Friends and Critics

Think Tanks and the United Nations

Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations (UN) have taken on an unprecedented number of responsibilities around the world, ranging from election monitoring to peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, from administration of targeted sanctions to the management of transitional administrations. But unlike other multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank or the OECD, the UN have very limited capacities to conduct substantive in-house research on the multifaceted policy challenges it seeks to address, and the causes and dynamics of conflicts it seeks to resolve. The UN Secretariat lacks a strategic analysis unit that could offer support in designing and evaluating the UN's multiple peace missions.

This is why decision-makers in the Secretariat and member state missions frequently turn to outside researchers in policy think tanks for relevant information and advice to design adequate responses to the challenges the UN face.(1) So what is it that think tanks and academics can offer the UN System in terms of improved policies for conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding? A brief overview of the activities of several think tanks with offices in New York provides some illustration:


Bridging the academia-policy gap

There is a vast body of academic research on issues central to the mandate of the UN that could provide an important means of evaluating and refining – and sometimes challenging – the practices and underlying assumptions of policy makers responsible for conflict management and peacebuilding. Yet, scholars are often unwilling or unable to present their findings in a manner that is relevant or comprehensible to policy-makers in the UN system.(2)

The mission of policy think tanks is to bridge this persistent chasm between academic research and practitioners. Policy think tanks such as the New York University-affiliated Center on International Cooperation (CIC) or the International Peace Academy (IPA) draw on the most up-to-date academic literature and policy analysis in producing their applied research.(3) They also design their research programs in consultation with policy-makers in the UN system and donor governments to ensure that their research agendas are relevant for the UN's work. The fact that experts from think tanks themselves have often worked in the UN system or national governments, and are thus familiar with the UN's decision-making and operational processes, further ensures 'policy-friendly' research. While publications by think tanks are generally geared towards a broad audience in academia, policy-making, non-governmental organizations, and the media, research findings and recommendations are also presented in shorter, more accessible policy reports. This is an important service for busy policy makers in the UN system and government ministries.


Providing timely analysis and policy advice

UN conflict management and peacebuilding efforts are typically – and often necessarily – crisis-driven. Confronted with the political imperative to react quickly to constantly changing situations on the ground, timely analysis is crucial for the UN’s policy and strategic planning capacities. Given their own limitations in generating such analysis, decision-makers in the UN frequently draw on the information and policy advice provided by experts in analysis and advocacy organizations such as the International Crisis Group (ICG).(4) Headquartered in Brussels and with field offices in conflict zones around the world, ICG opened an office in New York in early 2001 to have better access to policy makers at the UN. Since then, ICG has successfully joined the experts from other think tanks in New York who are frequently invited to brief individual member state missions, UN Secretariat staff, and the Security Council on current political events. Similarly, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) provides expert advice and technical assistance to the UN on how to establish mechanism of transitional justice as part of UN peacebuilding missions in countries emerging from violent conflict, such as in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.(5)

In addition, UN member states also fund short-term research projects to generate knowledge and policy recommendations on issues that are part of their current security and development strategies. Frequently, such commissioned research focuses on issues that member states want to bring on the UN's agenda during their two-year tenure as elected member of the Security Council. This was the case, for example, with IPA's research project on UN sanctions, which was supported by the Canadian government as part of its work on UN sanctions reform during its 1999-2000 Council term.(6)


Providing access to a global network of experts

With their often relatively small number of staff, many think tanks rely on their ability to draw on networks of experts, as well as their partnerships with institutions both in the developed and developing world. For the UN, this access to a global network of experts is another important benefit of the cooperation with think tanks, as UN staff can tap into this diverse pool of knowledge to get the insights and local expertise necessary to address complex policy challenges.

The New York-based Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), for example, was established in October 2000 to provide UN staff in the headquarters and field missions with more systematic access to scholars, experts, and practitioners outside the UN system. Since then, CPPF has brought together staff from numerous UN agencies and departments with experts and local academic networks working on crisis regions such as Afghanistan, the DR Congo, Nepal, and Indonesia. (7) Encompassing a diverse range of institutions and experts in humanitarian and development assistance, security studies, and area and comparative studies, CPPF is one example of a new generation of think tanks that emerged in the 1990s, which are organized more loosely in networks of experts and institutions in order to link the research, policy, and action in the fields of conflict management.(8)


Providing a neutral forum for discussion

In order to influence policy-making and decision-making, think tanks organize seminars, workshops, and conferences where research findings are presented to the wider UN community and where key experts discuss current policy issues. These meetings equally benefit the UN and the researchers. By bringing together key decision-makers at the UN with academic scholars, policy analysts and practitioners, think tanks provide UN policy makers and mission staff of all levels with the opportunity to engage in frank discussion, and to exchange ideas and criticism. Key to the success of these meetings is that comments made are generally non-attributable (“Chatham House Rules”), a particularly helpful approach given the highly politicized UN-context.

Faced with the political constraints of the UN system, the Secretariat and member state missions have also come to rely on think tanks as facilitators to provide a “neutral space” for bringing issues on the UN's agenda that are politically sensitive, particularly when UN-internal discussion may face resistance from member states or, at times, even from within the Secretariat itself. The International Peace Academy, in particular, has become a “partner of choice” for organizing informal meetings, high-level retreats, and expert workshops that bring together senior staff from the UN and member missions with key experts for informal discussions. This has included a number of substantively challenging policy retreats for Security Council members. Following this successful model, the Columbia University-based Center on International Organization (CIO)(9) has recently organized a training seminar for the newly-elected members of the Security Council on this body's formal and informal working methods and procedures in order to allow them to hit the ground running when their term begins in January of 2004. It is startling to witness the extent to which an informal, private setting and the company of some eminent expert personalities can help senior officials shed their official personas and engage in genuine give and take on issues that are often hyper-sensitive for them in their official capacities, for example human rights for some Security Council members. Central to such interaction is a relationship of trust between those organizing these events and their participants, trust often based on long acquaintanceship.


Different make-up but similar goals

There is no ‘typical’ think tank. Even those in New York that work on issues of conflict management and peacebuilding at the UN differ in terms of their institutional make-up, specific research agendas, and staff size. Some are university-based research centers, such as CIC and CIO. Others are independent institutes and networks, such as IPA, ICG and CPPF. What they have in common, however, is their dependence on outside funding, typically from governments, aid agencies, and foundations, that provide support for core activities or program-related research. Given the subject matter of their work, think tanks generally employ international staff (at IPA, 22 nationalities), drawing on experts from diverse fields such as political science, international law, economics, and anthropology. Staff numbers vary considerably, depending on the degree to which research is produced in-house or whether their main role is to coordinate research undertaken by outside experts. The CPPF, for instance, has only 4 full-time staff members, while ICG employs over 90 analysts in five continents. Compared to the organizations that think tanks provide advise to or on, they generally rely on flat hierarchies, tight administration, and modest staff numbers.

Despite organizational differences, however, this group of think tanks shares its reliance on intellectual fire-power and policy-related value added as their “bread and butter,” as well as a set of common goals: to produce relevant and timely knowledge, bring policy issues to the attention of the international policy community, and provide recommendations for addressing the policy challenges facing the UN system today.(10) In doing so, think tanks over the years have taken on a crucial role as both friends and critics of the UN. Given their successful track record so far, this role is likely to increase in the future.

1) James A. Paul: Working with Nongovernmental Organizations, in: David M. Malone: The UN Security Council, pp. 373-389
2) Andrew Mack: Civil War – Academic Research and the Policy Community, in: Journal of Peace Research 39(5), 2002
3) www.cic.nyu.edu/conflict.html, and: www.ipacademy.org
4) www.crisisweb.org
5) www.ictj.org
6) David Cortright, George A. Lopez: The Sanctions Decade – Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers 2000; and: Sanctions and the Search for Security – Challenges to UN Action. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers 2002
7) http://cppf.ssrc.org/
8) Maureen O'Neil, Necla Tschirgi: The Role of Research and Policy Analysis, in: Fen Osler Hampson, David M. Malone (eds.): From Reaction to Conflict Prevention – Opportunities for the UN System. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers 2002, pp. 275-296
9) www.sipa.columbia.edu/cio/
10) Knowledge for What: Policy Research on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding. Workshop Report of the Center on International Cooperation, International Peace Academy, and Fafo Institute, September 12-14, 1999. Accessible at: www.fafo.no/piccr/knowledg.htm