March 31, 2026 • 23 mins
On Inside Geneva this week: who are the peacemakers?
“Women are completely absent in high-level politics and from high-level peacemaking at the moment. However, this is only the visible part. Our focus has been so much on US President Donald Trump,” says Sara Hellmüller, professor of International Relations at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Two peace experts, both women, give us their take.
“Traditionally, we have seen a low representation of women as mediators. There is a systemic issue inherent in how we understand peace processes, in which women are excluded,” says Hiba Qasas, executive director of the Principles for Peace organisation.
Can a few men in suits create real sustainable peace? Is there a role for women?
“Women are still working for peace every day in different conflict contexts. They are still involved in peace processes. Maybenot at the kind of transactional, deal‑making level that Trump is engaged in, and that the media mostly focuses on, but these activities have not simply stopped,” says Hellmüller.
So is there a recipe for peacemaking?
“It is very hard to say there is a blueprint. I don’t believe in blueprints. I don’t believe in toolboxes. I believe that peace is a much broader concept than political peace, and that it needs to be felt and experienced by people,” says Qasas.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva to listen to the full interview.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:06):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
Swisinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
SPEAKER_10 (00:21):
In today's program, indirect talks between Israel
and Hamas on ending the Gaza Warhave entered a third day.
Senior international mediators,including the US envoy Steve
Whitkoff, and Donald Trump'sson-in-law, Jared Kushner, have
also arrived in Sham al-Sheikh.
SPEAKER_09 (00:37):
Women are completely absent in kind of high-level
politics at the moment, and thishigh-level peacemaking.
However, this is the visiblepart.
SPEAKER_03 (00:46):
We're also watching in Moscow, where right now
President Vladimir Putin ishosting U.S.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff andJared Kushner, the president's
son-in-law.
SPEAKER_08 (00:56):
Traditionally, we've seen that there's been low
representation of women asmediators.
The statistics now is under 10%of negotiators are women in
2023.
There is a systemic issue bydesign, how we understand peace
processes, uh, that you findwomen are being excluded.
SPEAKER_06 (01:13):
So the talk's wrapped up, but we understand
the American delegation led bythe president's son-in-law Jared
Kushner and the Special EnvoySteve Whitkoff, then went to
meet with the Ukrainians, butthey will be uh resuming the
talks on Iran, we understand, inabout an hour.
SPEAKER_09 (01:27):
Women are still working for peace every day in
different conflict contexts.
They are still involved in peaceprocess, maybe not at kind of
this transactional peacemaking,deal-making level that Trump is
engaged with and that the mediafocuses on mostly.
But these activities have notjust stopped.
SPEAKER_08 (01:44):
It's very hard to say there's a blueprint.
I don't believe in blueprints.
I don't believe in toolboxes.
I believe that peace is a muchbroader conception than
political peace, and it needs tobe felt and experienced by the
people.
SPEAKER_09 (02:26):
My name is Sarah Helmiller.
I'm a research professor at theGeneva Gradit Institute, and my
specialization is in peacestudies.
SPEAKER_08 (02:34):
My name is Hiba Khasos, and I'm the founding
executive director of thePrinciples for Peace Foundation,
which is a Geneva peace-buildinguh organization and a
think-a-doo-tank that supportsdecision makers and peacemakers
around the world.
SPEAKER_00 (02:46):
Russia rejected the offer of a truce and instead has
been attacking Ukrainerelentlessly.
SPEAKER_01 (02:53):
Tonight, violence spiraling out of control in
Sudan.
Israeli forces have bombedmultiple locations across Gaza,
killing at least ninePalestinians.
The attacks are the latestviolations of the ceasefire that
came into effect four monthsago.
SPEAKER_02 (03:21):
So clearly, we're not going in the right
direction.
And yet we hear a lot aboutpeace and claims that multiple
wars have been solved.
SPEAKER_05 (03:35):
We're averaging one a month.
There is only one left.
Never.
There never will be either.
SPEAKER_02 (03:47):
So perhaps first, let's hear from peace specialist
Professor Sarah Helmuller ofGeneva's Graduate Institute.
How do we define peace?
Is it more than the absence ofviolence?
SPEAKER_09 (03:59):
It's a challenging time for peace, we know it.
It's uh we're in a time wherethere's more talk about security
than peace.
But I would also say thatdepending on how we define
peace, it's very linked tosecurity.
And how we define security alsois very linked to peace.
SPEAKER_02 (04:14):
Do those definitions for us, because some people will
say security is peace.
SPEAKER_09 (04:19):
Yeah, so when we speak about peace, we can of
course distinguish negative andpositive peace, which is
something, a distinction that isquite well known.
So negative peace would be theend of violence, so the end of
physical violence, and positivepeace would mean longer-term
sustainable peace, so not onlythe end of physical violence,
but also some form of goodgovernance in the long-term and
(04:40):
stable state-societyrelationships.
SPEAKER_02 (04:43):
Now that we've had the definitions, we have a US
president who says that he hassolved eight wars.
They would be the DemocraticRepublic of Congo, he says Gaza,
Thailand, Cambodia, Mike Waltz,the US ambassador to the UN in
(05:03):
New York, was in Geneva just acouple of days ago.
He also said the Western WesternSahara.
I see your eyebrows veryslightly raised.
SPEAKER_09 (05:12):
Yeah, I mean, resolving wars is uh, of course,
again, we need to kind of goback to definitions.
Of course, he has tried toaddress all of these conflicts,
and especially on Gaza, forinstance, you know, we had the
Gaza peace plan, and we saw aceasefire actually, I mean, more
or less holding.
It was, of course, violatedseveral times, but at least it
(05:33):
reduced the violence.
So if we are in the kind ofrealm of a more kind of the
negative peace definition, thatpeace or resolving conflicts
means actually reducingviolence, then maybe he has
achieved something.
But if we think about peace interms of longer-term sustainable
peace, then we're still far awayfrom a sustainable peace.
(05:53):
If I think of the context likeDRC, of course, if if we look at
especially the eastern part ofthe country, people don't yet
live in what we could call kindof a positive peace situation
where they have their main needssatisfied and they can sleep
calmly at night without hearinggunshots.
SPEAKER_00 (06:12):
Donald Trump is getting very excited about his
Board of Peace.
He says it could solve many ofthe world's problems.
But what is it?
Who'll be on it, and what willit do?
SPEAKER_07 (06:21):
US President Donald Trump would be chairman for life
and have the final say on allmatters.
SPEAKER_05 (06:28):
We just created the Board of Peace, which I think is
uh gonna be amazing.
I wish the United Nations coulddo more.
I wish we didn't need a Board ofPeace, but the United Nations,
and you know, with all the warsthey settled, the United Nations
never helped me on one war.
SPEAKER_02 (06:43):
Well, while the conflict in DRC simmers on, we
now have a brand neworganization aimed at
peacemaking, Donald Trump's muchtalked-about Board of Peace.
As we have discussed in earlierpodcasts, there are many
seasoned diplomats who havedoubts about the board, and
European countries have mainlyso far chosen not to get
(07:07):
involved.
So what do our two peace expertsthink of it?
You might be surprised.
Here's Hiba Kassas of Principlesfor Peace, who, as a Palestinian
herself, reminds us the focus ofthe board was originally
supposed to be Gaza.
SPEAKER_08 (07:24):
Naturally, uh, one has a lot of questions.
You know, I'm a realist, butalso I'm a possibilist, so I
tend to think of the positiveand the challenges at the same
time.
I will start with the positive.
I think the positive is thatthere is a movement around the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The situation in Gaza has beenabsolutely devastating.
And um it's a mammoth challenge,and the solution will not be
(07:45):
between the Israelis and thePalestinians because a bilateral
track have failed for thelongest of times, and there's an
asymmetry and all of that.
So this needs a regional andinternational response.
And in this um in this era, thefact that President Trump have
initiated and pushed for aceasefire in close collaboration
with regional partners is apositive step in the right
(08:08):
direction because it did stop orallowed us to achieve a
ceasefire.
Now, the composition of theBoard of Peace as a Board of
Peace, if it was only for Gaza,one would say, okay, this is a
very good, you know, mechanismthat would ensure that there
continues to be some leveragefrom the US, because frankly,
the only entity today that canhave leverage over Israel is the
United States.
And having President Trump atthe helm of that, with the
(08:30):
leverage that he has over theIsraeli side, is a positive.
And having regional players likethe Saudis and the Qataris and
the Turks and those who alsohave influence over Hamas or or
have influence over thereconstruction or are very
close, like Egypt, to theborders and have a very
important role is a positive.
Of course, we worry about anexpanded mandate.
(08:52):
Is it really focused on Gaza orbeyond?
And of course, you do worry, andas a Palestinian, of course, I
worry about the level ofPalestinian participation in it,
because it does not have theright level of participation.
However, we do welcome any movethat can advance a political
solution.
And the Board of Peace is one ofthose.
But I think we still have a lotof questions around it.
SPEAKER_02 (09:13):
Sarah Helmuller, too, has questions, but wants to
see the positive.
SPEAKER_09 (09:18):
So two things.
I think first of all, it couldbe worse.
So I mean, imagine that theTrump didn't create the Board of
Peace but a Board of War.
So I think it shows that peaceis still something that world
leaders aspire to, irrespectiveof how we define it.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Or why they aspire to it.
Or why they aspire to it.
SPEAKER_09 (09:39):
Exactly.
But even if it's for veryindividualistic purposes, I'm
still hopeful that somethinggood will come out of it.
Even if it's, you know, whateverthe motivation behind it.
But if sometimes the outcomesare positive in the sense that
it can reduce violence, then Imean I welcome anything that is
kind of for the purpose ofpeace.
(09:59):
Now, with regards to the Boardof Peace in particular, I think
it has many problematic aspects,of course.
It's very exclusive, it it givesa very exclusive right to the
chairman.
So it's only talk aboutchairman, not chairperson.
And it's of course achairpersonship for life.
Trump has a uh almost umexclusive veto right on all
(10:21):
decisions.
And also, you know, some peoplehave compared it to the UN
Security Council.
I think we're still far awayfrom something that could even
come close to the UN SecurityCouncil or even the UN Charter,
which is much more aspirational,it has human rights in it.
SPEAKER_02 (10:36):
Sarah used the word exclusive there.
Should that sound alarm bells?
When the board was formallyinaugurated, the members were
men in suits.
What about women?
Many peace negotiators suggest apeace process cannot be
successful without women beingincluded.
But Hiba Casas has a morenuanced view.
SPEAKER_08 (10:59):
I think this is uh a systemic problem that in many of
the high-stakes rooms theydefault to um elite actors, to
uniform, to those with proximityto force and to uh power and
politics and incentives.
And you do find a lot more focuson those who are close to the
violence and force question, orthose who are more focused to
(11:20):
the resources.
And often in many societiesthese are not women.
And I think traditionally we'veseen that there's been low
representation of women asmediators.
I think the the statistics nowis under 10% of negotiators are
women in 2023, and I think 14%or so of uh women as mediators.
It's not like there aren't womenengaging around these issues,
(11:42):
it's just that you don't find asmuch attention to that.
And also there is a systemicissue by design, how we
understand peace processes, uh,that you find women are being
excluded.
Having said that, I want to saysomething, and it might not be,
you know, uh make me verypopular.
You know, there's also a lot ofemphasis on inclusion as
(12:05):
representation.
And it becomes a bit of aticking-the-box exercise.
Is it about counting the womenor making women voices and
perspectives count?
So I do call for inclusivenessbeyond the narrow understanding
of representation.
It has to be meaningful, it hasto be uh influential, and it
also needs to be rooted in in insociety and rooted with those
(12:27):
with links to power, politics,and incentives.
Um and I do believe that women,we bring a different style of
leadership into these processes,which is fundamentally linked to
how we can build legitimacyaround these processes.
SPEAKER_02 (12:42):
That word legitimacy is one we keep coming back to.
How is a peace process reallylegitimate?
How can a peace be sustained ifthe process is not inclusive?
Sarah Hellmuller does find theabsence of women concerning,
particularly because even just afew years ago, there seemed to
(13:03):
be much more awareness thatwomen needed to be involved.
SPEAKER_09 (13:07):
This is really quite worrisome.
I think this is a general trendthat we see in peacemaking.
So we see a shift, I would say,from the comprehensive
peacemaking that aspires towardsconflict resolutions or towards
a comprehensive peace agreementthrough an inclusive and
impartial process, whichespecially in the 1990s was kind
(13:28):
of the dominant way to makepeace, often led, of course, by
the United Nations.
We see a shift away from thiskind of way to address conflicts
towards a transactional umpeacemaking approach.
And this transactional approachis focused most of all on a kind
of more bilateral deal-making,short-term, so more than
negative peace, reduction ofviolence objective.
(13:48):
Plus, as you mentioned, it'svery exclusive.
So it doesn't necessarily aspireto also include broader societal
actors in peace negotiations,peace building, but it's just
focused on the main belligerentsand mostly on male military
actors.
SPEAKER_02 (14:03):
Some people might say, I'll just play devil's
advocate with you here.
Some people might say, well, butif that approach works, let's do
it.
Let's do the transactional.
That's what these guysunderstand.
What would you say to counterthat?
I mean, give me an example of aninclusive peace process women
have been involved in that youcan point to and say, that
worked.
SPEAKER_09 (14:24):
So we know, I mean, an example would of course be
Colombia, which is frequentlymentioned where women and also
other societal groups, victimsgroup, and civil society played
a very important role in thepeace process.
And research has shown thatpeace agreements that were
negotiated with theparticipation of societal
actors, civil society and women,that they are more durable.
(14:46):
So we have clear evidence forthat.
I think I wouldn't dismiss thetransactional approach
completely.
Sometimes we have also seen thatin some peace processes we need
at least a moment of exclusivetalks with the belligerents
because they are the ones whohold the weapon.
So they need to agree to stopshooting at each other, let me
(15:08):
put it um bluntly like this.
But this is not the end of it.
This may be a beginning, thismay be part of a peace process,
but we need much more for thepeace agreement or the peace
deal, whatever it is, to besustainable in the long term.
It needs to include alsosociety.
SPEAKER_02 (15:24):
Inclusivity, legitimacy.
But what we have seen right herein Geneva over Ukraine and over
Iran are small groups of men.
They talk about peace, but aphrase they also use very often
is we need to make a deal.
Perhaps the word peace meansdifferent things to different
people.
(15:45):
Hiba Kassas warns against theword being hijacked by those who
will not have to live with theconsequences of a failed peace
process.
SPEAKER_08 (15:54):
I think this is this has really uh been a problem,
and frankly, why Principles forPeace was created was to address
this issue that there's such anarrow dominance of the
understanding of what peacedelivers.
You know, we've for so longwe've equated peace processes
with cessations of hostilitiesor ceasefires.
And what at best we've been uhsuccessful at as international
(16:16):
community is achieving a seriesof ceasefires.
But where we fail is insustaining peace or preventing
conflict in many in many cases.
So there is a narrowunderstanding of peace.
And at Principles for Peace, um,based on global evidence, so
this is not my personal opinion,this is based in evidence,
there's a much broaderconception of peace for those
who live it.
(16:37):
It's peace that deliverslegitimacy, peace that is
anchored in accountable securityand security as a public good,
not as excessive use of force,it's uh it's protection of
civilians, it's dignity, it'saccess to services.
So it's a much broaderunderstanding of peace.
And at the heart of asustainable peace, there needs
to be two key anchors.
One is legitimacy, trust ininstitutions, accountable
(17:00):
governance, accountablesecurity.
And the second part is alsodignity, how people experience
peace in their in their dailylife and how the state-society
relationships are structuredalso around that.
So we do have a problem in howwe think about peace, and we do
have a problem in how we how wedesign peace processes.
The problem today, I think, inthe global peacemaking spaces,
(17:22):
is not reaching agreements.
The biggest challenge today, theproblem is operational.
It's how do you move fromceasefires into sustainable
implementation of agreements?
And the evidence shows us, youknow, in the past three decades,
90% of conflicts have happenedin countries that experienced
civil war before.
So it's not a question that weare not able to broker
agreements, it's a question ofimplementing these agreements.
(17:44):
And a third of peace agreementsgo completely unimplemented.
And Gaza today is the ultimatetest.
It is one of these examples.
How do we move from a ceasefire,from a framework, from even a
Security Council resolution thatprovided for the longest of
times a frame in SecurityCouncil resolution 2803, in
having also a structure aroundtransitional governance,
(18:05):
stabilization force, and amechanism to mobilize investment
into delivering tangible uh goodgovernance to the people,
reconstruction, restoration ofbasic services, dignity to the
people of Gaza, who 90% of themare displaced.
So this is this is a veryconcrete example, and we can
also think about what'shappening in Ukraine, a very
(18:27):
different uh setup.
So it's it's very hard to saythere's a blueprint.
I don't believe in blueprints.
I don't believe in in umtoolboxes.
I I believe that you know uhpeace is a much broader
conception than political peace,and it needs to be felt and
experienced by the people, andthey determine how that um
(18:48):
translates into their dailylives.
SPEAKER_02 (18:50):
That's another reason for including women.
The women of Gaza or Ukrainewill have to live daily with the
consequences of the decisionmade by those men in suits or
uniforms.
Will those men think rebuildinghospitals should take priority
over restarting businesses?
Will it be important to deminethe paths children take to
(19:15):
school as fast as possible?
Sarah Helmuller suggests that,although left out of the big
performative diplomacy we haveseen from the Board of Peace,
women are still trying to ensurethey have a say.
SPEAKER_09 (19:29):
Women are completely absent in kind of high-level
politics at the moment and thishigh-level peacemaking.
However, I think what we have toconsider is that this is the
visible part, and our kind offocus has been so much on Trump.
And I think he has really takenthe focus away from all the
(19:49):
other things that are stillhappening.
So women are still working forpeace every day in different
conflict contexts.
They are still, you know, havingpeace processes, being involved
in peace processes, maybe not atkind of this transactional
peacemaking, deal-making levelthat Trump is engaged with and
that the media focuses onmostly.
(20:09):
But these activities have notjust stopped.
Having said that, I think thereis now more need for all of us
who still believe in this morecomprehensive approach to
peacemaking.
Things that we took for grantedwe can no longer take for
granted.
So it means we really need tothink what is uh truly important
to us, and then build thecoalitions around those values
(20:33):
and really fight for it.
SPEAKER_02 (20:41):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Sarah Helmuller andto Hiba Kasas for their time and
their perspectives.
We hope you enjoyed the programand do join us again in two
weeks when we'll be asking aquestion that right now everyone
in Geneva seems to be asking: can multilateralism, and in (21:00):
undefined
particular, the United Nations,survive?
And if the answer is yes, whatshould a new, reformed UN look
like?
SPEAKER_07 (21:14):
It's worth remembering that when the UN
charter was adopted in 1945, 50countries were present at the
table, and today there are 193member states.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
SPEAKER_04 (21:32):
On many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing bringing food to hungry
people, ensuring practicalstandards of how we cooperate on
the planet, and you know, mostcountries follow the UN rules
and principles on an everydaybasis, so not too bad.
You know, Doug Hamashul uh saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell, and I mean
(21:54):
that's still it you know, afternineteen forty five, there's
been no new world wars.
SPEAKER_07 (22:00):
The UN overall, I think it's going to go through a
very difficult and dark period.
I hope that coming out of that,you know, at sometimes you just
have to hit rock bottom, thatcoming out of that we can emerge
with an what I often refer to asa new global social contract.
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
(22:20):
then that's something worthworth fighting for.
SPEAKER_04 (22:24):
The history is that after every severe crisis, we
come together and try to make abetter system, which is what
happened after the two worldwars.
First, we had the not sosuccessful uh attempt of the
League of Nations, but then themuch more successful UN, also
learning from what was wrongwith the League of Nations.
I hope we don't need to relearnthis through the Third World War
or anything like that.
SPEAKER_02 (22:44):
Join us on April 14th for that.
(23:18):
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
Swisinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
SPEAKER_10 (00:21):
In today's program, indirect talks between Israel
and Hamas on ending the Gaza Warhave entered a third day.
Senior international mediators,including the US envoy Steve
Whitkoff, and Donald Trump'sson-in-law, Jared Kushner, have
also arrived in Sham al-Sheikh.
SPEAKER_09 (00:37):
Women are completely absent in kind of high-level
politics at the moment, and thishigh-level peacemaking.
However, this is the visiblepart.
SPEAKER_03 (00:46):
We're also watching in Moscow, where right now
President Vladimir Putin ishosting U.S.
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff andJared Kushner, the president's
son-in-law.
SPEAKER_08 (00:56):
Traditionally, we've seen that there's been low
representation of women asmediators.
The statistics now is under 10%of negotiators are women in
2023.
There is a systemic issue bydesign, how we understand peace
processes, uh, that you findwomen are being excluded.
SPEAKER_06 (01:13):
So the talk's wrapped up, but we understand
the American delegation led bythe president's son-in-law Jared
Kushner and the Special EnvoySteve Whitkoff, then went to
meet with the Ukrainians, butthey will be uh resuming the
talks on Iran, we understand, inabout an hour.
SPEAKER_09 (01:27):
Women are still working for peace every day in
different conflict contexts.
They are still involved in peaceprocess, maybe not at kind of
this transactional peacemaking,deal-making level that Trump is
engaged with and that the mediafocuses on mostly.
But these activities have notjust stopped.
SPEAKER_08 (01:44):
It's very hard to say there's a blueprint.
I don't believe in blueprints.
I don't believe in toolboxes.
I believe that peace is a muchbroader conception than
political peace, and it needs tobe felt and experienced by the
people.
SPEAKER_09 (02:26):
My name is Sarah Helmiller.
I'm a research professor at theGeneva Gradit Institute, and my
specialization is in peacestudies.
SPEAKER_08 (02:34):
My name is Hiba Khasos, and I'm the founding
executive director of thePrinciples for Peace Foundation,
which is a Geneva peace-buildinguh organization and a
think-a-doo-tank that supportsdecision makers and peacemakers
around the world.
SPEAKER_00 (02:46):
Russia rejected the offer of a truce and instead has
been attacking Ukrainerelentlessly.
SPEAKER_01 (02:53):
Tonight, violence spiraling out of control in
Sudan.
Israeli forces have bombedmultiple locations across Gaza,
killing at least ninePalestinians.
The attacks are the latestviolations of the ceasefire that
came into effect four monthsago.
SPEAKER_02 (03:21):
So clearly, we're not going in the right
direction.
And yet we hear a lot aboutpeace and claims that multiple
wars have been solved.
SPEAKER_05 (03:35):
We're averaging one a month.
There is only one left.
Never.
There never will be either.
SPEAKER_02 (03:47):
So perhaps first, let's hear from peace specialist
Professor Sarah Helmuller ofGeneva's Graduate Institute.
How do we define peace?
Is it more than the absence ofviolence?
SPEAKER_09 (03:59):
It's a challenging time for peace, we know it.
It's uh we're in a time wherethere's more talk about security
than peace.
But I would also say thatdepending on how we define
peace, it's very linked tosecurity.
And how we define security alsois very linked to peace.
SPEAKER_02 (04:14):
Do those definitions for us, because some people will
say security is peace.
SPEAKER_09 (04:19):
Yeah, so when we speak about peace, we can of
course distinguish negative andpositive peace, which is
something, a distinction that isquite well known.
So negative peace would be theend of violence, so the end of
physical violence, and positivepeace would mean longer-term
sustainable peace, so not onlythe end of physical violence,
but also some form of goodgovernance in the long-term and
(04:40):
stable state-societyrelationships.
SPEAKER_02 (04:43):
Now that we've had the definitions, we have a US
president who says that he hassolved eight wars.
They would be the DemocraticRepublic of Congo, he says Gaza,
Thailand, Cambodia, Mike Waltz,the US ambassador to the UN in
(05:03):
New York, was in Geneva just acouple of days ago.
He also said the Western WesternSahara.
I see your eyebrows veryslightly raised.
SPEAKER_09 (05:12):
Yeah, I mean, resolving wars is uh, of course,
again, we need to kind of goback to definitions.
Of course, he has tried toaddress all of these conflicts,
and especially on Gaza, forinstance, you know, we had the
Gaza peace plan, and we saw aceasefire actually, I mean, more
or less holding.
It was, of course, violatedseveral times, but at least it
(05:33):
reduced the violence.
So if we are in the kind ofrealm of a more kind of the
negative peace definition, thatpeace or resolving conflicts
means actually reducingviolence, then maybe he has
achieved something.
But if we think about peace interms of longer-term sustainable
peace, then we're still far awayfrom a sustainable peace.
(05:53):
If I think of the context likeDRC, of course, if if we look at
especially the eastern part ofthe country, people don't yet
live in what we could call kindof a positive peace situation
where they have their main needssatisfied and they can sleep
calmly at night without hearinggunshots.
SPEAKER_00 (06:12):
Donald Trump is getting very excited about his
Board of Peace.
He says it could solve many ofthe world's problems.
But what is it?
Who'll be on it, and what willit do?
SPEAKER_07 (06:21):
US President Donald Trump would be chairman for life
and have the final say on allmatters.
SPEAKER_05 (06:28):
We just created the Board of Peace, which I think is
uh gonna be amazing.
I wish the United Nations coulddo more.
I wish we didn't need a Board ofPeace, but the United Nations,
and you know, with all the warsthey settled, the United Nations
never helped me on one war.
SPEAKER_02 (06:43):
Well, while the conflict in DRC simmers on, we
now have a brand neworganization aimed at
peacemaking, Donald Trump's muchtalked-about Board of Peace.
As we have discussed in earlierpodcasts, there are many
seasoned diplomats who havedoubts about the board, and
European countries have mainlyso far chosen not to get
(07:07):
involved.
So what do our two peace expertsthink of it?
You might be surprised.
Here's Hiba Kassas of Principlesfor Peace, who, as a Palestinian
herself, reminds us the focus ofthe board was originally
supposed to be Gaza.
SPEAKER_08 (07:24):
Naturally, uh, one has a lot of questions.
You know, I'm a realist, butalso I'm a possibilist, so I
tend to think of the positiveand the challenges at the same
time.
I will start with the positive.
I think the positive is thatthere is a movement around the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The situation in Gaza has beenabsolutely devastating.
And um it's a mammoth challenge,and the solution will not be
(07:45):
between the Israelis and thePalestinians because a bilateral
track have failed for thelongest of times, and there's an
asymmetry and all of that.
So this needs a regional andinternational response.
And in this um in this era, thefact that President Trump have
initiated and pushed for aceasefire in close collaboration
with regional partners is apositive step in the right
(08:08):
direction because it did stop orallowed us to achieve a
ceasefire.
Now, the composition of theBoard of Peace as a Board of
Peace, if it was only for Gaza,one would say, okay, this is a
very good, you know, mechanismthat would ensure that there
continues to be some leveragefrom the US, because frankly,
the only entity today that canhave leverage over Israel is the
United States.
And having President Trump atthe helm of that, with the
(08:30):
leverage that he has over theIsraeli side, is a positive.
And having regional players likethe Saudis and the Qataris and
the Turks and those who alsohave influence over Hamas or or
have influence over thereconstruction or are very
close, like Egypt, to theborders and have a very
important role is a positive.
Of course, we worry about anexpanded mandate.
(08:52):
Is it really focused on Gaza orbeyond?
And of course, you do worry, andas a Palestinian, of course, I
worry about the level ofPalestinian participation in it,
because it does not have theright level of participation.
However, we do welcome any movethat can advance a political
solution.
And the Board of Peace is one ofthose.
But I think we still have a lotof questions around it.
SPEAKER_02 (09:13):
Sarah Helmuller, too, has questions, but wants to
see the positive.
SPEAKER_09 (09:18):
So two things.
I think first of all, it couldbe worse.
So I mean, imagine that theTrump didn't create the Board of
Peace but a Board of War.
So I think it shows that peaceis still something that world
leaders aspire to, irrespectiveof how we define it.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Or why they aspire to it.
Or why they aspire to it.
SPEAKER_09 (09:39):
Exactly.
But even if it's for veryindividualistic purposes, I'm
still hopeful that somethinggood will come out of it.
Even if it's, you know, whateverthe motivation behind it.
But if sometimes the outcomesare positive in the sense that
it can reduce violence, then Imean I welcome anything that is
kind of for the purpose ofpeace.
(09:59):
Now, with regards to the Boardof Peace in particular, I think
it has many problematic aspects,of course.
It's very exclusive, it it givesa very exclusive right to the
chairman.
So it's only talk aboutchairman, not chairperson.
And it's of course achairpersonship for life.
Trump has a uh almost umexclusive veto right on all
(10:21):
decisions.
And also, you know, some peoplehave compared it to the UN
Security Council.
I think we're still far awayfrom something that could even
come close to the UN SecurityCouncil or even the UN Charter,
which is much more aspirational,it has human rights in it.
SPEAKER_02 (10:36):
Sarah used the word exclusive there.
Should that sound alarm bells?
When the board was formallyinaugurated, the members were
men in suits.
What about women?
Many peace negotiators suggest apeace process cannot be
successful without women beingincluded.
But Hiba Casas has a morenuanced view.
SPEAKER_08 (10:59):
I think this is uh a systemic problem that in many of
the high-stakes rooms theydefault to um elite actors, to
uniform, to those with proximityto force and to uh power and
politics and incentives.
And you do find a lot more focuson those who are close to the
violence and force question, orthose who are more focused to
(11:20):
the resources.
And often in many societiesthese are not women.
And I think traditionally we'veseen that there's been low
representation of women asmediators.
I think the the statistics nowis under 10% of negotiators are
women in 2023, and I think 14%or so of uh women as mediators.
It's not like there aren't womenengaging around these issues,
(11:42):
it's just that you don't find asmuch attention to that.
And also there is a systemicissue by design, how we
understand peace processes, uh,that you find women are being
excluded.
Having said that, I want to saysomething, and it might not be,
you know, uh make me verypopular.
You know, there's also a lot ofemphasis on inclusion as
(12:05):
representation.
And it becomes a bit of aticking-the-box exercise.
Is it about counting the womenor making women voices and
perspectives count?
So I do call for inclusivenessbeyond the narrow understanding
of representation.
It has to be meaningful, it hasto be uh influential, and it
also needs to be rooted in in insociety and rooted with those
(12:27):
with links to power, politics,and incentives.
Um and I do believe that women,we bring a different style of
leadership into these processes,which is fundamentally linked to
how we can build legitimacyaround these processes.
SPEAKER_02 (12:42):
That word legitimacy is one we keep coming back to.
How is a peace process reallylegitimate?
How can a peace be sustained ifthe process is not inclusive?
Sarah Hellmuller does find theabsence of women concerning,
particularly because even just afew years ago, there seemed to
(13:03):
be much more awareness thatwomen needed to be involved.
SPEAKER_09 (13:07):
This is really quite worrisome.
I think this is a general trendthat we see in peacemaking.
So we see a shift, I would say,from the comprehensive
peacemaking that aspires towardsconflict resolutions or towards
a comprehensive peace agreementthrough an inclusive and
impartial process, whichespecially in the 1990s was kind
(13:28):
of the dominant way to makepeace, often led, of course, by
the United Nations.
We see a shift away from thiskind of way to address conflicts
towards a transactional umpeacemaking approach.
And this transactional approachis focused most of all on a kind
of more bilateral deal-making,short-term, so more than
negative peace, reduction ofviolence objective.
(13:48):
Plus, as you mentioned, it'svery exclusive.
So it doesn't necessarily aspireto also include broader societal
actors in peace negotiations,peace building, but it's just
focused on the main belligerentsand mostly on male military
actors.
SPEAKER_02 (14:03):
Some people might say, I'll just play devil's
advocate with you here.
Some people might say, well, butif that approach works, let's do
it.
Let's do the transactional.
That's what these guysunderstand.
What would you say to counterthat?
I mean, give me an example of aninclusive peace process women
have been involved in that youcan point to and say, that
worked.
SPEAKER_09 (14:24):
So we know, I mean, an example would of course be
Colombia, which is frequentlymentioned where women and also
other societal groups, victimsgroup, and civil society played
a very important role in thepeace process.
And research has shown thatpeace agreements that were
negotiated with theparticipation of societal
actors, civil society and women,that they are more durable.
(14:46):
So we have clear evidence forthat.
I think I wouldn't dismiss thetransactional approach
completely.
Sometimes we have also seen thatin some peace processes we need
at least a moment of exclusivetalks with the belligerents
because they are the ones whohold the weapon.
So they need to agree to stopshooting at each other, let me
(15:08):
put it um bluntly like this.
But this is not the end of it.
This may be a beginning, thismay be part of a peace process,
but we need much more for thepeace agreement or the peace
deal, whatever it is, to besustainable in the long term.
It needs to include alsosociety.
SPEAKER_02 (15:24):
Inclusivity, legitimacy.
But what we have seen right herein Geneva over Ukraine and over
Iran are small groups of men.
They talk about peace, but aphrase they also use very often
is we need to make a deal.
Perhaps the word peace meansdifferent things to different
people.
(15:45):
Hiba Kassas warns against theword being hijacked by those who
will not have to live with theconsequences of a failed peace
process.
SPEAKER_08 (15:54):
I think this is this has really uh been a problem,
and frankly, why Principles forPeace was created was to address
this issue that there's such anarrow dominance of the
understanding of what peacedelivers.
You know, we've for so longwe've equated peace processes
with cessations of hostilitiesor ceasefires.
And what at best we've been uhsuccessful at as international
(16:16):
community is achieving a seriesof ceasefires.
But where we fail is insustaining peace or preventing
conflict in many in many cases.
So there is a narrowunderstanding of peace.
And at Principles for Peace, um,based on global evidence, so
this is not my personal opinion,this is based in evidence,
there's a much broaderconception of peace for those
who live it.
(16:37):
It's peace that deliverslegitimacy, peace that is
anchored in accountable securityand security as a public good,
not as excessive use of force,it's uh it's protection of
civilians, it's dignity, it'saccess to services.
So it's a much broaderunderstanding of peace.
And at the heart of asustainable peace, there needs
to be two key anchors.
One is legitimacy, trust ininstitutions, accountable
(17:00):
governance, accountablesecurity.
And the second part is alsodignity, how people experience
peace in their in their dailylife and how the state-society
relationships are structuredalso around that.
So we do have a problem in howwe think about peace, and we do
have a problem in how we how wedesign peace processes.
The problem today, I think, inthe global peacemaking spaces,
(17:22):
is not reaching agreements.
The biggest challenge today, theproblem is operational.
It's how do you move fromceasefires into sustainable
implementation of agreements?
And the evidence shows us, youknow, in the past three decades,
90% of conflicts have happenedin countries that experienced
civil war before.
So it's not a question that weare not able to broker
agreements, it's a question ofimplementing these agreements.
(17:44):
And a third of peace agreementsgo completely unimplemented.
And Gaza today is the ultimatetest.
It is one of these examples.
How do we move from a ceasefire,from a framework, from even a
Security Council resolution thatprovided for the longest of
times a frame in SecurityCouncil resolution 2803, in
having also a structure aroundtransitional governance,
(18:05):
stabilization force, and amechanism to mobilize investment
into delivering tangible uh goodgovernance to the people,
reconstruction, restoration ofbasic services, dignity to the
people of Gaza, who 90% of themare displaced.
So this is this is a veryconcrete example, and we can
also think about what'shappening in Ukraine, a very
(18:27):
different uh setup.
So it's it's very hard to saythere's a blueprint.
I don't believe in blueprints.
I don't believe in in umtoolboxes.
I I believe that you know uhpeace is a much broader
conception than political peace,and it needs to be felt and
experienced by the people, andthey determine how that um
(18:48):
translates into their dailylives.
SPEAKER_02 (18:50):
That's another reason for including women.
The women of Gaza or Ukrainewill have to live daily with the
consequences of the decisionmade by those men in suits or
uniforms.
Will those men think rebuildinghospitals should take priority
over restarting businesses?
Will it be important to deminethe paths children take to
(19:15):
school as fast as possible?
Sarah Helmuller suggests that,although left out of the big
performative diplomacy we haveseen from the Board of Peace,
women are still trying to ensurethey have a say.
SPEAKER_09 (19:29):
Women are completely absent in kind of high-level
politics at the moment and thishigh-level peacemaking.
However, I think what we have toconsider is that this is the
visible part, and our kind offocus has been so much on Trump.
And I think he has really takenthe focus away from all the
(19:49):
other things that are stillhappening.
So women are still working forpeace every day in different
conflict contexts.
They are still, you know, havingpeace processes, being involved
in peace processes, maybe not atkind of this transactional
peacemaking, deal-making levelthat Trump is engaged with and
that the media focuses onmostly.
(20:09):
But these activities have notjust stopped.
Having said that, I think thereis now more need for all of us
who still believe in this morecomprehensive approach to
peacemaking.
Things that we took for grantedwe can no longer take for
granted.
So it means we really need tothink what is uh truly important
to us, and then build thecoalitions around those values
(20:33):
and really fight for it.
SPEAKER_02 (20:41):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Sarah Helmuller andto Hiba Kasas for their time and
their perspectives.
We hope you enjoyed the programand do join us again in two
weeks when we'll be asking aquestion that right now everyone
in Geneva seems to be asking: can multilateralism, and in (21:00):
undefined
particular, the United Nations,survive?
And if the answer is yes, whatshould a new, reformed UN look
like?
SPEAKER_07 (21:14):
It's worth remembering that when the UN
charter was adopted in 1945, 50countries were present at the
table, and today there are 193member states.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
SPEAKER_04 (21:32):
On many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing bringing food to hungry
people, ensuring practicalstandards of how we cooperate on
the planet, and you know, mostcountries follow the UN rules
and principles on an everydaybasis, so not too bad.
You know, Doug Hamashul uh saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell, and I mean
(21:54):
that's still it you know, afternineteen forty five, there's
been no new world wars.
SPEAKER_07 (22:00):
The UN overall, I think it's going to go through a
very difficult and dark period.
I hope that coming out of that,you know, at sometimes you just
have to hit rock bottom, thatcoming out of that we can emerge
with an what I often refer to asa new global social contract.
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
(22:20):
then that's something worthworth fighting for.
SPEAKER_04 (22:24):
The history is that after every severe crisis, we
come together and try to make abetter system, which is what
happened after the two worldwars.
First, we had the not sosuccessful uh attempt of the
League of Nations, but then themuch more successful UN, also
learning from what was wrongwith the League of Nations.
I hope we don't need to relearnthis through the Third World War
or anything like that.
SPEAKER_02 (22:44):
Join us on April 14th for that.
(23:18):
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com