Tag Archives: full participation

Effective Youth Participation: Harnessing a Vast, Impatient Energy

5 Dec

Editor’s note:   Following the lead of Melina Lito’s work for GAPW on gender, Kritika Seth has been exploring ways to incorporate a youth lens on some of the core security issues that GAPW addresses, including mass atrocity violence and the global arms trade.   As she transitions back to her home in Mumbai, Kritika reflects on some of the insights that she has gleaned from several months of UN meetings and diplomatic discussions. 

The term “youth participation” implies that young people have a role in the structure of any organization of which they are a part. Such participation can take many different forms, but essentially implies consultation, decision-making, and representation that value the role of young people in the affairs of the planet.

In theory, this should ensure that youth participation is significant, robust and responsive to the needs of young people. It should give young people the opportunity to voice what is important to them, take control of decisions that will affect their lives in the future, increase their skills and build confidence and connections to eventually share with their community. For GAPW, youth participation means developing and energizing programs and projects that are more effective in reaching out to young people, campaigning and building awareness among the youth of the community, and more accurately and comprehensively representing their views, talents and needs. Effective youth participation is a two-way stream between organizations working towards youth participation and youth in communities wanting and waiting to provide their input on a myriad of issues that concern them and directly impact their future.

Youth as an Underutilized Grouping

Young people are too often a marginalized population within political processes. We at GAPW feel that people affected by policy should have a voice during the crafting process of the policy rather than merely baring the consequences after policies have been created and enacted. Polices affecting the future of climate health, the global arms trade, gender violence, youth employment and more are being made by older folks alone despite the undeniable fact that the “millennial” generation will be the ones who will have to clean up whatever messes are made. As the director of GAPW, Dr. Robert Zuber explains, “It’s like I take the loan out from the bank and then leave it for you to repay with interest.”

The most glaring example of age disparity today might be in my home country of India, a country with a vast youth population and a median age of 25 which is in sharp contrast to the average age of India’s cabinet ministers – 65 years of age.  This is a far greater age spread than in Brazil or China which have age gaps of under 30 years. In the United States this age gap is 23 years; in Germany it is less than 10.

At this point it is not particularly controversial to argue that the disturbing age gaps between the majority of India’s citizen and their aging leaders is discouraging and even agitating India’s youth. We witness this generation gap when the chairwomen of the National Commission for Women told women to “be careful about how you dress,” after a young women was sexually assaulted in public by a group of men in Guwahati, Delhi. We also witnessed it when a police officer in Mumbai unleashed his night stick on persons enjoying Mumbai’s buzzing nightlife, and then was defended in his actions by the state’s home minister. Overall we see it through an unwillingness to examine how to revamp the country’s aging bureaucracy to help unleash the birth of fresh ideas.

One may argue that the ongoing inter-generational troubles in India are mostly urban and do not affect India’s vast rural youth in the same manner. However, the aspirational rural youth of India (and of many other parts of the world) often admire the lifestyles of their urban counterparts – and if they are not given the opportunity to pursue their dreams, they might ‘lose heart’ not to mention their faith in their government.  At the same time, the elites residing in the metropolitan cities have the money but crave the higher standard of living more characteristic of developed nations. What both these groups have in common is that they need more opportunity for economic and political participation — not only to fulfill their own dreams but to help make possible the dreams of others, both city and rural dwellers.

Recently in New York I approached the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations to investigate the possibility of selecting an official youth delegate from India to the United Nations. This would be similar to Sri Lanka which is now the only country in South East Asia to send an official youth delegation to the United Nations. My proposal did not move forward very quickly. Indeed, while interacting with the mission in an attempt to understand the reasons why India might be reluctant to host an official youth delegate, the conversation ended with “you know how things work back home; what is the use?”

The “use” of having youth helping to represent other youth is the need to include their concerns and aspirations in the public discourse. Time and again more experienced folks fail to recognize the power and dynamism of the young generation. This is especially true in a youthful, energetic, rising power such as India.  Instead of harnessing that energy, youth are told to “sit at the kids table” while the elders deliberate on politics and current affairs. “All around the world the youth need one thing, and that is opportunity,” shared Ahmad Alhendawi, now the UN Secretary General’s Youth Envoy. Following Mr. Alhendawi’s lead, we will continue to respectfully but forcefully urge UN Member States to make more space for the voices and energy of youth.   This energy should certainly be guided by elders; but it must no longer be suppressed.

 Kritika Seth

Tags: ,

Adding to the Priority List: Youth and Children in Post Conflict Settings

21 Oct

The past few weeks have been very busy for the new youth delegates along with organizations and networks working together to push the youth agenda forward. Several country missions have been organizing back-to-back side events for youth led organizations and youth delegates to get acquainted with each other. Recently, the Mission of Switzerland to the UN organized a meeting on ‘Children and Youth in post conflict settings’; a topic often neglected while discussing the youth agenda. The panel members consisted of Mr. Ishmael Beah, best-selling author of ‘A Long Way Gone, Memories of a Boy Soldier’; Ms. Saudamini Siegrist, Chief of Child Protection at UNICEF; Ms. Rosalie Azar, Political Program officer at the Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict; and Ms. Subashini Perumal, focal point for the Youth and Women, Peace and Security Program of the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP). Mr. Paul Seger, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN delivering the opening remarks at 8:30 am. The event also welcomed Deputy Permanent Rep. of Rwanda, Ms. Jeanne d’Arc Byaje sitting in the audience among other youth delegates.

Ms. Azar’s speech revolved around the technicalities of the UN and the urgent need to protect children and youth. Ms. Siegrist repeatedly emphasized on the need for providing education to those affected by war, since it is largely through education that youth can have a positive impact on post conflict settings. The key words of her speech were ‘accountability’ and ‘reconciliation’. Ms. Perumal shared her expertise on the role of women in post conflict settings, alongside promoting the “Youth for Peace” project started by GNWP.

Despite the sharing of considerable insight on these important issues, the panelists focused mostly on their individual agendas and failed to provide a common pattern that could better promote the main objective of the meeting – Children and Youth in Post Conflict Settings. The panel member who most effectively gathered all the scattered focal point together was Mr. Beah who shared his experience as a boy solider during the war in Sierra Leone and provided his feedback on some of the suggested policy recommendations.

“Youth are agents of peace; we need to provide education and economic justice to young people and children in post conflict settings. Only though this can youth and children contribute to a positive reconstruction process,” said Ms. Siegrist.

While Ms. Siegrist was making a valid point for bringing up the topic of the role of youth in post conflict reconstruction, her statement appeared to be just a bit sentimental. The young population does have the potential to impact society, but both positively and negatively. On the one hand youth gangs in South Africa continue to destabilize the country and young people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continue to recruit other youth to fight in armed forces. On the other hand former youth combatants in Mozambique and Kosovo have contributed to community reconciliation and development projects. Furthermore, youth groups in Belfast have worked with local peace building organizations to promote social development in their communities. Providing primary and secondary education remains one of the highest priorities. However, in reference to the young people in post conflict areas, the impact of this priority needs to be carefully evaluated. Youth and children in conflict zones are often badly victimized by trauma; taking that into consideration is it rational to assume that they are motivated enough to receive and accept policy advice from outsiders after having lost everything they had ever known? Furthermore, after completing their education would there be a platform for them to execute those skills? If not, was schooling worth the trouble?

As Mr. Beah put it, “there is a remarkable level of intelligence needed to survive a war but no one gives us credit for that, instead they (international community) offer us two things – a program that ‘they’ thought of without asking us and the second thing is, pity.” During his 15 minute speech, Mr. Beah touched on various important points, for example, the need to reintroduce the idea of leadership, the blurry line between post-conflict and ‘on going’ conflict, and the need to be ‘aggressive’ for change in our thoughts and actions. He ended his speech with a thought provoking statement, “talent is universal, opportunity is not. What makes you delegates different from youth in conflict zones is that you had the opportunity to be here and they did not” – a statement that led to instant recognition and a loud round of applause for Mr. Beah and the other panel members.

As the ball gets rolling in the Third Committee of the UNGA where social development and youth issues are now being discussed, youth delegates have the opportunity to deepen their consideration of these thematic issues while helping to draft a youth-oriented resolution. GAPW will closely scrutinize this process and will regularly engage our audience in this space regarding issues affecting youth participation in global policy.

Kritika Seth, Youth Outreach

Tags: , ,

Human Security on the National Level – A shift from foreign to domestic policy

10 Oct

Security and insecurity are two very subjective concepts. What may feel unsafe for one person may very well be a normal circumstance for another. Personally, being raised in a safe neighborhood in Rotterdam – the Netherlands, I was never confronted with any real danger. So to be honest, feeling safe and secure is something I grew up with. I know that, sadly, not everyone has the luxury of having a safe home and presence of basic needs. Even though it seems logical, for you and me, to think of security as being directed towards human beings, for centuries security on the international level revolved around states instead of people. The common assumption was that having secure borders was sufficient for people to feel safe. We all know now that, unfortunately, this is not always the case. To deal with the concept of security of citizens, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) released a Human Development Report (HDR) in 1994 that introduced a new concept of security: human security. This concept refers to the security of people rather than security of territories, with development rather than with arms. On Wednesday, 2 October 2013, a panel discussion on applying the human security approach at the national level was co-hosted by the Human Security Network and the Permanent Mission of Japan, in partnership with the Human Security Unit.

The concept of human security can mean different things to different people. A survey done in 20120 on human security in Benin by panelist Mr. Janvier Alofa (lead drafter of the National Human Development Report in Benin) resulted in different perspectives of human security and different perspectives on threats. Mr. Alofa explained that human security consists of seven interconnected components: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political. A lack of security in any of these components can pose a threat to someone’s safety. In the case of Benin, if we look at the personal component, human security is endangered by trafficking in children, taxi accidents, organized crime and acts of violence (rape and domestic violence). Examples of the effects of the lack of human security can be found in ‘Lessons from the field – Applying the  Human Security Approach through the UN Trust Fund for Human Security’ released by the Human Security Unit. In the case of Lesotho, were an estimated 80 per cent of the population depends on the agriculture for their livelihoods, we can see that the adverse effects of climate change (environmental insecurity) on agriculture have hindered Lesotho’s development process. Health insecurity is evident in Peru. In Apurímac and Ayacucho in the Andrean region close to half of the populations lives in extreme poverty. As a result of this, rates of infant and maternal mortality, chronic malnutrition and illiteracy are very high.

Because human security consists of seven different components, as explained by Mr. Alofa, it encompasses all essential elements of society. The other two panelists, Dr. Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh (leader of the Specialization on Human Security at the Masters of Public Affairs at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris) and Dr. Oscar A. Gómez (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellow at the Doshisha University’s Graduate School of Global Studies), agree with this view and believe that human security is relevant to each framework because (national) security, development and human rights are all interlinked.

The three panelists underlined the importance of the concept of human security for the security of both states and their people. Dr. Tadjbakhsh noted the degree to which state security depends on the security of their populations. As a consequence of this focus shift from state security to human security, the policy focus of security is shifting from foreign to domestic policy. This shift, in my opinion, represents an important step towards the protection of basic human rights. If a state believes that its security depends directly on the security of its people, that state will likely put more effort into fulfilling its obligations to its domestic constituents. Dr. Gómez emphasized the fact that the state remains primarily responsible for human security. To provide this human security the state should learn from national experiences: historical processes should be analyzed and comparisons should be made to build knowledge about a wide range of security concerns. In this instance, both objective and subjective components of insecurity should be addressed and mismatches of threat perception should be identified.

I found the information provided during the panel discussion very interesting and possibly groundbreaking. The shift from state security/foreign policy to human security/domestic policy and the view that the state security depends on the safety of its people seems a big step forward in promoting the protection of people within a state. The difficulty, I believe, will be in the actual implementation of human security within the policies of states. States will have to alter their concept of security; and indicators to monitor and follow up on human security violations will need to be developed. Only if this is done successfully can the concept make a real difference and can everyone experience the security they deserve.

Marianne Rijke, Disarmament Fellow

Tags: , ,

Bookends: The UN Takes on the Challenges of Aging

13 Aug

August 12 was one of those interesting and even ironic days at the UN.   On the one hand, there wasn’t much happening in either the North Lawn or Conference Building as many delegations and secretariat officials have wandered off for a bit of pre-September rest.   What WAS happening though was certainly worthy of attention by all policymakers – a morning session devoted to youth empowerment and an afternoon session of the Fourth Open Ended Working Group on Aging.

For GAPW, which has long been involved in youth development, a focus on the elderly is both timely and directly relevant to our mandate.   Given general increases in life expectancy based, in large parts of the world, on increased access to higher quality health care, there is little reason to believe that our seniors cannot be productive contributors to the growth and maintenance of human security frameworks – in both local and international contexts — long past any arbitrary retirement ages imposed by our organizations and agencies.

One question that we struggle with almost daily:  How do we promote the transition in leadership to younger persons without disenfranchising older persons who, in many cases, provided the conceptual and logistical guidance that built and maintained our organizations over many years?

This is clearly a more challenging problem than it might first appear. The ‘cult of youth’ that plagues much of western culture and which is, so far as we can tell, more a marketing ploy than an intentional policy choice, has limited value for the development of the fair and robust human security frameworks that we endeavor to promote.  Creating narrow peer frameworks in a world that offers virtually limitless options for meaningful participation, friendship and intimacy seems almost a cruel rebuke to those who have labored over many years to dismantle barriers of race, gender, sexual preference and, yes, age.

We support the movement, suggested by the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and many other States, to create a process leading to the adoption of universal standards of treatment for older persons.  At the same time, we resist any policy that inadvertently reinforces the ‘ghetto’ that too many older persons find themselves increasingly restricted to.   Perhaps even more than younger people, older citizens require human connection as much as fresh air and mobility assistance.   Services for the elderly matter – and States are right to make this more of a priority — but what matters more is cultures that promote cross-generational interaction that is open to and respectful of diverse lenses on how the world works, and how it can work more effectively.

The elderly are not a ‘population group’ as some delegations casually referred to them, but rather a diverse set of human longings and capacities seeking to remain relevant in the eyes of those with skills and energy to whom they have (perhaps not quickly or gracefully enough) given way.

The peaceful planet we all seek will be characterized in part by the welcome extended to new life and the gratitude extended to those at life’s end.   The elderly represent the direction towards which we are all headed.   An investment in older people – not only their material conditions but their ongoing, respectful connection – will yield great benefit.  After all, the time will come soon enough when we will take their places at the end of the life cycle.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , ,

Conversation Starter: Civil Society Consultations

14 May

On the morning of the 14 of May at UN headquarters in New York, four panelists reflected on an important regional consultation that took place recently in Guadalajara, Mexico with the support of the Mexican government.  The Guadalajara meeting was part of a larger process designed, in part, to assess and integrate regional civil society concerns in laying out follow-up processes for the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) framework and the Rio plus 20 Conference on Sustainable Development held in June 2012.

The speakers highlighted the value of more regional engagement as a post-2015 agenda begins to take shape.   Also noted was the need for clear feedback loops that can help civil society track their impact on documents prepared by States and the UN Secretariat to help guide movement on development going forward.

In listening to the speakers, I was both grateful for this attention by UN stakeholders to the needs and wishes of civil society groups and also dismayed by what seems to be the unwillingness of speakers to publicly identify some of the enormous challenges associated with conducting a genuinely consultative process at this moment in our collective history.  There are now so many civil society groups, so little civil society consensus, and some particularly ‘muscular’ non-governmental organizations (especially in New York) that brand their work in ways that deflect as much civil society involvement as they invite.   We in New York are too often prone to gate-keeping more than assessing and promoting a wide range of voices from diverse social, geographic and economic circumstances to help address shifting circumstances. Gate keeping, perhaps more than any other NGO activity, is anathema to the kinds of consultations which the panelists envisioned.

It is probably valid to say, as one or more of the speakers mentioned, that the initial MDG process in 2000 lacked a clear consultative element.  It is also true that we were in a different period then with respect to civil society involvement.   For one thing, there are so many more of us than there used to be, a great blessing to be sure, but one which makes fair and transparent consultation difficult to implement.  What is the dividing line for involvement–   a history with the issue, connections to groups in New York, or perhaps a defined skills set related to some sustainable development priority?

There are certainly no firm criteria for participation in consultations and certainly no consensus by civil society groups regarding how development-related issues should be articulated and supported, both politically and financially.   It is wishful thinking to think that it is otherwise, and it is disappointing to hear people talk as though the key to a good consultative process is merely wanting it to be so.

Moreover, there is an issue about how civil society interventions in consultative processes should be assessed.  Is it solely about the number of times when language favorable to our own organizational mandates appears in resolutions of the General Assembly or its constitutive bodies?   Given the uneasy relationship between resolutions and practical engagements on the ground, is resolution language alone the bar that we need to be reaching for?  Are there deeper levels of engagement to which we should be pointing, engagement that continues to reach out beyond the most widely known ‘players’ to the many new leaders and organizational assets anxiously awaiting their turn?

This is not a critique of the specific panel hosted by Mexico, but rather a reflection on the degrees of difficulty that we face when we try to organize a field (civil society) that is expanding more quickly and in more diverse directions than we can map its movements.   There are many challenges and limitations in our sector that we must address, such as when we settle for new resolution language when so many in the world are clamoring for just and robust implementation of existing resolutions; or when we endorse existing ‘seating’ arrangements at a time when there are so many more chairs that need to be set up at the policy table.

It is possible to be thankful to the Mexican government and speakers that there is more consultation moving forward on development priorities, and still lament all of the ways in which civil society participation is still very much a work in progress.   While there is an abundance of responsibility to share among different stakeholders, including governments and the UN itself, much of this development-related work is the responsibility of civil society groups themselves. We need development in our sector that can complement and enrich prospects for development on the ground.

–Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Gender-Based Violence in the Arms Trade Treaty

8 Apr

After two separate negotiating conferences, in July 2012 and March 2013 respectively, an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has finally been adopted. The text (hereinafter “Final Text”) that was adopted on 2 April 2013 in the UN General Assembly by majority vote (155-22-3) contains strong references to gender-based violence (GBV). The objective of the ATT is to create a “comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional a

[1] This process, which began in 2006, came to an end just a few days after the conclusion of the “Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty,” which took place 18-28 March 2013. Although this Final Conference was unable to reach consensus, the draft text was brought to the UNGA and passed by an overwhelming majority of member states. This short brief provides an overview of the role of GBV within the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations as well some concluding thoughts about the significance of its inclusion in the Treaty.

In our policy brief on Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Policy Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA, GAPW highlighted the effects that the illicit trade in arms can have on domestic violence, conflict-related sexual violence, and how such arms can be mis-used in ways that deter women from participating in social and political life.[2]  Given the pervasive effect of the illicit flow of arms in perpetuating violence against women and limiting women’s participation, sufficient attention to a gender perspective is essential in effective disarmament and arms control discussions in order to create a reliable security sector.[3] Special attention should be paid to women’s agency because women in many countries tend to be under-represented in social and political life and tend to have limited access to education, employment, health-care, and judicial processes. [4]

The relationship between violence against women and the illicit flow of small arms was highlighted in the recent agreed conclusions of the 57th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW57)[5] as well as in the statement issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on 24 July 2012.[6] Moreover, women’s participation in disarmament processes was highlighted in the UNGA First Committee Resolution on Women, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control.[7]

As states agreed by consensus in the recent CSW57 conclusions, GBV is “a form of discrimination that seriously violates and impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women and girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”[8] Member states also agreed by consensus at the CSW57 that violence against women “means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering to women and girls, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”[9]

It is worth noting here the ATT is not a disarmament treaty per se, though there are clear linkages between the central purpose of the ATT – ending diverted transfers – and efforts to end arms-related violence against women. In this context, there are two relevant GBV references in the ATT text. In the Preamble, states parties recognize “that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence.”[10] This reference is not significantly different from the one found in the 26 July 2012 “Draft Treaty Text,” (hereinafter “Draft Treaty Text”) which formed the basis for March 2013 negotiations. The Draft Treaty Text recognized that “women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence.”[11] The reference to “armed conflict” was included in the Final Text at the request of many states, including the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate the reference to women and children as a homogeneous group is still included, as this suggests that women and children are affected by conflict and violence in the same way.

Additionally, the preambular paragraph in the Final Text does not include the link between GBV and international humanitarian law (IHL), which had been included in the Chair’s Non-Paper from 22 March 2013. The Non-Paper underscores that “recognizing acts of gender based violence may constitute violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.”[12] This was particularly relevant and important given the discussions to strengthen the relationship between gender and IHL. Furthermore, the Final Text does not include any language on women’s participation and the role of women as agents of change.  Even though there has previously been agreed language on women’s agency within disarmament processes,[13] the disregard for participation reinforces the notion of women as vulnerable. This omission also continues to place emphasis on women as victims of violence, as opposed to their capacities, skills and experience as leaders in prevention and protection strategies.

The second reference to GBV is in the risk assessment section, Article 7 in the Final Text. In the Draft Treaty Text, GBV was to be taken into consideration after the state assessed whether or not a particular export would violate IHL and international human rights law (IHRL).[14] In making its decision to authorize the export, a state party could establish risk mitigation measures, and would not authorize the export if there was an “overriding” risk. The state party could also take “feasible measures” to ensure that the export would not lead to diversion or be used “to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children.”[15] One of the challenges with this reference was that it treated GBV as a less important criterion than the IHL/IHLR considerations. Additionally, the reference called for ‘feasible measures’ to be taken, although there was much ambiguity around what that could entail and there was a concern that the “overriding risk” standard allowed too much discretion on the part of the exporting state.[16]  Finally, there were concerns that due to the placement of the GBV provision in the Draft Treaty Text, its location raised questions about the relationship between GBV and IHL.

The Final Text is much improved. In the text adopted on 2 April 2013, under Article 7, GBV is listed as a binding criterion. In making its assessment under Article 7, the exporting party shall consider if the export contributes to violations of IHL, IHRL and shall also take into account the risk that the transfer will be “used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.”[17] This reference is much stronger than in the Draft Treaty Text as it makes the GBV criteria binding and the ambiguity surrounding “feasible measures” eliminated. Additionally, as Ray Acheson notes in the Arms Trade Treaty Monitor, this binding criterion “requires states to act with due diligence to ensure the arms transfer would not be diverted to non-state actors such as death squads, militias, or gangs that commit acts of gender-based violence.”[18] At the same time, however, the reference discusses GBV and violence against women in the same sentence which may be somewhat redundant, and the recurring homogeneous reference to women and children continues.

Overall, it is undisputable that the final text of the ATT contains a strong reference to GBV and one that is a good starting point for further improvement, certainly much better than the July 26 Draft Treaty Text. At the same time, the GBV references must be seen in the context of the rest of the Treaty and the loopholes that remain, including but not limited to the limited definitions of arms included in the scope, the limited scope of activities covered, the lack of an unambiguous prohibition regarding mass atrocity crimes, the “overriding risk” consideration and the lack of public reporting.[19] These factors are not only important when considering the objectives of the Treaty, but also when considering the ability to detect, prevent and monitor instances of GBV stemming from the unauthorized arms trade. As discussions move on to interpretation, ratification and implementation, the effectiveness of the GBV provisions will have to be determined based on how effective the Treaty will be in holding states accountable to its provisions. Given the lack of a strong accountability mechanism within the Treaty, this can prove to be challenging.

Additionally, from a gender perspective, the two-week negotiation process that ultimately brought about the adoption of the ATT reaffirmed the limited priority the GBV issue still has for some states, the challenges that remain regarding mainstreaming gender in relevant disarmament and security-related processes, and the recurring hesitance to talk about women’s participation, despite previously-agreed language (by consensus) promoting their agency. While over 100 member states supported a stronger GBV reference in the ATT, there were still some states that objected to the inclusion of GBV in the text, and preferred “violence against women” as well as states that promoted the inherent inclusion of GBV within IHL, but did not support a specific reference to women.

As attention starts to shift to the post-2015, including the passage of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) deadline, the challenges that were evident in the ATT negotiations, as well as in relevant processes such as the CSW, must be taken under consideration in forming appropriate policy strategies. Some valuable recommendations include:

  • More support for women’s participation in relevant processes, including but not limited to security, judicial, and development forums.
  • More attention to and support for mainstreaming gender issues within relevant processes to promote gender as a priority issue and to be addressed as main issues are negotiated.
  • Increasing awareness on the legally and politically binding instruments that are in place to support the advancement of women’s rights.
  • More attention to and support for promoting collaboration between instruments and processes that share complementary mandates on combating GBV.

 

—Melina Lito

 

[1] A/RES/61/89 (2006), paras. 1 and 2.

[2] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief.

[3] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief.

[4] See, Gender and Disarmament: Making Important Linkages to the ATT and UNPoA: A Policy Brief.

[5] See, Commission on the Status of Women, 57th Session, March 2013, Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, Agreed Conclusions, Advance Unedited Version, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw57/CSW57_agreed_conclusions_advance_unedited_version_18_March_2013.pdf

[6] Statement of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Need for a Gender Perspective in the Text of the Arms Trade Treaty, Adopted on 24 July 2012 during the 52nd sessionhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/statements/StatementGenderPerspective.pdf

[7] A/C.1/67/L.35/Rev.1

[8] Commission on the Status of Women, 57th Session, March 2013, Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, Agreed Conclusions, Advance Unedited Version, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw57/CSW57_agreed_conclusions_advance_unedited_version_18_March_2013.pdf

[9] Commission on the Status of Women, 57th Session, March 2013, Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, Agreed Conclusions, Advance Unedited Version, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw57/CSW57_agreed_conclusions_advance_unedited_version_18_March_2013.pdf

[10] Final United Nations Conference of the Arms Trade Treaty, Draft Decision, 27 March 2013, available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

[11] United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Draft of the Arms Trade Treaty, 1 August 2012, available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/CRP.1&Lang=E.

[12] United Nations Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, President’s Non-Paper, 22 March 2013, Draft of the Arms Trade Treaty, available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf,

[13] See for instance the First Committee Resolution on Women, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, A/C.1/67/L.35/Rev.1 (2012).

[14] See, United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Draft of the Arms Trade Treaty, Article 4(2),  1 August 2012, available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/CRP.1&Lang=E

[15] United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Draft of the Arms Trade Treaty, Article 4(6)(b), 1 August 2012, available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/CRP.1&Lang=E.

[16] Ray Acheson, Demanding more from An Arms Trade Treaty, Arms Trade Treaty Monitor, 27 July 2012, Vol. 5, No, 18.

[17] Final United Nations Conference of the Arms Trade Treaty, Draft Decision, 27 March 2013, available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf

[18] Ray Acheson, Maria Butler, and Sofia Tuvestad, Preventing armed gender-based violence: a binding requirement in the new draft ATT text, Arms Trade Treaty Monitor 6.9.

[19] See, Ray Acheson, A Tale of Two Treaties, Arms Trade Treaty Monitor, 28 March 2013, No. 6.9.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Speak Up! Girls for Negotiation

18 Sep

This is one of two articles on PROGRESS’s inaugural workshop in Washington DC.  The first article looks at the Institution and concept behind PROGRESS. The second article will describe the workshop and its impact on the participating girls here in Washington DC – written by Jenneth Macan Markar

In a society where young girls are targeted by the media as viable consumers of materialism and women learn to comply with what is expected of them as opposed to what they want or can achieve, PROGRESS stands out as a program intended to effectuate a positive change in society by helping women and girls learn to make better decisions for themselves through negotiation. Teaching “Negotiation skills” are the hallmark of the Program for Research and Outreach on Gender Equity in Society (PROGRESS) developed at the Heinz College of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The inspiration behind the workshops developed by PROGRESS is to teach young girls the skill of negotiation, to enable them to make better life style decisions and grow up to be successful women.

PROGRESS is holding a workshop in Washington DC for young girls for the first time at the end of September. The workshop titled “Speak Up” will be a half day program with food, games and activities along with entertainment by the Georgetown University Step Team and Batala Washington. Molly Barker, Founder of Girls on the Run International will be the keynote speaker at the conference.

In the past 4 years since the program has been in operation in several communities in Pittsburgh, girls between the ages of  7-12 participating in half day workshops have been taught negotiation skills in a fun way. The workshops have been held with the help of facilitators from within the community, who are trained by Progress staff prior to the workshop. It is hoped that through the adoption of these skills the girls will learn how to make better life choices by creating positive options for them regarding their safety, health, education, future relationships and jobs. Progress workshops focus on girls from low income and marginalized communities as well as at schools that have the capacity to conduct similar workshops themselves.

The curriculum which is taught to the girls was developed by Ayana Ledford, Executive Director of PROGRESS and Professor Linda Babcock, the James M. Walton Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon, based on 20 years of  research on gender roles and negotiation which she and her co-author explore more fully in their book “Women Don’t Ask”. Ayana Ledford, the Executive Director of Progress conducts programming and community outreach. Currently PROGRESS conducts research, carries out advocacy projects and implements workshops. The newest long term initiative by PROGRESS is a continuing education program for professional women called the Heinz Negotiation Academy for Women, which is to start in January of 2013.

Although PROGRESS has had many workshops in Pittsburgh this is the first time in Washington DC. Heinz College has a branch here in DC and it seems like the natural step up for PROGRESS to expand its work. Similar to the workshops conducted in Pittsburgh the program will work with girls and community volunteers as facilitators.

Currently PROGRESS has just started a three-year long collaboration with the Consortium for Public Education in McKeesport, PA to track the girls that they work with in this program for several years and study how the workshop has influenced their decision-making. In the future Progress hopes to develop the capacity to conduct follow up programs to follow the progress of all the girls over the years and study the long term impacts of workshops such as this.

Workshop date in Washington DC: Saturday, September 22, 2012

Time: 8:30 AM – 1 PM

To register, call 412.268.8650 or go online to progress.heinz.cmu.edu and click on the banner ad titled “Speak Up!”

To find out about sponsorship and advertising opportunities please contact Rachel Koch at rakoch@andrew.cmu.edu.    (412) 925-6741

Facebook page: Progress CMU

Twitter account: @PROGRESSatCMU

 

–Jenneth Macan Markar

Jenneth is a Washington DC based gender and development consultant with a Law degree from the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka and a Master in International Affairs from Columbia University in New York. Originally from Sri Lanka she formally worked at Global Action to Prevent War in New York on Women, Peace and Security issues. She can be contacted at jennethm@gmail.com.

Tags: , , , ,

Opening of CSW 56 with Special Focus on Empowering Rural Women through Technology

28 Feb

Yesterday marked the opening of the 56th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), organized for the first time in conjunction with UN-Women. Madame Michelle Bachelet, Executive Director of UN-Women, offered remarks to the Commission chaired this year by Ambassador Marjon Kamara of Liberia. In addition to the theme of this year’s CSW on the situation of rural women, Madame Bachelet drew particular attention to the assistance needed for Palestinian women as well as women and children kidnapped and subsequently imprisoned in armed conflict. Madame Bachelet called for adoption of concrete actions for empowering rural women, women who represent one out of every four people in the world, over the next two weeks of the CSW. As aptly noted by many of the speakers in the opening session, empowering women is not only good for women, but it is good for peace and, therefore, for humanity.

Ms. Bachelet succinctly outlined the social, cultural, economic and political barriers impeding rural women’s participation and, in turn, the development of the entire community. Ms. Bachelet provided  examples of improved communities around the globe, such as Egyptian women being able to sign up for ID cards for access to health care, suffrage and education, as well as the more than 1 million women who have been asked to sit on rural village boards throughout India.

Ms. Bachelet also described another phenomenal form of development and its connection to women- Information Communication Technology for Development (ICTD). ICTD was referenced as it relates to a global survey conducted by the GSMA Development Fund. She reported that 93 percent of women surveyed felt safer with a mobile phone, 85 percent of women felt more independent with a mobile phone, and 41 percent had increased their economic opportunities by being mobile and connected. Other speakers such as Elizabeth Atangania of the Pan-African Farmer’s Forum also outlined the benefits of connecting women with resources and access explaining that mobile technology can be a helpful tool in aiding this process.

The exponential effects of a mobile phone were specifically underscored for their powerful influence on women’s empowerment, whether economic, political, social or otherwise. Ms. Bachelet noted, “And here I want to talk about mobile phones because they are changing lives and strengthening economic enterprises. Whether it’s information about credit, markets, weather updates, transportation or health services, mobile phones are changing the way rural women and men obtain services and conduct business.” One need not look much farther than the events associated with the Arab Spring over the last year and the tremendous impact of mobile technologies, social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook, and other real-time updates from the ground by women and men alike.

These new technologies are key components to bridging the divide between men and women, rural and urban, as well as granting access and mobilization opportunities, most especially for rural women who are so often removed from the center of political discourse. In the context of social networking, these tools have a multiplier effect that ultimately give a voice to any woman that has a mobile phone and internet connection. Therefore, we sincerely hope that this year’s CSW will form concrete and actionable recommendations for improving the situation of rural women such that their voices can be heard buttressed by greater access to information and resources through these new technologies.

–Shea Molloy and 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: , , , , , , , ,

Newer Entries →