After a week of tense negotiations, a United Nations preparatory committee concluded a final round of talks on Friday to define the rules of procedure for a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which is expected to be finalised in July this year.

The iconic statue of a knotted gun barrel outside U.N. headquarters was created by Swedish artist Fredrik Reuterswärd and is titled "Non-Violence". Credit: Tressia Boukhors/IPS

The ratification of the report by committee chair Ambassador Roberto Moritan of Argentina closed the last of four prepcoms held since 2010 to lay the groundwork for the ATT negotiations.

The report includes a “non-paper” by Moritan that will be the basis of this summer’s talks.

Human rights groups expressed cautious optimism about the outcome.

“This document fits 70 percent of our recommendations,” Aymeric Elluin of Amnesty International told IPS.

But the agreement on a vote by consensus, meaning that every state has veto power, may deeply compromise the adoption of a comprehensive treaty, he warned.

“There is a real risk for the final text of ATT not to be adopted in July,” he added. “Negotiations on the content will be extremely difficult.”

Need for a legally binding instrument

The current crackdown on protesters in Syria and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa has underlined the absence of any global regulation on the conventional arms trade, allowing arms to end up in the hands of human rights abusers, according to human rights groups.

“The ATT concerns the biggest treaty negotiation in the field of control arms, excepting the nuclear weapon,” Brian Wood, Amnesty International’s manager for arms control, told IPS. “It is all about saving lives and human rights.”

According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.”

“Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all States to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty.”

Nearly every country in the world has some degree of involvement in the arms trade, as an importer or exporter, or in permitting arms shipments to transit through their territorial waters.

The United States is by far the biggest weapons manufacturer, followed by Russia, the “Big Three” in Europe – Germany, France, Britain – and China.

India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are all leading importers – but so are some of the major producers, such as the United States.

Concerned about the unchecked proliferation of weapons, in 2009, the U.N. General Assembly decided to convene a Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 “to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms”.

Political chess game

“As we have seen in the case of Syria, veto power leads to inaction and hampers the ability of the international community to prevent conflict,” said Jeff Abramson, coordinator of the Control Arms Coalition, referring to the recent paralysis in the U.N. Security Council.

“The will of the majority here who wants to see the arms trade brought under control must not be thwarted by a minority set on delaying and confusing the process,” he stressed.

He added that countries that were the most supportive of veto power over the final draft document included Syria, Cuba, Iran and the United States.

“Lives and livelihoods continue to be destroyed by an arms trade that is out of control, and the majority of governments that want to see a truly ‘bulletproof’ treaty must not be blocked by a small minority with vested interests,” he said.

Russia, China and the United States are all pushing their own agendas and oppose the integration of human rights into the treaty.

The U.S. opposes the inclusion of munitions, China wants to exclude small arms, and Russia wants a treaty regulating the illicit arms trade only.

“It is also deplorable that Russia argues it is responsible to continue sending weapons to a regime (Syria) that is bombarding its citizens,” said Abramson.

“A strong ATT with robust human rights criteria would make clear that arms transfers must not occur when there is a substantial risk of them being used to kill civilians and commit human rights abuses,” he said. “The sale of any arms to Syria right now is simply appalling.”

Mounting call for human rights protections

Civil society groups are urging strong rules that protect human rights and bar arms from being sent to those who likely to use them against civilian populations.

“It is about regulation and prevention based on risk assessment,” Wood told IPS.

“All types of arms should be included,” he said, including small arms and munitions.

On Feb 14, a group of Nobel Peace Laureates also called for the broadest possible criteria, scope and implementation mechanisms for an effective Arms Trade Treaty.

At a press conference held at United Nations headquarters, the former president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias Sanchez, said, “The challenge before us is not just to get a document signed. The challenge before us is to do justice to victims of violence. The challenge before us is to ensure that our goal becomes reality. These men and women and children deserve nothing less than swift and effective action.”

Most of the cases brought before the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) include gender-based crimes, but advocates say the court is still falling short in ensuring that women play an active role in decision-making and outreach at the highest levels.

Brigid Inder Credit: Tressia Boukhours/IPS

The ICC has made progress on some issues. With her election on Dec. 1, Fatou Bensouda became the first woman and the first African to be appointed chief prosecutor of the court, which focuses on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“It is hugely symbolic that a woman has been elected,” said Brigid Inder, executive director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, an international rights organisation that advocates for gender justice through the ICC and domestic mechanisms in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Kenya, Libya and Kyrgyzstan.

“It is a wonderful and historic moment,” Inder told IPS.

However, she said access and outreach to victims remains a challenge, and noted that there is currently a huge backlog of 6,000 victims’ applications which have not been processed by the court.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the link between the number of women in the ICC staff and the treatment of gender issues at the court? A: There are two issues: one is gender equality and another is gender competence. From our review and analysis of the court, we can see that the gender equality issue is good overall but we still found differences when we looked at the positions to which women are appointed. They tend to be clustered in the lower to mid-level positions, with few women appointed at (higher) level decision-making or leadership positions.

Gender equality is also about structural power within the hierarchy and not only the number of women appointed to positions. It is also about the capacity and opportunity for women to contribute to key decision making moments: the identification of cases, the construction of case hypotheses, the decision regarding the construction of charges. We need more improvement in those areas to increase the court’s gender capacity.

The second area touched upon is gender competence and this involves both men and women. Specifically, gender competence refers to the ability to identify and understand the gender implications and dimensions of all of the work of the ICC, and the different ways in which women and men, boys and girls, are affected by the kinds of violence that have been committed in conflicts.

And we see this as a responsibility for both men and women. When we talk about the gender competence of the court, we are referring to its ability as an institution to deliver gender-inclusive justice.

Q: Would a quota policy and affirmative action be an effective solution? A: One of the key advantages of the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC) is that it explicitly identifies the need for gender legal advisers and for people to be hired with expertise in addressing sexual violence, including sexual violence committed against women and children.

The statute itself requires this expertise to be a part of the development of the institution. We think that this can certainly help in terms of women being appointed, but there is also a general article in the Rome Statute requiring fair representation, that is to say geographical representation so that States Parties are fairly represented in the staff of the ICC, and also a fair representation of men and women.

So there is a structural requirement for the court to address these issues and, I think, in a very positive and helpful way. It doesn’t mean a forced and false construction of creating special conditions, it is instead a recognition of the right of men and women to be appointed to those positions and also the need for the necessary capacity around sexual violence against women and the capacity to provide legal advice on gender issues that is a requirement of the statute itself.

Q: Is there a gap in terms of outreach and access for women victims? A: We have seen in our review of the ICC that 29 percent of the participants in the ICC outreach activities are women. That is a very low number: less than a third of the participants are women. And when you look at the cases before the ICC, almost all of them include charges of gender-based crimes.

There is a mismatch between the people who are victims of the crimes, the charges in the ICC cases, and those who are being reached by the court’s outreach activities. We can also see that there is a lower number of women who are applying to the court to be recognised as victims and who have been formally recognised to participate in the ICC cases.

There is a direct link between information, outreach and access. The court needs to develop more women-specific meetings and strategies, and to be more creative in the fora they are providing in order to reach women who may have less access to mainstream forms of media and formal communication systems within villages and communities. It appears women are requiring strategies that will allow them to access this information directly.

Q: Does the situation most often concern less developed countries? A: All of the conflict situations right now that are situations under investigation by the court would be described as developing countries. The court is also working in countries that have experienced long periods of armed conflict, which has usually caused disintegration of public institutions and infrastructure.

Often the security sector, including the police force, is no longer functioning. In many instances, the judicial system is also not operating or is functioning with high levels of corruption. The structure of communities has disintegrated from decades of conflict and suffering.

Q: How open has the ICC been to recommendations of your Gender Report Card since 2005, and have you seen any progress? A: We have seen progress over the seven years we have been reporting. The court has been in existence for almost 10 years. Certainly, they are learning lessons. Some lessons they are learning slowly, and in some areas these lessons are absorbed, while in other areas it appears the lessons are bound for unfortunate repetition.

It is an institution that is continuing to grow and develop and learn. We can see that they are being increasingly responsive to our advocacy around investigating and prosecuting sexual gender-based crimes, which have now been charged in six of seven situations and in eight of 14 cases.

The ICC has the best record in relation to charging the gender-based crimes of any of the international tribunals. The challenge for the court now is the quality of the charges and the efficacy of the prosecution strategies. This is where they have been slow to learn some of the lessons.

Excerpt:

By Tressia Boukhors and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 2 2011 (IPS)

Rural women and small-scale producers play a key role in providing food security and food sovereignty, but many large multinational corporations threaten that progress by undermining populations’ independence when it comes to food.

Janaina Stronzake, activist and coordinator for Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (MST) Credit: Tressia Boukhors/IPS

The United Nations (U.N.) highlighted the importance of rural women and small-scale producers during the International Day of Rural Women and World Food Day, held on consecutive days in mid-October and focused on agricultural improvements in developing countries.

Asked about creating a more responsible global food system, Stronzake said that there have to be “relationships between the grassroots movement of the political north and south, because food is not a business but a human right”.

IPS Correspondent Tressia Boukhors talked with her about the role of small-scale producers and rural women in achieving food security and sovereignty, especially in Brazil.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Regarding the situation of food access in Brazil, what does taking a “food sovereignty” approach mean? A: In Brazil, we have a public policy that guarantees food security to the population so people have reasonable access to food. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is food sovereignty.

At the same time that we have such programs as Zero Hunger, multinational corporations are appropriating land, cultural knowledge and Brazilian biodiversity.

One of the ways companies do that, for example, is through trans-genetic seeds. These types of biotech packages developed by companies like Monsanto, Cargill or Bunge promote dependence on the part of the population.

So even if the population has access to food, it is not going to be healthy food – it is not local production and does not promote local empowerment of population. On the contrary, it makes the population dependent on multinational corporations.

Q: Fair trade promotes sustainability and better trading conditions for producers in developing countries. Is it a solution to support more responsible food commerce? A: We, as members of Via Campesina, are against treating food as a commodity.

Fair trade is one of the components that can help cure the world’s hunger. Nevertheless, some data from 2009 pointed to a large concentration of commerce in cacao, coffee and tea, so seeing fair trade without seeing food sovereignty in these countries can also bring a problem of monocultures and the concentration of leadership of one or a few NGOs that rule over these fair trades.

Relationships between people in this fight to end hunger cannot be based purely on commerce.

Q: What is the role of women regarding food sovereignty? A: Within this idea of food sovereignty, we, as women, have a very strategic role. Historically, women are responsible for the improvements in agriculture and, today, women are directly responsible for feeding their family and communities.

We need to make sure that women continue to have access to food sovereignty and natural resources like water, seeds and plants. Women need to have access to land; they need the process of popular agrarian reform.

However, for women to self-organise, they need to study in order to access education and information. NGOs and institutions need to support them.

Q: Do technologies help create a better future for food access? A: It depends on what technology we are talking about. If this is the multinational corporation’s technologies, like trans-genetic, nanotechnology or biotechnologies we develop in laboratories, it’s not going to work – it creates problems.

There are many studies in Brazil and Latin America about the impact of this technology on people and the environment.

For example, there is a region in Brazil where glyphosate (a synthetic compound) was found in 100 percent of the harvest, and all the women that were breast-feeding were contaminated by this poison.

So when we talk about technologies, it needs to be a truly sustainable technology. We need to look to local technologies, developed by the communities themselves, that are appropriate for that region and that are under the control of those communities.

These are sovereign technologies and not technologies that cause dependence.

So if we are talking about technologies to improve production, they have to exist with an inner strategy of food sovereignty. Otherwise, technologies without food sovereignty do not solve our problem.

Excerpt:

By Tressia Boukhors
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2011 (IPS)

Through photo and film, French photojournalist Yann Arthus-Bertrand aims to demonstrate the environmental impacts of human activity and to raise public awareness about environmental issues.

Photojournalist Yann Arthus-Bertrand Credit: Tressia Boukhors/IPS

Known for his series of awe-inspiring aerial photographs in the book “Earth from Above”, published with the support of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Arthus-Bertrand also produced “Forest”, a film launched in 2011 for the International Year of Forests, and spoke on desertification during the last United Nations General Assembly.

In 2005, he established the GoodPlanet Foundation and turned his actions to focus on the general public. Goodplanet distributes posters on specific environmental topics to French schools and has also put on many related exhibitions.

“My work as a photographer and filmmaker… is to influence public opinion with imagery,” Yann Arthus- Bertrand told IPS.

IPS correspondent Tressia Boukhors spoke with him about the role of public opinion in determining the future of environmental and energy policies.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Your book “Earth from Above” has sold over three million copies and been translated into 24 languages. What led you to become involved in environmental protection on this large scale?

A: When I was born, the world was two billion people. On October 31, we will become seven billion. This really highlights man’s impact on earth and the need for sustainable development.

Subsistence agriculture still represents two billion people, who cultivate land by hand. Those people will suffer first from climate change.

I do not feel guilty about the way I live, but responsible. It really is a matter of responsibility rather than guilt, and the project Earth from Above gave me the tools to act.

Q: What made the greatest impression on you while working on this project?

A: The work of NGOs and the involvement of civil society made a deep impression on me. NGOs have an essential place in the field, as does their work in education and health, especially in Africa.

Taking action makes me happy, especially in a time of mass denial. We do not think about the end of oil, climate change and economic crises. We still act in the same way without seeing that other lifestyles are possible.

The aim of the project 6 Billion Others was to help different people understand each other. It focuses on people directly targeted by the Millennium Development Goals set for 2015, such as eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, (ensuring universal access to) education, gender equality, fighting epidemics and ensuring environmental sustainability.

Q: What does protecting the environment mean to you?

A: Environmental protection affects everything, and the primary reason we care about it has to do with human welfare, followed by concerns for biodiversity. It is all about reducing poverty and reaching the MDGs. We realise that responsible development is possible, even in developing countries.

To change people’s behaviour and make them more responsible about the environment, we should convince them through their own will to change and not through their fear of negative consequences. For me, photography or movies are a way to touch people. They are mass media that are easy to understand and powerful enough to effect change.

Q: Why have efforts to protect the environment and meetings such as the Copenhagen Summit failed to affect policy? How can we avoid this problem in the future?

A: We have the politicians we deserve. They reflect public opinion and show that there is still no active environmental protection but instead, permanent denial and nonstop growth.

The late economist Kenneth Boulding said, ‘”The only people that push for unlimited growth are madmen and economists.” I would also add ‘politicians’. We still don’t understand that we are destroying the environment but it is too late to be pessimistic; we should act now.

We need to learn that consuming less is actually more. Despite that, there is still no will to change. The issue will be to sensitise public opinion because there are still people who do not believe climate change is a reality. I am personally convinced that movement against climate change can be the biggest movement ever but that could only happen by convincing the public of its responsibility, not of its guilt. Everyone can play a part.

Q: Do you see any new approaches to renewable energy, including nuclear power, since the Fukushima disaster?

A: Nuclear energy has become an obsession and people are unable to imagine life without it. Of course, there is a need for nuclear power today, with all the energy we consume – it represents almost 85 million barrels of oil a day.

Nevertheless, we must stop thinking that nuclear disaster is impossible. It is a reality and we can expect more and much more destructive nuclear disasters than Fukumisha’s. That is why it is time to focus on alternative renewable energies.

Excerpt:

By Tressia Boukhors
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 20 2011 (IPS)

Cuba is urging the U.N. General Assembly to again condemn the U.S. embargo during its 66th session this week, in an annual ritual that has been a political and moral victory for the socialist nation but with little real impact.

Daniel Griswold Credit: Courtesy of Daniel Griswold

The election of U.S. President Barack Obama gave critics of the embargo hope for a policy of change toward the island. Obama lifted several restrictions by executive order, including the travel ban for U.S. students and religious organisations and the sending of money under certain conditions.

Nevertheless, changes have been modest and the embargo has been extended for its 50th year.

Even if the U.N. General Assembly does schedule a vote on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” – this year would make the 20th time it has done so, with a vote overwhelmingly in support of Cuba – it will likely have “a very limited effect”, Daniel Griswold told IPS.

In his book “Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth and Liberty”, the director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies argues that economic sanctions are not effective instruments of foreign policy.

IPS correspondent Tressia Boukhors talked him about the evolution of U.S-Cuba relations since Obama’s election and what the future holds.

Q: What changes do you see in U.S.-Cuba relations since Barack Obama’s presidency and the new travel edict? A: Any changes in U.S policy towards Cuba have been incremental. The president has relaxed some restrictions on travel, on remittances and this is taking U.S. policy in a more positive direction. But the changes have not been dramatic.

He really had an opportunity his first two years when Democrats dominated Congress to change the law. But the president has done virtually nothing in terms of leadership in changing U.S. law. He has just modified, through executive order, some of the restrictions.

I don’t expect the travel changes to have a major impact on the number of Americans visiting Cuba. The changes so far only affect students and religious organisations.

Q: President Obama extended the embargo through Sep. 14, 2012, determining that it is “in the national interest of the United States”. Does this policy have a future in a globalised world? A: Our embargo against Cuba made some strategic sense during the Cold War but, of course, even that rationale disappeared 20 years ago with the end of the Soviet Union. So now, it is really just a political statement that we don’t approve of the government in Cuba.

But after 50 years, the embargo has failed to change the nature or the practices of the Cuban regime. It has isolated the United States from other countries and reduced U.S. influence within Cuba. It has cost the United States billions of dollars in potential exports and restricted the freedom of American to travel in Cuba and do business there. It is just a failure by any measure and completely out of step with global trends towards more trade and foreign investment and economic integration.

Q: Denouncing U.S. policy towards Cuba has become an annual ritual during the General Assembly during the last two decades. Can we expect stronger international pressure this year and does the denunciation have any real meaning at this point? A: Any declaration from U.N members will have a very limited effect on U.S. policy in Cuba. That policy is really driven by domestic U.S. politics, by a perception of a U.S. national interest, even though the embargo has long ceased to serve that interest.

Change will come when the domestic politics change here in the United States, when a new generation of Cuban-Americans assume leadership, when economic interests make their voices heard in Washington that we’re losing business and when the cumulative record of failure becomes more clear. I don’t think a U.N. declaration will be a deciding factor.

Q: Do you foresee any further opening of U.S. policy toward Cuba in the near future? A: It is kind of hard to figure out the international politics of this issue, but the deciding factor again will be domestic politics and perception of U.S. national interest. I don’t think global pressure is going to play a decisive role here.

The embargo does hurt the Cuban people, no question about it, although they’re hurt far more by the failed policies of the Castro government. But it really is an internal policy decision of the United States. The U.S. government needs to decide how long it will continue paying an economic and political price for a policy that has no measurable benefit.

Q: Do you think the communist system in Cuba would survive the absence of Fidel Castro? A: It is hard to predict the path of Cuba in a post-Fidel Castro world. The communist system can have its own inertia – people entrenched in power. But I do think if reform continues in Cuba or if they make significant moves towards liberalising their economy and their political system, that may create an opening for the United States to change its policy.

Fidel Castro’s rule in Cuba has been a tragedy for the Cuban people. The sooner it ends the better. Hopefully, if Cuba turns toward free- market democracy, the United States will be able to respond by lifting the embargo. Let’s hope that day comes soon.

Q: Why have economic sanctions become the main weapon in the U.S. foreign policy? Does the embargo against Cuba represent an isolated case? A: U.S. foreign policy has relied too heavily on economic sanctions as a tool to influence other governments. Sanctions seemed to reach a high water mark in the late 1990s, but since then the U.S. government has not been quite so quick to pull the trigger.

Thanks in part to an active business community, lawmakers became more sensitive to the economic cost of sanctions in terms of lost export and investment opportunities. It has also become increasingly clear that sanctions rarely achieve their stated objective. The Cuban embargo is one of the more obvious examples of that failure.

Excerpt: