jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-vdwscl").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-vdwscl").fadeIn(1000);});});
On November 21st, IPI and the Normandy Region co-hosted a policy forum on the importance of inclusion and human rights in building lasting, durable, and sustained peace, with a particular emphasis on the importance of women’s participation in peace processes and international mediation.
The Normandy Region launched the Normandy for Peace Initiative in 2017, and it organizes a forum for peace in Normandy, France, each year. Last year’s second annual forum attracted 250 speakers from 50 different countries, and organizers are planning the third for June 3rd, 4th and 5th of this year just before the celebrations of the 76th anniversary of the D-Day landings and the Battle of Normandy.
François-Xavier Priollaud, Vice-President of the Normandy Region, said that the best way to honor the generation that liberated Europe from the Nazis 75 years ago was to build a durable, inclusive peace that enshrined human rights. “Sustainable peace is not just peace through peace treaties,” he said. “It’s the concept of democracy, it’s the vision of multilateralism, and we need to make sure that the sustainable solutions are always coming out of dialogue.”
He said that Normandy for Peace was based on “four pillars. We have a campus for youth learning to solve and diffuse conflict. We have an annual award for liberty. There is also the Normandy for Peace Library, which is a resources center online. The fourth area is dedicated to art, science, and culture. These pillars of peace put men and women at the heart of the solution.”
Hervé Morin, President of the Normandy Region and former French Defense Minister, singled out climate change and inequality as drivers of conflict. “When you talk about sustainable peace, there is one topic we only talk about in part, which is inequality—in nations, within mankind, firstly between nations.” He argued that the current large migrations from the global south were prompted by inequality, “but tomorrow they will be triggered by the issue of climate change. The hope is that one day we’ll stop with nice statements, declarations, and statements of principles and give official development aid.” As for the persisting inequality of women, he declared, “Whenever women play a key role in society, societies are wealthier and healthier. Whenever women play a real role, peace wins and war loses.”
Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, acknowledged the gains that Mr. Morin cited but lamented, “With all these potential benefits, one wonders why the situation is as it is today, being that there are fewer women mediators, there are fewer women in peacekeeping or in negotiating peace agreements. Peace agreements fail to make reference to women or address concerns such as gender balance.”
She referenced her own involvement in the African Women Leaders Network and said there needed to be many more such networks, all communicating with one another and building partnerships with local groups acting to prevent conflict and otherwise promote the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. “Meaningful participation of women in peace is not just about increasing their numbers in processes,” she said. “We must deal with real qualitative representation. This is to ensure that their rights, needs, and experiences are properly reflected in reconstruction processes. Studies have shown that inclusion of women in peace processes is critical.”
IPI Senior Fellow Sarah Taylor cited instances around the world in places like Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mali, and Sudan where women were actively involved in advocating for political change and negotiating for life-saving humanitarian access yet not included in the peacemaking process. “In the Central African Republic, despite sexual violence being fundamental to the violence that country continues to experience, and despite the mobilization of women leaders at every level, women were virtually excluded from recent peace talks and were—as in so many other cases—brought into the discussion only at the tail end,” she said. In other examples, Libyan women were let into peace talks only “through sheer resistance and at the last minute,” and women from Mali flew themselves to peace talks in 2012. In Afghanistan, she noted, “women have been called ‘pet rocks’ for which the rucksack of peace does not have space.”
She said there was no one solution but suggested some “creative mechanisms” to increase women’s participation like the “the ecosystem approach. Let’s not place all of women’s participation in one basket. Let’s deploy resources across the board so that ‘participation’ is not one woman who has all the expectations upon her.” She also advised setting quotas and strengthening accountability to the commitments of the WPS agenda.
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, critiqued what he called a “narrow perspective of making peace,” where mediators feel that human rights concerns can complicate reaching peace settlements and should therefore be put off until after the peace is struck. To the contrary, he said, “we know that justice at least sometimes is a deterrent for the kinds of atrocities that fuel and perpetuate conflict. We’ve seen this in many cases where leaders go out of their way to avoid the possibility of justice and fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening. Even though I would never say that international justice will always work as a deterrent, if you nonetheless can stop an occasional genocide, mass atrocity, that’s worth doing in and of itself.”
On the need for including women in peace processes, he warned against tokenism or, as he put it, taking “the Margaret Thatcher approach. I don’t believe having a woman in the room magically makes things better, but in Afghanistan where a key issue is will the Taliban re-impose gender discriminatory policies, how you can decide the future without women in the room is just crazy.”
Jake Sherman, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, moderated the discussion.
Vor 100 Jahren wurde das deutsche Steuersystem grundlegend umgestaltet – DIW-Studie beschreibt Änderungen, Anpassungen und neue Herausforderungen – Nach Steuersenkungen für hohe Einkommen und Vermögen stehen aktuell Verteilungsfragen im Vordergrund – Keine substanzielle Senkung der Steuer- und Abgabenbelastung in Aussicht
Als vor hundert Jahren das deutsche Steuersystem umfassend reformiert wurde, war dies der desaströsen Lage der öffentlichen Finanzen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg geschuldet. Die „Erzbergerschen Steuer- und Finanzreformen“, die von Juli 1919 bis März 2020 durchgesetzt wurden, schufen die Grundlagen des deutschen Steuersystems, die bis heute gültig sind. Zahlreiche Reformen hat es seither gegeben, insbesondere bei Mehrwertsteuer, Energiesteuern, Unternehmensteuern und vermögensbezogenen Steuern. Doch die wesentlichen Strukturen des Steuersystems blieben bestehen. Neben den Verteilungsfragen sind Globalisierung und Digitalisierung aktuell große Herausforderungen, auf die auch steuerpolitisch reagiert werden muss. Dies sind die wichtigsten Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), die die Veränderungen des deutschen Steuersystems seit dem Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs analysiert hat.
Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt in Deutschland ist im dritten Quartal im Vergleich zu den vorherigen drei Monaten überraschend gestiegen, laut Statistischem Bundesamt um 0,1 Prozent. Dazu ein Statement von DIW-Konjunkturchef Claus Michelsen:
Die deutsche Wirtschaft scheint besser durch den Sommer gekommen zu sein als erwartet. Die Zeichen für eine tiefer greifende Rezession hatten sich zuletzt ohnehin etwas verflüchtigt – dass die Wirtschafsleistung im dritten Quartal um 0,1 Prozent gestiegen ist, überrascht dennoch. Denn vor allem der schier unendliche Brexit-Prozess und die Handelskonflikte haben deutliche Spuren hinterlassen. Nach dem Durchhänger im zweiten Quartal hat sich die deutsche Wirtschaft aber trotz oder gerade wegen der Widrigkeiten wieder etwas berappelt. So war es vor allem der Außenhandel, der positiv überrascht hat – dies kann aber wie im ersten Quartal auch eine Auswirkung des drohenden Brexits widerspiegeln. Auch im Frühjahr entwickelten sich die Ausfuhren vor allem in das Vereinigte Königreich recht kräftig. Grund dafür war, dass die Lagerhaltung aufgestockt wurde, um den Risiken eines harten Brexits begegnen zu können. Übermäßige Euphorie ist daher unangebracht, denn insgesamt bleibt die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung schwach. Gerade die maue Investitionstätigkeit verdeutlicht, dass die deutsche Industrie angeschlagen ist. Die schwache Industriekonjunktur – allen voran die Probleme in der Automobilindustrie – dürften auch an den Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern nicht spurlos vorbeigehen. Letztlich ist und bleibt die Binnenkonjunktur aber eine Wachstumsstütze, trotz allem. Die Geschäftserwartungen der Unternehmen haben sich zuletzt etwas aufgehellt und die Bestellungen von Waren und Dienstleistungen sind gestiegen. Auch die Anlegerinnen und Anleger an den Finanzmärkten zeigten sich zuletzt optimistischer. Unter dem Strich dürfte die deutsche Wirtschaft im Gesamtjahr 2019 um 0,5 Prozent wachsen, was deutlich weniger ist als im vergangenen Jahr, angesichts des schwachen weltwirtschaftlichen Umfelds und der Exportabhängigkeit der deutschen Wirtschaft aber immer noch ganz ordentlich erscheint.Zur Ankündigung des Elektroautobauers Tesla, ein Werk in der Region Berlin-Brandenburg zu errichten, äußert sich der DIW-Ökonom Alexander Schiersch, wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in der Abteilung Unternehmen und Märkte am Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), wie folgt:
Die Entscheidung von Tesla für ein Werk in der Nähe Berlins ist ein ermutigendes Signal für den Automobilstandort Deutschland. Das Know-how und die Kapazitäten im Bereich der Elektromobilität und Batterietechnik würden hierzulande deutlich gestärkt. Die deutschen Autobauer müssen sich deshalb keine Sorgen machen, im Gegenteil: auch sie profitieren. Durch eine Tesla-Produktion in Deutschland würde die gesamte Zulieferindustrie hierzulande gestärkt. Außerdem können bestehende Kapazitäten erhalten bleiben und sogar neue geschaffen werden, wenn ein zusätzlicher Nachfrager auf dem Markt aktiv ist. Und nicht zuletzt ist die Nachricht auch für die Region Berlin-Brandenburg eine gute: Zusätzliche Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung stärkt die Wirtschaft und den Arbeitsmarkt im Großraum Berlin, zudem gewinnt die Region international an Sichtbarkeit. Und Ostdeutschland insgesamt würde durch eine solch massive Investition von Tesla in einem wichtigen industriellen Zukunftsfeld einen großen Schritt nach vorne machen.Immer mehr Frauen sind erwerbstätig, oft aber nur in Teilzeit – Stundenlohnlücke zwischen Teilzeit- und Vollzeitjobs deutlich gestiegen – Gesetz zu Rückkehrrecht auf Vollzeitstelle sollte durch weitere Maßnahmen flankiert werden, um Teilzeitfalle zu begegnen
Die Erwerbsbeteiligung von Frauen ist in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten stark gestiegen – immer mehr von ihnen arbeiten jedoch in Teilzeit: Im Jahr 2017 waren es 36 Prozent, über zehn Prozentpunkte mehr als Mitte der 1990er Jahre. Gleichzeitig ist der sogenannte Part-time Wage Gap, also die Stundenlohnlücke zwischen einem Vollzeit- und einem Teilzeitjob, deutlich gewachsen, von fünf Prozent Mitte der 1990er Jahre auf mittlerweile rund 17 Prozent. Das sind zentrale Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin). „Einerseits ist es eine gute Nachricht, dass immer mehr Frauen erwerbstätig sind, wenn auch viele nur in Teilzeit – sie haben ein eigenes Erwerbseinkommen und somit auch eigene Ansprüche an die sozialen Sicherungssysteme“, sagt Katharina Wrohlich, Leiterin der Forschungsgruppe Gender Economics am DIW Berlin. „Andererseits haben Teilzeitjobs Nachteile: Der Stundenlohn ist oft geringer, auch weil die Tätigkeiten öfter einfache und manuelle sind – diese Unterschiede sind zuletzt noch deutlich größer geworden“, so Wrohlich.
When the Security Council mandated the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone to protect civilians in 1999, there was neither a clear definition of POC (protection of civilians) nor a way to account for action peacekeepers had taken to protect civilians. Over the last two decades, the UN Secretariat and peacekeeping missions in the field have developed a body of policy documents and training modules, and established practical tools and mechanisms to clarify and standardize the way POC should be implemented. In 2015, the UN policy on POC laid out three tiers of protection: protection through dialogue and engagement, provision of physical protection, and establishment of a protective environment. In October 2019, the UN Department of Peace Operations and Department of Operational Support issued a revised policy.
On November 12th, a workshop was held at IPI, bringing together representatives of the diplomatic community, including thematic experts and military and police advisors, UN Secretariat officials, members of the NGO community, and external researchers to explore ways POC has evolved and to determine which practices have been effective in carrying out POC. This meeting also addressed how UN POC policies compare with POC frameworks developed by specific countries and regional organizations.
This event was part of an international research project, “Implementing the POC Concept in UN Peacekeeping,” financed by the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and run by the Institute of Security and Global Affairs of the University of Leiden (ISGA), the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University (ISPK), and the Global Governance Institute (GGI). Composed of two sessions, the meeting took place under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution.
During the first session, experts discussed the new revisions to the UN POC policy. Speakers noted that there had been no radical shifts or sweeping departures in this revision from the 2015 policy, which established the three tiers of POC, including dialogue and engagement, the provision of physical protection, and the establishment of a protective environment. However, there were a few significant changes. These included putting greater emphasis on political strategies, beyond the use of force to protect civilians. The revised policy also further defined roles and responsibilities for all components of peace operations, including military, police and civilian personnel, and included clearer accountability provisions. The other change that was noted was a larger emphasis on civilian harm mitigation.
Participants highlighted the need to clarify what POC entails for the different components of peace operations, through clearer mandate language, and to allocate resources that will match expectations. They specifically examined the current role of UN police units in peacekeeping, which goes beyond physical protection, and encompasses investigations and capacity-building to develop the country’s rule of law and justice system. They also explored the role of civilian components in protection, ranging from the analysis of threats to early warning, casualty tracking, human rights monitoring, investigations and public reporting, and political engagement. Bridging military and political spheres, in particular, was seen as key in the comprehensive approach of POC. Intelligence capacities were also considered critical to collect information on threats and perpetrators, and building evidence to fight impunity.
Although the revised policy elevated the importance of accountability for the implementation of POC mandates, several participants underscored the persistent lack of an internal accountability and monitoring and evaluation system. At tactical levels, POC strategies are not always translated into concrete plans, and there are limited means to sanction inaction. Participants noted the need to improve the preparedness of peacekeepers and to ensure their readiness to protect civilians, including through specific criteria that should guide the selection of personnel.
In the meeting’s second session, discussants examined how member states can support POC. On the one hand, Security Council members, financial contributors, and troop- and police-contributing countries have a responsibility in making operations “fit” for the purpose of POC. This can be done through the provision of training and resources, and the adoption of the right “posture” and “commitment” in the field. On the other hand, member states can develop regional and national policy frameworks on POC.
Participants compared policy frameworks developed by the AU, NATO, and specific countries. It was noted that the African Union has guidelines on POC, and that all AU operations have a POC mandate, with the aim to ensure protection from its own operations and from third parties. Similarly to the UN, the AU doctrine of protection is based on a tiered approach, encompassing protection as part of the political process, protection from physical violence, the establishment of a protective environment, and rights-based protection. Participants mentioned the most recent developments and good practices to improve protection in the field, including the establishment of compliance and accountability frameworks, and civilian casualty tracking mechanisms.
It was noted as well that NATO has a policy for POC which was endorsed in 2016 by all its members. While NATO does not technically deploy peace operations as the UN does, experts said that the policy was drafted foreseeing times where NATO would deploy parallel missions and transition missions alongside the UN. While NATO has structural differences from the UN, NATO’s concept is based on a population-centric perspective of the crisis area, aiming at understanding the human environment. NATO also carries out POC through different thematic lenses: mitigating harm from NATO’s action and other perpetrators of violence, facilitating access to basic needs, and contributing to a safe and secure environment.
As another example, participants also examined the Swiss POC strategy, as Switzerland was the first country to have developed a national POC strategy in 2013, along with the Australian POC strategy. Building on lessons learned from different cases, discussants explored the many challenges and questions that should be considered by any country seeking to develop a national POC framework. One challenge is to define the scope of the protection strategy, its establishment as a defense or whole-of-government strategy, and its application to military operations, stabilization operations, or UN peace operations. Another issue to take into consideration is the use of the POC strategy as a working tool, a communication tool, for bilateral or multilateral engagement, and for policy or operational purposes. Speakers suggested the inclusion of specific POC action in diplomatic fora, beyond operational considerations for field operations.
Experts recognized that the development of national POC strategies is a nascent policy field, and that few countries have started to implement national policies on the subject. Several participants questioned how the UN, EU, NATO, AU, and national concepts should align, and recognized the lack of a common international concept of protection. They emphasized that there is no one-size-fits-all for POC national policies, but that it is important to establish clear lines of responsibility and authority. It is also vital, they said, to identify champions to serve as POC advocates in specific countries, and for the policies to engage many stakeholders of the government, legislative branches and civil society
Discussants raised points on what should be included in national protection strategies from a humanitarian standpoint. Necessary for an effective policy, they argued, were including protection for civilian property, understanding and including the work of humanitarian actors for protection, using clearer definitions of the term “civilian,” and creating action plans on counter-terrorism operations, as well as thinking about the impact of urban warfare, and the protection and dissemination of civilian data, particularly during cyber operations.
Namie Di Razza moderated the workshop and the second session, and Robin Shroeder moderated the first session.
Download the meeting agenda>>
[margin]
From left: Major General Francis Ofori, Commandant of KAIPTC; Mona Juul, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN; Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under Secretary General for UN Peacekeeping; Jake Sherman, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations; Martha Pobee, Permanent Representative of Ghana to the UN; and Dame Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN
[/margin]From left: Major General Francis Ofori, Commandant of KAIPTC; Mona Juul, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN; Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under Secretary General for UN Peacekeeping; Jake Sherman, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations; Martha Pobee, Permanent Representative of Ghana to the UN; and Dame Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN
The Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC), in collaboration with the Permanent Missions of Ghana, the United Kingdom, and Norway, co-hosted a half-day conference on the theme “Peacekeeping in Africa: Fostering Partnership and Synergies.” IPI and Wilton Park were partners for the conference, which took place in the ECOSOC Chamber of United Nations Headquarters in New York on November 12th.
Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, Jake Sherman, chaired and moderated the opening session with Dame Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN, Mona Juul, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN, Martha Pobee, Permanent Representative of Ghana to the UN, Major General Francis Ofori, Commandant of KAIPTC, and Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for UN Peacekeeping.
The conference focused on cooperation among partners in peacekeeping operations, as well as the shared commitment to address the challenges facing peacekeeping, focusing on the African Continent. Speakers presented policy recommendations in support of current peacekeeping challenges including: reinforcing UN-Africa peace and security partnerships, ensuring the long-term impact of peacekeeping missions, and increasing cooperation with African regional and sub-regional security frameworks.
The event brought together member states, the African Union, African Regional Economic Communities, think tanks, and other international partners.
Watch full event video here on UN Web TV>>