European Peace Institute / News

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

On September 12, IPI and the Al-Babtain Cultural Foundation commemorated the 20th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace and contemplated the path forward with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“As we look back on those 20 years, in retrospect, the Declaration and Programme of Action can be seen in the context of a larger process that connects the Culture of Peace to the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” said IPI Vice President Adam Lupel.

“What both agendas recognize is that to achieve a sustainable peace, one needs to do more than end conflict or stop violence, one needs to build positive foundations for mutual respect, prosperity and broad-based inclusion,” he said.

Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, the outgoing President of the General Assembly, noted that the time of the declaration’s adoption 20 years ago was a “high water mark of optimism” but now seemed “very remote indeed.” She lamented that recent years have been marked by “backsliding”.

“We have seen backsliding on international laws and norms, and a backlash against the agenda adopted 25 years ago,” Ms. Espinosa remarked, recalling the last year of the General Assembly. She noted that the impacts of this phenomenon are evident in “rising unilateralism, nationalist populism, and extremist ideologies” as well as in pushback against “hard-won multilateral agreements and institutions and in the loss of trust between people, governments, and institutions.”

Ms. Espinosa cautioned that “a positive, dynamic, participatory process, where dialogue is encouraged and conflict resolved in a spirit of mutual understanding,” is, as she put it, “sorely needed.”

Despite Ms. Espinosa’s emphasis on “the headwinds facing multilateralism,” she noted with optimism that the international community had still been able to accept what she regards as “the most ambitious, wide-ranging set of Sustainable Development Goals.” But she added that efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda will require continued dedication to a culture of peace.

Anwarul K. Chowdhury, Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace, recalled the origins of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, as well as his involvement in the negotiations that led to the document. “In simple terms,” Mr. Chowdhury explained, “the culture of peace means that every one of us needs to consciously make peace and non-violence a part of our daily existence.”

Elaborating, Mr. Chowdhury said, “we should not isolate peace as something separate or distant,” especially from our own lives, because to do so would downplay the role of individuals in creating a culture of peace. “When we talk about peace, we expect others, such as diplomats and politicians, to take the initiative. But when we speak of a culture of peace, we know that action begins with each one of us.”

Mr. Chowdhury concluded his remarks with an outline of three key approaches to “bolstering the global movement for the culture of peace.” He first highlighted the importance of education and the role that educational institutions must play in creating “responsible and productive global citizens.” He then turned to the significance of youth and children to a culture of peace, urging that early childhood is the best time to “sow the seeds of a culture of peace.” Lastly, Mr. Chowdhury explained the significance of women, advising that “without peace, development cannot be realized. Without development, peace is not achievable. But without women, neither peace nor development is possible.”

Masud Bin Momen, Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, responded to Mr. Chowdhury’s emphasis on education and underscored the part that Bangladesh has played in promoting education for a culture of peace. He explained that “from the birth of our nation, we have invested a lot in education and literacy.” Mr. Bin Momen continued, “the challenge, not for Bangladesh alone but for all countries, is trying to inculcate the culture of peace in the mind of our children,” especially when the media environment is seen as promoting violence.

Jimena Leiva Roesch, Senior Fellow at IPI, voiced an optimistic view of the potential for a culture of peace, suggesting that “in this moment of troubled times, sometimes our innate mechanism is to shut down, but truly what we explore at IPI is that this time also offers a moment of greater self-awareness.” Ms. Leiva Roesch, reflecting on the passing of the 2030 Agenda, said, “things were transforming and changing, and it really did feel like the world as a whole was moving as one. Fast forwarding four years into the present,” she acknowledged, “we’re in a dark time, but this time also brings treasures of self-awareness and continued challenges to our cultural narratives,” which may open the door for the further cultivation of a culture of peace.

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

In her new memoir, The Education of an Idealist, former American ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power says the question she heard most frequently during her three and a half years in the post was “what can one person do?”

In a September 11th Distinguished Author Series event at IPI featuring the book, Ms. Power posited a response to that question. “Shrink the change,” she said. “Even when you can’t come up with a big solution, there may well be something, however modest, you can do. Throughout history, the big solutions usually come through incremental change.”

She acknowledged that when confronting problems that seem too daunting to be solved, “small measures… can seem like a cop out.” But she asserted, “If you think about what is in the reach of our individual power to address, I think it’s actually a very useful frame. If you add up all those small steps that can be taken, that’s where you start to make real inroads.”

The observation was a sobering one coming from Ms. Power, a bold and vocal rights advocate in the years before she went into government as President Obama’s human rights adviser and then as UN ambassador.  The Education of an Idealist is a book about whether an activist outsider can become a pragmatic insider without compromising her motivating ideals.

It is an unusually personal narrative for a foreign policy book, with Ms. Power detailing the uprooting of her family life in the passage to America from Ireland when she was nine, her lifelong guilt over a cherished hard-drinking father who was left behind in Dublin and died young, her interactions for years with counsellors and therapists to overcome debilitating anxiety attacks, her reliance in the male-dominated National Security world upon a support group of fellow professional women called the Wednesday Group, and her efforts to balance the simultaneous responsibilities to nation and to two young children.

She said her aspiration in “telling a very personal story is to try to break through and tell a story that people can relate to irrespective of whether they’ve ever worked in the halls of power or ever negotiated at the UN.”

In answer to questions, she deplored the Trump Administration’s decision to exit the Iran nuclear agreement, pointing out that it was “international law” since it had been approved by the UN Security Council and was an accord “that all independent verifiers had judged to have been complied with.” She said the effect of the US walking away from the deal was “uniting the rest of the world against the Trump Administration’s policy.”

On the Obama Administration’s much criticized inaction on Syria’s chemical weapons attacks on its own people in 2013, she conceded that the US “utterly failed” both to produce a negotiated solution and to reach people in enclaves that were surrounded by Syrian regime troops. But she noted that the US, working with Jordan, Australia, Luxembourg, The United Kingdom, France and Russia, was able to bring assistance to people in the opposition-held northern part of the country. “A pittance compared to what was necessary,” she said, “but preferable to the lamentation that you were tempted to end up in, you know, where you weren’t able to just say,  ‘Is there anything against this bleak backdrop that can be hived off, where there is scope to forge an agreement, any place where there is scope to make inroads?’”

She said that she had made it a point in office to visit every country’s mission at the UN and was told in many of them that she was the first American permanent representative to ever appear there. On those calls, she said, “nothing was more unsettling than my conversations with ambassadors whose countries were threatened with extinction as a result of climate change.”

Asked if the US could recover its lapsed reputation for international leadership, she said, “I think the fastest route to recovery is not only a victory in 2020, but a margin of victory that allows us to make the claim that it isn’t just a changing of the guard, but it is a repudiation of the comprehensive approach which is one that traffics in falsehoods, one that doesn’t see the value of alliances, that doesn’t see the preciousness of our values as a source of strength in the world, whatever our limitations.”

She warned that this recovery could take time, given the conduct of the US in the international sphere over the past three years. “It’s going to sound tinny when we talk to other governments about the importance of respecting a free media, the importance of free assembly, the importance of civilian control of the military, of respecting  dissenting viewpoints, the importance of facts and truth and credibility. We will have to redeem these past years.”

In September 2018, more than 100 UN member states signed a Declaration of Shared Commitments as part of the secretary-general’s Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative. The declaration was intended to rally member states to address urgent challenges facing contemporary peacekeeping operations. But one year later, the declaration has not yet translated into concrete action by member states, limiting tangible results for missions on the ground.

This issue brief takes stock of progress by the UN and member states in implementing A4P over the past year and looks at where there is momentum and where additional political attention is needed. There is consensus that A4P has helped reaffirm the value of peacekeeping. It also provides a roadmap for incremental reform, a platform for sharing good practices, and a framework for identifying progress. Moving forward, however, it needs to be more than a package of preexisting UN priorities; it needs to become a platform through with the secretary-general sets a new approach to strengthening peacekeeping.

Download

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

High-risk challenges are undermining the international rule-based order on multiple fronts. This view has been growing in acceptance for several years, and recent developments have reinforced the sense that the UN-based system of multilateral cooperation is “under siege.”

Yet, international cooperation has never been more necessary. What is at stake in the weakening of the international rule-based order, and what are the paths forward? Are we pulling together to address the challenges of our age? Or are we falling apart and moving away from the very idea of a global common good?

This was the topic of discussion at the 2019 IPI Salzburg Forum, held at the Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg, Austria on September 1-3.The two-day gathering, conducted under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution, brought together diplomats, journalists, academics, think-tank experts, and representatives of civil society.

The forum was co-sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic and began with dinner remarks by the ministry’s state secretary, Frantiŝek Ružička, on September 1st.

The following day included three panel sessions and an interactive discussion to identify take-aways and action points.

The first session provided the opportunity for participants to map the crisis of multilateralism and begin outlining responses, setting the stage for the day’s discussions. What defines the crisis of multilateralism today? Is the international system of security cooperation destined to fragment further toward an era of heightened great power competition and conflict, or are we moving toward a new system? Is the system under siege, or under transformation?

Participants agreed that a number of global challenges and regional crises currently characterize the international system—including international trade, climate change, international terrorism, migration, and poverty and inequality—and discussed how they may be better managed through international cooperation. Regional crises were discussed in relation to how they affect Europe, including the crises in Yemen, Syria, and Libya, conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the perpetual problem of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The shifting geopolitical relations among China, Russia, and the US was also a topic of discussion.

While the challenges are great, one speaker made a call for cautious optimism. The scale and scope of the difficulties we face today do not supercede those of the past. The difference is that today we lack clear global leadership, but member states are beginning to come together in response. In addition, the younger generation is beginning to show leadership in the pursuit of concrete problem solving, as with climate change. The best time to institute change is at times of crisis.

Session two continued the discussion of challenges with a dedicated focus on the re-rise of nationalism. Nationalism and international cooperation are not by definition incompatible. But recent years have witnessed the return of a strident nationalism set in opposition to global cooperation. From the United States and Brazil to Hungary, Turkey, and India, politics based upon the affirmation of national identity and the exclusion of immigrants and minorities is on the rise.

Nationalism was behind some of the great state crimes of the 20th century in Europe and beyond, but historically it was also a driving force behind decolonization and democratization. What is the relationship between nationalism and populism? What is the role of nationalism in a globalizing world? Must nationalism lead to more closed societies and less international cooperation? What are the consequences of the recent return of nationalist discourse in Europe and globally? These were some of the questions discussed in session two.

The discussion began with a recognition of distinctions. For example, it was noted that nationalism and xenophobic populism are not the same thing. Nationalism played an important role in the development of the modern nation-state and democracy, animating the very idea of rule by the people. But it risks planting the seed for an exclusionary ethnic nationalism, which can have a negative impact on democracy. One participant noted that in many respects what we are talking about is a crisis of liberal democracy, which includes a value for pluralism, and the sense that liberalism has not delivered in the context of globalization.

Session 3 turned toward issues related to peace and security.

The failure of the international system to respond successfully to the worst contemporary conflicts has fueled the perceptions of a crisis of multilateralism. Ineffectiveness on Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, and recently Venezuela have contributed to this sense. Currently, the UN Security Council in particular has proven to be too internally divided to make a significant impact on the most pressing peace and security issues.

Debates about current conflicts have raised new questions about the definition and conduct of just and unjust wars. When is it justified to start a war or to intervene in one? What actions are legally permissible in war, and what actions constitute war crimes? What is the proper role of multilateral institutions in deciding these questions? And how have attitudes toward International Humanitarian Law and the norms of war shifted in recent years? These were some of the questions addressed during session three.

Current trends reflect an increasing tendency of civil wars to become internationalized and an increasing vulnerability of civilians during conflict. Participants discussed how geopolitical divisions exacerbate these trends and how these trends affect our understanding of military interventions, civil wars, and how they are fought.

Participants discussed the laws of war, conflict prevention, the use of force to protect civilians, and the rising levels of criminal violence in some parts of the world.

Session 4 provided the opportunity for participants to engage in an interactive discussion to identify concrete opportunities for international cooperation. The crisis of multilateralism is real, but global challenges will not wait. The hard work of international cooperation must continue. Participants gathered in small roundtables to discuss a series of questions before reconvening as a group. 1) What issues present the best opportunities for positive multilateral engagement? 2) What mechanisms or processes offer the best chances of success of improving international cooperation? Do these need to be created, or do they already exist? 3) What kinds of actors hold the key? In addition to key member states, what is the role for regional organizations, civil society, the private sector, or other non-governmental actors?

Participants were also asked to identify their main takeaways from the day’s discussion, and what, if any, action points they would recommend. Key takeaways identified in the discussion included the need to discern which issues lend themselves to partial or functional coalitions for international cooperation and which require global, multilateral processes to move forward. At the end of the day, there was broad agreement that there is a need to broaden the circle to include more voices in multilateral processes, including civil society. In particular, the need to include women and youth was highlighted. There was also broad agreement that international cooperation cannot be only among the like-minded. There is a need to reach out to the “unlike-minded” as well.

One key action point in particular was discussed: there is a need to “bring it to the people.” The case for multilateralism must be made to the public, and the public must be engaged in questions of multilateralism.

The day ended on an optimistic note. While the challenges discussed over the course of the forum are daunting, it was generally agreed that that it is not all doom and gloom. Crises breed opportunities, and many actors are mobilizing to take advantage of them.

Speakers and panelists included: František Ružička, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic; Ferdinando Nelli Feroci, President, Istituto Affari Internazionali; Karin von Hippel, Director-General, The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI); Amre Moussa, Former Secretary-General of the Arab League; Turki Al Faisal, Chairman, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies; Steven Erlanger, New York Times Chief Diplomatic Correspondent for Europe; Reinhard Krumm, Head, The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe; Snežana Samardžić-Marković, Director-General for Democracy, The Council of Europe; Christian Strohal, Senior Adviser to the Slovak OSCE Chairperson-in-Office; Dragan Aleksoski, International Organization for Migration Austria; Anthony Dworkin, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations; Kate Ferguson, Director, Protection Approaches; Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director, Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

Speaking for IPI were its president, Terje Rød-Larsen; Vice President Adam Lupel; and Senior Adviser Nasra Hassan.

Particularly in the complex environments where it increasingly deploys, the UN depends on a range of functions to implement its mandate. These include but are not limited to provision of security, facilitation of access, medical support, support to staff welfare, logistics, coordination, and risk management. Compared to substantive tasks implemented as part of mandates, these enabling functions, or enablers, have received less scrutiny. As a result, enablers—and their financial costs—are often unknown or misunderstood by member states, donors, and even UN staff.

This paper explores these enablers by explaining what they are, why they are needed, how much they cost, and how they are—or should be—funded. It then investigates the challenges the UN needs to tackle to put enablers on a path to sustainable funding, including:

• Reporting and consolidating data: While data is not the end point, it is a necessary starting point for the UN to engage in dialogue with those who use enablers and those who pay for them.
• Dedicating the necessary capacity: More spending on enablers is required now if lives and resources are to be saved later.
• Managing trade-offs: The UN needs to set and articulate clear priorities to guide the difficult trade-offs between different enablers and their associated risks.
• Integrating operations into planning: Operational planning is critical to avoid retroactive, ad hoc arrangements, especially during mission transitions.
• Communicating the importance of enablers: Effective communication on the need for enablers is necessary to convince member states and donors to fund them.

Ultimately, there must be greater coherence between those who define UN mandates, those who fund them, and those who implement them.

Download

In response to the threat of violent extremism, the UN has adopted a comprehensive approach that involves both aligning ongoing interventions with the goals of preventing violent extremism (PVE) and implementing PVE-specific programming. These initiatives aspire to use human rights-based approaches as opposed to hard-security counterterrorism responses. To date, however, there has been inadequate research on how the UN and other international organizations can promote human rights as part of their PVE programming.

This issue brief introduces findings on the strategic shift of UN peacebuilding interventions toward PVE and the barriers these interventions face to protecting human rights, drawing on research conducted in Kyrgyzstan. It concludes that PVE approaches to peacebuilding are fundamentally ambiguous, which may be hindering promotion of human rights. These ambiguities lie both in the terminology and strategies of intervention and in the drivers of radicalization and violent extremism. By clarifying its approach to PVE, the UN can dilute the inherent contradiction in its dual role as a critic and supporter of host states and reduce the odds that its interventions legitimize human rights violations.

Download

UN peace operations are going through an accelerated period of reconfiguration and drawdown. Between June 2017 and March 2018, long-standing peacekeeping missions in Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia closed, while the mission in Haiti was reconfigured into a transitional peacekeeping mission. Looking ahead, the Security Council has mandated the closure of the peacekeeping mission in Darfur and the initial drawdown of the peacebuilding mission in Guinea-Bissau, and its attention is starting to shift to other missions.

With these upcoming transitions in mind, this issue brief explores experiences and lessons from recent UN transitions in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia. Each of these transitions has been the subject of a detailed IPI policy report published as part of IPI’s project on “Planning for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Transitions.” Drawing on this research, this issue brief recommends how to manage politics and recalibrate policies to better shape future transitions. Its recommendations include to:

• Adopt shared and long-term political strategies, particularly in Security Council mandates and benchmarks, as well as through regular sharing of assessments from the field.
• Ensure integration in field-level planning strategies well before the Security Council sets transition timelines, with senior leadership from the mission shaping the vision, driving planning, and providing concrete recommendations for the future UN presence in the country.
• Strategically engage the host society to align peacebuilding priorities and to communicate the core message that the mission is leaving but the UN is remaining in the country.
• Engage early to secure adequate financing, capitalizing on debates surrounding the transition while it is still on the Security Council’s agenda.
• Institutionalize dedicated transition support capacity within the UN system, including policy and programmatic guidance, operational support, planning expertise, and surge capacities.
• Sustain long-term peacebuilding through partnerships, ensuring that residual peacebuilding challenges are mainstreamed into national development plans and international and regional development frameworks.

Download

On Thursday, July 18th, IPI is hosting a Speaker Series event featuring H.E. Mr. Lamberto Zannier, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.

Remarks will begin at 10:15am PST / 1:15pm EST

Ambassador Zannier has occupied this position since July 2017. Previously, he was OSCE Secretary General for two consecutive three-year terms, from July 2011 until June 2017. Other senior positions include UN Special Representative for Kosovo and Head of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) from 2008 to 2011, Director of the Conflict Prevention Centre of the OSCE (2002-2006), Chairperson of the negotiations on the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (1998-1999) and Head of Disarmament, Arms Control and Cooperative Security at NATO (1991-1997). Zannier joined the Italian Foreign Ministry as a career diplomat in 1978 and also served in Rome, Abu Dhabi, Vienna, and The Hague, mainly specializing in multilateral and security affairs. He has authored several publications on security, conflict prevention, and crisis management issues. He holds a law degree and an honorary degree in International and Diplomatic Sciences from the University of Trieste, Italy.

The event will be moderated by Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President of IPI.

On Wednesday, July 17th, IPI together with the United Nations, and the Al Baraka Banking Group is cohosting a policy forum event titled “Financing the 2030 Agenda: How Financial Institutions are Integrating the SDGs in their Core Business.”

Remarks will begin at 5:15am PST / 8:15am EST

While the 2030 Agenda has attracted public and private investments in a wide variety of areas that support the achievement of the SDGs, financing for sustainable development requires action by diverse global actors, both public and private. Though the public and private sectors are often seen as having incompatible goals, innovative financing modalities continue to emerge, offering the United Nations and its partners in development important new avenues to finance the 2030 Agenda. The financial services sector in particular has pioneered a number of innovations and best practices in both financing and promoting sustainable development. This side event brings together several of the world’s leading financial institutions to discuss best practices in financing for sustainable development.

Welcoming remarks:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute
Mr. Amin El Sharkawi, UN Resident Coordinator in Bahrain

Opening remarks:
Mr. Elliott Harris, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development and Chief Economist in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)

Speakers:
Dr. Mahmoud Mohieldin, SVP, The World Bank Group
Zubaida Bai, Founder and President, ayzh Inc and Happy Woman Fund
Bruno Bastit, Senior Corporate Governance & Sustainable Finance Specialist, S&P Global Ratings
Christian Deseglise, Global Head of Central Banks and Global Sponsor of Sustainable Financing, HSBC
Dr. Ali Adnan Ibrahim, First VP – Head of Sustainability & Social Responsibility, Al Baraka Banking Group
Rina Gee Kupferschmid-Rojas, Managing Director/ Head of Sustainable Finance, UBS
Amit Puri, Global Head Environmental & Social Risk Management, Standard Chartered
Muna Abu Suleman, Global SDG Philanthropist

Moderator:
Ms. Jimena Leiva Roesch, Senior Fellow, International Peace Institute

On Thursday, July 11th, IPI together with Saferworld, TAP Network and eight campaign partners is hosting a policy forum entitled “Voices of SDG16+: Stories for Global Action.”

Remarks will begin at 10:10am PST / 1:10pm EST

Around the world, the 2030 Agenda has helped catalyze and support a wide range of innovative, grassroots-led work around SDG16+ with a variety of civil society actors. While the actions and commitments of civil society at the national level are often overlooked in global-level discussions, the 2019 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) provides a unique opportunity to bring civil society from a wide range of contexts together to showcase best practices and innovative initiatives supporting SDG16+ implementation, and a chance to explore opportunities for further civil society collaboration at all levels around SDG16+ going forward.

Saferworld, TAP Network and International Peace Institute (IPI) along with eight campaign partners launched the Voices of SDG16+: Stories for Global Action campaign collecting stories of grassroots efforts and initiatives from around the world that are implementing the SDG16+ targets. The civil society participants hail from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Canada, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Nepal, Philippines, Somaliland, Uganda, and Yemen, and were selected from well over 200 videos of local leaders and changemakers around the world working to put the 2030 Agenda and its commitment to peace, justice and inclusion into action.

In this event we will showcase the stories of the campaign peace actors, who will share their innovative work on access to justice, women’s political participation, youth peacebuilding, non-violent education and inclusive decision-making.

On Wednesday, July 10th, IPI is hosting a policy forum entitled “Organized Crime, Arms Trafficking, and Illicit Financial Flows: Exploring SDG Target 16.4.”

Remarks will begin at 10:15am PST / 1:15pm EST

This year’s UN High-Level Political Forum provides states and stakeholders the opportunity for an in-depth review of SDG 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies and its targets. This side-event brings together experts working on the components of Target 16.4 to share their knowledge of the interplay between organized crime, illicit financial flows, arms flows, and development efforts.

The adoption of Target 16.4 was, in many ways, a watershed moment that decisively placed organized crime and illicit financial flows on the development agenda. While each component remains a very specific issue, nothing is done in isolation within Agenda 2030. These issues have clear links to other SDG goals, such as those on gender, reducing inequality, decent work, and sustainable cities. This policy forum provides the opportunity to reflect on the role of Target 16.4 in pushing ahead with Agenda 2030.

Opening remarks:
Mr. Gerardo Isaac Morales Tenorio, Deputy Director General for Multidimensional Security,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico

Speakers:
Ms. Anna Alvazzi del Frate, Vice President, Small Arms Survey
Mr. Tom Cardamone, President, Global Financial Integrity
Ms. Tuesday Reitano, Deputy Director, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime
Mr. Martin Borgeaud, Chief Technical Advisor for Justice, Security and Human Rights, UNDP Lebanon

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

There are currently fourteen UN sanctions regimes, which member states are legally required to implement. Many of these are implemented in the context of armed conflict, where international humanitarian law outlines obligations to protect the provision of and access to principled humanitarian action. But despite efforts to make sanctions regimes more targeted, they continue to have unintended consequences, including impeding or preventing the provision of humanitarian assistance and protection—particularly when they coexist with counterterrorism measures.

This issue brief explains the various ways in which sanctions regimes can impact humanitarian action. Acknowledging that this is not a new issue—though one that may be of increasing concern—it identifies several factors that make it challenging to resolve. Finally, it lays out some avenues for progress, pointing to existing efforts and highlighting where more could be done.

Given that sanctions regimes are mostly targeted and that member states are bound to uphold the principles in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law (where it applies), sanctions should protect and not inhibit humani­tarian action. Where sanctions hinder aid, the impact on civilian populations is immediate, and efforts to backtrack will always come too late. Going forward, member states, the UN, financial institutions, and humanitarian actors should proactively and preventively tackle this problem. While the most effective courses of action will require political will, stakeholders at all levels can take incremental steps to help mitigate the impact.

Download

In an interview with FRANCE 24 in The Hague, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen discussed the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and also shared his thoughts on the merits of the Trump administration’s plans for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

On Friday, June 21st, IPI is hosting a speaker series event featuring Mr. Pierre Krähenbühl, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

Remarks will begin at 10:15am PST / 1:15pm EST

Appointed by the secretary-general in November 2013, Pierre Krähenbühl became commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees on March 30, 2014. As commissioner-general, he serves at the level of under-secretary-general. A Swiss national, Mr. Krähenbühl has nearly 30 years of experience in humanitarian, human rights and development work.

Prior to joining UNRWA, Mr. Krähenbühl served as director of Operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross from July 2002 to January 2014, responsible for the conduct, management, and supervision of 12,000 ICRC staff working in 80 countries. In this position, he directly oversaw that organization’s response to conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Colombia and Libya, among others. He led senior-level negotiations with a range of governments, armed forces, and other groups to secure access to conflict-affected populations.

Mr. Krähenbühl’s experience also includes diverse and demanding field assignments in places experiencing profound social change and armed conflict, including El Salvador, Peru, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The event will be moderated by Dr. Adam Lupel, vice president of IPI.

The definition of peace has shifted in the United Nations community from the absence of conflict to a more active, “positive peace.” Looking at peace from this perspective requires a shift in focus from identifying and combating the causes of wars to understanding the factors that foster peace and inclusivity. To view a holistic perspective of peace, it is necessary to explore the connections among culture, peace, security, and development.

The “culture of peace” recognizes the link between peace, development, and human rights. Defined in 1999, the term seeks to tackle the root causes of conflicts emphasizing the importance of dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation among individuals, groups, and nations.

On June 13, 2019, the first annual World Forum for the Culture of Peace took place in The Hague on “Peace Education for the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” It was organized by the Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain Cultural Foundation with support from IPI, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the University of Leiden, and the Carnegie Foundation.

High-level representatives from around the world discussed the importance of peace education for the protection of cultural heritage with a particular focus on Iraq, Yemen, and the Central African Republic. The day-long forum ended with “Messages for Peace” from global leaders including:

• María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, President of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly (Video Message)
• Marzouq Al-Ghanim, President of the Kuwaiti National Assembly
• Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain, Chairman, Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain Cultural Foundation
• Faustin-Archange Touadera, President of the Central African Republic
• Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, President Emeritus of Malta
• Abdullah Gül, Former President of Turkey
• Hassan Arfaoui, Representative of the President of Tunisia
• Laurence Konmla, Special Envoy of the President of Liberia
• Ammar al-Hakim, President of the Reform and Reconstruction Alliance of Iraq

In Session III of the forum, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen moderated a panel on Promoting the Culture of Peace through Education.

Other Attendees Included:

• Joke Brandt, Representative of the Dutch Government and the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Erik de Baedts, President, Peace Palace / Carnegie Foundation
• Prince Turki Alfaisal Alsaud
• George Vella, President of Malta
• Haris Silajdžiž, Former President of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Yousef bin Ahmad Al-Othaimeen, Secretary-General, Organization of Islamic Cooperation
• Taieb Baccouche, Secretary-General of the Arab Maghreb Union and Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia
• Khaled al-Yamani, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen
• Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross
• Hilal Al Sayer, President of the Red Crescent Society, Kuwait
• Leoluca Orlando, Mayor of Palermo
• Shaikh Mohammed Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kuwait
• Ali Al-Shukri, Representative of President of Iraq
• Shaikha Mai bint Mohammed Al-Khalifa, President, Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities, Kingdom of Bahrain
• Abdullah Lamlas, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Government of Kurdistan Region, Iraq
• Yusuf Goran, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Government of Kurdistan Region, Iraq
• Michael Frendo, Speaker Emeritus of the Parliament of Malta and former Minister of Foreign Affairs
• Hamed Al-Azemi, Minister of Education of the State of Kuwait
• Madame Sylvie Baipo Temon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Central Republic of Africa
• Tokia Saïfi, Member of the European Parliament
• Moukadas Noure, Minister of Education of the Central African Republic
• Mounir Bouchenaki, Advisor to UNESCO for Cultural Heritage
• Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the International Court of Justice
• Carl Stolker, President of the University of Leiden

The UN Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the United Nations–African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) in June 2019. As Sudan undergoes an uncertain political transition and security gains in Darfur remain tenuous, these negotiations represent a critical moment to reflect upon the Security Council’s strategic engagement in the country.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 23, 2019, to discuss UNAMID’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop provided a forum for member states, UN stakeholders, and outside experts to share their assessments of the situation in Darfur. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

The workshop focused on the evolving political and security situation in Darfur, the implications of Sudan’s ongoing national political transition for the Darfur region, divisions within the international community, and the challenges facing the mission’s drawdown and reconfiguration. Among the recommendations emerging from the discussion were for the mandate to provide UNAMID the flexibility to maneuver, consolidate recent gains, and articulate a clear political strategy that prioritizes long-term peacebuilding and development.

Download

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

Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3

Amid growing global concerns of terrorism, conflict, and crime, young people are frequently considered a problem or a risk factor, and, as a result, are often excluded from institutions and marginalized from peacebuilding processes.

This phenomenon and ways to address it were the theme of the 49th IPI Vienna Seminar held on June 12th in partnership with the Austrian Federal Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel opened the discussion by saying that “young people do not simply represent the future, they are the present.” He also noted that the seminar fell on the 40th anniversary of the United Nations in Vienna and provided an opportunity to reflect on the unique contributions of Vienna Based Organizations to the Youth, Peace, and Security agenda.

Martin Nesirky, Director of the UN Information Service in Vienna, said that despite the fact that Vienna Based Organizations such as the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), focus on prevention, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the common thread between Vienna and New York. This thread “runs through everything that we’re trying to do in our work on raising the visibility of the Vienna Based Organizations this year,” he said.

Keynote speaker Samuel Goda, Special Representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Chairperson-in-Office on Youth and Security, said that portraying youth as a challenge “is a myth and wrong assumption. At the end of the day, we cannot demonize young people [but] we should also not idealize them. Violent youth identities, however, are more often systematically shaped from above. It is primarily governments and political leaders who seek to mobilize, and often to manipulate, the role and function of youth for political ends.”

He proposed three steps in advancing a global Youth, Peace, and Security agenda—investing in young people’s capacities, eliminating structural barriers that limit youth participation, and establishing partnerships and collaboration “where young people are viewed as equal and essential partners for peace.”

Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director of the Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs of the UNODC, emphasized how we must debunk the assumption that youth are inherently violent.  “Fragility by itself is not necessarily an open door towards criminality… There is no country in the world which does not have crime.” What matters instead, he said, is the resilience of the country. “If people have no way of getting their entrepreneurial energy in a direct manner involved in helping the country move forward in ways we all would prefer, then we have definitely work at hand. And as you can see, we do have a lot of work, I can tell you. And the biggest stakeholders are undoubtedly the young people.”

Participants in the discussion said that obstacles to youth engagement included lack of political will, gender discrimination, and insufficient funding. One youth representative said that there were not enough forums where young people could meet up, and that they felt excluded from political decision-making. Participants explained that youth and government authorities often have a relationship of mutual distrust. They pointed out that when a country is in a fragile period, its youth may be seen as vulnerable to joining a violent gang.

Creative solutions to these challenges should be found by addressing unfulfilled needs, participants said. Why, for example, might young people feel the need to join a gang? If they are seeking a sense of belonging, introducing sports could be a positive solution, one participant explained. Panelists spoke further on how to strengthen youth expertise and increase youth political participation by investing in programs such as Model UN to involve young people at all levels in discussing conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Exclusion itself is a form of violence, discussants noted, and to counter it, we must listen to the diverse viewpoints of young women and men and not only amplify those of the elite youth who are already engaged in conversations around peacebuilding. To better integrate youth, they recommended increasing opportunities for young workers, and partnering with young people to make policy decisions. It was noted that young people are “multipliers” in that they bring positive examples back to their communities.

Young people can engage in important dialogue to fight corruption, organized crime, and terrorism, and work towards building more peaceful, just, strong institutions as long as their ideas are heard. This can happen through enhanced investment in their education, including their viewpoints, clear two-way communication, improving media skills, focus on increasing women’s involvement, and efforts to build youth networks.

The seminar’s final panel featured four young practitioners working to build and sustain peace in different regions and country contexts. IPI Senior Policy Analyst Lesley Connolly asked the panel about their personal experiences, motivations, challenges, and to share practical ways to support young people in preventing violence, crime, and corruption and fostering security.

Nour Barakeh, Collaborator on the SDG 5 Thrive! Project, said one drawback in peacebuilding work is that “you can’t work in political-related issues without putting yourself in danger.” But she highlighted how multimedia outreach such as theatre had helped to break down walls and build trust in communities where she had worked. “We need to remember that stories have a powerful, magical way of affecting people,” she said. The aim of her organization is to inspire people around the world to act on “issues that matter,” and to do so, she said, “We raised voices, especially [because] we come from current conflict areas.” Her theatre piece received a “very effective response,” from people who told her that they had learned something new and “deep” about conflict, since “it’s not a lecture, it’s not an information[al presentation], it’s only talking to their minds and their emotions.”

Ms. Barakeh said that she measured success as being able to make a “shift in our value system” and “change behavior.” To do this in conflict situations, she explained that “we need to speak the language of people in our work.” One successful approach had been an interactive dance and theatre game.

Ayten Birhanie, Executive Director of the Peace and Development Center in Addis Ababa, emphasized that “youth are not a homogenous group,” that “they have different needs and demands,” and that youth “should also have the space to define their own issues rather than finding the issues for them.” Youths, he said, need “an enabling environment.” We must create a “political safe space for their dialogue.” In addition, he said that new kinds of exposure and integration of resources from other organizations’ best practices could help make a difference.

Suad Mohamed, a pharmacist and Interpreter for the Austrian Red Cross and Diakonie Refugee Service in Vienna, listed three levels to consider when working with the younger generation—family and safety, the education system, and the social system. Understanding these, she said, could help guide strategies on how to interact with youth, because “if the basic [system] is not there, then corruption or violence can form.” She expressed her hope that international organizations could give youth a better platform to exhibit their talent and experience. “We need more support,” she said.

Ms. Mohamed also spoke about the perception of refugees in the public eye. Her aim was to change the view of immigration at hiring agencies in Austria. Despite what the media may portray in local communities, “refugees are qualified,” she said. By presenting the stories of hardworking individual refugees to a greater audience, she said, she could communicate that “these people are not ignorant, they need education” along with funding and resources.

Juma Mwangi, a Community Youth Leader and boda boda driver in Nairobi, said that he tries to be a “role model for these youths who I grew up with, and… bring them back from doing crime, being radical, and joining all these groups such as Al Shabab.” He said that a dropout, former gang member, criminal, or someone doing drugs, “can also be a leader and bring peace to our area.” Lately his work has focused on bridging the gap between youth and police, since “it is not easy for our youth to sit in the same place as a policeman.” These dialogues try to show them that “police are also human like us and here to provide security and to keep law and order.”

One challenge he faced in his work was that many youths in his area were not employed. “As much as we can, we try to show them their natural skills and try to show them that they can employ themselves,” despite the fact that “we lack the government support we need,” he said. “I’m trying to show them that if you employ yourself, you have the money and you have the skills, you don’t need to join this group and be a radical or join crime.” Other challenges include the political environment, finance, and hate speech on social media, as well as a lack of understanding the political environment. “Most organizations that come to Majengo come with concepts from boardroom decisions, they don’t know what we go through, they don’t know what we need, and they’re coming to tell us.”

Youth have a large role in peacebuilding, he said, because “when students start protesting, the country starts burning.” But, he continued, “I was amazed to find that a person like me can stand and make a change in a place like Nairobi.”

The Vienna Seminar is annually co-organized by IPI and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration, and Foreign Affairs. This year the seminar featured voices from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Ban Ki-Moon Centre for Global Citizens, the Peace and Development Center, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and the World Federation of UN Associations, and youth activists, among others.

Other Participants Included:

• Karin Proidl, Director of International Organizations, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
• Monika Froehler, Chief Executive Officer, Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens
• Phillipe Tremblay, Head of the External Co-Operation Section, Office of the Secretary General, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
• Gordana Berjan, Executive Director, European Youth Centre, Council of Europe
• Anna-Katharina Deininger, Focal Point on Youth and Security, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
• Sarah Smith,‘Building Peace’ Programme Officer, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
• Margaret Williams, 16+ Forum Coordinator and Senior Policy Officer, World Federation of UN Associations
• Andreas Riecken, Director-General for EU and Multilateral Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs

Related Coverage:

• Vienna Seminar – Youth, Peace and Security
• “Partnering with Young People for Prevention: Sustaining Peace and Addressing Violence, Crime and Corruption”

The UN Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in June 2019. Amidst the potential stagnation of Mali’s peace process, concerns over rising violence against civilians, and continued weaknesses of the Malian government in providing basic services, the upcoming negotiations on MINUSMA’s mandate represent a critical moment to reflect upon the Security Council’s strategic engagement in the country.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 13, 2019, to discuss MINUSMA’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop provided a forum for member states, UN stakeholders, and outside experts to share their assessments of the situation in Mali. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

The workshop highlighted several tensions in the Security Council’s approach to pursuing peace and security in Mali, specifically the tensions inherent in a conflict that is simultaneously transnational and hyper-localized. It also highlighted the debate around whether the mission should focus more on the north or the center of Mali. Participants largely agreed that MINUSMA’s current mandate remains relevant but also put forward several proposals to further strengthen and adapt the mandate in the interest of advancing the mission’s political strategy and achieving the Security Council’s objectives in the coming year. Recommendations included expanding MINUSMA’s political work to the center of the country and supporting a national dialogue, making protection of civilians a strategic priority, increasing support to justice and reconciliation, and strengthening regional coordination.

Gross ODA disbursement to Liberia, 2007–2017 (Click for full graphic)

Top 10 donors of gross overseas development assistance in Liberia, 2015–2017 (Click for full graphic)

The reforms to the UN development system, effective on January 1, 2019, marked the start of a new period for the UN presence in Liberia, making it one of the earliest test cases of a “next generation” UN country team. This comes less than a year after two other transitions: the withdrawal of the UN Mission in Liberia and the inauguration of a new Liberian president. On top of longstanding socioeconomic challenges, these transitions are testing the country’s ability to sustain peace.

This paper, a publication of IPI and the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), examines the implementation of the UN’s peacebuilding and sustaining peace framework in Liberia, looking at what has been done and what is still needed. It focuses on the four issue areas highlighted in the secretary-general’s 2018 report on peacebuilding and sustaining peace: operational and policy coherence; leadership at the UN country level; partnerships with local and regional actors; and international support. It looks specifically at how the UN country team is adapting its strategy and operations in the wake of the recent transitions in Liberia.

The changes taking place in Liberia illustrate that efforts to implement the secretary-general’s recommendations are already underway. The UN has implemented a new, innovative model centered on an empowered resident coordinator’s office, which has been able to effectively coordinate its approach with the Liberian government. Nonetheless, this office needs support to ensure that programming is oriented toward conflict prevention and connected to discussions at UN headquarters.

Download

On Friday, May 24th, IPI together with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) are cohosting a policy forum on “The Human Rights Compliance Framework of the G5 Sahel Joint Force.”

Remarks will begin at 10:15am PST / 1:15pm EST

The G5 Sahel Joint Force (Force Conjointe du G5 Sahel or FC-G5S) was launched in 2017 by Niger, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Chad, and Mali to unite their efforts to address common security threats in the region. As the UN Security Council authorized MINUSMA to provide operational and logistical support to the FC-G5S in Resolution 2391, it also called on the G5 Sahel states to “establish a robust compliance framework to prevent, investigate, address and publicly report violations and abuses of human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law related to the FC-G5S.”

In that context, the FC-G5S—with operational support from the UN and financial support from the EU—is implementing a human rights and international humanitarian law compliance framework. This framework was established with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure that planning and conduct of military operations are done in accordance with human rights and IHL. It aims to establish measures and mechanisms necessary to both minimize civilian harm during offensive military operations and respond to human rights and IHL violations.

This event will provide an opportunity to hear from senior experts from OHCHR, G5 Sahel countries, and civil society organizations. Panelists will provide an overview of the compliance framework and discuss its modalities, challenges, and successes. They will also reflect on the potential for such a model to contribute to the protection of civilians in the Sahel region and to integrate human rights considerations in counter-terrorism operations.

The full concept note for the event is available here.

Welcoming Remarks:
Mr. Jake Sherman, Director of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute

Opening Remarks:
Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations [TBC]
Permanent Representative of Burkina Faso to the United Nations [TBC]

Speakers:
Mr. Baptiste Martin, Senior Human Rights Officer and Coordinator of the OHCHR/G5 Sahel project, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Col. Dia Saidou, Military Attaché, Permanent Mission of Mauritania to the United Nations [TBC]
Ms. Georgette Gagnon Director, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, OHCHR
Mr. Richard Gowan, UN Director, International Crisis Group

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

Concluding Remarks:
Mr. Andrew Gilmour, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and Head of the OHCHR, NY