The next fight in global human rights

For work I had to provide some comments on the Draft Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. I saw that a number of groups were provided for in some sense or another, this included special consideration for women, children, ethnicities (sort of - a little sparse on the indigenous) and also a variety of ages and disabilities. Yet scanning through there was no mention of sexual orientation. There are 82 countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal. Countries such as Iran and Uganda have moved towards stricter, harsher penalties for those suspected of engaging in same sexual encounters. It's a global uphill battle facing prejudice that no other form of discriminated group has faced in recent history (controversial statement I know - but at least, globally, with a number of other persecuted groups people do not pretend that they don't exist or that being a woman, or indigenous is a disease you can be cured of... I ramble). The Guardian has a piece focusing on positive movements in global LGTB rights - mainly that under international law, pretty much every country that criminalises homosexuality has signed up to a convention that protects their freedom of choice, association, and orientation (with the exception of *ahem* Saudi Arabia). So unleash the lawyers...

Model United Nations in Ghana

I was (possibly wish I was still) a HUGE model UN dork in High School. So much so that I got involved in organising high school conference in University, volunteered at the famed UNAUSA symposium in New York, and may or may not have attended a few university level conferences myself. **I still maintain that by university - at least - you should be trying to change the world for real. Not for pretend. But the travel was subsidised - and there were good parties.**

Anyways! I was over-the-moon to see this on my walk back to the hotel from Osu.



41 YEARS! Good to know MUN is strong everywhere.

A rare admission

Atul Khare, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping said today that the UN failed DRC rape victims. He also called (of course) for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

It is an important admission. I hope that it carries some weight and things actually start happening on the ground.

NGO's Pawns in Terrorism?

This is a pretty comprehensive- yet cynical view - of international NGO activities in conflict and post conflict areas from The New Republic. I wrote a post last May introducing the SPOT requirement on all US government funding in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly to be implemented in Somalia... and everywhere?!). It stands for Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker This requirement requires all US contractors (including INGOs) to provide the US government and the military with the GPS location of all programs and the names, positions and nationalities of all staff so that the military can keep tabs on all activity and movement (including movement in, out and around the country).

There are some major points of concern here. The first is the close association this put INGOs in with the US military. It runs counter to a lot of impartial and neutral stances of many of the major players. Close association with the US government can put beneficiaries in danger of attack from non-us friendly actors. Secondly, it reduces the capacity of donors like USAID to collect information effectively. This has been highlighted by the GAO. I know that despite a concerted effort from NGO consortiums like InterAction, a few INGOs have signed contracts (whether they knew it was in there or not) which include SPOT. Contributing further to the bleak situation David Rieff paints.

A good point that is brought up in the article is the fact that in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the goal is not really development but national security. The budgets are simply not high enough to actually conduct development per say. Moreover, one needs to look at the types of civil society and governance programs that are actually funded here. In Iraq, programs such as the Community Action Program (CAP) which was in its third incarnation during my time, was in all matter of fact a way for the government to provide lots of material stuff to communities so that they would not hate what is happening to the country - Despite what the NGO (or development company in some cases) intended it to be. Another gem included a 2 year nation-wide peacebuilding program (peace in Iraq... in 2 years!) that was intended to be a front for counter insurgency information.

I wouldn't go as far to say that NGOs are pawns. Many know exactly what is going on and fight it continuously with lobbying. In regards to SPOT it may actually work (inshallah). The US administration is reviewing how USAID operates and SPOT seems to be on the list for review after it was blasted by the GAO. However the cynicism is warranted.

Changing face of child protection

The UN's SRSG for Children in Armed Conflict released a report on changing affects of armed conflict on children, particularly noting the increase use of sexual violence against children. Topics such as child soldiers and the effect on a child's education wer discussed as well, but this report takes yet another move at highlighting the use of rape as a common tool of warfare - particularly against girls.

The relese date of the report to the General Assembly (August 6) coincided with Hillary Clinton's trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo where rape is endemic. It has been estimated that 3,500 women have been raped in the DRC this year alone. Men and children are not immune from this either. Attrocities are carried out by all sides, leaving the general population with nowhere to turn and few to trust. But will Clinton's outspokeness towards the Congolese government on the topic of sexual violence or papers released by the UN calling on the world to protect children from this form of abuse change anything?

Unlikely.

Rape was first declared a war crime after the Bosnian war in 1996 with the indictment of 8 Bosnian Serb Military Policemen for their connection with the rape of Muslim Bosnian women. It was the first time a sexual assault case was brought to the Hague as a war crime in its own right. Since then, rape has been included in war crime indictments, including that of Omar al Bshir's. This hasn't changed anything, in fact, the widespread use of rape as a weapon or even as a effect of conflict may be increasing.

Many of my female colleagues here in Iraq report that the lawlessness of the past few years has contributed in a rise of violence against women. What is more frightening is the number of deaths of young women due to sexual violence, either from honour killings, suicide or homocide. One former colleague, who splits her time between Mosul and Kirkuk, stated that because of the lack of rule of law men rape and kill women just because they are good looking. Coupled with a sexually repressive society, where shame for sexual violence falls on women and girls, one can only imagine the restrictions now placed on daughters, sisters and wives.

In the report, the UN calls on greater involvement of children in the peacemaking process and more importantly to mainstream child protection into all activities. But more is needed. From a young age education on gender equality is needed, and less separation of the sexes is reqired (I'm not a huge cultural relativist). Young women need to be encouraged into non-traditional roles such as the police force, law making, and even the army - such as in Liberia. Sex education is needed for children and young adults. And finally, and most importantly - gender-based violence programs are needed for everyone - children, adults, front-line workers such as police and health care workers - to remove the stigma of reporting and talking about sexual violence. To stop blaming victims and to empower survivors. This may just put a dent in the problem.