A New Strategy to Build Sustained Peace?

Earlier this week (week #2 of COP27), I attended an event at the U.S. Center entitled Fragility, Conflict, and Climate Change: A New Strategy to Build Sustained Peace. Not only did the session title catch my attention, but also, in the introduction to the session, it was mentioned that our Department of Defense had its first ever delegation at a COP and their representative in the session was the sustainability director for the DOD. Last year, during a stakeholder roundtable with Gina McCarthy (then first White House National Climate Advisor for President Biden), the mandate requiring all agencies within the federal government to consider climate change in terms of solutions, national strategies, and efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. government was discussed at length. (See a previous post about this event.) It appears that some of this is happening!

As with every session at a COP, several sound-bytes and a lot of jargon and acronyms were used: 

• HDP nexus (HDP = Humanitarian Development and Peace)
• DRR (Disaster Risk and Reduction) 
• PREPARE 
• Emergency Adaptation and Resilience
• Feed the Future 
• Global Fragility Act (I hadn’t heard of this before) 
• 3D (Defense, Diplomacy, Development) or 5D (adding Defining Decade before the three previous terms)

Instead of talking about the details of each of these, I have included some references at the end of the post. The "cliff notes" version is that to achieve peace, we need to provide development aid in conflict-prone regions, address food and water insecurity to prevent new conflict and displacement (or "human mobility" as is the phrase at COP27), and address climate change – in an integrated fashion. Apparently, there is now a commitment to interagency cooperation within the U.S. government representing a degree of collaboration that hasn’t happened in the past.

One might ask whether it takes threats of war to move us to action on other fronts such as humanitarian aid or climate change. And for some reason, having representatives from US Agency for International Development and the DOD (aka Pentagon) on the stage together oddly reminded me of the very unsettling book by Dave Eggers, The Parade. (A partial description of this book from Amazon.com: An unnamed country is leaving the darkness of a decade at war, and to commemorate the armistice the government commissions a new road connecting two halves of the state. Two men, foreign contractors from the same company, are sent to finish the highway.) 

Setting aside the cynicism and looking at global problem-solving through the lens of a scientist, the idea of having science and foreign aid as arms of diplomacy and peacekeeping isn’t inherently a bad idea. The prestigious organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), even has a Center for Science Diplomacy. Scientific discoveries can lead to clean energy technologies, carbon removal mechanisms, and climate-resilient agriculture as well as provide the data and monitoring for early warning systems. If we can overcome barriers such as intellectual property and technology transfer, innovative technologies arising from science might help address climate change mitigation and adaptation, protect livelihoods and lives, and enhance food security. Can sharing innovations from research and development be considered foreign aid? 

The U.S. Center panel discussion and these random post-session reflections have me thinking about how we, as educators, might prepare future diplomats and agency staffers who can work across agencies, national boundaries, and disciplinary specializations. Alas, too often, those of us in higher education still work in silos (disciplinary-specific departments). Distinct packets of information are taught through these departments, sometimes even more finely subdivided (e.g., biochemistry vs. ecology as opposed to thinking about "life sciences" holistically). There are, of course, examples of campus interdisciplinary centers developed around key themes, and some academic programs are, by nature, dependent on interdisciplinary collaborations, including the environmental sciences and studies. But in such programs, do we have students work at the interface of policymaking, consider transnational-boundary issues, or evaluate the ethical dilemmas of technological “solutions” especially if they are implemented and impact people who have had no say in the decision to deploy? In higher education speak, if a program like environmental studies includes an array of requirements across disciplines, are these requirements integrated in intentional ways? Do students understand why they are taking the different requirements and the interrelationships between what they are learning in different courses? Do they realize that the information can and should be applied to solve complex global problems? Do students (and faculty) feel comfortable working across language and cultural differences – both across disciplines and national borders? 

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) are advocates of liberal education and a 2020 publication entitled “What Liberal Education Looks Like” which is described as: 

In distilling the principles, practices, and contemporary challenges of liberal education, this signature AAC&U publication presents a clear vision of the learning all students need for success in an uncertain future and for addressing the compelling issues we face as a democracy and as a global community – regardless of where they study, what they major in, or what their career goals are. 

The American Council on Education, in discussing their global learning outcomes, refers to international education and education diplomacy. 

At Moravian University, we have had a unique cross-cutting academic program known as InFocus that had its roots in discussions going back to 2010. In my opinion, it was a rare example of interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship, debate, collaboration, problem-solving, service, and advocacy. The program focused on 4 key thematic areas reflecting grand challenges of the 21st century:

• Poverty and Inequality
• Sustainability and Eliminating Environmental Degradation
• Health and Justice
• War and Peace 

This program was named to the Phi Kappa Phi Honorable Mention list for the 2020 Excellence in Innovation Award which, according to the Phi Kappa Phi website is “given once per biennium, recognizes one institution of higher learning for achievement in finding powerful answers to important local, regional, national or global challenges.” In the portfolio submitted for this recognition (CONFRONTING GLOBAL CHALLENGES: 2020 Phi Kappa Phi Excellence in Innovation Award Portfolio), the program was described as follows: 

InFocus grew from a 2010 series of dialogues held by small groups of faculty at Moravian College who pondered the question how can we better link our educational mission with the real problems and needs that face all of us, both locally and globally? We deliberated about the most pressing sets of problems facing humanity, and how to shift our common educational life to seriously address them. We questioned how to link research, advocacy, and action; increase multidisciplinarity; and multiply alliances between our college, the local community, and the wider world. We stressed the need for students to envision their education in accordance with their lives beyond the college campus. This critical dialogue led to the eventual spearheading of an open-ended, ambitious cross-college initiative, InFocus at Moravian College, that would be organized around four yearly rotating “Centers of Investigation.” Each year the Moravian College community dedicates itself to one “challenge area” facing humanity that demands greater investigation, understanding, imagination, collaboration, and advocacy if we are to build toward a more sustainable, just, and democratic society. 

For reasons many of us cannot understand, the upper administration recently announced that this would be the last year for InFocus. The stated reasons were that this program it is not something that attracts students to the institution or retains them (although I have no idea how they know that), and it wasn't included in the institutional strategic plan. (For that matter, neither are most of the existing academic programs.) What those of us who have participated in the program know, through program assessments as well as student testimonials, is that students demonstrate intellectual growth and have a greatly expanded view of the world and a sense that they can make a difference in that world. It is more difficult to measure or even articulate what value this has had for faculty, but, personally, the impact has been profound.

Given the theme of the event I attended at the U.S. Center, it is perhaps ironic that the InFocus theme this final year is "War and Peace". In an InFocus event earlier this year, one of the faculty co-directors handed me a pin that says “The more you sweat for peace, the less you bleed in war.”

I am wearing this pin here at COP27

I doubt that whoever created this slogan was linking climate change (global warming) and peace. However, perhaps some of that sweat equity needs to be directed towards addressing climate change which, in turn, will reduce conflict and come with many other co-benefits (food and water insecurity, better health, sustainable development, etc.) 

[An interesting note: 5-5 ½ % of global greenhouse gas emissions are from war and military action. I don't have a source, but this was mentioned in the Emissions Gap 2022 report launch here at COP27 when someone asked about the consequences of the Russian - Ukrainian war on climate action. My friend Heidi Svestre, a glaciologist, noted that one consequence -- largely because Russia is currently chairing the Arctic Council -- is that the work of the council has been suspended, including critical polar research in the Arctic.]

Some sources for further reading

On the humanitarian-development-peace nexus:

A short brief entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus: Challenges in implementation

A report entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: What does it mean for multi-mandated organizations? 

On PREPARE:

The PREPARE action plan (a U.S. initiative)

Action Plan Released for the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE)

National Security Strategy (interagency cooperation)

On the Global Fragility Act

The 3 D's publication  

2022 Prologue to the United States Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability 

The Global Fragility Act  

A press release on this act 

An Accidental Ambassador

Photo credit: Gillian Bowser

I came to Morocco ten days ago for the U.N. climate meetings, to play a role in linking scientific researchers to each other and to policymakers, and to obtain updates on issues related to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Besides making sure that my absentee ballot was sent in on time since I would be away on Election Day, I had not put much thought into the impact that the timing of the election would have on the climate change negotiations or my being in a predominantly Muslim country.

This COP is focused on implementation – for Parties to hammer out details of putting the Paris Agreement into action, to work on areas where agreement had not yet been reached last year at COP21, and to try to get countries to be more ambitious in their pledges (and preferably verifiable action) to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone coming to Marrakech knew that finance issues still required difficult negotiation work, be it for financing technology for a low carbon future, for helping developing nations to adapt to the current and future impacts of a changing climate, or for perhaps the most contentious issue of all, compensation under the provisions of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts.

The conference started off normally. Then, a different sort of 9/11 occurred. The world awoke on the 9th of November, day 3 of COP21, to the shocking news that Donald Trump had been elected president of the United States. The very candidate who has tweeted about climate change being a hoax, who has vowed to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement and to defund U.N. initiatives, and yes, the one who has made all sorts of negative rhetoric about Muslims.

It is still uncertain whether all of this was simply hollow campaign speech making to gain support from certain constituencies. But when I see high school classmates, people I have known all my life, posting statements like “No more Muslims or Mexicans in the country, time to celebrate,” I know we have much to worry about.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the meetings of the U.S. delegation to get a better sense of their fears (beyond their job security in the State Department or at NOAA or NASA). Are their hands now tied as far as negotiations? As a civil society observer, I do not have the ability to influence policy at that level, but instead am limited to discuss with like-minded friends back home ways that we can organize, rally, and try to create climate friendly policy and practices at the local level. I have been surprised at how many emails and Facebook messages I have received from former students and community members -- all expressing their fears for the future and looking to me for a glimmer of hope. I am not sure how to provide what they are looking for, but I have come to realize that there is some intangible importance to my being in this place at this moment.

By being here, I have somehow fallen into a role of diplomacy making, an odd thing for a scientist, who grew up being rather a-political, and certainly knowing little about Arabic culture. The people of Morocco are incredibly welcoming, but it seems as if everywhere I go, the locals – waiters, shopkeepers, ticket sellers at the train station – have a need to mention the election and ask about our new president. After they ask if I voted for him (I did not), they relax a bit and begin to talk more. As typical, at dinner one night last week, the waiter asked where we are from, and then made some comment about the election results. But then he asked why American's don't like Muslims. My heart dropped. I told him that wasn't the case for all of the people in my country.

None of us know what the future holds, so we speculate and try to find some hopeful signs between the sound bites that pass for news these days. As we share some mint tea and kind words of empathy, we come to realize how much we have in common besides our fear – our mutual desire for three main things: peace, a good future for our children, and a planet that remains habitable. This then, becomes my mission – to find what binds us together, rather than differentiates and divides us. For it is these common goals that will give us the strength and guidance to solve much more than the global climate challenge.

The U.S. Center at UNFCCC

Each year, the U.S. sponsors a U.S. Center site with extensive programming the COP meetings.

The most up-to-date data from satellites, computer modeling, and other cool technology are typically on display on a "Hyper-wall" . 

The images are striking; the scientific messages behind the images can be frightening.

Global Temperature Anomalies Over Time

 

Ice Flows in Antarctica

The interactive "Science on the Sphere" was used at COP15 in Copenhagen; you can see great programming on one of these spheres at the Nurture Nature Center in Easton.

I am struck by the ongoing denial of climate change that is widely reported on in the media (for instance see http://bit.ly/12RMAFO) vs. the strong data that exists in support of climate change and its impacts world-wide generated by international collaborations and analyzed by top scientists in the U.S. at NOAA, NASA, and within academe.

From the link above:

A new report by Cook et al. (2013) examined nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers in the climate science literature; the analysis found that 97% of the papers that stated a position on the reality of human-caused global warming said that global warming is happening and human-caused, at least in part.

The Working Group I section of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC that was released in September states that it is extremely likely that climate change is being impacted by humans (over 95% confidence).

At each event at the U.S. Center, the facilitator introduces the programming as part of a "public outreach and diplomacy initiative" by the United States.  It is evident that they pride themselves on their extraordinary data and technological capabilities in climate research and clean energy technologies.

The U.S. State Department has an extensive set of reports related to climate change and our country's negotiating positions which have been submitted here at COP19 (see link below).  I wonder how many citizens know about the positions that we take? I encourage you to take a look.

http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/cop19/