Category Archives: global

Increase in arms transfers driven by demand in the Middle East and Asia, says SIPRI

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.


(click on the image to enlarge)

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for a version of this article in French or here for a version in Spanish.)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16.

Other notable developments

Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.

The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.

Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.

Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.

Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.

For editors

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

[Editor’s note: With regard to the financial value of arms transfers, SIPRi has published the following : “by adding together the data that states have made available on the financial value of their arms exports as well as estimates for those providing data on agreements or licences, it is possible to estimate that that the total value of the global arms trade in 2014 was at least $94.5 billion.* However, the actual figure is likely to be higher.”]

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner (blenckner@sipri.org, +46 8 655 97 47) or Harri Thomas (harri.thomas@sipri.org, +46 70 972 39 50).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

10th anniversary of the Oslo Process: The Historic start to the cluster bomb ban

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Cluster Munition Coalition

23rd February marks the 10th anniversary of the Oslo Process. Ten years ago today the Oslo Process began when 46 states took an extraordinary step by making a historic declaration to outlaw cluster munitions at a conference hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo in February 2007.


The Oslo Process culminated with the signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions within less than two years. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store with Soraj Ghulam Habib from Afghanistan. © Federico Visi

With persistent and concerted efforts by governments in close partnerships with the Cluster Munition Coalition, International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations agencies, the Oslo Conference was followed by ten regional meetings hosted by different countries, including by some of the most affected such as Lao PDR and Lebanon, to mobilize international support for a total ban on cluster munitions. In less than two years, the ambitious goal of the Oslo Declaration was achieved, when 94 states signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions during the first week of December 2008 in Oslo.

We asked Ambassador Steffen Kongstad of Norway, who played a crucial role during the Oslo Process, what the launch of the process meant to him. Ambassador Kongstad, currently Norway’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the OSCE, said: “The launch of the Oslo Process and the successful conclusion of the Convention on Cluster Munitions that followed demonstrated what can be achieved when affected countries, other interested countries and competent civil society organisations work together based on facts and humanitarian concerns and principles. The CCM has saved countless lives and limbs and prevented unacceptable human suffering. That was exactly the purpose and objective of this process.”

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can cluster bombs be abolished?

(Article continued from left column)

We asked Mr. Hrvoje Debač, Director at Office for Mine Action of the Republic of Croatia, what the Oslo Process and the Convention on Cluster Munitions mean to him.

Cluster munitions were known to be indiscriminate and for having caused disproportionate civilian casualties for decades before the start of the Oslo Process. The use of cluster munitions by the United States in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and in Iraq in 2003 and the massive use of cluster munitions in Southern Lebanon by Israel and Hezbullah (a non-state armed group) in 2006, provided indisputable evidence of the indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and caused global outrage. Cluster Munition Coalition campaigners, together a core group of states and other actors worked tirelessly to bring the devastation caused by cluster munitions to the attention of the international community and to urge the immediate ban of the weapons.

What the international community, and most importantly affected countries, have achieved through the Convention on Cluster Munitions is remarkable. To date, 119 nations have joined the convention. According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, 29 States Parties have destroyed nearly 1.4 million stockpiled cluster munitions containing 172.9 million submunitions. Seventeen States Parties and one non-signatory have ceased the production of cluster munitions. Last year, the United States suspended its transfers of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and one of the world´s largest arms producers, Textron, announced plans to stop producing cluster munitions. The Saudi-led coalition ended its use of UK-made cluster bombs in Yemen.

Listen to this short interview with Ms. Habbouba Aoun, head of the Landmines Resource Center for Lebanon, a member of the Cluster Munition Coalition in Beirut. Ms. Aoun actively participated in the Oslo Process and she continues to advocate for a cluster munition-free world.

We congratulate governments and other actors for their efforts to eradicate cluster bombs. We also demand that the international community remains fully committed until all countries join the convention, until no one else gets killed or maimed by cluster bombs, until the Saudi-led coalition, Syria, Russia and any other actor that uses cluster munitions stops doing so, until all victims receive sufficient assistance, until all states destroy their stockpiles of the weapon, and until the world is free from the plague of cluster munitions.

[Editor’s note: As of June 2018, Among the major powers, the United States, Russia and China have not yet signed the convention.]

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Coal and oil demand ‘could peak in 2020’

. .. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .. .

An article by Megan Darby in Climate Change News

Fossil fuel giants are vastly underestimating the disruptive power of solar panels and electric cars, which could see coal and oil demand peak by 2020. That is the conclusion of a report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative and Grantham Institute published on Thursday.


A 10MW solar plant at Masdar City, Abu Dhabi (Pic: Masdar)

Energy companies pursuing business as usual are in for a rude awakening, by this analysis, with many mines and oil fields likely to become surplus to requirements.

Based on dramatic cost reductions in recent years, the model foresees these two technologies taking a 10% chunk of market share from carbon majors in a decade. That may not sound like much, but was enough to devastate the US coal sector.

“If people are just waiting on policy to happen, they could get bitten by clean technology coming up behind them,” said James Leaton, an author of the report.

Solar panel costs have fallen 85% in the past seven years and car battery costs 73%. Despite these advances, the traditional energy companies continue to forecast linear growth at best.

BP predicts electric cars will make up 6% of the market by 2035. Carbon Tracker reckons a third is feasible.

Exxon Mobil expects all renewables to supply 11% of electricity in 2040. Carbon Tracker says solar alone could produce 23%.

It is not enough to meet the Paris Agreement upper limit on global warming of 2C, but bends the curve to 2.4-2.7C, compared to 3-4C under industry scenarios. Policies targeting other sectors would bring the international climate goal within reach.

Question for this article:
global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Latest Data Support Bullish Stance on Commercial Energy Storage

. .. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .. .

An article by Vic Shao for Green Charge

Recently, I spoke to Green Charge employees about the state of the commercial energy storage industry and my vision for our role in it. There was much room for optimism: As the cost of a kilowatt-hour of solar power has finally sunk below the average cost of a kilowatt-hour from coal, the ranks of the solar naysayers have diminished. In fact, this isn’t the first time the skeptics have been proven wrong. Since 2002, International Energy Agency (IEA) projections have repeatedly underestimated the pace of solar energy adoption.¹

So what does this mean for commercial energy storage? Though the data in Figure 1 is limited, Bloomberg has found that the adoption trajectory for lithium-ion battery storage bears a remarkable resemblance to that of solar PV.


(Click on image to enlarge)

This makes sense, since the two technologies are symbiotic: Energy storage enables solar PV users to make use of all the energy they generate and alleviates the intermittency associated with solar. Meanwhile, solar PV increases the potential savings of a battery-based storage system, because the battery can often charge from the solar panels rather than the costlier grid. So, as time passes, it gets easier to justify investing in battery-based energy storage, although, as noted in an earlier Green Charge post, it doesn’t pay to let time pass, especially when customers can take advantage of no upfront cost options such as our PEA™ as well as government incentives, which decline over time.

Beyond the solar boost, energy storage also benefits from the growing trend towards greater self-sufficiency in power generation and management. Stemming from financial and security considerations, the ambition to “own” one’s energy resources also dovetails with increasingly important corporate sustainability and social responsibility objectives.

Finally, the energy storage industry stands to gain significant leverage from the growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption. In its latest research, Germany’s Centre for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research Baden-Württemberg (ZSW) found that the number of EVs worldwide doubled between 2015 and 2016 to 1.3 million cars. That’s 1.3 million drivers who will be looking for economical ways to charge their vehicles. A battery-based energy storage system, charged at the cheapest rate and integrated with the EV charging station, offers the least expensive option. When the energy storage system draws on self-generated renewable sources, it is also the most environmentally friendly.

As we charge into 2017, I see bright prospects for energy storage on the horizon.

¹See Metayer, M., Breyer, C., Fell, H., “The projections for the future and quality in the past of the World Energy Outlook for solar PV and other renewable energy technologies”, Energy Watch Group, 2015, p.8, for a compilation of IEA’s World Energy Outlook projections for solar PV-sourced electricity capacity from 2002 to 2014 compared with actual capacity growth during those years.

Question for this article:
global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Following Chelsea Manning’s commutation, UN expert urges pardons for other whistleblowers

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the UN News Centre

Welcoming the commutation of United States army officer Chelsea Manning’s 35-year sentence for leaking classified military documents, a United Nations independents human rights expert today [18 January] called on Governments to recognize the contributions of whistleblowers and pardon those serving prison sentences.


Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. UN Photo/Violaine Martin

“I call on Governments worldwide to put an end to multiple campaigns of defamation, mobbing and even prosecution of whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, the Luxleakers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet [See CPNN article] and the tax corruption leaker Rafi Rotem [See this article],” said Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.

Mr. de Zayas added that these are whistleblowers “who have acted in good faith and who have given meaning to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression.”

“A culture of secrecy is frequently also a culture of impunity,” Mr. de Zayas said, noting that because Article 19 is “absolutely crucial to every democracy, whistleblowers should be protected, not persecuted.”

In addition, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends freedom of expression and information.

The UN expert also directly called on the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to follow the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and to strengthen the human rights system.

Implementing the recommendations of the Working Group could impact one of the whistleblowers who Mr. de Zayas mentioned. Mr. Assange has been under the diplomatic protection of Ecuador in London for more than four years.

Independent experts and Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.

Question(s) related to this article:
FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global

UN Security Council underlines need to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The UN News Centre

Expressing concern over the threat of terrorism and the risk that non-State actors may acquire or use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council today [15 December 2016] called on all countries to establish national controls to prevent proliferation of such weapons as well as their means of delivery.

In a resolution adopted today, the 15-member Council also reiterated the need to continue to strengthen ongoing cooperation among various intergovernmental bodies and entities concerning terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), as well as counter-terrorism, through enhanced information sharing, coordination and technical assistance.

The Council further called on all UN Member States to ensure the full implementation of its resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It also called for strengthening the UN Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities through additional funding so that it is able to better assist countries in implementing their obligations under resolution 1540. . . .

STATEMENT BY JAN ELIASSON

Prior to today’s adoption of resolution by the Council, Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson issued the following statement:

Mr. President of the Security Council, Mr. Minister, I am extremely grateful for your generous and warm words. I thank the Security Council and the Spanish Presidency for arranging today’s debate. I am honoured to be here before you today in what is my final appearance at the Security Council. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of your for your friendship and cooperation over the past almost five years. I have highly treasured our dialogue and many professional and personal exchanges.

I also want to thank the Resolution 1540 Committee and its Panel of Experts, under the leadership of Ambassador Roman Oyarzun, for their work on the important subject under consideration today.

Preventing non-state actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.

The Nuclear Security Summits, the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the close engagement by this Council on allegations of chemical weapon use have all played an important role in keeping us safe.

The Secretariat has also played its part.

In 2012, the Secretary-General convened a high-level meeting to strengthen legal frameworks against nuclear terrorism.

And after the accident at Fukushima, he chaired a high-level event to emphasize the connection between nuclear safety and security.

In 2013, he launched the investigation into the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Yet in our rapidly evolving global security environment, gaps will continue to open.

We have seen the rise of vicious non-state groups with no regard for human life. They actively seek weapons of mass destruction I am sure. And these weapons are increasingly accessible.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for an article in french on this subject)

Question related to this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

We have seen this in the use of chemical weapons by Da’esh in Syria and Iraq.

There are legitimate concerns about the security of large stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material outside international regulation.

Scientific advances have lowered barriers to the production of biological weapons. And emerging technologies, such as 3D printing and unmanned aerial vehicles, are adding to threats of an attack using a WMD.

We must also beware of the growing nexus between WMDs, terrorism and cyber security.

Malicious actions in cyberspace have real world consequences.

Non-state actors already have the capacity to abuse cyber technologies to create mass disruption.

The nightmare scenario of a hack on a nuclear power plant causing uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation is growing.

To stay ahead of this technological curve, the international community needs robust defences that are nimble and flexible.

Preventing a WMD attack by a non-state actor will be a long-term challenge that requires long-term responses.

Tools such as Resolution 1540 need to be fit for purpose.

I am pleased to see the Comprehensive Review, which has called for greater efforts to build the capacity of all States.

After all, this is a threat to our collective security.

We all need to boost our ability to respond.

A biological attack would be a public health disaster.

Yet there is no multilateral institutional response capability.

The Council also has a role to play in holding those that use chemical or other inhumane weapons accountable.

There can be no impunity.

This is a complex web of global threats and risks that requires a sophisticated global response.

We must take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen our collective defences.

In this regard, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference was in many ways disappointing.

I count on all States to work together to prevent potential disasters.

And I count on this Council to lead.

In closing, let me emphasize that it is not simply a case of letting these weapons fall into the wrong hands.

There are no right hands for wrong weapons.

And weapons of mass destruction are simply wrong.

There is only one sure way to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction – that is their complete elimination.

We live in a world that is over armed.

A world where peace is under-funded.

I urge on behalf of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon all States to fulfil their commitment to building a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you Mr. President.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Chinese diplomat calls for new security concept at UN debate

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An arrticle from Global Times

A senior Chinese diplomat on Tuesday [January 10] called for forging a new security concept while attending the UN open debate on conflict prevention and sustainable peace. “No single country can achieve absolute security purely on its own, nor can any country harvest security from the insecurity suffered by others,” said Wu Haitao, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN.


Wu Haitao, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN

The international community must firmly uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and foster a common, integrated, cooperative and sustainable new security concept, he said.

It is important to build a global partnership based on dialogue instead of confrontation, partnership instead of alliance, to give full play to the crucial role of the UN and its Security Council in stemming war and maintaining peace, and to build a shared security architecture based on equity, justice, joint contribution and shared benefits, he said.

Wu also urged promoting common development “as peace and development are interdependent and mutually enforcing,” adding that causes of security and threats, such as war, conflicts and terrorism can all be traced back to poverty and backwardness.

Thus, relevant solutions are also to be found in development, he noted.

“It is important to effectively implement 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, forge a global governance concept based on the principles of achieving shared growth by pooling together our minds and strength,” he said.

Wu also said “preventive diplomacy and peace building” must be strengthened, adding peaceful solutions must be favored at all times in dispute settlement and confrontations should be resolved through political means.

While calling for respecting diversity of civilizations, Wu said “there is no superior civilization, culture or religion,” adding “there must be mutual respect, equal treatment among all civilizations, cultures and religions.”

“The United Nations should advocate a culture of peace,” he said.

By affirming harmony can be achieved through diversity and strength can be attained by embracing inclusiveness and differences, the UN should actively promote dialogue, mutual learning among different civilizations, cultures and religions, he said.

Question(s) related to this article:
FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, United Nations,

Making history in the United Nations: the General Assembly adopts a Declaration on the Right to peace promoted by civil society organizations

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by David Fernández Puyana from Elaph

On 19 December 2016, the plenary of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) ratified by a majority of its Member States the Declaration on the Right to Peace as previously adopted by the UNGA Third Committee on 18 November 2016 in New York and the Human Rights Council (HRC) on 1 July 2016 in Geneva. This Declaration was presented by the delegation of Cuba with the support of many other delegations and some civil society organizations.

Along the inclusive and transparent negotiation process of the Declaration, conducted by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the right to peace Ambassador Christian Guillermet-Fernández of Costa Rica, all delegations and some civil society organizations actively participated in the three consecutive sessions of the OEWG in Geneva (2013-2015).

Thanks to this consensual approach, a majority of Member States supported the Declaration on the Right to Peace, which is the clear result of a complex and difficult negotiation process. This positive approach was elaborated in light of the following elements: firstly, international law and human rights law; secondly, the mandate of the HRC in the field of human rights and thirdly, the human rights elements elaborated by the resolutions on the right of peoples to peace adopted by the HRC in the past years.

As indicated by a Group of Western States within the Third Committee, the Declaration has some value because it develops the New Agenda 2030 and also reinforces the three UN pillars – peace and security, development and human rights-. Also they pointed out that the Preamble of the Declaration additionally contains many elements that will benefit for the clarity and greater balance in order to ensure and to represent the full range of views among memberships.

In the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Peace by the Third Committee and the plenary of the UNGA, the mobilization and strong voice of some civil society organizations was properly heard in its 71st session, when they openly called on Member States to take a step forward by adopting a declaration that can be meaningful for generations to come.

The UNESCO Chair on Human Rights, Democracy and Peace at the University of Padova (Italy) in a legal study about the Declaration adopted by the HRC concluded in November 2016 that «the conjunction of Article 1 with the very title of the Declaration presupposes that a human right to peace does already exist as implicitly proclaimed by Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”.

As suggested by the Foundation Culture of Peace, this Declaration will pass to the UN history for being the first peace Declaration adopted by the General Assembly in this new Millennium. They also stressed in its statement that “the UNESCO initiative in which in 1997 Member States were invited to discuss a draft Declaration on the Human Right to Peace soon will be realized within the General Assembly”.

On 2 September 2016 the International Association of Peace Messenger Cities adopted the Wielun Declaration in Poland by which it welcomed the adoption by the HRC of the Declaration on the Right to Peace contained in the annex to its resolution 32/28 and called upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to adopt this Declaration by consensus.

An important group of civil society organizations, led by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII (APG23) and the UN Network of United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY), stressed in an Open Letter addressed to the diplomatic community of November 2016 that: “in today’s world, devastated by armed conflicts, hate and poverty, the recognition and declaration by an overwhelming majority of states that “Everyone has the right to enjoy peace”, would send to Humanity, and in particular to young and future generations, a very much needed message of peace and hope …. The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Right to Peace will represent a little step forward toward the fulfilment of the solemn promises we made in 1945”. This letter was supported by some 60 NGO with UN-ECOSOC Status and well-known peace and human rights activists.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

In parallel, the Chairperson of the Drafting Group on the right to peace at the Advisory Committee (AC) of the HRC, Ms. Mona Zulficar, and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the OEWG at the HRC, Ambassador Christian Guillermet-Fernández, published in the Arab newspaper Elaph in December 2016 a reflection in which they stressed that the OEWG witnessed that the text presented by the AC was not properly supported by Member States. For this reason, the Chairperson-Rapporteur decided to promote the effective implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, taking into account that all the main elements on the right to peace identified by the AC had been elaborated in the Programmes of Action on Vienna and Culture of Peace.

Finally, on 22 October 2016, Paz sin Fronteras (PSF), created by Mr. Miguel Bosé and Mr. Juanes, began the campaign called #RightToPeaceNow by which well-known personalities urged Member States of the Third Committee of the General Assembly to adopt a Declaration on the Right to Peace at the end of the 71th regular session. Throughout this campaign, several personalities of the world of culture and art raised their voices to demand a Declaration on the Right to Peace through their media and social networks. They expressed their support so that the process was definitively closed in New York with the adoption of a Declaration on the Right to Peace, such as occurred in this case.

It is strongly desirable for the promotion of peace worldwide to strengthen the positive trend on this matter already initiated by Cuba within the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2002 and after developed at the HRC in 2006. In particular, some Latin American, African and Asian States, which currently support the right to peace, abstained on this topic in both the Commission and the HRC. However, after many years of intensive work by different stakeholders, at present all the Latin American, the African and most of the Asian States positively support this notion. In addition, it should be taken into account that currently an important number of Western States abstained for the first time ever in the General Assembly.

In order to strengthen the positive trend and to move towards a more consensual and inclusive approach, the legislator desired to stress the idea that everyone has the right and is entitled to enjoy and access the benefits stemmed from peace, human rights and development, founding pillars of the whole UN system. Denying this access to the three pillars is to deny the same existence of the United Nations.

The three UN pillars have been recognized by the HRC as a fundamental element aimed to promoting the right of peoples to peace. In particular, resolutions 11/4 of 2009, 14/3 of 2010 and 17/16 of 2011 on the right to peace have constantly stressed these pillars in its operative sections. In this line, the resolution 60/251 of the HRC adopted by the General Assembly on 15 March 2006 recognized in its preambular paragraph 6 that “peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being, and recognizing that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.”

In 1996, the General Assembly recognized by consensus in its resolution Resolution 48/126 the human rights approach of the right to in peace. In particular, art. 1.4 of the UNESCO Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance states that “human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are”.

And as indicated by Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former President of Costa Rica, “Peace is a never ending process… It cannot ignore our differences or overlook our common interests. It requires us to work and live together”.

* Christian Guillermet Fernández, former Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Peace (2013-2015)

* David Fernández Puyana, former legal Assistant of the Chairperson/Rapporteur (2013-2015)

(Thank you to the Global Campaign for Peace Education for calling our attention to this article)

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, United Nations,

Opportunities of Peace and Scenarios of Risk for 2017

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Executive summary of Oportunidades de paz y escenarios de riesgo para 2017, published by the Escola de Cultura de Pau (translated by CPNN)

Opportunities of peace:

Colombia: The inclusion of a gender perspective in the peace agreement between the Government and the FARC represents a unique opportunity to advance the construction of a sustainable and inclusive peace in Colombia, with the participation of women and the LGTBI population as key actors in the implementation of the agreement.


click on the photo to enlarge

Philippines (NDF): The resumption of peace talks between the government and the National Democratic Front (NDF), a political movement representing the communist guerrilla New People’s Army (NPA) in 2016, and the willingness of both sides to sign a peace agreement for mid-2017 is a historic opportunity to end one of the longest-running conflicts in the world.

Myanmar: The Burmese government is facing the best opportunity in recent decades to negotiate a peace agreement that will end a conflict that has lasted almost 70 years. The popular and democratic legitimacy of the new Government is the main asset, since it has a wide national and international support. However, many obstacles must be overcome to make the process truly inclusive.

Georgia: Resumption, after four years of paralysis of one of the mechanisms of the peace process, the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism for Abkhazia and, on the other hand, the institutionalization of consultations between Georgian representatives involved in the process and local women’s organizations, are making progress towards building multilevel confidence, despite the political obstacles of formal negotiations.

Nuclear weapons: Endorsement by more than 100 states of holding negotiations in 2017 to achieve a nuclear arms ban treaty, coupled with the growing humanitarian approach to the issue and the pressure of international civil society, opens up a historic opportunity for stigmatizing the use and possession of nuclear weapons and moving towards a binding legal instrument, despite the rejection by nuclear states and their allies.

Scenarios of risk:

Ethiopia: The country is suffering the worst political and social crisis of recent years, with a wave of anti-regime protests that have been suppressed with extreme harshness and which have caused hundreds of fatalities over the past year. The serious protests reveal the fragility of the social contract between the elites and the population of the country, dissatisfied with years of corruption, with an authoritarian political system, for the exclusion of much of the population from the supposed Ethiopian economic miracle. The decree of a state of emergency provides for a worsening of the situation.

( Click here for the Spanish original.)

(Article continued in right column)

(Article continued from left column)

Libya: During 2016 difficulties in implementing the Skhirat agreement confirmed the fragility of the pact and highlighted the multiple challenges of Libya, which could lead to a worsening situation in 2017. Among them, a persistent political polarization, an active range of armed actors, an international approach conditioned by often dissonant priorities, and a deteriorating economic, humanitarian and chronic human rights violations.

Nigeria: The proliferation of political tensions, armed movements and intercommunal violence in various regions of the country (north, center and south) is creating a situation of serious deterioration of security in Nigeria that threatens its stability. The role of security forces in the repression of opposing and dissident groups and communities has been a significant factor in triggering the outbreak of violence in various parts of the country, contributing to the radicalization of different movements.

South Sudan: One year after the signing of the Peace Agreement, the future of the peace process is more uncertain and precarious than ever. Failure to implement the clauses of the agreement, systematic violations of the ceasefire, increased violence against the civilian population and the de facto collapse of the Transitional Government highlight the major challenges facing the immediate future of the Transitional Government..

Afghanistan: Armed conflict remains strongly entrenched in the country fifteen years after the invasion of the United States and causing very serious impacts on the Afghan civilian population. New dynamics in the conflict, the incipient presence of ISIS and the worsening of the crisis of forced displacement make it difficult to achieve a negotiated solution in the short or medium term. The political crisis that the Government is experiencing further hinders the situation in the country from improving.

Philippines (Abu Sayyaf): The proliferation and greater coordination of various Islamist groups in Mindanao; the possibility that ISIS may be expanding and consolidating its presence on the island as the epicenter of its activities and project in Southeast Asia; and the increase in armed actions by groups declaring their alignment and even membership in ISIS, such as Abu Sayyaf or Lanao Islamic State, could lead to increased insecurity in the region and affect the peace process with the MILF.

Turkey: The failure of the peace process and the intensification of conflict at the military, political-social and regional levels, as well as a more complex overall scenario in Turkey, marked by the challenges and consequences of the failed coup attempt of 2016, point to a deterioration in the situation of the Kurdish issue, of greater violence and militarization and of the gap between the State and the Kurdish movement.

Israel-Palestine: The 50th anniversary of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank could become the basis for new tensions and violence, given the ultra-right orientation of the Israeli Government and signs of growing frustration in the Palestinian population with occupation. The weakness of Palestinian political leadership, and the low expectations that international initiatives will revive the peace process, contribute to a climate of skepticism about the viability of the two-state formula.

International Criminal Court: The International Criminal Court, which faces many challenges, pressures and criticism, has been accused of placing too much emphasis on African cases and, by the end of 2016, has been facing one of the main challenges since its inception : Three African countries, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia, have announced their withdrawal from the Court. The culmination of this decision and its domino effect may lead to a weakening of the institution and a setback in terms of human rights protection.

Syria: The Syrian war has been characterized by brutal levels of violence against civilians and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in a context of total impunity and the lack of action by the international community. Although it is not the only case, Syria is also setting a symbolic and dangerous precedent that exposes the weaknesses of the international framework for the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global

Civil Society and the UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

December 2016 Newsletter of UNFOLD ZERO

On December 3, 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted ground-breaking Resolution 71/71, supported by over 140 countries, calling for the start of negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, and affirming its earlier decision to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018 to review progress on such a treaty.

The UN has previously held high level meetings on nuclear disarmament, but these were not much more than talk-shops.

In contrast, the 2018 event will be the first time the UN General Assembly has held a high level conference on nuclear disarmament. Such an event carries with it the expectation of deliberations to reach an agreement or agreements on concrete nuclear disarmament measures.

The 2018 UN Conference, and its preparatory process, provide a unique opportunity for civil society and like-minded governments to elevate the issue of nuclear disarmament globally and build political pressure on the nuclear-reliant States to agree to specific nuclear disarmament proposals at the conference.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

A UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament: Distraction or progress?

(Continued from left column)

Similar UN high level conferences on other difficult global issues – such as sustainable development, climate change and refugees – have had considerable success engaging all relevant States and civil society to achieve concrete results.

The UN conference on nuclear disarmament could, for example, aim for:

• Non-nuclear States (and maybe others) to announce at the conference their ratification of the nuclear prohibition treaty which will most likely be negotiated by 2018 (see UN agrees to nuclear prohibition negotiations);

• Agreement by the nuclear armed and allied States that their sole purpose for nuclear weapons is to deter other nuclear weapons and that they would never use nuclear weapons first;

• A decision to convene a conference for the establishment of a Middle East Zone free from nuclear weapons and other WMD;

• A framework agreement (or political declaration) to achieve the prohibition of any use of nuclear weapons and the phased elimination of nuclear weapons.
 
UNFOLD ZERO is organising a number of private meetings on the UN High Level Conference with governments, as well as open consultation meetings with non-governmental organisations in Geneva, London, New York, Vienna, Washington and other locations in early 2017.

At these meetings we will discuss strategy and campaign activities to build success for the UN High Level Conference.

For more information see UN to hold High Level Conference on nuclear disarmament.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,