: Dr. Terrence Lyons: Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University, USA Ms. Helen Tewolde, University of Toronto Ms. Helena Shimeles: “Young Diplomats Group” Ethiopian Youth Group, Toronto Ambassador David Shinn: Adjunct Professor, Elliott School of International Affairs, USA Mr. David Lord: Coordinator, Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC) Dr. Simon Turner: Senior Researcher, Department for Globalisation and Governance, Danish Institute for International Studies Dr. Ashok Swain: Professor, Uppsala University, Sweden

The Raindance Room (Room 2)

II. During Conflict: Track II, People-to-People Diplomacy and Long Distance Nationalism Chair: Dr Minelle Mahtani: Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Rapporteurs : Mr. Rafael Velasquez : UPEACE Africa & Ms. Elena Cirkovic, York University Roundtable on Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and

40

Strategies: Mr. Duberlis Ramos: Executive Director, Hispanic Development Council & Mr. Gustavo Neme, Romero House, Canada Dr. Pilar Riaño-Alcalá: Assistant Professor, University of British Colombia & Dr. Luin Goldring, Associate Professor York University Professor Dr Ken Menkahus, Davidson College USA Dr Feargal Cochrane: Director of the Richardson Institute for Peace and Conflict Research Lancaster University Dr. Sharryn Aiken: Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Canada Dr. Cheran Rudhramoorthy: Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, Canada Mr. Paul Davidson: President, World University Service of Canada Dr. Camilla Orjuela: Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University, Sweden Dr. Mohamed Gilao: Executive Director, Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi-Service Centre, Toronto Ms. Eva Marszewski: Founder & Executive Director, Peacebuilders International, Canada Mr. Juan Amaya Castro: Assistant Professor, UPEACE Dr. Anne Goodman: Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Ms. Catalina Chause: Consul of Colombia in Toronto

The Rainbow Room (Room 3)

III. Post-conflict Reconstruction and Peacebuilding Chair: Dr. Necla Tschirgi: Policy Analyst Security and Development, USA Rapporteurs : Mr Israel Jigba & Ms. Sarah Newman, York University Roundtable on Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: Dr. Camilla Orjuela: Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University, Sweden Ms. Adeena Niazi: Executive Director, Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support Organization, Toronto Dr. Maria Eriksson Baaz: Department of Peace and Development Research(PADRIGU), Goteborg University, Sweden Ambassador Omar Samad: Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada Mr. Mark Schneider: Senior Vice President; Special Advisor on Latin America, International Crisis Group, USA Dr. Kevin Clements: Director, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Dr. Pamela Scholey: Senior Program Specialist Peace, Conflict and Development, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Dr. Kenneth Bush: Associate Professor, Saint Paul University, Ottawa Mr. Ehsan Masood: Project Director, Gateway Trust, UK

The Windsong Room (Room 4)

IV. Reconciliation and Healing Chair: Dr Susan McGrath: Director, York University Centre for Refugee Studies, Toronto Rapporteur : Mr. Hovig Etyemezian : Arab Centre for the Development of the Rule of Law and Integrity (ACRLI), Lebanon & Mr. Zubairu Wai, YorkU Roundtable regarding Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies:

41

Dr. Khachig Tololyan: Professor, Wesleyan University, USA Dr Susan McGrath, York University Centre for Refugee Studies, Toronto Professor Khachig Tololyan: Professor, Wesleyan University, USA Mr. Greg Sarkissian: President, Zoryan Institute, Canada Mr. George Shirinian: Director, Zoryan Institute, Canada Mr. Thomas Saras: President/CEO, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Dr. Sikander Mehdi: Professor, Dept. of International Relations, Karachi University, Pakistan Dr. Myer Siemiatycki: Program Director, MA in Immigration & Settlement Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto

The Waters Edge Room (Room 5)

V. Economic and Social Development Chair: Dr. David Dewitt: Associate Vice-President Research, York University, Toronto Rapporteur : Mr Assong Undah : UNESCO Roundtable regarding Comparative Cases and Mapping Actors, Roles and Strategies: Mr Carlo Dade (FOCAL) & Dr. David Carment : Carleton University School of International Affairs Mr Ron Cunningham: President, Citizens for Advancement of Community Development Mr Yuen Pao Woo : President & Co-CEO of Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Dr. Ranabir Samaddar: Director, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, India Dr. Maria Eriksson: Researcher, Department of Peace and Development Research, School of Global Studies, Goteborg University, Sweden Ms. Kathleen Newland: Director, Migration Policy Institute, USA Dr. Parvin Ghorayshi, Professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada Ms. Lisa Wolff: Advocacy Specialist, UNICEF Canada Mr. Stewart Prest: Senior Research Analyst Country Indicators for Foreign Policy, Carleton University, Ottawa Mr. Andrew Harrington: Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Mr. Per Unheim: Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs

2:45-3:00 pm Break

PLENARY SESSION 4: NEXT STEPS

3:00-4:00 pm The Ballroom

Summary of Working Group Outcomes and Plenary Discussion Chair: Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun Discussants: Chairs of Working Groups

4:00-4:30 pm The Ballroom

Closing Keynote Address: Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun

42

Appendix B List of Participants

Ms. Alpha Abebe “Young Diplomats Group” Ms. Maryam Aghvani National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Prof. Sharryn Aiken Professor, Faculty of Law, Queens University H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa President of the sixty-first session of the UN General Assembly Mr. Bruce Alexander Ms. Zorana Alimpic UPEACE Staff Dr. Ayman Al-Yassini Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation Ms. Tammy Andrejowich Dr. Eltigani S.M. Ateem Senior Regional Advisor, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) Dr. Maria Eriksson Baaz Researcher, Gothenborg University Dr. Daniel Baheta Selam Peacebuilding Network Arsema Berhane Volunteer Dr. Judith K. Bernhard Professor, Ryerson University Lyndon Bourne Prof. Kenneth Bush Professor, Saint Paul University

Dr. Jean-Bosco Butera Director, Africa Programme, UPEACE Mr. Kang Byeong-Cheol Cheju National University Dr. David Carment Professor, Carleton University School of International Affairs Mr. Juan Amaya Castro Co-director of the Department of International Law UPEACE HQ Ms. Catalina Chaux Consul of Colombia in Toronto Mr. Ryerson Christie Rapporteur Prof. Kevin Clements Director, The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Dr. Feargal Cochrane Director, Lancaster University Mr. Ron Cunningham Founder/President, Citizens for the Advancement of Community Development Mr. Carlo Dade Researcher, Canadian Foundation for the Americas FOCAL Dr. Michael Dark Executive Director, UPEACE Mr. Paul Davidson President, World University Service of Canada H.E Karel P.M De Beer Netherlands Ambassador to Canada

43

Ms. Shamina De Gonzaga Special Adviser on NGO Relations, UN Mr. Digafie Debalke Project Officer, UPEACE Dr. Paula DeCoito Social Planning Council of Peel Dr. David Dewitt Vice-President, Research, Director of the York Centre for International & Security Studies Mr. George Diamantopolous National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Dr. Rosaleen Duffy Professor, University of Manchester Mr. Hovig Y. Etyemezian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Ms. Meraki Fikre “Young Diplomats Group” Ms Patricia Weiss Fagen Director of Training, Institute for the Study of International Migration Fahima Fatah Volunteer Mr. Salpi Gazarian Assistant to Hon. Oskanian, Zoryan Institute Abreheit Gebretsadik Volunteer Dr. Parvin Ghorayshi Professor, University of Winnipeg Dr. Mohamed Gilao Executive Director, Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi- Service Centre Ms. Stephanie Gliege US Association for UPEACE

Dr. Luin Goldring Associate Professor, York University Dr. Anne Goodman Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto Ms.Kisanet T. Guebru Selam Peacebuilding Network Mr. Andrew Harrington Professor, Carleton University Ms. Gabriela Hernandez Coordinator, Decentralized Operations, UPEACE Mr. Robin Higham University of Ottawa, Centre on Governance Ms. Julie Marie Hyde UPEACE Staff Ms. Marike Ince Observer Mr. Kang Jae-Nam Cheju National University Hon. Rahim Jaffer Member of Parliament Ms. Eman Jamie “Young Diplomats Group” Prof. Kim Jin-Ho Cheju National University Mr. Farouk S. Jiwa Global Youth Fellow, Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, Rapporteur Mr. Patrick Johnston President and CEO, The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation Mr. Vladimir Karapetian Press Officer to Hon. Oskanian, Zoryan Institute

44

Mr. Hratch Kasper Advisor to Hon. Oskanian, Zoryan Institute Mr. Vahan Kololian Managing Partner, TerraNova Partners Mr. Chetan Kumar Political Liason/Conflict Prevention Advisor, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, United Nations Development Programme Dr. Bikram Lamba National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Ms. Pauline Ling Consultant, UPEACE Mr. John Lok Policy Analyst, CIDA Mr. David Lord Coordinator, Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee Prof. Terrence Lyons Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution, George Mason University Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution Dr. Alidad Mafinezam Dr. Minelle Mahtani Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Mrs. Eva Marszewski Executive Director, Peace Builders International Rector Julia Marton-Lefevre Rector, UPEACE Mr. Ehsan Masood Project Director, Gateway Trust Dr. Susan McGrath Director, York University , Centre for Refugee Studies Associate Professor, School of Social Work

Mr. Eskender Mekonnen “Young Diplomats Group” Mr. Amanuel Melles Director Community Capacity Building, United Way Greater Toronto Prof. Ken Menkhaus Associate Professor of Political Science, Davidson College , North Carolina Ms. Nalini Mohabir Volunteer Mr. Joost Mohlman Netherlands Consulate in Toronto Ms Marjan Montazemi Programme Manager, Global Citizenship, Walter and Duncan Foundation Mr. Oscar Morera Acting Head / Webmaster-Graphic Designer, AudioVisuals and Multimedia Services, Information Technologies, UPEACE Dr. Alok Mukherjee Chair, Toronto Police Services Board Mr. Gustavo Neme Romero House Ms Kathleen Newland Director/Board Member, Migration Policy Institute Mrs. Adeena Niazi Executive Director, Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support Organization Dr. Camilla Orjuela Professor, the Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University Hon. Vartan Oskanian Foreign Minister, Armanian Foreign Ministry Mr. Olara Otunnu

45

Former UN Under Secretary General/President, LBL Foundation for Children Ms. Marisa Piattelli VP, Government Relations and Special Projects, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Dr. Stewart Prest Professor, Carleton University School of International Affairs Mr. Duberlis Ramos Executive Director, Hispanic Development Council Prof. Vern Neufeld Redekop Professor, Saint Paul University Dr. Pilar Riaño-Alcalá Assistant Professor, University of British Colombia Ms. Sharifi Robina Volunteer Ms. Milenia Romero Head Finance and Comptroller, UPEACE Ms. Sarah Rosengaertner UNITAR Mr. Filipe Rubio Hispanic Development Council Dr. Cheran Rudhramoorthy Professor, University of Windsor Amb. Mohamed Sahnoun Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of the UN Executive Committee Member, UPEACE Ms. Tsehay Said Selam Peacebuilding Network H.E Omar Samad Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada Dr. Ranabir Samaddar

Director, Calcutta Research Group Mr. Oh Sang-June Cheju National University Mr. Thomas Saras President/CEO, National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada Mr. Greg Sarkissian President, Zoryan Institute Mr. Mark L.Schneider Senior Vice President, International Crisis Group Dr. Pamela Scholey Team Leader, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Dr. Nisar Sheraly Director, Sher Education Consultations Ms Helena Shimeles Member/Founder, “Young Diplomats Group” Amb. David Shinn Adjunct Professor, The Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University Mr. George Shirinian Director, Zoryan Institute Dr. Myer Siemiatycki Director, Graduate Programme in Immigration and Settlement Studies Ryerson University Ms. Sondra Sullivan Office Manager, UPEACE Dr. Ashok Swain Director , Uppsala University Mr. Pierre Terver Program Officer, UPEACE Ms. Helen Tewolde Selam Peacebuilding Network

46

Prof. Khachig Tololyan Professor, Wesleyan University Ms. Emmy Toonen Project Officer, UPEACE Dr. Necla Tschirgi Policy Analyst, Security and Development Dr. Thomas Turay St. Francis Xavier University Dr. Simon Turner Senior Researcher, Danish Institute for International Studies Mr. Assong Julius Undah UNESCO Rapporteur Mr. Per Unheim Professor, Carleton University Mr. Rafael Velasquez UPEACE Africa Rapporteur Mr. Zubairu Wai

Rapporteur Mr. Richard Weeks Initiatives of Change International Mr. Geoffrey West UPEACE Alumni Ms Kate White Executive Director, UN Association – Canada Ms Lisa Wolff Programme Clerk, Advocacy Specialist, UNICEF Canada Mr. Yuen Pau Woo President/CEO, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Mr. Dan Yashinsky Toronto Arts Council Ms. Moon Young-Hee Cheju National University Ms. Shewhat Zeru Volunteer

47

Appendix C Commissioned Case Studies and Community Research

Case Studies

Armenian Diaspora: Tololyan, K. (2006) The Armenian Diaspora as a Transnational Actor and as a Potential Contributor

to Conflict Resolution. Diaspora: Journal of Transnational Studies, Wesleyan University: Middletown, CT

Colombian Diaspora: Riano-Alcala, P & Goldring, L. (2006) A Colombian Diaspora? Characteristics, Tensions and

Challenges in Transnational Engagements. School of Social Work and Latin American Studies Program, University of British Colombia and Department of Sociology, CERLAC, York University

Eritrea/Ethiopian Diaspora: Lyons, T (2006) Conflict-Generated Diasporas and Peacebuilding: A Conceptual Overview and Ethiopian Case

Study. Discussion paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Irish American Diaspora: Cochrane, F. (2006) The Power of the Diaspora: Lessons from Irish-America in Building Constituencies for Peace.

Richardson Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, Department of Politics and International Relations. Lancaster University: UK

Jamaican and Haitian Diaspora: Dade, C. (2006) Jamaica, Haiti, Diasporas and Peacebuilding. The Canadian Foundation for the

Americas. Somalia: Menkhaus, K. (2006) The Rise of Somalia as a Diaspora Nation: Impact on Peacebuilding, Governance and

Development. Davidson College: USA Sri Lanka: Orjuela, C. (2006) Distant Warriors, Distant Peace Workers? Multiple Diaspora Roles in Sri Lanka’s Violent

Conflict. Department of Peace and Development Research, School of Global Studies. Gothenburg University: Sweden.

Community Research

Afghanistan: Koch, K. (2006) Capacity Building for Peace and Development : The Afghan Diaspora in Toronto. Discussion

paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

48

Colombian Diaspora: Ramos, D. & Neme, G. & Rubio, F. (2006) Capacity Building for Peace and Development: A Potential Role

for the Colombian Diaspora. Hispanic Development Council Eritrean Diaspora: Tezare, K. & Said, T & Baheta, D. & Tewolde, H. & Melles, A.: Selam Peacebuilding Network

(2006) The Role of the Eritrean Diaspora in Peacebuilding and Development: Challenges and Opportunities. Discussion paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Ethiopian Diaspora: Young Diplomats Group (2006) Youth Perspectives: Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development in the

Ethiopian Community. Ethiopian Youth Group: Toronto Jamaican Diaspora: Cunningham, R (2006) Impacting Peace-Building and Development in Jamaica: Addressing Challenges and

Opportunities Encountered by the Jamaican Diaspora. Citizens for Advancement of Community Development: Toronto.

49

References Bush, K (1998) A Measure of Peace: Peace and Conflict Assessment (PCIA) of Development

Projects in Conflict Zones. Working Paper. (1998) Bush, K (2006) Diaspora Engagement in Peacebuilding and Development: Truths we think we know –

Considerations, implications and complications. Discussion paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Clifford, J. 1994. "Diasporas," Current Anthropology, volume 9, number 3, pp. 302-338. Curtin, P. (1984) Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge:

UK. Fong, P (Thursday, October 19, 2006, Page A1) Immigrant groups fear dual-citizenship review. The Globe

and Mail Ghana Skills Bank (2006) http://www.ghanaskillsbank.com/ Global Centre for Pluarlism (2006) http://www.pluralism.ca/ Koch, K (2006) Capacity Building for Peace and Development : The Afghan Diaspora in Toronto. Discussion

paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Lyons, T (2006) Conflict-Generated Diasporas and Peacebuilding: A Conceptual Overview and Ethiopian Case

Study. Discussion paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Paiment, R (2006) Peacemaking Circles Pilot Project in St. James Town and Regent Park (Toronto, Canada)

Phase Two, January 30, 2005-June 30, 2006. Peacebuilders International. Selam Peacebuilding Network (2006) The Role of the Eritrean Diaspora in Peacebuilding and Development:

Challenges and Opportunities. Discussion paper for the Expert Forum on “Capacity Building for Peace and Development: Roles of Diaspora”, Toronto.

Young Diplomats Group (2006) Youth Perspectives: Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development in the

Ethiopian Community. Ethiopian Youth Group: Toronto

UN Peacebuilding Commission (2006) http://www.un.org/peace/peacebuilding

50

Organizers and Staff

UPEACE Toronto Staff: Zorana Alimpic Michael Dark

Digafie Debalke Julie Hyde

Pauline Ling Sondra Sullivan Pierre Terver

Emmy Toonen

UPEACE Costa Rica Staff: Gabriela Hernandez

Oscar Morera Milenia Romero

Consultant:

Robin Higham

Volunteers: Arsema Berhane

Fahima Fatah Nalini Mohabir Benjamin Petric Robina Sharifi Shewhat Zeru

Rapporteurs:

Tammy Andrejowich Ryerson Christie

Hovig Etyemezian Farouk S. Jiwa

Assong Julius Undah Rafael Velásquez

Zubairu Wai

Report Production: Zorana Alimpic, author

Michael Dark, editor Pierre Terver, layout and production