European Peace Institute / News

Event Video: 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-xaouuv").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-xaouuv").fadeIn(1000);});});

Karin Landgren, the Executive Director of Security Council Report and the first woman to have led three United Nations peace operations, was talking about her 35 years of experience at the UN working with men and how to make that partnership more effective in the future.

“I’m convinced that men hear other men more effectively than they hear women,” she said. “Like it or not, the world over, there seems to be widespread male discounting of truth spoken in a female voice. One way forward is more female voices, but for now it galls me, if we want effective communication and outreach, there need to be more male voices not simply relating the evidence but persuading others at a more visceral level of the value of women holding power.”

Ms. Landgren was addressing a policy forum on Mobilizing Men as Partners for Women, Peace and Security held at IPI on March 20 and co-sponsored by Our Secure Future.

Sounding a similar note was Ana Maria Menéndez, Senior Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Policy, who said, “Male allies use their power to provide a platform to amplify the voices of women.” She said the broad goal was to have “more women leading their communities, changing the face of the security sector and having an equal say in how we reconstruct societies, how we heal from conflict, and how we prevent it in the first place.” She added: “We’re not even close.”

IPI Senior Fellow Sarah Taylor said, “If we are going to move forward on the core of the women, peace and security agenda and everything that means, on ensuring that this is recognized and implemented as a universal agenda, then these difficult tasks are necessary tasks, tasks to be done in a considered, even humble, and certainly in a feminist way.”

Fatima Kadhim Al-Bahadly, Director of the Al-Firdaws Society in Basra, Iraq, spoke of how she worked to deradicalize young boys in her country through social cohesion campaigns on peace and coexistence and warned of the consequences of inaction. “Ignoring women and children will expand the base of extremism and violence all over again and will help establish new extremist organizations,” she said.

Donald Steinberg, the executive director of Mobilizing Men as Partners for Women, Peace and Security, said the failure to involve women at all levels of leadership constituted “an emergency. And it requires nothing less than a wholesale reordering of our male-dominated global security priorities.  There has been impressive progress on international norms and practices…but our success can’t be measured on how many Security Council resolutions we pass, how many national action plans we adopt, or even now many women have served in peace processes. Instead our success will be measured by whether these peace processes can actually bring just and lasting ends to conflict.

Several speakers reported instances of “push back” from men resisting advances by women. “If I ever broached the idea of quotas for women, as I sometimes did,” said Ms. Landgren “even my extremely reasonable male friends would—metaphorically speaking—reach for their revolvers and start to talk about ‘lowering standards,’ as if current selection processes for male leaders are all about high standards,” she remarked, in a comment that drew knowing laughter.

She acknowledged the fear that men, if given the opportunity, might try to wrest leadership from women and the reality that “women can be reluctant to propel themselves to front lines.” But she asserted: “We need both men and women to pull other women into leadership roles.”

Mirsad “Miki” Jacevic, Vice Chair of the Institute for Inclusive Security, expressed impatience with those calling for more study of the issue. “The news I have for those who say we need more research, we’ve researched enough. We have enough case studies and data. We just need to now translate this into making this happen. I recognize the push back, but I think we need to recognize the enormous power of the potential that women have from letting war take even more lives.”

Noting that gender inequality impacts us all negatively, IPI Vice President Adam Lupel cited the findings of research by Valerie M. Hudson of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University that showed that the best predictor of a country’s peacefulness is not its economic status, nor its level of democracy nor its religious or ethnic composition, but how well its women are treated. “It’s not just about the rights of women,” he said, “but a more peaceful and prosperous world for everyone.”

Sahana Dharmapuri, Director of Our Secure Future, said that to further her organization’s mission of strengthening the women, peace and security movement, she was looking for strategic entry points. “There can be nothing more strategic than leveraging the principles of partnership and equality,” she said.

Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Undersecretary-General and High Representative, alluded to the necessity of including women in furthering the peace agenda. “Half of humanity bring a new breadth, quality, and balance of vision to our common efforts to move away from the cult of war towards the culture of peace,” he said. “Women’s equality makes our planet safe and secure…If we are serious about peace, we must take women seriously.”

The discussion was moderated by IPI Senior Fellow Sarah Taylor.

On March 14th, IPI together with the International Center for the Research on Women, the Feminist U.N Campaign and Save The Children cohosted a policy forum to discuss Feminist Leadership at the UN.

Secretary-General António Guterres took office in January 2017 amid unprecedented public and member state demand for feminist leadership of the United Nations. Member states coalesced in platforms advocating for such shifts in leadership, and the Feminist UN Campaign emerged from that political moment. Now, two years into the SG’s term, the 63rd Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) presents an ideal background for member states, civil society and the Executive Office of the Secretary-General to be in conversation about the current state of feminist leadership and progress advancing gender equality at the UN.

The Women, Peace and Security lens provides a useful case study for measuring progress in this regard. Despite two decades of women, peace and security policy development and commitments, women’s participation at “all levels of decision-making” lags due to structural barriers, lack of access to political arenas, and even threats to women who attempt to participate in these processes. In efforts to build and sustain peace, there remains widespread neglect of local-level women peace builders’ expertise, and formal peacemaking efforts continue to be resistant to women’s meaningful participation and rights implementation. However, member states and the UN have taken steps to address barriers to women’s leadership, such as in highlighting national-level feminist policies and launching a UN-wide gender parity strategy. The election of a new Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2016 provided an important opportunity to ensure that the United Nations implements an agenda that puts gender equality and women’s rights at the heart of everything it does.

This event amplified perspectives on progress as well as remaining challenges to removing barriers to gender equality and feminist leadership at national, regional and global levels, including discussion with experts from member states, UN leadership, and civil society.

Opening remarks:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute
Ms. Katja Pehrman, Senior Advisor, UN Women

Speakers:
Ms. Ulrika Grandin, Senior Advisor, Feminist Foreign Policy, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Ms. Nahla Valji, Senior Gender Adviser, Executive Office of the Secretary-General
Ms. Lyric Thompson, Director of Policy and Advocacy, ICRW, and author of Feminist UN Campaign report card
Ms. Nora O’Connell, Associate Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy, Save The Children

Moderator:
Dr. Sarah Taylor, Senior Fellow, International Peace Institute

Event Video: 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-dcvyal").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-dcvyal").fadeIn(1000);});});

On March 13th, IPI and Peace is Loud co-hosted a policy forum on women’s participation in peace negotiations and peacekeeping, featuring a screening of two scenes from the new PBS documentary film series Women, War and Peace II. Filmmakers and prominent women peacemakers took part in a discussion on the two films.

In welcoming remarks, Madeleine Rees, Secretary General of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, credited the filmmakers for “surfacing the reality of women’s lives in relation to the very narrow vision we get shown.” She spoke of how in her own work she had seen women “doing things so great with no recognition. These films, she said, recast historical narratives of war and peace to include women and helped to eliminate the notion that all men are violent. “Men and women can build peace together against forces of violence,” she said, and argued that this message could help inform a future of sustained peace.

The first film was on the Northern Ireland peace process and called Wave Goodbye to Dinosaurs. Monica McWilliams, Co-Founder of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition and a negotiator of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, told the story of the group’s formation. In the decision, early on, as to whether to push forward and enter peace talks as women, a voice shouted out, “It’s time to wave goodbye to dinosaurs,” and with that, they launched a political party under this name. “We were ordinary women who fell into extraordinary times,” she said of the group. “Men felt that they were going to be shot. Women often felt, ‘We will reach out because what’s happening to our children is incredibly dangerous.’”

She reflected on what she had learned in this process and what she would have done differently, and pointed out how men in the peace talks were deeply influenced by their tradition of never talking to their opponents. “Reaching an accommodation is a strength and not a weakness,” she said. “Talking to your enemies is a strength and not a weakness. We were asked, ‘where did these women come from?’ We had been around for 25 years.”

Ms. McWilliams emphasized the need for civil society to be involved before, during, and after peace talks, because “what’s promised needs to get enforced.” After being told to go home once the peace treaty was signed, she noted instead the necessity of long-term persistence that ensures women’s participation in future negotiations. Her advice to negotiators was to “always think of the day after.”

Ms. McWilliam’s story inspired Eimhear O’Neill to direct the film Wave Goodbye to Dinosaurs. She referenced the famous quote by the Irish civil rights leader Bernadette Devlin, that “it’s not that women get written out of history; it’s that they never get written in.” Ms. O’Neill said that her aim in creating the documentary was to reverse that. “In order to affect change, you have to expose your identity…You have to say no and you have to ask and demand that change can happen. I think wherever you are in the world, where you can wave goodbye to dinosaurs, you should, and where you haven’t been able to just yet, start waving.

Geeta Gandbhir, director of the second film, A Journey of a Thousand Miles: Peacekeepers, said she had been troubled by the simplistic portrayal of Muslim women in the media. She wanted to show a new vision, rather than the one-dimensional image of them as victims, voiceless, or as aiding and abetting extremist groups and terrorists.

The documentary centers on the all-women Bangladeshi Formed Police Unit that was sent to Haiti during the cholera epidemic. Not only did she note the effect that women in peacekeeping had on the host community, but also the personal growth that peacekeeping afforded the women themselves, emboldening them to combat patriarchy, not least by giving them financial stability.

“We understood that having women in peacekeeping forces and participating in the process could empower women in the host community…They could help make the peacekeeping force more approachable to the women in the community. They were able to assist and aid survivors of gender-based violence, they were also able to interact in societies where women were prevented from speaking to men. They provided role models, a greater sense of security to local populations, including women and children.” When met with pushback by the local community, they responded differently than male peacekeepers had, said Ms. Gandbhir. They “realized the basis of anger and frustration was often about systemic poverty and corruption that was implicit. In some ways their response to protests and people being hostile towards them was met with understanding.”

In addition, she said, they cultivated trust of the United Nations within the community. “When male peacekeepers patrolled camps, women and children would go inside and not come out. And when the women patrolled the camps, the women and children would come out and follow them and walk through the camps with them, and want to hold their hands, and want to talk to them. And after a while the women would sometimes bring little treats for the children, they would try to interact with them. They would play games with them. It was…inspiring for us to see,” Ms. Gandbhir said.

The women peacekeepers also derived benefits for themselves. “Women themselves were able to broaden their skills and capacity and bring some of what they learned home,” she said. “They also experienced a freedom that they did not have at home: they were able to bond with each other, work together, they were given responsibilities that they didn’t have at home. Some were happy to be free of the burden of childcare and cooking. For them that was a joyful thing even though they missed their families terribly. Financially, the money they made from mission was three times what they made at home. So they were effectively the breadwinners, they were able to support their families and became role models for their own children.”

Witnessing these clear examples of emboldened women showcased the positive impact of women’s involvement, said Nahla Valji, Senior Gender Advisor in the Executive Office in the Secretary-General of the UN. “The power of these movies [is that] …until you see relationships being built in front of you, I don’t think we fully understand the impact that we can have through women’s participation.” The ways in which we view women in action alters our definition of effective leadership, she said. “It role models a different way of being. It also brings 50 percent of the world’s population and their diverse perspectives to the table.”

Ms. O’Neill said she was “delighted” that the media was now capturing the voices of the young women. “The more examples we have of other women who’ve done it, the more confident we feel. I often feel like we need permission to step forward. Sometimes we need to give ourselves permission internally. It’s about feeling confident, it’s about feeling safe, that you can step forward. Increasingly younger women are starting to talk about that.”

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel gave opening remarks, and Senior Fellow Sarah Taylor moderated.

Tweets by ipinst

Wednesday, March 13, 6:15pm EST
Film Discussion: Women, War, and Peace II
This event will focus on two of the four films that make up the Women, War & Peace II PBS documentary film series: Wave Goodbye to Dinosaurs and A Journey of a Thousand Miles.

Watch Live Register to Attend

Thursday, March 14, 1:15pm EST
Feminist Leadership at the UN
This event will amplify perspectives on progress as well as remaining challenges to removing barriers to gender equality and feminist leadership at national, regional and global levels.

Watch Live Register to Attend

Wednesday, March 20, 1:15pm EST
Mobilizing Men as Partners for Women, Peace and Security
Speakers at this event will discuss strategies for global leaders to reinforce and amplify the importance of inclusion.

Watch Live Register to Attend Further Reading

Policy Reports and Issue Briefs:

• Women’s Struggle for Citizenship: Civil Society and Constitution Making after the Arab Uprisings
• The SDGs and Prevention for Sustaining Peace: Exploring the Transformative Potential of the Goal on Gender Equality
• ICM Policy Paper: Women, Peace, and Security
• Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s Roles in Peace Processes
• Building Peace and Development in the Sahel: Enhancing the Political Participation of Women and Youth

Global Observatory Articles:

• Women’s Issues: What Are They?
• In Peace and in War Gender Equality Is Everyone’s Battle
• Libya Talks Embody Missing Participation of Women in Peace Processes
• Why Women, Peace, and Security? Why Now?
• UN Peacekeeping: Where is the Gender Expertise?
• Without Prioritization of Peace and Women’s Leadership, WPS in Peril
• Five Frequently Asked Questions on the Inclusion of Women in Peace Processes
• What Does the New Women, Peace, and Security Index Measure?
• Fighting Violence Against Women in Politics: the Limits of Legal Reform
• In Tunisia’s March Toward Women’s Rights, Finish Line Is in Sight
• Tunisia’s New Protections for Women: A Legislative Revolution and Missed Opportunity
• UN Peacekeeping: Where Are All the Women?
• Gender Equality Over a Barrel: How the Gulf’s Oil Dependence Holds Back Women
• Women, Tribal Leaders Key to Rebuilding Libyan State
• Investing in Inclusion: Women, Peace, and Development in Africa
• Sexual Violence Against the Rohingya: Q&A with Razia Sultana
• Conflict, Peacebuilding, and Perspectives in Colombia: Q&A with Charo Mina-Rojas
• Women, Peace, and Politics at the UN Security Council

.cartouche { display: none; } /* hide title */
}
ul.subnav.nav { /* hide the nav buttons */
display: none;
}

Event Video: 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-rqdtoz").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-rqdtoz").fadeIn(1000);});});

Some 18 months after 700,000 people fled Myanmar’s Rakhine state, camps in neighboring Bangladesh are now hosting more than one million refugees. Though Myanmar and Bangladesh agreed in November 2017 to a procedural framework for repatriation of these refugees—most of them Rohingyas from Rakhine state—the increased instability there has not allowed for safe, dignified, and voluntary returns.

The resulting humanitarian crisis and what to do about it was the subject of an IPI Speaker Series talk on March 1st by Bangladeshi Foreign Secretary Md. Shahidul Haque. He opened his remarks by saying that the matter had been badly distorted.

“There has been an attempt to make the whole issue from a humanitarian crisis to a military conflict between Myanmar and Bangladesh,” Mr. Haque said. In fact, he said, “this is between Myanmar and its own nationals, the Rohingyas… it is not an interstate fight, it is an ethnic issue.”

In a briefing to the United Nations Security Council the day before, UN Special Envoy for Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener had reported that the refugees in the Cox’s Bazar area of Bangladesh find themselves in “extremely challenging temporary conditions.” And she said they would continue in danger indefinitely in the absence of moves to end violence, improve humanitarian access, probe the causes of the crisis, and promote equitable development.

Mr. Haque said that the displaced people were in deeply deforested areas, with no infrastructure and no market system even to buy necessities. “But one of the most challenging situations that we are confronted with was not with shelter, not with food, but health,” he said. “Health is an area which often creates a crisis within a crisis.”

The World Health Organization aided in getting necessary vaccines after an outbreak of diphtheria, and individual governments and local NGOs were providing health services, he said. His own government tried to help by sending in troops with health supplies, but women ran away, thinking they were Myanmar soldiers, he said. “It took two or three days to make them understand this is not the Myanmar military, they are not going to kill you, but they are going to help you.” Bangladesh subsequently tried to make sure that those providing aid were women, he said.

Mr. Haque listed three necessary steps for improvement – addressing the “root causes” of the conflict, holding perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable, and ensuring the safety and security of minority communities, especially the Rohingyas. He added that “international pressure on Myanmar is critical.”

He said that all civilians “irrespective of religion and ethnicity must be protected in Myanmar,” and he proposed accordingly that civilian zones with no military presence be established within the country under UN supervision. He also encouraged international organizations and the UN to collect the evidence that would be needed to investigate and prosecute atrocities. “Unless you bring in the whole issue of accountability and justice,” he said, “you cannot permanently resolve this problem, you cannot ensure that next time there won’t be another exodus.”

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel, the moderator of the discussion, concluded the session, saying, “My takeaway is this really is a multi-dimensional, multi-layered, multigenerational crisis… This really is a long-term problem with very urgent short term demands, but a need for a long-term perspective on both the history and the resolution. In some ways, it’s a real good case for what we’re calling in this neighborhood the ‘triple nexus’, a crisis that is both the peace and security, development, and human rights all in one which makes it very complicated but also in some sense maps out what kind of process needs to be engaged for a resolution.”

In recent years, the UN and its member states have promoted comprehensive approaches and integrated structures and processes to improve coherence and consistency between political peacekeeping, humanitarian, human rights, and development efforts undertaken by the UN and its partners. For POC specifically, coordination between the military, police, and civilian components of peace operations; between peace operations and UN agencies, funds, and programs; and between the UN system and other protection actors has been pursued to maximize impact in the field. Joint planning, analysis, and action at these three levels are key to leveraging different types of expertise, tools, and responses in a holistic way in order to better prevent and respond to threats to civilians.

However, while the UN’s normative and policy frameworks provide the basis for coordination and organizational arrangements have been set up to facilitate integrated efforts at these three levels, recent developments in the peace and security sphere have reinvigorated the debate over the costs and benefits of integration. Coordination for POC has proven to be increasingly difficult in non-permissive environments where, for example, peacekeepers may be perceived as party to the armed conflict or as having too close or tense a relationship with the host state or non-state actors. Integration in such contexts has led to debates around the preservation of humanitarian space, the independence of human rights advocacy, and the security of actors too closely linked to peacekeeping efforts.

This issue brief analyzes the costs, benefits, and challenges of coordinated and integrated approaches to POC in peacekeeping contexts. It considers the added value of mission-wide and system-wide coordination for POC and concerns over comprehensive coordination between peacekeeping and humanitarian actors, which have different rationales and methodologies for protection. In a context of UN reform emphasizing prevention and political strategies, it questions the political and institutional push for more comprehensive POC strategies and reflects on the associated risks. It also offers considerations for how to coordinate and integrate multi-actor efforts in order to better protect civilians.

Download

Number of UN troops and police authorized by the Security Council in Haiti (Click for full graphic)

The process of reconfiguring, closing, and handing over responsibilities to a UN country team or host-state institutions is a crucial—and challenging—part of the life cycle of a UN peacekeeping mission. Transitions have been a central feature of UN peacekeeping in Haiti, in particular, which has gone through numerous transitions since the 1990s. This paper focuses on the two most recent peacekeeping transitions in Haiti: one from the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) to the UN Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), or from a multidimensional peacekeeping operation involving a substantial military component to a small peace operation focused on police and rule of law; and the ongoing transition toward the closure of MINUJUSTH and preparations for the eventual handover to other actors.

For both missions, the paper focuses on three issues: (1) transition planning, including the political dynamics that influenced decision making, gaps between plans and the reality on the ground, and the limited role of the host state, UN country team, civil society, and donors; (2) management, logistical, and administrative challenges; and (3) issues related to business continuity and changes in substantive areas of work. It concludes by offering lessons learned from the past and current transitions that can inform the next drawdown and exit of peacekeepers from Haiti.

Related:
 Interview with former President of Haiti Gérard Latortue (in French)

Download

UNOCI Peacekeeping Contributions (Click for full graphic).

In April 2016, after four years of progressive downsizing, the Security Council decided to close the UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) within a year. This decision reflected a consensus that it was time for UNOCI to leave and hand over to the UN country team with no follow-on mission. However, the transition was abrupt, without sustained dialogue, capacity transfer, or financial fluidity, leaving the UN country team unprepared to take on the mission’s responsibilities.

This policy paper examines the political dynamics in Côte d’Ivoire and in the Security Council that led to the decision to withdraw UNOCI, as well as the stages of the withdrawal and handover. It also analyzes the gaps and shortcomings that left the country team ill-prepared to take over, highlighting two main challenges. First, the Security Council viewed the transition as a political process. Its objective of withdrawing the mission superseded all others, leading it to underestimate, if not overlook, the continued peacebuilding needs of the country. Second, the transition was accompanied by waning donor interest, undercutting programming by the country team in priority areas like reconciliation, security sector reform, human rights, and land tenure.

Download

Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-wvhzij").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-wvhzij").fadeIn(1000);});});

During an event in Tunis on December 13, 2018, IPI-MENA Director Nejib Friji warned against perils to world heritage and called on the international community to provide all conditions of protection and preservation.

In a statement delivered at the opening plenary session of the Arab League Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization’s (ALECSO) Fourth Meeting of the Liaison Officers of the Architectural and Urban Heritage Observatory in the Arab States, Mr. Friji reiterated the importance of the protection and conservation of world heritage as crucial criteria to achieve sustainable development and social peace.

Likening cultural and world heritage to a running thread that ties and weaves civilizations together, Mr. Friji highlighted the contribution of world heritage to the development of relations between countries and regions. “It thus becomes a work of cooperation and coordination, paving the environment for peaceful relations of stability and development beyond the borders and members of one community.”

Referring to the major damage incurred by radical religious groups to sites such as the old city of Mosul in Iraq or Sana’a in Yemen, he stated that “the destruction of cultural and world heritage strikes at the very foundation of a society, deliberately erasing common roots and destroying social fabric, creating a breeding ground for conflict, instability and social unrest.”

The IPI-MENA Director emphasized how the ruination of “oral traditions, museums, artifacts, temples, and statues” is detrimental to regional stability and social peace. He stated, “the destruction of cultural heritage ultimately amounts to a violation of human rights, and subsequently humanitarian law—both of which are core requirements to achieve sustainable development and peace.”

At a time when extremist groups are distorting religion and using the message of Islam as a political tool to erase cultural heritage, Mr. Friji drew attention to the significant role of religious leaders in the Islamic world. He mentioned the example of the religious representatives who convened at IPI-MENA office in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain in 2016, who called for religious leaders to unite in their condemnation of the destruction of world heritage by religious extremist groups.

Underlying the importance of involving youth, Mr. Friji stressed that “the value of our cultural heritage must become part of a national curriculum from primary schools up to universities”, and that education is a powerful tool that must be incorporated to instill a sense of common responsibility and duty within citizens.

In order to achieve sustainable development and peace, “a holistic approach that engages all relevant stakeholders: civil society, nations at the grassroots level, governments, regions, and the multilateral system” is required.

He concluded his statement during the opening plenary session by calling on all relevant stakeholders and key players locally, regionally, and internationally “to uphold, maintain and protect world heritage, to respect past generations, educate present ones, but most of all, to pass down to future generations their cultural history.” He emphasized that the collective responsibility of prevention is a mechanism to safeguard long-lasting peace.

The meeting focusing on the creation of the Observatory of Urban Architectural Heritage in Arab Countries, it was chaired by Hayat Guermazi, Director of the Cultural Department of ALESCO, and featured participants Mounir Bouchenaki, Adviser to UNESCO Director General, Consultant on the protection and conservation of world heritage, Karim Hendili, Coordinator at the World Heritage Center, UNESCO, Bilel Chebbi, ISESCO Representative and IPI MENA-Director Nejib Friji.

Mr. Friji highly commended the creation of an Observatory for Urban Architectural Heritage, highlighting the platform it creates that can allow the development of international legal frameworks that will protect civilians and the state of conflict, as well as the archeological and cultural sites.

Describing the way forward, he concluded that these recommendations “may be used to form the basis for a package of laws that may be brought up by ministers to international forums to become elements of binding international laws.”

Actual and authorized number of uniformed UN personnel in Liberia, September 2003-March 2018 (Click for full graphic)

From 2003 to 2018, the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) was ever-present throughout the country. The peacekeeping mission’s work, and its transition out of the country, are considered positive examples of how the UN can support countries through conflict and post-conflict phases. Nevertheless, UNMIL’s transition offers many lessons that member states, UN officials, and international partners can learn in order to strengthen future UN peacekeeping transitions.

This paper examines the process of Liberia’s transition from a peacekeeping mission to a UN country team configuration, focusing on the period from July 2016 to July 2018. It identifies the political and operational dynamics that drove the transition, examines the policy processes and context within which the transition was executed, and assesses the ability of the UN’s post-mission configuration to sustain peace in Liberia.

The paper underscores that member states and the UN Secretariat should change their approach to transitions from racing against deadlines to instead viewing them as processes that begin well before a peacekeeping mission closes and continue for several years after the mission ends. By viewing transitions as long-term, multi-stakeholder activities, member states have the opportunity to ensure that future transitions adopt integrated approaches with adequate political, operational, and financial support.

Download

Event Video: 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-izhlnb").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-izhlnb").fadeIn(1000);});});

IPI and the Carnegie Corporation of New York held a policy forum on December 13th predicated on the notion that local communities—those most directly impacted and living the realities of violent conflict—are the experts on the problems they face, and therefore should be the ones, rather than outside experts, to define what peace means in their contexts and how to measure success in achieving this peace. The UN’s Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace Resolutions emphasize the prioritization of the local and ensuring that the work of the international community compliments and supports the initiatives of local actors. In order to operationalize this line of thinking there is a need for greater understanding among international peacebuilding practitioners and policymakers of the work of local peacebuilders in building and sustaining peace.

In line with this, this panel discussion focused on the role of participatory approaches to understanding what peace means in different communities and what progress in achieving this peace looks like. Specifically, this panel looked at the work of the Everyday Peace Indicators (EPI) and the upcoming book Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War, authored by one of the panelists, Pamina Firchow, Assistant Professor of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University.

Measurement should be based on “the needs and priorities of recipients of assistance rather than just the understandings of what outside actors and experts believe is necessary,” Dr. Firchow said. And measuring local priorities, she argued, provides the necessary statistical evidence to come up with and promote relevant policy. “Without numbers behind something, there is really no hope for advocating on its behalf. Therefore, these numbers, which are usually based on indicators, are of incredible importance.”

She explained, “The everyday indicators use existing information based on what I call indigenous technical knowledge. That is the body of knowledge generated or acquired by local people through the accumulation of everyday experiences, community interactions and trial and error that people use in their daily lives to determine whether they are more or less at peace.”

This local focus is critical for sustaining peace, she said, “since the majority of top-down attempts at measuring peace use indicators that focus primarily on violence reduction and therefore may miss important elements of what comprises the actual building of peace after war.”

Stephen Del Rosso, Program Director, International Peace and Security at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, praised Dr. Firchow’s research, saying it spoke to the concerns that his organization had in this area. “We [at the Carnegie Corporation] are particularly interested in this meddlesome question of evaluating the peacebuilding interventions that have taken place in the world, particularly given the rather spotty record of top-down approaches developed in the global north.”

Séverine Autesserre, Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University, commented on the approach, saying it represented a fundamental shift in strategy. “The usual international approach is to ignore these kind of local initiatives,” she said. “Instead, we should fund, protect, and support these local initiatives so that we’ve reinforced them. We need to build on local expertise, and we need to involve in the design, planning, and evaluation of international programs not only the elite based in national capitals and headquarters but also local beneficiaries, local leaders, and ordinary citizens. So to me it’s important that we involve these people in the design and in the implementation of the actual initiatives in addition to involving them in the design of monitoring and evaluation strategies.”

She cited from her upcoming new book—On the Frontlines of Peace—the example of Idjwi, an island in Lake Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo, that has maintained peace in a country marked by widespread conflict. “What’s fascinating about Idjwi is that order comes not through police, cameras, guns, and ammunition but through local participation. The island is peaceful because of the active everyday involvement of all of its citizens, including the poorest and least powerful ones,” she said.  “It is not the army, the state, or the police who manage to control tensions, and it’s not foreign peacebuilders or any outsiders. It is the members of the community themselves.”

She said the example of Idjwi shows that “local community resources can build peace better than the usual elite agreements and outside interventions that we usually focus on when we evaluate peacebuilding efforts.”

Michelle Breslauer, Program Director, Americas, for the Institute for Economics and Peace, said she welcomed the current move away from measuring things like armed conflict and towards a positive peace index based on what she called the Eight Positive Pillars of Peace. She identified these pillars as well-functioning Government, Sound Business Environment, Equitable Distribution of Resources, Acceptance of the Rights of Others, Good Relations with Neighbors, Free Flow of Information, High Levels of Human Capital, and Low Levels of Corruption.

“Simply addressing the factors that led to violence in the past will not be enough to sustain peace,” she said. “Improvements in peace require broader and more systemic strategies than we currently think. Peacebuilding needs to be solution- rather than problem-oriented.”

Graeme Simpson, Director of Interpeace USA, singled out what he saw as a seriously missed opportunity in how the peacebuilding community views youth. “The international community, driven by policy assumptions and policy myths, is investing massively in youth as a risk, instead of recognizing this unbelievable, creative, resourceful space of resilient youth peacebuilding, which offers a powerful alternative and arguably more effective preventive measure for investing in youth-led peacebuilding.” Youth, he asserted, are actually “an asset, a source of resilience, a vehicle for peacebuilding.”

He decried the “terrible stereotyping which treats young people as almost inherently associated with violence.” The consequences of this for youth involvement are serious, he said.  “Young people were saying to us, these stereotypes completely deprive them of any sense of agency, their role as peacebuilders.”

He urged partnering with young people in a way that respected their interests and choices and didn’t impose outsiders’ traditional and unoriginal attitudes on them. “The gravest danger,” he said, “is that we start demanding impact assessments and measurement tools, the linear approach that we’ve talked about, that log frame them out of existence, that basically destroy the very risk-taking and innovation that make some of the outcomes of what they’re doing unpredictable.”

This event is part of the series of events IPI held in 2018 looking at what peace means in different contexts, how to measure peace and how to collect evidence of progress towards achieving peace. As the international community grapples with how to best support effective peacebuilding efforts, IPI has, and will continue to play, a bridging role between the local and the global, bringing concrete examples from the ground on what works and what is needed to more effectively build and sustain long-lasting peace.

IPI Senior Policy Analyst Lesley Connolly moderated the discussion.

Event Video: 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-nccton").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-nccton").fadeIn(1000);});});

On December 11th, IPI and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations held a policy forum to explore the many unremarked upon but necessary functions required to place and enable UN missions in the field.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel opened the conversation by pointing out that while these activities were under-explained and under-appreciated, they were nevertheless essential. He called them the “forgotten parents of success.”

Marc Jacquand, Adviser in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, listed some of the functions as security, risk management, logistics/operations, access, staff welfare and medical care, and coordination.

“The reality is, we haven’t been very good at explaining all of these enabling functions, what they cost, and why they’re needed,” he said. “Because it’s complex. If you look at the security side, the way the UN funds its security architecture is very complex, most people within the UN don’t understand it, so we need to be a lot better at explaining how these things work, how they’re funded. I think also some people don’t want to bother knowing these issues, because this is the engine room—this is deep in the engine room. They’d rather sit somewhere and think grand strategy. But if we define strategy as aligning means to the ends, we’ve got to factor in that data.”

Irina Schoulgin Nyoni, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden, which is completing its current two-year term on the Security Council this month, said it was important to communicate the centrality of these little known functions to the highest level of the UN where they are not broadly understood. “Sometimes this becomes very technical and complex, but that is what the reality looks like. It is complex and it has to be technical, and I think that sometimes it is difficult to explain,” she said, “But I would plead with you to try to find ways to explain these things, especially to the members of the Security Council who are sitting with the mandate formulations, but also to colleagues in the Fifth Committee who are then juggling dollars in a way that I think sometimes is very unrealistic.”

Nannette Ahmed, Director and Team Leader of the Central Africa Integrated Operational Team, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), noted that peacekeepers were operating in increasingly volatile and dangerous environments that inhibited their performance and undercut their effectiveness. “We deploy in very challenging post-conflict situations, sometimes in continuing conflict situations, and more and more, we’re deploying into contexts that are extremely inhospitable, whether logistically- or security-wise, very dangerous, complex, where political process is non-existent, stalled, stalling, which makes it all the more complicated for us to achieve our objectives.”

In these circumstances, “risk management is a daily, if not an hourly endeavor,” she said. Illustrating the dilemma, she asked, “Do they go out of a camp to protect some civilians that are being attacked, when they are themselves being attacked?” Other such questions she suggested were how many people do you deploy in order to protect civilians, how do you decide which pockets of population to save when you know you can’t reach them all, and how do you divide up your available resources in the most efficient and least costly manner.

“If you are going to operate and deliver on your mandate in high-risk environments, it comes at a cost,” she said. “You can’t nickel and dime it. I know that sometimes you look at these operations, and you’re going, ‘My God, they’re expensive,’ but if you look at actually what they’re paying for and really go down deep, I think you can see that a lot of these areas are the ones you need in order to even be there in the first place, and to be effective. Because just being somewhere without being able to be effective is not achieving anyone’s goal or objective.”

Often the necessary ingredient was a tradeoff, she said, citing an example from her work, where roads were a supply line for peacekeepers, “Repairing roads is not a responsibility of a peacekeeping operation; it is a responsibility of a government, but if we don’t have good roads, for example, like the supply line, we can’t use the roads to supply our troops. So whose responsibility is it? And at what timeline do you need it by? There are a lot of tradeoffs…Some of the great success stories are when we work together.”

Aurelien Buffler, Chief of the Policy Advice and Planning Section of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said that his office had to take into account that operating in insecure environments was “the norm” for today’s humanitarians and their ability to gain access. “Access, first, is having the right understanding of what is the situation and understanding of what is the situation and just understanding the context in which you operate. It means having staff dedicated to actually leading analysis of the context in which you want to respond, and communicate with the communities involved and parties to conflict, including armed groups. This takes time, this takes skills and, of course, this takes money, money, but it is absolutely necessary.”

Working in what he called “messy environments” in places like the Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, there are particular concerns about safety, mobility, and making sure that resources aren’t diverted and fueling corruption.

He acknowledged that tradeoffs in this environment were of “suboptimal options,” but he said the UN must push forward even if the final objective seems distant and unattainable. “In some cases, just delivering the minimum assistance needed to a community can be a success,” he said, mentioning a food airdrop in Syria that reached a community that had not received supplies for months and where the issue had become one of sheer survival.

Mr. Jacquand said that weighing the value of tradeoffs often came down to examining the details. “If you don’t define what you’re talking about, it can remain at the level of theology,” he said. “This matters to people, to our colleagues in the field, to our colleagues in the UN, in the NGO world, in the delegations, this matters. Getting inside these details, understanding the cost, understanding these things.” This attentiveness to management detail, while sometimes tedious in execution, was essential to the fulfillment of a mission, he argued. “The words that are uttered here, the words that are written in a mandate, or in a budget, a report, they matter, they have implications on people’s lives. Obviously the populations in these countries, but also our colleagues, who are out there and expect us to keep that in mind when we attend meetings and write reports. So we would really encourage continuation of this dialogue because it’s not academic. It matters to our colleagues and friends in the field.”

Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-mrtmsd").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-mrtmsd").fadeIn(1000);});});

IPI-MENA received 12-year old Adam Jade Kadia, who presented the first edition of his second book entitled 17 SDGs to IPI-MENA Director Nejib Friji.

Mr. Kadia stated that the reason behind authoring his new book on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is to urge youth and the global community to cooperate, as “everybody is in it together, we do not have multiple earths, we only have this one.”

He emphasized that the SDGs are tools to help “make the world a better place for us, the future generations.”

Elaborating on the original narrative of the book, Adam highlighted core principles touched upon by his characters in the book, such as gender equity and education. He cited Malala Yousafazi as an inspiration and example.

In 2016, Mr. Kadia presented his first book, Hakeem, the Adventurer at IPI-MENA to an audience comprising of his peers and students across schools in the Kingdom of Bahrain. His latest book cemented his devotion to peace and sustainable development. 17 SDGS will top bookshelves in early 2019.

Download Meeting Brief

On December 4th, IPI, One Earth Future, UN Office for Partnerships, UN Peacebuilding Support Office, UN Global Compact, and the Permanent Mission of Republic of Korea launched a workshop series designed to catalyze engagement across public and private sectors and build new kinds of partnerships. While the private sector knows how to engage with topics such as economic growth and climate change, there is less understanding on how it can contribute to sustaining peace and the 2030 Agenda and how it can work together with the UN, member states and civil society.

The workshop was also focused on countries that need to scale up investments, particularly those that the private sector regard as too high-risk to engage.

The aim of creating this space was to address the main issue that has hindered effective cross-sectoral collaboration: an understanding gap between UN communities, civil society organizations, and private sector actors. Each of these communities interact with issues of peace and conflict in a different way, and without shared understanding about different starting points, attempts at partnerships may flounder. This workshop encouraged small-group discussion with country representatives, private sector actors, and civil society at the same table to develop shared understanding of each other and how collective work could be effective.

Table themes included: Fisheries/Food Security; Migration; Blended Finance; Measuring Peace; and Mobile and Digital Technology.

Some key points made by participants included:

• Business need to align their activities with the SDGs, not only because it is a noble cause, but because it makes financial sense;
• In order to make a “business case for peace” there is a need for a system thinking approach that addresses not only short-term needs but looks at the entire value chain;
• Knowledge-sharing and data are essential to create the needed frameworks for investors to engage in conflict and post conflict settings;
• Government buy-in is an indispensable requirement for businesses to invest in new projects that will have win-win outcomes;
• The private sector tends to overestimate risk and there is a need to do more evidence-based research to highlight that the benefits outweigh the risks; and
• The role of the UN is essential as a body that provides norms and standards as well as has a convening power that can build trust and credibility between different actors.

The private and public sectors have different definitions of peace and the workshop promoted a greater understanding of how to work collaboratively to address the SDGS and sustaining peace and how to develop “win-win” language for partnerships between the private sector and peace promoters.

The pilot session lasted approximately three hours and included about 60 participants drawn from member states, businesses, civil society organizations, and UN entities involved in sustainable development and peacebuilding. The discussions were conducted under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution.

Related Coverage:
“OEF Announces Innovation in Partnerships Workshop,” Press Release, December 4, 2018

Armed conflict is a global health issue. Long-lasting and protracted conflicts in particular have consequences not only for the war-wounded but also for the health of entire communities. Over the years, global health actors and humanitarian health actors have developed health policies, guidelines, frameworks, and structures to improve delivery of health services in emergencies or humanitarian crises. Despite these advancements, however, the international health response in conflict-affected settings still faces gaps and challenges. Some policies and frameworks need to be rethought or redesigned, while others need to be better implemented.

This paper explores challenges to healthcare provision in conflict-affected settings. These challenges are broadly broken down into three categories: constraints related to the health system and damaged health infrastructure, difficulty for health workers to access populations in need, and restrictions to healthcare provision intentionally or accidentally placed by donors or states engaged on humanitarian and health issues (e.g., through the securitization of healthcare).

Tackling these challenges will have a direct impact on the lives of people in conflict-affected settings. However, doing so requires a radical shift in mindsets and the incentives that guide the actions of international health actors. Even so, more incremental changes can also be beneficial. To that end, this report puts forth the following recommendations:

1. Improve coordination between and among humanitarian, development, and global health actors;
2. Respond to context-specific needs;
3. Hold health actors accountable to affected populations for their performance, and;
4. Make responses sustainable.

This work is based on a combination of desk research, interviews with more than seventy key informants, and an expert meeting bringing together key stakeholders and experts on global and humanitarian health.

Download

Almost 20 years since the first Protection of Civilians (POC) mandate was established for a United Nations peacekeeping operation, POC has become an essential element of peace operations. However, gaps in means and resources, command-and-control issues, inadequate training and expertise of UN personnel, and caveats imposed by troop-contributing countries have all hampered the actual delivery of POC mandates. Over the years, internal and external reports and investigations have highlighted performance shortfalls and the need for better accountability for the implementation of POC on the ground.

On Monday December 3rd, 2018, the International Peace Institute (IPI) organized a roundtable workshop on the “Accountability System for the Protection of Civilians: A Shared Responsibility” as part of IPI’s Protection of Civilians project, supported by the Netherlands. The first session of the workshop focused on accountability and performance of the UN Secretariat and peace operations, while the second session focused on the accountability of member states in pursuing the protection of civilians, looking at the responsibility of the UN Security Council, Troop and Police Contributing Countries (T/PCCs) and host states.

This workshop gathered more than 40 participants, including researchers, UN officials, member states representatives and civil society organizations representatives.

The accountability and performance of the UN Secretariat and peace operations

Despite the progress made since 1999, UN peacekeepers continue to face many challenges in the implementation of POC mandates and to be criticized for failing to protect civilians. Such failures have negatively affected the credibility of the UN, especially in a context of increased scrutiny of the performance of UN peacekeeping operations. Although inquiries and investigations have been conducted following these incidents, they often have been left confidential, and a general lack of transparency has made it difficult to ensure accountability for POC.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO, though now known as DPO, or the Department of Peace Operations) has developed important initiatives to enhance performance and accountability in peace operations. In May 2018, DPKO and the Department of Field Support (DFS) adopted an addendum to the 2015 Policy on POC to specifically address “accountability for implementation of POC mandates.” The document defines and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of mission personnel in the implementation of POC, in order to improve the integration of POC in existing performance management tools, such as individual workplans and compacts for heads of missions. The Comprehensive Performance Assessment System was also mentioned as an important tool being established to gather real time data on the mission’s overall performance and impact, to inform corrective actions.

While efforts within the Secretariat to improve accountability for POC were welcomed, participants recognized that more steps will need to be taken to further strengthen accountability. Policy changes should be complemented by legal changes, and more robust measures and clear sanctions should be established by UN leaders to hold personnel accountable and ensure that there are consequences to underperformance. Participants specifically recommended improvement in communication flows between field missions, UN headquarters, the Security Council and TCCs, to ensure that under-performance and challenges faced on the ground are known and that proper levers are used to address them. In particular, reporting more frequently on cases of units refusing to follow orders, including by engaging with permanent missions in New York, could help improving accountability for POC responses.

The lack of equipment and resources, insufficient training and preparedness, inadequate mindsets and risk awareness, gaps in command and control, as well as the absence of a political process, have all contributed to serious shortcomings in different peace operations such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan or the Central African Republic. However, participants mentioned a recent quantitative study conducted by Office of Internal Oversight Services which established that the readiness of UN personnel to respond to POC threats does not necessarily depend on their equipment or their proximity to POC incidents. While there is a recognized organizational responsibility for UN missions to protect civilians, and POC structures and processes have been established, specific roles and responsibilities are not always understood, and a culture of accountability for all is needed to boost performance.

Participants stressed that POC is a whole-of-mission and multidimensional task, and highlighted the shared responsibility for the delivery of POC by peacekeeping missions. Accountability for POC should not only apply to the military component, but also to the civilian and police components. Furthermore, accountability should be established beyond the senior mission leadership, and include all working levels of peace operations.

As participants discussed the definition of accountability, some highlighted that accountability implied the role of a third actor whom peace operations would be accountable to. UN missions can be considered accountable to UN headquarters and the Secretariat, the Security Council, TCCs, or local populations themselves. The question of confidence and transparency towards beneficiaries was therefore raised in discussions. Local populations must trust that peacekeepers will do their utmost to protect them, and community engagement was described as an entry point to enhance confidence-building and accountability towards local communities.

The accountability of member states in pursuing POC: UN Security Council, T/PCCs, host states

Participants also stressed that POC requires a whole-of-organization approach involving other key actors such as the UN Security Council, T/PCCs and host states. They recommended that the Security Council adopt clearer mandates and wording in its resolutions, and remain engaged on country-specific situations beyond the adoption of mandates.

More inclusive approaches and triangular cooperation were also highlighted as key. Elected members of the Security Council could, for example, be consulted earlier on mission mandate renewals to allow enough time for consultations at capital level, and be associated in the drafting of resolutions. Participants also highlighted the importance of continuous consultations between the Security Council and T/PCCs on the definition of mandates, tasks and rules of engagement, especially in contexts of volatile and changing environments. The creation of an informal group of TCCs at mission level in New York was described as an important step to improve consultations of TCCs. As such, participants called for active participation of TCCs in consultative meetings hosted by penholders, and in all debates informing the renewal process of mandates.

Participants also encouraged a more frank and honest depiction of the situation in the field by the Secretariat, in order to be able to hold the Council accountable to its decisions. A suggestion was put forward to implement mid-mandate assessments of peace operations to reassess the needs of missions. Furthermore, reports from the Secretary General could include more comprehensive information on political and financial support needed to ensure good performance. The informal expert group on the protection of civilians was also mentioned as a tool which could allow for better communication among stakeholders.

Participants also called for increased informal and frank exchanges between the Council and senior mission  leadership (including Special Representatives of the Secretary-General (SRSGs), force commanders and police commissioners). Arria formula meetings or informal briefings to regularly engage with human rights components, protection advisors or force commanders were specifically encouraged. This will help inform Council decisions in terms of funding and capacities, and also constitutes an additional way to strengthen the Council’s accountability. Inadequate or poor budgeting has led to under resourcing which in turn leads to under performance.

On the accountability of T/PCCs, while noting the limits for POC within the capabilities and areas of deployment of peacekeepers, participants highlighted issues related to command and control and the use of force. To address these challenges, participants suggested taking stock of examples from the performance of T/PCCs in different mission contexts.

While noting the difficulty in measuring military performance, participants encouraged initiatives from the Secretariat to identify areas of improvement through force commanders’ evaluations and engage with underperforming units in a collaborative way to support corrective actions. Meetings with high performing T/PCCs to share lessons learned and best practices were also encouraged. Another element raised to improve accountability for T/PCCs was to strengthen leverage through financial incentives in cases of underperformance. Participants also noted the challenge of finding TCCs available or willing to replace underperforming units in volatile security contexts.

Questions were further raised in the workshop regarding the accountability of the host state, bearer of the primary responsibility to protect civilians, and the need to find entry-points and leverage opportunities when the host state fails to fulfill this responsibility. The role of member states, through bilateral engagement with the host state, was highlighted as essential. This engagement can also be done through regional organizations.

Participants welcomed the endorsement by 150 member states of the Declaration of Shared Commitments on Peacekeeping Operations, part of the Secretary General’s Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative, which supports effective performance and accountability by all peacekeeping components.

The discussions were chaired by Namie Di Razza, Research fellow and head of IPI’s Protection of Civilians project, and Jake Sherman, Director of the Center for Peace Operations. This workshop was part of IPI’s POC Project and follows an informal briefing on accountability co-hosted by the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the UN, the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the UN, and IPI in October 2018. The discussion will inform IPI’s upcoming research paper on the accountability system for POC.

Internally displaced persons and the Sustainable Development Goals (Click for full graphic)

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, an international framework that authoritatively restates the rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs). This presents an opportunity to put the plight of IDPs back on the radar of the international community. At the same time, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development presents an opportunity to ensure that the plight of IDPs is addressed in both the short and long term.

This issue brief explores the links between internal displacement and the 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and highlights ongoing efforts to address the longer-term needs of IDPs. It also looks at the specific cases of Nigeria and Iraq, which are among the few countries that have made this link by seeking to address the needs of IDPs through development-oriented initiatives.

The paper concludes with several recommendations for states, the UN, and other humanitarian and development actors to ensure that they are adequately addressing the long-term needs of IDPs:

• Member states should turn their commitment to “leave no one behind” into policy and programming by including IDPs’ concerns in their development planning.
• Humanitarian and development actors should systematically remind national governments of their obligations vis-à-vis IDPs.
• The UN and other humanitarian and development actors should strive for closer coordination and cooperation when addressing the needs of IDPs.
• All stakeholders should ensure that data informing IDP-inclusive development policies is reliable and takes into account the voices of those affected.

Download

On Friday, November 30th, IPI together with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) are cohosting a policy forum event on The Roots of Restraint in War: Engaging with Armed Forces and Armed Groups.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST / 10:15am PST

Contemporary conflicts have seen the multiplication and fracturing of armed groups, as well as a tendency for conflicts to be fought in coalitions, of states and of states and armed groups. In these conflicts, lack of respect of international humanitarian law continue on an all-too-regular basis, often committed by all sides to the conflict, exacerbating the impact of the armed conflict on civilian populations.

This policy forum will include the presentation of the findings of the ICRC’s landmark study “The Roots of Restraint in War” and a discussion on the ways in which the international community can better understand and engage with armed forces and armed groups to encourage compliance with the norms of international humanitarian law.

Opening Remarks:
Mr. Robert Mardini, Permanent Observer to the UN and Head of Delegation in New York, ICRC

Speakers:
Dr. Fiona Terry, Author of ICRC’s Roots of Restraint in War Report
H.E. Ms. Fatima Kyari Mohammed, Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations
Mr. Sergiusz Sidorowicz, Policy and Planning Officer, Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration Section, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Ms. Sophie Solomon, Access Adviser, Policy Advice and Planning Section, UNOCHA

Moderator:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen answered wide-ranging questions on CNN Abu Dhabi about politics and conflict resolution in the Middle East.

On the Arab-Israeli peace process, Mr. Rød-Larsen said, “The process is completely stalled” and is at a crossroads, where the two-state solution, long agreed as the way forward, has collapsed, “and there is a much broader canvas opening up.” He went on to say there are now three possible outcomes being discussed: status quo, two-state, or one-state, calling the one-state solution “not very realistic.” He also said if a snap election in Israel did come to be, there are strong arguments in favor of the United States putting out their peace plan and forcing Israel to take a stand on it, or come up with alternatives. He said the US peace plan, “is very close to being finished” but “has been shared with very, very few people.”

While Mr. Rød-Larsen expressed pessimism about the Arab-Israeli peace process, he said some recent events in the region are cause for optimism. “Very recently, the President of Iraq met with the Emir of Kuwait in Kuwait City. This was a country—Iraq, under Saddam Hussain—that invaded Kuwait and killed the brother of the Emir in front of the palace. And look what these two leaders are showing—compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation. And the Emir of Kuwait is now leading the reconstruction of the work in Iraq.”

Mr. Rød-Larsen also said the fault lines in the Middle East are now being redrawn away from Arab-Israeli and toward Iran-Saudi Arabia. During the 20-minute conversation, Mr. Rød-Larsen discussed Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, among other topics. 

As an example of Mr. Rød-Larsen’s personal and deep ties to the region, CNN host Becky Anderson reminded him that “he may be the only person in the world who has babysat for both Yasser Arafat and Bibi Netanyahu.”  

On November 19th, IPI together with the International Drug Policy Consortium, and the Social Science Research Council cohosted a policy forum event entitled “Beyond 2019: The Future of Drug Policies, and the Lessons Learned.”

In 2009, UN member states set 2019 as the target date “to eliminate or reduce significantly and measurably” the illicit cultivation, production, trafficking, and use of internationally controlled substances. In March 2019, the international community will hold a ministerial segment in Vienna to take stock of progress made and delineate the global drug strategy for the next decade. With the end date of the 2009 UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem fast approaching, and three years after the General Assembly’s special session on the world drug problem, the timing is ripe to take a step back and examine the progress made, the challenges faced, and consider ways forward.

The panel assessed the progress, or lack thereof, against the objectives set in the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action. It also examined whether global drug control has contributed to, or undermined, the UN’s broader priorities to protect human rights, advance peace and security, and promote development—in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. Considering the widely divergent drug policies being implemented worldwide (from the legalization of cannabis for recreational use to the use of the death penalty for drug offenses), what should be the overarching goals and objectives of drug policies beyond 2019? What needs to change to better address the so-called “world drug problem”?

Opening remarks:
H.E. Mr. Dominique Favre, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations

Speakers:
H.E. Ms. Helen Clark, Global Commissioner, Global Commission on Drug Policy
Ms. Ann Fordham, Executive Director, IDPC
Mr. Craig Mokhiber, Director, New York Office, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Simone Monasebian, Director, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, New York Office

Moderator:
Ms. Jimena Leiva Roesch, Research Fellow, IPI