Tag Archives: security

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: , , ,

The UN and the Rights of the Palestinians – A need for more balanced, cohesive communication

14 Jun

Editor’s Note:  This is the 2nd Blog Post from Benji Shulman from South Africa.  Benji is spending the summer with GAPW working on the implications for conflict of climate change and environmental degradation.  As someone also involved in Jewish-Islamic relations in his country, Benji will also reflect from time to time (as he does here) on how the UN navigates the complexities of Middle East politics, culture and human rights. 

This blog reports on the 361st meeting of UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The meeting was attended mostly by Arab states and key members of the Non-Aligned Movement and included a feedback session by committee members and a report back by the office of the Special Rapporteur.

The session focused on reports from various meetings, processes and outcomes of the committee. Updates on the diplomatic front were also given, with a special, positive emphasis placed on the recent Palestinian Unity deal between Hamas and Fatah (See related GA statement — http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2014/gapal1300.doc.htm).  Key issues raised over the course of the meeting were the status of the West Bank barrier, prisoners and prisons, conditions in Palestinian areas, the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian participation in other UN committees, and upcoming events commemorating the 2014 UN year of solidarity with the Palestinian People.

The mandate and configuration of the committee was generally favorable to the Palestinian perspective with an absence of Israel-supportive voices in the room. Given this, the outcomes of this committee would likely be considered partisan by onlookers, with more focus and encouragement for current unilateral diplomatic and related efforts being undertaken by the Palestinians than on the encouragement of bilateral negotiations and engagements between the opposing parties.

From a peace and security perspective there are several items worth noting. The first is the progressively milder and more measured language being used by Palestinian diplomatic representatives in this committee. This restraint should be more widely encouraged by the committee. In particular the policy community in Palestine and international Palestinian support groups might not share or even know about the official political stances being taken in their name at the UN, something that would also apply to Israel and its support groups.

The diplomatic corps also need to make sure that their affiliated missions worldwide are conscious and more supportive of the more moderate policy positions being articulated in these UN committees. For example the Palestinian embassy in South Africa, under the late Ambassador Ali Haliemah, was careful to avoid endorsing extremist groups that would undermine the Palestinian state position even if those groups claimed to  be acting on behalf of the Palestinian cause. Since his unfortunate death the Palestinian embassy in South Africa has endorsed events and groups which would be considered at odds with the stated policy positions of the Palestinian representatives at the UN committee and even with those positions the embassy has shared with the South African government.

Going forward clear and consistent communication on policy will be required so that potentially positive diplomatic outcomes do not needlessly confront obstacles from local actors or implicate embassy staff in acts of extremism. This will be especially important in light of the recently announced unity government of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which as noted was much lauded at the UN meeting. The Palestinian representative dealt only briefly with the issue of conflicting viewpoints between these two parties. The consistent emphasis at the meeting on the goal of a peaceful two- state solution seems considerably at odds with Hamas’s continued aggressive non-recognition of Israel. It remains to be seen which of the two perspectives — or which combination of the two — will become mainstream Palestinian policy.

The other issue that piqued significant interest is the status of Jerusalem on which the committee reported extensively including aspects such as construction, evictions, legal perspectives and religious issues. One point of contention during discussion was the characterization by some of Jerusalem as an “international security issue.” Whilst the area continues to be a hot spot for tensions, it has generally been calmer than other locales including much of the West Bank or indeed many other parts of the Middle East. It is important for discussion to reflect this relative calm given the generally high potential for unrest in the city because of it elevated levels of religious fervor. It has however been demonstrated that these risks have the potential to be mitigated as the recent visit of Pope Francis to the city and the region suggests.

Treating the current status of Jerusalem as a ‘peace and security threat’ seems excessive. One of the risks associated with the unilateral (and sometime inflammatory) actions currently being undertaken by both the Palestinians and Israelis is the continuing threats of violence resulting in part from a lack of negotiations. Currently however violence is not the norm in Jerusalem and it is important to be careful not to create the conditions for a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The potential for dangerous religious tension in the city can in fact be diminished by the international community, by Israel and by the Palestinians, through encouraging inter-faith engagement, clamping down on religious incitement, guaranteeing unimpeded access to all holy sites, and through related confidence-building measures.

Benji Shulman, GAPW

Tags: , , ,

A Call for Stable and Peaceful Policies

4 May

On April 25, Global Action joined with other civil society organizations (WFUNA, FES, WILPF) in launching an initiative to support the work of the Office of the President of the UN General Assembly in promoting the cross-cutting theme, “Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies.”  These organizations affirm the important value of this theme as the UN seeks adoption of a new (and hopefully expanded) set of sustainable development goals.

Our event immediately followed a day and a half long Thematic Debate in the General Assembly on ‘Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies’ that sought to field comment outlining both state aspirations and responsibilities within this dynamic normative framework.

As one might anticipate, the range of lenses that diplomats sought to include in their analysis of ‘stable and peaceful societies,’ was quite broad.   This is as it should be.  The normative framework suggested by this Thematic Debate touches on all facets of the UN’s work as diplomats were quick to acknowledge.   Some, like Qatar and Israel, noted the need for more ‘honest and responsible governance.’ Cuba underscored the deep divides that must be overcome between rich and poor.  Switzerland called for dramatic improvements in accessible public space.  Japan called for more attention to the management of ‘disaster risk.’ Australia, Nicaragua and others highlighted the need for more efforts to empower women.  Ecuador called for restraints on over-consumption and the end of what it called ‘speculative economies.’  Argentina affirmed the need for more attention to ‘rule of law’ obligations.  Egypt called for more efforts to address ‘massive refugee flows.’  Kenya noted challenges to peace represented by both illicit weapons and shortages of precious water.  The US and others clarified and solidified the linkages between violence and impediments to the fulfillment of development priorities.  Indonesia called for internal UN reforms to better serve the interests of a ‘rebalanced’ economic system.

On and on it went for over a day: states sometimes being provocative but mostly pointing out diverse elements of the massive, multi-dimensional undertaking that is ‘stable and peaceful societies.’   The Thematic Debate in the GA underscored the degree to which challenges associate with all three pillars that delineate the UN’s primary responsibilities – peace and security, human rights and development –   must be addressed in tandem.  Indeed, our growing populations and shrinking access to available resources; our increasingly sophisticated, digitally-driven military tools; and a new set of often-gruesome human rights responsibilities from Damascus to Bangui are more than sufficient to keep the policy community engaged at multiple levels.    The bar is set high here. The expectations for action coming from beyond UN headquarters are considerable.   This is not a ball we can afford to drop.

We know from the NGO side that we need to do more to support states and UN secretariat officials in keeping linkages relevant to the promotion of ‘stable and peaceful societies’ fresh among diverse stakeholders.  This involves a deeper level of partnership commitment, more than simply telling diplomats what’s missing and what ‘they’ need to do about it.    Through our own related initiatives, we seek to take more responsibility for goal setting and implementation, to do more to redress imbalances and end violence than merely pointing out the limitations of others.

As the presidency of the General Assembly shifts from year to year, we can do our part to be both facilitator and ‘institutional memory’ when it comes to ‘stable and peaceful societies.’     This involves a commitment to work closely and effectively with the new GA president’s staff on another round of diplomatic engagements with this thematic issue.  But it also involves a commitment to take account of broader fields of inquiry and their stakeholders, to perceive wider relevance and open doors to different kinds of constituent participation. ‘Stable and peaceful societies’ represents both a compelling aspiration and a profound test of our policy commitment and maturity.   This is one test we need to study hard for.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: , , , , ,

Women Cadets Talk “Homeland Security”

11 Mar

This past weekend, Global Action teamed up with the New York Chapter of Women in International Security for a presentation at West Point to women cadets as part of International Women’s Day.

The cadets represented two service academies – at West Point and Annapolis – and were attending the Corbin Women’s Leadership Summit on the theme, “Beyond the Brass Ceiling: Educating, Inspiring and Empowering for the Future.“

The situation of many women cadets in the US service academies is challenging at best.   There have been a host of very ‘public’ incidents of discrimination and abuse that have undermined trust in the academies and raised concern from women, peace and security advocates.   There have also been some high profile military activities that portend a shift from conventional military operations to more ‘high tech’ engagements that substitute robots for soldiers and drones for ‘manned’ aircraft.

None of this was news to these cadets.  Indeed, we generally find that conversations on peace and security with military personnel (or personnel in training) are among the most stimulating discussions that we are fortunate to be part of.   For this session, we decided it best to focus more on their social environment and a bit less on their military obligations:

·       We highlighted the changing constellation of threats that need to be assessed as potential sources of conflict.   Not only does most of the conflict on the UN Security Council agenda take place within states rather than across borders, but there is a general recognition that future conflicts are at least as likely to arise from competition over resources, especially water, as well as lands and oceans whose ecological potential has already been seriously compromised by pollution and climate change.  In addition, cadets must prepare to participate in a new generation of multi-lateral peacekeeping operations as well as assess security factors such as the trend to more asymmetrical warfare with an array of non-state actors and their increasingly clever killing devices.

·        We highlighted the need to identify and enfranchise stakeholders across a wide spectrum of conflict prevention and response.  This is not about ‘hearts and minds’ so much as about willing hands.    We simply leave too many assets on the table when creating strategies for addressing conflict, and we desperately need to raise that involvement.   We drove the point home that the most powerful military that has ever graced this planet had more than its share of difficulty subduing one of the poorest countries in the world.   Our militaries, it seems, are simultaneously intimidating and insufficient to the tasks of preserving and rebuilding the peace.  We need more, and we need it from a wider range of stakeholders and their distinctive capacities.

·         We highlighted the need to rescue ‘service’ from its overly militarized contexts.   These cadets were quite prepared to acknowledge that their ‘service’ is only one of many forms and that, indeed, more service from more places would be most welcome.    My many relatives in the military would have made a similar acknowledgment, that service is more a lifestyle than a professional obligation.   For all our flaws as people, we took seriously the need to lend a hand where we could, to look out for our neighbors, to offer support in a crisis, to share skills that would otherwise be in short supply.  As our societies become more complex and anxious, the need for service – if not the interest in service – must grow as well.  As our militaries are not sufficient to the challenges of modern security, our notions of service are inadequate to societies drowning in distraction and self-preoccupation.

·         And this led to the final major point, the degree to which modern culture has tuned out the institutions, strategies and practices of the military (and others) on whom we depend to protect our ‘way of life.’ We don’t always like what the military does, but it is indispensable to keep connected with its people, like these cadets, who will carry out missions ostensibly on our behalf.   More and more, people in the US (and elsewhere) know little or nothing about what military personnel do on a daily basis, how they motivate themselves to perform, how they feel about the things they are being asked to do on behalf of a largely disinterested population.   I related stories of my church life in the 80s and 90s when service personnel would return to the US, often badly damaged in body and spirit, sometimes drug addicted, with few employment prospects, let alone access to sufficient physical and psychological care.   Most of them could handle the dangerous streets.  What was harder to deal with was the sense that they were being shunned by the very people they imagined it had been their job to protect.

This seemed to strike a deep chord with many of the cadets.  How do you defend people who don’t have any interest in their erstwhile defenders nor in any of the other activities that must take place in the world in order for us to have all the material comforts and distractions that we take for granted, the advantages to which we feel entitled, the career pursuits that have little benefit beyond the limits of our own tight social orbits?  How do you ‘defend’ people who see others largely as ‘markets,’ who are more bitter than grateful, who allow themselves to be absorbed by gadgets such that we don’t ever have to pay attention to the world beyond our phones?

The cadets came away with a clearer sense, perhaps, that our security is about much more than defending our perimeter through military bases sited in other countries.   It is also about the security of the homeland, ensuring that the cores of our cultures are active and disciplined and hospitable and fair, including and especially fair to women.  As citizens, these women gave every indication of being willing to see and acknowledge connections to global processes to which we are usually blind, as well as the needs in our neighbors towards which we are more and more content to remain willfully ignorant.

Dr. Robert Zuber

Tags: ,

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Presents Joint Declaration for Afghanistan

17 Feb

Editor’s Note:  GAPW has had a long and fruitful association with both FES and with Lia Petridis Maiello.   We are grateful to the FES for keeping the issue of Afghanistan in the forefront of our policy work and to Lia for her reporting on/analysis of this important event. This article was originally featured in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lia-petridis/friedrichebertstiftung-fe_b_4774767.html. 

An equally ambitious and politically sophisticated project was recently launched by the German political foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), at United Nations headquarters in New York City. “Envisioning Afghanistan Post 2014” brought together political representatives of Central Asia and other policy experts last week to discuss options for a peaceful future for the still politically unstable country of Afghanistan and surrounding region. The discussion was based on a strategic initiative, “Afghanistan’s region: 2014 & Beyond – Joint declaration on regional peace and stability,” that will be executed and implemented by FES and several, regional, political interest groups.

“A truly regional document, not just an academic paper,” FES regional coordinator for peace and security policy, Sarah Hees, called the joint declaration. The idea was born in 2012 after the region was confronted with the withdrawal of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The ISAF mission was established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001, based in part on provisions in the Bonn Agreement (May 2001). ISAF has since been training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) as well as supporting the Afghan government in rebuilding core government institutions and battling an ongoing conflict with insurgent groups, including of course the Taliban.

With ISAF minimizing its significant role in stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan, the main responsibility will be transferred to the ANSF in corporation with a smaller NATO-led mission to advise the ANSF. As mentioned in the preamble of the declaration: “The scenario is uncertain: Will the ANSF be able to counter and defeat terrorism and other national and regional threats? Is the region ready to embrace Afghanistan with its myriad of challenges beyond 2014 while helping to guarantee its security, stability and prosperity? And will the region work towards a comprehensive and mutually beneficial outcome based on multi-faceted regional integration, in harmony with legitimate interests of non-regional players?”

A shift in approach, from looking at Afghanistan as more of an isolated incidence to more of an inclusive, regional attempt to bringing peace and stability, is what FES is trying to achieve with this initiative. Critical to the process was the development of regional policy groups, “providing a platform for them to engage in robust discussions,” as explained in FES’ concept paper. All-in-all, four policy groups were established, namely the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; Central Asia, which consists of the Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan; the Republic of India; and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Further relationships were established with the Institute of Political and International Studies (IPIS) in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Chinese Institute for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) in China. “When considering the historical grievances and differences, the region having achieved consensus on deliberations and policy recommendations is a remarkable feat,” concluded the FES paper.

Included in this regional process were former and acting senior diplomats, parliamentarians, civil servants, military generals, civil society members, analysts, and journalists with connections to decision makers and authorities in their respective fields.

The declaration drafted by FES and the regional experts reaffirms the “respect to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan.” Furthermore, acknowledging the highly sensitive geo-strategic crossroads location of Afghanistan and the implicated political challenges regarding the cooperation with neighboring countries. Among the call for trust-building measures the declaration also expresses the need “for an early resolution of the Iran-US standoff, which would create a conducive atmosphere to better coordinate and implement development projects in Afghanistan.”

One of the medium-term recommendations functions as a reminder to the international community that “in order to enable Afghan ownership, increase economic sustainability as well as build and upgrade state capability to deliver public services effectively and accountability, the international community and the Afghan Government must honor their mutual commitments beyond 2014 and through the Decade of transformation.”

Last week’s discussion at the UN made clear where participants in the joint declaration still see deficiencies or difficulties regarding future implementation of the declaration. The outcome of the upcoming elections in Afghanistan in early April will play a crucial role for not only the country’s future, but that of the region. The consensus among the participants appeared to be that fraud and irregularities during the elections will very likely take place, but the extent of those problems is unclear. The Guardian newspaper commented, “The election is the third presidential poll since the fall of the Taliban. It should pave the way for the country’s first-ever peaceful democratic transfer of power, because the constitution bars the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, from standing again. The fact that Afghanistan has never managed such a handover before is an indication of how fraught the process could be, even without the complication of a raging insurgency.”

As is widely known, voting can be very challenging for many Afghans. Often, casting a ballot involves hours of travelling while enduring serious risks to well-being. The level of fraud in previous elections has left many disillusioned about the process and therefore unwilling to take risks to reach the polls. The Taliban have disrupted voting and threatened anyone who tried to participate in previous elections. During the elections in 2009, Southeastern Afghanistan had the most incidents with 10 suicide attacks, 10 mine blasts and three other attacks according to data provided by the ministry of defense, as was reported in the Christian Science Monitor.

Security for these upcoming elections will primarily be provided by Afghan security forces, although the shrinking NATO mission has offered help with logistics, including air transport of ballots and other supplies. “Afghanistan’s rugged mountains, harsh deserts and limited infrastructure mean organizers of past elections have relied heavily on both high-tech air transport and traditional solutions such as donkeys to get ballot papers and boxes to more remote areas.”

Beyond elections, the call for the United Nations to play a stronger role in brokering Afghanistan’s peace process united all attendees at last week’s discussion at UN headquarters. The UN has been involved in the region since 1946, the point at which Afghanistan joined the General Assembly. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has been carrying out aid and development work since the 1950s. The UN continues to operate UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan), established in 2002 by the United Nations Security Council, primarily to support humanitarian, not military efforts in the country.

In an interview with the Global Policy Forum from November 2011, Kai Eide, former UN Special Representative in Afghanistan and former head of UNAMA explained some of the challenges the mission has been experiencing, “There were tensions already in our mandate; the UNAMA mandate said that we should work closely with the military. But of course, many of the UN agencies did not want us to work closely with the military, but wanted the UN to maintain its independence and not be seen as being part of the war against the Taliban. And I think that was important. For me, it was very difficult to position myself between the military, which wanted more and closer cooperation, and the UN agencies, which wanted a distance from the military. My instinct was to keep a distance and that was what prevailed.” Eide explained that many other obstacles came into play, for instance difficulties in getting the international community to speak with one voice on political issues, as well as to bring assistance from international donors together in one strategy. “On the last part, I must say, we did not succeed very well. We managed to set some priorities with the Afghan government, but when I arrived, the international aid effort in Afghanistan was chaotic, and when I left two years later, it was not much better.”

During the FES discussion at UN headquarters, the Central Asian representatives highlighted that the declaration needs to focus stronger on national responsibility to be taken up by Afghanistan, “which Afghans are keen to show,” as well as pointing out that in particularly socio-economic recommendations are crucial for the long-term stability of the region. While explaining the process of establishing this declaration, FES coordinator Sarah Hees pointed out that trust building between individual groups had been proven to be difficult at times, with some participants “remaining in Cold War rhetoric” and others, while neighbors, still exhibiting a fundamental unfamiliarity with each other.

It seems that no matter how complex the implementation, no matter how small the outcome or impact in the end, initiatives like this one by the FES are crucial to keep Afghanistan in the international community’s collective eye. There is a need to support the effort of policy and decision makers to establish a safe and prosperous society in Afghanistan, while closely paying attention to the manifold voices and perspectives of its people.

Lia Petridis Maiello, Media Consultant

Tags: , , ,

Droning On: Inviting Straight Talk on Peacekeeping Operations

23 Dec

On the afternoon of December 19, the Permanent Mission of Pakistan and the United Nations Foundation presented an important, far-reaching seminar on United Nations Peacekeeping entitled “Blue Helmets: New Frontiers.”

The seminar featured a wide array of senior officials (including Susana Malcorra representing the Secretary-General), diplomats (including the Ambassadors of France, Guatemala, Croatia and Canada) and experts from academia (such as Richard Gowan of NYU and Jean Marie Guéhenno of Columbia University) tasked with planning and implementing what are increasingly complex peacekeeping operations.  The sobering backdrop for the conversation was fresh violence in South Sudan where three Indian peacekeepers were killed as local youths stormed the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) base in Akobo.

The complexity of peacekeeping operations alluded to over and over by speakers has been fueled in part by the demands of global citizens and governments for the UN to take a more active role in resolving the many conflicts that flare up on our television screens and twitter feeds.  We’ve written previously (and likely will again) about some of the negative impacts of the politics of ‘doing something.’  But as more and more graphic images fill our homes and as people feel themselves further and further removed from any agency regarding responses to those horrors, the pressure on those who have understanding, skills and agency to ‘take care of’  effective responses to violence and the need for civilian protection continues to grow.

So, too, do the controversies.

Some of those controversies are specific to the architecture of robust peacekeeping response (peacekeeping in situations where there is really no ‘peace to keep’), such as the use of drones or the development of allegedly non-precedent-setting capacities such as the Intervention Brigade used in Eastern DRC.  Some governments, notably at this event the French, seem to be strongly convinced that, in the new world of peacekeeping, we must not be skittish about using force when force is called for.   ‘Living in the past’ where peacekeeping is concerned is tantamount to conceding relevance.   Using the technology at hand to increase the effectiveness and safety of operations is, at least for some governments and policymakers, a strategic imperative.

The French have a good point of course.   Changing times call for changing strategies.  Peacekeepers face different threats now as they respond to more complex and coercive mandates.  We all understand our responsibilities to protect civilians differently now. As a system, the UN now lives under the burdens of increasing expectations and (as Gowan noted) deployments that are likely to become more and more dangerous. But as other delegations and observers have noted, changes in how we conduct operations have implications for human lives that must also be taken into account.  The fact that we can ‘do something’ of a more coercive nature doesn’t automatically mean that we should, especially if we have not first considered alternatives that can both competently protect civilians and other stakeholders while bringing violence under effective control.

The issue here is not merely Brigades vs. Binoculars, coercion vs. passive observing.  The issue here, as it is in so many other parts of the UN system, is the degree to which we can both respond rapidly and effectively and at the same time reassure the skeptical – governments of member states, of course, but also persons victimized by a lack of timely and preventive response – that we are all committed to getting our protection strategies in the best possible order. More than the champions of coercive response (and perhaps even more than the champions of coercive restraint) recognize, this is a matter of trust as much as technical competence.

In a highly politicized environment (and more than one speaker noted the ‘political objectives’ attached to all PKOs) trust is an elusive agent.  Getting peacekeeping ‘right’ means applying the right tools to the missions to which we commit, and to apply those tools in the most timely, humane and effective manner, ensuring the safety not only of civilians but of humanitarian workers and peacekeepers themselves. But it also means doing all that is possible to head off threats before assembling the troops. (The best deployments, after all, are the ones that never have to be authorized.)  And it means giving credence to the skeptical, especially skeptical end users, some of whom are desperate for assistance but who also have long and vivid memories of unwelcome intrusions of all kinds in their not so distant past.   Skepticism isn’t always warranted of course.  And it should never become an excuse for inaction.   But ‘action’ comes attached to a long string of options, only some of which require offensively minded, coercive measures.

As Ambassador Rosenthal of Guatemala rightly noted, “just sending in the troops” to calm down any situation is simply not enough.  Indeed, at times it might be too much.    With due regard for the restraints imposed by sovereignty, the lack of definition of preventive capacity, and the absence of reliable, rapid-response deployments, the ‘situations’ alluded to by Ambassador Rosenthal are becoming more complex and more resistant to calm.   We need earlier, more attentive engagements by broader sectors of the UN system, along with more transparent assessments of the many areas where there is more work to be done to address our still evolving challenges.

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: , , , ,

US gun policies – leading the world by example?

19 Dec

Editor’s Note:  This is the final blog for Marianne Rijke as our Disarmament Fellow.    Soon she will move to Vienna to work for the CTBTO and hopefully will stay fully connected to our office as well.  Here, Marianne addresses an issue that has caused pain and controversy in the US — gun violence and what to do about it.  Her piece is thoughtful and relevant, and GAPW will continue our struggle to find the most effective and viable policy options in her absence. 

December 14 may have seemed like an ordinary day to you and me, but for the people of Newtown (Connecticut) this day symbolizes a pitch black day in their towns history. It was on this day, one year ago in 2012, that Adam Peter Lanza shot and killed 26 people – of whom 20 children – at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Immediately after the shooting, there was talk again about how to prevent this kind of tragedy in the future, especially since it was hardly the first time this has happened in the US. From the beginning there was a great division in views. On the one hand, there were the people like President Obama, who said that getting a gun should be made a lot more difficult. And on the other hand, there were the people like the members of National Rifle Association (NRA), who proposed guns for everyone as protection. They argued that taking away the possibility to own guns would actually put the lives of children at risk because “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

In the year that has passed, several attempts have been made to make gun laws stricter in the US. President Obama suggested fingerprinting for gun permits as well ass background checks. These suggestions were shot down in Senate and stricter gun laws did not get the desired support in Congress. President Obama took the one year anniversary of the Newtown massacre as an opportunity to once again emphasize the need to do more to prevent dangerous people from getting a gun, and then added the need to heal troubled minds. In the year since Sandy Hook not much has been done. No federal gun laws have been changed and in several states gun laws have actually been loosened. And lawmakers in Kansas and Alaska have enacted laws nullifying federal gun regulations for guns manufactured and kept within state borders. In Colorado, where there was a shooting at a school exactly one year after the Newtown killings, a more strict gun law was recently reversed. This makes it even more clear that the present gun law system does not work, despite claims to the contrary.

The (mis)use of guns and other small arms is an often debated issue, not only in the US, but worldwide. During the United Nations First Committee debates, the need to combat the illicit transfer and use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) was stressed. Several delegations stated that “SALW are the real weapons of mass destruction of our time” and that action is needed to regulate their movements and eliminate illicit supplies. Agreements were made and resolutions were signed which will (hopefully) help in the struggle against the illicit transfer and use of guns in the future worldwide. But they will not be sufficient to prevent another ‘Newtown killing’.

What makes the gun violence in the US different than the (mis)use of guns in the rest of the world is the legality of owning the guns used. Whereas private gun ownership is largely regulated and even prohibited in the rest of the world, in the US everyone has a right to own a gun. This ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ came into effect with the signing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the US on December 15, 1791. The American War of Independence had just ended (1783) and people were fearful of violence and wary of government. In this time, life in the US revolved around protecting yourself, your family and your land. Rule of law as we know it now, whereby the state is obligated to protect its citizens, did not exist as a principle guiding state conduct. Giving citizens the right to bear a gun to protect themselves made sense, at that time.

But over two centuries have passed and the US has grown into a world leader and is seen as one of the most prosperous and civilized countries in the world. The US takes the lead in several international security issues and positions itself as the protector of the free and safe world. It is difficult for me to understand that this ‘protector’ has a hard time enacting laws that keep ‘crazy’ or angry people from purchasing a gun. In our allegedly ‘free and safe world’, people are still dying every day (and needlessly) because of gun violence.

Since December 14 2012, over 32,000 people have been killed by gun violence in the US alone. Change is needed — getting hold of a gun should be made a lot more difficult, if not forbidden. To make the world a safer place for coming generations, the US should take up its leadership role and start leading the world by example. It was Mahatma Gandhi who said it so wisely: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”

Marianne Rijke – Disarmament Fellow GAPW

Tags: , ,

Food Security: Keeping Families in the Business of Agricultural Production

25 Nov

On Friday at UN Headquarters, November 22, The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) launched the 2014 International Year of the Family Farm.

The discussions were chaired by Amb. McLay of New Zealand and featured supporting statements from the offices of the Secretary General and President of the General Assembly, as well a statement by FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva and participation by several representatives of the globally diverse, family farming community.

There were many important insights on family farming that were shared during the course of the event.  Ample discussion ensued focused on the role of family farming in “alleviating hunger and poverty, in providing food security and nutrition, managing natural resources, protecting the environment and achieving sustainable development.”  Moreover, as the FAO website noted in describing the event, “Family farmers are embedded in territorial networks and local cultures, and spend their incomes mostly within local and regional markets, generating many agricultural and non-agricultural jobs.”

In an agricultural sector currently dominated by corporate monopolies, biological monocultures, genetically modified seeds and the like, it was indeed refreshing to have a reminder of how important family farming can be to maintaining nutritional balance, sustainable farming techniques and healthier local economies.  No doubt the minds of many in the room, myself included, wandered back to their own rural experiences where life was difficult and perhaps a bit romantic, a time when fending for yourself and sharing with your community were complementary and essential activities. Places where, to paraphrase the social philosopher, Wendell Berry, people still preferred to have a neighbor than to own a neighbor’s farm.

The issue for policymakers now is partially about honoring family farmers and partially about how to ensure that farming options that have so much to do with the well-being of communities, especially in the developing world, are maintained.   This is not a sentimental longing but an indispensable option.   It is sheer foolishness for policy elites in large urban environments to remain inattentive to those who seek control over farmlands and their yields, mines and their extractions, watersheds and their life giving liquid.  If there are to be wars and armed internal conflicts in this next phase of our collective history, they will surely be fought over minerals and water more than over borders and the pride of national leadership.

One issue to which we must pay more attention, which came up during the launch and also in a publication distributed at the launch event, “Feeding the World, Caring for the Earth,” has to do with access to markets.   Rural family farmers are often in danger of being bought out or ‘priced out’ by large corporations or investors with more knowledge of and better access to agricultural markets, not to mention to the government officials who preside over such markets.   In an age of capital expanding its influence faster than governments can (or wish to) regulate, family farms are vulnerable to a host of pressures, including having their markets undercut by farmers in other rural regions.

But another and perhaps more important factor has to do with the security of agricultural workers themselves, mostly rural, often women, and in many societies beyond the reach of whatever state security apparatus exists.   The vulnerabilities of rural farmers, especially female farmers, need much more attention from the international community, especially in this International Year.

In Cameroon, our partners at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation (LUKMEF) are organizing an event, Women Conference on Peace and Leadership in Sustainable Agribusiness, which will bring women farmers from throughout the Central African region with government officials to explore these two critical matters – markets and security.    The policy paper produced by LUKMEF for this event stresses the need to address violence against women, promote their access to justice, include training in peace building and conflict prevention along with agriculture-focused workshops, and work with governments to ensure more attention to the security needs of the rural communities that literally provide our daily bread.

We think that LUKMEF has this right.  It might seem an odd linkage for an organization like GAPW otherwise committed to peace and security issues at UN Headquarters.  But there is no denying the peace and security implications of vulnerable rural communities and of the women and men who strive to keep those communities viable.  We have little hope of achieving food security for developing societies unless we are able to more effectively guarantee the security of agricultural workers.

Sadly, our habits of consumption and our rapacious appetite for control of commodities and resources are creating societies that are more and more disconnected from – and disinterested in – rural issues and processes.    If there is to be maximum value to this International Year, and we must all hope and work for the best in this regard, it would manifest itself in a comprehensive reinvestment in rural agriculture production from all security and development sectors.  Our farms are facing times of crisis.   Our farm families must be secure enough to help direct locally-based responses to these grave challenges.

Dr. Robert Zuber

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: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →