Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams won the prize for her work to eradicate landmines in 1997. She is pictured here speaking at a youth protest at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates held in Merida, Mexico. Courtesy: Albany J Alvarez/ Nobel Women’s Initiative

By Anna Shen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2019 (IPS)

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump continued to float the idea that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize, but that it would never happen because the system was rigged.

Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, who won the prize for her work to eradicate landmines in 1997, would likely agree Trump would never win – but not because the system was rigged, but because under his leadership she said: “We have swung into the dark ages.”

Speaking at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, in the heart of the Yucatan, in Merida, Mexico, she was asked which conflict she was most concerned about, and she replied, “Trump. He is a global crisis in and of himself.”

“He is pulling out of treaties on the climate, recharging the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has, and modernising the weapons arsenal. We don’t need more nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that everything he does is about ruining institutions.

Trump-like behaviour has spread everywhere, she continued. “Around the world, Trump has given voice to xenophobia, hatred, racism and emboldened several leaders like him. In Brazil and Italy, the leaders are the same,” she said.

Williams had much to speak about, including Trump, the state of world peace, why women are critical to the global peace process, and how to engage youth.

In an interview after the Summit, she stopped to give her thoughts — before continuing on to Rome for meetings at the Vatican to discuss killer robots and artificial intelligence, which she is increasingly concerned about because “nobody is talking about them.”

Excerpts from her interview:

Inter Press Service (IPS): You are chairing the Women’s Nobel Initiative (NWI). Why and how did that come about?

Jody Williams (JW): In 2004, Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and I were in Nairobi for an international landmine meeting.  She had started an NGO to protect children from landmines on the border between Iraq and Iran. A handful of Nobel women, in support of women’s rights, met with Nobel Laureate Waangari Maathai.

All six of us decided to use whatever influence we had to shine a spotlight on grassroots women’s organisations working on sustainable peace. We believe that if there is no justice there is no peace, and if there is no equality there is no peace. Women are critical to the peace process globally.

The Nobel Women’s delegation focuses on women because nobody listens to women. We have worked in the Democratic Republic of Congo with women, and at the height of Bangladesh’s Rohingya crisis. We have done a lot in Mexico, especially to protect indigenous land in Ateneco, where, in 2001, government officials wanted to take over, some would say steal, the lands of the farmers of Atenco.

This was to build a new international airport near Mexico City. Forty-seven women were raped, and the men who organised defending the land were imprisoned for four years. Others spent years in hiding. Suddenly, the women found themselves thrust into the role of leadership.

Over the next years, the Nobel Women’s Initiative became involved in supporting the efforts of the women of Atenco by lending our voices to amplify theirs.  It seemed to help. I went to Atenco to show further support on behalf of NWI and other Nobel Laureates supporting their efforts.

At one point the women protested, and with indignation they came – How dare you take our land and imprison our men? They were setting a precedent for “public protest” that this was their land and they wanted to keep it.

Finally, the cases of the 12 men came to the Supreme Court in mid-2010 and at a strategic moment, I was able to return, meet with the Justices themselves and other public officials – and then be there when the court decided to set the twelve political prisoners free. It was unreal. Amazing. Just think about the precedent set by freeing the men, something that underscored the freedom of assembly and all, but for one acquittal.

Later, I was able to go back to Atenco to see the women we’ve supported in their struggle to defend their land and their rights. Also, I got to meet the twelve men.  They are strong, dignified, and proud of their struggle to defend their land and their livelihoods. They even gave me my own machete. It is not a weapon, but more of a symbol, as it something used to slash in the fields.

IPS: Why are women essential to the peace process globally?

JW: I ask — why aren’t women needed? I followed the route of Syrian refugees up through Balkans to Germany – through Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Germany and met with Syrian women who had formed an organisation to push for peace and for reconciliation.

During a press conference, a young man stands up and asks: ‘What is the role of women in the peace process?’ I gave him a death stare. I asked him: ‘What is the role of men?’ He is dumbfounded, fascinated in positive way, as if he was hit by a bolt of lightning. He replied that he had never thought about that way.

If all sectors of society are not involved in peace negotiations, the root causes of the conflict are not addressed. In El Salvador’s peace agreement, three-quarters of it was given to separating combatants and disarming the guerillas and trying to help them with a political party.

There were only a few pages talking about the root causes of the problem. The thought was that once all of this is done, they would try to look at the root. But the problem is that we need to look at those causes now. How do you have a full-blown agreement and get buy-in during the process?

Women — who are trying to hold their families together — have a lot to say about the peace process. Our role as women is everything — community, life, keeping people together. You don’t have to love everyone, but accept they are different, as long as they are not breaking the law.

IPS: How can we solve the climate crisis?

JW: When I think about ways to address solve the climate crisis immediately, it is about redefining security. It is not about having more bombs, but making sure that we continue to exist and live on this planet, and that we stop destroying it every day.

We should be protesting the government’s budgets on the military. If we think about it, trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars are spent building weapons of war. If you are constantly planning for war, then you have to practice and invade somebody.

I am proposing that governments reduce military budgets by 25 percent and put it into a fund to save the planet. If they did reduce, we would have enough money to save the planet and fulfil every one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

We also have to put at the forefront our corporations, whose bottom line is making money and is not worrying about a better planet. We need to raise our voices in companies, tell them that if they do care about what they are doing to destroy the planet, and if they don’t change, we won’t buy their stuff. It takes a community to come together and not buy their stuff. It’s doable. All these elements can change this planet quickly.

We have to work together. No one person changes the world and I don’t care who pretends they do. It takes collaboration and communication about what we are doing to make a difference. Together we can. A small group of people working together can do a lot on this planet.

IPS: What is the role of youth, and especially of young women in creating peace?

JW: Often people will say to me that young people don’t care. But look at Greta Thunberg and the climate strikes. Not all young women, but many, know they have a place. Young people aren’t waiting, they are using their voices to hold adults who messed up everything, to account. Young people are playing a role. I’m proud of them and especially to walk with them and learn more from them.

Qadir Sheikh, a landmine victim from Warsun in Kashmir, says that his handicap will mean no education for his two daughters. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 26 2013 (IPS)

Slavery. Colonialism. Apartheid. Gender discrimination in voting. All were abolished in most places after longstanding battles – largely in bygone eras.

Now a high-level panel is scheduled to meet next month to discuss another politically sensitive issue: Should the institution of war be abolished?"If the world cannot find a way out of war, then we may well be defeated as a civilisation." -- Siddharth Chatterjee of the IFRC

Asked if this would be just an exercise in futility, Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative, told IPS, “I don’t think that working toward ending war is an exercise in futility.

“I think there is little consistent effort to challenge the view that war is inevitable and to begin serious education from the time children enter school about conflict resolution and the actions we all need to take to create a global culture of sustainable peace,” said Williams, who led the highly successful global campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines.

Asked if the concept of eliminating wars should begin in the minds of politicians and decision-makers or with the leaders of the global arms industry, she said: “I think the work to ending wars must begin at all levels.”

Williams said it should extend from educating children about the horrors of war – “and not pretending it is all heroic and patriotic” – to pressuring policy and decision makers to change their thinking about war as a solution to problems.

“Tackling the arms industry directly would likely not be as fruitful and they stand to lose the most,” she added.

Williams will be one of the participants, along with diplomats, former senior U.N. officials and anti-war activists, at a briefing co-sponsored by a coalition of non-governmental (NGOs) organisations and Switzerland, a country which has not been in a state of war since 1815.

Scheduled to take place Jun. 6, the briefing will focus on the topic “Determined to Save Succeeding Generations from the Scourge of War.”

The speakers will also include Ambassador Paul Seger of Switzerland, Ralph Zacklin, former U.N. assistant-secretary-general for legal affairs, and Nounou Booto Meeti, programme manager, Centre for Peace, Security and Armed Violence Prevention.

Cora Weiss, president of The Hague Appeal for Peace, told IPS, “There will always be war, some say, just as many said there will always be slavery, colonialism and apartheid and women will never vote.

“Maybe if more women were at all decision making tables and at all levels of governance (per Security Council resolution 1325), we would see less violence,” she added.

Asked for his take, Siddharth Chatterjee, chief diplomat at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), told IPS, “If the world cannot find a way out of war, then we may well be defeated as a civilisation.”

Asked about the role of politicians, decision-makers and the global arms industry in preventing wars, Chatterjee said, “Simple economics. Once the demand for war stops, the tools that supply it to wage the war will also stop”.

He said it goes beyond politicians and policy makers. And civil society can actually play a strong role in preventing wars.

A backgrounder to the briefing released here points out that since the U.N.’s creation, the international community has not seen a conflict with the same level of globally widespread catastrophe as the Second World War, which motivated governments toward the creation of the world body.

“Unfortunately, the scourge of war has not disappeared. Now, nearly 70 years after the U.N. Charter’s signing, ongoing violent conflicts continue to inflict unimaginable suffering around the world,” it says.

The current crisis in Syria, for example, has resulted in over 70,000 deaths so far, with no end in sight.

According to the latest statistics, over 1.7 trillion dollars is spent globally on armaments, making up about 2.5 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the world is over-armed and peace is underfunded.

Asked about the validity of the view that the fear of nuclear weapons has done more for global peace than any other threat, Williams told IPS: “No, it is not valid. You cannot prove a negative.”

She said it is a claim easy to make because there is no real answer.

Growing up under the threat of nuclear war, however, has marked people for life, she added.

“I had to practice curling up in a ball under my desk in grade school to know how to protect myself during nuclear attack. I was totally terrified. It most definitely did not feel like a peaceful world,” she added.

Weiss said the secretary-general has been a champion for disarmament, asserting that nuclear disarmament in particular “is critical to global peace and security”.

“Increasingly I find people talking about the immorality, illegality and glorification of war and the militarisation of society,” she said, adding that the 1999 Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century said: ‘Peace is a Human Right and Time to Abolish War’. It was endorsed by 10,000 people from over 100 countries.

The nature of war has changed. Weiss said the journalist Jeremy Scahill has just published “Dirty Wars” documenting armed violence in half the world.

“As long as there are nuclear bombs and nuclear wanna-bees, global security is threatened,” Weiss said.

“If we could abolish apartheid,” she quoted Bishop Desmond Tutu as saying, “why not war?”

Chatterjee told IPS the toll that war takes on a soldier is clear, but what sort of toll does it take on a community?

“What does this say about a community that not only do we send people out to a war that leaves them permanently scarred at the age of 21 or 22, but we also do not help them ease back into civilian life so that they can have a shot at a normal life?

“Doesn’t it affect the future of a country and a people when hundreds of thousands of young people are asked to put their life at risk to defend its borders, only to be told their wellbeing is not of concern to the very people who would ask this sacrifice of them?” asked Chatterjee, who has overseen U.N. relief missions in several of the world’s battle zones.

The village of rape survivor Angeline Mwarusena in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) continues to be threatened by militia. Credit: Einberger/argum/EED/IPS

By Leymah Gbowee and Jody Williams
DOHA, Qatar, Apr 10 2013 (Al Jazeera)

In a London boardroom today – on Apr. 10 – a new era in the longstanding fight to stop gender violence in conflict will be ushered in. Eight Foreign Ministers from the wealthiest countries around the world, the G8, will discuss conflict-related sexual violence and – if all goes according to plan – will emerge with a clear set of commitments to help end the global scourge.

For the countless individuals and organisations around the world that have tirelessly and courageously devoted themselves to going after the perpetrators of sexual violence and helping survivors, including all of us at the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict, this is a sweet day.

It is also a bittersweet. Since the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in the 1990s -when the world learned that thousands of women were brutally raped – the international community finally decided that rape in conflict is a serious threat to peace and security.

The result was a few important U.N. Security Resolutions, and a rough international framework for addressing sexual violence. While all positive, progress is slow. And as debates go on in the hallowed halls of power, more conflicts have been – and are being – waged over women’s bodies, including in Myanmar, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Libya and Syria.

Yet, those toiling behind-the-scenes – from doctors running clinics to stitch the mutilated genitals of women raped in war to human rights defenders challenging national governments to prosecute those who commit mass rape – have had their work cut out for them convincing the world’s most powerful leaders that sexual violence in conflict is indeed a crisis. One they have the power to help bring to an end. Now, it seems, finally some of these leaders are listening.

Leading this charge is the United Kingdom’s own Foreign Secretary William Hague. He has made ending sexual violence in conflict a foreign policy priority for both his own country, with the newly established Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI), and as the UK takes up presidency of the G8 this year. With patience and determination, he has succeeded in placing it high on the global agenda of the world’s most powerful nations.

Grassroots women and organisations working to stop rape have knocked for decades on the iron door of the international “all boys club”, and today Secretary Hague is helping us all break open that door.

We hope that the door stays open – for all of our sake.

Rape in conflict is not an issue that only touches women and their families in faraway countries. Rape in conflict is part of a continuum of gender violence that manifests itself in every corner of this globe. The face of gender violence is your sister, your mother, your daughter – and sometimes even your father, your brother, or your son. It tears apart the fabric of society and is one of the reasons women and their families leave their homes as refugees or immigrants to build new lives on shattered foundations.

Gender violence also continues to be the face of the future, as climate change becomes a more present reality and helps fuel conflicts resulting from desertification and lack of water, and countless natural disasters.

As our Foreign Ministers place ending gender violence on their agenda, we wish to remind them that this is going to be a long-standing item and is not going to be solved in the near future. While the UK has admirably taken this issue and made it a priority for the G8, it must remain a commitment for our leaders with concrete actions to prevent rape, protect survivors and provide justice. This is not a crisis we will solve in one year.

When looking at regions where rape and other forms of gender violence have been ongoing for years, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, we need to provide comprehensive, long-term strategies to end the violence. This means not only providing greater support and reparations to survivors, but bringing impunity to an end by focusing on the prosecution of those committing these heinous crimes.

Equally important, we need to ensure that as conflicts come to an end, women are at the peace table to keep negotiations focused on gender equality and justice reform.

Women’s voices must be heard.

The G8 Foreign Ministers today have set an admirable precedent for other leaders around the world, who can be sure that women will keep knocking on the door. And for those meeting in London, we, more than 700 organisations of the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict, will hold you to what you pledge.

*Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.

Leymah Gbowee is a peace activist, trained social worker, and women’s rights advocate who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011. Her leadership of the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace is chronicled in her memoir, Mighty Be Our Powers, and the documentary, Pray the Devil Back to Hell.

Follow her on Twitter @LeymahRGbowee

Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work to ban antipersonnel landmines through the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) who shared the prize with her that year. Her life of activism has been chronicled in a newly released memoir, My Name is Jody Williams: A Vermont Girl’s Winding Path to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Follow her on Twitter @JodyWilliams97

Williams and Gbowee are co-chairs of the International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Six women recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday lauded the work of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), offering additional high-level support for the institution just weeks ahead of a critical vote on a reforms process that many worry could irreparably weaken the Inter-American system.

In an open letter released on International Women’s Day, the six recipients note the IACHR has been responsible for exposing human rights violations suffered by “millions” of women and girls in the Americas.Our concern is what the impact might be on women human rights defenders, should the powers of the Inter-American system be curtailed.

They also recognise the half-century-old institution as a “pioneer in recognizing and incorporating the needs and suggestions expressed by the feminist and women’s movement, and in capturing them in protective mechanisms, as well as exposing discrimination against women in legal frameworks and in State practices.”

The letter was spearheaded by Jody Williams, a 1997 Nobel laureate from the United States recognised in particular for her work on banning landmines, and currently chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. She was joined by Nobel awardees from the past three-plus decades, including Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Mairead Maguire, Shirin Ebadi, Lehmah Gbowee and Tawakkol Karman.

“[W]e need the [Inter-American system] to be strong, independent, autonomous, and efficient in order to continue responding in a timely manner to human rights violations,” they wrote.

“Today, we express our gratitude and our most energetic support … [and] call on the governments of the Americas to express their unequivocal support for the Inter-American System for its role in defending the human rights of all.”

Since its creation in 1959, the IACHR has proven to be one of the most effective parts of the otherwise largely moribund 35-member Organisation of American States (OAS). Since 1978, it has been tasked with overseeing the American Convention on Human Rights.

Yet in such work, the IACHR has run afoul of several of the region’s governments. Some – particularly Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, as well as Brazil and Peru – have recently moved to distance themselves from the system’s powers.

This push took on new energy in early 2012, when OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza capitulated to growing frustration and backed proposals for a suite of changes to IACHR rules of procedure. Ecuador is now trying to create a separate system altogether, while Venezuela has said it will step out of the Inter-American system by September.

Meanwhile, anxiety from grassroots organisations has continued to grow. In November, some 3,000 people, including multiple former presidents, signed a petition warning against the reforms.

Particular scrutiny has been given to proposals that could diminish the IACHR’s ability to publish reports on countries’ rights abuses, significantly weaken its rapporteur on freedom of expression, and moderate its ability to demand immediate actions to protect groups or individuals. (More information on the reforms process can be found here and here.)

“Our concern is what the impact might be on women human rights defenders, should the powers of the Inter-American system be curtailed,” Rachel Vincent, a Nobel Women’s Initiative coordinator of the new letter, told IPS.

“Women where we work are on the frontlines of defending their communities against, for instance, large-scale land grabs, and as a result face high levels of violence. But the state actors who should be protecting them are all too often part of the problem.”

Faced with high levels of impunity, she says, the Inter-American system offers such women their only potential avenue of recourse.

“Should this system be diluted, you would be hard-pressed to find another mechanism in the region that could so effectively help human rights defenders on the ground facing impunity in their own countries,” she says. “This is not isolated concern of any one group in any one country – it’s shared at the grassroots level throughout the region.”

Following a series of consultations in recent months, finalised reforms proposals are set to be voted upon on Mar. 22. On Friday, at the end of a two-day session at the OAS headquarters here in Washington, nearly all member states expressed support for the pending changes.

Convention tinkering

The Nobel letter comes the day after civil society organisations were given a third and final opportunity to voice their concerns over the reforms process. While that consultation process has been criticised for being cursory, it does appear that the member states have taken certain recommendations into consideration, including over issues of transparency.

Yet Thursday’s proceedings also included an announcement that reportedly surprised activists and state representatives alike.

The Nicaraguan ambassador, Denis Ronaldo Moncada Colindres, who currently holds the OAS Permanent Council’s rotating presidency, tabled a resolution proposing reforms to the American Convention on Human Rights itself. The proposal, which some say was drafted without the knowledge of OAS diplomats, runs counter to recommendations made by a working group on the IACHR process.

“That was certainly a shock, given that many countries and civil society organisations thought there was already overwhelming consensus on following the working group’s recommendations that there was no need for reform of the convention,” Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), a Washington advocacy group, told IPS.

“To have the president of the Permanent Council come out with a position so radically different from the consensus – that was really out of the blue.”

The draft proposal would call on the OAS secretary-general to draw up proposed amendments to the convention based on recommendations made by states that are party to the convention. That would specifically exclude the United States and Canada among others, as they have not ratified the convention.

“Modifying some of this language could significantly impact the commission’s jurisdiction or procedures, so putting the convention on the table for modification is worrisome, to say the least,” Lisa Reinsberg, executive director of the International Justice Resource Center, a U.S. advocacy group, told IPS.

“It remains unclear why some states consider it desirable to make changes beyond those proposed by the commission itself, particularly when many of the proposals concern aspects of the commission’s work that are not governed in any detail by the … convention, such as the commission’s monitoring and promotion activities.”

OAS member states are now scheduled to discuss the Nicaragua proposal early next week. While a vote on the proposed IACHR reforms is scheduled for Mar. 22, Krsticevic says that thus far members have only engaged in substantive discussion on two out of seven major issues.