European Peace Institute / News

The most comprehensive assessment of UN peace operations since the Brahimi Report of 2000 was completed this year, when the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO) issued more than 100 recommendations to make UN peace operations “fit for purpose.” It was followed by the UN secretary-general’s report, outlining key actions to move the panel’s recommendations forward between now and the end of 2016. To support this agenda, how can the UN Secretariat and member states build and sustain the political momentum for the implementation of the recommendations of the UN secretary-general and HIPPO, as well as build on synergies with other global reviews—on the peacebuilding architecture, and on women, peace, and security?

This meeting note outlines key aspects of the agenda for improving UN peace operations and sketches a way forward for maintaining the political momentum for implementation. Focusing on political settlements, the protection of civilians, tailored and context-sensitive responses, and global-regional partnerships, it offers ideas to support ongoing initiatives to build and sustain momentum for change in UN peace operations.

The report stems from an expert meeting in Seoul on October 22, 2015, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and the International Peace Institute (IPI).

The following are among the recommendations that emerged from the meeting’s discussions:

• Learn from past reform efforts: Manage expectations on reform; have a clearly articulated strategic vision from the secretary-general and buy-in from the UN Secretariat to overcome the challenge of bureaucratic resistance within the UN; use concrete proposals that can be more easily championed by member states; and have longer-term five-to-ten-year plans aligned with General Assembly budget cycles.
• Build a compelling narrative: Motivate support for change by the collective sense of urgency around the growing disconnect between current UN responses and the increasing complexity of conflicts with various layers connecting with transnational aspects of organized crime and violent extremism.
• Create consensus and support of member states: The High-Level Thematic Debate on UN, Peace, and Security announced by the president of the General Assembly for May 10-11, 2016, could usefully help identify synergies among the different reviews, generate such a vision, and build member-state support for it.
• Avoid cherry-picking: Overcome the appetite to cherry-pick recommendations from the secretary-general and HIPPO reports; ensure the promotion of a holistic and coordinated approach needed for comprehensive reform; and come up with a more detailed implementation plan, thus breaking down challenging issues into more manageable bundles of proposals.
• Generate public support: Link the findings of the HIPPO report to the current crises that UN peace operations are facing from South Sudan to Libya, and as new ones emerge. Clearer and more independent monitoring and evaluation is needed.
• Move forward using long-term sight: Increase understanding of common themes across the pillars of the HIPPO report and also of synergies with the Peacebuilding Architecture Review and the Report of the Secretary-General on Women, Peace, and Security.

Download

On November 18th, The Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its third Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Terrorism including issues related to Ideology, Identity Politics, and Organized Crime.”

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Threats posed by terrorism and violent extremism continue to metastasize, stemming from a constellation of fault lines and imbalances caused by exclusionary, unaccountable, and ideologically based governance; identity politics; inequitable distribution of resources; and new and emerging forms of geopolitical power rivalries. While the nexus of terrorism and organized crime has posed various challenges, the latter constitutes its own threat to global peace and security. Given that these challenges are increasingly multifaceted with global, national, and local dimensions, it is essential to synergize strategies at all levels and bolster the United Nations’ role as a convener and mobilizer.

This Public Consultation focused on the findings and recommendations of the Discussion Paper. We are seeking additional feedback from you – members of civil society organizations, academics, member states, and the private sector. A link to the full ICM paper, its executive summary, and the comments section can be found by clicking here.

Discussants:
Dr. James Cockayne, Head, United Nations University, New York
H.E Raimonda Murmokaitė, Chair, United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations

Moderator:
H.E. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

On November 18th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its second Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Social Inclusion, Political Participation, and Effective Governance in Challenging Environments.”

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Governance systems globally are facing a growing crisis of legitimacy vis-à-vis their constituents at state and multilateral levels. Local challenges confronting national leaders have become transnational in origin and effect. The multilateral system cannot be reformed if the foundation upon which it rests—the state—remains under such stress. States have a responsibility to promote inclusive societies; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Goal 16 make this clear.

In moving towards a holistic definition of governance, participation, and inclusion, this ICM Discussion Paper addresses the crisis of legitimacy and offers a series of four frameworks: Leadership, Inclusivity, Efficiency and Effectiveness, and Partnerships.

A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found by clicking here.

Discussants:
Mr. Andrew Tomlinson, Director and Representative, Quaker United Nations Office
Dr. Ilze Brands Kehris, Director, Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
Mr. Omar El Okdah, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

On November 17th, IPI together with the Folke Bernadotte Academy, SecDev Foundation and ZIF cohosted a global gathering of leading academics, experts, and policy makers focused on the next generation of peace and security challenges.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

The background note, agenda, and list of speakers are available here.

This seminar aims to assess the state of the art in knowledge and practice at the crossroads of governance and peacebuilding, and unpack the state-society relationship in a way that can help inform stronger policymaking in consolidating peace and building inclusive and ultimately more resilient societies.

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

A panel of experts in drug control policy examined the interactions between sustainable development and the world drug problem at an IPI panel, “Debating the Intersection between the Sustainable Development Agenda (SDGs) and United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016” on November 16th, 2015.

The meeting, co-organized with the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), was held to prepare for UNGASS, which will take place in April 2016.

Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, opened the discussion by stating that the comprehensiveness of the Sustainable Development Agenda would require members to rethink their approach to drug policy.

“When you look at the agenda, we talk about a paradigm shift,” he said. “It really, really is. When you look at the ambition of the agenda, but also the universality, the approach, the reach, and we need to recalibrate the discussion we have on the world drug problem, or at least it gives us the opportunity to recalibrate the discussion.”

Ambassador Lauber listed six aspects of the development and drug policy agendas in need of improvement over the next fifteen years – peace, governance, human rights, public health, gender equality, and environmental impact.

The last UNGASS on the world’s drug control priorities was held in 1998. Since then, the session’s stated objective for the total elimination of drugs from the world has clearly not been achieved. The 2016 UNGASS, however, offers an opportunity for member states to shift their strategy from being entirely focused on eliminating volumes of drugs, to analyzing the impacts of drug control policies on people.

There are growing calls to take a broader view of the related health, human rights, and safety concerns related to drug control, Mr. Lauber said. He called for “a sincere analysis of what has worked, and what has not worked.”

UNGASS 2016 must consider “the full range of links between the world drug problem and sustainable development in areas affected by illicit drug cultivation, trafficking, or use, and be particularly candid of situations in which the side effect of the cure have been far worse than the disease itself,” he said.

Julia Buxton of Hungary’s School of Public Policy, Central European University, asked whether the SDGs most closely linked to drug policy, such as eradicating poverty and HIV, would be possible to achieve if member states continued with their present militarized counter-narcotics strategy. “Absolutely not,” she answered, “not so long as we have this astonishing contradiction in policy and coherence between the securitization of drugs and pressing development issues.”

Ms. Buxton criticized “alternative development” programs aimed at encouraging peasants to switch from growing illicit drugs-related crops. Alternative development programs have been central to UN drug control strategies, but she warned they have had a negative impact.

“Rather than being a solution to these rather catastrophic global security and development problems we have, this is, as I like to say, a sticking plaster on a gangrenous leg that requires amputation,” she said. “It is a wholly inadequate response to the scale of the problems that we face.”

Ms. Buxton quantified alternative development programs’ mixed record. Despite significant alternative development aid from the United Kingdom, Afghanistan’s Helmand province saw an increase in opium cultivation in the past two years—34% in 2012-13, and 23% in 2013-14. Of Britain’s failure with this program, Ms. Buxton said, “this record is a travesty of why alternative development cannot work, and it cannot work because it is part of a counter-narcotic strategy.”

Ms. Buxton summarized her critique of alternative development by highlighting why it is not a way to promote development. “It’s driven by security concerns, and not development concerns and it re-enforces structural and national inequalities,” she said. “For those reasons, besides the fact that China, Russia, and US can’t even agree on what constitutes development, there’s no consensus, there’s no agreement, and these projects do more harm than good.”

Tenu Avafia, Team Leader of the HIV, Health and Development Group at the UN Development Programme (UNDP), brought the perspective of the United Nations to the panel’s discussion. He reminded the audience that “many people incarcerated for drugs are indigenous and ethnic minorities.” Further, he said, children of those incarcerated in many countries may be locked up with their parents, or “left to fend for themselves on the street, or in the no less ideal setting of institutionalized or foster care.”

A central part of the SDGs are the 179 targets to be met. “We’re all familiar with the term, whether we like it or not, ‘what gets measured gets done,’” Mr. Avafia said. Traditional measures of the success of drug policies focused on statistics such as the number of drug-related arrests made or the volumes of drugs seized. UNDP reported this has been problematic, because such measures say little about “the impacts of drug policies on people’s lives,” he said.

Bearing this disproportionate influence that past measures have had on the most vulnerable, Mr. Avafia stated it is his hope that the UN will “join the growing number of actors who call for a rethink of metrics that measure the impact of drug policies on human rights, on human development, and on public health, and we support these calls.”

Summer Walker, Drug Policy Project Manager for the United Nations University think-tank, said that a complementary set of metrics specific to drug policy were needed in conjunction with the SDGs. The SDGs have catalyzed a new conversation about indicators, and UNGASS can build upon that energy. This is why UNU’s report recommends, “that member states use UNGASS to measure the human development impacts of drug policies and drugs.”

Developing this particular set of targets and measures for drug policy, she said, “would help the drug policy/development action plan better align with both the SDGs and human development more broadly.”

Adam Lupel, IPI Director of Research and Publications, moderated the conversation.

Related Event:
IPI Panel: Focus on Prevention, Not Repression, Needed in Response to Drug Problem

Watch event:

On November 9th, IPI hosted a Distinguished Author Series featuring Steven Lee Myers, author of The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

The New Tsar is a highly readable and deeply researched narrative about the ambitious and determined onetime Russian spy who, emerging from a grim childhood of poverty in Leningrad, rose through the ranks of the KGB and post-communist political disorder in Moscow to consolidate tsar-like personal rule and become a consequential, unpredictable, and destabilizing world leader. He has ushered in a new authoritarianism, quashing dissent, repressing inchoate revolts, defying Western rivals, and all the while building widespread support at home for his mission of restoring assertive Russian power and influence in places ranging from Ukraine to Syria. Praising the book for revealing “why Putin acts the way he does”, Robert D. Kaplan, author of In Europe’s Shadow, says, “Personalities determine history as much as geography, and there is no personality who has had such a pivotal effect on 21st century Europe as Vladimir Putin.”

The event was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

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

Ambassadors, military advisors, and members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) secretariat discussed the future of peace operations at an IPI Vienna roundtable. The November 5th informal brainstorming session drew thirty participants and focused on peace operations in the OSCE area.

Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Center for Peace Operations, gave an overview of the recent UN report of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO). He emphasized four main points from the report: the primacy of politics; the introduction of the term “peace operations” that covers a wide spectrum of tools; the importance of partnership, for example with regional arrangements; and the emphasis on a field-focused/people-centered approach.

The Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine, Ambassador Ertuğrul Apakan, shared his impression of the evolution of the SMM under difficult and constantly changing conditions. He stressed that the SMM’s most important task is to be present. He attributed the mission’s success to its ability to adapt – without changing its mandate – and to be impartial and objective. He highlighted the challenges of being “a civilian mission in a war zone.” It was pointed out that the precedent of civilian “monitors” could be copied in other parts of the world, like Colombia.

IPI Vice President Walter Kemp presented an overview of the OSCE’s field activities throughout the conflict cycle, aligning key UN and OSCE deployment concepts, from preventive diplomacy through peacemaking and peacekeeping to post-conflict peacebuilding, under the unifying umbrella of “peace operations.” It was noted that while the OSCE has a more than twenty-year tradition of conflict prevention, it has also engaged in crisis management in volatile environments (including Albania in 1997 and Kyrgyzstan in 2010), as well as monitoring and stabilization operations (like in Kosovo in 1999 and eastern Ukraine today). The OSCE’s policing work was also highlighted.

Several participants spoke of the “primacy of politics,” a point made in the HIPPO report as well as the report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on lessons learned from the OSCE’s engagement in Ukraine. Furthermore it was stressed that “the mandate must be clear and achievable and linked to a political strategy.”

One suggestion for shrinking the distance between the political and operational leadership of OSCE field activities was to appoint Special Representatives of the OSCE Secretary-General rather than Personal Representatives of the Chairmanship or Heads of Mission.

Among the issues raised was the challenge of civilian missions carrying out military tasks. It was noted that people with military skills are often integrated into civilian missions; or services like medevac, de-mining, or airlift are increasingly provided by private contractors. Several speakers emphasized the need for civilian leadership of such peace operations.

In the discussion, participants underlined the need for greater planning capacity in the OSCE Secretariat, as well as sufficient resources and administrative procedures to quickly launch field activities. The challenges of force generation, command and control, and overcoming the lack of a legal personality for the OSCE were also raised.

There was a debate about whether the OSCE was well placed and well equipped to carry out peacekeeping operations. It was recalled that the OSCE has a mandate for peacekeeping dating back to the Helsinki Document of 1992, and a high-level planning group has been preparing different scenarios for a peace operation in Nagorno-Karabakh for two decades. While some said the OSCE should never have “boots on the ground,” others suggested that this option should not be taken off the table.

The HIPPO report says that the UN “should embrace a future role of not only working alongside regional organizations but also enabling them to share the burden in accordance with the UN Charter.” Participants discussed how to strengthen the OSCE’s profile as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

As part of its Innovative Peace Incubator (IPI+) project, funded by Switzerland, IPI is supporting the ongoing internal OSCE review process on Peace Operations through its research and convening capacity.

On November 12th, IPI will host a policy forum event focusing on the complex relationship between UN peacekeeping and health, examining challenges and opportunities in facilitating access for humanitarian aid agencies and delivering health assistance directly.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 1:15pm EST>>

As part of the Providing for Peacekeeping series, IPI recently published a report by Sara E. Davies and Simon Rushton titled “Healing or Harming? United Nations Peacekeeping and Health.”

The presentations will also focus on health threats UN peacekeeping can present to the host population, as well as health risks UN peacekeepers in challenging environments often face.

The policy forum will bring together specialists from within the United Nations, the Secretariat, member states, and civil society to discuss some of the issues raised and the recommendations made by the authors. The purpose is to hold a discussion on the responsibilities of UN peacekeepers with regard to relevant agencies, the host state, humanitarian organizations, and the civilian population in the provision of humanitarian and health assistance.

On November 4th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM) hosted its first Public Consultation focusing on the findings and recommendations of the Women, Peace, And Security Discussion Paper, and providing an opportunity to reflect on the recent fifteenth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Advancing the women, peace, and security agenda may require a fundamental rethinking of the traditional approach to peace and security in the multilateral system. There is compelling evidence that women’s security and gender equality in society are associated with broader peace and stability in states. As such, the credibility of the multilateral system itself depends on progress in this area—which may be achieved through a needed shift from state security to human security. This is a central argument in the ICM Discussion Paper on Women, Peace, and Security.

A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found here on the ICM website. Following brief remarks by the discussants below, this event was open for questions and feedback from diverse participants, serving as an input to the ICM’s ongoing work in this area.

Discussants:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, IPI
Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, IPI
Nahla Valji, Deputy Chief, Peace and Security, UN Women
Louise Allen, Executive Coordinator, NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security

Moderator:
Barbara Gibson, Deputy Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

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

Transnational organized crime (TOC) has developed into a powerful force impacting lives both locally and globally, having benefitted from the increasing integration of the global economy and regional proliferation of state fragility. Particularly in the post-conflict context where multilateral organizations are mandated to support the government in re-building state capacities, there is a lack of understanding how to tackle organized criminal networks–“the elephant in the room”–often deeply entangled with government institutions. While UN peace operations have become increasingly complex since their origins as traditional peacekeeping deployments in a post-World War environment, their capacities remain very limited in properly assessing and responding to threats posed by TOC.

On November 2-6, the International Peace Institute conducted its second training course on addressing and analyzing organized crime in fragile states. The specialization course, held at the Peace Castle in Stadtschlaining, was organized in co-operation with the Austrian Study Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution (ASPR) within the framework of Europe’s New Training Initiative for Civilian Crisis Management (ENTRi). Based on the pilot course conducted by IPI in 2013, the training served as the basis for an EU-certified curriculum that is targeted at staff of multilateral organizations deployed in fragile states where organized crime poses a serious threat to peace and stability.

Conceptually, the training program aimed at providing a holistic perspective to the problem at hand – combining a variety of approaches ranging from law-enforcement to development, which the participants could subsequently apply in a realistic simulation exercise. Equipped with background information about the case study and the opportunity to carry out investigative interviews (with counterparts in the roles of the UNDP resident representative, a local customs official, a rebel leader, a traditional elder and a fisherman), participants were tasked to develop an Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) and provide recommendations for the required capabilities of a planned UN peace operation.

IPI’s extensive research on the issue was used as a basis for this training course, including From the Margins to the Mainstream: Toward an Integrated Multilateral Response to Organized Crime as part of its Peace without Crime project and developed a methodological guidebook on “Spotting the Spoilers: A Guide to Analyzing Organized Crime. The course attracted twenty participants from twelve different countries, including law enforcement and criminal intelligence specialists, as well as TOC and operations planning experts. Course participants had a chance to interact with IPI staff and international crime-fighting experts, learn about the nature, threat and impact of TOC from practitioners and their experiences in the field (such as the case of Mali) and assess existing and potential operational responses and practical tools to address organized crime.

The course also highlighted practical and political dilemmas faced by practitioners dealing with this challenge in the field. For example, when and how should one tackle the problem? Should one mediate with spoilers involved in illicit activities? And what approaches can be taken when threat assessments reveal that senior officials are complicit in criminal activities?

“Since organized crime is a threat in almost every theater where there are peace operations, we hope that this course will inspire national peace training centers as well as regional and international organizations to factor organized crime into their training programs,” said Walter Kemp, IPI’S Vice President.

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

Michele J. Sison, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, told an IPI audience that as societies attempt to come to terms with a legacy of past abuses, their transitional justice processes must focus on the victims, not just the perpetrators.

Transitional justice should focus on a “victim-centered approach that responds to the needs and perceptions of families, and the needs and perceptions of communities, as opposed to solely punishing perpetrators,” she said.

Ms. Sison highlighted the importance of including civil society from the beginning of the process. “These transitional justice processes must put victims and vulnerable groups at the very center of our strategies,” she said.

She emphasized it was especially important to consult marginalized groups, such as ethnic minorities and youth. “These groups must play an active role in the design and in the implementation of a transitional justice mechanism,” she said.

Ambassador Sison’s remarks opened a panel discussion on “Civil Society and Transitional Justice Processes: How International Actors Can Promote a More Inclusive Approach,” held at IPI October 29th, 2015. High-level panelists discussed how international actors could contribute to processes that ensure justice, accountability and reconciliation.

The event also marked the launch of a new US State Department report, Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement. The report is designed to offer guidance on how donors may better integrate civil society into their transitional justice funding strategies.

María Emma Mejía Vélez, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, brought a first-hand perspective on transitional justice to the panel.

Colombia has been embroiled in civil war for six decades. The government and the guerrilla group Fuerzas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) began a peace process in October 2012, and the negotiations yielded an agreement this September.

The resulting innovative transitional justice framework, Sistema Integral de Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición (Cohesive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and No Repetition), was unveiled in Havana, along with a timeline to finalize negotiations by March 23rd, 2016.

In a show of good faith, FARC promised to disarm and demobilize within 60 days of signing the agreement.

Ms. Mejía said Colombia’s transitional justice framework “aims to get the maximum possible satisfaction for the victim’s rights.”

She said the framework would achieve this through four key pillars: a truth commission, a special jurisdiction for peace, a special unit for persons who have “disappeared,” and administrative measures for reparation.

The Ambassador added that Colombia aimed to fulfill all of its international commitments in the peace process, the first to be held since the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), entered into force in 2002.

On the negotiations, she said it would be “easy to say, ‘It’s over with,’ peace, and take the photos,” after they conclude.

Instead, she implored the audience to remember that achieving an agreement is only a first step. “The work will begin March 23rd,” she said. “It’s not the end, it’s just the beginning of a society that has not been reconciled to find out how we will be able to live together, those who have been confronted for so many long decades.”

Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN, addressed the importance of civil society for justice, accountability, and reconciliation. “It is doubtful that any transitional justice institution has ever been successful without engaging civil society,” he said.

Mr. Pedersen emphasized three elements of transitional justice—jobs, security and justice—that can make possible democratization, sustainable development and peacebuilding. “It is a no-brainer,” he said. “We need both the state and civil society if we are to be successful in working on these issues.”

Habib Nassar, Executive Director of the Global Network for Public Interest Law (PILnet), spoke to his experience in civil society advocacy in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region.

Mr. Nassar lamented “the growing role of the international and a standardization of the field” of transitional justice. This has “led to a situation in which the local actors are no longer in control of the design of their own processes,” he said.

He outlined the consequences for justice processes when international actors disproportionately influence them. “Transitional justice is becoming the province of technocrats, bureaucrats, and then, the technical is privileged over the political, the general over particular, international over local.”

Homogeneous approaches to transitional justice “cannot accommodate local complexities,” Mr. Nassar said. “The standardized policies and mechanisms generate a rigidity that really paralyzes local creativity. We come and present really fancy nice models, and people are automatically paralyzed because they think that this is the only way to do it.” This is particularly troublesome in the MENA region, where such innovation is desperately needed, he said.

Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, placed the development of transitional justice in its historical context.

Early transitional justice processes began in the 1980s in highly institutionalized countries like Argentina, Chile, Czechoslovakia, and South Africa. “When you leave that set of countries behind and start thinking about the fate of transitional justice in countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and some of places which now are potential subjects of transitional justice, to some extent it should not be surprising that results are more ambiguous, and challenges significantly higher,” he said.

Contemporary transitional justice processes are unfolding in countries where there has been war, not just authoritarian governance. Today’s victims do not experience “violations that come about from the abusive exercise of state power—they are the violations that come about through something that looks more like social chaos,” he said. “Because violations are different, the means by which they ought to be redressed, one would think, also ought to be different.”

Local conditions matter, Mr. de Greiff stressed. “We need to think much more about how to make transitional justice measures more context-sensitive, while at the same time satisfying and respecting the universalistic commitment from which they come about,” he said.

The Special Rapporteur closed the panel by sharing a disheartening realization he reached while preparing recent reports for the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. “Strictly speaking, the violations that we are talking about cannot be repaired,” he said. “We do lots of things to mitigate their consequences, but nobody brings back the dead, nobody is un-raped, nobody is free after spending 7 years in prison, those years are gone. So instead of focusing so much attention on correction and redress, we ought to be spending much more time on prevention.”

The panel was co-hosted by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) at the US Department of State, and Public Action Research.
Warren Hoge, IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, moderated the conversation.

Related Coverage:
Funding Transitional Justice (Public Action Research, 2015)
Remarks on the Launch of “Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement” (US Mission, October 29, 2015)

Watch event:

On October 27th, IPI together with the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) cohosted a women, peace, and security event focusing on the effective inclusion of women peacebuilders in mediation efforts.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Entrenched conflicts around the world demonstrate that traditional approaches to peace negotiations are not working. Today’s conflicts tend to involve numerous nonstate actors and play out at local, national, and transnational levels. Many civilians are affected by violence, displacement, and lack of economic opportunity; meanwhile, too many traditional mediation efforts fail. A growing body of research shows that the inclusion of a range of actors—especially pro-peace and nonviolent women’s groups—can generate political will and increase the chance of reaching a sustainable agreement. While inclusivity is not a panacea, its positive impact is evident in numerous peace processes.

ICAN presented the Better Peace Tool, the culmination of an extended consultative process with a full range of stakeholders active in peace mediation. A panel of mediators and mediation advisers reflected on this approach, discussing practical tools to overcome obstacles to inclusivity as they arise in practice. They also considered the negative outcomes for peace when exclusion wins the day—drawing on their experiences in Mali, Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere.

Speakers:
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Co-Founder, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & Member of the UN Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers (2011-2012)
Mobina Jaffer, Canadian Senator & Former Canadian Special Envoy to the Peace Process in Sudan
Arthur Boutellis, Director of the Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
Tom Crick, Associate Director of the Conflict Resolution Program, The Carter Center
Visaka Dharmadasa, Founder and Chair of the Association of War Affected Women, Sri Lanka

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations

Moderator:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

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

A policy forum was held at IPI on October 27th on humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. Dr. Abdullah Al Rabeeah, Supervisor General for the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center, briefed the audience on the work of the center in providing relief aid to Yemen and the region.

The center was founded in May 2015 with the mission of managing and coordinating Saudi Arabia’s external humanitarian relief and development assistance.

“The food security program has been the most active with the health program,” Dr. Rabeeah said. “We’ve been delivering aid within Yemen, in the borders, and those in need in Djibouti.”

“Our center is impartial. We’ve not been involved in the politics or military actions,” he noted. “We have moved our help to cities irrespective of who controls those cities… In five months, our center has been able to provide thirteen food programs, reaching more than five million beneficiaries.”

Moderating the event was Hardeep Singh Puri, Vice President of IPI, who shared with the audience the four guiding principles of humanitarian action: humanity, which drives all humanitarian action to prevent and alleviate human suffering; neutrality, which requires humanitarian organizations to abstain from taking sides; impartiality, which guides humanitarian action to administer relief based on need without discrimination; and respect for independence.

“It is critical to understand and respect the work of NGOs in a conflict situation,” said Rabih Torbay, Senior Vice President of International Operations with the International Medical Corps. “As a non-governmental organization, we have to be impartial in our delivery of services. We cannot politicize who receives aid—everybody in need should receive aid.”

“The aid should be given based on need,” he added. “Not based on tribal, ethnic or religious affiliation, and we need to keep the humanity at the center of everything we do.”

Highlighting the difficulties of working in a conflict situation, Amir Mahmoud Abdulla, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme, commended the work of humanitarian workers on the ground.

“Our colleagues on the ground in Yemen deserve a huge amount of respect and gratitude. We all have to acknowledge that they put themselves in harm’s way to deliver [the aid] and the need for ensuring their protection must be paramount,” he said.

Watch event:

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

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an IPI audience that a series of reviews undertaken to mark the UN’s 70th anniversary had revealed that efforts to bring better governance to the world were falling behind evolving threats to political and social stability.

The reviews “all share a sense that global governance is not keeping pace with the challenges of a more complex and interconnected world,” the Secretary-General said. “We need to tune all of our institutions to the times – times in which even the most local problems have a global dimension.”

Referring to three of the reviews—on peacebuilding, peace operations, and women, peace and security— he said, “A common narrative is emerging – one that recognizes that failure to more effectively prevent and address interconnected problems such as conflict or inequality or climate stress will have severe and costly consequences across all dimensions of our work.”

The Secretary-General cited the widely hailed Sustainable Development Agenda adopted in September, as outlining a crucial framework to work towards resolving these interconnected problems over the next 15 years. He expressed his hope that a universal climate accord will join the SDGs as part of that framework, following the UN’s climate conference, COP21, in Paris, this December.

The Secretary-General’s remarks kicked off a high-level panel discussion on “The Future of Global Governance: A Commitment to Action,” appropriately held at IPI on October 23rd 2015, to mark United Nations Day.

Taken together, the three peace & security reviews and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make clear four priorities for the international community to “take a people-centered, planet-friendly approach,” to the challenges of the global era, the Secretary-General said.

First, under “resilience,” he emphasized the SDGs’ promise to “leave no one behind.” He called for a greater focus on prevention to make possible the future that the SDGs envision. “This will not happen by solely fighting fires, when evidence shows that they could have been prevented had we acted and invested early,” he said.

The second theme he identified was “strengthening partnerships.”

“The various reviews uniformly recognize that implementing ambitious goals cannot be done by the UN system alone—or by member states alone,” he said. “Achieving a peaceful, sustainable future is a collective effort, starting now.”

On the third theme, “getting the financing right,” he called for more resources, more flexibility in the use of funds, and a greater share of public and private funding to meet shortfalls. “For the UN, the need is for better interconnection and sequencing of financing requests,” he said.

The final theme he identified was the critical need for greater participation of women and girls. “Excluding women from employment opportunities hinders sustainable development and economic growth,” he said. “Excluding women from peace processes hinders peace.  Excluding girls from schools holds societies back.”

Gender equality, he said, is a universal goal, and will have a range of benefits. “We need an all-of-society-approach that fully and equally incorporates the contributions of women in every aspect of our work,” he said. “The reviews rightly prioritize gender mainstreaming and the role of women as central to success.”

Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, called for reflection on what the reviews tell us about the UN for the future. He listed questions for the members to consider, like how the UN might address intractable conflicts like the Syrian crisis, asymmetric warfare, and the very divides within the UN and among its members that paralyze action. “This is the type of conversation I want to advance during my Presidency,” he declared.

Yannick Glemarec, Deputy Executive Director of UN Women, elaborated on the shared conclusion of the three peace and security reviews that women’s engagement is critically important to sustaining peace. “We have now a huge body of evidence that shows that women’s engagement in peace and security will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance, will increase the success of negotiation efforts, will accelerate the economic revitalization, and will dramatically reduce the likelihood of relapse into violence.”

Mr. Glemarec, an Assistant Secretary-General, also quantified the impact women have on peace processes with statistics from the Global Study on the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. “Women’s engagement in peace and security increases the likelihood that peace will be sustained by 20% over a period of two years, and 35% over a period of 15 years,” he said.

Sarah Cliffe, Director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, talked about Sustainable Development Goal 16, which says that peaceful and inclusive societies, with accountable justice institutions, are central to achieving sustainable peace.

Leaving a less violent world for future generations is a desire shared worldwide, she said. “Goal 16 shows that the preoccupation with preventing violence and achieving peace is really a common preoccupation across all societies, not only the most vulnerable.”

To prevent the lapse and relapse into conflict, the UN will need better cooperation between its peace and security organs, and those focused on development, she said.

A priority of Goal 16 is institution-building, and she provided an illustrative example of the myriad of actors involved in giving a person legal identity.

To register just one person, cooperation in the development system means “engaging with new government partners, like ministries of justice and interior, with national planning and civil registration and statistical systems, with hospitals, with birth registration systems, with schools, with immigration, policing, efforts to recognize different forms of documentation.”

In conclusion, IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud recalled the title of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operation’s report, “Uniting our Strengths for Peace: Politics, Partnerships and People.”

He outlined three practical ways we can move closer to a more peaceful future. “The first is communication, that enhancing the participation of people is not challenging the credibility or legitimacy of governments, on the contrary, people are partners,” he said.

“Secondly, we need to create fora that are safe and protected for people to voice without fear their view,” he said. “Three, we need to involve people in analyzing the problem and determining the solution. If we don’t understand the views of those we are supposed to serve how can we aspire to do anything sustainable?”

Ambassador Terje Rod-Larsen, President of the International Peace Institute, moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

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

IPI and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) co-hosted a workshop to review critically the findings of the Humanitarian Negotiations Exchange (HNx) project, an initiative introduced by the ICRC to enhance informal exchanges and peer learning among professionals engaged in negotiations and mediations in situations of armed conflict and other situations of violence. Participants examined preliminary trend analysis and discussed them with professionals in the field of negotiation and mediation.

The presentation of the HNx observations by Claude Bruderlein, Strategic Advisor to ICRC President, prompted discussion of the challenges and dilemmas as identified so far. Alain Lempereur of Brandeis University and Ashley Jackson of the Overseas Development Institute provided a critical review of the observations from negotiation theory and policy perspectives. Participants also examined trends and strategies of frontline negotiations from field practitioners, in a discussion facilitated by IPI Senior Director of Programs Maureen Quinn with ICRC Head of Delegation in Iraq Patrick Youssef and Cedric Schweizer, former Head of ICRC Delegation in Yemen.

On Saturday, September 26th IPI together with the governments of Chile and Norway, will co-host a high-level meeting featuring Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, that will explore how governments, the UN and civil society together can advance women’s rights globally.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 8:30am EST>>

Globally, the picture we are seeing of women’s rights and empowerment is a mixed one. There has been some progress in terms of women’s economic and political participation. At the same time, much more needs to be done in areas such as women’s legal rights and preventing violence against women, as well as to counter attacks on women’s rights by violent extremist groups and religious fundamentalists.

This year sees the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, the 15th anniversary of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and will also see the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals. It therefore gives us an excellent opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved and identify strategies for the way forward.

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen will give the opening remarks.

To mark the 2015 International Day of Peace and the seventieth anniversary of the UN, the International Peace Institute (IPI), in partnership with the King Abdullah Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID), will launch the KAICIID Peace Mapping Programme and its interactive website on September 21st.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 1:15pm EST>>

The Peace Mapping Programme provides innovative tools to better understand organizations engaged internationally in interreligious dialogue. The Programme aims to show how interreligious dialogue contributes to conflict transformation worldwide, whether in preventive peacemaking or postconflict work.

Its research-based website shows numerous organizations using or promoting interreligious dialogue around the world, many of which can be important partners in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.  At the lunchtime event on September 21st, there will be a visual presentation of the project’s website, including an interactive map that shows efforts by organizations engaged in interreligious dialogue to strengthen resilience, and with testimonies of individuals involved in the dialogue activities. The Peace Mapping Programme’s website also provides a public online tool with detailed information on more than 400 organizations involved in interreligious dialogue activities internationally.

Welcoming Remarks:
Ambassador Hardeep Puri, Vice President of IPI and Secretary-General of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM)

Speakers:
Patrice Brodeur, Director of Research, KAICIID
Azza Karam, Senior Adviser, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Kusumita Pedersen, Co-Chair of the Interfaith Center of New York and Trustee of the Parliament of the World’s Religions

Moderator:
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Senior Adviser, KAICIID and Professor, School of International Service, American University

On Tuesday, September 15th, IPI together with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) cohosted a policy forum event to discuss the policy and practical implications of the recommendation on unarmed approaches to the protection of civilians made in the report of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

This event provided an opportunity to discuss emerging unarmed approaches to effectively protect civilians under threat of violent conflict, using field examples from Palestine and South Sudan. The panelists also discussed the policy implications of such practices, including how they can be both supported by and integrated into peace operations.

Speakers:
Opening remarks: H.E. Ufuk Gokcen, Permanent Observer of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations
Tiffany Easthom, Nonviolent Peaceforce, Country Director, South Sudan
Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, UN Representative, World Council of Churches
Eiko Ikegaya, Deputy Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)

Moderator:
Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser and member of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations

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

“The current power vacuums and chaos in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are essentially results of serious political mistakes, miscalculations, delusions, and blunders,” said Former Turkish President Abdullah Gul at an IPI MENA event in Manama, Bahrain, on September 15, 2015. Mr. Gul said that it is a priority to fill the power vacuum created by the chaotic environment in these countries.

IPI’s Middle East and North Africa office (IPI MENA) hosted Mr. Abdullah Gul today, the 11th president of the Turkish Republic, who served from 2007-2014, as a guest speaker at a high-level event under the theme “The Prospects for Peace in the Region: Ways and Means.”

In attendance were the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen, government officials, ambassadors, deans of Bahrain public and private universities, faith representatives, and members of the media.

Mr. Gul noted that the conflict in Ukraine, the financial crisis in Europe, and the socio-cultural effects of these are also affecting the Middle East indirectly, and vice versa. “The current situation harms everybody, all of us, everywhere, in this or that way. The risks are great, but I believe that solutions are at hand.”

Shaikh Khalid Al-Khalifa took the opportunity to speak about Bahrain’s stance in the region, specifically in regards to neighboring Iran. Referencing the recent nuclear deal, he said, “The nuclear deal is only dealing with one aspect of the problems coming from Iran.” He further explained that Bahrain and other countries in the region were facing other challenges from Iran, such as the training of terrorists, conducting a proxy war, and exporting weapons in the region. He stated, “If Iran takes one step, we will take two.”

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen said civil war in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are causing exceeding amounts of damage to human lives and physical infrastructure. Recruits from all over the world are joining radicalized terrorist groups and sectarian factions like Daesh in Iraq and Syria, spreading violence and brutality, and threatening governments’ ability to perform basic functions. He added, “The world continues to bear witness to these crises, but the international system is failing to respond adequately.”

Mr. Rød-Larsen, who has been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process, explained that the tangle of conflicting interests represented by different ethnicities, religious communities, political movements, and nationalities pose a particular danger.

Sheikh Khalid agreed with that sentiment, noting the MENA region would have to move away from identity politics towards politics of national aspiration; otherwise, neighboring countries with different ethnic or religious backgrounds would continue to struggle to work together.

The presentation came to an end with Mr. Gul making an appeal to the audience of leaders, intellectuals, diplomats, and businessmen. Despite the immense energy spent for peace, he admitted that the Middle East continued to be a hotbed of conflicts. He stated, however, “The ultimate solution lies in patient and inclusive political settlements, which will help convince the local people and leaders.”

IPI MENA Director, Nejib Friji opened the event held under IPI’s Global Leaders series, aimed at fostering a constructive and dynamic exchange of views between world leaders and the international relations community on a range of security, peacebuilding and development issues.

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

The seventh annual African Junior Professionals Fellows program from July 6-30 2015 provided a further opportunity to deepen the relationship between the emerging generation of young African leaders and the United Nations. Ten graduate students from five African countries – Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya – met with a broad cross section of UN officials and independent policy analysts to assess the roles of the United Nations in seeking to achieve durable economic development and the resolution of continuing conflicts on the Continent.

Under the leadership of Professor Funmi Olonisakin at King’s College London and Professor Godwin Murunga at the African Leadership Centre in Nairobi, the African Junior Professionals Program, which began in 2008, has the objective of training a new generation of African men and women to work in Africa’s leading continental and regional organizations and universities for the continent’s political, social and economic development. To date over 90 young Africans have graduated from this program of whom 51 have participated in the IPI summer program.

In conjunction with the Conflict, Security and Development Group, King’s College London, IPI has developed this annual summer training program to enable young African professionals to understand in greater depth the role of the United Nations in addressing the continent’s major development, political, and security challenges from multiple perspectives. This year the program focused in particular on the African perspective – meeting with Ambassadors from Nigeria and Angola, two of the three African member states on the Security Council, and Ambassador Tete Antonio, the Permanent Representative of the African Union to the United Nations. Students held in-depth discussions with key representatives in the UN Secretariat – including officials and staff in DPA, DPKO, UN Women, OCHA and UNDP – as well as with policy analysts from Security Council Report, CPPF, ICTJ and the Council of Foreign Relations who track African peace and security issues closely.

The main theme from these meetings is African intent to assume greater leadership and direction in setting the agenda and priorities of the United Nations and African continental and regional organizations in coming years. While welcoming the continuing evolution of the African Union-United Nations roles in peace operations (eg, in South Sudan, Mali and the CAR), students heard from their interlocutors that African leaders intend to be much more in the lead in setting continental and regional priorities for political and military engagement in resolving ongoing conflicts or in dealing with contentious issues such as Presidential elections and constitutional revisions – eg, in Burundi and probably in the DRC and Uganda in 2016. The African Union and the United Nations have established an ongoing partnership and will continue to play an important role together in promoting peace settlements, agreeing on deployment of international peacekeepers and implementing the 2015-2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. There was also a realistic recognition that the emerging African leadership will have to reduce Africa’s dependency on the European Union and the United States if these aspirations are to be met.

For the Fellows as well as IPI and UN staff this program is an important shared learning experience. As the Fellows have learned more about the United Nations and the New York based policy community, we learn a good deal about Africa’s challenges and policies from the Fellows’ perspective. It is truly a two way experience among today’s practitioners and tomorrow’s leaders.