The most comprehensive assessment of UN peace operations since the Brahimi Report of 2000 was completed this year, when the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO) issued more than 100 recommendations to make UN peace operations “fit for purpose.” It was followed by the UN secretary-general’s report, outlining key actions to move the panel’s recommendations forward between now and the end of 2016. To support this agenda, how can the UN Secretariat and member states build and sustain the political momentum for the implementation of the recommendations of the UN secretary-general and HIPPO, as well as build on synergies with other global reviews—on the peacebuilding architecture, and on women, peace, and security?
This meeting note outlines key aspects of the agenda for improving UN peace operations and sketches a way forward for maintaining the political momentum for implementation. Focusing on political settlements, the protection of civilians, tailored and context-sensitive responses, and global-regional partnerships, it offers ideas to support ongoing initiatives to build and sustain momentum for change in UN peace operations.
The report stems from an expert meeting in Seoul on October 22, 2015, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and the International Peace Institute (IPI).
The following are among the recommendations that emerged from the meeting’s discussions:
On November 18th, The Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its third Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Terrorism including issues related to Ideology, Identity Politics, and Organized Crime.”
Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>
Threats posed by terrorism and violent extremism continue to metastasize, stemming from a constellation of fault lines and imbalances caused by exclusionary, unaccountable, and ideologically based governance; identity politics; inequitable distribution of resources; and new and emerging forms of geopolitical power rivalries. While the nexus of terrorism and organized crime has posed various challenges, the latter constitutes its own threat to global peace and security. Given that these challenges are increasingly multifaceted with global, national, and local dimensions, it is essential to synergize strategies at all levels and bolster the United Nations’ role as a convener and mobilizer.
This Public Consultation focused on the findings and recommendations of the Discussion Paper. We are seeking additional feedback from you – members of civil society organizations, academics, member states, and the private sector. A link to the full ICM paper, its executive summary, and the comments section can be found by clicking here.
Discussants:
Dr. James Cockayne, Head, United Nations University, New York
H.E Raimonda Murmokaitė, Chair, United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations
Moderator:
H.E. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism
On November 18th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its second Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Social Inclusion, Political Participation, and Effective Governance in Challenging Environments.”
Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>
Governance systems globally are facing a growing crisis of legitimacy vis-à-vis their constituents at state and multilateral levels. Local challenges confronting national leaders have become transnational in origin and effect. The multilateral system cannot be reformed if the foundation upon which it rests—the state—remains under such stress. States have a responsibility to promote inclusive societies; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Goal 16 make this clear.
In moving towards a holistic definition of governance, participation, and inclusion, this ICM Discussion Paper addresses the crisis of legitimacy and offers a series of four frameworks: Leadership, Inclusivity, Efficiency and Effectiveness, and Partnerships.
A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found by clicking here.
Discussants:
Mr. Andrew Tomlinson, Director and Representative, Quaker United Nations Office
Dr. Ilze Brands Kehris, Director, Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
Mr. Omar El Okdah, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute
Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism
Sechs Jahre lang wurde unter der Klimarahmenkonvention UNFCCC verhandelt, nachdem 2009 in Kopenhagen der erste Anlauf zu einem langfristigen Klimaregime jenseits des Kyoto-Protokolls gescheitert war. Auf dem Pariser Klimagipfel 2015 sollen nun die 195 UNFCCC-Vertragsstaaten die Weichen für ein neues Regime stellen, indem sie sich darüber einigen, wie sie ab 2020 mit dem Klimaschutz, der Anpassung an den Klimawandel, möglichen Verlusten und Schäden, dem Technologietransfer und der Klimafinanzierung verfahren wollen.
Für einen Erfolg in Paris sind zwei Bausteine wichtig.
Erstens muss es gelingen, die gemeldeten Klimaziele (INDCs – Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) in einer verbindlichen Form zu fixieren und regelmäßig zu überprüfen. Damit würde die „firewall“ zwischen den Industrie- und den Entwicklungsländern unter der UNFCCC aufgehoben, die bislang dafür gesorgt hat, dass sich die Schwellenländer für den Klimaschutz nicht zuständig fühlten. Zweitens muss das neue Regime Staaten zu einem umfassenden und nachhaltigen Klimarisikomanagement befähigen. Dazu gehören mehr Anstrengungen bei der Anpassung an den Klimawandel und die entsprechende finanzielle Unterstützung auch nach 2020. Nur wenn das Pariser Abkommen eine Balance zwischen diesen Bausteinen herstellt, wird ein Konsens möglich sein, auf dessen Basis 2016 weitere Details geklärt werden können.
Die Studie zeigt auf, warum trotz der hohen Ansprüche die Chance groß ist, dass bei der 21. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (COP21, Conference of the Parties) in der französischen Hauptstadt ein Abkommen verabschiedet wird, welche Rolle die großen Player USA, China, Indien und die EU dabei spielen und wie Deutschland 2016 weiterhin dazu beitragen kann, dass das neue Regime ab 2020 funktioniert.
On November 17th, IPI together with the Folke Bernadotte Academy, SecDev Foundation and ZIF cohosted a global gathering of leading academics, experts, and policy makers focused on the next generation of peace and security challenges.
Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>
The background note, agenda, and list of speakers are available here.
This seminar aims to assess the state of the art in knowledge and practice at the crossroads of governance and peacebuilding, and unpack the state-society relationship in a way that can help inform stronger policymaking in consolidating peace and building inclusive and ultimately more resilient societies.
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-bhuwjl").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-bhuwjl").fadeIn(1000);});});
A panel of experts in drug control policy examined the interactions between sustainable development and the world drug problem at an IPI panel, “Debating the Intersection between the Sustainable Development Agenda (SDGs) and United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016” on November 16th, 2015.
The meeting, co-organized with the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), was held to prepare for UNGASS, which will take place in April 2016.
Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, opened the discussion by stating that the comprehensiveness of the Sustainable Development Agenda would require members to rethink their approach to drug policy.
“When you look at the agenda, we talk about a paradigm shift,” he said. “It really, really is. When you look at the ambition of the agenda, but also the universality, the approach, the reach, and we need to recalibrate the discussion we have on the world drug problem, or at least it gives us the opportunity to recalibrate the discussion.”
Ambassador Lauber listed six aspects of the development and drug policy agendas in need of improvement over the next fifteen years – peace, governance, human rights, public health, gender equality, and environmental impact.
The last UNGASS on the world’s drug control priorities was held in 1998. Since then, the session’s stated objective for the total elimination of drugs from the world has clearly not been achieved. The 2016 UNGASS, however, offers an opportunity for member states to shift their strategy from being entirely focused on eliminating volumes of drugs, to analyzing the impacts of drug control policies on people.
There are growing calls to take a broader view of the related health, human rights, and safety concerns related to drug control, Mr. Lauber said. He called for “a sincere analysis of what has worked, and what has not worked.”
UNGASS 2016 must consider “the full range of links between the world drug problem and sustainable development in areas affected by illicit drug cultivation, trafficking, or use, and be particularly candid of situations in which the side effect of the cure have been far worse than the disease itself,” he said.
Julia Buxton of Hungary’s School of Public Policy, Central European University, asked whether the SDGs most closely linked to drug policy, such as eradicating poverty and HIV, would be possible to achieve if member states continued with their present militarized counter-narcotics strategy. “Absolutely not,” she answered, “not so long as we have this astonishing contradiction in policy and coherence between the securitization of drugs and pressing development issues.”
Ms. Buxton criticized “alternative development” programs aimed at encouraging peasants to switch from growing illicit drugs-related crops. Alternative development programs have been central to UN drug control strategies, but she warned they have had a negative impact.
“Rather than being a solution to these rather catastrophic global security and development problems we have, this is, as I like to say, a sticking plaster on a gangrenous leg that requires amputation,” she said. “It is a wholly inadequate response to the scale of the problems that we face.”
Ms. Buxton quantified alternative development programs’ mixed record. Despite significant alternative development aid from the United Kingdom, Afghanistan’s Helmand province saw an increase in opium cultivation in the past two years—34% in 2012-13, and 23% in 2013-14. Of Britain’s failure with this program, Ms. Buxton said, “this record is a travesty of why alternative development cannot work, and it cannot work because it is part of a counter-narcotic strategy.”
Ms. Buxton summarized her critique of alternative development by highlighting why it is not a way to promote development. “It’s driven by security concerns, and not development concerns and it re-enforces structural and national inequalities,” she said. “For those reasons, besides the fact that China, Russia, and US can’t even agree on what constitutes development, there’s no consensus, there’s no agreement, and these projects do more harm than good.”
Tenu Avafia, Team Leader of the HIV, Health and Development Group at the UN Development Programme (UNDP), brought the perspective of the United Nations to the panel’s discussion. He reminded the audience that “many people incarcerated for drugs are indigenous and ethnic minorities.” Further, he said, children of those incarcerated in many countries may be locked up with their parents, or “left to fend for themselves on the street, or in the no less ideal setting of institutionalized or foster care.”
A central part of the SDGs are the 179 targets to be met. “We’re all familiar with the term, whether we like it or not, ‘what gets measured gets done,’” Mr. Avafia said. Traditional measures of the success of drug policies focused on statistics such as the number of drug-related arrests made or the volumes of drugs seized. UNDP reported this has been problematic, because such measures say little about “the impacts of drug policies on people’s lives,” he said.
Bearing this disproportionate influence that past measures have had on the most vulnerable, Mr. Avafia stated it is his hope that the UN will “join the growing number of actors who call for a rethink of metrics that measure the impact of drug policies on human rights, on human development, and on public health, and we support these calls.”
Summer Walker, Drug Policy Project Manager for the United Nations University think-tank, said that a complementary set of metrics specific to drug policy were needed in conjunction with the SDGs. The SDGs have catalyzed a new conversation about indicators, and UNGASS can build upon that energy. This is why UNU’s report recommends, “that member states use UNGASS to measure the human development impacts of drug policies and drugs.”
Developing this particular set of targets and measures for drug policy, she said, “would help the drug policy/development action plan better align with both the SDGs and human development more broadly.”
Adam Lupel, IPI Director of Research and Publications, moderated the conversation.
Related Event:
IPI Panel: Focus on Prevention, Not Repression, Needed in Response to Drug Problem
Watch event:
Hybride Bedrohungen sind für den betroffenen Staat eine Herausforderung: Es ist für ihn kompliziert, auf sie in angemessener Art und Weise zu reagieren, weil die Angreifenden, die oftmals verdeckt agieren, nur schwer zu identifizieren und zuzuordnen sind. Als eine mögliche Antwort auf hybride Bedrohungen wird in der sicherheitspolitischen Debatte derzeit intensiv das Konzept der Resilienz diskutiert. Es rückt die eigenen Verwundbarkeiten, den Umgang mit Gefahren und Bedrohungen sowie die Instrumente zu deren Bewältigung in den Fokus sicherheitspolitischer Überlegungen. Im Hinblick auf Deutschland geht es also darum, eigene Vulnerabilitäten zu erkennen und zu minimieren und die Widerstandsfähigkeit der Gesellschaft zu erhöhen.
Il semble nécessaire de dresser l'évolution de la doctrine et de la stratégie militaire chinoises au fil des époques, en mettant en scène les actions de deux stratèges d'hier et d'aujourd'hui : Sun Zi et Xi Jinping. Tous deux ont su considérer et appréhender leur environnement contemporain au profit du développement et de la pérennité de la Chine. Sun Wu, plus connu sous le nom de Sun Zi, était général et stratège du roi Helu de Wu de 770 à 476 avant notre ère, durant la période des Printemps et des Automnes. Ce général chinois a décliné en treize chapitres, dans L'Art de la guerre, des préceptes qui traitent de la stratégie militaire et de divers aspects de l'organisation de l'armée chinoise. 2 500 ans plus tard, c'est Xi Jinping, chef de la Commission Militaire Centrale (CMC), qui est à la tête d'un pays d'une superficie de 9 596 961 km² et d'une population de 1,357 milliards de chinois. (...)
The 2030 Climate Energy package adopted by the European Council at the Brussels Summit of 23/24 October 2014, sets the European Union's new climate and energy targets for 2030. These targets include a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, at least 27% of renewables as a share of the EU's final energy consumption by 2030, and an indicative target of 27% for energy efficiency (energy savings) by 2030, based on 2007 projections. These targets are deliberately flexible and ambiguous, allowing for an agreement to be concluded between the 28 Member States which includes significant concessions granted to the Visegrad + countries while preserving the long term objective of a transition towards decarbonized energy systems. (...)