Das iranisch-russische Verhältnis hat sich qualitativ verändert. Spätestens seit die Islamische Republik im August 2016 ihren Luftstützpunkt Nojeh für russische Kampfflugzeuge zur Verfügung stellte, ist deutlich geworden, dass die bilateralen Beziehungen in eine neue Phase eingetreten sind. Die Unterstützung beider Länder für die syrische Regierung hat die Frage aufgeworfen, ob das iranisch-russische Bündnis eine grundlegende geopolitische Verschiebung im Nahen und Mittleren Osten einläutet oder lediglich eine Zweckgemeinschaft auf Zeit darstellt. Charakter und Intensität russisch-iranischer Kooperation haben sowohl sicherheitspolitische Auswirkungen als auch Konsequenzen für den Handlungsspielraum Deutschlands und der EU in der Nahostregion.
Wie wird in Iran die Frage einer stärkeren Anbindung an Russland diskutiert und wie werden die Aussichten auf eine »strategische Partnerschaft« beurteilt? Zwar weichen Irans und Russlands geopolitische Interessen in der Region voneinander ab, schließen sich aber nicht gegenseitig aus. Dadurch ergeben sich für beide Seiten Anknüpfungspunkte. Trotz anhaltenden Misstrauens gegenüber Moskau ist Teheran daher fest entschlossen, die bisherige Zusammenarbeit deutlich auszubauen. Unter der derzeitigen iranischen Führung ist eine prioritäre Partnerschaft mit Russland, die fallbasierte Allianzen auf Zeit ermöglicht, die wahrscheinlichste Option. Deutschland und die EU müssen sich darauf einstellen, dass Teheran im Nahen und Mittleren Osten auch weiterhin machtpolitische Bündnisse mit Moskau eingehen wird, deren geopolitisches Gewicht nicht ignoriert werden kann.
Over the past few years, the world has been confronted with a series of crises that have challenged perceptions of global stability. Whether a moment of high risk or great opportunity, this is without a doubt a moment of growing complexity. More actors, institutions, and networks of interests are engaged in the international sphere than ever before.
This policy paper explores three groups of these actors: regional organizations; civil society and NGOs; and the private sector. It also asks how the UN can better leverage relations with and among these actors for a more efficient and legitimate multilateral system. 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. These include to:
To stand with those who are committed to working multilaterally and reforming the international community, we are asking people to use the hashtag #MultilateralismMatters. For more, including sample tweets and graphics, read IPI’s Social Media Toolkit here.
Tras el referéndum sobre el Brexit, España presentó al Reino Unido una propuesta de negociación sobre Gibraltar en la que se plantea una soberanía conjunta, la doble nacionalidad para los gibraltareños y el respeto de su autonomía.
Si se lo propone, el grupo de siete países del sur de la Unión Europea que acaba de celebrar una cumbre en Madrid podrá moldear decisivamente el debate sobre el futuro de Europa.
On April 11th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Côte d’Ivoire to the United Nations cohosted a high-level policy forum and reception entitled Côte d’Ivoire, a Successful Case of Crisis Management: A Look Back at the Experience and Lessons Learned.
After thirteen years, the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) is set to end in June 2017, leaving behind a stable country on the path to economic development, (the annual average growth rate stands at 9 percent) reconciliation, and sustainable peace.
UNOCI is the first peacekeeping operation to close since the United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor ended. Its transition toward closure comes at a time when exit strategies are being considered for UN missions in Liberia and Haiti—providing an opportunity to examine lessons learned from this unique operation.
In efforts to resolve the Ivorian crisis, the Security Council adopted various crisis management instruments including: diplomatic engagement through regional mediation efforts and the deployment of a regional force; the simultaneous deployment of a French force (Opération Licorne); the implementation of an arms and diamonds embargo, targeted sanctions against troublemakers; the establishment of a commission of inquiry for human rights abuses; threats to resort to the International Criminal Court; Security Sector Reform (SSR), Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR); and the establishment of a UN election certification mandate.
All these instruments have, at some point, helped initiate dialogue between various stakeholders. Although contested at its outset, the UN’s election certification role ultimately led the international community to unite in support of full respect for the results of the November 2010 presidential elections. This allowed for crisis recovery and the stabilization of Cote d’Ivoire, and more broadly, of the subregion.
As Côte d’Ivoire launches its campaign for a non-permanent member seat on the UN Security Council, this high-level panel will offer the opportunity to reflect on the management and resolution of this crisis, and the lessons that can be learned from the long-running United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire.
Panelists:
H.E. Mr. Marcel Amon-Tanoh, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Côte d’Ivoire
Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations
Mrs. Elisabeth Lindenmayer, Director, International Organization and UN Studies Specialization, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Moderator:
Dr. Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute
The UN is increasingly deploying peacekeepers to conflict theaters where there is no political agreement and little or no peace to keep. Such high-risk environments make it harder for the UN to keep its personnel safe, fit, and healthy. While current UN missions have adopted a number of measures to mitigate these dangers, these do not address the systemic challenges facing medical support to UN peace operations.
This paper asks the question: What are the challenges to providing medical support to UN peace operations in high-risk environments? It analyzes five core challenges facing the UN: (1) medical structures, planning, and coordination in UN headquarters; (2) standards of care; (3) coordination in the field; (4) training and capacity building; and (5) resources and capabilities.
On the basis of these challenges, it offers recommendations for making medical support to peace operations in high-risk environments more efficient and effective:
Cuando algunos cuestionan la UE, debe ser especialmente valorada la adopción de tres iniciativas recientes de gran importancia en la lucha contra el terrorismo dentro de un modelo de seguridad que es el más avanzado del mundo.
As part of an ongoing effort to unpack the conceptual and practical contours of prevention for sustaining peace, IPI organized the third in a series of monthly high-level conversations among member states and other key stakeholders on April 10, 2017. The closed-door workshop explored what measures or changes the concept of sustaining peace implies in practice, building upon the preceding issue brief. The meeting follows a previous conversation, in March, on a sustaining peace approach to the restoration and extension of state authority in peace operations.
Participants agreed that the sustaining peace lens provides alternative ways to think about conflict and peace, based on the understanding that every society has capacities for peace. By understanding “what still works,” even in situations of conflict or crisis, the international community can support the positive changes already being driven by internal actors.
The conversation examined the current situation in three countries – The Gambia, Burundi, and the Central African Republic – with an eye to identifying the positive resilient capacities existing in those countries. The discussion highlighted the unique role the Peacebuilding Commission can play in such efforts, and touched upon other national and international initiatives that served as practical examples of a sustaining peace approach.
Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser, moderated the discussion.
Read the meeting brief in English
Read the meeting brief in French
Τhe development of Turkey’s nuclear programme generates serious concerns internationally. These concerns are based on certain unusual articles within the nuclear agreements between Turkey and both Russia and Japan, two major nuclear technology suppliers, as well as on the country’s ‘’grey’’ cooperation with Pakistan during the 1980s. The uncertain future of the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in southeast Turkey further augments international apprehension. Finally, the political and social instability that characterises Turkey and its wider region requires vigilance and sobriety on behalf of all the States which are directly or indirectly affected through the pertinent developments.
Briefing Note 52/2017: The nuclear factor in Turkey’s foreign relations
Author: Pantelis Oikonomou
You can read here here the article written by Dr Dia Anagnostou on the ‘Manolada case’ This commentary was published in the Sunday edition of To Vima newspaper on 10 April 2017.