European Peace Institute / News

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

On September 12, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened a meeting on “Preparing for Pandemics” to facilitate a discussion on lessons learned from past experiences with dealing with pandemics, and ways of preparing more effectively for future outbreaks.

The meeting, which took place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, brought together a diverse group of relevant experts including public health specialists, medical doctors, philanthropists, historians, as well as representatives of civil society, the military, UN Member States, and multi-lateral institutions.

In his opening remarks, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen stressed the link between security and health. Pointing to how polio persists in a few unstable regions of the world—like parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia and Syria—he said that “where there is instability, there is a greater risk of disease.” Therefore, the challenge is to reduce risk and increase resilience.

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, and Dr. Elhadj As Sy, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross also gave remarks, and both stressed how Ebola had tested the international community, and that more effective multilateral responses are essential for the future.

The first session recalled pandemics of the past like cholera, the Spanish flu, H1N1, polio and Ebola. It was observed that international cooperation and standardized procedures originated in efforts to control an outbreak of cholera in the mid-nineteenth century. The impact of war on the spread of diseases was also explained. Speakers identified factors that contribute to vulnerability and the spread of pandemics. The interface between humans and animals was given particular attention: an appeal was made for an international treaty on reporting viruses in animals that could have an impact on humans. The importance of early detection, increased surveillance and early action were highlighted, although it was noted that states are often hesitant to acknowledge the detection of a disease on their territory for fear of the economic and reputational costs. It was therefore discussed how to incentivize sharing information on pandemics at an early stage, and how to avoid states oscillating between denial and over-reaction. The issue was also raised on how to respect sovereignty while minimizing the transnational spread of diseases from countries that refuse international assistance. The importance of building trust at the community level was also emphasized.

The second session focused on lessons learned from dealing with Ebola and polio. Representatives from the (WHO) Polio Eradication Initiative, the armed forces of Pakistan and National Ebola Emergency Operations Center in Nigeria shared their first-hand experiences. Among the lessons learned were: pre-planning of an outbreak response plan; the need for a whole-of-government emergency response; appointment of a coordinator; establishment of an emergency planning and crisis response cell; sufficient human resources; innovative use of technology; the engagement of local actors; as well as a communications strategy. As demonstrated by the case of Pakistan, there may also be times when the military can play a key role in mobilizing its assets for emergency response.

The third session focused on actionable solutions. Discussants stressed the need for political commitment, capacity building in a way that encourages “brain gain” rather than “brain drain”, greater investment in healthcare systems, more research and development on effective vaccines (i.e., against influenza), and enhanced compliance with the WHO’s International Health Regulations. There was wide appreciation for the work of front line health workers.

The last session discussed policy recommendations for a more robust response to future pandemics. Speakers, including Dr. Chan and Mr. Sy, stressed the importance of transparency, leadership, coherence in policy, more effective use of technology, more open data sharing, well-trained front-line health workers, a culture of prevention, and the mainstreaming of health into development strategies. Participants also stressed the challenge of mobilizing an international emergency response when national capacities are overwhelmed. It was also suggested to formalize the relationship between the WHO and other parts of the UN system.

The meeting builds on IPI’s work on peace and health, particularly its cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to overcome the final barriers to the global eradication of polio. Recommendations from the meeting will also feed into the work of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM).

On September 9, at the conclusion of the IPI Salzburg Forum on “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War,” a declaration was issued that called for action on the refugee crisis. Moved and concerned by the massive human tragedy of millions of refugees fleeing from war and persecution, participants at the IPI seminar spontaneously decided to draft a declaration with concrete steps to help save refugees.

Read the declaration

The President of IPI, Terje Rød-Larsen, described the current response of the international community as “haphazard, disjointed and reactive.” He therefore urged his colleagues to put forward proposals for more effective multilateral cooperation to save lives and help those in need.

The message of the declaration is that a major rescue operation should be mobilized to pick up the refugees close to where they are fleeing from (particularly Syria), and bring them to safety in a dignified and orderly way rather than having to cope with unsafe journeys, unscrupulous smugglers and traffickers, and unsympathetic governments.

The drafters of the declaration, including former foreign ministers Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, Gareth Evans of Australia and Amr Moussa of Egypt, said that “how the international community resolves this crisis is a test of the seriousness of our commitment to our common humanity, and will hopefully provide a model for our collective response to acute displacement problems in other parts of the world.”

The declaration calls for the creation of humane, properly resourced and equipped reception centers in key hubs in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe where refugees are congregating. It suggests that in order to share the responsibility of resettling the refugees around the world, criteria should be drawn up for indicative quotas against which Member States throughout the world should be asked to accept those seeking protection. To accelerate the processing of asylum claims, it urges to treat all nationals fleeing violence from Syria as eligible for temporary protection status. To pick the refugees up and bring them to safety, the declaration seeks support from commercial ship and airlines. To finance the global rescue initiative, the declaration calls for the creation a Solidarity Fund, and the convening by the UN Secretary-General of a Pledging Conference.

Rita Hauser, Chair of the Board of IPI, and one of the driving forces behind the declaration said: “While Europe is looking for solutions, this is not only a European problem. This is a global problem which needs a rapid global response.” Citing past precedents like the resettlement of the Vietnamese “boat people,” Hauser said “this crisis is solvable, it just needs better leadership, political will, and a coordinated plan of action.”

As the declaration says, “this global rescue initiative would save lives, significantly reduce the market for smugglers and traffickers, facilitate the effective processing of protection claims, and more equitably share the responsibility a humanitarian tragedy that affects us all.”

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

“These weapons are here to enable the self-defense and secure the territorial integrity of the lake’s inhabitants–a goose and three ducks,” artist Ray Bartkus announced to the participants of the 2015 IPI Salzburg Forum entitled “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War.” “We artists have nothing to do with it and deny all accusations to be involved in this so-called art installation,” he said.

At the annual IPI high-level event in Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria, which took place from September 6-9, 2015, participants reflected on the theme of the conference against the backdrop of a world in the midst of turbulent change. In his installation entitled “Hybrid War,” artist Ray Bartkus created a different kind of reflection using the placid surface of the lake and the natural backdrop of the surrounding park, mountains and picturesque Rococo Palais. Each day, additional elements of military hardware (a periscope, artillery cannons, the turret of a tank and missile defense launcher) emerged from the water. In this way,“Hybrid War” is literally, a reflection on modern warfare, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, elements of surprise, symmetry and asymmetry.

Ray Bartkus’ art has been seen by millions through his award-winning editorial illustration work for a number of publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Harper’s, Billboard, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and many others. Last year, Mr. Bartkus, a native of Lithuania, had exhibitions in Salle des Pas Perdus at the UN in Geneva, at Neon Gallery, at the Wroclaw Academy of Arts in Wroclaw and at Titanikas Gallery at the Vilnius Art Academy. Later this year, an installation will be unveiled at the UN in New York.

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

From September 6-9, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened its annual Salzburg Forum on the theme of “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War.” The meeting brought together current and former foreign ministers, experts on international humanitarian law, diplomats, academics, journalists, and representatives from civil society in Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg to discuss the erosion of the rule of law and its impact on justice, peace, and security.

Opening speeches were made by Aurelia Frick, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Education and Culture of Liechtenstein, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen gave a speech on the importance of leadership.

Over a series of eight sessions, participants discussed a wide range of issues on challenges to, or weaknesses in, the current system of international public, criminal, and humanitarian law. For example, how to deal with non-state actors, how to strengthen compliance, how to enable self-governance without changing borders by force, and how to make more effective use of the United Nations’ normative framework around the “responsibility to protect?” There was also a debate on if and how to criminalize the use of force.

The forum also looked at the impact of technology and armed non-state actors on the laws of war. One session raised frightening hypotheses about the unchecked effects of biological, cyber, and automated (robotic) weapons.

In a highly topical session, participants debated how to resolve trust and cooperation in Europe, particularly in relation to the crisis in Ukraine.

The last session, originally planned to look at how to improve multilateral cooperation to strengthen the rule of law, was changed to discuss how to deal more effectively with the urgent global refugee crisis. It resulted in the issuance of the Salzburg Declaration (click here to read more).

As part of the event, Ray Bartkus—an internationally renowned Lithuanian artist based in New York–presented an installation entitled “Hybrid War” (click here).

Related Coverage:

Interview with Former Foreign Minister of Canada, Lloyd Axworthy (Power Play, CTV, September 2015)
“The Necessity of Courage When Contemplating Political Suicide” (Foreign Policy, September 11, 2015)
“Syria’s exodus isn’t a European problem. It’s the whole world’s” (The Guardian, September 10, 2015)

Last week in Tunisia, President Beji Caid Essebsi received Nejib Friji, Director of IPI’s MENA office. The president reiterated his nation’s commitment to peace and pledged support to IPI’s effort in this regard. Mr. Friji delivered President Essebsi a message from IPI President Terje Rød Larsen calling for an international stand against violent extremism.

Only fifteen United Nations’ member states provide more than 60 percent of the 104,000 UN uniformed personnel deployed worldwide. How can a more equitable sharing of the global peacekeeping burden be produced that generates new capabilities for UN operations?

Operational partnerships are one potentially useful mechanism to further this agenda. They are partnerships that occur when military units from two or more countries combine to deploy as part of a peacekeeping operation. This report assesses the major benefits and challenges of these partnerships for UN peace operations at both the political and operational levels.

The report begins by providing an overview of the different varieties of partnerships in contemporary UN peace operations and describes the major patterns apparent in a new database of forty-one operational partnerships from 2004 to 2014. It presents case studies of two UN missions that exhibit the full range of operational partnerships: the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). The authors explore why some UN member states engage in operational partnerships or might do so in the future, arguing that the reasons include a wide range of both mission-specific concerns and broader political and security-related reasons.

On the basis of the evidence presented, the authors identify the main factors that influence successful partnerships and offer lessons and recommendations on how best to enhance operational partnerships so as to deliver more effective peace operations in the field:

• The UN and bilateral donors should cooperate closely to raise general awareness of the opportunities for and the political and military benefits of operational partnerships in peacekeeping. They should continually share information on potential partnership opportunities among troop-contributing countries and how to help facilitate them.
• Bilateral donors should continue to invest in pre-deployment preparations for partners.
• The UN and bilateral donors should strongly encourage and help enable the trend toward standby forces in Europe, South America, Africa, and potentially elsewhere.
• The UN or a member state should develop a short guidebook on operational partnership options and best practices.
• Prospective partners must choose carefully and be prepared to overcome social and military incompatibilities.
• Tending to the size of a combined unit can mitigate problems of operational effectiveness.
• The challenges of partnering, while daunting, need not trump the benefits; the keys to ensuring against challenging threats are preparation and attention.

This report is part of IPI’s Providing for Peacekeeping Series.

Download

In a break from recent tradition, European member states are currently contributing significant military capabilities to a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operation in Africa. Europeans are providing more than 1,000 troops to the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) by staffing a wide range of operations including an intelligence fusion cell, transport and attack aircraft, and special forces.

Yet for European troop-contributing countries (TCCs) that have spent several years working in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations in Afghanistan, participating in a UN mission has been a process of learning and adaptation. For the UN, the contributions of key capabilities by European countries have pushed the UN system to adjust to the higher expectations of the new European TCCs, which has proved difficult in Mali’s complicated operating environment and political situation.

The report examines this complex relationship and shows the challenges and opportunities for both the UN and its European member states participating in MINUSMA. In terms of challenges, the report identifies obstacles facing European TCCs as they adapt to the UN peacekeeping system, the domestic political concerns of European TCCs, and the need for increased partnership among TCCs within the mission. In terms of opportunities, the report finds the potential of European military contributions to strengthen UN peacekeeping operations facing capability constraints and the UN’s ability to learn and adjust to increasingly asymmetric threat environments, as it responds to the needs of European TCCs.

The authors offer a number of recommendations for facilitating and improving the participation of European militaries in MINUSMA and in UN peacekeeping more broadly, including the following:

• For the UN Secretariat: Develop opportunities for strategic force generation engagement with potential TCCs and conduct formal and informal indicative force generation meetings with TCCs; consider ways to gather more TCC input into the development of concepts of operations, force requirements, statement-of-unit requirements, etc.; provide more predictable and faster mission support during mission start-up; and consider decentralizing authority in-mission and at headquarters in New York to speed up decision-making processes.

• For European states: Engage in a structured and sustained dialogue with the UN to ensure that lessons from the experience in MINUSMA are identified jointly and improvements are pursued; work with the UN to develop media strategies to help domestic audiences better understand UN peacekeeping; ensure that staff who have acquired UN competence are considered for key posts at the Ministry of Defense, the permanent mission to the UN, the reconnaissance mission, and UN negotiation teams; and ensure a thorough understanding of UN planning and decision-making processes at headquarters and in the field.

• For the All Sources Information Fusion Unit (ASIFU): Initiate a lessons-learning exercise on the ASIFU experience in MINUSMA to improve the current intelligence aspects in this mission and to make improvements on intelligence aspects in other and future UN missions; develop a UN secure data network; and continue to improve cooperation between information gathering and analysis components in the mission.

This report is part of IPI’s Providing for Peacekeeping Series.

Download

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

The international response to the world drug crisis has given disproportional attention to repression rather than prevention. This view was expressed by several participants at an IPI policy forum convened on July 22 to discuss the upcoming United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem.

“Repression is a damaging policy, since it redirects resources to military and penal solutions, instead of health and education,” said one of the panel members, Fernando Carrera, the Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the UN. “Like other aspects of public policy, we should address drug policy by outcome – learning from experience, and not from dogmas.”

The IPI meeting, co-organized with the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), was held to prepare for the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem, which will take place April 19-21, 2016.

Simone Monasebian, Director of the New York Office of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), called for a more holistic approach to the crisis at the special session with emphasis on health and well-being in order to reduce the impact on vulnerable populations and to create more alternatives to incarceration.

“UNGASS 2016 must address all the issues with the world drug problem, including human rights and sustainable development,” she said, adding that this must be done “without dropping our guard on transnational organized crime.”

The statements came at a time when an increasingly changing policy landscape at the national level is posing challenges to the current international drug control strategies, which have produced a public health crisis and mass incarceration.

At the same time, while decriminalization is taking place in many countries, panelists argued that there is too little room for the evolution of today’s legal system. Martin Jelsma, Programme Director for the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, noted that the treaties that regulate the world drug problem do not have built-in mechanisms for review. He called the existing system “Jurassic.”

The interim session of the General Assembly is being held three years ahead of its schedule on the special request of the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia and will present an important opportunity to issue “fair and balanced analysis on whether the existing system operating on the existing conventions is still fit for purpose,” said Senator Mark Golding, the Minister of Justice of Jamaica.

The current international legal framework, upheld by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, provides some degree of flexibility for national responses, but remains rigid, he said. Sen. Golding stressed the importance of having coherent and viable policies that provide proportional and rational responses to drug problems, while keeping with the aspirations of people. As new paths of treatment are emerging in national drug policies, he said the coherence of international law is increasingly challenged.

However, while a rebalancing should take place between prevention and repression, it would be impossible to get completely rid of the law-enforcement approach, Ambassador Carrera said. Focus on the supply-side should remain, but be made more effective through relying on an evidence-based approach, he added.

Transnational organized crime is an important driver of the problem, but several of the panelists said that current efforts have come up with few solutions to reduce the profitability of this thriving business.

Providing a historical background to the development of the international legal framework, Mr. Jelsma showed how issues that led to the first UNGASS on drugs have still not been addressed. Arms control, money laundering, lack of criminal prosecution, difficulties in finding agreement on regulating financial streams with linked challenges in addressing beneficial ownerships due to deregulated markets – are all problems that still persist.

As the levels of violence that created the urgency for the original call for the first Special Session on drugs in 1990 persist, “increased shared responsibility and a more balanced approach” is needed to improve the structural response, he said.

When one question from the floor raised concern that current drug policy lumps starkly different drugs into the same basket, Ambassador Carrera agreed, saying, “The UN’s one-size-fits-all approach to drugs is outdated.”

While this is the first UNGASS to focus on drug policy since 1998, it will be the third one in history, following previous attempts which have not resulted in radical changes but rather served to reassert the established system. However, Sen. Golding expressed hope that the current international momentum would still drive through the necessary changes and reframing within the post-2015 agenda.

He concluded: “If UNGASS 2016 does not signify a move forward, it is going to be very problematic for all of us.”

The conversation was moderated by Adam Lupel, Director of Research and Publications at IPI.

Watch event:

Since the tragic bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq in 2003, a concerted effort has been made to improve and strengthen security arrangements across the UN system. However, too often, security issues are perceived as primarily technical matters that are not prioritized as strategically and politically important.

This report takes stock of the strategic impact of safety and security for effective peace operations by outlining the evolving, increasingly hostile security context into which operations are being deployed and its implications for personnel.

The authors assess existing UN management structures, policies, and processes to identify potential areas of reform. As they examine the diverse range of challenges and considerations for improving security of UN peace operations, they argue that effective security is about protecting UN personnel while enabling, not limiting, operational activity.

The authors offer the following recommendations for UN member states and the Secretariat to improve safety and security in UN peace operations:

• Extend responsibility collectively across the UN for a shared understanding of the security situation and improvements in the mandating, resourcing, planning, and execution of peace operations.
• Approach safety and security issues holistically, and consolidate them under the UN Department of Safety and Security.
• Apply a comprehensive policy on crisis management across all peace operations and country teams accompanied by a mandatory regime of crisis-management simulation exercises.
• Revise the assumptions on which the UN Security Management System is based, and tailor security models to mission mandates and the prevailing security environment.
• Clarify how UN peace operations should function in asymmetric threat environments when they lack capabilities, such as adequate medical support or evacuation.
• Recruit and train security personnel to high professional standards across all missions and ensure that they hold sufficient seniority at UN headquarters and in missions.
• Establish political and financial incentives to address the gap between peace operations’ mandates and allocated resources.
• Develop a professional intelligence system to enhance situational awareness for better mandate implementation.
• Clarify the legal protections for the UN under international law, and ensure a shared understanding of security responsibilities between the UN and the host state.

Download

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

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group and the former Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, offered a bold observation to an IPI audience about the United Nations. “The UN, sadly, is a very risk averse organization,” he declared. “It’s much better not to take risks for a career at the UN. But it’s much better for the UN to take risks.”

Drawing upon his own tenure as Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations from 2000-2008, a period of unprecedented growth for peacekeeping, he lamented the difficulty for UN leadership to “take some calculated risks,” because of an organizational culture which discourages them from doing so.

“I do believe it is very important for leaders in the UN to encourage risk-taking up to a point,” he said. “Intelligent risk-taking. Often it’s not the case if the staff feel that if they do something wrong, they will be hanged. It is not good. They have to be encouraged to take that risk.”

Discussing his new memoir, The Fog of Peace, on July 14th, Mr. Guéhenno explained the book’s title. “It was important in a book to convey the fog of action, the confusion, and uncertainty,” he said. The title also served as a metaphor for the haze of decision-making in peacekeeping operations. “That is at the heart of peacekeeping,” he said. “It’s all about tradeoffs. It’s about taking some risks, measuring them. But you only know in hindsight whether you have been right or wrong.”

Mr. Guéhenno’s reflection on his time in office remains pertinent, and he identified and offered solutions for key challenges facing peacekeeping operations. While recognizing that peacekeeping inherently involves the use of force, he said force itself should not be overdone.

“Force could never achieve by itself any political result,” he said. “It can be one element in a much broader strategy. If it is anything more than that, it is bound to disappoint.”

He also noted the need to set realistic goals at the outset of a peacekeeping operation, declaring, “The idea that through force you are going to stabilize a country is an illusion.”

Developing his thoughts on force and intervention, Mr. Guéhenno emphasized the importance of his having left Europe for New York. Here he interacted with a diverse group of leaders at the UN that changed his perspective on the concept of sovereignty.

“We have to understand the position of weaker countries,” he said. “The only thing that they have to assert themselves, to protect themselves from the enormous imbalance of power, is this concept of sovereignty, and that should be acknowledged.”

Continuing with the theme of sovereignty, he commented on calls for the UN to return to a focus on prevention, instead of continually addressing conflict after it breaks out. But, he conceded it would be have to be done with care.

“Countries are like human beings,” he said. “They don’t like checkups. They don’t like being told they are not doing well, that they need a treatment.”

He went on to praise UN regional offices as one means of doing so, “provided the person in charge of the office is the right person. This is a way for the UN to go to a country without flagging too much the country is in a state of crisis.”

Looking ahead, Mr. Guéhenno identified a key challenge for the next UN Secretary-General, to be elected in 2016. As the nature of conflicts is changing, he said, the UN must adjust as an organization to enable taking a more holistic view of the challenges before it.

“You need to look at all the levers you have, the troops, the political, the development, and see how you orchestrate them in a way that will maximize the influence of the UN,” he said. “I think the UN presently is not very well organized to do that.”

He concluded by recommending “having some kind of a planning capacity that is independent of any particular department, that looks at those issues in a comprehensive way, without thinking ‘Oh, it’s peacekeeping, it has to be peacekeepers,’ ‘it’s political, it has to be a political mission.’”

He argued that an independent planning commission could enable the UN to overcome the “silo” mentality of its various departments, to instead act as one by looking “at a situation on its merit, and not on its bureaucratic merit.”

As the UN is being examined by various high-level reviews for its 70th anniversary, Mr. Guéhenno reminded the audience that though a humanitarian organization, the UN should not shy away from politics.

“If we do not have a good understanding of the political dynamics of the situation in which we are getting engaged, we are unlikely to make headway,” he said. “And the biggest weakness of any UN deployment, or any deployment for that matter, whether it is the US or the UN, any deployment, is the fact that there is not a serious understanding of the dynamics of the country.”

Further, he questioned the nature of the relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council, where the latter can politicize justice by threatening referral to the Court.

“When you see justice as a pressure point, not justice for justice sake, you are in trouble because justice cannot be turned on and off. It should not be. Justice is about justice, it is not a pressure point.”

As the nature of conflict has changed to become both more transnational and involve more non-state actors, Mr. Guéhenno’s final piece of advice for the UN was to remember its origins as a forum for dialogue. “I think, for the United Nations, one essential is to be prepared to talk to anybody who is prepared to talk to the United Nations,” he explained. “And that means sadly that a number of interlocutors will not be reachable because at the moment they would not accept to talk to the United Nations, they would kill whoever wants to talk to them. But this has to be, in my view, the posture.”

He added that to foster constructive dialogue, it is essential to talk to everyone on all sides of an issue, “and I think Western governments, in that respect, have not had the right policy. Because if you have a policy that you talk to anybody that is willing to talk, then talking does not become legitimization.”

IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

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

Ambassador Gert Rosenthal told an IPI audience July 13th that a new review published that day had focused in on excessive “fragmentation” in UN peacebuilding activities.

Ambassador Rosenthal, who serves as Chair of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture, said the report proved “different parts of the organization are not working well together.”

Ambassador Rosenthal, a former Guatemalan Foreign Minister, learned much about the intricacies of the UN system through a long diplomatic career in which he served as the his country’s Permanent Representative to the UN from 1999-2004 and again in 2008-2014, when Guatemala was on the Security Council. He opened the panel discussion by stating, “The whole thrust of our report is to overcome the fragmentation, and introduce a little more coherence into the work of the house.”

Ambassador Rosenthal also made the point that funding for peacebuilding is inadequate. “It really is remarkable that we dedicate more than $8 billion a year for peace operations,” he said, “but we dedicate a small fraction of that for anything we call peacebuilding, so we would like to have a better balance.”

Anis Bajwa, a member of the advisory group, pointed out that peacebuilding, to be effective, must be sustained over a period of time after a conflict ends. “Just ensuring that the guns go silent is not enough for building peace,” he declared.

Explaining the choice of title for the report, “The Challenge of Sustaining Peace,” Mr. Bajwa emphasized the need to do more to prevent conflict. Peacebuilding is an activity of “the whole cycle of peace and conflict, and it should not be associated only with post-conflict situations,” he said. “That’s why we have preferred to call it ‘sustaining peace’ in our report, rather than just ‘building peace.’”

Asked whether the report dealt with enhancing women’s participation in peacebuilding, Saraswathi Menon, also a member of panel, answered, “The Peacebuilding Commission probably could do more in advocating gender equality, women’s rights, and women’s empowerment as part of national peacebuilding priorities.” She added that it was necessary for the Peacebuilding Commission to address “the impact of conflict on women, the contribution that women themselves make, and the need to address the specific needs of women and girls.”

The Peacebuilding Commission was created in 2005, and this assessment evaluates how the institutions are performing 10 years on. It also comes as many other high-level reviews are being conducted at the UN, for the organization’s 70th anniversary.

Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, said that one area where peacebuilding had made progress was in its relationship with regional organizations. “Certainly last year, the Peacebuilding Commission, I think, stepped up quite significantly the relationship with the African Union,” he said, “and through that political relationship, also the substantive work that was going on, in actually addressing illicit transfer of funds, the issue of national revenue generation, etc.”

A key point made by all of the speakers was that different aspects of peacebuilding responsibilities lie across the UN system, with a myriad of departments. The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and their subsidiaries, lack both the capacity and funding to communicate their shared responsibilities to each other in a way that might create informed, organization-wide planning for peacebuilding, the speakers argued.

That is why the Peacebuilding Commission has unique potential, as Ambassador Rosenthal described it. Looking ahead to the reform the commission should be contemplating, he said, “What we really need is for the Peacebuilding Commission to be able to fulfill the role of a bridge, which would bring together the peace, the human rights, and the development.”

IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

On Thursday, July 9th, IPI together with Oceans Beyond Piracy cohosted a two-panel event on Pan-African Maritime Goals for 2050, following the 18th Plenary Meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS). The event was in support of the Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government on Maritime Security and Development for Africa, organized by the African Union and the Republic of Togo in Lomé, Togo, November 2–7, 2015.

Click here to view Panel 1 on YouTube>>
Click here to view Panel 2 on YouTube>>

The first panel focused on Africa’s maritime opportunities and was moderated by Ambassador John L. Hirsch, Senior Adviser at the International Peace Institute. Speakers included H.E. Mr. Robert Dussey, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Togo, who will focus on the African Maritime Summit; and Ambassador Téte António, Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations, who spoke about the “2015–2025 Decade of African Seas and Oceans.” The panel was followed by a question-and-answer session.

The second panel focused on support for the African Maritime Summit. It was moderated by Samuel Kame-Domguia, Strategic Planner for the African Integrated Maritime Strategy (AIM 2050), from the African Union Commission. Speakers included: Véronique Roger-Lacan, Ambassador, Special Representative in charge of the fight against maritime piracy, France; Robert Mazurek, Director, Secure Fisheries; and John Steed, Senior Maritime Expert and Government Mentor—Global Maritime Crime Program, UNODC Global Maritime Crime. Concluding remarks were given by H.E. Mr. Robert Dussey, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Togo.

This event is an important step in the preparation for the upcoming African Maritime Summit, where the heads of state and government of the fifty-four countries in the African Union will meet in Lomé, Togo, on November 7, 2015. The Summit will focus on actionable progress for Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy (2050 AIMS) that was adopted in 2012 and will address two main objectives: the fight against maritime insecurity in Africa and the promotion of the “Blue Economy.”

Related coverage:
The paradigm shift in sea piracy (American Journal of Transportation, July 27, 2015)
Global group concerned over rising piracy in SEA (BA Reports, July 13, 2015)
Netherlands to pursue ‘thorough investigation’ into downed MH17 flight (Borneo Post Online, January 22, 2015)

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

Nahla Valji, Officer in Charge of the Peace and Security Section at UN Women, told an IPI audience July 8th that achieving gender equality had a direct effect on the sustainability of peace processes. Speaking at a policy forum considering the Global Study on Resolution 1325, Ms. Valji declared it is imperative “to see gender equality and women’s empowerment as important and core to peace and security.”

Ms. Valji noted that including women in peace processes is about more than just diversity; there is an empirical record of improved results. “We’re now seeing the increased evidence of the correlation between women’s participation,” and, “the finalization of peace processes, the implementation of agreements, and the sustainability of the peace that they achieve,” she said.

The Policy Forum was co-sponsored by UN Women, and Ms. Valji represented the UN agency on the panel. Describing the early findings of the Global Study, she said, “Over the past 15 years, we have built an incredibly strong normative base.” However, she continued, “What we’re not seeing though, is consistent implementation.”

The Global Study, 15 years after its adoption, is a review of Resolution 1325, the landmark resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Women, Peace and Security. It recommends means for the resolution’s full execution in areas such as strengthening the gender architecture of the UN system, and removing obstacles to participation of women in peace and security operations.

Before the panel discussion, participants had met at the UN in small groups, to try to identify synergies with other reports.

Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the UN, also a co-host of the panel, opened the discussion by emphasizing it was essential, “to establish the connections between the different topics, to ensure that things are not looked at in isolation.”

To that end, Ambassador Gert Rosenthal brought to the attention of the panel a key interpretation of the High Level Review on Peacebuilding, for which he is Chair of the Advisory Group of Experts. “There is this idea in the United Nations that peace building is something that happens after a conflict,” he said. “In fact, on an agenda of the Security Council, the agenda item is called ‘post-conflict peacebuilding.’ And we think that’s the wrong concept. Peacebuilding can occur before, during, and after conflict.”

Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser, pointed out that men also bore responsibility for implementing Resolution 1325, criticizing “the prevailing erroneous notion that women peace and security is a women’s only issue that can only be addressed by women and understood by women.” Rather, he continued, it must be conceptualized as “a social agenda – an agenda for women and men.”

Dr. Jemilah Mahmood, Chief of the World Humanitarian Summit Secretariat, commented on the unique value women have brought to her multi-stakeholder consultations for the UN. “I think every regional consultation, something that has been said to us about what is important, it’s actually hope and security,” she said. “And women see things very differently in this sense, hope not just for themselves, but for future generations, for their children. It’s such a powerful message women are telling us.”

Ms. Valji similarly emphasized the need to incorporate women’s unique perspectives and stressed that their voices can even improve early warning mechanisms.

“Women have access to different sources of information, conflict analysis, early warning of conflict in communities,” she said. The Global Study found that women experience greater violence “as militarization and small arms spread in the months before conflict and tensions heighten.” These voices are lost, she explained, but could actually serve “as an early warning indicator, that we can use,” to prevent conflict.

The discussion concluded with the members of the audience posing questions to the panelists. Ms. Mahmood, answering a question about what it would take to ensure women are involved in implementing Resolution 1325, responded by asking her colleague to hold up her cell phone.

With the audience fixated on the device, Ms. Mahmood clarified, “If I had one wish, I would want every woman caught in crisis to have a solar powered mobile phone with unlimited credit, because it’s unbelievable how much information can be disseminated through the cell phone,” she said. “We have to look at the world through the future lens, the world in 2030. How will women have their voice, even when they try to quiet it down? How do we amplify? It’s the power of many working as one.”

IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

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

Completing three years overseeing the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) Karin Landgren reflected at IPI on the progress Liberia has made toward peace and stability, as well as the critical challenges facing the country.

Those years have been consequential ones for Liberia and the UN. During her tenure, the peacekeeping force saw significant drawdown, there was an outbreak of Ebola, and elections were held. The reduction of peacekeepers continues at present, as UNMIL’s mandate expires in a year’s time.

Emerging from war in 2003, Liberia signaled a new direction with the historic election of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf three years later. As her term comes to an end in 2017, Presidential hopefuls will need to address reconciliation, security risks, and development.

“Liberia has made significant progress, including in the last three years,” she said. At her arrival, UNMIL had a peacekeeping force of 15,000, which was then reduced to 8,000, and, eventually, its military component was just 3,200.

Drawing upon that experience, Ms. Landgren speculated about the future of the country, as the UN works toward fulfilling its obligation to transfer security responsibilities to national authorities by June 30, 2016, in accordance with Resolution 2190 of 2014.

“Certainly the coming transition from UN Peacekeeping has to be managed very carefully,” she recognized. “UNMIL remains a reassuring presence. There is a real fear of a retreating UN.”

UNMIL’s security responsibilities have been different from other peacekeeping missions, particularly post-conflict missions. Overall, UNMIL’s role has not been to serve as a buffer between chaos and stability. Tasks are more of a supporting nature, such as guarding the country’s two main prisons. Approximately half a dozen tasks managed directly by UNMIL are to be taken over by Liberia in what she called “a staggered fashion” in the coming months.

The Liberian conflict is at a later stage, she said, and the peacekeeping mission serves to shore up national actors ahead of the full transition. “UNMIL has not been the first-line protection in Liberia, with the exception of protection of civilians, where required,” she said. “We have been the back up to national actors. So there has been a steady transition taking place throughout these years.”

This is not the only manner in which Liberia is unique among post-conflict countries. “Particularly for a post-conflict context, this is an environment largely free of political repression, of political prisoners, of extra judicial killings,” she emphasized.

Among the successes she highlighted were attracting $16-19 billion in foreign direct investment since 2005, and conducting a mid-term senatorial election last December, a considerable feat for any country emerging from conflict, let alone one at the center of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, along with neighbors Guinea and Sierra Leone.

“Ebola has also strengthened something in the Liberian national fabric,” Ms. Landgren said, describing Liberia’s “resilience.” Its citizens were even able to draw something positive from the public health emergency, she said.

“Ebola, at its best, called forth extraordinary examples of togetherness and community spirit, and this should not be lost.” She continued, “This is part of what makes decentralization so vital, drawing more of the country into its own governance.”

Noting the criticism the international response to the Ebola outbreak had generated, Ms. Landgren posed a few questions. “How does the world respond quickly to health emergencies?” she asked. “How do you get in quickly to communities, who are the front lines, who need to change their behaviors, often behaviors that are sensitive, religiously driven, dear to them, whether its burial practices or others that we’re talking about, and where there is this mistrust of central government; how do you get right into that inner circle of trust and get the right messages across in a reliable way?”

The Ebola crisis did take its toll on the frequently troubled border with Côte d’Ivoire. Before the outbreak, progress was being made, but unfortunately, that dialogue had to be “put on ice,” she explained. The border between the two countries was closed on the Ivorian side, which was unaffected during the Ebola Crisis.

With impacts ranging from loss of trade to the suspension of refugee repatriation, the border, which remains closed, is “something to watch,” she said. She predicts this will be a key issue in the leadership battles in both countries, with Côte d’Ivoire heading to the polls in October, and Liberia holding Presidential elections in 2017.

By Ms. Landgren’s evaluation, there is much to be celebrated in development of Liberian institutions, as a result of the mission’s support. “We’ve seen positive changes in terms of recruitment, training, capability,” she said. “By the security sector, it is primarily the police.”

However, discussing the national roadmap for the security transition, she highlighted three key areas in need of improvement in the country: resources, management, and public trust.

The lack of resources, in particular for the police force, was made abundantly clear to Ms. Landgren, when she “traveled around saying goodbye.” In the provinces, she said, “they have no functioning vehicles at all.” She said the police force is “struggling to establish a meaningful presence outside the capital.”

A second area where the security sector needs improvement is in management. It will be a challenge to “incentivize good administration and governance within the security sector,” she said, “when the pull of parallel ways of doing business is so powerful.”

The third area she anticipates as a challenge in the security transition will be building public trust for Liberia’s national institutions. Noting that “Governance in Liberia wasn’t strong before the war,” Ms. Landgren explained that transferring the trust developed by UNMIL to national institutions would not be easy because when the UN leaves, the Liberian government will not simply be “building up something that has existed in the past.”

In that connection, Ms. Landgren reminded the audience that Liberia remains a divided society, and a history of social exclusion has created cleavages between citizens and government, as the Security Council recognized.

In her consultations around the country, Ms. Landgren found that “more than one Liberian has told me, bitterly, that every relationship is transactional,” she said, of their opinion of their government. “These are lessons that start early. School children are asked to give cash or give sex for grades.”

These early interactions with national authority figures have real consequences for public trust, she said. “What we’re seeing and hearing is really the shadow system is stronger than the official system. The work they do in school is irrelevant to the outcome. And that their role models can abuse them with impunity.”

One way to address these cleavages will be “developing human capital, which could help level this playing field more,” she said. However, while aspects of the government remain personalized to the benefit of a “small, dominant elite,” rather than systems-based, as she described it, implementing such a policy “has not had high priority.”

For these reasons, economic planning is especially politicized in the country, and without providing economic opportunity for all Liberians, she said, the country is susceptible to relapse into conflict. “We don’t necessarily see the question of economic structure as part and parcel of peace consolidation, and I believe that it is – it must be.”

With its extractives-driven economy, Liberia has consistently experienced high growth rates, but the benefits have not trickled down. Ms. Landgren sympathized with a member of the audience who contended, “Liberia may be experiencing growth, but for whom? Who does it benefit?”

“The expression ‘growth without development’ was coined in the 1970s about Liberia, so to some degree this risks being déjà vu all over again,” she responded. “That is why this area of economic structure is directly linked to stability.”

She painted a picture of the kind of development the country is lacking. “Social services are very weak, as we also saw during Ebola. Growth has been the top priority,” she said. “Investment plans have centered on infrastructure and energy. Justice and security have also had relatively low priority.”

She concluded her answer by again giving voice to the many Liberians she has spoken with as SRSG. “There is discontent, there is resentment, when I exit the SRSG bubble and talk to Liberians about how they understand reconciliation,” she said.

“One common demand has often been ‘feeling part of economic development.’ People want the road to come to their village, they want access to market, and they want jobs,” she explained, citing the responses she received upon asking what would make citizens feel reconciled.

She emphasized that Liberia has done remarkably well for a country emerging from war; but its citizens, especially the youth, remain a risk factor without opportunities from jobs to education readily available. “A country with Liberia’s prospects should be able to do that. This is the wealthiest post-conflict country I’ve ever worked in,” she said. As a result, “it has enormous potential.”

“Liberia itself has defined how to arrive at a shared sense of nationhood,” she concluded. She praised plans for reconciliation already in progress, including the Reconciliation Roadmap of 2012, but lamented that the “activities in the roadmap are largely, if not entirely, funded by the partners.”

Ms. Landgren stressed that ownership of the national reconciliation project is what will enable its success. “What I would hope to see, is more of a push from Liberian society itself, to take hold of these ‘unity’ ‘reconciliation’ ‘accountability’ and ‘justice’ initiatives, and run with them,” she said. “We’re seeing some of that, which is encouraging.”

IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

On Thursday, June 18, the International Peace Institute launched a new report, “Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s Roles in Peace Processes.” The report examines the challenges and opportunities presented by women’s participation in peace and transition processes; shares new quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of this participation; and explores models and strategies for strengthening women’s influence throughout mediated processes.

Click here to view the event video on Ustream>>

Peace and political transition processes provide key opportunities to transform institutions, structures, and relationships in societies affected by conflict or crises. The agreements they produce set out elements of post-conflict planning, map power structures in society, and determine priorities for donor funding, all of which can influence the durability of the peace. Despite these wide-ranging implications, women’s participation in formal peacemaking remains low; according to UN Women, between 1992 and 2011, just 2 percent of chief mediators and 9 percent of negotiators in peace processes were women.

Based on research carried out at the International Peace Institute in New York and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the report shows how the lag in women’s participation is linked to broader dilemmas in the peacemaking landscape today. Drawing on a comparative study of forty peace and transition processes from the Broadening Participation Project, it demonstrates that when women are able to effectively influence a peace process, a peace agreement is almost always reached and the agreement is more likely to be implemented. The report also features a case study on two distinct peace processes in the Philippines, where an unprecedented level of women’s participation offers lessons on their influence.

Welcoming remarks:
H.E. Mr. Virachai Plasai, Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations

Panelists:
Ms. Marie O’Reilly, Editor and Research Fellow, International Peace Institute
Dr. Thania Paffenholz, Senior Researcher, Graduate Institute Geneva’s Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding
Ms. Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

Moderator:
Mr. Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute

On Tuesday, June 23rd, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Italy to the UN, and the UN Peacebuilding Support Office will cohost a panel discussion on dialogue as a critical tool for peacebuilding, drawing lessons from Burundi.

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

The pursuit of dialogue, as a peaceful alternative to the resolution of disputes, is central to the practice of peacemaking and mediation. Beyond the peace table, dialogue also serves as a critical tool to consolidate peace in societies emerging from conflict. At this policy forum, panelists will explore the theory and practice of dialogue as a peacebuilding tool. How does dialogue intrinsically promote peacebuilding? Where has it failed to prevent the escalation of conflict, and why?

Panelists also will reflect on the use of dialogue in Burundi, from the Arusha Accords in 2000 and the national dialogue process in 2009 to the current political crisis. How have dialogue efforts in Burundi diffused tensions? What can international and regional actors learn from this strategic use of dialogue, whether mediated by a third-party or not? In Burundi and elsewhere, what lasting capacities for peace emerge from dialogue to sustain peace and prevent relapse into violence?

Opening Remarks:
Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi, Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations

Speakers:
Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support
Mr. Parfait Onanga-Anyanga, Former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Burundi
Fr. Angelo Romano, Member of the International Department of the Community of Sant’Egidio

Moderator:
Ambassador Maureen Quinn, Senior Director of Programs, IPI

On Monday, June 22nd, IPI will host a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Thomas J. Christensen, author of The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power. 

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 6:20pm EST>>

In what is the critical bilateral relationship of the 21st century, China is seen as a rival superpower to the United States, and many imagine the country’s rise to be a threat to US leadership in Asia and beyond. In The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power, Thomas J. Christensen argues against this zero-sum vision, describing instead a new paradigm in which the real challenge lies in dissuading China from regional aggression while encouraging the country to contribute to the global order.

China benefits enormously from that global order and has no intention of overthrowing it. But that is not enough. China’s active cooperation is essential to global governance.  If China instead obstructs international efforts to confront nuclear proliferation, civil conflicts, financial instability, and climate change, those efforts will falter.

The conversation will be moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, Warren Hoge.

Peace and political transition processes provide key opportunities to transform institutions, structures, and relationships in societies affected by conflict or crises. Despite these wide-ranging implications, women’s participation in formal peacemaking remains low. And empirical evidence regarding the impact of women’s participation on peace has been lacking.

The International Peace Institute’s new report, “Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s Roles in Peace Processes” examines the challenges and opportunities presented by women’s participation in peace and transition processes. It shares new quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of this participation and explores models and strategies for strengthening women’s influence throughout mediated processes.

Based on research carried out at the International Peace Institute in New York and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the new report shows how the lag in women’s participation is linked to broader dilemmas in the peacemaking landscape today. Drawing on a comparative study of forty peace and transition processes from the Broadening Participation Project, it demonstrates that when women are able to effectively influence a peace process, a peace agreement is almost always reached and the agreement is more likely to be implemented. The report also features a case study on two distinct peace processes in the Philippines, where an unprecedented level of women’s participation offers lessons on their influence.

The authors suggest that those seeking to strengthen a peace or transition process by advancing women’s meaningful participation can leverage four key strategies:

• Build coalitions for women’s inclusion based on both normative and strategic arguments.
• Establish a credible selection process when deciding who should participate.
• Create the conditions to make women’s voices heard.
• Keep power politics and the broader public in mind throughout the process to ensure that broader participation remains a positive force for peace.

Download

On Tuesday, June 9th, IPI hosted Nicholas Kay, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia (UNSOM), and Ambassador Maman Sambo Sidikou, Special Representative of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission for Somalia, who discussed the future of the UN Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM) and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the challenges Somalia faces as it prepares for a transfer of presidential and parliamentary power next year.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Mr. Kay termed 2015 the “year of federalism and delivery.” The first five months of the year have seen progress made on this agenda. Somalia is a country, once mired in conflict, which has progressively better functioning governance, where political dialogue is replacing the rule of the gun, and where violent extremism is being countered. Yet much more remains to be done in the run up to the electoral processes scheduled for 2016.

The event was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser, John Hirsch.

Regional organizations have been playing increasingly important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security in recent years. In parallel, their interactions with the UN Security Council have grown, presenting new opportunities and challenges for collaboration in advancing peace. How can the Security Council and regional organizations work together more effectively?

As organizations try to keep pace with rapidly evolving international peace and security dynamics, this meeting note offers a practical understanding of the nature of cooperation between the Security Council and regional organizations, such as the African Union, the European Union, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Focusing on the areas of conflict prevention, peace operations, counterterrorism, and humanitarian crises, it provides ideas for enhanced cooperation on different issues relating to international peace and security.

The report stems from the fifth annual Istanbul Retreat of the UN Security Council, convened by the government of Turkey, which council members attended from April 11 to 13, 2014. The Istanbul retreat seeks to provide an informal forum for Security Council members to discuss topics on the agenda of the council.

The following are among the ideas for improving collaboration between the council and regional organizations that emerged from the discussions:

• Conflict Prevention: Produce a comprehensive overview of the council, UN, and regional organizations’ roles and responsibilities and enhance their joint early-warning efforts and information sharing. Support and develop the conflict prevention role of existing UN bodies, such as the Mediation Support Unit, the Peacebuilding Support Office, before creating alternative bodies.
• Peace Operations: Rethink funding structures and capacity-building mechanisms to more adequately and sustainably support regional organizations in peace operations, including security sector reform and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration processes.
• Counterterrorism and Sanctions: Build new partnerships between the council and regional actors in counterterrorism, as most current efforts are state-centric. Develop strategies for peace operations that incorporate the interconnectedness of conflict and terrorism when necessary (e.g., AMISOM in Somalia).
• Humanitarian Crises: Review refugee policy options and develop strategies with neighboring countries, host governments, and regional organizations for a coherent response to inflows of refugees, including capacity development of the host community.

Download