The 9th study meeting(Summary)

Next Year’s Schedule

Sato:

Mr. Sunahara, a Ph.D. student, wrote discussion paper No.2, and Mr. Satoshi Yamamoto wrote paper No.3. These papers were submitted as indication of the achievements of the junior study meeting. Although the papers have not yet been completed, they suggest a new perspective and were considered appropriate as discussion papers. This attempt is also a means for giving a chance to young researchers.

Sponsored by the Ministry of Education and organized by FASID, the symposium “University Efforts toward International Peace Cooperation” was held on September 30th, where Tokyo University, GSID, Kobe University, and Rikkyo University got together. Behind this background, peace building has become one of the major issues in ODA, and human resources development has been considered an urgent task. I also attended this symposium in order to establish a network.

I would like to create a trend of cooperation which includes cooperative relations with graduate schools majoring in development. It seems that the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies has been employing international students from regions of conflict, working with ICU and U.N. University. Our study group should also cooperate with others, rather than being just a Nagoya-based group. We should achieve results based on our 2-year records, and aim for the next step.

Kodama:

If we apply for the next science research grant, we will need to upgrade our research contents. Are we going to specialize in something or to take a comprehensive approach?

Sato:

A lot of universities have been granted or are applying for science research funds to study peace building. In order to avoid unnecessary overlap (such as doing the same research), we need to coordinate the research contents and subjects. To be sure, coordination itself is very difficult.

Nakanishi:

The bimonthly pace should be maintained. We can’t produce results without the accumulation of our efforts.

Sato:

Since they are considerably capable, I expect students to get involved more actively in our research. If we provide students financial support for their doctoral dissertation research, their research outcome will also become an achievement of our study group. This is kill-two-birds-with-one-stone.

Nakanishi:

I would like to talk with Mr. Sato about this point and also discuss how to use our budget for the next fiscal year.

Otsubo:

Currently, personnel revisions are coming up. We also need to think about this.

Achievements

Sato:

Myself, I will study for the general statement part of peace building. Regarding Sri Lanka, which we have suggested as a common case, we have already issued one booklet and one discussion paper as samples of our achievements. I will also make a presentation at the symposium of genocide and local research. So I want to put it together and make a discussion paper.

As for our progress status after the previous study meeting, we have been seeking cooperative relations with the “Human Security Program” of Tokyo University. In addition, we have been looking for cooperation with the human security program of UNCRD, which is located at the Nagoya International Center building, that has also been considering partnerships with academic organizations. I would like to feature Sri Lanka at the next meeting open to the public. I am arranging the schedule with Sri Lanka researchers in Japan. It is very crucial to find suitable partnerships, particularly when we study developing countries. We should select partnerships carefully.

I have been considering whether we should hold a domestic symposium regarding Sri Lanka on January 27th. As a counterproposal, I would like to listen to Mr. Matsuda, an anthropologist. Currently, we have been discussing how to take charge of the extreme ideas of “favoring a punishment” and “tolerating others rather than asking for a punishment.” This concept will be a central part of peace building. I would like to listen to an anthropologist about how to theoretically shift an “armed conflict” to “non-armed.”

***

The next topic is Mr. Yamamoto’s “Humanitarian Relief and Peace Building.” He has already achieved some results.

Yamamoto:

Although JICA and the UN have currently asked us various things, we have faced the same problem. No human resources. There are many offers that welcome the Japanese, but it is hard to find appropriate people. It’s really too bad.

Sato:

I would like to introduce this person, Ms. Mari Kawamura. She is an adjunct and an expert in refugees. She is now in WFP. She is attending this meeting as an observer today. I think it is a good idea even for young researchers to make use of the positions at the United Nations.

Yamamoto:

There is a large demand, such as JPO.

Otsubo:

More graduates should try at JPO.

Yamamoto:

Regarding Afghanistan, I am asked to find persons for two positions. Although Japan provided massive support known as DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration), the support for reintegration is not working successfully. There is no age limit, so if you know someone who has some experience, please let me know.

I think the topic of human resources will be continuously coming up. We should secure a route to fill positions by contacting various places.

Sato:

How about sending some inexperienced students and getting them trained on the spot?

Yamamoto:

About the intake of internship, each director has a different idea. Some refuse interns and some accept them.

Sato:

Please consider booklets as well.

***

Kodama:

Until yesterday I was in China where I attended the International Social Science Council (ISSC). The ISSC has an office at UNESCO whose members include the International Political Science Association, among others. This council is the biggest group regarding social science. In that meeting, the research project, “Research on Ethnic Conflict and Approach to Peace” was launched based on the idea of Ethnic Conflict. In addition, the project of “Gender Globalization and Democratization” has been already established. Since both projects have been promoted mainly by western countries, they want Asian countries to participate in their projects. The contents of their projects are similar to those as that we are doing in our study group. If we work together with this group, it will be easier for us to cooperate with the ISSC and UNESCO. Both the ISSC and UNESCO have been actively involved in peace issues, so I want to cooperate with them.

The topic of Ethnic Conflict has a direct relationship with this study group. I have also become a director at the ISSC, so I think I can do various things to help us work together.

As for research of international NGOs and conflict prevention, there has been a financial problem, while the Peace Boat is actually taking actions. I am going to attend an international NGO conference to be held in September next year.

Concerning the current research in East Timor, I’m planning to visit East Timor in January because I couldn’t travel in August. I will wrap up the travel report and write for a booklet.

Sato:

One of the researchers of East Timor believes that the most important thing now was a framework of reconciliation. Since the people can’t afford to make a court of justice, the point is how to make use of their local and traditional resources.

Mr. Kodama has a section meeting at GPPAC. I want him to present our study efforts in New York. To do this, we should also prepare papers in English. Taking that point in mind, I want you to think about writing discussion papers.

***

Mr. Arakaki is working at Harvard University. I will ask him for continuous cooperation with Harvard University. I will also ask him to write something in particular.

***

Otsubo:

First topic. Based on the material I presented in the previous seminar, I will reflect on the factors of reoccupation after economic conflict and the wrap-ups of theory and cases about sequence. I will put them together by next March and write a discussion paper or something.

I am in charge of the research on economic factors and economic consequences of conflicts. I have been gathering data pertaining to conflict and gap issues or investment related matters. I will view these issues in a cross-sectional manner, and will consider how economic factors become important and what happens to the consequences by quantitatively reviewing the policy stance of the government. For our study meeting, I want to write something unlike a tooling model. This is the second topic.

The third topic is a case study. The subjects include China, Indonesia, and Mexico. In each country, the gap shrinks and expands. Each has a history where the regions have been tossed about by the rapid change of government political stance. Also, these countries are closely correlated with the global trend toward democratization. Thus, I am collecting data regarding gaps in these three countries. I have already completed half of the data. Additionally, I will gather some data more like political factors, and will deal with three cases. In that study, I would like to write about how much something like cross-sectional common concepts have credibility in the developing countries where the flashpoints of conflicts actually exist. I may discuss the three cases together or write them separately.

Anyway, I want to wrap up these three topics, and produce some results for each topic.

Sato:

This study is very valuable since there is not much economic research in the study of peace building.

Yamamoto:

I am very interested in Mr. Otsubo’s study. When I am actually involved in providing reconstruction assistance, I run into many questions as to whether this approach is O.K. I feel something is missing as a whole, something like what Mr. Otsubo pointed out.

When someone says producing strawberries is effective, people will tend to invest more money and change everything to strawberry fields. It seems that international organizations have been promoting the early plantation.

Trade liberalization has been achieved although there are only uncompetitive industries left. In reality, EU products account for a large share.

***

Ohira:

I have two things. Regarding “The Japan’s Subsequent Support for Peace Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” I couldn’t conduct a field study within this fiscal year, but will do it after the next fiscal year. Prior to the launch of this study meeting, I visited there. Japan’s ODA provided schools and local-community-type rehabilitation centers. Three years have passed since then. I would like to consider how much Japan’s ODA could contribute by comparing the past and the present. I also want to write for a booklet.

Second, like the World Bank, the UNDP has been developing an original method for conflict analysis, called CDA. Originally, it is said that this method adopted the analytical method of DFID used in Britain. From now, I would like to consider some uniqueness and problems through the comparison with other analytical methods. I would also like to wrap up UNDP’s efforts toward conflict prevention within this fiscal year, and submit a discussion paper in January.

***

Nakanishi:

Regarding “Return Issues of Afghan Refugees and Immigrants in Iran,” I submitted an interim report to the last year’s North American Political Science Association. I can immediately write a discussion paper since I organized what was necessary for an academic conference then. I also have a Japanese manuscript prepared to make a presentation at a meeting open to public. The manuscript will be a booklet if I attach some photos. I want to finish them within December. A booklet will be completed within this fiscal year. I spoke on “To See Scars of War” in the meeting open to public at Nagoya University whose theme was “To See.” If I put together the discussion paper and booklet in addition to some subsequent study, the outcome can be one chapter of a book which will also be an achievement of our study group.

I am concurrently doing research on Security Policy in Turkey. This will be very important. We will deal with this issue when applying for next year’s science research fund. Also, we have already invited concerned persons. Turkey has been actively working on reconstruction assistance to Afghan and Iraq. I haven’t organized the details yet. However, when the dimension becomes clearer, I think I will be able to provide an individual theme, something like “XX in Turkey’s Reconstruction Assistance to Afghan and Iraq.”

Sato:

Mr. Kodama, Mr. Nakanishi and I wrote a book, “The First Encounter with Peace Study” to be published in December by Yuhikaku Publishing. I am not sure if Yuhikaku will buy the story of our study, but I will look for a considerate publisher about our publication.

I appreciate it if you could mention the name of our study group when you make a presentation at academic conferences. I had Mr. Sakurai write “a part of achievement of the study group” in the article of Rikkyo University’s bulletin. Please think about that, too.

* * *

Sadakata:

I am interested in the changes in U.S. Strategy and Peace Building Theory after the Cold War, or after the 9/11 terrorist attack. I am paying attention to how the peace building theory and the theory of democratization have changed when the U.S. thinks of a world order. I think I can submit two discussion papers.

Report of the Symposium

Nakanishi:

On September 30th, I made a presentation on these three points: how the framework is formed at GSID, what kind of viewpoints the peace building study group has in the research process, and about “Peace Building,” a common specialty of DICOS. It was a big event, where there were two to three hundred people in the audience. In terms of the research and development areas, presentations were conducted by Kobe University, Nagoya University, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Rikkyo University, and Kwansei Gakuin University, etc.

Sato:

Did you talk about the next step?

Nakanishi:

We didn’t mention it. The next step is not clear. After the symposium, we had a discussion with the councilors to the Foreign Office. We decided that we would regularly hold an informal meeting amongst the members and discuss future cooperation. It was also decided that this meeting would be led by the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Sato:

I have the impression that both Ministries are not working in close. They should cooperate with each other.

International Forum

Nakanishi:

I have something to tell you in connection with next year’s symposium. Nagoya University is going to hold an international forum at the Satellite Forum of the Aichi Exposition. It’s a big forum where celebrities will be invited. In that connection, I was asked to hold a symposium on a schedule close to the international forum. Basically, since the budget is tight, participants tend to make a report on study results gained through the science research fund. Are we going to report the achievement of this study group there?

Sato:

We plan to report it.

Schedule within this fiscal year

Sato:

I would like to decide on the next year’s budget at the next meeting. Please inform me of what you want to include in our budget.

We haven’t fixed the details regarding the next meeting open to public. Do you have any ideas?

Otsubo:

This could be discussed in the next meeting, but I would like you to consider who will be the members of the meeting after next year.

Sato:

We will talk about the members at the next meeting. If you know any appropriate personnel, please let me know. I think we should include more young researchers. If you find someone who is interested, please invite him/her to the meeting.

As for the next booklet, we will issue a compilation of the lecture presented by Mr. Akashi and Mr. Owada two years ago. Currently, we are asking for their approval.

Schedule of the Next

Friday, January 21st, 2005