Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Getting Paid for Working, not Paying to Work – The UN Looks at Migration, “A Decent Work Issue”

7 Oct

“Speaking on behalf of the people – minus the people,” said Wellington Chibebe, Deputy of the International Trade Union Confederation, referring to  the fact that the only civil society contribution to the recent High Level Meeting on Migration and Development in the UN General Assembly was cancelled without further explanation. The group of those unaware of the cancellation apparently included participating governments and their diplomatic missions.

However, there were spaces for civil society to contribute to discussions on a theme of great imporance to their constituents. The Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) and the Global Council of Unions hosted an interactive side event to the HLM “Migration and development: A decent work issue.” The list of speakers included Hans Leo Cacdac from the Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in the Philippines; Michelle Leighton, Branch Chief of the International Labour Office (ILO MIGRANT); Annie Geron, Vice President of Public Services International (PSI); Samidha Garg, International Relations Officer of the UK National Union of Teachers; and Francesca Pizzutelli, Researcher and Advisor at Amnesty International.

Migration has developed into a top priority for global unions, particularly affecting the construction industry worldwide during and after the global economic crisis. An article published in 2009 by the International Labor Organization (ILO) describes the dilemma quite precisely.

“The construction industry makes use of low-paid and less-skilled workers, and as such is a major employer worldwide of migrant labor.” The article explains how migrant workers have been particularly affected by the downturn in construction due to the global financial crisis, in some cases losing not only their livelihood but also their residence rights in the country where they have been working. “Estimates suggest that in the Gulf States, where migrant labor has been very largely supporting the recent boom in construction, 150,000 foreign workers were released during 2008.” The ILO also highlights an example from the Russian Federation, where more than 20,000 Turkish workers have recently been sent home.

Michelle Leighton, ILO representative, identified an important issue during her panel presentation: “Labor migration policies are often undertaken and developed by foreign ministries.” She pointed out the “benefits” of harmonizing policies to create binding global standards that focus attention on labor, not on politics. “Labor markets need to identify worker’s skill levels, as many of them work in under-qualified jobs.” By working at such jobs , migrant workers do not further develop skills acquired back home, and later return to their native countries working below the position they had started out with. “The race to the bottom is often an inevitable result,” Leighton pointed out.

How much of a pragmatic issue migration can become, at least for segments of the American political landscape , according to Leighton, is evidenced by the immigration bill the US Senate passed in June. The bill was picked up by House Democrats last week and now represents a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants now living in the U.S. illegally. At the same time, border security is mandated to be tightened. Transverse to these ideas are members of the Republican Party, who reject a comprehensive approach. Despite this resistance, as Leighton points out, “We are now working on regional mobility schemes in South Africa,” which might very well be applied globally in the future.

Francesca Pizzutelli, representing Amnesty International, raised the humanitarian component of global migration and the human rights violations that migrant workers often face within their destination countries. “Member states have to be serious about the issue. So far I have only heard lip service.” She referred specifically to her home country Italy. “My government claims that Italy respects the human rights of migrants, but it has been proven that it really doesn’t.” On behalf of Amnesty International she identified four pledges for the improvement of migrant workers circumstances:

  • Ensuring that border controls respect human rights

  • Finding alternatives to the detention of migrant workers

  • Providing easier access to justice for migrant workers

  • Implementing concrete measures against hate speech and discrimination by individual member states

Citing an Amnesty report from December 2012, Pizzutelli explained, “In the past decade the Italian authorities have been whipping up public anxiety alleging that the country’s security is threatened by an uncontrollable ‘clandestine’ migration thus justifying strict migration measures. These measures put migrant workers in a precarious legal situation making them easy prey for exploitation.”

With global migration advancing as one of the Secretary General´s top priorities, who views it as a multi-facetted reality in need of regulation, rather than a phenomenon that can be stopped, the panel delivered valid insights. With an increase in global migration due to climate change, social and economic hardship or warfare, international legislation is in need for alignment and becomes not only a decent, but urgent work issue to address in the near future.

Lia Petridis Maiello, GAPW

Tags: , , , ,

Care over Imprisonment: Alternatives to Detention of Migrant Children

5 Oct

Editors Note:   GAPW actively covered and, where possible, participated in the General Assembly’s High Level Segment on Migration and Development.   It was a particularly rich engagement, highlighting many critical security issues, including the increasing militarization of borders and criminalizing of migrants.  Tereza Steinhublova from the Czech Republic, who has had direct experience working with migrants in the UK, offers this analysis of an event focused on the needs of migrant children. 

In countries all over the world hundreds of thousands of people are being held in detention centers due to not having proper documentation or legal status in the country. This problem applies to migrants and refugees as well as asylum seekers. In many cases, people are detained for long or indefinite periods of time in cells, just as if they were criminals. They are not allowed to leave, and visits are limited.

The United Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development was held at the UN Headquarters in New York on October 3rd and 4th, 2013. On October 2nd the International Detention Coalition (IDC), with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Government of Liechtenstein, held a side-event titled Expert Meeting on Alternatives to the Immigration Detention of Children. The meeting had two main areas of focus – the legal framework for protecting children who face immigration detention, and the discussion of suitable alternatives to child detention, including a specific example from Belgium.

In opening remarks, Ms. Jyoty Sanghera, Chief of the Human Rights and Economic and Social Issues Section of the OHCHR, explained that detention centers are often run by police or prison authorities who lack appropriate training. Moreover, detention facilities rarely provide the necessary protection migrants require, such as basic healthcare, access to psychological help and legal assistance with their cases. This becomes even more of an issue for vulnerable groups such as children, especially if they are unaccompanied, because they easily become targets of violence. Mr. Francis Crépeau, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, provided a well-structured presentation on how child detention contributes to the violation of children’s rights as set out by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Both Mr. Crépeau and Mr. Grant Mitchell, the Director of the International Detention Coalition, emphasized that the detention of children can never serve their best interests. Mr. Crépeau also explained the effects of detention on children through a legal lens, noting that unaccompanied children are sometimes detained in adult facilities due to an incorrect age assessment in the immigration procedure upon arrival.

While studying at the University of Kent I volunteered with the Kent Refugee Action Network, which provides mentoring for unaccompanied young asylum seekers. In some cases, even if the person had been living in the country for a relatively long period of time and was granted asylum, psychological trauma was still something they battled. In many cases the migration journey itself is very stressful and even traumatizing. Being placed in prison-like conditions can further contribute to emotional stress. (Even if children are detained together with their families, the family often becomes separated by gender.) These children can become targets of violence, including sexual violence, which has serious negative effects on their psychological and overall well-being. In addition, children who leave detention centers are rarely provided with adequate care and often end up destitute. For these reasons many groups, such as the IDC, have begun to push for alternatives to detention, which would decrease the suffering of people in transition.

If so much evidence exists that detention centers are an inappropriate response, why do states continue to detain migrants? Mr. Crépeau explained that states often justify the confinement of migrants mainly in security terms or as a deterrent. However, he also stressed that there is no empirical evidence that detention deters irregular migration or discourages asylum seekers. Mr. Mitchell explained that asylum seekers awaiting a decision are much less likely to flee and therefore detention is unnecessary. Unfortunately, in many countries migrants are both criminalized and stigmatized, which contributes to xenophobia and fuels the growth of extreme right-wing activity.

What are suitable alternatives to detention? All panelists agreed on the primary responsibility to care, with most emphasis placed on case management, guardians and open family units. Mr. Crépeau argued that the state needs to respect the basic rights of children, such as the right to education, adequate housing and medical care, which cannot be achieved in detention. He argued that in cases where whole families are detained, the family should be eligible for alternative measures such as a supervised release or required reporting. Mr. Mitchell noted that many states have taken positive steps towards the reduction of detention facilities, such as implementing new laws that prohibit child detention, listing Panama, Belgium, Japan, Mexico, China, Venezuela, Australia and Sweden as examples. Mr. Mitchell explained that many countries are being innovative in dealing with migrant children who are alone. In the Philippines, for instance, children are placed into the family welfare system while their case is being processed. Similarly, in the Netherlands, children are assigned guardians from NGOs who then provide them with basic care.

Mr. Bertrand de Crombrugghe (whose surname turned out to be the biggest linguistic challenge at the meeting!!) explained how Belgium has been successful in implementing the alternative system of ‘open family units.’ The units have received international recognition by the UNHCR, the Council of Europe, as well as some states. Belgium has been using this system for regular migrants since 2008, and in 2009 they extended it to include asylum-seeking families as well. The open family unit system involves the placement of families into individual houses intended for temporary stay while they await the resolution of their case. Unlike detention centers, family units allow the family the freedom of movement. Most importantly, families are in contact with supporting officers who provide assistance towards a tangible outcome to their situation – a legal right to remain or a voluntary return home. Families are also given other necessary support such as legal assistance and logistical and medical support.  Unaccompanied minors are placed into the care of a guardian who serves a similar purpose as the supporting officer, but also accompanies the child to necessary legal proceedings.

What some states fail to recognize is that alternatives to detention would not only benefit the migrants themselves, but also the state budget. Mr. Mitchell explained that alternative measures tend to be on average 80% cheaper than detention facilities. Mr. de Crombrugghe noted that family units bear a lower cost to the Belgian state than detention facilities. All panelists stressed the need for continuous development and dialogue on alternatives to detention.

Overall the event was very well organized and although technical difficulties prevented the screening of the short film titled The Invisible Picture Show, all panelists provided well-structured arguments on the need for alternatives to detention. It was motivating to attend such an event, especially since the numbers of migrants are at high levels and difficult matters such as this are often not given enough attention by the international community.

 Tereza Steinhublova

 

Tags: , ,

The State of Nuclear Disarmament in 2013: The First High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament and Links to Civil Society

3 Oct

Editor’s Note:  This is the first post by GAPW’s disarmament fellow for Fall 2013, Marianne Rijke.  Marianne will be working on several disarmament projects and covering the First Committee of the UN General Assembly.  She will make frequent posts in this space.

Even though they have only been used twice in the course of warfare, by the United States (US) at the end of World War II, nuclear weapons have posed a threat to mankind ever since their creation. Since these bombings, there have been over two thousand detonations for testing and demonstration purposes. Every time a bomb is detonated human communities and environmental health are both put at risk. There have been several attempts by the international community to stop these tests, to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to ensure total nuclear disarmament. So far these attempts have not resulted in the desired outcome because certain state parties refuse to honor their agreements to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

In 1970 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into force. A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon states (NWS): US, Russia, United Kingdom (UK), France and China (also known as the P5 states). The Treaty had been extended indefinitely in 1995 and will be reviewed every five years. The 2010 NPT Review Conference resulted in a Action Plan, agreed upon by state parties, which contains measures to advance nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and regional issues, including the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East.

With the 2015 NPT Conference around the corner and frustrations building up by the lack of substantial progress in nuclear disarmament, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries participated with the office of the GA president in organizing the First High-Level Meeting (HLM) of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament (September 26, 2013). The original draft resolution which called for the HLM was approved by a vote of 165 to none, with five abstentions. The countries that abstained were the P3 states (US, UK and France), Israel and Ukraine. During the HLM, the P3 gave a combined statement in which they expressed the view that the HLM was essentially a waste of time and energy. In their eyes there are already enough efforts to speed up nuclear disarmament and states should focus on the 2010 Action Plan. This statement received a lot of criticism, as the first deadline of this Plan, the convening of a weapons of mass destruction free-zone (WMDFZ) in Middle East, was already missed.

This missed deadline was acknowledged at the HLM, and the states, once again, insisted on the need for this WMDFZ. One problem with attaining this zone, is a lack of involvement of Israel in the disarmament conversations. Even though Israel neither denies nor confirms having nuclear weapons, there is a wide belief that they do posses them. These undeclared weapons form a key impediment to a WMDFZ in the Middle East. “All countries in the region”, as stated by Saudi Arabia, “should call on Israel to open its doors for the inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency”. Israel has not yet opened its doors and since they have the support of the US, it is also crucial for the US to be more involved in talks related to the formation of the zone.

Another problem for nuclear disarmament is the fact that neither the P3 states nor Russia seem willing to engage in multilateral dialogues about this subject. This produces an insolvable problem, since it is strongly maintained by some parties that nuclear disarmament must start with the US and Russia before the rest will follow. They refer to the NWS as falling behind due to the lack of new ideas from these countries and their unwillingness to participate in new disarmament initiatives. The P5 states decided not to be part of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), which was convened by the General Assembly in October 2012 to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. This decision to ignore the OEWG was referred to by some parties as the “P5 digging their own grave”. At the side event, organized by United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES), with the support of the Indonesian Permanent Mission to the UN, the OEWG was hailed as a success with a minimum of ‘blaming and shaming.’ However, the realization was there that there were a lot of interesting ideas, but a lot also needs to be done to turn good ideas into concrete action plans.

UNIDIR stated that for the HLM to fulfill its mandate there has to be a change in national security doctrines of both the NWS and the umbrella states (states that ‘benefit’ from extended nuclear deterrence). These states need to realize that nuclear weapons are no longer needed to ensure their security. “Only if the majority of a given country’s population is convinced that nuclear weapons are no longer required to ensure its security, and may indeed decrease rather than increase it, will the government of that country be encouraged to begin to adapt its security doctrines”.

At the side event, the role of civil society and the importance of getting it more involved was also emphasized, but the way to do so was not clear. Some parties stressed the importance of partnerships between civil society and states. Others believe that talking to governments is a waste of time and that the existing structures will not have the preferred outcome because civil society has no say within a lot of states, including some P5 states. A way for these groups to be involved is by building partnerships between civil societies in different countries and by connecting stakeholders within regions to build a movement at the grassroots level. There was also talk of reaching out to institutions in non-nuclear states that are not yet on board to get their support to persuade the NWS to give up their nuclear weapons. There seems to be a lot of frustration within non-nuclear states about being excluded from the actual disarmament talks and feeling powerless due to this process. It was underlined that all states and stakeholders need to be engaged in the disarmament discussions if disarmament is to succeed.

It was interesting to see that there was only a little talk about making connections to other pressing global issues we are facing such as regional conflicts, human rights, poverty and climate health. Global Action to Prevent War stresses that security issues, such as nuclear weapons, are always connected to these other security concerns. To make these linkages, it might be helpful if these meetings were more accessible to people from outside the nuclear weapons community. People not working primarily on nuclear disarmament could possibly add some fresh ideas to the table. It seemed that the meetings, mostly containing the ‘like-minded’, may have gotten into a stalemate on how to actually develop and execute plans that would help the nuclear disarmament process. The overall impression these meetings left on me, was the lack of such plans. I believe that it is a good thing to get civil societies more involved to strengthen the international community’s call for disarmament. But I am afraid that if there are no actual plans to follow up on, these meetings will function as just another ‘talk shop’.

Marianne Rijke

Tags: , ,

The UN’s Annual Presidential Party

1 Oct

Sitting across the street from the North Lawn Building at UN Headquarters on a Sunday morning, the neighborhood looks a bit like what I imagine to be a night club at 5AM.   While there are still speeches to be heard and events on migration and other matters to be attended, the limousines have mostly left the streets.  The barricades have largely been dismantled.  The tent through which passed many heads of state and foreign ministers is being carted off.   Tourists are milling around as though anticipating access to spaces that had been shut off from them.

All in all, despite some exhausted security guards and some frayed tempers (including my own) it was a pretty good week.   Iranian president Rouhani’s speech at the High Level event on nuclear disarmament energized discussions with the US that may result in a more cautious and transparent approach to any nuclear ambitions that Iran might have been harboring.  On Syria, Security Council resolution 2118 offers hope for the timely elimination of one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons. It also gives the now splintering opposition some reasonable expectation of a resolution to the conflict that does more than preserve a deadly and destabilizing status quo.

Also, there was abundant energy around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and, more specifically, a new round of post-2015 goals that are currently being developed.   These events gave opportunity for many segments of the UN leadership and other stakeholders to affirm their commitment to both fulfilling existing development obligations and broadening those obligations after 2015 to benefit more of the world’s population.

Invitations to the many events taking place this week were generously bestowed and our office was fortunate to be able to take advantage of many of those.   The following comments are mostly my own, though they do reflect colleagues’ assessment of some of the other events that we were privileged to attend.

Aside from the infectious enthusiasm in evidence around post-2015 development goals, the human rights-oriented events were perhaps the most satisfying in part because of the willingness of high level speakers to move the discussion beyond narrow disciplinary confines and towards a more complementary human security framework.   Of special note was UN special representative Mary Robinson’s efforts to highlight climate change as a major concern for the human rights community, and USG Adama Dieng’s efforts (with the governments of Belgium and Ghana) to highlight the integrity of elections – beyond ‘free and fair’ – as an important step to keep states from lapsing into conditions ripe for mass atrocity violence.  There were also important discussions held on issues germane to gender justice including an acknowledgment of the broad range of agencies and governments now taking up a gender lens on human security.

By comparison, disarmament remains a bit of a ‘dismal science,’ and there were several events that captured high level attention but might not result in high level attainment.   The High Level event on nuclear disarmament, ably organized by Roman Hunger and the office of the president of the General Assembly, resulted in many sincere speeches by heads of delegations, but covered little new ground.   One of the problems with nuclear disarmament discourse is the degree to which it still remains locked in conceptual silos that keep the issue isolated from a host of development, human rights, small arms and gender considerations to which it is linked and from which it should be drawing (and to which it should be contributing) more support.   We do, indeed, want a world ‘free of nuclear weapons.’   We also want a world free of poverty, discrimination, environmental degradation, gender-based violence, species extinction and much more.   The small numbers of NGOs who gathered in the Trusteeship Council to listen to the nuclear weapons speeches gave evidence that most advocates with access to the Conference Building were content to invest their energy elsewhere.

On small arms and arms trade, the news was a bit better.   The ATT high level event was also conducted in a considerably less than full room with ample celebratory language (especially given that the US earlier in the day signed the treaty) but fewer reminders of the long slog that lies ahead, not only before the treaty enters into force, but in making this particular treaty relevant to efforts to end diverted transfers and, in a larger context, eliminate violence from illicit weapons.   We were also surprised that there were so few references to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation (UNSCAR), a most welcome program underwritten by Australia and Germany to help build capacity support for ATT implementation.

Additionally, in the Security Council, Australia’s leadership was essential to passing resolution 2177, the first time in five years that the Council has taken up the issue of illicit small arms.   Generally speaking, we are skeptical of Council efforts to remain seized of yet another issue as we don’t believe that the degree of the Council’s legislative effectiveness on such issues (not to mention its willingness to ‘play’ collaboratively with other relevant UN stakeholders) has been sufficiently established.  Moreover, the resolution seems to place considerable burden on already overstretched peacekeeping operations to enforce arms embargoes, a move that we can’t imagine was taken based on wild enthusiasm emanating from DPKO.  We hope that the Council will also remain seized of these serious limitations as the resolution moves forward towards implementation.

But the biggest ‘take away’ for me in all these meetings was less about policy and more about psychology. This is the time of year when most of us here at headquarters are reminded of how little we matter in the grand scheme of things.   Governments from capitals run this show, none nearly at the level of the US, but all of them more than the diplomats who populate the missions and certainly more than the NGOs who gather around the gates clamoring for admission to events over which we have virtually no say.  This ought to be a humbling business each and every day, but it is especially hard to escape this feeling during this ‘presidential party’ season at the UN.

Of course, being humble doesn’t mean being silent about what we wish to see beyond what we have seen. Back when I used to attend parties, I took some advantage of the context to let sides of my personality, even my ideas, escape the confines of my emotional habits and need for control.    While the events we attended at the UN last week are probably too ‘public’ for leaders to speak with full frankness and take policy risks that might not play well back home, it would be helpful if at least we could hear more about where government leaders think we’re headed as a global community as well as the priorities of states going forward. Perhaps most importantly, we would all do well to hear more about the concrete and specific contributions that states — all states —  are willing to make to help the ‘world we want’ become the ‘world we have.’

 Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , , , , ,

Youth-SWAP Meet: Walking from the Margins to the Center of Policy

28 Sep

Editor’s Note:   For the past few weeks, Kritika Seth has been examining opportunities and resources for developing a sustainable youth initiative through GAPW.   She will share perspectives from her search in this space throughout the fall. 

Youths are best understood as those undergoing a transition from the dependence of childhood to the independence of adulthood with an increasing awareness of the high level of responsibilities as members of a community.

Youth is often indicated as a person between the age where he/she may leave compulsory education, and the age at which he/she finds his/her first employment.  Today almost half of the world’s population (48%) is under the age of 24; of this 18% are youth. Moreover, while youth is growing in numbers, more and more of them are raised in environments that hinder their educational opportunities, increase the likelihood of unemployment, and force them to confront other burdens such as HIV/AIDS, war and other forms of violence.

In the wake of the recent and ongoing issues faced by young people all over the world, the Inter-Agency on Youth Development (IANYD) along with United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) organized a unique meeting last week from September 18th to September 20th. . The structure of this meeting was different from the typical annual meeting that the two agencies conduct. In this instance, the decision was made to invite youth led organizations and networks to participate in open dialogue regarding the newly released System-Wide Action Plan on Youth (SWAP).  The SWAP is a document that teases out four thematic areas that call for our attention immediately – Employment and Entrepreneurship; Protection of rights, political inclusion and civic engagement; Education, including comprehensive sexuality education; and Health. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the SWAP is a framework document to support the World Program and Action on Youth and not replace it. Despite the urgent attention and development needed in youth affairs, the SWAP marks the first steps taken towards fulfilling a viable youth agenda.

During the three-day meeting, participants were given several opportunities to discuss and identify opportunities for engaging young people in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Youth-SWAP. There was also discussion of specific tasks that need attention, such as communication strategies, methods of partnering with other organizations and effective ways of participating in the process of youth development. In order to support all these concerns and provide a ‘reality check’, the UNFPA and INAYD team made sure to have a representative from related UN agencies: for example, the presence of the UN Volunteering Program during the discussion on participation; or the presence of the International Labor Organization (ILO) during the discussion on youth employment and entrepreneurship opportunities.

Despite the constant thinking and brainstorming that we were required to do, the room was constantly buzzing with good and positive energy. A horizontal flow of interaction amongst those seeking advice and those who were full of advice was an ongoing sight along with conversations that began with “you are?” and ended with “we should get coffee sometime soon.” Overall the meeting was of great value resulting in concrete recommendations such as the need to personalize the communication of SWAP for better implementation strategies and outcomes, for instance through the creation of a SWAP-specific website in order to more effectively spread the word.

It will be interesting and valuable to follow – and hopefully impact — the next steps on implementing the Youth-SWAP document and other pressing issues. As the Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth concluded at the MTV reception, “if you want to walk fast you walk alone, but if you want to walk far we will walk together.”  GAPW is prepared to walk beside this process and we will regularly engage our audience in this space regarding issues affecting youth participation in global policy.

 Kritika Seth

Tags: , ,

Reinforcing Gender and Small Arms Policy Linkages

21 Sep

The issue of the gender dimensions within efforts to stem the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons (SALW) has gained significant traction earlier this year and is likely to continue developing as the year progresses.

In April 2013, the Secretary-General (SG) noted in his report on Sexual Violence in Conflict instances of rape and sexual violence arising from armed groups.[i] Furthermore, the SG’s report to the Security Council on Small Arms reiterated that armed conflict can negatively impact women and men, making them susceptible to violence.[ii] The SG noted that “[a]ttention should be paid to women, who suffer disproportionately from the effects of violent conflict: an abundance of uncontrolled weapons and a context of lawlessness lead to increases in gender-based violence, which includes rape, abduction into sexual slavery and trafficking.”[iii]

It is generally known that SALW can be one of the most pervasive threats to a strong and reliable security sector and that the illicit flow of small arms, including illegally diverted arms, can contribute to the commission of violence against women as well as a source of intimidation for women’s participation in social and political life.[iv] As Global Action has noted in previous policy briefs, the illicit flow of small arms can contribute to acts of sexual violence in conflict which can pose a threat to international peace and security.[v] Additionally, “women can be weapon-carriers, especially as members of militias or armed groups from the national to the local level. Women can likewise promote a culture of guns, especially for the younger generation for which they are often responsible, and ultimately contribute to the proliferation of small arms.”[vi] Furthermore, and perhaps most important to us, the illicit flow of small arms can create security concerns hindering women’s participation in conflict and post-conflict communities, as weapons can be used to intimidate or instill fear.[vii]

Whether it is in the high level meeting expected this month in the Security Council[viii] or within work of the First Committee, or even within the purview of the Security Council Open Debate on Women, Peace and Security, it is imperative to reinforce the gender dimensions in efforts to control illicit arms.

Women’s participation in decision-making processes is highlighted in Security Council Resolution 1325, as it is in gender-sensitive Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs.[ix] Subsequent relevant resolutions have also reiterated gender-sensitive DDR programs and have called for targeted measures against perpetrators of sexual violence in armed conflict.[x] SCR 1960 has called on the SG to include names of perpetrators suspected of committing, or responsible for, crimes of sexual violence during armed conflict in his reports to the Security Council.[xi]

Additionally, the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UNPoA) binds member states to commitments to prevent and combat the illicit flow of small arms. While only in the context of the preembular paragraphs, member states acknowledge that they are ‘gravely concerned’ about the impact the illicit flow of small arms can have on women, children, and the elderly.[xii] Furthermore, the General Assembly Resolution on Women, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, promotes women’s equal representation in disarmament and arms control processes, “in particular as it relates to the prevention and reduction of armed violence and armed conflict.”[xiii] The resolution promotes women’s participation in the ‘design and implementation of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control efforts,” as well as in the context of preventing and eradicating the illicit SALW.[xiv]

Finally, it is also worth noting that “[t]he use of conventional weapons, including small arms, in armed conflict is subject to the limitations of international humanitarian law (IHL),” whose purpose is to protect civilians from suffering by controlling the ways and means that can be used to inflict violence.[xv] IHL is violated not simply by the use of small arms, but rather by their unauthorized use, whether by government or non-armed groups, to target civilians.[xvi] “The unregulated proliferation of SALW contributes to violations of IHL by providing abusive actors with the tools used to commit these crimes.”[xvii] It is therefore imperative that emphasis is placed on the prevention and eradication of the illicit flow of these  weapons.

This year has been significant in that early 2013 saw the adoption of two major instruments that further strengthen international commitments to pursue this policy linkage. The impact of the illicit flow of small arms on violence against women was noted in the Agreed Conclusions of the 57th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women, the main policy-making body on the promotion of women’s rights.[xviii] Additionally, the recent adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty made significant progress in ensuring that the gender considerations are non-negotiable aspects of binding criteria when determining the validity of arms transfers.[xix]

Moving forward, the momentum should be maintained around these issues in relevant UN Processes, of course to the extent that procedural mandates do not already overlap.  The gender dimensions within arms control and disarmament should continue to be highlighted, placing special emphasis on women’s participation in disarmament processes, ranging from decision-makers in policy discussions, to active members of security forces, to equal recipients of benefits available through DDR programs. In regards to 1325 National Action Plans, gender and disarmament dimensions should be integrated therein, in situations and circumstances where it is relevant to the security of women. Finally, one must also remember that women have a distinct and unique set of protection and participation needs which have to be addressed in relevant policies.

–          Melina Lito

[i] See A/67/929, S/2013 399.

[ii] See, S/2013/503, para. 20.

[iii] See, S/2013/503, para. 20.

[iv] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief, http://www.globalactionpw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gender-and-disarmament-update-sept-2012.pdf.

[v] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief, p.2 http://www.globalactionpw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gender-and-disarmament-update-sept-2012.pdf

[vi] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief, p. 2 http://www.globalactionpw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gender-and-disarmament-update-sept-2012.pdf.

[vii] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief, p.2 http://www.globalactionpw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gender-and-disarmament-update-sept-2012.pdf

[viii] See, Security Council Report, Monthly Forecast, Small Arms, September 2013.

[ix] Security Council Resolution 1325 (2008) OP. 1-4, 13.

[x] Re: DDR, See SCR 1889 (2009), OP. 13, 1820 (2008), OP.10, SCR 2106 (2106), OP. 16(a); Re: targeted measures, see, SCR 1820 OP. 5, SCR 2106, OP. 13.

[xi] SCR 1960 (2010), OP. 3.

[xii] UN Document A/CONF.192/15, http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx.

[xiii] A/C.1/67/L.35/Rev.1, OP.1.

[xiv] A/C.1/67/L.35/Rev.1, OP.4-OP.5.

 

Tags: , , ,

Italy’s Minister for Integration Cécile Kyenge — How a 21st-Century Global Citizen Tries to Lead Italy Into the Future

19 Sep

“Exile is strangely compelling to think about — but terrible to experience. It is the incurable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home: Its essential sadness can never be surmounted.” – Edward W. Said

It takes a brave and often extraordinarily desperate person to leave familiar settings and migrate toward an uncertain future. One does not only leave their very own comfort zone, but also needs to define and establish a new one with fresh parameters, with rules and values that often don’t match one’s own socialization in the least. For some, random hostilities and prejudices by the hosting community add significantly to the overall experience. “Integration” is the technical term for that process, and every migrant faces it in varied forms and degrees of difficulty.

Cécile Kyenge, Italy’s Minister for Integration and also an immigrant from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), would most likely be considered an American success story. But Kyenge’s own success has been tempered by a series of racist incidents that have not been widely enough chronicled in the international press. There is a seemingly widespread sentiment that, with a black president, racism in the United States is mostly passé. However, it is sadly important to mention that racism in the U.S. is alive and well as it is in other parts of the world, which includes Europe, both historically and contemporarily.

Within 30 years of her arrival in Italy, Kyenge managed to occupy a public office of tremendous significance, not only for Italy’s future, but also for Europe’s, in her role as Minister of Integration. In April of this year during the 46th annual session of the Commission on Population and Development, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon emphasized, “Migration offers challenges we must face and benefits we can harness,” and described migration as “a fact of life in our globalizing world.” It was not a question of “whether to halt the movement of people across borders,” which was impossible, but of how to plan for such movements and make the most of them, he said.

Some European states are still not willing to see the writing on the wall. A change in mentality is happening very slowly at the expense of people such as Minister Kyenge. She is actively involved in Italy’s progress and preparation for future challenges that will include migration to the country and the subsequent integration of the new residents.

Kyenge has been advocating for a significant reform in the Italian citizenship law by introducing ius soli, a criteria that would grant citizenship to foreign children born in Italy. As a result these second-generation Italians would finally enjoy the same civil rights as their fellow inhabitants who have lived in the country for a number of generations. Meanwhile, the Minister has been experiencing tremendous hardship for her modernization attempts. The latest incident was initiated by the Italian far-right party Forza Nova, whose members draped three mannequins covered in artificial blood outside a town hall where Minister Kyenge was supposed to speak in early September. “Immigration is the genocide of peoples. Kyenge resign!” read fliers bearing the Forza Nuova symbol that were scattered around the barricades.

Headlines such as “More vile abuse for Italy’s first black minister Cécile Kyenge,” “Italy: Northern League councilor sparks row over calls for black minister’s rape,” and finally, “Italy’s first black minister: I had bananas thrown at me but I’m here to stay,” all give an impression of what the Economist called a “horrid introduction to public life.”

At the same time, these inconvenient truths demonstrate shockingly how racism, bigotry, and sexism can affect also those in power who stand out from the perceived norm. In Kyenge’s case, these trespasses are often executed by political equals who should know better and not fail citizens so tremendously as positive role models.

In case of the sitting U.S. President Barack Obama, his protection by the Secret Service began when Obama was still a senator, after receiving a death threat in 2007. This marked the first time a candidate received such protection before even being nominated.

Laudable are Minister Kyenge’s strength and endurance while facing such unspeakable humiliation, at the same time paving the way for new generations of immigrants, a testament to her steadfast resolve.

Fellow Italians are expressing their dismay, connecting racism at home to a general lack of historical awareness. For The Huffington Post, writer and filmmaker Flavio Rizzo writes indignantly, “In Italy concepts of colonialism, post-colonialism, and neo-colonialism are largely ignored along with Italy’s own colonial past.”

Rome’s Mayor Ignazio Marino condemned the latest mannequin incident in an official statement. “Rome is a city with a tradition of taking in all peoples for millennia,” he stated, “An isolated gesture by a handful of violent individuals will not stop the courageous work that the integration minister is doing.”

As the Ethiopian-American writer Maaza Mengiste describes in her article “Italy’s racism is embedded” for the English daily the Guardian, “If Germany had its Nuremberg trials and South Africa its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, then what is missing in Italy is the kind of postwar accountability that forces harsh truths to light and begins the difficult journey towards reconciliation.”

The U.S. media outlet Open Democracy reported in August how Italian civil society often takes matters in their own hands in order to confront racism in their home country:

There are also examples of collective activism taking place in local municipalities, which have developed their own models to promote inclusion and co-existence, despite the lack of support from the state. It happened in Riace, a fishing town in Calabria originally famous for its Greek bronze statues, but where families of refugees and asylum seekers are welcomed by the community and become an integral part of it.

Minister Kyenge visited United Nations’ headquarters in New York City last week to speak on the UN norm “Responsibility to Protect.” The principle defines the state’s responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, as well as their incitement, in cooperation with the international community. Many scholars and civil rights activists have been discussing the need to implement an early warning system within the norm, in order to prevent those atrocities more efficiently in the future.

During her presentation at UN headquarters, Minister Kyenge emphasized that “Intolerable acts occur even in times of peace and in democratic countries.” She pointed out the importance of atrocity crime prevention in seemingly modern societies that adhere to democratic principles. In a subsequent interview she defined identity as a “long string of personal experiences, not necessarily based on, or shaped by, the country one lives in.”

Minister Kyenge’s resilience, sensitivity, and undaunted dedication to the cause, are those of a world citizen with a long path behind her and perhaps an even longer one ahead. These qualities keep her at the forefront of political reform going forward, and not a victim of her circumstances.

 

Lia Petridis Maiello

 

The article was originally published with The Huffington Post.

Tags: , , , ,

Creating ‘Green’ Employment to Rebalance Unsustainable Economies

19 Sep

Amidst all the buzz of the impending opening of the UN General Assembly, an interesting meeting was held in the North Lawn building early on Wednesday entitled “Rio+20: From outcome to action, partnering for action on green economy.”  The event was co-organized by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).  As was noted by more than one presenter, this kind of collaborative enterprise is becoming more common in UN circles, though it is still not as common as it needs to be, especially where issues of climate health and global sustainability are concerned.

The meeting was devoted in large measure to an update on the multi-agency initiative entitled “Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE).”  PAGE, which is supported by the Republic of Korea as well as Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, will “build enabling conditions in participating countries by shifting investment and policies towards the creation of a new generation of assets, such as clean technologies, resource efficient infrastructure, well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good governance.” (http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/PAGE/tabid/105854/language/en-US/Default.aspx)

There was much helpful analysis offered by presenters and participants including reminders that we must simultaneously focus on the development of green jobs, green industries and green economies.  Moreover, in terms of business infrastructure, we must commit both to “greening existing industries and to creating new green industries.” And there was an important reminder of the vital role that agricultural workers continue to play within the total spectrum of employment, even though it was acknowledged that, in many parts of the world, such workers suffer disproportionately from malnutrition and other manifestations of acute poverty.  They also face numerous and often unique security challenges in remote rural settings, especially within states struggling with armed groups and the proliferation of illicit weapons.

As with the speakers and organizers, GAPW remains vitally interested in the security challenges resulting from degraded ecologies and grave challenges to climate health.   We seek to promote greater respect for green employment that both sustains families and helps restore our ecological balance.  And we encourage investors and businesses to consider more tangible investments in Lesser Developed States and to help ensure that governments in those States honor basic obligations to their populations for security, development, transparency and human rights – all elements essential to the maintenance of a healthy and sustainable business climate, not to mention a sustainable environment.

We acknowledge the degree to which ‘green’ still represents a category with more sentimental attraction than conceptual clarity.  And we understand the vast gaps that often separate hopeful programs from tangible, climate-friendly outcomes.   These are but two of the growth edges moving forward.

Our policy priorities and interests in this work are underscored by several key organizational relationships from which we learn much and benefit greatly, including the for-profit CGSG Corporation (http://www.cgsgcorp.com/) and the non-profit Green Map System (www.greenmap.org).  In addition, the 1200 or so civil society organizations that have signed up to attend a major UN event, “Advancing Regional Recommendations on Post-2015,” organized by our friends at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=sommaire), continue to give us hope that strategic and urgent care can overcome the development, security and other crises associated with planetary decay.

The message lying beneath the more obvious messaging of this event was a sober one:  We are simply running out of time to pivot on unsustainable patterns of consumption and governance.  PAGE is one of the vehicles through which governments can find the skills and incentives needed to help their societies respond to the immediate danger posed by a planet under siege.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , ,

Neither Black nor White: Relating North-South and South-South Cooperation

18 Sep

Editor’s note: The following is a discussion written by a junior associate, Kritika Seth of Mumbai India, regarding a topic that is important to a wide range of development and security frameworks.  Promoting more holistic collaborations among global south states that often share a common history and current economic challenges builds important skills and helps ensure that policy reflects local social and cultural contexts.

The origin of South-South cooperation can be traced back to the creation of the Group of 77 (G-77) in 1964 to promote economic and technical cooperation among developing countries. In 1974, UNDP created a “Special Unit” for Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC). A high level conference on Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries (ECDC) held in Caracas in 1981 urged negotiations on a Global Systems of Trade Preferences (GSTP) among developing countries to promote joint initiatives in marketing and technology transfer. In 2003, the UN General Assembly formally opted to use “South-South” instead of “ECDC/TCDC” when referring to cooperation among developing countries.

On September 12th 2013, the UN office of South-South Cooperation celebrated the 10th annual United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation at UN Headquarters in New York.

The global south nations have a shared history (colonialism); shared challenges in development progress (low industrialization); and shared experiences as recipients of aid from the global north. Thus it would be reasonable to anticipate that more south-south exchanges would facilitate a more balanced and effective cooperation that would lead to “peer learning” and exchanges of experiences and development-related ‘best practices.’ Such outcomes could, in turn, lead to more positive development outcomes and reduced poverty levels (aligned with the post-2015 development agenda) in the countries of the global south, and even help to avoid the unbalanced relationships characteristic of much North-South cooperation. As the Indian Ambassador, Mr. Asoke Mukherji explained the “UN needs to catch up to this flexible paradigm and not relate it to North-South Cooperation since they both are different.”

The distinction between North-South cooperation and South-South Cooperation was highlighted in a statement repeatedly elaborated by the panel members who spoke during the morning session. “South-South cooperation is not supplementary to North-South cooperation but complementary to North-South cooperation.”

During the inaugural session panelists deliberately made an effort to make these seemingly similar adjectives sound significantly different. The term ‘complement’ is to create a satisfactory, relational whole, whereas the term ‘supplement’ (in non-economic terms) refers to enhancing or filling in a missing void. Thus, complementary acts to bind and make whole while supplementary acts to enhance what exists or make up for something missing.

Therefore, according to the statement reiterated by panelists, South-South cooperation is the satisfactory whole and is not merely an effort to address the deficiencies of North-South Cooperation.[1]  This however raises a question: Why is it important to establish such a defining line between the two types of cooperation?

South-South cooperation should not presume an either-or but should be supplementary (on ideas and capacity assistance) where North-South cooperation falls short and should also make sure to offer more comprehensive, context-specific, culturally sensitive, assistance across the global south as well. The merging of the two types of assistance offers a win-win situation for nations directly and indirectly involved in development assistance to help balance development efforts and make them sustainable   There are gaps to be filled in social development, but the ultimate goal must be to create more holistic and cooperative engagements among states that share a common history, social contexts and economic challenges.  Such engagements can both inspire development in the global south and help reform development frameworks and priorities in the global north.

The morning inaugural session of the event was witnessed by a relatively full audience; however, an afternoon session that was packed with vital strategy proposals and recommendations for implementing sustainable social protection addressed only a handful of people. Overall, the event included involvement by a number of eminent members from the South-South cooperation team including representatives from UNDP, ILO, the IBSA fund and Group of 77.  In the main, this was a well-structured event that deserved broader interest from the UN community.

Kritika Seth, GAPW

[1] Wanjiru Rose, Is the South-South cooperation achieving its intended outcomes? (2009)

Tags:

Civil Society and RtoP: Prevention and Strong State Capacity

16 Sep

On September 9, 2013 the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR), the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES-NY), the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP), and the Stanley Foundation held the event titled Civil SocietyPerspectives: Building State Capacity to Prevent Atrocity Crimes. This was held as a pre-meeting to the 5th annual General Assembly informal interactive dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect, scheduled for September 11, 2013. Dr. Jennifer Welsh, the newly appointed Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary General on the Responsibility to Protect, as well as Mr. Adama Dieng, the Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, were both present. The event was also attended by many civil society representatives as well as diplomats from numerous Permanent Missions. The event featured civil society representatives who shared their experiences in working towards the prevention of atrocity crimes as well as their recommendations on strengthening domestic capacity. Ms. Valnora Edwin, the Director of the Campaign for Good Governance, provided first-hand experience of RtoP in practice. She explained the post-conflict work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the transitional justice process through the Special Court for Sierra Leone. She also explained how her organization is engaging with the Sierra Leonean government in order to prevent future atrocities.

Both this event and this year’s UN dialogue are focused on Pillar 1 of the Responsibility to Protect, which states, “The state carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing”. This is reflected in the UN Secretary-General’s latest report on RtoP, State Responsibility and Prevention.  In the opening remarks Mr. Keith Porter, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Stanley Foundation, stressed that one of the key aims of the dialogue was to discuss how civil society can contribute to the building of societies where mass atrocities are not an acceptable means of holding power. Although the current situation in Syria was widely acknowledged as a challenge, the debate did not focus on it. Instead, Syria was referred to in order to clarify the norm. Dr. Welsh acknowledged that RtoP has been operationalized in the Syrian conflict through the form of sanctions, the acceptance of refugees by surrounding states, and the work of civil society groups as well as UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council and other humanitarian organizations. Nonetheless, the effect of Syria on the future of RtoP was not fully addressed.

In the keynote speech by Dr. Welsh, emphasis was placed on civil society’s role in advancing RtoP and affirming the need for prevention. Dr. Welsh addressed the next steps that need to be taken in the norm’s development including: the necessity for the development of a clearer framework which would facilitate early warning and response, the fact that regional and sub-regional organizations need to take greater ownership of the agenda, the need to strengthen interaction with the members of the Security Council, and that member states should work together to remind the Security Council of its responsibility to prevent atrocities. Moreover, apart from continuing to advance Pillar 1, Dr. Welsh argued that it is time for the General Assembly to pay greater attention to the Pillar 2, or the idea that the international community needs to support states in carrying out their responsibility to protect their citizens.

The first panel of the meeting was chaired by Ms. Angela Bruce-Raeburn, the Program Officer of the Stanley Foundation. The panelists discussed how their organizations work to influence political actors to cooperate in strengthening institutions. Rev. Cannon Thomas Muyya Godda emphasized the need for a common sense of equality and that key causes of conflict, such as poverty, must be addressed. Mr. Kyle Matthews highlighted some of the internal political obstacles to successful RtoP implementation. Referring to Canada he explained how although once a leader of RtoP, Canada has lost this position due to the fact that the current government views RtoP as the work its predecessors – the opposition. Finally, Mr. Noel Morada explained the ‘bibngka approach’ or the necessity for cooperation between the top and bottom – just like when cooking a rice cake, the cooperation of the pan on top with the fire on the bottom is key.

Although all panelists presented great examples of how civil society encourages national legislatures, Ms. Bruce-Raeburn asked a thought-provoking question of what happens when a government changes? In other words, what happens to atrocity prevention when those supporting it are no longer in power? The panelists generally did not provide an answer to this question; nevertheless Mr. Matthews explained how civil societies in Canada try to overcome this issue. Despite his statement, no substantive answer was given. Another issue discussed by the panelists was the relationship of RtoP and sovereignty. There was a general consensus among the speakers that RtoP needs to be presented as a friend, rather than an enemy of sovereignty. The problem of sovereignty often arises in relation to RtoP discussions primarily regarding Pillar 3 or the use of force if a government is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect its citizens. Panelists and Dr. Welsh agreed that rather than restricting sovereignty, RtoP actually has a sovereignty enhancing purpose. This is where the work of civil societies in aiding the strengthening of states and the implementation of RtoP principles into legislatures remains highly important.

The second panel chaired by Mr. Tibi Galis, the Executive Director of the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation, focused on reconciliation and peacebuilding as important factors in atrocity prevention. In many post-conflict situations a relapse into violence is highly likely unless appropriate action is taken to address the key issues that caused violence in the first place. Important peacebuilding efforts such as the inclusion of women in decision-making, the use of judicial processes and the development of good governance were also presented through the cases of Sierra Leone, Guatemala and Kenya. Although the presentations were relevant in content, at points the debate seemed to have gotten too specific and the message of how these case studies can contribute to the future general policy development of the RtoP was a bit lost. The overarching issue remains to be the fact that there are very few cases of when RtoP was successfully used in atrocity prevention. Both Sierra Leone and Guatemala highlight situations of post-conflict violence prevention rather than the initial prevention of the opportunities for mass atrocities. Therefore, the Kenyan case, which is often celebrated as a prime example of effective diplomatic action under the RtoP banner, remains perhaps one of the only real examples of RtoP application. Regrettably, there are still cases where atrocities have happened or are now happening, yet where RtoP has not been invoked.

Overall the event presented a good discussion on issues related to the role of civil society in working with states to strengthen their domestic institutions in order to successfully prevent mass atrocities. As the title of the event suggested, much emphasis was placed on the experiences of civil societies from different parts of the world in working together with national governments in order to strengthen measures for atrocity prevention. The debate reaffirmed the crucial role of civil society groups in pushing governments in strengthening their institutions in order to adopt RtoP principles into their national agendas. With many governments remaining skeptical about RtoP and its effectiveness, the role of civil society in keeping the norm at the forefront of government deliberations is key. RtoP is a noble concept yet it continues to go about unfulfilled due to hesitation by governments based in part on a failure to heed their legitimate concerns.

 

Tereza Steinhublova, GAPW Junior Associate

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →