Hibakusha Appeal presents 8,300,403 Signatures

With Hidankyo Japan, PEAC helped presented 8,300,403 signatures to Ambassador Ion Jinga, President of the First Committee, at the United Nations today on behalf of the Hibakusha Appeal for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Yes, you read that right over 8 Million! The story was picked up by many international news outlets. Check out the Japan Times article here!

Sadly no US-based news picked up this story, not surprising, but it's one thing we are working on changing. We believe nuclear issues affect us all and is a topic of much-needed discussion.

On Wednesday, September 27th, the UN convened a high-level meeting to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. At the start of the event, the Secretary General delivered his remarks in which he drew upon his experience in Nagasaki and Securing our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament, his new disarmament agenda, the Secretary General emphasized the importance of nonproliferation and denuclearization, noting that nuclearization “is the greatest existential challenge of our time.” He further specified that “we must take urgent steps” toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons as well. A clear and purposeful way to start the day’s discussion.

Ms. Epinosa, President of the UN General Assembly, called upon the international community, especially the nuclear-armed States. to engage in 'innovative discussions on practical measures' and to advance 'fresh ideas and political will to make a difference.' She further emphasized the importance for the international community to support the Secretary-General’s disarmament agenda.

The Non-Aligned Movement

On behalf of the NAM, Venezuela emphasized the need for the international community to support a high-level conference, which would review progress on nuclear disarmament. It further explained that “so long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use will persist.” Moreover, he contended that nuclear weapons violate the UN Charter and nuclear weapons constitute a crime against humanity.  Finally, the NAM reiterated that the use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, he added.

Europe

Amongst the European States, Austria and Liechtenstein were present. Austria is a leader in the TPNW and has made disarmament one of its top national policy priorities.  Consequently, it urged other states to ratify the TPNW. Austria further asserted that due to the ongoing modernization of nuclear weapons and advancements of national arsenals, nuclear weapons are currently more dangerous than ever before.

Similarly, Lichtenstein expressed deep concern in the slowing pace of decisive progress towards disarmament and contended that the TPNW is the only source of optimism at the moment. They urged the international community to break the recent trends in nuclear modernization and to instead pursue a disarmament agenda.

Arab and Middle East

On behalf of the Arab Group, Oman expressed their belief in the necessity of reviving multilateral efforts to secure a “nuclear-weapon-free” future. In addition, it urged the international community to strive for the creation of a WMDFZ within the Middle East as stipulated in the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East and reaffirmed in final document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference  Furthermore, it explained that Israel has become an obstacle to attaining these goals within the Middle East, due to its lack of willingness to cooperate with Arab states and refusal to accede to the NPT.

Egypt endorsed the Arab Group’s statement. It conveyed strong opposition to the increasing reliance of nuclear weapons in the foreign and military policies of nuclear states, claiming that “security of nuclear states” is no excuse for militarization as this threatens the security of non-nuclear states. Egypt also stated that a slow and gradual step-by-step process is not going to yield definitive results and instead called upon all states to revive their efforts and take full, irreversible, and verifiable steps towards denuclearization.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan echoed similar sentiment within their respective statements.  For instance, Saudi Arabia supplemented these points with their opposition to even peaceful uses of nuclear energy, especially by Iran, claiming that they must be held accountable to safety regulations that affect the entirety of the region.

Iran, understandably, presented a boisterous argument against the United States for actions regarding its unwillingness to stand by the points laid out within the JCPOA as well as within the UNSC resolution 2231, a security council resolution that legally endorsed the JCPOA. Iran countered that the United States, by engaging in sanctions which present noncompliance toward the JCPOA and the UNSC Resolution 2231, the ties, which bind all parties have started to fray and will eventually break; thus causing fragile, if not disruptive international relations between the United States and everyone party to the the JCPOA.

Iran also reaffirmed its allegiance to the NPT and vehemently urges other nations to sign and ratify the NPT as well. Iran also criticized Israel for being the only state in the region, which has not acceded to the NPT. It further conveyed its concerns about both Israel’s opacity policy and its perceived nuclear deterrence policy.

African Group

Similarly, on behalf of the African Group, Madagascar. welcomed the TPNW. The group further called upon all states to take into consideration the severe effect the weapons have on human health as well as for all states to “seize this opportunity” and ratify the TPNW. Additionally, the African Group mentioned whether "we could for a brief moment ponder, about the world we will leave for our children?”

Latin American and Caribbean states

Amongst this regional group, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Brasil, Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, Guyana, Peru, and Uruguay underscored the importance of nuclear disarmament. In particular, Costa Rica, which chaired the 2017 negotiations on the TPNW, underscored the necessity for states to support the TPNW. It also resolutely stated that “ We will not rest until we free the world of this terrible nuclear nightmare because we hold dear a world free of nuclear weapons.  

Building upon Costa Rica’s statement, Mexico explained that the threat and use of nuclear weapons are illegal under international humanitarian law.  It further recalled its commitments to nuclear weapons free zones (nwfzs).

Cuba also expressed historical points within the story of its own nation’s development relating to their battle for denuclearization. Moreover, Venezuela underscored its strong commitments to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It further expressed dismay about the slow pace of nuclear weapons. It further mentioned that nuclear weapons must be immediately eliminated in order to remove the Damocles’ nuclear sword that hangs over humanity. Finally,Venezuela emphasized its strong support to NWFZs; consequently, in this context, it called for the creation of a WMDFZ in the Middle East.

Central Asia

Concerning Central Asian states, Kazakhstan proclaimed that it actively contributes to nuclear free zones, wants to focus efforts also on cyber crimes which seem to have a connection to Weapons of Mass Destruction and are planning on ratifying the TPNW treaty. Kyrgyzstan . Kyrgyzstan reaffirmed the importance of multilateral nuclear disarmament measures. In this regards, it acknowledged the work of civil society and the UN in helping both the region and the world to move closer towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Considering Kyrgyzstan’s positive views, it is imperative for it to sign the TPNW as soon as possible.   Kyrgyzstan has yet to sign the TPNW treaty.

Northeast Asia

Regarding Northeast Asia, Japan expressed support for a step-by-step approach towards nuclear disarmament. In essence, it underscored its long-standing policy on nuclear disarmament and emphasized a need for both the nuclear states and non-nuclear weapons to collaborate together..

Unfortunately, despite the strong positions held amongst the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Hibakusha on the TPNW, Japan refused to support the TPNW. It is simply regrettable that Japan deliberately chose not to mention the TPNW.

Pacific Islands

In terms of the Pacific States, both Palau and Samoa touched upon the legacy of nuclear testing in the region, which motivated them to sign and ratify the TPNW. Both states are members of the Rontagona Treaty, which established the NWFZ in the South Pacific.

Unfortunately, the Marshall Islands, a state where the US tested its nuclear weapons, explicitly mentioned that it will not sign the TPNW. It will continue to “study” the treaty. It further expressed grave concerns about the TPNW’s provisions on victims assistance. The RMI erroneously believes that the provision about victims assistance places undue burden onto them and other affected states. This is simply not true as highlighted by ICAN and the Harvard Human Rights Law Clinic.  The RMI is relying on this argument because it is still worried that the TPNW violates its COMPACT agreement with the US. However, in a recent study by both ICAN and the Harvard Human Rights Law Clinic, it is possible for RMI to sign the agreement and remain in compliance with its obligations under the COMPACT agreement with the US

Nuclear Armed States

China reiterated its No-First-Use Policy and underscored a “pragmatic step-by-step approach towards establishing a world free of nuclear weapons.” This incremental process could take several long decades.

India supports negotiations in the CD and desires to engage in a global framework that is nondiscriminatory. - India mentioned the FMCT in the CD, a bs response i might add.They also gave importance to the United Nations resolution 1299.

Pakistan mentioned its alliance with the non-aligned movement and in 1978 affirmed that complete abolishment of nuclear weapons is the solution.

Observers

The Holy See underscored the importance of  the TPNW and declared that (noted is too weak) it as an “important step towards a nuclear free world.” The Holy See signed it and ratified it “on the very day it was opened for signature on the 20th of September 2017.” The Holy See further  urged all states “to make the “Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a reality by ensuring its entry into force.”

The ICRC stated that that even a minimal amount of nuclear damage would have catastrophic effects on human health, the environment, the climate, food production, and socioeconomic development. It further explained  the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a a “historical achievement signaling the determination of a large majority of states.” Finally, it called on all states to sign and ratify on the TPNW. .

At the end of the event, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, delivered a strong statement in which it reiterated that a vast majority of states adopted the TPNW. Since the historic adoption of the treaty, there has been tremendous progress towards its entry into force.

In addition to mentioning the importance of the TPNW, ICAN reminded states that strategically deployed nuclear weapons pose a grave danger to everyone. ICAN further mentioned that nuclear weapons undermine the sustainable development goals; and therefore, nuclear weapons must be banned once and for all.  

Nobel Peace Prize: Past, Present, and Future

By Alei Rizvi and Andrew Sokulski

On September 17th, International Peace Institute (heretofore abbreviated as IPI) convened “Nobel Peace Prize: Past, Present, and Future” was held by the International Peace Institute. The speaker, Asle Toje, a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, spoke about the prize, its history, its significance, and its reverberations. Terje Rød-Larsen, the President of the International Peace Institute, moderated the event.

Per the standard flow of history, he explained the origins of the Nobel Prize. Upheld as a prize for the elite, intellectual, and difficult to enter circles of societies in the popular conscious, the speaker explained how Alfred Nobel was not part of the richest percent of his society. As he explained, Alfred Nobel was born into the lower echelons of the Swedish aristocracy. He had always been an inventor and dreamer. In contrast to the belief that Alfred Nobel ought to have been a pacifist, he was actually not one at all. Nobel was involved in the oil and armament trade and moved from Stockholm to St. Petersburg to pursue it. Nobel is believed to have said that “Where I work is my home, and my home is anywhere.” Such is evident within his life as he had also moved to Italy as well.

Progressing to explaining the present moment, Toje mentioned how the nobel prize seeks to build fraternity amongst nations and give recognition to those who create the preconditions for such harmony to exist. In this sense, the award positively exemplifies Emmual Kant’s political philosophy on how states should behave with one another.

Toje also stated the policies regarding the handing out of the Nobel Peace Prize during this time, such as the fact that the committee is not necessarily obliged to award it every year. He mentioned that if the committee were to come to a situation in which it could not find an eligible candidate, or any suggested candidate, then the committee would not pick someone to award it to. However, given the present nature of how each year has turned out, the committee have has countless nominations and have found eligible recipients. With this mission in mind, the committee continus to search for eligible candidates and hopes to foster good-will amongst states.

After concluding his presentation on the Nobel Peace Prize’s history, significance and implications, Toje engaged in a enlightening question and answer session with the audience members. The session opened with an intriguing question from the moderator, Terje Rod-Larsen asked Mr. Toje to provide insights on the gender imbalance and overrepresentation of the Northern Hemisphere in the history of the award. Mr. Toje explained that the award was primarily considered for individuals in the fields of arbitration and diplomacy, specifically for international organizations like the League of Nations or the UN, fields that have historically been dominated by men. Mr. Toje asserted that this is an unfortunate truth but must be acknowledged in order to allow more opportunity for underrepresented groups in the future.

Additionally, many attendees asked if the committee considers the implications of awarding prizes to specific individuals, specifically if they considered the effects the prize would have on constituents of world leaders rather than on the leaders themselves. Mr. Toje assured the audience that the prize could not guarantee peace, but often encourages leaders to move towards a peace that would benefit everyone. He used the example of former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, claiming that awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016 encouraged him to resolve the conflict between the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with a renewed spirit.

Mr. Toje was often confronted with the controversial subject of potentially revoking an awarded prize in response to actions that threaten peace, particularly in regards to the unpopular award to Aung San Suu Kyi, State Counsellor of Myanmar. Toje implied that the Committee was very unlikely to revoke an award, due to the dangerous precedent it would set, as there are many unpopular recipients of the award. He further claimed that the awards are given for actions that recipients have done in the past to promote peace and to encourage them to continue promoting peace in the future, but cannot hold them accountable or ensure that they will continue.

Although confronted with many challenging and contentious questions, Mr. Toje often chose to respond vaguely or not at all, as he was obligated not to discuss certain subjects, as there is a confidentiality agreement on discussions of the past fifty years. Thus, his discussion was limited to only publicly disclosed information.

Despite this restriction, the presentation and engagement with the audience were undoubtedly very illuminating and offered immense insight into the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize.

PEAC Visits the UN in NYC for the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

International Peace Institute's Policy Forum: The Culture of Sustaining Peace

By Hailey Payea

On September 5th, I attended the annual International Peace Institute’s (IPI) Policy Forum. This year, it co-hosted the forum with the Al-Babtain Foundation in order to discuss “The Culture of Sustaining Peace”. The culture of sustaining peace is especially important with today’s aggressive political rhetoric.

With the convening of the seventy-third session of the General Assembly on September 18th, the idea of political weaponry and the question of how to move forward in the world has come to the forefront of our minds.

The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons is steadily approaching and leads us to answer the question of how to analyze peace culture today. It is difficult to imagine a world that can live without the weaponry that is used as a secure threat. However, the panelists mentioned methods they believe to be useful in developing a world that solves conflicts rather than instigating them.

The forum began with Abdul Aziz Saud Al-Babtain, the founder of the Al-Babtain Foundation. Mr. Al-Babtain discussed war and the principle of how to avoid it. He explained that he wishes to propose the Culture of Sustainable Peace Plan in order to cooperate with actors and to define the concept of the culture of peace. He encouraged the participants to ponder about the concept of peace as linked to necessary actions, resources, and ourselves as well.

After his closing remarks, Al-Babtain pointed out that he had brought his entire family and explained how we should all bring something to the table when it comes to finding mutuality in a world of conflict. Mr. Al-Babtain left the podium and opened the floor to Mr. Kevin Rudd.

Mr. Rudd introduced the panel: H.E. Ambassador Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Deputy Representative of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the UN; H.E. Ambassador Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative to the United Kingdom to the UN; Mr. Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination and UN Executive Office of the Secretary General; and Mr. Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia and Chair to IPI

Kevin Rudd opened the panel, discussing the psychology of politics. He began the discussion by opening with a question: is there anyway that, as humans, we could live in a purely peaceful society. He essentially asked the question that brought us all to the International Peace Institute: “What is peace culture and how can we achieve it?”

Following Mr. Rudd’s discussions, Mr. Islam explained that there is a traditional approach to peace, by meaningful engagement of peace building from national ownership. He left his speech open to action and called for the return of displaced peoples to their homes and families.

After Mr. Ariful Islam, H.E. Ambassador Pierce explained, “We live in an environment, where peace is fundamental and we forget cultures that do not have the same experience.” Her perspective focused on three elements. The first was inclusivity and strategizing to be more inclusive to minorities and adversaries. The second was calling for accountable institutions to create equal access in order to ease political tension. The last point emphasized human, economic and social rights. H.E. Ambassador further Pierce noted that this was especially important on the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Once Ms. Pierce finished, Mr. Fabrizio Hochschild delivered the last speech in which he underscored that “peace is a collective state of mind.” He clarified his point by stating that in order to achieve real peace, we must humanize the enemy.

Mr. Hochschild reflected on an event where sixty victims of conflict from all sides in Havana were brought together to negotiate peace and share their experiences. These victims did not see each other as family members, sisters, brothers, mothers, and fathers. They saw one another as symbols of oppressive states and therefore dehumanized the other side. This event looked beyond the simplifications and dehumanization that characterizes the propaganda that comes with warfare, and in many cases, too often succeeds it.

Each speaker brought a fantastic perspective to the theory of peace. We are allowed to question methods and ideas that bring peace to the forefront of our minds. There are ways to implement peace in our day-to-day lives. By living kindly and understanding, we are able to address peace daily. In Mr. Hochschild’s words, this humanization of peace allows us to bring peace into our own hands. Too often we have to make the decision of basic human instinct: the fight or flight mentality. When it comes to interstate relations, no longer should states see one another as adversaries. By surrounding new generations in a world of peace, we can normalize peace into our culture.

UN Security Council Meeting on Maintaining International Peace and Security

UNSC 8/29

Maintaining International Peace and Security

By: Laura Agosto

On August 29th, the UNSC received briefings from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and Peace Activist Mossarat Qadeem. After receiving briefings on pressing issues regarding maintaining international peace and security, Member states discussed methods to involve women and youth in peace operations.

• Opening Statements

1. Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations noted that as wars become more complex, mediation techniques must also improve. He noted how creativity and cooperation are essential characteristics for successful mediation, noting the success of mediation when UN Special Envoys engaged with local civil society groups. The Secretary-General observed important developments in the growing roles women and youth are playing in mediating otherwise impossible conflicts. Secretary-General Guterres called upon the UNSC to show a united front, as to signal to warring parties that they must settled their disputes peacefully.
2. Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and Member of High Level Advisory Board on Mediation emphasized the importance of reconciliation networks as a means to creating long-lasting peace. He emphasized the importance of grassroots organizations in partaking in peace negotiations, because they play the most consequential role in maintaining peace.
3. Mossarat Qadeem, Peace Activist and Co-Founder of PAIMAN Alumni Trust highlighted women’s effective use of soft power and how women can use their personal connections to their households and communities to successfully mediate conflicts.

• Statements from Permanent UNSC Members

• United States

The United States recognized the effectiveness of mediation, but noted that even the most skilled mediators cannot compel actors to reach peaceful solutions. The United States called on Member States to be willing to use strong tools to push warring parties to the negotiating table.

• United Kingdom

The United Kingdom noted the progress the United Nations has made in professionalizing mediation. More broadly, the United Kingdom stated that mediation must be properly resourced, and that women should and must have an equal role as local and national leaders and decision-makers.

• France

France emphasized mediation as an essential tool of conflict resolution as provided by Chapter 6 of the UN Charter. France noted the recent success of mediation in states like Gambia, implying this success can be reproduced in other conflict-ridden states.

• Russian Federation

Taking an economics viewpoint, the Russian Federation cites benefits mediation has over peacekeeping or sanctions that hinder development. The Russian Federation urges the UN to divide mediation tasks evenly, cautioning against monopolizing mediation efforts to achieve political goals.

• China

China cites the UN Charter as a framework to engage in peaceful dispute settlement through political and diplomatic means.

• Statements from Other UNSC Members

• Europe

Poland called for enhanced mediation capacity of the UN, and noted the crucial involvement of civil society to design, implement, and monitor peace solutions.

The Netherlands described prevention as the core of United Nations work. Because of complex conflicts facing the international community, the Netherlands stated the UN is uniquely placed to provide coordination among multiple peace actors to reach peaceful settlements.

Sweden cited women’s participation in mediation as not a women’s issue, but an issue of peace and security. Sweden urged the Council to stand united in support UN mediation efforts and to involve women, religious, and youth groups in these processes.  

• Latin American and Caribbean Group

Bolivia has always and will continue to support the use of peaceful dispute settlement. Bolivia praised the work of the High Level Advisory Board on Mediation organized by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Peru welcomed the creation of the High Level Advisory Board, but stressed that the international community must actively support the development and strengthening of mediation capacities.  

• Central Asian Group

Recalling ts inclusion of women, religious, and youth groups in brokering Syria peace talks and the Iran nuclear, Kazakhstan called for an inclusion approach to mediation from all UNSC Member States.

• Middle East

Kuwait expressed dissatisfaction with high UNSC spending on peacekeeping operations, arguing that those resources should be redirected to mediation efforts instead.

• African States

Equatorial Guinea spoke on behalf of itself, Cote d’Ivoire, and Ethiopia, and called for UNSC member-states to act more proactively to fund mediation appropriately. Citing complex challenges to international security, Equatorial Guinea noted the scope of mediation is too large for the UN to tackle on its own. Equatorial Guinea called for additional support to local mediation partners to assure successful, long-term peaceful solutions.

Download this episode (right click and save)

Download this episode (right click and save)

Download this episode (right click and save)

UN Security Council Meeting on the Situation in the Middle East

UNSC 7/27

The Situation in the Middle East

By Laura Agosto

On July 27^th, the UNSC gathered receiving briefings from Mr. Mark Lowock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, and Ms. Virginia Gamba, Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. After receiving these briefings on the ongoing conflicts in Syria, member-states discussed the situation in Syria.

UNSC: Meeting on the Situation in Palestine

7/25/2018

By Lizzie McGowan

UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process

Nickolay E. Mladenov, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East process, regretted that the security dynamics in Israel and Syria have continued to deteriorate. To make matters worse, the tensions in the Gaza strip have reached a boiling point.  The demolition of Palestinian holy sites and structures have increased tensions because Israel has used it as a way to work around the temporary halt of establishing illegal Jewish settlements.

UNSC 7/26

The Situation in Cyprus

UNFICYP Mandate Renewal

By: Patrick Liu

UNSC 7/26

The Situation in Colombia

UNFICYP Mandate Renewal

By: Patrick Liu

More information: https://www.whatsinblue.org/2018/07/colombia-briefing-and-consultations-ahead-of-the-change-of-government.php

• Important Briefings

1. 1. Jean Arnault - SRSG and Head of the UN Verification Mission in Colombia

SRSG Arnault commended the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, for his excellent leadership in the Colombian peace process during his term. Arnault additionally recognized all the parties involved in the ongoing process, and noted that the Colombian peace process “may finally be close to the right balance”. Arnault hoped that the successful Colombian initiative would be an inspiration for future UN missions.

2. Óscar Naranjo - Vice-President of Colombia

Vice President Naranjo sincerely thanked the UNSC and all member-states involved in the Colombian peace process for their ongoing and encouraging support. As his last briefing to the UNSC under his term as vice president, Naranjo stressed the absolute importance of the work being done at the UN as it had been essential to stabilizing Colombia and building peace. Vice-president Naranjo concluded by underscoring the need to care for peace in Colombia and across the world in an ethical conviction to end violence.

• Statements from Important Regional Members

1. 1. Peru

Peru acknowledged the efforts that have led to success in Colombia, but highlighted many ongoing security threats from organized crime and drug trafficking. Peru advised a focus on root causes to promote alternative sustainable development. In reintegration, Peru noted the need for a “new social fabric” in order to promote boost Colombian private sector. Despite the challenges ahead, Peru again recognized the dedicated efforts of the Colombian peace process, and urged ongoing engagement in Colombia.

              2. Bolivia

Bolivia adamantly condemned acts of violence that have resulted in the deaths of social and human rights leaders. Bolivia called for increased state presence and investigations on these issues. On economic reintegration, Bolivia urged for greater private sector progress in addition to public works engagement. Citing this phase as “the most important peace process in the history of Colombia”, Bolivia hoped for a continuation of strong leadership and political will to ensure the completion of the Colombian process.

UN Security Council

Meeting 8306 - Peace and Security in Africa

Women, Peace and Security in the Sahel Region

7/10

By: Patrick Liu

Background information: https://www.whatsinblue.org/2018/07/women-peace-and-security-in-the-sahel-region-briefing.php

• Opening Briefings:

1. 1. Amina Mohammed - UN Deputy Secretary General

Amina Mohammed opened the UNSC meeting by briefing the Council on the recent trip to South Sudan, Chad, and Niger. Noting the rising levels of violence in these areas, the DSG urged the greater participation of women in decision making of the political peace process. The DSG further cited the role of women in preventing violent extremism and strengthening national economies. DSG Mohammed addressed the connection between security and development, noting that “security comes at the expense of development”. Therefore, the DSG advocated for increased transformative investment for development.

            2. Bineta Diop - AU Special Envoy on Women, Peace and Security

Bineta Diop gave a powerful testament to the UNSC advocating for the transformation of Africa led by women. Diop testified that there is “no peace, no security, and no development without the effective participation of women”. Diop advised for greater women participation in national action plans as well as in responses to other national challenges. Furthermore, Diop cited the need for greater investment in education to strengthen the capacity for women and young people. In closing, Diop remarked that the UNSC to take action by stating : “the battle for security is won by responding to the needs of the people!”

            3. Margot Wallström - Swedish Foreign Minister

In her capacity as the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström noted the vast disparity between “hope and despair” during her visit to South Sudan, Chad, and Niger. Specifically Wallström regretted the disproportionate burden that women face to threats to security. In fighting this fundamentally peace and security issue, Wallström advocated for joint-integrated responses from the international community to strengthen national capacities to fight impunity, create sustainable livelihoods, fight violent extremism, and promote equality. Wallström reminded the UNSC of their responsibility in helping to fight for peace and security, noting that “their destiny is our destiny”.

• Statements from Permanent Members

1. 1. United States

The United States encouraged the role of women to use the power of their voices. In a comprehensive solution to the Sahel Region issues, the US urged for the consideration of the empowerment of women. The US also cited the linkage between women’s fundamental rights and the advancement of international peace and security.

            2. United Kingdom

The United Kingdom expressed its interest in promoting the level of women’s participation in decision making, economic life, and overall regional peace and security. In response, the UK reiterated its commitment of its resources to women’s development.

            3. France (and Germany)

France and Germany maintained that only integrated action of security, political, and human rights developments will foster lasting Sahel development. In this aspect, France stressed the need to support UNISS and women participation in the Sahel region. In closing, France and Germany called for the systematic and long-term promotion of the capacity of women to engage in the political and peace processes.

           4. Russia

The Russian Federation lamented the fact that 17 years since resolution 1325 that strengthened the protection of women in armed conflict, women today are still subjected to violence. Russia hoped for joint forces and action to fight against these crimes to women. Russia further noted the positive role of women in armed conflict, prevention, and post-conflict rebuilding situations. Lastly, Russia reiterated that the main actors of such efforts should be states with civil societies and regional organizations as supporters

           5. China

China named many of the challenges faced by the Sahel region including cross-border crimes, underdevelopment, poverty, and the humanitarian situation that have grave effects on peace and development. In addressing these issues, China hoped political solutions draw from the domestic population and from women specifically. The international community should therefore support leadership in Africa and assist where needed to ensure the full implementation of the 2030 agenda and sustainable peace and development.

• Statements from Other Members

1. 1. European States

The Netherlands addressed the disproportionate effects on women from climate change, and the need for gender sensitive responses in the Sahel. In addition to a UN system to support a strategy, the Netherlands advocated for greater women’s participation in decision making and for women’s empowerment on issues of peace and security.

Poland urged for the implementation of the UN strategy plan for Sahel in order to respond to the needs of the women. Furthermore Poland promoted the positive role of women as agents of change in the long term sustainable development of the Sahel region.

             2. Latin America

Peru insisted the focus of such peace and security issues on their root causes: the empowerment of Women, gender equality, and access to justice. In response, Peru promoted greater participation, education, and employment opportunities for women. Peru therefore urged the UNSC to promote regional mechanisms like the G5 Sahel, ECOWAS, and the AU to mainstream gender perspectives, and accomplish these goals.

Bolivia re-emphasized the need for cooperation between the UN and regional and subregional organizations

1. 1. Central Asia

Kazakhstan recognized the growing relationship between the AU and UN in promoting the women, peace and security agenda and in advancing gender empowerment. However, Kazakhstan mentioned the need to bridge the gap between spoken commitment and actual action.

In this context, Kazakhstan urged a focus on structural drivers and root causes of instability to understand the link between security and development, and create a comprehensive approach to build resilience. Lastly, Kazakhstan acknowledged the continued issue of financing for women, peace and security initiatives and hoped for “better coordinated strategies and better collaboration with partners” to ensure their survival.

            2. Middle East

Kuwait welcomed the advancement of the role of women in achieving peace and security in the Sahel region as part of the SG’s approach to gender equality in various UN bodies.

            3. African States

Equatorial Guinea denounced the terrorist activity in the Sahel region that left thousands of IDPs dependent on humanitarian aid and assistance. These violent outbreaks particularly affect women and girls. Equatorial Guinea therefore called on the international community to support the government in waging war against terrorism in order to protect against gender based violence. Equatorial Guinea lauded the work by UNOWAS and AU counter-terrorism initiatives.

Ethiopia similarly acknowledged the impact from conflicts on women and girls. In addition to lauding AU and UN joint regional approach, Ethiopia emphasized the need to build partnerships with various stakeholders. Cote D’Ivoire recognized the complex, multidimensional crises that affects women and urged for greater focus to address the issues and root causes.

• Statements from Other Parties

1. 1. Chad

Chad lauded the tripart delegation trip to Chad, Sudan, and Niger and thanked the diplomats for their work on women, peace, and security. Chad noted the precariousness of living conditions for women because of violent conflicts and climate change. Chad also stressed the need to assist resulting IDPs and refugees, most who are women and children.

Report on UNSC Meeting on the JCPOA

By Christian Ciobanu, Lizzie McGowan, Patrick Liu, and Myrna Nakhla

On 27 June 2018, Russia chaired the UN Security Council’s semi-annual briefing on the status of UNSC Resolution 2231, the resolution that endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. It was the UNSC’s fifth meeting on Iran’s implementation of the JCPOA and the first meeting about Iran’s Nuclear Program to be convened after the U.S. withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and unilaterally imposed sanctions onto Iran.

The briefing also consisted of three relevant presentations, which addressed the Secretary-General 12 June Report (S/2018/602) on the implementation of the resolution, the UNSC’s work relating to Iran, and the JCPOA’s Joint Commission. The Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, Ambassador Karel van Oosterom of the Netherlands, in his capacity as the UNSC’s 2231 facilitator, the Head of the EU delegation, Ambassador Joâo Pedro Vale de Almeida respectively delivered these presentations to UNSC members.

Following the aforementioned presentations, a tense debate occurred in which the Russian Federation, Bolivia, France, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Kazakhstan, and Kuwait conveyed their condemnations and disappointments about the U.S.’ decision to renege on its commitments to the Iran’s nuclear deal and violate a binding UNSC resolution. Ultimately, the UNSC’s debate revealed the extent to which President Trump has broken away from US allies in Europe, how his actions thrusted both the EU and Russia into pivotal players in the Iran nuclear deal and the Middle East region in order to quell any potential nuclear proliferation concerns.

Section 1: Presentations

Secretary-General’s Report

Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo, presented the Secretary-General’s report. She mentioned that nearly three years ago, the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal. The UNSG welcome the plan as a major achievement. Moreover, she underscored that the IAEA has consistently report that Iran has been implementing its commitments under the JCPOA.

In addition, she touched upon the procurement channel, a vehicle to review proposals from states wishing engage in trade with Iran on nuclear and non-nuclear civilian end uses.^[1]

Significantly, she explained that the report focuses on Annex B of Resolution 2231, which requires states to comply with specific restrictions.^[2] Unfortunately, it is determined that Iran has not be incompliance with Annex B.

As part the Secretary-General’s allegations that Iran has violated Annex B of the resolution, Di-Carlo specified that Iran delivered ballistic missiles to Houfi, which launched missiles against Saudi Arabia as well as allegations by Israel about Iran’s ballistic missiles in January 2018. The Secretariat further received information about intercepted shipments of unmanned surface missiles in Bahrain. The Secretariat concluded a series of preliminary observations and investigations in which it confirmed that the guidance system was based on Iran technology and the components of the missiles were manufactured in Iran. Additionally, the Secretariat determined that the weapons were designed sometime between 2002-2010. However, the Secretariat could not determine when Iran transferred the weapons. Thus, it could not conclusively determine whether Iran delivered the weapons before or after the nuclear deal entered into force. weapons were transferred over.

In addition, the report reflected grave concerns that Iran violated travel embargoes by allowing several of its generals to attend an armed and defense exhibition in Iraq. Furthermore, Di-Carlo informed states that the report addresses allegations that Iran has been funding other armed groups within Palestine in order to exacerbate tensions between Palestine and Israel.

Progresss on the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2231

As the facilitator of UNSC Resolution 2231, Ambassador Oosterom of the Netherlands touched upon the success of the nuclear deal with Iran and the resolution. He contended that the unanimous adoption of the resolution underscored the importance of the deal. He further explained that, since early 2016, the procurement channel has received 37 proposals from states to engage in activities with Iran. Finally, he called for the UNSC to engage in wider engagement with the UN General Assembly on the procurement channel.

European Union

Amb. Joao Pedro Vale de Almeida of the European Union proclaimed that the UNSC must continue to implement the JCPOA, an effective mechanism that prevents an armed nuclear conflict.

He also expressed his dismay that the United States withdrew from the deal. Its decision to renege on its commitments was an unforeseen act and places all relevant stakeholders in a precarious position.

Despite the U.S. actions, the E.U will continue overwhelmingly support the nuclear disarmament, as it is assists in ensuring the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Further, the E.U remarked that Iran has consistently passed 11 inspections by the IAEA. and been in compliance with the JCPOA. Consequently, the European Union will continue to be apart of it.

Amb. Joao Pedro Vale de Almeida expounded on Iran’s history of compliance by mentioning their program is under the most rigorous monitoring in the world. On May 24, 2018 the IAEA issued its 11th report that demonstrated Iran’s full compliance with the JCPOA. On the other hand, Iran’s military actions outside of the deal are troubling. It seem that though they are in compliance, they have significantly proliferated their ballistic missile activity, which has worsened tensions in the region.

Its aggressive actions in the war with Yemen, Israel, and Saudi Arabia indicate a ploy for dominance in the Middle East and is a serious threat to stability. To ease these tensions, the international community must continue to engage with in dialog with actors in the region and support the UN Secretary general’s envoy. In order to work towards a solution to this problem, the international community must address Iran’s provocative actions independently from the JCPOA. Abandoning the JCPOA would neither put the U.S. in a good position or provide a solution to Iran’s use of Ballistic missiles and tensions in the region.

Concerning annex B of UNSC Resolution 2231, the Ambassador explained that the procurement working group has been working in full cooperation with Iran and relevant partners. He reminded delegates that the procurement mechanism is the only mechanism to provide NSG-listed items to Iran. To date, the procurement group has received 37 requests from states.

Section II. Debate in the UNSC

At the conclusion of the presentations, Russia opened the floor and the debate commenced in the UNSC on the Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. took the floor and attempted to justify President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran Nuclear Deal and impose unilateral actions against Iran. Specifically, the U.S. explained that its actions were necessary in order to deny Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

United States

In an attempt to link the JCPOA to ballistic missiles, the U.S. asserted that Iran’s actions with its ballistic missiles contravened the spirit and intent of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Specifically, the U.S cited that Iran provided missiles to Houthi rebel groups, which launched them into Saudi Arabia as well as shipping missile components of weapons into Bahrain, and providing arms to terrorist groups in Palestine. As a result, the U.S. agreed with the Secretariat’s report about Iran and concluded that the evidence suggests that Iran’s activities violated UNSC Resolution 2231; and thereby, the international community must swiftly deal with Iran.

In an attempt to punish Iran’s for its actions, the U.S. imposed unilateral actions against Iran. These sanctions will send a message that the U.S. will not accept Iran’s actions in the region. Finally, the U.S. expressed hope that the UNSC members will support the U.S.

Rebutting the U.S. and Responding to the Presentations

Russia and Bolivia

In a clear rebuttal to the U.S., Russia condemned the U.S.’ actions. It also asserted that the U.S.’ withdrawal undermines the agreement and further destabilizes the region. It further finds the U.S. in direct violation of UNSC Resolution 2231.

Concerning the Secretariat’s report about Iran, Russia argued that the report presents a biased view about the situation. As explained by Russia, the report only mentions the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal in passing and fails to address how the U.S. unilateral actions directly violate the resolution. Additionally, Russia expressed its surprise that the Secretariat’s report fails to address the fact that Tehran has started the dispute mechanism against the U.S. for its actions against Iran and the Nuclear Deal.

Regarding the allegations about Iran’s ballistic missiles and the transfer of its missiles to Iran’s proxy agents in the Middle East, including to the Houthi and rebel groups in Bahrain, Russia contended that it is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the Secretariat to investigate the allegations because it does not fall within the purview of the Secretariat. The Secretariat is required to have a mandate by the UNSC in order to engage in such activities. Moreover, Russia contended the Secretariat’s staff did not have a clear mandate and lacked the technical expertise to analyze missiles and their components. Thus, due to the fact that the Secretariat engaged in an “in-house” investigation of Iran and acted outside of its scope. the Secretariat’s findings about Iran are inadmissible.

In addition, Russia explained that the Secretariat’s report fails to provide a concrete timeline of when Iran delivered its missiles to rebel groups. As a result, it is nearly impossible to determine if Iran provided weapons to the rebel groups, before the Iran Nuclear Deal went into effect. If Iran delivered weapons before the deal was implemented, then Iran would not have been in violation of provisions set forth in UNSC Resolution 2231.

Despite the allegations and “biased” information in the report, Russia contended that all member states must remember that the IAEA has consistently found Iran to be in compliance with the nuclear deal.

Echoing similar sentiments, Bolivia cited the importance of preserving the nuclear deal and lambasted the U.S.’s unilateral actions. Bolivia reminded UNSC members that it took 12 long years of intense diplomatic activities to address Iran and achieving the nuclear deal. The deal should not be revoked or postponed because one member state reneged on its commitments.

Bolivia also criticized the aforementioned report for being biased and failing to address both aspects of the unsc resolution.

Significantly, Bolivia underscored that the the UNSC endorsed the deal through UNSC Resolution 2231, a legally binding resolution onto all members. Considering that the UNSC endorsed the plan, Bolivia accused the U.S. of engaging in illegal activities by reneging on the deal and imposing sanctions, which were subject to exemptions under the deal.

Bolivia further welcomed Iran’s continued commitments to the deal and hails the wills of the other parties to support the deal as they expressed in Vienna on May 25, 2018.

European States

Similarly, the U.K. expressed regret towards the United States’ decision to pull out of the nuclear deal. The US decision brings uncertainty as to the future of the deal and regional stability in the Middle East. Additionally, sanctions further escalates tensions and diminishes progress towards denuclearization.

The U.K. further specified that Iran is in compliance with the deal as evident in the latest report by the IAEA. Iran’s steadfast compliance to the nuclear deal demonstrates a strong commitment to the deal and peaceful use of nuclear materials, which are transferred to Iran through the procurement channel. Thus, the U.K. proclaimed that its position on the deal is clear: the deal makes the world a better place.

Nevertheless, the U.K. has been troubled by the Secretariat' findings about Iran’s transfer of ballistic missile technology to Houthi rebels in Yemen. Is. The U.K. expressed its concerns that the proliferation of missile technology, especially to Iran’s proxy agency demonstrates Iran’s bid for dominance in the region. As a result, the U.K. shares the U.S.’ concerns about Iran and strongly calls upon Iran to disengage from such behavior.

Similarly to the U.K/’s views, France expressed its strong support to the deal and expressed its disappointments about the U.S.’ actions. France elaborated that the deal is the embodiment of the ideal non-proliferation package, and its dismantlement would undermine the nuclear non-proliferation regime. France also explained that it worked relentely to ensure that deal is robust in nature and satisfied all parties. Ultimately, the JCPOA is a cornerstone of maintaining stability in the Middle East and vital for international peace.

However, France is deeply concerned about the allegations associated with Iran’s ballistic missile activity in the region, in particular, Iran’s decision to transfer weapons to rebels, skirmishes in Saudi Arabia, and escalating tensions with Israel. Therefore, it hopes that continued dialogue with Iran and relevant parties will help to alleviate tensions and address Iran’s ballistic missiles program.

Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands shared similar views and expressed their firm commitments to the Iran deal. They aligned themselves and welcomed the EU’s presentation.

In terms of the controversy about the Secretary-General Report, they found it necessary and important that the Secretariat focused on Iran’s ballistic missile programs and its activities with its proxy agents. They concurred that Iran must work with the international community and engage in dialogue.

Central Asia

Similar to the vast majority of UNSC members , Kazakhstan expressed its disappointments that the U.S. reneged on its commitments and imposed unilateral actions onto Iran. Kazakhstan further highlighted how the nuclear disarmament has produced three vital contributions to international peace and security. These contributions are:

1. The nuclear deal is the only recognized way for the international community to verify the exclusive peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program
2. The nuclear deal fulfills its mission in terms of taking stocks and halting Iran’s ambitions. The deal placed Iran’s nuclear program under international community through the IAEA.
3. The nuclear deal provides a significant example in which diplomacy resolved a serious matter.

Middle East

As the sole Arab state, Kuwait’s views on the JCPOA are vital. Kuwait reaffirmed its commitment to the nuclear deal. Kuwait explained that that even though the deal does not address all of its concerns about Iran’s behavior in the region, the deal contributes to regional stability. Hence, it is incumbent for the international community to preserve the JCPOA.

Kuwait further mentioned that it is vital for all state to respect and observe UNSC resolutions. Nonetheless, it is important to analyze the reasons why the US chose to withdraw from the deal.

Against this backdrop, Kuwait conveyed its concerns about the Secretariat’s report about Iran’s ballistic missiles and its decision to transfer missiles to rebellious groups. However, Kuwait acknowledged Russia’s position that the Secretariat could not determine when Iran actually transferred its technology and weapons. Thus, Kuwait contended that all members must engage in policies of non-interference and good neighborliness. It further called upon the UNSC to follow-up with UNSC Resolution 2231 to ensure that Iran is in compliance with the resolution.

Conclusion

Overall, the intense debate indicated that the vast majority of states are highly disappointed that the U.S. reneged on its commitments to the Iran Nuclear Deal. The discussion further revealed that the Trump administration does not understand the significance of UNSC resolutions and their context in international law. Moreover, the debate also made it clear that the U.S.’ traditionally allies are distancing themselves away from the U.S.’ actions against the Iran nuclear deal.

Essentially, the debate amongst UNSC members demonstrated that, as the U.S. is isolating itself by adopting radical policies, European states and Russia are stepping in to fill this new void in the regional affairs of the Middle East. Thus, new powers have emerged to replace the U.S.’ position of serving as a “police force against proliferation concerns.”

***

^[1] The mechanism covers three categories of goods, and associated assistance and services. The first covers goods that are ‘especially designed or prepared for nuclear use’. The second includes goods with both nuclear and civilian applications, commonly referred to as ‘dual-use’. Controlling this category of goods is generally more difficult because it comprises items which, in addition to their more sensitive use, also have wide industrial and commercial applications. Indeed, these have comprised the bulk of Iran’s procurement activities.

The third category covers any other items that are determined by the ‘relevant State’ as having the potential to ‘contribute to activities inconsistent with the JCPOA’.

^[2] A detailed description of the specific resolutions can be found at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)&referer=http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/&Lang=E

Leveraging Partnerships and Strengthening Cooperation with Women to Counter and Prevent Violent Extremism and Terrorism in Africa

By

Lizzie McGowan

And

Patrick Lui

Mr. Adedeji Ebo

Mr. Adedeji Ebo, the Special Representative of the Secretary General for West Africa and the Sahel and Director of the Political Affairs Division, provided opening remarks on the current state of terrorism in Africa. Women play a critical role in terrorism because they are both victims and perpetrators. To address this issue, the “Dakar Call for Action” was created involving groups from civil society and the United Nations. The purpose of this document is to address violent extremism with women as the primary focus.

Essentially, we have to “put our money where our mouths are” and devote more resource into harnessing the expertise of women in combating terrorism in West Africa and the Sahel. Women should be at the forefront of policy on this issue and not silenced under patriarchy. Further, there needs to be more focus on local solutions in conjunction with a global frameworks, as demonstrated in the “Dakar Call for Action.” If you want to address “extremism, then you must have inclusion by working to make marginalized people feel welcomed in their communities.”

Ambassador Koro Bessho

Japanese diplomat Koro Bessho expressed that Japan is becoming more cautious of terrorism since they will be hosting the Olympics. Terrorism has not been on the psyche of Japanese society because they have not been adversely affected by it. Japan’s approach to fighting  terrorism is centered around “whole of society,” meaning that everyone has an important place, role, and should be be included. Since marginalization is a problem, this approach is an excellent example of how to protect at risk youth from being empowered by Islamists ideology.

Women are agents in strengthening society by creating nurturing and inclusive communities. In fact women can recognize violent extremism at an early stage. The Tokyo Council on African Development (TCAD) works to improve social stability in Africa by utilizing the talents of women. Further, to tackle this issue effectively, we have to engage different actors in society and expand the conversation past men, incorporate the international community, and leverage the power of women’s networks. For example, the UN Women’s work has contributed to efforts all over the world to fight the root causes of terrorism. With the establishment of the Dakar Call to Action, the international community is taking the proper steps in addressing this issue. All things considered, this kind of partnership is valuable, should not be taken for granted, and is vital to this fight.

Civil Society

A representative from Civil Society remarked that terrorism has dramatic consequences all over the world and targets people of different ethnicities and religions. Currently, terrorists recruiters are using social media to commit atrocious crimes and spread their ideology to marginalized people. It is time that we act in solidarity to fight the causes that lead people to radicalize themselves and foster communities that are resistant to such ideologies. To do this, we must establish programs of awareness to prevent recruitment into radical Islamists terrorists groups. Thus, the international community must create effective plans of prevention, increase dialog, empower youth, women, and the competencies and of women.

UN Women

Ms. Paivi Kannisto, UN Women Peace and Security Chief, expressed her happiness to have been a part of the Dakar Call to Action. The beauty in the Dakar document is its unified call to diverse stakeholders to take a stance on stopping the proliferation of Islamic Terrorism. In essence, the initiative is an effort to encourage young men and women to use creative means to bring about a solution to terrorism.

Civil society is an essential partner in countering extremism. Without it, much of the grassroots advocacy and strategic planning would not be done. To ensure the longevity of these organizations, financial support is vital. In this vein, Ms. Kannisto thanked Japan and Germany for their financial assistance funding initiatives to stop violent extremism and increase women’s involvement in the process. Further, the international community must continue to create operational partnerships and innovative ways to combat violent extremism.

For the first time ever, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) were given the opportunity to address the United Nations Committee on NGOs. Our youth representative, Patrick Liu delivered a statement to both NGOs and states.

He touched upon the following:

• 1. First, in order to facilitate NGOs advocacy and make it more efficient, giving NGOs access to more of the same conference rooms as Member States is essential. Also, a larger space should be preserved for civil society organizations of all sizes and backgrounds to take the floor and share their experience during conferences, seminars or sessions of UN bodies.

• 2. Second, special attention should be paid to NGOs from developing countries and countries with economies in transition whose participation is often limited due to technical and financial difficulties. To prevent their exclusion, the agenda of the various events held at the UN should be known more in advance and less subject to last minute change to allow NGOs to minimize the cost of such participation. Furthermore, the UN online registration system can be problematic for some NGOs in locations with limited access to the internet. As one alternative, we would urge a policy change that would allow NGO federations or coalitions to directly register representatives of their own member organisations

• 3. Third, some improvements should be considered regarding the process to obtain consultative status with ECOSOC. Our suggestions include ensuring that political considerations are avoided during this process, by limiting the number of questions asked by each Member State to applying organizations, and by establishing a time limit for consideration of each application by the NGO Committee. These steps would help avoid what is too often a drawn-out process and eliminate
  the deterrent effect such delays can have on applying organizations (or those considering applying).

For further information, please view his presentation. 

2018 Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons

The Third Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects met at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City from 18-29 June 2018. The president-designate for the Conference was Ambassador Jean-Claude Brunet of France.  

Throughout this review conference, PEAC Institute was actively involved in monitoring plenary discussions and side events.

                                PEAC Institute with the International Action Network on Small Arms on Wear Orange Day,                          

                                National Gun Violence Awareness Day! 

Lizzie McGowan with Mei-Ling Ho-Shing, a Parkland Survivor 

Several Reports about the side events can be found here:

1. Monitoring SDG 16: Arms Flows and Violent Deaths in North Africa and the Sahel

2. The International Tracing Instrument and the Way Forward: Examining Options to Support Operationalization

3. Women Peace and Security implications of the POA

6/13

Asia Society

Trump, Kim, and North Korea: Deal or No Deal?

By

Lizzie Mcgowan

Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Senior Counselor at Albright Stonebridge Group,  Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and former Deputy Secretary of State, shared her candid opinion on the 2018 North Korea–United States Summit. She shared the stage with her fellow panelist Daniel Russell, Vice President of Internationals Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI). Their candid thoughts on Trump’s meeting with Kim revealed the summit’s uncertainty for denuclearization and a viable peace process. Additionally, they asserted that the summit’s outcome raised  questions on who was the real “winner” in achieving their goals in advancing their countries interests.

Perspectives about the Kim-Trump Summit

Ambassador Sherman explained that Trump should be weary of Kim’s intentions. Nevertheless, she contended that it made sense this meeting happened, due to Kim understanding that his time in power could be limited if he did not work to unthaw relations with the U.S. and outside world. We have yet to see where this new relationship will go due to the mercurial personalities of the two leaders. The limited information provided to the public was ambiguous and left many questions unanswered.   

Unfortunately, the outcome declaration was thin and shared similarities to past declarations. For North Korea, this was a win because throughout coordinating the summit, they were unyielding in compromising details. The North Koreans heavily focused on the “optics of the conference” to ensure that Kim was treated like a peer to the leader of the free world.

Moreover, Sherman explained that the joint statement did not include any sort of verification mechanism or timetable as to when or if denuclearization on the peninsula would happen.

Similar to Ambassador Sherman, Daniel Russel lamented that Kim got everything he wanted out the meeting with Trump. Simply put, the U.S. had no leverage in meeting and Kim appeared to be a master negotiator among the North Korean people. He further contended the outcome of the summit came out in North Korea’s favor, as Kim Jong-Un is able to go home “with his ability to threaten the U.S. intact”. Furthermore, the only thing the US gained from the meeting were the optics of the two leaders meeting and a questionably promise of progress to be made in the future with their new relationship.

Role of South Korea (ROK)

Ambassador Sherman explained that Moon Jae-in the, president of South Korea, whose father is from North Korea, pushed for the meeting as he is focused on mending relations with North Korea.  He campaigned on this concept and illustrated his commitment to it as he orchestrated the lighting of the torch ceremony and inclusion of North Korean athletes during the Olympics. China also played a significant role as well due to their guidance in urging North Korea to come to the negotiating table through flexing their economic muscles. They implemented economic sanctions by cutting off petroleum exports, which put maximum pressure on their economy.

Kim’s intentions

Russell proclaimed that Kim has set up separate negations between South Korea, Japan, and China. This threatens our relationships with these countries because it inherently excludes the United States from the negotiating table. Further, it allows Kim to have a better chance of having his demands met with each country. Essentially, Kim has put himself in a good position and possibly laid the groundwork for retaining his nuclear program and being the dominant power in Northeast Asia. Also, it brings him closer to getting sanctions lifted and  improving his countries economy.

Sanctions

Russell mentioned that sanctions do not deter states and individuals from engaging in bad behavior, rather they are designed to bring people to the negotiating table. The ultimate factor in bringing Kim to the table was reaching full nuclear capability and having an ICBM to reach the United States. Since he reached his goal, he is in a position to gamble and negotiate retaining his program and build bilateral relationships with the rest of the world. From this perspective, Kim seems to be victorious in pushing his national interests. Further, it is not clear where the U.S. gained any leverage in the negotiations.

How to build relations with Kim

Daniel Russell mentioned that Kim’s goal was to boost the economy and from the optics of the negotiations, he is on track to do so. This gives Kim the international visibility he wants, and the U.S. should be careful in validating the demands of brutal dictator. Since he is young, this move solidifies his position as a permanent leader. He has proven to the citizens of North Korea that he can push his countries agenda and successfully negotiate with the US.

Since the joint outcome document did not provide a clear path to denuclearization, Russell and Ambassador Sherman offered a blueprint to build a positive relationship and guide to denuclearization. Firstly, the US should begin by inspecting North Korea nuclear facilities and bring in the IAEA. This would be a good faith measure to ensure that they are keeping to their promise. Another problem the U.S. must face is North Korea’s perception of denuclearization.

Ambassador Sherman notes that the US sees it as the denuclearization of North Korea while North Korea sees it as denuclearization of the peninsula. Moreover, this means that they expect the US to abandon its nuclear guarantee for South Korea. In the event that the US accepts North Korea as a nuclear power and removes South Korea from its nuclear umbrella, North Korea will be the dominant power on the peninsula.

UNSC 6/20

The Situation in Sudan and South Sudan

By: Patrick Liu

• Opening Statements

1. 1. ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda

Ms. Fatou Bensouda, the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor, briefed the UNSC on her semi-annual report on the work of the court in Darfur. Bensouda began her report by asking the members of the UNSC “how much longer will those in Darfur suffer in silence?”. The prosecutor urged the effective implementation of the original UNSC resolution when Darfur was referred to the ICC. Bensouda cited Sudan’s refusal to cooperate with the ICC. Specifically, she contended that the Sudan has been distracting the ICC from ensuring accountability for serious crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Despite these struggles, the ICC reaffirmed its commitment to the victims in Darfur to apprehend and arrest the 5 standing ICC suspects. In closing, Prosecutor Bensouda urged the UNSC to promote justice and the government of Sudan to engage and cooperate with the ICC.

• Statements from Permanent UNSC Members

1. 1. United States

The United States supported the need for justice and accountability of the perpetrators of the war crimes in Darfur, which resulted in 2 million IDPs that face daily life-threatening risks and challenges.

Even though the situation has improved, the US cited the possibility of an upcoming harvest failure. The harvest failure will result in an economic crisis as a possible trigger to the return to conflict and violence. To this point, the US urged Sudan to allow UNAMID and humanitarian organizations to provide aid to civilians in affected regions.

Furthermore the failure to address Al-Bashir undermines international justice and insults victims in Darfur. Consequently, the US urged the UNSC and the international community to continue to put pressure on Sudan address international justice and improve its peace and security situation.

           2.United Kingdom

The United Kingdom encouraged the ICC to continue its investigative work in Darfur and bringing justice to the violations to human rights law and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the UK expressed its concerns about the ongoing violence and conflict in the Sudan. Additionally, the UK urged the Sudan to cooperate with UNAMID.

          3. France

France reiterated its ongoing position in combating the perpetrators, who caused and continue to exacerbate the conflict in Darfur as well as President Al-Bashir of Sudan. The instability that has ensued in Sudan has resulted in some 2 million IDPs. France urged the need to focus on these humanitarian issues and end violence against civilians by addressing the root causes of the conflict. In this aspect, political dialogue is the only solution and UNAMID is essential to ensuring this process. Lastly, France iterated the importance of international cooperation with the ICC.

       4. Russian Federation

The Russian Federation noted that the recent report by the Prosecutor of the ICC did not update  the UNSC on any changes, as it only addressed the situation with President Al-Bashir. The Russian Federation lambasted the ICC appeal for member-states to arrest the sitting President of Sudan. Russia iterated the immunity enjoyed by high officials without exceptions and rejected ICC beliefs and accusations against President Al-Bashir. Russia furthermore cited the decreasing levels of trust and credibility of the ICC due to their recent controversial decisions.

       5. China

China acknowledged the progress that the government of Sudan has made on peace and security in Darfur. Because the progress proves Sudan’s capability to control its state, China urged the international community, including the UNSC and the ICC, to respect the sovereignty of the Sudanese government. China commended the original referral of the situation to the ICC, but refuted the ICC’s charge to the Sudanese President because of “special immunity” for heads of states.

• Statements from Other UNSC Members

1. 1. Western European and Other Groups

The Netherlands underscored its full support for the ICC in its efforts to address rule of law and improve the peace and security situation in Darfur. In regards to the outstanding arrest warrants issued by the ICC, the Netherlands expressed its disappointment that states have not cooperated in arresting suspects, including the President of Sudan. Because of the lack of collaboration, so far, there has been no accountability for the conflict in Sudan.  Therefore, The UNSC has a responsibility to work with the government of Sudan to ensure accountability.

Sweden addressed the situation from a humanitarian lens, emphasizing the continued need to address Darfur victims’ concerns. As violence and IDPs decrease, Sweden remained concerned about attacks on civilians and the lack of rule of law institutions in Sudan.

           2. Eastern European Group

Poland noted the need for increased efforts in Sudan in the face of decreasing UNAMID presence. In addition, Poland supported the ICC efforts to achieve justice for the victims and carry out its mandate in Darfur.

          3. Latin American and Caribbean Group

Bolivia lamented the fact that the ICC has been investigating the situation in Darfur for more than 1 decade.  Bolivia also stressed that those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity must answer to the ICC.

Bolivia urged the UNSC to focus on the protection of human rights and on the fight against impunity. In order to implement this goal, the UNSC must urge cooperation with all states under the universal jurisdiction of the ICC.

Peru similarly supported the Prosecutor and the ICC in their efforts in Sudan. However, the failure to arrest the standing suspects as recognized by the ICC reflects poorly on the UNSC.

         4. Central Asian Group

Kazakhstan further urged the ICC to help raise the capacity of Sudanese judicial mechanisms to promote and protect rights.

        5. Middle East

Kuwait further urged the international community to recognize the sovereignty of Sudan against the ICC decision to charge President Al-Bashir. Kuwait noted that the ICC does not have jurisdiction for sitting high officials, and stressed that the UNSC must respect international law and the UN charter in respecting Sudanese sovereignty.

       6. African Group

Equatorial Guinea hailed the efforts of the UNSC to prevent impunity and promote justice, responsibility, and accountability. However, Equatorial Guinea underscored that the ICC has a  lack of jurisdiction in accusing a sitting president of a state. The continued battle over this Presidential arrest has given the ICC a lack of credibility. Equatorial Guinea, mirroring the African Union, urged the ICC to suspend actions targeting President Al-Bashir and asked the UNSC to withdraw the case from the ICC.

Ethiopia attacked the ICC Prosecutor’s double standard used against the President of Sudan, an important African leader. Ethiopia called for the suspension of proceedings against Al-Bashir and a withdrawal of the referral case in Sudan as it will bring positive developments for peace and security. Ethiopia urged the UNSC to reconsider the situation in Sudan as Sudan has played a major role in fighting terrorism, combating human trafficking, and dealing with regional security issues. The additional progress in Darfur and the improvement of humanitarian access justify the withdrawal of the ICC referral case. Moving forward, the international and regional community and the Sudanese government should continue to improve peace and security.

Cote d'Ivoire noted the relative peace and security in Darfur, and acknowledged the important work of the ICC to ensuring accountability for human rights crimes. Cote d’Ivoire encouraged the ICC to continue to fight impunity, uphold rule of law, and bring about national reconciliation.

• Statements from Additional Parties

1. 1. Sudan

Sudan began its statement by completely rejecting the work of the ICC and denying any obligation of Sudan to the ICC. Sudan defended its reputation as an active member of the international community and African Union in upholding international law and fighting impunity.

Sudan continued to criticize the ICC for distortions, corruptions, and biasness. Sudan noted the wikileaks and blackmail incident within the ICC and questioned the credibility of the organization. Sudan additionally accused the ICC of politicizing the incident by targeting a head of state of an African state. Sudan seeked an official statement from the International Court of Justice on the issue of “immunity”.

Sudan denounced the “meddling of the ICC” that imperils peace and security in Sudan.  It claimed that “not only has the ICC gone beyond its jurisdiction, but it has incited rebel movements and fresh violence in Sudan.”

         2. Ethiopia

Ethiopia asked to speak again to address and explained its call for withdrawal of the original referral to the ICC. Ethiopia reassured the UNSC of their focus to fight impunity, however noted that the African Union, not the ICC, is the only organization that allows organizations to interfere internationally for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Ethiopia maintained that the UNSC has no case in Darfur, and that the referral must be withdrawn.

      3. Prosecutor of the ICC

The Prosecutor of the ICC requested to respond to the “hostile and disrespectful language aimed at the ICC and at her personally”. The Prosecutor noted that the tense UNSC meeting was the closest dialogue that the ICC has reached with Sudan. The Prosecutor reminded all parties that the ICC is an independent entity, and is only interested in pursuing accountability in a fair impartial manner.

The Prosecutor directly addressed Sudan and asserted that “the government of Sudan cannot wish away atrocities.” The ICC urged the arrest of outstanding suspects of war crimes and crimes against humanity.