European Peace Institute / News

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

The 48th annual Vienna Seminar took place on June 5, 2018, with the focus, “European Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward.” In the face of ongoing geopolitical shifts and national political pressures, the seminar examined the prospects of sustainable European participation in current and future UN peace operations as well as the operations’ effectiveness.

Co-sponsored by IPI, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe Integration of Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Ministry of Defence, the seminar presented different perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Participants included experts from IPI, the European External Action Service, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Vrije Universiteit in Brussels, as well as government officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, and France, along with leaders from UN peacekeeping missions and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

In session one on strategic context for UN peacekeeping, speakers noted that recent European engagement in peacekeeping missions—outside of longstanding contributions to missions like UNIFIL—has been driven by specific crises, and influenced by concerns regarding counterterrorism, migration flows, and humanitarian issues. They agreed that European countries have provided niche capabilities to specific missions, and there is currently little appetite to expand to other operations.

Participants noted that Europe is experiencing a rise in “Euro-isolationism.” Some countries, like the UK and France, have reaffirmed their commitment to collective security, but many European countries are increasingly focused on territorial defense. These trends take place amid a seeming retreat from multilateralism.

Session two offered space for diverse perspectives on European participation in UN peacekeeping operations. A key discussion point was that European Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) generally bring both the capacity and willingness to project and use force, a high level of professionalism and standards of training and preparedness, as well as, of equipment and niche capabilities that may otherwise be in short supply. While these traits are not unique to European troop contributing countries, they are generally shared by European peacekeepers.

Session three addressed the challenges of contemporary UN peacekeeping. The UN has adapted to European expectations regarding intelligence and medical capacity based on their experience with NATO, participants stated. But European countries have also adjusted to UN operations. While operational challenges and gaps still remain, including in areas of logistics, enablers, alignment of responsibility with authority, and security in hostile environments, there has been significant innovation in technology that aids peacekeeping missions, measurement of performance, and efforts to improve medical response.

In the final session, speakers discussed ways to move forward in sustaining European involvement in UN peacekeeping. European contributions to UN peacekeepers do appear sustainable in the near future, they said, but may be influenced by national political considerations, including the tensions emerging between internationalists and more-populist political constituencies. In this light, communicating success is important—less to incentivize participation than to prevent diminishment.

Recent European contributions embody innovative approaches to supporting UN peacekeeping. From employing multinational rotations to engaging through bilateral, trilateral and regional mechanisms, European countries successfully mobilize diverse capabilities to help the UN address clear needs. However, sustainable and comprehensive European engagement must move beyond short-term deployments of specialized troops and capabilities. Although Europe’s interests in UN peacekeeping will be driven largely by those crises that impact its security, European countries can nonetheless offer even more to the UN.

Europe can channel sustained diplomatic and financial support to political processes in host countries and to negotiations over peacekeeping budgets and UN reforms. Ensuring troops from across the continent are trained on UN peacekeeping standards and guidelines can greatly improve interoperability and cohesion in the field. Recognizing the added value of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) deployments, partnerships and tailored configurations will be increasingly important for mobilizing European commitment to the values and practice of collective security.

The event was held in the Austrian National Defence Academy. Lieutenant-General Karl Schmidseder, the Director General of Operations at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Defence, gave welcoming remarks, and IPI Vice President Adam Lupel introduced the event.

Other participants included:

• Major-General Michael Beary, Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Damien Cole, Director of the Policy Planning Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland
• Diane Corner, Former Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
• Koen Davidse, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
• Clara Ganslandt, Head of Division, Partnerships & Agreements, Crisis Management and Planning Directorate, European External Action Service
• Richard Gowan, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• Manuel Lafont-Rapnouil, Head of the Paris Office and Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations
• John Karlsrud, Senior Research Fellow, Peace and Conflict Research Group, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
• Corinne Kitsell, UN Co-ordinator, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom
• Joachim Koops, Dean of the Vesalius College, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• Rolf Landgren, Senior Police Advisor to the Civilian Operations Commander, Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, European External Action Service
• Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute
• Andreas Riecken, Director-General for EU and Multilateral Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
• Jean-Marc Séré-Charlet, Deputy Director, United Nations, International Organizations, Human Rights and the Francophonie, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, France
• Jake Sherman, Director of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute
• Adam Smith, Chief, Policy and Best Practices, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• Brigadier-General Reinhard Trischak, Head of the Military Policy Division, Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence
• Oliver Ulich, Head of the UN Policy, Evaluation and Training Division, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
• Peter van der Vliet, Director of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

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-xetkwn").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-xetkwn").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.

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

On May 23rd, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum event on “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action.” The event follows the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians). It is co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.

Over the last decade and a half, terrorism has increased and spread to a number of countries. Counterterrorism measures are key to ensuring our individual and collective security. As states recognized in Security Council Resolution 70/291, it is important that counterterrorism legislation and measures “do not impede humanitarian and medical activities or engagement with all relevant actors as foreseen by international humanitarian law.” However, relevant Security Council resolutions give member states no concrete guidance as to what this implies at the domestic level. Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by negatively impacting the provision of assistance and protection in accordance with humanitarian principles.

This policy forum helps to identify better ways and means of ensuring that counterterrorism measures do not adversely affect the protection of civilians, instead safeguarding and ensuring the protection of healthcare and principled humanitarian action. It explores concrete ways for states to implement counterterrorism measures in line with their other international obligations, as provided for by relevant UN resolutions, and take stock of existing initiatives working toward this goal. The event also identifies ways in which member states and relevant institutions can concretely follow up on specific work streams in order to enhance the protection of civilian in the fight against terrorism.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations

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

Confirmed speakers:
Mr. Yves Daccord, Director-General, International Committee of the Red Cross
Ms. Naz Modirzadeh, Director, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict
Ms. Marine Buissonnière, Independent Researcher and Consultant working with the UN Special Rapporteur on Health

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

Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*

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 will provide 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

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

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-dfebup").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-dfebup").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.

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

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.

Read the report >>

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.

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-xmxcqw").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-xmxcqw").fadeIn(1000);});});

On May 15th, an IPI policy forum invited participants to discuss how social contracts are developed and adapted to different contexts to transform what are often unsustainable, short-lived elite bargains into more inclusive and durable arrangements for sustaining peace.

Hosted in collaboration with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), the University of Witwatersrand, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN, this conversation allowed member states and other key national stakeholders to engage with the findings of the research project Forging Resilient National Social Contracts. Using case studies from South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Tunisia to explore the creation of social contracts within contexts of conflict and fragility, the discussion highlighted the mechanisms through which agreements are struck that support prevention and sustaining peace.

In welcoming remarks, Endre Stiansen, Senior Research and Policy Advisor at the Oslo Governance Centre of UNDP, said that the subject of the event was “very opportune” for development organizations such as UNDP “because there is something about bringing the whole of society approach to the challenges that we face in the field now.”

Introducing the study, Bettina Luise Rürup, Executive Director of FES New York, explained that it “highlights the need for inclusive peace agreements and the importance of vibrant societal relations” in sustaining peace. Considering the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, she asserted that social contracts can be “the much-needed mechanism for inclusiveness and national ownership for peace sustaining processes.”

The specific challenges that the study sought to address, said Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Coordination, were how to create political settlements and institutions that deliver results inclusively, as well as drive social cohesion. “Inclusion is in essence about non-discrimination,” he said, “It is about bringing in those who are otherwise being excluded socially, excluded economically, excluded politically and often persecuted; it’s about upholding rights.”

Erin McCandless is an Associate Professor at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa and Research and Project Director of Forging Resilient Social Contracts. Her aim was to propose durable solutions to recurring conflict in fragile environments. Introducing her research, she defined the concept of social contract, as it is understood in the classical western tradition, as “forfeiting some rights for the achievement of others.”

While she contended that this “utilitarian decision of citizens” may not look the same everywhere, in her research she found “enduring themes that have kind of cut across different civilizations and across the globe.” Her research posed questions on the establishment of a governing body including, “what is the purpose of such agreements, who are they between, what mechanisms drive social contracts, and how do people address, with their leaders, questions of moral obligation and conflicting interests?”

Among the key findings were that “elite political settlements are just not sustainable. There is an emerging consensus in the policy realm around the importance of inclusion for sustaining peace,” she said. Inclusivity is necessary for a strong consensus among citizens to create a sustainable agreement.

Dr. McCandless said that the research findings pointed in particular to two compelling reasons why political settlements fail to become more inclusive and resilient social contracts. The first was the fact that core conflict issues are not effectively addressed over time through appropriate political settlements, allowing social conflict to become protracted and unresolvable. The second was that social contract-making mechanisms are “not effectively treated in coherent ways in the peace process.” She concluded that there was a need for greater focus on strengthening state-society relations and creating more accountable, durable policy.

Luka Kuol, Professor of Practice at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies of National Defense University in Washington, DC and Associate Professor at the University of Juba, South Sudan, called his country “the most fragile country in the world.” Even with its three peace agreements signed in 1972, 2005, and 2015, he said, the country is still in conflict.

“Such fragility is definitely a result of misrule by the elites,” he said, “But I think equally important was despite the good intention of the international actors, that they, to a certain degree, I could say, were less informed about the political marketplace and the drivers of social contracts.”

The peace processes failed from the lack of inclusivity in the country’s transition to statehood, including the constitution-making process, he said. “The process itself was so exclusive, it was led by one political party in isolation of the rest.” Uniquely for South Sudan, amid other African countries that emerged out of colonialism, “this idea of ‘common enemy,’” he said, “Is not glue for forging a social cohesion. South Sudan was anchoring its unity to how much they hate North Sudan. But once that common enemy is gone, then these tensions start surfacing.”

Dr. Kuol said he still believed there was hope for peace in South Sudan if it is built nationally. Ultimately, he said, it should be the role of the state and the citizens to create a social contract that focuses on inclusivity. “South Sudan stands a better chance of putting itself on the path of social contract and addressing the core driver of conflict,” he said. “What is lacking is the political leadership and visionary leadership.”

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an “elite social contract maintains the status quo,” said Jasmin Ramović, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester. Such a contract “exploits communal fears that existed…during the war and are persisting after,” he said. “Through patronage, they also maintain a control of their respective communities. But the underlying reason behind this elite social contract is mismanagement of economic resources to the advantage of a very small clique of people,” he said.

Dr. Ramović explained that the peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed in Dayton, Ohio, “unfortunately, and paradoxically, actually preserved the unity of the country and also divided the country in the same time.” This political settlement perpetuated the core conflict issue which was competing conceptions of territorial boundaries and loyalties, and the Dayton Peace Agreement created a hybrid government comprised of actors of each major ethnic group. This “bloated” administrative structure, though, ended up helping nationalist elites control employment and the public sector.

Instead, he said, “international actors should encourage initiatives, especially grassroots initiatives, which can expose the links between political, business, and judiciary elites.” This would, he argued, “unravel the elite social contract and provide channels so that the voice of a majority of the population could be heard.”

Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser and the event’s moderator, suggested three lessons for cultivating successful peace agreements based on the situation in Tunisia, his own country. The first was that “when the broad-based constitution was adopted in 2014, it became the social contract in post-revolution Tunisia.” The second, he explained, was that, “as you anxiously look for ways to strengthen the state, ensure that this does not put the onus on the state as the sole penholder of the social contract.”

The third was, “In attempts to keep at bay all kinds of isms, do not sacrifice on the altar of stability and security the oxygen that keeps voice alive and free, a voice that Tunisians have wrenched out of the jaws of the state. Without the oxygen, a resilient social contract is atrophied.”

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-jfauce").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-jfauce").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 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?”

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 provided 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.

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

IPI Senior Visiting Fellow Alexandra Novosseloff told an IPI policy forum that aviation assets, the United Nations’ second biggest expenditure after personnel, were chronically shortchanged in mission planning, making them the “Achilles heel” of UN peacekeeping. “Ultimately it’s not UN rules that are the problem, it’s the persistent lack of needed assets and capabilities combined with the reluctance to use them that causes problems,” said Dr. Novosseloff, author of an IPI report on how UN missions’ air assets are organized, generated, managed, tasked, controlled, and commanded.

“As these expensive assets are scarce, relative to the large size of the territories covered, and often lack all the required capabilities, there is a chronic shortage of military air assets and, in particular, helicopters, in peacekeeping operations,” she said. “The financial pressure has already led some missions to further ‘rationalize’–meaning ‘reduce’–the use of their air assets, and the effect is that missions are less mobile and more constrained.”

She spoke at a May 1st IPI policy forum to launch the report, co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Bangladesh and Norway to the UN. Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Bangladesh’s Deputy Permanent Representative, opened the meeting by noting the importance of aviation in gathering peacekeeping intelligence, protecting civilians, and assuring the security of peacekeepers. But, he added, “The deployment of air assets is fraught with a number of challenges, both practical and procedural.”

May-Elin Stener, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Norway, singled out three specific problems. She said that the Secretariat should play a greater role in matchmaking for multinational rotation contributions, that cost-saving decisions to travel over land rather than by air should be reconsidered, given the increasing number of attacks on patrols and logistical convoys, and that air threat assessments by UN missions ought to be strengthened and better aligned with the judgments of the troop-contributing countries (TCCs).

One reform Dr. Novosseloff suggested was using national or regional aviation capacity for logistical tasks through partnerships with national companies in addition to subcontracting to international companies who have less local knowledge. Arguing for a more efficient approach to making the assets more applicable to the task at hand, she cited a negative example. “Why equip helicopters with night vision when they are not allowed to fly at night by the host nation?” she asked. “Requirements should be more realistic regarding the capacities of contributing countries.”

Air Commodore Muhammad Mafidur Rahman of the Bangladesh Air Force suggested that troop contributing countries be included in the original preparation and drafting of mandates to improve operational coordination so that there is a “realistic” assessment beforehand of their ability to contribute assets. This would set a “more congenial” atmosphere and create needed “mutual trust and respect,” he said.

Gregory Pece, chief of the Air Transport Section, Logistics Support Division of the UN Department of Field Support (DFS), related that his challenge in enhancing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of UN aviation was not about “doing more with less or the same with less but doing less with less—this is the financial environment in which we live.”

He enumerated a series of cost saving measures to meet military requirements, determine the capabilities of aircraft, crew and equipment, and track the movement of people and cargo. Getting them approved and installed would depend in part on getting the most reliable data possible, he said. “We need to come up with consistent, presentable, clear modes of presenting data so we can look at utilization.”

Jorge Jackson, chief of air operations at the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), said air operations in Africa had improved in the five years he has been with UNMISS but that improvisation was always necessary given the state of infrastructure on the continent. “Aviation is an interesting tool, but aviation is not the problem solver,” he said. “We have to realize that what we see here from the headquarters, when you go to the ground, it is something else.”

Patrick Cammaert, a retired Dutch Major General with command experience in UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and Eastern Europe, told of past experiences where UN missions lacked the means to do the assigned job. “We all know that criteria for success for a peacekeeping mission is an achievable mandate and the resources to match,” he said.

IPI Vice President Adam Lupel moderated the discussion and in a concluding comment acknowledged that air assets for UN operations are too often “taken for granted. But,” he said, “if you dig a little bit below the surface–or above the surface as the case may be–you see that this is a topic with broad consequences, not just for UN peacekeeping, but for UN strategic effectiveness at large.”

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

A broad-based mediation plan in South Sudan to try to forge peace after violence devastated the country between 2013 and 2015 unraveled in a year, plunging the country back into conflict. On April 30th, IPI and the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations held a policy forum to discuss the subject and launch a new report A Poisoned Well: Lessons in Mediation from South Sudan’s Troubled Peace Process that assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the mediation architecture and the role played by the individuals and institutions that tried with little success to put it in place.

Reviewing the lapsed process, Jouni Laaksonen, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Finland, said his country put a high premium on making it more inclusive. “The inclusive approach to peacebuilding is necessary for the achievement of permanent results, and sustaining peace requires the involvement of all actors, from different parts of society,” he said.

The report focused on the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the eight-nation bloc of African countries that led the mediation effort, along with other national and international actors. This network of regional interests, while welcome in principle, frequently broke down in practice, said the author of the report, Zach Vertin, Visiting Lecturer at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

“Mediators were not sufficiently empowered by their own bosses,” he said, “so when the process stalled, which was often, it would require the heads of state from the entire region to convene. This ate up huge amounts of time and resources and slowed the process at critical moments. Now this sustained commitment from high-level actors was important in a theoretical sense but at the same time had effectively undercut the mediators in the eyes of the parties.”

Two other critical roadblocks, Mr. Vertin said, were a failure to achieve consensus on the scope and nature of the problem and an absence of political will among the various sides in the struggle. He explained, “The parties themselves and South Sudan’s warring combatants not only lacked the will to make peace, there were often a number of them very hostile to the very idea of a negotiated settlement.” He said it raised the question of “how do outside actors compel a mediated resolution of a conflict between two parties bent on war?”

One specific failure he identified was not imposing an arms embargo on the fighters, in effect fueling more violence at the same time that peacemakers were trying to quell it.

Mr. Vertin spent the years 2013 to 2016 in South Sudan and Sudan, both as a US diplomat and an adviser to IGAD, and he said the experience left him pondering a larger question. “Is there a formula that couples regional players and their comparative advantage with other mediation expertise?”

Jok Madut Jok, Executive Director of The Sudd Institute and a resident of South Sudan, wondered if putting so much authority in the hands of outsiders and experts didn’t end up producing a “peace agreement, but no peace and stability in the real lives of people.” He also questioned how effectively they prioritized the needs of the local people over their own national ambitions.

He asked, “How can regional leaders who are mediating the situation in South Sudan be prevented from looking at South Sudan purely from the point of view of their own view, political interests? …How is it going to be possible to prevent them from only looking at the conflict from the point of view of how it affects them, and not necessarily from the perspective of what the South Sudanese need that peace agreement to look like?”

He added that he was skeptical of the value of global engagement in general in South Sudan because too often the South Sudanese exploited international assistance and took no action on their own to resolve conflict, assured that “the outside world would always bail them out.”

François Grignon, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations team leader for South Sudan since 2011, said the mediation process there had exposed the weakness of too much reliance on “textbook” remedies rather than ones developed to suit the realities of the country. “Unless we succeed to adapt our instruments to have leverage on the actors of the violence,” he said, “we will continue to struggle with mediation or with the peace process, which will miss the point, because it follows textbooks, or because it follows templates, which…may not be necessarily relevant and efficient and effective in addressing the specifics of this situation.”

“So,” he said, “maybe there’s another way to do it–civil engagement, civil activity. South Sudanese are so divided that they are afraid of each other. That if they are ever going to have a say in who rules them, then rebuilding those ethnic relations across the board is going to be the only way they can actually speak about removing a president and installing a transitional government up to the time when you will have elections.”

IPI Research Fellow Sarah Taylor was the moderator.

“He was a consummate professional, a dear friend to so many and so wonderfully decent. He will be sorely missed.” – Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, President & CEO of the International Peace Institute

By profession, Warren was a journalist, but by nature he was a diplomat—fully aware of the power of words to engage, to inform, to inspire, to change the world,” said Gillian Sorensen, former Assistant-Secretary-General for External Relations at the UN, when she spoke at Warren’s Celebration of Life on November 29th. The event brought together Warren’s beautiful family, friends, and colleagues to remember and honor Warren Hoge, and the positive impact he had on so many lives.

Warren came to the International Peace Institute as the first Vice President of External Relations following his extraordinary, event-filled 32-year career at The New York Times. Prior to coming to IPI he was the Chief UN Correspondent for the Times. He joined IPI in 2008—the same year IPI opened its own, dedicated event space, The Trygve Lie Center for Peace, Security & Development. I had recently joined the organization at that time, and I was fortunate to have him as my supervisor.

When I first met Warren, I was pregnant with my first child. Not long after meeting him, I experienced what many first-time mothers do and was rushed to the hospital thinking something was wrong, only to find I had Braxton Hicks (false labor). It happened so quickly that my husband called the office to let them know I had to miss work to go to the hospital. Not long after I was admitted, the phone wrang in my hospital room and – to my surprise – I heard a kind, radio-quality voice coming through the receiver. It was my new supervisor, Warren Hoge, who was calling to check on how I was doing and make sure I was OK. I was moved by his thoughtfulness and the concern he showed. This is one of countless stories that exemplify the compassion Warren had for his colleagues. His management style centered around kindness and care. He was deeply committed to the importance of family life and his face would light up whenever he spoke of his family. I am forever thankful for the opportunity to have learned from him, a person who valued connection and consistently acted with empathy and compassion—the building blocks of peace.

It was very fitting that he came to work at IPI after retiring from journalism. It was at a moment when IPI was beginning to reach out beyond the UN community and organize more events to bring together different sectors working toward our goal of creating a more peaceful and sustainable planet. Warren’s vast knowledge of world affairs, his deep conviction for the importance of international cooperation, coupled with his way of being in the world, informed how the organization evolved.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, IPI President and CEO reflected that, “He was a consummate professional, a dear friend to so many, and so wonderfully decent. He will be sorely missed.”

In her speech about Warren’s work with the UN, Gillian Sorensen rightly said, “He was an idealist without illusion. A caring critic of the UN. Never demeaning, never dismissive.” She also said, “He knew its [the UN] potential and its limits. He knew its impact on New York City and its many functions beyond peace and security, including health and human rights, and so much more… He believed the UN was imperfect but indispensable. That it was there … as a location for representatives from every nation on earth to come to be heard, to connect, to engage. He believed in the power of diplomacy to make a better world.”

During his time at IPI, Warren spearheaded the original redesign of the organization’s website, wrote NYT-quality coverage of our events, and created the “Distinguished Authors Event Series,” a series of evening receptions featuring authors of recently published books connected to pressing international relations concerns and peace. He co-produced and narrated IPI’s 40th Anniversary film; conducted interviews with world leaders and experts—including almost all of the 2016 candidates for UN Secretary-General; and was the most well-prepared of moderators for countless IPI panel discussions. He was also a devoted mentor to interns and junior staff, and someone who always took the time to provide advice and guidance to those who sought it.

He had a zest for life that uplifted those around him. Being from Manhattan, he developed throughout his life a great love for music, good food, and the theater. He also loved to sing and often filled the office with music, bringing a spirit of joy to the work.

After Warren’s passing, the UN Secretary-General’s Spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, announced to the UN press core, “After retiring from the Times, Warren moved to the International Peace Institute, where he remained deeply involved in international affairs, and kept in touch with so many of you. As we extend our condolences to his wife Olivia and their children, we remember Warren as a true gentleman reporter who was unfailing in his kindness, his easy grace, and detailed reporting of the ups and downs of this institution.”

Following this announcement, American journalist and UN Correspondent for the Associated Press, Edie Lederer, stated: “On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, we would also like to send condolences to the family and many friends of Warren Hoge around the world. He was a terrific journalist who reported from South America, Brazil, London, and many global hotspots before coming to the UN. As you so rightly said, he was a charming man and a great raconteur. And he will be greatly missed by all of us who knew him.”

Warren elevated IPI’s work beyond the UN community and into the broader international affairs community around the globe. He exemplified what peace means in practice. He had a natural way of connecting at a heart-level with all those he worked with and interacted with. He led IPI’s External Relations to new heights, broadening its audience and reach – always with sincerity, kindness, and respect. IPI is deeply grateful for his extraordinary contributions.

IPI’s Vice President and COO, Adam Lupel, who worked with Warren for 15 years said it well: “He was among the most memorable of characters imaginable—genuinely kind and generous to all, the greatest of storytellers, a gentleman of capacious heart and warm smile. He will be dearly missed.

His life lives on in the stories he told, the lives he influenced with his wisdom and wit, and his compassion and care. His empathy, genuine kindness, and contributions to creating a more peaceful world will always be remembered.

~ Mary Anne Feeney, IPI Senior Director for External Relations