We would love to hear your reflections
Peace begins with dialogue and your thoughts matter.
Your words may touch a heart, shift a perspective, or inspire action.
IFCRBP President and Representative
The Power of Diversity: How Global Perspectives Inspire Innovation in Peacebuilding?
From the very beginning of IFCRBP, I believed that diversity is not only a value; it is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation.
Working with inspiring minds from around the world has shown me that transformative solutions emerge when diverse perspectives
unite around a shared purpose.
This belief guided me when I began forming IFCRBP’s team. I wanted our organization to mirror the world we serve: a mosaic of people
shaped by different stories, faiths, and professions. Each member brings a piece of their own journey. Together, we build something larger
than ourselves, a shared vision of peace and humanity that transcends borders.
Diversity as a Catalyst for Innovation
In peacebuilding, diversity is more than an ideal; it is a catalyst for innovation.
When people from different regions and disciplines collaborate, they challenge assumptions, spark creativity, and find solutions
that are inclusive and lasting. Exposure to different cultures helps us see conflict not just as a challenge but as a shared human experience
shaped by history, identity, and hope.
Diverse perspectives bring nuance to every discussion, whether we are addressing displacement, rebuilding communities, or supporting
youth engagement in conflict-affected areas. Diversity teaches us to approach problems with empathy, listen beyond our own perspectives,
and balance local realities with global understanding.
IFCRBP’s Approach: Many Voices, One Mission
At IFCRBP, this belief is more than philosophy; it is how we work.
Our team includes professionals and volunteers from multiple continents, each contributing unique insights drawn from their cultural and
humanitarian experiences. We collaborate with diplomats, academics, community leaders, and activists, individuals whose perspectives
have been shaped by conflict, migration, and resilience.
This blend of backgrounds is a powerful force for creativity. It allows us to design innovative frameworks, drive community-led initiatives,
and build bridges between diplomacy, civil society, and affected communities. The exposure to diverse ideas does not just strengthen
our projects; it strengthens our humanity.
From Difference Comes Connection
Every discussion, partnership, and mission reinforces a simple truth: diversity unites us through understanding.
When we listen to one another beyond borders, titles, and differences, we create space for healing and transformation. Many of IFCRBP’s
most inspiring ideas emerged when voices from different worlds met, shared stories, and found common goals.
Peace is not built by one perspective. It is built through collaboration, respect, and the courage to learn from others. Diversity is not our
challenge; it is our opportunity.
A Personal Reflection
Looking back, I realize that diversity was not only the foundation of IFCRBP’s growth but also the reason our mission continues to evolve.
Everyone I have met, from partners in Geneva to activists in conflict zones, has shaped my belief that humanity’s greatest strength
lies in its variety. When we open our minds to difference, we open the door to innovation, compassion, and peace. That is how IFCRBP
was built, and how we continue to move forward.
About the Author
Ms. Bara’ Al Abbadi is the Founder and Representative of IFCRBP, a Swiss-based humanitarian and peacebuilding NGO.
With extensive experience in conflict resolution and international cooperation, she is dedicated to fostering dialogue, innovation,
and collaboration across cultures to promote sustainable peace and human dignity worldwide.
Join the Conversation
What does diversity mean to you in your field or community?
Share your reflections
Your perspective might inspire the next step toward peace.
Human Security and Nature: Are We Realizing the Silent Victimization Caused by Weaponizing It?
Have we ever stopped to look at how many conflicts begin in places defined by nature—dams, rivers, forests, coastal zones, or fertile land?
Conflict often erupts on terrain rich in natural resources, and when violence spreads, each party uses whatever is around them for survival and advantage.
But is that justified?
If you found yourself forced into chaos you did not create, surrounded by water, land, or forests—the only means to survive—would you use those resources to protect yourself? This instinct reflects a fundamental element of human security, which is built upon two interlinked dimensions in the popular theories of freedom from fear and freedom from want, as described by Peoples & Vaughan-Williams (2020). The former seeks safety from violence, while the latter calls for the fulfillment of basic needs such as food, water, and shelter. In moments of conflict, these instincts often collide, pushing individuals and communities to use the environment as a tool for survival.
Yet, when nature becomes an instrument of power—when rivers are diverted, soil is poisoned, or forests are burned to deny resources to others,
it ceases to be a neutral ground. It becomes both a weapon and a victim. The act of weaponizing nature might serve immediate human security needs, but it simultaneously destroys the very systems that ensure long-term stability and wellbeing.
Is it morally defensible to treat rivers, springs, or farmland as “Soft power” to win a military or political advantage? Or does doing so simply weaponize and victimize the very systems that sustain life? Some argue that the damage is temporary and recoverable after conflict; others respond that the social, ecological, and cultural losses are long-lasting—often irreversible for communities that depend on those resources.
It is worth noting that harming or mistreating nature, especially in times of conflict, has repercussions that extend far beyond the battlefield. The destruction of ecosystems, pollution of water sources, and burning of forests accelerate climate change and environmental degradation. These acts not only deepen immediate suffering but also compromise global climate stability, affecting generations long after the conflict ends.
When we weaponize nature, we also strip away both our freedom from fear and our freedom from want—endangering not just the planet’s security, but humanity’s own.
When Water Becomes a Weapon: The Case of Syria’s Fiji Spring and ISIS-Controlled Dams.
In the heart of the Syrian conflict, water—once a symbol of life and purity—became a tool of war and fear. In July 2015, militants from the Wadi Barada Council threatened to cut off the Fiji Springwater, the main source that supplied the capital, Damascus, with drinking water. This act was not merely a tactical maneuver—it was an attempt to weaponize nature itself. By targeting such a vital resource, the militants sought to pressure opposing forces and create widespread panic among civilians, using thirst and scarcity as instruments of coercion.
The Fiji Spring, which had sustained millions, was transformed into a hostage of human conflict. Families in Damascus faced the terror of running dry amid already devastating violence. This moment reflected how nature’s essential systems can be manipulated to serve human power struggles, turning rivers and springs into silent victims of war.
But the weaponization of water in Syria and Iraq did not end there. During the height of the war, ISIS seized control of several major dams, including the Tabqa (Euphrates) Dam in Syria and the Mosul Dam in Iraq—two of the region’s most critical infrastructures. In 2014, the group deliberately used these dams as tools of intimidation and warfare. By controlling the flow of water, ISIS could flood entire communities or cut supplies downstream, depending on their military and political objectives. In some instances, they released water to devastate villages; in others, they withheld it to starve populations and weaken opposing forces.
These acts demonstrated how the control of natural resources can evolve into a form of strategic domination—a silent, non-explosive weapon with devastating human consequences. Water, the essence of life, was turned into a means of enforcing submission, spreading fear, and asserting control.
Such examples expose the dangerous intersection of environmental vulnerability and human insecurity. When rivers and dams become tools of war,
the damage goes beyond immediate suffering. Flooded lands destroy crops and homes; polluted waters spread disease; disrupted ecosystems take decades to recover. In the end, the weaponization of water undermines both human security and ecological balance, stripping communities of their right to live in safety and dignity.
When water becomes a weapon, it is not only humanity that bleeds—but nature itself. And every drop lost to violence erodes our shared future, reminding us that true peace cannot exist when the sources of life are turned into instruments of death.
Survival, Ethics, and Choices: If Nature Is Your Only Option, What Do You Do?
Across the globe we have seen rivers dammed, springs cut, and forests burned — and each case raises the same heart‑wrenching question: if you are forced into chaos you did not create, surrounded by water, land, or other life‑giving resources, and an adversary uses those resources as a weapon against you and your family, what should you do? Do you use nature back as a means of fight and survival, or do you refuse, even at great cost?
Moral reflection — a fragile balance
The instinct to protect yourself and loved ones is morally powerful; the decision to weaponize nature, however, carries a broader ethical burden because it converts shared life‑support systems into instruments of harm. Even when survival appears to justify temporary exploitation, actors should ask: who suffers longest? Who cannot recover? Will this choice seed future violence or permanent ecological loss?
Survival may demand hard choices, but the path that preserves human life while minimizing lasting damage to nature is both the most pragmatic and the most morally defensible. Where possible, communities and actors should favour negotiation, protection of civilians, and temporary, minimally destructive measures — and commit immediately to healing the wound they inflict on the environment once the crisis allows.
About the Author
Ms. Bara’ Al Abbadi is the Founder and Representative of IFCRBP, a Swiss-based humanitarian and peacebuilding NGO. With extensive experience in conflict resolution and international cooperation, she is dedicated to fostering dialogue, innovation, and collaboration across cultures to promote sustainable peace and human dignity worldwide.
Join the Conversation
How do you see the impact of weaponizing nature on Human Security?
AI, Emotional Intelligence, and the Human Role in Building Peace!
As the Founder and Executive Director of IFCRBP, I am often asked a question that reflects both curiosity and concern:
Will artificial intelligence one day replace the human role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding?
Working daily in the field of peace, dialogue, and community transformation, I have witnessed how fast AI is advancing. It can analyze vast data,
detect hidden patterns and even simulate empathy in conversation. Recent studies from international research centers—including universities
in Geneva and Bern—show that some AI systems now achieve high scores on emotional-intelligence assessments, sometimes even surpassing
human participants in structured tests.
But let me be clear:
Performing well on a test is not the same as possessing emotional intelligence.
AI can process information, but it does not feel.
It does not carry lived experience, intuition, trauma, or moral judgment. It cannot read the subtle emotional energy in a room, sense a shifting tone, or understand the silence that often speaks louder than words.
And in our work—especially in conflict zones—these human capacities are everything.
Conflict resolution is not a technical problem to be solved.
Peacebuilding is not an algorithm.
It is a deeply human process shaped by:
- Empathy that comes from real experience,
- Intuition refined by culture and context,
- Trust built through authentic connection,
- Emotional presence that touches hearts and changes behaviour.
What Does Global Research Reveal About Emotional Intelligence and AI?
International research across peace psychology, mediation studies, and affective neuroscience consistently shows that human emotional
intelligence remains the most powerful force in de-escalating conflict and creating sustainable peace. AI can recognize emotions, but it cannot
hold space for them. It can organize information, but it cannot heal wounds. It can support decisions, but it cannot replace human presence.
From my personal perspective as a peace practitioner, I am convinced that AI will not replace us.
If anything, it makes our role more essential than ever.
AI may help us map conflicts, predict risks, or improve humanitarian access. But when it comes to building trust, transforming relationships,
and guiding communities toward reconciliation—these are responsibilities that belong to humans and always will.
The future of peace is not a competition between humans and AI.
It is a partnership where AI strengthens our work, but emotional intelligence—uniquely human—leads the way.
As long as peace depends on empathy, dignity, and genuine human connection, our role in IFCRBP will remain irreplaceable.
About the Author
Ms. Bara’ Al Abbadi is the Founder and Representative of IFCRBP, a Swiss-based humanitarian and peacebuilding NGO.
With extensive experience in conflict resolution and international cooperation, she is dedicated to fostering dialogue, innovation,
and collaboration across cultures to promote sustainable peace and human dignity worldwide.
Join the Conversation
Therefore, I leave you with one question: If peace itself begins in the human heart, can any machine truly walk that path for us?
When Healing Hearts Isn’t Enough - Does mental health reshape the entire formula for sustainable peace?
As psychological well-being receives long-overdue attention in humanitarian and post-conflict recovery frameworks, a deeper inquiry
remains largely overlooked.
In the context of peacebuilding efforts, several core questions arise:
- Does mental health reshape the entire formula for sustainable peace—given that genuine transformation begins from within?
- Can we truly achieve sustainable peace if we address only the emotional aftermath of conflict without confronting the systems that continue to sustain it?
- Are current mental-health interventions merely soothing visible wounds, or are they meaningfully addressing the underlying structures and power dynamics that created them in the first place?
In many contexts, trauma is not just an individual experience—it becomes a collective and intergenerational wound, shaped and reinforced
by social, political, and economic exclusion. When mental-health interventions fail to engage communities, local leadership, and broader
systemic reforms, they risk becoming superficial responses. Healing cannot be separated from justice, inclusion and systemic transformation.
The Limits of Conventional Mental-Health Aid
In many conflict-affected settings, mental-health interventions tend to emphasize individual counseling, therapy, or psychosocial support.
These efforts — often lifesaving — are indispensable. Yet when they operate in isolation, without addressing the broader sociopolitical context, they risk managing symptoms rather than confronting causes.
This reality is increasingly acknowledged by humanitarian actors in the implementation of post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), for example, emphasizes that although Psychological and Psychosocial Support (PSS) is crucial for refugees, internally displaced people, and survivors of violence, there remains “a significant gap between the needs and the actual access to care.” https://www.icrc.org/en/what-we-do/mental-health-and-psychosocial-support.
Similarly, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) — in its 2024 report on integrating mental-health and psychosocial support
in transitional justice processes — calls for a “social-mental health lens” that goes beyond mere clinical services, urging contextualized,
community-driven approaches. https://www.ictj.org/latest-news/mainstreaming-mental-health-and-psychosocial-support-transitional-justice-interview?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED.
These arguments underscore the growing recognition among practitioners and policymakers that healing in post-conflict societies cannot
be limited to the individual mind: it must aim to restore dignity, social cohesion, and justice.
Trauma Beyond the Individual — A Collective and Enduring Wound
In many conflict-affected contexts, psychological suffering does not remain confined to individuals; it reverberates through families, communities,
and entire generations. Social exclusion, marginalization, poverty, displacement, and political disenfranchisement embed trauma
into the very fabric of society, turning it into a collective legacy rather than a personal experience.
When interventions overlook these deeper structural injustices—such as inequality, discrimination, lack of economic and social opportunities,
and the denial of basic rights—they risk providing only temporary or surface-level relief. Sustainable healing requires more than counseling or emotional support. It demands an integrated approach that combines mental-health care with empowerment, community participation, and meaningful structural reform. Only by addressing both the internal wounds and the external systems that perpetuate them can peacebuilding
efforts create genuine, long-term transformation.
Toward a Justice-Oriented, Community-Centred Approach
What would a truly transformative mental-health strategy look like in post-conflict or marginalized settings?
Drawing on insights from transitional-justice practitioners and leading humanitarian agencies, an effective approach would include several
essential elements:
- Integrated mental-health and social support rooted in community participation
This involves more than traditional therapy. It requires culturally grounded psychosocial programs that safely engage community leaders, survivors, and grassroots organizations. As recommended by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), such interventions must be tailored to local realities and mindful of existing power dynamics. - Addressing systemic injustice, discrimination, and inequality
Mental-health recovery cannot be separated from broader structural reforms. Sustainable healing demands progress in areas such as legal protections, economic inclusion, and social justice. - Long-term commitment rather than short-term relief
Building community resilience requires sustained support. Short-term or project-based interventions often fail to create lasting change. - Restoring dignity, social cohesion, and agency
A transformative approach must help people regain control over their lives, participate actively in rebuilding their communities, reclaim their identities, and reshape their social environments.
Redefining Peace Through Mental Health: IFCRBP Founder’s Perspective Ms. Bara’ Al Abbadi on Deeper Intervention
Throughout my journey—examining different types of conflict, analyzing their root causes, designing and implementing projects, participating
in strategic meetings, conducting field interviews, and collecting firsthand data from vulnerable populations in conflict-affected areas—I have witnessed the profound and pervasive realities of loss. I met people who lost loved ones, left behind their homes, properties, businesses, and
the life memories their ancestors built over generations. They were forced to start over in host communities with new cultures, new traditions, and unfamiliar environments. These individuals are not only trying to integrate into a new society; they are trying to reintegrate into
themselves after everything has been taken from them.
These experiences have deeply shaped me, both personally and as the founder of IFCRBP. They pushed me to think differently about what meaningful humanitarian support truly requires—support that goes beyond immediate relief and contributes to sustainable peace. I have
never believed in surface-level solutions. I am driven to dig into the roots of conflict, understand its triggers, and seek radical and lasting resolutions.
Yet one critical question persisted: How can all the efforts we are preparing for conflict-affected areas become truly sustainable?
The turning point came when the truth about mental health revealed itself. My inner voice made it clear: Supporting people to transform
their psychological well-being is the first step on the long road toward lasting peace. It is the threshold of all meaningful change.
Providing aid to people in conflict zones is essential, but aid alone does not change the conflict itself. It alleviates suffering without addressing
the deeper wounds—the psychological trauma, the loss of identity, the emotional disintegration that conflict breeds. Therefore, although
our mission at IFCRBP focuses on constructive negotiations, mediation, and rehabilitation through diplomacy, I have come to recognize that peacebuilding will remain incomplete—and ineffective—if the mental health of affected communities is not addressed thoroughly and profoundly. Sustainable peace cannot emerge unless individuals are empowered from within.
My primary approach—centered on negotiations and constructive dialogue to develop effective solutions—cannot reach its full potential if the affected communities themselves are not supported. In post-conflict reconstruction, the foundation for sustainable and prosperous peace lies with the people of these countries. How can peacebuilding efforts and negotiations be truly effective if communities in conflict-affected areas
are struggling with mental-health challenges that have eroded their confidence, sense of identity, and access to basic rights?
From this core insight arises a fundamental principle: mental health, when addressed comprehensively and deeply, can serve as the foundation for rebuilding communities, strengthening economies, and facilitating all peacebuilding efforts. While this is a long-term process, the investment is essential for achieving truly sustainable and resilient outcomes. It begins with cultivating a sense of possibility, confidence, and consistency within each individual. Once these qualities are nurtured, their positive effects can ripple outward, creating
a trickle-down impact that strengthens entire communities.
We are currently at the peak of planning and preparing the IFCRBP Sudan Social Lab, aimed at addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan. In line with our mission to promote sustainable, prosperous, and impactful peacebuilding, IFCRBP remains committed to its core goal
of achieving peace. At this stage, we are focusing specifically on mental health support for affected Sudanese communities, implementing
three main approaches designed to strengthen resilience, foster well-being, and empower communities for long-term recovery.
This foundational work will also facilitate and pave the way for our constructive negotiation methods, helping to build trust, strengthen relationships, and collaboratively rebuild communities in a sustainable and cohesive manner.
Would you like to learn more about our project and become part of this meaningful humanitarian effort? We welcome partnerships and collaborations. Contact us at [info@ifcrbp.org] to get involved.
About the Author
Ms. Bara’ Al Abbadi is
the Founder and Representative of IFCRBP, a Swiss-based
humanitarian and peacebuilding NGO. With extensive experience
in conflict
resolution and international cooperation, she is dedicated to fostering
dialogue, innovation, and collaboration across cultures to promote sustainable
peace and human dignity worldwide.