Looking Towards the ATT in 2012

17 Nov

As the First Committee of the General Assembly has come to a close, delegations appear ready, some enthusiastically and others more hesitatingly, to move towards the final negotiations. Whether this negotiating will be based on the most recent Chair’s Paper from Ambassador Moritan or not, it seems that member states are anticipating transition from the preparatory process to concrete Treaty text.  It is to be assumed that the very ambitious Chair’s Paper from July 14, 2011 will not be entirely replicated in the text, but it surely lays forth the existing proposals that will require honest and practical vetting over the three-week period of the Conference. Ambassdor Moritan’s presence at the First Committee enabled member states to hear, once more, the various proposals and divisions that still exist around the ATT underscoring the vast challenges that lie ahead. Ambassador Moritan is under no illusions regarding the complexity of the process as he noted the levels of ambition regarding the ATT are vastly different. The final PrepCom in February will be focused on the parameters and so-called rules of engagement for negotiations rather than a broad thematic discussion of scope and content specifics.

We continue to advocate for strong emphasis on diversion risks as this issue remains at the heart of curbing the illicit arms trade. Addressing this issue will require special attention to the practice of diverting arms from legitimate end users to non-state and unauthorized parties who may use such weapons for criminal, corrupt, and abusive purposes. It is often in this indirect, and sometimes unintentional on the part of governments, manner that the arms trade becomes a harmful practice. The strength of the language on this issue in the Treaty text is still undecided. As the Chair’s Paper from July 2011 noted, “A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would…” undermine peace and security in various forms such as to commit violations of international human rights law. One major question for advocates of a strong humanitarian instrument in the ATT is whether the words “shall not” will be changed to “should not,” which inherently alters this responsibility from obligation to suggestion.

This issue of diversion language is but one example of difficult work ahead. We submit that the first iteration of the Treaty may not be ideal for all states parties, but it is the responsibility of all negotiators to take into account that such a Treaty should function as a floor and not a ceiling for improving state arms transfer controls. Implementation of ATT language in national practice will be just as important as the text itself for without implementation the language is empty wording. Therefore, sufficient discussion next year must be focused on implementation support and corresponding structure. We also encourage delegations to put in place a sound review process that will allow for ATT negotiations to continue well passed 2012 such that the ATT can effectively respond to changing international security risks.

The overwhelming trend in conversation in this year’s Committee has been support for both the preparatory process and the leadership of Ambassador Moritan as well as the inarguable need for better regulation of the arms trade. Building on these consensus points, we are hopeful that next year’s conference will, in fact, yield an ATT that will improve the global arms trade process. The question of its robustness and expansiveness, however, remains unanswered.

For more information on the ATT, follow @DisarmDialogues, @controlarms, @TheIANSA, and @VinoThorsen on Twitter and follow the ATT blog featuring various contributors from different organizations working on this issue.

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , ,

Where are the Women Mentors in the Media?

16 Nov

As a young professional working in the field of ‘Women, Peace and Security,’ I continue to be surprised by the lack of mentors available to women and young girls and, in particular, the lack of media attention- at least among popular media outlets—focused on educating women and young girls on these issues in order to inspire a generation of active participants.

It has become obvious to me just how narrowly women are portrayed in popular media, from music videos to periodicals. These sources tend to focus their attention on body image issues or trying to instill an image of self-confidence, which in turn only works to make women more self-conscious about their appearance. While body image and self-confidence are important issues, there is not much attention on the barriers that affect women’s participation- where is the attention on the barriers that rural women face in accessing resources, education, employment? Where is the support for those women trying to have a voice at decision making tables? Where is the education for those trying to overcome the community stigma of having fought in combat? Where are the mechanisms for overcoming the cultural stigma that prohibits women’s participation in patriarchal societies? Thinking practically, we all face the same challenges. For example, domestic violence is an issue that affects all women, regardless of their ethnic or social backgrounds. The circulation of weapons and small arms that often leads to women as victims of gun violence is an issue of worldwide concern, yet you rarely see this covered in popular media. Accessibility issues, along with institutionalizing women’s participation at decision making tables, and the stories of how these women overcome such difficult circumstances, are not typically covered by the more popular periodicals.

Here at GAPW, we work to promote women’s full participation in social and political life and promote women as agents of change. Our work is solidified by the emphasis and promotion of women mentors who encourage and support women in their struggles of participation. But, this hard work becomes even harder without the support of the media. Media outlets are a viable source for showcasing mentors and inspiring adoption of a norm of ‘women as agents of change’ rather than strictly victims. The need for highlighting women mentors is necessary to educate future generations that to be a confident woman is not just about body image, but also about how to change and overcome the barriers that get in the way of full participation.

-Melina Lito

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The CCW4 and Cluster Munitions

15 Nov

Currently, in Geneva, diplomats are convening the 4th Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW4) Review Conference. The Convention, negotiated by 51 states in 1980, seeks to outlaw specific types of conventional weapons used in armed conflict to protect military personnel from inhumane injury as well as non-combatants from harm. When the treaty entered into force in 1983, it covered  incendiary weapons, mines and booby traps, and weapons designed to injury through very small fragments. In 2001, the Convention was voted to cover intrastate conflict as well as international ones under all its provisions. There are five protocols in force: (1) Non-detectable fragments, (2) Landmines, booby traps, and other devices, (3) Incendiary weapons, (4) Blinding lasers, and (5) Explosive remnants of war.  A related piece of international law, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), comprehensively bans the use of cluster munitions and was signed and ratified by 111 states.

The controversy now rests in the negotiations of a new protocol on cluster munitions for the CCW (Draft available here). Many advocates are concerned that this will severely undermine the ban under the CCM by providing cover for the future use of cluster munitions, which ultimately causes indiscriminate harm as well as the threat of explosion well beyond the end of the conflict in areas inhabited by civilians. Arms control advocates are arguing that this protocol will “provide a specific legal framework for their use.” The US and allies such as Israel, Brazil, India, and China, cite the ‘humanitarian’ provision in the protocol draft that bans the use of cluster munitions produced before 1980, although post-1980 munitions also cause indiscriminate harm to civilians and these older munitions would most likely have to be destroyed regardless of the protocol because of their age. The most recent use of cluster munitions reported in April 2011  used in civilian areas in Misurata by Qadaffi loyalists were contemporary weapons surely produced after 198o. The draft also allows for a deferral period of 12 years, which ultimately allows for use of weapons that will eventually be banned by the protocol.

As a back drop to adoption of a framework that allows for the use of cluster munitions is a larger normative problem: adoption of an instrument of international humanitarian law that is weaker than a previously (and generally accepted) adopted law. This is a dangerous undertaking that we hope the US and others will reconsider.

For up-to-date information on the negotiations, follow @marywareham, @banclusterbombs, and @nashthomas on Twitter.

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,

Arms to Syria: Fueling the Fire of Violence

14 Nov

On Saturday, the Arab League voted to suspend Syria’s membership revoking the country’s voting rights, while also seeking to impose sanctions. Furthermore, the UN has reported  more than 3,500 deaths since the protests against President Bashar al-Assad and his government began underscoring just how tense and precarious the situation remains. It is clear that violence is undoubtedly facilitated by the flow of weapons, which not only are used in the clashes among parties to the conflict, but also to intimidate and to create a culture of fear destabilizing communities and stymieing any chance for a peaceful resolution. The flow of arms is surely ‘adding fuel to the fire’ and is strikingly irresponsible behavior as the death toll rises with no sign of a negotiated end. Onlookers are increasingly frightened by these heightened tensions and the Assad government’s severe lack of willingness to negotiate.

The Russian Federation just announced its intentions to honor all arms contracts with Syria despite the continued government crackdown. Citing the lack of official restrictions (i.e. an arms embargo) against Syria, Russian officials have affirmed their commitment to uphold their ‘business transactions.’ Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, deputy head of Russia’s Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, warned against a repetition of the “Libyan scenario.” Dzirkaln also noted that the Russian government is keen to resume arms sales to Libya– both existing and prospective deals. However, it is clear that selling arms to a country in the midst of severe violence is much more than a business transaction and has ramifications far beyond an exchange of weaponry for a monetary price. Libya stands as a glaring and recent case in point. The proliferation of new arms and the unregulated flow of exisitng ones continue to wreak havoc on the political transition in Libya (see prior post “Controlling arms in the new Libya: The bigger picture.”) Many of the so-called anti-Qadaffi rebel groups have refused to disarm for fear of losing leverage and bargaining clout perpetuating the cycle of instability and fear of violence. Reports of missing weapons and unaccounted for ammunition stockpiles are a grim reality with which the new Libyan government must deal and a situation that is making a difficult situation even more grueling and intractable.

As a backdrop to continued arms sales to Syria, a political stalemate at the UN remains. There is certainly a hesitation, most notably on the Security Council from the Chinese, Russians, and South Africans, to re-create any situation resembling Libya in any form from military intervention, referral to the ICC, or even adoption of a resolution condemning the violence. Dissatisfaction with the implementation of Resolution 1973 has become the ‘elephant in the room’ in the Council chamber seemingly halting any action on Syria whatsoever.

The ambivalence to move forward on Syria is both glaringly apparent and dangerous. Exacerbating this ambivalence is the continual flow of weapons fueling violent outbreaks on the parts of both the government and the anti-Assad protesters. First and foremost, the violence must stop. And so does the proliferation of arms.

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , ,

Controlling arms in the new Libya: the bigger picture

10 Nov

As the dust tries to settle in the new Libya, loose arms left over is a major problem. With a future unclear and much internal competition, who wants to give them up? A level of progress has been made in some disarmament but the revolution created an explosion of guns, with many factions – including Al Qaeda affiliates – wanting to keep their weapons for now. Russia was quick off the mark drafting a Security Council Resolution calling on Libya and its neighbors to stamp out the proliferation of looted arms. With the resolution passing unanimously, the Council expressed concern over arms falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and others – with the main threats considered to be militant groups using man-portable surface-to-air missiles – or as we’d see on the news: shoulder-launched rockets. NATO had destroyed many weapons during its operations but officials remain unclear as to how many were still in circulation; in a confidential briefing, NATO revealed that it had lost track of some 10,000 missiles. With  a population of just 5.7 million, that’s a lot of loose missiles. Officials have argued that there is now a race to secure the weapons.

The UN argued that  mopping up weapons: small arms and light weapons will accelerate peacebuilding and peacemaking in the region. While the resolution will facilitate international cooperation, tracking and monitoring, it’s a long road ahead. This is clearly a big problem for the new government and the international community. With competing militias and Al Qaeda in the mix, it seems unlikely that Libya can return to normal anytime soon.

– Kees Keizer

Street Crud

10 Nov

Those of you in the New York area or with internet access are urged to check out the back cover of today’s Daily News.   The picture is of a riot scene in State College, PA after the dismissal of football coach Joe Paterno.

Part of our job at GAPW is to read the tea leaves, not only regarding diplomats but also the culture in which we act and that we seek to change in some fairly fundamental ways.

Those of you who have been following this case at all — and it has been hard to avoid in the US — understand how sordid this affair is.  The behavior is bad enough, but the focus on the ‘best interests’ of the university rather than of the abused kids is worse.  And now this.

What could these students possibly have been rioting about?   On harassment-obsessed campuses were they outraged that things like this could happen under their noses?

One could only wish that it were so.   The stronger evidence points to the triumph of celebrity over ethical conduct.   In an isolated, academically-mediocre town, Paterno and the football program represented the only ‘celebrity’ available.   Any peer inquiring about school choice and hearing ‘Penn State’ in response would default to the football program as the main motivation for matriculation.

In my adult life, the veil has been taken off universities.   They are businesses, pure and simple.  They develop careers, not character.  They make false promises to students who incur massive debt on a risky bet that future earnings will offset the pain.  They provide safe havens from life until students can be assured of lifestyles that will prove acceptable to themselves and their peers.

Paterno is a football coach.   He gave back to the school that made him rich.   He failed a simple moral test that endangered children’s lives.  Anyone rioting in ‘Happy Valley’ to mourn the loss of their local celebrity has more to mourn than they imagine.

Disarmament and the General Assembly’s high-level plenary session: who said what?

30 Sep

As usual, Reaching Critical Will has done a fabulous jobs of monitoring and tracking mentions of disarmament at the General Assembly’s 66th opening high-level plenary session. RCW’s index highlights the issues to be detailed during the Assembly’s First Committee, starting on 3 October.

SG Ban Ki-Moon‘s opening address spoke of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, for the international community “to keep pushing on disarmament and non-proliferation … [and to fulfill the dream of] a world free of nuclear weapons.”

1. Consequences of nuclear testing and conflict

It was saddening to hear from a few countries whose citizens had suffered greatly from nuclear testing and weaponry used on their territories. Laos and Lebanon still suffer from the impact of cluster munitions and explosives contamination – and urged the international community to do more. The Marshall Islands made it clear that fallout from nuclear testing on its territory is ongoing and that justice has been limited.

2. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and other treaties / conventions

Many states expressed a commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ultimate goal to eliminate nuclear weapons. A number of states expressed alarm over nuclear weapons programs in DPR Korea, Iran and Israel. Support was also shown for a number of other treaties and conventions: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. General opposition to Weapons of Mass Destruction and concern for nuclear terrorism was also expressed by many states. While Uruguay urged the international community to make the most of recent progress on nuclear disarmament talks and the Mauritius called the current political environment as ‘the best ever’, the Central African Republic suggested that the nuclear powers need to assume full responsibility. Key statements of action came from: Kazakhstan – as chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – will use the opportunity to focus on international and regional security, building Islamic-West relations and enhancing the regimes of non-proliferation of WMD; and Ireland who “will continue to push for the UN’s disarmament machinery to become more responsive to 21st century imperatives”. Australia, Poland and Austria expressed reservation about the lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament (with the latter suggesting the need for a new body).

3. Nuclear weapons-free zones (NWFZ) 

Brazil, Iraq and Palau made it clear that their constitutions disallow nuclear weapons, which in Iraq’s words is a ‘clear position’ and a demonstrates a ‘commitment’. Cambodia, Ukraine, Kygristan, Papua New Guinea, Uruguay and Kazakhstan all spoke about major achievements at their respective regional level nuclear-free status’s; Mongolia was adamant that its nuclear free status could serve as an “impetus” for expanding NWFZs. Egypt, Syria, Oman and the UAE expressed commitment to a Middle East NWFZ. More generally, Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam mentioned positive (Asia-Pacific and ASEAN) regional efforts aimed at disarmament and confidence building; and Taijkistan spoke about their efforts towards establishing a Landmine Free Central Asia.

4. Small arms and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

A number of Latin American and Caribbean countries highlighted the importance of combatting the small arms trade in the region where ‘criminal groups’: traffickers, narcotic gangs and others operate, making it “one of the most violent areas on earth” – in the words of Nicaragua‘s delegate. Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago, Peru, the Bahamas and Barbados spoke of the importance of the ATT, and backed up by Jamaica who is “committed to ensuring that the 2012 Diplomatic Conference on the ATT results in a legally binding, comprehensive, objective and transparent Treaty.” Others, notably Antigua and Barbuda, mentioned the significance of the CARICOM Declaration in the context of regional progress on combatting small arms. A number of African delegates were equally vocal concerning the small arms trade and the urgent need for ATT progress. Mali and Nigeria spoke of serious arms issues in their sub-regions; Niger suggested that further sub-regional efforts were required; Burundi spoke of national-led progress on disarming criminals; and Ghana considered the ATT as an “indispensable step [to prevent] the flow of conventional arms to destinations where they are likely to wreak havoc and mayhem by either fueling conflict and undermining both national and regional peace, security and development or exacerbating tensions.”

5. Militarization and Military Spending

Iran‘s leader spoke of other countries’ high military budgets, stockpiling of nuclear warheads, supporting chemical weaponry, and role in arms sales, bombing and occupation. In similar rhetoric Venezuela spoke about US militarization but also called for a “broad peace-based alliance against war: with the supreme aim of avoiding war at all costs.”  Many other states also raised the issue of high military spending, with some contrasting to a lack of human development spending: Montenegro called it ‘unjust’; Poland expressed concern over a new ‘arms race’, while Kazakhstan reiterated its initiative to redirect spending to a peacekeeping fund.

Many words were used to describe alternatives to militarism –  cooperation, dialogue, war prevention, mediation, diplomacy, multilateralism – which came from many different states. The Republic of Korea and China for example spoke for need for ongoing dialogue with DPR Korea; St. Vincent and the Grenadines suggested that the role of mediation should be a ‘firm resolution’ of the General Assembly.

Be sure to follow our work, and that of Reaching Critical Will,as these issues will be detailed in the General Assembly’s First Committee, starting on 3 October, 2011.

– Kees Keizer

Tags: , ,

First Committee

28 Sep

The First Committee on Disarmament and International Security of the UN General Assembly’s 66th session will begin on Monday, October 3rd. All member states will be invited to engage in general debate as well as thematic cluster conversations on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, conventional weapons, and disarmament machinery. Following these exchanges, member states are free to submit resolutions for consideration under all agenda items.

GAPW, along with our disarmament partners, will be contributing to the First Committee Monitor weekly digest of the committee’s work. Please see Reaching Critical Will for all back issues and further information.

Side events calendar

First Committee Monitor

Provisional programme of work

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsibility to Protect: the crucial gender dimension for lasting peace

24 Sep

So the UN’s R2P is heading in the right direction: no-one likes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. These highest-level crimes, or threat of, are lumped together as ‘Mass  Atrocity Crimes’ under R2P’s principles. First declared in 2005, R2P aims to make states accountable to protecting its own civilians – making sovereignty a responsibility. A breach of that responsibility will result in external intervention.  

As the debate rolls on, the R2P in its current form consists of three parts.

  1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocity crimes).
  2. If the State is unable to protect its population, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This includes building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, and mobilizing standby forces.
  3. If a State is clearly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have been exhausted, the international community has the responsibility to intervene: first diplomatically, then more coercively; and as a last resort, with military force.

Much work lies ahead. Largely missing from the R2P text is the gender dimension, which in its current form receives just two mentions. Strides towards gender equality and increased participation were made through UNSCR 1325 (2000) and the Beijing Platform for Action (2010). Bizarre as it may sound, while these documents outline obligations of the international community, governments and civil society to incorporate gender elements into policy making, they have been largely ignored by R2P.

Empowering women

The gender dimension of conflict is nothing new. Through Women’s Groups and other civil society community-based groups, women are often well-placed to sound the alarm in pre-conflict phrase. If R2P is serious about early warning and preventative action, they should take advantage of this phenomenon. During conflict, again, women play an important societal role and are often at the forefront of engagement and negotiations. Simultaneously, women are more vulnerable to civilian abuse (including rape), so gender sensitivity policies are even more urgent.

In the post-conflict phase women are often neglected, despite having often played an important mediation role. There are many areas where there is a need for greater participation of women:  in demobilization, disarmament, reintegration, justice and reconciliation, community policing, and other areas such as humanitarian relief, land reform, political and economic development. These are many examples for women to participate; the impact of such programs on the female population must be given full consideration by the international community. Or to put it another way, without a focus on gender parity (which includes voices, perspectives, gender equality and non-discrimination) in post-conflict reconstruction, lasting peace – for which R2P strives for – remains at risk.

Clearly, the international community needs to work harder on incorporating all relevant aspects of civilian protection into policy: the role of women (or lack of) could not be clearer.

– Kees Keizer

List of Speakers at UNGA Plenary 2011

21 Sep

This is the list of speakers for the GA Plenary Session, September 21, 2011

For the full text of speeches, please consult Reaching Critical Will. RCW has also prepared an ongoing monitoring tool of disarmament-related issues during the high-level plenary. See here.

  • 1. Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization: presentation by the
  • Secretary-General of his annual report (A/66/1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [110]
  • 2. Opening of the general debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [8]
  • 3. Address by Her Excellency Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil
  • 4. Address by His Excellency Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States of America
  • 5. Address by His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Amir of the State of Qatar
  • 6. Address by His Excellency Mr. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, President of the United Mexican States
  • 7. Address by His Excellency Mr. Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan
  • 8. Address by His Excellency Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic
  • 9. Address by Her Excellency Ms. Cristina Fernández, President of the Argentine Republic
  • 10. Address by His Excellency Mr. Michel Sleiman, President of the Lebanese Republic
  • 11. Address by His Excellency Mr. Lee Myung-bak, President of the Republic of Korea
  • 12. Address by His Excellency Mr. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President and Head of State of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
  • 13. Address by His Majesty King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein, Head of State of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
  • 14. Address by Her Excellency Ms. Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland
  • 15. Address by His Excellency Mr. Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, President of the Republic of Colombia
  • 16. Address by His Excellency Mr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, President and Commanderin-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
  • 17. Address by His Excellency Mr. Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of the Republic of Estonia
  • 18. Address by Her Excellency Ms. Micheline Calmy-Rey, President of the Swiss Confederation
  • 3 p.m. . . . . . . . . . . 12th plenary meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Assembly Hall
  • 1. Address by His Excellency Mr. Porfirio Lobo Sosa, President of the Republic of Honduras
  • 2. Address by His Excellency Mr. Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine
  • 3. Address by His Excellency Mr. Fernando Lugo Méndez, President of the Republic of Paraguay
  • 4. Address by His Excellency Mr. Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda
  • 5. Address by His Excellency Mr. Željko Komšić, Chair of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • 6. Address by His Excellency Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, President of the Republic of Guyana
  • 7. Address by His Excellency Mr. Elbegdorj Tsakhia, President of Mongolia
  • 8. Address by His Excellency Mr. Jacob Zuma, President of the Republic of South Africa
  • 9. Address by His Excellency Mr. Adris Bērziņš, President of the Republic of Latvia
  • 10. Address by His Excellency Mr. Álvaro Colom Caballeros, President of the Republic ofGuatemala
  • 11. Address by His Excellency Mr. Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal
  • 12. Address by His Excellency Mr. Armando Emilio Guebuza, President of the Republic ofMozambique
  • 13. Address by His Excellency Mr. Hâmid Karzai, President of the Islamic Republic ofAfghanistan
  • 14. Address by His Excellency Mr. Evo Morales Ayma, Constitutional President of thePlurinational State of Bolivia
  • 15. Address by His Excellency Mr. Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia
  • 16. Address by His Excellency Mr. Idriss Déby Itno, President and General of the Army of the Republic of Chad
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →