gapwblog

We were privileged yesterday to be joined by Kiyoshi Murakami (Goodwill Ambassador and representative of Aid TAKATA) who explained to us the  rebuilding efforts in his city of Rekuzentakata in Japan’s Northeast. Rikuzentakata was among the most violently hit during the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Approximately 10 percent of its 24,000 residents were killed, including one third of its city officials as its downtown turned to rubble.

Ambasssdor Kiyoshi highlighted the redevelopment plans. The city has a 10 year plan with a vision to increase its population to 100,000. The “Model City” is to be built on strong infrastructure to resist natural disasters and is ecology-oriented centered on sustainable energy. The idea is to utilize its local industry to create value added products and to create attractive employment opportunities for the diversified population.

This a certainly a forward thinking vision for a city whose population has suffered enormously. Hearing about this scenario first hand from Ambasssdor Kiyosh, who has been in the center of the efforts, was a great opportunity.

To find out more about the project, such as the contributions of external assistance and the diverse work of Aid TAKAKA in the city, see the attached powerpoint:          Tsunami Report City of Rikuzentakata: Aid TAKATA

This event was jointly run by GAPW and Soka Gakkai International

– Kees Keizer

A passionate plea for the reevaluation of Palestine’s political status quo, including a possibility of a UN recognition of statehood, was delivered this week at the United Nation’s Church Center. A panel with Professor Rashid Kahlidi of Columbia University and Professor of Law Karima Bennoune of Rutgers University reflected on the Palestinian leadership’s decision to take their case of statehood to the UN General Assembly on 23rd of September. The panel discussion was co-sponsored by the Global Policy Forum and the NGO Working Group on Israel-Palestine.

Dr. Khalidi is the 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. His academic work has been focused on national identities in the Middle East and the impact of external powers on development.

His remarks on Monday not only demonstrated the urge to readdress the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to also transfer it back to an international platform, namely the United Nations, and therefore seek a multilateral channel to bring peace to the region. Dr. Khalidi criticized the imbalanced role the United States, as a super power, was playing since the Madrid Conference in 1991 and the consequential Oslo Accords.

The Madrid Conference convened on October 30, 1991 and lasted for three days. The international community attempted early on to initiate a peace process through negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians and other Arab nations, such as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The conference was hosted by the government of Spain, as well as the USA and the USSR. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was not invited.

At the time, US President George H.W. Bush formulated the framework of objectives and extended a letter of invitation in cooperation with the Soviet Union. The Madrid Conference was followed by secret negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel that led to the Oslo Accords in September of 1993, which conveyed a set of mutually agreed-upon general principles that guaranteed a five year interim period of Palestinian self-rule. A number of so-called “permanent status-issues”, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors,  were deferred to later negotiations.

The Accords ensured the creation of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which was to administer the territory under its control. The Accords also obliged the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to partially withdraw from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The agreements came under fire for not taking into consideration the impact of outside factors caused by the ongoing hostile relations between Palestinians and Israelis. The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and the ongoing Israeli settlements have fundamentally shaken trust on both sides. The incident took place in February 1994 and is a terrorist attack executed by Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli settler and supporter of the far-right Israeli Kach movement, who shot unarmed Palestinian Muslims praying inside the Mosque of Abraham at the Cave of the Patriarchs site in Hebron.

“Rather than international resolutions being the basis for the proposed settlements, the US clearly imposed their rules,” Khalidi explained during the panel. Hence the implemented policies after 1991 were, from Khalidis viewpoint, “debates for the continuation of the Palestinian occupation, not the peaceful solution to the conflict.”

The ongoing, global discussion leading up to the 66th General Assembly, and the very likely claim by President Mahmoud Abbas for Palestinian statehood, has been out of proportion in the eyes of many. “Much too much has been made out of this issue”, Khalidi explains, “This will not lead to the liberation of Palestine.”

Khalidi also referred to the planned cut in US Congressional funds for the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a troublesome side effect of the request for Palestinian statehood. Although Mahmoud Abbas seems to take the realist road: “Of course it’s a problem!” he was recently quoted by Time magazine, adding: “PA coffers are already empty as Middle Eastern states preoccupied with the Arab Spring lag on promised contributions.” Coming up short is, according to Abbas, nothing new for the Palestinian people.

If anything, Khalidi gave the impression that he values Abbas’ plan as a sincerely brave move as a sort of contemporary uproar in the spirit of David against Goliath taking into account the dramatic shift in power that is impacting world policy due to the slow but steady “economic regression” of the US and the rise of countries such as Brazil, India, South Africa or Turkey. “The US is facing much more mobilized public opinion in the Arab world today. Countries like Egypt and Turkey and the weight of their political decisions cannot be ignored any longer”, Kahlidi finished his statement.

Following Khalidi’s remarks, Professor Karima Bennoune of Rutgers Law School delivered the legal parameters of the Palestinian Authority according to the Montevideo Convention of 1933. As outlined in the Convention, the determining factors to claim statehood are:

A permanent population

A defined territory

Government

The capacity to enter into relations with other states

Bennoune appealed to the recent work of John Quigley, The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict. Quigley himself wrote a chapter on “Montevideo meets Reality” and reassesses the effective implementation of the framework by explaining, ”The Montevideo criteria are said to provide those standards, but even if they are relevant to Palestine under occupation, they have not, in fact, been applied rigorously by the international community in making determinations about statehood. (…) Entities that lack substantial control over their own affairs have been accepted as states. Ukraine and Belorussia during the Soviet period are two often-noted examples.” Supporting Quigley’s argument, Bennoune stated that the “danger of getting lost in the formalities of International Law” could significantly hinder progress to achieving peace in the region.

Bennoune deemed the expected US veto in the Security Council regarding Palestinian statehood “distressing because the status quo is unmaintainable.” She also warned of unpredictable, political consequences in the Palestinian areas and reminded the audience of the tragic consequences the Israeli West Bank barrier constitutes for the Palestinian people. “The Wall is easy to underestimate in terms of the impact it has on human rights.”

Considering the ongoing political and diplomatic heat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has created globally, and the incomprehensible suffering it has caused on both sides, a longing for settlement is understandable. Obviously it has to be a settlement that is just and creates equal peace and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis.

The urge to receive attention on the international stage for the Palestinian cause is understandable, as much as the fear that unilateral action on behalf of the PA may lead to new conflict. Maybe now is not the point in time to lose sight of bilateral negotiations with Israel, but rather to follow a step by step solution and by doing so achieve an even higher level of international credibility as a state.

Instead of provoking a very possible escalation at the Security Council, because the veto by the US-government regarding Palestinian statehood seems inevitable, why not upgrade from an observer entity to a non-member state, such as the Holy See? No Security Council hearing is needed and it would open the door for the PA to level charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) – as it would give Israel the chance to counter sue the Palestinians in the ICC over missiles fired from Gaza. The last word would be in any case with the ICC, because the court itself has very strict rules of procedure governing the admissibility of cases.

“Referrals must be of situations, not specific cases. This means that although one party to a situation may make the referral, it will give the Court jurisdiction over all parties involved. A Palestinian referral will give the Court jurisdiction over alleged crimes by members of the PA as well as by Israelis”, John Washburn from the Coalition for the International Criminal Court states.

A group of U.S. diplomats are visiting the region this week to try and negotiate resuming peace talks and the prevention of the U.N. plea for statehood. In order for that to happen Israel would probably have to agree to a stop of settlement building, another alternative would be an agreement to use the 1967 borders as a parameter for negotiations.

Both concessions seem unrealistic for now.

Lia Petridis Maiello

The evidence is clear: increased participation of women in policy and practice makes a massive contribution to development, peacebuilding and other areas of societal progress.

The UN GA Resolution 1325 in 2000 promotes the “role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, and in peacebuilding, and … their equal participation and full involvement of all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.” The Security Council formally approved indicators to track implementation. While encouraging rhetoric from many states has been heard and a limited number have adopted National Action Plans to implement 1325, many experts on women’s participation have been disappointed by states’ commitments to fully implement 1325.

Women’s subject to violence and lack of security remains a huge impediment to progressing the participation of women. A lack of security immobilizes women which excludes them from education (a key MDG). And greater education means greater participation in political decision making. Luckily there have been a few success stories of post-conflict transitional opportunities has seen increased role for women. Through education and training, women are filling gaps previously held by men.

Education, training and assisting with grass-roots orientated programs, and improving domestic security are clearly ways forward. See GAPW’s statement to the
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s urging for action on this pressing issue:

www.globalactionpw.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/cedaw_gapw.pdf

– Kees Keizer

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

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

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.