European Peace Institute / News

Approximately 40 percent of school-age Syrian refugees in Jordan are not getting an education. As the Syrian war has entered its fifth year and humanitarian actors seek to bridge short-term humanitarian assistance with longer-term development goals, about 80,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan are still falling through the cracks when it comes to education.

This new report assesses the state of education for Syrian refugees in Jordan. It finds that despite generous efforts by the Jordanian government, the UN, and nongovernmental organizations to provide quality education for Syrian refugees, five significant impediments remain:

• economic barriers in the education system and in Syrian refugee households,

  Click to see full graphic

• legal and regulatory obstacles to school enrollment,
• educational divides between Syrian and Jordanian students,
• social tensions in schools, and
• competing priorities for refugee households.

The author suggests a number of entry points for overcoming these obstacles. For example, improving employment opportunities for refugee parents would create the conditions at home that enable children to be sent to school. This could include granting Syrian refugees limited permits to work in certain jobs where they would not compete with the Jordanian labor force. In addition, easing refugees’ registration requirements or issuing an international document that grants access to basic services could facilitate more regular enrollment in education.

Click to see full graphic

Improved education for Syrian refugees is not just an end in itself, the author argues. While endowing refugees with knowledge that they can bring home when their country is ready to rebuild, better education for Syrian refugees will also contribute to stability and development in Jordan at a time when the host country seeks to remain a source of peace in a volatile region.

Download

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

Diplomats, government officials, religious leaders, civil society and media representatives joined members of IPI MENA’s International Advisory Board on May 26, 2015 to discuss the international community’s responsibility to protect the world’s heritage during armed conflicts.

In a presentation on “The Cultural Heritage During Armed Conflicts: International Community’s Duty & Right To Protect,” a survey on the serious losses inflicted upon major world heritage sites was made by Mounir Bouchenaki, Director, Arab Regional Centre for World Heritage (ARC-WH), Bahrain and Special Advisor to UNESCO Director-General For Culture. The presentation was introduced by IPI MENA Director Nejib Friji.

Mr. Bouchenaki detailed the major damage inflicted by radical religious groups to key world heritage sites in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and other MENA countries, including the recent terrorist attack that killed dozens of tourists and nationals in the prominent Bardo Museum in Tunis.

Mr. Bouchenaki said that, in line with the UN Security Council Resolution of February 15, 2015 and the UNESCO Chief Irina Bokova’s appeals to “Unite For Heritage” launched in Cairo last May, it is urgent to adopt and undertake special measures to protect and safeguard the rich and unique cultural heritage which became a target in a number of Arab countries’ theaters of armed conflicts based on extremism, ignorance, and intolerance.

Mr. Bouchenaki added, “At the present time, where extremist groups are distorting the message of the Islam as an argument for erasing the human heritage, the role of religious leaders in the Islamic world is fundamental in order to strongly condemn the destruction of cultural heritage and the illicit traffic of cultural properties.” He quoted the Grand Imam of Al Azhar as telling UNESCO Director General, “Islamic civilization is a civilization of recognition and connection.”

He urged governments, civil society networks, and individuals to work together to protect the world’s heritage, adding “we appeal to the international community to consider damage to world heritage sites and other historical places as a war crime and punish the offenders.”

Hatun Demirer, Ambassador of Turkey, said, “There are many historical monuments and buildings in the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa which once constituted Ottoman Empire territory,” adding that “ Turkey spares no effort to preserve this cultural heritage.”

She denounced “terrorist groups’ destruction of historical monuments,” equating it to “destroying the history and culture of several generations.” She stressed, “We should teach our children the value of our cultural heritage, and this subject should become a part of national curricula.” She called for “strong national and international legislations to end the illicit trade of cultural artefacts.”

Amani Soliman, formerly of the UNESCO Iraq office, said,  “My colleagues and I found that it was increasingly difficult to implement our projects and programs due to the very rigid security measures imposed on UN staff” working in conflict-torn areas. She added, “We had to delegate many responsibilities to local staff and partners. This raised a number of trust issues in an environment as divided as Iraq.”

“To what extent can our efforts be effective?” she wondered.

Fawzi Abdulal, Former Interior Minister of Libya and current Ambassador to Bahrain, expressed regret “that assaults against world heritage sites in Muslim countries stem from misunderstanding and distortion of the religious texts.”  He urged Muslim states to put additional efforts to curb this destructive agenda.

Ebrahim Nonoo, a representative of the Jewish community, said,  “There must be a link between UNESCO and the society communities to promote respect for heritage sites. This linkage needs to have some relevant obligation by groups in society to ensure respect for the sites.” He wondered whether this interaction existed.

Imam Salah Aljowder urged all religious leaders to “devote their sermons and campaigns to promote the protection of the world’s heritage.”  He pledged to devote parts of his Friday’s sermon to the need to protect heritage and decry using Islam in the intolerable destruction of the world’s cultural wealth.

Download participant list

Related Coverage:
Bahrain tops the ladder in helping to preserve heritage sites (24×7 News, May 27, 2015)
Bahrain base for archaeologists…(Gulf Daily, May 27, 2015)
Signs of Past (Daily Tribune, May 27, 2015)

In Arabic:
Al Watan, May 27, 2015
Al Wasat, May 27, 2015
Al Bilad, May 27, 2015
Al Ayam, May 27, 2015
Akhbar Alkhaleej, May 27, 2015

Since independence, African states and organizations have made significant investments in conflict management and resolution tools. So why do some African states and regions remain saddled by conflict and instability? How can African states leverage democratic governance to end wars?

The new report Silencing the Guns suggests that the key to ending conflict in Africa lies in fostering effective governance and creating political and economic institutions that can effectively prevent, manage, and resolve conflicts. Author Gilbert Khadiagala unpacks how and why democratic governance is linked to conflict prevention and management, and provides an overview of landmark trends that have influenced governance in Africa since the 1950s. He shows that not all forms of democratic governance reduce conflicts and examines the ways in which “developmental dictatorships,” corruption, and the privatization of security are posing obstacles for governance and peace today.

To strengthen governance as a tool for peace in Africa, the author offers the following recommendations:

• African governments and states should prioritize national infrastructures for peace that allow early detection, prevention, management, and resolution of violent conflicts. They should enhance people’s participation in political and economic processes, promote sound and equitable livelihoods, and strengthen Africa-specific strategies for conflict transformation.
• Regional economic communities should consolidate their current efforts to implement regional collective security and governance frameworks that promote peace, enshrine common democratic values, and foster disarmament and military reductions consistent with regional resources.
• The African Union should advance implementation of normative frameworks around governance, conflict prevention, management, and resolution, such as the African Peace and Security Architecture and the African Governance Architecture.
• The international community should cut the sources of armaments that have fueled African wars and renew attempts to clamp down on unsustainable arms flows into Africa.

This report is a joint undertaking by the African Union and the International Peace Institute.

Download

As South Sudan’s fourth anniversary approaches, the fractured state teeters on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe that has left millions in need of aid as a result of renewed fighting in the ongoing civil war. The relapse into conflict has been an enormous setback for statebuilding, curtailing efforts to ensure that humanitarian relief reaches all civilians in need of it.

Through the nexus of humanitarianism and state formation, this issue brief assesses the international humanitarian system’s engagement in South Sudan during the period from statehood in July 2011 to the period immediately prior to the outbreak of the December 2013 crisis. Aside from responding to short-term needs, the author argues that humanitarianism ought to fit into the overall political strategy of supporting the process of state formation.

The report outlines the enormous needs and challenges facing South Sudan since independence, its emerging humanitarian crises, and the response of humanitarian actors and donors. It addresses South Sudan’s unique challenges of state formation and the importance of linking long-term state capacity building to aid delivery.

To advance aid delivery and improve implementation capacity in South Sudan, the author offers the following recommendations:

• Meaningfully involve government in the design and execution of aid projects.
• Finance projects that build on existing capacities at the lower tier of administration.
• Consider direct cash transfers.
• Raise local salaries to attract talent into the government.
• Finance public works projects.

IPI_E-RPT-State-Formation-Humanitarianism-South-Sudan

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

The Arab Spring uprisings failed to meet people’s expectations for bringing democracy to the Middle East because most countries in the region inherited a long history of authoritarianism that inhibited any move toward representative government.

This was the central point of Tarek Masoud’s talk at a May 11th IPI Distinguished Author Series event during which he explained the reasoning behind the new book he co-authored with Jason Brownlee of the University of Texas at Austin and Andrew Reynolds of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Arab Spring: Pathways of Repression and Reform.

The newly released book explains why some of the uprisings that shook the region beginning in 2011 managed to achieve regime change, while others didn’t. But it also goes deeper. Of the countries that overthrew their rulers—Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen—only one, Tunisia, has actually turned into a full democracy.

Mr. Masoud, the Sultan of Oman associate professor of International Relations at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, said the main reason why Tunisia succeeded is that the small country inherited a tradition of pluralism and internal balance of power that was missing from the state apparatus of countries such as Egypt and Libya.

“We could have predicted how the Arab Spring would end even before it began,” Mr. Masoud declared. “The future of the Arab world is going to look a lot like its authoritarian past—except worse,” he added, noting that “at least during the authoritarian past you had some modicum of state authority that protected people from the kind of Hobbesian war of all against all. Today, we don’t even have that.”

Tunisia, he said, is the Arab World’s only liberal democracy and the only success story of the Arab Spring. “The central obsession of this book is to explain why,” he added.

Mr. Masoud acknowledged that many have tried to tackle this question. But they have focused on the wrong answers, he said, such as the role played by the countries’ militaries, the impact of new communication technologies, or the different grievances that existed in those states. While these factors may address part of the question, Mr. Masoud said, they don’t actually answer it.

On grievances, for example, the Harvard professor said that in most cases these had been there for a long time, and so saying they provoked the 2011 uprisings doesn’t really answer the question of why then.

The same goes for the role played by the military, Mr. Masoud said. Revolutions succeed, the argument goes, only when a professional military decides to defect from the ruling regime. “But of course,” he said, “if you know anything about the militaries in those countries, it’s not at all the case.” Yemen, he said, did not have a professional military, but Yemenis still removed Ali Abdullah Saleh from power. And Tunisia, he continued, transitioned to democracy without the involvement of its military.

“Explaining why Tunisia didn’t have a military coup requires us to do more than just look at the army, because all the conditions for a military coup were actually there,” he said.

The answer, Mr. Masoud said, has to do with the kind of state Tunisians and Egyptians inherited, which in turn explains why their first post-revolution elections went in different directions.

“The difference really rests in understanding what happened among the politicians themselves,” he said. “In Tunisia, the politicians were actually able to come to some kind of an agreement, and therefore avoided the mass protests of the magnitude that we saw in Egypt.”

That agreement was the result of a relatively balanced first election in which the Islamist al-Nahda won 40 percent of the votes. In Egypt, however, Islamist parties gained a total of 70 percent of seats in the parliament. “There was a huge imbalance in the political landscape,” Mr. Masoud said, which “is the proximate explanation for why Tunisia goes one way and Egypt goes the other.”

This imbalance ultimately led to Egypt’s 2013 military coup, Mr. Masoud said, reflecting a political science truth that, in states where power is evenly shared, “the government does not feel that it can be arbitrary, and the opposition should not be revolutionary and irreconcilable.”

“I think this even balance of power existed in Tunisia,” Mr. Masoud said. “The liberal opposition saw that they got a majority of the vote in 2011, so they had no need to be revolutionary and irreconcilable.”

“The liberals in contrast in Egypt did not want another election…. They didn’t want that because they knew that compared to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists—both of whom had large ground operations—they would have a hard time mounting political campaigns, even finding candidates to run.”

When it comes to Libya, Mr. Masoud said the importance of inherited state traditions is even more evident. Muammar Qaddafi’s 40-year rule, Mr. Masoud said, was based on a philosophy of state dismantlement, carried out with the goal of eliminating any challenger to his rule.

“The problem,” Mr. Masoud said, “is that when you then overthrow Qaddafi, you as an ascendant democrat, have very little in the way of a state to actually govern the territory.”

The event was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

Watch event:

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

High-level UN humanitarian officials say that violence and instability make Somalia one of the most challenging environments when it comes to delivering aid, a reality that, however, does not question the laudable level of resilience demonstrated by Somalis over the years.

Philippe Lazzarini, the UN humanitarian and resident coordinator for Somalia, and Edem Wosornu, the head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the country, spoke at IPI on May 6th of the high barriers that humanitarians encounter when assisting Somali civilians, all the while praising the perseverance of Somalis in their desire to restore political order in the country.

“Somalia is one of the most difficult contexts to deliver any type of assistance,” Mr. Lazzarini said. “It’s a very complex and fluid situation, and we have to admit that we will never completely grasp its reality.”

The East African country is currently undergoing a process of political and social restoration known as Vision 2016 which is poised to see Somalis holding democratic elections by September 2016, laying the foundations for a democratic, federal state.

Somalia has been in turmoil for the past 25 years, including a period from 1991 to 2012 with no central government. Recently, terrorist attacks by extremists from the al-Shabaab group have further exacerbated the security climate in the country, challenging both Somalis’ reconstruction efforts as well as international humanitarian aid delivery.

According to Ms. Wosornu, there are more than three million Somalis in need of humanitarian assistance, amounting to about a quarter of Somalia’s total population. Of the over 200,000 malnourished Somali children living in the country, Ms. Wosornu said that about 40,000 require medical attention in order to survive.

That said, both UN officials praised the high degree of resilience shown by Somalis in dealing with their situation over the years and praised their determination to build a stable and durable state. But this resilience, they said, needs to be accompanied by support from the international community, particularly in terms of funding for humanitarian programs.

Ms. Wosornu cited numbers from recent years, noting that humanitarian pledges are usually at least partially met. “This shows that people do care about Somalia, [whether it’s] the donor community, member states, or Somalis,” she said. “The key challenge… is to sustain attention” to the response.

The OCHA official also said that as challenges in the country change, so does the humanitarian effort. She recalled a recent episode in which helicopters had to rush assistance goods to an area that had only recently opened up, drawing some criticism for possibly violating humanitarian standards.

“We [knew] that the 30,000 children there [had] not been assisted; you know that they haven’t received polio vaccinations, so why wait and count them?” she said. “We found creative ways of delivering aid in Somalia without breaching or disrespecting our principles.”

But as humanitarian assistance adjusts, it needs to do so within certain boundaries, Mr. Lazzarini said. He mentioned the increasingly larger role played by NGOs and private actors, which are becoming more active when it comes to humanitarian assistance in Somalia, but sometimes pose problems of coordination. This is not a negative development in itself, he said, but it needs to be assessed cautiously.

“We have to make sure that the shift from agency-funded programs to international NGOs is based only on efficiency,” he warned, “and not on the fact that donors or member states do not want to cover some of the costs related to the safety of staff.”

Mr. Lazzarini and Ms. Wosornu also discussed the role played by African Union forces in stabilizing Somalia as well as the effects of regional conflicts on humanitarian delivery in the country.

The conversation was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser John Hirsch.

Watch event:

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

On May 6-7, the International Peace Institute organized the 45th annual Vienna Seminar. The conference debated the fitness of the United Nations at 70 and discussed ways to enhance multilateralism and attracted over one hundred diplomats, military officers, representatives of inter-governmental organizations, students, academics, journalists and representatives of civil society who took part in six sessions on a wide range of topics connected to the theme of how to make the UN more “fit for purpose.”

The seminar began by highlighting that the UN was established in a different era, one that was facing a different set of challenges than exist today. Furthermore, the number of member states has almost quadrupled since 1945, creating greater diversity and complexity. Another major difference is that in the past, most threats to international peace and security came from states, whereas today many challenges stem from non-state actors, transnational networks, or flows (such as money, people, diseases, cybercrime) that do not respect borders.

A wide range of threats and challenges were highlighted, including pandemics, inequality, urbanization, climate change, resource depletion, forced migration, terrorism and organized crime. It was observed that successfully meeting these complex and often inter-related challenges requires states to work together. “There is no alternative to multilateralism,” said one participant.

At the same time, it was noted that the international system–particularly the UN–has not been able to adapt fast enough to the changes brought about by globalization. Nor has it been able to bring peace to a number of countries including Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Ways were discussed on how to improve global governance, humanitarian responses to crises, and peacekeeping.

Concerning health and humanitarian issues, it was observed that it is essential to break down silos, improve coordination, and focus on long-term structural reforms that strengthen national capacity and resilience rather than focusing mostly on short-term, international crisis responses.

It was stressed that issues should not be looked at in isolation. Examples given included the link between weak governance and poor health care (as in the case of Ebola) or the nexus between energy, water and food security.

There was a lively discussion on the risk posed by radicalized youth, and by the Islamic State (also know as Daesh), and why young people join such extremist movements.

The tragedy of forced displacement was a particularly hot topic of debate. According to the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, there are now a record-high number of some 52 million refugees worldwide, many of them children living in refugee camps. A warning was given that if their needs are not addressed soon, they will be a lost generation. The specific problem of dealing more effectively with forced displacement across the Mediterranean was also discussed.

A session was devoted to the topic of conflict prevention and crisis management. It was noted that despite the fact that the UN was established, as it says in the charter, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” insufficient attention and resources are devoted to preventing and preparing for crises. The precedent of the UN Preventive Development Force (UNPREDEP) was recalled, and a plea was made for more preventive deployments.

Peacekeeping–a traditional theme of IPI Vienna Seminars–was debated, with a particular focus on how to deal with armed non-state actors, how to make more effective use of technology, the strengths and weaknesses of hybrid missions, as well as the legitimate and appropriate use of force.

Institutional change was also discussed. One participant suggested that Security Council reform should be approached in a more radical way, namely to create regional Security Councils. Another, from the Elders, suggested a more transparent and representative method for choosing future Secretaries-General. Several participants cautioned that it will be hard to enhance multilateralism at a time of serious geo-political rivalries, for example in relation to the Middle East, South China Sea, and Ukraine.

It was also stressed that the United Nations tends to be reactive and that more needs to be done to anticipate and adapt to change.

Some participants cautioned that perhaps we expect too much from the UN. It was also pointed out that there is a serious mismatch between the increased tasks that the UN is expected to carry out, and the pressures for zero growth by some member states.

Carrying on a 45-year tradition, the meeting was co-hosted by IPI together with the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports. In addition to marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, this year is also the 60th anniversary of Austria’s active engagement in the UN. The seminar took place in the historic Marble Hall of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Integration, Europe and Foreign Affairs.

Watch the high-level panel, “Is the UN Fit for Purpose?”:

Related coverage:
The U.N. at 70: Is It Still Fit for the Purpose? (Inter Press Service, May 14, 2015)

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

A group of high-level international diplomats and government representatives said the proliferation of conflicts in Africa points to the need for the United Nations (UN) to rethink the way it works with the African Union (AU) in promoting peace and security on the continent.

This emerged from a May 4th policy forum on the topic of “Advancing Chapter VIII: The AU-UN experience” co-hosted by IPI, the African Union Commission, and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN. During the event, top AU and UN officials said that when it comes to solving Africa’s conflicts, Chapter VIII of the UN Charter should serve as the main point of reference. However, they also lamented that its text has largely been neglected over the years.

Chapter VIII of the UN Charter states that UN members should “make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.” Over the years, the provision has been interpreted as urging the UN to support such regional arrangements in order to help maintain the peace.

“The very simple conclusion is that we cannot do it alone,” said UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson. “There is no organization, whether it’s the United Nations, regional organizations, or a government, that can handle today’s problems alone. In today’s globalized, complex world,” he continued, “we have to find solutions together.”

Mr. Eliasson said some of the conflict-mediation tools used so far are no longer relevant because the changing nature of conflict and the rise of new military actors have changed the calculus when it comes to war and peace. Organizations like the UN and the AU, he said, should adjust to this switch and realize that effective conflict resolution can only come through cooperation.

The first step to take would be for the UN to change the mindset with which it operates, he said, going from a vertical to a horizontal approach to regional organizations. “This means [we have to] look at the competences we have, identify the problems, put the problem at the center, and then ask ourselves who can do something about it,” he said, adding that this would ideally lead to an effective division of labor between the UN and other organizations.

The deputy chairperson of the African Union Commission, Erastus Mwencha, agreed with Mr. Eliasson on the need for better communication between the UN and regional bodies such as the AU. “Let’s be candid and agree that we are sometimes part of the problem and therefore should be part of the solution,” he said. Africa currently hosts the vast majority of UN peacekeeping missions, he said, and at the various meetings and summits the discussions are always the same, covering the same issues.

“There is a danger that we are either working in silos [or] prescribing the same things,” he said. “We should ask ourselves: Can we be more innovative? Can we be active on the ground? Can we see action?”

Better cooperation in maintaining peace and security is all the more timely, the panelists said, given recent global developments. According to Peter Wallensteen, professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, 2014 was one of the deadliest years in recent history in terms of battle-related casualties.

“We calculated that last year about 100,000 people died in political battles involving the use of weapons for political purposes,” he said. “Half of those deaths are recorded in Syria.”

The most striking factor behind these conflicts, Mr. Wallensteen said, is how internationalized they have become. “They are not just fought in a territory of one country,” he noted. “[There’s] a lot of international involvement, not only by far away countries but by neighbors”—which indicates that regions are also failing to ensure the peace.

For its part, the AU has been actively involved in conflict management and resolution on the continent, the panelists said. Annika Söder, Sweden’s vice-minister for Foreign Affairs, praised the work carried out by the AU over the past 15 years, noting that the situation now is very different from what it was back then. That said, she also stressed that there are some aspects of the AU-UN relationship that could be reassessed, first among them the issue of inclusivity, especially when it comes to peacebuilding efforts.

“If you do not involve ordinary people, if we do not see to it that there’s an ownership of the processes that we engage in,” she said, “they will obviously not last.”

Watch event:

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

A coalition of independent individuals and nongovernmental organizations backed by former UN officials is calling for an established process to select the UN secretary-general that would make the procedure open, transparent, and merit-based.

Speaking at IPI on April 24th on “UN Reform: Selecting the Next Secretary-General,” representatives from global organizations, including the 1 for 7 billion campaign and The Elders, criticized the current procedure—such as it is—as outdated, secretive, and lacking any measure of fairness and democracy. The panelists noted how the citizens of the UN’s 193 member states have come to realize the importance this post represents and are now calling for a more active role in its selection.

“People do care, they really get this issue,” said Natalie Samarasinghe, the executive director of the UN Association of the UK. Ms. Samarasinghe, who was representing the 1 for 7 billion campaign, added: “[People] know what a fair selection process looks like, and they are absolutely shocked when they hear about how the UN currently proceeds. No job description, no timetable, no public scrutiny of candidates.”

Panelists noted that the UN Charter grants the General Assembly the authority to appoint the secretary-general “upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” However, they said, over the years the process that has emerged is one in which the Council—and at times only a select number of its five permanent members—decides who that person will be and sends the name to be rubber-stamped by the General Assembly.

“Members of the General Assembly must re-claim the responsibility the charter gives them,” said Edward Mortimer, senior adviser to The Elders on UN reform and formerly chief speechwriter and director of communications to then secretary-general Kofi Annan. “The Elders have called on the Assembly to insist that the Security Council recommend more than one candidate per appointment after a timely, equitable, and transparent search for the best qualified candidate, irrespective of gender or regional origin.”

Recommendations for improving the selection procedure abound. At their core, the proposals call for: appointing a secretary-general for a single, non-renewable term of seven years; providing a shortlist of more than one candidate—including both men and women; identifying a clear timetable with deadlines, including the opportunity for both member states and civil society to hear from the candidates; and focusing on skills and experience rather than geographic origin.

And it is on this last matter that some of the panelists disagreed, pointing to a larger debate currently taking place at the General Assembly.

In response to Mr. Mortimer’s proposal to abandon the geographic rotation system—currently, custom has it that secretaries-general rotate according to their regional origin—IPI Vice President Hardeep Puri said it is important not to understate the role played by regional groupings at the UN.

“In a system which is based on a very thin veil of consensus and broad acceptability, there have to be some rules which govern geographic rotation,” said Mr. Puri, who is also the secretary-general of the newly launched Independent Commission on Multilateralism. “I believe that this regional group [arrangement] is far more important than it appears from the outside.”

This point drew agreement from some members of the audience, including the permanent representatives of Croatia and Slovakia to the UN. According to the current planning, the next secretary-general is expected to be from an Eastern European country.

Vladimir Drobnjak, Croatia’s permanent representative, said the secretary-general’s selection procedure is something that the General Assembly has been working on for some time now. There have been resolutions calling for more transparency, he said, as well as debates proposing a more effective hearing process. But on regional groups, he said, matters are a little different.

“We can debate how they are composed,” he said. “But the whole UN system is based on regional rotation. The Security Council is composed based on regional groups and rotating members, and chairmanship of the main committees is based entirely on regional groups. So,” he continued, “regional groups are not just an auxiliary measure in the system. They are the heart of the system.”

The panelists also discussed the issue of gender balance in the process, now an increasingly topical issue. Jean Krasno, lecturer at Yale University and the City College of New York as well as the chair of the Campaign to Elect a Woman Secretary-General, said that today, 70 years after the UN’s foundation, there can no longer be an excuse for not considering a woman for the post. The UN, she said, has always called for equal rights between men and women, and “it’s time we honor those words.”

“A woman could do everything that a man can do in the office,” she said. “However, a woman can bring the knowledge of being a woman, the sense of discrimination, of vulnerability, and identification with women’s experiences all over the world.” Men can do this, she added, “but not with the same depth of knowledge.”

The event took place on the eve of the April 27th General Assembly debate on the topic, and was moderated by Mr. Puri.

Watch event:

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

Speaking on the eve of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference at the United Nations, former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans said the global optimism that had characterized the last review five years ago had largely disappeared, leaving in its wake widespread pessimism over the prospects for a nuclear-free world.

Mr. Evans, speaking at an April 22nd IPI event on “Nuclear Weapons: The State of Play,” said the 2010 NPT Review Conference had ushered in an era of positive feeling for those aspiring to a world without nuclear weapons, largely because of the substantial course of action the conference had set and because of the public position US President Barack Obama had taken on the issue at the time. Five years later, Mr. Evans said, a combination of geopolitical shifts and lack of political will had nullified those achievements.

“There have been some rays of sunshine,” he said, citing a framework nuclear agreement with Iran as well as the emergence of a global movement highlighting the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. “But beyond that,” he said, “overwhelmingly the story has been one of paralysis, it’s been one of minimum forward movement, and it’s been one of significant backsliding.”

The UN High Representative on Nuclear Disarmament Angela Kane agreed with Mr. Evans, pointing to today’s “dismal international climate” and “a stalling in the path to a nuclear-free world.”

This negative climate, Mr. Evans continued, is partly due to a drastic change in the way high-level policymakers view these weapons.

“I think the most worrying general development has been the significant reemergence of old Cold War mindsets, an old Cold War reflex thinking about the deterrent utility of nuclear weapons,” said Mr. Evans, now the chair of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (CNND) at the Australian National University in Canberra. A more assertive foreign policy by countries such as Russia and China, Mr. Evans continued, has turned the global debate on nuclear disarmament into a “comfort blanket,” whereby the key arguments questioning the efficacy of nuclear weapons are left unaddressed.

Mr. Evans presented findings from the latest report published by the CNND with assistance from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). According to the report’s findings, dated December 2014, non-proliferation and disarmament are the two areas where the global movement has seen the worst setbacks. On the other hand, in the fields of nuclear security and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, there has been some progress.

The report estimates that there are currently 16,372 nuclear warheads distributed among the world’s nine nuclear-armed states—Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States. Of these, four (India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan) are outside the NPT.

On disarmament, Mr. Evans said the key question is how serious these states are about a nuclear weapons-free world. The answer, he lamented, is not at all. “None of the nuclear armed states is committed to a specific timetable for the minimization, let alone the abolition, of their nuclear stockpiles.”

The month-long 2015 NPT Review Conference beginning April 27th could be an important moment for both nuclear and non-nuclear states, Ms. Kane said. “All state parties need to affirm that their national interests are best served by faithfully implementing and remaining in strict compliance with the treaty’s mutually reinforcing pillars,” she said. “Member states must remember that the NPT is a bargain, and progress on disarmament and nonproliferation are symbiotic, because one is simply not going to move without the other.”

Mr. Evans acknowledged that within each country, political and military leaders may have differing views on the relevance of nuclear weapons. In the US, for instance, he said there are a number of senior military officials who favor a dramatic reduction in the country’s nuclear stockpile. But, he continued, there is a big political and psychological component to not getting rid of them, one that in France, for example, is particularly strong.

“The French are actually true believers in nuclear weapons,” Mr. Evans said. “They genuinely believe that they are very important for national pride, prestige, and national security.”

Russia is also a hard case, he said, especially given Moscow’s increasing reliance on Cold War language. This was particularly evident in the context of the Crimean crisis, Mr. Evans added, over which Russian President Vladimir Putin said he was ready to put his nuclear forces on alert.

The Chinese case is less clear-cut, Mr. Evans said, and actually offers some promising signs. “China has right from the beginning not staked too much on its nuclear arsenal,” he said. “It’s always operated on the basis of minimal credible deterrent…. It wants to be able to do visible retaliatory damage if it was ever attacked, but it’s still strongly committed—and I think not just rhetorically but genuinely—to a no-first-use posture.”

The conversation was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

Watch event: 

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

On April 22, 2015, IPI’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) office hosted Ambassador Mokhtar Lamani, a  former UN representative in Syria, former Arab League official, and the former permanent observer of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation at the UN, who discussed the origins and evolution of extremist organizations across the Middle East.

At the event—attended by government officials, diplomats, religious leaders, and representatives from think tanks and civil society—Mr. Lamani delved into the complex origins of religious political organizations and their metamorphoses into groups like al-Qaeda and its offshoots, including ISIS.

“Although ISIS is the same organization in both countries, there are similarities and differences between Syria and Iraq,” he said. “In Iraq, ISIS Iraqi fighters amount to two thirds [of the group, while] in Syria, national fighters constitute less than one third. The rest comprises operatives from different parts of the world.“

During the debate moderated by IPI MENA Director Nejib Friji, Mr. Lamani underlined the troubled situation in the six provinces of Iraq that have turned into key incubators for ISIS operatives.  Mr. Lamani said sectarian policies are the main culprit behind the emergence of these incubators in the country.

Mr. Lamani said that when the group began its campaign in the summer of 2014 managing to gain control of a territory as large as Jordan, it took the entire international community by surprise. This pushed the international community to “a reactive attitude instead of a proactive approach,“ he said. In that regard, the group now seems to have the edge over the international community, he continued.

Mr. Lamani also discussed possible solutions to the group’s advance, highlighting the need for a multifaceted response. “A military approach will not lead to a solution unless a multidisciplinary strategy covering the political, social, cultural, and educational needs is implemented,” he said.

The discussion also noted that in order to preserve, reinforce, and protect human rights in the region, international legal standards need to be supported by constitutional guarantees at the national level.

The event was also attended by the ambassadors of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, who called for immediate action to tackle the acute humanitarian and refugee crises created by ISIS. The refugee crisis, they said, has had a strong impact on their countries‘ economic and social equilibrium.

The changing nature of conflict and the emergence of new, asymmetric threats have raised the need for stronger and more effective partnerships in peacekeeping operations, particularly between the African Union (AU) and the United Nations. This is what emerged at an April 21st policy forum co-organized by IPI and the Permanent Missions of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Italy to the UN.

“[These] threats and complex operational challenges require a comprehensive, multidimensional approach and credible response mechanisms to maintain and restore peace,” said Sebastiano Cardi, the permanent representative of Italy to the UN. And this, he said, needs to take the form not only of reaction to crises, but very much of action to prevent them.

Violence at the hands of the Islamic State and its recent killings of civilians across the Middle East and North Africa have further underscored the need for better cooperation in peace and security matters, the panelists said. Amr Abdellatif Aboulatta, Egypt’s permanent representative to the UN, said peacekeeping cooperation is essential in that regard. “Capacity building, reliable funding, support for peacekeeping operations, and development of logistical capacity are priority areas,” he said.

Currently, close to 70 percent of the Security Council’s time is devoted to African peace and security issues, said Ethiopia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Tekeda Alemu. In addition, 87 percent of UN peacekeepers are deployed in Africa through nine peacekeeping operations, a point made by Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Edmond Mulet, who delivered the keynote address. It is therefore essential, the panelists said, for the AU-UN cooperation to become stronger and more efficient.

“Cooperation between the two has been underway for some time,” Mr. Alemu said. “It has been very effective, but there is a need for doing more.” There are important assets the AU can offer, the Ethiopian ambassador said, which, coupled with the work of the Security Council, could provide an important contribution to peace on the continent.

In December 2008, a special AU-UN panel on the modalities for support to AU operations published a report—commonly known as the Prodi Report, after its author, former Italian prime minister Romano Prodi—that highlighted the need for joint cooperation between the AU and the UN. The report made recommendations on how the two organizations can cooperate strategically in matters related to peacekeeping.

“We are hopeful that the Prodi Report will be implemented,” Mr. Alemu said. “It contains a number of very interesting ideas in connection with enabling the AU and the AU Peace and Security Council to play a more effective role in peace operations.”

In his address, Mr. Mulet outlined the practical challenges that peacekeeping missions face on the ground and how these have raised the need for stronger cooperation.

“Peacekeepers are increasingly deployed in places where there is no obvious political track, and carrying out our core mandate, the protection of civilians, becomes ever more challenging,” he said. “This, and the related regionalization and globalization of crises, requires partnerships… where we conduct operations as a joint collective endeavor between the UN and regional organizations, as no organization on its own can offer the multifaceted responses we need.”

Nowhere is this more evident than in Africa, Mr. Mulet said, and particularly in Mali and the Central African Republic (CAR) where the respective UN missions MINUSMA and MINUSCA have benefited greatly from the political and military support provided by the AU and the European Union.

“Mali and CAR are indeed timely illustrations of the level of maturity and complementarity reached by the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and their peacekeeping partnership,” the UN official said.

Looking at the broader context, Mr. Mulet welcomed the recent announcements of the Arab League and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to develop their own peacekeeping forces.

The forum was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser John Hirsch and constituted the first part of an all-day event that discussed the topic in light of the UN’s 70th anniversary and the ongoing peace operations review process.

Watch event:

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

On Friday, April 17, IPI hosted the 2015 edition of the New York Seminar on the topic of “The Future Role of Peacekeeping Operations.” This year’s edition, co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Austria and Italy to the United Nations, gathered experts, diplomats, and representatives from international organizations and civil society for an in-depth and forward-looking discussion of the role that peacekeeping operations can play in maintaining international peace and security. The seminar was held under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution, with the exception of the keynote address delivered by Izumi Nakamitsu, assistant administrator and director of the Crisis Response Unit of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

In her opening remarks, Ms. Nakamitsu, who between 2008 and 2014 held various posts at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, stressed the importance of devising new conflict analysis tools, especially given the changing nature of conflicts and the emergence of new threats. Achieving political solutions to crises has become more difficult, Ms. Nakamitsu said, which means that prevention should be at the forefront of international peacekeeping efforts.

The discussion also highlighted the challenges posed by the emergence and growth of extremist groups. These non-state actors are now seizing and controlling territory, purporting to provide public services, and using social media tools to spread their violent ideologies. Their actions often fuel sectarian divisions, which in turn complicate the settlement of crises.

According to the panelists, Yemen exemplifies this new trend. There, all the elements of this new conflict environment converge, including a weak state apparatus, widespread poverty, regional involvement, and competition over scarce natural resources.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations’ efforts to keep up with the evolving situation were recognized in missions such as the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Intelligence and Fusion Cell in Mali, as well as the first-ever UN emergency health mission (UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response—UNMEER) and the Joint Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the UN (OPCW-UN) in Syria.

New and enhanced partnerships stand out as the norm in peacekeeping today. The UN is actively building on the cooperative advantage of regional partners such as the African Union and the European Union. But there are inherent risks and challenges in these partnerships. For example, when the region is leading the mediation process alongside a UN peacekeeping mission or vice versa, how can the organizations work together and use one process to leverage progress in the other?

The discussion also addressed the topic of women’s involvement in peace processes. Women’s absence from such processes, one of the panelists emphasized, is directly linked to the recurrence of violent conflict. Fifteen years after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, there is still a lot of work to be done—including by peacekeeping missions—when it comes to ensuring that women are included in peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. By actively including women, peace efforts can become broader and extend to all sectors of society, making relapse into violence less likely.

Finally, the seminar also discussed how UN mediation and conflict prevention capabilities can be strengthened in order to offer viable alternatives to military responses to crises.

Download the Meeting Brief