Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Le voyage que commence Emmanuel Macron en Chine s’annonce difficile, car il doit répondre à des impératifs contradictoires. On peut en distinguer quatre. D’abord, celui de la diplomatie française, qui se veut d’une portée globale, en ces temps où le multilatéralisme se réduit comme une peau de chagrin. Le climat et la protection de la biodiversité sont des terrains plus favorables que la réforme de l’OMC, où la Chine défend bec et ongles son statut…

Stefan Stahlberg 2019-11-04T09:58:00Z

Figure 1. Past and current parallel forces around the world (Click for full graphic)

Figure 2. Timeline of parallel force and their type (Click for full graphic)

Since the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has authorized or recognized the deployment of more than forty parallel forces that operate alongside UN peace operations. As the Security Council has deployed peace operations in increasingly non-permissive environments, the division of labor between UN missions and these parallel forces has blurred, and their goals have sometimes come into conflict. This raises the question of whether they are partners or competitors.

This report examines the missions that have operated in parallel to UN peace operations to identify how to strengthen these partnerships in the future. It analyzes and categorizes the types of parallel forces that have been deployed and examines the rationales for deploying them. It also looks at strategic and operational challenges, including the challenges unique to peace operations operating alongside a counterterrorism force. Finally, drawing on lessons from past and current parallel deployments, it offers recommendations for member states, the Security Council, and the UN Secretariat. These include:

• Strengthening coordination of assessments, planning, and application of UN standards: The UN and actors deploying parallel forces should conduct joint assessments and planning when deploying or reconfiguring missions. The UN Security Council should also engage more regularly with parallel forces and encourage the continued development of human rights compliance frameworks for them.
• Clarifying roles, responsibilities, and areas of operation: Peace operations and parallel forces should clearly delineate their responsibilities and areas of operation, assess the risks of collocating, and improve strategic communications with the local population. The Security Council should also continue to put in place mechanisms to strengthen the accountability of parallel forces, especially when peace operations are providing support that could contribute to counterterrorism operations.

Download

The United Nations agendas for Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) and for Protection of Civilians (POC) both deal with protecting vulnerable populations. The comparison of these two agendas and opportunities to enhance protection were the focus of a November 1st IPI-Canada roundtable discussion, held under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution.

Discussants expressed concern that protection of women from sexual violence has been prioritized over other forms of gendered violence, such as female genital mutilation, child marriage, sexual violence against men and LGBTQ communities, trafficking, and domestic violence. One reason, agreed participants, is that gender-based violence is chronically underfunded. In addition, women are often appointed as gender experts solely because of their sex.

The experts lamented the fact that women tend to be seen only as victims of violence and not as agents of protection from violence. To overcome this barrier, speakers highlighted the need for more female uniformed and civilian personnel on the ground in peacekeeping missions with POC mandates and involved in developing POC strategy. Even so, they noted, women’s participation is often treated with a tokenistic, “tick the box” approach.

In order to insure that peacekeeping missions better and more safely engage communities, especially with women, participants agreed that accountability measures in peacekeeping should be strengthened, and that it was necessary to embrace a wider understanding of “protection.” One way to do this, they said, was to frame accountability around the UN Sustainable Development Goals, since UN member state governments have made public commitments to concrete goals and indicators and to carry out certain gender-sensitive measures of protection.

To truly mainstream these concepts, discussants suggested it would be useful to conduct local analysis in conflict communities and examine intercommunal conflicts. Speakers said that the strategic integration points of the WPS and POC agendas were climate change, gender-based violence, and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The second session of the workshop focused on research questions. Participants pointed out that gender considerations are often an afterthought in peace operations, and explored ways to implement POC that do not reinforce the stereotype of women as victims. They pointed out programs that have been working well and recommended monitoring and scaling up these efforts.

One question that arose was whether domestic violence should be addressed in POC mandates. Discussants argued that intimate partner violence is not unrelated to conflict, and that it must be included in gender-based violence analysis and action. However, doubts were raised as to whether military and police personnel, who are the primary actors in peacekeeping, were the right people to address this intimate type of violence.

Finally, participants discussed how best to incorporate male victims in protection peacekeeping mandates and pointed out that because of patriarchal systems of power, the threats men and boys face are under-reported and protection of men and boys receives less attention. Discussants highlighted the fact that “gender” is not specific to women and that to say, “we need more women in peace operations to carry out the WPS agenda” takes the onus off of men to implement the WPS agenda and reinforces the stereotype of women as victims and men as perpetrators of violence.

Alexandros-Lukas Axiopoulos 2019-11-01T12:17:00Z

Alexandros-Lukas Axiopoulos 2019-11-01T10:58:00Z

The Arctic’s melting ice not only acts as an early warning system for the world’s climate, but also makes this region an indicator of change for international security policy. The Trump administration sees the Arctic primarily as an arena of competi­tion between great powers. This could both benefit and harm the region. A greater engagement on the part of the USA would be welcome, but if it comes with an at­tempt to exclude other states, this would damage the high level of cooperation that has held sway in the Arctic thus far. US Arctic policy has become a variable that is dependent on great-power rivalry. The resulting polarisation of relations makes it difficult to find the necessary common solutions for coping with the changes caused by global warming.

Stefan Stahlberg 2019-10-31T10:31:00Z

Increasingly, states are openly and assertively pursuing their national interests in international politics. The US, for instance, is revoking important international agree­ments on disarmament, trade and climate change. Other countries with a claim to global power, such as China and Russia, are pursuing an aggressive territorial policy. The withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (EU) would mean the loss of an im­portant partner, undermining its ability to implement a strategic and self-confi­dent course of action at the international level. This is all the more worrying since any erosion of the rules-based international order requires a forward-looking and effective policy for shaping the future. Every time a binding international agreement is called into question or revoked, the threshold for uncoordinated unilateral action is lowered. Unexpected crises and conflicts might therefore occur more frequently in the future. Consequently, governments wanting to promote multilateralism should invest in joint strategic foresight. A multiperspective approach appears to be prom­ising for identifying situations in which coordinated action with like-minded part­ners offers opportunities to proactively shape international affairs.

Event Video: 
Photos

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

The international community’s role in supporting women as vital stakeholders in an inclusive and enduring peace in Afghanistan was the subject of an October 30th IPI policy forum cosponsored by Cordaid, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, and the NYU Center for Global Affairs.

Rina Amiri, Senior Fellow at the NYU center and longtime expert on peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, said that while the world’s weariness with the ongoing Afghan war was speeding up people’s eagerness to come up with a way to end it, it was also resulting in concessions being made on earlier promises of inclusion. “Women’s rights and inclusion has moved from an absolute priority of the international community to something that is relegated just to inter-Afghan talks,” she said.

In light of this, she asked, “What are the arguments that we need to make that we’re not making, how can we move from lip service to genuine commitment, what are the ways that we should be thinking about inclusion and process design?”

IPI Senior Fellow Sarah Taylor spoke of a disturbing discordance between the pledges of UN member states to the women, peace and security agenda that she heard voiced in the Security Council debate on the subject the day before and the reality that women are still being kept from positions of power and influence 19 years after the passage of the landmark resolution 1325. She alluded to the example of the work done in Sudan by women “putting their bodies on the line, breaking curfews, braving tear gas yet still excluded from the discussions that determine the future of their communities.”

Storai Tapesh, Deputy Executive Director, Afghan Women’s Network, said that recent peace negotiations between the Taliban and the United States in the Qatari capital Doha allowed for more women’s participation than in past talks but still did not attract the necessary support from the international community. “We saw the added value of women during the recent dialogues in Doha,” she said. “It was us, the women of Afghanistan, who were putting important issues on the table. As opposed to the men, we were not negotiating out of a position of self-interest but pushing the real issues such as human rights, the red lines of the constitution and the need for an immediate ceasefire.”

Though those talks have now stalled, Ms. Tapesh said the women of Afghanistan are still “very much committed” to them and want to see them resumed and “facilitated” by the international community. Clarifying the kind of support they needed, she said, “Afghan women do not want you to fight our battles; we need support for our voices and space to advocate for peace.”

Testifying to the importance of women’s inclusion to the sustainability of peace processes, Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, said, “You cannot actually build a truly prosperous society that enables any country to realize its full potential if you exclude some 50% of the population from the economic and legal life of the country, never mind the social. More than half of all peace processes collapse within five years if they don’t have sustainable provisions, and those sustainable provisions have been shown in well-documented evidence to include gender and women’s provisions.”

Ambassador Pierce was asked by the discussion moderator, Jake Sherman, director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, about how to balance the push for women’s rights with the overall push for a peace accord without one jeopardizing the other. “You must have some very robust clauses about human rights and women’s rights, but I don’t know if in a negotiation with an informal organization such as the Taliban, it is good to go in loudly with your red lines,” she said. Instead, she explained, “the point at which you ask for the things you really need is at the end when peace is in sight.” Signaling the critical nature of this sequencing, she warned, “When we sacrifice the long term goal for short term expediency, we end up regretting that quickly and find ourselves back at the table negotiating peace again.”

Ms. Pierce acknowledged that it was particularly difficult to introduce the subject of women’s rights into conversations with the Taliban, a group notorious for its overt sexism and violence against women. “But the fact that is a difficult argument isn’t an argument for not making it,” she said. She added that those who counsel taking up the subject only “at the pace that the Taliban want” are ignoring evidence of women’s rights having been brought into the process successfully with tact, good timing and persistence. “You do it incrementally, you do it gradually, but above all, you do it steadily, don’t go backward.”

Mahbouba Seraj, a member of the Afghan Women’s Network, urged the international community to adopt a principled position on Afghanistan without regard to pleasing one side or the other. “Do not worry about the Taliban or Trump, but take a stance because if you don’t do that and stay on the basis of being wishy washy with the Taliban, then they are going to take advantage of that.”

Teresa Whitfield, Director, Policy and Mediation Division, UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, said that actions to include women in peace processes had to go beyond the numbers. “We need to normalize the process that women have substantive contributions in peace processes and not just that there are two women at the table,” she said. She asserted that obtaining respect for Afghan women’s rights would require a “creative” approach, given the nature of the Taliban. “The Taliban doesn’t include women in leadership so we cannot recruit and include them through their political or military power,” she said. Among the alternatives from her office’s experience that she suggested were advisory boards, gender subcommittees, women lawyers, broad consultations with civil society, online platforms, and social media information sharing.

In conclusion, Ms. Whitfield stressed, “The absolutely fundamental need for those of us who represent the international community and are on the outside of conflicts is to put in the legwork, the analysis, the research, the knowledge, and always focus on harnessing international forces. The demand for Afghan women’s rights comes from Afghan women, and that’s what needs to be represented in some shape or form at the table in the peace process.”

En observant le déferlement de critiques dont les acteurs au pouvoir font face d’une part, et les tensions sociales qui se manifestent de manière régulière, en France comme aux quatre coins du monde d’autre part, on pourrait être en droit de s’interroger sur les actions des décideurs politiques et l’efficacité de ces derniers : font-ils assez pour répondre aux enjeux du 21ème siècle (parmi lesquels l’environnement, la crise migratoire ou encore le…

Juliane Liebers 2019-10-30T10:42:00Z

An assertive Chinese foreign policy poses challenges for Danish and European interests both in faraway seas in Asia, but also increasingly at home, where China’s strategic and commercial interests mix within European borders.

​

…

The death of ISIS-leader al-Baghdadi isn´t necessarily the grand victory it’s been presented as. The actual effects hinge on the reaction inside the ISIS-hierarchy - and the Sunni population’s future stance towards the group

Minda Holm presents research from the project World of the Right

Um seine Gasvorkommen zu vermarkten, setzt Israel bislang auf Exporte nach Ägyp­ten und Jordanien. Durch regionale Vernetzung im Energiebereich, etwa im Rahmen des Anfang 2019 gegründeten Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forums (EMGF), verspricht sich die israelische Regierung bessere politische Beziehungen mit der Region. Gleich­zeitig hofft Israel auf den Bau der EastMed-Pipeline. Sie würde einen direkten Export­link nach Europa schaffen, damit aber die Energiekooperation mit den arabischen Nach­barn unterminieren. Die Europäische Union (EU) sollte die regionale Energie­koopera­tion befördern, da diese die Zusammenarbeit auf anderen Gebieten begünstigen könnte. Ent­sprechend sollte die EU den Bau der EastMed-Pipeline nicht unterstützen.

Verteidigungsministerin Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer hat mit ihrer Forderung aus der vergangenen Woche nach Einrichtung einer internationalen Sicherheitszone in Nordsyrien eine kontroverse Debatte in Deutschland ausgelöst. Bezüglich der Details ihres Vorschlages ist sie allerdings vage geblieben. Auch wenn es scheint, als sei der Vorschlag zunächst einmal obsolet geworden, lohnt sich doch eine Analyse der Optionen sowie der politischen und militärischen Herausforderungen, vor denen eine etwaige Mission stünde.

Vier Leitfragen sollten beantwortet sein, wenn ein militärisches Engagement Deutschlands und Europas in Nordsyrien erwogen wird.

Um welche Art von Einsatz geht es in (Nord-) Syrien?

Erstens, was soll eine internationale Militärkoalition in (Nord-) Syrien militärisch leisten? Hier werden zum Teil widersprüchliche Ansätze diskutiert. Bei einer »Sicherheitszone« geht es in der Regel darum, nach dem Ende einer militärischen Auseinandersetzung den zwischen den Kriegsparteien erzielten Waffenstillstand zu überwachen und dadurch Raum für politische Verhandlungen zu ermöglichen. Konkret hieße dies etwa, demilitarisierte Zonen einzurichten, Truppen zu entflechten und ggf. Kriegsparteien zu entwaffnen. Dies alles ist jedoch nur mit Zustimmung der Kriegsparteien möglich. Eine solche internationale Truppe müsste neutral sein und wäre nur leicht bewaffnet. Im derzeitigen Umfeld in Nordsyrien ist ein solcher Einsatz kaum vorstellbar: Zwischen den Truppen der Türkei und den Milizen der Kurden existierte zwar vorübergehend eine befristete Waffenruhe, diese war aber von Anfang an brüchig; ein langfristiger Waffenstillstand ist noch nicht ausgehandelt. Zusätzlich sind nach wie vor Kämpfer des sogenannten Islamischen Staates aktiv. Eine Zustimmung Damaskus‘ zu einer internationalen Präsenz auf syrischem Territorium kann zudem ausgeschlossen werden.

Andere Vorschläge zielen auf die Einrichtung einer »Schutzzone«, wie sie etwa in Kroatien und Bosnien-Herzegowina von den Vereinten Nationen (VN) mit begrenztem Erfolg eingerichtet worden ist. Dabei würden internationale Truppen auch gegen den Willen der Kriegsparteien Gebiete besetzen und langfristig gegen Beschuss sichern, um eine Versorgung der Zivilbevölkerung und eine Rückkehr von Flüchtlingen und Vertriebenen zu ermöglichen. Hinzu kämen Verbände der Luftwaffe, da die Schutzzone konsequenterweise von einer Flugverbotszone überwölbt werden müsste, um Angriffe aus der Luft abzuwehren. Dies wäre eine umfangreiche militärische Operation, für die mehrere Tausend Soldaten in einem weitgehend feindlichen Umfeld nötig wären. Es bestünde eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit von Gefechten und Verlusten.

Wie wäre ein Einsatz mandatiert?

Zweitens ist die Frage der Mandatierung eines solchen Einsatzes zu klären, wie sie das Bundesverfassungsgericht 1994 für alle Auslandseinsätze gefordert hat. Eine entsprechende Ausnahme vom völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbot kann nur der VN-Sicherheitsrat mit der Zustimmung aller fünf ständigen Mitglieder genehmigen. Die Trump-Regierung dürfte keine Einwände gegen einen europäischen Einsatz vorbringen. Hingegen wäre die Zustimmung Moskaus unwahrscheinlich. Da Russland zusammen mit der Türkei und Iran im Begriff ist, eine politische wie territoriale Nachkriegsordnung für Syrien zu schaffen, dürfte eine Internationalisierung des Konfliktes nicht im Interesse Moskaus und ein VN-Mandat damit in weiter Ferne liegen. Damit bliebe nur die völkerrechtswidrige Option eines Vorgehens ohne ein VN-Mandat. Deutschland hat diesen Weg 1999 mit der Beteiligung am Kosovo-Krieg beschritten, aber damit einer Erosion des Gewaltverbotes in der internationalen Politik ungewollt den Boden bereitet.

Wer wäre Träger des Einsatzes?

Drittens wäre die Frage nach der multilateralen Organisation zu stellen, die diesen Einsatz durchführen soll. In der vergangenen Woche haben sich die Verteidigungsminister der NATO mit dem deutschen Vorstoß befasst. Angesichts des schlechten Bildes, das die russische Führung von der nordatlantischen Allianz zeichnet, verwundert dieser Schritt. Denn Moskau wird sicherlich keiner NATO-Operation in Nordsyrien zustimmen, welches Ziel auch immer diese verfolgt. Auch Präsident Assad würde ein militärisches Kontingent der NATO oder der EU nicht als neutral, sondern als Koalition der Feinde Damaskus‘ auffassen – und einen Einsatz als späten Versuch des Westens werten, das Ruder im syrischen Bürgerkrieg herumzureißen.

Andere Stimmen in der deutschen Debatte bevorzugen eine Koalition der Willigen aus Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien. Solche Ad-hoc-Koalitionen haben jedoch Nachteile gegenüber formalen multilateralen Kooperationen. So ist ihr Vorgehen in der Regel weniger transparent. Auch zwingt eine formale Kooperation die Beteiligten eher dazu, ihre politischen Ordnungsvorstellungen abzustimmen. Schließlich gibt es für derartige Fälle keine vereinbarten Verfahren zur finanziellen Lastenteilung und zur Bereitstellung militärischer Kapazitäten. Im Sinne der angestrebten strategischen Autonomie Europas würde es sich stattdessen anbieten, die Verfahren und Institutionen nutzbar zu machen, die die EU mit ihrer Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik entwickelt hat. Hier sind alle Strukturen vorhanden, die für derartige Operationen notwendig sind. Bislang hat es allerdings am politischen Willen der EU-Mitglieder für größere Einsätze gefehlt.

Welche politischen Ziele würde ein Einsatz verfolgen?

Schließlich muss das politische Ziel eines Einsatzes definiert werden. Die Verteidigungsministerin hat ihr Anliegen einer Sicherheitszone mit der Fortsetzung des Kampfes gegen den »Islamischen Staat« und der Unterstützung des Verfassungsprozesses in Syrien verknüpft. Beides hat aber mit der Einrichtung von Sicherheits- oder Schutzzonen nichts zu tun. In der internationalen Koalition gegen den »Islamischen Staat« ist Deutschland zudem bereits engagiert. Grundsätzlich sollten Militäreinsätze einem erreichbaren politischen Ziel dienen, um überhaupt erfolgreich sein zu können. Je präziser dieses formuliert ist, desto besser lässt sich einschätzen, wie sinnvoll eine solche Militäroperation sein kann, welche Ressourcen und Partner notwendig sind und wann sie auch wieder beendet werden kann. Für die Entscheidungsprozesse innerhalb wie außerhalb Deutschlands ist das unabdingbar.

In Germany there is broad agreement that rejected asylum seekers and other persons obliged to leave the country should do so as soon as possible. Deportations, however, are complex, expensive and particularly controversial when the country of origin’s political and security situation is fragile and unsafe. To incentivise voluntary return, the German government has expanded its programmes that facilitate return and com­plemented them with local reintegration measures, to be implemented by development actors. Non-governmental organisations have criticised this blending of migra­tion and development policy objectives. Aside from this normative debate, however, there is too little discussion of the extent to which development programmes are suit­able for meeting the individual and structural challenges of return, if at all.