European Peace Institute / News

While narratives around the conflict in Mali often focus on violent extremism and terrorist threats, particularly targeted attacks against the United Nations mission in the country (MINUSMA), there are increasing concerns related to the protection of civilians from different types of threats. Following the Secretary-General’s Strategic Review of MINUSMA and amidst the mandate renewal of the mission on Thursday, June 28th, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened a closed-door roundtable entitled “Civilians at Risk: Threats and Drivers of Mass Atrocity in Mali.”

Co-hosted with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), the conversation was moderated by IPI Vice President Adam Lupel and gathered more than 40 participants, including academics and researchers, UN officials, diplomats, and representatives from the NGO community. Panelists included Namie Di Razza (IPI), Mollie Zapata and Ibrahim Yahaya Ibrahim (USHMM), Samuel Gahigi (UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations), Bruno Charbonneau (Centre FrancoPaix, University of Quebec in Montreal), and Alexandre Diebolt (French Permanent Mission to the UN). The discussion sought to identify the types of threats and physical violence faced by civilians, and how local, national, and international actors could address the risk of atrocities in the country.

Among the factors of violence against civilians in Mali, experts identified the weakness of the central government, resource competition, predatory state practices, the rise of self-defense groups, tensions between and within communities, and the limited attention given to justice in the peace process. At the regional and macro-level, experts pointed to other key drivers including illicit trafficking, jihadist insurgency, and counter-terrorism operations.

Violent extremism was described as a growing concern. The threats posed by jihadist groups can take insidious, subtle and sophisticated forms, and are mostly indirect—through the use of mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)—or targeted—through assassination or abduction of individuals accused of collaborating with Malian or international forces, or the harassment of communities resisting their control. On the other hand, counter-terrorism actors and their partners can also constitute a threat to civilians, due to collateral damage or, in certain cases, direct abuse of civilians perceived as colluding with terrorists. Experts highlighted issues of command and control among national security forces, which can lead to the commission of abuses by certain elements. Other threats to civilians include criminality and inter-communal tensions, which are aggravated in the context of radical extremism and counter-terrorism.

There was consensus among panelists that while all populations in Mali are potential victims of violence, the Fulani people are the most vulnerable, notably because of suspicions that they are either involved or in collusion with jihadist groups. Researchers identified two conflicts as particularly worrisome: tensions between Dogon and Fulani people in central Mali, and tensions between Tuareg and Fulani in the Ménaka region.

Participants highlighted the complexity of narratives in the country and the problematic use of labels and categories, some of which have a detrimental impact on the ground. Some suggested that framing the conflict as one of violent extremism and counter-terrorism may be doing more harm than good, as political motivations may underpin the usage of umbrella terms like “extremists” or “terrorists.” Others even noted that the use of rigid categories like “inter-communal violence” can do a disservice to analysis and conflict resolution efforts, especially when local communities attribute violence to ‘revenge’ or ‘settling of scores,’ rather than to “ethnic tensions.” Thus, experts stressed the importance of placing victims’ perspectives at the center of the analysis.

Recommendations included the need for counter-terrorism actors to refrain from collaborating with ethnically aligned self-defense militias and other armed groups with poor human rights records, and to further integrate POC in their military doctrine.

There was consensus that MINUSMA’s POC strategy must be further refined and adapted to a dramatically-evolving security context in central Mali and to the specific challenges posed by violent extremism. MINUSMA should diversify the use of tools at its disposal, including non-military protective approaches such as community engagement and dialogue, while balancing these with possible unintended consequences for civilians themselves, such as retribution killings or abductions of civilians suspected of talking with UN staff.

Panelists mentioned the possibility to further explore the UN’s added value in preventing violent extremism and to better link protection with political strategies. They also highlighted the need to improve strategic communication and public information to emphasize distinctions between MINUSMA and CT actors, in a delicate context of cooperation between all international actors.

Participants also pointed to the limitations of international interventions that would only focus on security, and highlighted the need to address grievances related to governance and justice. At the national level, efforts related to the “extension of state authority” will have to take into account the lack of trust towards the state among certain communities. Thus, some experts highlighted that while supporting the presence and extension of state authority in the country, considering the quality and utility of state services for the population will be key to address the root causes of instability.

At the local level, traditional chiefs and the prevalence of a moderate Islam among communities were identified as possible sources of resilience—unifying forces between and within communities. Researchers suggested that the Malian government should pursue reform more inclusively in the center of the country, while USAID, the European Union, and other development actors could further support peacebuilding programs that build on local resilience and leverage potential bridges among communities.

Experts were unequivocal that only a Malian-led dialogue could drive critical reforms for the country and its citizens. The UN, whose strategic priority is to support the implementation of the 2015 Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, and other partners may provide assistance in linking local and national political processes. Participants agreed that a more inclusive national dialogue, which will require listening to, understanding, and incorporating local demands, is crucial to build sustainable peace.

The UN Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) completed its mandate on June 30, 2017, after more than thirteen years. One year later, the secretary-general is set to release his “comprehensive study of the role of UNOCI in the settlement of the situation” in the country. This presents an opportunity to examine the many stages or “lives” of a peacekeeping operation, something often overlooked.

This report aims not only to contribute to this learning process but also to go beyond the scope of the secretary-general’s study to examine the trajectory of UNOCI over the years. It provides a historical account of the various phases of the Ivorian crisis and examines how UNOCI evolved and adapted to the circumstances and how the Security Council dealt with the Ivorian dossier.

Based on this assessment, the report draws lessons from UNOCI for other peacekeeping missions. These include the challenges missions face when the consent of the host state is fragile, a permanent member of the Security Council is heavily involved, they have a mandate to certify elections, they take a robust approach to a crisis, they undertake both disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration and security sector reform processes, and the UN applies sanctions or arms embargoes.

Download

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

On June 24 and 25th, 2018, the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS), the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland, and the African Union’s Centre for the Study and Research on Terrorism (ACSRT) organized the third regional conversations on the prevention of violent extremism: “Investing in Peace and Prevention of Violence in the Sahel-Sahara” in Algiers, with support from the Government of Algeria.

Formally opened by Abdelkader Messahel, Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the third edition of the regional conversations gathered eighty participants from the Sahel-Sahara region (North Africa, West Africa, and Central Africa), including political leaders and parliamentarians, civil society representatives (women’s and youth groups in particular), traditional and religious authorities, media representatives (in their capacity as experts), and representatives from governments and regional and international organizations.

Because the drivers of violent extremism exist at the local, national, regional, and global levels, it is now recognized that responses must also intervene at various levels. Participants thus focused on identifying preventive structures to addressing violent extremism and its causes in the Sahel-Sahara.

Four preventive structures were discussed: civil society organizations, in particular those led by women and youth; media coverage; security and defense forces; and finally the contribution of culture, citizenship, and education for prevention. Participants worked to formulate recommendations for preventive actions that could be implemented by practitioners in the region both within states and through regional and subregional groupings, in some cases with support from the UN and other partners, including support to new or existing mechanisms, processes, and initiatives at the local, national or regional level.

Participants also considered ways in which citizens, states, and their regional and international partners can most effectively work toward preventing violent extremism at the national and regional levels, taking into account the challenges and opportunities of the global context.

A key message of these conversations was that it is “better to include than exclude, better to engage than shun, in all prevention efforts.” Another lesson was the importance of local action. The various findings and recommendations from the two days of work underlined the complexity of violent extremism, and stressed the need to include prevention initiatives in a holistic and pragmatic approach focused on achieving concrete results. The third Regional Conversations further emphasized the importance of sharing and supporting the various successful experiences in order to strengthen the preventive approach in the treatment of violent extremism.

The third edition of the conference built on discussions previously held in Dakar (2016) and N’Djamena (2017) and also organized by UNOWAS, IPI and the FDFA.

Read the joint press communiqué (in French).

A meeting note in French, English and Arabic will follow.

On June 22nd, IPI together with United Nations University – Centre for Policy Research are cohosting an all-day policy seminar on “Governing Artificial Intelligence.”

Session V: Toward responsible governance of AI-How do we get there?

Session IV: Why Should We Design and Deploy Human-Compatible AI?

Session III: What would effective global public policy on AI look like?

Session II: Will AI bring sustainable development or unsustainable inequality?

Session I: Does the AI race threaten international peace and security?

This event fostered an informed discussion on the global public policy implications of AI. What opportunities and challenges does AI hold for humanity? What public policy puzzles emerge from the development and deployment of AI globally and in different political, economic, and social contexts? What role, if any, does the United Nations have to play in helping governments, industry, and civil society worldwide solve these policy puzzles?

Speakers at this event included leading experts and practitioners in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as well as senior representatives from, among others:
Google
Microsoft
IBM
Harvard University
United Nations
World Economic Forum

Download the agenda

On June 20th, IPI partnered with Challenges Forum and the UN Police Division to host a closed door roundtable , supported by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and Global Affairs Canada. This meeting, on the eve of the UN Chief of Police Summit, brought together police leaders, police advisers, and UN staff to discuss the changing role of police in peacekeeping operations and how police leadership can address these challenges. Participants discussed the integral role that police play in peace operations, and how this role can be further strengthened by addressing issues surrounding police leadership.

Police have an integral role in peace operations, and effective police leadership is key to missions achieving their mandate and building and sustaining peace. To further understand the challenges facing police leadership in the field, the International Peace Institute (IPI), Challenges Forum, and UN Police Division, with support from the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and Global Affairs Canada, organized a closed-door roundtable on June 20, 2018, on the eve of the UN Chiefs of Police Summit. This meeting brought together police leaders, police advisers, and UN staff to discuss the changing role of police in peacekeeping operations and how police leadership can address these challenges. Key takeaways from the discussion included the following:

• To prepare for handing over responsibility to state institutions, UN police need to build the capacity of national police—a task that goes beyond training and equipping, and one that is particularly challenging when the state has little presence. UN police must put in place an exit strategy, including clear benchmarks developed with the host country to ensure national ownership. They also need to serve as a model for national police by upholding human rights and maintaining discipline.
• Resources, including skill sets, need to be increased and matched with the needs of police. Deployments are often based not on need but on supply. Police leaders need to prepare for this lack of resources by having a clear political strategy to help them target a few key priorities rather than attempting to achieve all tasks simultaneously. Police leaders also need to coordinate with other sections and agencies working on similar tasks.
• As the first point of contact with communities, police are often responsible for local perceptions of the mission. When police are able to protect civilians and support national police in community policing, they can boost the legitimacy of the mission. But challenges arise when police are unable to deliver on their mandate or are perceived not to be delivering (e.g., due to unrealistic expectations). UN police need to communicate what they are there to do and what they can and cannot do and to use force correctly.
• The roles of the military and the police are different (e.g., police are often deployed long-term to build state capacity). But oftentimes, the senior leadership team is not clear about their distinct roles and responsibilities. This can be confusing and problematic if the military or police are asked to undertake tasks not within their role. Police leaders need to strongly communicate with the senior leadership team about their roles and to coordinate with the military component to ensure coherence and complementarity.
• Gender parity among UN police is needed to increase their capacity. Female police officers are particularly important to community policing. Police-contributing countries need to be encouraged to deploy female police officers, especially in remote areas national police cannot reach.
• Scenario-based training for senior leaders (pre-deployment or in-mission) can address gaps in knowledge, familiarize leadership with policies and standard operating procedures, and enhance coordination and communication between civilian, military, and police components. IPI has been developing training scenarios to build leadership skills for civilians, police, and military. These scenarios are meant to complement existing trainings such as those implemented by the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support to address challenges facing leaders in-mission, including those unique to police leadership.

Download the Meeting Brief>>

On Tuesday, June 19th, IPI together with the Institute for Economics and Peace are cohosting a policy forum to mark the release of the 12th edition of the Global Peace Index and discuss its value to the operationalization of sustaining peace.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to date on trends in peace. As the first analysis to methodically rank countries according to their levels of peacefulness and to identify potential determinants of peace, the GPI measures the peacefulness of 163 countries and territories, covering 99.7 percent of the world’s population. It is comprised of 23 indicators measuring the absence of violence across three domains: militarization, ongoing conflict, and societal safety and security. The report also includes a statistical analysis of “positive peace,” which is defined as the attitudes, institutions, and structures that empirically correlate to peace.

At this event, the key findings from the report will be examined, together with a closer examination of specific country-level findings. The discussion will also include analysis of the relationship between the measures of negative and positive peace included in the GPI, helping track national and global progress on achieving peace in various dimensions. Speakers will examine the potential implications of the findings for the sustaining peace agenda, providing a bridge between current policy discussions and data trends. The larger goal of this discussion is to provide diverse stakeholders with a better understanding of and approach to measuring and reporting on sustaining peace through analysis of what the evidence tells us about successful prevention efforts.

Speakers:
Michelle Breslauer, Program Director, Americas, the Institute for Economics and Peace
Robert Piper, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Director of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP
Susanna Campbell, Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University
Vanessa Wyeth, Senior Political and Public Affairs Officer (Peacebuilding), Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN

Moderator:
Lesley Connolly, IPI Senior Policy Analyst

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

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

The international community has developed a wide array of policies, frameworks, and structures to help respond to health needs in conflict-affected settings, but the international health response still faces gaps and challenges. On June 7th and 8th, 2018, IPI and the Global Health Centre of the Graduate Institute took up this subject in a retreat in Geneva on “Doctors in War Zones: International Policy and Health Care in Armed Conflict.”

Participants debated how we can rethink and redefine existing collaboration models, governance structures, and accountability mechanisms for health and humanitarian actors to ensure the adequate delivery of health services in conflict-affected settings.

The retreat started with a high-level dinner, and was followed by a full day workshop comprised of three moderated discussions on the challenges of delivering health care, health governance systems, and accountability in international health systems in conflict-affected settings.

Opening the retreat with a keynote address at the high-level dinner, Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, focused on the issue of attacks on healthcare, highlighting the fact that despite the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2286 two years ago, attacks on health care workers continue to occur every week. He stressed that there are multiple avenues to be explored, including better understanding of what influences the behavior of belligerents, and engaging in a privileged dialogue with military commands. He acknowledged that we cannot “fundamentally change the fact that powers have different interests,” but that we can change “their consideration of the health impact of their warfare,” which is underlined and reinforced by data.

During the first session, on the challenges of providing health care services in conflict-affected settings, the experience of individuals providing such services in these challenging settings was put front and center, with Dr. Monica Rull of Médecins Sans Frontières emphasizing “the whole dimension of people who cannot access these services.”

Dr. Hanna Kaade, co-founder of the German Global Surgery Association, outlined a series of challenges he personally faced as a medical doctor in Aleppo, Syria, from essential medical equipment being taken out of ambulances at check points, to having to perform surgery under the light of a mobile phone after an electricity shut down. Other challenges such as the difficulty of providing chronic care in conflict-affected settings, the inadequate prioritization of programs, and the impact of contemporary counterterrorism measures were also noted.

On the issue of attacks on health care, some participants stressed the need for continued political and diplomatic efforts, as well as more robust and joined-up humanitarian diplomacy. David McCoy of Queen Mary University, London, encouraged thinking beyond the humanitarian lens to the link between health and peace, stating that “the health community has the legitimacy and mandate to work more upstream” on the prevention of violence and conflict.

Speakers in the second session, on health governance systems in conflict-affected settings, provided an overview of the existing structures and procedures that guide the international health response in such settings, with a focus on the functioning of the UN cluster system, the Inter-Agency Steering Committee L3 Activation Procedure for infectious diseases, and the role of the World Health Organization (WHO). Key challenges mentioned were the use, in protracted crises, of structures that were designed for the short-term, insufficient flexibility and fluidity of the existing system, and the difficulty of transitioning to government-led responses. It was nonetheless stated that there is a distinct reduction in officially activated clusters, with, in many contexts, governments wanting to lead their response, enabled by the international community.

Annie Sparrow, Assistant Professor at the ICAHN School of Medicine, noted the “tension between sovereignty and suffering” that the WHO and other UN agencies face in humanitarian settings, limiting their ability to respond to health needs. Several participants pointed to ways of better working with the existing system, including by better engaging local actors and leveraging outside voices, ensuring that the right people are being hired, and suggesting that civil society actors do more to hold governments and UN bureaucracies to account.

Accountability, or the lack thereof, was identified as a key issue in existing health governance systems, with Mukesh Kapila, Professor of Global Health and Humanitarian Affairs at Manchester University, describing the system as being “self-validating” and “self-certifying” and calling for an independent accountability mechanism.

The final session of the day focused on the crucial question of accountability in international health systems in conflict-affected settings. Participants discussed various types of accountability for health services provided in conflict-affected settings, from performance, to financial and international accountability. An over-emphasis on accountability to donors as opposed to accountability to affected populations was highlighted, as well as the need for stronger community engagement.

Dr. Francesco Checchi of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, stressed that when there is a lack of accountability, the impact of the health response is attenuated and can lead to what he described as “malpractice in humanitarian healthcare.” He put forward a series of concrete possible ways to ensure better accountability, including setting up an inter-agency humanitarian healthcare governance project, and having an independent auditing body administer accountability on behalf of affected people.

The retreat was attended by representatives of country missions to the UN, and other international organizations in Geneva, global health and humanitarian experts from the UN, and other international organizations, as well as academics. It is part of a broader research project conducted by IPI on these issues, which will result in a final policy report.

The agenda for the event is available here, and the background paper can be found here.

On Tuesday, June 12th, IPI together with Sophia University in Tokyo, Kakenhi, One Earth Future, and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN are cohosting a policy forum on “The Importance of Inclusivity for Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace.”

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

Central to the goal of sustaining peace is the recognition that in order for peacebuilding to be effective, it must be locally owned and informed by people-centered approaches. This is a principle theme of the twin General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions (70/262 and 2282 respectively), adopted on 27 April 2016, and the Secretary-General’s report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace, released on 18 January 2018. The proven impact of inclusive processes on long-term peace is considerable; establishing close partnerships with local actors allows for a better understanding of key concerns and needs. Rather than imposing peacebuilding plans and strategies from the outside, the focus should be on strengthening the capacities of national and local actors in the design and implementation of plans and activities, with the aim of including those who may be marginalized within society.

This call for inclusive national ownership of peacebuilding policy and practice has grown louder in recent years with the focus on sustaining peace. While there is a consensus on the importance of locally-focused approaches to peacebuilding and sustaining peace, translating these principles into practice is an enduring challenge for the United Nations, international organizations, and national governments.

This policy forum will provide a platform for scholars and practitioners to discuss the value of and challenges surrounding inclusivity within peacebuilding and sustaining peace. Drawing on a series of case studies and published research, presentations at this event will provide reflections on how the international community can engage better with local peacebuilders in an inclusive manner in order to sustain peace in challenging contexts.

Opening Remarks:
Mr. Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination, United Nations

Speakers:
Dr. Daisaku Higashi, Professor, Deputy Director at Center for Global Cooperation and Training, Sophia Institute of International Relations, Sophia University in Tokyo
Dr. Conor Seyle, Director, OEF Research, One Earth Future Foundation
Ms. Hasini Haputhanthri, Author of the Sri Lanka Case Study, IPI’s Local Networks for Peace: Drawing Lessons from Community-led Peacebuilding

Moderator:
Mr. Jake Sherman, Director of the Center for Peace Operations, IPI

Closing Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Yasuhisa Kawamura, Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.



Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser, spoke at a high level seminar on sustaining peace with particular focus on African women mediators. The event was convened by the African Union Commission, Belgium, and the International Peace Institute on April 25, 2018.

Reflecting on mediation processes through a sustaining peace lens, Mr. Mahmoud questioned the assumptions informing the current “mediation paradigm,” in light of the changes in the nature of contemporary conflict. Helping conflict parties move from violence to politics through mediation should not be equated with peace. Ending war and building peace, while interconnected, are separate processes.

Women mediators at the grassroots level are the “custodians of peace, even amidst devastation” he observed. They should not be invited to participate in peace processes, just to be consulted or represent women’s issues only. “If they are good enough to be at the table, why can’t they participate in designing it?”

Mr. Mahmoud added that while training may be necessary, it should be driven by the humility to recognize that women mediators are not blank pages. “They have capacities, not just needs.” Building on what they know and what they have “will unleash their leadership potential to sustain peace.”

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

The 48th annual Vienna Seminar took place on June 5, 2018, with the focus, “European Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.” In the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, the seminar examined the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations as well as the operations’ effectiveness.

Co-sponsored by IPI, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe Integration of Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Ministry of Defence, the seminar presented different perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Participants included experts from IPI, the European External Action Service, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Vrije Universiteit in Brussels, as well as government officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, and France, along with leaders from UN peacekeeping missions and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

In session one on strategic context for UN peacekeeping, speakers noted that recent European engagement in peacekeeping missions—outside of longstanding contributions to missions like UNIFIL—has been driven by specific crises, and influenced by concerns regarding counterterrorism, migration flows, and humanitarian issues. They agreed that European countries have provided niche capabilities to specific missions, and there is currently little appetite to expand to other operations.

Participants noted that Europe is experiencing a rise in “Euro-isolationism.” Some countries, like the UK and France, have reaffirmed their commitment to collective security, but many European countries are increasingly focused on territorial defense. These trends take place amid a seeming retreat from multilateralism.

Session two offered space for diverse perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. A key discussion point was that European Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) generally bring both the capacity and willingness to project and use force, a high level of professionalism and standards of training and preparedness, as well as, of equipment and niche capabilities that may otherwise be in short supply. While these traits are not unique to European troop contributing countries, they are generally shared by European peacekeepers.

Session three addressed the challenges of contemporary UN peacekeeping. The UN has adapted to European expectations regarding intelligence and medical capacity based on their experience with NATO, participants stated. But European countries have also adjusted to UN operations. While operational challenges and gaps still remain, including in areas of logistics, enablers, alignment of responsibility with authority, and security in hostile environments, there has been significant innovation in technology that aids peacekeeping missions, measurement of performance, and efforts to improve medical response.

In the final session, speakers discussed ways to move forward in sustaining European involvement in UN peacekeeping. European contributions to UN peacekeepers do appear sustainable in the near future, they said, but may be influenced by national political considerations, including the tensions emerging between internationalists and more-populist political constituencies. In this light, communicating success is important—less to incentivize participation than to prevent diminishment.

Recent European contributions embody innovative approaches to supporting UN peacekeeping. From employing multinational rotations to engaging through bilateral, trilateral and regional mechanisms, European countries successfully mobilize diverse capabilities to help the UN address clear needs. However, sustainable and comprehensive European engagement must move beyond short-term deployments of specialized troops and capabilities. Although Europe’s interests in UN peacekeeping will be driven largely by those crises that impact its security, European countries can nonetheless offer even more to the UN.

Europe can channel sustained diplomatic and financial support to political processes in host countries and to negotiations over peacekeeping budgets and UN reforms. Ensuring troops from across the continent are trained on UN peacekeeping standards and guidelines can greatly improve interoperability and cohesion in the field. Recognizing the added value of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) deployments, partnerships and tailored configurations will be increasingly important for mobilizing European commitment to the values and practice of collective security.

The event was held in the Austrian National Defence Academy. Lieutenant-General Karl Schmidseder, the Director General of Operations at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence, gave welcoming remarks, and IPI Vice President Adam Lupel introduced the event.

Other participants included:

• Major-General Michael Beary, Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Damien Cole, Director of the Policy Planning Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland
• Diane Corner, Former Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
• Koen Davidse, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
• Clara Ganslandt, Head of Division, Partnerships & Agreements, Crisis Management and Planning Directorate, European External Action Service
• Richard Gowan, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• Manuel Lafont-Rapnouil, Head of the Paris Office and Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• John Karlsrud, Senior Research Fellow, Peace and Conflict Research Group, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
• Corinne Kitsell, UN Co-ordinator, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom
• Joachim Koops, Dean of the Vesalius College, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• Rolf Landgren, Senior Police Advisor to the Civilian Operations Commander, Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, European External Action Service
• Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute
• Andreas Riecken, Director-General for EU and Multilateral Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
• Jean-Marc Séré-Charlet, Deputy Director, United Nations, International Organizations, Human Rights and the Francophonie, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France
• Jake Sherman, Director of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
• Adam Smith, Chief, Policy and Best Practices, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Brigadier-General Reinhard Trischak, Head of the Military Policy Division, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence
• Oliver Ulich, Head of the UN Policy, Evaluation and Training Division, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
• Peter van der Vliet, Director of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

Libya’s overarching statelessness, and the violence and lawlessness that result, permeate the country, which is plagued by local-level conflicts. However, local mediation efforts have flourished over the last few years. As a senior UN official noted, “Local mediation is the best thing that has happened in Libya since the revolution.”

This report examines these local mediation processes to explore the significance of their impact. It focuses on the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the support it provides internal efforts in Libya to solve local conflicts or the mediation of such disputes. It also describes and analyzes how Libyans themselves are able to address and resolve local conflicts, or at least contain their escalation.

The report offers a number of lessons based on the challenges UNSMIL has faced in supporting local mediation efforts in Libya. These include the importance of leveraging soft power, taking a coordinated and long-term approach, linking the local and national levels, ensuring sovereignty and local ownership, intervening through local mediators, and expanding beyond traditional political actors.

Download

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Elizabeth C. Economy, author of The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State. The conversation will be moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

Remarks will begin at 6:20pm EST*

In The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State, eminent China scholar Elizabeth C. Economy provides an incisive look at the world’s most populous country. Inheriting a China burdened with slowing economic growth, rampant corruption, choking pollution, and a failing social welfare system, President Xi has reversed course, rejecting the liberalizing reforms of his predecessors. At home, Xi has centralized power in his own person, and the Chinese leadership has reasserted the role of the state in society and enhanced party control. Beyond its borders, Beijing has recast itself as a great power and has maneuvered itself to be an arbiter—not just a player—on the world stage. The Third Revolution argues that Xi’s dual reform trajectories—a more authoritarian system at home and a more ambitious foreign policy abroad—provide Beijing with new levers of influence that the West must learn to exploit to protect its own interests. Commenting on the book, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, said, “For the first time in modern history, we have a communist country poised to be the biggest and most important driver of the global free market. That’s astonishing. And we still don’t know what makes China’s political leadership—and Xi Jinping in particular—tick. If that freaks you out (and it should) Liz Economy’s book is the place to start.”

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 permanent missions to the UN and other members of the foreign affairs community in New York.

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

Three years after the signing of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, many key provisions remain unimplemented. Threats posed by violent extremists and intercommunal violence exacerbate an already tense political environment, impeding the political process and the restoration and extension of state authority. These violent dynamics have claimed the lives of civilians, Malian security forces, MINUSMA peacekeepers, and French forces. Instability threatens to undermine the free and fair presidential elections scheduled for July as well as regional and municipal elections that are expected to take place later in the year.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 8, 2018, to discuss MINUSMA’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop offered a platform for member states and UN actors to develop a shared understanding and common strategic assessment of the situation in Mali. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

With a focus on providing support to the political process, the extension of state authority, security sector reform, and to other security actors, participants discussed how the Council could reflect these strategic priorities in the upcoming MINUSMA mandate. Several participants also highlighted potential tensions among mandated tasks, noting the need to consider more closely how each fits into the mission’s political strategy in order to achieve the Council’s strategic objectives.

Download

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

Members of different communities, ethnic groups, faiths and nationalities gathered around a Ramadan meal in solidarity with an interreligious group of people who were fasting to cement commitments to peace, tolerance and respect within faiths in Manama, May 30, 2018 at the International Peace Institute, Middle East & North Africa, (IPI MENA).

Marking the middle of the holy month of Ramadan with an Iftar, or fast breaking meal, hundreds of people from different religious and nationality affiliations gathered in a church, for an “Iftar for Peace.” The initiative was hosted by Al Bayareq Al Baydhaa, (The White Flags,) in cooperation with the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA), and IPI MENA.

The event was attended by ambassadors, government officials, dignitaries and religious leaders who served food and beverages to interreligious guests at the National Evangelical Church in a united call for interfaith peace.

In a statement to the media, Ausamah Al Absi, Head of LMRA, stressed the need for peaceful coexistence between faiths and cultures to ensure that “civil societies, international bodies, and government bodies can come together” to harmonize principles of tolerance and respect.

Reverend Hani Aziz, Pastor of the National Evangelical Church and Head of the Bahrain Society for Tolerance and Interfaith Coexistence, reinforced this view in his statement, stressing the diverse communities obligation is to incorporate and integrate all layers of society in order to create a culture of acceptance and therefore peace.

Noting the very diverse interfaith attendees, Nejib Friji, Director, IPI MENA, stated their contribution to the Iftar for Peace was a testament of their commitment, as well as “the Kingdom of Bahrain, IPI and all other nations represented by their ambassadors, towards the need to further reinforce the culture of peace and Interfaith Dialogue that is deeply enshrined in all beliefs and faiths.” He hailed the interfaith unity illustrated by the ambassadors and officials serving those who had been fasting this important meal. He said the event “carries more than one message.” Friji called on the “regional and multilateral system to stand together to serve all causes of peace through a united interfaith dialogue.”

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting the live broadcast of the opening remarks and first session panel of it’s 48th Annual Vienna Seminar entitled “European Contributions to UN Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.”

Remarks will begin at 9:00am CET.

The 2018 Vienna Seminar will focus on lessons from recent European engagement in United Nations peace operations. The aim of this year’s seminar is to examine the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations in the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, and better understand the impact of European participation on the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations.

Download the Agenda

The International Peace Institute (IPI) is pleased to announce the Honorable Kevin Rudd has been elected unanimously by IPI’s board of directors as the board’s next chair, effective June 01, 2018. Mr. Rudd was Vice Chair of IPI’s board since June 2014.

Mr. Rudd succeeds Professor Michael Doyle, Director of the Columbia Global Policy Initiative at Columbia University, who has served as interim Chair since May 2016. Dr. Doyle was Vice President of IPI (then IPA) from 1993-1996 and has been on IPI’s board since 1997.

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the staff of the Institute, I would like to thank Professor Michael Doyle for his outstanding work in various capacities at IPI, where he has served for over 20 years. Michael has consistently shown extraordinary loyalty and dedication through his valuable contributions to IPI. He has skillfully mentored numerous young researchers over the years, who now serve important positions in international organizations, governments, academics, and non-governmental organizations across the globe. I would like use this opportunity to thank my friend Michael for the exceptional work he has done for IPI and the good of the global community we are serving.

The Honorable Kevin Rudd has served with extraordinary skills and dedication as the Vice Chair of the board of directors of IPI since 2014, and has lent invaluable support to the Chair of the board and the President and CEO. Through his chairmanship of IPI’s Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), he was a skillful helmsman who, together with his fellow members and IPI staff, produced a series of reports which gave new perspectives to the challenges of the future of the multilateral system, and guidelines and advice on how to address the dangers and opportunities alike. I would like to warmly welcome Kevin as our new Chairman. And I am looking very much forward to working closely with him in pursuing IPI’s objectives of peace and reconciliation through policy research, advice, and our convening and outreach capacity.”

Mr. Rudd served as Australia’s 26th Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010, then as Foreign Minister from 2010 to 2012, before returning to the Prime Ministership in 2013. As Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd led Australia’s response during the Global Financial Crisis. Australia’s fiscal response to the crisis was reviewed by the IMF as the most effective stimulus strategy of all member states. Australia was the only major advanced economy not to go into recession. Mr. Rudd is also internationally recognized as one of the founders of the G20 which drove the global response to the crisis, and which in 2009 helped prevent the crisis from spiraling into a second global depression.

As Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr. Rudd was active in global and regional foreign policy leadership. He was a driving force in expanding the East Asia Summit to include both the US and Russia in 2010. He also initiated the concept of transforming the EAS into a wider Asia Pacific Community to help manage deep-routed tensions in Asia by building over time the institutions and culture of common security in Asia. On climate change, Mr. Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 and legislated in 2008 for a 20% mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. Mr. Rudd drove Australia’s successful bid for its non-permanent seat on the United Nation’s Security Council and the near doubling of Australia’s foreign aid budget.

Mr. Rudd joined the Asia Society Policy Institute as its inaugural President in January 2015.

Mr. Rudd remains engaged in a range of international challenges including global economic management, the rise of China, climate change and sustainable development. In 2015-16, Mr. Rudd led a review of the UN system as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism. In February 2014, Mr. Rudd was named a Senior Fellow with Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he completed a major policy paper, U.S.-China 21: The Future of U.S.-China Relations Under Xi Jinping. He is Chair of Sanitation and Water for All, a Distinguished Fellow at Chatham House in London, a Distinguished Statesman with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Paulson Institute in Chicago. Mr. Rudd is a member of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s Group of Eminent Persons. He serves on the International Advisory Board of the Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University, and is an Honorary Professor at Peking University. Mr. Rudd is proficient in Mandarin Chinese. He also remains actively engaged in indigenous reconciliation.

The International Peace Institute is an independent, international not-for-profit think tank dedicated to managing risk and building resilience to promote peace, security, and sustainable development. To achieve its purpose, IPI employs a mix of policy research, strategic analysis, publishing, and convening. With staff from more than twenty countries and a broad range of academic fields, IPI has offices across from United Nations headquarters in New York and offices in Vienna and Manama. IPI’s research covers aspects of peace, cooperation, and multilateralism including UN reform, peace operations, sustaining peace and prevention, peace and health, humanitarian affairs, WPS (women, peace and security), and the intersection of the Sustainable Development Goals and peace. IPI also produces the analysis website The Global Observatory.

On May 24th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations cohosted a policy forum entitled “The Primacy of Politics and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping Operations.” This policy forum explored the perceived and actual tensions between the pursuit of political solutions and the protection of civilians in peacekeeping contexts. The event follows the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians).

This event is the first as part of IPI’s recently launched Protection of Civilians Project. While the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed the “primacy of politics,” UN peacekeeping missions are often mandated to protect civilians in challenging environments where the peace process has stalled and political solutions seem out of reach. In these contexts, protecting local populations from physical violence may appear to be an operational imperative for the mission and a priority over engagement in protracted and uncertain political processes.

This policy forum provides an opportunity to discuss situations where there is a risk of competition between the primacy of politics and the centrality of protection, as well as where they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. While the two objectives are hardly mutually exclusive, in practice pursuing both can raise challenging questions. In South Sudan, Darfur, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN mission’s political role may seem elusive, and its protection goals may appear to detract from its political effectiveness. The political stance of UN missions intervening in support of host states may also be an important limitation for peacekeepers mandated to protect civilians from all threats of physical violence—including from host-state forces.

In these situations, where civilians are clearly at risk, how should peace operations reconcile political strategies and the protection of civilians? In the absence of viable political processes at the strategic level, what political measures and strategies can be used in parallel with military operations to protect civilians on the ground?

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Karel J. G. van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations

Speakers:
Mr. Ralph Mamiya, Consultant; formerly Protection of Civilians Team Leader, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Sébastien Lapierre, Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, UN Department of Peacekeeping operations
Ms. Daniela Kroslak, Leader, Darfur Integrated Operational Team, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Ms. Chloé Marnay-Baszanger, Chief, Peace Mission Support Section, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Alison Giffen, Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict

Moderator:
Dr. Namie Di Razza, Research Fellow, International Peace Institute

The 2015 UN High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed two major themes that Secretary-General António Guterres continues to focus on: first, the primacy of politics in peacekeeping, which he raised in his September 2017 remarks at the Security Council open debate on peacekeeping; and second, the core obligation of peacekeepers and the entire UN to protect civilians, a continuous theme of his tenure.

Yet protecting civilians and pursuing political strategies, the defining tasks of modern peacekeeping, have frequently been in tension. Critics argue that peace operations in the last two decades have too often been tools of last resort, deployed to conflicts with no viable political process and serving as stop-gap measures rather than strategic steps toward a political solution. This is particularly evident in missions whose mandate to protect has been prioritized in the absence of a clear political vision to address the conflict.

This issue brief reviews the complementarity and tension between protection of civilians and political strategies. It explores the important role of the Security Council in laying the strategic groundwork for the success of missions, and examines how missions, at their level, can implement protection of civilians mandates through a political strategy.

Download

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

Counterterrorism measures are developed to ensure individual and collective security in response to terrorist attacks, but there is growing evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by inhibiting the provision of assistance. This tension was the subject of an IPI policy forum on May 23rd, entitled, “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action,” and co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.

Marine Buissonnière, a consultant and the former Secretary-General of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders (MSF), said that humanitarian assistance, which follows principles of International Humanitarian Law, faces new challenges to protecting civilians in a post-9/11 international environment. Although former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promoted a resolution that entitled health workers to provide care in all circumstances without incurring any form of harassment or sanctions, health workers, over two years later, continue to face issues for providing “impartial” care, serving all people regardless of their identity, she said.

The ethical dilemma that humanitarian actors and international lawmakers now face, she said, is that healthcare professionals find themselves “cornered, caught between counterterrorism laws that can criminalize their duties to impartially treat all, and International Humanitarian Law ethics and International Human Rights Law.”

In this context, what is new is not the criminalization of healthcare, she said, “but how counterterrorism frameworks, in a sense, appear to have strengthened the basis–moral and legal–to justify harassment, arrests, and prosecutions” against medical professionals. The “vague and broad” definitions of terrorism and support to terrorists have enabled some people to interpret medical treatment as a form of “illegitimate support,” thereby criminalizing those who offer assistance, even though under International Humanitarian Law such assistance is considered to be principled humanitarian action.

“When ethics and International Humanitarian Law are not prioritized by both those seeking and those providing medical care,” she said, the act of providing impartial medical services “inevitably becomes criminalized, perpetuating a chilling effect on the provision of impartial care that is detrimental not only to those banned or to those listed as terrorists but detrimental, at the end of the day, to us all.”

Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, and chair of the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians, described the role of the state in addressing the negative impact that UN sanctions can have on humanitarian activities. His recommendation, from a policymaking perspective, was that “we as states should really try to do everything to address this and to avoid the dilemma between these two sets of measures.” He discussed two steps for this. “We need to raise awareness for the issue,” he said, “and secondly, come down with a set of practical measures.”

Yves Daccord, Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that criminalization of humanitarian assistance in the past two decades had changed the landscape in which humanitarian organizations operate. The effect of counterterrorism policy on the space for humanitarian action posed two issues aside from criminalization, he said. Lack of impartiality in offering medical assistance or withholding aid to those in need based on their affiliation can “create notions of good victims, who have rights to be helped, and victims who do not deserve to be helped because they are under the control of, or on the territory controlled by, a non-state armed group labeled as terrorist.”

And since building trust among communities in conflict is necessary for the provision of humanitarian assistance, he said, these distinctions are undermining the trust owed to humanitarian actors, making it impossible for them to fulfill their aim of providing assistance. “I think we’ve seen over time people challenging us more,” said Mr. Daccord. “There is a lot of tension, polarization, for an organization like the ICRC…it’s absolutely critical that they are able to demonstrate on a daily basis that they are impartial and neutral.”

Naz Modirzadeh, Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, brought to light the different ways policy makers talk about the conflict between counterterrorism and humanitarian law, and the state of this debate. She highlighted the norms of International Humanitarian Law in contrast to counterterrorism measures, which, she said, “We tend to talk about…as though they are in a relationship with one another…sharing a common purpose.” But, she said, “I’d like to suggest that we avoid this misrecognition. It is not a value judgement to suggest counterterrorism and International Humanitarian Law are distinct and aim at different purposes.”

Counterterrorism, she explained, connotes a sense of urgency and immediacy whereas International Humanitarian Law tends to be decided over time and negotiated through the diplomacy of many different actors. International Humanitarian Law “presumes that there is a distinction that we must maintain between war and peace and is only applicable in situations of armed conflict,” she said. “On the other hand, counterterrorism frameworks often blur the lines between war and peace by combining elements relating to armed conflict with elements connected with the resort to force and law enforcement.”

As such, International Humanitarian Law sees humanitarian assistance and protection for people, including purported enemy civilian populations as “legitimate and indeed mandatory,” Ms. Modirzadeh explained. Under a counterterrorism framework, she said, the same support may be primarily perceived as “dangerous, because it can help free up the resources of terrorist groups.”

However, Ms. Modirzadeh saw hope for a solution in providing legal exemptions for humanitarian workers. “The idea of exemptions merits much closer attention,” she said. “I think there was a time when this was thought politically impractical or so sensitive that it was not worth having a conversation about. What I’m hearing here today is that it is indeed perhaps one of the better solutions to this dilemma and that we have good examples that we can build upon…Every counterterrorism measure from this point further should incorporate an acknowledgment, reaffirmation, and indeed, where appropriate, a very particular exemption related to principled humanitarian access where relevant.”

Ms. Modirzadeh also called for greater discussion that should involve the private sector. In response, Lise Gregoire-van Haaren, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN, spoke on how to reconcile the humanitarian action with the due diligence requirements by banks and governments.

“We feel that raising awareness is a very important first step,” she said. “Secondly, governments and national banking associations could provide more guidance to NGOs on how to comply with counterterrorism measures and sanction regimes.”

Closing remarks were made by Reinhard Krapp, Minister, Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN; Juan José Gómez Camacho, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN; and Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel moderated.

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

An evening discussion among peacebuilders was held at IPI, May 16, 2018, on women’s meaningful participation in negotiating peace and the implementation of peace agreements.

The meeting, convened by UN Women and IPI, brought together internationally recognized peacebuilders, officials from the United Nations, diplomats, and representatives of civil society. The event was held as part of an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) convened by UN Women in preparation for the Secretary-General’s annual report on women, peace and security, expected in October.

Teresa Whitfield, Director of the Policy and Mediation Division at the United Nations Department of Political Affairs; said that the meeting built upon the work these stakeholders have undertaken thus far to explore what makes women’s participation “meaningful” in the context of negotiating peace. She reminded participants that the Secretary-General’s report last year unequivocally stated, “inclusive processes should be the rule, not the exception.”

The EGM participants have worked to support joint strategizing to overcome the persistent barriers to inclusion, representation, and meaningful participation. The international community must continue to articulate ways of moving beyond words to action in implementation of women, peace and security commitments, she said.

The conversation was seen as one of the preliminary steps on the “collective road” to 2020, the year in which the landmark Security Council resolution 1325 will observe its 20th anniversary.

Ms. Whitfield moderated a panel discussion between Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President & CEO of the International Crisis Group, and member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation; and Rosa Emilia Salamanca, Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Action. Ms. Salamanca addressed inclusivity in the Colombian peace process and gender-sensitive peace agreements.

Overarching themes that emerged from the discussion included the need for meaningful participation of women in decision-making positions in all efforts to end conflict, including formal peace negotiations, as well as power sharing, disarmament and ceasefire arrangements, humanitarian access agreements and implementation mechanisms; women in leadership roles in negotiation teams; delivering on the commitment to civil society inclusion in mediation processes; the essential role of international community in the transition phase to support the implementation of gender-relevant provisions; and the importance of gender sensitive provisions in agreements for gender responsive implementation.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel, and Paivi Kannisto, Chief, Peace and Security Section, UN Women delivered the opening remarks.