European Peace Institute / News

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

Michele J. Sison, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, told an IPI audience that as societies attempt to come to terms with a legacy of past abuses, their transitional justice processes must focus on the victims, not just the perpetrators.

Transitional justice should focus on a “victim-centered approach that responds to the needs and perceptions of families, and the needs and perceptions of communities, as opposed to solely punishing perpetrators,” she said.

Ms. Sison highlighted the importance of including civil society from the beginning of the process. “These transitional justice processes must put victims and vulnerable groups at the very center of our strategies,” she said.

She emphasized it was especially important to consult marginalized groups, such as ethnic minorities and youth. “These groups must play an active role in the design and in the implementation of a transitional justice mechanism,” she said.

Ambassador Sison’s remarks opened a panel discussion on “Civil Society and Transitional Justice Processes: How International Actors Can Promote a More Inclusive Approach,” held at IPI October 29th, 2015. High-level panelists discussed how international actors could contribute to processes that ensure justice, accountability and reconciliation.

The event also marked the launch of a new US State Department report, Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement. The report is designed to offer guidance on how donors may better integrate civil society into their transitional justice funding strategies.

María Emma Mejía Vélez, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, brought a first-hand perspective on transitional justice to the panel.

Colombia has been embroiled in civil war for six decades. The government and the guerrilla group Fuerzas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) began a peace process in October 2012, and the negotiations yielded an agreement this September.

The resulting innovative transitional justice framework, Sistema Integral de Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición (Cohesive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and No Repetition), was unveiled in Havana, along with a timeline to finalize negotiations by March 23rd, 2016.

In a show of good faith, FARC promised to disarm and demobilize within 60 days of signing the agreement.

Ms. Mejía said Colombia’s transitional justice framework “aims to get the maximum possible satisfaction for the victim’s rights.”

She said the framework would achieve this through four key pillars: a truth commission, a special jurisdiction for peace, a special unit for persons who have “disappeared,” and administrative measures for reparation.

The Ambassador added that Colombia aimed to fulfill all of its international commitments in the peace process, the first to be held since the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), entered into force in 2002.

On the negotiations, she said it would be “easy to say, ‘It’s over with,’ peace, and take the photos,” after they conclude.

Instead, she implored the audience to remember that achieving an agreement is only a first step. “The work will begin March 23rd,” she said. “It’s not the end, it’s just the beginning of a society that has not been reconciled to find out how we will be able to live together, those who have been confronted for so many long decades.”

Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN, addressed the importance of civil society for justice, accountability, and reconciliation. “It is doubtful that any transitional justice institution has ever been successful without engaging civil society,” he said.

Mr. Pedersen emphasized three elements of transitional justice—jobs, security and justice—that can make possible democratization, sustainable development and peacebuilding. “It is a no-brainer,” he said. “We need both the state and civil society if we are to be successful in working on these issues.”

Habib Nassar, Executive Director of the Global Network for Public Interest Law (PILnet), spoke to his experience in civil society advocacy in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region.

Mr. Nassar lamented “the growing role of the international and a standardization of the field” of transitional justice. This has “led to a situation in which the local actors are no longer in control of the design of their own processes,” he said.

He outlined the consequences for justice processes when international actors disproportionately influence them. “Transitional justice is becoming the province of technocrats, bureaucrats, and then, the technical is privileged over the political, the general over particular, international over local.”

Homogeneous approaches to transitional justice “cannot accommodate local complexities,” Mr. Nassar said. “The standardized policies and mechanisms generate a rigidity that really paralyzes local creativity. We come and present really fancy nice models, and people are automatically paralyzed because they think that this is the only way to do it.” This is particularly troublesome in the MENA region, where such innovation is desperately needed, he said.

Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, placed the development of transitional justice in its historical context.

Early transitional justice processes began in the 1980s in highly institutionalized countries like Argentina, Chile, Czechoslovakia, and South Africa. “When you leave that set of countries behind and start thinking about the fate of transitional justice in countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and some of places which now are potential subjects of transitional justice, to some extent it should not be surprising that results are more ambiguous, and challenges significantly higher,” he said.

Contemporary transitional justice processes are unfolding in countries where there has been war, not just authoritarian governance. Today’s victims do not experience “violations that come about from the abusive exercise of state power—they are the violations that come about through something that looks more like social chaos,” he said. “Because violations are different, the means by which they ought to be redressed, one would think, also ought to be different.”

Local conditions matter, Mr. de Greiff stressed. “We need to think much more about how to make transitional justice measures more context-sensitive, while at the same time satisfying and respecting the universalistic commitment from which they come about,” he said.

The Special Rapporteur closed the panel by sharing a disheartening realization he reached while preparing recent reports for the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. “Strictly speaking, the violations that we are talking about cannot be repaired,” he said. “We do lots of things to mitigate their consequences, but nobody brings back the dead, nobody is un-raped, nobody is free after spending 7 years in prison, those years are gone. So instead of focusing so much attention on correction and redress, we ought to be spending much more time on prevention.”

The panel was co-hosted by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) at the US Department of State, and Public Action Research.
Warren Hoge, IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, moderated the conversation.

Related Coverage:
Funding Transitional Justice (Public Action Research, 2015)
Remarks on the Launch of “Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement” (US Mission, October 29, 2015)

Watch event:

On October 27th, IPI together with the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) cohosted a women, peace, and security event focusing on the effective inclusion of women peacebuilders in mediation efforts.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Entrenched conflicts around the world demonstrate that traditional approaches to peace negotiations are not working. Today’s conflicts tend to involve numerous nonstate actors and play out at local, national, and transnational levels. Many civilians are affected by violence, displacement, and lack of economic opportunity; meanwhile, too many traditional mediation efforts fail. A growing body of research shows that the inclusion of a range of actors—especially pro-peace and nonviolent women’s groups—can generate political will and increase the chance of reaching a sustainable agreement. While inclusivity is not a panacea, its positive impact is evident in numerous peace processes.

ICAN presented the Better Peace Tool, the culmination of an extended consultative process with a full range of stakeholders active in peace mediation. A panel of mediators and mediation advisers reflected on this approach, discussing practical tools to overcome obstacles to inclusivity as they arise in practice. They also considered the negative outcomes for peace when exclusion wins the day—drawing on their experiences in Mali, Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere.

Speakers:
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Co-Founder, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & Member of the UN Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers (2011-2012)
Mobina Jaffer, Canadian Senator & Former Canadian Special Envoy to the Peace Process in Sudan
Arthur Boutellis, Director of the Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
Tom Crick, Associate Director of the Conflict Resolution Program, The Carter Center
Visaka Dharmadasa, Founder and Chair of the Association of War Affected Women, Sri Lanka

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations

Moderator:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

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

A policy forum was held at IPI on October 27th on humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. Dr. Abdullah Al Rabeeah, Supervisor General for the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center, briefed the audience on the work of the center in providing relief aid to Yemen and the region.

The center was founded in May 2015 with the mission of managing and coordinating Saudi Arabia’s external humanitarian relief and development assistance.

“The food security program has been the most active with the health program,” Dr. Rabeeah said. “We’ve been delivering aid within Yemen, in the borders, and those in need in Djibouti.”

“Our center is impartial. We’ve not been involved in the politics or military actions,” he noted. “We have moved our help to cities irrespective of who controls those cities… In five months, our center has been able to provide thirteen food programs, reaching more than five million beneficiaries.”

Moderating the event was Hardeep Singh Puri, Vice President of IPI, who shared with the audience the four guiding principles of humanitarian action: humanity, which drives all humanitarian action to prevent and alleviate human suffering; neutrality, which requires humanitarian organizations to abstain from taking sides; impartiality, which guides humanitarian action to administer relief based on need without discrimination; and respect for independence.

“It is critical to understand and respect the work of NGOs in a conflict situation,” said Rabih Torbay, Senior Vice President of International Operations with the International Medical Corps. “As a non-governmental organization, we have to be impartial in our delivery of services. We cannot politicize who receives aid—everybody in need should receive aid.”

“The aid should be given based on need,” he added. “Not based on tribal, ethnic or religious affiliation, and we need to keep the humanity at the center of everything we do.”

Highlighting the difficulties of working in a conflict situation, Amir Mahmoud Abdulla, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme, commended the work of humanitarian workers on the ground.

“Our colleagues on the ground in Yemen deserve a huge amount of respect and gratitude. We all have to acknowledge that they put themselves in harm’s way to deliver [the aid] and the need for ensuring their protection must be paramount,” he said.

Watch event:

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

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an IPI audience that a series of reviews undertaken to mark the UN’s 70th anniversary had revealed that efforts to bring better governance to the world were falling behind evolving threats to political and social stability.

The reviews “all share a sense that global governance is not keeping pace with the challenges of a more complex and interconnected world,” the Secretary-General said. “We need to tune all of our institutions to the times – times in which even the most local problems have a global dimension.”

Referring to three of the reviews—on peacebuilding, peace operations, and women, peace and security— he said, “A common narrative is emerging – one that recognizes that failure to more effectively prevent and address interconnected problems such as conflict or inequality or climate stress will have severe and costly consequences across all dimensions of our work.”

The Secretary-General cited the widely hailed Sustainable Development Agenda adopted in September, as outlining a crucial framework to work towards resolving these interconnected problems over the next 15 years. He expressed his hope that a universal climate accord will join the SDGs as part of that framework, following the UN’s climate conference, COP21, in Paris, this December.

The Secretary-General’s remarks kicked off a high-level panel discussion on “The Future of Global Governance: A Commitment to Action,” appropriately held at IPI on October 23rd 2015, to mark United Nations Day.

Taken together, the three peace & security reviews and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make clear four priorities for the international community to “take a people-centered, planet-friendly approach,” to the challenges of the global era, the Secretary-General said.

First, under “resilience,” he emphasized the SDGs’ promise to “leave no one behind.” He called for a greater focus on prevention to make possible the future that the SDGs envision. “This will not happen by solely fighting fires, when evidence shows that they could have been prevented had we acted and invested early,” he said.

The second theme he identified was “strengthening partnerships.”

“The various reviews uniformly recognize that implementing ambitious goals cannot be done by the UN system alone—or by member states alone,” he said. “Achieving a peaceful, sustainable future is a collective effort, starting now.”

On the third theme, “getting the financing right,” he called for more resources, more flexibility in the use of funds, and a greater share of public and private funding to meet shortfalls. “For the UN, the need is for better interconnection and sequencing of financing requests,” he said.

The final theme he identified was the critical need for greater participation of women and girls. “Excluding women from employment opportunities hinders sustainable development and economic growth,” he said. “Excluding women from peace processes hinders peace.  Excluding girls from schools holds societies back.”

Gender equality, he said, is a universal goal, and will have a range of benefits. “We need an all-of-society-approach that fully and equally incorporates the contributions of women in every aspect of our work,” he said. “The reviews rightly prioritize gender mainstreaming and the role of women as central to success.”

Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, called for reflection on what the reviews tell us about the UN for the future. He listed questions for the members to consider, like how the UN might address intractable conflicts like the Syrian crisis, asymmetric warfare, and the very divides within the UN and among its members that paralyze action. “This is the type of conversation I want to advance during my Presidency,” he declared.

Yannick Glemarec, Deputy Executive Director of UN Women, elaborated on the shared conclusion of the three peace and security reviews that women’s engagement is critically important to sustaining peace. “We have now a huge body of evidence that shows that women’s engagement in peace and security will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance, will increase the success of negotiation efforts, will accelerate the economic revitalization, and will dramatically reduce the likelihood of relapse into violence.”

Mr. Glemarec, an Assistant Secretary-General, also quantified the impact women have on peace processes with statistics from the Global Study on the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. “Women’s engagement in peace and security increases the likelihood that peace will be sustained by 20% over a period of two years, and 35% over a period of 15 years,” he said.

Sarah Cliffe, Director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, talked about Sustainable Development Goal 16, which says that peaceful and inclusive societies, with accountable justice institutions, are central to achieving sustainable peace.

Leaving a less violent world for future generations is a desire shared worldwide, she said. “Goal 16 shows that the preoccupation with preventing violence and achieving peace is really a common preoccupation across all societies, not only the most vulnerable.”

To prevent the lapse and relapse into conflict, the UN will need better cooperation between its peace and security organs, and those focused on development, she said.

A priority of Goal 16 is institution-building, and she provided an illustrative example of the myriad of actors involved in giving a person legal identity.

To register just one person, cooperation in the development system means “engaging with new government partners, like ministries of justice and interior, with national planning and civil registration and statistical systems, with hospitals, with birth registration systems, with schools, with immigration, policing, efforts to recognize different forms of documentation.”

In conclusion, IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud recalled the title of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operation’s report, “Uniting our Strengths for Peace: Politics, Partnerships and People.”

He outlined three practical ways we can move closer to a more peaceful future. “The first is communication, that enhancing the participation of people is not challenging the credibility or legitimacy of governments, on the contrary, people are partners,” he said.

“Secondly, we need to create fora that are safe and protected for people to voice without fear their view,” he said. “Three, we need to involve people in analyzing the problem and determining the solution. If we don’t understand the views of those we are supposed to serve how can we aspire to do anything sustainable?”

Ambassador Terje Rod-Larsen, President of the International Peace Institute, moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

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

IPI and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) co-hosted a workshop to review critically the findings of the Humanitarian Negotiations Exchange (HNx) project, an initiative introduced by the ICRC to enhance informal exchanges and peer learning among professionals engaged in negotiations and mediations in situations of armed conflict and other situations of violence. Participants examined preliminary trend analysis and discussed them with professionals in the field of negotiation and mediation.

The presentation of the HNx observations by Claude Bruderlein, Strategic Advisor to ICRC President, prompted discussion of the challenges and dilemmas as identified so far. Alain Lempereur of Brandeis University and Ashley Jackson of the Overseas Development Institute provided a critical review of the observations from negotiation theory and policy perspectives. Participants also examined trends and strategies of frontline negotiations from field practitioners, in a discussion facilitated by IPI Senior Director of Programs Maureen Quinn with ICRC Head of Delegation in Iraq Patrick Youssef and Cedric Schweizer, former Head of ICRC Delegation in Yemen.

On Saturday, September 26th IPI together with the governments of Chile and Norway, will co-host a high-level meeting featuring Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, that will explore how governments, the UN and civil society together can advance women’s rights globally.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 8:30am EST>>

Globally, the picture we are seeing of women’s rights and empowerment is a mixed one. There has been some progress in terms of women’s economic and political participation. At the same time, much more needs to be done in areas such as women’s legal rights and preventing violence against women, as well as to counter attacks on women’s rights by violent extremist groups and religious fundamentalists.

This year sees the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, the 15th anniversary of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and will also see the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals. It therefore gives us an excellent opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved and identify strategies for the way forward.

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen will give the opening remarks.

To mark the 2015 International Day of Peace and the seventieth anniversary of the UN, the International Peace Institute (IPI), in partnership with the King Abdullah Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID), will launch the KAICIID Peace Mapping Programme and its interactive website on September 21st.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 1:15pm EST>>

The Peace Mapping Programme provides innovative tools to better understand organizations engaged internationally in interreligious dialogue. The Programme aims to show how interreligious dialogue contributes to conflict transformation worldwide, whether in preventive peacemaking or postconflict work.

Its research-based website shows numerous organizations using or promoting interreligious dialogue around the world, many of which can be important partners in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.  At the lunchtime event on September 21st, there will be a visual presentation of the project’s website, including an interactive map that shows efforts by organizations engaged in interreligious dialogue to strengthen resilience, and with testimonies of individuals involved in the dialogue activities. The Peace Mapping Programme’s website also provides a public online tool with detailed information on more than 400 organizations involved in interreligious dialogue activities internationally.

Welcoming Remarks:
Ambassador Hardeep Puri, Vice President of IPI and Secretary-General of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM)

Speakers:
Patrice Brodeur, Director of Research, KAICIID
Azza Karam, Senior Adviser, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Kusumita Pedersen, Co-Chair of the Interfaith Center of New York and Trustee of the Parliament of the World’s Religions

Moderator:
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Senior Adviser, KAICIID and Professor, School of International Service, American University

On Tuesday, September 15th, IPI together with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) cohosted a policy forum event to discuss the policy and practical implications of the recommendation on unarmed approaches to the protection of civilians made in the report of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

This event provided an opportunity to discuss emerging unarmed approaches to effectively protect civilians under threat of violent conflict, using field examples from Palestine and South Sudan. The panelists also discussed the policy implications of such practices, including how they can be both supported by and integrated into peace operations.

Speakers:
Opening remarks: H.E. Ufuk Gokcen, Permanent Observer of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations
Tiffany Easthom, Nonviolent Peaceforce, Country Director, South Sudan
Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, UN Representative, World Council of Churches
Eiko Ikegaya, Deputy Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)

Moderator:
Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser and member of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations

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

“The current power vacuums and chaos in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are essentially results of serious political mistakes, miscalculations, delusions, and blunders,” said Former Turkish President Abdullah Gul at an IPI MENA event in Manama, Bahrain, on September 15, 2015. Mr. Gul said that it is a priority to fill the power vacuum created by the chaotic environment in these countries.

IPI’s Middle East and North Africa office (IPI MENA) hosted Mr. Abdullah Gul today, the 11th president of the Turkish Republic, who served from 2007-2014, as a guest speaker at a high-level event under the theme “The Prospects for Peace in the Region: Ways and Means.”

In attendance were the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen, government officials, ambassadors, deans of Bahrain public and private universities, faith representatives, and members of the media.

Mr. Gul noted that the conflict in Ukraine, the financial crisis in Europe, and the socio-cultural effects of these are also affecting the Middle East indirectly, and vice versa. “The current situation harms everybody, all of us, everywhere, in this or that way. The risks are great, but I believe that solutions are at hand.”

Shaikh Khalid Al-Khalifa took the opportunity to speak about Bahrain’s stance in the region, specifically in regards to neighboring Iran. Referencing the recent nuclear deal, he said, “The nuclear deal is only dealing with one aspect of the problems coming from Iran.” He further explained that Bahrain and other countries in the region were facing other challenges from Iran, such as the training of terrorists, conducting a proxy war, and exporting weapons in the region. He stated, “If Iran takes one step, we will take two.”

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen said civil war in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen are causing exceeding amounts of damage to human lives and physical infrastructure. Recruits from all over the world are joining radicalized terrorist groups and sectarian factions like Daesh in Iraq and Syria, spreading violence and brutality, and threatening governments’ ability to perform basic functions. He added, “The world continues to bear witness to these crises, but the international system is failing to respond adequately.”

Mr. Rød-Larsen, who has been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process, explained that the tangle of conflicting interests represented by different ethnicities, religious communities, political movements, and nationalities pose a particular danger.

Sheikh Khalid agreed with that sentiment, noting the MENA region would have to move away from identity politics towards politics of national aspiration; otherwise, neighboring countries with different ethnic or religious backgrounds would continue to struggle to work together.

The presentation came to an end with Mr. Gul making an appeal to the audience of leaders, intellectuals, diplomats, and businessmen. Despite the immense energy spent for peace, he admitted that the Middle East continued to be a hotbed of conflicts. He stated, however, “The ultimate solution lies in patient and inclusive political settlements, which will help convince the local people and leaders.”

IPI MENA Director, Nejib Friji opened the event held under IPI’s Global Leaders series, aimed at fostering a constructive and dynamic exchange of views between world leaders and the international relations community on a range of security, peacebuilding and development issues.

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

The seventh annual African Junior Professionals Fellows program from July 6-30 2015 provided a further opportunity to deepen the relationship between the emerging generation of young African leaders and the United Nations. Ten graduate students from five African countries – Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya – met with a broad cross section of UN officials and independent policy analysts to assess the roles of the United Nations in seeking to achieve durable economic development and the resolution of continuing conflicts on the Continent.

Under the leadership of Professor Funmi Olonisakin at King’s College London and Professor Godwin Murunga at the African Leadership Centre in Nairobi, the African Junior Professionals Program, which began in 2008, has the objective of training a new generation of African men and women to work in Africa’s leading continental and regional organizations and universities for the continent’s political, social and economic development. To date over 90 young Africans have graduated from this program of whom 51 have participated in the IPI summer program.

In conjunction with the Conflict, Security and Development Group, King’s College London, IPI has developed this annual summer training program to enable young African professionals to understand in greater depth the role of the United Nations in addressing the continent’s major development, political, and security challenges from multiple perspectives. This year the program focused in particular on the African perspective – meeting with Ambassadors from Nigeria and Angola, two of the three African member states on the Security Council, and Ambassador Tete Antonio, the Permanent Representative of the African Union to the United Nations. Students held in-depth discussions with key representatives in the UN Secretariat – including officials and staff in DPA, DPKO, UN Women, OCHA and UNDP – as well as with policy analysts from Security Council Report, CPPF, ICTJ and the Council of Foreign Relations who track African peace and security issues closely.

The main theme from these meetings is African intent to assume greater leadership and direction in setting the agenda and priorities of the United Nations and African continental and regional organizations in coming years. While welcoming the continuing evolution of the African Union-United Nations roles in peace operations (eg, in South Sudan, Mali and the CAR), students heard from their interlocutors that African leaders intend to be much more in the lead in setting continental and regional priorities for political and military engagement in resolving ongoing conflicts or in dealing with contentious issues such as Presidential elections and constitutional revisions – eg, in Burundi and probably in the DRC and Uganda in 2016. The African Union and the United Nations have established an ongoing partnership and will continue to play an important role together in promoting peace settlements, agreeing on deployment of international peacekeepers and implementing the 2015-2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. There was also a realistic recognition that the emerging African leadership will have to reduce Africa’s dependency on the European Union and the United States if these aspirations are to be met.

For the Fellows as well as IPI and UN staff this program is an important shared learning experience. As the Fellows have learned more about the United Nations and the New York based policy community, we learn a good deal about Africa’s challenges and policies from the Fellows’ perspective. It is truly a two way experience among today’s practitioners and tomorrow’s leaders.

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

On September 12, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened a meeting on “Preparing for Pandemics” to facilitate a discussion on lessons learned from past experiences with dealing with pandemics, and ways of preparing more effectively for future outbreaks.

The meeting, which took place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, brought together a diverse group of relevant experts including public health specialists, medical doctors, philanthropists, historians, as well as representatives of civil society, the military, UN Member States, and multi-lateral institutions.

In his opening remarks, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen stressed the link between security and health. Pointing to how polio persists in a few unstable regions of the world—like parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia and Syria—he said that “where there is instability, there is a greater risk of disease.” Therefore, the challenge is to reduce risk and increase resilience.

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, and Dr. Elhadj As Sy, Secretary-General of the International Federation of the Red Cross also gave remarks, and both stressed how Ebola had tested the international community, and that more effective multilateral responses are essential for the future.

The first session recalled pandemics of the past like cholera, the Spanish flu, H1N1, polio and Ebola. It was observed that international cooperation and standardized procedures originated in efforts to control an outbreak of cholera in the mid-nineteenth century. The impact of war on the spread of diseases was also explained. Speakers identified factors that contribute to vulnerability and the spread of pandemics. The interface between humans and animals was given particular attention: an appeal was made for an international treaty on reporting viruses in animals that could have an impact on humans. The importance of early detection, increased surveillance and early action were highlighted, although it was noted that states are often hesitant to acknowledge the detection of a disease on their territory for fear of the economic and reputational costs. It was therefore discussed how to incentivize sharing information on pandemics at an early stage, and how to avoid states oscillating between denial and over-reaction. The issue was also raised on how to respect sovereignty while minimizing the transnational spread of diseases from countries that refuse international assistance. The importance of building trust at the community level was also emphasized.

The second session focused on lessons learned from dealing with Ebola and polio. Representatives from the (WHO) Polio Eradication Initiative, the armed forces of Pakistan and National Ebola Emergency Operations Center in Nigeria shared their first-hand experiences. Among the lessons learned were: pre-planning of an outbreak response plan; the need for a whole-of-government emergency response; appointment of a coordinator; establishment of an emergency planning and crisis response cell; sufficient human resources; innovative use of technology; the engagement of local actors; as well as a communications strategy. As demonstrated by the case of Pakistan, there may also be times when the military can play a key role in mobilizing its assets for emergency response.

The third session focused on actionable solutions. Discussants stressed the need for political commitment, capacity building in a way that encourages “brain gain” rather than “brain drain”, greater investment in healthcare systems, more research and development on effective vaccines (i.e., against influenza), and enhanced compliance with the WHO’s International Health Regulations. There was wide appreciation for the work of front line health workers.

The last session discussed policy recommendations for a more robust response to future pandemics. Speakers, including Dr. Chan and Mr. Sy, stressed the importance of transparency, leadership, coherence in policy, more effective use of technology, more open data sharing, well-trained front-line health workers, a culture of prevention, and the mainstreaming of health into development strategies. Participants also stressed the challenge of mobilizing an international emergency response when national capacities are overwhelmed. It was also suggested to formalize the relationship between the WHO and other parts of the UN system.

The meeting builds on IPI’s work on peace and health, particularly its cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to overcome the final barriers to the global eradication of polio. Recommendations from the meeting will also feed into the work of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM).

On September 9, at the conclusion of the IPI Salzburg Forum on “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War,” a declaration was issued that called for action on the refugee crisis. Moved and concerned by the massive human tragedy of millions of refugees fleeing from war and persecution, participants at the IPI seminar spontaneously decided to draft a declaration with concrete steps to help save refugees.

Read the declaration

The President of IPI, Terje Rød-Larsen, described the current response of the international community as “haphazard, disjointed and reactive.” He therefore urged his colleagues to put forward proposals for more effective multilateral cooperation to save lives and help those in need.

The message of the declaration is that a major rescue operation should be mobilized to pick up the refugees close to where they are fleeing from (particularly Syria), and bring them to safety in a dignified and orderly way rather than having to cope with unsafe journeys, unscrupulous smugglers and traffickers, and unsympathetic governments.

The drafters of the declaration, including former foreign ministers Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, Gareth Evans of Australia and Amr Moussa of Egypt, said that “how the international community resolves this crisis is a test of the seriousness of our commitment to our common humanity, and will hopefully provide a model for our collective response to acute displacement problems in other parts of the world.”

The declaration calls for the creation of humane, properly resourced and equipped reception centers in key hubs in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe where refugees are congregating. It suggests that in order to share the responsibility of resettling the refugees around the world, criteria should be drawn up for indicative quotas against which Member States throughout the world should be asked to accept those seeking protection. To accelerate the processing of asylum claims, it urges to treat all nationals fleeing violence from Syria as eligible for temporary protection status. To pick the refugees up and bring them to safety, the declaration seeks support from commercial ship and airlines. To finance the global rescue initiative, the declaration calls for the creation a Solidarity Fund, and the convening by the UN Secretary-General of a Pledging Conference.

Rita Hauser, Chair of the Board of IPI, and one of the driving forces behind the declaration said: “While Europe is looking for solutions, this is not only a European problem. This is a global problem which needs a rapid global response.” Citing past precedents like the resettlement of the Vietnamese “boat people,” Hauser said “this crisis is solvable, it just needs better leadership, political will, and a coordinated plan of action.”

As the declaration says, “this global rescue initiative would save lives, significantly reduce the market for smugglers and traffickers, facilitate the effective processing of protection claims, and more equitably share the responsibility a humanitarian tragedy that affects us all.”

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

“These weapons are here to enable the self-defense and secure the territorial integrity of the lake’s inhabitants–a goose and three ducks,” artist Ray Bartkus announced to the participants of the 2015 IPI Salzburg Forum entitled “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War.” “We artists have nothing to do with it and deny all accusations to be involved in this so-called art installation,” he said.

At the annual IPI high-level event in Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria, which took place from September 6-9, 2015, participants reflected on the theme of the conference against the backdrop of a world in the midst of turbulent change. In his installation entitled “Hybrid War,” artist Ray Bartkus created a different kind of reflection using the placid surface of the lake and the natural backdrop of the surrounding park, mountains and picturesque Rococo Palais. Each day, additional elements of military hardware (a periscope, artillery cannons, the turret of a tank and missile defense launcher) emerged from the water. In this way,“Hybrid War” is literally, a reflection on modern warfare, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, elements of surprise, symmetry and asymmetry.

Ray Bartkus’ art has been seen by millions through his award-winning editorial illustration work for a number of publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Harper’s, Billboard, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and many others. Last year, Mr. Bartkus, a native of Lithuania, had exhibitions in Salle des Pas Perdus at the UN in Geneva, at Neon Gallery, at the Wroclaw Academy of Arts in Wroclaw and at Titanikas Gallery at the Vilnius Art Academy. Later this year, an installation will be unveiled at the UN in New York.

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

From September 6-9, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened its annual Salzburg Forum on the theme of “The Rule of Law and the Laws of War.” The meeting brought together current and former foreign ministers, experts on international humanitarian law, diplomats, academics, journalists, and representatives from civil society in Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg to discuss the erosion of the rule of law and its impact on justice, peace, and security.

Opening speeches were made by Aurelia Frick, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Education and Culture of Liechtenstein, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen gave a speech on the importance of leadership.

Over a series of eight sessions, participants discussed a wide range of issues on challenges to, or weaknesses in, the current system of international public, criminal, and humanitarian law. For example, how to deal with non-state actors, how to strengthen compliance, how to enable self-governance without changing borders by force, and how to make more effective use of the United Nations’ normative framework around the “responsibility to protect?” There was also a debate on if and how to criminalize the use of force.

The forum also looked at the impact of technology and armed non-state actors on the laws of war. One session raised frightening hypotheses about the unchecked effects of biological, cyber, and automated (robotic) weapons.

In a highly topical session, participants debated how to resolve trust and cooperation in Europe, particularly in relation to the crisis in Ukraine.

The last session, originally planned to look at how to improve multilateral cooperation to strengthen the rule of law, was changed to discuss how to deal more effectively with the urgent global refugee crisis. It resulted in the issuance of the Salzburg Declaration (click here to read more).

As part of the event, Ray Bartkus—an internationally renowned Lithuanian artist based in New York–presented an installation entitled “Hybrid War” (click here).

Related Coverage:

Interview with Former Foreign Minister of Canada, Lloyd Axworthy (Power Play, CTV, September 2015)
“The Necessity of Courage When Contemplating Political Suicide” (Foreign Policy, September 11, 2015)
“Syria’s exodus isn’t a European problem. It’s the whole world’s” (The Guardian, September 10, 2015)

Last week in Tunisia, President Beji Caid Essebsi received Nejib Friji, Director of IPI’s MENA office. The president reiterated his nation’s commitment to peace and pledged support to IPI’s effort in this regard. Mr. Friji delivered President Essebsi a message from IPI President Terje Rød Larsen calling for an international stand against violent extremism.

Only fifteen United Nations’ member states provide more than 60 percent of the 104,000 UN uniformed personnel deployed worldwide. How can a more equitable sharing of the global peacekeeping burden be produced that generates new capabilities for UN operations?

Operational partnerships are one potentially useful mechanism to further this agenda. They are partnerships that occur when military units from two or more countries combine to deploy as part of a peacekeeping operation. This report assesses the major benefits and challenges of these partnerships for UN peace operations at both the political and operational levels.

The report begins by providing an overview of the different varieties of partnerships in contemporary UN peace operations and describes the major patterns apparent in a new database of forty-one operational partnerships from 2004 to 2014. It presents case studies of two UN missions that exhibit the full range of operational partnerships: the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). The authors explore why some UN member states engage in operational partnerships or might do so in the future, arguing that the reasons include a wide range of both mission-specific concerns and broader political and security-related reasons.

On the basis of the evidence presented, the authors identify the main factors that influence successful partnerships and offer lessons and recommendations on how best to enhance operational partnerships so as to deliver more effective peace operations in the field:

• The UN and bilateral donors should cooperate closely to raise general awareness of the opportunities for and the political and military benefits of operational partnerships in peacekeeping. They should continually share information on potential partnership opportunities among troop-contributing countries and how to help facilitate them.
• Bilateral donors should continue to invest in pre-deployment preparations for partners.
• The UN and bilateral donors should strongly encourage and help enable the trend toward standby forces in Europe, South America, Africa, and potentially elsewhere.
• The UN or a member state should develop a short guidebook on operational partnership options and best practices.
• Prospective partners must choose carefully and be prepared to overcome social and military incompatibilities.
• Tending to the size of a combined unit can mitigate problems of operational effectiveness.
• The challenges of partnering, while daunting, need not trump the benefits; the keys to ensuring against challenging threats are preparation and attention.

This report is part of IPI’s Providing for Peacekeeping Series.

Download

In a break from recent tradition, European member states are currently contributing significant military capabilities to a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operation in Africa. Europeans are providing more than 1,000 troops to the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) by staffing a wide range of operations including an intelligence fusion cell, transport and attack aircraft, and special forces.

Yet for European troop-contributing countries (TCCs) that have spent several years working in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations in Afghanistan, participating in a UN mission has been a process of learning and adaptation. For the UN, the contributions of key capabilities by European countries have pushed the UN system to adjust to the higher expectations of the new European TCCs, which has proved difficult in Mali’s complicated operating environment and political situation.

The report examines this complex relationship and shows the challenges and opportunities for both the UN and its European member states participating in MINUSMA. In terms of challenges, the report identifies obstacles facing European TCCs as they adapt to the UN peacekeeping system, the domestic political concerns of European TCCs, and the need for increased partnership among TCCs within the mission. In terms of opportunities, the report finds the potential of European military contributions to strengthen UN peacekeeping operations facing capability constraints and the UN’s ability to learn and adjust to increasingly asymmetric threat environments, as it responds to the needs of European TCCs.

The authors offer a number of recommendations for facilitating and improving the participation of European militaries in MINUSMA and in UN peacekeeping more broadly, including the following:

• For the UN Secretariat: Develop opportunities for strategic force generation engagement with potential TCCs and conduct formal and informal indicative force generation meetings with TCCs; consider ways to gather more TCC input into the development of concepts of operations, force requirements, statement-of-unit requirements, etc.; provide more predictable and faster mission support during mission start-up; and consider decentralizing authority in-mission and at headquarters in New York to speed up decision-making processes.

• For European states: Engage in a structured and sustained dialogue with the UN to ensure that lessons from the experience in MINUSMA are identified jointly and improvements are pursued; work with the UN to develop media strategies to help domestic audiences better understand UN peacekeeping; ensure that staff who have acquired UN competence are considered for key posts at the Ministry of Defense, the permanent mission to the UN, the reconnaissance mission, and UN negotiation teams; and ensure a thorough understanding of UN planning and decision-making processes at headquarters and in the field.

• For the All Sources Information Fusion Unit (ASIFU): Initiate a lessons-learning exercise on the ASIFU experience in MINUSMA to improve the current intelligence aspects in this mission and to make improvements on intelligence aspects in other and future UN missions; develop a UN secure data network; and continue to improve cooperation between information gathering and analysis components in the mission.

This report is part of IPI’s Providing for Peacekeeping Series.

Download

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

The international response to the world drug crisis has given disproportional attention to repression rather than prevention. This view was expressed by several participants at an IPI policy forum convened on July 22 to discuss the upcoming United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem.

“Repression is a damaging policy, since it redirects resources to military and penal solutions, instead of health and education,” said one of the panel members, Fernando Carrera, the Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the UN. “Like other aspects of public policy, we should address drug policy by outcome – learning from experience, and not from dogmas.”

The IPI meeting, co-organized with the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), was held to prepare for the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem, which will take place April 19-21, 2016.

Simone Monasebian, Director of the New York Office of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), called for a more holistic approach to the crisis at the special session with emphasis on health and well-being in order to reduce the impact on vulnerable populations and to create more alternatives to incarceration.

“UNGASS 2016 must address all the issues with the world drug problem, including human rights and sustainable development,” she said, adding that this must be done “without dropping our guard on transnational organized crime.”

The statements came at a time when an increasingly changing policy landscape at the national level is posing challenges to the current international drug control strategies, which have produced a public health crisis and mass incarceration.

At the same time, while decriminalization is taking place in many countries, panelists argued that there is too little room for the evolution of today’s legal system. Martin Jelsma, Programme Director for the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, noted that the treaties that regulate the world drug problem do not have built-in mechanisms for review. He called the existing system “Jurassic.”

The interim session of the General Assembly is being held three years ahead of its schedule on the special request of the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia and will present an important opportunity to issue “fair and balanced analysis on whether the existing system operating on the existing conventions is still fit for purpose,” said Senator Mark Golding, the Minister of Justice of Jamaica.

The current international legal framework, upheld by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, provides some degree of flexibility for national responses, but remains rigid, he said. Sen. Golding stressed the importance of having coherent and viable policies that provide proportional and rational responses to drug problems, while keeping with the aspirations of people. As new paths of treatment are emerging in national drug policies, he said the coherence of international law is increasingly challenged.

However, while a rebalancing should take place between prevention and repression, it would be impossible to get completely rid of the law-enforcement approach, Ambassador Carrera said. Focus on the supply-side should remain, but be made more effective through relying on an evidence-based approach, he added.

Transnational organized crime is an important driver of the problem, but several of the panelists said that current efforts have come up with few solutions to reduce the profitability of this thriving business.

Providing a historical background to the development of the international legal framework, Mr. Jelsma showed how issues that led to the first UNGASS on drugs have still not been addressed. Arms control, money laundering, lack of criminal prosecution, difficulties in finding agreement on regulating financial streams with linked challenges in addressing beneficial ownerships due to deregulated markets – are all problems that still persist.

As the levels of violence that created the urgency for the original call for the first Special Session on drugs in 1990 persist, “increased shared responsibility and a more balanced approach” is needed to improve the structural response, he said.

When one question from the floor raised concern that current drug policy lumps starkly different drugs into the same basket, Ambassador Carrera agreed, saying, “The UN’s one-size-fits-all approach to drugs is outdated.”

While this is the first UNGASS to focus on drug policy since 1998, it will be the third one in history, following previous attempts which have not resulted in radical changes but rather served to reassert the established system. However, Sen. Golding expressed hope that the current international momentum would still drive through the necessary changes and reframing within the post-2015 agenda.

He concluded: “If UNGASS 2016 does not signify a move forward, it is going to be very problematic for all of us.”

The conversation was moderated by Adam Lupel, Director of Research and Publications at IPI.

Watch event:

Since the tragic bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq in 2003, a concerted effort has been made to improve and strengthen security arrangements across the UN system. However, too often, security issues are perceived as primarily technical matters that are not prioritized as strategically and politically important.

This report takes stock of the strategic impact of safety and security for effective peace operations by outlining the evolving, increasingly hostile security context into which operations are being deployed and its implications for personnel.

The authors assess existing UN management structures, policies, and processes to identify potential areas of reform. As they examine the diverse range of challenges and considerations for improving security of UN peace operations, they argue that effective security is about protecting UN personnel while enabling, not limiting, operational activity.

The authors offer the following recommendations for UN member states and the Secretariat to improve safety and security in UN peace operations:

• Extend responsibility collectively across the UN for a shared understanding of the security situation and improvements in the mandating, resourcing, planning, and execution of peace operations.
• Approach safety and security issues holistically, and consolidate them under the UN Department of Safety and Security.
• Apply a comprehensive policy on crisis management across all peace operations and country teams accompanied by a mandatory regime of crisis-management simulation exercises.
• Revise the assumptions on which the UN Security Management System is based, and tailor security models to mission mandates and the prevailing security environment.
• Clarify how UN peace operations should function in asymmetric threat environments when they lack capabilities, such as adequate medical support or evacuation.
• Recruit and train security personnel to high professional standards across all missions and ensure that they hold sufficient seniority at UN headquarters and in missions.
• Establish political and financial incentives to address the gap between peace operations’ mandates and allocated resources.
• Develop a professional intelligence system to enhance situational awareness for better mandate implementation.
• Clarify the legal protections for the UN under international law, and ensure a shared understanding of security responsibilities between the UN and the host state.

Download

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

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group and the former Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, offered a bold observation to an IPI audience about the United Nations. “The UN, sadly, is a very risk averse organization,” he declared. “It’s much better not to take risks for a career at the UN. But it’s much better for the UN to take risks.”

Drawing upon his own tenure as Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations from 2000-2008, a period of unprecedented growth for peacekeeping, he lamented the difficulty for UN leadership to “take some calculated risks,” because of an organizational culture which discourages them from doing so.

“I do believe it is very important for leaders in the UN to encourage risk-taking up to a point,” he said. “Intelligent risk-taking. Often it’s not the case if the staff feel that if they do something wrong, they will be hanged. It is not good. They have to be encouraged to take that risk.”

Discussing his new memoir, The Fog of Peace, on July 14th, Mr. Guéhenno explained the book’s title. “It was important in a book to convey the fog of action, the confusion, and uncertainty,” he said. The title also served as a metaphor for the haze of decision-making in peacekeeping operations. “That is at the heart of peacekeeping,” he said. “It’s all about tradeoffs. It’s about taking some risks, measuring them. But you only know in hindsight whether you have been right or wrong.”

Mr. Guéhenno’s reflection on his time in office remains pertinent, and he identified and offered solutions for key challenges facing peacekeeping operations. While recognizing that peacekeeping inherently involves the use of force, he said force itself should not be overdone.

“Force could never achieve by itself any political result,” he said. “It can be one element in a much broader strategy. If it is anything more than that, it is bound to disappoint.”

He also noted the need to set realistic goals at the outset of a peacekeeping operation, declaring, “The idea that through force you are going to stabilize a country is an illusion.”

Developing his thoughts on force and intervention, Mr. Guéhenno emphasized the importance of his having left Europe for New York. Here he interacted with a diverse group of leaders at the UN that changed his perspective on the concept of sovereignty.

“We have to understand the position of weaker countries,” he said. “The only thing that they have to assert themselves, to protect themselves from the enormous imbalance of power, is this concept of sovereignty, and that should be acknowledged.”

Continuing with the theme of sovereignty, he commented on calls for the UN to return to a focus on prevention, instead of continually addressing conflict after it breaks out. But, he conceded it would be have to be done with care.

“Countries are like human beings,” he said. “They don’t like checkups. They don’t like being told they are not doing well, that they need a treatment.”

He went on to praise UN regional offices as one means of doing so, “provided the person in charge of the office is the right person. This is a way for the UN to go to a country without flagging too much the country is in a state of crisis.”

Looking ahead, Mr. Guéhenno identified a key challenge for the next UN Secretary-General, to be elected in 2016. As the nature of conflicts is changing, he said, the UN must adjust as an organization to enable taking a more holistic view of the challenges before it.

“You need to look at all the levers you have, the troops, the political, the development, and see how you orchestrate them in a way that will maximize the influence of the UN,” he said. “I think the UN presently is not very well organized to do that.”

He concluded by recommending “having some kind of a planning capacity that is independent of any particular department, that looks at those issues in a comprehensive way, without thinking ‘Oh, it’s peacekeeping, it has to be peacekeepers,’ ‘it’s political, it has to be a political mission.’”

He argued that an independent planning commission could enable the UN to overcome the “silo” mentality of its various departments, to instead act as one by looking “at a situation on its merit, and not on its bureaucratic merit.”

As the UN is being examined by various high-level reviews for its 70th anniversary, Mr. Guéhenno reminded the audience that though a humanitarian organization, the UN should not shy away from politics.

“If we do not have a good understanding of the political dynamics of the situation in which we are getting engaged, we are unlikely to make headway,” he said. “And the biggest weakness of any UN deployment, or any deployment for that matter, whether it is the US or the UN, any deployment, is the fact that there is not a serious understanding of the dynamics of the country.”

Further, he questioned the nature of the relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council, where the latter can politicize justice by threatening referral to the Court.

“When you see justice as a pressure point, not justice for justice sake, you are in trouble because justice cannot be turned on and off. It should not be. Justice is about justice, it is not a pressure point.”

As the nature of conflict has changed to become both more transnational and involve more non-state actors, Mr. Guéhenno’s final piece of advice for the UN was to remember its origins as a forum for dialogue. “I think, for the United Nations, one essential is to be prepared to talk to anybody who is prepared to talk to the United Nations,” he explained. “And that means sadly that a number of interlocutors will not be reachable because at the moment they would not accept to talk to the United Nations, they would kill whoever wants to talk to them. But this has to be, in my view, the posture.”

He added that to foster constructive dialogue, it is essential to talk to everyone on all sides of an issue, “and I think Western governments, in that respect, have not had the right policy. Because if you have a policy that you talk to anybody that is willing to talk, then talking does not become legitimization.”

IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge moderated the conversation.

Watch event: