European Peace Institute / News

Despite the signing of the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) and the appointment of the Presidency Council of the UN-backed Government of National Accord in December 2015, the situation in Libya remains precarious. The political process is extremely fragile, and security threats are ever-present and unpredictable. It is in this context that the Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) in December 2016.

In light of this situation, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report co-organized a workshop on October 19, 2016, to give member states and UN actors the opportunity to develop a shared understanding of the situation faced by the UN in Libya. This workshop was the second in the “Applying HIPPO” series, which brings together member states and UN actors to analyze how UN policies and the June 2015 recommendations of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) can be applied to country-specific contexts.

Participants identified a number of challenges facing the UN mission in Libya and its ability to effectively support the Libyan Political Agreement and achieve its mandated activities, including social and political fragmentation, the UN-led political process’s lack of legitimacy, and the Presidency Council’s inability to deliver basic services. Given these challenges, participants identified six immediate priorities for UNSMIL that could be incorporated into its renewed mandate: (1) enhancing the legitimacy of the LPA framework; (2) supporting the delivery of basic services; (3) reinvigorating the constitution-making process; (4) supporting key Libyan institutions; (5) leveraging the lifting of sanctions and the arms embargo; and (6) coordinating international engagement.

Download

On Monday, December 12th at 12:30pm EST, IPI together with the Graduate Institute of Geneva, are co-hosting and event marking the launch of the ICM Final Report, “Pulling Together: The Multilateral System and its Future.” The event will take place at the Maison de la paix, Geneva.

Click here to watch the Graduate Institute’s live broadcast>>

The world is changing at unprecedented speed, putting great stress on institutions of global governance. Multilateral institutions are struggling to adapt to the breadth and pace of change, with the United Nations in particular being tested as never before. As each day brings new social, political, and economic challenges, this event addresses the question: is the multilateral system still fit for purpose?

Welcome remarks:
Gilles Carbonnier, Professor of International Economics and Director of Studies, The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Terje Rød-Larsen, President, International Peace Institute

Speakers:
Rosemary McCarney, Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in Geneva
Ilona Kickbusch, Adjunct Professor and Director of the Global Health Centre, The Graduate Institute
Robert Mardini, Regional Director for the Near and Middle East, International Committee of the Red Cross
Cecile Aptel, Senior Legal Policy Advisor, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

How can open societies cope with threats that do not respect borders, from terrorist attacks, to cyber threats, to pandemics, to refugees and migrants? Is the fear caused by their “openness” fueling a rise in ideology and intolerance, and will this cause open societies to become more closed? And with open societies under attack, what are the consequences for the international system?

These were the questions addressed in a meeting the International Peace Institute (IPI) organized on the theme of “Open Societies under Attack: The Return of Ideology” from September 4 to 6, 2016, in Salzburg, Austria. The meeting brought together a high-level group of participants from diverse backgrounds, including the diplomatic, artistic, academic, and art communities, as well as current and former politicians, journalists, and representatives of civil society. It was part of the IPI Salzburg Forum, a major annual event to address the risks and challenges of today and contribute to more effective multilateral governance in the future.

Over a series of six sessions, participants discussed a variety of interconnected issues, including the governance of security, privacy and civic freedoms, manifestations of right-wing and Islamic radicalization, prevention of violent extremism and the incentives of terrorism, the spread of populism and authoritarianism, and the growing lack of trust in the political sphere.

Download

On Wednesday, December 7th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations, the Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations, and the United Nations Development Programme cohosted a policy forum event to discuss the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in fragile situations. Introductory remarks were delivered by H.R.H. Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway and UNDP Goodwill Ambassador.

In September 2015, member states of the United Nations adopted a new framework entitled: “Transforming Our World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This global agenda recognizes that, while its goals are universal, the pathways and pace of progress will vary from country to country and depend on different national realities and challenges. Addressing fragility is essential to laying the foundation for inclusive and peaceful societies and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

To build peaceful and inclusive societies, as well as effective institutions, the root causes of fragility must be addressed. The 2030 Agenda provides a global framework that seeks to end poverty, reduce inequality, and combat climate change. For countries facing fragility, implementing the 2030 Agenda is an opportunity to overcome structural challenges and build resilience. Moreover, as recognized in the three recent peace and security reviews—on peace operations, peacebuilding, and Security Council resolution 1325—investment in prevention is a key priority.

Through the Commitment to Action, The World Humanitarian Summit set in motion the development of a “new way of working” that aims to meet immediate humanitarian needs, while reducing risk and vulnerability. In order for this to be achieved, and for fragility to be tackled effectively, the development, humanitarian and peace communities must work together to ensure no one is left behind, and to reach the furthest behind first.

Fragility was arguably a key impediment to the advancement of the Millennium Development Goals, and continues to be a major challenge for the 2030 Agenda. The number of people living in fragile situations has risen considerably and extreme poverty is becoming increasingly concentrated in fragile situations. As noted by the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing, “success or failure to achieve the [Sustainable Development Goals] will depend upon whether or not we are up to the challenge of managing fragility and risks.”

Welcoming Remarks:
H.R.H. Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway and UNDP Goodwill Ambassador

Speakers:
H.E. Mr. Yusuf‑Garaad Omar, Permanent Representative of Somalia to the United Nations
Mr. Magdy Martínez-Solimán, Assistant Administrator and Director Bureau for Policy and Programme, United Nations Development Programme
H.E. Mr. Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations
Ms. Gwi-Yeop Son, Director, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Ms. Jimena Leiva Roesch, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

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

On Tuesday, December 13th at 1:15pm EST, IPI together with The Prevention Project: Organizing Against Violent Extremism, and the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) are cohosting a policy forum event to discuss the challenges facing the multilateral system in preventing violent extremism.

IPI Live Event Feed

Terrorism and violent extremism undermine the three founding pillars of the UN system: peace and security, human rights, and development. The increasingly complex nature of these threats has concerned the multilateral system for several years, paving the road to innovative approaches by member states and the UN system. Almost a year after the release of the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, and at a time of transition, this policy forum will ask the question: What is the future of the multilateral system’s agenda for preventing violent extremism?

To inform this discussion, the Institute for Economics and Peace will present its 2016 annual Global Terrorism Index (GTI), a survey of key global trends and drivers of terrorist activity in 163 countries, and the Prevention Project will present relevant findings from its latest report, “Communities First: A Blue-Print for Organizing and Sustaining a Global Movement Against Violent Extremism.” How can statistical data help in the formulation of policies for preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) as an alternative to heavy-handed counterterrorism measures? How can countries adopt a “whole of society” approach while mitigating unintended consequences that exacerbate the drivers and grievances that lead to violent extremism in the first place?

Speakers:
Michelle Breslauer, Director, Americas Program, Institute for Economics and Peace
Eric Rosand, Director, The Prevention Project: Organizing Against Violent Extremism
Dr. Jehangir Khan, Director, UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF)

Moderator:
Arthur Boutellis, Director, Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute

Nejib Friji, Director of the International Peace Institute, Middle East & North Africa (IPI-MENA) office, cautioned students roleplaying as delegates from the UN, to bear in mind that “no cause deserves a single drop of blood,” when debating policy issues.

Mr. Friji delivered opening remarks to the Bahrain Universities Model United Nations (BUMUN) 2016 Conference on November 27, 2016. He told participating university students that diplomatic and political means were the best tools to overcome disputes. This was key advice for the students, as in a Model UN conference, students represent UN member states, and therefore often debate on behalf of, and engage with, diverse perspectives that may not mirror their personal viewpoints.

Mr. Friji encouraged the students to maintain their motivation to learn about the UN after the conference. They might draw inspiration for their own proposals for the UN system and its reform from the the final report of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), he said.

The report offers concrete recommendations on ways to address specific challenges of the global era, he said. He also shared ICM Chair and Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s opinion on why the UN matters. “If it fails, falters or fades, it would fundamentally erode the stability of an already fragile global order,” he said, quoting Mr. Rudd.

Mr. Friji shared the history of the ICM project with the delegates, explaining that the UN requested IPI to convene the ICM with the aim of securing an independent review of the multilateral system. The resulting report emphasized the need to make the UN more effective for all our common interests.

Weighing in on whether the UN remains “fit for purpose” after 70 years, Mr. Friji described the UN as a resilient institution that “provides the best option for the international community to coordinate their response to a number of issues, not just global security ones.”

He urged the delegates to reflect on the fresh ideas offered by the ICM, based on a deep knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of today’s multilateral system.

Mr. Friji participated in a question and answer session with the students.

He concluded by praising the remarkable dynamism of the delegates, noting that with the considerable presence of female delegates, the student deliberations would be likely to reinforce the ICM objective “to ensure that the UN continues to respond to the policy challenges of our time,” and acts as “an architect for a better world.”

How deadly is UN peacekeeping? Have UN peacekeeping fatalities increased over the past decades? Those who have attempted to answer these questions differ drastically in their assessments, in part due to the dearth of data and the variety of calculation methods employed.

In order to fix some of these shortcomings and take a fresh look at these questions, this report analyzes trends in UN peacekeeping fatalities using a new dataset compiled by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. As a result of the new data employed and methodological innovations, this report constitutes the most detailed study of UN fatality trends thus far.

The analysis reveals that overall UN fatalities are not substantively on the rise. Indeed, total fatality ratios are declining. Nevertheless, this decline does not equally apply to all types of UN fatalities; there is strong evidence that UN fatalities due to illness are on the rise. While these findings are important, further research is needed to adequately examine whether UN peacekeeping missions have become more dangerous in recent years.

Download

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

A discussion on mediation in the context of the ongoing conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen drew more than 60 participants, including high-level diplomats and United Nations officials, to the Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN on November 30, 2016.

The expert group of panelists included UN Under Secretary-General Jamal Benomar, who for 4 years was the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Yemen; William Zartman, Professor, Johns Hopkins University and expert in the field of negotiation analysis; and Teresa Whitfield, Officer-in-Charge, Policy and Mediation Division, UN Department of Political Affairs.

The event was to share the findings of a new IPI paper, “Lost in Transition: UN Mediation in Libya, Syria, and Yemen,” which was co-authored by José Vericat and Francesco Mancini. The paper is the result of research carried out by IPI over the last three years, including interviews with most of the major actors involved. It lays out a set of lessons to be used as the international community continues to attempt to solve conflicts, while focusing on four axes: mission and mandate, impartiality and inclusivity, entry and consent, and strategy and leverage.

The conversation was conducted under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution.

Comments from the participants included:

• In some cases, conflicts don’t meet UN definition of request for mediated intervention — know what you are getting into
• The role of mediators is central, but they should not be blamed for the outcome
• Mediators need clear mandates from the UN Security Council
• A perception that regime change will be the outcome is usually to the mediation’s detriment
• Great powers should not be prioritized over local actors
• The most successful transition after the Arab uprisings —Tunisia—had the least UN involvement
• Use of social media can be complicated; attempts to get real story out can be countered online by rumors

The paper explores the tools at a meditator’s disposal. The expert discussion revealed while a mediator’s main tool is persuasion, this influence rests on contextual leverage. It is important to consider two questions, “Is the situation ripe for mediation? Will the mediator be supported in his or her mandate?”

Participants agreed that local context matters—each situation has separate characteristics—but equally important to a successful outcome is getting the mediation process design right.

Another recurring discussion point was the challenges the mediators face in maintaining impartiality. “If we lose our impartiality, we have nothing,” said one participant.

The event concluded acknowledging that these crises reveal a common truth—that they can only be settled by political solutions, rather than military means.

Heiko Thoms, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the UN, gave welcoming remarks, in which he emphasized why it is important to talk about mediation. “In the end, people will have to sit around the table to find a way ahead,” he said.

Adam Lupel, IPI Vice President, moderated the conversation. He encouraged participants to consider the difference between mediation for reconciliation and mediation for transition.

The paper is the latest in a series on mediation, supported by the governments of Germany and of Finland.

The event was co-organized with the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations.

Download the Meeting Brief

The violence in the Middle East obfuscates the fact that there exists also a story of peace efforts across the region—a story of small successes, big frustrations, setbacks, and failures. Through these efforts, UN mediators have sought to achieve the often irreconcilable goals of ending violence while facilitating a political transition and reconciling the parties.

Building on the findings of papers previously published by IPI on UN mediation in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, this report draws crosscutting lessons for ongoing and future UN mediation in similarly complex and violent political transitions. These lessons are organized around five key challenges that mediators confront:

• Mandate: Much of the success or failure of a mediation depends on the mandate. While mediators do not necessarily need a clear mandate from the beginning, their success depends on unequivocal support from the Security Council at certain key stages of their mediation. This lack of clarity and the perception that the end result—political transition—was a precondition for negotiation frustrated the processes in Libya and Syria.
• Impartiality and inclusivity: It is neither possible nor always necessary for mediators to be completely impartial, but they must make proposals agreeable to the parties—a particular challenge during political transitions. Regarding inclusivity, every mediator is forced to make choices about who to include, and though any deficiencies generally involve leaving key actors out, sometimes a less inclusive process could have worked better.
• Entry and consent: Finding a favorable entry point—a moment when the conflict is “ripe” for resolution—is a challenge for mediators. While in Syria the UN is often faulted for being late to the conflict, the UN’s early entry in Libya did not improve the chances of mediation. The case of Yemen, however, demonstrates how early, low-profile engagement can help develop more favorable entry points.
• Strategy: Mediators face a dilemma in how to use cease-fires as conflict management tools; they can help build confidence among the parties, but they can also prolong the conflict by creating a tolerable stalemate. Cease-fires were only a minor part of the strategy of the mediators in all three countries. Greater emphasis on this mediation tool should be considered in future processes.
• Leverage: The greatest challenge UN mediators faced in leveraging power is that they represented a multilateral organization made up of many member states with competing agendas. But mediators who are UN insiders can also work the system in their favor. There are also other forms of leverage available to them, such as personal prestige and informational power.

Download

With the adoption of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on sustaining peace and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a multilateral policy consensus is emerging around a common vision for peaceful societies. These global frameworks treat prevention as an integral part of effective and participatory governance and view peace as both an enabler and an outcome of sustainable development.

To illustrate the preventive potential of the SDGs, this issue brief focuses on Target 5.5, which aims to “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in political, economic, and public life.” Evidence compiled with contributions from the Institute for Economics and Peace and the McKinsey Global Institute shows that investment in Target 5.5 could unleash the potential of women, facilitate their meaningful participation in decision making, and thus advance sustainable peace and development.

This issue brief is part of the International Peace Institute’s (IPI) attempt to reframe prevention for the purpose of sustaining peace through a series of conversations from October 2016 to May 2017.

Download

There are currently more peacekeepers on the ground than ever before, and they increasingly operate in contexts where the UN is being asked to manage conflict rather than restore or keep peace. This has led many both within and outside of the UN to challenge and question the foundational assumptions and doctrines of UN peacekeeping and to ask whether peace operations are “fit for purpose.”

Against this backdrop, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) in October 2014. The HIPPO released its report putting forward 166 recommendations in June 2015, followed three months later by a report from the secretary-general on the implementation of these recommendations. But one year later, no formal progress report has been produced.

This report, composed of a visual “scorecard” and accompanying narrative, aims to fill this gap. It presents a nuanced picture of progress to date by identifying where both the UN Secretariat and member states have taken the most concrete action across nine strategic areas. It then suggests how the next secretary-general and member states can take forward the HIPPO’s recommendations in each of these areas. Its recommendations include the following:

• The next secretary-general should make bold, “game-changing” proposals early in his term, particularly on restructuring the UN peace and security architecture, financing, and improved management of peace operations.
• The informal groups of friends of HIPPO, together with the broader UN membership, should carry forward the spirit of peace operations reform as a package.
• Member states should champion and build consensus around key HIPPO recommendations that the next secretary-general puts forward.
• Member states should pilot country-specific implementation of HIPPO recommendations, including the need for political solutions to guide the design and deployment of peace operations and for sequenced and prioritized mandates.
• The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34) should continue discussing the HIPPO recommendations in its 2017 session.

Download

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

Representatives from member states, the UN Secretariat, and experts from civil society organizations and think tanks discussed the challenges and opportunities to civil society engagement in the Malian peace process, in particular in the context of the upcoming National Reconciliation Conference (Conference d’Entente Nationale), due to take place in December 2016 in Bamako, Mali. This roundtable event, jointly organized by IPI and the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), took place at IPI on November 8, 2016.

Four Malian civil society actors presented an overview of the current situation in Mali and remaining challenges to civil society’s full engagement in the peace process. Boubacar Thera,  West Africa Network for Peacebuilding in Mali (WANEP-Mali), spoke about progress made, with support from international donors and NGOs, in ensuring that civil society representatives have been able to contribute to protecting civilians in Mali by monitoring human rights violations, contributing to assessing root causes of the 2012 crisis, and creating space and opportunities for dialogue.

Maître Saran Keïta, Women’s Peace and Security Network in the ECOWAS Region (REPSFECO-Mali), highlighted, in particular, the important monitoring role of civil society to observe the implementation of the peace accord and to ensure that its content reaches local communities. Néné Konaté, from the Malian Institute of Research and Action for Peace (IMRAP), added that civil society actors could help support participative processes throughout the country, as indeed local ownership of the peace accord is essential to durable peace in Mali. Professor Aguissa Ag Mohamed, Malian Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CM-CPI) and Observatory for Human Rights and Peace (ODHP), noted that despite all its potential and willingness to see the process moving forward, civil society actors suffer from limited resources.

Overall, civil society actors called for inclusive dialogue and a greater role for civil society in the follow-up to the peace accord, including for the upcoming Conference d’Entente Nationale. They noted a particular gap in the participation of youth and women in the implementation of the peace agreement. They submitted that civil society could play a central role in creating a permanent dialogue framework to work with community leaders in Mali. This could act as a form of multi-stakeholder platform to connect local actors with broader processes, thus contributing to long-term sustainable peace in the country. The recent establishment of interim authorities and the upcoming national reconciliation conference offer opportunities that will need to be leveraged.

Issa Konfourou, Permanent Representative of Mali to the United Nations, welcomed the presentation by Malian civil society actors, and noted progress in the implementation of the inter-Malian peace accord despite the challenges created by residual insecurity. This event, organized in partnership with GPPAC, feeds into the broader work that IPI does on Mali, peace operations and mediation.

Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, moderated the meeting. Jenny Aulin, Managing Advisor, Human Security, GPPAC, provided closing remarks.

During the November 7th UN Security Council ministerial open debate on “peace operations facing asymmetrical threats” under the presidency of His Excellency Mr. Mankeur Ndiaye, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senegalese Abroad of Senegal, Mr. Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations briefed the Council.

His remarks drew from the publication, “Waging Peace: UN Peace Operations Confronting Terrorism and Violent Extremism,” co-authored by Arthur Boutellis and Naureen Chowdhury Fink, and produced by IPI and the Global Center on Cooperative Security.

Addressing the Council, Arthur Boutellis emphasized that the “added value of the United Nations” is in “greater investment in preventive, multi-stakeholder strategies.” It is not sustainable for the UN to solely focus on “symptoms rather than causes,” he said.

As the report shows, of the eleven countries most affected by terrorism and other asymmetrical threats globally, seven currently host UN peace operations, ranging from small special political missions to larger peacekeeping operations.

The report seeks to expand the scope of the discussions beyond whether peace operations can adapt to asymmetrical threats environments, to how they can better implement their mandate and support national governments and local communities in the face of terrorism and violent extremism.

In conclusion, Arthur Boutellis called for this “timely” thematic debate to “help this organization develop a more strategic and integrated approach to waging and sustaining peace rather than only perfecting an instrument to better manage the symptoms of asymmetrical threats.”

Read full remarks

-->On Tuesday, November 1st, IPI hosted a discussion with Mr. Pierre Krähenbühl, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), that focused primarily on the plight of Palestine refugees today in the agency’s fields of operation, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. This discussion is the latest event in IPI’s series featuring United Nations Humanitarian Coordinators and other senior humanitarian leaders from the field.

In response to the Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA was established by the General Assembly to contribute to the welfare and human development of Palestine refugees. When the agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of approximately 750,000 refugees. Today, over 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services, which include education, health care, relief and social services, protection and microfinance.

The lack of political resolve in the region has cast a shadow over the population’s prosperity. Without hope, the risk of radicalization, particularly of youth, has become a worrisome reality. But through renewed support of Palestine refugees, faith in a better future can be restored and regional stability ensured. Indeed, the need for collaboration has never been greater.

Mr. Krähenbühl has 25 years of experience in human rights, humanitarian and development work. Appointed by the Secretary-General in November 2013, Pierre Krähenbühl became Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on March 30th, 2014. As Commissioner-General, he serves at the level of Under-Secretary-General.

Speaker:
Mr. Pierre Krähenbühl, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

Moderator:
Dr. Els Debuf, Senior Adviser and Head of Humanitarian Affairs at IPI

On Tuesday, November 1st, IPI hosted a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Shadi Hamid, author of Islamic Exceptionalism: How The Struggle Over Islam Is Reshaping The World. The conversation was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, Warren Hoge.

In his book, scholar and author Shadi Hamid offers a novel and provocative argument on how Islam is, in fact, “exceptional” in how it relates to politics. Exploring the profound implications this has for how we comprehend the future of the Middle East, Hamid also reflects on whether we should continue to expect history to gravitate toward secularism.

By addressing the vexing question of the role that religion plays in public life, he argues for a new understanding of how Islam and Islamism shape politics by examining different models of reckoning with the problem of religion and state, including the terrifying—and alarmingly successful—example of ISIS.

“We don’t have to like it,” he writes, “but we have to understand it—because Islam, as a religion and as an idea, will continue to be a force that shapes not just the region but also the West in the decades to come.”

IPI’s Distinguished Author Series brings critically acclaimed writers to IPI to present on international issues and to engage in a lively discussion with experts from the permanent missions to the UN and other members of the foreign affairs community in New York.

Economic connectivity has become a buzzword when talking about harmonization of the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the European Union (EU)—the so-called “integration of integrations.” At a time when diplomatic relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated yet states remain linked by economic and energy interests, some see economic connectivity as a possible entry point for maintaining dialogue and rebuilding cooperation.

In response to this increased interest in economic connectivity, IPI, with the support of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, organized a roundtable on this topic on December 14, 2015, in Vienna. This roundtable brought together representatives of OSCE participating states, executive structures, the private sector, civil society, and academia.

This meeting note provides an overview of the roundtable and offers some ideas on possible ways to further develop the idea of economic connectivity, including the following:

• Economic connectivity could build on common interests between Russia and the West.
• The issue of economic connectivity cannot be seen in isolation from politics.
• Respect for a rules-based economic system could help rebuild neighborly relations.
• Greater compatibility between the EU and the EAEU should be based on pragmatic steps rather than a grand bargain.
• States that enjoy the benefits of free trade agreements with both unions should play the role of a bridge between them.
• Economic confidence-building measures can help forge common interests and joint projects that bring mutual benefits.

Download

Over the past two decades, an abundance of legal and policy frameworks in the multilateral system have focused on women’s security and empowerment. Women, however, continue to be poorly represented in formal peacemaking activities, and they suffer disproportionately from the indirect effects of conflict. The credibility of the multilateral system itself depends on progress in this area, due to compelling evidence that inclusive societies are more likely to be peaceful and stable.

On the sixteenth anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325, this policy paper explores key challenges and developments related to women, peace, and security. This is the first in a series of fifteen policy papers produced by the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), a two-year project launched by IPI in September 2014 to identify how the multilateral system can be made more “fit for purpose” for twenty-first-century challenges.

Based on extensive consultations with representatives of states, various UN entities, and civil society, as well as subject-matter experts, this paper details recommendations laid out in the ICM’s final report, published in September 2016. To improve multilateral engagement on women, peace, and security, it recommends several major shifts:

• Reimagine traditional approaches to peace and security, from conceptions of peace and security to the identification of key actors and the goals of peace processes.
• Achieve a unified, holistic, and coherent approach to improve women’s security and participation, from shifts in social norms to improvements in education and increased women’s representation in politics and policymaking.
• Build an inclusive and legitimate multilateral system that embraces the women, peace, and security agenda as key to its credibility and effectiveness.

For other IPI news, events, and publications about women, peace, and security, see here.

Download

On Wednesday, October 26th, IPI together with UN Women cohosted a policy forum on the influence of women’s participation in peace processes—from negotiations to peace agreements, power-sharing arrangements, and throughout political transitions. Speakers discussed the challenges, opportunities, and prospects for improved gender representation in ongoing peace processes in Colombia, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere.

Women’s participation can have a strong positive influence on the success of peace processes and the conclusion and durability of peace agreements, as the 2015 Global Study and High-Level Review of Resolution 1325 both documented. Women’s impact on peace processes is not limited to gender equality. There is a growing need for women’s involvement in technical areas related to peace agreements, such as power-sharing, security arrangements and transitional justice.

At this event, panelists shared their contributions on the importance of women’s participation in mediation and peace processes. They shared findings that move beyond the peace table to examine when and how women are included in power-sharing arrangements and throughout long-term political transitions. For example, in cases where neither the peace agreement nor the subsequent electoral framework provided for the inclusion of women, gender representation in parliament remains unusually low.

Drawing on direct experiences advising in various peace processes, panelists also reflect on how to broaden participation and how to influence the gatekeepers who pose obstacles to women’s inclusion.

Opening Remarks:
Purna Sen, Director of the Policy Division, UN Women

Speakers:
Thania Paffenholz, Director of the Inclusive Peace and Transition Initiative, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva
Christine Bell, Professor of Constitutional Law and Assistant Principal (Global Justice), University of Edinburgh
Virginia Bouvier, Senior Advisor for Peace Processes at the United States Institute of Peace and Adjunct Professor at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University (Via Video)

Moderator:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, IPI

On Tuesday, October 25th, IPI together with the Permanent Missions of the Netherlands and Italy cohosted a screening of the documentary film The Destruction of Memory.

The Destruction of Memory is based on a book of the same name by Robert Bevan. Over the past century, cultural destruction has wrought catastrophic results across the globe. This war against culture is not over—it has been steadily increasing. In Syria and Iraq, the ‘cradle of civilization,’ millennia of culture are being destroyed. The push to protect, salvage, and rebuild has moved in step with the destruction. Legislation and policy have played a role, but heroic individuals have fought back, risking and losing their lives to protect not just other human beings, but our cultural identity—to save the record of who we are.

The screening will be followed by an interactive discussion. Interviewees in the film include the Director-General of UNESCO, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, along with diverse and distinguished international experts whose voices combine to address this urgent issue.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Ms. Lise Gregoire, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations
H.E. Mr. Inigo Lambertini, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations

Speakers:
Ms. Karima Bennoune, UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights
Mr. Tim Slade, Documentary Director and Producer
Ms. Bonnie Burnham, Senior Advisor of World Monuments Fund

Moderator:
Mr. Warren Hoge, Senior Adviser for External Relations

Spanning a period of twenty-one years, the Vietnamese “boat people” exodus was the last major refugee crisis of the Cold War. The international response agreed on in Geneva in 1979 was in line with Western Cold War values, but by 1988 it had begun to unravel. The new international response took the form of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees (CPA), which was in place from 1989 to 1996.

This paper offers a detailed look at the process of negotiating the CPA, its contents, how it was received, and its implementation. At the time it was agreed, the CPA was revolutionary in two ways: first, it was comprehensive, and second, it was predicated on the right of Vietnamese boat people to land and to be processed for refugee status. As a result, the CPA both saved lives and marked the transition from blanket recognition of refugee status to individual status determination—all in a region whose countries had not ratified the Refugee Convention.

While all refugee situations are different, the CPA provides lessons and conclusions that could inform responses to other refugee crises:

• Initial discussions leading to the CPA depended on individual-led, field-driven initiative.
• In breaking from previous approaches to refugee crises, the CPA faced significant opposition.
• Involving the country of origin—Vietnam—was essential to implementing the response.
• The CPA benefited from a single agency—UNHCR—taking the lead.
• Despite the CPA, most countries in the region continued to reject the Refugee Convention.
• The mass information campaign conducted in Vietnam was crucial to the CPA’s success.
• One of the main achievements of the CPA was to address the population movement in general, including both refugees and migrants.

Download