MCGILL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

POLI 599: INTERNSHIP AND RESEARCH PAPER

An Assessment of Canadian Policy-Oriented Peace Research Organizations

Alex Goodman

260175346

Professor:        Rex Brynen

Introduction and research question

The study of peace is an enormously multi-dimensional and cross-disciplinary field. In an attempt to deal with the broad yet nuanced complexities of peace building it has encompassed elements of politics, sociology, psychology, anthropology and economics. Since the definition of peace work is so elusive, its research is prone to focus on a variety of styles of conflicts. Within policy oriented research, it ranges from themes encompassing fragile states and post conflict peace building to foreign affairs policy and conflict resolution. However, the multidimensionality of this process has led to ambiguity in the definition of what constitutes work in the “Peace Studies” field and has made it difficult to identify the most relevant players in Canadian peace research.

An inquiry into common outlooks on work related to peace reveals that there is a significant stigma against it. This “peace stigma” has led to a typical stereotype in a common outlook towards self-declared peace operations working in a non-concrete way as simplistic, too ideological and naïve. This generalization is based upon an association of peace actors with a goal too broad to be productive, and a method too abstract to be useful. As Canadian Peace Academic Larry Fisk stated, research relating to peace issues is often viewed by both Canadians and Canadian academics as “flaky” and “not an objective science.” (Fisk).  Beyond the stereotype, the classification of any research work with the term “peace” avoids reference to related topics such as conflict dynamics and human security. Due to the difficulties surrounding the peace stigma and the restrictiveness of peace classification, peace development work has come to encompass areas as diverse but not limited to conflict resolution, post conflict reconstruction, humanitarian assistance and international development. To deal with the ambiguity of defining peace, I will examine the major players that deal within this broad interconnected field of peace operations and research.

Since the 1990s, there have been two major streams of research dealing with peace development and conflict dynamics. The academic community has broken the old paradigms of Cold War study and has engaged in rethinking of security, peace and developmental challenges. Concurrently, the multilateral, governmental, international and organizational policy community has commissioned research on dealing with conflicts at the local, national, regional and global levels. (O’Neil, 276). I hope to examine the extent that Canadian government and policy based research organizations have grown with this trend.  

This paper will examine the extent that Canadian peace researchers have been able to affect government policy and practice as it relates to peacebuilding and peace operations. What mechanisms have been used to use research as a means to bring about policy change? What factors have enabled or constrained these changes?

An examination of both Canadian and international peace research reveals that many of its major actors work in a variety of different fields and through various different methods. For this reason, this research question will be explored in the context of three of Canada's leading research groups in this field: the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (a coalition of peacebuilding NGOs), the North-South Institute (the largest think-tank/NGO devoted to development issues in Canada), and the Canadian Consortium on Human Security (a consortium of largely academic research centers and researchers). This case study approach will provide insight into the impact on influencing policy various Canadian peace research organizations have been able to attain.

Research and Policy

The role of research is to provide information, ideas and alternative views on a certain issue. It can bring data that would have otherwise been invisible to policy makers and can help them know whether they are pursuing an issue in a successful or unsuccessful manner. While research does not generally influence the direct passing of legislation, it does work to provide what Harvard professor Carol Weiss, a specialist on research’s affect on public policy describes as “enlightenment.” Carol Weiss claims that research “punctures old myths, offers new perspectives, and changes the priority of issues. Research also helps to build capability. This is a longer-term influence where the research capabilities of researchers, or institutions, or whole countries are increased.” (Dale) Indeed, the impact of research is not immediate and its effect tends to be more defined by a prolonged change of thinking over time. Past USIP president Samuel W. Lewis stated “policy relevant information can play an especially important role during this phase, when the policymaker must weigh various options while at the same time taking into account other factors such as the need to muster political support.” (George, x) Also, since there are so many factors in policy decision making, it is next to impossible to track the impact of a single variable of research amongst a sea of ideas, policy suggestions and political pressures.

Since policy change is normally a prolonged process and is quite elusive from clear cut factors, there is a major methodological and empirical problem in defining how effective policy-oriented research has been. Based on this difficulty, the most successful way to examine the effectiveness of research to policy is to establish what and how active the field is, and how policy makers feel research has contributed to their decisions. Through an identification and critical assessment of how peace research is active in Canada , one can move on to define how developed it is and how much attention is has received from policy makers.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Setting the Stage

Canada ’s national psyche is heavily defined by feelings of peace-mindedness and independence from American militarism. Canadian importance placed on peacefulness has been influenced through policy decisions to stay out of Vietnam , Iraq and engage in large peace building operations. Some of these missions include the Suez Crisis, Lester Pearson’s creation of UN peacekeeping forces, Cyprus, the Golan Heights, El Salvador and Bosnia with a massive stabilization force of 30 000 Canadians since 1997. (Conflict Cycle). However, while national opinion places strong emphasis on Canadian peace-mindedness and neutrality to many military missions, Canadian policy oriented peace research is restricted to a select few organizations, whose findings remain largely outside of common knowledge.

Nonetheless, Canada has established well funded institutional support for funding of Southern-based development projects through CIDA and the IDRC. In addition, the existence of these two groups has provided a stable source of funding for the actors that do exist in Canadian peace research. In 1969, Canada developed the peer reviewed academic journal: Peace Research: the Canadian Journal of Peace Studies and has also established peace and conflict programs at numerous Canadian Universities such as McMaster University, U of T and King’s College. (Page, 19).  

Canada has also shown a desire to contribute to and work with the United Nations and its programs. Canadian government’s relationship with the UN can be attested to by the recent adoption of the UN program for a culture of peace and the funding for a new UN University of Peace in Toronto , Ontario . (Introducing UPEACE). In September of 2000, under Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, the Canadian Liberal Government instituted the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, in an attempt to develop strategies for worldwide humanitarian intervention. (Gwyn).

Many Canadians in academia have also made a mark in the international academic field of peace research through their research and writings. Academics such as Norman Alcock, Terrance Carson, Anne Goodman, Larry Fisk, M.V. Naidu, Douglas Roche and Toh Swee-Hin have all contributed to the scholarly field of peace studies and made a name for themselves as Canadian Peace intellectuals. However, these writings largely stay outside of political policy and deal with the more academic topic of peace studies and education. In contrast to this, this paper will be examining policy oriented peace research and the effect it has had on influencing policy at the foreign affair level. By no means do I wish to dismiss peace studies as an academic discipline, but instead would like to focus my attention on the already enormous problem of assessing, overviewing and analyzing the potential within peace research designed to affect policy. Indeed, while the practices of academic and policy based research are not exclusive, the first is more curiosity and knowledge based, while the latter is more related to need-based action to advance policy and action. However, academic peace research does develop useful theories that contribute to the diagnosis of issues in conflict situations and can provide early signs of conflict to the policy and policy research community. (O’Neil, 279).

Canada has numerous NGOs, centers and community level projects that define themselves in the field of peace operations. This can be attested through the cultural mainstream prevalence of such organizations as: Project Ploughshares, Development and Peace Canada , the Canadian Peace Alliance, Amnesty Canada and countless others. However, the field of Canadian Peace Research is significantly less visible than its community level counterpart organizations. While NGOs are numerous and highly active in Canada , the policy oriented research side of peace building is restricted to a select few organizations. The NSI, CPCC and CCHS almost completely define policy oriented peace research in Canada , but all operate on relatively small budgets and staffs. In addition, their projects tend to work on issues that lie outside of a popular political context and deal with questions that are most relevant to policy makers.

Canada and the United States in Peace Research

Unlike the United States , Canada does not have any major think-tanks dealing with peace research. This lack of a Canadian Peace Research Institute has denied the national field of a systematic and primary funding agent to research focused on influencing policy. The absence of a think-tank has led to a peace research field that is essentially defined by the three major players discussed in this paper. Canadian peace research does occur outside of the NSI, CPCC and CCHS context, but tends to either receive funding from either academic sources (hence making it academic in nature), partner with Southern based groups (through the IDRC model) or receive grants coming from American organizations. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have provided a strong foundation for policy oriented research in the United States and have attracted some Canadian peace specialists to their fellowships and grants.

A recent but enormous testament to the effectiveness of these American groups is the CSIS’s and USIP’s work together to produce the Baker Report. The Baker report was a document that drastically influenced public opinion policy on America ’s War in Iraq and forced the American government to reassess its Iraq policy strategy. The USIP Iraq Study Group (ISG) independently received one million dollars approved by congress and was so widespread that it was downloaded 1.5 million times within two weeks of its release. (Iraq Study Group Fact Sheet). It successfully brought the problems of Bush’s conflict in Iraq to the forefront of popular knowledge and forced the government to take immediate actions. The existence of such a think-tank and largely funded independent policy oriented study group is a major mechanism to enable peace research affecting policy.

At the turn of the millennium, America had approximately 1600 think tanks and a political culture heavily defined by their research. (Abelson). While the majority of these think tanks are relatively small, and operate with budgets between 250,000-500,000 dollars, organizations such as RAND have an operational budget of over 100 million dollars, while a handful of organizations such as the Brookings Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation and other prominent organizations exist with budgets in excess of 18-20 million dollars. (ibid). The specialized focus of think tanks to target policy puts them in the unique position to solely conduct research that will provide government with specialized and relevant information to the area at hand.  Within this broad American think tank community, there exists several Peace Research focused groups (the USIP, CSIS etc.) that contribute largely to American governmental peace operations. While Canadian think tanks have also grown significantly post World War II, they have failed to generate the same influence and momentum that their American counterparts have. The public policy commentator Evert Lindquist commented that there are approximately 100 Canadian think tanks, of which the majority are currently operating around the Toronto and Ottawa areas with small staffs and budgets. (Dale).

There is a huge spread in the prominence of think tanks in Canada and the United States . Brian Guest, a former senior aide to Paul Martin who left the prime minister's office to co-found the Canadian Centre for Policy Ingenuity stated: “In the United States , they are hugely effective and a major part of the political debate. They play a constant role and an interactive role with government in terms of where government wants to go and trying to help with the kinds of policy prescriptions and the issues that they need to have looked at by independent people… Here in Canada , I have found it is less like that. Think-tanks here tend to present research that they have done in the abstraction from the public debate." ( Clark ). While Canadian think tanks have established themselves in the last 45 years, they have not developed to the same extent that their American counterparts have. While American policy groups have had a huge amount of influence on policy, Canada has lagged behind in think tank existence.

The only real example of a Canadian think tank coming to the forefront of Canadian public issues was C.D. Howe’s involvement in the Canada-US free trade debate (both NAFTA and FTA). Indeed, the only mainstream and highly publicized Canadian thinktanks deal with economic issues. The C.D. Howe Institute, Fraser Institute and the now defunct Economic Council of Canada are the most well known Canadian thinktanks and are almost completely defined by financial concerns.

Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Studies (CIIPS)

The establishment of a uniquely Canadian Peace Research Organization was once a government priority established in 1984 under the Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. CIIPS was established as a crown corporation that functioned “to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues related to international peace and security, from a Canadian perspective…provides funding and information for groups wishing to promote a discussion of peace and security issues, as well as publishing its own research.” (Pearson) CIIPS was created as a research group that existed outside government control, and represented a variety of interest groups on its board. However, it only lasted until 1992 when it was eliminated by the Mulroney Conservative government. (Rioux) In 1989 the CIIPS project had a budget of roughly 5 million dollars and provided grants, independent research projects and policy recommendations in the peace development field. (Pearson).

There is currently no independent research group operating in Canada dealing with strictly peace research related issues. Although the NSI is approaching the size, budget and influence that the CIIPS had, its operations are not solely defined by focus on peace operations. Since the elimination of the CIIPS, the NSI has existed as the only thinktank in the general field of peace research. However, while the CIIPS operated as a Canadian-centric organization, the NSI is heavily defined around its research partnerships with the South. Members of both the IDRC and NSI have claimed that their role in peace research is through examinations in particular conflict settings and relaying their findings to policy officials. Effectively, this approach to peace research is defining the IDRC and NSI approach and the CIIPS’s Canadian-centric approach to the study of Canada’s role in international peace and security issues is now non-represented. In addition, while the CIIPS’s operational mandate was completely defined by peace and security issues, the NSI’s role is heavily defined but not limited to peace operations. 

Canadian Academic Peace Research

Academics focusing on peace issues are often required to perform their studies through standard academic grants. In Canada , this process is carried out through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) which provides academic research grants and boasts a 2006-2007 budget of 306 million dollars. (Sylvain). Their 518 grant area classifications relate to the more traditional academic disciplines within Political Science and tend to promote study within the strictly academic field. However these classifications do grant leeway in the definition of projects and in the 2005-2006 year there was 32 grants given to projects relating to peace research. (SSHRC). However, although SSHRC does not disallow policy oriented research, its firm grounding in the scholarly world leads its panels to prioritize types of studies that lie firmly within the academic tradition. Ultimately, SSHRC’s intent lies in being able to publish academic works rather than prescribe policy recommendations. Although they have stated that they are in a process of restructuring and movement towards more policy oriented issues, their only real policy oriented dialogue this decade was a 2002 workshop focusing on the “Research Agenda on Terrorism, Security and Intercultural Relations” surrounding 9/11. They released a new strategic plan about a year and a half ago, and although they have been undergoing significant internal restructuring and an increase in research analysis, their inability to offer concrete examples of projects that yielded policy changes is a testament to their priorities outside of policy related peace research. While SSHRC continues to be a huge asset to academic research in Canada , it has not been as instrumental and nurturing of research related to policy.

CASE STUDIES

North South Institute

The North South Institute (NSI) uniquely represents a Canadian peace research institute that has the ability to decide and target upon topics and projects that it finds pertinent. They are structured around a central mandate of “research for policy change” (Anonymous) and follow a general process of collecting evidence, analyzing their findings and presenting policy suggestions through their studies. The NSI refers to itself as International Development Research, but easily falls under the classification of peace research due to their central focus of “international cooperation, democratic governance and conflict prevention” and “research and analysis of foreign policy.” (About the NSI). The NSI is also the only independent research group in Canada focusing on Peacebuilding and International Development issues. In the 2005 year the NSI had a budget of $3,245,343 including a $1,080,000 grant from CIDA and a $193,189 grant from the IDRC (Annual Report 2005).

While the NSI receives almost all its funding through CIDA, foreign affairs and IDRC grants, its outside funding as one researcher stated, is “always a challenge since we are not dealing with major public issues.” (Anonymous). The NSI represents the closest match that Canada has to such independent research groups such as the USIP and CSIS and is the only autonomous and independent Canadian Peace Research group that has an operational mandate to affect policy change. However, while NSI has a relatively similar think tank structure to such groups as the USIP and CSIS, it is significantly smaller and more restricted in the magnitude and size of projects it can engage in. The NSI operates with a staff of 25, which includes 15 researchers, as well as 5 individuals in management and administration positions. In an interview, a NSI staff member claimed that the Institute is “aspiring to modest impacts.”

However, while the NSI is small, it is well known in both the research and policy communities. In 2001, Former Prime Minister Paul Martin came out with this statement about the effectiveness of the NSI, “The Institute has played an important leadership role in the global dialogue on ways to ensure that policies for economic success take appropriate account of the human dimension. The Institute has made an important contribution to the development of a sound public policy approach to the wide range of challenges associated with globalization.” (The North-South Institute Brochure)

As of December 31^st, 2006 the NSI has recently closed a three year large scale project of 1.2 million dollars entitled “What Kind of Peace” (WKOP). The project partnered with six Southern based Research groups and “explored the difficulties and possibilities for long-term sustainable peace building in six conflict-prone societies.” (Baranyi; Anonymous) The findings were brought to the policy community through dialogue meetings and briefs, and worked to inform policy makers on the results surrounding peace building in the identified conflict ridden areas. In October, 2005 the WKOP project had direct policy engagement meetings in Ottawa with policy makers from Canada , Guatemala , Norway , Palestine and Sri Lanka coupled with the IDRC and civil society organizations in Ottawa .  (Baranyi, Stephen, Jennifer).

In October 2006, the WKOP researchers were invited to present at a high level symposium for the Centro de Investigación para la Paz (CIP) in Spain . The event was outside the original WKOP plan and was well attended by government officials and media. Like the project’s 2005 dialogues in Ottawa , this event provided an opportunity for the NSI research group to provide policy recommendations and ideas. (Anonymous). Since the WKOP project closed in December 2006, it is hard to reflect upon its impact on Southern and Northern policy groups (both multilateral and bilateral groups), however its invitation by the CIP reflects an interest in their work from foreign policy makers. If nothing else, this kind of attention indicates a first step between linking research and policy making and points towards the NSI’s international recognition.

The NSI often pairs their projects with academics from the South instead of Canadian researchers. One researcher at the Institute stated that the absence of partnership with Canadian researchers is “not avoided, but we find that since we are doing much more policy relevant work, it does not necessarily lead in tandem with what they are doing.” (Anonymous). The gap and independent mentalities between the academic and policy worlds has contributed to the minimal role Canadian academics and researchers have played in policy based Peace Research. The academic community’s attitude towards policy oriented approaches to research combined with the policy world’s lack of respect, understanding and prioritization towards academia has resulted in a virtual segregation between the two communities. As a result, organizations such as the NSI are less prone to work with Canadian academics due to their priorities outside of the policy world.

Like the IDRC, the work of the NSI has paired with southern based researchers to focus on unique and applied problems in their particular political communities. In this respect, a senior researcher of the IDRC claimed that Canadian Peace Research is “often quite focused on how to engage in particular conflict settings looking at community level agreements.” ( Taylor ). These issues tend to incorporate multiple foreign actors, researchers and interest groups since most of these conflicts are examined regionally and aren’t contained by any borders. “From refugee movements to arms smuggling, from criminal financial transactions to pandemics, local conflicts now present new security threats with far-reaching repercussions…as a result of the global revolution in information and communication technologies, even distant conflicts are able to claim the world’s attention.” (O’Neil, 275). The result is international interest in previously local issues, and a partnership between Canada and Southern researchers to deal with their regional conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

The NSI follows a full partnership, participatory research model and as one of their researchers stated, the Institute works to “deal with issues in specialized areas and conflict settings… but is done in tandem with experts from that area... We act as an intermediary between the North and the South.” (Anonymous). The NSI’s Southern based partners tend to take a lead within their own countries, while the NSI deals with issues at the international level. Through this model, both sides have access to their partner’s specialties, knowledge bases, networks and resources. A NSI researcher commented that “it’s not just NSI doing this alone…it helps to overcome this top down, donor driven, quasi patriarchal history of research in the developing world…after all who better to comment on Haitian affairs than Haitians.” (Anonymous) Through this method, the NSI has the ability to bring policy recommendations to government and NGO decision makers with a research model that informs through specialists living in the designated conflict areas. The NSI uses this as a mechanism to act as an expert on particular conflict settings and use peace research to aid Canadian (and other international players) in forming foreign policies towards certain Countries, situations and conflicts.

The NSI utilizes the already established networks within Southern Countries to bring their research recommendations to relevant players in the respective developing communities. This research leads to recommendations that work to influence policy in the Southern based governments and provide information to relevant and engaged multilateral organizations and bilateral donors.

Currently, the NSI is the only institutional organization in Canada that resembles the now defunct CIIPS. However, the NSI’s research mandate is not solely defined by peace and security issues and also focuses quite heavily on issues regarding trade and aid issues. The following chart displays 10 policy briefs that the NSI has produced since 2003 and gives an idea of the general areas that the NSI deals with.  (See appendix A)

The policy briefs in Appendix A break down to approximately half dealing with areas directly related to Peace Research (Conflict Transformation, Gender Equality, Fragile States, Global Health) and the others falling outside (trade, aid, Canadian immigration and seasonal workers, private foreign investment). The NSI is truly the only think tank player in Canadian international development research, but it cannot be defined as a solely “Peace Research” group. Its interests often lie outside of peace operations and focuses heavily within the trade and aid field. Canadian Peace Research’s only independent research group is quite heavily involved in areas outside of formal and contained peace issues.

To get a broader idea of the research projects of the NSI, the following chart shows what ratio of policy briefs the NSI has engaged in comparison to its other publications since 2003:

The NSI’s output of direct policy briefings does not dominate their publications or define their mandate. Instead, the NSI is operating within the field of peace research using a number of different media to get across its research.

Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee

“The Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee (CPCC) is a member based network of Canadian based organizations and individuals actively involved in peacebuilding practice and policy development. Our goal is to engender greater coherence and effectiveness in building peace through fostering collaboration and coordination among diverse stakeholders in Canada , and partners overseas” (About CPCC).

Established priority of “enable[ing] the engagement of the Canadian non-governmental community with government and multilateral agencies to contribute to policy development, to enhance coordination of programs, and to promote peacebuilding as an important instrument of Canadian and multilateral foreign and development policies” (ibid.).

The CPCC includes representatives from over 40 NGOs, the academic community and specialized individuals to present policy recommendations to government and operational non-governmental actors. (ibid.). Like the NSI and CCHS, it is one of the leading players in Canadian policy oriented peace research, but focuses as a largely NGO based coordinating committee.

The CPCC has five working groups which focus on: Gender and Peacebuilding, Peace Operations, Small Arms, Children and Armed Conflict and Conflict Prevention. Both the CCHS and NSI are active members and bring a strong critical research bent to the committee of largely developmental based NGOS. Regarding the CPCC, an NSI and Gender and Peace Working Group member stated, that the CPCC is “really important, at the very least it creates space for dialogue amongst like minded organizations and tries very hard to engage policy makers. The CPCC provides a great opportunity to network and come together with the community.” (Anonymous)

In May of 2006, the CPCC hosted its ninth peacebuilding and human security policy dialogue in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), the NSI, CIDA, the IDRC and the CCHS. The dialogue focused on the topics of the CPCC’s five working groups and provided high level panels to engage policy makers on peacebuilding research findings from their member organizations and sponsors. The peacebuilding and human security dialogue is an event that brings about change by connecting the policy community with relevant peacebuilding NGOs and research organizations. Due to the general disconnectedness of the CCHS, CPCC and NSI to high level Canadian policy making, this networking opportunity is quite useful.

The CPCC has compiled a list of resources that makes topics relating to its mandate widely accessible to NGOs, researchers and policy makers. The resource databank includes academic, developmental and policy based papers that are written by both the CPCC and relevant outside organizations. Since 2004, this database has included 77 documents, and is divided into the categories of: peace operations working groups, conflict prevention working group, girls affected by armed conflict, gender and peacebuilding working group, children and armed conflict working group, other, small arms working group, child soldiers, advocacy/public education, international human rights and humanitarian law, landmines and children, general resources and youth in peace processes. Of these 77 documents, 29 are written by the CPCC and are effectively distributed throughout their 5 working groups. The focus of these papers tends draws from the expertise of the CPCC’s member organizations and ranges from areas as diverse as educational resources to policy recommendations.

The following table shows the CPCC produced research documents since 2004 divided by their various classifications. (See appendix B).

The CPCC has provided a strong network towards the peace building community in Canada through its resources and developments within its five working groups. However, of all the three organizations discussed in this paper, the CPCC relies on least funding and doesn’t have as much of a direct researching capacity. The research that has come out of their central organization and working groups has ranged from educational materials to policy papers and has faced a problem of having legitimate impact on foreign affairs policy. Like the CCHS and NSI, the CPCC is situated in a way that it lacks the direct connections to senior level policy making in order to drastically affect it. Also, while the CCHS has links to UBC through President Brian Job and the NSI has supplemented its government funding with established fundraising methods, the CPCC is completely reliant on its limited funding from government. The CPCC is largely defined by its member organizations and groups and its unstable funding has restricted it from growing to a larger operation.

Canadian Consortium on Human Security

“The Canadian Consortium on Human Security (CCHS) is an academic-based network promoting policy-relevant research on human security. Its core missions are to facilitate the exchange of information and analysis on human security issues, and to help build a human security community in Canada and internationally. CCHS is funded by the Human Security Program of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.” (Wood).

The Canadian Consortium on Human Security works through a network-based academic approach to policy relevant research. They notably publish the Human Security Bulletin and provide a Human Security Fellowship program that addresses conflict prevention, humanitarian and peace support operations, security-related governance and accountability issues. They are responsible for funding, sponsoring and initiating a number of peace development related initiatives that connect the academic, non-governmental and policy making communities.

The CCHS has been successful on bridging the gap between the academic and policy worlds and providing funding and sponsorship for academics working on policy oriented research. This is important in light of the challenges facing the academic community to commenting on policy.  The CCHS focuses on policy relevant research and is organized as a loosely structured academic consortium.

In an attempt to classify what kind of work the CCHS has done, the following two charts outline their research and document output in the last couple years:

The chart below displays the CCHS’s 8 released policy papers between 2002 and 2004.  These papers were released amongst a total of 13 documents, of which the remaining 5 were designated simply as “papers.”

The chart listed in appendix C displays all CCHS fellowship holders from the 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 year. It gives an idea of the research priorities and output patterns of the CCHS and displays an interesting shift in publications.

The 23 listed fellowships (in appendix C) from 2004 show a gradual change from papers to policy briefs. Since the 2005/2006 year, the CCHS’s output has been strictly policy briefs in comparison to 2004, where 6 of the 7 documents were classified as standard papers. The CCHS has provided 36 fellowships in the last 5 years and has had a steady output of human security and peace related papers.  

The CCHS has been able to contribute to peace research through examining both specific conflict situations (e.g. the policy brief, “Gender, Militarization and Post-communist Transformation: Russia and the Chechen Wars”) and broader approaches (e.g. the policy brief "Sustainable Peace: Internal Balance of Power and the Weakening of Extremists in Contexts of Internal Armed Conflicts.") In contrast, strictly government initiated research on similar issues is, as one IDRC researcher stated, “often in response to foreign policy, which makes it based on Canadian-centric interests.”  ( Taylor ).

In an interview with Jean Daudelin, the co-director of the CCHS’s Annual Peacebuilding and Human Security Dialogue, he stated that while the CCHS has had a large amount of research output in interesting work, but it has not necessarily been very effective in changing Canadian foreign policy. The majority of the CCHS’s output has been papers that have been used by scholars working in the human security field. However, these papers have unfortunately not been very influential or instrumental to the policy community.

Jean also stated that the CCHS has worked to bridge the human security community both inside and outside the policy community. It’s Security and Defense forum has been in existence for 20 years and has primarily strengthened the policy research community through its provision of networks.

While the CCHS has not directly influenced Canadian foreign affairs, it has provided an increased cohesion and strength within the Canadian peace and human security communities to be drawn upon.

Afterword

As of March 31^st, 2007 CCHS activities and programs were terminated due to a “lack of funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.” While they continue to run their website as a database of online resources, the duties and outputs of the CCHS are officially cut and ended. This lack of funding lays testament to the increasing difficulty of raising support and sponsorship to peace development related research in the Canadian arena. While the CCHS was directly nurtured by Brian Job and supported by UBC, it still required governmental assistance and outside funding. The extinction of this consortium marks an even larger gap in peace oriented policy research in Canada . The CCHS was the major player in bringing together the academic community and creating research output in a consistent fashion. With this turn of events, the NSI currently exists as the sole Canadian organization with significant research output relating to Canadian peace development.

CONCLUSIONS

Canada ’s role and potential

In an interview with Larry Fisk, the founder of the peace and studies program at Mount Saint Vincent University and past executive member of the International Peace Research Association, he stated that Canada has excelled in producing individuals who have done a huge amount of work on peace issues. This individual championing of causes is occasionally followed in tandem by organizational support or is sometimes brought about by the creation of organizations in the peace field (such as Ernie Regehr to Project Ploughshares). However, in terms of prioritizing and funding research dealing with policy peace operations and peacebuilding in conflict ridden societies, Canada is not a major player. In contrast, Western European Countries such as England , Ireland , Belgium and the Scandinavian block have put a much larger emphasis on this field. There has been a decision from the foreign ministries of these Countries, notably in Norway and Sweden that a peace research adjunct “similar to Trudeau’s CIIPS” (Fisk) is needed. Groups like the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) has an annual budget of 5-6 million euros and a staff of 50-60 people (2/3 researchers). (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo ). However, since 1992 Canada has had nothing like the PRIO, USIP or other similar European groups. This Canadian lack of an independent peace research group is both a vital absence in the Canadian political culture and an example of where we have fallen behind other countries.  

The input of Canadian policy oriented peace research groups does not directly lead into foreign affairs. Instead, their networks tend to be more directly linked to NGOs and connect to the government through CIDA and the IDRC. While the work that the NSI, CCHS and CPCC is extremely valuable, it doesn’t have the necessary connection to the core of the foreign affairs system to drastically influence policy. While the three organizations mentioned in this paper have had success in integrating issues surrounding peace operations and policy, their input points to the government are too indirect to reach its senior level. Instead, organizations like the NSI which have good relationships to CIDA and the IDRC are more likely to provide research that will affect either of those groups.

Since the NSI, CPCC and CCHS tend to deal with issues falling outside of major public concern; they have not been groups of major attention and have largely relied on funding from the government. The lack of any independent think tanks or major organizations to deal with peace issues in Canada has effectively made all independent peace research groups focusing on policy reliant on governmental aid to survive. While the NSI has been effective in leveraging some fundraising assets, all three of the groups discussed this paper are overwhelmingly reliant on funding from CIDA, the IDRC and DFAIT. Although the NSI, CPCC and CCHS have been able to maintain a large degree of autonomy in choosing their projects, this one-dimensional source of sourcing has resulted in a difficulty to establish themselves as large organizations. Based on the outside priorities of the Conservative government and the tenuousness in the last couple years of Canadian minority government politics, the NSI, CCHS and CPCC have been growing at slow rate. Currently, the entire peace research policy research community in Canada depends on the government’s willingness to open up and fund it.

Governmental Party Influence

In 1992, the Conservative government passed a budget that dismantled 46 governmental boards, agencies, commissions, corporations and advisory bodies, which heavily influenced the influence and existence of think tanks in Canada . (Abelson). The CIIPS was one of the many organizations to be eliminated and represented the loss of the only independent Peace Research organization in Canada .

It is understandable that the Conservative party would feel that traditionally liberally aligned Policy Oriented Peace Research groups will only act to disseminate information and policy recommendation contrary to their own interests. The Conservative party has also been seen to triage their funding into more defense based research instead of peacebuilding initiatives. “On May 2, 2006, the Minister of Finance announced in Budget 2006 a substantial increase to the Defence budget with $5.3 billion over the next five years. This is in addition to the Budget 2005 spending plan” (O’Connor). Compared to the previous Liberal government, this plan included a $1.1 billion dollar increase in defence between 2006 and 2007 and a planned 2010 defence budget of $20 billion (compared to a 2004 Liberal Defence budget of $14 Billion) (Canadian Forces).

The combination of these defence statistics with the destruction of CIIPS, as well as recent Harper government decisions to eliminate funding for civil society groups such as the Court Challenges program, the Canadian Policy Research Networks, the Law Commission of Canada, and the Canadian Labor and Business Centre (Lindquist), it can be seen how the Conservative government prioritizes defence.

 This history between the Conservative Party and peace related research could be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives have has a hesitancy to invest in research that yields unpredictable and possibly critical policy recommendations. Currently, with such a large scale operation in Afghanistan , the Conservative Party foresees independent research groups as a possible catalyst to an exacerbation of an already highly politicized issue.

To counter this problem, peace researchers have adopted terms such as security studies and international development, but the general inability to break the lack of Conservative support has remained the same. For Peace Research to truly establish itself as a major influence on Canadian policy, it must convince the Conservative party of its merit to their cause and lack of direct affiliation to its opponents. In the United States , the USIP has proven to be effective and has successfully remained funded by congress at arms length. This tactic of independent and arms length funding could be applied in a sustainable way to a Canadian peace research group, provided that the board was agreed upon by government parties by means of parliamentary consensus or another agreed upon means. Peace Research will always have to deal with the “peace stigma” and in order to ensure longevity and stable support from Canadian government, it must establish itself as a priority to the various parties.

With the Conservative government’s enormous commitment in Afghanistan , an independent peace research group could heavily aid the Canadian government in its peace building missions overseas. Canada has engaged in the Afghanistan mission as a long term project, and the existence of governmentally supported but independent peace development research organizations could even help the Conservative’s various problems with Canadian public criticisms of the mission as out of line with Canadian military and peacebuilding history. There has been a tremendous amount of people in Canada who have been giving the government flak for adopting the more modern American approach of eliminating the Taliban to bring about peace in a conflict ridden country. If a USIP organization were to exist in Canada , it could focus on Canadiancentric research of how to engage in peace related development missions more in synch with Canadian interests. Although this brings up new issues of a possible exacerbation of the macro-political and diplomatic arena of Canadian-American relations, an independent peace research group could also investigate and instigate various reconstruction and grassroots level peace projects in Afghanistan . With growing Canadian frustration and casualties to the Conservative approach to Afghanistan , an independent peace research group could help neutralize criticism towards them and bolster their support from the general public.

Even outside of Afghanistan , Canada has engaged in massive peace keeping and building missions (such as Bosnia ) and is in need of a policy based research institution that focuses primarily of international peace and security issues.

One of the biggest challenges facing Canadian peace research organizations is the uncertainty of the recent minority governments in Ottawa . With the majority of their funding coming from CIDA and foreign affairs, the short term election goals of the Liberal and Conservative parties leads to a tenuous ability to rely on government funding. In addition, the priorities of the Conservative government in 1992 and 2005 show the foreboding danger of a majority Conservative government to peace related research groups. Unfortunately, in these minority government years, Foreign Affairs, policy oriented and Ottawa based organizations are constantly dealing with the problem of low support and looming party changes. If a USIP like peace research think tank was to be created in Canada , its board and research advice would truly need to appease all three parties. While the NSI has had steady growth since its inception, it is not expanding at a massive rate and the Peace Research think tank gap is not being filled. One NSI researcher stated that the NSI has “found its niche” and that it is effectively dealing with its mandate in a limited manner. The NSI is working on its projects based on its size but can in no way deliver projects compared in magnitude to its American equivalent of the USIP or CSIS.

Conclusion

In the American system, peace research has been most effective in influencing policy through its large policy oriented research groups. In order for Canadian peace research to truly realize its potential and have a significant impact on Canadian peace foreign policy and peace operations, it is in need of a think tank organization that focuses on policy recommendations for peace operations. In addition, the Canadian think tank market is quite small and is only prevalent through a couple of economic based research groups. The specific niche of think tank based peace research is vital, but is also competing for representation in an extremely limited area.

Canadian Peace Research is a small field with high potential that is severely compromised by the lack of large independent research organizations. While the major actors in the field have had strong work in their respective areas, the lack of a Canadian Peace Research think tank combined with repeated Conservative funding cuts proves a real difficulty to peace research’s possible success. Since, the academic community is too focused outside of policy research and the NGO community doesn’t have the ability to influence high level policy decisions in Canada, independent research groups are vital. The NSI institute is the only group working in Canada in this area and is too small and indirectly linked to policy making to provide a huge influence on foreign affairs.

There is an existence of peace related groups in Canada , but in reference to Canadian policy the only ones that exist now are the CPCC and the NSI. However, groups like the Peace, Conflict, and Development (PCD) program of the IDRC, Project Ploughshares and the Trudeau Center for Peacekeeping are all doing good work in their own respective fields. For instance, while the PCD is involved in policy recommendations, it works in typical IDRC fashion of partnering with Southern partners. This paper has focused on the vacuum of Canadiancentric policy research related to peace operations and does not mean to discount the work of other related operations.

Even before the recent cut to funding of the CCHS, Canada has been far behind its international peers in policy oriented peace research. While a well established liberal government with a cabinet that had strong leanings towards peace issues could instigate more in this field as a legacy project, the shakiness of liberal/conservative standings suggests that this is not something to happen in the near future.

The growing network of peace and conflict programs across the Country could also make an attempt to create a new network consortium that picked up from where the CCHS left off. Many of the peace and conflict programs across the Country have been started by highly motivated individuals who are passionate about championing peace studies in higher education. These politically motivated academics and could bridge the gap between academic and policy related research and could pool their university connections and resources together to create a new group that could attempt to fill the Canadian vacuum of policy related research. While it is still unlikely that such a group could currently penetrate high level government policy, there is a need for linking the national academic community dealing with peace and conflict issues. A consortium of this type could be the first step towards getting like minded intellectuals working together towards reform in this area. There is a large amount of individuals in Canada championing peace related issues, but a heavy lack of networks to connect them.

With the importance placed by the Conservative party on defense spending, it could be useful for the national peace research community to further reinvent themselves and continue to combat the “peace stigma” by adapting their project names to defense related issues. There is a chance that peace development, human security and other related fields would be able to foster greater governmental support if they appealed more to defense nomenclature. Larry Fisk undertook a study in which he approached both peace activists and people involved defense projects about peace issues. Upon asking the question “what risks would you take for peace,” the peace activists outlined their agenda, while the group related to defense pushed it aside as unimportant. However, when he asked the question to the effect of “What would you like to see happen in the future that would bring about less war?” the exact inverse happened. However, the agenda of both sides was essentially identical and outlined the exact same process to achieving their goals. (Fisk).

            At a minimum, Canada should have created (and still should create) an “Afghanistan Study Group” similar to the ISG in the United States . This group could draw from Canada ’s intellectual and academic community and draw upon their opinions as political outsiders. This would provide outlooks on the Afghanistan issue which would supply the Canadian government with new policy recommendations from a politically unaffiliated group.

Peace research needs to be seen in a broader light from both sides of this equation, and needs to bridge the gap between the traditionally conservative and liberal. There is good work happening in this field on both sides, but simple antagonizisms and misunderstandings have led to a decrease in efficiency to peace related projects. Their must be a bridging of the gap between peace, defense, liberal, conservative and any other labels that are in the way of developing peace related projects and policy.

Peacebuilding is an enormously complex and multidimensional issue that requires as much informed input as possible. The process of peace operations necessitates multiple actors and informed players to deliver the right kind of solutions. As David Hamburg, the president emeritus of the Carnegie Corporation and co-chair on the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict stated in the project’s final report preface: “We have come to the conclusion that the prevention of deadly conflict is, over the long term, too hard – intellectually, technically, and politically – to be the responsibility of any single institution or government, no matter how powerful. Strengths must be pooled, burdens shared, and labor divided among actors.” ( Hamburg )

Canada must share this responsibility of peace building in the same model that other major countries have already undertaken. While the work of the CPCC, NSI and CCHS has been successful, important, and extremely respectable it has remained at a stage of performing to “modest aspirations.” For Canada to move forward in its peace research and continue to pride itself as a peace leading country in the 21^st century there is a necessity to fund an independent policy oriented peace research group.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Works Cited

Abelson, Donald E. Do Think Tanks Matter?: Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes. McGill-Queens University Press, 2002.

"About the Children and Armed Conflict Group." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/working/?load=children/ >.

"About the Conflict Prevention Working Group." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/working/?load=conflictprevention/ >.

"About CPCC." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/about/?language=english >.

"About the Gender and Peace Building Working Group." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/working/?load=gender >.

“About the NSI.” The North South Institute. 18 Feb . 2007 http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/default.asp .

"About the Peace Operations Working Group (POWG)." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/working/powg/ >.

"About the Small Arms Working Group." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://www.peacebuild.ca/working/?load=smallarms/ >.

"About SSHRC." Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada . 21 Nov. 2006. 4 Mar. 2007 < http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/about_e.asp >.

"About USIP.” United States Institute of Peace. 20 Feb. 2007 < http://www.usip.org/aboutus/index.html >.

Annual Report 2005. The North South Institute. Ottawa , ON : 2005.

Anonymous, NSI researcher. Personal Interview. 9 Mar. 2007.

Baranyi, Stephen. “Fragile States and Sustainable Peace Building : An NSI Policy Brief.” The North-South Institute.  Ottawa , ON : 2005.

Baranyi, Stephen and David Mepham. “Report from a high-level symposium on Enhancing capacities to protect civilians and build sustainable peace in Africa .” Institute for Security Studies. Pretoria , South Africa : 2006.

Baranyi, Stephen, Jennifer Salahub, and Kristiana Powell. From War Termination to Sustainable Peace: What Kind of Peace is Possible? (WKOP). The North-South Institute. Ottawa , ON : The North-South Institute, 2006. 18 Feb. 2007 < http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/research/progress/28.asp#project_reports >.

"Canadian Forces in the 21st Century." CBC News in Depth. 10 June 2006. < http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/ >.

The Canadian Association for the Study of International Development and The North-South Institute. “White Paper” on International Development Studies in Canada . Ottawa , 2003.

Carden, Fred and Michael Graham. A Strategic Evaluation of the Influence of Research on Public Policy. Ottawa , ON : International Development Research Centre, 2001.

Chapin, Paul H., John W. Foster.  “Peacebuilding Policy Consultations and Dialogues: A Study of the Canadian Experience”.  Background paper prepared for Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian International Development Agency, and International Development Research Centre, July 2001.

Clark, Campbell. "Think-Tanks Changing Their Minds." The Globe and Mail 20 Aug. 2005. < http://www.policyingenuity.org/globe-08-20-2005.html >.

"Conflict Cycle." Canada and Peacekeeping. 10 June 2003. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada . 2 Mar. 2007 < http://www.international.gc.ca/peacekeeping/conflict-en.asp >.

Dale, Stephen. Interview with Carol Weiss and Evert Lindquist. International Development Research Centre. 11 Sep. 2003.

Daudelin, Jean. Personal Interview. 16 Mar. 2007.

"Drivers of Conflict and Drivers of Peace." 9th Annual Peacebuilding and Human Security Dialogue. 11 May 2006. Canadian Consortium on Human Security. 23 Feb. 2007 < http://cchs.xplorex.com/sites/cchs/files/pdfs/Consultation%20Papers/9th-peacebuilding/Agenda_English.pdf >.

"Event Reports.” Canadian Consortium on Human Security. 26 Feb. 2007 < http://www.humansecurity.info/page233.htm >.

Fisk, Larry. Personal Interview. 14 Mar. 2007.

George, Alexander L. Bridging the Gap. Washington D.C. : United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.

Gwyn, Richard. "Lloyd Axworthy: a Man of Peace." Canada World View. Winter 2001. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada . 18 Mar. 2007 < http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/issue10/10t11-en.asp >.

Hagen, John. Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada . Cambridge : Harvard University Press. 2001.

Hamburg , David A. and Cyrus R. Vance. “1997 Final Report.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 1997.

"International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO)." International Peace Research Institute, Oslo . 18 Mar. 2007 < http://www.prio.no/page/About/PRIO_menu_buttons/9346/9350?PHPSESSID=938266eddfec9838b9e64fd81fc8133c >.

“Introducing UPEACE Toronto .” University for Peace. 13 Sept. 2005 http://www.upeace.org/news/index.cfm?id_activity=354&actual=2005

"Iraq Study Group Fact Sheet." Iraq Study Group. 20 Dec. 2006. United States Institute of Peace. 20 Feb. 2007 < http://www.usip.org/isg/fact_sheet.html >.

Job, Brian. Personal Interview. 19 Mar. 2007.

Lindquist, Evert. Think Tanks, Foundations and Policy Discourse: Ebbs and Flows, Investments and Responsibilities. Oct. 2006. Canadian Policy Research Networks. < http://www.cprn.com/documents/45986_fr.pdf >.

"Missions." Canada and Peacekeeping. 6 Feb. 2003. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada . 2 Mar. 2007 < http://www.international.gc.ca/peacekeeping/conflict-en.asp >.

Nindorera, Willy and Kristiana Powell.  “Delivering on the Responsibility to Protect: Reforming the Security Sector to Protect the Most Vulnerable in Burundi .” Institute for Security Studies. Pretoria , South Africa : 2006.

The North-South Institute Brochure. Ottawa : The North-South Institute.

O'Connor, The Honourable Gordon J. "Message From the Minister." DND. Ottawa . 2006. na < http://www.dnd.ca/site/Reports/budget06/message_e.asp >.

O’Neil, Maureen and Necla Tschirgi. “The Role of Research and Policy Analysis.” From Reaction to Conflict Prevention: Opportunities for the UN System. Ed. Fen Osler Hampson and David M. Malone. Boulder , CO : Lynne Rienner, 2002. 275-293.

Page, James Smith. “Why is peace research and education so prominent in Canada ?” Australasian Canadian Studies. 24.1. 2006: 19-25.

Pearson, Geoffrey. “New Opportunities for Peace Research.” Peace Magazine. Oct/Nov. 1989: 20.

Persaud, Mark. Personal Interview. 16 Mar. 2007.

"Policy Briefs." The North-South Institute. June 2006. 18 Feb. 2007 < http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/publications/policy_briefs.asp >.

Powell, Kristiana and Stephen Baranyi. “Closing the gaps between desirable and possible peace: A Conference Report.”  The North-South Institute. Ottawa , ON : 2005.

“Report on The 7^th International Security Forum New Risks and Threats: The Challenge of Securing State and Society”.  Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Zurich : 16 Oct. 2006.

"Resources." Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Community. 9 Mar. 2007 < http://action.web.ca/home/cpcc/en_resources.shtml >.

Rioux, Jean-Francois, and Robin Hay. Canadian Foreign Policy: From Internationalism to Isolationism? Vers. 16. Nov. 1997. Carleton University. < http://www.carleton.ca/csds/occasional_papers/npsia-16.pdf >.

"SSHRC Awards Search Engine" 20 Dec. 2006. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada . 17 Mar. 2007 < http://www.outil.ost.uqam.ca/CRSH/RechProj.aspx?vLangue=Anglais >. (keyword “peace”).

Stewart, Bob. Personal Interview. 19 Dec. 2006.

Stone, Diane, Simon Maxwell and Michael Keating.  “Bridging Research and Policy”.  Background paper presented for An International Workshop Funded by the UK Department for International Development, Radcliffe House, Warwick University , July 16-17, 2001

Sylvain, Christian. Personal Interview. 19 Mar. 2007.

Taylor, Suzanne. Personal Interview.  Dec. 20 2006.

"USIPeace Briefings.” Mar. 2007. United States Institute of Peace. 10 Feb. 2007 < http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/index.html >.

Wood, Bernard. 7th Annual Peacebuilding and Human Security Consultations. Department of Foreign Affairs Canada . Ottawa , 2003. < http://www.humansecurity.info/sites/cchs/files/pdfs/Consultation%20Papers/Consult%20documents/final_pbc_report2003.pdf >.

"Working Papers." The North-South Institute. Aug 2006. 18 Feb. 2007 < http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/publications/policy_briefs.asp >.

"Yearly Listing of All CCHS Fellowship Holders." Canadian Consortium on Human Security. 26 Feb. 2007 < http://www.humansecurity.info/yearlyfellowlisting.htm >.