Nothing to lose: the CTBT and US ratification

20 Aug

In September last year we discussed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and made the ironic connection that despite nuclear weapon testing having largely ceased, key states remain reluctant to sign the treaty. Indonesia has since ratified. That now leaves eight Annex Two states to ratify for the treaty to come into force.

So how about the US?

The US signed the CTBT in 1996 but was rejected by the senate three years later so has never been ratified. Back then, reservations were about US nuclear reliability (the potential need for future testing) and the difficulty of verification (how to ensure that other states abide by the treaty).

Since then, major strides have been made at both domestic and international level so these reservations can now safely be put aside. The National Research Council and the Stockpile Steward Program conclude that new technological capacity has advanced so far that physical testing is now unnecessary. Global monitoring for verification is also sufficient: with over 330 monitoring facilities having been brought together under the CTBTO umbrella. Sixty-one of these detected North Korea’s 1996 underground test.

Now without any excuse the US should go ahead and ratify the long overdue treaty. President Obama had ratification on the agenda early in his administration (during his famous Prague speech) but this was not realized. Many now believe that an Obama second term could see CTBT ratification returned to the agenda. A Romney administration could and should and could also pursue this.

The US would be placed in a better position should the treaty come into force, as global nuclear monitoring has the potential to become very powerful. And just to top things off, the US has not physically tested any nuclear weapon since 1992. There’s nothing to lose.

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , ,

“Caravan for Peace and Justice”- Profile of Activist Javier Sicilia

16 Aug

Global Action’s Media Consultant, Lia Petridis Maiello, has been busy undertaking a series of interviews for a forthcoming publication on the UN media structure and its functioning in the wider UN system. Lia recently interviewed Mexican political activist Javier Sicilia and his work on raising awareness around the drug war in Mexico. Javier is leading a “Caravan for Peace and Justice” across the continental US this summer and championing the “shared responsibility” of all in combating this dangerous trade.

For the full profile of Javier, please click here.

For more information on matching:points, our media project, please see our website.

Tags: , , , ,

Second Review Conference: Reviewing, Strengthening, and Energizing the PoA on small arms

15 Aug

As member states gather for the second Review Conference for the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA), a potentially contentious policy gap remains between those who emphasize only the implementation of the PoA and those who seek to strengthen the instrument itself. During the first Review Conference (Rev Con) in 2006, the PoA came close to collapse as divisions surfaced between those states wanting to expand its scope to include provisions on ammunition, civilian possession, and a prohibition on transfers to non-state actors and those that wished only to focus on implementation of the existing measures adopted in 2001. Concern that the PoA process would be permanently damaged was fortunately unfounded, although much of the attention devoted to the PoA was subsequently diverted to the arms trade treaty (ATT) process. The PoA process did received a welcome infusion of robustness following the successful (and first of its kind) 2011 Meeting of Governmental Experts (MGE) under the leadership of Ambassador McLay of New Zealand when practical and technical discussions were held regarding the PoA and the corresponding International Tracing Instrument (ITI).  However, after a busy summer for First Committee experts with the conclusion (without agreement on a consensus Treaty document ) of the ATT negotiating conference just a few weeks back, there is now legitimate worry that the PoA will not receive the attention it deserves during this Rev Con.

As previously expressed, member states have extensively debated whether the Rev Con mandate, in addition to a “review,” should include “strengthening” (through expansion, legal status, or amendment) of the PoA. This disagreement is not semantic in nature. It is a critical distinction that will affect both member states’ approach to the Rev Con and the future of the PoA framework. Methods of strengthening national implementation measures must be identified and pursued at this Rev Con. Therefore, it would be wise to avoid highly divisive debates regarding expansion of the scope and nature of the PoA (i.e. discussion over its non-legally-binding status) and focus instead on highly important and practical implementation issues such as stockpile management, proper disposal and storage of surplus arms, the role of peacekeepers and DDR programmes in SALW management, the responsibilities of national contact points, and the possibility of institutionalizing technical meetings such as MGEs. In this case, functionality should trump legality, at least for the moment.

Despite the arguable “overshadowing” of the PoA process by the ATT, preparations for this Rev Con have been moderately successful. The March 2012 Preparatory Committee for the Rev Con yielded a factual and procedural report, although a more substantive Chair’s summary under the authorship of Ambassador Ogwu of Nigeria was also produced. The summary laid forth views expressed by member states during the week according to the structure of the PoA itself—measures to combat illicit trade at the national, regional, and international levels; international cooperation and assistance; follow-up mechanisms to the Review Conference; and review of the ITI. The summary was not a consensus document, but did its best to summarize member states’ views and recommendations on which elements would serve as a basis for the discussion during this Rev Con.

As the two-week Rev Con gets underway, the PoA’s importance must not be underestimated. While the lion’s share of attention this year has been paid to the ATT process, the PoA is an instrument with tremendous potential to directly and practically address the dire consequences related to the illicit trade in SALWs and, perhaps most notably, to dry up existing stockpiles of weapons already in circulation. This was an issue all too clear in the aftermath of the Libyan revolution when weapons went unaccounted for and stockpiles were pillaged by rebel groups after the fall of Qadaffi. Member states must take advantage of the Rev Con both to honestly assess existing efforts to curb illicit small arms and to robustly and comprehensively tackle the proliferation of looted arms and lack of adequate stockpile management.

The real challenge of the PoA is to fully implement the benchmarks laid forth in the instrument in all national contexts.  The division of provisions among the national, regional, and global level is a helpful format and allows states to thoroughly address the responsibilities at all levels for implementation of the PoA and ITI. Moreover, the proposal to address the schedule of future meetings is an important contribution to the long-term success of the framework. For example, modification of biennial meetings of states into biennial meetings of governmental experts who are directly responsible for national implementation of the PoA would be significantly beneficial to fulfilling a host of PoA-related responsibilities.

It is clear that full implementation of the PoA requires continuous review with an eye towards strengthening national implementation of its measures. Many, if not all, of the challenges associated with full implementation—border control mechanisms, technical information exchange, marking and tracing expertise—require international efforts and cooperation. Therefore, this Rev Con, as well as future meetings of states, must provide for a transparent and honest exchange of information regarding implementation and how to best combat the deadly consequences of illicit trade in SALWs. There is little argument that the PoA’s provisions, if adopted according to national needs and flexible with regard to new challenges, can and will prevent illicit flows of SALWs and thus eliminate the dire consequences of these flows for international peace and security.

 

–Katherine Prizeman

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Discussing New Media at International Day of the World’s Indigenous People

14 Aug

On 9 August 2012, the annual conference commemorating the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples was held in the ECOSOC chamber at the United Nations. This year’s conference was focused specifically on new media efforts. Representatives from indigenous groups discussed projects they had created to disseminate information, while UN officials offered brief comments on those projects.

Unfortunately, at times, it seemed as though the event was something of a formality from the UN perspective. The Secretary General’s very short opening comments, which received respectful applause, appreciated all the progress that indigenous communities have achieved thus far using new media. It did not contain specific recommendations moving forward or comment extensively on the international community’s role in addressing the needs of indigenous people.

The many achievements that the Secretary General alluded to were elaborated on throughout the day. Speakers included founders of internet news coalitions, Native American TV stations, video productions about local initiatives, a hip hop artist, and many radio stations from all over the world. A full list of speakers can be found here.

Still, along with celebrating progress, and showing many video clips to exemplify that progress, the indigenous speakers had some major criticisms of UN policy. This disapproval rose to the surface in the question and answer period. Many called for more international funding and support for the new media projects that were being celebrated. Other questioners criticized the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People for “having no teeth,” for implicitly claiming that indigenous people had lost their sovereignty, and for not acknowledging that it lacked a mechanism by which indigenous communities could regain political control. Finally, one questioner from West Papua asked the UN why it had taken no notice of the massive human rights violations in his reg.

Ultimately, the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples was a successful afternoon. It’s likely that the most important result of the session will be the networking opportunities it created. After almost every question, a panelist or fellow attendee would note that they should connect to the speaker after the event. In fact, the introductions and mingling began even before the session ended during the closing remarks. In a room where strangers rarely chat, this level of communication was a sight to see.

In his opening statement, Grand Chief Edward John (Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) was clear that in discussing new media, communication, stories, and languages were all at stake. One indigenous language, he told the attendants, dies every week. He highlighted the important role that the media can play in telling stories. Everyone was in agreement that mainstream media sources in their respective countries had failed to communicate properly due to corruption and negligence. Through alternate new media forms, indigenous people all around the world have ironically made productive steps balancing immensely varying pasts. It’s a step in the right direction for indigenous communication that the UN is very right to celebrate. One can only hope that UN officials listened to everything that was communicated in the ECOSOC chamber.

–Henry Neuwirth

Tags: , , , ,

ECOSOC Discusses the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

10 Aug

For those who followed the discussions of the 56th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) on the theme of “The Empowerment of Rural Women and their Role in Poverty and Hunger Eradication, Development and Current Challenges,”it was disappointing to see that there were no agreed recommendations. It was disappointing not only for the process, but also for what the lack of agreement says about the importance of the issues of rural women. CSW is part of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and is a global policy-making body focused on gender equality and the advancement of women. Annual meetings are held during which member states evaluate progress and establish global standards on these issues.

At the recent ECOSOC session, after a statement made by Ambassador Kamara of the Republic of Liberia who chaired the 56th session of CSW, member states discussed the progress that has been made with regard to mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programs in the UN system. While many applauded the creation of UN Women and the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), states were nevertheless frustrated about missed opportunities and felt that much more work needed to be done to advance women’s rights. Mexico, El Salvador, the United States, Belarus, Israel, Australia, Indonesia, Argentina, and Japan all mentioned that the inability to reach consensus on rural women at the 56th session was disappointing. Some states indicated that working methods should be reevaluated. Many highlighted forms of gender-based violence and discrimination that they believed should be focus points moving forward.

Nonetheless, the discussion at the most recent ECOSOC session did not just focus on the CSW; a few draft resolutions were also passed but only one of these – Situation of and Assistance to Palestinian Women – was contested. The United States shared its commitment to support women in Palestine and improving the humanitarian situation, but also expressed concerns over how the situation in Gaza and the role of Hamas can be a barrier to women’s fundamental rights. Finally, the US was not satisfied with the status of the text and encouraged ECOSOC to look at mutual goals. Israel and Canada agreed that politicizing the situation of Palestinian women was not justified and reminded the Council of the many human rights violations attributed to Hamas. These states asserted that an ethical draft would have focused on supporting Palestinian women, and would have been written primarily to address the challenges they face. Palestine reiterated that Israeli occupation is a major difficulty for Palestinian women and girls. The draft passed with 30 votes in favor, 2 opposed, and 18 abstentions. By adopting the resolution, the Council encouraged the international community to take special note of the human rights of Palestinian women and girls and to increase measures to help these women and girls in the challenges they face.

Overall, while discussions on the advancement of women are always welcomed and there can never be too many, we hope that more issues will get on the ECOSOC agenda that are complementary to other issues in the UN system, especially as the 57th session of the CSW approaches with the theme of “Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls.”

–Melina Lito and Henry Neuwirth

Tags: , , , ,

The Question of Palestine: Divisions at the Top and Human Insecurity at the Bottom

31 Jul

The Security Council (SC) debated on 25 July 2012 whether or not Palestine could become a Member State of the United Nations in a debate entitled “The Question of Palestine.” Yet, the standard rhetoric clouded the issue and buried it within the ongoing Israel-Palestine and Israel-Arab world divides. Several other divides also surfaced stemming from historic occurrences, present actions and current ongoing conflicts that continue to produce gaps and stall peace negotiations. These divisions reveal the underlying fundamental issue: the divide between State security and human security and the disconnect that exists between high-level officials and the human perspective.

When discussing Israel and Palestine the underlying systemic issues dividing the Middle East and the international community surface. The continual divide between Israel and the Arab world; Iran’s alleged enrichment of nuclear weapons; and the Syrian Conflict – a subject within which there are multiple high-level divides – collectively clouded the focal issue on Wednesday and continue to form the broader backdrop against which the Palestine-Israel issue is framed.

The topic of peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel has been ongoing since 1967. A stalemate in negotiations between Palestine and Israel has endured since 2010. The “Question” of Palestine has been reviewed several times at Security Council meetings. Israel refused to attend the last Council meeting fearing it would only result in countries ganging-up on them from multiple sides. This was the reality at the 25 July 2012 meeting.

The meeting began with Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. Serry expressed that a continued stall in peace negotiations is perilous and an effort to restart direct talks between Israel and Palestine is critical. The “worrying issues on the ground” make this timing of the utmost importance. A Two-State agreement is vital to reaching peace and security in the region and on a global scale.

The stalemate in the peace process between Palestine and Israel is based on four main issues: Israel’s continued construction and encroachment of settlements, destruction of agricultural and orchard lands, violations of multiple international laws and the six year blockade in Gaza; the internal divides that exist within Palestine stemming from the ousting of Fatah from Gaza by Hamas in 2001,resulting in tensions  between the Hamas-lead government under Ismail Haniya and the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas; the pre-1967 boundaries; and a diminished or nonexistent level of trust due to enduring violence and conflicts as well as terrorist attacks in the region.

The Palestinians, as well as Egypt, Qatar, Iran, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Tunisia and Syria agreed that Palestinians were specifically targeted for war crimes and ethnic cleansing through the use of “demographic change via geographical expansions” and that it represents a “collective punishment” by the “colonizers.”

The majority of the SC, including four of the P-5 (excluding the United States), agreed that Israel’s illegal settlements as well as the blockade erected in 2004 were the main cause of the stalled peace negotiations, with Iran specifically stressing that Israel should immediately return all of its occupied territories – meaning their past military occupations of lands within Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

The U.S. delegate stressed that “unilateral decisions were contrary to reaching a two-State agreement,” which is essential to the end goal of creating an “independent Palestinian State living in peace and security alongside a Jewish democratic State.” The U.S. also did not support expansions of outposts. In response, Russia specifically suggested that the U.S. has been supporting Israel’s expansions– an accusation based on the U.S. veto of the 2011 UN Resolution which was to declare Israeli settlements illegal.

Israel was further accused of detaining multiple Palestinians illegally – many of which are children and not allowing visits from Palestinian families. Only recently was one visit allowed. Reports of continued hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners continue and allegations of torture ensued at the meeting. This is a grave and sensitive issue which fuels anger on the Palestinian side and further increases human and State insecurity in the region.

Palestine was blamed – mostly by Israel for engaging in, supporting and continuing acts of violence.  Israel blamed Hamas for carrying out continued terrorist attacks on Israeli soil and accused them of engaging in rocket launches. The majority of speakers at the meeting condemned such actions. All states at the meeting stated they condemned any and all acts of terrorism.

Israel also blamed Iran for supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and specifically accused them of the attacks in Bulgaria. Accusations significantly escalated between Iran and Israel, with Iran later accusing Israel of targeting and killing its own citizens in order to blame and frame Iran. Further, Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment was raised and continues to trump the Palestine “Question” yet it is directly linked to the high-level divisions which exist on both topics – creating national, international and intra-national divides.

A majority of States blamed the SC, the Quartet and the international community for continually failing to find a solution to resolve the issues in Palestine and Israel.

Amidst all the finger pointing, disagreement and accusations, the actual purpose of the meeting was buried. Many States did not address the “Question,” whether or not they supported the Palestinian application for Statehood. The meeting merely demonstrated continued stalemates at the top levels. It illustrated the inability of high-level officials to properly address on-the-ground issues and reach any sort of standing resolution that will bring peace to a region that has been in the midst of conflict for decades.  While the top remains divided, human suffering and insecurity on the ground endure.  A connection between State and human security is missing.

For more analysis on the debate, as well as a reflection on the need for a “bottom-up” approach to the conflict, please click here.

— Cara Lacey

Tags: , , , ,

Women’s Participation at CEDAW’s 52nd Session

30 Jul

As we noted in previous blog posts, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (hereinafter “Committee”) celebrated its 30th anniversary with a public event on women’s political participation. Political participation is highlighted in Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereinafter “Convention”) which calls on all states parties to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of women in public and political life, and ensure for their right to vote, to participate in government policy formulation, to run and hold public office, and to perform at all governmental levels.

As such, in its review of states parties in the 52nd session, the Committee discussed with the delegations the status of women’s political participation, looking not only at participation within the national political systems, but also focusing on diplomatic services. Below, we highlight some of the discussion that has taken place on this topic, as the Committee reviewed Jamaica, New Zealand, and Samoa. Overall with this issue, as well as most of the articles examined by the Committee, the focus was not only on enacting the right legislation, but also in ensuring that such legislation is implemented and a culture of participation is promoted. Women’s rights are not automatically ensured if they are translated into appropriate legislature; there must also be room within society for them to exercise those rights.  

For Jamaica, the Committee’s attention was on women’s participation in politics and emphasis was placed on political violence as a deterrent to participation in this context and the need for programs that increase awareness. Jamaica noted the difficulties of participation when the focus of political parties was mostly on winning elections, but noted efforts that need to be taken to ensure for the tools necessary to address this issue through providing financial support and support to women’s organizations that promote the advancement of women.

For New Zealand, the focus was on ensuring that adequate training is available to promote a culture of participation. The New Zealand delegation recognized as one of its challenges the need to engage more women as representatives and noted current measures undertaken, such as training available in the rural areas to promote participation as well as efforts undertaken by political parties. The delegation acknowledged that more could be done to build confidence and encourage participation.

For Samoa, the delegation discussed the proposed amendment to allow a minimum number of seats for women to participate in politics, which is a significant step for the government of Samoa.  The Committee focused its attention on the impact that Matai titles have on women’s participation; according to the national Constitution, women must obtain Matai titles before being candidates in elections, but there are barriers with accessibility to those titles and, more generally, with women coming forward to participate in politics.   

Overall, throughout the session, the Committee was focused on addressing its concerns towards the states parties, as it pertains to their obligations under the Convention. With the 52nd session now complete, attention and preparation shifts to the 53rd session to be held in Geneva in 1 October – 19 October 2012. As we move forward we also take note of the General Recommendations on the Committee’s agenda, such as access to justice and women’s rights in conflict and post-conflict. GAPW will be monitoring the development of the General Recommendations and will be reporting updates accordingly. 

–          Melina Lito

The ATT: Moving on and moving forward

30 Jul

As the mandate for the arms trade treaty (ATT) Diplomatic Conference expired on Friday afternoon, delegates and civil society alike were disappointed at the failure to adopt a treaty after four weeks of negotiations and, perhaps more importantly, the inability to address the lack of internationally-adopted common standards for the unregulated trade in conventional arms. The President’s draft treaty text was adopted as an annex to the Report of the Conference, although there was no clear indication of how that text would be treated in the future either in the General Assembly (GA) First Committee in October or elsewhere. While many delegations expressed regret over the lack of a consensus document, there was general agreement that the process is not over. In a statement to the plenary delivered by Mexico, a group of 90 countries expressed the desire to bring the current text to the GA First Committee to “finalize our work” to achieve “a strong and robust Treaty.” The Nigerian delegation explicitly called for a new mandate from the GA to complete the work of the ATT on the basis of the President’s most recent draft text with further consultations. The delegations of Germany, CARICOM, and Spain called for an ATT to be adopted “in the near future,” while others, including Peru, said there was “near unanimity.”

While this large majority of delegations is correct and commendable in their desire to continue to identify a way forward to achieve the still elusive goal of an ATT, it is difficult to imagine how, even with more consultations, the present text would become more robust or that member states would be able to reach “unanimity” on the major issues still left unresolved. After four weeks of hard work and difficult, political wrangling, there is much to be disappointed over.

The President’s most recent draft text still has significant loopholes and is far from the robust ATT that was aspired to by many delegates and civil society advocates—ammunition and munitions are lacking in the core items listed in the scope; the implementation measures provide for a superseding of the criteria by the vague references to “other instruments” and “contractual obligations under defence cooperation agreements;” records of authorizations do not need to be made public; and amendments can only be adopted through consensus leaving very little flexibility for substantive future changes in the Treaty. The language pertaining to criteria is particularly weak given the structure of the ATT as it will be driven primarily by national implementation responsibilities (and thus biases related to national interest). Diversion remains a “secondary” consideration in paragraph 6.4 (national assessment) requiring that states only “consider taking feasible measures” to avoid it. These are not insignificant weaknesses, but rather, compromise the Treaty and its ability to combat and eradicate the illicit and irresponsible trade in arms in a consistent, universal, and legally-binding manner.

Although the particulars of the text could certainly continue to be debated, the question now becomes how to proceed with the process writ large. Although the overwhelming majority of member states have made apparent their intention to continue the ATT process, the specific path forward (and on what basis) does not enjoy the same clarity. The most obvious option would be to bring the draft treaty to the First Committee in October and request another mandate to continue work through a new Diplomatic Conference. This is a position that, although not detailed explicitly on Friday afternoon, would seem to garner significant support among delegations given the commentary in the room. The French delegation noted that states “should not start from zero,” which would indicate support for using the draft text as the base forward.  Likewise the Chinese, Moroccan, and UK delegations called the President’s text “a good basis for future negotiations.”

As member states prepare to bring the ATT to the GA this fall, and they must at the very least report back to the body on the progress made, it is important to remember that the rule of consensus, and ultimately the de facto veto power of each member state, will not necessarily apply to future negotiations. As such, the majority of member states that have called for an ATT with stronger provisions than the ones found in the President’s text (presumably more than the 2/3 majority required for adoption of resolutions in the GA), should propose a text that encompasses more of the provisions that these member states have fought for throughout the negotiations, most notably inclusion of ammunition and munitions in the scope and clear, legally-binding criteria for national risk assessment. The group of 90 states on Friday noted, “Compromises have had to be made, but overall the text you [the President] put forward yesterday has the overwhelming support of the international community as a base for carrying forward our work.” Ultimately, if the rules of procedure change, then so should the Treaty such that these compromises be re-evaluated if they only apply to a few select states and a new, stronger text should be presented.

The goal of a universal, legally-binding treaty for the trade in conventional arms was and remains a noble one. A global ATT would certainly serve as a complement to already-existing, but mostly non-binding, agreements such as the UN Programme of Action on small arms, as well as future instruments seeking to contribute to the strengthening of the UN’s multilateral security framework.  As the next “phase” of this process begins, delegates and civil society should seize the opportunity to adopt a Treaty that can make a robust contribution such a framework.

More analysis and reporting from the month-long negotiations can be found here on Reaching Critical Will with the previous editions of the daily ATT Monitor.

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , ,

CEDAW Reviews: Mexico

26 Jul

The 30th anniversary of the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) continued on 17 July 2012with a review of Mexico. The delegation from Mexico discussed the Committee’s questions about the government’s approach towards addressing different forms of discrimination and violence, which continue in many parts of the country.

In its introductory remarks, Mexico focused on recent initiatives taken to incorporate a gender perspective in all three branches of its government. Despite steady improvement, such as new health insurance policies and lower dropout rates for girls in secondary education, many challenges remain. Mexico concluded its remarks with a list of challenges it sought to address: strengthening law enforcement, efficient coordination of actors and resources, criminalizing femicide and applying protocols in a timely measure, creating a model for violence against women with an inter-cultural perspective (especially for indigenous citizens), creation of a federal labor law that provides equality between men and women, prohibition of harassment, workers rights, time schedules, constructing better telecommunication, obtaining greater sanctions for established legal violations, and improving legal representation for women.

During the discussion, CEDAW drew on many of these challenges. However, many of the main concerns related to federalism. Mexico’s thirty-one states have wide-ranging legal structures and CEDAW stressed that all local discriminatory legal policies in these states must be eliminated. Moreover, CEDAW made clear that regional implementation of the Convention was a national responsibility, not a state one. These concerns over localized discriminatory practices were similar to those expressed in the Committee’s recent review of Indonesia.

Furthermore, the Committee focused most of its attention on femicide, abduction of women, disappearances of women, and the killings and abuses of human-rights activists and journalists, as discriminatory practices. While Mexico spoke about national initiatives regarding femicide, CEDAW noted that mere enactment of laws was not enough, and more could be done to ensure for their implementation.

Moreover, distrust of the police force was a structural problem that was identified by the Committee. While Mexico recognized this problem, it also highlighted steps it is taking to address it, including the creation of systems to detain unlawful police officers, the training of police officers with a gender perspective, and the formation of a force to specialize in finding disappeared persons.

Finally, Mexico discussed the counseling services available to women in situations of violence. There are 284 support services around the country and they have served over 40,000 women since their creation. Mexico stated that its goal was to reach 100,000 women through these psycho-emotional support systems.

Overall, Mexico was the first state party report that went beyond the time period usually allocated for these reviews.  The head of the delegation was on point and reminded the delegation numerous times to answer the questions and not focus as much on background information that had already been submitted to CEDAW. Ultimately, Mexico was the state party review thus far that represented a conversation between the Committee and the delegation.  Considering the many challenges Mexico has to address, it is hopeful to see the positive attitude between the delegation and the Committee.

–          Henry Neuwirth

CEDAW Reviews: Bulgaria

17 Jul

As noted in previous blog posts, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  But, as Mr. Stephan Tafrov, Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the UN, noted in his introductory remarks to the Committee, it also marks the 30th anniversary since Bulgaria ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (hereafter “Convention”).

Bulgaria briefed the Committee on the status of the Convention’s implementation in the country, noting that according to its national constitution, international treaties entered into by Bulgaria, and that are promulgated in accordance with the necessary procedures, become part of domestic law and prevail when a conflict of laws exists. In general, Bulgaria has made many efforts to implement the Convention since its last report in 1998 and has established many structures to ensure the protection of gender rights. Laws have been enacted to protect against discrimination, to promote equal treatment and equality for all, and to prevent domestic violence and trafficking in persons. Special measures have also been taken to protect the rights of Roma women, including a national strategy plan specifically on the elimination of discrimination against this minority group

The discussion with Committee members focused on a wide range of issues, but particularly noteworthy was the discussion on the status of the Convention, use of stereotypes, and women’s participation in diplomacy.  Regarding status of the Convention, the Committee recommended that while the original 1979 text of the Convention, is important, the general recommendations that have been enacted throughout the years are also significant.

The traditional role of women in Bulgarian society and the issue of stereotypes, in particular women as familial caretakers, were discussed.  The Committee focused on the need to address the root causes of discrimination that frame such stereotypes. Bulgaria has undertaken efforts to survey stereotypes in education programs, reviewing textbooks and teaching materials to ensure that advancements on gender equality are highlighted in such educational materials.  

Lastly, on women’s participation in diplomacy, the Committee examined the need to ensure that any obstacles faced by women in accessing such diplomatic posts, as well as obstacles in ensuring equal access and opportunities, be identified and addressed. Bulgaria noted women’s representation in the current Parliament and ruling party. Nevertheless, the Bulgarian delegation also acknowledged the need for improvement in increasing women’s role in diplomacy.      

Overall, Committee members, especially those from Romania, Slovenia, and Croatia, were particularly vocal on these issues. It was particularly interesting to see the insistence on pursuing these issues, especially as responses were not necessarily always on the points raised. Nevertheless, the Bulgarian case study shows once more the determination of the Committee to get answers to its questions as well as to highlight areas where more progress is needed, not only as it pertains to enacted legislation but also to its implementation.   

–          Melina Lito 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →