European Peace Institute / News

On Friday, February 26th the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM) hosted its 14th retreat on Empowering Global Youth.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

The aim of the ICM’s retreat on Empowering Global Youth is to review how global challenges facing young people have been portrayed and analyzed within multilateral circles and take a critical look at the policies and practices for addressing them.

Following various breakout groups, from Economic Empowerment to Education, Implementation of the 2030 Agenda to Social and Political Inclusion, and Media and Messaging to Preventing Violent Extremism, the wrap-up sessions provided an opportunity for all participants to voice their thoughts and policy recommendations for the multilateral system.

On February 18th, IPI hosted a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Scott Shane, author of Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone.

Click here to view the event video on Ustream>>

“Objective Troy” was the military code name for Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic American jihadi targeted and killed by an American drone in Yemen in 2011-the first US citizen deliberately hunted down and executed on the order of a president without trial or court order. The book tells the unsettling story of how this once-celebrated and widely cited American imam who called for moderation after 9/11 and was invited to speak at the Pentagon ultimately directed his outsized talents to plotting the mass murder of his fellow citizens.

And it recounts how President Obama directed the mammoth machinery of spy agencies to hunt Awlaki down in a frantic pursuit that would end with a missile fired using the new robotic technology that has changed the nature of warfare and provided the Obama Administration with its anti-terrorism weapon of choice–the drone. It follows how the reaction to the excesses of the Bush counterterrorism effort led a president steeped in constitutional law to become an advocate of an extra-judicial killing of an American. In its commentary on Objective Troy, The New York Times Sunday Book Review said, “Governmental policy has not facilitated the needed debate about drones and counterterrorism, but this readable and skillfully reported book will surely move us toward that fuller discussion.”

The event was moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

On February 5th, IPI, together with the inter-agency Working Group on Youth and Peacebuilding, and the Permanent Missions of Jordan and Sweden, will cohost a policy forum focusing on UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security and its implementation, as well as opportunities for young people’s participation in peacebuilding today and in the future.

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

The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security marks the historical achievement of having the UN Security Council formally recognize that young people play an important and positive role in the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security.

The resolution was sponsored by the Government of Jordan and is a direct follow-up to the Global Forum on Youth, Peace and Security held in August 2015, as well as the Security Council’s Open Debate on the Role of Youth in Countering Violent Extremism and Promoting Peace held in April 2015. UNSC Resolution 2250 was co-sponsored by Angola, Chad, Chile, France, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Spain, the UK, the US, and Venezuela.

Speakers:
Warren Hoge, Senior Adviser for External Relations
H.E. Dina Kawar, Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations
H.E. Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations
H.E. Jan Eliasson, UN Deputy Secretary-General
Martine Ekomo-Soignet, founder of the youth-led peacebuilding organization “URU” Central African Republic
Saba Ismail, Executive Director of Aware Girls and representative of United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY Peacebuilders)
Yasmine Nasser El Masri, Project Coordinator at Search for Common Ground’s Lebanon office
Cécile Mazzacurati, Peacebuilding Support Office/Co-Chair of the Working Group on Youth and Peacebuilding

Moderator:
Saji Prelis, Program Director, Search for Common Ground/Co-Chair of the Working Group on Youth and Peacebuilding

Violent extremism has become a dominant problem in the Sahel-Sahara region in the last couple of years. An increasing array of nonstate actors are threatening the state and the safety of populations while at the same time taking on a transnational character and increasing ties and affiliations with actors beyond the francophone space. Despite the urgency of this critical threat, current responses of states in the region seem to be uncoordinated and inadequate.

This meeting note, written in French with an English summary included as an annex, aims to contribute toward better mutual understanding of violent extremism in the Sahel-Sahara region and its underlying causes. It also outlines a number of potential regional, national, and community responses.

The report stems from a seminar IPI organized in Tunis, Tunisia, from December 7 to 8, 2015, in partnership with the International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF) and the Centre for Strategies and Security for the Sahel Sahara (Centre 4S, Nouakchott, Mauritania).

The following are among the recommendations that emerged from the seminar’s discussions:

• Analyze, Disseminate, and Communicate: Local actors could benefit from greater access to research, analysis, and lessons learned from other contexts. In addition, local researchers could be supported in developing their own knowledge and narratives, and media could be encouraged to adopt a more positive and analytical approach to covering violent extremism.
• Promote a Culture of Dialogue and a Dialogue of Cultures: A culture of dialogue must be promoted both between and within different cultures and religions, as well as between the state and religious actors. This dialogue should extend to the regional level.
• Rethink State-Society Relations: Increased space for dialogue among different actors in society is needed to help the state engage in more long-term preventive solutions. Such solutions could include reaching out to youth and preventing the manipulation of religious discourse.
• Invest in Prevention: Regional integration could help find common preventive strategies for the francophone space. This integration should not be limited to cooperation among states.

Read more about the seminar>>

Download

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

The Middle East/North Africa region and Europe are linked more now than ever, said IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen during IPI MENA’s first annual advisory council meeting on January 20, 2016. The meeting was attended by members of the diplomatic and business communities, representatives from Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths, and civil society activists.

Mr. Rød-Larsen said that the rise of radical ideologies—similar to Europe’s Nazi, fascist and Stalinist movements in the 20th century—are leading to increasing religious polarization in Europe. The triple threat of violent extremism, desperate migration and regional instability, he said, can be countered with a three-pronged approach of regional cooperation, prevention and protection.

IPI’s President further stressed the importance of bringing key regional players together as a means to develop regional cooperation, noting the irony that the MENA region does not have a prominent seat in the Iran negotiations with the Permanent 5 members.

Mr. Rød-Larsen introduced the regional integration initiative that IPI, in partnership with the World Bank, will launch in the coming months. The homegrown initiative will take the form of a task force, involving regional leaders with its secretariat at IPI, MENA.

Nejib Friji, IPI MENA Director, briefed the audience on the activities undertaken in 2015, and introduced the key projects for 2016, including the regional integration task force, an interreligious dialogue initiative, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) task force, a series of workshops on the themes of protest, unrest and state-society relations, and preserving world heritage in armed conflict.

In addition, IPI MENA will host regular conferences and presentations with distinguished speakers under IPI’s “Global Leaders” program.

Participants engaged into a substantive discussion on the submitted agenda items.

Francesco Mancini, Non-resident Senior Adviser at IPI, tells TRT World that the United Nations remains a “relevant body for world decision-making,” despite deadlock among its members about the way forward for Syria and the refugee crisis.

He offered two suggestions for UN reform. He said it was necessary to better equip peacekeepers for asymmetric warfare. He also said that finding a way to make emerging powers “be more engaged,” and have “more space to make decisions,” would be how the organization could remain relevant in the 21st century.

Related coverage:
Managing Change at the United Nations: Lessons from Recent Initiatives

The Syrian crisis has disrupted education trajectories for Syrian youth both inside and outside Syria. The lack of learning opportunities further destabilizes the lives of young refugees, making them more vulnerable to various forms of exploitation and susceptible to extremist ideologies. While these risks are widely recognized, education programming tends to focus on younger children and basic education, leaving out the needs of youth.

The latest report by IPI attempts to bridge this gap by focusing on education for Syrian youth in Jordan. Drawing on interviews conducted in Jordan, the report considers challenges for Syrian adolescents and youth, and it offers recommendations for how to improve youth programming in emergencies both in Syria and in other contexts.

The report focuses on challenges particularly relevant to Syrian youth (a contested concept, but commonly defined as 15- to 24-year-olds). These include:

• Humanitarian programming does not systematically target youth.
• Education programs tend to focus on younger children.
• The Jordanian government restricts vocational training for Syrian youth.
• Some Syrian students struggle with differences between the Jordanian and Syrian curricula.
• Many students face bullying in school.
• The cost of transportation is an economic burden that keeps some youth out of school.
• Young men are often more concerned about finding work than pursuing education.
• Young women often want to pursue higher education but cannot afford it.

The report concludes by offering three recommendations for how to improve youth programming in emergencies:

• A Holistic Approach: Emergency responses should develop a youth strategy that addresses the needs of youth and their connection to other areas such as education, health, and livelihoods. This could take place through youth taskforces at the local, national, or even regional levels.
• Minimum Standards for refugee education programs should be established from the start. Such standards could tie into an international system for certifying learning achievements.
• A Transition Plan for what will happen next in refugee graduates’ lives should be developed. This could include long-term vocational training, income-generating projects, and opening particular employment sectors to refugees.

Download

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

On December 16, IPI Vienna hosted a meeting on peace polling with keynote speaker Colin Irwin of the University of Liverpool. Peace polls are public opinion polls designed to test a series of questions and seek to identify common ground on which a peace process can move forward. Unlike market surveys or binary polls designed to give a yes or no answer, peace polls present a range of choices from “essential” on one side to “unacceptable” on the other, with “desirable, “acceptable” and “tolerable” options in-between. In such a way, red lines become evident, but so too do possible second choices around which compromise can be sought.

The process of peace polling can be considered a confidence-building measure. All stakeholders, including adversaries, are invited to draft suitable questions, and also take part in analyzing the results. This encourages their buy-in to the process, and makes it harder for them to dismiss the results.

Irwin described peace polling as a way of “bringing the people to the negotiating table.” He also explained that it is a useful way of testing policy options that can prepare the ground for mediation. Peace polls can disprove a leader’s assertion that his or her people do not support a particular policy. Conversely, they can be used to prepare the public for proposals that have been agreed behind closed doors. In both respects, peace polls can play a vital role in “ripening” a peace process through public policy. It also makes peace processes more inclusive.

Peace polling was used extensively, and successfully, in the Northern Ireland peace process. The methodology was also applied in the Balkans, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Darfur, and the Middle East. Irwin sees great potential for the technique to be applied in Syria.

Irwin’s interest in peace polling stems in large part from a decade that he spent living with the Inuit in the Canadian Artic. He explained how Inuit councils deliberate until there is consensus. A mediator listens to the divergent views and then seeks a solution acceptable to all. All parties may not get what they want, but they will at least get what they need.

Participants discussed how peace polling could be applied to the so-called “frozen” conflicts in the OSCE area.

Colin Irwin’s book The People’s Peace is available here: http://www.peacepolls.org/peacepolls/documents/002539.pdf

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

Can trade and energy cooperation promote peace? On December 14, an IPI Vienna meeting discussed the possibilities and limitations of peace and economic connectivity between Europe and Asia; the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EaEU); and across unrecognized boundaries, for example within states where there have been “frozen” or protracted conflicts. The potential role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in promoting economic connectivity was also discussed. The meeting, “Economic Connectivity,” was part of IPI’s Swiss-funded “Peace Incubator” project.

Pipelines, train tracks, roads, water lines, and power cables connect communities and states and provide the lifeblood for economic development. While their disruption for political reasons, as seen in the recent case of Crimea, can hamper living conditions, such arteries of trade can also help to promote greater understanding and improve well-being which, in turn, can contribute to stability and good-neighborly relations. That said, it was observed that economic connectivity alone is no guarantee of peace: Europe was highly integrated in terms of trade in 1914, but this did not avert a war.

Participants discussed what steps could be taken to reduce politicization of economic relations between the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian halves of the OSCE area, in what is sometimes described as the “integration of integrations” between EU and the EaEU. It was suggested that ways should be found to help states (like Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine) to build bridges between the EU and EaEU rather than being forced to make a “false choice” between them. The trilateral talks between the EU, Ukraine and Russia were cited as a positive example, as was relations between Turkey and a number of partners. It was also noted that members of both unions should harmonize their rules and standards in line with commitments of the World Trade Organization. Several participants stressed the importance of a “small step” policy rather than working towards the grand design of a common pan-European economic space.

A lively discussion focused on how economic cooperation could help to de-escalate tensions in and around Ukraine, and rebuild trust and cooperation in Europe. It was noted, for example in the context of trade and energy, that there is a high level of co-dependence between Russia and many EU countries, and therefore incentives for cooperation. At the same time, the crisis is forcing traditional trade partners to diversify their products and markets. Some participants stressed the role that economic cooperation can play as part of wider efforts to enhance stability while others warned that trade cannot operate in a political vacuum or reward bad behavior.

One participant pointed out the importance of rules in the context of trade. In the same way that states need the rule of law for legitimacy at home and predictability abroad, connectivity can only work effectively if investors can operate in an environment that they trust.

There was a detailed discussion on the impact of energy on security (and vice versa), particularly Russian oil and gas. It was noted that Russia has an over-supply of gas, that demand is dropping, and that Russia is pivoting to Asia. The impact of other geo-political changes, for example in Iran, Turkey and the Gulf, and their impact on energy markets were also discussed.

Participants discussed whether or not there is a role for the OSCE in promoting economic connectivity. One participant pointed out that this has been part of the OSCE’s work since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, and now takes on a renewed significance. It was noted that, moving forward, discussions on this topic within the OSCE should involve the business community. This will be one of Germany’s priorities during its Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2016. It was noted that the recent report by the OSCE Panel of Eminent Persons included recommendations designed to increase the OSCE’s work in the field of economic connectivity. Furthermore, it was recalled that the 2010 OSCE Astana Summit Declaration called for an intensification of energy security dialogue.

Several participants suggested that science diplomacy and energy diplomacy could build bridges at a time when traditional diplomacy faces gridlock, and gave examples of on-going initiatives.

Participants discussed economic connectivity in the context of building confidence among parties to protracted conflicts. It was noted that identifying common economic interests and facilitating or regulating trade – even among parties that do not officially recognize each other – can create mutually beneficial incentives. The cases of China/Taiwan, Serbia/Kosovo, Cyprus as well as Georgia/Abkhazia were cited. This is an area of work where IPI intends to increase its activities, potentially in Moldova.

On December 16th, The Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM) will host a Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper: “Fragile States and Fragile Cities.” This Public Consultation will provide a platform for representatives from member states, civil society, the private sector, academia, and the United Nations to comment on the Discussion Paper’s recommendations and exchange perspectives on the larger trends and challenges at hand.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 1:45pm EST>>

Nearly 1.2 billion people live in fragile states, including one‐third of the world’s poor. Challenges emerging from fragile states, such as transnational threats, regional spillovers, local insecurity, and underdevelopment require the attention of multilateral institutions. While there is no agreed upon definition of a “fragile state,” limited institutional capacity and weak governance—particularly in combination with structural political and economic exclusion—are evident as main factors of fragility.

More recently, cities as urban systems susceptible to damage incurred by shocks to infrastructure, and ecological, social, economic, and political systems have emerged as a concept of fragility in the peace and security landscape. With unprecedentedly fast urbanization rates, cities are becoming the focal point of global poverty, conflict, and vulnerability to disasters—particularly when situated within a “fragile state.”

As policy-makers move beyond “fragile states” to “states of fragility,” important shortcomings persist in the United Nations and the multilateral system in addressing fragility and building resilience in states and cities. These gaps are conceptual and analytical; institutional; financial; engagement-related; and gender and youth-related. Despite its limitations, the concept of fragility has enhanced the linkage not just among international, national, and human security, but also among security, development, and governance needs, including issues of food, water, health, and environment.

Discussants:
Ms. Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute
H.E. Mrs. Makurita Baaro, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kiribati to the United Nations
Mr. Seth Kaplan, Lecturer, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

On December 16th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM) will host a Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper: “Forced Displacement, Refugees, and Migration.” This Public Consultation will provide a platform for representatives from member states, civil society, the private sector, academia, and the United Nations to comment on the Discussion Paper’s recommendations and exchange perspectives on the larger trends and challenges at hand.

Click here for the live webcast beginning at 11:45am EST>>

The exponential rise of forced displacement, including massive migration and refugee flows, has shocked the consciences of peoples and unsettled institutions worldwide. As the humanitarian space is shrinking, many on the move today are increasingly desperate and seeking protection.

The scale and complexity of the current challenge is testing the limits of the multilateral structures that have been created in the past seventy years. These were designed to deal with displacement at a smaller scale and at a slower pace than the challenges we face at present. Indeed, migration numbers are at an all-time high and we simultaneously face the largest refugee crisis in the history of the United Nations.

This paper addresses the current state of migration, displacement, and refugee flows. It outlines the shortcomings of the multilateral system, and particularly those of the UN, in adapting and responding to this unprecedented level of human mobility. From the immediate crisis stemming from Syria to the need for long term solutions, the paper provides a set of recommendations to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the multilateral system’s responses through a holistic approach.

Discussants:
Ms. Jimena Leiva Roesch, Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute
Mr. Stéphane Bonamy, Delegate, International Committee of the Red Cross
Ms. Anne-Christine Eriksson, Deputy Director, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, New York

Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

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

Participants in a multi-stakeholder dialogue in Tunis, Tunisia, analyzed the problems of terrorism and violent extremism in the Sahel, the Sahara, and beyond, December 7th and 8th. The conclusions of the seminar will feed into the development of the “Global Action Plan for Francophone Countries to Fight Terrorism,” and inform IPI’s ongoing work in the area.

Participants included women, youth, religious and traditional authorities, representatives of governments, as well as members of the private sector. These 45 participants came from Francophone countries such as Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, France, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Switzerland, and Tunisia.

The Francophone participants aimed to offer some recommendations that can fill a gap in current literature and debates on violent extremism. An Anglophone community of researchers currently dominates the field, and the focus is primarily on security and military issues.

By contrast, this seminar aimed at building a common understanding of the strategic value of prevention and developing proper mechanisms and tools of preventing violent extremism (PVE).

IPI co-hosted the seminar with the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) and the Centre for Security in the Sahel Sahara.

On December 2nd, IPI together with the Permanent Missions of Italy and Namibia to the UN cohosted the screening of the documentary film on peacekeeping entitled “The United Nations: The Last Station Before Hell.”

Click here to view the event video on YouTube*>>

In 2015, the United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary. Among other innovations, members of the UN devised the novel concept of “soldiers for peace.” But can peace be enforced militarily? The original mission of the United Nations was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” by maintaining peace and security between states. Now that terrorists and internal conflicts strike far more frequently than traditional inter-state wars, what does international security mean?

For millions of people in conflict zones, UN peacekeepers serve to contain violence, representing “the last station before hell.” From the UN’s oldest mission in Lebanon, to the largest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to the newest in the Central African Republic, this film explores the central challenges in UN peacekeeping through field investigations and interviews with key decision makers.

Speakers:
H.E. Mr. Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Pierre-Olivier François, Documentary Film Director
Dr. Lise Morjé Howard, Associate Professor of Government, Georgetown University (and Special Adviser for the film)

Moderator:
Mr. Warren Hoge, Senior Adviser for External Relations

*Please note: The webcast includes only the trailer of the film, and not the documentary in its entirety.

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

United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan Nicholas Haysom told an IPI audience that the country faced three transitions—security, economic, and political—and must manage them all to survive. “It has no option,” he said. “It can’t do two out of three and pass. If it goes down on the economy or on the security, or politically unravels, all three would be terminal.”

Mr. Haysom, head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), said the country would face critical tests at upcoming donor conferences in Warsaw and Brussels.

“Afghanistan is aid dependent, and the challenges it faces requires at least the same level of aid in a context in which there are a number of other conflicts making demands for the donor community, and the international community generally, because already, many of the donor countries have agreed to take money to meet the demands arising out of the influx of migrants, out of the development aid budget,” he said.

“So Afghanistan faces these two events with the task of persuading the international community that it has so managed its transition that it is worth investing in.”

On the economic transition, he asserted that despite more than a decade of foreign aid, the level of poverty in the country is unchanged since 2001. Hopes for mineral wealth proved illusory, he said, and even the agricultural industry has suffered, with foods once exported for profit now being imported. The formerly booming transport and construction sectors have also crashed.

In the capital, there is pervasive joblessness. “What we have in Kabul might be described by some as a pre-Arab Spring moment, where youth with higher expectations are meeting a situation in which there are simply no jobs,” he said.

The year 2014 began a number of changes that complicated the security transition for Afghanistan, he said. A Government of National Unity was formed, including the newly elected President, Ashraf Ghani, and his onetime chief political rival, Abdullah Abdullah, as its Chief Executive. At the same time, the responsibility for combatting the Taliban was assumed by the Afghan National Security forces after the departure of international forces.

A key question facing the country’s future is whether the government, the Taliban, and the neighboring government in Pakistan recognize that the situation is ripe to make peace. “There are certainly pockets within the Taliban that appreciate that a future Afghanistan cannot be administered by one party, and who recognize that at the end of the day there needs to be a political solution,” he said.

While the Afghan and Pakistani governments have gone on the record to state their ultimate ambition is a negotiated solution, this has not translated into action by President Ghani yet. “The government is yet to establish its architecture for engaging in a peace process,” he said.

As for progress for engagement with the Taliban, the governmental body tasked with doing so since 2010, the High Peace Council, “has been in stasis for over a year,” he said. This, he said, is because the “government has recognized that there is limited space domestically for it to engage in a peace process.”

Summarizing his recommendations for the economic, political, and security transitions, Mr. Haysom said, “Viability for Afghanistan requires success over the transition, requires a Government of National Unity to stay together, requires Afghan National Security Forces to hold the ground, requires the economy not to suffer a major default, and it requires the international community to be forthcoming in Warsaw and Brussels.”

He also said that donors would want to see progress in constructing and improving a system for elections before pledging funds to Afghanistan in 2016. The international community “will not be forthcoming in Warsaw and Brussels unless there is demonstrable progress, in the reforms, notably the anti-corruption reforms inside Afghanistan, and one thing we haven’t mentioned, the donor countries, if only for their own domestic constituents, will want to see proof of further democratization in Afghanistan.”

Asked if the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had made inroads into the country, he said the extent of their presence is still unclear, but that the UN does not “take it lightly.”

He said that this non-state actor presents a unique challenge for the UN, an organization of states. “We believe that whereas the Taliban generally have some respect to [the] humanitarian framework, humanitarian workers, UN in general, ISIS doesn’t, and that our staff would be targets, for both abduction and symbolic attacks, and it really does effect” UN planning, he said.

For UNAMA, “as a mission with 13 field offices across the country, we have to have as good a reading as we can of the ISIS presence, and threats to our staff and operations.”

He also added that Afghans had become the second most populous refugee group, behind those fleeing the Syrian civil war. “We don’t underestimate the number of Afghans,” he said. “They are clearly #2 just after Syrians and in some cases surpassing even Syrians, according to my European colleagues in Kabul.”

He said he considers part of his job encouraging the Taliban to speak with the government of Afghanistan. “My own position with them, that I shared with them, is that there can be no progress towards peace if you don’t engage with the government because that is the only way in which you can strike real bargains, reach compromises, or at the minimum reach agreements that would serve as the basis for arrangements by which Afghans live in peace together.”

The event was held as part of IPI’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) series.

Warren Hoge, IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, moderated the discussion.

Watch event:

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

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres told an IPI audience that as millions of refugees flee war and persecution, the multilateral system has failed to mobilize the resources necessary to move them to safety in a dignified and efficient way.

“The humanitarian response system is today financially broke,” the High Commissioner said. “We are no longer able to provide the minimum needed for both core protection and lifesaving assistance.”

The uncoordinated responses of development and humanitarian actors are inadequate for a crisis of this magnitude, he emphasized. The “business model is to a certain extent exhausted,” he said. “We have been essentially on a care and maintenance model, with solutions dwindling, and with the possibility to ensure the suffering of refugees severely limited,” he said.

Humanitarians and development agencies not only need more funding, but also have to engage with one another from the outset of a crisis.

“For me, what is absolutely crucial is to understand that it no longer makes sense to talk about the gap between humanitarian aid and development cooperation, with this idea that first humanitarians address the crisis, and then the development actors come, to guarantee the sustainability of the solutions,” he said. “Now we came to a situation in which humanitarians and development actors need to be acting together since the very beginning of a crisis.”

The November 20th event, “Leadership and Global Partnerships in the Face of Today’s Refugee Crisis,” aimed to contribute to the development of proposals to more effectively help refugees through multilateral cooperation.

IPI Vice President Walter Kemp, the conversation’s moderator, noted concrete steps to help save refugees which had been suggested in the Salzburg Declaration on the Refugee Crisis, drafted by high-level participants at an IPI seminar.

Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN, made opening remarks in which he highlighted his country’s commitment to welcoming refugees. Together with Germany, Sweden has born the brunt of resettlement in the EU. Sweden received the most asylum-seekers per capita in the EU, equal to 2% of the country’s population, he said.

Of Sweden’s priorities for the future, he said, “We strive to ensure that every one of those people receive a dignified [treatment,], and have rights fulfilled and implemented on arrival in Sweden,” he said. “But it is also true that the system has put a lot of strain on our capacity, so another priority is to ensure there is a genuine partnership within the EU and globally to jointly handle migration flows, while safeguarding of course the right to asylum.”

Sweden has been a model in this regard, but many other refugee-hosting countries struggle to provide services for the new arrivals, given the nature of their economies. New kinds of partnerships will be necessary to improve refugee lives in middle-income countries, as well as offer benefits for these states, Mr. Guterres said.

He proposed offering economic support to neighboring countries that have received a total of more than 3 million Syrians—Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey—in exchange for policy changes that could make refugees more self-reliant, such as allowing them to participate in the labor market, and access educational and other public services. These changes are necessary “in order to avoid this current maintenance model that is not only unsustainable from the financial point of view,” but also militates against “the dignity and hope for the future of the refugee community,” he said.

He praised one such agreement between Jordan, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank, which will create industrial zones inside Jordan that will be a source of employment for both Syrians and Jordanians. “This is the kind of formula that is necessary—humanitarian actors, development actors, and the countries—acting together in order to create this kind of win-win situation to ensure that refugees can have a dignified life in the countries of first asylum,” he said.

Many of the top refugee-hosting countries, like Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Niger, and Chad, are important to their regions, Mr. Guterres said. It is essential to ensure these nations have the resources to remain bulwarks against global terrorism. “Unfortunately many of these countries are not a priority in development cooperation, and so, a fundamental review is required,” he emphasized.

The lofty goals of the just agreed to UN Sustainable Development Agenda cannot be achieved without basic security first, he said. “A large part of the poor in today’s world are in conflict areas, and that number is growing, and we cannot have a development strategy at the global level if we do not take seriously into account the problems of global security, and the multiplication of conflicts we are witnessing in today’s world,” he said.

Since 2011, 3.9 million people have fled the Syrian civil war, and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner described the situation as “the most dramatic of the crises we face.”

In July 2015, as hundreds of thousands risked their lives to leave their war-torn and poverty-stricken countries for Europe, a new crisis emerged. A number of factors influenced this mass migration wave, but “the trigger in my opinion was the reduction of international assistance in 2015,” which had devastating results for the quality of life in Syria and for refugees in neighboring countries, Mr. Guterres said.

He offered three suggestions on Syria, moving forward. Firstly, he said it was essential to establish humanitarian aid at adequate levels inside Syria. Secondly, living conditions would need to improve in neighboring Middle Eastern states serving as countries of first asylum. Finally, illicit smuggling and trafficking networks, operating largely in the open, must be shut down. “This will require cooperation between the EU and Turkey, and this cooperation, I hope, will be established in the near future,” he said.

Mr. Guterres also noted that the journey of refugees to resettlement in Europe would only become more trying as temperatures drop. “I’m afraid that we will have difficult moments on the western Balkan route this winter,” he said.

The High Commissioner said the failure of European institutions to manage this migration flow in an organized way has fostered xenophobia on the continent. He emphasized the power of images in raising fear for host country populations. “The perception from looking at the television day after day after day was that Europe was being invaded by a flow of people, and all of a sudden my village is going to be completely overwhelmed, and government was not in control.”

To manage the influx properly, Europe needs to receive and screen people at the point of entry, he said.

Mr. Guterres refuted any connection between the arrival of refugees and the coming of terrorism to Europe. “Those fleeing the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, or the Afghan conflict, are overwhelmingly victims of terror, so to say that this flow of refugees is responsible for terrorist acts is absurd, ” he said.

“For Daesh, it is very important to stimulate in Europe anti-Muslim sentiments, because anti-Muslim European societies are the best instrument they have for their propaganda and recruitment,” he said. “So, I think that a simplistic approach in trying to link refugees and terrorism need to be clearly denounced, because the security problems Europe faces at the moment are more complex and need a much more effective and comprehensive response.”

Summarizing his wide-ranging recommendations, the High Commissioner said it would be essential to redesign development cooperation around crisis prevention, and to invest in the improvement of refugee living conditions so that they “are more in line with the normal aspirations of anyone, anywhere—and that is the right to work, the right to property, for children at school, access to health systems.”

He suggested that the May 2016 World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul would offer a prime opportunity to bring the development and humanitarian communities closer. “If we could establish in the World Humanitarian Summit a new plan of action to bring together the development actors, and the development money, to humanitarian actors, I think the World Humanitarian Summit would do a fantastic thing,” he said. “Another important aspect will be to make the humanitarian system universal. The system is still very much Western conceived, to bring other actors into the system and give it a clear universal approach, that will increase its capacity to respond.”

The event was held as part of IPI’s “Global Leaders Series,” and was co-hosted with the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN.

Walter Kemp, IPI Vice President, moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

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:

• Learn from past reform efforts: Manage expectations on reform; have a clearly articulated strategic vision from the secretary-general and buy-in from the UN Secretariat to overcome the challenge of bureaucratic resistance within the UN; use concrete proposals that can be more easily championed by member states; and have longer-term five-to-ten-year plans aligned with General Assembly budget cycles.
• Build a compelling narrative: Motivate support for change by the collective sense of urgency around the growing disconnect between current UN responses and the increasing complexity of conflicts with various layers connecting with transnational aspects of organized crime and violent extremism.
• Create consensus and support of member states: The High-Level Thematic Debate on UN, Peace, and Security announced by the president of the General Assembly for May 10-11, 2016, could usefully help identify synergies among the different reviews, generate such a vision, and build member-state support for it.
• Avoid cherry-picking: Overcome the appetite to cherry-pick recommendations from the secretary-general and HIPPO reports; ensure the promotion of a holistic and coordinated approach needed for comprehensive reform; and come up with a more detailed implementation plan, thus breaking down challenging issues into more manageable bundles of proposals.
• Generate public support: Link the findings of the HIPPO report to the current crises that UN peace operations are facing from South Sudan to Libya, and as new ones emerge. Clearer and more independent monitoring and evaluation is needed.
• Move forward using long-term sight: Increase understanding of common themes across the pillars of the HIPPO report and also of synergies with the Peacebuilding Architecture Review and the Report of the Secretary-General on Women, Peace, and Security.

Download

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

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: