Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Steps towards a NWFZ in the Middle East

13 Sep

The idea for a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) is nothing new. Discussion through the 1960s led to a joint declaration in by Egypt and Iran in 1974 which resulted in a General Assembly resolution (and broadened in 1990 to cover weapons of mass destruction). These proposals were motivated by a number of factors from confidence building for the benefit of regional stability to suspicion over Israel building up its nuclear arsenal (and their status of being outside of the NPT). Along with Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons (and earlier suspected attempts by Libya, Iraq and Syria), a NWFZ in the region is long overdue.

But how would you create a such a zone when two of its powers (Israel and Iran) are in denial over its weapons programs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been working on it for over a decade. IAEA Head Yukiya Amano has initiated a forum for 21-22 November, and is confident that it will create the necessary steps forward – and will lead to a successful conference on the proposal in 2012.

A few obstacles remain.

  • Iran, who rigerously opposes Israel’s suspected nuclear arsenal and condemns the “nuclear imbalace” in the region, has indicated that it will not attend the forum.
  • Israel (with the US and other western countries) is increasingly alarmed by Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program (a program which it denies).
  • Israel is wary of Arab states’ bringing forward a resolution during September’s IAEA meeting calling for it to ratify the NPT; Israel has indicated that this will derail the NWFZ pursuit.
  • Some Arab states want certain conditions attached to the forum, rather than it being a general round-table discussion.
  • Other factors identified include ongoing instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and threats posed by extremist groups.

So is the time right to persuit negotiations? And how? One author (see Boutwell below) raised the point that during the 1995 NPT Review, Arab states insisted on indefinite extension of their commitment to the NPT in return for progress towards a NWFZ. Alongside the progress with the CTBT, these confidence building gestures could lead to Israel openly declaring its nuclear status – which may also find itself under increased pressure from the United States. Iran could follow. This development may thus lead to Israel ratifying the NPT, and will therefore be engaged with the disarmamant process acting in a more open and transparent manner. In this new “structure of accountability”, steps could lead towards a NWFZ in the Middle East through further confidence building, trust and nuclear oversight by the IAEA. This could also mean a lesser role for P5 nations as Middle Eastern nations work alongside each other in pursuit of nuclear disarmament.

Sources:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iaea-chief-optimistic-about-making -middle-east-nuclear-free-zone-1.379589 http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110906_2481.php http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd86/86nwfzme.htm (Rethinking Security Interests for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East) http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/prn201112.html http://jboutwell.com/images/BAS.January2011.pdf

International Media Perception of the United Nations/Cooperation with International Media on the Part of the United Nations

11 Sep

This is a work in progress and everyone’s feedback is highly appreciated!

Thanks, Lia

 

I have been talking to Bob about the difficulties both, media representatives and UN staff, have been encountering in the past regarding

– the requirement of necessary information to being able to file a story interesting and important enough that it actually gets picked by your respective editor at your outlet, also strongly depending on the political orientation of the outlet
– a strong media focus on negative developments/incidents (“scandal”) at the UN
– a nearly exclusive focus on the General Assembly and the weeks building up to it
– a strong focus on “local” reporting at the GA
– on the other side you find UN staff that is often briefed not to speak
– in general a “media hostile situation at UN headquarters” as Nick Birnback in 1995 Manager at the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. responsible for Media Affairs in a panel organized by C-Span on “Media and the UN” points out. Interestingly enough the only somewhat analytical survey of a situation that seems, from my own experience, unfortunately stagnant om both sides, I found on the World Wide Web.
– a well established “back room” information policy that often appears to be off the record which doesn’t enable the journalist to quote, which then makes it often impossible to prove the argument, therefore the story doesn’t get printed/broadcast
– no coherent press policy on behalf of the UN

I am not audacious enough to believe that I might have a solution for the established madness on both ends, but there might be something we can do about it to raise some awareness. Bob was mentioning that he would like to get in touch with a number of journalists at the UN on a one on one level and talk about the issue. There are currently 222 correspondents at the UN, in NYC and in other places of the US.

http://cms.unca.com/component/option,com_comprofiler/task,usersList/listid,4/Itemid,6/

Of these 222 I know on a personal level about eight correspondents.
Now, I believe that journalists are at times non-cooperative for a number of reasons.
So in order to get some kind of possible response, I was thinking about sending out a (anonymous?) questionnaire in order to try and evaluate some sort of quality standard, which could be presented to the UN’s Media Unit.

Please, let me know, what your thoughts are on this and here are the questions, which are of course open for additions and edits:

1) What outlet are you with?
2) How long have you been a UN correspondent?
3) How often per month do you report on current issues at the UN?
4) What are your main topics you report on at the UN?
5) On a scale from 1-10, how effective do you find the UN information policy?
6) How often per month do you place UN stories with your outlet?
7) Do you cover and place stories on the General Assembly every year?

Best,
Lia

Palestine: The UN Debate and Beyond

11 Sep
Palestine: The UN Debate and Beyond
A Discussion – Monday September 12, 3.30PM – 5.00PM

Venue: Chapel, Church Centre for UN, 777 UN Plaza (1st Avenue/44th Street)

with

Rashid Khalidi
Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, and
Director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia’s School of International and
Public Affairs.

and

Karima Bennoune
Professor of Law and Arthur L. Dickson Scholar at Rutgers School of Law,
Newark.
Palestine is expected to seek membership (or expanded recognition and rights) at
the UN during the 2011 General Assembly. The discussion will look at the
context of Palestine’s UN bid and explore the legal ramifications of the idea of
Palestinian statehood. The speakers will examine options at the UN in September,
and pathways beyond.
____________________________________

Co-sponsors: Global Policy Forum, the NGO Working Group on Israel-Palestine

Please RSVP to rsvp@globalpolicy.org by Friday September 9

The CTBT: 23 September

8 Sep

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty enjoys a level of irony. Despite the treaty not yet being in force, its premise to ban physical nuclear tests has to a great extent been realized.

The number of atmospheric explosion tests peaked in 1962, with the USSR and USA going head-to-head. China conducted the last in 1980. Similarly, after a high-level number of underground explosions in the 1960’s and 1970’s, test numbers have decreased drastically: with four explosions on the sub-continent in 1998; two more recently on the Korean Peninsula. To date, the list of countries having tested is just eight (CTBTO interactive map). So despite this significant progress, what’s the hold-up on getting the comprehensive ban into force?

The key obstacle to the treaty’s implementation is that it requires all 44 ‘Annex 2’ states to ratify it. These Annex 2 states participated in the CTBT’s 1994-1996 negotiations and possessed nuclear power or research reactors at that time. Nine out of the 44 – China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, the United States, India, DPR Korea and Pakistan – are yet to ratify the CTBT; the latter three are yet to even sign it. Reluctance to ratify varies ranging from:

  • Classical concerns over state sovereignty, the nuclear security guarantee, rival states’ capabilities and suspicion over other states’ insincerity (eg, key states are accused of having double standards).
  • The CTBT being incomplete: concerns about loopholes, clarification and verification.
  • Some states want to uphold the right to modernize their technology, which may require testing
  • Domestic and political issues. (See for example: Kubiak, ‘CTBT Hold-out States’)

So nine is all takes. US President Obama had promised to ratify the treaty but has now come under opposition from the Senate. China want’s the US to ratify first; Pakistan, despite not being opposed to the CTBT, dares India to go first.

Watch this space for further updates.

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , ,

Nigerian Unrest

26 Aug

The bombing today in Abuja has many potential causes, including the possibility that this is one more attack by the group Boko Haram.  But another which bears investigation was suggested by one of the staff of the joint RtoP/Genocide Prevention office.  In some areas of Nigeria, calls for the UN to respond directly and robustly to what has been some very difficult — even violent — exchanges between local groups in the east and north and the Nigerian military.  In Nigeria as elsewhere, people yearn for a swift UN response to regional ethnic conflict that is rarely forthcoming.   Anger at the UN, rightly or wrongly, in such places is growing steadily as the UN fights the reputation of being on the side of governments rather than on the side of people.

As you know, we are organizing to perform trainings for the Nigerian military in 2012 on their protection of civilians responsibilities.   The bombing will not change those plans except cause us to wish that we could do it sooner.  Nigeria’s importance to the stability of west and central Africa can hardly be overstated.   We and our UN partners have a strong vested interest in having a presence on the ground in Nigeria, both for skills development and to help enhance the UN’s shaky stature in that country.

 

 

GA High-level Meetings for September

23 Aug

1. High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (19–20 September 2011) 

2. High-level Meeting of the General Assembly addressing desertification, land degradation, and drought in the context of sustainable development and poverty reduction (September 20)

3. High-level Meeting to Commemorate 10th anniversary of Durban Declaration and Program of Action (September 22)

4. Conference on the Facilitation of the Entry-into-Force of the CTBT (September 23)

 

 

-Katherine

Tags: , ,

International Day Against Nuclear Tests, August 29th

19 Aug

Events associated with the observance of the International Day and 20th anniversary of the closure of the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site:

High-level Workshop: From here to 2015: Meeting the Targets of the NPT Action Plan

Thursday, September 1, 3-6pm, Conference Rm C in NLB (co-hosted by Mission of Kazakhstan and EastWest Institute)

Speakers:

Sergio Duarte, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs

Libran Cabactulan, Ambassador the Philippines and Chair of NPT Review Conference 2010

Marcie Ries, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for USA, Bureau of Arms Control

Annika Thunborg, Representative of Executive Secretary of the Prep Commission for the CTBTO

Informal Meeting of the GA to mark the observance of the 2nd International Day Against Nuclear Tests

Friday, September 2, 10am, Conference Rm 2 NLB

Speakers:

Amb. Joseph Deiss, President of UNGA 65

Asha-Rose Migiro, Deputy SG

Ermek Kosherbayev, Deputy Governor, East Kazakhstan

Geoffrey Shaw, Representative for Director of IAEA

Other member states, NGOs, etc.

Tags: , , ,

Upcoming at GA66: mediation, dispute settlements and the role of women

18 Aug

The role of mediation to reconcile opposing claims and appease resentment was recognized in the 1907 Hague Convention. The concept continues. The upcoming opening General Assembly debate the role of mediation in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, chaired by Qatar, will build upon the Assembly’s  June 2011 Resolution on strengthening the role of mediation – recognizing the importance of: women’s participation, resources from member states, quality mediation, continued SG support and UN capacity, international, regional and subregional organizations and civil society.

Qatar has put the role of mediation as a “key priority” during its term as president as the “high-level debate” is to be held at the opening of the Assembly’s 66th session.

There is an abundance of literature on peace mediation best practice. Going by the evidence, the General Assembly’s resolution is on the right track – at least in rhetoric –  especaily with its recognition of the the gender dimension:  increased participation of and leadership of women in mediation.

However, the UN itself might be a good place to start. GAPW is a member of the Working Group on Women Peace and Security (NGOWG). In an open letter to UN member states, NGOWG  stated that despite the UN recognition of the important role of women in mediation, they remain:

“overwhelmingly excluded from mediation efforts, and their rights and concerns are not consistently and concretely included in regular mediation practice. At the international level, the United Nations has still never appointed a women as a high level mediator, as called for most recently in A/RES/65/283, OP 9.

Given the continuing barriers that women in particular face in gaining access to these processes, and the differential impact that armed conflict often has on women, we encourage you to emphasize the following key points in your statement at this year’s General Debate:

  • The importance of ensuring women’s rights are fundamental to all guidelines and good practice established regarding mediation;

  • The necessity of embedding women’s rights in content of all peace agreements, and the role of mediators in assisting negotiating parties as to how this can be done;

  • The central role women can play in all prevention efforts, and the need to support and promote women’s participation in all these efforts;

  • The urgent need for the UN to appoint senior women mediators appointed by the UN, which would set an important example for promoting women’s participation in peace policies and processes; and

  • It would be particularly striking for you to speak of any examples of support your country has given to women’s inclusion in mediation processes and ensuring women’s rights in peace agreements. Publicizing women’s engagement in mediation would send a strong signal to the international community of your national commitment to women’s empowerment.”

If the UN is sincere about this issue, action over rhetoric is required. Can the UN deliver? Will the role of women in mediation be properly addressed?

Tags: , , ,

Arms Trade Treaty goes domestic

3 Aug

Predictably, reactionary news networks, along with their followers, are on the defense over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), many warning that domestic rights are being compromised as “anti-gun elites” run rampant at the United Nations.

We’ve heard it all before: ‘United Nations’ End Run Around Constitution?’, ‘NRA Takes on ‘Anti-Gun Elitists’ at UN’, ‘Sen. Moran & 44 Senators Tell Obama Administration Second Amendment Rights’. Most of this is of course reactionary crazy-talk – baseless assumptions of a UN conspiracy against US gun-owners.

Most citizens would of course recognize the importance of such a treaty. The ATT is about international arms transfers. Currently, the global trade in conventional weapons (warships, battle tanks, fighter jets, machine guns) is unregulated; internationally agreed standards do not exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use, not into the hands of those abusing human rights, including terrorists and criminals, and helping to prevent needless armed conflicts and killings around the world.

A recent rebuttal of the far fetched claims came from GAPW’s Robert Zuber. In an article by USnews.com ‘Opposition mounts to UN gun control treaty opposition mounts to UN gun control treaty’, followed with over 20o comments – he responded with the following:

“Since neither the author of this piece nor those writing comments (so far) was in the room as UN delegates were making final preparations for Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, perhaps a bit of a reality check is in order.

 Once again, the NRA has done a splendid job of reaching out to select US media. However, the individual from the NRA who was given a platform at the UN to make a US-focused speech at the ATT Prep Com (a courtesy which is rarely extended and then normally only to groups exhibiting a broader geographical interest), walked out of the building once his remarks were concluded.   Neither did he apparently bother to attend the sessions leading up to his remarks.  Apparently, like so many sharing opinions on this issue, it was better not to taint his outrage with too much direct experience.

It is certainly predictable to have media folks whip up a frenzy about the UN taking away peoples’ guns and rendering them helpless against the alleged tyranny of the state.  However, as the chief US negotiator to the ATT process — someone who has not been the most congenial presence in the Prep Com room — would readily acknowledge, the ATT is not a disarmament treaty.  It does not propose to destroy weapons or to eliminate their legal possession.  It provides guidelines for arms transfers and seeks to end diversion by which arms traded legally end up in the hands on non-state actors such as criminals and terrorists, are used to violate the human rights of populations, or are ‘re-gifted’ by recipient governments to line their own pockets.   Which of these three diversion potentials the NRA, your readers, the author of this piece, or even our DC legislators would refuse to support is their own call to make, but to refuse to support any of these objectives is simply beyond reason.

I was a gun owner for much of my life.  I respect but don’t fear weapons.  Nor do I fear the ATT or the non-existent ‘power’ of the UN to strip citizens of their guns.   Readers are free to hate the UN.  They are also free to act as though the second amendment is the only legally relevant, binding aspect of the US Constitution.  But what some are accusing the ATT process of promoting is simply nonsense as even 20 attentive minutes inside the Prep Com room would readily reveal.”

Follow discussion on the ATT process:

http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blog/11-07-19-global-arms-trade-treaty-picks-speed

http://attmonitor.posterous.com

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , , , ,

Some Final Thoughts on Social Media/Disarmament

28 Jul

As my days at GAPW come to a close, I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting about what I’ve gained here, how my projects fared, and if I’ve made an impression on the UN system (or at least convinced ODA that their outreach is b-o-r-i-n-g). Of course, I’ve spent a great deal of time working on our social media and disarmament project (I remember that meeting waaay back in November when I explained to ya’all what Tumblr was…)

I think it’s undeniable that social media is going to continue to play an important role in the future of almost every field–from corporations to NGOs–but the shape it has taken with regard to disarmament has continued to amaze me. Perhaps I was naive, but I was never particularly interested in disarmament–it’s just something I fell into. I was convinced I would end up working in something human rights related–in my undergrad, you were either interested in human rights (woo, Amnesty International) or security. I think my experience in school reflects a huge problem that we have (of course, I can only speak for my time at an American undergrad university)–students, who will inevitably become future diplomats/NGO & UN staff, are simply not growing up making these connections. On the other hand, those of us on the other side of the equation (the actual staff at these organizations) have been doing a poor job reaching out and engaging with the younger generation.

I’m always amazed by how terrible UNODA’s outreach is–I would bet that 4 out of 5 people on the street wouldn’t know of their existence. However, the problem starts to become apparent when 4 out of 5 future policy-makers are unclear about the work of ODA, as well as the field of disarmament.

Enter social media. I remain convinced that social media is the answer to these problems, and in particular,disarmament. The vast majority of users are young, ready to talk, and love to share/exchange information. And that is exactly what we need in the field of disarmament–an exchange of ideas–and an actual conversation. Rather than “educating” the “unenlightened,” we need to continue to ask difficult questions.

However, simply creating a Twitter or Facebook is not enough. As we’ve seen from our experience with DisarmDialogues, it is far too easy to engage with a small social circle of “insiders”–@Katherine–it’s easy to fall into the trap of tweeting for a few people. I’ve definitely seen this to be true during Arms Trade Treaty negotiations–there are a few “star” tweeters who actually care what the Fiji delegation has to say, and then there is the rest of the internet. We still need to figure out a way to engage with the rest of the internet.

That’s not to say DisarmDialogues hasn’t proved to be a useful tool for diplomats and NGOs, but I’d like to see even more engagement in the future. I think DisarmDialogues has the potential to be both a tool for diplomats/”insiders” as well as students (in particular, non-westerners), teachers, and just people, no matter what their professions. Disarmament is a somewhat exclusive club–there is certainly little transparency, and where there is transparency, there are not clear, reliable resources that are current.

Although posting on social media is often a task assigned to interns, it requires a lot of thought to write meaningful sentences in less than 140 characters. While links and facts are always appreciated, the success of DisarmDialogues will be contingent upon posting meaningful information. Hopefully, we will be able to continue the DisarmDialogues project through not just social media, but youth conferences and outreach. I can honestly say that as someone who is skeptical of A LOT of the work of the UN, I see DisarmDialogues as having a place in the future of disarmament.

-Jessica

PS I am forcing us to get Tumblr.

Tags: ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →