European Peace Institute / News

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:

On November 9th, IPI hosted a Distinguished Author Series featuring Steven Lee Myers, author of The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

The New Tsar is a highly readable and deeply researched narrative about the ambitious and determined onetime Russian spy who, emerging from a grim childhood of poverty in Leningrad, rose through the ranks of the KGB and post-communist political disorder in Moscow to consolidate tsar-like personal rule and become a consequential, unpredictable, and destabilizing world leader. He has ushered in a new authoritarianism, quashing dissent, repressing inchoate revolts, defying Western rivals, and all the while building widespread support at home for his mission of restoring assertive Russian power and influence in places ranging from Ukraine to Syria. Praising the book for revealing “why Putin acts the way he does”, Robert D. Kaplan, author of In Europe’s Shadow, says, “Personalities determine history as much as geography, and there is no personality who has had such a pivotal effect on 21st century Europe as Vladimir Putin.”

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

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

Ambassadors, military advisors, and members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) secretariat discussed the future of peace operations at an IPI Vienna roundtable. The November 5th informal brainstorming session drew thirty participants and focused on peace operations in the OSCE area.

Arthur Boutellis, Director of IPI’s Center for Peace Operations, gave an overview of the recent UN report of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO). He emphasized four main points from the report: the primacy of politics; the introduction of the term “peace operations” that covers a wide spectrum of tools; the importance of partnership, for example with regional arrangements; and the emphasis on a field-focused/people-centered approach.

The Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine, Ambassador Ertuğrul Apakan, shared his impression of the evolution of the SMM under difficult and constantly changing conditions. He stressed that the SMM’s most important task is to be present. He attributed the mission’s success to its ability to adapt – without changing its mandate – and to be impartial and objective. He highlighted the challenges of being “a civilian mission in a war zone.” It was pointed out that the precedent of civilian “monitors” could be copied in other parts of the world, like Colombia.

IPI Vice President Walter Kemp presented an overview of the OSCE’s field activities throughout the conflict cycle, aligning key UN and OSCE deployment concepts, from preventive diplomacy through peacemaking and peacekeeping to post-conflict peacebuilding, under the unifying umbrella of “peace operations.” It was noted that while the OSCE has a more than twenty-year tradition of conflict prevention, it has also engaged in crisis management in volatile environments (including Albania in 1997 and Kyrgyzstan in 2010), as well as monitoring and stabilization operations (like in Kosovo in 1999 and eastern Ukraine today). The OSCE’s policing work was also highlighted.

Several participants spoke of the “primacy of politics,” a point made in the HIPPO report as well as the report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on lessons learned from the OSCE’s engagement in Ukraine. Furthermore it was stressed that “the mandate must be clear and achievable and linked to a political strategy.”

One suggestion for shrinking the distance between the political and operational leadership of OSCE field activities was to appoint Special Representatives of the OSCE Secretary-General rather than Personal Representatives of the Chairmanship or Heads of Mission.

Among the issues raised was the challenge of civilian missions carrying out military tasks. It was noted that people with military skills are often integrated into civilian missions; or services like medevac, de-mining, or airlift are increasingly provided by private contractors. Several speakers emphasized the need for civilian leadership of such peace operations.

In the discussion, participants underlined the need for greater planning capacity in the OSCE Secretariat, as well as sufficient resources and administrative procedures to quickly launch field activities. The challenges of force generation, command and control, and overcoming the lack of a legal personality for the OSCE were also raised.

There was a debate about whether the OSCE was well placed and well equipped to carry out peacekeeping operations. It was recalled that the OSCE has a mandate for peacekeeping dating back to the Helsinki Document of 1992, and a high-level planning group has been preparing different scenarios for a peace operation in Nagorno-Karabakh for two decades. While some said the OSCE should never have “boots on the ground,” others suggested that this option should not be taken off the table.

The HIPPO report says that the UN “should embrace a future role of not only working alongside regional organizations but also enabling them to share the burden in accordance with the UN Charter.” Participants discussed how to strengthen the OSCE’s profile as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

As part of its Innovative Peace Incubator (IPI+) project, funded by Switzerland, IPI is supporting the ongoing internal OSCE review process on Peace Operations through its research and convening capacity.

On November 12th, IPI will host a policy forum event focusing on the complex relationship between UN peacekeeping and health, examining challenges and opportunities in facilitating access for humanitarian aid agencies and delivering health assistance directly.

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

As part of the Providing for Peacekeeping series, IPI recently published a report by Sara E. Davies and Simon Rushton titled “Healing or Harming? United Nations Peacekeeping and Health.”

The presentations will also focus on health threats UN peacekeeping can present to the host population, as well as health risks UN peacekeepers in challenging environments often face.

The policy forum will bring together specialists from within the United Nations, the Secretariat, member states, and civil society to discuss some of the issues raised and the recommendations made by the authors. The purpose is to hold a discussion on the responsibilities of UN peacekeepers with regard to relevant agencies, the host state, humanitarian organizations, and the civilian population in the provision of humanitarian and health assistance.

On November 4th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM) hosted its first Public Consultation focusing on the findings and recommendations of the Women, Peace, And Security Discussion Paper, and providing an opportunity to reflect on the recent fifteenth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Advancing the women, peace, and security agenda may require a fundamental rethinking of the traditional approach to peace and security in the multilateral system. There is compelling evidence that women’s security and gender equality in society are associated with broader peace and stability in states. As such, the credibility of the multilateral system itself depends on progress in this area—which may be achieved through a needed shift from state security to human security. This is a central argument in the ICM Discussion Paper on Women, Peace, and Security.

A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found here on the ICM website. Following brief remarks by the discussants below, this event was open for questions and feedback from diverse participants, serving as an input to the ICM’s ongoing work in this area.

Discussants:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, IPI
Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, IPI
Nahla Valji, Deputy Chief, Peace and Security, UN Women
Louise Allen, Executive Coordinator, NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security

Moderator:
Barbara Gibson, Deputy Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

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

Transnational organized crime (TOC) has developed into a powerful force impacting lives both locally and globally, having benefitted from the increasing integration of the global economy and regional proliferation of state fragility. Particularly in the post-conflict context where multilateral organizations are mandated to support the government in re-building state capacities, there is a lack of understanding how to tackle organized criminal networks–“the elephant in the room”–often deeply entangled with government institutions. While UN peace operations have become increasingly complex since their origins as traditional peacekeeping deployments in a post-World War environment, their capacities remain very limited in properly assessing and responding to threats posed by TOC.

On November 2-6, the International Peace Institute conducted its second training course on addressing and analyzing organized crime in fragile states. The specialization course, held at the Peace Castle in Stadtschlaining, was organized in co-operation with the Austrian Study Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution (ASPR) within the framework of Europe’s New Training Initiative for Civilian Crisis Management (ENTRi). Based on the pilot course conducted by IPI in 2013, the training served as the basis for an EU-certified curriculum that is targeted at staff of multilateral organizations deployed in fragile states where organized crime poses a serious threat to peace and stability.

Conceptually, the training program aimed at providing a holistic perspective to the problem at hand – combining a variety of approaches ranging from law-enforcement to development, which the participants could subsequently apply in a realistic simulation exercise. Equipped with background information about the case study and the opportunity to carry out investigative interviews (with counterparts in the roles of the UNDP resident representative, a local customs official, a rebel leader, a traditional elder and a fisherman), participants were tasked to develop an Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) and provide recommendations for the required capabilities of a planned UN peace operation.

IPI’s extensive research on the issue was used as a basis for this training course, including From the Margins to the Mainstream: Toward an Integrated Multilateral Response to Organized Crime as part of its Peace without Crime project and developed a methodological guidebook on “Spotting the Spoilers: A Guide to Analyzing Organized Crime. The course attracted twenty participants from twelve different countries, including law enforcement and criminal intelligence specialists, as well as TOC and operations planning experts. Course participants had a chance to interact with IPI staff and international crime-fighting experts, learn about the nature, threat and impact of TOC from practitioners and their experiences in the field (such as the case of Mali) and assess existing and potential operational responses and practical tools to address organized crime.

The course also highlighted practical and political dilemmas faced by practitioners dealing with this challenge in the field. For example, when and how should one tackle the problem? Should one mediate with spoilers involved in illicit activities? And what approaches can be taken when threat assessments reveal that senior officials are complicit in criminal activities?

“Since organized crime is a threat in almost every theater where there are peace operations, we hope that this course will inspire national peace training centers as well as regional and international organizations to factor organized crime into their training programs,” said Walter Kemp, IPI’S Vice President.

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

Michele J. Sison, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, told an IPI audience that as societies attempt to come to terms with a legacy of past abuses, their transitional justice processes must focus on the victims, not just the perpetrators.

Transitional justice should focus on a “victim-centered approach that responds to the needs and perceptions of families, and the needs and perceptions of communities, as opposed to solely punishing perpetrators,” she said.

Ms. Sison highlighted the importance of including civil society from the beginning of the process. “These transitional justice processes must put victims and vulnerable groups at the very center of our strategies,” she said.

She emphasized it was especially important to consult marginalized groups, such as ethnic minorities and youth. “These groups must play an active role in the design and in the implementation of a transitional justice mechanism,” she said.

Ambassador Sison’s remarks opened a panel discussion on “Civil Society and Transitional Justice Processes: How International Actors Can Promote a More Inclusive Approach,” held at IPI October 29th, 2015. High-level panelists discussed how international actors could contribute to processes that ensure justice, accountability and reconciliation.

The event also marked the launch of a new US State Department report, Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement. The report is designed to offer guidance on how donors may better integrate civil society into their transitional justice funding strategies.

María Emma Mejía Vélez, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, brought a first-hand perspective on transitional justice to the panel.

Colombia has been embroiled in civil war for six decades. The government and the guerrilla group Fuerzas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) began a peace process in October 2012, and the negotiations yielded an agreement this September.

The resulting innovative transitional justice framework, Sistema Integral de Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición (Cohesive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and No Repetition), was unveiled in Havana, along with a timeline to finalize negotiations by March 23rd, 2016.

In a show of good faith, FARC promised to disarm and demobilize within 60 days of signing the agreement.

Ms. Mejía said Colombia’s transitional justice framework “aims to get the maximum possible satisfaction for the victim’s rights.”

She said the framework would achieve this through four key pillars: a truth commission, a special jurisdiction for peace, a special unit for persons who have “disappeared,” and administrative measures for reparation.

The Ambassador added that Colombia aimed to fulfill all of its international commitments in the peace process, the first to be held since the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), entered into force in 2002.

On the negotiations, she said it would be “easy to say, ‘It’s over with,’ peace, and take the photos,” after they conclude.

Instead, she implored the audience to remember that achieving an agreement is only a first step. “The work will begin March 23rd,” she said. “It’s not the end, it’s just the beginning of a society that has not been reconciled to find out how we will be able to live together, those who have been confronted for so many long decades.”

Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN, addressed the importance of civil society for justice, accountability, and reconciliation. “It is doubtful that any transitional justice institution has ever been successful without engaging civil society,” he said.

Mr. Pedersen emphasized three elements of transitional justice—jobs, security and justice—that can make possible democratization, sustainable development and peacebuilding. “It is a no-brainer,” he said. “We need both the state and civil society if we are to be successful in working on these issues.”

Habib Nassar, Executive Director of the Global Network for Public Interest Law (PILnet), spoke to his experience in civil society advocacy in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region.

Mr. Nassar lamented “the growing role of the international and a standardization of the field” of transitional justice. This has “led to a situation in which the local actors are no longer in control of the design of their own processes,” he said.

He outlined the consequences for justice processes when international actors disproportionately influence them. “Transitional justice is becoming the province of technocrats, bureaucrats, and then, the technical is privileged over the political, the general over particular, international over local.”

Homogeneous approaches to transitional justice “cannot accommodate local complexities,” Mr. Nassar said. “The standardized policies and mechanisms generate a rigidity that really paralyzes local creativity. We come and present really fancy nice models, and people are automatically paralyzed because they think that this is the only way to do it.” This is particularly troublesome in the MENA region, where such innovation is desperately needed, he said.

Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, placed the development of transitional justice in its historical context.

Early transitional justice processes began in the 1980s in highly institutionalized countries like Argentina, Chile, Czechoslovakia, and South Africa. “When you leave that set of countries behind and start thinking about the fate of transitional justice in countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and some of places which now are potential subjects of transitional justice, to some extent it should not be surprising that results are more ambiguous, and challenges significantly higher,” he said.

Contemporary transitional justice processes are unfolding in countries where there has been war, not just authoritarian governance. Today’s victims do not experience “violations that come about from the abusive exercise of state power—they are the violations that come about through something that looks more like social chaos,” he said. “Because violations are different, the means by which they ought to be redressed, one would think, also ought to be different.”

Local conditions matter, Mr. de Greiff stressed. “We need to think much more about how to make transitional justice measures more context-sensitive, while at the same time satisfying and respecting the universalistic commitment from which they come about,” he said.

The Special Rapporteur closed the panel by sharing a disheartening realization he reached while preparing recent reports for the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. “Strictly speaking, the violations that we are talking about cannot be repaired,” he said. “We do lots of things to mitigate their consequences, but nobody brings back the dead, nobody is un-raped, nobody is free after spending 7 years in prison, those years are gone. So instead of focusing so much attention on correction and redress, we ought to be spending much more time on prevention.”

The panel was co-hosted by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) at the US Department of State, and Public Action Research.
Warren Hoge, IPI Senior Adviser for External Relations, moderated the conversation.

Related Coverage:
Funding Transitional Justice (Public Action Research, 2015)
Remarks on the Launch of “Funding Transitional Justice: A Guide for Supporting Civil Society Engagement” (US Mission, October 29, 2015)

Watch event:

On October 27th, IPI together with the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) cohosted a women, peace, and security event focusing on the effective inclusion of women peacebuilders in mediation efforts.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Entrenched conflicts around the world demonstrate that traditional approaches to peace negotiations are not working. Today’s conflicts tend to involve numerous nonstate actors and play out at local, national, and transnational levels. Many civilians are affected by violence, displacement, and lack of economic opportunity; meanwhile, too many traditional mediation efforts fail. A growing body of research shows that the inclusion of a range of actors—especially pro-peace and nonviolent women’s groups—can generate political will and increase the chance of reaching a sustainable agreement. While inclusivity is not a panacea, its positive impact is evident in numerous peace processes.

ICAN presented the Better Peace Tool, the culmination of an extended consultative process with a full range of stakeholders active in peace mediation. A panel of mediators and mediation advisers reflected on this approach, discussing practical tools to overcome obstacles to inclusivity as they arise in practice. They also considered the negative outcomes for peace when exclusion wins the day—drawing on their experiences in Mali, Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere.

Speakers:
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Co-Founder, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & Member of the UN Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers (2011-2012)
Mobina Jaffer, Canadian Senator & Former Canadian Special Envoy to the Peace Process in Sudan
Arthur Boutellis, Director of the Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
Tom Crick, Associate Director of the Conflict Resolution Program, The Carter Center
Visaka Dharmadasa, Founder and Chair of the Association of War Affected Women, Sri Lanka

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Geir O. Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway to the United Nations

Moderator:
Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

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

A policy forum was held at IPI on October 27th on humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. Dr. Abdullah Al Rabeeah, Supervisor General for the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center, briefed the audience on the work of the center in providing relief aid to Yemen and the region.

The center was founded in May 2015 with the mission of managing and coordinating Saudi Arabia’s external humanitarian relief and development assistance.

“The food security program has been the most active with the health program,” Dr. Rabeeah said. “We’ve been delivering aid within Yemen, in the borders, and those in need in Djibouti.”

“Our center is impartial. We’ve not been involved in the politics or military actions,” he noted. “We have moved our help to cities irrespective of who controls those cities… In five months, our center has been able to provide thirteen food programs, reaching more than five million beneficiaries.”

Moderating the event was Hardeep Singh Puri, Vice President of IPI, who shared with the audience the four guiding principles of humanitarian action: humanity, which drives all humanitarian action to prevent and alleviate human suffering; neutrality, which requires humanitarian organizations to abstain from taking sides; impartiality, which guides humanitarian action to administer relief based on need without discrimination; and respect for independence.

“It is critical to understand and respect the work of NGOs in a conflict situation,” said Rabih Torbay, Senior Vice President of International Operations with the International Medical Corps. “As a non-governmental organization, we have to be impartial in our delivery of services. We cannot politicize who receives aid—everybody in need should receive aid.”

“The aid should be given based on need,” he added. “Not based on tribal, ethnic or religious affiliation, and we need to keep the humanity at the center of everything we do.”

Highlighting the difficulties of working in a conflict situation, Amir Mahmoud Abdulla, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme, commended the work of humanitarian workers on the ground.

“Our colleagues on the ground in Yemen deserve a huge amount of respect and gratitude. We all have to acknowledge that they put themselves in harm’s way to deliver [the aid] and the need for ensuring their protection must be paramount,” he said.

Watch event:

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

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an IPI audience that a series of reviews undertaken to mark the UN’s 70th anniversary had revealed that efforts to bring better governance to the world were falling behind evolving threats to political and social stability.

The reviews “all share a sense that global governance is not keeping pace with the challenges of a more complex and interconnected world,” the Secretary-General said. “We need to tune all of our institutions to the times – times in which even the most local problems have a global dimension.”

Referring to three of the reviews—on peacebuilding, peace operations, and women, peace and security— he said, “A common narrative is emerging – one that recognizes that failure to more effectively prevent and address interconnected problems such as conflict or inequality or climate stress will have severe and costly consequences across all dimensions of our work.”

The Secretary-General cited the widely hailed Sustainable Development Agenda adopted in September, as outlining a crucial framework to work towards resolving these interconnected problems over the next 15 years. He expressed his hope that a universal climate accord will join the SDGs as part of that framework, following the UN’s climate conference, COP21, in Paris, this December.

The Secretary-General’s remarks kicked off a high-level panel discussion on “The Future of Global Governance: A Commitment to Action,” appropriately held at IPI on October 23rd 2015, to mark United Nations Day.

Taken together, the three peace & security reviews and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make clear four priorities for the international community to “take a people-centered, planet-friendly approach,” to the challenges of the global era, the Secretary-General said.

First, under “resilience,” he emphasized the SDGs’ promise to “leave no one behind.” He called for a greater focus on prevention to make possible the future that the SDGs envision. “This will not happen by solely fighting fires, when evidence shows that they could have been prevented had we acted and invested early,” he said.

The second theme he identified was “strengthening partnerships.”

“The various reviews uniformly recognize that implementing ambitious goals cannot be done by the UN system alone—or by member states alone,” he said. “Achieving a peaceful, sustainable future is a collective effort, starting now.”

On the third theme, “getting the financing right,” he called for more resources, more flexibility in the use of funds, and a greater share of public and private funding to meet shortfalls. “For the UN, the need is for better interconnection and sequencing of financing requests,” he said.

The final theme he identified was the critical need for greater participation of women and girls. “Excluding women from employment opportunities hinders sustainable development and economic growth,” he said. “Excluding women from peace processes hinders peace.  Excluding girls from schools holds societies back.”

Gender equality, he said, is a universal goal, and will have a range of benefits. “We need an all-of-society-approach that fully and equally incorporates the contributions of women in every aspect of our work,” he said. “The reviews rightly prioritize gender mainstreaming and the role of women as central to success.”

Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, called for reflection on what the reviews tell us about the UN for the future. He listed questions for the members to consider, like how the UN might address intractable conflicts like the Syrian crisis, asymmetric warfare, and the very divides within the UN and among its members that paralyze action. “This is the type of conversation I want to advance during my Presidency,” he declared.

Yannick Glemarec, Deputy Executive Director of UN Women, elaborated on the shared conclusion of the three peace and security reviews that women’s engagement is critically important to sustaining peace. “We have now a huge body of evidence that shows that women’s engagement in peace and security will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance, will increase the success of negotiation efforts, will accelerate the economic revitalization, and will dramatically reduce the likelihood of relapse into violence.”

Mr. Glemarec, an Assistant Secretary-General, also quantified the impact women have on peace processes with statistics from the Global Study on the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. “Women’s engagement in peace and security increases the likelihood that peace will be sustained by 20% over a period of two years, and 35% over a period of 15 years,” he said.

Sarah Cliffe, Director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, talked about Sustainable Development Goal 16, which says that peaceful and inclusive societies, with accountable justice institutions, are central to achieving sustainable peace.

Leaving a less violent world for future generations is a desire shared worldwide, she said. “Goal 16 shows that the preoccupation with preventing violence and achieving peace is really a common preoccupation across all societies, not only the most vulnerable.”

To prevent the lapse and relapse into conflict, the UN will need better cooperation between its peace and security organs, and those focused on development, she said.

A priority of Goal 16 is institution-building, and she provided an illustrative example of the myriad of actors involved in giving a person legal identity.

To register just one person, cooperation in the development system means “engaging with new government partners, like ministries of justice and interior, with national planning and civil registration and statistical systems, with hospitals, with birth registration systems, with schools, with immigration, policing, efforts to recognize different forms of documentation.”

In conclusion, IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud recalled the title of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operation’s report, “Uniting our Strengths for Peace: Politics, Partnerships and People.”

He outlined three practical ways we can move closer to a more peaceful future. “The first is communication, that enhancing the participation of people is not challenging the credibility or legitimacy of governments, on the contrary, people are partners,” he said.

“Secondly, we need to create fora that are safe and protected for people to voice without fear their view,” he said. “Three, we need to involve people in analyzing the problem and determining the solution. If we don’t understand the views of those we are supposed to serve how can we aspire to do anything sustainable?”

Ambassador Terje Rod-Larsen, President of the International Peace Institute, moderated the conversation.

Watch event: