European Peace Institute / News

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

On June 24 and 25th, 2018, the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS), the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland, and the African Union’s Centre for the Study and Research on Terrorism (ACSRT) organized the third regional conversations on the prevention of violent extremism: “Investing in Peace and Prevention of Violence in the Sahel-Sahara” in Algiers, with support from the Government of Algeria.

Formally opened by Abdelkader Messahel, Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the third edition of the regional conversations gathered eighty participants from the Sahel-Sahara region (North Africa, West Africa, and Central Africa), including political leaders and parliamentarians, civil society representatives (women’s and youth groups in particular), traditional and religious authorities, media representatives (in their capacity as experts), and representatives from governments and regional and international organizations.

Because the drivers of violent extremism exist at the local, national, regional, and global levels, it is now recognized that responses must also intervene at various levels. Participants thus focused on identifying preventive structures to addressing violent extremism and its causes in the Sahel-Sahara.

Four preventive structures were discussed: civil society organizations, in particular those led by women and youth; media coverage; security and defense forces; and finally the contribution of culture, citizenship, and education for prevention. Participants worked to formulate recommendations for preventive actions that could be implemented by practitioners in the region both within states and through regional and subregional groupings, in some cases with support from the UN and other partners, including support to new or existing mechanisms, processes, and initiatives at the local, national or regional level.

Participants also considered ways in which citizens, states, and their regional and international partners can most effectively work toward preventing violent extremism at the national and regional levels, taking into account the challenges and opportunities of the global context.

A key message of these conversations was that it is “better to include than exclude, better to engage than shun, in all prevention efforts.” Another lesson was the importance of local action. The various findings and recommendations from the two days of work underlined the complexity of violent extremism, and stressed the need to include prevention initiatives in a holistic and pragmatic approach focused on achieving concrete results. The third Regional Conversations further emphasized the importance of sharing and supporting the various successful experiences in order to strengthen the preventive approach in the treatment of violent extremism.

The third edition of the conference built on discussions previously held in Dakar (2016) and N’Djamena (2017) and also organized by UNOWAS, IPI and the FDFA.

Read the joint press communiqué (in French).

A meeting note in French, English and Arabic will follow.

On June 20th, IPI partnered with Challenges Forum and the UN Police Division to host a closed door roundtable , supported by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and Global Affairs Canada. This meeting, on the eve of the UN Chief of Police Summit, brought together police leaders, police advisers, and UN staff to discuss the changing role of police in peacekeeping operations and how police leadership can address these challenges. Participants discussed the integral role that police play in peace operations, and how this role can be further strengthened by addressing issues surrounding police leadership.

Police have an integral role in peace operations, and effective police leadership is key to missions achieving their mandate and building and sustaining peace. To further understand the challenges facing police leadership in the field, the International Peace Institute (IPI), Challenges Forum, and UN Police Division, with support from the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and Global Affairs Canada, organized a closed-door roundtable on June 20, 2018, on the eve of the UN Chiefs of Police Summit. This meeting brought together police leaders, police advisers, and UN staff to discuss the changing role of police in peacekeeping operations and how police leadership can address these challenges. Key takeaways from the discussion included the following:

• To prepare for handing over responsibility to state institutions, UN police need to build the capacity of national police—a task that goes beyond training and equipping, and one that is particularly challenging when the state has little presence. UN police must put in place an exit strategy, including clear benchmarks developed with the host country to ensure national ownership. They also need to serve as a model for national police by upholding human rights and maintaining discipline.
• Resources, including skill sets, need to be increased and matched with the needs of police. Deployments are often based not on need but on supply. Police leaders need to prepare for this lack of resources by having a clear political strategy to help them target a few key priorities rather than attempting to achieve all tasks simultaneously. Police leaders also need to coordinate with other sections and agencies working on similar tasks.
• As the first point of contact with communities, police are often responsible for local perceptions of the mission. When police are able to protect civilians and support national police in community policing, they can boost the legitimacy of the mission. But challenges arise when police are unable to deliver on their mandate or are perceived not to be delivering (e.g., due to unrealistic expectations). UN police need to communicate what they are there to do and what they can and cannot do and to use force correctly.
• The roles of the military and the police are different (e.g., police are often deployed long-term to build state capacity). But oftentimes, the senior leadership team is not clear about their distinct roles and responsibilities. This can be confusing and problematic if the military or police are asked to undertake tasks not within their role. Police leaders need to strongly communicate with the senior leadership team about their roles and to coordinate with the military component to ensure coherence and complementarity.
• Gender parity among UN police is needed to increase their capacity. Female police officers are particularly important to community policing. Police-contributing countries need to be encouraged to deploy female police officers, especially in remote areas national police cannot reach.
• Scenario-based training for senior leaders (pre-deployment or in-mission) can address gaps in knowledge, familiarize leadership with policies and standard operating procedures, and enhance coordination and communication between civilian, military, and police components. IPI has been developing training scenarios to build leadership skills for civilians, police, and military. These scenarios are meant to complement existing trainings such as those implemented by the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support to address challenges facing leaders in-mission, including those unique to police leadership.

Download the Meeting Brief>>

On Friday, June 22nd, IPI together with United Nations University – Centre for Policy Research are cohosting an all-day policy seminar on “Governing Artificial Intelligence.”

Remarks will begin at 9:10am EST*

This event aims to foster an informed discussion on the global public policy implications of AI. What opportunities and challenges does AI hold for humanity? What public policy puzzles emerge from the development and deployment of AI globally and in different political, economic, and social contexts? What role, if any, does the United Nations have to play in helping governments, industry, and civil society worldwide solve these policy puzzles?

Speakers at this event will include leading experts and practitioners in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as well as senior representatives from, among others:
Google
Microsoft
IBM
Harvard University
United Nations
World Economic Forum

Download the agenda

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

On Tuesday, June 19th, IPI together with the Institute for Economics and Peace are cohosting a policy forum to mark the release of the 12th edition of the Global Peace Index and discuss its value to the operationalization of sustaining peace.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to date on trends in peace. As the first analysis to methodically rank countries according to their levels of peacefulness and to identify potential determinants of peace, the GPI measures the peacefulness of 163 countries and territories, covering 99.7 percent of the world’s population. It is comprised of 23 indicators measuring the absence of violence across three domains: militarization, ongoing conflict, and societal safety and security. The report also includes a statistical analysis of “positive peace,” which is defined as the attitudes, institutions, and structures that empirically correlate to peace.

At this event, the key findings from the report will be examined, together with a closer examination of specific country-level findings. The discussion will also include analysis of the relationship between the measures of negative and positive peace included in the GPI, helping track national and global progress on achieving peace in various dimensions. Speakers will examine the potential implications of the findings for the sustaining peace agenda, providing a bridge between current policy discussions and data trends. The larger goal of this discussion is to provide diverse stakeholders with a better understanding of and approach to measuring and reporting on sustaining peace through analysis of what the evidence tells us about successful prevention efforts.

Speakers:
Michelle Breslauer, Program Director, Americas, the Institute for Economics and Peace
Robert Piper, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Director of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP
Susanna Campbell, Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University
Vanessa Wyeth, Senior Political and Public Affairs Officer (Peacebuilding), Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN

Moderator:
Lesley Connolly, IPI Senior Policy Analyst

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

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

The international community has developed a wide array of policies, frameworks, and structures to help respond to health needs in conflict-affected settings, but the international health response still faces gaps and challenges. On June 7th and 8th, 2018, IPI and the Global Health Centre of the Graduate Institute took up this subject in a retreat in Geneva on “Doctors in War Zones: International Policy and Health Care in Armed Conflict.”

Participants debated how we can rethink and redefine existing collaboration models, governance structures, and accountability mechanisms for health and humanitarian actors to ensure the adequate delivery of health services in conflict-affected settings.

The retreat started with a high-level dinner, and was followed by a full day workshop comprised of three moderated discussions on the challenges of delivering health care, health governance systems, and accountability in international health systems in conflict-affected settings.

Opening the retreat with a keynote address at the high-level dinner, Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, focused on the issue of attacks on healthcare, highlighting the fact that despite the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2286 two years ago, attacks on health care workers continue to occur every week. He stressed that there are multiple avenues to be explored, including better understanding of what influences the behavior of belligerents, and engaging in a privileged dialogue with military commands. He acknowledged that we cannot “fundamentally change the fact that powers have different interests,” but that we can change “their consideration of the health impact of their warfare,” which is underlined and reinforced by data.

During the first session, on the challenges of providing health care services in conflict-affected settings, the experience of individuals providing such services in these challenging settings was put front and center, with Dr. Monica Rull of Médecins Sans Frontières emphasizing “the whole dimension of people who cannot access these services.”

Dr. Hanna Kaade, co-founder of the German Global Surgery Association, outlined a series of challenges he personally faced as a medical doctor in Aleppo, Syria, from essential medical equipment being taken out of ambulances at check points, to having to perform surgery under the light of a mobile phone after an electricity shut down. Other challenges such as the difficulty of providing chronic care in conflict-affected settings, the inadequate prioritization of programs, and the impact of contemporary counterterrorism measures were also noted.

On the issue of attacks on health care, some participants stressed the need for continued political and diplomatic efforts, as well as more robust and joined-up humanitarian diplomacy. David McCoy of Queen Mary University, London, encouraged thinking beyond the humanitarian lens to the link between health and peace, stating that “the health community has the legitimacy and mandate to work more upstream” on the prevention of violence and conflict.

Speakers in the second session, on health governance systems in conflict-affected settings, provided an overview of the existing structures and procedures that guide the international health response in such settings, with a focus on the functioning of the UN cluster system, the Inter-Agency Steering Committee L3 Activation Procedure for infectious diseases, and the role of the World Health Organization (WHO). Key challenges mentioned were the use, in protracted crises, of structures that were designed for the short-term, insufficient flexibility and fluidity of the existing system, and the difficulty of transitioning to government-led responses. It was nonetheless stated that there is a distinct reduction in officially activated clusters, with, in many contexts, governments wanting to lead their response, enabled by the international community.

Annie Sparrow, Assistant Professor at the ICAHN School of Medicine, noted the “tension between sovereignty and suffering” that the WHO and other UN agencies face in humanitarian settings, limiting their ability to respond to health needs. Several participants pointed to ways of better working with the existing system, including by better engaging local actors and leveraging outside voices, ensuring that the right people are being hired, and suggesting that civil society actors do more to hold governments and UN bureaucracies to account.

Accountability, or the lack thereof, was identified as a key issue in existing health governance systems, with Mukesh Kapila, Professor of Global Health and Humanitarian Affairs at Manchester University, describing the system as being “self-validating” and “self-certifying” and calling for an independent accountability mechanism.

The final session of the day focused on the crucial question of accountability in international health systems in conflict-affected settings. Participants discussed various types of accountability for health services provided in conflict-affected settings, from performance, to financial and international accountability. An over-emphasis on accountability to donors as opposed to accountability to affected populations was highlighted, as well as the need for stronger community engagement.

Dr. Francesco Checchi of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, stressed that when there is a lack of accountability, the impact of the health response is attenuated and can lead to what he described as “malpractice in humanitarian healthcare.” He put forward a series of concrete possible ways to ensure better accountability, including setting up an inter-agency humanitarian healthcare governance project, and having an independent auditing body administer accountability on behalf of affected people.

The retreat was attended by representatives of country missions to the UN, and other international organizations in Geneva, global health and humanitarian experts from the UN, and other international organizations, as well as academics. It is part of a broader research project conducted by IPI on these issues, which will result in a final policy report.

The agenda for the event is available here, and the background paper can be found here.

On Tuesday, June 12th, IPI together with Sophia University in Tokyo, Kakenhi, One Earth Future, and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN are cohosting a policy forum on “The Importance of Inclusivity for Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace.”

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

Central to the goal of sustaining peace is the recognition that in order for peacebuilding to be effective, it must be locally owned and informed by people-centered approaches. This is a principle theme of the twin General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions (70/262 and 2282 respectively), adopted on 27 April 2016, and the Secretary-General’s report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace, released on 18 January 2018. The proven impact of inclusive processes on long-term peace is considerable; establishing close partnerships with local actors allows for a better understanding of key concerns and needs. Rather than imposing peacebuilding plans and strategies from the outside, the focus should be on strengthening the capacities of national and local actors in the design and implementation of plans and activities, with the aim of including those who may be marginalized within society.

This call for inclusive national ownership of peacebuilding policy and practice has grown louder in recent years with the focus on sustaining peace. While there is a consensus on the importance of locally-focused approaches to peacebuilding and sustaining peace, translating these principles into practice is an enduring challenge for the United Nations, international organizations, and national governments.

This policy forum will provide a platform for scholars and practitioners to discuss the value of and challenges surrounding inclusivity within peacebuilding and sustaining peace. Drawing on a series of case studies and published research, presentations at this event will provide reflections on how the international community can engage better with local peacebuilders in an inclusive manner in order to sustain peace in challenging contexts.

Opening Remarks:
Mr. Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination, United Nations

Speakers:
Dr. Daisaku Higashi, Professor, Deputy Director at Center for Global Cooperation and Training, Sophia Institute of International Relations, Sophia University in Tokyo
Dr. Conor Seyle, Director, OEF Research, One Earth Future Foundation
Ms. Hasini Haputhanthri, Author of the Sri Lanka Case Study, IPI’s Local Networks for Peace: Drawing Lessons from Community-led Peacebuilding

Moderator:
Mr. Jake Sherman, Director of the Center for Peace Operations, IPI

Closing Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Yasuhisa Kawamura, Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.



IPI’s Youssef Mahmoud spoke at a high level seminar on sustaining peace with particular focus on African women mediators. The event was convened by the African Union Commission, Belgium, and the International Peace Institute on April 25, 2018.

Reflecting on mediation processes through a sustaining peace lens, Mr. Mahmoud questioned the assumptions informing the current “mediation paradigm,” in light of the changes in the nature of contemporary conflict. Helping conflict parties move from violence to politics through mediation should not be equated with peace. Ending war and building peace, while interconnected, are separate processes.

Women mediators at the grassroots level are the “custodians of peace, even amidst devastation” he observed. They should not be invited to participate in peace processes, just to be consulted or represent women’s issues only. “If they are good enough to be at the table, why can’t they participate in designing it?”

Mr. Mahmoud added that while training may be necessary, it should be driven by the humility to recognize that women mediators are not blank pages. “They have capacities, not just needs.” Building on what they know and what they have “will unleash their leadership potential to sustain peace.”

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

The 48th annual Vienna Seminar took place on June 5, 2018, with the focus, “European Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.” In the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, the seminar examined the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations as well as the operations’ effectiveness.

Co-sponsored by IPI, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe Integration of Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Ministry of Defence, the seminar presented different perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Participants included experts from IPI, the European External Action Service, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Vrije Universiteit in Brussels, as well as government officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, and France, along with leaders from UN peacekeeping missions and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

In session one on strategic context for UN peacekeeping, speakers noted that recent European engagement in peacekeeping missions—outside of longstanding contributions to missions like UNIFIL—has been driven by specific crises, and influenced by concerns regarding counterterrorism, migration flows, and humanitarian issues. They agreed that European countries have provided niche capabilities to specific missions, and there is currently little appetite to expand to other operations.

Participants noted that Europe is experiencing a rise in “Euro-isolationism.” Some countries, like the UK and France, have reaffirmed their commitment to collective security, but many European countries are increasingly focused on territorial defense. These trends take place amid a seeming retreat from multilateralism.

Session two offered space for diverse perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. A key discussion point was that European Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) generally bring both the capacity and willingness to project and use force, a high level of professionalism and standards of training and preparedness, as well as, of equipment and niche capabilities that may otherwise be in short supply. While these traits are not unique to European troop contributing countries, they are generally shared by European peacekeepers.

Session three addressed the challenges of contemporary UN peacekeeping. The UN has adapted to European expectations regarding intelligence and medical capacity based on their experience with NATO, participants stated. But European countries have also adjusted to UN operations. While operational challenges and gaps still remain, including in areas of logistics, enablers, alignment of responsibility with authority, and security in hostile environments, there has been significant innovation in technology that aids peacekeeping missions, measurement of performance, and efforts to improve medical response.

In the final session, speakers discussed ways to move forward in sustaining European involvement in UN peacekeeping. European contributions to UN peacekeepers do appear sustainable in the near future, they said, but may be influenced by national political considerations, including the tensions emerging between internationalists and more-populist political constituencies. In this light, communicating success is important—less to incentivize participation than to prevent diminishment.

Recent European contributions embody innovative approaches to supporting UN peacekeeping. From employing multinational rotations to engaging through bilateral, trilateral and regional mechanisms, European countries successfully mobilize diverse capabilities to help the UN address clear needs. However, sustainable and comprehensive European engagement must move beyond short-term deployments of specialized troops and capabilities. Although Europe’s interests in UN peacekeeping will be driven largely by those crises that impact its security, European countries can nonetheless offer even more to the UN.

Europe can channel sustained diplomatic and financial support to political processes in host countries and to negotiations over peacekeeping budgets and UN reforms. Ensuring troops from across the continent are trained on UN peacekeeping standards and guidelines can greatly improve interoperability and cohesion in the field. Recognizing the added value of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) deployments, partnerships and tailored configurations will be increasingly important for mobilizing European commitment to the values and practice of collective security.

The event was held in the Austrian National Defence Academy. Lieutenant-General Karl Schmidseder, the Director General of Operations at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence, gave welcoming remarks, and IPI Vice President Adam Lupel introduced the event.

Other participants included:

• Major-General Michael Beary, Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Damien Cole, Director of the Policy Planning Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland
• Diane Corner, Former Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
• Koen Davidse, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
• Clara Ganslandt, Head of Division, Partnerships & Agreements, Crisis Management and Planning Directorate, European External Action Service
• Richard Gowan, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• Manuel Lafont-Rapnouil, Head of the Paris Office and Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• John Karlsrud, Senior Research Fellow, Peace and Conflict Research Group, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
• Corinne Kitsell, UN Co-ordinator, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom
• Joachim Koops, Dean of the Vesalius College, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• Rolf Landgren, Senior Police Advisor to the Civilian Operations Commander, Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, European External Action Service
• Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute
• Andreas Riecken, Director-General for EU and Multilateral Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
• Jean-Marc Séré-Charlet, Deputy Director, United Nations, International Organizations, Human Rights and the Francophonie, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France
• Jake Sherman, Director of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
• Adam Smith, Chief, Policy and Best Practices, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Brigadier-General Reinhard Trischak, Head of the Military Policy Division, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence
• Oliver Ulich, Head of the UN Policy, Evaluation and Training Division, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
• Peter van der Vliet, Director of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

Libya’s overarching statelessness, and the violence and lawlessness that result, permeate the country, which is plagued by local-level conflicts. However, local mediation efforts have flourished over the last few years. As a senior UN official noted, “Local mediation is the best thing that has happened in Libya since the revolution.”

This report examines these local mediation processes to explore the significance of their impact. It focuses on the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the support it provides internal efforts in Libya to solve local conflicts or the mediation of such disputes. It also describes and analyzes how Libyans themselves are able to address and resolve local conflicts, or at least contain their escalation.

The report offers a number of lessons based on the challenges UNSMIL has faced in supporting local mediation efforts in Libya. These include the importance of leveraging soft power, taking a coordinated and long-term approach, linking the local and national levels, ensuring sovereignty and local ownership, intervening through local mediators, and expanding beyond traditional political actors.

Download

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Elizabeth C. Economy, author of The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State. The conversation will be moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

Remarks will begin at 6:20pm EST*

In The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State, eminent China scholar Elizabeth C. Economy provides an incisive look at the world’s most populous country. Inheriting a China burdened with slowing economic growth, rampant corruption, choking pollution, and a failing social welfare system, President Xi has reversed course, rejecting the liberalizing reforms of his predecessors. At home, Xi has centralized power in his own person, and the Chinese leadership has reasserted the role of the state in society and enhanced party control. Beyond its borders, Beijing has recast itself as a great power and has maneuvered itself to be an arbiter—not just a player—on the world stage. The Third Revolution argues that Xi’s dual reform trajectories—a more authoritarian system at home and a more ambitious foreign policy abroad—provide Beijing with new levers of influence that the West must learn to exploit to protect its own interests. Commenting on the book, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, said, “For the first time in modern history, we have a communist country poised to be the biggest and most important driver of the global free market. That’s astonishing. And we still don’t know what makes China’s political leadership—and Xi Jinping in particular—tick. If that freaks you out (and it should) Liz Economy’s book is the place to start.”

IPI’s Distinguished Author Series brings critically acclaimed writers to IPI to present on international issues and to engage in a lively discussion with experts from permanent missions to the UN and other members of the foreign affairs community in New York.

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

Three years after the signing of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, many key provisions remain unimplemented. Threats posed by violent extremists and intercommunal violence exacerbate an already tense political environment, impeding the political process and the restoration and extension of state authority. These violent dynamics have claimed the lives of civilians, Malian security forces, MINUSMA peacekeepers, and French forces. Instability threatens to undermine the free and fair presidential elections scheduled for July as well as regional and municipal elections that are expected to take place later in the year.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 8, 2018, to discuss MINUSMA’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop offered a platform for member states and UN actors to develop a shared understanding and common strategic assessment of the situation in Mali. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

With a focus on providing support to the political process, the extension of state authority, security sector reform, and to other security actors, participants discussed how the Council could reflect these strategic priorities in the upcoming MINUSMA mandate. Several participants also highlighted potential tensions among mandated tasks, noting the need to consider more closely how each fits into the mission’s political strategy in order to achieve the Council’s strategic objectives.

Download

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

Members of different communities, ethnic groups, faiths and nationalities gathered around a Ramadan meal in solidarity with an interreligious group of people who were fasting to cement commitments to peace, tolerance and respect within faiths in Manama, May 30, 2018 at the International Peace Institute, Middle East & North Africa, (IPI MENA).

Marking the middle of the holy month of Ramadan with an Iftar, or fast breaking meal, hundreds of people from different religious and nationality affiliations gathered in a church, for an “Iftar for Peace.” The initiative was hosted by Al Bayareq Al Baydhaa, (The White Flags,) in cooperation with the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA), and IPI MENA.

The event was attended by ambassadors, government officials, dignitaries and religious leaders who served food and beverages to interreligious guests at the National Evangelical Church in a united call for interfaith peace.

In a statement to the media, Ausamah Al Absi, Head of LMRA, stressed the need for peaceful coexistence between faiths and cultures to ensure that “civil societies, international bodies, and government bodies can come together” to harmonize principles of tolerance and respect.

Reverend Hani Aziz, Pastor of the National Evangelical Church and Head of the Bahrain Society for Tolerance and Interfaith Coexistence, reinforced this view in his statement, stressing the diverse communities obligation is to incorporate and integrate all layers of society in order to create a culture of acceptance and therefore peace.

Noting the very diverse interfaith attendees, Nejib Friji, Director, IPI MENA, stated their contribution to the Iftar for Peace was a testament of their commitment, as well as “the Kingdom of Bahrain, IPI and all other nations represented by their ambassadors, towards the need to further reinforce the culture of peace and Interfaith Dialogue that is deeply enshrined in all beliefs and faiths.” He hailed the interfaith unity illustrated by the ambassadors and officials serving those who had been fasting this important meal. He said the event “carries more than one message.” Friji called on the “regional and multilateral system to stand together to serve all causes of peace through a united interfaith dialogue.”

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting the live broadcast of the opening remarks and first session panel of it’s 48th Annual Vienna Seminar entitled “European Contributions to UN Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.”

Remarks will begin at 9:00am CET.

The 2018 Vienna Seminar will focus on lessons from recent European engagement in United Nations peace operations. The aim of this year’s seminar is to examine the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations in the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, and better understand the impact of European participation on the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations.

Download the Agenda

The International Peace Institute (IPI) is pleased to announce the Honorable Kevin Rudd has been elected unanimously by IPI’s board of directors as the board’s next chair, effective June 01, 2018. Mr. Rudd was Vice Chair of IPI’s board since June 2014.

Mr. Rudd succeeds Professor Michael Doyle, Director of the Columbia Global Policy Initiative at Columbia University, who has served as interim Chair since May 2016. Dr. Doyle was Vice President of IPI (then IPA) from 1993-1996 and has been on IPI’s board since 1997.

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the staff of the Institute, I would like to thank Professor Michael Doyle for his outstanding work in various capacities at IPI, where he has served for over 20 years. Michael has consistently shown extraordinary loyalty and dedication through his valuable contributions to IPI. He has skillfully mentored numerous young researchers over the years, who now serve important positions in international organizations, governments, academics, and non-governmental organizations across the globe. I would like use this opportunity to thank my friend Michael for the exceptional work he has done for IPI and the good of the global community we are serving.

The Honorable Kevin Rudd has served with extraordinary skills and dedication as the Vice Chair of the board of directors of IPI since 2014, and has lent invaluable support to the Chair of the board and the President and CEO. Through his chairmanship of IPI’s Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), he was a skillful helmsman who, together with his fellow members and IPI staff, produced a series of reports which gave new perspectives to the challenges of the future of the multilateral system, and guidelines and advice on how to address the dangers and opportunities alike. I would like to warmly welcome Kevin as our new Chairman. And I am looking very much forward to working closely with him in pursuing IPI’s objectives of peace and reconciliation through policy research, advice, and our convening and outreach capacity.”

Mr. Rudd served as Australia’s 26th Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010, then as Foreign Minister from 2010 to 2012, before returning to the Prime Ministership in 2013. As Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd led Australia’s response during the Global Financial Crisis. Australia’s fiscal response to the crisis was reviewed by the IMF as the most effective stimulus strategy of all member states. Australia was the only major advanced economy not to go into recession. Mr. Rudd is also internationally recognized as one of the founders of the G20 which drove the global response to the crisis, and which in 2009 helped prevent the crisis from spiraling into a second global depression.

As Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr. Rudd was active in global and regional foreign policy leadership. He was a driving force in expanding the East Asia Summit to include both the US and Russia in 2010. He also initiated the concept of transforming the EAS into a wider Asia Pacific Community to help manage deep-routed tensions in Asia by building over time the institutions and culture of common security in Asia. On climate change, Mr. Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 and legislated in 2008 for a 20% mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. Mr. Rudd drove Australia’s successful bid for its non-permanent seat on the United Nation’s Security Council and the near doubling of Australia’s foreign aid budget.

Mr. Rudd joined the Asia Society Policy Institute as its inaugural President in January 2015.

Mr. Rudd remains engaged in a range of international challenges including global economic management, the rise of China, climate change and sustainable development. In 2015-16, Mr. Rudd led a review of the UN system as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism. In February 2014, Mr. Rudd was named a Senior Fellow with Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he completed a major policy paper, U.S.-China 21: The Future of U.S.-China Relations Under Xi Jinping. He is Chair of Sanitation and Water for All, a Distinguished Fellow at Chatham House in London, a Distinguished Statesman with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Paulson Institute in Chicago. Mr. Rudd is a member of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s Group of Eminent Persons. He serves on the International Advisory Board of the Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University, and is an Honorary Professor at Peking University. Mr. Rudd is proficient in Mandarin Chinese. He also remains actively engaged in indigenous reconciliation.

The International Peace Institute is an independent, international not-for-profit think tank dedicated to managing risk and building resilience to promote peace, security, and sustainable development. To achieve its purpose, IPI employs a mix of policy research, strategic analysis, publishing, and convening. With staff from more than twenty countries and a broad range of academic fields, IPI has offices across from United Nations headquarters in New York and offices in Vienna and Manama. IPI’s research covers aspects of peace, cooperation, and multilateralism including UN reform, peace operations, sustaining peace and prevention, peace and health, humanitarian affairs, WPS (women, peace and security), and the intersection of the Sustainable Development Goals and peace. IPI also produces the analysis website The Global Observatory.

The 2015 UN High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed two major themes that Secretary-General António Guterres continues to focus on: first, the primacy of politics in peacekeeping, which he raised in his September 2017 remarks at the Security Council open debate on peacekeeping; and second, the core obligation of peacekeepers and the entire UN to protect civilians, a continuous theme of his tenure.

Yet protecting civilians and pursuing political strategies, the defining tasks of modern peacekeeping, have frequently been in tension. Critics argue that peace operations in the last two decades have too often been tools of last resort, deployed to conflicts with no viable political process and serving as stop-gap measures rather than strategic steps toward a political solution. This is particularly evident in missions whose mandate to protect has been prioritized in the absence of a clear political vision to address the conflict.

This issue brief reviews the complementarity and tension between protection of civilians and political strategies. It explores the important role of the Security Council in laying the strategic groundwork for the success of missions, and examines how missions, at their level, can implement protection of civilians mandates through a political strategy.

Download

On May 23rd, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum event on “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action.” The event follows the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians). It is co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.

Over the last decade and a half, terrorism has increased and spread to a number of countries. Counterterrorism measures are key to ensuring our individual and collective security. As states recognized in Security Council Resolution 70/291, it is important that counterterrorism legislation and measures “do not impede humanitarian and medical activities or engagement with all relevant actors as foreseen by international humanitarian law.” However, relevant Security Council resolutions give member states no concrete guidance as to what this implies at the domestic level. Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by negatively impacting the provision of assistance and protection in accordance with humanitarian principles.

This policy forum helps to identify better ways and means of ensuring that counterterrorism measures do not adversely affect the protection of civilians, instead safeguarding and ensuring the protection of healthcare and principled humanitarian action. It explores concrete ways for states to implement counterterrorism measures in line with their other international obligations, as provided for by relevant UN resolutions, and take stock of existing initiatives working toward this goal. The event also identifies ways in which member states and relevant institutions can concretely follow up on specific work streams in order to enhance the protection of civilian in the fight against terrorism.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations

Moderator:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute

Confirmed speakers:
Mr. Yves Daccord, Director-General, International Committee of the Red Cross
Ms. Naz Modirzadeh, Director, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict
Ms. Marine Buissonnière, Independent Researcher and Consultant working with the UN Special Rapporteur on Health

On Thursday, May 24th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum entitled “The Primacy of Politics and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping Operations.” This policy forum will explore the perceived and actual tensions between the pursuit of political solutions and the protection of civilians in peacekeeping contexts. The event will follow the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians).

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

This event is the first as part of IPI’s recently launched Protection of Civilians Project. While the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed the “primacy of politics,” UN peacekeeping missions are often mandated to protect civilians in challenging environments where the peace process has stalled and political solutions seem out of reach. In these contexts, protecting local populations from physical violence may appear to be an operational imperative for the mission and a priority over engagement in protracted and uncertain political processes.

This policy forum will provide an opportunity to discuss situations where there is a risk of competition between the primacy of politics and the centrality of protection, as well as where they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. While the two objectives are hardly mutually exclusive, in practice pursuing both can raise challenging questions. In South Sudan, Darfur, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN mission’s political role may seem elusive, and its protection goals may appear to detract from its political effectiveness. The political stance of UN missions intervening in support of host states may also be an important limitation for peacekeepers mandated to protect civilians from all threats of physical violence—including from host-state forces.

In these situations, where civilians are clearly at risk, how should peace operations reconcile political strategies and the protection of civilians? In the absence of viable political processes at the strategic level, what political measures and strategies can be used in parallel with military operations to protect civilians on the ground?

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Karel J. G. van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations

Speakers:
Mr. Ralph Mamiya, Consultant; formerly Protection of Civilians Team Leader, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Sébastien Lapierre, Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, UN Department of Peacekeeping operations
Ms. Daniela Kroslak, Leader, Darfur Integrated Operational Team, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Ms. Chloé Marnay-Baszanger, Chief, Peace Mission Support Section, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Alison Giffen, Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict

Moderator:
Dr. Namie Di Razza, Research Fellow, International Peace Institute

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

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

An evening discussion among peacebuilders was held at IPI, May 16, 2018, on women’s meaningful participation in negotiating peace and the implementation of peace agreements.

The meeting, convened by UN Women and IPI, brought together internationally recognized peacebuilders, officials from the United Nations, diplomats, and representatives of civil society. The event was held as part of an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) convened by UN Women in preparation for the Secretary-General’s annual report on women, peace and security, expected in October.

Teresa Whitfield, Director of the Policy and Mediation Division at the United Nations Department of Political Affairs; said that the meeting built upon the work these stakeholders have undertaken thus far to explore what makes women’s participation “meaningful” in the context of negotiating peace. She reminded participants that the Secretary-General’s report last year unequivocally stated, “inclusive processes should be the rule, not the exception.”

The EGM participants have worked to support joint strategizing to overcome the persistent barriers to inclusion, representation, and meaningful participation. The international community must continue to articulate ways of moving beyond words to action in implementation of women, peace and security commitments, she said.

The conversation was seen as one of the preliminary steps on the “collective road” to 2020, the year in which the landmark Security Council resolution 1325 will observe its 20th anniversary.

Ms. Whitfield moderated a panel discussion between Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President & CEO of the International Crisis Group, and member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation; and Rosa Emilia Salamanca, Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Action. Ms. Salamanca addressed inclusivity in the Colombian peace process and gender-sensitive peace agreements.

Overarching themes that emerged from the discussion included the need for meaningful participation of women in decision-making positions in all efforts to end conflict, including formal peace negotiations, as well as power sharing, disarmament and ceasefire arrangements, humanitarian access agreements and implementation mechanisms; women in leadership roles in negotiation teams; delivering on the commitment to civil society inclusion in mediation processes; the essential role of international community in the transition phase to support the implementation of gender-relevant provisions; and the importance of gender sensitive provisions in agreements for gender responsive implementation.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel, and Paivi Kannisto, Chief, Peace and Security Section, UN Women delivered the opening remarks.

On May 16th, IPI together with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, cohosted a policy forum to launch the publication of an IPI policy paper on the formulation of peacekeeping policy through intergovernmental bodies at the UN.

Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have often been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.

As the UN reaches another important junction in peacekeeping reform, this paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what need to be considered to build consensus on its future direction.

Read the report >>

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Ms. Gillian Bird, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations
Mr. David Haeri, Director, Department for Policy, Evaluation and Training, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations

Speakers:
Ms. Lisa Sharland, Head of International Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Ms. Inderjit Nijjar, First Secretary Peacekeeping, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations
Mr. Eugene Chen, Office of the Under-Secretary-General, United Nations Department of Field Support
Colonel Sandeep Kapoor, Military Adviser to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations
Dr. Craig Mills, First Secretary Peacekeeping and Africa, Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations

Moderator:
Dr. Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.

This paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what needs to be considered to build consensus on its future direction. The paper offers several recommendations for the Secretariat, member states, and other stakeholders to strengthen the value and outcomes of intergovernmental processes, as well as the partnerships that guide the formulation of UN peacekeeping policy:

1. Foster understanding of UN peacekeeping challenges and the policymaking process.
2. Strengthen consultation mechanisms.
3. Demonstrate leadership and identify a shared vision.
4. Improve information sharing, reporting, and accountability.
5. Encourage awareness of challenges in the field among stakeholders in New York.

Download