Tag Archives: UN

4th ATT Prep Com: Time to be Realistic and Concrete

7 Feb

As diplomats and civil society alike prepare for the final preparatory committee in the Arms Trade Treaty process, it is important to take note of the original intent and point of consensus behind the initiation of the process: despite difficult and complex political considerations, there is general and widespread support for negotiating an ATT indicating a majority opinion that arms transfers should operate according to a common set of international standards. How those standards will be negotiated, who will ‘monitor’ compliance with these standards, and how much latitude will be allowed for more robust and explicit ‘disarmament’ language remains to be seen.

There are many questions remaining, including the most basic of all: What is the goal and objective of such a treaty? Differing answers to this question present a complex challenge for both this Prep Com as well as the July Negotiating Conference. There is ultimately no philosophical consensus—some advocate for a treaty that can establish strong humanitarian standards for the transfer of conventional weapons that can combat, prevent, and eradicate the illicit transfer of such weapons where they can facilitate destabilizing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, while others wish to negotiate strictly on the grounds of trade. How a member state characterizes the core objective of a future ATT will likely impact all relevant positions adopted and thus will influence the success of drafting and adopting the treaty. Therefore, it is necessary that the upcoming negotiations and these final preparatory consultations seek a realistic and pragmatic solution to this philosophical difference of opinion. Without such a harmonization of purpose, the ATT negotiations will forever be divided between schools of thought that seem less reconciled than they might actually be.

It is also important to highlight the difficulty of the ATT process in the context of the other disarmament challenges that are to arise in 2012. During a year that is punctuated by many disarmament and arms control challenges, such as the Review Conference on the Programme of Action on small arms and a conference on establishing a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, creation of a legally-binding ATT will require some degree of political capital investment, especially in light of the provision of consensus decision-making and acceptance of at least minimal international oversight of national control systems. Large manufacturing states will have to be active and productive participants in the ATT process if the treaty is to have any real impact on the arms trade – both cooperating with the provisions as well as providing international assistance to smaller states for the necessary national implementation capacity. There is an inherent responsibility on the part of the major exporters to negotiate an honest and robust ATT based on the fact that they account for the lion’s share of total arms manufactured, and thus in circulation.

As the ATT preparatory phase comes to a close and official negotiations begin, it is important to take into account the following recommendations that will make for a more robust and better implemented treaty over the longer term:

  • It is wise to incorporate a concrete review process that establishes regular meetings of the states parties to assess and adjust the ATT to better reflect evolving security circumstances as well as provide opportunities to make the treaty stronger to hopefully include some or all of the ‘additions’ that still remain contentious and perhaps are too difficult to include in the initial treaty.
  • It is essential that negotiations on an ATT focus on a structure that can support and even monitor national implementation once a treaty has been adopted. Member states must look realistically at the security, communications, and oversight challenges that lay ahead for treaty implementers. There is no obvious mechanism that currently exists to coordinate ATT-related logistics.
  • Even those member states that vigorously contend that any ATT should neither encroach on territorial sovereignty nor interfere in the ability of states to conduct arms transfers cannot argue against the dangers of diverting otherwise legally transferred weapons to non-state and illegitimate actors, such as criminal or terrorist elements, as well as through reselling weapons to line the pockets of corrupt officials. Delegations should address diversion directly in formulating a robust treaty that sufficiently highlights, monitors, and addresses all facets of this risk.

Understanding the inherent purpose of the ATT, as well as the broader disarmament context in which it is being negotiated, is important to the process. We hope that the final Prep Com will yield concrete negotiating points for July as well as a strong sense of enthusiasm and commitment from member states that will put diplomats in the strongest and most encouraging position possible for the diplomatic conference.

 

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , ,

Secretary-General Presents New 5-Year Agenda: Focusing on Prevention

31 Jan

Just last week, the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presented his Five-Year Action Agenda: ‘The Future We Want’ for his next term at the helm of the UN. He expanded further on the list of five imperatives laid forth last September: sustainable development; preventing conflicts and disasters, human rights abuses, and development setbacks; building a safer and more secure world, including standing strong on fundamental principles of democracy and human rights; supporting nations in transitions; and working with and for women and young people.

The Secretary-General made several important points regarding the changing dynamics of the world’s community that will require new and more dynamic responses by various stakeholders. The world’s population has officially exceeded 7 billion, new economic strongholds are emerging, social inequality is proliferating, climate change and environmental degradation are becoming harsher realities, and limited resources are continuing to shrink. These are no small challenges. It seems that any agenda,  not matter how far reaching and detailed, would be insufficient to tackle such gargantuan issues (the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs] are not on track to be achieved by 2015 as was envisioned when they were adopted in 2000. Nonetheless, as Ban Ki-moon said, the myth that development does not work is false– there has been more effective disease control, more children in primary school, and significant reductions in poverty throughout the world.) Nonetheless, it is important to temper opinions regarding the reality of setting forth such sweeping and lofty goals. A critical element of making these goals a reality is transparency, information sharing, and inter-agency coordination that not only engages the UN and its agencies, but also civil society, the private sector, academics, and other engaged global citizens that have the resources, enthusiasm, and skills to make progress, no matter how small, on these ambitious goals. As such, a welcome development was the SG’s announcement that he would appoint a senior adviser tasked with coordinating system-wide partnerships.

It’s worth a discussion on prevention– a key component of the SG’s agenda that is a ‘cure’ that is both better and cheaper than emergency response. In a system that is often focused on dealing with spiraling-out-of-control crises, this is a welcome initiative. The SG noted that his agenda emphasizes early warning and action through conflict mapping and linking, collecting and integrating information from across the system. This is precisely where the focus needs to be in addressing conflict, including mass atrocities and genocide, and human rights. As emphasized in our own organizational mission and priorities, it is essential to promote more transparency for findings generated by the UN, by member states and by civil society groups that indicate a credible threat of mass atrocities such that these findings can be made actionable at earlier stages before full-scale violence flares up. Findings are ultimately limited in their usefulness unless there is an attentive and robust infrastructure to turn information into preventative policy.

The SG’s reference to ‘a new dimension for the emerging doctrine of the responsibility to protect’ is somewhat vague, but it is a welcome reference to a framework that, although the majority of news-grabbing political considerations have focused on the last resort (military) intervention piece of it, fully embraces prevention as a means to limit the worst of human rights abuses. ‘Pillars’ one and two of the R2P framework focus on capacity-building and assistance for governments to protect their own people as a means of prevention. It is only the third and final pillar that focuses on potential outside intervention as a means to ‘protect.’  Likewise, more effective mapping and integration of information across the international system is welcome initiative that would promote greater transparency in findings of potential human rights abuses so that it is not left exclusively to the Security Council to deal with a full-blown crisis, but rather the wider international community can engage in early action and preventative activities.

It is important that the international community looks at the most pressing issues of the immediate future on a macro level, in addition to the micro dealings of day-to-day UN work. It is in these broader assessments that the different challenges can be better understood in concert with one another so that better and more efficient coordination can be planned for and ultimately implemented. The linkages are clear– higher levels of participation from women and youth are linked to more sustainable development; preventing conflicts and development setbacks surely depend on building a safer and more secure world. The UN is an imperfect system, but it is a system that is universal in representation and replete with human creativity and skills to tackle, even if imperfectly, these difficult challenges of our time.

 

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,

Security Council Discusses Two Key Security Issues: Rule of Law and Middle East

25 Jan

Over the past week, the Security Council has engaged in two separate debates on thematic issues of critical importance to the broader human security agenda– the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies and the situation in the Middle East including the Palestinian question. One key highlight was the warning by the UK delegate on illegal arms smuggling into Syria that continues to feed the violence.

Our intern Helene Samson provides detailed reports on the meetings. Please see below.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

On 19 January 2012, the Security Council met to discuss the UN’s approach to transitional justice and the rule of law, a norm which is acknowledged by the UN Charter as a precondition to national and international peace and security, and remains a vital element for ensuring prosperity, sustainable development and reducing poverty in states. Although the UN intervention in war-torn states countries has helped in transitional justice, both the UN and national capacities still need to be strengthened given the growing corruption, lack of transparency, and accountability. The Council also reaffirmed its opposition to impunity for violations of international law and highlighted the responsibility of states to prosecute people responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened the meeting by supporting the role of rule of law in monitoring armed conflicts, and the growing threat of transnational trafficking, and organized crimes. He further stressed also the necessity to reinforce the rule of law to protect civilians and vulnerable groups, such as women and children. He discussed reinforcing norms through transitional justice; building justice and security institutions to promote trust; and achieving justice for women and gender equality.

The delegations present expressed their respective commitments to rule of law. Rule of law was particularly influential in enhancing the capacity of civil society in the Arab Spring, evidenced in cases such as Liberia and Sierra Leone. India and Portugal both highlighted the need to eliminate state discriminatory laws that interfere with gender equality, equal rights and the full political participation of women. Indeed, children and women continue to represent one of the most vulnerable groups in armed conflicts. France suggested that ICC judicial decisions should be pursued steadily and consistently by states, when states are not willing to enforce criminal justice within their own domestic legal systems. Next, the UK voiced concerns that some member states have not recognized the Court’s competence, and pointed out that the ICC should have a more compulsory competence in terms of international criminal justice. Furthermore, the UK explained that security goes along with health and education regarding peace building long-term processes; the British delegation declared they were ready to invest 30 percent of its growing development aid to help 12 million women have better access to justice through police, courts and legal assistance.

Although they have not signed the Rome Statute, the United States also expressed its moral commitment to the international norms of transnational justice and rule of law by mentioning their honoring institutionalized initiatives for armed conflict prevention: Obama’s Executive Order on promoting women participation in peace process and rule of law enforcement, and also a study on high-level atrocity prevention. Moreover, as for China, it did not mention any initiatives to promote transitional justice and security, but emphasized its reluctance regarding the systematic and intrusive application of sanctions in some unique national situations, arguing that national sovereignty is still the highest legitimate authority. States tending to reinforce the rule of law through issuing laws of post-conflict reintegration and integral reparation, such as Colombia or adopting a more democratic constitution like in Morocco, warned also the UN approach criticized earlier by China. It was suggested the UN should cooperate with states to complete national measures and consolidate the rule of law in the different realities. Guatemala, whose post-conflict institutions are still weak and have seen transnational criminality worsen, highlighted the lack of national appropriation that sometimes follows failed post-war peace building. Guatemala has nevertheless explained that a successful reconciliation consists of a balance between the duty of remembrance and the responsibility of reconciliation.

In sum, the Security Council expressed its concerns regarding displaced groups, children, and particularly women who also play also a critical role in peace building. The adoption of measures, such as Resolution 1325, has been encouraging. It has been argued that Specific international tribunals, in particular the ICC, remain a vital element in the architecture of the international and healing justice. There is a need to coordinate international jurisdiction needs to ensure the reinforcement of the rule of law. However, the Security Council is aware that in an ideal world, national States should preserve jurisdictions should do justice themselves, without any intervention from an international organization. Meanwhile, the Security Council will have to address these challenges to promote rule of law in cooperation with national politics and help states to build peace and security. The Security Council expects an international push and political changes in war-torn societies.

This Security Council’s meeting was part of a high-level meeting on justice and rule of law that will be discussed by world leaders at the General Assembly on 24 September 2012. For the time being, the Council sought to emphasize the major role that rule of law plays in the peace and security field, as a call for political leaders to implement reform measures.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Security Council met on 24 January 2012 to discuss the situation in the Middle East, focusing at length on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, welcomed the series of talks on territory and security between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators initiated 3 January 2012. He reported growing violence and illegal measures on the ground by Israel. Indeed, the aggressive Israeli settlement activities and the constant exchanged violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians present a major obstacle to a two-State solution.

As for Lebanon, several incidents in the zone of operation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) showed the fragile conditions of security. The continued Israeli violation of the Lebanese aerospace not only undermines the credibility of UNIFIL, but also breaks with Resolution 1701. Moreover, 5,660 Syrian refugees have been registered on 13 January 2012 in Lebanon. He thus encouraged the Security Council to support the League of the Arab States’ proposal to tackle the violence and human rights violation perpetuated by the Syrian government.

Following Fernandez-Taranco’s introductory comments, Permanent Observer of Palestine spoke out about the Israeli practices on the ground in violation of international legal norms. He mentioned that Israeli settlement activities increased by 20 percent in 2011 further ‘Judaizing’ East Jerusalem with more checking points, demolitions of Palestinian proprieties, the closure of Palestinian institutions and the ‘ghettoization’ of the Palestinians, among others. He went further in accusing Israeli settlers of ethnic cleansing, in particular in the Jordan Valley, through the destruction of farms and displacement of population, and also acts of vandalism in churches and mosques, all in the full view of the Israeli security force. The Israeli air and land blockade affects deeply the Palestinians since it obstructs the necessary civil construction and humanitarian aids.

The Israeli delegation affirmed that the single greatest threat to the world security was an Iran seeking to build a nuclear weapon. The Israeli representative blamed the Security Council for having spent too much time and energy on the Israeli settlement activities instead of focusing on the real challenges that face the Middle East and the entire world. With its plan of enriching uranium to a 20 percent level, Iran breaks also several Security Council Resolutions, a reason why “the Security Council should be losing sleep over it,” replied the Israeli delegate. Adding to the Iranian threat, Israel also accused Palestinian authorities of keeping silent on the Hamas’ incitement to hatred and the destruction of Israel. Israel concluded Palestine’s misleading insistence on the two-State solution justifies Gazans’ security as the Israeli main priority.

The US encouraged both parties to set an environment conducive to progress and condemned any incitement to violence and terrorist attacks against Israel. However, the US delegation reaffirmed that it did not support the legitimacy of settlement activities. Regarding Syria, the US delegate noted that there are urgent needs for sanctions against the Syrian government actions and affirmed support for the Arab League’s plan for a transition to democracy.

With 43 percent of the West Bank clearly not under the control of the Palestinians and corresponding increasing violence, India declared the Israeli settlement unacceptable and contrary to international law. Restrictions to humanitarian assistance have resulted in an increase in poverty levels, something hardly compatible with a two-State solution. Togo, concerned for Palestinian refugee rights, called also for leaving the blockade. Good faith negotiations from both parties, financial and material support from the international community, and the Quartet’s role as guarantor of any agreements reached, were all encouraged as a set of practices to overcome current difficulties.

Colombia reiterated the negative impact of settlement activities in the region, but also noted violence against Israelis and threats to Israeli security calling for defined borders acknowledged by the international community. The Moroccan delegation explained also that Israel’s lack of political and moral will on the ground represented great challenges to peace. They suggested that Israel fulfill its responsibilities and obligations, in particular in Jerusalem and its suburbs where settlement activities have increased.

Pakistan criticized the endless debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the Security Council and the Quartet’s frozen position in a state of “suspended promises” that have not helped Palestinians address the issue. The Russian Federation noted a ‘remote manipulation’ from some states, without explicitly mentioning names, to maintain a certain ethnic group to power constitutes a major obstacle to human rights and the peace process.

The United Kingdom broadened the scope of the debate calling for democracy in the Arab world and the Security Council’s support for the League of Arab States in the transition to democracy in Syria. The UK warned of the illegal smuggling of arms to Syria, which continues to feed the shedding of blood. While Germany suggested expanding product exports to the West Bank to ensure the creation of jobs and prosperity, France urged establishing an international follow-up mechanism that is likely to lead to a two-State solution.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Tags: , , , ,

Mexico, Drug Trade, and Illicit Arms

25 Jan

The Mexican government has recently released updated drug war death toll figures, reporting 47,515 deaths in drug-related violence since 2006 when President Calderon began a military assault on drug cartels. The so-called ‘war on drugs’ has ravaged the security sector and continues to present a dangerous challenge to the US as drug cartels battle over control of the lucrative US consumption market. The factors associated with this struggle are plenty and can be evaluated both in isolation as well as collectively– the role of poverty, unemployment, and lack of opportunity surely contribute to the allure of drug trafficking. Such societal stresses have perpetuated the illicit business and enticed the hopeless and struggling into a black market that, although highly risky, dangerous, and gruesome, can offer high financial returns.

The endemic contributors to drug trafficking aside, the role of illicit arms and its relationship with drug trafficking may not necessarily be causal, but illicit weapons surely perpetuate and enable the drug-related violence that has become a blight on the world community. In a year when the UN General Assembly will negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate the international trade in conventional weapons, it is important to focus on why it is international standards for export and import matter. The consequences of unregulated trade, which lead to societies awash in illegal weapons used for criminality, violence, and intimidation, are dire. Nowhere is this more evident than in Mexico. As noted by Daniel Avila Camacho in a report for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), drugs and arms often account for the largest sections of the black market and often use the same transport roots. Possession of arms by drug traffickers is more than a common practice and has become a sort of requirement for protection and security reasons when moving about areas of operation. Possession of arms is often involved from primary production by drug growers to the couriers accompanied by armed bodyguards. The financial symbiosis is also evident– drug trafficking often generates vast proceeds creating a financial base for criminal and terrorist groups to conduct illegal traffic in arms and vice versa creating a synergistic relationship between the two activities.

The sincere hope of many working for a ‘robust ATT’ is that the treaty will not only regulate the legal trade in arms between governments, but will also prevent and contribute to the eradication of illicit trade in arms (hopefully to include small arms and light weapons [SALWs], which is the type of weapon generally referred to here as related to drug and gang violence). The example of drug-related violence brings to light the critical importance of adopting a strong humanitarian perspective in an ATT so that it is more than a commerce agreement between states. The conflation of the business of arms trade (which does have a legal market in government-to-government transfers of military equipment and arms) and human rights concerns comes via the issue of diversion — the movement of weapons from the legal to the illicit market for purposes of criminality, insurgency, to violate the human rights of civilian populations, or to line the pockets of corrupt government officials.  It is diversion that must be ‘flagged,’ addressed, and eliminated through the framework of a strong and legally-binding ATT that takes care to disallow loopholes and bypassing of its provisions by criminal networks and corrupt individuals.

States continue to reinforce the right to acquire arms for self defense as part of their innate state sovereignty. These references to Article 51 of the UN Charter will not cease and neither will trade in arms between states. Manufacturing and trade in arms is a business that accounts for billions of dollars of revenue for states. An ATT will have no power over this legal trade insofar as creating a mechanism that would limit legal trade between states, something that has been expressly warned against during the ATT preparatory discussions. States are careful not to encroach on this right. Nonetheless, a central goal of an ATT, along with the UN Programme of Action on the illicit trade in small arms (PoA), must be to address the human suffering related to the illegal trade in arms by preventing illegal diversion such that there are less weapons in the hands of drug traffickers.

–Katherine Prizeman

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Following through on a Middle East WMD-Free Zone

18 Jan

A recent editorial in the NY Times from 15 January proposed that the best way to prevent a ‘nuclear Iran’ is through a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East (WMDFZ). A 1995 resolution on the Middle East at the Review Conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) calls upon the states from the region to “take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective.” Furthermore, a statement from the UN Security Council on 31 January 1992 affirmed that proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is a threat to international peace and security. The outcome document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference committed states parties to a 2012 conference on the establishment of such a WMDFZ and such a conference will be held later this year in Finland. Given this historical context and mindful of current political circumstances in the region, it is essential that the development of concrete proposals for treaty elements and confidence-building measures towards a WMDFZ in the Middle East are taken both seriously and expeditiously.

As explained by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull in their Times op-ed, a military attack on Iran will most likely encourage the Islamic Republic to more vigorously pursue nuclear weapons in the long run, even if its program is set back several years due to the attack. Such costs are high insofar as the likelihood of Iran’s more robust and intense pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as the chance that other Arab states will consider ‘going nuclear.’ The other major challenge (and danger) in the region is surely Israel’s policy of ‘opacity’ around its nuclear program– not acknowledging having nuclear weapons while the rest of the world operates under the assumption that they do, in fact, have such capabilities with little to no ambiguity around that fact. Therefore, the only clear path forward is the proposed (and promised) development of a Middle East WMDFZ.

As expressed on numerous occasions by government officials, a nuclear Iran is not an option for Israel or the United States, while Israel continues to operate outside the NPT framework and therefore is not obligated to IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. Moreover, Israel’s escalating tensions with Turkey and even Egypt (with which Israel has a peace agreement) are indicative of a worsening situation in a region home to some of the most protracted and deep-seeded conflicts in history. Iran’s recent inflammatory actions, including its threatening to shut down access to the Strait of Hormuz because of sanctions imposed against its developing nuclear program, are a sign that the current trajectory is at best alarming and a new pathway to peace must be seriously pursued. A WMDFZ would ultimately force all the major stakeholders to task– Israel’s nuclear program would have to become a viable discussion point and Iran would be subject to legitimized monitoring in terms of its uranium enrichment program for energy production, which the Islamic Republic strongly contends is as far as its production goes.

There are no illusions in terms of how difficult, complex, and unique a WMDFZ in the Middle East actually is. The zones that already exist, such as Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Mongolia, clearly do not have the same political challenges that the Middle East must grapple with. The negotiations around the zone will be long, complicated, and frustrating to be sure, but it is essential to not only international peace and security, but to a sustained regional peace that will never come to fruition if the threat of nuclear weapons and the development of such weapons are on the table. Negotiations to develop and implement a WMDFZ must operate in concert with complementary steps toward regional peace as collective security agreements cannot be viably and permanently de-linked from peace agreements. Disarmament and arms control issues must be negotiated simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is important to caution that although a dual peace and arms control process is important, the WMDFZ will have to be negotiated even if a comprehensive peace agreement has not yet been reached in the region (at least to start) .

It is also important to understand the WMFZ negotiations in the context of other international disarmament and arms control processes such as ratification of the CTBT, other biological, chemical and nuclear treaties, the UN Programme of Action on small arms, and IAEA inspections. Compliance with these measures are essential in order to increase confidence in regional security and trust in the preparatory process (which is sure to be long) leading to the creation of the zone.

The time is now for honest and robust efforts towards a WMDFZ in the Middle East. Such a zone will have positive ramifications for the region and the world at large by eliminating the option of the antiquated Cold War-style nuclear deterrence for ‘mutually assured destruction.’ It’s time for all stakeholders to be held accountable and for a transparent framework that limits the dangerous double standard and acceleration of tensions that currently exist.

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , ,

Assessing the 2011 GA Session

27 Dec

The President of the 66th General Assembly (PGA), Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser of Qatar, recently hailed the plenary body of the UN for its collective work on the most pressing global issues of our time noting that the GA has adopted nearly 300 resolutions and decisions during its main session. The main pillars of the 66th session, as laid forth by the PGA, have been peaceful settlement of disputes; UN reform and revitalization; improving disaster prevention and response; and promoting sustainable development and global prosperity. The PGA made particular mention of the importance of disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, and the key requirement of breaking the stalemate in the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament that is considered to be the sole multilateral negotiating body for disarmament. Other achievements underscored by the PGA were the actions taken on Libya, the political declaration adopted on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, and the application by the Palestinian Authority for full membership.

In light of the conclusion of the main session of the GA, it is important to assess not only the substantive accomplishments of the body, but the role of the GA writ large. Long after the heads of state and heads of government have returned to their capitals in September, the GA must settle down to the difficult and complex work of its committees to address challenging global issues. The higher profile issues of this year’s session have surely stolen  many headlines, in particular the Palestinian membership question, and have often eclipsed some of the less controversial, albeit still extremely significant, work of the GA. The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) is still grappling with the task of breaking the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiating, among other important treaties, a Fissile Cut-Off Material Treaty (FMCT); the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) must deal with challenging issues related to macroeconomic policy questions such as international trade, financing for development, poverty eradication, and human settlements; the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) encompasses some of the most difficult questions of human rights, the advancement of women, indigenous peoples, and treatment of refugees.

As such, behind the more pronounced, headline-grabbing issues are a litany of concerns that are so complex that they appear on the GA’s agenda year after year. These issues are neither small agenda items nor easily evaluated and accomplished tasks. Nonetheless, the value of discussing these transnational issues in the only truly global forum is paramount. Equality in representation gives the GA process an innate value independent from its lack of enforcing power and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. As previously mentioned, the GA often counts among its most impressive accomplishments ‘political declarations’ that, although they have no legally-binding provisions, carry considerable weight by symbolizing the general sense of the international community on a given global issue.

It follows, then, that while it is admirable that the program of work for the 66th session has been far-reaching, the more concrete the goals of the GA are the more easily it is to assess and ultimately evaluate the progress of the body such that improvements can be made year to year. The trade-off for universal membership, however, appears to be this concrete evaluation and enforcement power. It is also clear that any sort of ‘evaluation’ of the UN’s work, especially from the perspective of the general public, is done through a peace and security lens. Often through this lens, the deficiencies of the UN are glaring– the inability to eliminate nuclear weapons, to curb the illicit arms trade, to ensure women’s full participation in all peace policies and processes, and to provide robust early warning and diplomacy to respond to the threat of atrocity crimes. Nevertheless, these security concerns are indivisible and have implications for all of the UN’s work from human rights to development such that this narrower lens of evaluation is not so skewed as to be entirely devoid of value.

As is often argued by observers of the UN, there is currently no alternative available as a viable multilateral system for addressing international issues on a broad spectrum. Therefore, it is important to continue to work within the framework that exists, while simultaneously pushing for improvements to fill in and ultimately improve on the ‘cracks’ in the system. The hope is that the GA will continue to improve its process and make honest overtures towards addressing its very lengthy list of global concerns.

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , ,

Security Sector Challenges and Women’s Participation

20 Dec

Global Action recently had the opportunity to co-organize a meeting of Andean region governments on combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALWs). The conference covered many aspects of the illicit trade from regional cooperation and information exchange to the current status of implementation of the UN Programme of Action on small arms (UNPoA). Representatives of Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia engaged in an open and honest discussion about how to strengthen regional security and eliminate illicit weapons wreaking havoc on communities.

As Global Action is accustomed to doing, a women, peace and security lens was integrated into the conversation to push forward a  more robust human security agenda that is adequately inclusive of both women and men. At a macro-policy level, the links between a strong security sector and inclusive participation in political processes, peace negotiations, and other forms of civic engagement in helping to keep the peace are inarguable.  It is essential that the security sector is sufficiently robust to enable active and meaningful participation from all constituencies, including women, without fear or intimidation. The linkages between effective security sector reform and women’s participation, in particular, is a key component to a robust human security agenda that can prevent and well as address conflict in all forms. Furthermore, not only is it theoretically important to include the skills and talents of all citizens, such inclusion also practically contributes to the well being of the society.

In practice, the proliferation of illicit small arms continues to facilitate grave community-based crimes, including sexual and gender-based violence as well as other forms of domestic abuse which are often committed at gunpoint. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is not a stand-alone issue to be addressed in isolation, but surely facilitates other trafficking and security challenges faced by policymakers, police and the military.

Moreover, it is inaccurate to classify women as solely victims of gun violence perpetrated by men with arms. This approach neglects the active role women have played, and continue to play, in global, regional, and civil-society driven conflict prevention and disarmament initiatives. This narrow approach has also neglected the role women sometimes play as gun users, combatants, and traffickers.

SCR 1325 is proving to be an effective mandate for small arms policy and implementation by encouraging women’s participation in decision-making as well as by identifying specific entry points for gender analysis—such as reform of national security recruitment practices, implementation of small arms initiatives in collaboration with women’s organizations, and policy training and education to increase women’s participation in issues critical to the UN PoA. In order to address the real causes of societal insecurity, it is essential that participation in all peace and disarmament processes are representative of the whole of the population.

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , ,

The CCW4 and Cluster Munitions

15 Nov

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

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

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

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

-Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,

Arms to Syria: Fueling the Fire of Violence

14 Nov

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

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

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

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

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , ,

SC Open Debate on Peace and Security Implications of Climate Change

21 Jul

Hello all!

Yesterday Giedre and I attended the SC Open Debate on the peace and security implications of climate change. It was quite controversial actually. Not the climate change part, but the fact that the Council was discussing it and not the GA or ECOSOC where the mandate of climate change lies.

The SG gave a strong statement in support of the SC discussing climate change as a threat to peace and security. Director of the UN Environmental Programme also gave a grim briefing on the accelerated threat of climate change. On one side were the US, Germany, SIDs (represented by President of Nauru who was there), Colombia, and EU states who are in strong support of having the SC deal with the security implications of climate change. On the opposite end were China, Russia, Lebanon, G-77, and NAM who believe it to be an encroachment on the authority of the ‘more universal bodies’ such as the GA and ECOSOC who should deal with the issue entirely. Brazil, Nigeria, and India were somewhere in the middle.
I have more detailed notes if anyone is interested!
-Katherine

Tags: , , , , ,

Newer Entries →