Credit: UNICEF/Michele Sibilon

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Aug 21 2025 (IPS)

After taking oath of office in December 2016 as Secretary-General, Mr. Antonio Guterres described the eradication of sexual offenses by UN peacekeeping and all other UN personnel as the first item on his reform agenda.

During his first year in office in 2017, he convened a high-level meeting on combatting sexual exploitation and abuse and established a task force to address sexual harassment within the UN system.

But the saga of inaction continues and the situation on the SEA, as the phenomenon of the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) is acronymized by the UN to avoid saying clearly what it stands for, remains totally appalling and unacceptable, eroding the credibility of the world’s most universal global body.

The UN’s so-called new approach to sexual offenses by UN personnel has proven to be little more than a public relations campaign marked by cosmetic adjustments that fail to address the systemic flaws that sustain a culture of impunity.

Helplessness of the UN is pitifully described in its latest report covering the year 2024 when it says that “Since 2017, we have continued to devote considerable attention and effort to improving the way to addresses the issue … However, challenges persist, and we remain committed to addressing these.” Nearly a decade has gone by and still there is no perceptible result in putting its own house in order by punishing the perpetrators and compensating the victims.

The latest UN report helplessly admits that “Since 2017, there has been an increase in the number of incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse reported …” It continues to share the bad news informing that “In 2024 alone, 675 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were reported in connection with United Nations staff and related personnel (292) and implementing partners (383), with 27 per cent of those allegations involving child victims.”

It is shocking that more than one-fourth of the victims are children. What kind of child-abuser staff the UN authorities are recruiting, supervising and monitoring?

The UN report says, “Since 2017, senior United Nations officials have reported on their personal responsibility to address sexual exploitation and abuse through annual attestations in their compacts or management letters.”

And, unfortunately, the same report shockingly admits that “However, alarmingly, in 2024, the survey on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse revealed a significant rise in distrust towards leadership, with 6 per cent respondents in the United Nations system (approximately 3,700 individuals) expressing a lack of confidence in the ability of leaders to address sexual exploitation and abuse, doubling from 3 per cent in 2023.”

It is so hugely embarrassing for the leadership of the UN!

Its much-touted zero-tolerance and no-impunity policies have not improved the situation, according to longtime UN watchers. Zero-tolerance has become synonymous with zero-effectiveness. Zero-tolerance policy is applied by the UN system entities as if they are using a zebra-crossing on a street which does not have any traffic lights.

The labyrinthine rules, regulations, procedures, channels of communication of the UN make the mockery of the due-process and timely justice. These have been taken advantage of by the perpetrators time and again.

Unjust UN policies and practices have, over decades, resulted in a culture of impunity for sexual “misconduct” ranging from breaches of UN rules to grave crimes. As most of the SEA incidents happen at the field levels, nationalities and personal equations play a big role in delaying or denying justice.

The UN takes credit by underscoring that “Our approach, which prioritizes the rights and dignity of victims, remains a key objective of the Secretary General’s strategy. Efforts are ongoing to ensure victims have a voice and better access to assistance and support.” How about victims’ access to justice and due process?

The victim-centred approach of the UN in handling SEA cases has been manipulated by the perpetrators and their organizational colleagues to detract attention from their seriousness. Not only should the victims get the utmost attention, so should the abusers because upholding of the justice is also UN’s responsibility.

Also, UN watchers become curious whenever media publish such SEA related reports, the UN authorities invariably mentions the concerned staff is on leave or administrative leave. When these cases are in the public domain, the abusers are merrily enjoying the leave with full pay, even during the world body’s on-going dire liquidity crisis.

It is also known that during the leave the abusers have tried to settle the matter with the victims or their families with lucrative temptations. The leave has also been used to wipe off the evidence of the crime. These have happened in several cases with the full knowledge of the supervisors.

What a travesty of the victim-centred approach!

The head of the UN peace operations where the SEA cases take place should be asked by the Secretary-General to explain the occurrence as a part of his or her direct responsibility. Unless such drastic measures are taken the SEA will continue in the UN system.

Another unexpectable dimension of the victim-centred approach is that the abuser-peacekeepers are sent back home for dispensation of justice as per the agreement between the troops contributing countries (TCC) and the UN. Sending the perpetrators home for action by national authorities is one of the biggest reasons for the continuation of SEA in the peace operations.

The victim is not present in that kind of varied national military justice situation, and no evidence are available except UN-cleared reports to show or suppress the extent of abuse.

Again, a travesty of justice supported by the upholder of the global rule of law!

The UN Secretary-General would be well advised to propose to the Security Council a change in the clause of the agreement that UN signs with the TCCs which incorporates for repatriation of abuser-peacekeepers to their home countries. If a TCC refuse to do so, the agreement will not be signed.

A functional, quick-justice global tribunal should be set up with the mandate to try the peacekeepers as decided by the UN. If the International Criminal Court (ICC) can try heads of state or government for crimes against humanity, why can’t the UN peacekeepers be tried for SEA?

That would be a true victim-centred approach!

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations; Initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as the President of the UN Security Council in March 2000; Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

On Feb 26, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have demanded Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops, a move several Council members said was deplorable, but inevitable. While 11 of the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the text, China India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained. Credit: United Nations

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2022 (IPS)

The ongoing war in Ukraine has raised the question of expulsion or suspension of the Russian Federation from the United Nations. As is known, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its UN seat was transferred to the Russian Federation.

With the collapse of the USSR in late 1991,the Commonwealth of Independent States signed a declaration agreeing that “Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council.”

USSR Ambassador to UN transmitted to the UN Secretary-General a letter from President of the Russian Federation stating that:

“… the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name ‘Russian Federation’ should be used in the United Nations in place of the name ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs….”

The Secretary-General circulated the request among the UN membership. There being no objection, the Russian Federation took the USSR’s place, with President Boris Yeltsin personally taking the Russian Federation’s seat at the Security Council meeting on 31 January 1992.

Without presenting new credentials. USSR Ambassador to UN continued serving as the first Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

UN’s working arrangements

Since its inception, the United Nations has resorted to all kinds of measures, practices, and procedures to circumvent the complexities of an intergovernmental decision-making and legal implications, heavily influenced by the position or opposition of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

As a result, acquiescence in its various manifestations has become all pervasive in the business of the United Nations. A clear manifestation of that is practiced these days through what is known as “silent procedure” whereby the reluctant acceptance of Member States of all kinds of anomalies achieve an agreement or consensus otherwise not possible.

The Russian veto on the Ukraine resolution in the Security Council prevented unanimous global resolve to address the situation there. The continuation of veto is an aberration of the multilateral system as practiced in the UN Security Council, thereby jeopardizing all the positive UN efforts to maintain international peace and security.

Change in multilateral system

The war in Ukraine has reaffirmed more clearly than ever that the “global ideological struggle” that had for so long dominated the international scene does not exist anymore. And the new realities must be translated into a different set of global institutions unless the existing one undertake major and all-pervasive reforms of their decision-making and operational practices and procedures.

The expulsion or suspension of one of the five veto-wielding permanent members would not necessarily result in effective maintenance of the global peace and security. There would still be four others with the ability to deny any time a consensus decision with which any one of them does not agree.

Veto, the chief culprit

The chief culprit in the failure of unified global action by the UN is the continuation of the irrational practice of veto. As a matter, I have said on record that, if only one reform action could be taken, it should be the abolition of veto. Believe me, the veto power influences not only the decisions of the Security Council but also all work of the UN, including importantly the choice of the Secretary-General.

I believe the abolition of veto requires a greater priority attention in the reforms process than the enlargement of the Security Council membership with additional permanent ones. Such permanency is simply undemocratic. I believe that the veto power is not “the cornerstone of the United Nations” but in reality, its tombstone.

Case of China

Unlike the question of the replacement of USSR membership by the Russian Federation in 1991, the case of the recognition of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by the UN is straightforward.

It was decided by the apex body of the UN system, the General Assembly in its groundbreaking resolution 2758 titled “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations” which was adopted by two-thirds majority on 25 October 1971 in accordance with the UN Charter.

The resolution recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and expelled “forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” from the United Nations.

Following adoption of Resolution 2758, the Beijing government began representing China at the UN from 15 November 1971 and its delegates were seated at the UN Security Council meeting held on 23 November 1971, the first such meeting where representatives of the Beijing government represented China with its veto power as a permanent member of the Council.

UN’s clear position on Taiwan

Over the years, Taiwan’s efforts to revive the application for UN membership separately for itself has received no support of the UN membership in general.

Reflecting the long-standing UN policy is mirrored in the “Final Clauses of “Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook”, 2003 published by the UN, stating that:

“…regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758 (XXVI) of the General Assembly of 25 October 1971 on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary.”

It is relevant to recall that in 2007, Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon rejected Taiwan’s membership bid to “join the UN under the name of Taiwan”, citing Resolution 2758 as acknowledging that Taiwan is part of China, although it is important to note, not the People’s Republic of China.

Why not amend the Charter

I have confronted on many occasions the question why Russia and PRC have not called for an amendment of the UN Charter to streamline their membership issue. For that, my opinion is that all Permanent Members are fully cognizant that that would open up a Pandora’s box, including the issue of abolition of veto and other reform issues which are not at all to their liking as part of the P-5 coterie.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, is Former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN; President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001); Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

After extending the COP26 climate negotiations an extra day, nearly 200 countries meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, adopted an outcome document that, according to the UN Secretary-General, “reflects the interests, the contradictions, and the state of political will in the world today”. Credit: UN News/Laura Quiñones

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Nov 19 2021 (IPS)

A week has gone by since COP 26 with 197 Parties ended in the Scottish city of Glasgow on extended time last Saturday. Climate change which covers wide array of issues affecting all living beings engaged the people around the world for COP 26 in a way never experienced since COP1 was held in Berlin in 1995.

Extensive and round-the-clock media coverage, huge presence of the civil society, activism by the young people, substantive advocacy by large number of non-governmental organizations, even the creatively decorated conference venue – all gave COP 26 a profile never seen before.

Before Glasgow, 25 annually convened sessions of COPs have been held by Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in New York in May 1992 which “determined to protect the climate system for present and future generations”. But never in the history of COPs there was an occasion when the Parties publicly negotiated to change the outcome document which was televised around the world as in the Glasgow COP.

As is natural for such multilateral gatherings, reactions to the question whether COP 26 was successful were different from the Parties and other entities engaged in the process. Efforts to gloss over following COP 26 left the common people uncertain and unsure whether there was really any forward movement in Glasgow.

Contradictions

What was somewhat intriguing that speaking for the United Nations system as a whole, the Secretary-General expressed his disappointment about the compromise reached in the outcome commenting “…unfortunately the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions.”

He even warned “It is time to go into emergency mode — or our chance of reaching net zero will itself be zero.” At the same time, Secretary-General’s rather confusing, ill-composed comment in his remarks at the conclusion of COP 26 that “We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe” left many wondering what he was trying to convey.

Even more intriguing is that where was his leadership as the universally accepted global leader in getting rid of those contradictions he was complaining about.? On the other hand, the Executive Secretary entrusted with the responsibility of organizing COPs was upbeat about the outcome and may be reflecting another contradiction in Glasgow. COP 26 also invited the UN Secretary-General to convene world leaders in 2023 to consider ambition to 2030 dangling the traditional carrot of expectation to the people of the world.

Alok Sharma touch

Let me bring out a very uniquely remarkable thing that happened in COP 26 as its UK-appointed full-time President Alok Sharma openly and visibly choked back tears saying “I am deeply sorry” as he banged his gavel for the adoption of the Glasgow Climate Pact.

His emotions and true feelings came out spontaneously as he was considerably upset by the proposal of India, joined by China, to change the expression “phase out” relating to coal consumption as agreed to by all till the moment of adoption.

India replaced that phrase with “phase down” thereby watering down the consensus intent of the Parties at COP 26. President Sharma expressed his apologies for the way things evolved in changing the agreed COP 26 outcome negotiated under his leadership and which he was about to gavel down. In my half a century of engagement in multilateral diplomacy,

I am not aware of any conference chair apologizing ever for his inability to protect the best interest of the participants in the outcome. Bravo to Alok Sharma for that honesty and integrity! He has shown the way to all future chairs that they can openly and courageously pronounce their failure identifying those who are dragging their feet destroying a forward-looking outcome.

It was also impressive the way President Sharma asserted the reality with his pithy comment that we have kept 1.5 Celsius alive “but its pulse is weak”.

Loss and Damage

The insensitivity of the Parties and their self-centered policy positions were starkly manifested in the decision relating to a major issue known as “Loss and Damage”. Not much media highlight was given to this very relevant item on COP 26 agenda. Even the UN’s Climate Change website does include in its list of topics.

I am sure many readers are picking their brains trying to recall the issue. “Loss and damage” is used within the COP process to refer to the harms caused by anthropogenic climate change. Establishing liability and compensation for loss and damage has been a long-standing goal for vulnerable and developing countries in the Alliance of Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries Group in negotiations.

However, developed countries have resisted this. At Glasgow, the developing countries lamented the outcome on loss and damage. They had called for a financial mechanism for loss and damage, but the outcome on loss and damage only included strengthening the existing technical support functions, and expectedly more empty and rejectionist talks to convene from 2022 to 2024.

The existing UNFCCC mechanism created by COP 19, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, focuses on research and dialogue rather than liability or compensation.
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network succinctly described COP 26 as “a clear betrayal by rich nations – the US, the EU and the UK- of vulnerable communities in poor countries.”

She went on to say that by blocking the proposal of the developing countries representing 6 billion people, on the creation of a Glasgow Loss and Damage Finance Facility “rich countries have once again demonstrated their complete lack of solidarity and responsibility to protect those facing the worst of the climate impacts.

Referring to close-door pressure tactics, Saleemul Huq, Director, International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) regretted that “The COP Presidency has overnight been bullied into dropping the Glasgow Loss and Damage Finance Facility. The UK’s words to the vulnerable countries have been proven to be totally unreliable.”

Natalie Lucas, Executive Director, Care About Climate very forcefully spoke about the loss and damage issue and expressed total disappointment commenting that “Developed nations, including the US, have not risen to the challenge to do what is necessary to protect people. We have missed the train on mitigation, on adaptation, and now it is colliding into the most vulnerable people.”

At the end the Glasgow Climate Pact pitifully agreed “to enhance understanding of how approaches to averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage can be improved”. It clearly reflects how the “powerful” of the world impose their totally irrelevant and illogical position on the poorest and most vulnerable humanity.

About the Glasgow outcome, globally respected eminent economist Jeffrey Sachs rightly opined “That leaves us stuck between the reality of a devastating global climate crisis and rich countries’ nationalist politics…” He articulated further that “The financial failures at COP26 are both tragic and absurd … Financing for “losses and damages,” that is, to recover and rebuild from climate disasters, fared even worse, with rich countries agreeing only to hold a “dialogue” on the issue.”

Kowtowing to the obstinacy of the developed countries, UN Secretary-General insensitively tried to console the developing world by his non-committal words saying “I want to make a particular appeal for our future work in relation to adaptation and the issue of loss and damage.”

He was oblivious that the Climate Change Convention of 1992 of which he is the depository asserts that “The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

Civil society

At Glasgow, the civil society engagement and advocacy for forward-looking actions fell on deaf ears of the leaders and negotiators. The civil society was separated from the so-called Blue Zone at the conference center where the wheeling-dealing was taking place.

If the civil society seriously wants a space to be heard and make an impact on the outcome of COP processes, it should ask for that opportunity clearly offered to them in all future climate negotiations. Protesting outside and commenting on the social media have limited value in influencing the decision-makers.

Even Greta Thunberg’s disparaging slogan “blah, blah, blah …” was laughed away by the leaders. COP 26 outcome proves that in a terribly frustrating manner. For COP 27 next year, the mode of operations for the civil society participation needs to change.

American climate scientist and author Peter Kalmus articulated that “The one thing the climate summit in Glasgow made clear is that human society remains in business-as-usual mode, with no meaningful curb on fossil fuel use. The soft pledges made at COP 26 might have been acceptable decades ago, but not now.”

He went on to highlight that “Unless COP26’s failure is recognized as failure, there is no way to learn from it. Allowing global leaders to feel that what happened in Glasgow was acceptable – and spinning it as some sort of success – would be a disastrous mistake.”

The whole COP process is flawed if the powerful Parties can brush aside the wishes of countries representing a huge majority of the world population just like that. Developing countries need to join together to stop this circus and find another approach.

“Phase down” – the new mantra

There has been strong criticism of the last-minute and veto-like proposal to replace “Phase out” by “Phase down” at the final moments of the Glasgow gathering. But “phase down” has always been the position of the worst and historically responsible polluters of the world who would prefer to follow their own pace for addressing the climate crisis.

Be it emissions control, be it fossil fuels, be it financing, be it adaptation, be it mitigation, be it loss and damage, be it transfer of technology, “phase down” mode has always been the preferred way of doing business by the developed world. India has only taken a dubious lead in actually introducing the phrase in a formal COP outcome.

The global community would find more and more such instances as the climate change negotiations evolves in the coming years. “Phase down” is the new mantra of the climate change negotiators. Be prepared for that. Sorry!

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations and former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

On October 31 2000, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 (2000) calling for participation of women in the prevention, management, and resolution of conflicts. Credit: United Nations

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Oct 30 2020 (IPS)

In 2010, at the opening session of the civil society forum observing the tenth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women and Peace and Security”, I had the honor to declare 1325 as “the common heritage of humanity” indicating the wide-ranging nature of the potential benefits which will flow from the landmark resolution’s full and effective implementation by all at all levels.

On 31 October, the world will be observing the 20th anniversary of 1325. The United Nations Security Council held a virtual session with wider participation of UN Member States on 29 October to observe the anniversary.

Today, in Namibia, the country which presided over the Security Council as it adopted UNSCR 1325, President Dr. Hage Geingob is launching the International Women’s Peace Center located in Windoek.

Anniversaries become meaningful when there is a serious stock-taking of the progress and lack of it and thereafter, charting of a realistic, determined roadmap and course of action for the next years. Of course, it is a pity that COVID-19 pandemic has setback our plans and enthusiasm for the observance in a major way.

The core message of 1325 is an integral part of my intellectual existence and my humble contribution to a better world for each one of us. To trace back, a little more than 20 years ago, on the International Women’s Day on 8 March in 2000, as the President of the Security Council representing my country Bangladesh, following extensive stonewalling and intense resistance from the permanent members, I was able to issue an agreed statement [UN Press Release SC/6816 of 8 March 2000] on behalf of all 15 members of the Council with strong support from civil society that formally brought to global attention the contribution women have always been making towards preventing wars and building peace.

The Council recognized in that significant, norm-setting statement that “peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men”, and affirmed the value of full and equal participation of women in all decision-making levels.

That is when the seed for UNSCR 1325 was sown. The formal resolution followed this conceptual and political breakthrough 31 October of the same year with Namibia at the helm, after tough negotiations for eight months, giving this issue the long overdue attention and recognition that it deserved.

The very first paragraph of this formal resolution starts with a reference to the 8 March 2000 statement identifying the rationale and tracing the history of “Women and Peace and Security” at the Security Council. The inexplicable silence for 55 long years of the Security Council on women’s positive contribution was broken forever on the 8th of March 2000.

Adoption of 1325 opened a much-awaited door of opportunity for women who have shown time and again that they bring a qualitative improvement in structuring peace and in post-conflict architecture. We recall that in choosing the three women laureates for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the citation referred to 1325 saying that “It underlined the need for women to become participants on an equal footing with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.”

1325 is the only UN resolution so specifically noted in the citations of the Nobel Prizes. That is the value, that is the essence and that is the prestige of UNSCR 1325 in the global community.

The historic and operational value of the resolution as the first international policy mechanism that explicitly recognized the gendered nature of war and peace processes has, however, been undercut by the disappointing record of its implementation, particularly for lack of national level commitments and global level leadership.

The driving force behind 1325 is “participation”. I believe the Security Council has been neglecting this core focus of the resolution. There is no consideration of women’s role and participation in real terms in its deliberations.

The poor record of the implementation of 1325 also points to the reality of the Security Council’s continuing adherence to the existing militarized inter-state security arrangements, though the Security Council is gradually, albeit slowly, accepting that a lasting peace cannot be achieved without the participation of women and the inclusion of gender perspectives in peace processes.

The Council has also met with women’s groups and representatives of NGOs during its field missions on a fairly regular basis. The first such meeting was held with women’s organizations in Kosovo in June 2001 when I was leading the Security Council mission to that country as the Council President, over the unwillingness of the UN appointed Mission Chief in Kosovo.

My work has taken me to the farthest corners of the world and I have seen time and again the centrality of women’s equality in our lives. This realization has now become more pertinent in the midst of the ever-increasing militarism and militarization that is destroying both our planet and our people.

Women’s equality makes our planet safe and secure. When women participate in peace negotiations and in the crafting of a peace agreement, they have the broader and long-term interest of society in mind.

It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world. Empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

Women are the real agents of change in refashioning peace structures ensuring greater sustainability.

As the UN adopted the SDGs in 2015, 1325 was about to observe its 15th anniversary and many were wondering why Goal 5 on women and girls and Goal 16 on peace and governance did not make any reference to the widely-recognized 1325. This disconnect between the two main organs of the UN is unacceptable to all well-intentioned supporters of the world body.

That global reality is dramatically evidenced in the fact that the UN itself despite being the biggest champion of women’s equality has failed to elect a woman secretary-general to reverse the historical injustice of having the post occupied by men for its more than seven-decades of existence.

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of 1325, I have been invited to speak at many virtual events and interviews from different parts of the world. I am asked again and again what could be done for the true implementation of 1325 to make a difference. In my considered judgment, I have identified four areas of priority for next five years.

One, Leadership of the UN Secretary-General.

What role the Secretary-General (SG) should play? Secretary-General Guterres has done well on women’s parity in his senior management team. It would be more meaningful to expand that parity for the Special Representatives of Secretary-General (SRSG) and Deputy SRSGs, Force Commanders and Deputies at the field levels with geographical diversity.

Many believe there is a need for the Secretary-General’s genuinely proactive, committed engagement in using the moral authority of the United Nations and the high office he occupies for the effective implementation of 1325.

Would it not have a strong, positive impact on countries if their heads of state/government received a formal communication from the Secretary-General urging submission of respective National Action Plans (NAPs)?

Implementation of 1325 should be seriously taken up by the SG’s UN system-wide coordination mechanism. UN Resident Coordinators who represent the SG and UN country teams should assist all national level actors in preparation and implementation of NAPs.

A “1325 Impact Assessment” component with concrete recommendations needs to be included in all reports by SG to the Security Council asking their inclusion in all peace and security decisions taken by the Council.

Gender perspectives must be fully integrated into the terms of reference of peace operations by the United Nations. Improving the gender architecture in field missions and at headquarters; improving gender conflict analysis and information flows; and accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel do need SG’s engaged leadership to make progress.

A no-tolerance, no-impunity approach is a must in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel and its regional partners in hybrid missions. UN is welcomed in countries as their protectors – it cannot become the perpetrators themselves!
1325 implementation has an additional obstacle of overcoming a culture among Council members and within the UN system that views gender issues as an “add-on” component, rather than being one of the central tenets which support conflict prevention and underpin long-term stability. SG should take the lead in changing this culture in a creative and proactive way.

Two, National Action Plans (NAPs)

As we observe the anniversary of 1325, it is truly disappointing that a mere 85 countries out of 193 members of the UN have prepared their National Action Plans (NAPs) for 1325 implementation in 20 years.

It should be also underscored that all countries are obligated as per decisions of the Security Council (as envisaged in Article 25 of UN Charter) to prepare the NAP whether they are in a so-called conflict situation or not.

In real terms, NAPs happen to be the engine that would speed up the implementation of 1325. There are no better ways to get country level commitment to implement 1325 other than the NAPs. I believe very strongly that only NAPs can hold the governments accountable.

There is a clear need for the Secretary-General’s attention for the effective implementation of 1325. Though NAPs are national commitments, it can be globally monitored. SG can also target 50 new NAPs by the 21st anniversary of 1325.

Three, Mobilizing Men for Implementing 1325

Patriarchy and misogyny are the dual scourges pulling back the humanity away from our aspiration for a better world. Gender inequality is an established, proven and undisputed reality – it is all pervasive. It is a real threat to human progress! UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has lamented that “… everywhere, we still have a male-dominated culture”.

Unless we confront these vicious and obstinate negative forces with all our energy, determination and persistence, our planet will never be a desired place for one and all.
Women’s rights are under threat from a “backlash” of conservatism and fundamentalism around the world.

We are experiencing around the globe an organized, determined rollback of the gains made as well as new attacks on women’s equality and empowerment. Yes, this is happening in all parts of the world and in all countries without exception.

Men and policies and institutions controlled by them have been the main perpetrators of gender inequality. It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world. It is also a reality that empowered women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

We need to recognize that women’s equality and their rights are not only women’s issues, those are relevant for humanity as a whole – for all of us. This is most crucial point that needs to be internalized by every one of us.

With that objective, we launched the initiative for “Mobilizing Men as Partners for Women, Peace and Security” on 20 March 2019 in New York with the leadership of Ambassador Donald Steinberg, taking the vow to profess, advocate and work to ensure feminism as our creed and as our mission.

Four, Direct involvement of civil society

Another missing element is a greater, regular, genuine and participatory involvement of civil society in implementing 1325 both at national and global levels. The role and contribution of civil society is critical. I would pay tribute to Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) for making creative and qualitative contributions for the implementation of 1325 for the last two decades.

Civil society should be fully involved in the preparation and implementation of the NAPs at the country levels. At the global level, the UN secretariat should not only make it a point to consult civil society, but at the same time, such consultations should be open and transparent.

We should not forget that when civil society is marginalized, there is little chance for 1325 to get implemented in the real sense.

Let me reiterate that Feminism is about smart policy which is inclusive, uses all potentials and leaves no one behind. I am proud to be a feminist. All of us need to be. That is how we make our planet a better place to live for all.

We should always remember that without peace, development is impossible, and without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is conceivable.

Let me assert again that observance of anniversaries becomes meaningful when they trigger renewed enthusiasm amongst all. Coming months will tell whether 1325’s 20th anniversary has been worthwhile and able to create that energy.

Let me end by reiterating that “If we are serious about peace, we must take women seriously”.

Excerpt:

Credit: United Nations

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
HONOLULU, Hawaii, Oct 22 2020 (IPS)

I will begin by presenting to you excerpts from the message from UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the International Day of Non-Violence.

I quote: “In marking the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, this International Day highlights the remarkable power of non-violence and peaceful protest. It is also a timely reminder to strive to uphold values that Gandhi lived by: the promotion of dignity; equal protection for all; and communities living together in peace.

On this year’s observance, we have a special duty: stop the fighting to focus on our common enemy: COVID-19. There is only one winner of conflict during a pandemic: the virus itself. As the pandemic took hold, I called for a global ceasefire. Now is the time to intensify our efforts. Let us be inspired by the spirit of Gandhi and the enduring principles of the UN Charter.” End of quote

At the outset, let me thank the Gandhi International Institute for Peace (GIIP) and its dynamic President Mr. Raj Kumar for organizing the observance of the International Day of Non-Violence and of the 15th Mahatma Gandhi Day Celebration by the Institute.

The theme of my keynote speech today is “Mahatma’s Non-Violence: Essence of The Culture of Peace for New Humanity”

The Mahatma affirmed that he was not a visionary but a practical idealist. He affirmed that “Non- violence is the law of our species, as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law – to the strength of the spirit.”

It is said that “he was the first in human history to extend the principle of non-violence from the individual to the social and political plane.” He entered politics for the purpose of experimenting with non-violence and establishing its validity.

Ambassador Chowdhury

The Mahatma had said that “Nonviolence is the greatest and most active force in the world. One cannot be passively nonviolent … One person who can express ahimsa in life exercises a force superior to all the force of brutality.” I believe whole-heartedly that Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of nonviolence or Ahimsa has found true reflection in the life of a great son of the United States, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s own struggle for equality and justice.

Dr. King considered his Nobel Peace Prize as “a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the critical political and racial questions of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression without resorting to violence“. I reiterate this mainly to highlight the need for revisiting those words in view of what is happening in many parts of our world, including in this country.

As I have stated on many occasions, my life’s experience has taught me to value peace and non-violence as the essential components of our existence. Those unleash the positive forces of good that are so needed for human progress. Peace is integral to human existence — in everything we do, in everything we say and in every thought we have, there is a place for peace.

It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively. This intellectual and spiritual inspiration is implanted in me through the Mahatma’s life and his words.

The United Nations Charter emerged in 1945 out of the ashes of the Second World War. The UN Declaration and Programme of Action on Culture of Peace was born in 1999 in the aftermath of the Cold War. I was the chair of the nine-month-long negotiations from 1998 to 1999 that produced the Programme of Action on Culture of Peace.

For more than two decades, I have continued to devote considerable time, energy and effort to realizing the implementation of this landmark, norm-setting decision of the UN. For me, this has been a realization of my personal commitment to peace inspired by the Mahatma and my humble contribution to humanity.

My work took me to the farthest corners of the world and I have seen time and again how people – even the humblest and the weakest – have contributed to building the culture of peace in their personal lives, in their families, in their communities and in their countries – all these contributing to global peace one way or the other.

The focus of my work and advocacy has been on advancing the culture of peace which aims at making peace and non-violence a part of our own self, our own personality – a part of our existence as human beings. I believe this will empower ourselves to contribute more effectively to bring inner as well as outer peace.

In simple terms, the Culture of Peace as a concept means that every one of us needs to consciously make peace and nonviolence a part of our daily existence. We should know how to relate to one another without being aggressive, without being violent, without being disrespectful, without neglect, without prejudice.

We should not isolate peace as something separate or distant. More so, in today’s world so full of negativity, tension, poverty and suffering, the culture of peace should be seen as the essence of a new humanity, a new global civilization based on inner oneness and outer diversity.

In my keynote address on “Human Security – an Essential Element for Creating the Culture of Peace” at the Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, in August 2007, inspired by Mahatma’s eternal words “Be the change that you want to see in the world,” I underscored that “Peace is a prerequisite for human development.… We all must undertake efforts to inculcate the culture of peace in ourselves. We cannot expect the world to change if we do not start first and foremost with changing ourselves – at the individual levels.”

The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people, as has been underscored by the global leader for peace and Buddhist philosopher Daisaku Ikeda. As we say “Peace does not mean just to stop wars, but also to stop oppression, injustice and neglect”. The culture of peace can be a powerful tool in promoting a global consciousness that serves the best interests of a just and sustainable peace.

I am encouraged that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the UN in 2015 includes, among others, the culture of peace and non-violence as well as global citizenship as essential components of today’s education.

This realization has now become more pertinent in the midst of the ever-increasing militarism and militarization that is destroying both our planet and our people. The Mahatma asserted that “One thing is certain. If the mad race for armaments continues, it is bound to result in a slaughter such as has never occurred in history. If there is a victor left, the very victory will be a living death for the nation that emerges victorious. There is no escape from the impending doom save through a bold and unconditional acceptance of the nonviolent method with all its glorious implications.”

Dr. King had advised us rightly, “… I suggest that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict, by no means excluding the relations between nations.”

The last decades of violence and human insecurity should lead to a growing realization in the world of education today that children should be educated in the art of peaceful, non-violent, non-aggressive living.

Never has it been more important for the next generation to learn about the world and understand and respect its diversity. I want to underscore one particular aspect in this context. In the culture of peace movement, we are focusing more attention on children because that contributes in a major way to the sustainable and long-lasting impact on our societies. As the Mahatma’s words highlight, “Real education consists in drawing the best out of yourself.”

An essential message that I have experienced from my work for the culture of peace is that we should never forget that when women – half of world’s seven plus billion people – are marginalized, there is no chance for our world to get sustainable peace in the real sense.

Women bring a new breadth, quality and balance of vision to a common effort of moving away from the cult of war towards the culture of peace. “Without peace, development cannot be realized, without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is possible.”

I believe the culture of peace is not a quick-fix. It is a movement, not a revolution.

Let us remember that the work for peace is a continuous process. Each one of us can make a difference in that process. The culture of peace cannot be imposed from outside; it must be realized from within.

Excerpt:

Security Council Members Hold Open videoconference meeting in a locked down UN building. Credit: United Nations

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Apr 17 2020 (IPS)

The current financial crisis, triggered as a result of withholding or delaying payment of assessed contributions by Member States, is nothing new to the United Nations.

We have travelled that road quite a few times in recent decades. No reason to panic. The past crises have been somehow resolved in a manner that UN soon went back to business as usual mode.

The discussions and suggestions for avoiding such situations in the future were forgotten very quickly. This is true for the Member States as well as the UN Secretariat leadership. Such forgetfulness and lack of serious attention to lessons learned actually serve narrow parochial interests of both sides.

Tough decisions needed for avoiding future financial and liquidity crises needed genuine engagement of all sides, yes, ALL sides, in particular the major “assessed” contributors.

Today’s financial and liquidity crisis is not caused by recent withholding of payments by a few major contributors for political reasons. Outstanding contributions for UN’s regular budget have reached $2.27 billion this month.

Peacekeeping operations also face increasing liquidity pressure as the outstanding contributions for that area are approximately $3.16 billion. These accumulations have been building up for some years.

Why no extra effort was made by all sides well ahead of time to avoid the current panic? The situation has now got complicated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

For a forward movement in this regard we need to duly and urgently address much-needed reforms necessary in both intergovernmental decision-making processes as well as mandatory streamlining measures for the UN Secretariat.

The intergovernmental process of UN always reflects the positions and attitude of the governments in power towards the UN system as a whole in general and how they undertake their respective UN Charter obligations in particular.

One of those includes payment of all assessed UN contributions “on time, in full and without any condition”.

Since 1980s, another emerging political dimension of the liquidity crisis has been manifested in paying a big price by UN agreeing to the undue and unrelated conditions whenever the part(s) of withheld contributions were released by the Member State(s) concerned.

This has the debilitating effect of undermining the independent and universal mandate of UN. As in the past, this time the UN management is warning about possible cutting of programmes of work only.

That is supposed to be an area of concern for the Member States because those programmes were decided by them in the UN General Assembly by consensus – with the support of all 193 Members States.

Such cutback of programmes of work would particularly setback the UN activities in the most vulnerable countries, like the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, which are appropriately the main focus of UN’s support to these target nations.

In his letter to Member States on 28 January 2020, UN Secretary-General “drew attention to the risk of insufficient cash to implement the programme of work for 2020”.

He reiterated the same point in his recent-most letter of 1 April 2020 “to Member States to raise the alarm about the deteriorating liquidity situation and inform them that he is once again compelled to implement additional measures that may hinder mandate delivery”.

Also, it needs to be remembered that in facing the past financial crises as the one is being faced now, the regular staff salary has never been affected negatively.

In view of its mission and mandate, unlike the private sector, UN staff has not lost any part of their salary and other benefits, like medical insurance and pension contributions.

That means whether the programme of work and mandate delivery is negatively affected by the financial crisis, the staff salary and other entitlements would continue unaffected.

That point is underlined by the UN management in its internal advisory of 1 April conveying a series of measures to manage expenditures and liquidity “to ensure that all Secretariat operations in headquarters and the field can continue, that salaries and entitlements can be paid on time, and other financial obligations met without delays”.

If the liquidity crisis keeps on affecting the work of the UN and its mandate delivery, the UN staff as a privileged part of the humanity should join in making creative efforts placing interest of the world body ahead of their sacrifice.

One such measure could be for UN staff to allow UN to withhold 20% of their monthly salary to offset the impact of the current liquidity crisis in the coming months.

When the liquidity situation gets better, say in six months time, the 20% would be paid back. UN Secretary-General and his Senior Management Team should lead by example by announcing that they would so voluntarily.

It was so energizing to learn that on 14 April, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, ministers in her government and public service chief executives agreed to take a 20% pay cut for the next six months amid the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

The global pandemic, in addition to the health aspects of the virus, has financial, socio-economic and developmental consequences.

UN management mentioned on 1 April in its advisory that “although the immediate impact of the move to alternate working conditions in response to the COVID-19 outbreak will lead to reductions in travel, contractual services and general operating expenses across all budgets, we also anticipate new demands upon our operations and services as we respond to the global health crisis.”

UN Secretariat should brace itself to perform its global responsibilities in a high-spirited way and in an effective and efficient manner. No more business as usual.

The humanity is trying to cope with the threat and its multidimensional impact as best it can.

Why not a new UN should emerge out of the crisis inspired by the full and true internalization of its mission to transform our planet and its people to create a better world for all in a positive and meaningful way?

Excerpt:

Credit: UN

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Sep 9 2019 (IPS)

It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with obstacles and indifference. Two decades have passed by since the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted, by consensus and without reservation, its landmark and norm-setting resolution 53/243 on the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace in 1999.

The current President of the UNGA Ms Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador is convening on 13 September the UN High-Level Forum on the Culture of Peace underlining the importance the world body attaches to full and effective implementation of this forward-looking decision.

It was exactly on that date 20 years ago the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the Charter of the UN in 1945. The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on Culture of Peace was born in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.

Simply put, the Culture of Peace as a concept means that every one of us needs to consciously make peace and nonviolence a part of our daily existence. We should not isolate peace as something separate or distant. We should know how to relate to one another without being aggressive, without being violent, without being disrespectful, without neglect, without prejudice.

It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.

It is also a positive, dynamic participatory process wherein “dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.”

Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury

If a person succeeds in resolving a conflict in a nonviolent manner at any point in time, then this individual has made a big contribution to the world because this singular act has succeeded in transferring the spirit of non-violence and cooperation to another individual. When repeated, such a spirit will grow exponentially, a practice that will become easier each time the choice is made to face a situation, resolve a conflict non-violently.

On 16 December 1998, at a Security Council meeting on the maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building, I implored that “International peace and security can be best strengthened, not by actions of States alone, but by women and men through the inculcation of the culture of peace and non-violence in every human being and every sphere of activity. The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people.”

As we were coming out of the Cold War, it dawned on us to see how best to take advantage of the end of that era of bitter rivalry and proxy wars and to make peace sustainable.

The Constitution of UNESCO says, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” The concept of the culture of peace started evolving in this spirit, to promote a change of values and behavior.

Soon after I became the Ambassador of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York in 1996, I felt that the culture of peace is a marvelous concept that humanity needs to embrace. I took the lead in proposing in 1997 along with some other Ambassadors in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to include a specific, self-standing agenda item of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on culture of peace.

A new agenda item on the culture of peace was thus agreed upon after considerable negotiating hurdles and the new item was allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly for discussion on an annual basis.

Under this item, UNGA adopted in 1997 a resolution to declare the year 2000 the “International Year for the Culture of Peace”, and in 1998, a resolution to declare the period from 2001 to 2010 the “International Decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World”.

On 13 September 1999, the United Nations adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace, a monumental document that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies and nations.

It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long negotiations that led to the adoption of this historic norm-setting document that is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.

I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.

To commemorate the 20th anniversary of that momentous action by the most universal global body in a “befitting manner” on 13 September 2019, the on-going 73rd session of the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution 73/126 on 12 December 2018 – with the co-sponsorship of 100 Member States led by Bangladesh – which requested “the President of the General Assembly to give special attention to the appropriate and befitting observance of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action, which falls on 13 September 2019, by holding the high-level forum on that date, which will be an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”

A significant aspect of the essential message as articulated in the UN documents effectively asserts that the “culture of peace is a process of individual, collective and institutional transformation.” Transformation is of the most essential relevance here.

The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the nation, the region – and, of course, the global level. Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.

It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset. The Culture of Peace can be achieved through simple ways of living, changing of our own behavior, changing how we relate to each other.

How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence.

A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action. By immersing ourselves in a mode of behaviour that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will – over time – combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.

All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. For that, educators need to introduce holistic and empowering curricula that cultivate the culture of peace in each and every young mind. Indeed, this should be more appropriately called “education for global citizenship”.

Such learning cannot be achieved without well-intentioned, sustained, and systematic peace education that leads the way to the culture of peace. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions away from violence, towards the culture of peace.

For this, I believe that early childhood affords a unique opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition from the culture of war to the culture of peace. The events that a child experiences early in life, the education that this child receives, and the community activities and socio-cultural mindset in which a child is immersed all contribute to how values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior, and ways of life develop.

We need to use this window of opportunity to instil the rudiments that each individual needs to become agents of peace and non-violence from an early life. I would like to add that young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.

Let us – yes, all of us — embrace the culture of peace for the good of humanity, for the sustainability of our planet and for making our world a better place to live.

Excerpt:

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 8 2019 (IPS)

In the first month of Bangladesh joining the Security Council in January 2000, President Nelson Mandela was in New York to report to the Council in his capacity as the UN-mandated facilitator of the Burundi Peace Process. In an informal setting, he shared with us that his efforts to include women in the peace table were not working as participating men stonewalled.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

He alerted them by saying that those were not “my ideas”, rather those were from the women whom the men are not allowing to join at the peace table. The key message here is that women add value and bring in positive perspectives to building peace keeping in mind the best interests of their society.

Women -– equal half of humanity — bring a new breadth, quality and balance of vision to our common effort to move away from the cult of war towards the culture of peace. Women’s equality makes our planet safe and secure.

The reports presented to the 63rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) last month underlined that, unfortunately, overall progress towards gender equality had been unacceptably slow, with stagnation and even regression in some areas.

Women’s rights are under threat from a “backlash” of conservatism and fundamentalism around the world.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres lamented that everywhere, we still have a male-dominated culture.

My work has taken me to the farthest corners of the world and I have seen time and again the centrality of women’s equality in our lives.

This realization has now become more pertinent in the midst of the ever-increasing militarism and militarization that is destroying both our planet and our people.

The UN Charter has entrusted the Security Council with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. In that context, for 55 years of its existence, the Security Council found women as only helpless victims of wars and conflicts without recognizing their positive role and contribution in that process.

On 8 March 2000, as the President of the Security Council, I could mobilize it to recognize in a statement that “peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men”, and affirmed the value of full and equal participation of women at all decision-making levels.

That is when the seed for Resolution 1325 was sown. The resolution was finally adopted unanimously on 31 October of the same year, after tough negotiations for eight months.

As you all know, the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 was presented to three women peace builders from Liberia and Yemen. In its citation, the Nobel Committee referred to 1325 and asserted that “We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.”

It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world. Empowered women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

The slogan of the Global Campaign on WPS which we launched in London in June 2014 reiterates “If we are serious about peace, we must take women seriously”.

Patriarchy and misogyny are the dual scourges pulling back the humanity away from our aspiration for a better world to live in freedom, equality and justice.

Men and policies and institutions controlled by them have been the main perpetrators of gender inequality which is a real threat to human progress. Feminism is about smart policy which is inclusive, uses all potentials and leaves no one behind.

I am proud to be a feminist. All of us need to be. That is how we make our planet a better place to live for all.

For the two-year initiative being launched today, all of us should take the vow to profess, advocate and work to ensure feminism as our creed and as our mission.

We should always remember that without peace, development is impossible, and without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is conceivable.

Footnote:

“The full and meaningful leadership, empowerment, and protection of women is essential to resolving deadly conflict and building stable, prosperous, and just post-conflict societies. We have created a group of leaders that identifies, encourages, and mobilizes the voices of prominent men and women in support of women’s engagement in global processes of peace, reconciliation, and post-conflict reconstruction.

“Mobilizing Men as Partners for Women, Peace and Security” is bringing global leaders—including prominent men from the defense, diplomacy, development, and business arenas—more fully into the campaign, along with the courageous women leaders who have long driven this advocacy, including grassroots advocates from war-affected countries.

We are partnering with key institutions, including UN agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), advocacy groups, and academic institutions. Along with our partners, we ally with, listen to, and open doors for women’s groups and individuals calling for gender justice in conflict and post-conflict settings.

The initiative started by engaging global figures and their senior advisors from dozens of international institutions, NGOs, and governments at a convening in New York City on March 22, 2018, in the margins of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

The participants agreed that while women-led efforts that created the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda have made considerable progress, men must be part of the solution.

Since our first convening, we have drafted a Charter, a statement of principles, and a call to action on engaging women as leaders, planners, and implementers of peace processes and post-conflict recovery efforts.

Once signed, the Charter will be publicized and shared with policymakers in governments and international organizations. Signatories will serve as Partners in this agenda, using their connections with other global leaders to make these points directly and to facilitate greater access for women advocates.

Our members will help to monitor and encourage full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, National Action Plans (NAPs), and laws—including the US Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017—and provide implementers at all levels access to information they need to do their jobs effectively.”

Excerpt:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcoming in his office Ambassador Chowdhury on first day at work as Under-Secretary-General March 2002

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 20 2018 (IPS)

I woke up on Saturday morning with the heart-breaking news that our dear Kofi is no more. The peoples of the world are unequivocal in expressing their feelings of the love, respect and recognition that they have for his qualities of head and heart.

Knowing him for more than four decades, my calling him “Saint Kofi” because of what he stood for, started at the beginning of the new millennium.

I recall with pride that the African Group decided to pick my Presidency of the Security Council in June 2001 to present a rather-early proposal for Kofi’s second term.

As the Security Council President, I introduced the resolution for his re-election to the General Assembly on 29 June 2001 which it did that very day with thunderous acclamation.

No Secretary-General both in the past and in the future, I believe, would know this most complex organization as thoroughly and as intimately as him. He was superbly knowledgeable in every aspect of UN’s work.
Kofi’s knowledge of the UN as the world’s biggest and most important multilateral body has been unparalleled. Starting at the entry level and reaching its topmost position accorded him a unique insight and understanding.

No Secretary-General both in the past and in the future, I believe, would know this most complex organization as thoroughly and as intimately as him. He was superbly knowledgeable in every aspect of UN’s work.

As the Chairman of Fifth Committee dealing with his UN reforms and restructuring in his first year as Secretary-General, I had experienced that time and again in the most enlightening way.

I recall Kofi’s invaluable advice as the Director of the UN Budget office when I was Vice Chair of the Committee on Programme and Coordination (CPC) in the early 1980s.

It was a distinct honor for me to serve in his team beginning in 2002 as the first Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the new office for the most vulnerable countries of the world, for whom he was himself a genuine and persistent advocate.

Personally, it was a pleasure for me to have received Kofi’s support, encouragement and advice for my initiatives in piloting in the General Assembly the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace in 1998-99 and in achieving the political breakthrough for UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women’s equality of participation in 2000, both taking place during his first term.

His personal connection with his staff, particularly those at the functional levels, was full of compassion and collegiality. He knew hundreds by their first names.

This following quote by Kofi underscoring the need for the culture of peace has been cited by me often: “Over the years we have come to realize that it is not enough to send peacekeeping forces to separate warring parties. It is not enough to engage in peace-building efforts after societies have been ravaged by conflict. It is not enough to conduct preventive diplomacy. All of this is essential work, but we want enduring results. We need, in short, the culture of peace.”

On 8 April this year, I sent him “our warmest greetings and heart-felt felicitations on the occasion of your super milestone eightieth birthday.”   I added “Our world has been immensely blessed with your leadership of the United Nations and the humanity continues to be blessed with your wisdom and engagement in making our planet a better place to live. We are so proud of you!”

I will miss Kofi tremendously.

*Anwarul K. Chowdhury was Ambassador of Bangladesh (1996-2001), President of the Security Council (March 2000 & June 2001), Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (1997-98), and Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN (2002-2007)

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2018 (IPS)

In the next seven days two of the biggest events that drive the women’s equality agenda will energize all well-meaning people of the world. The first on 8 March the International Women’s Day will assert renewed energy for women’s activism for peace, rights and development.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

That gathering is the 62nd annual session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York. Many of the participants at these sessions have direct grassroots connections with their feet on the ground and understand the challenges and obstacles – physical, economic, political, societal, cultural and attitudinal – which women face on a daily basis.

Many of us do not know that the Charter of the United Nations, when signed in 1945, was the first international agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men. Since then, the UN has helped create a historic legacy of internationally-agreed strategies, global legal frameworks, standards, programmes and goals to advance the status of women worldwide.

A specific part of the preamble of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) continues to inspire me every time I read it. It says that “… Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields…”

Another milestone UN resolution adopted by consensus in 1999 – Declaration and Programme of Action on Culture of Peace – accords a place of prominence for “equality between women and men” among its eight action areas.

In another resolution in 2011 on political participation UN General Assembly asserted that “Women in every part of the world continue to be largely marginalized from the political sphere, often as a result of discriminatory laws, practices, attitudes and gender stereotypes, low levels of education, lack of access to health care and the disproportionate effect of poverty on women.”

That global reality is dramatically evidenced in the fact that only one in five Parliamentarians is a woman, and there are nearly 40 countries in which women account for less than ten percent of Parliamentarians. This marginalization of women from the political sphere is unfortunate and unacceptable.

As I always strongly emphasize, empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society and the global condition. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts. When women join politics, they want to do something, when men join politics, they want to be something.

Let me at this point say “Bravo, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres!” for achieving full gender parity in his Senior Management Group, highest policy coordination body of the UN chaired by the Secretary-General with 23 women and 21 men. This is first time it has happened in 72 years of the organisation’s existence.

We need to recognize that women’s equality and their rights are not only women’s issues, those are relevant for humanity as a whole – for all of us. This is most crucial point that needs to be internalized by every one of us. We also find the challenges to women’s rights and their equality not only continue, but those also mutate and reappear, undermining any hard-earned progress.

Progress for women in the last two decades has been unacceptably slow. World leaders have not done nearly enough to act on commitments made in the visionary Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the fourth women‘s conference in 1995 . UN Women very rightly underscored that “The disappointing gap between the norms and implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action points to a collective failure of leadership on progress for women.”

To speed up the pace of progress with regard to women’s equality and empowerment, one very forward-looking initiative should be the five-year old joint proposal made by the President of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly and the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 8 March 2012 for the convening of a Fifth Global Conference on Women by the United Nations in 2015, twenty years after the last women’s summit in Beijing.

I believe that the proposal should be revived, revised and receive the urgent attention of the Member States to agree on a fifth world conference in the coming years. Unfortunately and curiously, that joint proposal was cold-shouldered by those very countries which claim to champion women’s rights and equality. No more foot-dragging please

My own experience particularly during last quarter century has made it clear to me that the participation of women in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace building assures that their experiences, priorities, and solutions contribute to longer-term stability and inclusive governance. In their inclusion in peace negotiations, women invariably ensure that peace accords address the validity of gender equality in new constitutional, judicial and electoral structures.

That brings me to the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on women and peace and security adopted in October 2000 opening a much-awaited door of opportunity for women as they are the real agents of change in refashioning peace structures ensuring greater sustainability.

The main inspiration behind 1325 is not to make war safe for women but to structure the peace in a way that there is no recurrence of war and conflict. We would not have to be worrying about countering extremism if women have equality in decision-making enabling them to take measures which would prevent such extremism. Ensuring equality and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness in international relations is essential to weed out roots of extremism.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words saying “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.” It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world.

Reiterating this assertion, UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his message on the last International Women’s Day said very succinctly that “The truth is that north and south, east and west – and I’m not speaking about any society, culture or country in particular – everywhere, we still have a male-dominated culture.”

At a UN high level event a couple of years ago, President of Liberia Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf – first woman head of state in the continent of Africa – pointed out that “… some of us have broken the glass ceiling” at the same time regretting that “at the current pace; it will take 81 years to achieve gender equality.”

Patriarchy and misogyny are scourges pulling back the humanity away from our aspiration for a better world to live in freedom, equality and justice.

Gender inequality is an established, proven and undisputed reality – it is all pervasive. It is a real threat to human progress! It is a shame that in the second decade of the 21st century widespread discriminatory norms against women remain deeply rooted. Structural barriers and social and economic inequities hinder gender parity in national governments around the world.

A huge inequality persists in areas of women’s political participation, legal discrimination including land rights and inheritance, business ownership, sexual and reproductive rights. Also, eradication of poverty is the first and foremost concern of women since the majority of the poor in the world are women, and the feminization of poverty is a reality in poor and rich countries alike. The increasing militarism and militarization have made these even worse.

Unless we confront these vicious and obstinate negative forces with all our energy, determination and persistence, our planet will never be a desired abode for one and all. I will emphasize in that connection that none of the 17 SDGs will make headway in any real sense, until we make progress in realizing the objective of women’s equality and empowerment.

Notwithstanding some progress of sorts, we are experiencing around the globe an organized, determined rollback of these gains as well as new attacks on women equality and empowerment – yes, in all parts of the world and in all countries without exception.

As underscored by the architect of feminist foreign policy, Foreign Minster Margot Wallström of Sweden, “No society is immune from backlashes, especially not in relation to gender. There is a continuous need for vigilance and for continuously pushing for women’s and girls’ full enjoyment of human rights.”

Empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society and the global condition. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

I will emphasize that it is not about women against men, but it is reality that when you have more women in public decision-making, you get policies that benefit women, children and families in general.

While women are often the first victims of armed conflict, they must also and always be recognized as key to the resolution of the conflict. It is my strong belief that unless women are engaged in advancing the culture of peace at equal levels with men, sustainable peace would continue to elude us.

It is now recognized that achieving gender equality requires “transformative change.” In this conceptual reorientation, the politics of gender relations and restructuring of institutions, rather than simply equality in access to resources and options, have become the focus of development architecture. We need to realize that equality is no longer only a technical and statistical perception.

It is also an understanding that the views, values and experiences of women and men are different in many ways and, therefore, it is essential that both male and female views are equally heard and recognized in society as a whole, and, of course, in social, economic and political planning and decision making.

Only then can women and men equally and democratically influence progress in society, which shapes the conditions and prerequisites of their lives. Thus, the equal participation and impact of women in society becomes not only their legitimate right, but also a social and political necessity for achieving more balanced and sustainable peace and development.

Women’s equality and empowerment are not only issues concerning women; those are relevant for humanity as a whole – for all of us. This is most crucial point that needs to be internalized by every one of us. At the same time, we should be watchful against the increasing attempts by governments to undermine the critical and unequivocal role of women’s organizations, feminist activists and women human rights defenders.

Before concluding, let me present four concrete proposals which would enhance UN efficacy in making progress in realizing women’s agenda as a whole.

First, UN Secretary-General needs to get involved more pro-actively in getting the Member-States to prepare their respective National Action Plans (NAPs) for UNSCR 1325. A NAP has the potential of a national level commitment of a country to implement women’s equality agenda. His letter addressed to a Head of State/Government requesting action in that regard and instructing the UN Resident Coordinators at the country level to follow up vigorously will bring results.

Second, CSW should embrace implementation of 1325 and provide support for NAPs. CEDAW has done that through its General Recommendation 30. CSW should recognize the enthusiasm of particularly civil society for 1325 implementation. 1325 is an important part of the United Nations global agenda for change for equality. Segregation of women’s agenda is not acceptable on the basis of UN system’s organizational entities.

Third, Member States need to get engaged in convening the Fifth World Conference on Women

Fourth, UN Women should work closely with SRSG for violence against women, SRSG for violence against children as it involves violence against girls and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

Through my life’s experience and inspiration, I believe intensely that we should never forget that when women – half of world’s seven point two billion people – are marginalized, there is no chance for our world to get distributive development and sustainable peace in the real sense.

I join in Foreign Minister Wallstrom’s assertion on last year’s International Women’s Day that “Feminism is a component of a modern view on global politics, not an idealistic departure from it. It is about smart policy which includes whole populations, uses all potential and leaves no one behind. Change is possible, necessary and long overdue.”

I am proud to be a feminist … all of us need to be. That is how we make our planet a better place to live for all. We should always remember that without peace, development is impossible, and without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is conceivable.

Excerpt:

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 30 2017 (IPS)

At the 26 October launch of GNWP’s (Global Network of Women Peacebuilders) manual “No Money, No NAP” on dedicated budgetary allocation to fund the implementation of the 1325 National Action Plans, Executive Director of UN Women Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka characterized UNSCR 1325 as the most unimplemented resolution of the UN Security Council.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN

I agree with both of them in a big way particularly bearing in mind that adoption of 1325 opened a much-awaited door of opportunity for women who have shown time and again that they bring a qualitative improvement in structuring peace and in post-conflict architecture.

We need to understand that 1325 by itself envisages a broad-based conceptual transformation of the existing international policies and practices that make women insecure and deny their equality of participation, basically as a result of the Security Council’s support of the existing militarized inter-state security arrangements.

I am referring to the concept of security based on current strategic power structures rather than on human security which highlights the security of the people. That change itself remains very distant.

Here I would mention enthusiastically a dedicated woman, Peace and Security Program which was launched last week at New York’s prestigious Columbia University. Led by 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate dynamic Leymah Gbowee, this Program has identified all the key areas which need special attention, particularly emphasizing the human security dimension and grassroots level experiences in WPS agenda. I wish her and the Program all success!

Apart from that I find there four areas where greater progress was possible during last 17 years:
One, in real terms, National Action Plan (NAP) is the engine that would speed up the implementation of 1325. It should be also underscored that all countries are obligated as per decisions of the Security Council to prepare the NAP whether they are in a so-called conflict situation or not. So far, only 68 out of 193 UN Member States have prepared their plans – what a dismal record after 17 years.

Leymah Gbowee launches WPS Program at the Columbia University, as its Executive Director

Two, I would say that special attention should be given to building awareness and sensitivity as well as training of the senior officials within the UN system as a whole with regard to 1325. That will create a foundational culture of recognizing women’s equality of participation as essential.

Three, another missing element is a greater, regular, genuine and participatory involvement of civil society in implementing 1325 both at national and global levels. We should not forget that when civil society is marginalized, there is little chance for 1325 to get implemented in the real sense.

Four, what role the Secretary-General should play? I believe there is a need for his genuinely active, dedicated engagement in using the moral authority of the United Nations and the high office he occupies for the effective implementation of 1325. Would it not have a strong, positive impact on countries for the implementation of 1325 if their leaders received a formal communication from the S-G suggesting a date for submission of respective NAPs?

Implementation of 1325 should be seriously taken up in the SG’s UN system-wide coordination mechanism – at the next CEB meeting. DPI needs to have an information and awareness raising strategy for 1325 – mainstreamed in its work – not as an event and anniversary oriented publicity.

UN Resident Coordinators who represent the SG and the whole UN system at the country level and UN country teams should assist all national level actors in preparation and implementation of national action plans.

In short, through implementation of 1325, we want complete and real, practical, functional, operational equality between women and men to end the cycle of all forms of extremism which continue to sabotage humanity’s quest for sustainable peace and development.

Excerpt:

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 1 2016 (IPS)

In the fifteen years since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, we have seen a tremendous enthusiasm among civil society at all levels in raising awareness, engaging in advocacy and building capacity for its meaningful implementation. It is my pleasure to write the foreword to this publication which is a meaningful endeavour to move the agenda forward on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the adoption of this groundbreaking resolution.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

All of us need to remember that adoption of 1325 has opened a much-awaited door of opportunity for women. To trace back, 15 years ago, on the International Women’s Day in 2000, I had the honor of issuing on behalf of the United Nations Security Council in my capacity as its President a statement that formally brought to global attention the unrecognized, underutilized and undervalued contribution women have always been making towards the prevention of wars, peacebuilding and engaging individuals, communities and societies to live in harmony. All fifteen members of the Security Council recognized in that statement that peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men, and affirmed the value of full and equal participation of women in all decision-making levels. That is when the seed for Resolution 1325 on women and peace & security was sown. The formal resolution followed this conceptual and political breakthrough on 31 October of the same year giving this issue the long overdue attention and recognition that it deserved.

My own experience particularly during last quarter century has made it clear that the participation of women in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding assures that their experiences, priorities, and solutions contribute to longer-term stability and inclusive governance. I have seen time and again how women – even the humblest and the weakest – have contributed to building the culture of peace in their personal lives, in their families, in their communities and in their nations.

The contribution and involvement of women in the eternal quest for peace is an inherent reality. Women are the real agents of change in refashioning peace structures ensuring greater sustainability.

In choosing the three women laureates for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the citation referred to 1325 saying that “It underlined the need for women to become participants on an equal footing with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.” The Nobel Committee further asserted that “We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.”

The main inspiration behind 1325 is not to make war safe for women but to structure the peace in a way that there is no recurrence of war and conflict. Research and case studies consistently suggest that peace agreements and post-conflict rebuilding have a much higher chance of long-term success when women are involved. That is why women need to be at the peace tables, women need to be involved in the decision-making and in the peace-keeping teams to make a real difference in transitioning from the cult of war to the culture of peace.

The driving force behind 1325 is “participation” in which women can contribute to decision-making and ultimately help shape societies where violence in general, more so against women is not the norm. 1325 marked the first time that such a proposition was recognized as an objective of the UN Security Council.

“Women in every part of the world continue to be largely marginalized from the political sphere …” This is unfortunate and unacceptable. Empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society and consequently on the global condition. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

When women have been included in peace negotiations, they often have brought the views of women to the discussions by ensuring that peace accords address demands for gender equality, human rights, good governance, rule of law in new constitutional, judicial and electoral structures. We would not have to be worrying about countering extremism if women have equality in decision- making enabling them to take measures which would prevent such extremism. Ensuring equality and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness in international relations is essential to weed out roots of extremism.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words saying “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.” It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world.

Unfortunately the challenges to women’s rights and their equality not only continue, but those also mutate and reappear, undermining any hard-earned progress – of course in the process, those become more and more complex, complicated and more difficult to overcome.

The ever-increasing militarism and militarization have made the situation even worse. The global patriarchy’s encouragement to the voluminous arms trade has made it easier for extremists of all kinds in obtaining the arms to impose on others their extremist world views. Ending the arms trade and serious steps toward disarmament should be part of the prescription for reducing and eliminating extremism and all militarized violence.

Recognition that women need to be at the peace tables to make a real difference in transitioning from the cult of war to the culture of peace, I believe, made the passage of 1325 an impressive step forward for women’s equality agenda in contemporary security politics. The slogan of the Global Campaign on Women, Peace and Security which we launched in London in June 2014 reiterates “If we are serious about peace, we must take women seriously”. Of course, achieving real gender equality requires “transformative change.” In this conceptual reorientation, the politics of gender relations and restructuring of institutions, rather than simply equality in access to resources and options, should become the priority.

Fifteen years after the adoption of 1325, the governments are still trying to get their acts together on its effective implementation by preparing respective National Action Plan (NAP) as called for by the Security Council. Civil society, on its part, should systematically monitor and evaluate its implementation to hold all sides accountable. Also, countries should work towards the elimination of violence against women and ensure that victims have full access to justice and that there is no impunity for perpetrators. Some countries boast that they do not need a national plan as their countries are not in conflict. To that I say emphatically that no country can claim to be not in conflict where women’s rights are not ensured. Very relevant in this context is the civil society initiative to prepare a people’s action plan as cogently articulated by Betty Reardon in her persuasive contribution in this publication.

In general, National Action Plans should be designed to coordinate and strengthen the implementation of 1325. They should contain a catalogue of measures, clear targets and benchmarks for full and meaningful implementation. The creation of an action plan provides an opportunity to initiate strategic actions, identify priorities and resources, and determine the responsibilities and timeframes. The whole process of developing a plan is also a process of awareness-raising and capacity-building in order to overcome gaps and challenges to the full implementation of 1325.

In real terms, NAP is the engine that would speed up the implementation of Resolution 1325. So far, only 48* out of 193 UN member-states have prepared their plans – what a dismal record after 15 years. There are no better ways to get country level commitment to implement 1325 other than NAPs. I believe very strongly that only NAPs can hold the governments accountable. There has to be an increased and pro-active engagement of the UN secretariat leadership to get a meaningfully bigger number of NAPs – for example, setting a target of 100 NAPs by 2017.

In case of India, for both the government and civil society, preparation of its National Action Plan is particularly important. NGOs should persistently continue to pressure and demand that the government develops the country’s National Action Plan for the implementation of 1325.

At the global level, the UN Secretary-General needs to take the lead in setting up six-monthly inclusive consultative process for 1325 implementation with the civil society organizations at all levels for all relevant UN entities. Also, all relevant NGOs are to be mobilized at country level by the 1325 national coordination body supported by the UN Resident Coordinator.

Again, to recall my message in 2011, I welcomed the focus of Sansristi’s workshop “on the significance of and need for human-centred approach to security. Security can no longer be understood in purely military terms or in terms of state security. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human rights and the rule of law. To attain the goals of human security, the most essential element is the protection and empowerment of people. As 1325 deals with peace & security with special attention to the half of the global population, it is crucially important that the human security concept becomes the key to the resolution’s implementation at the national, regional and global levels.”

The existing international policies and practices that make women insecure and deny their equality of participation, basically as a result of its support of the existing militarized inter-state security arrangements, is disappointing. We need to realize that the world is secure when we focus on ensuring human security with a feminist perspective and full and equal participation of women at all decision-making levels, in all spheres of human activity and at all times.

1325 is a “common heritage of humanity” wherein the global objectives of peace, equality and development are reflected in a uniquely historic, universal document of the United Nations. As we look ahead, what is called for is an ever-growing global movement involving more and more women and, of course, men.

This publication is a concrete and determined step towards the objective of contributing meaningfully to the emerging global movement for women’s equality and empowerment. It reflects our common eagerness, energy and enthusiasm to move forward. With wonderfully articulated presentations skillfully authored by experts from various background and experiences and brilliantly put together with accomplished editing by Asha Hans and Swarna Rajagopalan, the book deserves wide-ranging attention and global readership.

* Today the total stands at only 63

Excerpt:

This week, the United Nations Security Council is holding an open debate to undertake its High Level Review of the 15 years of implementation of the landmark Resolution 1325 on “Women and Peace and Security.”

Photo Courtesy of Ambassador Chowdhury

The Council recognized in that statement that peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men, and affirmed the value of full and equal participation of women in all decision-making levels. That is when the seed for Resolution 1325 was sown. Adoption of 1325 opened a much-awaited door of opportunity for women who have shown time and again that they bring a qualitative improvement in structuring peace and in post-conflict architecture. When women participate in peace negotiations and in the crafting of a peace agreement, they have the broader and long-term interest of society in mind.

In choosing the three women laureates for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee’s citation referred to 1325 saying that “It underlined the need for women to become participants on an equal footing with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.” The committee further asserted that “We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.” Resolution 1325 is the only UN resolution so specifically noted in the citation of the Nobel Prize.

Thanks to 1325, the Security Council is gradually accepting that a lasting peace cannot be achieved without the participation of women and the inclusion of gender perspectives and participation in peace processes. The Council has also met with women’s groups and representatives of NGOs during its field missions on a fairly regular basis.

Much, nevertheless, remains to be done. We continue to find reports that women are still very often ignored or excluded from formal processes of negotiations and elections and in the drafting of the new constitution or legislature frameworks. The driving force behind 1325 is “participation.”I believe the Security Council has been neglecting this core focus of the resolution. There is no full and equal participation of women at any level. There is no consideration of women’s needs in the deliberations.

The main question is not to make war safe for women but to structure the peace in a way that there is no recurrence of war and conflict. That is why women need to be at the peace tables, women need to be involved in the decision-making and as peacekeepers to ensure real and faithful implementation of 1325.

Gender perspectives must be fully integrated into the terms of reference of peace operations related Security Council resolutions, reports and missions. A no-tolerance, no-impunity approach is a must in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. As a matter of fact, I would recommend that all prospective peace-keepers must pass the “1325 test” before they leave their countries and there should be no relaxation with regard to this qualifier. Troop contributing countries should be aware that repeated violations by their contingents would put them on a global blacklist.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words saying “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.” It is a reality that politics, more so security, is still a man’s world. Empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society and the global condition. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts. Here I would add emphatically that, to be true to its own pronouncements, I believe it is absolutely high time that in its seven decades of existence, the United Nations should appoint the first woman as the next Secretary-General.

After 15 years of the adoption the UNSCR 1325, our sole focus should be on its true and effective implementation. In real terms, the National Action Plan (NAP) is the engine that would speed up the implementation of Resolution 1325. It should be also underscored that all countries are obligated as per decisions of the Security Council to prepare the NAP whether they are in a so-called conflict situation or not. So far, only 50 out of 193 UN Member-States have prepared their plans after 15 years – a dismal record. There has to be an increased and pro-active engagement of the UN secretariat leadership to get a meaningfully bigger number of NAPs – for example, setting a target of 100 NAPs by 2017. UN Women needs to work more proactively with the Member States so that their 1325 NAPs are commenced and completed without any further delay.

Anniversaries are meaningful when they trigger renewed enthusiasm amongst all. Coming months will tell whether 1325’s 15th anniversary has been worthwhile and able to create that energy.

(End)

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Oct 13 2015 (IPS)

2015 is a year of UN anniversaries as the calendar tells us. Of course the big one is the United Nations’ own seventieth birthday. I find two other anniversaries very significant in their relevance to humanity’s quest for peace and development in general and for goals and objectives of the UN’s work in particular.

I am referring to the 20th anniversary of the world’s biggest-ever conference on women held in Beijing in 1995 advancing women’s equality and empowerment. Five years later it was by followed by a groundbreaking initiative resulting in the adoption by the UN Security its landmark Resolution 1325 on “Women and Peace and Security” on 31 October 2000.

The Security Council will hold an open debate to undertake its High Level Review of the 15 years of the implementation of 1325. Curiously, the Global Study that has been undertaken for this had its formal launch Monday.

UNSCR 1325 is very close to my intellectual existence and my very small contribution to a better world for each one of us. To trace back, 15 years ago, on the International Women’s Day in 2000, as the President of the Security Council, following extensive stonewalling, I was able to issue an agreed statement that formally brought to global attention the unrecognized, underutilized and undervalued contribution women have always been making towards the prevention of wars and building peace.

The Council recognized in that statement that peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men, and affirmed the value of full and equal participation of women in all decision-making levels. That is when the seed for Resolution 1325 was sown.

The formal resolution followed this conceptual and political breakthrough on 31 October of the same year giving this issue the long overdue attention and recognition that it deserved. This inexplicable silence of the Security Council on women’s contribution for 55 long years was broken on the 8th of March 2000.

Adoption of 1325 opened a much-awaited door of opportunity for women who have shown time and again that they bring a qualitative improvement in structuring peace and in post-conflict architecture. When women participate in peace negotiations and in the crafting of a peace agreement, they have the broader and long-term interest of society in mind.

We recall that in choosing the three women laureates for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the citation referred to 1325 saying that “It underlined the need for women to become participants on an equal footing with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.”

The Nobel Committee further asserted that “We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.” 1325 is the only UN resolution so specifically noted in the citation of the Nobel Prize.

Thanks to 1325, the Security Council is gradually accepting that a lasting peace cannot be achieved without the participation of women and the inclusion of gender perspectives and participation in peace processes. The Council has also met with women’s groups and representatives of NGOs during its field missions on a fairly regular basis.

Much, nevertheless, remains to be done. We continue to find reports that women are still very often ignored or excluded from formal processes of negotiations and elections and in the drafting of the new constitution or legislature frameworks.

The driving force behind 1325 is “participation”. I believe the Security Council has been neglecting this core focus of the resolution. There is no full and equal participation of women at any level. There is no consideration of women’s needs in the deliberations.

The main question is not to make war safe for women but to structure the peace in a way that there is no recurrence of war and conflict. That is why women need to be at the peace tables, women need to be involved in the decision-making and as peacekeepers to ensure real and faithful implementation of 1325.

Gender perspectives must be fully integrated into the terms of reference of peace operations related Security Council resolutions, reports and missions. A no-tolerance, no-impunity approach is a must in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers.

As a matter of fact, I would recommend that all prospective peace-keepers must pass the “1325 test” before they leave their countries and there should be no relaxation with regard to this qualifier. Troop contributing countries should be aware that repeated violations by their contingents would put them on a global blacklist.

Analysts are of the view that the passage of 1325 is an impressive step forward for women’s equality agendas in contemporary security politics. However, they also believe, that the historic and operational value of the resolution as the first international policy mechanism that explicitly recognized the gendered nature of war and peace processes has been undercut by the disappointing record of its implementation, particularly for lack of national level commitments.

According to them, the poor record of the implementation of 1325 has fuelled rather well-founded suspicions about the complicity of the Security Council in international practices that make women insecure, basically as a result of its support of the existing militarized inter-state security arrangements.

I believe strongly that we would not have to be worrying about countering extremism if women have equality in decision-making enabling them to take measures which would prevent such extremism.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words saying “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.”

It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world. Empowering women’s political leadership will have ripple effects on every level of society and the global condition. When politically empowered, women bring important and different skills and perspectives to the policy making table in comparison to their male counterparts.

Here I would add emphatically that, to be true to its own pronouncements, I believe it is absolutely high time that in its seven decades of existence, the United Nations should appoint the first woman as the next Secretary-General.

After 15 years of the adoption the UNSCR 1325, our sole focus should be on its true and effective implementation. In real terms, National Action Plan (NAP) is the engine that would speed up the implementation of Resolution 1325.

It should be also underscored that all countries are obligated as per decisions of the Security Council to prepare the NAP whether they are in a so-called conflict situation or not. So far, only 50 out of 193 UN Member-States have prepared their plans after 15 years. This is a dismal record!

There are no better ways to get country level commitment and involvement to implement 1325 other than the NAPs. I believe very strongly that only NAPs can hold the governments accountable. There has to be an increased and pro-active engagement of the UN secretariat leadership to get a meaningfully bigger number of NAPs – for example, setting a target of 100 NAPs by 2017. UN Women needs to work more proactively with the Member States so that their 1325 NAPs are commenced and completed without any further delay.

Another missing element is a greater, regular, genuine and participatory involvement of civil society in implementing 1325 both at national and global levels. The role and contribution of civil society is critical. At the global level, the UN secretariat should not only make it a point to consult it, but at the same time, such consultations should be open and transparent. Very limited opportunity provided to civil society at tomorrow’s High Level Review is not what we expect.

Let me end by asserting that anniversaries are meaningful when they trigger renewed enthusiasm amongst all. Coming months will tell whether 1325’s 15th anniversary has been worthwhile and able to create that energy.
(End)

Excerpt:

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 7 2015 (IPS)

Another reality that emerges very distinctly in culture of peace is that we should never forget when women – half of world’s seven billion plus people – are marginalised and their equality is not established in all spheres of human activity, there is no chance for our world to get sustainable peace in the real sense.

Photo Courtesy of Ambassador Chowdhury

I would reiterate that women in particular have a major role to play in promoting the culture of peace in our violence-ridden societies, thereby bringing in lasting peace and reconciliation. While women are often the first victims of armed conflict, they must also and always be recognised as key to the resolution of the conflict.

I believe with all my conviction that without peace, development is not possible, without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development can be realised.

Integral connection between development and peace

In today’s world we continue to perceive an inherent paradox that needs our attention. The process of globalisation has created an irreversible trend toward a global integrated community, while at the same time, divisions and distrust keep on manifesting in different and complex ways.

Disparities and inequalities within and among nations have been causing insecurity and uncertainty that has become an unwanted reality in our lives. That is why I strongly believe that peace and development are two sides of the same coin. One is meaningless without the other; one cannot be achieved without the other.It is being increasingly realised that over-emphasis on cognitive learning in schools at the cost of developing children’s emotional, social, moral and humanistic aspects has been a costly mistake.

Education as the most critical element in the culture of peace

A key ingredient in building the culture of peace is education. Peace education needs to be accepted in all parts of the world, in all societies and countries as an essential element in creating the culture of peace.

The young of today deserves a radically different education –“one that does not glorify war but educates for peace, non-violence and international cooperation.” They need the skills and knowledge to create and nurture peace for their individual selves as well as for the world they belong to.

As Maria Montessori had articulated so appropriately, “Those who want a violent way of living, prepare young people for that; but those who want peace have neglected their young children and adolescents and that way are unable to organize them for peace.”

It is being increasingly realised that over-emphasis on cognitive learning in schools at the cost of developing children’s emotional, social, moral and humanistic aspects has been a costly mistake.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asserted at the very first High Level Forum on the Culture of Peace in 2012 that “…. We are here to talk about how to create this culture of peace. I have a simple, one-word answer: education. Through education, we teach children not to hate. Through education, we raise leaders who act with wisdom and compassion. Through education, we establish a true, lasting culture of peace.”

In this context, I commend the initiative of the Soka University of America located near Los Angeles in initiating in 2014 its annual “Dialogue on The Culture of Peace and Non-Violence” as an independent, unbiased, non-partisan, intellectual forum to outline avenues and direction for incorporating the culture of peace and non-violence into all spheres of the educational experience.

Never has it been more important for us to learn about the world and understand its diversity. The task of educating children and young people to find non-aggressive means to relate with one another is of primary importance.

As I had underscored at the conference hosted by the Hague Appeal for Peace on “Educating toward a World without Violence” in Albania in 2004, “the participation of young people in this process is very essential. Their inputs in terms of their own ideas on how to cooperate with each other in order to eliminate violence in our societies must be fully taken into account.”

Peace education is more effective and meaningful when it is adopted according to the social and cultural context and the country’s needs and aspirations. It should be enriched by its cultural and spiritual values together with the universal human values.

It should also be globally relevant. The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice rightly emphasises that “…culture of peace will be achieved when citizens of the world understand global problems; have the skills to resolve conflicts constructively; know and live by international standards of human rights, gender and racial equality; appreciate cultural diversity; and respect the integrity of the Earth.”

Indeed, this should be more appropriately called “education for global citizenship”. Such learning cannot be achieved without well-intentioned, sustained, and systematic peace education that leads the way to the culture of peace.

The U.N. Secretary-General’s Global Education First Initiative’s essential objective is to promote global citizenship as the main objective of education. Connecting the role of individuals to broader global objectives, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior affirmed that “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Let me conclude by asserting that to turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, basically all that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence, and to practice what we profess.

Whether it is at events like the annual High Level Forums, in places of worship, in schools or in our homes, a lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action. Peace and non-violence should become a part of our daily existence. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.

Part One can be read here.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
Sep 7 2015 (IPS)

This week, for the fourth time in a row, the annual gathering of the apex intergovernmental body of the United Nation deliberating on peace and non-violence will take place at the U.N. headquarters in New York.

Photo Courtesy of Ambassador Chowdhury

President of the ongoing 69th session of the General Assembly Mr. Sam Kahamba Kutesa has convened the fourth U.N. High Level Forum on the Culture of Peace on Sep. 9.

This daylong event is an opportunity for U.N. Member States, U.N. system entities, media and civil society interested in discussing the ways and means to promote the Culture of Peace and to join the discourse on strengthening the global movement for the implementation of the U.N. Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace as adopted by consensus by the General Assembly on Sep. 13, 1999.

It also creates a platform for various stakeholders to have an exchange on the emerging trends and policies that can significantly impact on advancing the culture of peace.

Historical context

The adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action on Culture of Peace was a watershed event as a possible response to the evolving dynamics of global war and security strategies in a post-Cold War world. It has been an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long negotiations that led to the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action.The United Nations needs to be more than a fire brigade rushing in to put out the conflagrations and then withdraw from the scene without doing anything to ensure that fires do not break out again.

This historic norm-setting document is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations. I would always treasure and cherish that. For me this has been a realisation of my personal commitment to peace and my humble contribution to humanity.

In the responsibility that the United Nations – as the only universal body – must shoulder in fulfilling its Charter obligation of maintaining international peace and security worldwide, stronger focus on prevention and peace building is essential.

The United Nations needs to be more than a fire brigade rushing in to put out the conflagrations and then withdraw from the scene without doing anything to ensure that fires do not break out again.

In a historical perspective it is worthwhile to note that asserting and re-affirming the commitment of the totality of the United Nations membership to build the Culture of Peace, the General Assembly has been adopting resolutions on the subject every year since 1997.

The Assembly, through its annual substantive resolutions, has highlighted the priority it attaches to the full and effective implementation of these visionary decisions which are universally applicable and sought after by the vast majority of all peoples in every nation. It recognises the need for continuous support to the strengthening of the global movement to promote the Culture of Peace, as envisaged by the United Nations, particularly in the current global context.

The Forum in 2013 included Ministerial level participation and at its 68th session, the General Assembly adopted, by consensus, Resolution 68/125 on “Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace”, which was co-sponsored by 105 Member States.

This year the keynote speaker at the Forum is the fifth grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Mr. Arun Gandhi, who prides calling himself “The Peace Farmer” as he sows the seeds of peace and non-violence following the footsteps of his grandfather whose birthday on Oct. 2 is observed by the United Nations and the international community as the International Day of Non-Violence.

He builds on the message of last year’s keynote speaker Ms. Leymah Gbowee, 2011 Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is a global legend leading civil society activism for peace and equality. Of course, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will join the Forum at the opening with his ardent advocacy for the culture of peace.

The 2015 Forum will comprise of two multi-stakeholders interactive panels which will focus on: (1) “Promotion of the Culture of Peace in the context of the Post-2015 sustainable development agenda; and (2) “Role of the media in the promotion of the culture of peace”.

This High Level Forum is taking place at a time of some of the worst violence against civilians we have seen in recent years. Clearly, the hope that the new millennium would be a harbinger of peace has turned out to be rather misplaced.

The lesson in this, I believe, is that however much the world around us changes, we cannot achieve peace without a change in our own minds, and thereby in the global consciousness.

The wealth and the technology can only open up the opportunity to better the world. We must have the mind to seize that opportunity; we must have the culture of peace developed in each one of us both as an individual as well as a member of the global society.

Also, we must remember that technology and wealth can be put to destructive use too. The difference between war and peace, between poverty and prosperity, between death and life, is essentially prompted in our minds.

Why the culture of peace?

Peace is integral to human existence — in everything we do, in everything we say and in every thought we have, there is a place for peace. Absence of peace makes our challenges, our struggles, much more difficult. I believe that is why it is very important that we need to keep our focus on creating the culture of peace in our lives.

One lesson I have learned in my life over the years is that to prevent our history of war and conflict from repeating itself – the values of non-violence, tolerance, human rights and democratic participation will have to be germinated in every man and woman – children and adults alike.

When we see what is happening around us, we realise the urgent need for promoting the culture of peace – peace through dialogue – peace through non-violence. In a world where tragedy and despair seem to be everywhere, there is an urgent need – if not an imperative – for a global culture of peace.

Each of us can make an active choice each day through seemingly small acts of love, compassion, forgiveness, empathy, cooperation or understanding, thereby contributing to the culture of peace. Eminent proponents of peace have continued to highlight that the culture of peace should be the foundation of the new global society.

In today’s world, more so, it should be seen as the essence of a new humanity, a new global civilisation based on inner oneness and outer diversity.

Part Two can be read here.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

Mar. 11, 2014 CSW event on accelerating progress on MDGs for women and girls. Credit: UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 13 2014 (IPS)

The largest annual gathering with special focus on issues which impact on women and thereby humanity as a whole is now taking place in New York.

It is the annual session of the Commission on Status of Women (UN-CSW) under the United Nations umbrella, attracting hundreds of government and civil society participants representing their nations and organisations.

This is the 58th time that CSW is meeting and over the years, its agenda has evolved in a meaningful way to bring to global attention to women’s equality and their contribution to human progress.

For last few years, equality of women’s participation at all decision making levels has taken a special profile in its deliberations and many parallel events. Participation has emerged as the major area of practical application for women’s agenda.

Courtesy of Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

At the same time, engaging men and boys for gender equality is being seen as an essential component of any proactive strategy.

Adoption of the landmark U.N. Security Council resolution 1325 boosted the essential value of women’s participation. For a long time, the impression has been that women were helpless victims of wars and conflicts.

In reality, women have shown great capacity as peacemakers. They assumed activist roles during conflicts while holding together their families and communities.

At the grassroots and community levels, women have organised to resist militarisation, to create space for dialogue and moderation and to weave together the shattered fabric of society. The contribution and involvement of women in the eternal quest for peace is an inherent reality.

The consensus statement that the Security Council issued on Mar. 8, 2000 formally and for the first time brought to global attention to fact that the contribution women have been making to preventing war, to building peace has remained unrecognised, under-utilised and under-valued.

It finally recognised that “peace is inextricably linked with equality between women and men”.

This conceptual and political breakthrough led in October that year to the ground-breaking resolution 1325 of the Council on “Women and Peace and Security”.

Validity of its core message that sustainable peace is possible only with women’s full participation has become increasingly relevant in today’s context when we find women being excluded from peace conferences.

The current international practices that make women insecure and deny their equality of participation, basically as a result of its support of the existing militarised inter-state security arrangements, is disappointing.

I draw your attention to the existing concept of security based on inter-state power structure rather than on human security – security of the people. Human security is rarely a primary consideration in the Security Council’s decision-making.

This should make us determined to ensure that women have more avenues to promote peace, not only at the local level but also at the national, regional and global levels.

By bringing their experiences to the peace table, women can inject in the peace process a practical understanding of the various challenges faced by civilian populations.

The mechanisms and arrangements that come out of such involvement are naturally more sensitive to the needs of common people and, therefore, more purposeful and sustainable.

Recognition that women need to be at the peace tables to make a real difference in transitioning from the cult of war to the culture of peace, I believe, made the passage of 1325 an impressive step forward for women’s equality agenda in contemporary security politics.

This was reflected very eloquently when in 2011 three women were chosen as Nobel laureates. Their citation for the Nobel Peace Prize referred to the Resolution 1325, saying that “It underlined the need for women to become participants on an equal footing with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.”

The Nobel Committee further asserted that, “We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.”

This is the first time when a Nobel Peace Prize citation has mentioned a United Nations resolution so specifically.

The Charter of the United Nations in its Article 25 states that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

Therefore, as a Security Council resolution 1325 is a commitment made by the United Nations, its member-states and the international community in general to take action to comply and work towards its full implementation.

In this context, I will underscore that top priority should be given to energising and supporting the U.N. member states to prepare their respective National Plan of Action (NAP) for 1325 at the country level.

Of 193 U.N. members, so far only 43 have prepared such plans and 10 more are reportedly on the way. A long way to reach 193!

Civil society, in particular women’s organisations, human rights activists and peace groups around the world, need to mobilise their efforts to hold governments accountable for the commitments they made in Resolution 1325.

There needs to be international support to ways and means to enhance women’s participation and role in formal and informal conflict prevention and mediation efforts, including measures for capacity-building support for women’s peace movements in conflict and post-conflict situations.

Coordinated and coherent support by the United Nations system is particularly needed to achieve greater effectiveness of peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts through the increased participation of women and strengthened capacity to address gender issues in peace and post-conflict planning processes.

It is essential that the views of both women and men are equally heard and recognised in society, and in economic and political planning and decision making. Only then can men and women equally and democratically influence progress in society.

My own experience during the course of my different responsibilities – more so during past 20 plus years – has shown that the participation of women in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building assures that their experiences, priorities, and solutions contribute to lasting stability, good governance and sustainable peace.

1325 is a “common heritage of humanity” wherein the global objectives of peace, equality and development are reflected in a uniquely historic, universal document of the United Nations.

We should never forget that when women are marginalised, there is little chance for the world to get sustainable peace in the real sense.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury was Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations (2002-2007), Ambassador of Bangladesh to UN (1996-2001), and initiator of the conceptual breakthrough for UNSCR 1325 as Security Council President in 2000.

Last Friday’s recommendation to give the incumbent U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon another five-year term drew the international community’s attention to another opaque, non- democratic process that is the hallmark of the 15-member Security Council’s decision-making.

The Council’s endorsement of Ban’s second term came even in a closed- door meeting, not open to other members of the U.N., not to speak of civil society or the media.

It is well-known to those knowledgeable in the affairs of the world body that the five permanent members of the Council are more comfortable in dealing with a weak, non-performing, acquiescent leader as that ensures that they have their say in the decision- making of the organisation, particularly in the matters of maintaining global peace and security. As a matter of fact, they look for a leader who could be led.

This aspect also highlights another dimension of the much-needed reform of the Security Council – the World War II victors’ privilege of veto power of the permanent members commonly referred to as the P5 (in recent years, the 10 other members appointed for two-year terms are described as the E-10, elected 10).

In the choice of the secretary-general, the veto, threat of veto or the unrecorded veto in straw polls of the last few elections to shorten the list of candidates have resulted in a convoluted process, having the effect of eliminating the candidates of acknowledged management and leadership qualities.

This unclear, closed-door, behind-the-scenes and exclusionary process results in the recommendation of a person for the first term who is dreaming of re-election for a second-term from the very first day in office.

This very human temptation for a second-term is so overwhelming, so intoxicating that the incoming secretary-general’s main effort in office is wholly conditioned by this desire. Keeping fully in perspective this “veto element”, the wishes and inclinations of the P5 get the priority attention of the “Chief Administrative Officer” of the U.N.

The conventional understanding in the corridors of the U.N. is that the debt that an SG accrues from the P5 during his first term for his re-election gets paid off during the second term. This arrangement serves both the secretary-general and P5 well.

More so, because they know full well that the broader membership of the U.N. is never able to agree to long overdue reforms of the unacceptable electoral process for the head of the secretariat. This encourages the possibility of a lacklustre leader to emerge, particularly if a U.N.-antagonist P5 representative like former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton contributes to the selection process.

Friday’s recommendation and Tuesday’s no-option, obligatory concurrence of the U.N. General Assembly confirming the Security Council’s decision brings to focus certain basic, fundamental changes which are needed to make the choice of the next secretary-general worthy of the prestige, universality of this “Parliament of Nations” and suitable to lead humanity in the first decades of the 21st century.

First, the process should be open, fully transparent, participatory, and democratic with full engagement of the member-states and civil society. Yes, the U.N. remains an inter-governmental institution, but that does not mean that global civil society which is dedicated to the strengthening of the U.N. could not be consulted broadly.

The General Assembly needs to be fully involved and have equal say in tandem with the Security Council. As a matter of fact, both these primary organs of the U.N. would have the equal responsibility of finding and subsequently electing the person who would work for the best interest of the organisation without fear or favour. The candidates would be required to face the membership as a whole to establish their real credentials to lead and to be judged by all.

Another important idea to ensure independence of the secretary- general would be to make the office restricted to one term for each incumbent. The current five-year term could be extended to six years. Six years is adequate for any leader worth the name to show what can be achieved for any global institution.

And the most important “reform” that is needed for the choice of the U.N. leader is in the mindset of the member-states. At this point of time in human progress, it is a shame that in the 65 years of its existence, the U.N. was not able to elect a woman to lead. Not only that, there has been no candidate even nominated to be considered for election.

Notwithstanding all the U.N. resolutions, treaties, declarations and pronouncements asserting the equality of women, it is a pity that the U.N. has kept 50 percent of humanity out of consideration for its highest position. The organisation is undoubtedly poorer as it restricted its choice only to half of the potential candidates.

The suffering image and credibility of the U.N. in the eyes of the international community in recent years underscores the increasing need for effective and committed leadership that puts the organisation before self and is not solely triggered by “command and control” mode.

After all these years of men heading the U.N. secretariat, it would be very fair to elect the next secretary-general from amongst the women candidates open on a worldwide basis without any regional restriction as it would be the first such occasion. Such a “positive action” would be very necessary and appropriate for denying the world’s 50 percent of their due share.

This is absolutely necessary to rectify the past discrimination against women and to realise de facto equality according to General Recommendation No. 25 of the Convention on the Discrimination against Women.

Referring to the international level implementation, Article 8 of the Convention mentions that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure to women, on equal terms with men and without any discrimination, the opportunity to represent their Governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organizations.”

As almost all of the U.N. members are State Parties to the Convention, they should act according to this obligation when they appoint the SG. The Security Council should also pay attention to its own resolution 1325 in the selection process for the secretary- general that emphasised equal participation of women at all decision- making levels.

These also tell us very emphatically that the choice-base for the secretary-general should be expanded to include women. In reality, the U.N. has violated its own treaties and resolutions by keeping women out of consideration for the position. Even a traditional male- dominated institution like the International Monetary Fund could soon show the way by electing a woman managing director.

One wonders what kind of existing culture and deep-seated biases in the U.N. has made this very crucial aspect out of its discussion even in the context of wide-ranging U.N. reforms. Perhaps the sole opportunity for an indelible legacy for Ban would be to step down halfway into his term, conditional upon the election of a woman secretary-general.

*Anwarul K. Chowdhury is a former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations, and served as President of the Security Council in 2000 and 2001.

Next Monday the United Nations is convening the decennial global conference focusing on the challenges faced by “the poorest and weakest segment of the international community humanity”. This week-long high level hosted by Turkey in Istanbul is the fourth in the series of ten-yearly UN gatherings since 1981 when the first one was convened in Paris.

These countries now numbering 48 and having a population size of 880 million – identified as the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) continue to be the voiceless, marginalized and most vulnerable countries of the world since the category was established more than four decades ago. These countries do not attract world’s attention unless they are engulfed in conflict or devastated by natural disasters.

As the long preparatory process involving all member states and relevant entities of the UN is coming to a final point, the expected outcome of the fourth UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (UNLDC IV) does not look promising at all. A mood of desperation and disappointment seem to be pervasive. The upbeat atmosphere that existed ahead of all previous three conferences is nowhere to be seen. The forward-looking and responsibility-sharing outcome with a high-level advocacy and monitoring global mechanism at the third conference in Brussels had given the LDCs a big push to their development efforts and put their concerns high on the global development agenda.

In recent years, the global situation, of course, has changed in a negative way requiring a new and innovative approach to structure the possible outcome in Istanbul. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and the preparations took the path of working on an outcome that lacked any spark worthwhile for energizing the LDCs and as a result, the usual, insensitive bickering of the United Nations negotiating process has been visible all through. This unfortunately manifested its worst face when the expression “development partners” present in all previous LDCs-related documents of the UN came under serious and persistent challenge from the long-recognized donor countries.

The LDCs seem to be increasingly frustrated at the slowness of negotiations, lack of creativity in recommendations and basically insignificant outcome document that is being shaped. An expression that is going around is abbreviated as “4Ds” which the LDC delegates believe explain very well the current attitude of the development partners. DENY, DILUTE, DELAY and DIVIDE, according to them, are the strategic steps that the partners are resorting to since the preparatory process for UNLDC IV had commenced. Nothing could be more disappointing than this with only a few days before the start in Istanbul.

In terms of number of events and profile of the conference, Istanbul would be quite a gathering. More than forty heads of government are expected to attend and three parallel forums are going to be arranged for civil society, for the business sector and the parliamentarians. But in terms of substance of outcome, it falls far short of the expectation of all who believe that the international community owes a special supportive obligation for the suffering LDCs, particularly in times of current global economic meltdown that has been made more unbearable as a result of the on- going food, fuel and financial crises. Remember a key criterion for being identified by the UN as an LDC is vulnerability to external shocks that originate beyond their national boundaries. The recent world-wide rise in food and fuel prices has accentuated that vulnerability seriously jeopardizing the domestic programmes that aim at reducing poverty and meeting the basic needs of their vulnerable and disadvantaged.

One wonders what has brought the UNLDC IV to this near dead- end. Well, here are some clear realities that could not be wished away at this final hour:

1) The development partners have taken a minimalist position on their commitment since the negotiations commenced on the outcome document. The European Union and its members who had played a key role in the positive results of the last three LDC conferences have been rather hesitant in pushing for a creative forward-looking agenda for LDCs. US and Japan as major donors have also been dragging their feet. To them “fragile” and “failed” states seem to be more attractive to LDCs. A clever move has also been taken by some donors to slip out of their commitments by overloading the UNLDC IV outcome with sizeable paragraphs in the name of the South-South Cooperation. Current global financial crises and their national economic downturns acknowledged, but if these countries do not fulfill their already-made commitments to the poorest, it is a shame to talk about global partnership.

2) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon began his second year in office committing him to alleviate the plight of the “bottom billion”. That catchy description which included all LDCs seems to have disappeared from his priority agenda. Nine-member Eminent Persons Group appointed by him for providing much-needed and worthwhile ideas for bringing life to the UNLDC IV failed miserably by focusing on the graduation as the panacea for LDCs. That group was set up too late and with the persons who do not have any credibility with regard to their public commitments to LDCs. As a matter of fact, an examination of the public statements of the “Eminent Persons” during the one year period prior to their selection by the Secretary-General shows that nearly none of them made a single reference to LDCs in a substantive way. The Secretary-General passed the buck of his own responsibility to a group of people who did not have any commitment to the LDC issues and whose report earlier in March did not attract any attention either of the governments or the public or the media.

3) The lack of forceful, dynamic and creative leadership of the group of LDCs in preparing and steering the negotiating process from the outset has been visible all through.

4) The quality of the substantive documentation for UNLDC IV – be it from the member-states, or from the secretariat, or regional inputs – falls far short of the clarity of analysis and vision that is needed as an essential first step for success.

5) Though the negotiations are carried out by the LDCs Chair in the name of the Group of 77 which represent all 132 developing countries, in reality much of the challenge for the LDCs come from better- endowed fellow developing members who are constantly worried that the poorest would get away with special privileges.

6) UN public information apparatus did not play any role to highlight the issues of concern not only to LDCs but also to a larger world community. Its event-oriented press releases failed miserably to encourage much deserving engagement for UNLDC IV. The much-talked about advocacy strategy for LDCs called for by the UN General Assembly has not been able to show results.

7) The imminent death of the Doha round of global trade negotiations would take away the much- awaited formalization of the exclusive and extensive duty-free quota- free market access and export development deals that LDC delegations clenched at the Hong Kong WTO ministerial conference in 2005. The market access obstacles between LDCs and other developing countries are wide-ranging and need immediate removal if South-South cooperation has to be meaningful.

8) Past years’ experience tells us that the development partners as well as LDCs pay any regard to the objectives of the programme of action adopted by the UN for LDCs while structuring their bilateral assistance programme that is basically driven by national agendas of countries on both sides. This increasingly-visible self-serving dimension has been carefully kept out of consideration in any multilateral process in the name of bilateralism.

9) What is missing most noticeably from the expected outcome is a mechanism to cushion the external shocks of the terrible “C’s” – climate change, credit crunch and commodity costs. The global crises of last years have shown that all the programmes and commitments meant for LDCs did not come to any use to give respite to the common people of these impoverished countries. They suffered beyond comprehension and still doing. A Global Safety Net for LDCs is what is needed to save the suffering of the millions of the vulnerable people in the weakest segment of the humanity. Such a safety net is to be structured in a way that it would automatically trigger measures to protect the vulnerable in LDCs in times of crises that is beyond their control.

To regain some credibility, the world leaders gathering next week in Istanbul need to live up to their responsibility to look after those whose needs are the greatest. To show leadership, the United Nations and its Secretary-General should be at the helm steering the international community’s efforts to get these countries out of the morass made worse by, in his own words, the global “development crisis”.

Unless some extraordinary efforts are made to salvage Istanbul by them, a promising opportunity will be lost and the UNLDC IV will be doomed to fail.

*Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative. He participated in all previous LDC conferences and set up the implementation mechanism for the last UN programme for LDCs. Ambassador Chowdhury is the Chairman of the IPS North America Board of Directors. (END)

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Jan 18 2010 (IPS)

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in December 1998, a group of civil society organisations launched a global campaign for the universal recognition of the human right to peace. They called upon all “to prevent violence, intolerance, and injustice in our countries and societies in order to overcome the cult of war and to build a Culture of Peace”.

Both of these high aspirations remain elusive.

In today’s world, the culture of peace should be seen as the essence of a new humanity, a new global civilisation based on inner oneness and outer diversity. The flourishing of a culture of peace will generate the mindset in us that is a prerequisite for the transition from force to reason, from conflict and violence to dialogue and peace. A culture of peace will provide the foundation for a stable, progressive, and prosperous world for all.

The adoption in 1999 by the United Nations General Assembly of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace was a watershed event. Nine months of negotiations which I had the honour to chair led to the adoption of this historic, norm-setting document now considered one of the most significant and enduring legacies of the United Nations.

The UN’s work has been particularly bolstered by the broad-based support of non-governmental organisations. We are now in the final stretch of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, which was proclaimed by the United Nations. This Decade (2001-2010) is galvanising a global movement for the culture of peace.

The international community should assert that there is no more crucial social responsibility or more pressing task than securing sustainable peace on our planet. Global efforts towards peace and reconciliation can only succeed with a collective approach built on trust, dialogue, and collaboration. For that, we must build a grand alliance for the culture of peace amongst all, particularly with the proactive involvement and participation of the young people. This is the first priority as we look ahead.

The second area we need to concentrate on is giving long-overdue recognition to the fact that women also have a major role to play in promoting the culture of peace, particularly in strife-torn societies, and in bringing about lasting peace and reconciliation. Unless women are in the forefront of this culture of peace, long-term solutions will elude us. Women have proved again and again that it is often they who foster the culture of peace by reaching out across divides and encouraging others to do likewise.

The third crucial focus is peace education, which must be accepted in all societies and all countries of the world as an essential element in creating culture of peace. To effectively meet the complex challenges of our time, the young of today deserve a radically different education -one that does not glorify war but educates for peace, non-violence, and international cooperation. All educational institutions need to prepare students to be responsible and productive citizens of the world to introduce teaching that builds the culture of peace.

Explicit recognition of the human right to peace by the Human Rights Council and by the UN General Assembly should be the fourth area of focus.

In addition, civil society has a major role to play in the full and effective implementation of the Culture of Peace Programme of Action, particularly in holding national governments and relevant international organisations accountable for their commitments.

The seeds of peace exist in all of us, and they must be nurtured by all of us -individually and collectively- so that they flourish. Peace cannot be imposed from outside; it must be generated from within. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Anwarul Chowdhury, ex-Undersecretary General and High Representative of the United Nations, was ambassador of Bangladesh to the UN from 1996-2001.

Excerpt: