Interactive Dialogue Seminar Project Proposal

7/27/2019 Interactive Dialogue Seminar Project Proposal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/interactive-dialogue-seminar-project-proposal 1/17

2012

Ethio-Eritrea Dialogue Group

Tel- +491632143837

Fax- +4922885073999

http://dialogue.ucoz.com/

Bonn, Germany

4/20/2012

Project Proposal for an Interactive Problem-

Solving Dialogue Seminar in Bonn, Germany

(20th to 23rd of September)



1

1. Contents

1.1.1.1. Brief overview of the issue and the source of the problem Brief overview of the issue and the source of the problem Brief overview of the issue and the source of the problem Brief overview of the issue and the source of the problem ................................................ 2222

1.1 The History of the relation between Ethiopia and Eritrea .................................... 2

1.2 The Ethio-Eritrea war (1998-2000) ...................................................................... 3

2.2.2.2. Dialogue EthioDialogue EthioDialogue EthioDialogue Ethio----Eritrea ProjectEritrea ProjectEritrea ProjectEritrea Project ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5555

2.1 The Idea behind the Dialogue seminar project ..................................................... 5

3. 3. 3. 3. Inception phase of the project:Inception phase of the project:Inception phase of the project:Inception phase of the project: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6666

3.1 The first Dialogue seminar at Roros, Norway (31st of January –11th of

February, 2005) ............................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Outcomes of the Roros dialogue seminar .............................................................. 7

3.2 The Langano interactive dialogue seminar ............................................................... 8

3.2.1 Objective of the Project ......................................................................................... 8

3.2.3 Outcome of the Langano Interactive seminar ...................................................... 10

4.4.4.4. The up The up The up The up----coming Interactive Seminar in Bonn, Germany (20coming Interactive Seminar in Bonn, Germany (20coming Interactive Seminar in Bonn, Germany (20coming Interactive Seminar in Bonn, Germany (20 th th th th----23232323rdrdrdrd

of September)of September)of September)of September) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11111111

4.1 Location of the Interactive dialogue seminar ......................................................... 12

4.2 Participants and Moderators ................................................................................... 12

4.3 Schedule and seminar program ............................................................................... 13

4.4 Budget Detail .......................................................................................................... 14

5.5.5.5. Evaluation of the Dialogue seminar projectEvaluation of the Dialogue seminar projectEvaluation of the Dialogue seminar projectEvaluation of the Dialogue seminar project ........................................................................................................................................ 15151515



2

1. Brief overview of the issue and the source of the problem

Not long ago, Ethiopia and Eritrea were engaged in war for two years (1998-

2000) that devastated peoples’ lives and deteriorated the economies of these countries.

Despite the signing of the peace agreement that brought the situation to a stalemate, there

are still possibilities that the conflicts may resume in the future as the conflict is not

permanently resolved. Among others, the war affected the interpersonal relationship

between peoples, which is very important for peace to prevail between the two nations in

the future. In addition, it also eroded the remaining trust that had been in existence

between the two nations. Besides the official efforts, there is a need to restore the people

to people relations between the two nations if sustainable solutions must be found and

peace is going to be ascertained. The two years war claimed tens of thousands of lives

and devastated the economies of the two nations exposing the peoples of Ethiopia and

Eritrea to ruthless drought and famine. Both countries cannot afford to engage in another

war, a war that claimed their loved ones and propelled them deeper into poverty.

1.1 The History of the relation between Ethiopia and Eritrea

Ethiopia and Eritrea are located in the Horn of Africa, a region that is widely

known for its instability and food insecurity. It is also categorized under the poorest

regions of the world. Most of the predicaments are related to the long and tragic wars that

were fought with in and/or among the states. This in turn has created a vast amount of

migration of specially youth people to Europe and the rest of the world.

Eritrea used to be an Italian colony for sixty years prior to its becoming united

with Ethiopia in a federation. At the battle of Adowa in 1896, Ethiopians defeated Fascist

Italy’s and stopped Italy’s expansion deep in to Ethiopian territories. It also persuaded the

then European Powers to accept Ethiopia as an independent and recognized entity in the

region. This condition provoked the necessity of defining border between colonies and

the Ethiopian empire. Italy signed successive treaties in 1900, 1902 and 1908 with

Ethiopia to clearly mark the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia. However, the term of

those treaties did not define any precise line as the definitive boundary line. Also

Eritrea’s annexation by Ethiopia in 1948 had muddied the demarcation of the border



3

since the colonial boundaries between the two were replaced by administrative

boundaries within Ethiopia.1

The forced annexation of Eritrea by the Ethiopian emperor HaileSellasie has itsown consequences. Eritrea waged a thirty years of attrition against Ethiopian dominance

– first against the Ethiopian emperor in 1962, and later against the brutal military dictator,

which overthrew the feudalistic regime of the emperor in 1974. During the reign of the

military dictator colonel Mengistu Hailemariam (1974-1991), the Ethiopian military

forces were constantly sent for expedition in the Eritrean Mountains to engage the rebels

that were mainly organized under the party called Eritrea people liberation front (EPLF).2

Lots of people died during the 30 years of war. Many were displaced and millions

of dollars were spent to support the war. The soviet aided Mengistu’s militaristic regime

was finally toppled by the forces of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic

Front (EPRDF), which were fighting against the military dictator for 17 years. At first,

EPLF and EPRDF were partners for the common interest of overthrowing Mengistu’s

regime. In 1991 EPRDF controlled the capital Addis Ababa and EPLF forces brought the

capital of Eritrea (Asmara) under their control.

In a referendum held in April 1993, two years after the demise of the Dergue

regime, Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia and got its independence. Although the borders

were not defined clearly, for a while the two nations seemed to get along fairly well.

1.2 The Ethio-Eritrea war (1998-2000)

The new governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea tried to focus on development

endeavors within the first six years of their rule. However, the relation started to

deteriorate by the end of the 1990’s and the two countries found themselves in a

battleground because of conflicting claims on a town bordering the two countries. As the

border between Ethiopia and Eritrea were earlier not delineated, the resultant controversy

over the delineation of the 620 mile common border exacerbated tensions as both states

often made conflicting claims regarding where borders should run.3

1http://www.electionworld.org/history/eritrea.htm

2http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/EthiopiaEritrea.asp

3

John prendergast, “U.S leadership in Resolving African Conflict: the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea” U.Sinstitute of peace, 2001.



4

The two years border war claimed a staggering toll in human life and suffering. It

precipitated violation of human rights and humanitarian law on both sides. Although both

sides didn’t report their own loses and exaggerated the loses of their adversary, manyestimate a staggering 100,000

4people might have died in the two years border conflict.

The conduct of the war devastated economies of the two countries contributing greatly to

the great 2003 draught that followed. This unfortunate circumstance has displaced

millions and led to deportation of tens of thousands from their place of residence.

Despite its surprise, the international community reacted quickly to the war. A US

team led by the then assistant secretary of state Susan Rice and a Rwandan team led by

the then vice president Paul Kagame was invited by both parties to assist in preventing

further escalation. This effort failed to resolve the conflict, as both parties to the war did

not accept it. Consequently, a US team led by national security advisor Anthony Lake as

a special envoy collaborated with the then Organization of African Unity to continue with

the effort of US-Rwandan peace proposal. Algeria played a significant role in bringing

the two countries in to a round table discussion to refrain themselves from the devastating

war they were engaged in. On the 18th

of June 2000, the two parties finally signed the

Algiers agreement on cessation of hostilities. The parties reaffirmed their acceptance of

the OAU’s framework agreement and modalities for both parties to return to their

original position they controlled before the breaking out of the war. A 25 km wide buffer

zone was established for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to operate and

prevent further escalation of war. According to the Algiers agreement the two countries

took their border claims to the international border commission. The boundary

commission delivered its ruling on the delimitation of the border on the 13th

of April,

2002. Both governments declared their acceptance, with each claiming that it was in their

favor. However, the source of confusion was the decision itself, which did not identify

coordinates for the village of Badme.5

The commission clarified on March 28, 2003, that

the area known as Badme was inside Eritrea. The Algiers agreement spelled out that the

decision of the commission would be final and binding. Even if it was hard for the

Ethiopian side to accept the decision of the commission, it was bought in front of the

parliament and Ethiopia accepted the decision in principle. This was taken as a great step

4

According to BBC News5 Africa Confidential, Vo.44, No. 15, 25 July 2003, p.1



5

towards the peaceful resolution of the dispute between the two nations, although, the

decision is not still implemented and the conflict is not completely resolved. It is still

believed that the perplexing war between Ethiopia and Eritrea is now in a stalemate. Thetension is still present and the escalation of yet another border conflict between the two

countries is imminent.

2. Dialogue Ethio-Eritrea Project

In light of this devastating conflict, the dialogue group of Ethiopia and Eritrea

aims to facilitate communication and interaction between the youth of Ethiopia and

Eritrea and create a space for initiating dialogue. This effort is in line with concept of

Multi-track diplomacy that promotes system based approach to peace-building through

communication between community members of conflicting parties. It facilitates the

transformation of deep-rooted social conflict through education, conflict resolution

training and communication. Our project objective is to create a stage for the youth to

dialogue, educate and train themselves in the different skills of conflict resolution and

communication. This process is expected to make a generational difference and help

participants to view the different dimensions of the conflict.

2.1 The Idea behind the Dialogue seminar project

As future leaders of their communities, students stand as important parts of the

society. Bringing students from both Ethiopia and Eritrea together and organizing a stage

where they can exchange thoughts and share their feelings about the conflict will pave the

way for a better understanding of the war and among themselves. It also helps ease the

trauma of war and the feeling of hatred that could be carried on through generations. In

his book, the bridge over the Drina, the Yugoslav Nobel prize-winning novelist Andrić

(1945/1994) described that violence and hate take a generational cycle and unless this

vicious circle is broken new rounds of violence is just a matter of time.6

Students can

play significant role in breaking this vicious circle of violence. All we need is to have the

6Andrić , I.(1994). The bridge over the Drina. London: Harvill/Harper Collins.



6

appropriate tools to deal with conflicts and ways to transform them into something

constructive.

Currently, the dialogue group is engaged in organizing consecutive and sustainedinteractive dialogue seminars to bring the youth together to discuss conflict and how to

resolve them constructively. It is also networking students via social network mediums.

This communications involve wide range of individuals and cover different geographical

locations. Consequently, the dialogue group has managed to establish internet virtual

international forums in different platforms such as the organization’s own website,

Facebook and yahoo groups. Additionally the dialogue group website has other features

such as

Pages, to create links with donors, partner organizations and interested non-

student individuals

Forums, news, archives and different publications

And possible People search, to bring together broken families residing at different

sides of the conflict.

3. Inception phase of the project:

3.1 The first Dialogue seminar at Roros, Norway (31st of January –11th of

February, 2005)

The first Dialogue Groups Seminar took place in a remote mountainous area

called Roros in Norway. The seminar was held from the 31st of January to the 11th of

February 2005 in a small cabin up in the mountains of Roros. Roros is a historical oldmining town in Norway registered among UNESCO’s great world heritages.

The Dialogue Groups Seminar 2005 was part of the International Student Festival

in Trondheim (ISFiT). ISFiT is one of the biggest international student festivals around

the globe. Every two years, ISFiT organizes a festival where approximately 450 students

from almost 100 countries meet together to discuss about important issues.



7

As part of the ISFiT program, the Dialogue Groups Seminar invites students from

different conflicting countries to engage them with dialogue hence they can create

understanding among themselves and work together in bringing sustainable peace and

stability in their areas.

In 2005, the Dialogue Groups Seminar invited students from six different

countries. These students were grouped in to three. And the Ethio-Eritrea group was one

of it. The dialogue organized by ISFiT brought us, students, to talk about these conflicts

and work on future possibilities for sustainable peace between nations. We came to the

understanding that for the two countries themselves, a prompt and permanent settlement

of peace will bring huge benefits. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea will be able, instead, to

combat famine and poverty, which are currently plaguing the two nations. Peace and

security brings with it economic growth and development, better harvests and more

rational utilization of resources.

3.1.1 Outcomes of the Roros dialogue seminar

One of the issues we raised during the discussion was how we students can

contribute our share to the peace-building endeavor that’s going on between the two

countries. We believe that there is a lot that can be done by students of Ethiopia and

Eritrea. One of the things that students can do is to establish a network. Through this

network it is possible to arrange a platform where students of both countries can meet to

discuss on hot issues that really concern them. And by creating or seizing already existing

opportunities, students can have a dialogue where they can build understanding and good



8

faith among themselves. We are in the 21st Century and it is indubitable that the future

leaders of our world will come from schools and higher institutions. And if we can create

a good relationship among students of our today’s world then we can be sure thattomorrow’s leaders of the planet earth will have a better understanding of each other.

Students may have different opinions on different issues. And it’s not wrong to have

differences of opinions but what is dangerous is to use those differences as causes for

violent conflicts that will lead to confrontation. We can work on our similarities and

shared ideas while retaining our differences. Our aim is to see a developed Ethiopia and

Eritrea. But witnessing development presupposes peace. And peace in turn necessitates

understanding others point of view and acknowledging that it can be different from once

own. That’s why we said that we have to first establish a network of understanding

between the students of the two countries.

The other point we raised during the Dialogue Groups Seminar is to work down at

a grassroots level and convince our societies that the two nations can have peace if they

(the societies) can avoid hostilities that they show to one another. Although the

immediate cause of the conflict is the border dispute, we do not believe that solving the

border conflict alone will ensure a long lasting and sustainable peace between the two

countries, unless the entrenched feeling of hatred is dismantled. Otherwise, only causes

will differ but there will definitely be another conflict at some time “T”. So enrolling the

society at large in the peace building and maintaining process is imperative. And in this

endeavor too, there is a lot that students and the youth can do once they mobilize

themselves.

3.2 The Langano interactive dialogue seminar (May 16th

to May 19th

2006)

3.2.1 Objective of the Project

The Langano interactive dialogue seminar took place in Langano, Ethiopia from

March 16th

till March 19th

2006. It aimed at providing a stage for students and youth to

find out creative ways of problem solving. The seminar was held in the form of

interactive workshop that involves social activities and role-playing. The seminar is not

similar to the traditional lecture type meetings rather it’s in the form collaborative,

discussion type and problem solving approach. The seminar was held in an isolated and



9

relaxed environment, which serves as means to bring about a more open and relaxed state

of mind where new ideas and behavior can find place.

The dialogue seminar initiated ideals that revolved around: -

Fostering friendships, between the students of Ethiopia and Eritrea through

seminars, forums, exchange programs.

Finding ways to restore the trust they had between each other before the breaking

out of war.

Facilitate a stage where students from the two nations could come together and

look for possible solutions for the current predicament.

3.2.2 Organization and planning

The Langano dialogue seminar was organized by four students from Ethiopia and

Norway. This also symbolizes the Euro-African partnership in an attempt to bring about

sustainable peace and stability that benefits both the communities in Europe and Africa.

As the seminar was a continuation to the Roros dialogue seminar and aims to address

similar issue we used comparable arrangements and group of facilitators. The two

Norwegian facilitators were also leaders of the Ethio-Eritrean sub group at the Roros

dialogue seminar. The Norwegian facilitators used their networks to acquire sufficient

funds and raise money for the dialogue seminar. They also arranged practical support for

the Langano seminar from their place of residence, Norway.

The other two facilitators from Ethiopia were also participants at the Roros

seminar in the Ethio-Eritrean sub group. Practical arrangements and coordination for the



10

Langano seminar was a responsibility for the two Ethiopian facilitators. Practical issues

such as planning and arranging suitable location, selecting and inviting participants and

arranging transportation and accommodation was done by the two Ethiopian participants.Coordinating the Langano interactive dialogue seminar required intensive

communication, careful planning and execution on the part of the facilitators. E-mails

needed to be exchanged back and forth for details that ought to be carefully considered

both in Norway and Ethiopia.

On March 11th 2006, two of the facilitators from Norway arrived in Addis.

Starting from the next day further detailed planning and practice went on according to the

program schedule and exercises. The days starting from March 11th

to 15th

were partly a

training session for Ethiopian facilitators to build their capacity in facilitating the

dialogue seminar. Those days also witnessed final preparations and integrating missing

components that made the Langano seminar more colorful and enjoyable.

3.2.3 Outcome of the Langano Interactive seminar

The main outcome of the Langano Interactive Dialogue was a creation of network

of students in Ethiopia that have genuine interest in building peace and erecting a bridge

between the youth of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Interactive seminar was successful in

achieving its goal of deliberating on verities of skills and methods in which conflict will

be resolved and transformed in non-violent ways.

In the first three days we worked on creative and fun ways of get acquainted to

each other and building a trust and understanding among ourselves. This was done

through different forms of animations and role playing. We then moved on developing

our skills of active listening and communication. Furthermore, awareness was created on

how stereotyping, prejudice and misconceptions can be a barrier to effective

communication and dialogue. On the third day, we moved on to identifying signs of

peace and basic needs of individuals. We had a very constructive and interesting

discussion on this very basic question and found out that the basics were not as simple as

we mostly regard them to be.

On the last day of the interactive problem solving dialogue seminar we actually

began to discuss about the real conflict and found out that the way we noticed a



11

difference in how we dealt with the conflict. We have also agreed that students and the

youth have things to contribute for the successful resolution of conflicts in our region and

they should be part of the effort to bring peace in war prone Horn of Africa. We the youthare the major bearers of the disadvantages associated with violent conflicts and we should

be one of the major stakeholders in its sustainable resolution. The dialogue seminar was

finalized by setting out practical action plans for the coming years to increase the

interaction of the youth of Ethiopia and Eritrea. As physical barriers exist between us to

meet face to face and discuss, we agreed to have our interactions and communications

virtually via internet and social network sites. This will help us overcome barriers relate

to time and space that actually needed to be overcome. We have also confirmed that we

will exploit future possibilities to organize yet another interactive dialoged seminar on a

third state to set up neutral grounds for both Ethiopian and Eritrean students to come face

to face and work on the current predicament that existed between the two great nations.

4. The up-coming Interactive Seminar in Bonn, Germany (20th

-23rd

of September)

The Bonn Interactive dialogue seminar is the result of the promise that was made inthe Langano interactive dialogue seminar. It will attempt to bring participants from

Ethiopia and Eritrea to work for peace. The Seminar will take place between 20th

and 23rd

of September 2012 in the city of Bonn, Germany. Students and youth from Ethiopia and

Eritrea will be invited to live together for few days and to interact and get to know the

other side’s point of view and at the same time we will look at the conflict, its dimensions

and if there are ways to resolve it constructively. This process will also constitute a

research in dealing with conflicts in a multi-track fashion. The hope is that these

youngsters will be inspired enough to deal with the conflict resolution and view the

predicament that exists between these nations in a different way. They might develop to

view the other persons ideas are not so different from theirs and the main obstacle

(enemy) is the misunderstanding or lack of dialogue.



14

4.4 Budget Detail

Remarks: -

All expenses are estimates calculated in Euro.

Most of the participants in the interactive seminar will be Students. Therefore,

costs for basic requirements during the seminar are covered from the funds we

acquire from different sources.

The project fund will cover expenses for facilitators and guests to the seminar.

There will not be salaries paid to facilitators or guests. Their involvement is

out of volunteer contribution for the success of the initiative.

Administering expenses and financial auditing will be done by a group of

people consisting of event organizers and representatives from the funding

organization.

ESTIMATED BUDGET - ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT

Payments Unit# of

units

Average

unit rate

(€)

# of

participa

nts

Estimate

d

budget

(€)

1. Per diems

1

1.1 Hotel expenses (nights x unit rate x

participants) Per night 920

1.2 Lunches (lunches x unit rate x participants) Per lunch 5 5 75 300

1.3 Dinners (dinners x unit rate x participants)

Per

dinner 5 5 75 225

1.4 Coffee breaks (breaks x unit rate x

participants) Per break 2 2 30 240

Subtotal Per diems 1685

2. Travel

2.1 National participants (return trip x unit rate

x participants) Per trip 80 150 2250 5500



15

2.2 Local transport (coach hire) Per day 500

2.3 Local transport (taxi) (trips x unit rate x

participants) Per trip

Subtotal Travel 60003. Rent of hall, interpretation and

translation

3.1 Rent of hall (days x unit rate) Per day

3.2 Rent of interpretation equipment (days x

unit rate) Per day

3.3 Interpretation services (days x unit rate x

interpreters) Per day

3.4 Translation (pages x unit rate) Per page

Subtotal Rent of hall, interpretation and

translation

4. Publications and printed material4.1 Publications (editing) (item x unit rate) Per item

4.2 Publications (printing) (item x unit rate xcopies) Per item 100

Subtotal Publications and printed material 100

5. Other (specify)

5.1 specify Specify

5.2 specify Specify

Subtotal Other

6. Administrative fees

6.1 Stationery supplies Per event 170

6.2 Other services (tel/fax, mail, copies) Per event 120Subtotal Administrative fees 290

Total project costs (1-6) 8,075 €

* Of the above stated estimate of the project expenditure the North-South Centre

(Council of Europe) funding will cover part of the travel expenses of participants in

amount of 1,000 Euro.

5. Evaluation of the Dialogue seminar project

Monitoring and evaluation activities are integral part of the overall project. It is

important because it gives us clues as to the quality and sustainability of the activities

performed. Constant monitoring helps us identify variances if indeed they exist and it

makes it easer to come up with possible recommendations. We believe this way it gives



16

us opportunity to take timely measures and to draw lessons that will give us support in

developing and implementing upcoming events.

Monitoring and evaluation are mirror images and reflection of our actual

implementation. Its proper application confirms us economic use of our resources that

are allotted for the specific activity. It is beneficial to conduct monitoring and evaluation

processes in a scheduled manner and we need to put in action its findings.

The dialogue seminar will have two types of monitoring and evaluation schedules.

The first type of evaluation is conducted at the end of every seminar day. Facilitators and

participants will have time at the end of every seminar day to evaluate all the activities

performed throughout the day.

The second type of evaluation is scheduled at the final day of the dialogue

seminar. Participants and facilitators will discuss about the overall activities of the

dialogue seminar. We expect to get feedbacks from the participants at this last day and

facilitators will deliver their reports on how the dialogue seminar went on and how

effective it was. Participants also need to come up with action proposals for their future

activities. These activities are expected to revolve around organizing members of their

communities who share visions similar to ours.

Interactive Dialogue Seminar Project Proposal

Documents

Transcript of Interactive Dialogue Seminar Project Proposal