European Peace Institute / News

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

On May 15th, an IPI policy forum invited participants to discuss how social contracts are developed and adapted to different contexts to transform what are often unsustainable, short-lived elite bargains into more inclusive and durable arrangements for sustaining peace.

Hosted in collaboration with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), the University of Witwatersrand, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN, this conversation allowed member states and other key national stakeholders to engage with the findings of the research project Forging Resilient National Social Contracts. Using case studies from South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Tunisia to explore the creation of social contracts within contexts of conflict and fragility, the discussion highlighted the mechanisms through which agreements are struck that support prevention and sustaining peace.

In welcoming remarks, Endre Stiansen, Senior Research and Policy Advisor at the Oslo Governance Centre of UNDP, said that the subject of the event was “very opportune” for development organizations such as UNDP “because there is something about bringing the whole of society approach to the challenges that we face in the field now.”

Introducing the study, Bettina Luise Rürup, Executive Director of FES New York, explained that it “highlights the need for inclusive peace agreements and the importance of vibrant societal relations” in sustaining peace. Considering the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, she asserted that social contracts can be “the much-needed mechanism for inclusiveness and national ownership for peace sustaining processes.”

The specific challenges that the study sought to address, said Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Coordination, were how to create political settlements and institutions that deliver results inclusively, as well as drive social cohesion. “Inclusion is in essence about non-discrimination,” he said, “It is about bringing in those who are otherwise being excluded socially, excluded economically, excluded politically and often persecuted; it’s about upholding rights.”

Erin McCandless is an Associate Professor at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa and Research and Project Director of Forging Resilient Social Contracts. Her aim was to propose durable solutions to recurring conflict in fragile environments. Introducing her research, she defined the concept of social contract, as it is understood in the classical western tradition, as “forfeiting some rights for the achievement of others.”

While she contended that this “utilitarian decision of citizens” may not look the same everywhere, in her research she found “enduring themes that have kind of cut across different civilizations and across the globe.” Her research posed questions on the establishment of a governing body including, “what is the purpose of such agreements, who are they between, what mechanisms drive social contracts, and how do people address, with their leaders, questions of moral obligation and conflicting interests?”

Among the key findings were that “elite political settlements are just not sustainable. There is an emerging consensus in the policy realm around the importance of inclusion for sustaining peace,” she said. Inclusivity is necessary for a strong consensus among citizens to create a sustainable agreement.

Dr. McCandless said that the research findings pointed in particular to two compelling reasons why political settlements fail to become more inclusive and resilient social contracts. The first was the fact that core conflict issues are not effectively addressed over time through appropriate political settlements, allowing social conflict to become protracted and unresolvable. The second was that social contract-making mechanisms are “not effectively treated in coherent ways in the peace process.” She concluded that there was a need for greater focus on strengthening state-society relations and creating more accountable, durable policy.

Luka Kuol, Professor of Practice at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies of National Defense University in Washington, DC and Associate Professor at the University of Juba, South Sudan, called his country “the most fragile country in the world.” Even with its three peace agreements signed in 1972, 2005, and 2015, he said, the country is still in conflict.

“Such fragility is definitely a result of misrule by the elites,” he said, “But I think equally important was despite the good intention of the international actors, that they, to a certain degree, I could say, were less informed about the political marketplace and the drivers of social contracts.”

The peace processes failed from the lack of inclusivity in the country’s transition to statehood, including the constitution-making process, he said. “The process itself was so exclusive, it was led by one political party in isolation of the rest.” Uniquely for South Sudan, amid other African countries that emerged out of colonialism, “this idea of ‘common enemy,’” he said, “Is not glue for forging a social cohesion. South Sudan was anchoring its unity to how much they hate North Sudan. But once that common enemy is gone, then these tensions start surfacing.”

Dr. Kuol said he still believed there was hope for peace in South Sudan if it is built nationally. Ultimately, he said, it should be the role of the state and the citizens to create a social contract that focuses on inclusivity. “South Sudan stands a better chance of putting itself on the path of social contract and addressing the core driver of conflict,” he said. “What is lacking is the political leadership and visionary leadership.”

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an “elite social contract maintains the status quo,” said Jasmin Ramović, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester. Such a contract “exploits communal fears that existed…during the war and are persisting after,” he said. “Through patronage, they also maintain a control of their respective communities. But the underlying reason behind this elite social contract is mismanagement of economic resources to the advantage of a very small clique of people,” he said.

Dr. Ramović explained that the peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed in Dayton, Ohio, “unfortunately, and paradoxically, actually preserved the unity of the country and also divided the country in the same time.” This political settlement perpetuated the core conflict issue which was competing conceptions of territorial boundaries and loyalties, and the Dayton Peace Agreement created a hybrid government comprised of actors of each major ethnic group. This “bloated” administrative structure, though, ended up helping nationalist elites control employment and the public sector.

Instead, he said, “international actors should encourage initiatives, especially grassroots initiatives, which can expose the links between political, business, and judiciary elites.” This would, he argued, “unravel the elite social contract and provide channels so that the voice of a majority of the population could be heard.”

Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser and the event’s moderator, suggested three lessons for cultivating successful peace agreements based on the situation in Tunisia, his own country. The first was that “when the broad-based constitution was adopted in 2014, it became the social contract in post-revolution Tunisia.” The second, he explained, was that, “as you anxiously look for ways to strengthen the state, ensure that this does not put the onus on the state as the sole penholder of the social contract.”

The third was, “In attempts to keep at bay all kinds of isms, do not sacrifice on the altar of stability and security the oxygen that keeps voice alive and free, a voice that Tunisians have wrenched out of the jaws of the state. Without the oxygen, a resilient social contract is atrophied.”

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

The number of international migrants has grown by 49% since 2000, according to United Nations statistics, and incoming migrants often move to cities, which house 54% of the world’s population. Multilateral deliberations on migration policy tend to focus on the national level, although it is municipal leadership that often bears the brunt of providing services and facilitating integration for migrants. Developing appropriate and effective policy on migration requires perspective from the ground to be shared with national and international actors.

In October 2016, the UN General Assembly Adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which created an international commitment to future negotiations, an international conference, and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration in 2018 (GCM). On May 9th, IPI held a meeting to discuss how the compact’s policies can be more comprehensive and effectively put into place.

The event, hosted in collaboration with the Global Policy Initiative, Columbia University, the University of Ottawa, and The Open Society Foundations, was conducted under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution, and brought together key stakeholders in the compact’s implementation. Included were international mayors, UN representatives, and members of civil society.

Among the speakers were Penny Abeywardena, New York City Commissioner for International Affairs; Bitta Mostofi, Acting Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs in New York; Majid Batambuze, Mayor of Jinja, Uganda, and Chairman of the Urban Authority of Uganda; Cosimo Palazzo, Director of the Social Policy Department of Milan, Italy; Veronique Lamontagne, Director of the Bureau of Integration, Montreal, Canada; David Barclay, the Mayor’s Adviser on Inclusion in Bristol, UK; Eloisa Arruda, Human Rights Secretary in São Paulo, Brazil; Juan José Gómez Camacho, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN; Griet Seurs, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the UN; Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN; Colleen Thouez, Division Director of Welcoming and Integrated Societies at the Open Society Foundations–International Migration Initiative; Gregory Maniatis, OSF Initiative’s Director; Eva Åkerman Börje, Senior Policy Adviser, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration; and Suzanne Sheldon, Senior Policy Adviser of the Global Compact for Migration at IOM. Speaking for IPI was Vice President Adam Lupel, who moderated the discussion.

Speakers in the session noted that there is a common misunderstanding of the distinction between refugees and migrants, as well as documented and undocumented migrants, and migrants often face prejudice upon entering a country. City leadership does not determine who enters the country, but, speakers noted, it can be responsible for the treatment of migrants when they enter city parameters.

Participants asserted that city leaders could design meaningful migration programs, not because they are more creative or well-resourced, but because they operate at a more human scale. In a much commented upon statement, one speaker said, “People belong to a local community before they belong to a nation.”

The conversation stressed that integration does not stop just across the border, and neither should policy. For this reason, to ensure safe and orderly migration, cities should not only share principles of policy reform with their national governments, but they should also share insights among other cities worldwide.

However, participants noted, member states negotiate on behalf of the nation. Speakers encouraged city leaders to strengthen conversation with their representatives at the state level and ensure their advocacy is representative of the population.

Of concern to many speakers was a lack of information sharing between members of the municipal and federal governments, since records of immigration are often housed at the national level. Participants cited examples where the central government did not share migration data with the cities where migrants lived. A lack of data and regularly updated statistics of migrations as well as a lack of migration management systems make it difficult to monitor the exact impact of migration. In order to do so, comprehensive indicators need to be developed, and all migrants need to be documented.

Speakers in the session noted that a link could be made between improving migration policy and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Rather than intergovernmental organizations prescribing a solution to migration, participants declared, the best outcome is a policy that grows organically from the steps that city officials take, separate from institutions like the IOM and UN.

On May 18th, IPI together with Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders are cohosting a policy forum event on “Bridging the Emergency Gap: What Will It Take?”

During their acute phase, contemporary conflicts present a number of challenges for humanitarian actors. Insecurity, growing needs, and the obstruction, denial, or politicization of humanitarian assistance create an environment unfavorable to neutral, independent, and impartial humanitarian action. Even though the humanitarian sector has become increasingly professionalized and well-funded, MSF’s Emergency Gap Project reveals that the first few months of acute crises are often marked by a failure to provide lifesaving assistance and protection to those affected by violence. Beyond the external challenges of the operational environment, MSF also identifies a series of challenges within the humanitarian system itself that they perceive as contributing to this gap in emergency response.

This policy forum provided an opportunity to bring together different perspectives to explore concrete ways to reinforce the emergency response capacity of the humanitarian sector in complex, acute crises and to ensure that humanitarian actors adequately respond to both emergencies and more protracted crises.

Speakers:
Ms. Teresa Sancristóval, Director of Operations, Médecins Sans Frontières
Mr. John Ging, Director of Operations, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
Mr. Bob Kitchen, Vice-President of Emergencies, International Rescue Committee

Moderator:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, IPI

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

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

IPI Senior Visiting Fellow Alexandra Novosseloff told an IPI policy forum that aviation assets, the United Nations’ second biggest expenditure after personnel, were chronically shortchanged in mission planning, making them the “Achilles heel” of UN peacekeeping. “Ultimately it’s not UN rules that are the problem, it’s the persistent lack of needed assets and capabilities combined with the reluctance to use them that causes problems,” said Dr. Novosseloff, author of an IPI report on how UN missions’ air assets are organized, generated, managed, tasked, controlled, and commanded.

“As these expensive assets are scarce, relative to the large size of the territories covered, and often lack all the required capabilities, there is a chronic shortage of military air assets and, in particular, helicopters, in peacekeeping operations,” she said. “The financial pressure has already led some missions to further ‘rationalize’–meaning ‘reduce’–the use of their air assets, and the effect is that missions are less mobile and more constrained.”

She spoke at a May 1st IPI policy forum to launch the report, co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Bangladesh and Norway to the UN. Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Bangladesh’s Deputy Permanent Representative, opened the meeting by noting the importance of aviation in gathering peacekeeping intelligence, protecting civilians, and assuring the security of peacekeepers. But, he added, “The deployment of air assets is fraught with a number of challenges, both practical and procedural.”

May-Elin Stener, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Norway, singled out three specific problems. She said that the Secretariat should play a greater role in matchmaking for multinational rotation contributions, that cost-saving decisions to travel over land rather than by air should be reconsidered, given the increasing number of attacks on patrols and logistical convoys, and that air threat assessments by UN missions ought to be strengthened and better aligned with the judgments of the troop-contributing countries (TCCs).

One reform Dr. Novosseloff suggested was using national or regional aviation capacity for logistical tasks through partnerships with national companies in addition to subcontracting to international companies who have less local knowledge. Arguing for a more efficient approach to making the assets more applicable to the task at hand, she cited a negative example. “Why equip helicopters with night vision when they are not allowed to fly at night by the host nation?” she asked. “Requirements should be more realistic regarding the capacities of contributing countries.”

Air Commodore Muhammad Mafidur Rahman of the Bangladesh Air Force suggested that troop contributing countries be included in the original preparation and drafting of mandates to improve operational coordination so that there is a “realistic” assessment beforehand of their ability to contribute assets. This would set a “more congenial” atmosphere and create needed “mutual trust and respect,” he said.

Gregory Pece, chief of the Air Transport Section, Logistics Support Division of the UN Department of Field Support (DFS), related that his challenge in enhancing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of UN aviation was not about “doing more with less or the same with less but doing less with less—this is the financial environment in which we live.”

He enumerated a series of cost saving measures to meet military requirements, determine the capabilities of aircraft, crew and equipment, and track the movement of people and cargo. Getting them approved and installed would depend in part on getting the most reliable data possible, he said. “We need to come up with consistent, presentable, clear modes of presenting data so we can look at utilization.”

Jorge Jackson, chief of air operations at the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), said air operations in Africa had improved in the five years he has been with UNMISS but that improvisation was always necessary given the state of infrastructure on the continent. “Aviation is an interesting tool, but aviation is not the problem solver,” he said. “We have to realize that what we see here from the headquarters, when you go to the ground, it is something else.”

Patrick Cammaert, a retired Dutch Major General with command experience in UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and Eastern Europe, told of past experiences where UN missions lacked the means to do the assigned job. “We all know that criteria for success for a peacekeeping mission is an achievable mandate and the resources to match,” he said.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel moderated the discussion and in a concluding comment acknowledged that air assets for UN operations are too often “taken for granted. But,” he said, “if you dig a little bit below the surface–or above the surface as the case may be–you see that this is a topic with broad consequences, not just for UN peacekeeping, but for UN strategic effectiveness at large.”

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

A broad-based mediation plan in South Sudan to try to forge peace after violence devastated the country between 2013 and 2015 unraveled in a year, plunging the country back into conflict. On April 30th, IPI and the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations held a policy forum to discuss the subject and launch a new report A Poisoned Well: Lessons in Mediation from South Sudan’s Troubled Peace Process that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the mediation architecture and the role played by the individuals and institutions that tried with little success to put it in place.

Reviewing the lapsed process, Jouni Laaksonen, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Finland, said his country put a high premium on making it more inclusive. “The inclusive approach to peacebuilding is necessary for the achievement of permanent results, and sustaining peace requires the involvement of all actors, from different parts of society,” he said.

The report focused on the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the eight-nation bloc of African countries that led the mediation effort, along with other national and international actors. This network of regional interests, while welcome in principle, frequently broke down in practice, said the author of the report, Zach Vertin, Visiting Lecturer at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

“Mediators were not sufficiently empowered by their own bosses,” he said, “so when the process stalled, which was often, it would require the heads of state from the entire region to convene. This ate up huge amounts of time and resources and slowed the process at critical moments. Now this sustained commitment from high-level actors was important in a theoretical sense but at the same time had effectively undercut the mediators in the eyes of the parties.”

Two other critical roadblocks, Mr. Vertin said, were a failure to achieve consensus on the scope and nature of the problem and an absence of political will among the various sides in the struggle. He explained, “The parties themselves and South Sudan’s warring combatants not only lacked the will to make peace, there were often a number of them very hostile to the very idea of a negotiated settlement.” He said it raised the question of “how do outside actors compel a mediated resolution of a conflict between two parties bent on war?”

One specific failure he identified was not imposing an arms embargo on the fighters, in effect fueling more violence at the same time that peacemakers were trying to quell it.

Mr. Vertin spent the years 2013 to 2016 in South Sudan and Sudan, both as a US diplomat and an adviser to IGAD, and he said the experience left him pondering a larger question. “Is there a formula that couples regional players and their comparative advantage with other mediation expertise?”

Jok Madut Jok, Executive Director of The Sudd Institute and a resident of South Sudan, wondered if putting so much authority in the hands of outsiders and experts didn’t end up producing a “peace agreement, but no peace and stability in the real lives of people.” He also questioned how effectively they prioritized the needs of the local people over their own national ambitions.

He asked, “How can regional leaders who are mediating the situation in South Sudan be prevented from looking at South Sudan purely from the point of view of their own view, political interests? …How is it going to be possible to prevent them from only looking at the conflict from the point of view of how it affects them, and not necessarily from the perspective of what the South Sudanese need that peace agreement to look like?”

He added that he was skeptical of the value of global engagement in general in South Sudan because too often the South Sudanese exploited international assistance and took no action on their own to resolve conflict, assured that “the outside world would always bail them out.”

François Grignon, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations team leader for South Sudan since 2011, said the mediation process there had exposed the weakness of too much reliance on “textbook” remedies rather than ones developed to suit the realities of the country. “Unless we succeed to adapt our instruments to have leverage on the actors of the violence,” he said, “we will continue to struggle with mediation or with the peace process, which will miss the point, because it follows textbooks, or because it follows templates, which…may not be necessarily relevant and efficient and effective in addressing the specifics of this situation.”

“So,” he said, “maybe there’s another way to do it–civil engagement, civil activity. South Sudanese are so divided that they are afraid of each other. That if they are ever going to have a say in who rules them, then rebuilding those ethnic relations across the board is going to be the only way they can actually speak about removing a president and installing a transitional government up to the time when you will have elections.”

IPI Research Fellow Sarah Taylor was the moderator.

“He was a consummate professional, a dear friend to so many and so wonderfully decent. He will be sorely missed.” – Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, President & CEO of the International Peace Institute

By profession, Warren was a journalist, but by nature he was a diplomat—fully aware of the power of words to engage, to inform, to inspire, to change the world,” said Gillian Sorensen, former Assistant-Secretary-General for External Relations at the UN, when she spoke at Warren’s Celebration of Life on November 29th. The event brought together Warren’s beautiful family, friends, and colleagues to remember and honor Warren Hoge, and the positive impact he had on so many lives.

Warren came to the International Peace Institute as the first Vice President of External Relations following his extraordinary, event-filled 32-year career at The New York Times. Prior to coming to IPI he was the Chief UN Correspondent for the Times. He joined IPI in 2008—the same year IPI opened its own, dedicated event space, The Trygve Lie Center for Peace, Security & Development. I had recently joined the organization at that time, and I was fortunate to have him as my supervisor.

When I first met Warren, I was pregnant with my first child. Not long after meeting him, I experienced what many first-time mothers do and was rushed to the hospital thinking something was wrong, only to find I had Braxton Hicks (false labor). It happened so quickly that my husband called the office to let them know I had to miss work to go to the hospital. Not long after I was admitted, the phone wrang in my hospital room and – to my surprise – I heard a kind, radio-quality voice coming through the receiver. It was my new supervisor, Warren Hoge, who was calling to check on how I was doing and make sure I was OK. I was moved by his thoughtfulness and the concern he showed. This is one of countless stories that exemplify the compassion Warren had for his colleagues. His management style centered around kindness and care. He was deeply committed to the importance of family life and his face would light up whenever he spoke of his family. I am forever thankful for the opportunity to have learned from him, a person who valued connection and consistently acted with empathy and compassion—the building blocks of peace.

It was very fitting that he came to work at IPI after retiring from journalism. It was at a moment when IPI was beginning to reach out beyond the UN community and organize more events to bring together different sectors working toward our goal of creating a more peaceful and sustainable planet. Warren’s vast knowledge of world affairs, his deep conviction for the importance of international cooperation, coupled with his way of being in the world, informed how the organization evolved.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, IPI President and CEO reflected that, “He was a consummate professional, a dear friend to so many, and so wonderfully decent. He will be sorely missed.”

In her speech about Warren’s work with the UN, Gillian Sorensen rightly said, “He was an idealist without illusion. A caring critic of the UN. Never demeaning, never dismissive.” She also said, “He knew its [the UN] potential and its limits. He knew its impact on New York City and its many functions beyond peace and security, including health and human rights, and so much more… He believed the UN was imperfect but indispensable. That it was there … as a location for representatives from every nation on earth to come to be heard, to connect, to engage. He believed in the power of diplomacy to make a better world.”

During his time at IPI, Warren spearheaded the original redesign of the organization’s website, wrote NYT-quality coverage of our events, and created the “Distinguished Authors Event Series,” a series of evening receptions featuring authors of recently published books connected to pressing international relations concerns and peace. He co-produced and narrated IPI’s 40th Anniversary film; conducted interviews with world leaders and experts—including almost all of the 2016 candidates for UN Secretary-General; and was the most well-prepared of moderators for countless IPI panel discussions. He was also a devoted mentor to interns and junior staff, and someone who always took the time to provide advice and guidance to those who sought it.

He had a zest for life that uplifted those around him. Being from Manhattan, he developed throughout his life a great love for music, good food, and the theater. He also loved to sing and often filled the office with music, bringing a spirit of joy to the work.

After Warren’s passing, the UN Secretary-General’s Spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, announced to the UN press core, “After retiring from the Times, Warren moved to the International Peace Institute, where he remained deeply involved in international affairs, and kept in touch with so many of you. As we extend our condolences to his wife Olivia and their children, we remember Warren as a true gentleman reporter who was unfailing in his kindness, his easy grace, and detailed reporting of the ups and downs of this institution.”

Following this announcement, American journalist and UN Correspondent for the Associated Press, Edie Lederer, stated: “On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, we would also like to send condolences to the family and many friends of Warren Hoge around the world. He was a terrific journalist who reported from South America, Brazil, London, and many global hotspots before coming to the UN. As you so rightly said, he was a charming man and a great raconteur. And he will be greatly missed by all of us who knew him.”

Warren elevated IPI’s work beyond the UN community and into the broader international affairs community around the globe. He exemplified what peace means in practice. He had a natural way of connecting at a heart-level with all those he worked with and interacted with. He led IPI’s External Relations to new heights, broadening its audience and reach – always with sincerity, kindness, and respect. IPI is deeply grateful for his extraordinary contributions.

IPI’s Vice President and COO, Adam Lupel, who worked with Warren for 15 years said it well: “He was among the most memorable of characters imaginable—genuinely kind and generous to all, the greatest of storytellers, a gentleman of capacious heart and warm smile. He will be dearly missed.

His life lives on in the stories he told, the lives he influenced with his wisdom and wit, and his compassion and care. His empathy, genuine kindness, and contributions to creating a more peaceful world will always be remembered.

~ Mary Anne Feeney, IPI Senior Director for External Relations