Welcome to the ITU studio in Geneva. I'm very pleased to be joining the studio today by Mika Lauda, who is for our vice president for cyber security and privacy for global public affairs for Huawei, and we're here for GSR 2018, which is the global symposium for regulators. So Mika, welcome to the studio. Thank you very much. Now, I'd like to start off by, it's been a long day, long pre-day here I should say, because the event physically officially starts tomorrow, but today has been a lot of talk and discussion and global dialogues here on various themes. I just wanted to, there was a lot of discussion here on AI and IoT, and I wanted to ask you really, why do you think that this global dialogue is important? Global dialogue is always important. That's for sure. But of course, putting on those two totally different things in the same sentence is already a challenge, because IoT is something which is for everybody, and everybody is having that. So you can turn your refrigerator in IoT device in five minutes, but artificial intelligence is something which is in the hands of only few. And of course, the difference, the big difference what we have to now make in the government regulation point of view is that we should be already now having a certain kind of baseline for the IoT, so that we would be able to utilize the full competence and potential of that. However, artificial intelligence is needing future-driven approach, because there is going to be only few players in this ground who are really going to having a possibility to produce that kind of things. And like Huawei's artificial intelligence is already in these phones, so that we have been providing Kirin 970 processor for millions of users already. So already in that phase, since we are once again a bit late with these regulations. So what is Huawei's perspective in terms of policy and regulation? Do you think that there needs to be more of it? Does it have to be controlled more closely? Or do you think that people can self-regulate and that the industry has basically got enough policing that it basically doesn't need quite so much? So how we are seeing is that first, of course, we are following the regulation policies everywhere very, very carefully.  But of course, we are seeing that regulation is intervention from the government point of view when the self-regulation hasn't been working. So of course, that it's a less desperate move which is done when nothing else is helping. But of course, private companies like Huawei, we like to be in the position to easily follow the legislation. And of course, that very complex and conflicting regulations are driving the industry in very, very bad position. So we are, we like to have a fair, transparent and economically feasible regulations which are possible to whole industry to follow. Now obviously, Huawei is across the globe. I just wanted to ask you your global perspective on this. How do you see the future, particularly in terms of AI and the Internet of Things? This is a good question because what we are seeing is that unfortunately in this cybersecurity, there has been recently coming new additional level and layer which is called trade. And what we will be desperately needing is this kind of common rules, fair rules which would be applying for everybody and globally and which would be making these kind of things possible. Especially when you are thinking artificial intelligence which is based years of working, you can't change that kind of things in a few seconds. So there has to be some kind of continuity which is predictable for the companies. There's been a lot of talk of bias in terms of artificial intelligence, etc. What's your opinion on that? Artificial intelligence is headline level first saying and what I mean with this is that there is going to be several different artificial intelligence. And then we are coming in these kind of very interesting questions like what are the values, what are the ethical rules, etc. What you are feeding in the processor in the first place because anyway that when we are discussing about artificial intelligence and machine learning, it means that the same chipset can be end of the day good chipset or bad chipset depending on what kind of environment you are placing that. And finally just in terms of the technology, how do you perceive, how do you see the technology evolving that we are going to be using on a day to day basis? So technology is anyway involving, we can't stop that happening but of course that there is these kind of things what we are thinking carefully in who are we like good corporate citizens. What does it mean? What kind of things you are allowing happening? What things you are preventing happening? And then we are coming also very interesting that what are the liabilities or accountabilities of the manufacturers? What we should be doing? And for these kind of answers we are needing desperately a guideline which would be globally possible to achieve. Because anyway we are seeing that internet is a borderless multi-vendor environment where we all have to fit in. I did say finally but I will ask you one last question. Just in terms of this event itself for GSRA scene, why, obviously you invested the time to be here. Just wanted to find out to you why is it particularly important for you to be here? The simple reason is that I see that ITU would be playing very big role in the future in the cybersecurity and especially preventing these kind of very challenging national rules to be coming in power. But actually playing this kind of equal play field for everybody and you are needing this kind of international entity to take care of that. So I believe that ITU is having a very big role in the future in this field. Thank you very much indeed for sharing these insights with us. We look forward to catching up with you again at some stage in the future. My pleasure. And thank you very much for joining us wherever you might be and please log in and check in to all our other videos and podcasts on the ITU YouTube channel and the ITU SoundCloud channel too. Thank you.


Good afternoon all my name is Barry Robinson and I'm very pleased to welcome you for this IIA webinar this afternoon which is organized in conjunction with the Royal Norwegian Embassy, the Irish Department of Defense and the Irish Defense Forces. Our theme today is building peace in complex societies. The Royal Norwegian Ireland's concurrent terms as elected members of the United Nations Security Council for 2021-22 provides a timely context for our discussion today. The UN Charter confers primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security on the council. Norway and Ireland bring impressive credentials to this task, inspired by shared values, strong and long standing commitments to peacekeeping, development cooperation, protection of human rights and human rights defenders, on which the two countries have cooperated closely and played leadership roles in the multilateral system. Norway has been a trusted mediator and facilitator in a number of conflict resolution initiatives, including the Middle East Sri Lanka, and as a guarantor of the peace process in Colombia, where Ireland has been active in a supportive and complimentary role. Nor should we forget the debt we owe on this island to the Uppsala Commission, headed by the late Norwegian human rights lawyer, Professor Torkel Uppsala, and his contribution to the search for a pathway to peace in Northern Ireland in the dark days of the early 1990s. We're delighted that Minister Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence of Ireland, will open today's event, and that we're also joined by a panel of distinguished experts, consisting of Jackie McCrum, Secretary-General of the Department of Defence, Ambassador Oshton Bowe, Permanent Representative of Norway Tendato, Lieutenant-General Sean Clancy, Chief of Staff of the Irish Defence Forces, and Dr Kauri M. Osland, Senior Research Fellow at Newby Norwegian Institute for International Affairs, and Ambassador Marie Skoré, Ambassador of Norway to Ireland. We warmly thank all our speakers who've been generous enough to take time out of their very busy schedules to participate. To commence the event, Minister Coveney will speak to us for about 15 minutes or so, and then we will proceed to a panel discussion amongst our speakers. This will be followed by a Q&A with our audience, and Ambassador Skoré will deliver the closing remarks. You the audience will be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on the bottom of your screen. Please feel free to send your questions on today's topic in throughout the session as they occur to you, and we will come to them once the speakers have finished their presentations. It would be appreciated if guests could identify themselves and their affiliations when posing a question. Today's presentations and the Q&A are all on the record. We encourage our audience also to join the discussion using the Twitter handle at IEEA. So now my pleasure to introduce Minister Coveney. On a personal note, I should begin by saying that I had the opportunity to serve under the Minister's stewardship during my time in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and was able to appreciate at first hand his passionate, creative and unwavering commitment to finding solutions to conflict between countries and within divided societies, notably in the Middle East and Africa. As Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defense, he directs most of the instruments Ireland deploys in a full spectrum approach to peace building from conflict prevention and resolution, drawing on the lived experience of the Northern Ireland peace process to peacekeeping and crisis management, and encompassing also development cooperation programs aimed at fostering peaceful, prosperous, just and inclusive societies, as well as arms control and disarmament policies to regulate and reduce the weaponry that enables conflict. So Minister, the virtual floor is yours. Thank you very much Barry and special guests. Ladies and gentlemen, at the outset, can I express my appreciation to the Institute of International and European Affairs in conjunction with the Royal Norwegian Embassy for inviting me to participate in today's webinar on the topic of working together building peace in complex environments. October marks the 10th month of serving on the Security, on the United Nations Security Council for both Ireland and Norway. It is indeed a great honor for Ireland to serve on the Security Council, and we're privileged to regard Norway as an ally, as we actively engage across the Council's broad agenda together. We're also grateful for Norway's support during our presidency of the Security Council last month. Over the next 14 months or so, during Ireland's remaining term and the Security Council, I'm sure we will both continue to play a constructive, and I hope thoughtful role and support the vital work of promoting international peace and security, which I know Norway is so committed to as well. This is in keeping with our values, and also our interests. The UN's tenure on the Security Council is guided by three principles, building peace, strengthening conflict prevention, and ensuring accountability, which is arguably the most difficult of all. We want to help build peace, including through improved UN peacekeeping. We want to strengthen conflict prevention by investing in early warning and addressing factors that lead to conflict in the first place. We want to ensure accountability. Grave breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law should be called to account, and we're trying to do that on the Security Council. These principles are at the heart of the Security Council's Council's mandate to maintain international peace and security. Ireland strongly supports the commitments under the UN Secretary General's Action for Peacekeeping Initiative. The initiative is aimed at reforming and improving peacekeeping operations, A for P and A for P plus. I look forward to participating in the UN peacekeeping ministerial in Seoul in December, which will focus on generating and enhancing uniformed capability, while also considering broader peacekeeping reform priorities. Last month, I had the honor to preside over the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions spearheaded by Ireland on peacekeeping. The resolution focused on transitions as gradual processes that build towards a reconfiguration of the strategy, footprint and capacity of the UN in a way that enables and supports long term peacebuilding efforts. Norway was a significant ally during the drafting and negotiation stages of that resolution. Their positive engagement and the level of support offered is as always much appreciated. This resolution, the first to focus entirely on transitions from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, provides a definition for transitions that moves beyond past conceptions of exit or drawdown towards an understanding of transition as a reconfiguration of UN's presence, executed in a way that reinforces national ownership and supports peacebuilding objectives, while engaging regional and local stakeholders, including women and youth led organizations. A well planned, managed and phased reconfiguration of the UN's presence in post conflict areas can ensure that peaceful conditions are sustainable and civilians are protected after peacekeepers leave. Unfortunately, we have far too many examples where that has not been successful. We face an uncertain global landscape marked by tensions and regional rivalries. The unraveling of international arms control regimes, the threat posed by terrorist organizations and other non state actors, and the global challenge of climate change increasingly seen as a multiplier of conflict and instability in parts of the world that we know only too well. The COVID pandemic has compounded these challenges and in their face has caused some to question the value or efficacy of multilateralism in the first place. But let there be no doubt, we in Ireland are completely committed multilateralists and believe firmly that the UN remains as an indispensable force for good in the world. UN peacekeeping continues to be one of the most flexible and effective tools available to the international community in responding to crises around the world. It is an investment in global peace, security and ultimately prosperity. As a small country, Ireland depends on the international rules based order and the multilateral system for its very existence. The United Nations sits at the heart of that system and at the center of Irish foreign policy. In this regard, Ireland has taken seriously its obligations under the United Nations Charter to make available to the Security Council military forces, assistance and facilities in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Our foreign policy has a strong tradition of principled engagement on development, humanitarian assistance, disarmament, human rights and peacekeeping. These values underpin our commitment where we believe we have a responsibility to fully engage at the UN. Small countries like ours have distinctive independent voices that not alone deserve to be heard but need to be heard. The UN is uniquely placed to bring coherent approaches to address global issues such as poverty inequality and climate change, as well as to work in supporting effective governance, including through capacity building. Globally, well over one million women and men have served under the flag of the United Nations in 71 missions since 1948. Today, they comprise over 70,000 military personnel contributed today, they comprise over 70,000 military personnel contributed by national armed armies from across the globe. As both Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence in Ireland, I'm particularly proud of the contribution made by members of the Irish Defence Forces to UN peacekeeping operations. For over 60 years now, not a day has passed without our men and women donning the famous blue helmet. And through their service, through their valor, Ireland has earned a reputation as a steadfast and valued contributor to UN peacekeeping. Every mission aims, of course, to save lives, set the stage for peace and then close. The experience on the ground, though, is that peacekeeping operations are increasingly dynamic with more complex mandates and often with fewer resources. Missions are expected to perform multiple simultaneous interdependent tasks in harsh and remote operating environments. The peacekeeping partnership between the UN Secretariat and Member States demands focused and coordinated efforts to provide adequate support to our peacekeepers in the field and generate the appropriate resources for the efficient delivery of UN mandates, which have the potential to change or evolve all the time. Ireland and Norway share a strong commitment to prioritizing peacebuilding, particularly in enhancing links between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, and as key donors to the Peacebuilding Fund, recognize the importance of finance for peacebuilding. With over 100,000 peacekeepers, military, police and civilian drawn down from over 120 countries, peacekeeping is, by its very nature, an exercise in partnership and collaboration. Partnership is understood to include collaboration and cooperation with other international organizations, such as the European Union, with whom the UN have developed and adopted a framework for strategic partnership on peacekeeping operations. And I think we can do more. Within peacekeeping, however, also demands collaboration with host countries, their communities and with other agencies and stakeholders, and between individual states, whether cooperating in the field, cooperating on training or on exchange of expertise. Ireland has a strategic partnership with Poland and Hungary as part of our Unifil mission, and this is a tangible representation of Ireland acting as bridge for other countries committing to UN peacekeeping. The experience, professionalism and well earned reputation of our defence forces and UN peacekeeping marks us out as a partner of choice, I'm glad to say, and is a key element in providing the required assurance to potential UN troops contributing countries from the EU as they return to peacekeeping. Some countries have made the decision a number of years ago to exit from peacekeeping temporarily. And so we need to make the avenue back to contributing troops to peacekeeping operations as smooth and as easy as possible. The former president of Ireland, and the chair of the group that's known as the elders, Mary Robinson stated at a recent Security Council briefing that climate change is a threat multiplier. This is especially the case in already fragile contexts where it affects fuel and security, and it exacerbates conflict. The UN Security Council has mandated peacekeeping missions in eight of the 15 countries most susceptible to climate risk. Where these dual threats occur, conflict can be lengthier and harsher on more vulnerable populations. Two weeks ago, in our capacity as president of the United Nations Security Council, Ireland convened a high level open debate on climate insecurity. In the debate, Ireland brought climate insecurity to the top table of global diplomacy during high level week. A week when the eyes of the world were trained on the United Nations and on the Council in particular. Ireland's message is that the inclusion of climate insecurity council discussions and actions will strengthen conflict prevention and support peacebuilding efforts. Climate action alone will not deliver peace, but without climate action, we will have a less sustainable peace in many parts of the world. We took this opportunity to explicitly call for the Security Council to take decisive action and to use its mandate to practically address climate related threats to international peace and security. In just this, Ireland announced our proposal to convene, along with Niger, discussions on a thematic resolution on climate insecurity. Tishuk was honored to be joined at the Council table by Norwegian Foreign Minister, Ina Ericsson Saraita, whose impassioned and constructive statement made clear the impacts that widespread changes to our climate would have on the situations on the Security Council agenda. We warmly welcomed Minister Saraita's remarks, which highlighted the particular impact that climate change is having on women and girls, and we support her calls for the Council to support their efforts and leadership to enhance sustainability and climate resilience in communities. In fact, one of Ireland's key priorities when it comes to the climate and security discussions is to link these discussions with the women, peace and security discussions that are already underway, in which we also have a leading role at the Council at present. Norway's support on the Council at this debate was once again greatly appreciated. It is also that the increase in extreme weather events will have an impact on the nature of peacekeeping tasks and the variety of activities, peacekeeping missions and operations may be called upon to support. Given that it's likely that future operations will deploy into challenging climatic environments. The UN needs to consider how it can deploy and sustain deployments in these scenarios without adversely exacerbating the environmental conditions in the operating theater itself. We believe that it's worth considering whether future UN missions, mission planning should include an environmental impact assessment and reduce the overall environmental footprint of UN peacekeeping operations. Future proofing, energy access and usage, waste disposal and waste limitation, logistics and mission sustainability require key forward thinking and planning. If missions are to be sustainable into the future and not compromise existing environmental conditions in the theater of operations. The response of peacekeeping operations to climate challenges will require a lot of thought and greater peacekeeping engagement with this issue. So in conclusion, as we know well from our experience on this island, the work of building peace moves slowly. We bring this experience with us to the Security Council, as we do the slow and sometimes frustrating work of seeking agreement on some of the most difficult issues on the global agenda. And unfortunately, there are many of those. In fact, the last time Ireland was on the Security Council 20 years ago. I think there were 13 files on the Security Council agenda. And now 34, which just shows you the work that continues to be needed from the Security Council and from the UN more generally. And yet with friends like Norway, by our side, we face these tasks with conviction with positivity and with hope. So in conclusion, peacekeeping, our greatest peace builder, John Hugh, once remarked in Oslo, quoting one of our greatest poets, Louis McNeese, by a high star our course is set, our end is life, put out to sea. I look forward to the Institute of International and European Affairs, and of course the Royal Norwegian Embassy for inviting me to join you here today, and for facilitating such a useful discussion on the issues of concern to all of us, but in particular to Ireland and to Norway. Thank you very much and I look forward to the comments and questions. Thank you Minister for setting out in such a clear and comprehensive way, the issues that will save our discussion this afternoon. Across the full conflict cycle from conflict prevention at one end to post conflict stabilization at the other, and encompassing a very comprehensive view of security, including of the issues that the societal issues and environmental issues that impact Donald. So if I can thank you on behalf of the Institute for your participation. And we will now perhaps move on to the discussion amongst the panelists, as I believe that you have to move on to another engagement. So, and we will now proceed to the panel discussion. Our panelists have been invited with a view to providing a mix of national, regional and global outlooks that relate to international security, well being and prosperity. While focusing on the three main organizations concerned with peace and security, United Nations, the European Union and NATO, our panel of experts will also offer national views and perspectives as well. The session will be divided into two segments. The first addressing European strategic perspectives on global security. And the second will consider operational aspects. Our speaker is Jackie McCrum, who joined the Department of Defense as Secretary General in August 2020. She brings a wealth and range of public service experience and expertise to the position. Her prior positions of top responsibility include a role as Deputy Secretary General in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. She is the General and Accounting Officer in the Office of the Ombudsman, Officers of the Information Commissioner and Commissioner for Environmental Information. Our defense community has been integral to Ireland's contribution to international peace building as the minister has just outlined. In her presentation this afternoon, I understand the Secretary General will focus on European security and defense challenges and multilateral multilateralism and the role of the EU in that context. I can pass the floor to you, Secretary General. Thank you very much, Barry. Good afternoon, your excellency, colleagues. Firstly, I'd like to just say thank you very much for the kind invitation to address you today and to discuss those items of interest to both Ireland and Norway. In particular, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide some insight on the recent and ongoing defense and security challenges from my perspective and that of Ireland's Department of Defense. As Secretary General of the Department of Defense, I welcome the opportunity to return to speak at the IIEA. I want to express my deepest appreciation to the Institute for their continued engagement with defense-related issues. It is important that discussions on such issues are promoted in a way that encourages a conversation on an area of public policy which receives very little publicity but which impacts on all of us as citizens and taxpayers. There is no doubt that the threats and challenges we collectively face have grown in recent years. Moreover, these issues have been given an increased profile, not least following the recent events in Afghanistan. In the context of addressing and indeed tackling these challenges, Ireland is a committed multilateralist and greatly values the contribution that we can and do make through our membership of the European Union and the United Nations. With regard to the latter, we are particularly appreciative of the close collaboration that we have enjoyed with our Norwegian friends as the Minister outlined since we both joined the UN Security Council at the beginning of this year. I had the opportunity to be in New York last month at the time that the Security Council adopted a very important resolution on its peacekeeping transitions. The Minister said this resolution can ensure that peaceful conditions are sustainable and that civilians are protected after peacekeepers leave. It is no exaggeration to say that this resolution will save lives now and into the future. This adoption of the resolution, which was a priority for Ireland's presidency of the Security Council, is a clear illustration of the impact that small countries like Ireland and Norway can have on making the world a better place. It indicates the membership of countries like ours, which holds similar values on the Security Council. In an EU context, the European Union's common security and defence policy CSDP is the policy which sets out the EU's framework in the field of defence and crisis management, including defence and cooperation and coordination between member states in support of international peace and security. Ireland is a strong proponent of the important role the EU can play in support of international peace and security within the framework of the UN. To that end, Ireland through its central engagement in all CSDP processes seeks to ensure our influence in the development of EU policy and to influence its evolution. Emerging from the 2016 EU global strategy, a number of CSDP initiatives have evolved rapidly over the last few years. The initiatives include permanent structured cooperation, PESCO, the Coordinated Annual Review of Defence, CARD, the Establishment of the European Defence Fund and the European Peace Facility, the promotion of greater EU-native cooperation and the ongoing development of the strategic compass. The EU is currently involved in 17 CSDP missions and operations, six military and 11 civilian. The EU is an active participant in a number of both military and civilian CSDP missions. Defence forces personnel are currently deployed to three UN mandated EU military missions and operations. Our participation in these CSDP missions complements our long-standing tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping operations as the minister I've lined. The establishment of PESCO represents a further development in EU cooperation in support of international peace and security under common security and defence policy CSDP. Under PESCO, member states come together in different groups to develop and make available additional capabilities and enablers for peacekeeping and crisis management operations. We value our engagement with a number of PESCO projects, which provide a means of enhancing interoperability, something that will be of benefit for our troops on future missions overseas. Our participation in the newly established European Peace Facility further illustrates Ireland's commitment to enhancing the EU's ability to promote international peace and security in support of the principles of the United Nations Charter. We believe the establishment of this mechanism can be used effectively in support of both our partners and our operations. However, as a strong supporter of non-proliferation and effective arms control, the possible provision of weapons through the European Peace Facility was of particular concern to us from the outset. We worked hard throughout the negotiations to be constructive and to ensure that a balanced compromise could be reached, and we believe that the final outcome reflects this. With so many new initiatives and processes in play, the discussions on the strategic compass are of great interest to us, and they are now coming into a particularly crucial phase. Constructive engagement in the strategic compass process provides an opportunity for Ireland to elaborate further in respect of its involvement with the EU's common security and defence policy. Ireland's key values and objectives regarding the direction of travel and the role of EU missions and operations. We have a particular interest in the strategic compass pillars of crisis management and partnerships. With regard to the latter, we have consistently emphasised the importance of the EU-UN relationship. We believe that a partnerships focus is key for the compass, and we strongly support greater cooperation between the EU and partner organisations such as the UN, the AU and NATO, and the contribution this can make to international peace and security. We have previously welcomed the description of the UN as the bedrock of the multilateral rules-based order. In the partnerships discussion, we are particularly keen that the compass further develop cooperation between EU and UN missions in the field, particularly in terms of avoiding duplication and ensuring coherence. In conclusion, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the opportunity to contribute to today's event. I hope that you will see from my presentation that the international defence and security agenda, particularly in the EU, is a busy and evolving one. Let me assure you that Ireland will play its full part in shaping that evolution. Many thanks to both the IIEA and the Royal Norwegian Embassy for providing us with this opportunity to speak today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Secretary General, for your very clear and comprehensive overview of these security challenges. You've flagged a number of themes that I think we will take up in the questions and answers afterwards. Our next contributor will complete our scan of the strategic horizon. Secretary Austrian Bo was appointed as Norway's permanent representative to NATO in 2018. In a distinguished career which has straddled the defence and foreign affairs sectors, he previously served notably as senior adviser in the section for security policy in North America, and served as Secretary for Defence in Norway from 2013. Before that, he was for some years permanent secretary of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Norwegian Parliament. Ambassador Bo will offer a NATO perspective on security and defence challenges and outline the Alliance's agenda for 2030 and beyond, taking account of the dramatic shifts in the international system and its security environment over the past 10 years. I'll pass the floor to you, Ambassador. Thank you, Barry, and many thanks to both the IIEA and my good friend, Ambassador Storten, for inviting me to speak at this time in a topical seminar. And as you hinted to placing security on the agenda, it's more important than ever, given the rapidly evolving security environment we are facing. And it was highly interesting to hear Secretary General Macron develop on the developments in the European Union. And then, as also the foreign minister said, Ireland and Norway were closely together in the UN Security Council, hence it is important for us to compare notes on issues of common concern. And NATO is not, as you will know, foremost a peace building or organisation, but it is a political-military defence alliance with three core tasks, or which collective defence of its members is the most prominent. And crisis management and co-cooperative security are the two others. NATO's long-term operation in Afghanistan that came to an end this summer and composed all these three core tasks, although not an article five operations such it originated from the 11th September attacks on the US. It was in many ways a crisis management operation and through active participation of many NATO partners, it was definitely also a co-operative security operation. Even the massive, at least as we see in Norway, the massive public attention that was devoted to the endgame in Afghanistan and the way NATO has been identified with that. I will start a few words in Afghanistan and then we might revert to this during the Q&A session. NATO's engagement in Afghanistan has changed this alliance, the way we work with partners and also the way we work together. There are many difficult lessons to be learned or to be drawn for NATO, but also for others, and we are currently going through a critical and honest internal evaluation here in Brussels. We'll have to wait for the conclusions of the evaluation process, but I believe it's fair to say that the initial aim of denying international terrorists the safe haven in Afghanistan has to a large extent been achieved. Then NATO did of course have an important task related to building a secure environment conducive to the entire international engagement in Afghanistan. NATO was one of many actors in an extremely complex international engagement where objectives and ambitions evolved into perhaps unattainable goals. I started out making reference to the rapidly evolving security environment we are facing. NATO's ability to adjust and adapt and to display unity and cohesion at every juncture lies at the core of our efforts to prepare for the future. As a defence alliance, we must maintain a high operational capacity. We do this in many ways and one of the ways we have done it in Norway also implies the introduction of obligatory conscription for both women and men in back in 2017. Still we have to move beyond the military. Many of the emerging threats and challenges to our security are increasing in non-military. Disinformation, damage to our digital infrastructure and other hybrid forms of warfare are continuous challenges that threatens to destabilize our democracies and undermine our values. NATO is strong militarily but many of these challenges as I said cannot be met by means alone and building societal resilience becomes ever more important. In recognition of this, NATO has set in motion a reflection process aimed at strengthening all aspects of the alliance including our political consultations. This has been baptized the NATO 2030 process provided much of the substance at the Brussels summit this June and we have now started laying the groundwork for a new strategic concept of the alliance. Our current concept is from 2010 and is in many aspects outdated. It speaks of Russia as a strategic partner, does not mention China and it's not up to date as regards new challenges such as cyber, emerging and disruptive technology, climate and security to name a few. And this has not prevented NATO from developing and from doing the right things, but it is nevertheless high time to get in place a forward-looking strategic concept, taking the alliance into the future. And in the future we are not alone. As I mentioned at the outset, partnerships lie at the core of the alliance. Building resilient societies, tackling the security challenges caused by climate changes, and handling various complex hybrid threats we cannot do alone, we need to work with like-minded partners across the globe. And then check the general background spoke about the EU and cooperating closely with EU remains key to NATO. However, as we have seen heard lately, when as strategic autonomy has become somewhat of a buzzword downtown, the divisional NATO and EU may seem to have become increasingly unclear. We all agree that the strong EU is good for transatlantic security. So if strategic autonomy means strengthening EU capacities and capabilities, this is excellent. But if it means developing into a parallel course leading to unnecessary duplication, there could be reason to be concerned. And a bit jokingly, as one of my colleagues in Brussels said, we may have been used to look at the EU as the vegetarian and NATO as the carnivore. When they both develop into omnivore creatures and there is only one plate, then things might be a bit complicated. We do, because we do only have one set of forces, we do only have one set of resources, and hence we need to be conscious as regards our respective strengths and competencies. After all, we're facing many of the same challenges and we should meet them in cooperation, not in competition. This would probably also be easier to deal with for EU members who wish to continue to be seen as neutral. A final point on unity and the transatlantic bond. We have no doubt been through testing times. Afghanistan and also ACUS are recent examples of this. Yet, as I pointed to, NATO has remained united throughout all the tumultuous experiences in Afghanistan over the past 20 years. We do for eventually disagree sometimes, but we always manage to agree on consensus solutions, but this is a strength that is not easily eroded. So as we set the stage for the next decade in NATO, we look forward to continuing working closely with Ireland, both as a cherished NATO partner, or as Foreign Minister Covene said, a partner of choice, and also bilateral. And based on our experience from the Nordic cooperation, we've seen that as opposite members and non-members of NATO and EU, we do have a lot to learn from each other, also on matters of security and defence policy. I think I'll leave it at that and I look forward to the Q&A session afterwards. I thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. I think that gives us a good understanding of where NATO fits into this architecture, what it does. And also a reflect, I think, some things that I'm sure we'll come back to in the questions and answers. A couple I picked up were strategic autonomy, which of course is something of a hot topic and also the questions of societal resilience and how you build it and how you sustain it. We're going to move on now to the operational segment of our panel presentation. Could I just, before I move into that, take this opportunity to remind the audience that we will welcome questions from them on the topic today and if they could upload them on the Q&A facility on their screen. As the, as Minister Coveney mentioned, for more than six decades now, the Irish Defence Forces personnel have been continuously deployed on international peace support missions. They are recognised for their professionalism, impartiality and capacity to win the trust and confidence of local populations with a particular capacity for peacekeeping at the community level. Lieutenant General Sean Clancy is the newly appointed Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces previously in a long and distinguished career. He served as the Deputy Chief of Staff in appointments including Squadron Commander, Chief of Air Staff Support in Air Corps Headquarters and Director of the Strategic Planning Branch on the Chief of Defence's staff. He is frontline overseas experience, including as a military advisor to the Commander of the European Union Force in Bosnia. Chief of Staff will speak to the theme of security, of securing and building peace through UN peace operations in complex environments. And I understand that in that context you may touch on best operational practices to foster and nurture and ensure peace in situations of political contestation. And I pass the floor to you Chief of Staff. Thank you Chairman. And like the previous panelists, can I just thank you and thank the Institute of International European Affairs and our good friend, the Ambassador of the Royal Norwegian Embassy for giving me the opportunity to address this very important forum today. As you mentioned I intend to provide some insights, some touchstone points if you will, as seen through the operational lens of learning, and certainly it is not, if I can say an exhaustive list. Since 1958 Ireland has participated over 20 peacekeeping missions and completed over 70,000 individual deployments. Ireland is the largest per capita contributor in Western Europe and other groupings at the United Nations. As a military and militarily neutral country, Ireland has sought to deploy its capabilities in pursuit of its principles and the promotion of peace and security beyond its shores. We are advocates for the responsibility to protect for capacity building through increased training and the protection of civilians. We are also supporters of United Nations peacekeeping reform, which is one of Ireland's pillar goals during the United Nations Security Council tenure. It is clear for me and I think for everybody that Ireland has been led and continues to be led, not by what it has to gain, but by what it has to offer. Peace operations are by no means perfect, and we should always strive to improve and adapt. It is a continuous effort and an enduring form of transition to the vast array of experiences of Irish peacekeepers and number of possible improvements have been identified. And these can include options for how peace operations can better respond and engage with people and communities, which must constantly evolve. In addition to responding to the needs of state institutions. This could include informal advisory boards comprised of local community leaders to truly orient missions towards people centered peace building. We must ensure that efforts to implement and strengthen women, peace and security and missions are context specific growing on the reflections and needs of diverse women in the communities. Similarly, our efforts on peace building, the capacity of youth, this must continue identifying and focusing on community engagement and peace building activities, along with encouraging engagement from representatives of civil society. We do not include all such facets of society, peace building breaks down and consequently the mission may be compromised. The risks our peacekeepers face are wide ranging and constantly evolving from my ideas to complex attacks to drone technology and more recently disinformation campaigns. Effectively addressing these threats requires consideration of the safety and security of our peacekeepers throughout the mission cycle from inception to transition. The period of reconfiguration and transition of peacekeeping mission heightens the risk of threats to both peacekeepers and civilians. As we analyze in this risk, Ireland recently support the UN Security Council motion, which sought to include transitions on the continuum of peace operations. The early inclusion of transition planning in peace operations can help reduce the risks to peacekeepers and civilians by ensuring that they are properly managed coordinated and organized. The situation awareness and early warning mechanisms and missions can also improve decision making for the protection of UN personnel and enhance the protection of civilians. Essentially, it is an important force multiplier, while also increasing the effectiveness of operations. As we analyze in the levels of equipment and training available to peacekeepers, it is imperative that at a minimum, all troop contributing countries have equal access to self protection technologies that support their critical safety and security. This includes improving situation awareness and early warning, including by means of artificial intelligence. This is a true experience that technologies can be used to destabilize our exasperate conflict. We also know that technology offers valuable assistance in equipping and resourcing peacekeeping operations and in fulfilling mission mandates. How we deploy, harness and manage new technologies is crucial to the effectiveness of peacebuilding. The international peacekeeping missions have become more robust and multi-dimensional, involving diverse civilian and military actors from across the UN family. In many cases, civilian peacebuilding and development actors are on the ground throughout the conflict, sharing operational environments with the military forces that they are increasingly engaged in activities which previously resided in humanitarian domain. In these complex environments, civil society and military actors often have similar or nuanced goals and different approaches. We have come to acknowledge the need for clarity with respect to the roles and responsibilities between civilian and military actors in conflict and post-conflict settings as an essential dimension of peacebuilding and development policy. Women peace and security is a cross-cutting issue which affects the entire spectrum of UN operations. Security Council Resolution 1325 urges equal participation of women at all sectors of peacekeeping operations, including the military. This is further reinforced in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support Policy on gender equality and the guidelines for integrating gender perspectives. We have learned that female peacekeepers improve overall peacekeeping performance. They help to promote human rights and the protection of civilians and encourage women to become a meaningful and I would posit an essential part of peace and political processes. Greater diversity and a broadened skill set means improved decision making, improved planning and improved results. Female peacekeepers can better access the population, including women and children, thereby generating critical humanitarian information that will otherwise be difficult to reach. The Defence Forces have incorporated female peacekeepers as a part of SIMIC teams, local liaison and medical teams to great effect. Diversity in peacekeeping helps to address the disproportionately negative effect that conflict has on women and children. It also brings new perspectives and solutions to the tale by effectively addressing the needs of women in conflict and post-conflict settings, including those of female ex-combatants and child soldiers during the process of demobilization and reintegration of civilian life, as well as during the phase of transitional and post-conflict settings. The participation of females is an operational imperative for a mission and it provides a holistic approach to meet its mandate in today's complex and involving peacekeeping and environment. The Irish Defence Forces have learned many lessons since 1958. We have been part of peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions throughout the world in some of the most hostile and complex environments. What has always been true of any mission is the necessity to integrate with the local community and prove to them that we are there to help, not hinder, and that we are there to build peace. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, I'll hand back to you. Lieutenant General, thank you very much for that presentation and a thought-provoking analysis on how peacekeeping needs to practice needs to evolve and be refined in a shifting conflict landscape. Your emphasis on the gender dimension and the role of women peacekeepers leads us very neatly into the final contribution from the panel, which will be provided by Dr. Kari Osland, who is a senior research fellow in the research group for peace, conflict, and development at Newpey, the Norwegian Institute for International Relations. Her work focuses predominantly on conflict dynamics, insurgencies, peace operations, and peace building. Dr. Osland has provided consultancy work to the United Nations, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and then to the Norwegian Policy Directorate. She is fieldwork experience in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and in Africa. And today, Kari, I understand you speak to the theme of female peacekeepers and operational effectiveness in UN peace operations. The floor is yours. Thank you very much, Ambassador Barry, and thank you to the organizers for inviting me. Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to join you here today. I will first present some findings on the effectiveness of peace operations, and then zoom into the topic of female peacekeepers. So first, through what we call the effectiveness of peace operations network upon Newpey and our partners in 40 plus universities and research institutes have conducted several studies where we analyze the effectiveness of certain peace operations. We define effectiveness as the overall strategic impact of a peace operation, understood as reducing conflict dynamics in the area of operation over a particular period of time in the context of its mandate and resources. And we have looked at several ongoing UN and also AU operations such as Amazon, Minusco, Amis, Minusma, Minusca, and Unumit. And although these operations differ on a number of factors, I wanted to present six of our findings across cases. So first of all, peace operations in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Mali are successful in that they are playing a significant role in preventing outbreak of major civil war and large scale conflict. Second, peace operations are not successful in bringing low level conflicts to an end. They simply don't have the resources and capacity to do so, which has implication for protection of civilians, which is my third point. Missions in the Central African Republic, DRC, Mali, Somalia and South Sudan have not met local and international expectations when it comes to protecting civilians. Fourth, peace operations are most successful during periods when there is alignment among UN Security Council members and between the host nation key stakeholders and regional organizations. Fifth, the missions in car Central African Republic, the DRC, Mali Somalia and South Sudan all lack a clear political project. And finally, my sixth point, the effects of the efforts to promote the women, peace and security agenda have been mixed. And it is on this latter point I would like to zoom in now in the rest of this presentation. As we already have heard, over the past 20 years, the UN and member states have invested in greater participation, protection, prevention and gender responsive relief and recovery in peace operations. Despite these positive developments, progress has been slow and uneven when it comes to the number of women present, particularly in uniformed roles. And explanations are lack of political will, institutional resistance and attitudinal barriers to gender equal transformation, but also shortfalls in financing and accountability. I know the UN has set ambitious goals for greater gender parity in the military and police branches of missions with targets for 2028, including a minimum of 28, now 25 female military observers, 15% women in military contingents, 30% female individual police officers and 20% women informed police units. In the current situation, however, there seems to be a setback in several UN member states when it comes to the will of pushing this agenda forward. Partly also related to effects of COVID-19, which seems to have hit women harder, but also moved this down on the priority list, due to other pressing issues considered more important. Women argue that we need to move away from the discourse where one must prove the added value of women, which places an additional burden of expectation on the relatively few female peacekeepers, and which may also serve as a useful tool for those opposing change towards the focus on diversity, which goes beyond gender. Within peacekeeping, historically, rather than being identified with effectiveness, diversity has been associated with barriers, such as language and culture, particularly when it comes to command and control. However, I will argue that diversity offers a means of highlighting the full range of skills at the disposal of women and men irrespective of their sex. Diversity also encompasses other identity markers such as geography, race, ethnicity, religious orientation and linguistics. The skills and capabilities needed to fulfill the task carried out by UN peacekeepers of today, it becomes clear that we need to move beyond gender. This summer, the chief of the Norwegian Home Guard, Elisabeth Mickelsen, she had an op-ed in one of the journals of the army where she says that if we are to succeed with a future oriented and equal defence, we must start by acknowledging that the reason why we do not succeed so far runs deep and lies in our culture. She goes on to say that the armed forces has a hegemonic masculine culture that fosters stereotypical masculine traits. There are many subcultures but hegemonic means that it's the leading culture. And no, that does not mean that the entire armed forces consist of masculine stereotypes, but that we let that norm rule, we give it defining power and we reward those who fit. Herein lies the core of the problem. We all carry with us both masculinity and femininity in both sexes. We have a culture that cultivates stereotypical masculine traits. Women are hit extra hard. Measures aimed only at women and knowingly reinforce the link between culture and gender. And thus increases the challenge. Several women have erased their feminine features to fit in an unwanted effect that does not directly promote diversity and it's easy to fall into the trap of reinforcing stereotypes. Instead, it's important to engage in debates on what transformation is necessary to embrace also gender diversity. One part of this is at the strategic level. Leaders must develop the structures, processes and mechanisms to support and implement the desired change to engender an inclusive identity and ethos. There must be some drive from the top and within that demonstrate that the diverse worldviews of both women and men bring are to the best interest of the institution and operational effectiveness. Hence the need to focus on the advantages of having a more diverse composition at all levels. Another part of this is the tactical and operational level regarding the need to prepare and transform internal culture and social patterns in order to break down the barriers of persistence. According to General Michael Garrett, commanding general of US Army Forces Command, diversity is much more than a force multiplier. It is essential at every level of mission effectiveness and therefore therefore also considered a key strategy. The US military has implemented what they call diversity management to ensure equality of treatment and opportunity for members while eliminating discrimination in all its forms. I understand that the Irish Defence Forces already have taken a number of initiatives in this direction the last couple of years, which we could also hear from Lieutenant General Sean Clancy just now. In attempting to achieve gender parity, UN member states should place greater emphasis on the range of tasks and responsibilities inherent to peace operations and national security forces and the operational value of diversity in fulfilling these tasks. Development of culture can not be ordered. It requires hard work. We must clearly define which culture we want and why and create a climate of cooperation that fosters the desired culture. At the same time, we must remove obstacles. It seems to me that Ireland and Norway is very much in line here. The question is how to move forward on this agenda within and outside the UN Security Council. Thank you very much for the attention and I look forward to the continuation. Very much carry for that presentation. I was very struck by your argument that recruitment needs to force focus on the diversity of skill sets needed for peacekeeping rather than the kind of the traditional discourse of attempting to prove the added value of female peacekeepers or kind of, if you like, ghettoizing the issue a little bit in that way. And that's something I think that we will come back to. Just before we move on to the question and answer session, I want to acknowledge the participation of Mary's Laura, the Kingdom of Norway's Ambassador to Ireland. She's here. Mary's here of course to represent her embassy as a co-sponsor of today's webinar and you will deliver Mary closing remarks in that capacity. But I would also note that you have extensive professional experience and expertise on the topic we have before us today. Prior to your appointment as Ambassador to Ireland, you were the chef to cabinet to the president of the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly. You've served as Norway's deputy prime minister to the United Nations in New York and also and very topically perhaps now as Norway's ambassador to Afghanistan from 2016 to 2018. And you were going back a little bit the first NATO Secretary General's representative for the women peace and security resolution implementation thereof from 2010 to 2012. Without opening up the debate to questions from the audience, may remind you that all of the Q&A exchanges are on the record. We will take questions on today's topic. We have received some already and we invite you to submit further queries via the Q&A function on the Zoom platform which you should see on your screen. Again, please identify yourselves and your affiliation when posing a question. We also encourage you to tweet using the handle at IIA.ie. I'm going to start by invoking the privilege of the chair, perhaps to pose a question of my own. And this probably goes to the Secretary General and also to Ambassador Bo. A common theme in EU and NATO approaches is a commitment to upholding the rules based global order. I suppose what we're effectively saying is that international relations should be governed by the force of law rather than the law of force. There should be some nuances of difference in the two approaches. If I understand it correctly, the EU's approach is posited on a renewal and revival of multilateralism to address common challenges and this requires broad global cooperation. And NATO's posture perhaps understandably as a security and defence alliance seems to be based on more pessimistic and adversarial scenarios. What scope do you see for international, productive international cooperation amid this strategic competition and in what areas and how can the tensions between the two be best resolved? So I'll go to Ambassador Bo first, if I may. I just want to check, Ambassador, that you heard my question. I'm not sure that I kind of agree in your premise that we have different approaches. I mean, the North Atlantic treaty has the shared values as its basis and whether we have a pessimistic view. I think we have a, at NATO at least, we have the view that these things are that the rules based international order is under pressure. And it's important to work to maintain it and to uphold it also because this is what our alliance is built on and this is what we have to build on as allies. So it's difficult to kind of flesh out that very much more and we see, for instance, Russia and China who are different actors but who are both kind of challenging some of these rules based, some of the rules and rules but international order and you know these are issues we will have to grapple with when we work further on the strategic concept. That's over to you, Jackie. Sorry, yes. No, I didn't hear you. No, sorry, I'm just, sorry, yeah, just to unmute myself. Perhaps I could pass the question on to Jackie as well. Yeah, I think, can you hear me now? I can, yes, yeah. Sorry, I couldn't hear you were coming in and out on some of the question, was it in relation to the policy on peacekeeping? No, just to summarize it perhaps in this way that basically we have a situation where we have a lot of, we have a focus of strategic competition between main actors, Western on the one hand and Russia and China and the other. Yet we, as EU, we are, and Ireland, we're quite rightly proposing a multilateral, multilateral approach, which does require a global cooperation. So, I just wondered any thoughts you have on how the tensions or apparent tensions between these two can best be managed, and where there would be scope for productive cooperation, notwithstanding the strategic differences. I'm not sure that I can entirely answer that. I think there is a challenge in relation to the various tensions that are there. I think we're committed to, as a small country, we want to work with our partners and develop that multilateralism, that's what we're committed to. And I think this brings up a variety of challenges, particularly when you look at the decisions that are made in relation to Afghanistan. And whether we entirely agree with something like that, that's something that I think we've agreed to partner with, would be a partner with NATO and we have to work with them in relation to those decisions that we make. It would be difficult for us, you know, in terms of our own policy, our own thoughts, our own political views, but I mean, I think that's something that we've committed to and we have to engage as a full partner thereafter. Well, I have you on my jacket. Thank you for that. Can I just, Ambassador Bo, raised or flagged the question of strategic autonomy, which has been a somewhat contentious one, both I think within the EU, but also between in the context of the transatlantic relationship as well. Do you have any particular, how do you see a strategic autonomy? What are its essential features from your perspective? Again, I'm not sure what is meant by that. I mean, I think we have our, you know, policy approach, particularly in relation to peacekeeping missions. We have our own neutrality position. And I think, you know, we would be guided by all of those decisions, whether, you know, as to where we would, you know, I suppose put our intent. And I think, sorry, I'm wondering off here, there's people coming in. I'm in a hotel room in Malta, so that's what the problem is. But anyway, so I think all of these things serve to probably challenge us and, you know, we have our own, we have our own commitment to peacekeeping, we've our own commitment to multilateralism.  I suppose we are. But then I suppose we need to work with our partners as well. So that's always a tension that's there. And that's one that needs to be worked on on a very high level diplomatic basis. And through our supports for things like the, you know, when we're working with the UN Security Council, I think you see it in full action there. You know, when you when you go and you experience that, and you actually see that as it operates, it's a really, you know, it's an excellent example of how, you know, this business gets done in the background efficiently, effectively, and to ensure that everybody's, I suppose, strategic intent is kept to the fore. Thank you very much, Jackie. I have a question here for Kari Osland, which comes from Brigadier General Jera Herne retired. You mentioned UN missions in Africa. And he says that he agrees that national and local expectations of these missions on conflict prevention has proved elusive. And research show that the root cause of these failed Security Council resolution objectives is caused mostly by military contingents, sub optimal operational capabilities and an unwillingness by military contingents to take operational risks, even at the lowest level. Thank you for that. It's a good, quite difficult question to answer briefly at least. Probably you need to go into each and every mission to answer that question in a good way, but I think overall one of the main problems have been, or in these missions is the lack of the primacy of politics, so to speak. And I do think that some of these operations, I mean, there, there haven't been a kind of clear political project aimed at resolving their respective conflicts, while the, at the same time and I think that is a huge problem as for, for the lack of will to to or unwillingness as you posed it by military contingents to take operational risks. I think that is a challenge. So in Mali there is this anecdotal saying that you have the distinction between the foot soldiers and the skiers referring to those who are willing to put their lives on risk and those that are not, which is quite problematic because it also creates a or a narrative as for, for who are willing to, yeah, risk their lives, which is clearly very problematic but I wouldn't point to that as kind of the main reason why, why we, why the UN for instance, have not been able to save more people or avoid even low scale conflict. I think the answer to that question, it's, it's much more comprehensive and relating more to, to what I said first, namely the primacy of politics and therefore also the lack of political process in combination with, of course, resources and comprehensive approach and etc, etc. I don't know whether I answer your question but I tried. Thanks. Thanks very much. I think that is very clear. Question perhaps for Sean Clancy and her to begin with anyway from Keanu Geiter. What are the lessons learned in peace building missions in the context of the covert 19 pandemic. Thanks very and thanks thanks for the question and it's very topical of course in terms of covert 19 as we transition out. I think our peace missions in particular were extremely challenged. I go back to one of my points earlier about the community and the institutions at state. We met by that as the states in which we were operating at that time, and the cooperation is there and the understandings. And that becomes very, very important we have found during the covert 19 in particular that level of understanding and the UN in general, from its governance point of view, we, this was very important to us. I suppose the biggest lesson of all for us was the fact that our governance and our overall approach were practices were fit for purpose. If I could say that, and that when I mentioned that we have to evolve in terms of our practices, and in terms of our approach, and certainly in the covert 19 circumstances that prevailed, we were able to adapt very very quickly to maintain our, our level of operational readiness, our operational effectiveness, and we were able to mitigate the risks associated with covert 19 very very quickly. So overall I think, you know, while we are still I suppose in the, in the comprehensive approach basis looking at the totality of the lessons learned from code. And it certainly initially, these are the key areas that I think we were able to identify as key lessons learned out of that pandemic for us. Of course, we can still continue in many countries. You know, we're the principal approach of being able to protect the communities under which we are there to serve effectively. That's a key principle from the UN point of view, not to endanger them. That's the, the fact that covert 19 and the issues between vaccination and non vaccination these are all central to the thinking in terms of the mitigations of risks that needed to be employed. I'll leave it at that everybody. I just want to have you on Mike shown you mentioned the comprehensive approach of this of the EU, which I think I remember being codified as far back as may 19 2014. But from an operational point of view, do you think that this has led to measurable improvements on the ground operation on the ground in terms of a more integrated and coherent use of the range of instruments that the EU deploys in conflict situations. Yes, I think that's a fair reflection, as you have mentioned Barry. Yes, I do think it has actually lent itself to much greater in integration. I think a much greater understanding in the military environment we speak in terms of interoperability and our ability to actually integrate with one another as military forces went past into a into a mission under whatever mandate is applying. And a comprehensive approach has enabled greater understanding between like minded and operations like minded countries that wish to co join, for instance, we're in Unifil with Poland and Hungary as a an integrated force in terms of our battalion in Unifil. You know this integration in terms of a comprehensive approach, which leads from the strategic in terms of an understanding of what it is that needs to be achieved in terms of the objective of the mission. And then secondly in terms of down to the operational level with the integration of the forces involved. So yes, is the short answer to your question which I went around but yes is the answer. Thank you very much, Sean. I have a question from Karl Brua emeritus professor in UCD. And he says he asks, would the panel agree that Ireland and Norway as elected members of the Security Council should combine to propose that the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN has out served its usefulness as helping to in helping to improve a global peace and security, and that Ireland and Norway could provide into the future military forces that have the capability trading experienced participate in direct UN peacekeeping that has been in the past so I think on this one the first one is the veto power, which is obviously a highly highly contentious issue. And then the second one I think relates to maybe a move back towards a direct UN operated peacekeeping model, a peace support model as distinct from one that is subcontracted to regional organizations. And I've asked you maybe just to tackle the thorny question of the Security Council veto. And maybe also a few thoughts also on the UN and on UN direct peacekeeping operation delivery rather than subcontracting it under UN mandate. Well, you can ask me but but on the on the UN Security Council and the veto power you know as you say that's that's a highly highly high politics issue so to speak so so I, and I'm not I must admit I'm not a UN expert so so I just have to. I'm just disappointed there if I if I just may revert to the first question, I was kind of caught a bit on on your EU NATO, I would very much agree with Secretary McCrum that that for smaller countries predictability, and knowing what we are up against this of course crucial and that's why the rules by the international order is so is so important for us, but the UN question I will have to refrain I'm sorry. I would say in my own past I was involved in efforts to try, like realistically trying to remove the veto is very high politics and very difficult to get the agreement of the permanent members, it'd be like like Turkey's voting for Christmas and this isn't going to happen and why a number of countries have tried is to establish code of conducts on refraining from using the veto and particularly in conflict situations with negative very negative humanitarian effects and populations and that I think a code has been developed and I think I've never rightly about the last time I looked over 100 countries had signed up to it but that's I think probably where that lies. Can we just go back to Sean on the question of direct UN UN UN peacekeeping operations, like the reality is there were good reasons why the UN has asked regional organizations to deliver peace support operations under a UN mandate in the past but do you have any any particular thoughts on the on the question and feasibility towards moving back towards a more direct UN operation model. Thank you very. That's a very interesting question and again, it's actually a policy I suppose and a political question early in that domain. And I'm very reticent, but I will give you a personal perspective that I think when we look at the more indirect and promotion of say areas such as the African Union in the African continent and the need to regionalize in terms of you and I think. Ultimately, I'm not sure if anybody would disagree, but conflict resolution ultimately has to come from within in the states that in the states are in the, the continents are countries that are involved and from that point of I think it's important that the current model is at least is upheld. That would be a personal view. Because I think ultimately, whereby we can facilitate enable create a stable stabilization, sustainment of peace, but ultimately the long lasting and the everlasting peace, building in terms of the transition to a no more normalized peaceful environment is down to the countries themselves are those in their in their nearest neighbors and therefore that that approach I think is is that would be a personal view of course. And from my perspective that's that would be a reflection I'd have on it. Thank you very much, Sean I have a question from Adrian Haynes here. How does how much does local culture impact the approach of both UN and NATO when assessing strategies for conflict situations, particularly within engaging with local communities. And I might pass this one to Ambassador both first but I will bring, I would propose to bring other panelists in on it. It's a very good question. I think that's one of the questions we also will be will be grappling with when we do the lessons learned process on Afghanistan. Did we take enough account, did we take enough into account to the local culture, did we, were we good enough enough at, at, at understanding the Afghan society, we try to do it, but, and that is also a, a, a, a, a, how to speak a, an element that that that is taken into operational plans and that is, is in the consciousness of our soldiers who are in operation, but we, we've done it I mean, I mentioned the issue about obligatory conscription for, for women. What we saw was that in Afghanistan, when we had, when we had women in the forces, the ability to engage with local population, the female part of it of course became much, much, much easier than, than when we only had had male soldiers that is one aspect that we were seeing as a success but probably we are not good enough for doing that. Could I bring Carrie in on this one as well. Please. Yes, well, I think that this is one of the hard parts. I mean, the UN and the EU have, have been criticized for, for applying this one size fits all. And I do think there is some, something in that in the sense that we, well, not we, the UN and the EU can always be better at complex sensitivity. But it is difficult and I see that. But, but if I may, I have, I have just one brief reflection on the previous question as for, for kind of perhaps moving back to the more traditional peace operations because you know, we have had no new multi dimensional peace operations since 2014. And while many in the research and practitioners community believe that this does not in itself mean that peace operations are out of the game. There seems to be less willingness to invest in large peace operations and of course, happenings in Afghanistan recently doesn't change that perception in itself so. Perhaps we might might be seeing more of the special political missions and perhaps even returning to those more traditional ones with monitoring functions only I mean hence much more of a limited in scope and ambition. Thanks. Just a, just a related question, like in a sense of looking at the EU, and it's committed to promoting universal values including human rights in its peace building action actions but some of these values are highly contested in some countries, particularly in conflict situations. For example, liberal democratic models, gender equality, LGBTI rights, any thoughts on how, you know, what extent you have to work with the grain of the local of the local society in order to try and achieve, achieve better outcomes what are your any further thoughts on that. Are you asking me, I guess. Yes, Gary, if you had a further reflection on that. You know, involving the, the whole state to to as much as possible is also always a challenge and the liberal peace approach has been criticized for its, its normativity of course but, but. So I, I think the time does not allow me to go in depth here because there is a lot to be said but I think, perhaps to just connected to one of the previous questions again. I think perhaps one of the, the positive consequences if one could say so of the COVID-19 pandemic, if the way in which local peace builders and local agency have taken on new meaning in in situations where outside experts were unable to travel for some time, and in a way it kind of shifted the dynamic to one of more real partners. And I think building on that particular part as for local peace builders is, is something we should consider in the way forward. Thanks. We're coming now towards the, the conclusion of the event. I want to thank our speakers for their thoughtful and thought provoking contributions which I think have stimulated a very rich debate, and also thanks to our audience for their participation, and the questions which help to to focus that. I'm sorry we couldn't reach all of them, all of the questions in the end, but I think we, we covered quite a bit of ground in the time available. In the words of a song there are more questions than answers, but I think at least our discussion has helped to crystallize some of the issues and dilemmas that are at the, at the core of the peace building peace building process. So, with thanks to all, I would now like to hand over to Ambassador, to Ambassador Marie Skoda for some remarks to close this webinar. Marie. Thank you so much. Very. And thank you to all the participants and panelists here today. It's been marvelous. I know that we set ourselves up for a very, very broad agenda when we wanted to have a seminar together with IE and the Department of Defense and the Defense Forces here in Ireland on building peace in complex environments, operational and strategic perspectives. So it is quite a mouthful, but I think our panelists and Minister Coveney did an excellent job in highlighting some of the very current security challenges that we face, and thereby enabling us to address our joint priorities and responsibilities in this very, very broad and important agenda. I cannot add anything other than I would very much like to underscore some of the points that have already been shared by the panelists, and that is on when we are addressing complex environments and peace building, we cannot do it without integrating women, peace and security priorities. And this very broad policy that has been developed from the Security Council of the UN over a number of years, it calls on all the member states, this mandatory policy for all the member states, it calls on regional organizations, such as the EUA, EUA, it calls on NATO to integrate this policy and the priorities, and we know that a key priority is to ensure women's participation, and we know the complexity of ensuring that, recruiting women and ensuring that they will stay. It is about equal opportunities and responsibilities, but it's also a capability issue to have both men and women and the diversity in our forces as Cardio were talking about. I also want to highlight the importance of good analysis. We do not do any good analysis on complex security environments if we do not integrate the gender perspective. So we need to ensure that our analytic entities, they integrate it and that we have the necessary competence. Ladies and gentlemen, it's been wonderful. I want to thank our partners, the IAA, the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces here in Ireland for arranging this discussion. Our security is always best safeguarded and ensured through close international collaboration and the good relations that we enjoy. I am certain that in light of this discussion, we will continue our discussions, our dialogue and collaboration for a safer future for all. Thank you so much. We, I'm sorry. Yeah, thank you very much, Martin. And I think with that, I can declare this webinar closed.