jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-bdhljz").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-bdhljz").fadeIn(1000);});});
On Friday, April 15, IPI hosted Natalia Gherman of Moldova at a lunchtime Global Leaders Series event featuring official candidates vying to become the new UN secretary-general. After making a presentation, she participated in a wide-ranging question-and-answer format with members of the audience and those following via video.
Ms. Gherman is the former Deputy Prime Minister of Moldova, and has represented her country in several ambassadorships, including as Permanent Representative to the UN Agencies in Vienna and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
This event is part of IPI’s Global Leaders Series featuring UN Secretary-General candidates. Click here to read more.
Article de Jérôme Fourquet et Sylvain Manternach, paru dans Atlantico le 10 avril 2016. Ils sont auteurs pour la Fondation pour l'innovation politique de Régionales 2015 (1) : vote FN et attentats et Régionales 2015 (2) : les partis, contestés mais pas concurrencés.
Cet article Jérôme Fourquet et Sylvain Manternach – Atlantico – Christian Troadec, des Bonnets rouges à la candidature à la présidentielle : ce que lui promettent ses résultats aux Régionales est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.
La Fondation pour l’innovation politique souhaite relayer la conférence-débat sur le thème : « Le féminin & la spiritualité », organisée par l'association AISA-ONG Côte d'Azur en partenariat avec le VEAC (Vivre Ensemble à Cannes), à l'occasion de la parution du livre « Visages de l'amour » de Véronique FRANCOU, préfacé par le Cheikh Khaled BENTOUNES.
Cet article 24/04/2016 : Conférence – débat sur le thème : « Le féminin & la spiritualité » avec Véronique FRANCOU et le Cheikh Khaled BENTOUNES est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.
Am 18. März 2016 haben die EU-Staaten mit der Türkei ein Abkommen über die Rückführung von Personen geschlossen, die irregulär nach Griechenland eingewandert sind – in der Hoffnung, die Zahl der irregulären Einreisen in die EU zu reduzieren. Viele feiern das Abkommen als Durchbruch, nachdem die Mitgliedstaaten monatelang unfähig waren, eine gemeinsame Antwort auf die gestiegenen Flüchtlingszahlen zu finden. Tatsächlich ist das Abkommen Ausdruck einer Schwerpunktverlagerung in der EU-Flüchtlingspolitik, bei der nun die Themen Grenzsicherung, Lager und Kontingente im Mittelpunkt stehen. Es zeichnet sich eine grundlegende Umorientierung von der bislang vorherrschenden individuellen Asylantragstellung zu einem System der freiwilligen Übernahme von Flüchtlingsgruppen (Resettlement) ab. Dies birgt Risiken für den globalen Flüchtlingsschutz. Gleichzeitig ergeben sich aber auch neue Formen der Zusammenarbeit, die das EU-Asylsystem stärken können.
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-qjwsmg").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-qjwsmg").fadeIn(1000);});});
Humanitarian experts discussed the international community’s response to the increased frequency and severity of attacks on healthcare infrastructure, transport, personnel, and patients in situations of armed conflict, at an IPI panel April 14, 2016. The discussion was especially timely, as the UN Security Council is considering a draft resolution on healthcare in armed conflict.
The resolution is sponsored by Egypt, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, and Uruguay. Rallying such a diverse group of states around the topic was no easy feat, said Román Oyarzun Marchesi, Permanent Representative of Spain to the UN. “Those of you that are familiar with the Council dynamics will probably agree with me if I call it a small miracle,” he said. “So far we have made it work combining imagination, enthusiasm, and flexibility.”
Encouraged by the Security Council’s work on the subject, Jason Cone, Executive Director, Médecins Sans Frontières, USA, said he hoped that member states will seize this moment to make “public reaffirmations that health facilities must never be a target.” He concluded this call to action to UN members saying, “We cannot accept any criminalization of the medical act.”
He went on to illustrate the spike in violence against even healthcare workers, traditionally understood to be neutral and not legitimate targets. “During the month of October 2015 alone, an MSF trauma center in Kunduz, Afghanistan was bombed, killing 42 staff and patients,” he said. “Twelve hospitals in Syria, including six supported by MSF, were attacked. And an MSF health center in Haydan, Yemen was destroyed.”
“These incidents have a direct and indirect consequence on MSF’s operational capacities and choices, and most importantly our ability to access and treat patients,” he said, lamenting the “unacceptable” choice to cease providing health services as a result of attacks, thereby increasing a conflict’s death toll by depriving many of life-saving medical care.
Stéphane Ojeda, Deputy Permanent Observer to the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, provided some historical context about the protection of the medical mission—the oldest aspect of the laws of war.
“The protection of the wounded and sick has been at the heart of international humanitarian law (IHL) from the start,” he said. This was the first protected category of the Geneva Conventions, he said, which constituted the norm of treating all sick and wounded, without discrimination or interference, as a keystone of civilized warfare.
Logically, it is impossible to protect the combatant without first protecting medical personnel, he said. “The IHL protection of the wounded and sick would be meaningless without its corollary protection of those taking care of the wounded and sick.”
Ojeda proposed we improve respect for existing international humanitarian law. “We do not need new rules,” he said. “What we need is a better implementation of the existing ones.”
Cone shared concerns about basic protections of international law being overruled by domestic legislation, often written with counter-terrorism as its impetus. “We observe states pushing national counter-terrorism laws or domestic laws, which contradict and often overrule IHL provisions on the protection of the medical mission; we need to see public reaffirmations that health facilities must never be a target.”
He called for improved transparency and accountability in the aftermath of attacks on healthcare facilities. At present, there is often little more than an internal review by the military of the perpetrator, he said. “Whenever an attack occurs, an impartial and independent mechanism should establish the facts,” he said. “States should commit to upholding these standards of fact-finding measures.”
Nata Menabde, Executive Director of the New York Office, World Health Organization (WHO), brought the perspective of the UN to the panel. She explained that a policy prescription must recognize there are both direct and indirect attacks on the healthcare infrastructure, transport, personnel, and patients.
Warfare tactics include obstructing access to health care services for ethnic or political minorities, and intimidating patients from seeking care. “These patients are shot in their beds, medical facilities are looted,” she explained. “That is again, sometimes a part of warfare tactics, not happening by chance, but a tactic.”
Patients are not the only ones intentionally targeted. She also highlighted the punishment of healthcare personnel for the performance of medical duties, such as attacks during the Ebola outbreak, and on polio vaccinators in Nigeria and Pakistan.
Drawing on the examples of current concerns in the field brought to light by her fellow panelists, she said the UN would aim to respond by improving data collection to enable the emergence of evidence-driven solutions. “WHO is committed to improve the standardization of data collection of attacks on healthcare in emergencies, and particularly to better understand consequences of those attacks longer term.”
The event was co-organized with the Permanent Missions of Egypt, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, and Uruguay to the UN.
Els Debuf, IPI Senior Adviser for Humanitarian Affairs, moderated the conversation.
Beinahe zwei Jahrzehnte nach Ausrufung des Ziels einer »drogenfreien Welt« blüht der globale illegale Drogenhandel. Dabei sind Routen und Märkte einem steten Wandel unterworfen, der Länder und Regionen vor immer neue Herausforderungen stellt. Gerade westafrikanische Staaten sind längst nicht mehr nur als Gebiete für den Transit von Kokain oder Heroin betroffen. Trotzdem haben sie bei den Vorbereitungen zur UN-Sondergeneralversammlung zum Weltdrogenproblem (UNGASS) Ende April 2016 kaum eine Rolle gespielt. Der Prozess hat aber neuen Schwung in die drogenpolitische Debatte der Region gebracht. Das bietet Ansatzpunkte für neue Partnerschaften, insbesondere mit Europa. Denn verschiedene westafrikanische Staaten und Organisationen haben sich der vergleichsweise progressiven drogenpolitischen Position der EU angenähert. Für einen wirklichen Wandel bedarf es aber nicht nur einer Abkehr nationaler Regierungen von den repressiven Ansätzen, die in Westafrika nach wie vor dominieren, sondern auch eines Umdenkens bei europäischen Programmen im Sicherheitsbereich.
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-gkcyiz").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-gkcyiz").fadeIn(1000);});});
On April 12-13, IPI, together with George Mason University, hosted a meeting in Vienna to discuss the costs of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and see what practical steps could be taken to enjoy the benefits of peace. As one participant asked, “Has enough time passed since the 2008 conflict to restore people to people contacts?” Another welcomed the opportunity “to meet and talk, instead of shooting.”
The meeting, which took place in the Palais Niederösterreich, brought together an eclectic group of Georgian and South Ossetian participants including local officials, political scientists, journalists, ombudsmen, students, economists, sociologists, archeologists, and representatives of civil society. They were joined by international experts from the Russian Federation, the United States, International Crisis Group, and Conciliation Resources, as well the European Union Monitoring Mission, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Representatives of donors from Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States also took part.
Discussions centered on a publication, launched at the meeting, entitled Cost of Conflict: Core Dimensions of the Georgian-South Ossetian Context, published by George Mason University. The report presents diverse views on the social, institutional, and economic costs of the conflict. These themes were raised in an open, frank, and constructive dialogue among the participants.
A particular focus was placed on the human costs of the conflict. This was illustrated by reading out interviews that had been made, particularly in rural communities, from people who had lived through the conflict and were struggling to cope in its aftermath.
The meeting also looked at the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in the context of broader geo-political tensions, including between Russia and Georgia, Russia and the West, Turkey and Russia, as well as the recent outbreak of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh.
At the meeting, an archaeologist from Georgia presented results from a project designed to make digital archive materials of archaeological and ethnographic expeditions to North and South Ossetia accessible to South Ossetian colleagues. The maps, drawings, paintings, and photos show the way of life of the peoples of the Caucasus over a period of more than a century. To applause from the participants, he handed a copy of the collection to a representative from South Ossetia.
In addition to assessing the costs of conflict, the participants tried to identify small, meaningful steps to improve the lives of people in the affected region. A positive example cited by many participants was the recent exchange of Abkhaz, Ossetian and Georgian prisoners.
Representatives of the diplomatic corps in Vienna were briefed on the main conclusions of the meeting at a wrap-up session.
The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution.