Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Seit dem Wochenende rückt die israelische Armee im Gazastreifen mit Bodentruppen vor. Politologin Muriel Asseburg über die gescheiterte Politik der letzten Jahre, humanitäre Feuerpausen und die wahrscheinlichsten Szenarien für die Zukunft der Region.

The armed conflict between Israeli forces and the Hamas is escalating. What does this mean for Gaza, a region that was already heavily dependent on external aid? Questions for Dr. Muriel Asseburg, Senior Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.

 

Megatrends Afrika: Welche aktuellen Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen machen es nötig, dass Deutschland seine Afrikapolitik neu ausrichtet?

Dr. Katja Leikert: Afrikas Staaten werden zu Recht immer selbstbewusster und fordern mehr Respekt und größere Mitbestimmungsrechte auf globaler Ebene ein. In Europa reden wir uns seit Jahren ein, wir würden diese Forderungen ernst nehmen. Doch das tun wir nur sehr bedingt. In vielen Bereichen sind wir noch immer zu paternalistisch und beharren auf unseren Privilegien. Das schadet unserer Glaubwürdigkeit und unseren Beziehungen. Mit einem immer stärker aufstrebenden afrikanischen Kontinent – dessen zukünftige Entwicklung starke Auswirkungen auch auf Europa haben wird – können wir uns das nicht länger erlauben.

Eine akute Herausforderung ist die Zukunft unseres Engagements im Sahel. Die dramatischen Entwicklungen der letzten Monate zeigen deutlich, dass es für uns dort so nicht weitergeht. Ein vollständiger Rückzug aus der Region ist jedoch keine Lösung. Das Risiko ist zu groß, dass die Instabilität des Sahel auch auf die Küstenstaaten Westafrikas übergreift. Wir sollten aktiv bleiben, aber brauchen dafür endlich eine vernünftige Strategie.

MTA: Wie sollte die deutsche Afrikapolitik neugestaltet werden, um die Zusammenarbeit mit afrikanischen Staaten zu verbessern und die nachhaltige Entwicklung in Afrika zu fördern?

KL: Unser starkes Engagement in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit hat viel Gutes erreicht, aber wir müssen stärker darüber hinausdenken. Es reicht nicht aus, wenn unsere Bundesregierung die enormen wirtschaftlichen Chancen des afrikanischen Kontinents nur anerkennt. Sie muss aktiver deutsche Firmen mit ins Boot zu holen, um diese Chancen auch zu nutzen.

Privatwirtschaftliches Engagement ist für eine rasche und zugleich nachhaltige Entwicklung unabdingbar. Nur so können zeitnah komplexere Wertschöpfungsketten in den jeweiligen afrikanischen Staaten realisiert werden.

Ein erster Schritt hierbei wäre es, unsere Entwicklungszusammenarbeit enger mit Maßnahmen der Außenwirtschaftsförderung zu verzahnen. Wir sollten für deutsche Unternehmen, die in Afrika aktiv werden wollen, eine zentrale Anlaufstelle einrichten, die den Zugang zu Informationen und Fördermitteln massiv erleichtert. Bisher ist dies gerade für kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen noch eine zu große Hürde.

MTA: Wie wollen Sie sicherstellen, dass die deutsche Afrikapolitik sowohl die eigenen Interessen als auch die Bedürfnisse und Prioritäten der afrikanischen Staaten und Gesellschaften berücksichtigt?

KL: Wir müssen uns unserer eigenen geostrategischen Interessen in diesem Kontext überhaupt bewusster werden und diese klarer definieren. Erst dann können wir unser entwicklungs- und wirtschaftspolitisches Engagement in Afrika auch strategischer denken. Die aktuelle Zerfaserung des deutschen, aber auch europäischen Engagements vor Ort führt zur Verschwendung von ungenutzten Potenzialen.

Gleichzeitig müssen wir verstärkt darauf achten, afrikanische Partner nicht zu bevormunden, sondern auch mit divergierenden Interessen konstruktiv umzugehen. Hier braucht es die Bereitschaft auf unserer Seite, maßgeschneiderte Kooperationskonzepte erarbeiten. Gerade bei Fragen der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung und des Klimaschutzes braucht es manchmal mehr Verständnis für die Position des Gegenübers.

Dabei ist es die Aufgabe beider Seiten, bei jeglichen Projekten auch auf die sozialen Auswirkungen zu achten. Wenn beispielsweise der Aufbau von grüner Wasserstoffproduktion in manchen afrikanischen Staaten zu Wasserverknappung und sozialer Verdrängung führen würde, muss dies in den Planungen frühzeitig und mit Nachdruck angesprochen werden.

MTA: Welche blinden Flecken nehmen Sie in der deutschen Afrikapolitik wahr, die Sie gerne stärker auf die politische Agenda setzen würden?

KL: Die französische Präsenz in Afrika nimmt ab. Das wird in Deutschland zwar wahrgenommen, was daraus für uns folgt, wird nicht entschlossen genug diskutiert. Hier braucht es zuerst eine umfassende Analyse, was die von Präsident Macron vor einigen Monaten angekündigte neue französische Strategie für uns wirklich bedeutet. Und dann gilt es ein klares Selbstverständnis davon zu entwickeln, wie wir uns vor dem Hintergrund dieser Änderungen in Afrika neu aufstellen können, wollen und müssen.

Ein weiterer blinder Fleck, wie oben bereits angeschnitten, ist die zu kurz greifende staatliche Unterstützung für deutsche Unternehmen, die in Afrika aktiv werden wollen. Das Potenzial ist in vielen afrikanischen Märkten riesig. Auch Interesse ist in der deutschen Wirtschaft vielerorts gegeben. Die bisher verfügbaren Instrumente der Außenwirtschaftsförderung sind jedoch an vielen Stellen nicht ausreichend. Hier sollte die Bundesregierung dringend nachbessern.

Dr. Katja Leikert (CDU) ist Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages. Sie ist Mitglied im Auswärtigen Ausschuss und dort für die CDU/CSU Bundestagsfraktion Berichterstatterin zu Grundsatzfragen der deutschen Afrikapolitik. Dieses schriftliche Interview wurde im September 2023 geführt und ist Teil unserer Mini-Serie „Vier Fragen“, in denen wir Abgeordnete nach ihren Prioritäten für die neuen Afrikapolitischen Leitlinien fragen.

Download Remarks

On October 30th, IPI President Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein delivered the keynote address at the Opening Ceremony of the 10th annual Geneva Peace Week at the Maison de la Paix in Geneva, Switzerland. This year’s theme was “Building Trust, Building Peace: An Agenda for the Future.”

Speaking to the assembled delegates, President Al Hussein said, “If we are to build trust and peace, we need to be as morally consistent as we can…Building trust and building peace can only be achieved if states hold themselves — and expect others do the same — to one set of rules applicable to all. It is that basic and elemental. And peacemaking must become a core part of what a new UN will look like, it has been lost and must now be recovered.”

Read full remarks here >>

Event Video 
Photos

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

In collaboration with the Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN, IPI convened a hybrid policy forum on the margins of the UN Security Council’s Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) on October 25th. The event, entitled “The Role of Women’s Organizations in Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Conflict-Affected Contexts,” provided a platform for advocates, activists, and researchers to come together and discuss the role of women’s organizations in addressing conflict-related gender-based violence (GBV).

The world is currently grappling with the highest number of conflicts since WWII, marked by pervasive conflict-related GBV and rampant impunity for perpetrators. Panelists underscored the vital role of women’s organizations in combatting GBV in conflict settings. However, they also highlighted the dire need for increased funding and substantive support to allow these organizations to conduct advocacy and programming to end conflict-related GBV.

The event began with opening remarks from the Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Relations of Colombia, Elizabeth Taylor Jay, who spoke about Colombia’s experiences with implementing the WPS agenda in Colombia where “women and feminist movements and organizations have been the main protagonists.” Next, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN, Andreas von Uexküll, spoke about the danger of conflict-related sexual violence being the “world’s least condemned crime of war” and the need for member states to loudly condemn these crimes and support every avenue for justice.

Kvinna til Kvinna Foundation launched a new report, titled “They came together not to be silenced—gender-based violence in conflict & the role of women’s rights organizations” at the event. The report sheds light on the work of women’s organizations in four conflict-affected countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, and Ukraine.

Jessica Poh-Janrell, Advocacy Advisor of Kvinna till Kvinna, presented the report’s findings, identifying six themes of convergence among the four regions. She reported: “States have been unprepared, unable and, in some cases, unwilling to provide victims and survivors with sufficient support and hold perpetrators to account.” Women’s rights organizations have played an essential role in filling these critical gaps in services, yet they remain severely underfunded.

Panelists from several regions offered their perspectives on the context-specific challenges women’s organizations confront today and their implications for the international community’s response to GBV.

Adrijana Hanušić Bećirović, Senior Legal Adviser at Trial International in Bosnia and Herzegovina, spoke about how the war is still “omnipresent” in the hearts and minds of the victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a key part of the path to peace is establishing truth and providing justice for victims.

Oksana Potapova, Researcher and Women’s Rights Activist in Ukraine, drew attention to the continuum of violence that women endure and emphasized that GBV can serve as an early warning sign for conflict.

Solange Lwashiga, Executive Secretary Caucus des Femmes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, spoke about the need to speak up to support change and the strategy of women’s organizations to break the silence around GBV in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Letitia Anderson, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, grounded the discussion in the historical legacy of GBV within contexts of war. She articulated that sexual violence in conflict is a political issue and that it creates an undue burden on civil society to respond to these realities on the ground without political support.

All speakers made clear that gender equality and peace are inextricably linked and that gender-based violence is a political issue with a political economy.

Opening Remarks:
Elizabeth Taylor Jay, Vice-Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Colombia
Andreas von Uexküll, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN

Speakers:
Jessica Poh-Janrell, Advocacy Advisor, Kvinna til Kvinna
Adrijana Hanušić Bećirović, Senior Legal Adviser at Trial International, Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Oksana Potapova, Researcher and Women’s Rights Activist, Ukraine
Solange Lwashiga, Executive Secretary Caucus des Femmes, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Letitia Anderson, Team Leader for Political Advocacy & Communications, UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict

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

Event Video 
Photos

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

Ahead of the UN Security Council’s Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security, IPI co-hosted a panel discussion on October 23rd with the New Lines Institute and Equimundo. The event entitled “Understanding Masculinities to Dismantle Patriarchal Power Structures” was organized in response to the Secretary General’s call to dismantle patriarchal power structures in his New Agenda for Peace policy brief. The panel featured representatives from member states, UN agencies, and civil society discussing patriarchal structures, masculinities, and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.

Arlene B. Tickner, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, opened the discussion by advocating for a shared definition of patriarchy and masculinity because we can’t dismantle something we do not understand. She described patriarchy as “a political-social system rooted in socially defined gender roles that operates to create both oppression and privilege.” Ambassador Tickner went on to explain that patriarchy insists that certain men, particularly those who are heteronormative and white, are naturally superior to those perceived as weak, in particular females (including trans women). This system grants them the inherent right to dominate and rule through distinct forms of power and violence.

Kat Fotovat, Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Global Women’s Issues for the U.S. Department of State, emphasized the importance of engaging men and boys in the promotion of the rights of women and girls through US foreign policy. She recognized the pervasiveness of patriarchal structures, describing patriarchy as “vast and insidious, replicated and made invisible by the nature of having existed for centuries.” She called for institutionalized policies and programming that recognize how gender-based violence and gender inequality are fundamentally rooted in unequal power structures that prioritize men.

Gary Barker, President of Equimundo, identified men’s increasing economic marginalization as a key driver of the global regression in gender equality. Economic vulnerabilities, he explained, breed resistance from men, allowing far-right groups to instrumentalize these feelings of loss in their messaging against gender equality.

Sarah Douglas, Deputy Chief of the Peace and Security section at UN Women, noted that global military budgets have exceeded previous records for the 8th consecutive year, reaching a level of $2.2 trillion. At the same time, funding for women’s organizations in conflict zones has decreased from 0.5% to 0.3% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in fragile settings. She noted that male-dominated approaches to peace and security, which prioritize militarized responses, have contributed to the current conflict-ridden state of the world.

Emily Prey, Director of the WPS Portfolio at the New Lines Institute, emphasized the role of research in advancing the effectiveness of policy and conflict prevention programs. She noted that decades of research show that patriarchy is a net negative for society, which is why it is vital to educate men and boys to gain their support for dismantling the structures that ultimately harm all of society in the long term.

Dean Peacock, Director of the Mobilizing Men for Feminist Peace Initiative of WILPF, redirected attention to the legacies of colonialism and land dispossession in the Global South as a fundamental challenge to building a far-reaching movement that attracts both men and women to advocate for gender equality. He stressed the importance of contextualization to address structural factors that contribute to gendered harms in conflict settings.

Speakers offered innovative strategies for advocating, mobilizing political will, promoting education, developing programming, securing funding, and conducting research, related to masculinities and gender equality, all of which will be necessary to dismantle patriarchal systems.

Welcoming Remarks:
Adam Lupel, Vice President and COO, International Peace Institute

Speakers:
H.E. Arlene B. Tickner, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN
Kat Fotovat, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Global Women’s Issues, US Department of State
Gary Barker, President and CEO, Equimundo: Center for Masculinities and Social Justice
Sarah Douglas, Deputy Chief of UN Women
Emily Prey, Director of the Gender Policy Portfolio at New Lines Institute
Dean Peacock, Director of the Mobilizing Men for Feminist Peace Initiative, WILPF

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

Event Video 

Government officials, diplomats, private sector representatives, human rights institutions and key players gathered on October 24th to call upon international organizations, NGOs, global law organizations, and other stakeholders to work together to create resilient communities that work in tandem with security dimensions of executive and judicial organizations to end the intolerable human rights violations suffered by irregular migrants.

Opening the webinar on “Irregular Migration in the MENA Region,” IPI MENA Senior Director Nejib Friji highlighted the importance of terminology: “It is vital that we avoid the term illegal migration as most irregular migrants are not criminals.” He quoted the distinction drawn by the UN, European Union, and Council of Europe, stating that “illegal” is used to refer to the status of a process, and “irregular” when referring to a person.

Highlighting the plight of irregular migrants, Mr. Friji pointed out that irregular border crossing creates a category of people “unknown to the state,” rendering them especially vulnerable. They are removed from the protection of the law and fall into the informal economy, where exploitative practices can – and, unfortunately, do – take place.

“Each and every act of exploitation must be documented with the purpose of bringing those perpetrators…to justice,” he emphasized.

IPI MENA Intern Anuja Jaiswal pointed to frequent headlines reporting on capsized migrant boats on their way to Europe, emphasizing that this is only one tragic part of the story. She proposed a more holistic, human rights-based approach to migration that examines the treatment of migrants in countries of origin, transit, and destination.

“We must highlight the legal tools available to advocate for migrants,” she stated, explaining the legal distinction between human trafficking and migrant smuggling. “We hope that by evaluating the legal tools available, we can build an understanding of how to apply them to complex realities.”

She underlined the consequences of cross-border partnerships on irregular migration, pointing to recent reports which reveal that such agreements can result in widespread human rights violations. “A solely preventative approach to irregular migration makes migrants more vulnerable to human rights abuses and overlooks their frequent victimization in trafficking and smuggling networks…Ultimately, everyone responsible for abuses against migrants must be held accountable.”

Moussa Mara, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Mali emphasized the importance of understanding two main truths when dealing with irregular migration on a global scale: Firstly, migration represents a point of concern for countries of destination. Secondly, migration functions as an obligation, rather than choice for people in countries of origin. “Nobody will leave his own town with happiness…they will go out only to try to live.”

Regarding Mali, Mr. Mara stated that the combination of significant land loss due to climate change and rapid population growth creates a “scissor effect” on local economy, driving greater migration. He pointed out that the situation will not change soon, stressing the importance of international cooperation and convening around this issue: “It is a global concern that needs a global solution.”

In closing, he emphasized the importance of accountability: “We need to use all means against traffickers, smugglers, and the mafia…all the people who are drinking the blood of the migrants.”

Zoi Sakelliadou, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer on Trafficking in Persons and Migrant Smuggling at UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) spoke about the international legal framework against human trafficking and smuggling of migrants, and the challenges in its implementation. “The current global environment is one of turmoil,” she stressed. Several factors, such as armed conflict, environmental disaster, climate change, and poverty, force migrants to leave their homes and many turn to smugglers in the absence of alternatives. Citing a UNODC study, Mrs. Sakelliadou revealed that smuggled migrants are often subjected to extreme violence, torture, and rape.

“Migration is no crime – but smuggling of migrants is,” she clarified, emphasizing the importance of treating migrants humanely with the full respect of human rights. “There is an imperative need to talk to the migrants and listen to them…migrants that have suffered in the hands of smugglers are entitled to assistance.”

Mrs. Sakelliadou also highlighted the widespread nature of migrant smuggling: “There is no country in the world that is immune to this crime.” Referencing UNODC data, she stated that unfortunately, the level of convictions for migrant smuggling and human trafficking is still very low and “we need to bring those responsible to justice.”

Abdelbasset Hassen began by acknowledging that there are many ideas, programs, and strategies implemented by various civil society organizations and migrant and refugee communities. He stated that the MENA region is suffering from a lack of policies and shared vision on the issue of irregular migration.

He pointed to the narrow security-based lens applied to issues of migration and refugees, suggesting that it indicates a perspective grounded in fear. Looking forward to the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he quoted the objective to “free people from fear and want,” emphasizing the need for a different approach.

“We need to move to a rights-based vision that will take into consideration the deep causes and roots of this issue,” he stated, referring to economic, social, and political problems driving migration around the world. “We need to invest in this holistic and rights-based approach, which is not at all in contradiction with security issues.”

In closing, he proposed, “it is time we make human rights the way to address these issues.”

During the open floor debate session, Anna J. Louis, ambassador of the Philippines, raised the fluidity of categories in this issue, pointing out that one can begin as a regular migrant but become irregular through the course of events. She emphasized the importance of grassroots-level participation, describing the prevalence of local government units in the Philippines.

Mr. Mara stated that there is a lack of political will within some countries of origin because migration is seen as a “solution,” reducing the pressure of people on leadership. “We need to face this reality. Migration is not a solution…migration means death for our youth. We need to tell the truth inside our countries.”

Abdulnabi Alekry, correspondent at the Delmon Post, spoke about the issue of “forced emigration” in the context of forced displacement, referring to the Palestinian and Rohingya communities. He asked about the responsibility of the UN and other stakeholders in addressing this issue.

In response, Mr. Hassen reminded the audience that human rights is one of the foundational values of the UN system, and any political solutions must be based on a recognition of the rights of people.

En septembre 2023, six mois après l’adoption par l’Union européenne d’une stratégie spatiale pour la défense et la sécurité, l’Allemagne s’est dotée d’une nouvelle stratégie spatiale. Quelles sont les priorités de cette nouvelle stratégie spatiale allemande ? À la veille du Sommet de l’Agence spatiale européenne, qui se tiendra à Séville en novembre 2023, quel est l’avenir du modèle spatial européen ? En quoi la dimension stratégique du spatial est prise en compte par l’Allemagne ? Autant d’enjeux sur lesquels revient Gaspard Schnitzler, directeur de recherche à l’IRIS, responsable du Programme Industrie de défense et de sécurité et co-directeur de l’Observatoire de l’Allemagne.

Les attaques lancées par le Hamas contre Israël le 7 octobre ont replacé la question du conflit israélo-palestinien au cœur du débat sur la scène internationale, éclipsant en partie la guerre russo-ukrainienne. Quel positionnement Moscou adopte-t-il à l’égard du conflit entre le Hamas et Israël et comment ce dernier est-il par ailleurs perçu au sein de la société russe ? Qu’en est-il du soutien du président ukrainien Volodymyr Zelensky à Israël ? Quelles sont les conséquences du détournement des regards médiatiques et de la communauté internationale de la guerre en Ukraine vers le conflit israélo-palestinien ? Qu’en est-il de la situation en Ukraine à l’heure actuelle ? Le point de vue de Jean de Gliniasty, directeur de recherche à l’IRIS et spécialiste de la Russie.

 

Quel positionnement Moscou adopte-t-il à l’égard du conflit entre le Hamas et Israël ? Comment ce dernier est-il par ailleurs perçu au sein de la société russe ?

Il y a d’abord un effet d’aubaine pour Moscou. Le point focal de l’attention internationale est passé de l’Ukraine à Israël. Pour les Occidentaux, le « méchant » est aussi le Hamas et non plus seulement la Russie. Tout désintérêt relatif pour la guerre en Ukraine signifie à terme moins d’aide, moins d’attention, moins de pression des opinions publiques. En même temps, la Russie est embarrassée  pour maintenir le délicat équilibre qu’elle a plus ou moins réussi à maintenir jusqu’à présent entre d’un côté Israël, où résident de nombreux Russes devenus citoyens israéliens, qui n’imposent pas de sanctions économiques et qui limite ses livraisons d’armes à l’Ukraine; les Palestiniens, qui jouissent d’un appui traditionnel de la diplomatie russe ; la Syrie, où les russes entretiennent deux bases militaires (Tartous et Hmeimim) et l’Iran, avec lequel les liens notamment militaires se sont resserrés (livraisons de drones Shahid et construction en Russie d’une usine de ces drones). La Russie a présenté au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU un projet de résolution qui se voulait équilibré mais qui a été refusé par les membres du Conseil parce qu’il ne comportait aucune condamnation des agissements du Hamas. Pour Moscou, un embrasement de la région ne serait pas une bonne affaire et l’obligerait à sortir de l’ambiguïté. Malgré un soutien de principe à la cause palestinienne, les exactions du Hamas en Israël ont beaucoup choqué et les manifestations de soutien de la population russe à Israël ont été à ce jour beaucoup plus importantes dans la capitale russe que les gestes de solidarité avec les Palestiniens de Gaza. La violence des réactions israéliennes pourrait changer les choses.

Dans un entretien sur France 2, le président ukrainien Volodymyr Zelensky a apporté son soutien à Israël et a accusé la Russie de soutenir les opérations du Hamas. Qu’en est-il réellement ? Que traduit l’alignement de la position ukrainienne sur celle des Occidentaux vis-à-vis de la condamnation des attaques du 7 octobre ?

Volodymyr Zelensky a demandé en vain à être reçu en Israël. Il veut se montrer solidaire de la réaction d’indignation provoquée en Europe et aux États-Unis, ses principaux soutiens, face aux atrocités commises par le Hamas et impliquer la Russie dans l’attaque contre Israël. Il peut invoquer à l’appui de son accusation les liens de Moscou avec Téhéran et le soutien traditionnel de la Russie à la cause palestinienne. Si c’est de bonne guerre, on voit mal les Russes chercher à déstabiliser Israël avec lequel ils ont un modus vivendi satisfaisant, Moscou fermant les yeux à certaines conditions sur ses bombardements contre les forces des Gardiens de la révolution iranienne en Syrie, lui permettant ainsi de se ménager une sorte de zone tampon à sa frontière syrienne. Il s’agit aussi, pour le président ukrainien, de rester au premier rang des priorités diplomatiques et militaires de la « communauté internationale ». Les Israéliens, dont les préoccupations sont d’abord de panser leurs plaies et de préparer les opérations sur Gaza, ont refusé de le recevoir. Kiev craint de voir les Occidentaux, notamment les Américains, réorienter une partie de leur aide vers Israël et se désintéresser relativement de l’Ukraine. L’enjeu israélien sera sans doute plus important que l’enjeu ukrainien dans la campagne présidentielle américaine qui s’ouvre. Kiev n’a donc pas non plus intérêt à une conflagration dans la région.

La résonance du conflit israélo-palestinien sur la scène internationale semble détourner temporairement les regards médiatiques et de la communauté internationale de la guerre en Ukraine. Avec quelles conséquences ? Qu’en est-il de la situation en Ukraine à l’heure actuelle ?

Pour regagner l’attention prioritaire des Occidentaux, les Ukrainiens ont besoin que la crise avec Israël s’apaise. En attendant, ils doivent réactiver l’intérêt de l’opinion et pour cela enregistrer de nouvelles victoires ou démontrer que les choses bougent. La livraison de missiles ATACMS américains très précis et récemment utilisés avec succès semble-t-il, ainsi que le blocage d’une offensive russe du côté d’Avdiivka, leur ont fait regagner une partie de l’attention des médias. Le pire pour Kiev serait d’être soumis à une reconquête rampante par la Russie dans le silence de la « communauté internationale ».

La diplomatie est-elle un sport de combat ? Faut-il croire à la morale en politique ? Comment protéger les droits humains ? La responsabilité de protéger légitime-t-elle le droit d’ingérence ? Pascal Boniface échange avec Jean-Maurice Ripert autour de ses Mémoires « Diplomatie de Combats » publiés aux Presses de la cité : des récits de combats qu’il a mené du Pakistan à la Russie, en passant par la Chine, pour défendre valeurs et idées qui lui sont chères.

Séminaire organisé, en collaboration avec Enerdata et Cassini, dans le cadre de l’Observatoire de la sécurité des flux et des matières énergétiques (OSFME), mené pour le compte de la Direction générale des relations internationales et de la stratégie (DGRIS) du ministère des Armées.

Autour de :

– David Amsellem, cartographe, docteur en géopolitique et co-fondateur du cabinet Cassini Conseil

– Emmanuel Hache, directeur scientifique de l’OSFME et directeur de recherche à l’Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS)

– Frédéric Jeannin, chercheur au sein du programme Climat, énergie et sécurité de l’Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS)

– Roman Vinadia, chef de projet et analyse géopolitique, cabinet Cassini Conseil.

Animé par Sami Ramdani, enseignant-chercheur en géopolitique de l’énergie et des matières premières à l’Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS).

Recent health emergencies such as the 2018–2020 Ebola crisis in DRC, in conjunction with the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate the importance of health responses that take the local context into account, especially in settings that are already affected by violent conflict. When humanitarian health responses fail to understand and adapt to their impact on conflict dynamics, they risk exacerbating those dynamics, impeding the health response, and placing health workers at risk. As healthcare becomes increasingly and globally politicized, it is more crucial than ever to recognize the links between health and peace and promote a more deliberate approach to delivering emergency health responses in violent conflict environments.

In this context, this paper first discusses the global normative environment for emergency health responses in situations of violent conflict and proposals to strengthen the links between international health and peace activities, especially the GHPI. Second, it examines the concepts at the core of the GHPI initiative and considers their operationalization in violent conflict environments. Third, it summarizes the emergency health response to the 2018–2020 Ebola epidemic in eastern DRC, how it interacted disastrously with conflict dynamics, and the lessons learned from the experience. Finally, it highlights several risk areas that emergency health interventions working at the humanitarian-peace nexus in conflict will likely face and considers options for mitigating their impact.

The paper concludes by offering the following recommendations, aimed at supporting the further development of the conceptual framework for the health and peace agenda and informing the operationalization of the GHPI and similar initiatives.

• WHO should develop the GHPI conceptual framework further, including by elaborating on when health actors should pursue peace-responsive programming and how they should coordinate with peace and security actors, as well as the relationship between the GHPI and political processes.
• WHO should design a strategy to operationalize the GHPI in violent conflict settings, including by developing tools, guidance, and training on conflict-sensitive analysis and programming; identifying the political skills required of those leading the implementation of such programming; and clarifying how to manage ethical dilemmas.
• The Executive Office of the Secretary-General should conduct a formal assessment of the Ebola emergency coordinator position during the 2018–2020 Ebola crisis.
• The UN Department for Safety and Security should review security risk assessment processes and safety and security measures and develop an inventory of safety and security measures that could be used in place of armed security.
• The UN Department of Peace Operations should review operational guidance for armed escorts and area security during site visits.

Download

Pascal Boniface · L’effet papillon des conflits mondiaux. Avec le Général Dominique Trinquand | Entretiens géopo

Les Géopolitiques de Nantes des 29 et 30 septembre 2023 avaient placé le conflit israélo-palestinien au centre des débats, quelques jours avant que les attaques terroristes du Hamas soient commises sur le territoire israélien le 7 octobre dernier.

Thomas Vescovi, historien et chercheur indépendant, spécialiste de la société israélienne et de ses interactions avec la population palestinienne, avait répondu à nos questions : quelle place occupe la non-résolution du conflit israélo-palestinien dans la crise démocratique israélienne ? Le serpent de mer d’une solution à deux États est-elle encore réaliste ? Quelles conditions permettraient une résolution du conflit de manière pérenne ? Ses réponses mettent en perspective la situation tragique d’aujourd’hui.

Les Géopolitiques de Nantes sont organisés par l’IRIS et le Lieu Unique, avec le soutien de Nantes métropole.

Vidéo tournée le 30/09/2023