Ok, so here's an audacious idea, summarized in an article in @just_security with @elenaisabellac.
Give local civil society a greater say in how $19b in US security assistance affects them. (Based on our recent report, linked later in this thread). https://www.justsecurity.org/74507/give-local-civil-society-a-say-in-u-s-security-assistance/
Give local civil society a greater say in how $19b in US security assistance affects them. (Based on our recent report, linked later in this thread). https://www.justsecurity.org/74507/give-local-civil-society-a-say-in-u-s-security-assistance/
Where civil society has a meaningful ability to participate in public affairs, including security issues, the US may not need to do much. But in places where civil society is restricted, the USG should consider the implications, and possibly withhold assistance altogether.
We don't argue that the US has to consult with civil society at every stage for every program in the same way. But by categorizing its engagement (involve, consult, inform, support) at different process stages, it can do it more consistently and to better effect.
People we interviewed (and our own experience) suggests that there are legitimate constraints. So we offer some principles, and some hopefully helpful guidelines for developing an approach, knowing that circumstances may always call for alternatives.
We may not have hit every issue in the right way or provided all of the right recommendations. But we believe that this is an idea that may yet catch on. Please see the entire report, and we welcome feedback. https://civiliansinconflict.org/having-their-say/
Special thanks to many who helped along the way or served as a source of inspiration ( @annieshiel @violagienger @natsecdalton @Abigail_Watson7 @NiAolainF @HolewinskiSarah)
...and too many others to name here, including those who face personal risks in just asking for a say.
...and too many others to name here, including those who face personal risks in just asking for a say.