The New Agenda for Peace serves as a stark warning that the damage being done now will have significant implications for humanity’s future wellbeing, safety, and stability.
Analysis
-
-
The New Agenda for Peace provides an opening for continental actors to advance priorities at the global level. However, this requires the AU to deliver on revamping its own multilateral system as a springboard to reforming global multilateralism.
-
Bold language on transforming patriarchy is not matched with concrete proposals to advance the WPS agenda and gender equality more broadly.
-
There seems to be a disconnect between the overall diagnosis of the New Agenda for Peace and its prescriptions for peace operations.
-
The New Agenda for Peace sets a clear vision for reforms, but does not go into the details on how to achieve them. This cautious approach is a reflection of the secretary-general’s belief that it is the role of the UN to support—not make—the decisions of member states.
-
The adoption of FFPs in Latin America is an opportunity to see how the region reimagines international feminist agendas and translates local feminist advocacy to the international arena.
-
Many Western countries and BRICS members may have more shared interests than the doomsday headlines suggest.
-
The next generation deserves a renewed effort to make the Summit of the Future a success.
-
Even though civil society has been impacted by the UN counterterrorism architecture, opportunities for a broad range of civil society actors to meaningfully engage with counterterrorism programming and policy-making remain limited at best.
-
The difficulties inherent in the liquidation and reconfiguration of the UN presence in Mali will be exacerbated by the lack of preparation and tension with the host government.
