 Focus this last session on the future. That is the next decade. What are we going to do next? And to help us think about this, to help us sum up this day, we are joined by Betty Riordan, the Grand Dame of Peace Education and Founding Director of the International Institutes on Peace Education. We are also joined by two scholars, activists and partners, Sanam Anderlini, the Founding Director of ICANN in the International Civil Society Network and Carla Koppel, the Director of the Institute for Inclusive Security. Now this panel would of course not be complete without a man. Indeed, it has been an underlying theme I think of this day that we have to engage men and we thank Jimmy Briggs for joining us in this panel. Jimmy is a prize winning journalist and the founder of the Men Up campaign for which he received an award from JQ. So with that, we are going to make this session, we hope lively, quick, and we have 29 minutes. Really, what we want to do is take some of the themes of today and bring them forward and get some reactions from our panelists of experts. You know, one of the things that has happened today that people have brought back into the conversation is the role of education. And Betty, nobody has done peace education like you. You put it on the map. It's still on the map. What do you see for the future right now? The things that you've heard today about 1325, how can education make a difference moving forward? I think that education is actually the most essential part. And by that, I don't mean simply formal instruction. I mean intentional planned learning. I mean setting forth some goals in terms of what we believe the population should know about these issues and what we need to do to be able to equip them to be participants in the implementation of 1325, to be participation, to be participants in the changes that we know are needed. Had we more time, I would outline a curriculum plan which I happen to have for going toward the future. But I think the most important thing that we have to start to learn about has come out in many of the presentations we've heard today in one way or another, particularly I think in our Sudanese sisters definition of what makes a woman secure. And in Abby's talking about the nature of war, and that is that we have a huge structural planning and design task ahead to replace war with other ways of doing conflict and protecting our interests. And so I think the future is about participating and envisioning that change, participating in change, learning to use the tools we have such as 1325. Thank you Betty. That is actually a phenomenal outline of next steps and we look forward to looking and reading and engaging in this curriculum that you're talking about. I'm going to turn to my right here to Sanam. I feel like I'm on a game show. And she's sitting there, what question are you going down to? That's the audience. That's the audience, that's right. You know one of the things that we think about a lot at the Institute of Peace is how to put peace in a package and what do I mean by that? How do you put something like 1325 which has so much content into a three to four second elevator ride between the second floor and the fourth floor. Sanam I can't think of any more articulate person than you Sanam. Can you give us that bumper sticker that... That really puts me on the spot. I would say... How are we going to do this elevator speech this week? I would say it's don't reward violence, reward peace. And by that I mean that it's just not enough to bring armed actors, whether they are state or non-state actors, to the table because they have been the most violent. At the moment basically why aren't women at the table? Women aren't at the table because they're not a security threat. That's it. If the women of Afghanistan started lobbing bombs around and being dangerous, they would be escorted to the talks in Kabul tomorrow. That's it, that's it. But we are perhaps more evolved, I'm not sure, but women are not willing to take up arms as we join armed groups, but we don't do it for ourselves. So the issue is that we have to change the paradigm to recognize, legitimize, give credit to the courage of people who are willing to sit on opposite sides of the table and talk about their big differences. Turid mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian women. They got together when it was illegal to do so. They brought the issue of a two-state solution. They were the first ones. They were the first ones to come up with the idea of a two-state solution and make it public. Now that idea is out there. The women are saying something else, by the way, but they are excluded. I think that the U.S. national action planning process should really be about reframing how we look at issues to put human security in peace as the vision. That's what we want. Those are the ideals of the U.S. that the rest of the world aspires to. It's the most powerful ideals of the U.S. that the U.S. country has. We just need to make peace, to reward peace. I can't think of anything else. Peace, activism, peaceful engagement has to be rewarded in ways that it's never been done before. I knew you could do it so now. Well, I think we're on the 50th floor now. You know, the other theme of today is how to connect the big picture to the day-to-day survival. And I think today we have had some of the very top officials of the U.S. government, the UN, the international organizations and civil society. And Karla, I'm going to turn to you to help us, because in your role as executive director of the Institute of Inclusive Security, you are constantly looking at connecting the dots, big picture and then the day-to-day. And I know you've done this most recent study and program in DRC that's about to be launched tomorrow at the program called The Trouble with the DRC. Can you help us bring those story points together? Well, I think the fundamental message is that you're not going to get protection without participation. And that's going to be true at the broadest level and that's going to be true on the ground. If you're talking about Congo and you're saying how do you deal with sexual violence and how do you address the problems that women and children and some men are facing, it's going to take not only protection of those women but involvement of those women in providing, designing and implementing a solution. The same is going to be true around negotiation. Sunam talks about how you approach that peace process. It's connecting those peacemakers to the broader process above, involving them in the process of deciding how you bring protection home. So it's quite a fundamental concept that needs to move forward as we reach this pivot point in time where we've completed one decade of 1325 and we're moving forward with a second decade. We've got the rhetoric. Now we need to move forward with the implementation. And a lot of people today have talked about how we do that. And it's simply about making a concerted effort to change the way we make policy and program and to do that from the highest level down to the grassroots level. Thank you very much, Carla. Jimmy. Yesterday and again today, Margo Valstrom talked about that sexual violence is neither sexual or cultural, but criminal. She also said sexual violence in wars is cheap, silent and effective. Can you and your role as men talk about how this particular part of war can be interrupted, how we can intervene, and how you think we need to move forward with both men and women together? I was hoping that you would not ask me the heaviest question this round. No, this is something I thought about a lot before working on this issue actively as part of Maranap. I was a journalist in places like Congo, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Columbia. So I did have some firsthand experience from that place. And I think one of the crucial things, which has been mentioned, is one, addressing impunity. And I think in the Congo particularly, we're seeing how the prevalence of impunity really feeds on the cycle of sexual violence, even when the war anomaly is formally supposed to be over. Also, I think, going to the point of men, men have to be educated on initiatives like 1325, but also provided the space to work on the issue. And on the Congo, you have groups like Women for Women, and you have local NGOs, once you're working on a very grassless level, working to educate men, community by community, to make them understand why this violence is affecting all of them, but also some of the authority they have in stopping it, even when they're not actively participating in it. Yeah, I think 1325, and it has been mentioned in some of the previous panels, it's not just about what happens over there, it's also very much about what happens here. And I think particularly in the context of the National Action Plan that is going to be put into place, what are some of the challenges here do you see, and maybe Carla and Sanam would want to speak to that, what are some of the challenges and what is the type of advice that you would give to the government as they move along on this journey? First of all, don't reinvent the broken wheel. What we know is we have 23 countries that have National Action Plans, 12 of them are European, and in our report one of the things that we found was that an assessment of those action plans basically showed that they don't have goals, they don't have measurable indicators, they don't have funding, essentially they are plans of aspiration and not of action. So don't do what those guys did, learn from it and move on. So that's the first thing. The second thing I would say is that the U.S. deciding to do a National Action Plan on 1325 is a very serious issue. First of all because it signals to the world that this matters, but secondly because the U.S., to be honest with all of you and we all know this, the U.S. is probably one of the biggest actors involved in war making right now, 10 years ago it wasn't. So it's going to have an impact in terms of what it is doing around the world. If this action plan is just cosmetic then fine, it's cosmetic and it doesn't really mean anything, but if it's going to be something that really has value it does have implications in terms of what we're doing in Afghanistan now and Pakistan and Iran in the future and so forth. So it has massive implications I think. So what I would say is work with us in civil society to frame it and allow the voices of our partners as they said from the punches, the sneeze and the flu syndrome, let that come together, put the resources to it and use it as an opportunity to really change the paradigm internationally as well. I think it's a huge opportunity for changing the way we address 21st century problems. So I'm really delighted to be here at a time when the U.S. is doing this at the same time. I'm also very concerned because we just don't want it to be a nice piece of paper and a way of protecting the way we've been doing business as usual. This is a fundamental change for businesses. Betty, you wanted to add something? Betty, you want to add something? She has responded. Well, I'm a glass half full kind of gal. So I'm going to say because I see a lot of our allies within the U.S. government out there that I think this presents an enormous opportunity and that as civil society representatives here on the stage today, I think we're here to help you and to work together and to think this through and to figure out how to make it really meaningful and magnificent and transformative. And the bumper sticker in terms of how you do that, I think that there are two pieces. One is focus on institutional change and there are two pieces to that in my opinion. One is about personnel. How are people's job descriptions written and on what basis are they evaluated and how do you insert this throughout the process of the whole bureaucracy? The second is contracting and funding. How do you approach that contracting process? How do you hold others accountable? How do you make the funding available to the wonderful civil society leaders who are on the last panel? How do you lower those barriers to entry for all of those other actors? And the third is to man up and to make some mandates and some directives that will make this meaningful to say we're not going to allow the kind of exclusion that has gone on for a long time, continue, add infinitum into the future. So those are the institutional changes and the second group of changes I think that's absolutely critical and go hand in hand is training and that is training, whether it is training for troops and I know Admiral McMullen, I know that several of the ambassadors earlier today, I know Don Steinberg and others all talked about this, training, pre-deployment, meaningful training, not tacked on training as part of human rights training that's one hour in between rifle repractice. Train all of our foreign service officers. Train the people who are going out into the field. Raise our capacity to understand and to implement the programs on the ground and in turn help the beneficiaries and the partners that we have on the ground through providing them training that will enable us to leverage their expertise which may not sound exactly like what we're looking for right now, but is incredibly meaningful. If we develop an action plan for the United States that really embraces those kind of transformative moves and works its way from the highest level all the way through, we can make an enormous, enormous difference. I am also looking at that question from the perspective of an educator and it never ceases to amaze me how ill-informed our people are by that I mean the American citizenry of the consequences of our actions on the everyday lives of other people around the world so that I would hope that the USIP, from which I recently received a beautiful mailing about the Peace Links classroom and I began to think about what could take place in that classroom and I think this would be one thing is to begin to get people to really have a better global understanding in terms of the consequences of choices and actions and policies. The other thing is training, yes, but also the initial education. We need to have gender education as part of peace education and we need to be working on the education of both men and women, boys and girls about the possibilities for complementarity in their roles and about the essential quality of humanity in both men and women and that until we have that equality recognized we're not going to have a real true peace. Jimmy, are you going to take up this issue in the man-up campaign? Well, we already have, I mean, the focus of the campaign is engaging and working within people broadly, male and female. So we're working now in 25 countries, 25 more next year, providing a basic education on issues such as those being discussed here but also something which I think was mentioned earlier with the men, with the gentlemen in particular, talking about masculinity and manhood. I was reflecting when Admiral Mullen was speaking about the implementation of 1325 and what it means for American citizens and the journalist in me, I have to be honest with you, I'm half glass half full but at the same time, unfortunately, I live in a country where, you know, resolution 1325 is one thing but most young Americans, most Americans know so little or understand a little about the constitution of this country and so it's like, you know, there's a basic education that's done to be taught, formally and informally, and what are the institutions that we can engage whether it's schools, community centers, churches, whatever. Wonderful. You know, we have a few minutes left and we want to keep this dialogue going and I know there are questions and comments from the audience and so at this moment, we'll open it up for any questions. You know where the microphones are and we look forward to your thoughts. Just introduce yourself and if you can keep your comments to a very brief remark. Good afternoon. My name is Allison Johnson and I actually would like to see as an action item from the week of activities if we could push in Sudan as a current case of conflict, a way to implement resolution 1325 right now. It just occurred to me in spending the day here in the room that it's so easy for us to look back and say all that we could have done for X or Y or Z conflict. But since we have so many on the planet right now that we can take action on and we have Sudanese leaders in the room to be able to perhaps push with the Ambassador Gratian from the USA side as well as the person who represents the United Nations to bring greater level of female participation now in the case of Sudan. So please let us know, Kathleen, if that would be possible as an action item from this conference. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there a cool question? We can do this. Please. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. My name is Afia. I can't see you, but I can hear you. My name is Afia Evans with Evidence-Based Research. I just wanted to thank you all for all of your comments. I just wanted to make a comment noticing that we're in the time where we're talking about action items and where we're going in the future and most of the people that were here earlier are not here. And I think that maybe that's one of the issues that we may be having in translating it from paper to actually policy, that we talk about it, talk about it, talk about it, but then when time comes to actually do something, we're unavailable. So I was wondering, is there anything that is being planned perhaps as a follow-up to this event, a way to bring some of the people together that were here earlier today? I mean, you know, I got some cards, I talked, I networked, I whatever, but are we all going to get together and actually really do something about that or is there anything being planned for a follow-up? Thank you. Well, speaking for the panel, I will say I am very determined to continue the community of practice, but I will tell you, I don't exactly know how the community of practice will continue forward, but it will be going forward. I think it is somewhat a creative process. It depends on the people, the interests, the suggestions that are made, but there is a strong commitment. And I think this three-day conference where we have sold out every single event says there is action and commitment all blended together and we will continue to create opportunities to convene and move these ideas into action and measurable action. Please. My name is Teresa DeLanges. I think I asked the second question this morning. I'm going to ask the same question now. I completely agree with the panel's assessment that 1325 National Action Plan for the U.S. has transformative possibilities for internationally because we are engaged in so many different conflicts. And I also want to pick up on something that Sanam said in terms of the U.S. in many ways, being a place in conflict. We are a country in conflict. We at least have Afghanistan. I don't hear the panelists speaking to what 1325 could do as part of a domestic agenda. So yes, it's definitely an international agenda, but I can't imagine in Afghanistan, for example, having a 1325 action plan and not pressing for more women's political activism or participation as one example, what could the 1325 action plan do here domestically and what difference would that make worldwide? I'm going to open that up to the panel. I think it's an important question. Sanam, would you like to... I'm going to ask. Do you want to go first? Do I want to start? No. Thank you. Domestically, I've only lived in the U.S. for nine years and every year that I've been here, I find it a more confusing place to be. So I think that what Betty mentioned about informing and educating the public is definitely a part of it. I think looking at budgets and where money goes is a part of it. We are not funding conflict prevention, for example. We are not funding peace properly, for example. Even the commitments that have been made today and last week in terms of money going to DRC or Afghanistan, it's really a drop in the ocean. I mean, it's a lot of money for the kind of work that is going to get done, but it's a drop in the ocean in the larger budget. So I would love to see the funds reviewed in a serious way in terms of how we tilt it to make prevention nonviolent transformation and, as I said, peace groups and so forth are more supported. I'd love to see a discussion here about and I do think it has to start in the domestic kind of diplomatic, academic, scholarly field and then taken forward. I would love to see us develop criteria for civil society participation in peace processes so that it's not arbitrary, so that it's not people being able to accuse me of being elite or not representative or whatever but saying, we're coming forward, a group of Sudanese women are coming forward. If they are offering constructive solutions, if they are engaging with all the parties, if they're talking across the conflict lines, why shouldn't they have a legitimate role in the negotiations? They can hold their own fighters accountable. These are the kinds of things that we can start domestically here that have an implication on both the domestic agenda, I think, but also in the role of the U.S. internationally. It's very hard for me as a foreigner to separate the role of the U.S. domestically and internationally because anything that happens here has an impact somewhere else. The NRA gets involved in negotiations at the U.N. around arms control in Sierra Leone. It's a crazy way that the U.S. domestic agenda is out there and so I think it's very hard to separate these things but I do think that we can start to make standards and ideals and modeling it, very much modeling it and going back to the Sudan question, I would say the same thing with Afghanistan. Why are we not putting women in the negotiations now? I would say the same thing with Israel and Palestine. Why are we not meeting with the women? Why do we keep bringing the same guys to talk and stop at the same place and making it complicated? Each of those conflicts has a domestic agenda, obviously. I think that what we do out there has an impact here and what we do here has an impact in terms of how the world sees us as well and treats us as well. Thank you. Well, I think under the right circumstances it could be a very, if you pardon the expression, revolutionary kind of document because it has to me, when I look at the history of 1325 and the visions that we had when we were thinking about it, it could have, I think, the valence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it becomes a vehicle for us to begin to think about all the things that, the specifics we've been talking about, but what is meant by peace and security? What do we mean to have a peaceful society in the United States? How does that peaceful society in the United States become an actor in the world? What kind of actor do we want to be in the world? And then the most essential thing is this point of not simply having equality in the negotiations and so forth but in the defining of security because that, I think, is the most significant thing that women can bring because you define the world the way you experience the world and I have to tell you this that I read two or three weeks ago a little headline that said Leonardo Boff says women are going to save the world well, my answer that I told the peace and justice study was no, Leonardo we're not we've been doing that for centuries you guys got to put your shoulders to the wheel and work with us that's all we're asking for and the work has to be about security and women have to be involved in defining security Unfortunately the clock is ticking and we're coming to the end of I think this extraordinary day there's much more to talk about and I can assure you that we will organize other events and brainstormings but we've also come to the end of the day and I'd like you to join me in recognizing the help of all the volunteers from USIP and our partner organizations without whom we could not have organized this day and I'd like to ask the volunteers to stand up so that we can recognize you and thank you and in particular I would like to thank Brooke Statman who is the right hand of Kathleen Keynes Of course all this would not have been possible without the extraordinary leadership of my friend and colleague, Kathleen Keynes and I would like to invite of piece by piece and Marie-Laure Coiré of Women in International Security to join us and to thank you on behalf of the partners for your extraordinary leadership Thank you very much This is a real community effort There were 12 organizations that came together to put this conference on we represented government, international institutions and GOs It was a very, very positive experience and I think the collective wisdom and breadth and depth of experience really made this a much richer experience but it was successful because of the leadership of Kathleen Keynes She provided an inclusivity generosity, graciousness and capable leadership and we really, really want to thank her so we have several gifts for her one of which is on behalf of my organization piece by piece which divides This book is called 60 Years 60 Voices and it's Voices of Women in the Middle East It's been signed by the author and we honor you Thank you Kathleen Thank you very much I've never had anything like this happen I accepted all graciously but really it couldn't happen with all of us and thank you very much and I have to say if we're going to trade thank yous and her other hand is right there, Chantal and she is a marvelous partner so thank you so much to all of you the leadership of our institute again Tara Soninshine and to the Ritz for all of their accommodations today and here's going forward and to the next time we're going to meet Thank you so much Thank you