Tag Archives: human rights

The United Nations’ Annual Adventure

29 Sep

It is the Sunday after a long week of Heads of State, Foreign Ministers and a wide variety of other stakeholders all seeking to keep the UN on a positive, hopeful, practical trajectory, despite a myriad of global crises.

Side events on issues from the situation in Central African Republic to the abolition of child marriages occupied the attention of diplomats and select non-governmental representatives.   And then there was a most dramatic climate march as well as a media worthy presentation by Emma Watson on the need to encourage more male ‘champions’ for women’s rights.

The opening of the General Assembly corresponded with the re-opening of the General Assembly building.   While we have come to appreciate the North Lawn Building greatly, most participants in last week’s events seemed to enjoy the upgraded amenities of the new GA space, not to mention the reopening of the basement café. Guards and other UN personnel generally did a fine job of getting people in and out of meeting rooms and on and off crowded elevators.

It is not yet apparent how many compelling, new commitments were made this week by leaders.  There were, of course, some interesting ideas floated by civil society and governments – ideas that in our view still require more urgent scrutiny to minimize the possibility of unintended consequences.  We have already written about our cautions elsewhere on this blog with regard to both ‘veto restraint’ and the inclusion of a ‘peace objective’ within the post-2015 development goals.

There were many other things that happened this week that piqued our interest and even conveyed glimmers of hope that we can actually move confidently and urgently towards a holistic engagement of strategies to address some stubborn global emergencies.

  • At an event focused on nuclear disarmament, Brazil, Costa Rica and others properly highlighted the need for more investment in Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zones. At the same time, Chile called for the “delegitimizing” of nuclear weapons doctrines.
  • At another event focused on the death penalty, we were encouraged that so few states sought to defend their use of capital punishment. The President of Switzerland and Prime Minister of Italy made strong and convincing presentations exposing the fallacies of the death penalty.  At this same meeting, the office of the new High Commissioner for Human Rights launched the fine resource, “Moving away from the Death Penalty.”
  • In the Security Council, a US-led, co-sponsored resolution on foreign fighters passed unanimously, but Argentina’s president also noted the increasingly complex nature of terrorism and wondered aloud whether the Council’s responses are keeping pace.
  • In another Council meeting focused on ISIS, Luxembourg joined with other states in reminding members that (France’s reference to the ‘throat cutters’ notwithstanding) we are not going to solve deeper problems in the region through the application of threatening rhetoric and military power. In a similar vein, Rwanda described the ‘unbearable consequences’ that occur when the Council fails to use all available tools to maintain peace and security.
  • At an event on the role of education in the prevention of genocide, states noted the need to educate adults as well as children about the dangers of hate speech and other incitements to violence. Spain in particular spoke about the need to address conflict at its roots and noted its own, sustained advocacy work on behalf of more mediation resources.  For his part, USG Adama Dieng underscored the urgent responsibility to prevent incitement rather than waiting to address its consequences after the fact.
  • At a breakfast discussion focused on Women and Land, Ethiopia noted that land rights are tied to other rights and urged adoption of a holistic gender framework.  This sentiment was echoed by UN Women and other states in attendance.  It was also affirmed that land ownership by women lifts their general status in a variety of helpful ways.
  • At a ministerial event on Peace and Capable Institutions hosted by G7+ states, South Sudan highlighted the profound negative impacts of armed violence on fulfillment of development objectives, but wondered aloud about the wisdom of having a stand-alone ‘peace goal’ in the SDGs rather than, as others including the Prime Minister of Timor-Leste noted, a broader, more inclusive recognition in all SDGs of the importance of peaceful societies to development.
  • At a Sustainable Land Management event, New Zealand and others highlighted the degree to which restoration of damaged land constitutes a viable peace and security concern. During the same discussion, Germany highlighted some hopeful restoration initiatives while depicting hunger as one of the great “scandals” of our time.

There was so much more of note both within and beyond our hearing, of course: more hopeful statements, more missed opportunities, more rhetoric divorced from viable implementation strategies, more reminders of the connected, multi-dimensional crises that define our time.

All of this made up the past week at the UN, a highly political space that is often most effective at creating global norms to support change enacted at national and local levels.  It is at times like this when the need to simultaneously honor and demystify UN processes becomes apparent.  There are so many critical issues, including climate change, child soldiers and gender violence, that would have far less traction globally were it not for the UN’s sustained involvement.  On the other hand, the ‘talk shop’ reputation of the UN is only enhanced as a week’s worth of traffic-clogging motorcades and massive security bills result in modest outcomes as likely to disappoint public hopes as to inspire them.

As the barricades come down, the working-level diplomats resume their pride of place at UN headquarters.   Now is the time to take the most compelling suggestions from this week and turn them into strong resolutions that can leverage meaningful change.  We’ll be there to observe and reflect.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , , , , ,

Traffic Control: Making Policy Sufficient to Ending a Menace

30 Jul

Editor’s Note:   Today (7/30/14) is World Day Against Trafficking in Persons.   To help call attention to this unresolved scourge, Danielle Peck has offered this reflection on UN and member state efforts to eliminate trafficking and restore dignity to victims.  She also offers suggestions on ways to better highlight this crime and eliminate impunity for abuses. 

On July 14, 2014 while attending the special high-level event on “Improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons” co-organized by the Group of Friends United against Human Trafficking and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), many shocking statistics were brought forward demonstrating the ongoing reality of human trafficking. President John Ashe discussed how human trafficking affects every nation in the world. He called it a most “grotesque and lucrative” crime generating 36 billion dollars per year.  The executive director of UNODC, Yury Fedotov, stated that “victims come from 136 different nationalities and are circulated through 118 different countries.” He also mentioned that 75% of victims are women and girls. UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo said, “Every one victim found represents 100 victims still lost.” Statements like these have led me to ask, “What is our international community doing to prevent human trafficking from occurring?”

The U.S. Department of State created the Trafficking in Persons Report, which holds every state accountable for maintaining minimal standards needed to eliminate human trafficking in persons, though states are obviously not required to sign an agreement to that effect. The ‘minimal’ standards are that each country must make a serious and sustained effort to prohibit and eliminate forms of human trafficking. Stringent punishments are suggested to those who violate trafficking laws. Each country is categorized within a ‘tier system’ based on how well it follows minimal standards against trafficking.

Even though the U.S. Department of State has created international pressure with its ‘tier system’ to eliminate trafficking, that system is often disregarded by other states. It is often the case that a nation does not want to be told what to do by another nation. Many countries have also questioned the way the State Department gathered its information for the Trafficking in Persons Report. For instance, Russia voiced its aggravation at being moved to a tier three (the worst rating within the tier system), and they accused the system of being corrupt.

In addition to US efforts, it is vital that the United Nations has a well-established department to combat trafficking. This would not only create efficiency and accountability when gathering ‘best practices’ and statistics, but it might influence more actions to combat human trafficking. UNODC has an office dedicated to combating human trafficking and has implemented many policies to attempt to combat the full range of such trafficking. Still, there are many challenges the department has faced in part due to the fact that human trafficking covers such a broad range of behavior. The department must focus its attention not only on sex trafficking, but also immigrant smuggling or child labor, just to name a few areas of concern. Within the “Human Trafficking FAQs” section of the UNODC website, there is a list of challenges the UN believes must be further addressed. Here I have taken a few of these challenges and provided some suggestions moving forward.

First, the UN believes that there is a problem with how states and organizations gather accurate information on trafficking. There has been no system implemented within the department that encourages states to gather accurate data. As trafficking is a criminal activity, many states may find the data gathering task beyond their capacity. The UN should implement a system with templates that each state can follow to help gather relevant data. Studies should be done that show how accurate data (on trafficking or related matters) has been gathered in the past. The UN should then take further steps to create an infrastructure that will assure that every state can follow those templates with as much ease as possible. If an efficient plan could be created for every state to follow, there would be more accurate trafficking data throughout the world.

Today there are too many different data-gathering systems yielding a wide diversity of statistics on trafficking in persons for each nation. Thus, my first suggestion is for the UN to create an instruction manual that can guide nations seeking to gather human trafficking data.  Then the UN needs to create a common space/system for nations to share their data. The international community needs better cooperation and coordination in developing an information exchange. If every nation had a system to follow on how to gather accurate information, they would probably be more willing to enter their information into a shared database.

Secondly, despite this fine event, the UN does not yet fully convey the importance of countering human trafficking within the international community. Every state has its own list of priorities in this area, in part a function of local cultures and values. The UN must be clear that countering trafficking should be a high priority for every state. As mentioned above, human trafficking exists in every country and affects or influences every person, directly or indirectly. Trafficking represents a massive corrupt network that cannot be overcome without the entire international community making it a priority. The UN should hold more panels that discuss the facts and methods to combat trafficking, as these get publicity and the attention of leaders, as well as create a space for open dialogue for diplomats and NGOs to discuss solutions. It is the UN’s responsibility to help spread awareness of the scourge of trafficking of persons into the international community.

Third, the UN needs to do more to prevent trafficking at its source. Research needs to focus on the sources of the trafficking industry. The UN should provide outlets for funding locally based NGOs that work with trafficking issues and victims. This will make it possible for NGOs to publicize the reality of human trafficking, show how women and men can avoid becoming involved, or even help to stop the practice. Then the UN could consider exposing the identities criminals involved in trafficking to the international community. This could create international pressure as no country wants to have leaders of the trafficking industry publicized as coming from their nation. The criminals should be brought from underground into the public eye. Impunity for their abuses needs to end.

It is unclear the extent to which the UN and other international organizations are addressing human trafficking on a global scale. We need to make human trafficking one of our main priorities. The UN has the power to organize more global events based on the realities of trafficking. The trafficking industry controls more than we realize. It needs to be confronted robustly by the international community with UN guidance.

Danielle M. Peck, Junior Associate

Tags: , , , ,

Gender Equity in Context

23 Jul

Editor’s Note:   This is the first post from Marine Ragueneau who has come to us from France via Seattle  For the past six weeks, Marine has covered extensive UN discussions on security and sustainable development goals in the Security Council, ECOSOC and the Open Working Group on SDGs. Marine’s policy interests include gender justice and here she makes several important points — specifically on the need for full participation by women in sustainable development, as well as on the need to provide space for a much more diverse range of voices and contexts than is normally the case at UN headquarters. 

Coming to Global Action (GAPW) and having studied international relations with a focus on human rights and gender, I was thrilled to see how theory was applied to practice in the UN, a center of global governance. In the last month, I have gotten the chance to attend various meetings and side panel discussions dealing with issues ranging from evaluating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to increasing women’s participation in peace processes and other leadership positions, as well as Security Council meetings dealing with urgent matters from Ukraine to Gaza. The following are personal observations I have made concerning matters of gender, inclusion of marginalized voices in genuinely participatory processes, and the possible implications these realities have on the effectiveness of UN security and development policy.

It is widely agreed upon amongst governments and civil society alike that gender equality remains an urgent and imperative step in furthering the human rights agenda. Last month, a particularly engaging discussion occurred – Maintaining Human Rights Momentum for a People-centered Post-2015 Agenda – at which three panelists assessed improvements of the Sustainable Development Goals compared to the unevenly fulfilled Millennium Development Goals of 2000. The conversation remained on the critical side, however, with Alexandra Garita, the gender specialist on the panel, making noteworthy remarks on the difficulties women continue to face, emphasizing the importance of incorporating context-specific, gender realities into the SDG agenda. More specifically, Garita stated that as women make half of the world’s population and give birth to the other half, greater emphasis on achieving universal, holistic, and accessible health care services is crucial. This would include women having access to information on their sexual and reproductive health, as well as control— access to contraceptives, safe abortion services, maternity care, and resources preventing STIs, HIV/AIDS as well as non-communicable diseases such as breast and cervical cancers.

It became clear throughout the conversation that for a comprehensive, integrated health care approach to be effective, the SDGs need to maintain and further reinforce amendments pertaining to climate change and corporate accountability. Such factors are critical to our current social and political context, and those most vulnerable to the degradation of the environment and economic exploitation continue to be women and children. It is in the interest of the UN, therefore, to work on deconstructing the existing power paradigm in order to create systemic, sustainable, and meaningful progress for women’s rights and human rights as a whole. If the SDGs are to help create a future we want, continued mainstreaming of gender issues is vital to its success.

The mainstreaming of gender issues proves to be useful regarding SDG policy development, but through attending other discussions, I found that mainstreaming gender issues can also be problematic. When discussing issues pertaining to women, it is essential to the legitimacy of the conversation to address and assess the differing experiences of women based on geographical and socio-political situations as well as differences experienced due to race, class, sexual orientation, and disability. In the discussion on Gender Equality in Public Administration organized by UNDP, facts and statistics were provided on the current involvement of women in administrative positions, which was helpful in that it contextualized this particular gender issue. During the Q&A, it was briefly mentioned that diversity is still an issue for women seeking administrative positions, but the topic was not elaborated on. I believe this to be a serious weakness in the gender discourse, as it creates division among women who feel not only excluded by the patriarchal structures of our societies, but within the feminist movement as well.

Specifically, the lack of participatory involvement of rural and indigenous women in UN processes and decision making is a setback in what seems to be an otherwise promising step towards achieving greater gender quality. Giving traditionally marginalized women more direct consultative power within the UN and other international organizations is imperative to making sustainable advancements in women’s rights. In the Economic and Social Council during the panel discussion on Effective Humanitarian Assistance, for example, we were able to see a live webcast from the Philippines where people who had direct encounters with UN assistance were able to openly discuss their experiences. This created a balanced discussion; had they not been present, the conversation would have been largely biased in representation and lacking in necessary, context-specific content. Unfortunately these kinds of appearances by civil society, especially from the Global South, remain scarce. In order to create a more just and representative, as well as ethical and progressive human rights agenda, the UN should consider ways to increase such involvement. It is particularly imperative that this develops in the women’s rights sphere, as it is a great injustice to women worldwide to simplify the female narrative based on just a few experiences, too often from women in ‘western’ contexts.

As a place of convergence for governments, UN agencies, and civil societies alike, the UN is a promising platform for advancing the human rights agenda. But with promise comes responsibility, and the UN should be held accountable to the people it seeks to represent. If policies regarding the health of women are to be effectively implemented, then the institutions responsible for addressing these sometimes dire circumstances must be held accountable. Moreover, if the UN is to effectively address women’s rights issues, voices of women in all contexts and realities have to guide the discussion. It is imperative to the advancement of our international community to ensure that this happens.

Marine Ragueneau, Junior Associate

Tags: , , , ,

Extremism and Terrorism Response – Tools that Need Sharpening

22 Jun

Over this past week there have been a number of UN events aimed at reviewing global policy towards eliminating terrorism.  Obviously traditional approaches such the role of the intelligence community and state based military responses are key component of this discussion. Also of interest however were suggestions for a range of tools that can be used as complimentary measures for dealing with terrorism. These approaches seem to have the advantage of supporting good governance without losing focus on terrorism. In addition, these tools can help successfully address terror threats without strengthening military and intelligence capacities in countries where these institutions are not accountable or are actually a threat to democratic development.

Two themes that came to the fore were how the criminal justice system can be used in combating terrorism and how development and engagement strategies can help mitigate extremist rhetoric.

The latter topic was examined by the missions of Burkina Faso and Denmark as well as the Global Centre for Co-Operation, with a special focus on West African countries and the Sahel.  The meeting focused on the need for multilateral, multi-scale approaches that would help take more conventional development aid programs and orient them toward combating extremism. A key part of this effort, it was argued, was directing more resources towards women and youth. These groups were deemed particularly vulnerable to radical ideology and are target groups for recruitment. Suggested examples for these sectors include skills training, cultural activities and sports programs.

Beyond normal development aid it is also possible to create new programs that help to counter extremist rhetoric. Examples noted include implementation of inter-faith events, cultural exchanges, more creative use of local radio, and de-radicalisation programs in prisons. These initiatives all serve very specific policy ends and can be funded from within current aid packages although further negotiation is needed to increase the range and effectiveness of these programs.

Development itself is not a magic bullet for dealing with extremism, but must be complemented elsewhere. Civil society groups attending the session pointed to how early warning systems are being used effectively to monitor and assess the ‘temperature’ of political rhetoric.  One particular areas of concern:  Calls for the suspension of “terms limits” for government leaders in West Africa and the Sahel, they warned, are creating significant political instability and swelling the potential for increased extremism.

Another UN session organized by the Pakistani Mission explored judicial-legal contributions to countering terrorism. Institutions associated with law and courts are not always seen as useful in preventing terrorism, but rather as a reactive tool to investigate and prosecute once terrorist acts have been committed. This session showed ways that legal systems can be used within a broader policy framework to prevent terror incidents in the first place. One innovation highlighted methods to help encourage more effective communication between intelligence agencies and civil authorities, for instance in building frameworks to ensure inter-agency information privacy and processes to ensure that integrity of evidence. Unregulated, these systems tend to hinder effective joint action among diverse government agencies. Better co-operation can more effectively address some of the unsavory activities that enable terrorism, such as money laundering.

Also stressed was the need for trustworthy, transparent, accountable police services. One positive example cited was in Afghanistan where police engagement with communities regarding less serious security threats (such as traffic safety) has helped build the trusting relationships needed to counter larger threats, including terrorism.

Training was also cited as being very important for the criminal justice system as a whole. Potential avenues for innovation include the need for judges to understand the international law implications of their decisions; the police to have a more robust engagement with regard to the human rights aspects of their work; education focused on how to conduct safe, lawful surveillance; and the importance of assisting women to find their rightful places within the still male-dominated security sector.

None of this precludes the importance of traditional military-intelligence requirements for the combating of terrorism. The approaches outlined above however help prevent the overuse of more traditional solutions — the proverbial “hammer” that creates a “nail” out of every aspect of terrorism prevention.  Given more political will, innovative thinking, clever legal craft and some spin on traditional development activities, counter-terrorism and extremism measures can be improved without undermining measures to ensure more effective governance.

Benji Shulman, GAPW

Tags: , , ,

Making Persons ‘Reappear’ in El Salvador

27 Mar

As many readers of this blog know, the vicious civil war that raged for years in El Salvador left many victims, including the mostly unhealed scars of families seeking knowledge of the whereabouts of children (now adults) who were ‘disappeared’ during military operations in the 1980s.  The combination of the sudden loss of a loved one followed by years of silence regarding their whereabouts is a pain that only few of us can imagine.   The pain only deepens when the ‘disappeared’ are children.

GAPW just spent an important afternoon with the staff of the Pro- Búsqueda Association (www.probusqueda.org.sv/), a group of mostly younger professionals dedicated to lifting the veil of disinformation and deceit imposed by those seeking to cover up the truth of many hundreds of childhood disappearances.  Using sophisticated tracking software, Pro- Búsqueda has successfully reunited hundreds of disappeared children (now adults) and their loved ones. The organization also provides counseling services for families.  Many of these extraordinary stories can be founded on their website.

Staff at Pro- Búsqueda have noted with appreciation the cooperation they have received from many international experts as well as from the Inter-American Court for Human Rights.   Pro- Búsqueda is assisting now on what will be only the fourth case to come to the Court from El Salvador.  However, the organization believes that over 900 cases of disappearances are entitled to their day in court, with the strong potential for reparations as well.

A major violation occurred in November 2013 when three armed men entered the Pro- Búsqueda offices, stole computers and set fire to some documents and files.  The attack, which was condemned at the time by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has thankfully not proven to be a fatal setback.  The offices we visited were filled with deep resolve, but also with the sounds of laughter.

One recommendation from Pro- Búsqueda and other groups working in this area is for El Salvador to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CED/Pages/ConventionCED.aspx) and fully abide by its provisions, including ensuring “that any individual who alleges that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance has the right to report the facts to the competent authorities, which shall examine the allegation promptly and impartially and, where necessary, undertake without delay a thorough and impartial investigation.”

That states have not done due diligence on matters of fact finding, investigation and ending impunity is why the work of Pro- Búsqueda and others working on enforced disappearances is so important.  Disappearing children is a grave crime.   From the standpoint of promoting peaceful societies, giving the disappeared from El Salvador the opportunity to return to their families and communities is among the most hopeful work we have witnessed anywhere.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , , ,

A Game of Drones

20 Dec

Editor’s Note:  For the past three months, Tereza Steinhublova has focused her attention on peace and security matters related to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly. While writing for Reaching Critical Will’s First Committee Monitor, she focused particularly on the issue of drones which, as she notes, must continue to receive much more policy attention, not only in the disarmament community, but in the human rights community as well.

The word drone comes up frequently in numerous contexts. Not only are drones brought up in the security world, but they are slowly growing in popularity in other fields as well. For instance, the computer game SimCity, which allows you to build your own virtual city, now comes with an option to replace the city’s entire security forces with drones. In fact, replacing the traditional police and security forces with drones gives the player many benefits! In the real world, Amazon announced its proposal of using small drones to deliver packages to customers within 30 minutes of their order. Similarly, big companies such as Google and Apple have also expressed their interest in robotics. Finally, the Internet continues to be flooded with political cartoons depicting controversies surrounding drone use.

Drone use is primarily justified as a counter-terrorism measure, including intelligence gathering. To what extent this is an effective method to fight terrorism is debatable. Although several high-ranked members of terrorist groups have been killed thanks to drone strikes, they have always been replaced instantly. Often in these cases the person taking over has more hardline views, thus posing a greater terrorism threat. Besides, many of those killed and identified as belonging to terrorist organizations are low-ranked members, rather than leaders. Furthermore, there have been instances where civilians have been killed either because of targeting errors or as ‘collateral damage’. On December 12, 2013, missiles from a US drone attacked a wedding procession in Yemen, killing over a dozen people. The drone is said to have mistaken the wedding vehicles for a militant convoy.  In response to this tragic event, the Yemeni parliament called for an end of the use of US drones in Yemen. This isn’t the only occasion of when a drone mistakenly killed civilians. On October 6, 2013, the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, criticized NATO for its drone use, as five civilians died as a result of an airstrike. Earlier this fall a Pakistani family, who survived a drone attack that unfortunately killed their grandmother, came to Washington DC to speak to Congress about how drones are really affecting those living in areas where drones are frequently deployed.

It is crucial to note that not all drones are used solely for combat purposes. However, surveillance drones still pose questions about the extent to which these invade privacy and violate state sovereignty.  There are also questions about how to assess legal responsibility in cases where person are killed without cause.

In comparison with the frequency of drone appearances in the news, games or popular media, international policy deliberations on the use of drones remain surprisingly thin. During this year’s session of First Committee, I paid much attention to drones and fully autonomous weapons and much to my surprise the discussion on drones was minimal. The topic was mentioned by a shockingly low number of states, with most input from the delegation of Pakistan. Also, the First Committee did not create a single resolution focused on drones. This comes as a surprise, not only because of the many civilian casualties involved, but also due to the continuing controversy surrounding drones. In November, the 2013 Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) produced a mandate to discuss killer robots, which is a great development forward in the field of robotics and unmanned aerial vehicles. Nonetheless, the issue of armed drones as they exist now was once again unaddressed. I believe there needs to be a thorough discussion on drones in order to provide a basis for  a broader  dialogue on fully autonomous weapons.

Although drones are predominantly associated with the US, approximately 87 countries possess drones mostly used for purposes of spying. While the number of countries with armed drones remains low, it does not mean that this number will not grow. Much of the focus in the international policy sphere remains on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, for instance, while drone proliferation remains largely unaddressed. Warfare technology is already being developed in many states and if armed drone use continues, it is highly likely that more states will develop armed drones as well.  More importantly, if terrorist groups or non-state actors already considered as a security risk were to develop an armed drone, this would create a serious international peace and security issue, because drones would be used directly against civilians. The world could therefore ‘log on’ to this ‘game of drones’ before it has adequately prepared for it or attempted to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

Unfortunately, there are many political strings attached to the drone debate. With most armed drone use carried out by the United States, the number of states willing to officially criticize this policy remains low. However, it is important to consider how this debate would change if the affected countries’ roles were reversed, if the states using drones for military purposes had to deal with drone attacks themselves.  Drones carry many ethical and legal questions, namely with humanitarian and human rights law. The fact that drones are controlled through a computer from a base already creates controversy and brings up a debate about the wisdom of the ‘distancing’ of warfare. The relationship between drones and international law remains precarious. It is often argued that drones do not comply with international law, because they undermine state sovereignty and are incompatible with the legal definition of the zone of conflict. The international community therefore needs to work to create a space for a dialogue, which would clarify existing doubts and develop new guidelines. The international community must work towards establishing a reliable system of governance for these weapons before the ‘game of drones’ plays out beyond the reach of state’s control.

Tereza Steinhublova, Junior Associate

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Fueling the Syrian Conflict From All Sides

29 May

As the conflict in Syria rages on, ostensibly slipping further and further into an increasingly grievous civil war, the European Union decided on 28 May 2013 to lift an arms embargo thereby allowing for the option to provide arms to the Syrian rebels fighting against President Bashar Al-Assad and his government. The decision to lift the embargo was supported mainly by the UK and France. Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, remarked that the non-renewal of the arms embargo comes with certain conditions—weapons can only be sent to the so-called moderate Syrian National Coalition and the affiliated Free Syria Army and can only be used to “protect civilians.” While the embargo sets the stage for weapons transfers to the Syrian rebels, there is no immediate plan to begin authorizations of weapons as the earliest possible time for such transfers would be August 2013 (after a conference is to be held in Geneva next month to negotiate a peace agreement). Nevertheless, this policy change is indeed a worrisome development in the context of a bloody, prolonged, and seemingly intractable civil conflict in a region of unsettling politics and violence. Several countries have rightly argued that more weapons will inevitably mean more death and destruction no matter to which parties to the conflict they are intended.

Particularly in light of the recent adoption of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in the UN General Assembly (set to be open for signature next week on 3 June 2013), the dangers of transferring conventional arms to governments (or, in this case, entities) with the potential to violate international humanitarian law, international human rights law, undermine peace and security, or be used to commit acts of gender-based violence or violence against children are highly relevant to the debate over supplying arms to “stabilize” a conflict versus “exacerbating” the violence. The original intent and impetus of an ATT—preventing the human suffering associated with the unregulated and illicit arms trade—are interestingly on display in the Syria case. The human suffering apparent in the Syrian context is indisputable. The UN estimates that nearly 80,000 individuals have died in addition to the dire refugee and displacement crises and the overall disruption of livelihoods. Such violence has been committed with imported (legally and illicitly) weapons of all kinds as arms flow into and within the region. Moreover, the dangers of “legitimate” arms falling into the hands of “non-legitimate” entities are even more severe in the context of Syria given the lack of information on the rebel groups and the instability of the region writ large. The determination of which groups are the “legitimate” representatives of the Syrian people is hardly clear.

Applying the ATT to the Syrian case is not straightforward, but an interesting case study nonetheless. Export assessment criteria represent the linchpin of the ATT operability insofar as these criteria must be examined prior to any arms authorization by the exporting states party. The agreed criteria in the ATT do provide an interesting backdrop to the discussion of whether or not such export authorizations are in line with international legal obligations. Of course, a major difference (and ultimately a major complication and what would seem a “loophole” in the Syria case) that must be noted is that the ATT covers inter-governmental transfers and does not explicitly elaborate on criteria related to transfers to non-state actors. A prohibition against transfers to non-state actors was a hotly debated issue during the ATT negotiations and, ultimately, was not included in the final text. Many of the loudest objectors to the text, including many Arab states and the three states that formally objected to the text at the conclusion of the March 2013 negotiations (the DPRK, Iran, and Syria), noted the absence of this prohibition as a major oversight in the drafting. They noted that although the majority of states called for this prohibition, it was purposefully left out. Therefore, the ATT, even if it had already entered into force and the relevant parties were state parties, would not apply in this case. If instruments such as the ATT are to have a real impact, then treaty criteria must be incorporated into all export decisions and not just those which are explicitly referenced. Otherwise, a policy of criteria avoidance could be easily adopted and implemented.

In the same week that the EU lifted the embargo, the Russian government announced that it would move ahead with the transfer of anti-aircraft missiles to the sitting Syrian government as a “stabilizing factor” that would “deter” foreign intervention into the conflict. It is clear that arming either side—the Assad regime or the rebel groups—is doing little to bring the violence to an end or address the dire humanitarian crisis. The Syrian conflict has ultimately moved from a rebellion to a civil war to a regional war by proxy with external forces such as Iran and Russia eager to counterbalance moves by the EU and the US.

The insertion of more weaponry on either side has little hope for changing the political or practical dynamics of the conflict and, thus, instigating hopes for bringing forth a negotiated peace. As Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, noted to the Human Rights Council in Geneva recently, “The message from all of us should be the same: we will not support this conflict with arms, ammunition, politics or religion.”

 

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

OHCHR Global Panel: “Moving Away from the Death Penalty – Lessons from National Experiences”

6 Jul

The Panel, presented by The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights offered progressive perspectives on the possible global abolishment of capital punishment, including mechanisms towards abolishment and lessons learned from existing and previous efforts. The program was divided into two sessions. First, panelists discussed the experience of their States regarding the abolition of the death penalty. In addition, participants discussed the link between the death penalty and human rights. The conversation was insightful, respectful and thoughtful. It provided a new foundation from which a human security framework surrounding capital punishment can emerge.  In addition, the meeting highlighted education and awareness as being essential roles for civil society.  Civil society, non-state and state actors hold a vital stake in this discussion with clear links to peace and security. The meeting provided a necessary public forum empowering a comprehensive and robust dialogue.

Three significant and highly related perspectives materialized from the discussion:

1)      Capital punishment is more likely to be supported in countries that lack awareness and education on the topic as well as the institutions and resources to support other means of punishment;

2)      The death penalty is a human and civil rights issue and in many cases it is utilized to specifically target marginalized and vulnerable groups therefore increasing inequality and undermining efforts to eliminate discrimination.

3)      State capacity to back-check and scientifically rule out human and judicial error is significantly lacking in the international community (specifically in those countries lacking in economic development and the rule of law) resulting in far too many innocent victims being sentenced to death.

These three perspectives raise significant questions surrounding the purpose of capital punishment laws and their effect on human rights and more specifically on human security.  The assumed purpose of capital punishment is to deter crime through instilling fear in punishment by death. Yet, as demonstrated at the meeting, a significant link between the death penalty and crime deterrence does not exist.  It was mentioned that in fact the opposite is true – abolishment of the death penalty is associated with increased human security and decreased human rights violations by States. Therefore, the following questions emerge: What is the death penalty actually accomplishing and for whom? Why should civil society be so concerned?

In States where capital punishment is upheld violence is more likely to become a state-endorsed cultural norm from which a vicious cycle of incapacitating human insecurity can evolve. This cultural norm establishes the use of violence as an acceptable form of problem solving and punishment setting an example of such behavior at the highest levels. Violence is thus encouraged and promoted at every level, opening the door to street-level retribution and gross human rights violations, while often specifically targeting marginalized communities.  Moreover human security is threatened when a government sets the tone of essentially allowing “an eye for an eye” mentality to ensue without thinking through the actions, costs or consequences of such a stance – consequences such as increased inequality, low economic development and enduring poverty and violence. In such a setting civil society recognizes and must address this grave risk.

In order to reduce risks in States that continue to apply capital punishments, Mr. Barry Scheck and others recommended that standards and regulations be required at the international level to enforce the use of DNA and scientific evidence testing to eliminate wrongful convictions. In many States which continue to uphold the death penalty, instances of wrongful conviction and death sentences are likely to occur due to the fact that there are no national or international regulations or standards in place to require a “back check” on possible human and judicial errors.  However, even though this is an admirable point and one that requires additional study it derails the conversation and shifts the focus from the goal of globally eliminating capital punishment for human security to one of legal procedures to ensure fairness in punishments.

In this case the argument should be re-framed to address how the possibility of wrongful convictions can be used to eliminate public support of the death penalty.  Furthermore, many States upholding the death penalty lack the resources and capacity necessary to support testing mechanisms, in particular they may lack strong institutions, the rule of law and the ability to finance DNA testing. Therefore it is essential as a first step to address the underlying issues through institution building and development in order to even begin a discussion about standardizing the use of procedures and scientific evidence.  In order to do so, the best approach may be to first encourage a moratorium on the death penalty and second to educate citizens on the effects of the death penalty and its impact on human security and human rights.

In a society where the death penalty is upheld, human security is threatened due to violence perpetuated at government levels. Civil Society therefore has a significant role to play in this debate requiring a strong and informed voice. Involving civil society in the conversation on the death penalty is essential to its abolition. Therefore it is important to heed the recommendation of increased education and public awareness – a theme that remained a constant thread throughout the meeting. (Education was specifically noted multiple times by Guatemala and Mr. Federico Mayor) Education and awareness play a vital role in successfully shedding light on the death penalty as a violation of human rights and as a punishment that actually decreases human security.  For example; in Trinidad (discussed at the meeting by Mr. Mendes) awareness o f the consequences of wrongful conviction, framed within a human security perspective, significantly decreased public support for the death penalty.

Although panelists suggested that public opinion should be separated from human rights, it is necessary to keep the perspective that public opinion is indispensable when trying to achieve change in a State’s human rights climate.  Education and awareness should therefore be appropriately instituted and targeted to enhance bottom-up change and limit top down influence in setting a tone of violence. However; the question remains: how can bottom-up change occur in a society that is not democratic?  It may be necessary in this case to re-frame the issue beyond a human rights perspective and instead demonstrate the cost-benefits of abolition. Ultimately, a two-pronged approach may be best in order to connect the national security risks and costs with the human rights and security issues in order to induce a paradigm shift to eliminate the death penalty on a global scale.

“Moving away from the death penalty” provided an important forum for discussion on this still controversial issue. Framing a compelling strategy for abolishment of the death penalty requires multiple approaches to reach the ultimate goal.  Most importantly it is essential that the global abolishment remains the goal and that the debate is not led off track.  At a minimum, the moratorium on the death penalty should continue to be pushed, and we must continue to address the systemic and underlying issues that lead to its use.  As we edge closer to upholding the right to human life as the global standard, it is essential that governments set an example that violence is not the answer to human security and that civil society uses its collective voice to set the stage for change.

–Cara Lacey

Tags: , ,

Newer Entries →