Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The violence against the Rohingya, which has led hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to seek refuge in Bangladesh, has severely damaged Myanmar’s international image. In response to the deterioration of the human rights situation in Myanmar in Octo­ber 2018, the European Union (EU) threatened to withdraw the trade preferences that ensure the country has duty-free access to the EU common market. It seems highly plausible, however, that such measures would fail to alter the political calculations of the Burmese government or of the military. Instead, a withdrawal of the trade preferences would primarily hit the mostly female workers in the country’s textile industry. The EU and its Member States should therefore consider a combination of specific sanctions against military enterprises as well as tightened entry bans and account freezes that are directed at leading military personnel. These targeted sanc­tions against Myanmar’s armed forces should be flanked by an increase in the level of diplo­matic engagement with civilian actors in the country.

Seit Anfang 2017 haben die Mitgliedstaaten der Vereinten Nationen (VN) über den Globalen Pakt für sichere, geordnete und reguläre Migration beraten. Die Verhandlungen hatten lange Zeit kaum öffentliches Interesse gefunden, obwohl der Prozess transparent war und die Zwischenergebnisse veröffentlicht wurden. Kurz vor der geplanten Verabschiedung des Paktes in Marrakesch am 10. und 11. Dezember 2018 sind in vielen Ländern heftige innenpolitische Debatten ausgebrochen. In der Folge haben einige Staaten angekündigt, dem Pakt nicht zuzustimmen. Wie berechtigt sind die Einwände der Kritiker und welche praktische Bedeutung wird der Pakt nach der zu erwartenden Verabschiedung haben?

Obwohl das Vereinigte Königreich den Euro nicht eingeführt hat, wird der bevorste­hende Brexit neben den Folgen für die gesamte Europäische Union auch Konsequen­zen für die Währungsintegration haben. Der Austritt Großbritanniens aus der EU wird bei den »Euro-outs«, also den acht Mitgliedstaaten, die den Euro nicht eingeführt haben, die Befürchtung verstärken, dass sich ihr Einfluss auf den Willensbildungsprozess in der Union in Zukunft verringert. Diese Sorge hat zur Bildung einer neuen Koalition von Staaten geführt, die die Interessen der nördlichen Euro-Mitglieder und einiger Länder außerhalb der Eurozone vereint. Zwar ist die Debatte über eine Erwei­terung der Eurozone gegenwärtig abgeflaut. Der »Brexit-Moment« könnte jedoch Aus­löser einer neuen Dynamik und Treiber sein für eine Ausdehnung der Eurozone oder eine Stärkung der Verbindung einiger Nicht-Euro-Staaten mit der Bankenunion.

L'impasse politique dans laquelle se trouve actuellement le Liban est un signe : le régime de Bachar el-Assad est en train d’essayer de réaffirmer son influence dans le pays. Joseph Bahout, non-resident scholar à la Fondation Carnegie à Washington DC et spécialiste du Moyen et du Proche-Orient, retrace la genèse de cette crise politique et livre son analyse des rapports de force dans la région. 
 …

Tschechien stellt sich gegen den UN-Migrationspakt. Mit dieser Entscheidung vertritt die Republik die Haltung der eigenen Bevölkerung – aber gefährdet der Fokus auf nationale Themen die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und europäische Integration des Landes? Der deutsche Botschafter in der Tschechischen Republik, Dr. Christoph Israng, und der tschechische Europaabgeordneter Tomáš Zdechovský äußern sich im HSS-Interview zu diesem Thema.

Die Städte der Zukunft werden Orte der Gemeinsamkeit: Kooperation, Koordinierung, gemeinsames Lernen, gemeinsames wirtschaften und gemeinschaftliche Entwicklung sind die Voraussetzungen für die „Smart City“. So machen wir aus der Utopie eine Realität.

Stefan Stahlberg 2018-12-06T10:00:00Z

 

 

Mercredi 5 décembre nous avons reçu Jörg Asmussen, directeur général chez Lazard et ancien secrétaire d’Etat aux Finances de la République Fédérale d’Allemagne, Ramon Fernandez, directeur général adjoint chez Orange, ancien directeur général du Trésor, et contributeur sur les questions européennes à l’Institut Montaigne, et Natacha Valla, directrice générale adjointe de la politique monétaire à la Banque centrale européenne. Ils ont notamment partagé leur analyse…

Download Meeting Brief

On December 4th, IPI, One Earth Future, UN Office for Partnerships, UN Peacebuilding Support Office, UN Global Compact, and the Permanent Mission of Republic of Korea launched a workshop series designed to catalyze engagement across public and private sectors and build new kinds of partnerships. While the private sector knows how to engage with topics such as economic growth and climate change, there is less understanding on how it can contribute to sustaining peace and the 2030 Agenda and how it can work together with the UN, member states and civil society.

The workshop was also focused on countries that need to scale up investments, particularly those that the private sector regard as too high-risk to engage.

The aim of creating this space was to address the main issue that has hindered effective cross-sectoral collaboration: an understanding gap between UN communities, civil society organizations, and private sector actors. Each of these communities interact with issues of peace and conflict in a different way, and without shared understanding about different starting points, attempts at partnerships may flounder. This workshop encouraged small-group discussion with country representatives, private sector actors, and civil society at the same table to develop shared understanding of each other and how collective work could be effective.

Table themes included: Fisheries/Food Security; Migration; Blended Finance; Measuring Peace; and Mobile and Digital Technology.

Some key points made by participants included:

• Business need to align their activities with the SDGs, not only because it is a noble cause, but because it makes financial sense;
• In order to make a “business case for peace” there is a need for a system thinking approach that addresses not only short-term needs but looks at the entire value chain;
• Knowledge-sharing and data are essential to create the needed frameworks for investors to engage in conflict and post conflict settings;
• Government buy-in is an indispensable requirement for businesses to invest in new projects that will have win-win outcomes;
• The private sector tends to overestimate risk and there is a need to do more evidence-based research to highlight that the benefits outweigh the risks; and
• The role of the UN is essential as a body that provides norms and standards as well as has a convening power that can build trust and credibility between different actors.

The private and public sectors have different definitions of peace and the workshop promoted a greater understanding of how to work collaboratively to address the SDGS and sustaining peace and how to develop “win-win” language for partnerships between the private sector and peace promoters.

The pilot session lasted approximately three hours and included about 60 participants drawn from member states, businesses, civil society organizations, and UN entities involved in sustainable development and peacebuilding. The discussions were conducted under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution.

Related Coverage:
“OEF Announces Innovation in Partnerships Workshop,” Press Release, December 4, 2018

Armed conflict is a global health issue. Long-lasting and protracted conflicts in particular have consequences not only for the war-wounded but also for the health of entire communities. Over the years, global health actors and humanitarian health actors have developed health policies, guidelines, frameworks, and structures to improve delivery of health services in emergencies or humanitarian crises. Despite these advancements, however, the international health response in conflict-affected settings still faces gaps and challenges. Some policies and frameworks need to be rethought or redesigned, while others need to be better implemented.

This paper explores challenges to healthcare provision in conflict-affected settings. These challenges are broadly broken down into three categories: constraints related to the health system and damaged health infrastructure, difficulty for health workers to access populations in need, and restrictions to healthcare provision intentionally or accidentally placed by donors or states engaged on humanitarian and health issues (e.g., through the securitization of healthcare).

Tackling these challenges will have a direct impact on the lives of people in conflict-affected settings. However, doing so requires a radical shift in mindsets and the incentives that guide the actions of international health actors. Even so, more incremental changes can also be beneficial. To that end, this report puts forth the following recommendations:

1. Improve coordination between and among humanitarian, development, and global health actors;
2. Respond to context-specific needs;
3. Hold health actors accountable to affected populations for their performance, and;
4. Make responses sustainable.

This work is based on a combination of desk research, interviews with more than seventy key informants, and an expert meeting bringing together key stakeholders and experts on global and humanitarian health.

Download

Stefan Stahlberg 2018-12-04T14:00:00Z

Federico Steinberg. Comentario Elcano 53/2018 - 4/12/2018

La cumbre del G20 celebrada en Buenos Aires ha puesto de manifiesto tanto las diferencias entre algunas de las principales economías del mundo en los temas clave de la gobernanza económica global, como la utilidad de este foro para servir de espacio de diálogo.

Ce sommet du G20 à Buenos Aires était entouré d’une étrange atmosphère. Comme on se rapprochait de l’échéance, un double suspense retenait l’attention des observateurs.

Tout d’abord, Donald Trump s’associerait-il cette fois-ci à une déclaration finale, contrairement à ce qui s’était passé pour le dernier G7 ? Et si c’était le cas, cette déclaration finale conserverait-elle quelque substance ? Les spécialistes du…

Saskia Gamradt 2018-12-04T07:52:00Z

 

 

Almost 20 years since the first Protection of Civilians (POC) mandate was established for a United Nations peacekeeping operation, POC has become an essential element of peace operations. However, gaps in means and resources, command-and-control issues, inadequate training and expertise of UN personnel, and caveats imposed by troop-contributing countries have all hampered the actual delivery of POC mandates. Over the years, internal and external reports and investigations have highlighted performance shortfalls and the need for better accountability for the implementation of POC on the ground.

On Monday December 3rd, 2018, the International Peace Institute (IPI) organized a roundtable workshop on the “Accountability System for the Protection of Civilians: A Shared Responsibility” as part of IPI’s Protection of Civilians project, supported by the Netherlands. The first session of the workshop focused on accountability and performance of the UN Secretariat and peace operations, while the second session focused on the accountability of member states in pursuing the protection of civilians, looking at the responsibility of the UN Security Council, Troop and Police Contributing Countries (T/PCCs) and host states.

This workshop gathered more than 40 participants, including researchers, UN officials, member states representatives and civil society organizations representatives.

The accountability and performance of the UN Secretariat and peace operations

Despite the progress made since 1999, UN peacekeepers continue to face many challenges in the implementation of POC mandates and to be criticized for failing to protect civilians. Such failures have negatively affected the credibility of the UN, especially in a context of increased scrutiny of the performance of UN peacekeeping operations. Although inquiries and investigations have been conducted following these incidents, they often have been left confidential, and a general lack of transparency has made it difficult to ensure accountability for POC.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO, though now known as DPO, or the Department of Peace Operations) has developed important initiatives to enhance performance and accountability in peace operations. In May 2018, DPKO and the Department of Field Support (DFS) adopted an addendum to the 2015 Policy on POC to specifically address “accountability for implementation of POC mandates.” The document defines and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of mission personnel in the implementation of POC, in order to improve the integration of POC in existing performance management tools, such as individual workplans and compacts for heads of missions. The Comprehensive Performance Assessment System was also mentioned as an important tool being established to gather real time data on the mission’s overall performance and impact, to inform corrective actions.

While efforts within the Secretariat to improve accountability for POC were welcomed, participants recognized that more steps will need to be taken to further strengthen accountability. Policy changes should be complemented by legal changes, and more robust measures and clear sanctions should be established by UN leaders to hold personnel accountable and ensure that there are consequences to underperformance. Participants specifically recommended improvement in communication flows between field missions, UN headquarters, the Security Council and TCCs, to ensure that under-performance and challenges faced on the ground are known and that proper levers are used to address them. In particular, reporting more frequently on cases of units refusing to follow orders, including by engaging with permanent missions in New York, could help improving accountability for POC responses.

The lack of equipment and resources, insufficient training and preparedness, inadequate mindsets and risk awareness, gaps in command and control, as well as the absence of a political process, have all contributed to serious shortcomings in different peace operations such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan or the Central African Republic. However, participants mentioned a recent quantitative study conducted by Office of Internal Oversight Services which established that the readiness of UN personnel to respond to POC threats does not necessarily depend on their equipment or their proximity to POC incidents. While there is a recognized organizational responsibility for UN missions to protect civilians, and POC structures and processes have been established, specific roles and responsibilities are not always understood, and a culture of accountability for all is needed to boost performance.

Participants stressed that POC is a whole-of-mission and multidimensional task, and highlighted the shared responsibility for the delivery of POC by peacekeeping missions. Accountability for POC should not only apply to the military component, but also to the civilian and police components. Furthermore, accountability should be established beyond the senior mission leadership, and include all working levels of peace operations.

As participants discussed the definition of accountability, some highlighted that accountability implied the role of a third actor whom peace operations would be accountable to. UN missions can be considered accountable to UN headquarters and the Secretariat, the Security Council, TCCs, or local populations themselves. The question of confidence and transparency towards beneficiaries was therefore raised in discussions. Local populations must trust that peacekeepers will do their utmost to protect them, and community engagement was described as an entry point to enhance confidence-building and accountability towards local communities.

The accountability of member states in pursuing POC: UN Security Council, T/PCCs, host states

Participants also stressed that POC requires a whole-of-organization approach involving other key actors such as the UN Security Council, T/PCCs and host states. They recommended that the Security Council adopt clearer mandates and wording in its resolutions, and remain engaged on country-specific situations beyond the adoption of mandates.

More inclusive approaches and triangular cooperation were also highlighted as key. Elected members of the Security Council could, for example, be consulted earlier on mission mandate renewals to allow enough time for consultations at capital level, and be associated in the drafting of resolutions. Participants also highlighted the importance of continuous consultations between the Security Council and T/PCCs on the definition of mandates, tasks and rules of engagement, especially in contexts of volatile and changing environments. The creation of an informal group of TCCs at mission level in New York was described as an important step to improve consultations of TCCs. As such, participants called for active participation of TCCs in consultative meetings hosted by penholders, and in all debates informing the renewal process of mandates.

Participants also encouraged a more frank and honest depiction of the situation in the field by the Secretariat, in order to be able to hold the Council accountable to its decisions. A suggestion was put forward to implement mid-mandate assessments of peace operations to reassess the needs of missions. Furthermore, reports from the Secretary General could include more comprehensive information on political and financial support needed to ensure good performance. The informal expert group on the protection of civilians was also mentioned as a tool which could allow for better communication among stakeholders.

Participants also called for increased informal and frank exchanges between the Council and senior mission  leadership (including Special Representatives of the Secretary-General (SRSGs), force commanders and police commissioners). Arria formula meetings or informal briefings to regularly engage with human rights components, protection advisors or force commanders were specifically encouraged. This will help inform Council decisions in terms of funding and capacities, and also constitutes an additional way to strengthen the Council’s accountability. Inadequate or poor budgeting has led to under resourcing which in turn leads to under performance.

On the accountability of T/PCCs, while noting the limits for POC within the capabilities and areas of deployment of peacekeepers, participants highlighted issues related to command and control and the use of force. To address these challenges, participants suggested taking stock of examples from the performance of T/PCCs in different mission contexts.

While noting the difficulty in measuring military performance, participants encouraged initiatives from the Secretariat to identify areas of improvement through force commanders’ evaluations and engage with underperforming units in a collaborative way to support corrective actions. Meetings with high performing T/PCCs to share lessons learned and best practices were also encouraged. Another element raised to improve accountability for T/PCCs was to strengthen leverage through financial incentives in cases of underperformance. Participants also noted the challenge of finding TCCs available or willing to replace underperforming units in volatile security contexts.

Questions were further raised in the workshop regarding the accountability of the host state, bearer of the primary responsibility to protect civilians, and the need to find entry-points and leverage opportunities when the host state fails to fulfill this responsibility. The role of member states, through bilateral engagement with the host state, was highlighted as essential. This engagement can also be done through regional organizations.

Participants welcomed the endorsement by 150 member states of the Declaration of Shared Commitments on Peacekeeping Operations, part of the Secretary General’s Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative, which supports effective performance and accountability by all peacekeeping components.

The discussions were chaired by Namie Di Razza, Research fellow and head of IPI’s Protection of Civilians project, and Jake Sherman, Director of the Center for Peace Operations. This workshop was part of IPI’s POC Project and follows an informal briefing on accountability co-hosted by the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the UN, the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the UN, and IPI in October 2018. The discussion will inform IPI’s upcoming research paper on the accountability system for POC.

Dominique Reynié, directeur général de la Fondation pour l’innovation politique, était l’invité de Yves Calvi dans l’émission L’Info Du Vrai du 3 décembre 2018, aux côtés de David Revdal, Jean-Claude Delage, Frédéric Ploquin et Agnès Verdier-Molinié afin de décrypter l’actualité politique marquée par le mouvement des « gilets jaunes ». Retrouvez l’émission dans son intégralité, ici. 

The post L’Info Du Vrai : Paris brûle-t-il ? / Ranimer la flamme de la peur / Macron dans le collimateur appeared first on Fondapol.

Stefan Stahlberg 2018-12-03T13:09:00Z

Bonn, 03.12.2018. Der G20-Gipfel in Buenos Aires ist am Samstag mit einem Plädoyer für eine Modernisierung der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) zu Ende gegangen. So wichtig dieses Bekenntnis der Gruppe der wichtigsten Industrie- und Schwellenländer ist, so unklar bleibt, was damit eigentlich gemeint ist. Denn die Lage der WTO gleicht einem Patienten, bei dem sich die Ärzte nicht sicher sind, ob er nur vorübergehendend ohnmächtig ist oder einem schweren Schlaganfall erlitten hat und ob an eine Genese überhaupt noch zu denken ist. Ohne die Krankheitsursachen zu kennen, besteht die Gefahr, dass die falschen Therapien die Lage des Patienten verschlimmern. Das Bekenntnis zur Modernisierung der WTO sollte zuallererst als Aufruf verstanden werden, ein gemeinsames Verständnis der Probleme des multilateralen Handelssystems zu entwickeln und Vertrauen unter den zentralen Akteuren wiederaufzubauen. Hierfür kann die japanische G20-Präsidentschaft, die im Anschluss an die argentinische am 1. Dezember startete, eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Internationale Kooperation gelingt dann, wenn die handelnden Akteure gemeinsame Ziele verfolgen, wenn sie sich einig über die anzupackenden Probleme sind und wenn sie untereinander vertrauensvoll kommunizieren können. Keine dieser Voraussetzungen scheint aktuell gegeben zu sein. Natürlich richtet sich der Blick als erstes auf Washington, wo Präsident Trump mehrfach mit dem Ausstieg aus der WTO gedroht hat. Darüber hinaus blockieren die USA die Nachbesetzung der vakanten Richterstellen am Berufungsgericht der WTO. Sie riskieren, dass das von Vielen gelobte unabhängige Streitbeilegungsverfahren Ende 2019 handlungsunfähig wird. Es gilt zu befürchten, dass die USA zuallererst das Ziel verfolgt, die WTO weiter zu schwächen. Beim Fokus auf die USA wird allerdings häufig vergessen, dass auch andere Länder aktuell wenig Interesse an multilateralen Lösungen zeigen. Das sture Beharren Südafrikas und Indiens auf der Durchsetzung nationaler Interessen hat ebenfalls eine Schwächung der WTO zur Folge. Auch bei der Problemanalyse scheint aktuell wenig Einigkeit zu herrschen. Man kann sagen, dass die WTO Opfer ihres eigenen Erfolges geworden ist. Die 1994 gegründete Organisation und das multilaterale Regelwerk hat freieren Handel von Gütern und Dienstleistungen befördert, der den Aufstieg vieler Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern erst möglich machte. Das Regelwerk der WTO hat mit diesen tiefgreifenden Machtverschiebungen, und vor allem mit dem Aufstieg Chinas zur größten Exportnation, nicht Schritt halten können. An den marktverzerrenden Subventionen und Auflagen für Technologietransfer in China entzündet sich der Vorwurf der USA, aber auch der der EU. Der Status Chinas als Marktwirtschaft wird nach wie vor von den USA und der EU angezweifelt. Und viele WTO-Mitglieder schütteln den Kopf darüber, dass sich China im Rahmen des multilateralen Handelssystems noch immer als „Entwicklungsland“ bezeichnet. Am Beispiel Chinas zeigt sich, dass die mehr als zwanzig Jahre alte Unterscheidung zwischen Industrie- und Entwicklungsländern neu justiert werden muss. Die Mitglieder der WTO streiten aber auch darüber, welche zukünftigen Herausforderungen Priorität haben. Für viele Entwicklungsländer geht es darum, die Agenda der 2001 gestarteten Doha-Entwicklungsrunde abzuarbeiten und insbesondere bei der Liberalisierung des Agrarhandels Fortschritte zu machen. Die Industrieländer und zunehmend auch Mitteleinkommensländer lenken den Blick aber vielmehr auf neue Themen wie digitalen Handel oder Investitionen, die sie zumeist in plurilateralen Verhandlungen in einer Allianz der Willigen vorantreiben. Zu guter Letzt scheint die Kommunikation zwischen den wichtigsten Akteuren fundamental gestört zu sein. US-Präsident Trumps einseitige Zollerhöhungen unterminieren den gemeinsamen Austausch zu wichtigen Zukunftsschritten und drohen sogar, in eine destruktive Zollspirale oder gar einen Handelskrieg zu münden. Doch es gibt auch zaghafte Schritte, die in die richtige Richtung gehen. Im Oktober trafen sich Vertreter einiger WTO-Mitgliedstaaten in Kanada, allerdings ohne den zentralen Akteure USA und China, um eine Reform der WTO voranzubringen. Sie berieten über Lösungen, die die WTO effizienter und effektiver machen, das Streitbeilegungsverfahren stärken und die Verhandlungsfunktion der WTO wiederbeleben könnten. Darauf aufbauend sollte die japanische G20-Präsidentschaft die Modernisierung der WTO zur Priorität machen. Es gilt hierbei, die Stärken der G20 als informelles Kooperationsforum der Staats- und Regierungschefs zu nutzen, ohne die WTO als zentrales Forum für die Reformdiskussion des multilateralen Handelssystems zu schwächen. Der Fokus der G20 sollten dabei nicht die technischen Details sein, sondern vielmehr der Austausch über die Ziele und Problemlagen der WTO-Mitglieder vorantreiben. Vor allem sollte auch die Kommunikation untereinander verbessert und das wechselseitige Vertrauen gestärkt werden. Der japanischen Präsidentschaft bleibt nicht viel Zeit zum Zögern, denn der nächste Gipfel findet schon Ende Juni 2019 in Osaka statt.