Leeds Metropolitan University Continent Y Peace Initiative Design Issues PPT

am cutting down the time for this paper to save you some work. You will prepare a 2-3 minute video presentation (ignore the 4 to 5 minute time on the original) highlighting one or two design problems/concerns you’ve identified in the Continent Y Proposal.So 250 words speech draft and 4 slides PPTs

Continent Y Peace Initiative (YPI)
Proposal
Organization X
SUMMARY
Organization X seeks $ to support its Continent Y Peace Initiative (YPI). This multi-year program
addresses the roots of violent conflict within three regions of Continent Y, strategically engaging state
actors, as well as seeking to strengthen burgeoning civil society. Organization X’s unique partnership
with local, state, and regional entities furthers our commitment to indigenous solutions to conflict. The
first year of the Initiative will expand upon Organization X peace building partnerships in Country 1,
Country 2, and Country 3, exploring these projects as models for a wider initiative in region A, B, and C
of Continent Y.
Developing and maintaining constructive domestic and regional strategies for conflict prevention and
peace building – as well as strategies for transformation when conflict is present – are central to YPI.
The Initiative involves two core elements – diplomacy and community conflict mitigation – designed to
tackle the effects of destructive conflict dynamics and address the root causes of conflict, while
engaging key stakeholders, domestic and regional, in processes of conflict transformation and peace
building. Organization X will employ its unique position and expertise in the areas of research and
practice – including conflict assessment, peace-building workshops, network building, and state
engagement activities – to achieve the programs ambitious goals.
Page 2
CONTENTS
I.
OVERVIEW
II.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
III.
COUNTRIES
IV.
ORGANIZATION X MODEL OF ENGAGEMENT: CONFLICT MITIGATION
V.
PROGRAM SPECIFICS
VI.
METHODOLOGY
VII. OUTPUTS
VIII. OBJECTIVES/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
IX.
RESULTS/IMPACT (IF COMPLETED/PART COMPLETED)
X.
TIME FRAME AND SCOPE
XI.
CHALLENGES
XII. EVALUATION
XIII. PROJECT EXPANSION
XIV. STRUCTURE AND FUNDING
APPENDIX A: Community Conflict Mitigation Program Theory Diagram
APPENDIX B: YPI Partners and Consultants
Page 3
I. OVERVIEW
Organization X has begun a multi-year conflict transformation and peace building initiative in Continent
Y. Continent Y Peace Initiative (YPI) addresses conflict at multiple levels, engaging states, as well as
civil society, local officials and academia within the core regions of A, B and C.
Organization X focuses on violent deadly conflict as the expression, consequence, or product of
interdependent dynamics in which the accumulation of insecurity, exclusion, and resentment within a
system finds an outlet in violence. The transformation of violent conflict focuses on processes.
Organization X analyzes conflict as inherently non-static, constantly in flux and in need of dynamic
approaches to address it.
YPI encompasses two core themes building upon Organization X’s successes of the past. The themes
include state level diplomacy initiatives – based upon Organization X’s work in Country 4 and Country 5
– designed to improve dialogue between parties in conflict, and Community Conflict Mitigation (CCM)
based on our ongoing work in Country 6. The first year of YPI will engage Country 1, Country 2 and
Country 3 in both elements, focusing particularly on community conflict mitigation. Conflict
Assessments will be instrumental in informing the development of programs in the three countries that
will serve as models for deeper engagement in Region A, B, and C as YPI progresses.
Through YPI – working at local, regional and national levels – Organization X aims to strengthen the
long-term peace building capacity and resilience of Country 1, Country 2 and Country 3’s civil society
by combining traditional forms of conflict resolution with proven Western peace building practices. The
central program goal is to encourage dialogue between divided identity groups and create new spaces for
locals to work together in the pursuit of peace. The project seeks to help parties rediscover constructive
forms of dealing with conflicts at the community level by encouraging communities to find non-violent
ways of dealing with conflict.
The Community Conflict Mitigation (CCM) project will consist of three components: Community
Conflict Assessments; a Peace building and Conflict Resolution Network, and Youth Peace building
Initiatives. Building on the networks of peace developed in the CCM model, the project will also use
these networks to combine national and community level objectives, using universities as neutral ground
in which dialogue between actors from a wide range of backgrounds can interact; ‘track one and a half’
diplomacy is an attempt at closing the gap between government and local-level dialogues by providing a
space for a constructive, holistic search for new solutions.
In the case of Country 1, violent divisions have existed since Independence in the 1960s. In the case of
Country 2, since the onset of political turmoil in the late 1990s. In the case of Country 3, decades-old
divisions deepened as a result of recent electoral violence.
II. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
Violent conflict is a central problem facing many countries and regions today, but the Continent Y Peace
Initiative aims to tackle a different but related problem: insufficient capacity and strength among civil
society actors and academia to address conflict in non-violent ways and to build long-lasting peace.
Local incentives and motivations for peace are always present in societies touched by conflict but they
Page 4
are often silenced or minimized by the forces of conflict and violence; the challenge of our project is to
give local conflict resolution mechanisms a voice, to support and encourage them to flourish, providing
necessary support when required.
For the purposes of YPI, peace will not be conceptualized as the absence of violent conflict, but rather as
“a dynamic social construct” (Building Peace, John Paul Lederach 1997, p.20) characterized by strong
and interdependent relationships that offer individuals, groups and institutions opportunities to address
conflict in ways that may lead to constructive social change and without the use of violence. The focus
therefore, is on people affected by conflict and the violence it creates; by using locally generated conflict
assessment the project creates concrete data concerning local needs, strategies that can be used to
address them, and how those strategies can be integrated into public policy at the state level, thereby
contributing to the emergence of good governance.
The lack of such opportunities in Country 1 and Country 3 is evident in the ongoing civil strife dating
back to independence in xx and xx, respectively, as well as the relatively recent conflict in Country 2
beginning in xx. While seemingly disparate conflicts with broad differences in the levels of sustained
violence over the past two decades, all three conflicts exhibit similar characteristics while presenting
unique cases for examination, and serve as excellent models for continent-wide conflict mitigation
exploration.
The essence of the Conflict Mitigation Model lies in its flexibility, providing a much-needed framework
for action, while not constraining that action. Country 1, 2, and 3 offer us three very different cases
where engagement is needed: Country 1 is geographically small – with the colonial residue of xxx
indirect divide and rule administration – and its conflict is tightly intertwined with the conflicts of its
neighbors in Region B, including ? and ?; Country 2 and 3, however, are geographically very large, with
distinct colonial heritages. Similar to Country 1, the conflict in Country 2 has taken on a regional
character with cross-border communities from other countries engaged. Country 3 offers a differing
study as its conflict is largely distinct from those of its neighbors, having previously been seen as a
relatively stabile and neutral regional peacemaker.
All three conflicts have elements of politicized ethnicity, with each fueled by repetitive patterns of
exclusion and each having the inherent capacity to draw upon the wealth of indigenous conflict
resolution mechanisms. The three conflicts also invite meaningful exploration of the state in postcolonial territories; its nature, the relationship between the administrative Center and Periphery in fragile
states, and perceptions of identity in the political discourse of nascent democracies. All three cases offer
excellent entry points from which the applicability of our model can be determined in geographically,
socially and politically differing realities.
III. COUNTRIES
Country 1
Communal violence stemming from identity-based political exclusion has marked life in Country 1 for
over four decades. The devastating effects of the ongoing strife have rendered the state ineffective in
delivering basic services to its citizens, including education, health care, and food security.
Consequently, Country 1 remains one of the most materially poor and socially divided countries in the
world. Popularly conceptualized as an intractable conflict dating back to the assassination of first
Page 5
president just after independence, significant steps have been undertaken in the past decade domestically
and regionally, with multilateral attempts to achieve sustainable, just peace.
Following a peace agreement that led to legitimate Presidential elections in 200-, Country 1 is
attempting to address its violent history with the support of the international community. Significant
work was undertaken during the peace process by outside parties to address conflict resolution,
mediation, and negotiation at the elite level in Country 1. This work continues today. However,
Country 1’s post-independence polity has been characterized by the manipulation of identity by political
entrepreneurs as “the governing class is made up almost entirely of politicians and soldiers who are
competing and collaborating with each other for a very limited number of positions and resources within
a small and extremely poor state”.1 While this elite-level peace building work has been groundbreaking
as a model for societies embroiled in violent, identity-based conflict, a significant gap remains in
addressing Country 1’s violence at the communal level. The advantage of identity manipulation by
elites has been evident when one considers the exclusion of civil society and non-state entities from the
peace process.
Since the peace agreement of the early 2000s, the zero-sum nature of ethnic political discourse in
Country 1 has given way to open dialogue at all levels in society. This is an unprecedented time in the
country’s history and provides a remarkable opportunity for civil society engagement in community
conflict mitigation. Organization X’s good friend and former Foreign Minister of Country 1, H.E. ???
is actively engaged in grassroots peace building work and sees this is a serendipitous opportunity for
Organization X to share its expertise in practice and research, while collaborating with citizens of
Country 1 engaged in community level conflict transformation activities throughout Country 1’s 17
provinces.
Country 2
Country 2 offers a compelling opportunity for conflict prevention early warning and peace
building, differing somewhat in context to Country 1. While Country 1 stands as a shattered state,
attempting its first steps in a long recovery following years of civil war, Country 2 was long perceived
as a politically stable, economic miracle – an international anchor in the volatile sub-region. Country 2
was once viewed as the seminal regional success story. In a region mired by poverty and political
instability, Country 2 experienced unprecedented security and economic growth after achieving
independence from in the early 1900s. Under the guidance of the Independence leader, Country 2
became a regional beacon for those seeking economic opportunity and ethnic inclusivity. A benign
dictatorship provided Country 2 a political stability not found in other newly independent states.
Country 2 became a showpiece for foreign investment on the continent. “Before the outbreak of civil
war, Country 2 accounted for forty percent of the economic output of the region”.2
But underlying this façade of economic prosperity and multi-ethnic inclusivity ran a creeping
undercurrent of ethnic nationalism. The façade was to be short-lived following an economic downturn in
the late 1980s, and the subsequent death of the patriarch. Born from Northern resentment toward the
perceived “economic opportunism” of migratory southerners purported to be from neighboring states,
cracks had appeared in the fabric of national identity long before the death of the president.
1
2
Reference from literature
Reference from Literature
Page 6
The introduction of polarizing identity politics, centered on ethnic nationalism, led the nation down its
current path of dissolution and violence. A succession of coups and failed elections tore the country
apart, culminating in a civil war marked by wide-spread abuse of civilians. The threat of deterioration
into further violence remains strong as dialogue takes a back seat to political discourse centered on
ethnic divisions. Little work has been done to address the conflict at the communal level, specifically
engaging civil society in peace building. The conditions for large-scale, identity-based violence remain
unaddressed, with scheduled Presidential elections offering a potential trigger with potentially dire
ramifications.
Organization X views this as a vital moment in Country 2’s history, and seeks to engage civil society in
community conflict mitigation. Through our relationship with regional actors, Organization X seeks to
share its expertise in practice and research with civil society and universities to address the underlying
causes of conflict in Country 2. This engagement will also greatly inform potential future expansion
into the sub-region.
Country 3
Country 3 also offers a compelling opportunity for conflict prevention early warning and peace building,
quite similar to the political situation in Country 2. Much like Country 2 in the Region A, Country 3
was long perceived as the stable, economic engine of Region C. This façade, however, was challenged
by electoral violence in the 1990s, and removed following the flawed Presidential elections.
The recent communal violence in Country 3 focused global attention on the decades of marginalization
and patterns of dispossession that, similar to Country 1, fostered severe animosity among citizens
suffering from political exclusion. The recent negotiated peace agreement in Country 3 has halted largescale communal violence in the short-term, but, as a largely elite-level process, is not tackling the effects
of violence at a community-based level. While consulted at several points during the peace process,
civil society actors were largely excluded from the actual negotiations and from having any say in the
outcome, the very civil society actors that will be instrumental in addressing the roots of the violence,
attempting reconciliation and consolidating peace through community-level networks in the future.
While the peace agreement in Country 3 has been criticized as little more than a deal between elite
political rivals (similar to the fragile peace in Country 2); the peace agreement is currently in its infancy
but could still prove to be sustainable if the deal is properly implemented, the root causes of the violence
are addressed and the effects of violence and distrust are dealt with on a community level. The violence
in Country 3 also serves as a striking example of early warning, exposing grievances among citizens of
Country 3, particularly those living in the Southern and Central part of the country. The Community
Conflict Mitigation element of IV seeks to directly respond to the communal violence in Country 3,
engaging civil society and academy in peace building networks.
IV. ORGANIZATION X MODEL OF ENGAGEMENT: CONFLICT MITIGATION
Drawing upon a framework developed by Anderson and Olson that emerged from research conducted on
behalf of the Reflecting on Peace Practice Project, it is possible to define YPI as one that focuses on
Page 7
“building just and sustainable peace” by “supporting social change [focused] on addressing political,
economic and social grievances.”3
All components of YPI emphasize social change through leveraging and strengthening of relationships.
One component (conflict assessment and community sensitive development projects) will seek this
social change through shifting institutional engagements between local development actors, aid
beneficiaries and international providers of development assistance. Another component (universitybased conflict mitigation network) will seek this social change by reinforcing existing ties and creating
new connections between individuals working to build peace from academia, the media and local
government. A third component (youth peace building activities) will foster this social change by
encouraging youth to learn and promote peaceful approaches to conflict through new and existing social
networks.
It is important to note that in each case, many of the vital resources in terms of human capacity and
historical relationships already exist within the communities where YPI will work. The project will
attempt to act as a catalyst for the transformation of relationships or taking better advantage of existing
relationships or other community-based resources in order to amplify existing local capacities for
building peace.
V. PROGRAM SPECIFICS
Component 1: Training in conflict assessment and community-based conflict sensitive development
projects
This component has been developed based upon the idea that training civil societies actors in how to use
conflict assessment as a tool will lead to:





A more accurate analysis of the conflict, its impact and its needs as seen through the eyes of
local actors
Increased acknowledgement and acceptance within communities that careful consideration of
conflict factors during community development work can translate into development that reduces
the risk of inter- or intra-community violence, and;
Development of actual community-based projects based on local actors own perceptions which
seek not only to address economic and social needs, but also to address identified root and
proximate causes of conflict, and consequently to diminish tensions produced by those root
causes that can lead to violence.
Empowerment of the conflict transformation process through a better awareness and
understanding of ‘actors of peace’ and traditional conflict resolution mechanisms which are
already in existence and which, with some nourishment, will prove to be fundamental in
promoting sustainable peace.
Strengthening of the links between grass-roots actions and state level public policy through the
intermediary of high quality conflict assessments and advocacy.
3
Anderson, Mary B. and Lara Olson. Confronting War: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners, January 2003. Retrieved
December 9, 2007 from http://www.cdainc.com/publications/rpp/confrontingwar/ConfrontingWar.pdf
Page 8
Thus, this component seeks to catalyze both individual change on the part of key community
stakeholders and leaders, as well as a change in the institution of community development within
Country 1, 2, and 3. Drawing on pre-existing, indigenous conflict mitigation networks (such as local
and paramount chieftancies in Country 2) and traditional methods of dispute resolution (such as … in
Country 1) will be a vital aspect of assessment and project development.
The extent to which these changes occur during the project period will be measured by collecting
baseline data from program staff and from a representative sample of community stakeholders involved
in the project. This data will be primarily qualitative, to be gathered through surveys, interviews, focus
groups and observations, with some quantitative data gathered through the community sensitive
development project database. Where possible, data will be gathered from communities where direct
project activities do not occur (referred to below as “other communities”) in an attempt to identify
changes brought about by the program rather than by other external factors.
Component 2: Development of Peace and Conflict Mitigation Network
This component has been developed based on the idea that forming a countrywide network of
individuals and institutions that have interest in and expertise on peace and conflict theory, and practice
will better enable network participants to develop and promote practices leading to higher levels of
sustainable peace. Many contemporary theorists view networks as a form of social capital that
encourage development of “norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit”4. The program will support development of a university-based peace and conflict network that
will include scholars, local political figures and media professionals with an overarching goal of
changing the way groups and individuals respond to conflict.
Three types of change will be sought through this component:

Increased understanding among network participants of their roles in building a peaceful Country
1, 2, and 3

Increased activity in the higher education, local government and media sectors aimed at
developing and promoting proven methods of addressing conflict peacefully

New and strengthened relationships between network participants
Component 3: Youth Peace building Initiatives
This component has been developed based upon the idea that youth in Country 1, 2, and 3 are the
portion of the population with the greatest potential to accept new attitudes about possible responses to
conflict. Consequently, if youth can learn about the potential benefits of participating in constructive
peace building activities, they are likely to influence other youth to do likewise and also to carry these
behaviors into adulthood. Recent violence in Country 3 – as well as civil strife in Country 2 – was
perpetrated in large part by youths greatly influenced by the manipulations of various political
4
Colletta, Nat J. and Cullen, M.L. (2000). Violent Conflict and the Transformation of Social Capital. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Page 9
entrepreneurs. This component seeks to lessen the power of elite rhetoric vis-à-vis youth mobilization
for violence.
This component will seek two types of change:
• Increased understanding among youth that peaceful approaches to conflict are more beneficial to
Country 1, 2, and 3 and their individual communities than violent responses are
• Increased engagement among youth in development, implementation and promotion of peace
building activities in their communities
Component 4: Mediation support
All the of the above will feed into an overarching objective of using universities as a space to help
facilitate mediation efforts on both Track I and Track II levels. Historically, the perception of
universities as ‘neutral’ spaces has given them the power to convene highly respected individuals who
occupy positions of leadership in different and varied capacities. In our experience this has enabled us to
gain access to top-level leaders directly involved in peace negotiations and to build on these
relationships to the benefit of the countries enduring crisis and conflict.
Building on our experience, we have found that this helps us to link ongoing efforts on the community
level with ongoing efforts at the diplomatic level, and therefore to transfer knowledge between these
elements of society, and to act as a third party in facilitating both cease fire and peace agreements. For
example, since 2005, Organization X has been involved in facilitating cease-fire agreement efforts.
Organization X offered a ‘safe’ space for negotiation teams to meet and convene. Senior officials have
also utilized Organization X during this period to move the parties toward constructive ways of dealing
with conflict.
VI. METHODOLOGY
Each project component relies on a slightly different methodology, but all aspects of the project seek to
stimulate social change through strengthening of social networks that encourage the establishment of
norms related to constructive responses to conflict. Methodologies will include:







Participatory training of conflict assessment facilitators
Participatory community conflict assessments with stakeholders
Network-building conferences and meetings
Selection, design and implementation of community projects to address identified
conflict factors
Selection, design and implementation of network projects that respond to opportunities
for network members to develop and expand peace building theory and practice
Selection, design and implementation of youth peace building activities
Network-building and consolidation of local peace building activists through the use of
internet and communication technologies such as SharePoint and Skype
Page 10
VII. OUTPUTS
Year one:





Research-based National Conflict Assessment
Field-based National Conflict Assessment elaboration: workshop based consultations
Formation of elements of a national university-based peace and conflict resolution network
University research articles on conflict analysis and country-specific peace building practices
Program knowledge dissemination and regular briefings to policy-makers.
Year two:








Elaboration of national university based peace and conflict resolution network
Training program in Conflict Assessment for local actors from each province/region in Country
1, 2, and 3
Updating of National Conflict Assessment
Production of document combining National Conflict Assessment with province-by-province
documents produced by local actors.
Assessment of policy recommendations for Public Policy and Community-based projects.
Consultation with state and local government officials as well as community leaders on
outcomes on how to implement recommendations.
University research articles on conflict analysis and peace building practices in country in
question
Increased knowledge dissemination and regular briefings to policy-makers
VIII. OBJECTIVES/EXPECTED OUTCOMES
Desired outcomes by the end of the multi-year project period include:



Increased acknowledgement and acceptance within communities that careful consideration of
conflict factors during community development work can translate into development that reduces
the risk of inter- or intra-community violence, and;
Development of actual community-based projects that seek not only to address economic and
social needs, but also to address identified root and proximate causes of conflict, and
consequently to diminish tensions produced by those root causes that can lead to violence
Increased understanding among network participants of their roles in building a peaceful Country
1, 2, and 3

Increased activity in the higher education, local government and media sectors aimed at
developing and promoting proven methods of addressing conflict peacefully

New and strengthened relationships between network participants

Increased understanding among youth that peaceful approaches to conflict are more beneficial to
the Nation and their individual communities than violent responses are
Increased engagement among youth in development, implementation and promotion of peace
building activities in their communities

Page 11
IX. RESULTS/IMPACT (IF COMPLETED/PART COMPLETED)
Observing long-term impact of the program will not be possible until after the initial two-year project
period. It is anticipated that the ultimate results of the project will include measurable improvements in
relationships between individuals, groups and institutions in Country 1, 2, and 3 that will provide a
stronger foundation than currently exists for addressing social conflicts. In addition to improving
relationships and strengthening social networks, IV aims to offer community-level actors throughout
Country 1, 2, and 3 an enhanced set of tools and strategies for addressing conflict constructively that
draw upon traditional indigenous methods of peace building and conflict resolution and integrate
appropriate western peace building concepts. Eventually, the program seeks to engage Country 1, 2, and
3 and future IV states in regional forums sharing ‘best practices’ and ‘lessons learned’ from their
experiences – as well as strengthening community, state, and regional conflict early warning and
mediation mechanisms.
X.
TIME FRAME AND SCOPE
YPI is envisioned as a five year initiative beginning with an initial two-year engagement in Country 1, 2,
and 3 with follow-on anticipated; Community–level conflict assessment will be conducted in Country 1,
2, and 3 provinces.
XI. CHALLENGES
Country 1’s uncertain security situation poses a challenge for Organization X international staff and its
local partners alike because it is often difficult to determine where it will be possible and/or desirable to
conduct project activities. One response to this challenge will be to limit the physical location of
Organization X international staff to the capital, and regions that have experienced significantly lower
levels of violence than other parts of Country 1. The security situation is rapidly changing, and all
regions of the country may be accessible during the assessment time period. The security situation in
Country 2 and 3 has been more predictable with localized violence occurring in the run-up to elections.
XII. EVALUATION
We will recruit a monitoring and evaluation specialist who will be tasked with measuring program
outcomes, including:
• Short-to-medium term changes in program participants’ attitudes/behaviors around conflict
• Preliminary effects of existing and new social networks as vehicles for influencing changes in
conflict attitudes and behaviors
• Preliminary institutional changes that signal strengthening capacity to address conflict peacefully
XIII. PROJECT EXPANSION
Based upon successes of the first two years of the project, Organization X will seek to expand efforts to
future partners including Countries I to P.
Page 12
XIV STRUCTURE AND FUNDING
Organization X seeks the full cost for one year of operations for YPI. The budget includes the cost of
three Continent Y – based conflict assessment training workshops, as well as travel expenses for
assessment and monitoring in Country 1, 2, and 3. Provisions for program infrastructure development –
two program officers, other Organization X personnel, networking support (including program briefings
and knowledge dissemination) and information technology overhead – are also included. Provisions for
conflict assessment research and funding academic articles in collaboration with Universities in
Countries 1, 2, and 3 are also included. Additionally, $ for each country ($ total) will be included in the
Year 2 program budget for community based conflict sensitive development projects in the second year.
BUDGET
YPI One Year Budget
(proposed)
Items
Total
Three Continent Y-based training workshops
Org. X Personnel & Administration (itemized below)
IV Travel Expenses (itemized below)
Program Consultants/Evaluation
Research Articles
Conflict Assessments
Network and IT
Administrative Overhead (5%)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL PROGRAM COST:
$
Itemized
Personnel & Administration
YPI Travel Expenses
(site visits include Country 1, 2, and 3)
Director
Officer
Officer
Admin. Assist.
Fringe
TOTAL
Site visits (3 annual)
briefings
dissemination
$
TOTAL
$
Page 13
KEY PERSONNEL
Director
Officer 1
Officer 2
Appendix A: Community Conflict Mitigation Program Theory Diagram
Appendix B: IV Partners and Consultants
Organizations:
Individuals:
Page 14

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Client Reviews
4.9
Sitejabber
4.6
Trustpilot
4.8
Our Guarantees
100% Confidentiality
Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
Original Writing
We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
Timely Delivery
No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
Money Back
If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
? Hi, how can I help?