Who's Online

We have 235 guests online

Popular

2686 readings
CSW 59 PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICT: FROM USING INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO REDEFINING SECURITY PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow
Thursday, 26 March 2015 10:15

By Joan Russow PhD

Global Compliance Research Project

 

2015 is the 20th anniversary of the UN Women’s Conference in Beijing; Equality, Development and Peace. From March 7 to March 19 2015 was the Commission on the Status of Women CSW 59. On March 6 there was the unfortunate decision by member states of the United Nations, to have completed a political Declaration before CSW 59 had begun on March 7 2015. Not only was the timing unconscionable but also there was no mention, in the Declaration, of ‘Peace” an integral part of the of the 1995 Women’s Conference in Beijing; Equality, and Peace.

At CSW 59 there were several side events addressingthe October 31st 2000, Security Council Resolution 1325; this resolution affirmed the important role of women in prevention and resolution of conflicts and war and in peace building. In most of these sessions, however. the emphasis was on peacebuilding rather than on prevention of conflict and war.

1.

PREVENTING WAR THROUGH CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

 

In almost all the actual or proposed military interventions, there has been a rush to go to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations rather than Chapter VI. Chapter VII purports to sanction the legality of a military intervention whereas ChapterVI, advances the “Pacific resolution of Disputes.  Art 33 of Chapter VI affirms that:

the Parties to any disputes, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of Peace and Security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation , enquiry, mediation, conciliation , judicial settlement … or other peaceful means..

And Chapter Article 36. 3 of Chapter VIstates  the following:

The Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Court

 2.

PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICT FOR AVOIDING THE MISCONSTRUING OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

 

 In the 2004 Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change it  was recognized that the use of article 51 self-Defence should  not cause anarchy: to prevail:

Collective security and the use of force What happens if peaceful  prevention fails? If none of the preventive measures so far described stop the descent into war and chaos? If distant threats do become imminent? Or if imminent threats become actual? Or if a non-imminent threat nonetheless becomes very real and measures short of the use of military force seem powerless to stop it? We address here the circumstances in which effective collective security may require the backing of military force, starting with the rules of international law that must govern any decision to go to war if anarchy is not to prevail. It is necessary to distinguish between situations in which a State claims to act in self-defence; situations in which a State is posing a threat to others outside its borders; and situations in which the threat is primarily internal and the issue is the responsibility to protect a State’s own people. In all cases, we believe that the Charter of the United Nations, properly understood and applied, is equal to the task: Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction of its long-understood scope, and Chapter VII fully empowers the Security Council to deal with every kind of threat that States may confront. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority but to make it work better than it has. http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf

 

“At Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another StateJustice

“If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us” (Cited in Chomsky’ pieceChomsky: 9/11 - was there an alternative http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=345_1315751483#by7PvtecKDMYeSEE.99)

 

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

3,

PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICT BY COMPLING WITH THE PROHIBITION OF PROPAGANDA FOR WAR.

 

Under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the “prohibition of propaganda for war”

Propaganda for war could include military bases on foreign soil, or adjacent to country borders, war games or war exercises.

In addition organization, of countries, whose sole purpose is to form a military block should also be deemed to reflect propaganda for war

4

PREVENTINGOF WAR CONFLICTAND THROUGH DENOUNCING PRETEXTS FOR WAR

For years states have used various pretexts to justify the invasion of and aggression againstother states;For example, the pretext of “human security” was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 1991, then “humanitarian intervention” was used to justify the invasion of Kosovo;  so-called  “self  Defense” (Art. 51of the UN Charter),  to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, then  "Pre-emptive/ preventive" attack to justify the invasion of Iraq  in 2003, finally  it was “the responsibility to protect”  to justify the intervention in ’Haiti in 2004, and  the invasion of Libya in 2011. Even in 2013, after all the previous pretexts had been discredited, a new pretext was proposed, the “Will to Intervene” which had just been waiting to be used to justify an intervention into Mali in 2013.

5.

PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICTTHROUGH EXPOSING AND COUNTERING THE DESTABILIZING OF DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED STATES

Many organizations have engaged in the promotion of “democracy” in other states particularly in those states where the results of democracy are not deemed satisfactorily to the promoter of democracy.

There has been evidence over the years of powerful states or a powerful Coalition of states engaging in provocative activities which have either led to a coup d`Etat or to` `regime change`` in a targeted state

i.Tactics have been used by foreign states to propose that producers, in a target state, increase inventories and export goods in order to create a scarcity of goods

ii. Strategies have been used by foreign states to dismantle infrastructure, particularly energy systems of the targeted state so that the citizens will blame the government for negligence and inefficiency

iv. Foreign Government funded NGOs will be inserted into the targeted state to declare that the targeted state is denying freedom of speech and of the press and cite the 1994 Declaration of Chapultepec.

v. Foreign governments will seek out foreign educated opponents of the government and the opposition party leader, in targeted states and work with them to organize rallies and instigate conflict

(Inspired by Wikileaks leaked document about destabilization in Venezuela and by La Prensa Grafica in El Salvador).

6.

PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICT THROUGH THE REALLOCATION OF THE ANNUAL1.7 TRILLION GLOBAL MILITARY BUDGET

For many years the member states of the United Nations incurred obligations and made commitments to reallocate military expenses and to embrace disarmament

The States Members of the United Nations in 1969 called for:

The achievement of general and complete disarmament and the channeling of the progressively released resources to be used for economic and social progress for the welfare of people everywhere and in particular for the benefit of developing countries (article 27 (a) XX1V of 11 December 1969 Declaration on Social Welfare, Progress and Development)

In 1975the States Members of the United Nations in made a commitment that “Scientific Technological Progress should be in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of humanity.”

In1976, the States Members of the United Nations affirmed:

"The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly the peoples of developing countries." (II, 12 Habitat 1).

In 1984, the States Members of the United Nations solemnly proclaimed:

“The peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace.” (1. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

 Andaffirmed: 

Their determination to make further collective efforts aimed at strengthening peace and international security and eliminating the threat of war, and agreed that in order to facilitate the process of disarmament, it was necessary to take measures and pursue policies to strengthen international peace and security and to build confidence among states. (Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

In 1985 the States Members of the United Nations in 1985 affirmed:

The first special session devoted to disarmament encompassing all measures thought to be advisable in order to ensure that the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control is realized. This document describes a comprehensive programmer of disarmament, including nuclear disarmament; which is important not only for peace but also for the promotion of the economic and social development of all, particularly in the developing countries, through the constructive use of the enormous amount of material and human resources otherwise expended on the arms race. (Para. 13, The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategy, 1985)

And stated:

Safeguardingworld peace and averting a nuclear catastrophe is one of the most important tasks today in which women have an essential role to play, especially by supporting actively the halting of the arms race followed by arms reduction and the attainment of a general and complete disarmament under effective international control... (Para. 25 Nairobi Forward Looking strategies for the Advancement of Women, 1985)

  in 1986 the Members of States the United Nations in reaffirmed that:

there is a close relationship between disarmament and development and that progress in the field of disarmament would considerably promote progress in the field of development and that resources released through disarmament measures should be devoted to the economic and social development and well-being of all peoples and, in particular, those of the developing countries. (Declaration on the Right to Development, General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986)

In 1992 the States Members of the United Nations, made a commitment

"to reallocate resources presently committed to military purposes" (Agenda 21, 33.16e UNCED)

In 1995States Members of the United Nations made a commitment

to …work actively towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control… (143(f) (i) Beijing Platform) and support negotiations and conclusions, without delay, of a universal and multilateral and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty…nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects. (143 (f) (ii),Beijing Platform)

to take positive steps to ensure peace for the advancement of women and, recognizing the leading role
that women have played in the peace movement (Art. 28 Beijing Platform) and “to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls.” (Art. 29 Beijing Platform). And the important role, for women  under UNSC1325, to prevent war.

The 1.75 trillion dollar global military budget must be reduced by at least 50% and the savings be relocated annually to the promoting of global common security: with 600 billion per year  for  expanded MDGS and SDGS, and 100 billion per year to be transferred to developing states for mitigation and adaptation starting in 2015.

Governments must seriously address the contribution of militarism to the perpetuation of the continuing threat of climate change through emissions from production of all weapon system, military exercises, war games, weapon testing military aviation, and troop transfer, military operations waste generations and reconstruction after violent intervention. The International Governmental Panel on Climate Change must begin to calculate the contribution of militarism to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

7.

PREVENTING WAR AND CONFLICT THROUGH DIVESTMENTS

Governments must end the subsidizing of the corporations that produce weapon systems and that engage iin the arms trade, universities must demilitarize research and individual citizens must divest themselves from funds that do not proscribe investments in militarism.

8.

PREVENTING WAR THROUGH REDEFINING WHAT CONSTITUES SECURITY

Currently security is associated with militarized security, human security or

collective security; all of which have been discredited.

Perhaps a more gender-based concept of security could be an extension

Of Olaf Palme`s, concept of common security which could be extended to

embody the following objectives:

* to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through  reallocation of military expenses and the delegitimization of war

·  to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

·  to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice;

·  to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, women’s rights civil and political rights, indigenous rights, social and cultural rights – right to food, right to housing, right to safe drinking water and sewage, right to education and right to universally accessible not for profit health care system;

·  to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, the respect for the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, the reduction of the ecological footprint moving away from the current model of unsustainable and excessive overconsumption and from furthering the cult of war

Common security through the adherence to  the rule of international law

could  lead to the fulfillment, under Security Council 1325 – of the important

role of women, to prevent war.

 

In CSW 59, we further addressed the need to redefine security especially

in response to Samantha Powers, the  UN representative from the United

States, who reprimanded NATO states for reducing their military budgets

and urged them to engage in “collective security  another form of

militarized security .  In one of the session on security I pointed out the

need to redefine security not as militarized security, or as collective security

but as common security.

In Conclusion, it is essential for women, through 1325, to be primarily

involved in the prevention of war and conflict which ideally  would

contribute  to no new demands for peace building.

Given the social, economic, ecological, health, psychological consequences of war, under no circumstance or condition is war legal or just

Background

With files from the Global Compliance Research Project and the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Habitat II: Re-allocation of the  Military Budget

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10105:habitat-ii-re-allocation-of-the-military-budget&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

Principles of Compliance: Mandatory International Normative Standards (MINS)

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10074:principles-of-compliance-mandatory-international-normative-standards-mins&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

September 11 2004: time to move towards common security

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=649&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

Did the UN "High-level" Panel Succumb to the "Spirit of Compromise"?

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9823:did-the-un-qhigh-levelq-panel-succumb-to-the-qspirit-of-compromiseq&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

Common Security Index; Presentation to the Senate Committee Reviewing the Anti-Terrorism Act

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9837:common-security-index-presentation-to-the-senate-committee-reviewing-the-anti-terrorism-act&catid=75:cjustice-news&Itemid=218

Militarism: the Elephant in the Room. DPI/NGO Climate Change Conference

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6926&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

Nobel peace prize; time for IPCC and Gore to address the inconvenient truth of militarism

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6995&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

The impact of Militarism on Climate Change must no Longer be Tolerated or Ignored 

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8140&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

Cancun COP16:Militarism as Cause and Consequence of Climate Change

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10111:cancun-cop-16-militarism-as-cause-and-consequence-of-climate-change&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210

Militarism's Contribution to Greenhouse gas emissions

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9919:militarisms-contribution-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210

2012 Militarism to disarmament - from rhetoric to action - abolition of war.

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9844:2012-militarism-to-disarmament-from-rhetoric-to-action-abolition-of-war&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

Ending the Cycle of Error Towards True Security: Common Security Submission to CSW 2005

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9847:ending-the-cycle-of-error-towards-true-security-common-security-submission-to-csw-2005&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

2012 MILITARISM TO DISARMAMENT - FROM RHETORIC TO ACTION - ABOLITION OF WAR.

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9844:2012-militarism-to-disarmament-from-rhetoric-to-action-abolition-of-war&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216

 

CSW 57: SIGN-ON PETITION ON CHALLENGING MILITARIZED SECURITY: ABOLITION OF WAR

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8974:-csw-57-petition-on-challenging-militarized-security-abolition-of-war&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

CSW58:CHALLENGING MILITARIZED SECURITY: DELEGITIMIZATION OF WAR

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9663:csw58challenging-militarized-security-delegitimization-of-war&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

EXTENDING RESOLUTION 1325 TO APPLY TO THE PREVENTION OF WAR AND VIOLENT CONFLICT IN MAINTAINING TRUE SECURITY

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9850:extending-resolution-1325-to-apply-to-the-prevention-of-war-and-violent-conflict-in-maintaining-true-security&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

CSW 59 CONFRONTING MILITARISM

THROUGH REDIRECTING GLOBAL MILITARY EXPENSES AND

THROUGH DIVESTMENT: AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE

http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10106:csw-59-confronting-militarism-through-redirecting-global-military-expenses-and-through-divestment-an-ethical-imperative&catid=104:i-peace-news&Itemid=204

Last Updated on Thursday, 02 April 2015 19:14
 

Latest News