European Peace Institute / News

Libya’s overarching statelessness, and the violence and lawlessness that result, permeate the country, which is plagued by local-level conflicts. However, local mediation efforts have flourished over the last few years. As a senior UN official noted, “Local mediation is the best thing that has happened in Libya since the revolution.”

This report examines these local mediation processes to explore the significance of their impact. It focuses on the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the support it provides internal efforts in Libya to solve local conflicts or the mediation of such disputes. It also describes and analyzes how Libyans themselves are able to address and resolve local conflicts, or at least contain their escalation.

The report offers a number of lessons based on the challenges UNSMIL has faced in supporting local mediation efforts in Libya. These include the importance of leveraging soft power, taking a coordinated and long-term approach, linking the local and national levels, ensuring sovereignty and local ownership, intervening through local mediators, and expanding beyond traditional political actors.

Download

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting a Distinguished Author Series event featuring Elizabeth C. Economy, author of The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State. The conversation will be moderated by IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations Warren Hoge.

Remarks will begin at 6:20pm EST*

In The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State, eminent China scholar Elizabeth C. Economy provides an incisive look at the world’s most populous country. Inheriting a China burdened with slowing economic growth, rampant corruption, choking pollution, and a failing social welfare system, President Xi has reversed course, rejecting the liberalizing reforms of his predecessors. At home, Xi has centralized power in his own person, and the Chinese leadership has reasserted the role of the state in society and enhanced party control. Beyond its borders, Beijing has recast itself as a great power and has maneuvered itself to be an arbiter—not just a player—on the world stage. The Third Revolution argues that Xi’s dual reform trajectories—a more authoritarian system at home and a more ambitious foreign policy abroad—provide Beijing with new levers of influence that the West must learn to exploit to protect its own interests. Commenting on the book, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, said, “For the first time in modern history, we have a communist country poised to be the biggest and most important driver of the global free market. That’s astonishing. And we still don’t know what makes China’s political leadership—and Xi Jinping in particular—tick. If that freaks you out (and it should) Liz Economy’s book is the place to start.”

IPI’s Distinguished Author Series brings critically acclaimed writers to IPI to present on international issues and to engage in a lively discussion with experts from permanent missions to the UN and other members of the foreign affairs community in New York.

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

Three years after the signing of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali, many key provisions remain unimplemented. Threats posed by violent extremists and intercommunal violence exacerbate an already tense political environment, impeding the political process and the restoration and extension of state authority. These violent dynamics have claimed the lives of civilians, Malian security forces, MINUSMA peacekeepers, and French forces. Instability threatens to undermine the free and fair presidential elections scheduled for July as well as regional and municipal elections that are expected to take place later in the year.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 8, 2018, to discuss MINUSMA’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop offered a platform for member states and UN actors to develop a shared understanding and common strategic assessment of the situation in Mali. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

With a focus on providing support to the political process, the extension of state authority, security sector reform, and to other security actors, participants discussed how the Council could reflect these strategic priorities in the upcoming MINUSMA mandate. Several participants also highlighted potential tensions among mandated tasks, noting the need to consider more closely how each fits into the mission’s political strategy in order to achieve the Council’s strategic objectives.

Download

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

Members of different communities, ethnic groups, faiths and nationalities gathered around a Ramadan meal in solidarity with an interreligious group of people who were fasting to cement commitments to peace, tolerance and respect within faiths in Manama, May 30, 2018 at the International Peace Institute, Middle East & North Africa, (IPI MENA).

Marking the middle of the holy month of Ramadan with an Iftar, or fast breaking meal, hundreds of people from different religious and nationality affiliations gathered in a church, for an “Iftar for Peace.” The initiative was hosted by Al Bayareq Al Baydhaa, (The White Flags,) in cooperation with the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA), and IPI MENA.

The event was attended by ambassadors, government officials, dignitaries and religious leaders who served food and beverages to interreligious guests at the National Evangelical Church in a united call for interfaith peace.

In a statement to the media, Ausamah Al Absi, Head of LMRA, stressed the need for peaceful coexistence between faiths and cultures to ensure that “civil societies, international bodies, and government bodies can come together” to harmonize principles of tolerance and respect.

Reverend Hani Aziz, Pastor of the National Evangelical Church and Head of the Bahrain Society for Tolerance and Interfaith Coexistence, reinforced this view in his statement, stressing the diverse communities obligation is to incorporate and integrate all layers of society in order to create a culture of acceptance and therefore peace.

Noting the very diverse interfaith attendees, Nejib Friji, Director, IPI MENA, stated their contribution to the Iftar for Peace was a testament of their commitment, as well as “the Kingdom of Bahrain, IPI and all other nations represented by their ambassadors, towards the need to further reinforce the culture of peace and Interfaith Dialogue that is deeply enshrined in all beliefs and faiths.” He hailed the interfaith unity illustrated by the ambassadors and officials serving those who had been fasting this important meal. He said the event “carries more than one message.” Friji called on the “regional and multilateral system to stand together to serve all causes of peace through a united interfaith dialogue.”

On Tuesday, June 5th, IPI is hosting the live broadcast of the opening remarks and first session panel of it’s 48th Annual Vienna Seminar entitled “European Contributions to UN Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.”

Remarks will begin at 9:00am CET.

The 2018 Vienna Seminar will focus on lessons from recent European engagement in United Nations peace operations. The aim of this year’s seminar is to examine the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations in the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, and better understand the impact of European participation on the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations.

Download the Agenda

The International Peace Institute (IPI) is pleased to announce the Honorable Kevin Rudd has been elected unanimously by IPI’s board of directors as the board’s next chair, effective June 01, 2018. Mr. Rudd was Vice Chair of IPI’s board since June 2014.

Mr. Rudd succeeds Professor Michael Doyle, Director of the Columbia Global Policy Initiative at Columbia University, who has served as interim Chair since May 2016. Dr. Doyle was Vice President of IPI (then IPA) from 1993-1996 and has been on IPI’s board since 1997.

IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the staff of the Institute, I would like to thank Professor Michael Doyle for his outstanding work in various capacities at IPI, where he has served for over 20 years. Michael has consistently shown extraordinary loyalty and dedication through his valuable contributions to IPI. He has skillfully mentored numerous young researchers over the years, who now serve important positions in international organizations, governments, academics, and non-governmental organizations across the globe. I would like use this opportunity to thank my friend Michael for the exceptional work he has done for IPI and the good of the global community we are serving.

The Honorable Kevin Rudd has served with extraordinary skills and dedication as the Vice Chair of the board of directors of IPI since 2014, and has lent invaluable support to the Chair of the board and the President and CEO. Through his chairmanship of IPI’s Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), he was a skillful helmsman who, together with his fellow members and IPI staff, produced a series of reports which gave new perspectives to the challenges of the future of the multilateral system, and guidelines and advice on how to address the dangers and opportunities alike. I would like to warmly welcome Kevin as our new Chairman. And I am looking very much forward to working closely with him in pursuing IPI’s objectives of peace and reconciliation through policy research, advice, and our convening and outreach capacity.”

Mr. Rudd served as Australia’s 26th Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010, then as Foreign Minister from 2010 to 2012, before returning to the Prime Ministership in 2013. As Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd led Australia’s response during the Global Financial Crisis. Australia’s fiscal response to the crisis was reviewed by the IMF as the most effective stimulus strategy of all member states. Australia was the only major advanced economy not to go into recession. Mr. Rudd is also internationally recognized as one of the founders of the G20 which drove the global response to the crisis, and which in 2009 helped prevent the crisis from spiraling into a second global depression.

As Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr. Rudd was active in global and regional foreign policy leadership. He was a driving force in expanding the East Asia Summit to include both the US and Russia in 2010. He also initiated the concept of transforming the EAS into a wider Asia Pacific Community to help manage deep-routed tensions in Asia by building over time the institutions and culture of common security in Asia. On climate change, Mr. Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 and legislated in 2008 for a 20% mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. Mr. Rudd drove Australia’s successful bid for its non-permanent seat on the United Nation’s Security Council and the near doubling of Australia’s foreign aid budget.

Mr. Rudd joined the Asia Society Policy Institute as its inaugural President in January 2015.

Mr. Rudd remains engaged in a range of international challenges including global economic management, the rise of China, climate change and sustainable development. In 2015-16, Mr. Rudd led a review of the UN system as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism. In February 2014, Mr. Rudd was named a Senior Fellow with Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he completed a major policy paper, U.S.-China 21: The Future of U.S.-China Relations Under Xi Jinping. He is Chair of Sanitation and Water for All, a Distinguished Fellow at Chatham House in London, a Distinguished Statesman with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Paulson Institute in Chicago. Mr. Rudd is a member of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s Group of Eminent Persons. He serves on the International Advisory Board of the Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University, and is an Honorary Professor at Peking University. Mr. Rudd is proficient in Mandarin Chinese. He also remains actively engaged in indigenous reconciliation.

The International Peace Institute is an independent, international not-for-profit think tank dedicated to managing risk and building resilience to promote peace, security, and sustainable development. To achieve its purpose, IPI employs a mix of policy research, strategic analysis, publishing, and convening. With staff from more than twenty countries and a broad range of academic fields, IPI has offices across from United Nations headquarters in New York and offices in Vienna and Manama. IPI’s research covers aspects of peace, cooperation, and multilateralism including UN reform, peace operations, sustaining peace and prevention, peace and health, humanitarian affairs, WPS (women, peace and security), and the intersection of the Sustainable Development Goals and peace. IPI also produces the analysis website The Global Observatory.

On May 24th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations cohosted a policy forum entitled “The Primacy of Politics and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping Operations.” This policy forum explored the perceived and actual tensions between the pursuit of political solutions and the protection of civilians in peacekeeping contexts. The event follows the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians).

This event is the first as part of IPI’s recently launched Protection of Civilians Project. While the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed the “primacy of politics,” UN peacekeeping missions are often mandated to protect civilians in challenging environments where the peace process has stalled and political solutions seem out of reach. In these contexts, protecting local populations from physical violence may appear to be an operational imperative for the mission and a priority over engagement in protracted and uncertain political processes.

This policy forum provides an opportunity to discuss situations where there is a risk of competition between the primacy of politics and the centrality of protection, as well as where they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. While the two objectives are hardly mutually exclusive, in practice pursuing both can raise challenging questions. In South Sudan, Darfur, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN mission’s political role may seem elusive, and its protection goals may appear to detract from its political effectiveness. The political stance of UN missions intervening in support of host states may also be an important limitation for peacekeepers mandated to protect civilians from all threats of physical violence—including from host-state forces.

In these situations, where civilians are clearly at risk, how should peace operations reconcile political strategies and the protection of civilians? In the absence of viable political processes at the strategic level, what political measures and strategies can be used in parallel with military operations to protect civilians on the ground?

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Karel J. G. van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations

Speakers:
Mr. Ralph Mamiya, Consultant; formerly Protection of Civilians Team Leader, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Sébastien Lapierre, Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, UN Department of Peacekeeping operations
Ms. Daniela Kroslak, Leader, Darfur Integrated Operational Team, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Ms. Chloé Marnay-Baszanger, Chief, Peace Mission Support Section, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Alison Giffen, Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict

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

The 2015 UN High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed two major themes that Secretary-General António Guterres continues to focus on: first, the primacy of politics in peacekeeping, which he raised in his September 2017 remarks at the Security Council open debate on peacekeeping; and second, the core obligation of peacekeepers and the entire UN to protect civilians, a continuous theme of his tenure.

Yet protecting civilians and pursuing political strategies, the defining tasks of modern peacekeeping, have frequently been in tension. Critics argue that peace operations in the last two decades have too often been tools of last resort, deployed to conflicts with no viable political process and serving as stop-gap measures rather than strategic steps toward a political solution. This is particularly evident in missions whose mandate to protect has been prioritized in the absence of a clear political vision to address the conflict.

This issue brief reviews the complementarity and tension between protection of civilians and political strategies. It explores the important role of the Security Council in laying the strategic groundwork for the success of missions, and examines how missions, at their level, can implement protection of civilians mandates through a political strategy.

Download

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

Counterterrorism measures are developed to ensure individual and collective security in response to terrorist attacks, but there is growing evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by inhibiting the provision of assistance. This tension was the subject of an IPI policy forum on May 23rd, entitled, “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action,” and co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.

Marine Buissonnière, a consultant and the former Secretary-General of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders (MSF), said that humanitarian assistance, which follows principles of International Humanitarian Law, faces new challenges to protecting civilians in a post-9/11 international environment. Although former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promoted a resolution that entitled health workers to provide care in all circumstances without incurring any form of harassment or sanctions, health workers, over two years later, continue to face issues for providing “impartial” care, serving all people regardless of their identity, she said.

The ethical dilemma that humanitarian actors and international lawmakers now face, she said, is that healthcare professionals find themselves “cornered, caught between counterterrorism laws that can criminalize their duties to impartially treat all, and International Humanitarian Law ethics and International Human Rights Law.”

In this context, what is new is not the criminalization of healthcare, she said, “but how counterterrorism frameworks, in a sense, appear to have strengthened the basis–moral and legal–to justify harassment, arrests, and prosecutions” against medical professionals. The “vague and broad” definitions of terrorism and support to terrorists have enabled some people to interpret medical treatment as a form of “illegitimate support,” thereby criminalizing those who offer assistance, even though under International Humanitarian Law such assistance is considered to be principled humanitarian action.

“When ethics and International Humanitarian Law are not prioritized by both those seeking and those providing medical care,” she said, the act of providing impartial medical services “inevitably becomes criminalized, perpetuating a chilling effect on the provision of impartial care that is detrimental not only to those banned or to those listed as terrorists but detrimental, at the end of the day, to us all.”

Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, and chair of the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians, described the role of the state in addressing the negative impact that UN sanctions can have on humanitarian activities. His recommendation, from a policymaking perspective, was that “we as states should really try to do everything to address this and to avoid the dilemma between these two sets of measures.” He discussed two steps for this. “We need to raise awareness for the issue,” he said, “and secondly, come down with a set of practical measures.”

Yves Daccord, Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that criminalization of humanitarian assistance in the past two decades had changed the landscape in which humanitarian organizations operate. The effect of counterterrorism policy on the space for humanitarian action posed two issues aside from criminalization, he said. Lack of impartiality in offering medical assistance or withholding aid to those in need based on their affiliation can “create notions of good victims, who have rights to be helped, and victims who do not deserve to be helped because they are under the control of, or on the territory controlled by, a non-state armed group labeled as terrorist.”

And since building trust among communities in conflict is necessary for the provision of humanitarian assistance, he said, these distinctions are undermining the trust owed to humanitarian actors, making it impossible for them to fulfill their aim of providing assistance. “I think we’ve seen over time people challenging us more,” said Mr. Daccord. “There is a lot of tension, polarization, for an organization like the ICRC…it’s absolutely critical that they are able to demonstrate on a daily basis that they are impartial and neutral.”

Naz Modirzadeh, Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, brought to light the different ways policy makers talk about the conflict between counterterrorism and humanitarian law, and the state of this debate. She highlighted the norms of International Humanitarian Law in contrast to counterterrorism measures, which, she said, “We tend to talk about…as though they are in a relationship with one another…sharing a common purpose.” But, she said, “I’d like to suggest that we avoid this misrecognition. It is not a value judgement to suggest counterterrorism and International Humanitarian Law are distinct and aim at different purposes.”

Counterterrorism, she explained, connotes a sense of urgency and immediacy whereas International Humanitarian Law tends to be decided over time and negotiated through the diplomacy of many different actors. International Humanitarian Law “presumes that there is a distinction that we must maintain between war and peace and is only applicable in situations of armed conflict,” she said. “On the other hand, counterterrorism frameworks often blur the lines between war and peace by combining elements relating to armed conflict with elements connected with the resort to force and law enforcement.”

As such, International Humanitarian Law sees humanitarian assistance and protection for people, including purported enemy civilian populations as “legitimate and indeed mandatory,” Ms. Modirzadeh explained. Under a counterterrorism framework, she said, the same support may be primarily perceived as “dangerous, because it can help free up the resources of terrorist groups.”

However, Ms. Modirzadeh saw hope for a solution in providing legal exemptions for humanitarian workers. “The idea of exemptions merits much closer attention,” she said. “I think there was a time when this was thought politically impractical or so sensitive that it was not worth having a conversation about. What I’m hearing here today is that it is indeed perhaps one of the better solutions to this dilemma and that we have good examples that we can build upon…Every counterterrorism measure from this point further should incorporate an acknowledgment, reaffirmation, and indeed, where appropriate, a very particular exemption related to principled humanitarian access where relevant.”

Ms. Modirzadeh also called for greater discussion that should involve the private sector. In response, Lise Gregoire-van Haaren, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN, spoke on how to reconcile the humanitarian action with the due diligence requirements by banks and governments.

“We feel that raising awareness is a very important first step,” she said. “Secondly, governments and national banking associations could provide more guidance to NGOs on how to comply with counterterrorism measures and sanction regimes.”

Closing remarks were made by Reinhard Krapp, Minister, Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN; Juan José Gómez Camacho, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN; and Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel moderated.

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

An evening discussion among peacebuilders was held at IPI, May 16, 2018, on women’s meaningful participation in negotiating peace and the implementation of peace agreements.

The meeting, convened by UN Women and IPI, brought together internationally recognized peacebuilders, officials from the United Nations, diplomats, and representatives of civil society. The event was held as part of an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) convened by UN Women in preparation for the Secretary-General’s annual report on women, peace and security, expected in October.

Teresa Whitfield, Director of the Policy and Mediation Division at the United Nations Department of Political Affairs; said that the meeting built upon the work these stakeholders have undertaken thus far to explore what makes women’s participation “meaningful” in the context of negotiating peace. She reminded participants that the Secretary-General’s report last year unequivocally stated, “inclusive processes should be the rule, not the exception.”

The EGM participants have worked to support joint strategizing to overcome the persistent barriers to inclusion, representation, and meaningful participation. The international community must continue to articulate ways of moving beyond words to action in implementation of women, peace and security commitments, she said.

The conversation was seen as one of the preliminary steps on the “collective road” to 2020, the year in which the landmark Security Council resolution 1325 will observe its 20th anniversary.

Ms. Whitfield moderated a panel discussion between Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President & CEO of the International Crisis Group, and member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation; and Rosa Emilia Salamanca, Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Action. Ms. Salamanca addressed inclusivity in the Colombian peace process and gender-sensitive peace agreements.

Overarching themes that emerged from the discussion included the need for meaningful participation of women in decision-making positions in all efforts to end conflict, including formal peace negotiations, as well as power sharing, disarmament and ceasefire arrangements, humanitarian access agreements and implementation mechanisms; women in leadership roles in negotiation teams; delivering on the commitment to civil society inclusion in mediation processes; the essential role of international community in the transition phase to support the implementation of gender-relevant provisions; and the importance of gender sensitive provisions in agreements for gender responsive implementation.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel, and Paivi Kannisto, Chief, Peace and Security Section, UN Women delivered the opening remarks.

Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.

This paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what needs to be considered to build consensus on its future direction. The paper offers several recommendations for the Secretariat, member states, and other stakeholders to strengthen the value and outcomes of intergovernmental processes, as well as the partnerships that guide the formulation of UN peacekeeping policy:

1. Foster understanding of UN peacekeeping challenges and the policymaking process.
2. Strengthen consultation mechanisms.
3. Demonstrate leadership and identify a shared vision.
4. Improve information sharing, reporting, and accountability.
5. Encourage awareness of challenges in the field among stakeholders in New York.

Download

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

The number of international migrants has grown by 49% since 2000, according to United Nations statistics, and incoming migrants often move to cities, which house 54% of the world’s population. Multilateral deliberations on migration policy tend to focus on the national level, although it is municipal leadership that often bears the brunt of providing services and facilitating integration for migrants. Developing appropriate and effective policy on migration requires perspective from the ground to be shared with national and international actors.

In October 2016, the UN General Assembly Adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which created an international commitment to future negotiations, an international conference, and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration in 2018 (GCM). On May 9th, IPI held a meeting to discuss how the compact’s policies can be more comprehensive and effectively put into place.

The event, hosted in collaboration with the Global Policy Initiative, Columbia University, the University of Ottawa, and The Open Society Foundations, was conducted under the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution, and brought together key stakeholders in the compact’s implementation. Included were international mayors, UN representatives, and members of civil society.

Among the speakers were Penny Abeywardena, New York City Commissioner for International Affairs; Bitta Mostofi, Acting Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs in New York; Majid Batambuze, Mayor of Jinja, Uganda, and Chairman of the Urban Authority of Uganda; Cosimo Palazzo, Director of the Social Policy Department of Milan, Italy; Veronique Lamontagne, Director of the Bureau of Integration, Montreal, Canada; David Barclay, the Mayor’s Adviser on Inclusion in Bristol, UK; Eloisa Arruda, Human Rights Secretary in São Paulo, Brazil; Juan José Gómez Camacho, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN; Griet Seurs, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the UN; Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN; Colleen Thouez, Division Director of Welcoming and Integrated Societies at the Open Society Foundations–International Migration Initiative; Gregory Maniatis, OSF Initiative’s Director; Eva Åkerman Börje, Senior Policy Adviser, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration; and Suzanne Sheldon, Senior Policy Adviser of the Global Compact for Migration at IOM. Speaking for IPI was Vice President Adam Lupel, who moderated the discussion.

Speakers in the session noted that there is a common misunderstanding of the distinction between refugees and migrants, as well as documented and undocumented migrants, and migrants often face prejudice upon entering a country. City leadership does not determine who enters the country, but, speakers noted, it can be responsible for the treatment of migrants when they enter city parameters.

Participants asserted that city leaders could design meaningful migration programs, not because they are more creative or well-resourced, but because they operate at a more human scale. In a much commented upon statement, one speaker said, “People belong to a local community before they belong to a nation.”

The conversation stressed that integration does not stop just across the border, and neither should policy. For this reason, to ensure safe and orderly migration, cities should not only share principles of policy reform with their national governments, but they should also share insights among other cities worldwide.

However, participants noted, member states negotiate on behalf of the nation. Speakers encouraged city leaders to strengthen conversation with their representatives at the state level and ensure their advocacy is representative of the population.

Of concern to many speakers was a lack of information sharing between members of the municipal and federal governments, since records of immigration are often housed at the national level. Participants cited examples where the central government did not share migration data with the cities where migrants lived. A lack of data and regularly updated statistics of migrations as well as a lack of migration management systems make it difficult to monitor the exact impact of migration. In order to do so, comprehensive indicators need to be developed, and all migrants need to be documented.

Speakers in the session noted that a link could be made between improving migration policy and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Rather than intergovernmental organizations prescribing a solution to migration, participants declared, the best outcome is a policy that grows organically from the steps that city officials take, separate from institutions like the IOM and UN.

On Friday, May 18th, IPI together with Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders are cohosting a policy forum event on “Bridging the Emergency Gap: What Will It Take?”

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

During their acute phase, contemporary conflicts present a number of challenges for humanitarian actors. Insecurity, growing needs, and the obstruction, denial, or politicization of humanitarian assistance create an environment unfavorable to neutral, independent, and impartial humanitarian action. Even though the humanitarian sector has become increasingly professionalized and well-funded, MSF’s Emergency Gap Project reveals that the first few months of acute crises are often marked by a failure to provide lifesaving assistance and protection to those affected by violence. Beyond the external challenges of the operational environment, MSF also identifies a series of challenges within the humanitarian system itself that they perceive as contributing to this gap in emergency response.

This policy forum will provide an opportunity to bring together different perspectives to explore concrete ways to reinforce the emergency response capacity of the humanitarian sector in complex, acute crises and to ensure that humanitarian actors adequately respond to both emergencies and more protracted crises.

Speakers:
Ms. Teresa Sancristóval, Director of Operations, Médecins Sans Frontières
Mr. John Ging, Director of Operations, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
Mr. Bob Kitchen, Vice-President of Emergencies, International Rescue Committee

Moderator:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, IPI

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

On Wednesday, May 16th, IPI together with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is cohosting a policy forum to launch the publication of an IPI policy paper on the formulation of peacekeeping policy through intergovernmental bodies at the UN.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have often been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.

As the UN reaches another important junction in peacekeeping reform, this paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what need to be considered to build consensus on its future direction.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Ms. Gillian Bird, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations
Mr. David Haeri, Director, Department for Policy, Evaluation and Training, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations

Speakers:
Ms. Lisa Sharland, Head of International Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Ms. Inderjit Nijjar, First Secretary Peacekeeping, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations
Mr. Eugene Chen, Office of the Under-Secretary-General, United Nations Department of Field Support
Colonel Sandeep Kapoor, Military Adviser to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations
Dr. Craig Mills, First Secretary Peacekeeping and Africa, Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations

Moderator:
Dr. Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

On Tuesday, May 15th, IPI together with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, the University of Witwatersrand, Forging Resilient Social Contracts, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum on the role of the social contract in sustaining peace. T

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

The identical General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions (70/262 and 2282, respectively), adopted on April 27, 2016, offer sustaining peace as the overarching framework for revitalizing the work of the UN’s peacebuilding architecture. The resolutions and the secretary-general’s report on peacebuilding and sustaining peace, released on January 18, 2018, underscores the importance of nationally owned agendas, rooted in the needs of all segments of society. To better understand—and indeed strengthen—the relationship between the state and the citizen, it is important to examine what drives inclusive and resilient social contracts within different contexts.

Participants at this event will discuss how social contracts manifest themselves in and adapt to different contexts, transcending from what are often unsustainable, ephemeral elite bargains into more inclusive ones with durable arrangements for sustaining peace. The findings of the research project “Forging Resilient National Social Contracts” will be presented and case studies on South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Tunisia will be featured. These case studies explore social contracting within contexts of conflict and fragility, highlighting the mechanisms through which agreements are forged that support prevention and sustaining peace.

This event will engage with current policy findings and debates, and highlight how the UN can better understand the role of the social contract, and utilize this framing in its work, to support national actors in attaining and sustaining peace. It is hoped that by focusing on concrete examples and cases studies, this conversation will help member states and other key national stakeholders develop a shared and deeper understanding of what sustaining peace means in practice as they attempt to implement the above joint resolutions and deliver on their commitment to make prevention the core function of the United Nations.

Welcoming Remarks:
Patrick Keuleers, Director, Governance and Peacebuilding, UNDP BPPS
Bettina Luise Rürup, Executive Director, FES New York
Takeshi Akahori, Minister, Political Coordinator, Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations

Opening Remarks:
Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Coordination

Speakers:
Erin McCandless, Associate Professor, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa; and Research and Project Director, Forging Resilient Social Contracts
Luka Kuol, Professor of Practice, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC; and Associate Professor, University of Juba
Jasmin Ramovic, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Manchester

Moderator:
Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

On Monday, April 30th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum event to launch the publication of the IPI policy paper “A Poisoned Well: Lessons in Mediation from South Sudan’s Troubled Peace Process.” This paper is part of IPI’s Lessons from Mediation project.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

In December 2013, South Sudan descended into civil war following a power struggle between its leaders. Following two years of devastating violence, which claimed countless lives, deepened ethnic fault lines, and displaced more than two million civilians, a comprehensive peace deal—the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan—was signed in August 2015. Within a year, the deal unraveled and the fighting resumed.

The relapse into war before the agreement could even be implemented revealed weaknesses in the negotiations and their outcome, including the lack of political will, broad national ownership, and implementing authorities necessary to make it stick, as well as challenges of coherence among multiple mediation actors and regional competition. These and other dynamics offer lessons for future mediation efforts in South Sudan and elsewhere.

Focusing on the role of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which led the mediation effort, as well as other international actors, this paper offers a critical assessment of the peace process from 2013 to 2015. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the mediation architecture and the roles played by individuals, institutions, and a wider constituency of peace process supporters. As the IGAD region now attempts to “revitalize” the peace process, this event will provide an opportunity to analyze and reflect on the lessons identified in the paper.

Opening remarks:
H.E. Mr. Jouni Laaksonen, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations

Speakers:
Mr. Zach Vertin, Visiting Lecturer, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Dr. Jok Madut Jok, Executive Director, The Sudd Institute
Dr. François Grignon, UNMISS IOT Leader, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations

Moderator:
Dr. Sarah Taylor, Research Fellow, International Peace Institute

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

On Tuesday, May 1st, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum event to launch the IPI policy paper “Keeping Peace from Above: Air Assets in UN Peace Operations.”

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

Aviation assets (fixed-wing aircraft, utility and attack helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles) are key enablers that give any peace operation the mobility and agility it needs to deter and prevail against hostile actors. Beyond enablers, air assets are also force multipliers that enhance the effectiveness of operations. They are essential to ensure that peacekeepers have the support and mobility they need on the ground, to enable casualty evacuation (CasEvac) and medical evacuation (MedEvac), to gather information, and to provide peacekeepers with the necessary robustness to deter armed elements threatening civilians and UN personnel. All of this, in turn, allows missions to implement their mandates, including the protection of civilians, which is not possible without strong aviation capacities.

This study, therefore, looks at how missions’ air assets are organized, generated, managed, tasked, controlled, and commanded. Overall, the UN has steadily improved its operating procedures for military helicopters over the past several years. Numerous steps have been taken by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field Support (DFS) to strengthen existing policies and by missions to improve coordination and integration between civilian and military components. These procedures should be implemented and respected by all. But the lack of assets and needed capabilities, combined with the reluctance to use them when available remains, and causes problems.

Read the report >>

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Masud Bin Momen, Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations
H.E. Ms. May-Elin Stener, Deputy Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations

Speakers:
Dr. Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute
Mr. Gregory Pece, Chief, Air Transport Section, Logistics Support Division, UN Department of Field Support
Air Commodore Muhammad Mafidur Rahman, Air Headquarters, Bangladesh Air Force
General (rtd) Patrick Cammaert, General Officer Commanding the Eastern Division, MONUC; former Military Adviser, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Jorge Jackson, Chief of Air Operations, UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)

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

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.

President Salva Kiir signs the agreement on the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan at a ceremony in Juba, South Sudan, August 26, 2015.(UN Photo/Isaac Billy)

In 2013, the world’s newest nation—the Republic of South Sudan—descended into civil war. External actors moved quickly to convene peace talks under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), leading to a comprehensive peace deal in August 2015. But the agreement unraveled just a year later, before it could be implemented, and the war metastasized.

This paper examines the IGAD-led peace process for South Sudan from 2013 to 2015. Viewed through a prism of mediation best practice, it is a critical assessment of the attempt to negotiate a settlement of the conflict and a distillation of lessons learned.

While singular conclusions are hard to draw, the paper concludes that the process may have helped to slow South Sudan’s civil war and provided a platform to confront the fundamental changes required to transform state and society. But inherent flaws meant the peace deal lacked the political will, broad national ownership, and implementing authorities necessary to make it stick. As IGAD member states and international partners now attempt to “revitalize” the peace process, they would be wise to evaluate, and build upon, its lessons.

Figure 3: UN peace operations with environmental capacities (click to enlarge)

The 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti, triggered by the UN mission there, killed more than 9,000 people and affected nearly 807,000. This disastrous case drew attention to the negative effect UN peace operations can have on the surrounding communities and environment—something peacekeepers had started paying attention to with the deployment of new large-scale operations in the 2000s. As operations have grown in size, so too has the size of their environmental footprint.

This report looks at the environmental impact of peace operations and how the UN has responded, including through policies and guidelines, dedicated staff, and training material. In particular, it assesses the challenges the Department of Field Support faces in implementing its Environment Strategy.

Based on this assessment, which includes a detailed examination of the UN mission in Mali, the report puts forward a series of short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations. It concludes that a UN presence should not be a source of stress but should improve local environmental sustainability and build resilience.

Download

On Thursday, April 19th, IPI, together with the Permanent Mission of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the United Nations, is cohosting a policy forum on negotiating peace after armed conflict in which war crimes have taken place.

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

The discussion will explore the dilemmas that arise when peacemakers seem to face choices between settling an armed conflict and holding to account those responsible for severe human rights violations. Ensuring accountability for past atrocities is today often widely expected, by the international community and by survivors, and is essential in the long term for sustainably building peace. While peace and justice go hand in hand, delivering on justice is often complex and challenging in the short term. Negotiated settlements to armed conflict have the potential to end immediate, often devastating suffering. Processes to establish accountability prior to negotiations or to include accountability mechanisms as part of political processes risk deterring those suspected of war crimes from coming to the negotiating table or from cooperating.

This policy forum will draw on the experiences of senior practitioners with expertise in peace negotiations and transitional justice in countries such as Colombia, Liberia, Libya, and Sierra Leone. It will examine the influence of international criminal courts on armed conflict, including whether prosecutions deter further abuses or whether they can risk doing damage to a peace process. This discussion comes amid ongoing atrocities and calls for accountability in armed conflicts in Syria and elsewhere, and at a time of growing threats of withdrawal from the International Criminal Court.

Speakers:
H.E. Ms. María Emma Mejía Vélez, Permanent Representative of the Mission of Colombia to the United Nations
Priscilla Hayner, Member of the UN’s Standby Team on Mediation and author of the recent book: The Peacemaker’s Paradox: Pursuing Justice in the Shadow of Conflict
Teresa Whitfield, Director, Policy and Mediation Division at the UN Department of Political Affairs
Ruti Teitel, Ernst C. Stiefel Professor of Comparative Law at New York Law School

Moderator:
Jake Sherman, IPI Director of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations

*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.