Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

A Velvet Glove of U.S. Economic Statecraft

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-atjwsl").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-atjwsl").fadeIn(300);});}); Download the Report

Gendered analyses of violence often focus narrowly on women and overlook the importance of understanding masculinities. To bridge this gap in understanding, IPI in partnership with the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), cohosted a policy forum on “Masculinities in Peace and Security.” The November 30th event convened researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for a focused discussion on masculinity and violent extremism.

The UN Security Council held an Arria-formula meeting in July 2021, chaired by Mexico with the co-sponsorship of Estonia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to discuss how gender stereotypes, masculinities, and structural gender inequalities influence terrorism and violent extremism. Specifically, this Arria-formula meeting explored the ways in which understanding masculinities could promote better prevention of, and response to, violent extremist and terrorist groups.

In June 2022, IPI and CTED published “Masculinities and Violent Extremism,” a joint policy report that explored how violent extremist groups across the ideological spectrum exploit masculinities in their efforts to recruit and retain members, the links between extremist violence and gender inequality within society, and how masculinities produced by state actors can feed into and mutually reinforce those produced by violent extremists.

This policy forum presented the key findings of the IPI and CTED report and provided policymakers and researchers with an opportunity to reflect on the relevance of focusing on masculinities in preventing and countering terrorism and violent extremism. “This is not a niche topic,” said David Scharia, Chief of Branch at CTED, in his opening remarks. “We must continue to strengthen our understanding of gender perspectives and gender inequalities in violent extremism.”

The discussion further emphasized the need for masculinities analysis and expansive thinking about gender. “Gender often becomes shorthand for ‘women,’” said Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. “However, the construction of masculinity is incredibly relevant to work on violent extremism.” The policy forum concluded by exploring areas for future growth, including further research on LGBT issues and the rights of the child.

Opening remarks:
David Scharia, Chief of Branch, UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate
H.E. Alicia Guadalupe Buenrostro Massieu, Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN

Panelists:
Gretchen Baldwin, Researcher, Gender, Peace Operations and Conflict Management, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Aleksandra Dier, Gender Coordinator, UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate
Robert Nagel, Research Fellow, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (virtual)
Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN

Moderator:
Phoebe Donnelly, Senior Fellow and Head of the Women, Peace, and Security Program, International Peace Institute

When the cover decision of the UN climate change conference (COP27) in Sharm-El-Sheikh was finally accepted by all parties, it was clear that the EU had only been moderately successful. So the question remains if the EU could have done more. Or could it have engaged differently to achieve a more ambitious result of COP27, in particular with regards to reducing emissions or international climate finance? This blog post discusses key lessons for the EU as it prepares for the next rounds of global climate negotiations, including COP28 in Dubai. It suggests for the EU to act decisively in the months ahead, to enter the negotiations in good time and to demonstrate resolve on key issues, now including Loss and Damage. This requires the EU to dedicate more time and energy into its climate diplomacy and to live up to its announcements and pledges with commensurate resources politically, technically and, indeed, financially.

When the cover decision of the UN climate change conference (COP27) in Sharm-El-Sheikh was finally accepted by all parties, it was clear that the EU had only been moderately successful. So the question remains if the EU could have done more. Or could it have engaged differently to achieve a more ambitious result of COP27, in particular with regards to reducing emissions or international climate finance? This blog post discusses key lessons for the EU as it prepares for the next rounds of global climate negotiations, including COP28 in Dubai. It suggests for the EU to act decisively in the months ahead, to enter the negotiations in good time and to demonstrate resolve on key issues, now including Loss and Damage. This requires the EU to dedicate more time and energy into its climate diplomacy and to live up to its announcements and pledges with commensurate resources politically, technically and, indeed, financially.

When the cover decision of the UN climate change conference (COP27) in Sharm-El-Sheikh was finally accepted by all parties, it was clear that the EU had only been moderately successful. So the question remains if the EU could have done more. Or could it have engaged differently to achieve a more ambitious result of COP27, in particular with regards to reducing emissions or international climate finance? This blog post discusses key lessons for the EU as it prepares for the next rounds of global climate negotiations, including COP28 in Dubai. It suggests for the EU to act decisively in the months ahead, to enter the negotiations in good time and to demonstrate resolve on key issues, now including Loss and Damage. This requires the EU to dedicate more time and energy into its climate diplomacy and to live up to its announcements and pledges with commensurate resources politically, technically and, indeed, financially.

It is anticipated that the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022, will agree on an ambitious, specific and measurable global biodiversity framework. However, governments alone are unlikely to reverse negative trends in biodiversity. This correspondence suggests that a biodiversity action agenda that mobilizes nature recovery actions from across society — including businesses, investors, civil society groups and local communities — should be included as a complement to governmental efforts. If governments can agree on a strong framework, an action agenda can create productive links between multilateral and transnational actions. However, if governments fail to agree on an ambitious framework the action agenda can help to sustain action and build momentum. The article argues that the action agenda should be complementary, catalytic, collaborative, comprehensive and credible to generate enthusiasm for a diverse array of actors to take biodiversity action.

It is anticipated that the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022, will agree on an ambitious, specific and measurable global biodiversity framework. However, governments alone are unlikely to reverse negative trends in biodiversity. This correspondence suggests that a biodiversity action agenda that mobilizes nature recovery actions from across society — including businesses, investors, civil society groups and local communities — should be included as a complement to governmental efforts. If governments can agree on a strong framework, an action agenda can create productive links between multilateral and transnational actions. However, if governments fail to agree on an ambitious framework the action agenda can help to sustain action and build momentum. The article argues that the action agenda should be complementary, catalytic, collaborative, comprehensive and credible to generate enthusiasm for a diverse array of actors to take biodiversity action.

It is anticipated that the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022, will agree on an ambitious, specific and measurable global biodiversity framework. However, governments alone are unlikely to reverse negative trends in biodiversity. This correspondence suggests that a biodiversity action agenda that mobilizes nature recovery actions from across society — including businesses, investors, civil society groups and local communities — should be included as a complement to governmental efforts. If governments can agree on a strong framework, an action agenda can create productive links between multilateral and transnational actions. However, if governments fail to agree on an ambitious framework the action agenda can help to sustain action and build momentum. The article argues that the action agenda should be complementary, catalytic, collaborative, comprehensive and credible to generate enthusiasm for a diverse array of actors to take biodiversity action.

In recent years, the ten elected members of the Security Council, now commonly referred to as the E10, have come to play a more prominent role. Although there were previous periods when elected members were active and took initiative, the space for such contributions began to shrink in the mid-2000s. The emergence of the E10 as a construct and a more cohesive coalition on the Security Council is thus recent. Despite elected members’ different levels of commitment to collective E10 initiatives, and although the Council’s five permanent members have greater capacity, permanence, and veto power, there is a sense that the E10 have been able to influence the work of the Council, including its working methods, thematic issues, and some country-specific files.

This paper presents a broad policy perspective on lessons from both individual elected members and from the E10 as a group. It examines the E10’s recent engagement on the Council and offers lessons for how elected members can most effectively prepare for their term, serve on the Council, and ensure their legacy.

The paper concludes with reflections on the future of the E10 in a fragmented Security Council. While the E10 as a group have reached a level of maturity, their ability to coordinate across a diverse group whose effectiveness depends on several internal and external factors may have reached a natural limit. The E10’s composition, individual members’ level of commitment to collective E10 initiatives, and the group’s leadership all impact the E10’s ability to influence the work of the Council. While the E10 have been collectively successful at promoting certain issues and files and at making the Council more transparent, individual members have and will continue to have different views on many issues on the agenda. They will also continue to face structural inequalities when it comes to penholding and chairing subsidiary bodies.

Download

Since the Korean War of 1950–53, the security architecture of the region previously referred to as the “Asia-Pacific” has been based on a US-led sys­tem of bilateral alliances known as the “hub-and-spokes” system. A multi­lateral system of collective defence, similar to NATO in Europe, has not existed in the region. In 2014, the People’s Republic of China under Xi Jinping began to develop its own ideas for reshaping the regional security system. Xi called the hub-and-spokes system a relic of the Cold War and called for a regional security architecture “by Asians for Asians”. The “Indo-Pacific” is widely regarded as a strategy to counter a Sinocentric restructuring of the region. The majority of actors involved conceives its security architecture as an antagonistic order in which security is estab­lished against, and not with, China. This architecture is more “Asianised” than before. The region’s US allies are gaining significance in relation to Washington. What’s more, bilateral and minilateral partnerships outside the hub-and-spokes system are becoming increasingly important, for example those involving states such as India or Indonesia. Structurally, bilateral alliances and partnerships dominate. They are in­creasingly supplemented by minilateral formats such as AUKUS or the Quad. For the EU and its member states, all this means that realising the idea of an inclusive Indo-Pacific has become a distant prospect. The effective multi­lateralism propagated by the EU is also gradually falling behind as the regional security architecture is increasingly being transformed into a web of bilateral and minilateral cooperation formats.

Der türkische Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan hat den kurdischen Milizen in Syrien den Krieg erklärt. Nach den Luftangriffen der letzen Tage droht er eine Bodenoffensive an. Günter Seufert von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik sieht in diesem Vorgehen die Fortsetzung der türkischen Strategie in Syrien.

Africa and the European Union (EU) have a shared interest in providing reliable and clean energy to their citizens, despite this being a rather heated moment of Africa-Europe relations in the area of climate and energy cooperation. Tensions concern the perceived protectionist slant of the European Green Deal, the EU’s “dash for gas” in Africa as part of its strategy to become more independent of Russian imports, and multilateral climate issues, such as at COP27 the balance between climate finance, loss and damage, and climate ambition. Hydrogen technologies have been prominent in discussions between the EU and African countries since the 2020 political push for hydrogen in Europe. In theory, cooperation on hydrogen may benefit both continents. Yet, techno-economic issues remain unsettled, and a framework for cooperation needs to be set up that includes both environmental and social criteria, economic benefits, as well as investments in industrialisation for producer regions. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have so far been targeted mainly at countries with rapidly growing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as South Africa and Indonesia. While this is a legitimate focus, it risks leaving out most African countries, in particular the least developed ones. JETPs in Africa could focus on access to clean energy and bring important innovations in terms of country ownership and donor coordination.

Africa and the European Union (EU) have a shared interest in providing reliable and clean energy to their citizens, despite this being a rather heated moment of Africa-Europe relations in the area of climate and energy cooperation. Tensions concern the perceived protectionist slant of the European Green Deal, the EU’s “dash for gas” in Africa as part of its strategy to become more independent of Russian imports, and multilateral climate issues, such as at COP27 the balance between climate finance, loss and damage, and climate ambition. Hydrogen technologies have been prominent in discussions between the EU and African countries since the 2020 political push for hydrogen in Europe. In theory, cooperation on hydrogen may benefit both continents. Yet, techno-economic issues remain unsettled, and a framework for cooperation needs to be set up that includes both environmental and social criteria, economic benefits, as well as investments in industrialisation for producer regions. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have so far been targeted mainly at countries with rapidly growing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as South Africa and Indonesia. While this is a legitimate focus, it risks leaving out most African countries, in particular the least developed ones. JETPs in Africa could focus on access to clean energy and bring important innovations in terms of country ownership and donor coordination.

Africa and the European Union (EU) have a shared interest in providing reliable and clean energy to their citizens, despite this being a rather heated moment of Africa-Europe relations in the area of climate and energy cooperation. Tensions concern the perceived protectionist slant of the European Green Deal, the EU’s “dash for gas” in Africa as part of its strategy to become more independent of Russian imports, and multilateral climate issues, such as at COP27 the balance between climate finance, loss and damage, and climate ambition. Hydrogen technologies have been prominent in discussions between the EU and African countries since the 2020 political push for hydrogen in Europe. In theory, cooperation on hydrogen may benefit both continents. Yet, techno-economic issues remain unsettled, and a framework for cooperation needs to be set up that includes both environmental and social criteria, economic benefits, as well as investments in industrialisation for producer regions. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have so far been targeted mainly at countries with rapidly growing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as South Africa and Indonesia. While this is a legitimate focus, it risks leaving out most African countries, in particular the least developed ones. JETPs in Africa could focus on access to clean energy and bring important innovations in terms of country ownership and donor coordination.