European Peace Institute / News

On April 11th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Côte d’Ivoire to the United Nations cohosted a high-level policy forum and reception entitled Côte d’Ivoire, a Successful Case of Crisis Management: A Look Back at the Experience and Lessons Learned.

After thirteen years, the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) is set to end in June 2017, leaving behind a stable country on the path to economic development, (the annual average growth rate stands at 9 percent) reconciliation, and sustainable peace.

UNOCI is the first peacekeeping operation to close since the United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor ended. Its transition toward closure comes at a time when exit strategies are being considered for UN missions in Liberia and Haiti—providing an opportunity to examine lessons learned from this unique operation.

In efforts to resolve the Ivorian crisis, the Security Council adopted various crisis management instruments including: diplomatic engagement through regional mediation efforts and the deployment of a regional force; the simultaneous deployment of a French force (Opération Licorne); the implementation of an arms and diamonds embargo, targeted sanctions against troublemakers; the establishment of a commission of inquiry for human rights abuses; threats to resort to the International Criminal Court; Security Sector Reform (SSR), Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR); and the establishment of a UN election certification mandate.

All these instruments have, at some point, helped initiate dialogue between various stakeholders. Although contested at its outset, the UN’s election certification role ultimately led the international community to unite in support of full respect for the results of the November 2010 presidential elections. This allowed for crisis recovery and the stabilization of Cote d’Ivoire, and more broadly, of the subregion.

As Côte d’Ivoire launches its campaign for a non-permanent member seat on the UN Security Council, this high-level panel will offer the opportunity to reflect on the management and resolution of this crisis, and the lessons that can be learned from the long-running United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire.

Panelists:
H.E. Mr. Marcel Amon-Tanoh, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Côte d’Ivoire
Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations
Mrs. Elisabeth Lindenmayer, Director, International Organization and UN Studies Specialization, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

Moderator:
Dr. Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute

The UN is increasingly deploying peacekeepers to conflict theaters where there is no political agreement and little or no peace to keep. Such high-risk environments make it harder for the UN to keep its personnel safe, fit, and healthy. While current UN missions have adopted a number of measures to mitigate these dangers, these do not address the systemic challenges facing medical support to UN peace operations.

This paper asks the question: What are the challenges to providing medical support to UN peace operations in high-risk environments? It analyzes five core challenges facing the UN: (1) medical structures, planning, and coordination in UN headquarters; (2) standards of care; (3) coordination in the field; (4) training and capacity building; and (5) resources and capabilities.

On the basis of these challenges, it offers recommendations for making medical support to peace operations in high-risk environments more efficient and effective:

• The UN Medical Services Division and Medical Support Section should coordinate better and create links with the Office of Military Affairs.
• Medical support planning should be included in every aspect of mission planning and be tailored to the context.
• Missions should shift away from Level II hospitals, which are expensive and underutilized, instead exploring alternatives such as mobile medical units with surgical capabilities.
• Missions should focus on in-mission training, including by improving mentoring of medical personnel.
• MedEvac and CasEvac procedures should be simplified, decentralized, and made more flexible.
• The UN should seek pledges of medical equipment and personnel from member states in a more targeted way.

Download

As part of an ongoing effort to unpack the conceptual and practical contours of prevention for sustaining peace, IPI organized the third in a series of monthly high-level conversations among member states and other key stakeholders on April 10, 2017. The closed-door workshop explored what measures or changes the concept of sustaining peace implies in practice, building upon the preceding issue brief. The meeting follows a previous conversation, in March, on a sustaining peace approach to the restoration and extension of state authority in peace operations.

Participants agreed that the sustaining peace lens provides alternative ways to think about conflict and peace, based on the understanding that every society has capacities for peace. By understanding “what still works,” even in situations of conflict or crisis, the international community can support the positive changes already being driven by internal actors.

The conversation examined the current situation in three countries – The Gambia, Burundi, and the Central African Republic – with an eye to identifying the positive resilient capacities existing in those countries. The discussion highlighted the unique role the Peacebuilding Commission can play in such efforts, and touched upon other national and international initiatives that served as practical examples of a sustaining peace approach.

Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser, moderated the discussion.

Read the meeting brief in English

Read the meeting brief in French

In its review of the peacebuilding architecture, the Advisory Group of Experts introduced the language of “sustaining peace.” With peacebuilding increasingly interpreted as time-bound interventions in fragile or conflict-affected states, sustaining peace seeks to reclaim peace in its own right and detach it from conflict. But what does sustaining peace mean in practice?

This issue brief seeks to unpack the definition of sustaining peace and provide examples of what it looks like at the national and international levels. It also aims to clear up the political cobwebs in the minds of some stakeholders fearful that the concept is another Trojan horse for outside intervention. It describes sustaining peace as:

• An explicit and deliberate policy objective for all states, not just those affected by conflict;
• An ongoing exercise grounded in existing capacities for peace;
• An endogenous process requiring strong and inclusive national ownership and leadership; and
• A multi-sectoral, all-encompassing “meta-policy” deserving attention at the highest levels of national government.

This issue brief is part of the International Peace Institute’s (IPI) attempt to reframe prevention for the purpose of sustaining peace through a series of conversations from October 2016 to May 2017.

Download in French

Download

On Thursday, April 6th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations, and Security Council Report, cohosted a policy forum event to discuss the 2016 selection process for the United Nations Secretary-General.

Over the course of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, thirteen candidates joined the race to become the next secretary-general of the United Nations. Previously considered an antiquated and highly secretive process, the 2016 selection displayed an unprecedented level of transparency and inclusivity. Active involvement of civil society and enhanced cooperation between the UN General Assembly and the Security Council paved the way for a more clearly defined selection process than ever before.

The informal dialogue sessions, often referred to as the General Assembly hearings, provided a unique and invaluable opportunity for candidates to engage with member states. By live streaming the hearings on the UN’s website, candidates were able to reach individuals throughout the world. Open meetings and events were also organized by nongovernmental organizations, including IPI, where candidates were able to present their vision statement and address questions from civil society and the larger international affairs community.

Ahead of the General Assembly’s consideration of lessons learned, speakers analyzed the progress achieved during the 2016 selection, discussed key challenges, and identified concrete recommendations on ways to further improve future selection and appointment processes in order to ensure that the new standard of transparency, engagement, and inclusivity is merely seen as the bar—not the ceiling.

The latest publication from Security Council Report, The UN Secretary-General Selection and Appointment Process: Emerging from the Shadows, was available at the event.

Welcome Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Peter Martin Lehmann Nielsen, Chargé d’Affaires, Permanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations

Speakers:
H.E. Mr. Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations
Ms. Minna-Liina Lind, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Estonia to the United Nations
Mr. Tomas Christensen, Chef de Cabinet, Office of the President of the 70th and the 71st sessions of the UN General Assembly
Ms. Gillian Sorensen, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General (former)
Mr. Ian Martin, Executive Director, Security Council Report

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

On Wednesday, April 12th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations, are cohosting the launch of IPI’s report on “Medical Support for UN Peace Operations in High-Risk Environments.”

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST.

UN peacekeepers are increasingly the targets of carjacking, kidnapping, and ambushes, and the number of those injured or killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombings, rocket-propelled grenades, helicopter crashes, artillery fire, and landmines, is on the rise. These new environments, where the UN sends peacekeepers without being able to guarantee their safety, challenge and question the foundational assumptions and doctrine of UN peacekeeping. Peacekeepers are becoming less impartial and are being deployed to conflict theaters where there is no political agreement and little or no peace to keep.

These environments have also created new challenges for the UN in terms of looking at safety and security concerns. This paper specifically looks at the challenges of medical support to peace operations in high-risk environments. It is concerned with the growing risks that troops, police, and civilians face when deployed to high-risk environments. While accidents and illness will remain a common cause of death in UN peace operations, medical facilities need to adapt to the operational realities of high-risk, asymmetric threat environments where peacekeepers are increasingly the direct target of attacks.

The central question this paper asks is: What are the challenges to providing medical support to UN peace operations in high-risk environments? In answering this question, the paper draws on interviews that the authors conducted in New York, Oslo, Bangui, Bamako, and Gao, with more than fifty experts working on medical support, planning, command and control, MedEvac, and other areas intrinsic to safety and security in peace operations, especially in high-risk environments. The authors conducted field research in Mali and the Central African Republic, visiting contingents and field hospitals in the UN missions in both countries. The paper also draws on insights from past research, evaluations, and reports on medical challenges in peace operations.

Opening Remarks:
Ambassador Jürgen Schulz, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations

Speakers:
Ms. Lesley Connolly, Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute and co-author of the paper
Mr. Havard Johansen, Course Director at the Norwegian Defense International Centre and co-author of the paper
Major General Adrian Foster, Deputy Military Adviser, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Dr. Jillann Farmer, Director, Medical Services Division, United Nations Development Programme

Moderator:
Dr. Els Debuf, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute

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

Painters from the Middle East and North Africa Region donated artwork to the International Peace Institute for the Middle East and North Africa (IPI-MENA) during an “Art for Peace” exhibition hosted in collaboration with Wedad Al Bakr, a Saudi painter and peace advocate.

Zakeya Zada, a Bahraini artist, cut the ceremonial ribbon to open the exhibition—dedicated to addressing the growing need for peace and stability in the MENA region and beyond—on April 2nd in Manama.

Artistic compositions representing unique renditions of peace were showcased by prominent painters, which included Mayasa Al Sowaidi, Zakeya Zada, Dawiya Ebrahim, Thajba Najeeb, Wedad Al Bakr, Ali Almahmeed, Abbas Almosawi, Abderrazak Hamouda, and Ebrahim Busaad.

The event was inaugurated by Nejib Friji, Director of IPI-MENA, Wedad Al Bakr and the donor painters.

The works, donated to IPI-MENA as a token of dedication of the artists’ commitment to advocating peace, were signed by the painters—5 women and 4 men—who devoted their talents and skills as canvas to illustrate the ever-increasing necessity of comprehensive and lasting peace.

The exhibition, attended by diplomats, senior officials, artists, academics, media and members of civil society involved a discussion and exchange around art inspiring, reinforcing and mobilizing global efforts of peace, tolerance and sustainable development.

Abderrazak Hamouda, Tunisian-Swiss calligrapher, quoted Syrian poet Adonis, asking, “How can we write poetry about peace, if we are not living in peace?” He stated that this provided the inspiration behind his calligraphy of “I hope Peace” on canvas, which he donated to IPI-MENA.

Ali Almahmeed, Painter and President of the Bahrain Arts Society, said “donating my peace-inspired paintings to the IPI is in line with my conviction that all efforts should contribute to the culture of peace.”

Thajba Najeeb elaborated on how her paintings reflected an “internal struggle for peace, and that we need to start within ourselves” in order to spread a like-minded global philosophy.

Dawiya Ebrahim stated that her painting was “inspired by the need to help peace to prevail in the region and beyond amid the many conflicts tearing up the MENA region.”

Abbas Almosawi said “our combat for peace requires our artworks as weapons.”

Saudi painter Wedad Al Bakr hailed her team of painters “for accepting the opportunity to act as peace messengers.”

The artists voiced their appreciation to IPI-MENA for providing a platform that effectively brought like-minded talents to share a vision and understanding of regional peace challenges through artwork, and to inspire and encourage new generations to find ways in which to contribute to sustainable peace.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Friji expressed his sincere gratitude to the artists for bringing “beauty at the service of peace and connecting the world of art and the world of policy-making and research to create a better, safer and more tolerant world for all of us.” He also stated that the artwork donated “will create the first permanent art collection dedicated to peace at the International Peace Institute.”

Related Coverage:
“English News Bulletin,” Bahrain News Agency (April 2, 2017)
“Artists Unite for Peace,” Daily Tribune Bahrain (April 2, 2017)

On Wednesday, March 29th, IPI hosted a press briefing on the Broadway play OSLO, which begins previews at the Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center on March 23, 2017 and opens there on April 13, 2017. The event featured the play’s author, J.T. Rogers, director, Bartlett Sher, and IPI President Terje Rød­-Larsen, who was a major figure in the real life drama at the center of the play. The conversation covered the Oslo negotiations, the origins and development of the play, the challenges of dramatizing historical events, the relevance of the Oslo process to the realities of today’s Middle East, and other points questioners may want to raise.

Remarks will begin at 1:45pm EST.

A darkly comic epic, OSLO tells the story of how Norwegian diplomat Mona Juul, and her husband, social scientist Terje Rød­-Larsen, planned and orchestrated top­ secret, high ­level meetings in Norway between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The talks culminated in the historic 1993 Oslo Accords, which were officially signed at a White House ceremony in the presence of Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and US President Bill Clinton. OSLO played a sold­ out run last summer at Lincoln Center’s Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater, and Ben Brantley, chief theater critic of The New York Times, called it “a vivid, thoughtful, and astonishingly lucid account of a byzantine chapter in international politics.”

While the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) may seem antiquated and unlikely to materialize, the mere existence of WMD remains one of the paramount threats to mankind. Nuclear weapons present not only the biggest existential threat, but also the biggest gap in the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation architecture. In this context, on March 27, 2017, more than 100 countries launched the first UN talks on a global nuclear weapons ban.

This policy paper explores key challenges and developments in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament of WMD, with an emphasis on nuclear arms. Based on extensive consultations with representatives of states, various UN entities, and civil society, as well as subject-matter experts, this paper details recommendations laid out in the ICM’s final report, published in September 2016. To revitalize the UN disarmament and non-proliferation machinery, it offers a number of recommendations for a secretary-general willing to lead this effort:

• Strengthen the UN disarmament machinery;
• Support the IAEA’s increasing responsibilities;
• Implement Security Council Resolution 1540 and other paths to innovative multilateralism;
• Assess the role of new technologies; and
• Engage civil society.

To stand with those who are committed to working multilaterally and reforming the international community, we are asking people to use the hashtag #MultilateralismMatters. For more, including sample tweets and graphics, read IPI’s Social Media Toolkit here. For other IPI news, events, and publications about weapons of mass destruction, see here.

Download

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

“Stabilization denotes a level of robustness that not all member states are comfortable with,” Michael Grant, Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the UN, told the audience at a March 23rd IPI book launch. The book, UN Peacekeeping Doctrine in a New Era: Adapting to Stabilisation, Protection and New Threats (edited by Cedric de Coning, Chiyuki Aoi, and John Karlsrud), seeks to address the growing gap between practice and doctrine in peacekeeping.

“Stabilization is not counterterrorism, [but] peacekeepers operate where spoilers are present, and …if we don’t train and equip peacekeepers for stabilization missions, then their lives will be at risk.” said Mr. Grant, summing up a key challenge presented by recent UN missions to the traditional peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality and minimum use of force.”

The Permanent Mission of Canada co-sponsored the event along with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).

Cedric de Coning, co-editor of the book, argued that a gap between practice and doctrine affects the abilities of an operation to achieve its aims, thus imperiling the lives of civilians and peacekeepers. He noted that military contingents deployed under the UN flag are particularly concerned with doctrine, as it determines the circumstances and manner in which they are permitted or expected to use force.

Vigorously calling for clarity around the use of the term stabilization, Dr. de Coning said, “We must better define what we mean by stabilization, so we avoid doing stabilization with a peacekeeping mindset.” He warned that “the larger the potential room for misunderstanding and misperception, the larger the potential for ineffectiveness that these missions have.”

While Aditi Gorur, Director of the Protecting Civilians in Conflict Program at the Stimson Center, made clear her belief that stabilization missions do not pose a threat to the principles of peacekeeping, she argued that the word “stabilization” holds no meaning at the UN. This view was based on her visits to Haiti, Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Mali, where stabilization missions are currently underway.

Ms. Gorur discussed several different interpretations of stabilization she had heard in the field, and noted that field staff rarely see force as an inherent part of stabilization. Remarking that “60 people in a room means 72 opinions on the definition of stabilization,” Ms. Gorur nonetheless proposed to define stabilization efforts as missions “that try in some way to support the transfer of territorial control from spoilers to legitimate authorities.” With the exception of the Force Intervention Brigade in DRC, she argued that even the use of force towards such a goal was not necessarily incompatible with the traditional principles of peacekeeping.

Dimitry Titov, Assistant Secretary-General for the Rule of Law and Security Institutions at UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO), chose not to emphasize the definition of stabilization as the key issue, instead taking the stance that “whether we call these activities early peacebuilding, stabilization, peace consolidation, the most crucial thing is delivery.” Mr. Titov agreed that “debating the issue was right,” but that “delivery is key… and if we don’t deliver on whatever concept we have, then we have failed very badly.” Mr. Titov also emphasized that stabilization is a complex endeavor, in which military or kinetic operations can play only a limited role.

David Gressly, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), argued that there was a need for stabilization to “go back to basics.” Addressing the aims of the UN Security Council, which authorizes peace operations to address threats to international peace and security, Mr. Gressly said, “I think we’re looking for a degree of stability so that there’s a reasonable expectation the country will not return to a significant level of threat.” He extolled the importance of working with the host government, saying, “We need to establish what our exit conditions look like and get that agreement with a government early on.”

Mr. Gressly, who was heavily involved in stabilization missions in both Mali and DRC, summed up the importance of clarity around the term “stabilization” by saying, “We’re not looking for perfection, just a degree of stability. If we can define that better then we’ll be in a better position to achieve it.”

Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, moderated the discussion.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-phlwev").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-phlwev").fadeIn(1000);});}); Did you attend? Find yourself in our photo gallery of the event on Facebook >>

Amina Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, told a thronged reception at IPI that the gender parity policy that she and Secretary-General António Guterres have championed at the UN must run through the entire organization.

“We want to see gender parity not just at the level of USG and ASG in positions of decision-making—that is incredibly important—but for sustainability, we realize that we don’t have many young women coming in at the bottom,” she said.

“Gender parity is not just about the top,” she told the overflow 777 Club gathering on March 16, 2017. “It’s about the bottom up and our institutions at the country level generating discussion that when you go to help countries, more than half the number of people around the table creating solutions are women, and that will engender the possibilities, the integrity, the expertise that women have to look at different dimensions and bring the solutions.”

She acknowledged the challenge of breaking out of the UN bubble and said that the best way of doing that might be deepening the engagement with the young.

“I don’t think there is a better way of breaking that than using young people who today don’t see borders. They don’t see what the old people see, many like us, but they will if the intergenerational handover that we do doesn’t involve them.”

She said she had taken heart during the current Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meetings at the enthusiasm she had encountered. “That’s even more special that we’re here in CSW week and we’re speaking together,” she said. “I enjoy not just the joy and energy around the UN, but when we walk into those rooms that are usually full of men, there are a lot of women.”

She reminded people that it had been two decades since the phrase “women’s rights are human rights” arose but warned that here was a need to keep pressing the point and at undiminished volume. “In some places we’re losing a lot of those gains that we had and we ought to ask, ‘What’s gone wrong 20 years later?” she said. “I’m sure at the time we said that, we’d never have thought that 20 years on we’d still be saying it, sometimes screaming at the top of our voices.”

She spoke fondly of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). “I’m often asked which of the SDGs are my favorite, and I will continue to say, ‘You know, they’re like my kids. Every single one of them is special, but together they’re amazing.’

“And that’s how everyone ought to take them,” she asserted. “Because if you know the work that went into creating every single one of them, you’ll remember they’ve got many parents.”

She noted the Secretary-General’s emphasis on prevention, the 2030 Agenda, and “sustaining peace,” and said they represented the best way to bring people together around global goals.

“Leave people behind anywhere in the world, and you’ll get unexpected results,” she said, mentioning terrorism and migration as two of them. “We’re challenged by that across the world—it’s not just about the developing world, but it’s about a world that has lost its moral compass, and we have to try to bring that back again.”

She praised IPI for being a “huge supporter of the integration of gender into its events” and said she drew inspiration for the future from the dedication represented by the people in the room. “The people in this room give me a lot of hope,” she said.

“There’s many of you here who do this as your day job, and night job. That commitment and passion—we want to open up the door to make sure that we ‘do’ rather than just talk about it. We’ve talked and we’ve negotiated, we’ve written, and now we have these tools, and we have to take them out there.”

As member states continue to discuss what sustaining peace means in practice, it is important to examine how peace operations can be designed and implemented to help build self-sustaining peace rather than just prevent relapse into conflict. In particular, considering most current peace operations are deployed in countries with weak state institutions, we should consider how they can support the return and extension of state authority.

This issue brief focuses on what activities peace operations can undertake that would contribute toward sustaining peace under a mandate to restore and extend state authority. It suggests that the primacy of politics, people-centered approaches, context-sensitive analysis, performance legitimacy, and rule of law, rather than simply stabilization, must drive this process.

This issue brief is part of the International Peace Institute’s (IPI) attempt to reframe prevention for the purpose of sustaining peace through a series of conversations from October 2016 to May 2017.

Download

On Tuesday, March 14th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Thailand to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum on women’s economic empowerment in fragile communities. Speakers at the event will share their insights on how closing the gender gap can build more resilient peace and sustainable development.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST.

Even in the world’s most stable countries, women continue to face workplace inequality, the gender wage gap, and exploitation in informal employment. In societies affected by conflict, women face further obstacles to full participation in the economy, including fragile public safety and uncertain access to justice. Yet their exclusion comes at a high cost, limiting both peace and development. The gender gap costs the sub-Saharan African economy up to 105 billion dollars per year, while GDP could increase globally by at least 12 trillion dollars if women participated equally to men.

Where communities are affected by fragility, gender equality is critical to violence prevention. An often-overlooked effect of women’s economic empowerment is their ability to participate in political life and influence peace and transition processes. Indeed, work often brings women the resources, status, and networks needed for civic engagement or political campaigns. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustaining Peace framework, and many National Action Plans on Women, Peace, and Security recognize this link between inclusion, peace, and equitable growth.

At this policy forum, speakers will discuss how these frameworks coalesce to amplify the benefits of women’s economic empowerment. Drawing on examples from sub-Saharan Africa, Tunisia, and Thailand, the discussion will consider country-level efforts and the current data on the impact of closing the gender gap in fragile communities.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Police General Adul Sangsingkeo, Minister of Social Development and Human Security, Thailand

Speakers:
Dr. Ayodele Odusola, Chief Economist for Africa, United Nations Development Program
Ms. Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, IPI
Dr. Saisuree Chutikul, Senior Adviser, National Committee to Draft and Review Thailand’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security
Dr. Sita Sumrit, Chief of Women and Children Empowerment Program, Thailand Institute of Justice

Moderator:
Mr. Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, IPI

On Tuesday, March 14th, IPI together with the Government of Estonia are cohosting a policy forum on men’s roles in preventing violence against women and promoting gender equality. Ministers from Estonia, Finland, and Namibia will share examples of national initiatives that engage men and boys to stand against violence.

Remarks will begin at 4:15pm EST.

In many societies, men are in a position to bring change on gender equality, as they continue to hold the majority of policymaking and public positions worldwide. Yet their participation in preventing and eliminating violence against women has often been overlooked. Today, more men and boys are taking a stand through efforts like the White Ribbon Campaign, which unites men from different countries and different backgrounds in declaring that they will never commit, excuse, or remain silent about violence against women. Globally, UN Women’s HeForShe movement reaches out to men and boys as agents of change for gender equality.

Despite these campaigns and commitments, violence against women remains one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world, regardless of country or continent. To address deeply ingrained violence and inequalities, traditional gender roles and social norms must continue to change. At this policy forum, speakers will address how men can play a stronger role, including as role models for positive masculinities. Drawing on examples from Estonia, Finland, and Namibia, they will discuss national initiatives that transform commitments on violence against women into tangible actions. Reflecting on UN action and recent research, the panel will also discuss how men and men’s organizations can more actively contribute to gender equality.

Speakers:
Mr. Rait Kuuse, Deputy Minister of Social Affairs, Estonia
Ms. Pirkko Mattila, Minister of Social Affairs and Health, Finland
Hon. Doreen Sioka, Minister of Gender Equality and Child Welfare, Namibia
Mr. Yannick Glemarec, Assistant Secretary-General and Deputy Executive Director, UN Women
Mr. Christian Veske, Stakeholder Relations Officer, European Institute for Gender Equality

Moderator:
Mr. Warren Hoge, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute

On November 24, 2016, the government of Colombia and the biggest guerrilla group in the country, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), signed a final peace agreement. This accord put an end to the longest armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere and to long and convoluted peace talks.

Timeline of the peace process in Colombia (Click to view full graphic)

What elements of the process contributed to its success? While it may be too early to properly speak of “lessons learned,” IPI’s latest paper highlights the key elements that seemed to have worked and those that made progress difficult. Over the course of the process, several factors emerged as central, both to its successful resolution and to the problems likely to arise during implementation:

• A limited agenda: Previous talks with the FARC-EP had been burdened by an extremely long agenda that included many issues the public believed should not be settled in a negotiation with an insurgent group. Reflecting this experience, the agreed final agenda addressed just six issues.
• A peace process removed from Colombia: Cuba’s hosting of the negotiations buffered the talks from the daily occurrences of war and politics in Colombia and provided a controlled environment. While this proved to be essential for the parties to come to an agreement, it left many Colombians feeling removed from the process and limited their sense of ownership.
• A strategic use of the international community: The dialogue was guided by a central premise: this would be a process “for Colombians, by Colombians.” This meant that the government tightly controlled the process and excluded the possibility of an external mediator. Nonetheless, the Colombian government reached out to and mobilized the international community. Although the involvement of these actors was essential to the successful outcome of the talks, it did not translate into wider legitimacy inside Colombia.

This report will be available in Spanish shortly.

Download

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

The ability of the United Nations to successfully reform itself and deliver on promises to sustain peace will ultimately depend not only on the primacy of politics but also on effective management of and support to a full spectrum of peace operations in the field. This was the view shared by experts and practitioners at a recent IPI Seminar on UN Field Support for Peace Operations, opened by Olivier Landour, from the Directorate general for International Relations and Strategy (DGRIS) of the French Ministry of Defense, and Atul Khare, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support at the United Nations.

There is broad consensus that the UN currently has a unique window of opportunity to undertake reforms, and that the new Secretary-General is committed to moving towards greater decentralization, simplification, flexibility, transparency, and accountability. Participants from across the Secretariat, UN member-states’ missions, and academia convened for a closed-door discussion (under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution) on the nature of the challenges faced and the objectives reforms should aim at, and to suggest what steps could be taken to ensure UN field support becomes better “fit for purpose.”

In introducing the seminar, Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Center for Peace Operations, noted that the 2015 High Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) had stressed the need for more agile field support. “The HIPPO Report pointed to the fact that mission requirements are still treated as exceptions to headquarters-focused policies, even though field missions account for over 80 % of UN Secretariat spending, 55 % of its staff, and 90 % of its procurement,” he said. He also quoted Secretary-General António Guterres saying that “the United Nations needs to be nimble, efficient and effective. It must focus more on delivery and less on process; more on people and less on bureaucracy.”

The four sessions of this day-long seminar delved further into specific aspects of field support, starting with a session framing the “broader picture” by asking the question, “What does UN field support fit for purposes look like?” This was followed by sessions on human resources and staffing, UN field support to African Union and other non-UN operations, and the role of key enablers such as medical, engineering, and aviation capabilities.

The ambassadors from Canada, the United States, Norway, Ethiopia, the Republic of Korea, and France guided the conversations throughout the day. Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG) delivered a lunchtime keynote speech highlighting how effective leadership and field support are two of the most needed resources in field missions.

A consistent theme to emerge from these discussions was the need to learn from past attempts to reform the UN system, many of which were undertaken in response to concerns regarding issues such as recruitment, terms of service, and collaborative delivery. In particular, more than one speaker emphasized that the UN is ultimately a political body comprised of member-states, whose cooperation is as essential to the adoption and implementation of reform as that of Secretariat and field staff. Accordingly, the Secretary-General and senior UN staff can play a key role in generating and presenting options for reform that can align the interests of states, UN staff, and the individuals and communities that field missions are intended to serve.

Participants endorsed the idea that field support needs to be accountable for outcomes, rather than exclusively for compliance with rules, many of which were set up when the UN was primarily a conference-servicing organization with negligible field presence. In sequencing reforms to bring about such changes, key speakers emphasized the idea that “form should follow function.” Bureaucracies tend to address problems by expanding and undertaking structural reorganizations; instead, the UN today will be best served by a focus on people and delivery.

The seminar was organized with support from the French Ministry of Defense’s Department for International Relations and Strategy (DGRIS), as part of a three-year “New Issues Observatory” project. Ongoing research undertaken as part of this project was presented on a number of panels, and discussions will inform policy reports which will be published in coming months on different field support themes. Previously, as part of the New Issues Observatory project, IPI hosted various seminars including “UN Peace Operations in Violent and Asymmetric Threat Environments,” and “UN Peace Operations Reform.”

On Tuesday, February 28th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations, are cohosting the launch of IPI’s forthcoming report, “Made in Havana: How Colombia and the FARC Agreed to End the War” by Renata Segura and Delphine Mechoulan.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST.

The signature of a peace agreement between the government of Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia- Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP) brought an end to the longest-running conflict in the Western hemisphere. The case study evaluates the peace process in Colombia after decades of failed attempts, examines the mechanics of the peace process, and looks in detail at the role of the international community in Havana. It is the result of research carried out in the context of IPI’s Lessons from Mediation project, including dozens of interviews in New York and Colombia.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Ms. María Emma Mejía Vélez, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations

Speakers:
Ms. Teresa Whitfield, Officer-in-Charge, Policy and Mediation Division, United Nations Department of Political Affairs
Dr. Renata Segura, Associate Director, Social Science Research Council
Ms. Delphine Mechoulan, Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute
Mr. Daniel García Peña, Professor of Political Science at the National University of Bogota

Moderator:
Mr. Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations

On Wednesday, March 1st, IPI together with Humanitarian Outcomes cohosted a policy forum event on strengthening humanitarian response in insecure contexts.

Secure Access in Volatile Environments (SAVE)—a three-year research program carried out by Humanitarian Outcomes and the Global Public Policy Institute—explored how to deliver an effective humanitarian response amid high levels of insecurity. Based on fieldwork in four of the most insecure aid settings—Afghanistan, south-central Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria—the project identified good practices and recommendations on how organizations can improve their operations. The SAVE study and its findings are particularly relevant in light of ongoing debates at the UN regarding the safety of aid workers and related issues of access and quality of humanitarian operations in conflict settings.

This event builds on the findings of SAVE’s research on Presence and Coverage and those of other recent studies on the impact of insecurity on humanitarian operations, such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ To Stay and Deliver study, Médecins Sans Frontières’ Emergency Gap: Insecurity study, and the Independent Commission on Multilateralism’s Policy Paper on “Humanitarian Engagements.” Based on this research, the event seeks to identify lessons learned, best practices, and operational and policy recommendations on how to improve humanitarian access and coverage of needs in insecure settings.

Speakers:
Dr. Abby Stoddard, lead researcher, Secure Access in Volatile Environments (SAVE), Presence and Coverage; Partner, Humanitarian Outcomes
H.E. Ms. Joanne Adamson, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations
Mr. Pete Buth, lead author, Emergency Gap: Insecurity; former Deputy Director of Operations, Médecins Sans Frontières Holland
Mr. Simon Butt, Senior Security Advisor, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Moderator:
Dr. Els Debuf, Head of Humanitarian Affairs, International Peace Institute

The United Nations’ peace and security pillar has prevented the recurrence of conflict and protected civilians in many countries around the world. However, the peace and security architecture now faces deep challenges, with three reviews in 2015 pointing to the need for organizational reform. In one of his first decisions, the new Secretary-General António Gutteres tasked an Internal Review Team (IRT) to make recommendations on organizational change, following the recommendations of the high-level independent panel on peace operations, the advisory group of experts on peacebuilding and the 1325 review. As an interim measure, he gave initial instructions on the co-location of regional groupings of Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the creation of an Executive Committee (EC) in his office.

Against this background, the Center on International Cooperation (CIC) has produced a report entitled “Restructuring the UN Secretariat to Strengthen Preventative Diplomacy and Peace Operations” that analyzes managerial and structural challenges at UN headquarters that reduce performance on the ground, and assesses options for organizational change. On February 21st, the findings of this report were presented by Sarah Cliffe and Alexandra Novosseloff at a recent IPI closed-door roundtable event on “Restructuring the Peace and Security Pillar of the UN Secretariat” held under Chatham house rule.

The report identified that there are many operational challenges of large missions overwhelming a broader “culture of prevention”; the fragmentation of the system and of UN actors into silos, which undermines coherent action; the absence of clear political strategies to guide peace operations and enable sustainable solutions to crises; the lack of authority and resources for peacebuilding; competition between the departments of political affairs and peacekeeping operations; the multiplicity of UN actors and fragmented initiatives for political, security and justice institutional support; and the disconnect between operations and field support.

The paper presents four clusters of options for restructuring: (1) dedicated management options (e.g. second Deputy Secretary-General); (2) fusion models (e.g. merging DPKO/DPA and/or DPKO/DFS); (3) form-follows-function models (e.g. clearly delineating political, operational and “institution building” functions); and (4) peacebuilding options (e.g. integrating peacebuilding more closely with other EOSG cross pillar functions). The authors underlined that no one model is perfect, with competing pros/cons and various levels of political feasibility associated to each. The authors also described the paper’s analysis of budget issues and of practical policy considerations in selecting the most appropriate option.

Participants agreed with the paper’s conclusions that strong leadership and management are key factors to implement reform of the peace and security pillar. The authors noted that, in consultations on the paper, there had been general agreement on this, but that on the other hand when asked whether stronger leadership and management was enough to resolve the problems without organizational change, the clear conclusion was “No. The structures also need to be improved to deliver the functions needed.” Participants further stressed the need to overcome silos and to ensure coherence among departments to bring an end to the competition between the departments of peacekeeping operations, political affairs and field support, in particular; as well as to better link the capacities of agency, funds and programmes with those of the peace and security pillar, as has been done in the global focal point for police, justice and corrections.. The “static” UN work culture and its rigid rules and procedures were also mentioned; participants called for greater flexibility in order to adapt to the realities missions are confronted with on the ground. They stressed the need to rebalance the relationship between the Security Council and the Secretariat and to ensure timely and effective information-sharing.

The responsibility of Member States on the Security Council, particularly the P5, and their relation to the UN Secretariat was also discussed. The Council is often paralyzed and fails to take necessary action because of division amongst its members. This is particularly true in the case when preventative action is required, as was the case in Burundi. Among the participants, there was a broad consensus on the need to shift the UN’s work to more upstream conflict prevention.

Lastly, the need to change the way the budgets are negotiated was strongly acknowledged by all participants, as well as the need for a better strategic discussion between the Secretariat and the members of the Fifth Committee prior to the negotiations. The strategic budget analysis in the report was noted as useful, and participants felt that this type of more strategic-level analysis is urgently needed for the next budget discussions.

Participants welcomed strong leadership and direction from the office of the Secretary General and encouraged the work of the Internal Review Team (IRT) on the Secretariat’s Peace and Security Architecture due to report in June 2017. They however cautioned that reform will require the sustained support from a broad range of Member States at a time when there is pressure for budget reductions from major financial contributors.

The roundtable event was moderated by Arthur Boutellis, Director of the IPI Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations.

The Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016 was a fast-moving, multidimensional emergency that presented unprecedented challenges for the multilateral system. In response to the outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the UN established the first-ever emergency health mission, the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER).

UNMEER is an important case study of how the UN, with member-state support, can provide a whole-of-system response through coordination, partnership, and creative use of existing tools. This report, therefore, asks three questions about this groundbreaking mission: was it needed, was it properly structured, and did it deliver? In answering these questions, it offers eight broad lessons for UN crisis response:

• A sequenced approach and flexible mandate allow for better responses to unanticipated challenges.

  Ebola cases by month (Click to view full graphic)

  UNMEER Response Timeline (Click to view full graphic)

• Effective responses draw upon the full range of UN tools and implementing partners based on the principle of comparative advantage, but they must take into account the challenge of integrating distinct organizational cultures.
• Flexible and predictable funding is critical for rapidly scaling up responses to multidimensional crises.
• Local engagement with key stakeholders during the peak of a crisis enhances long-term effectiveness.
• A system-wide communications strategy, bolstered by strong communications capacity in the field, is required from the outset.
• High-level coordination and oversight can provide flexibility and quick reaction.
• Close proximity to frontline responders and the site of the crisis enhances field coordination.
• A regional office can improve coordination across borders, but it must be joined with a strategy to account for the specificity of national and local contexts.

Download