Conflict Prevention

“Natural resource issues are rising on the agenda of traditional security actors,” Ferenz said. Pointing to recent commentaries by members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities on resource shocks as drivers of economic and political crises as well as of regional tensions, she added: “The three issues where there are clear disagreements between China and the U.S. are maritime security, trade and Tibet. All three of those have underlying resource conflicts attached to them.”

Groff made several key points concerning the increased role water will have in human security, emphasizing what he called “a crisis around governance” and highlighting the role the private sector can play when appropriate policies and accountability frameworks are in place. He also noted the increased awareness of the complex challenges facing water governance.

“A lot of our institutions have begun to realize that you don’t just think about water in terms of scarcity or in isolation,” Groff said, noting that this will require intensive policy dialogue with governments. “With nexus kinds of things, it’s harder to do the math around it, and it’s harder to make the case for the math.”

Kőrösi stressed the importance of building networks of cooperation within nations and between nations. He also highlighted some of the operational challenges, noting that there must be an exponential increase in the number of water experts in much of the developing world in order to head off a global disaster.

Roundtable participants, representing diverse organizations, offered expert perspectives from their fields. Annette Huber-Lee, until recently the director of the Asia Center at the Stockholm Environment Institute, made the point that scientists have to emerge from their silos to address these cross-cutting challenges. “The scientists studying water must confer with those studying energy, as we all know their findings and studies influence each other,” Huber-Lee said.

Panel members also offered concrete examples of areas in which progress has been made. Groff said that within the past decade the ADB has integrated climate-resilience in its infrastructure investments while regional energy cooperation has made strides in Asia.

Others pointed out that the pace of change is often the fastest at the local level where choosing the right terms of engagement can have a big impact. According to Mandy Ikert, director of the Water and Adaptation Initiative of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, cities are now more willing to work together to create an environment of global sharing. “In many cities it may not be politically favorable to talk about climate change, but you can re-brand it to things that make sense to them locally,” Ikert explained.

Her organization currently facilitates technology exchange between Beijing and New York City, as Beijing searches for a means to employ a zero-energy fresh water supply system.

“We have Beijing that is solely reliant on one remaining clear reservoir working now with New York to determine whether they can actually have-zero energy fresh water supply as New York does,” Ikert added. “There’s a lot of global sharing happening at the local level.”

View more photos from the event on our Flickr page. 

The peer-to-peer exchange, which included U.S. legislators and women parliamentarians from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey focused on promoting women as agents of change in political life, conflict prevention and peace-building."

The write-up notes, "the most pressing policy goal identified by leaders from the Middle East region was ensuring the protection of Afghan women’s rights following the withdrawal of U.S. and international security forces in 2014."

To read full published article, click here.

To read EWI’s report on the event, click here.

The High-Level Security Dialogue is an annual dialogue between current and former government and military officials, U.S. and Chinese academics and business leaders. The goal of the dialogue is to generate concrete recommendations to policymakers in both countries on building a common vision for the bilateral relationship; promoting mutual long-term trust and confidence; and fostering cooperation in challenging areas within the relationship.

The key discussions during the week focused on a wide range of geopolitical and military issues, including the forging of “a new type of relationship between major countries,” Taiwan, nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas, U.S.-China military confidence-building in the Asia-Pacific and cybersecurity.

To read more about the event, click here.  

As part of their “Women, Peace and Security” partnership, EWI’s Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention and Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) brought together U.S. state legislators and international parliamentarians in Ankara on May 28-30. The purpose of this meeting was to help participants learn from the experiences of Turkish women leaders, and explore ways in which women leaders can better support one another globally. Women in Turkey have successfully gained a place at the highest levels of government.

"We struggle in a different way, but we struggle with the same issues" responded one of the U.S. legislators upon hearing accounts of the difficulties women have in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of the positive outcomes of this meeting was that members of the U.S. delegation committed to take up the issue of the security needs of women with their respective members in Congress.

Ten U.S. state legislators and six participants hailing from Afghanistan, Morocco, Pakistan and Tunisia gathered for a series of dialogues with Deputy Minister for Family and Social Policy Dr. Aşkın Asan as well as with Turkish parliamentary committees. The aim of the partnership is to create better understanding between these female legislators, to forge personal ties and to educate them on various models and tools available to increase the role each of these women can play in their respective security debates.

The delegation was briefed on the developments in Morocco, which largely escaped the massive demonstrations that the MENA region experienced throughout the Arab Awakening. All eyes are now on Tunisia, which will be voting on its new constitution in a few weeks. The outcome of this process will be pivotal in determining the success of the regional revolution.

In debating the barriers to women reaching the higher levels of policy making, the delegation quizzed Deputy Minister Asan. Particularly, they wanted to know what steps the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is taking to promote the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, adopted in 2000. The resolution requires United Nations member states to incorporate women into peace processes and negotiations.

A conference held in Istanbul two years ago entitled “Change in Muslim Societies and the Role of Women” produced an agreement on the establishment of a gender-equality institute, but unfortunately the rhetorical support for the creation of this institute has not been followed up by concrete steps. The partnership will seek to further press governments on the implementation of this agreement and will seek to establish a relationship with the Parliamentary Union of the OIC member States (PUIC) to further engage women in the vital debates on conflict prevention, peace and security.

Click here to read a write-up by one of the event's participants, in the Georgia Senate Press. 

Ambassador Peter Wittig opened the event calling cybersecurity “a major cross-cutting issue of foreign policy,” where “the stakes are too high and too many lives are at risk for a mere laissez-faire approach.” He admitted that cyber issues are rarely discussed within the UN and that this must change.

Wittig called for a “framework for lawful state conduct in cyberspace. We should have clarity about the rules and norms that apply in cyberspace.” The panelists focused on just that in a lively debate that engendered many questions from the audience.

The panelists were James Lewis, senior fellow and program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, D.C.; Sandro Gaycken, researcher in technology and security, Institute of Computer Science, Freie Universität, Berlin; and Cherian Samuel, associate fellow, Strategic Technologies Centre, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. Colum Lynch, UN correspondent for the Washington Post and blogger for Foreign Policy moderated.

All panelists agreed that current strategies for cybersecurity are not working; they differed however, in their long range views of how to tackle this immeasurable problem.

Gaycken stated that because attribution is so difficult to determine in cyber incidents, he believes that applying international laws that already exist in the military, aviation or similar spheres will not be effective, and that other paths of containment must be explored. This, he emphasized, is especially true in light of almost daily advancing technological capabilities.

Speaking from the perspective of the hacker, Gaycken said, “It’s very unlikely that anything you do will be discovered…and you’re not being identified, so you’re out of risk. Not much is going to happen to you if you do it right.” He continued, “So that’s something that all of these nations must consider—getting the golden key to all these castles. That was simply not possible before.”

Lewis countered this argument using a graffiti analogy. “Even though most times no one sees the spray painter who defaces property with graffiti, there are still laws against it. Eventually the spray painter is identified and prosecuted. The same with hackers—there still must be laws that are and will be enforceable and we should continue working toward that.”

Samuel spoke to the urgency of this work, as he reminded the audience that India has the third largest Internet-driven market in the world. “Bad guys are taking advantage of the fact that nation states are not tackling cybersecurity in more effective ways. We have the same problems as other countries but of course on a much larger scale.”

To that point, Lewis stressed that, “Government is better at addressing certain issues, while the private sector is better able to handle others. That is why it is essential to have both at the table working in tandem.”

EWI President John Mroz concluded the event with a summation of main points, stressing that there must be global cooperation on this frontier, and that this event is the first in what will be a series of co-sponsored cyber panels with the German mission.

“Nobody knows how big the cybersecurity problem is, and that is why it is essential that we continue this dialogue and work together for tangible solutions,” Mroz stated.

To read Huffington Post's blog on the event, click here. 

To view pictures from the event, click here. 

On June 7-8, President Obama will meet with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a desert retreat in southern California. In what is touted as a “shirt-sleeves” summit, the informal meeting will dispense with the pomp and circumstance usually reserved for a state visit in favor of relaxed, less scripted discussions. The summit will be Xi’s first visit to the U.S. since assuming the triumvirate of posts at the apogee of China’s leadership: general-secretary of the Communist Party, chairman of the Central Military Commission, and head of state.

By design, the visit will lack a rigid agenda. However, there are several areas of common interest that the two presidents should explore during the visit. First and foremost, Beijing appears to be more inclined to engage in meaningful discussions on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. China recently ratcheted up pressure on North Korea and increasingly acknowledges the harm that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs present for China’s strategic interests. China has also expressed an interest in participation in negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that many in China previously felt was designed to exclude Beijing.

A more contentious issue that Obama will likely bring up is that of cybersecurity and the theft of intellectual property. Last month, the U.S. Defense Department released a report that accused Chinese hackers of accessing data from over two dozen weapons systems. The report comes on the heels of an earlier report by a U.S. security firm that exposed a specialized unit within the People’s Liberation Army that had penetrated the networks of over a hundred companies.

President Xi, on the other hand, will undoubtedly focus on the U.S. rebalancing efforts in Asia and the maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas. Competing claims between China and at least six other countries in the region over scattered islands and their resources have created an ominous flashpoint. Although the U.S. has no territorial claims in the region, Beijing likens U.S. defense commitments as a threatening containment strategy directed against China.

Given the informality of the visit, few expect the discussions to yield a joint statement or other major policy announcement. However, both the Obama and Xi administrations view the summit as an opportunity for the two leaders to develop a personal rapport and gain a better understanding of each other’s positions and intentions. The relaxed setting will allow Presidents Obama and Xi to move beyond scripted talking points and exchange views on the difficult strategic issues that challenge the bilateral relationship.

Though it would be imprudent to expect Obama and Xi to become the best of friends, the two leaders would be wise to utilize the visit to assuage some of the doubts and ambiguities that the other may have. President Obama should explain America’s strategy and goals within the context of the Asia-Pacific rebalance. Likewise, President Xi must flesh out the “new-type great-power relationship” that his administration calls for between the U.S. and China. During two days of discussions without suits and ties, Obama and Xi will have the opportunity to accomplish just that.

Notwithstanding PPP and ANP desperately trying to avoid impending rout by delaying the electoral process, approximately 86 million people will be eligible to decide the country’s fate on Saturday May 11, 2013.

Kayani put to rest widespread doubts by reiterating the army’s commitment supporting the election schedule, 70000 troops fanning out to deploy in sensitive areas. 35 million voters of the 80 eligible (about 44%) exercised their right in 2008.  Alongwith fake degrees a greater number of votes (37 million, 46%) being bogus and/or duplicate undermined the credibility of the “elected” Assemblies and served to show the disfigured face of our “democracy”. These “anomalies” have now been removed, to an extent.  Given the ineffectiveness of the due diligence conducted by the ECP, these frauds will be soon be back in Parliament.

The voting percentage represents the barometer of the will of the people, it is impossible to quantify whether the aspirations of the people desperate for change will be translated into votes.  Whoever thought up the idea of launching the movie “Chambeli” at this particular time has a genius for impact and sheer timing.  The spontaneous reaction of the audience captures the deep resentment against the existing feudal system, coincidence that the content and theme is synonymous with Imran Khan’s message?  With a majority of youth and women already vowing for him, Imran Khan has woken up dormant society, will his unfortunate injury galvanize the populace to vote the difference for this nation, his party and for himself on May 11?

Constant terrorist attacks notwithstanding, about 43 million (nearly 50%), are expected to turn out.  17 million (20%) voters ages 18 - 25 years and women across the age divide being very visibly enthused may cross the 45 million voters (52%) mark.  Coincidentally 17 million now between the ages 51-70 were in the age group 18-25 in rooting for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1970 in the vain hope of acquiring “Roti, Kapra aur Makan”.   PPP, MQM and ANP candidates are being targetted by terrorists as “liberals” but other parties are also being attacked, JUI (F) lost 25 killed in Kurram Agency this Sunday and 5 in Hangu a day later. PPP, ANP and PML (Q) stand to become politically “endangered species” on May 11, only the MQM vote bank (about 2.5 million) remains intact. Notwithstanding the excellent Benazir Income Support Program (BISP) initiative, discredited and in disarray, PPP will be lucky to get close to their 10 million tally in 2008.  Most of 2008’s 8 million PML (Q) votes will return to PML (N), ANP registering far less than their half million plus votes in 2008.  PTI stands to match the PML(N) popular vote estimated at about 14 million votes (6.7 million in 2008). JUI (F) and JI will each poll half a million plus with “independents” getting 5-6 million votes.

The Federal capital has 0.6 million (0.33 males 0.27 females) voting for 2 NA seats and FATA 1.75 million (1.15 males 0.59 females) for its 12 NA seats. The 61 NA seats in Sindh voted for by 18.7 million voters (10.3 males, 8.4 females) are divided demographically along rural, urban and urban-rural constituencies. Primarily due pre-poll rigging PPP will still retain 27 or so NA rural seats. PML (F) alliance with nationalists and PML (N) could manage upto 9-10 seats, MQM will retain its 19 urban seats, PML (N) two with a seat each for ANP and PML (Q).  PPP will lead the Provincial coalition with MQM and ANP as partners.

Wooing 3.34 million (1.9 males 1.4 females) voters for 14 NA seats in Balochistan are PML (N), Balochistan National Party (BNP) headed by Akhtar Mengal, Mehmood Khan Achakzai’s Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP), JUI (F) and Hasil Khan Bizenjo’s National Party (NP), NA contenders include JUI (Nazaryati) (separated from JUI (F)) and Bugti’s Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP).  PML (N) may get 3 seats, BNP, PKMAP, JUI (F) and NP 2 each, and 1 seat each for JUI (N), JWP and independent.  The Provincial coalition is up for sale!

Faced with a meltdown, ANP are citing security fears.  The battle-fatigue of the 12.3 million (7.04 males 5.3 females) KPK electorate has been force-multiplied by blatant corruption. ANP may at best win 4-5 NA seats out of 35 NA seats and maybe 12-15 PA seats. Gaining most from ANP’s misery, PTI will take some seats also from PPP, collecting between 12-15 NA seats. PPP will retain 5-6 seats.   Its Hazara stronghold should get PML (N)  7-8 NA seats overall, JUI will have 4-5 seats, one each for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Aftab Sherpao.  PTI could lead the Provincial coalition but so could PML (N) if PTI cannot get the numbers together.

Nearly 49 million voters (27.6 males 21.4 females) will battle for 148 NA seats in the Punjab.  PPP will manage around 18-20 NA seats with PML (Q) getting 10-12 NA “electables”, about 10 will go to independents.  PML (N) should get 80 seats and PTI 50 on the 2008 pattern.   If near 50% vote, it will tilt towards PTI, PML (N) could have 70 and PTI 65 NA seats.  The Punjab Provincial elections is presently a toss-up.  PPP will peak at 40-45 seats with PML (Q) bagging 15 and MQM 19 NA seats, JUI (F) 7 and JI about 5 seats. There may be 12-15 independents.   With five million possible overseas voters eligible, Imran’s tally could have gone up by 3.5 million if ECP had not denied the Pakistani diaspora abroad their right of vote.

Adding independents, either party will need the magic 100 plus seats to lead a coalition government.  While there is virtually no difference ideologically between PML (N) and PTI bad-mouthing between  PML (N) and PTI has been quite vicious and quite unnecessary. Having been outmaneuvered time and again by Zardari’s duplicity, can Nawaz Sharif rely on the reliably unreliable? Moreover the pound of flesh Zardari will extract will be a political price (re-election as President) almost impossible for PML (N) to pay. Whatever way one looks at it, whether PML (N) is in front or PTI is, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan must come together.

The nightmare of the last five years was symbolised by the rule of law being broken by the rulers as their convoluted version of governance, something highlighted in “Chambeli”.  Despite his grievous head and back injuries Imran Khan gave a dramatic and emotional appeal to the people from his hospital bed, “I have done what I have to do, that was my responsibility.  Now you do what is your responsibility.”  Observers agree that the wave of sympathy for him and his exhortation for the people to change their destiny by going to vote on May 11 will encourage them to flock to the polls. The fact of his electronic media appearance from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on prime TV in contrast to his opponents will help PTI.  We are on the verge of salvation, the Sharif’s spontaneous reaction to Imran’s injury, Mian Sahib’s suspending of his campaign for a day, shows compromise is possible by recognizing each other’s popular mandate and working out an amicable relationship to ensure good governance.  Only adherence to the rule of law will usher in the peace and prosperity that the people of this country have been denied and badly deserve. 

Imran’s injury, though unfortunate, is the game changer for compromise badly needed in Pakistan politics.  There is a time to fight and a time to unite!

To read full published article click here.

“It's all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, ‘Huh? What?’ You yell shark, we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July.” In the summer of 1975, the budding auteur, Steven Spielberg, created a virtual panic at America’s beaches with ingeniously crafted screen images of a certain Great White Fish.  The top Chinese official of the People’s Liberation Army, General Fang Fenghui, created his own Jaws effect when he recently announced that the consequences of a major cyber attack “may be as serious as a nuclear bomb. ”You yell cyber everybody says, ‘Huh? What?’ You yell nuclear, we’ve got a panic on our hands…"

While I do not want to accuse General Fang Fenghui of a plot to manipulate public perception and trigger a cyber hysteria, his remarks are symptomatic of the global uncertainty surrounding the results of a ‘major cyber attack.’ The simple truth is we do not know the likely consequences of such an attack as there has not been a full-scale cyber war to trigger major strategic cyber attacks. Even if total cyber war should break out, cyber weapons, while destructive, “appear to have nowhere near the ability to inflict catastrophic destruction along the lines of a major nuclear attack,” as Andrew F. Krepenevich stated in a report on cyber warfare.

For example, US power grid systems (SCADA systems) are highly centralized, divided into three separate power grids—the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas Interconnection. Ninety percent of the Defense Department’s critical infrastructure is dependent upon power from these networks.  Military exercises have indicated that even a single cyber strike could disable any of the three grids not to mention the myriad consequences for civilian life. One expert  spelled out the potential fallout in congressional testimony in April 2012:

When transformers fail, so too will water distribution, transportation, communications, and many emergency and government services. Given the 12-month lead time typically required to replace a damaged transformer with a new one, the local and regional economic and societal disruption caused by cyber attacks that that disable or destroy the mechanical functioning of key components of the power grid would be devastating.

The possible consequences of such an event combined with cyber attacks on the financial and transportation sector have been mapped out in various scenarios demonstrating the crippling ripple effect of such an assault. But even the most extreme predictions do not approach the human catastrophe of a nuclear detonation in Manhattan and the instant incineration of a million or more people. Comparatively, a major cyber attack might be dramatized as the menacing threat of a Giant Squid, which would require all of the cinematic artifice of the mature Spielberg to effectively magnify the danger in a screen spectacle dubbed Tentacles.

History provides us a vivid example about the impossibility of determining the impact of a new dimension of warfare on the outcome of a conflict. Contrary to some current thinking, the contemporary technological context of war does not so much resemble the 1950s as the 1930s and the evolution of air power and air power strategy. In 1921, Guilio Douhet argued in his The Command of the Air that air power was revolutionary because it operated in the third dimension setting of a decade long debate about the impact of airplanes on warfare. He argued that since aircrafts could fly over ground forces, they would relegate land soldiers to secondary importance. The vastness of the sky made defense almost impossible, so the essence of air power was the offensive. The only defense was a good offense (similar to the United States Cyber Command active defense doctrine. The psychological effect of German bombing on France and Great Britain during the First World War led to an exaggerated fear of the capabilities of air power in Western Europe. British Prime Minister Baldwin stated in 1932 that “the bomber would always get through,” and the fear of Germany’s “knockout blow" against Paris or Britain led to a frenzied search for solutions.

The actual course of the war showed however that much of the fear of airpower was exaggerated. As a matter of fact, “the bombers did not always get through.”  The German air force lost the Battle of Britain and the air war over Germany and Japan—although important and lethal—was not decisive in the outcome of the war.  The British Royal Force, the German Luftwaffe and the United States Air Force did not achieve their strategic or operational objectives; air power supported, but could not replace, boots on the ground.

The true strategic impact of cyber weapons also may fall below expectations in a future war. Any historical analogy has its limits however.  General Fang Fenghui’s rhetoric expresses the palpable fear in both China and the United States of the intrinsic vulnerability of their respective economies and critical information infrastructures to strategic cyber strikes.

Some long-time students of Chinese military policy take Fang's warning very seriously, although not at face value. Dr. Greg Austin, a Professorial Fellow at the EastWest Institute, reminds us that in 1996 Professor Joseph Nye and Admiral Bill Owens together warned that the advent of information weapons and infrastructure may affect strategic deterrence. Says Austin, "those who relegate information warfare to an artificial and compartmented construct similar to air power are ignoring how overarching strategies for information dominance, held both by China and the United States, have altered the calculus of risk for use of a nuclear missile strike." The trouble with this view, credible as it maybe, is that we can't see the physical evidence in the public domain. We need to be able to access some part of the substance of this new and evolving theater of cyber warfare before we can see more clearly what will land “on the beach” of our fears. 

Click here to read this piece on foreignpolicyblogs.com.

“One of the most significant influencers in my life has been Kathryn Davis,” EWI President John Mroz declared. “Up until a week before her passing we were talking about the global situation. Her clarity of mind and purpose—believing fervently in our ability to make this a more peaceful world—was an enormous positive force for so many of us in the field. EWI is a more effective institution because of Kathryn. The world is a better and safer place. Moreover, many of us will keep working as we have driven in large measure by what we learned from Kathryn. She will be sorely missed.”

“Nothing made her happier than utilizing her time, talent, and treasure to engage young minds in an effort to promote world peace,” her daughter Diana Davis Spencer pointed out.

An expert on Russian affairs, Davis discovered a passion for international affairs during her first trip to Russia in 1929.  As The New York Times reported in 1998, “Davis rode on horseback deep into the Caucasus Mountains in search of adventure and an obscure Muslim tribe, subsisted on berries and goats, almost starved, and conceived a lifelong passion for things Soviet and Russian.”

Her doctoral thesis, which was published by Librairie Kundig as a book in 1934, was titled The Soviets at Geneva: The USSR and the League of Nations, 1919-1933. Davis returned to Russia many times and  developed strong relationships with Russian leaders. She celebrated her 95^th birthday with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Davis pledged $10 million to the Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard, providing a badly needed boost to Russian studies that have seen a general drop in support since the end of the Cold War. She also pledged $11 million to her alma mater, Wellesley College, for international exchange programs with a particular emphasis on countries of the former Soviet bloc.

Davis receives EWI's Peace and Conflict Prevention Prize in 2006.

In the post-Cold War age, Davis remained as passionate as ever about her commitment to disarmament and a further lessening of global tensions. “My challenge to you is to bring about new ideas for preparing for peace instead of preparing for war,” she told the EastWest Institute’s board of directors when she accepted EWI’s 2006 Peace and Conflict Prevention Prize in Potsdam, Germany. 

“Not long ago a duel—by sword or gun—resolved a private dispute,” Davis added. “That’s gone forever. We think it’s an absurdly ridiculous approach to resolve conflict. We need to see the use of weapons of mass destruction as an even more absurd, even more preposterous approach!"

Her extraordinary gifts have allowed EWI to implement programs that help answer that challenge.

Kathryn Davis earned a B.A. in Russian history from Wellesley College (1928), an M.A. from Columbia University (1931) and a Ph.D. from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies at the University of Geneva (1934).

Her philanthropy over the years was immense and impacted a great many institutions around the globe. She believed deeply in EWI’s mission of tackling seemingly intractable problems and bridging national and cultural divides. “The EastWest Institute is one of the hopes of the world,” she declared. 

In 2008, she demonstrated her continued confidence in EWI’s work by offering a five-year grant that matched all new and increased donations up to $500,000 every year for the following five years. This translated into $5 million for EWI over the period covered by her extraordinary gift. 

Davis was a relentless optimist. Even after she crossed the threshold of 100, she kept envisioning the possibility of a better world. At her birthday gathering in 2012, she said, “I want to use my birthday to once again help young people launch some initiatives that will bring new energy and ideas to the prospects of peace in the world.”

At the celebration, she renewed her commitment to Projects for Peace, which funds one-hundred, $10,000 projects for peace by college students worldwide. “My many years have taught me that there will always be conflict. It’s part of human nature,” she declared. "But love, kindness and support are also part of human nature.”

And no one exhibited those positive traits better than she did.