<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:55:21 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>PEP Spotlight</title><subtitle>PEP Spotlight</subtitle><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/atom.xml"/><updated>2008-07-24T14:35:30Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Introducing a new PEP site section...</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/7/24/introducing-a-new-pep-site-section.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/7/24/introducing-a-new-pep-site-section.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2008-07-24T14:30:42Z</published><updated>2008-07-24T14:30:42Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[A recent addition to the PEP website is a section entitled "Monthly Reports", giving interested parties a monthly "snapshot" of events occuring in the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Sudan. Any Security Council&nbsp;action or updates are included as well. To access this page, simply scroll down and select the "Monthly reports" link under Information Center, or click <A href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/monthly-reports/">here.</A>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Washington Post editorial on Burma</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/5/13/washington-post-editorial-on-burma.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/5/13/washington-post-editorial-on-burma.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2008-05-13T15:50:00Z</published><updated>2008-05-13T15:50:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div style="padding-left: 10px"><p><span class="sizeGreater60">In Burma, a U.N. Promise Not Kept</span></p><p>by Fred Hiatt, May 12, 2008</p></div><div id="article_body" style="padding-left: 10px"><p>When a parent abuses or neglects a child, government steps in to offer protection. But who steps in when government abuses or neglects its people? </p><div id="body_after_content_column"><p>Nearly three years ago, the <u><font style="color: #0c4790" color="#0c4790">United Nations</font></u> announced an answer to that question: It would. At a summit celebrating the organization's 60th birthday, 171 nations agreed that they would intervene, forcefully if necessary, if a state failed to protect its own people. The action was seen as both a sign of remorse for the failure to stop genocide in Rwanda and a rebuke to the United States and its unilateral ways. </p><p>&quot;I'm delighted that the responsibility to protect, a Canadian idea, now belongs to the world,&quot; said Canada's prime minister at the time, <u><font style="color: #0c4790" color="#0c4790">Paul Martin</font></u>. &quot;The United Nations will not find itself turning away or averting its gaze.&quot; </p><p>Since then the United Nations has averted its gaze as Sudan's government continues to ravage the people of Darfur. It has turned away as Zimbabwe's rulers terrorize their own people. Now it is bowing to Burma's sovereignty as that nation's junta allows more than a million victims of <u><font style="color: #0c4790" color="#0c4790">Cyclone Nargis</font></u> to face starvation, dehydration, cholera and other miseries rather than allow outsiders to offer aid on the scale that's needed. </p><p>In light of America's troubles in Iraq, the pendulum in the United States has swung toward multilateral solutions and international law. All three candidates to replace <u><font style="color: #0c4790" color="#0c4790">President Bush</font></u> have promised to restore alliances and put more faith in allies. </p><p>But the stalemate in Burma, also known as Myanmar, shows how difficult it is to translate &quot;responsibility to protect&quot; into action. It's hard to imagine a government more deserving of losing the national equivalent of its parental rights; yet it seems more likely that hundreds of thousands of people will die needlessly than that the United Nations will act. </p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101782.html" target="_blank">Read full article...</a></p></div></div>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Can we apply R2P to Burma?</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/5/12/can-we-apply-r2p-to-burma.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/5/12/can-we-apply-r2p-to-burma.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2008-05-12T14:41:15Z</published><updated>2008-05-12T14:41:15Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center" align="center"><big><big>Facing up to our responsibilities</big></big><br /><em>Given the Burmese regime's inflexibility so far, there may be a case under international law for forcing it to accept disaster relief</em><br />Gareth Evans<br /><br />May 12, 2008 <br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify" align="justify">If the intransigence of the Burmese generals continues, we will have to face the question of whether in the name of humanity some international action should be taken against their will - like military air drops, or supplies being landed from ships - to get aid to the huge numbers who desperately need it, right now, in the inaccessible coastal area in particular.<br /><br />Last Thursday, Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, argued, as others are now doing, that this is a proper case for coercive intervention under the &quot;responsibility to protect&quot; principle unanimously endorsed by 150 heads of state and government at the 2005 UN world summit. His proposal that the security council pass a resolution which &quot;authorises the delivery and imposes this on the Burmese government&quot; met with immediate rejection not only from China and Russia, who are always sensitive about intervention in internal affairs, but from many other quarters as well.<br /><br />It generated concern from the UK and others, including senior UN officials, that such an &quot;incendiary&quot; approach would be wholly counterproductive in winning any still-possible cooperation from the generals. It also provoked the argument from humanitarian relief agencies - who know what they are talking about - that simply as a practical matter any effort to drop supplies without an effective supporting relief on the ground would be hopelessly inefficient, and maybe even dangerous, with the prospect of misuse of medical supplies. <br /><br />These are strong arguments, and they weigh heavily in the policy balance. But as the days go by, with relief efforts impossibly hindered, only a trickle of the government's own aid getting through, and the prospect of an enormously greater death toll looming acutely within just a few more days, they are sounding less compelling, and at the very least, need revisiting.<br /><br />My own initial concern, and it remains a serious one, with Kouchner's invocation of the &quot;responsibility to protect&quot; was that, while wholly understandable as a political rallying cry - and God knows the world needs them in these situations - it had the potential to dramatically undercut international support for another great cause, to which he among others is also passionately committed, that of ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all.<br /><br />The point about &quot;the responsibility to protect&quot; as it was originally conceived, and eventually embraced at the world summit - as I well know, as one of the original architects of the doctrine, having co-chaired the international commission that gave birth to it - is that it is not about human security generally, or protecting people from the impact of natural disasters, or the ravages of HIV-Aids or anything of that kind.<br /><br /></div><a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gareth_evans/2008/05/facing_up_to_our_responsbilities.html" target="_blank">Read the full commentary...</a> <br />]]></content></entry><entry><title>UN Peacekeeping Salon</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/4/29/un-peacekeeping-salon.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/4/29/un-peacekeeping-salon.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2008-04-29T15:19:23Z</published><updated>2008-04-29T15:19:23Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>From April 21-28 2008,&nbsp;Mark Malan, the Peacebuilding Program Officer for Refugees International and Executive Coordinator for the PEP, participated in an online&nbsp;UN peacekeeping salon that&nbsp;facilitated dialogue regarding&nbsp;a paper&nbsp;written by&nbsp;William Durch of the Stimson Center that discussed the peacekeeping challenges awaiting the&nbsp;upcoming administration in 2009. The online discussion, hosted by UN Dispatch and <em>Foreign Policy Passport, </em>featured a total of five participants and two moderators. </p><p>To read the discussion blogs and learn more about past salons sponsored by UN Dispatch, follow the link below:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.undispatch.com/archives/peacekeeping_salon/" target="_blank"><u><font style="color: #800080" face="Arial" color="#800080" size="2">http://www.undispatch.com/archives/peacekeeping_salon/</font></u></a></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>UN DPKO "Capstone Doctrine" document complete...</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/4/9/un-dpko-capstone-doctrine-document-complete.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2008/4/9/un-dpko-capstone-doctrine-document-complete.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2008-04-09T14:45:38Z</published><updated>2008-04-09T14:45:38Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<h3 style="text-align: center" align="center">9 April, 2008</h3><div style="text-align: center" align="center"><big><big>United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: <br />Principles and Guidelines<br /></big></big></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify" align="justify">A key priority for DPKO/DFS in the past year has been the development of an overarching guidance document, UN Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines, that aims to provide practitioners and partners with a comprehensive overview of the principles and concepts guiding the planning and conduct of contemporary UN peacekeeping operations. To develop this landmark document, DPKO engaged in a wide consultative process involving a series of &ldquo;expert-level&rdquo;, regional workshops, which brought together representatives of the major troop and police contributors, donor countries, UN staff and leading academics. Consultations were also held with Member States and UN system partners in New York to ensure that their views and concerns were fully taken into account. The document constitutes the first attempt in over a decade to clarify the nature and scope of UN peacekeeping operations for the benefit of peacekeeping practitioners and partners. It should be considered a living document that will need to be updated and reviewed to reflect the evolution of UN peacekeeping operations.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center" align="center"><strong><a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/lessons/" target="_blank">DOWNLOAD A PDF OF THE UN PKO PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES</a><br /></strong></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify" align="justify"><em>&quot;Over the past six decades, United Nations peacekeeping has evolved into a complex, global undertaking. During this time, the conduct of United Nations peacekeeping operations has been guided by a largely unwritten body of principles and informed by the experiences of the many thousands of men and women who have served in the more than 60 operations launched since 1948. This document captures these experiences for the benefit and guidance of planners and practitioners of United Nations peacekeeping operations.</em>&quot;<br /></div>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Expectations of UN Peacekeeping in Darfur...</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/expectations-of-un-peacekeeping-in-darfur.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/expectations-of-un-peacekeeping-in-darfur.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2007-10-16T18:33:51Z</published><updated>2007-10-16T18:33:51Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<big><big>Peacekeepers Without a Peace to Keep </big></big><br />By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN<br />October 14, 2007<br /><br />IF anyone needed proof that Darfur has degenerated into a peacekeeper&rsquo;s nightmare, 30 truckloads of armed men forcefully delivered it two weekends ago. <br /><br />They stormed a small African Union garrison in a dusty village, Haskanita, and massacred 10 African peacekeepers, looted their equipment and torched their base. The attack came as the African Union was preparing for a critical peace conference on Darfur and the United Nations was rushing to assemble a beefed-up force that will total 26,000 soldiers under joint U.N.-African Union command &mdash; the largest peacekeeping mission in the world. <br /><br />Is the intervention too late? Or maybe, as some experts argue, too early?<br /><br />The problem with Darfur is that it is not a Kosovo, an East Timor, or a Cyprus, all places where United Nations blue helmets have stepped between well-defined warring parties and stopped the bloodshed. Darfur is experiencing a different, messier kind of war.<br /><br />Though often simplified, the situation in Darfur has become a chaotic free-for-all with many warring pieces, Arab versus Arab, rebel versus rebel, bandit versus bandit, all fighting one another in a desiccated, burned-out wasteland overrun with weapons and increasingly lethal for aid workers and peacekeepers.<br /><br />If anything, Darfur resembles Somalia in the 1990s, when the failure of American-backed United Nations peacekeepers to subdue teenage gunmen in flip-flops ushered in 16 years of chaos that rages on today.<br /><br />&ldquo;Unless Unamid,&rdquo; the abbreviation for the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur, &ldquo;develops a strategy, wises up very fast to the complexity of the conflict in 2007 and gets out of its fortresses, which is more unlikely than ever post-Haskanita, it will very soon become a major part of the problem,&rdquo; said Julie Flint, a London-based journalist and co-author of &ldquo;Darfur: A Short History of a Long War.&rdquo; She cited the amount of water peacekeepers would consume &mdash; up to 40 times per person what a typical Darfurian uses, the burden on already broken roads and communications, and the huge expectations the force&rsquo;s arrival will create.<br /><br />&ldquo;Darfurians are expecting to be saved by Unamid, to have roads opened, the janjaweed disarmed and banditry ended,&rdquo; she said. This, she added, is &ldquo;mission impossible,&rdquo; however well the troops perform.<br /><br />Impossible or not, some experts emphasized that if the force is to have any chance of success, it must be willing to fight robustly and take casualties.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14gettleman.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin" target="_blank">Read the full article ... </a><br /><br />]]></content></entry><entry><title>September PEP Forum - The Responsibility to Protect</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/september-pep-forum-the-responsibility-to-protect.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/september-pep-forum-the-responsibility-to-protect.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2007-09-25T20:12:56Z</published><updated>2007-09-25T20:12:56Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center"><big><big>September PEP Forum<br />Friday 28, 2007<br />3:00pm to 5:00pm</big></big><br /><br />CSIS - 1800 K St. 4th Floor Conference Room<br /><br />Topic of Discussion: <br /><big><big>The Responsibility to Protect<br /></big></big><br />Speakers: <br /><big><big>Ms. Ingrid Harder<br />R2P Consultant to the Canadian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade<br /><br />Ms. Sapna Chhatpar Considine<br />Program Officer -R2P Project for the World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy<br /></big></big><br />Ms. Harder is currently working as a consultant to Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on initiatives related to the Responsibility to Protect. Following the endorsement of the Responsibility to Protect by the 2005 World Summit, the government of Canada has been engaged in efforts to further promote and implement this set of principles. On this front, the Canadian government has a history of working collaboratively with civil society organizations. Over the past year, there has been a significant increase in interest in this issue among civil society groups in Washington. In order to gain a better understanding of the diverse range of views on this subject, Ingrid is interested in how the Responsibility to Protect is being interpreted as well as how, if at all, it is being incorporated into various programs and activities. She will provide an introductory briefing on Canada's approach and her work to date on R2P follow up, followed by a discussion .<br /><br />A full agenda to follow.<br /><br /><big>If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to coordinator@effectivepeacekeeping.org <br /></big></div><br />]]></content></entry><entry><title>Africa Command - PEP Director Mark Malan Testifies Before Congress</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/8/1/africa-command-pep-director-mark-malan-testifies-before-cong.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/8/1/africa-command-pep-director-mark-malan-testifies-before-cong.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2007-08-01T20:29:22Z</published><updated>2007-08-01T20:29:22Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: center"><big><big>AFRICOM: A WOLF IN SHEEP&rsquo;S CLOTHING?</big></big><br /></div><div style="text-align: center"><br />Testimony by Mark Malan<br />Refugees International, Washington, DC<br />Before<br />The Subcommittee on African Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations<br />U.S. Senate<br /><br />At the hearing entitled<br /><big>&quot;Exploring the U.S. Africa Command and a New Strategic Relationship with Africa.&quot;</big><br />August 01, 2007<br /><br /><big>INTRODUCTION</big><br /><div style="text-align: justify">I want to thank Senator Feingold most sincerely for inviting me to testify before this important and timely hearing. This is my first appearance before you, so please allow me a brief introduction. I am new to Washington DC and the USA, having joined Refugees International as head of their peacekeeping program this May. I shall do my best to convey to you the concerns about AFRICOM of RI and the broader humanitarian NGO community. However, as an African (I am a South African citizen) who has spent 20 years in the military and the last 11 years as a civilian working on African security and peacekeeping capacity-building issues, I shall first highlight some of the real concerns about AFRICOM that have been voiced rather loudly in Africa. ... <br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/MalanTestimony070801.pdf" target="_blank"><big>To read the full testimony of Mr. Mark Malan, please click here...</big><br /></a><br />For the comments and testimony of all other witnesses, please click on the names below:<br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/LugarStatement070801.pdf" target="_blank">Senator Lugar's opening Statement</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/Senate404.html" target="_blank">The Honorable Jendayi Frazer</a>, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Department of State<br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/WhelanTestimony070801.pdf" target="_blank">Ms. Theresa Whelan</a>, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Department of Defense<br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/HessTestimony070801.pdf" target="_blank">The Honorable Michael Hess</a>, Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID<br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/MorrisonTestimony070801.pdf" target="_blank">Dr. Stephen Morrison</a>, Executive Director, CSIS<br /><br /><a href="http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/GrationTestimony070801.pdf" target="_blank">Major General Jonathan Gration</a>, USAF (Ret.), Former Director of Strateg, POlicy and Assessments, US European Command<br /><br /></div></div>]]></content></entry><entry><title>The UN and Darfur - Fact Sheet</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/7/19/the-un-and-darfur-fact-sheet.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/7/19/the-un-and-darfur-fact-sheet.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2007-07-19T19:02:42Z</published><updated>2007-07-19T19:02:42Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<big>Background: </big><br />More than 200,000 people are estimated to have been killed and at least 2 million displaced from their homes in Darfur since fighting broke out in 2003 between Government of Sudan forces, allied Janjaweed militia and other armed rebel groups. Atrocities such as the murder of civilians and the rape of women and girls have been widespread and continue, underscoring the necessity for urgent action.<br /><br />The UN raised the alarm on the crisis in Darfur in 2003 and finding a lasting resolution has been a top priority for the Security Council and two consecutive Secretaries-General. In addition to pursuing a political solution, the UN and its partners are currently operating the largest aid effort in the world in Darfur and in refugee camps in Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR). In parallel, UN human rights experts have reported on abuses, and monitored efforts by local courts to bring perpetrators to justice.<br /><br />Under the auspices of the African Union (AU) and with support of the UN and other partners, the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) was signed on 5 May 2006. Intensive diplomatic and political efforts to bring the non-signatories into the peace process continue. The UN has also provided logistical and technical assistance to AU monitors dispatched to Darfur since 2004, and has developed, adapted and is now implementing plans for a multidimensional peacekeeping operation. In accordance with the decision of the 16 November 2006 High-Level consultations in Addis Ababa &mdash; attended by the former Secretary-General, five Permanent Members of the Security Council, representatives of the Government of Sudan, the AU and other States and organizations with political influence in the region, and some African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) troop contributing countries &mdash; the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) designed a three-phased approach to augment AMIS and create an unprecedented hybrid AU-UN peacekeeping force. Intensive private and public diplomacy by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and several actors in the international community resulted in Sudan&rsquo;s acceptance of this force in June 2007.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sudan/fact_sheet.pdf" target="_blank">To download the full fact sheet click here...<br /></a>]]></content></entry><entry><title>David J. Kilcullen: "New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflict"</title><id>http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/6/28/david-j-kilcullen-new-paradigms-for-21st-century-conflict.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/front/2007/6/28/david-j-kilcullen-new-paradigms-for-21st-century-conflict.html"/><author><name>PEP Coordinator</name></author><published>2007-06-28T19:54:14Z</published><updated>2007-06-28T19:54:14Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>In advancing ideas on developing a new paradigm for countering terrorism, David Kilcullen proposes three conceptual steps to develop new models&mdash;two of which relate closely to moves to develop a &ldquo;whole of government&rdquo; approach to stabilization and reconstruction operations, and PEP efforts to encourage a more multilateral approach to US engagement in peace operations. <br /><br />Kilcullen calls for a grand strategy that interweaves all strands of national power, and that can be sustained by the American people, successive U.S. administrations, key allies, and partners worldwide. This involves, among others, deciding how to allocate resources among military and nonmilitary elements of national power: <br /><br />&ldquo;Our present spending and effort are predominantly military; by contrast, a &lsquo;global counterinsurgency&rsquo; approach would suggest that about 80 percent of effort should go toward political, diplomatic, development, intelligence, and informational activity, and about 20 percent to military activity.&rdquo;<br /><br />It also requires decisions on how to prioritize effort geographically: &ldquo;At present most effort goes to Iraq, a much smaller portion to Afghanistan, and less again to all other areas. ..Different choices on the military/nonmilitary and intervention/containment judgments might produce significantly different regional priorities over time.&rdquo; <br /><br />Kilcullen also sees a real need to remedy the imbalance in government capability: At present, the U.S. defense budget accounts for approximately half of total global defense spending, while the U.S. armed forces employ about 1.68 million uniformed members. By comparison, the State Department employs about 6,000 foreign service officers, while the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has about 2,000. In other words, the Department of Defense is about 210 times larger than USAID and State combined&mdash;there are substantially more people employed as musicians in Defense bands than in the entire foreign service. ..a clear imbalance exists between military and nonmilitary elements of capacity. This distorts policy and is unusual by global standards. For example, Australia's military is approximately nine times larger than its diplomatic and aid agencies combined: The military arm is larger, but not 210 times larger, than the other elements of national power.&rdquo;<br /><big><big><br /><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa/foreignpolagenda.html" target="_blank">Read the article...</a></big></big><br /><br /></p>]]></content></entry></feed>