Distinguished
Members of the Conference on Disarmament,
Every year since 1984, International Women's
Day has been marked by women's organizations in Geneva with
a seminar on disarmament issues, and with a statement to the
Conference on Disarmament. The statements and reports from these
seminars on gender and small arms, missiles, the militarization
of space, nuclear deterrence, war and the media and feminist
approaches to security have been widely distributed to inform
women's organizations about disarmament issues, and peace and
disarmament organizations about women,s perspectives on these
matters. This year the seminar examines the economic consequences
of war and how women's rights are undermined by ineffective
disarmament and their systematic exclusion from decision-making.
In October of 2000, the Security Council
emphasized the relevance of gender issues to its work. Since
then, it has celebrated the passage of Resolution 1325 on Women,
Peace and Security each October. The Council acknowledged in
Resolution 1325 that women deserve a place at the negotiating
table, not only because women are affected by war differently
than men, but because it is our human right to participate in
society. Women have a right to participate in decisions on peace
and security, but internationally and in the vast majority of
the world,s national capitals women are systematically barred
from enjoying this democratic right. It is impossible to lay
the groundwork for a culture of peace without giving due consideration
to women.
While NGOs try to make the best use possible
of the symbolic importance of International Women's Day and
October 31st, none of us are satisfied with flowery congratulations
for two days of the year. Women would rather the CD and the
Security Council demonstrate a genuine understanding of gender
issues through routine consideration of women's experiences
and perspectives, rather than a superficial annual gesture.
Gender issues are relevant every day.
A gender perspective on
disarmament challenges existing analysis and solutions for disarmament,
and demands that people are put in the centre of the picture:
women and men, as victims, survivors and perpetrators of weapons
related violence. This is human security in action and we commend
those governments that have committed themselves to advancing
this concept and practice.
Decisions and experiences in relation to weapons involve human
beings operating in their social and political environment,
and therefore have clear gender dimensions. Women and men alike
have concerns about the impact of weapons from small arms to
weapons of mass destruction. We applaud the Department for Disarmament
Affairs for recognizing this fact and undertaking a gender action
plan to be launched at the Disarmament Commission. This move
forward should also provide guidance to member states on how
to integrate gender perspectives into your work in the CD.
Disarmament has become a household word, with the largest global
demonstration for peace in history occurring on February 15
in over 700 cities illustrating ordinary people's belief that
disarmament is an alternative to, and the best way of preventing
war. Women played a major part in these demonstrations, and
have articulated positions and ideas on disarmament. We recognize
that there are risks involved in forging new agreements, and
in discussing and negotiating sensitive issues of national security,
but world public opinion is supportive right now, and this strengthens
the hand of those states that are willing to take the risk of
placing their national security interests in the context of
international security. A failure to act at this time would
not be easily forgiven, and we urge you to seize this moment
by placing the stated popular will of the world,s people
above process and procedure.
Fifty seven years ago Article 26 of the UN Charter charged the
Security Council with responsibility for generating a plan for
the regulation of armaments with the least diversion of the
world's human and economic resources. This recognizes the timely
and crucial need for a long term and broad based vision for
peace. We are still waiting for the plan. We hope that the Conference
on Disarmament is not going to follow this example. How many
more years can the CD justify hovering in this limbo of indecision
when the agenda that faces you is getting ever larger?
Some of you may see NGOs as mere "focus groups" with
critical voices that are never satisfied, but you would be wrong
to dismiss us so lightly. We are at the intersection of international
bodies such as the CD and the constituencies we represent. We
receive multitudes of phone calls and letters on a daily basis,
from ever more desperate and angry people who want to know what
member states of the CD are doing and why nothing is happening.
As NGOs who defend the UN and its central commitment to disarmament,
it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to explain the
role of the CD because you are not dealing with nuclear disarmament
as you have committed to do so, often and in so many forums.
You are not advancing international commitment to the prevention
of an arms race in outer space, and you are not negotiating
a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, and you are clearly not dealing
with any of the other pressing disarmament priorities. The most
practical way forward would be for all states to immediately
agree to the proposal by the five former Conference Presidents,
Ambassadors Dembri, Lint, Reyes, Salander and Vega (CD/1693).
One of the salient issues of today is terrorism, which is manifesting
itself in more sinister and varied ways than ever before. Terrorism,
facilitated by weapons of every kind, is a pressing disarmament
issue whose complexity stems from the fact that the physical
weapons of terrorists are secondary to their methods of operation.
Because they will stop at nothing to achieve their means, greater
investment in disarmament and the safeguarding of toxic materials,
rather than unilateral policies and doctrines of war must be
considered in long-term solutions to the dangers posed by terrorism.
The CD has a profoundly important role to play in this monumental
task.
For centuries there has been the reaction to take up the banner
of militarism in the face of threat. Evaluation of this paradigm,
so contagious and so destructive to the frustrated victims of
the injustices of our society should begin here - because it
is what happens here that breeds justification for the resort
to violence. Eleanor Roosevelt, well remembered for her work
in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
once said, "nobody won the last war and nobody will win
the next."
Every time there is a public reinforcement of the notion that
military strength and the willingness to use it are key elements
of security, every time disarmament or choosing not to rely
on threat or use of force for security are dismissed as weak
or womanly options, the power of the terrorist is reinforced.
Transparency in Armaments was added to your agenda in 1992,
and reduction in military spending is part of the Decalogue.
Increased
accumulation of armaments and military spending has not increased
world security. For nearly a hundred years, women,s organizations
have been at the forefront of researching, exposing, and protesting
the enormous resources devoted to weapons and war. Our research
allows us to assert that the ability of military violence to
achieve its stated aims is routinely over-estimated, while the
extent of its costs are overlooked. Our studies show that just
one quarter of the world,s approximately $839 billion in military
spending would allow nations to provide decent housing, health
and education to their citizens. It would also allow governments
to provide energy, to clean up the environment, ameliorate the
AIDS pandemic, stop global warming, ease the debt burden, disarm
nuclear weapons, collect and destroy hundreds of millions of
small arms and de-mine the world. Perhaps most importantly at
this fragile moment, the careful redistribution of resources
that are currently absorbed by the global killing machine might
convince the most desperate and angry of the world,s people
that they do not need to resort to terrorism to achieve their
goals.
Even in times of grave uncertainty a comprehensive strategy
can and must be guided by the rule of law and true respect for
human rights. We endorse the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Sergio Vieira de Mello's statement: "The security of
states.. flows from the security of the human being."
Women urge the CD to:
1. Agree to a program of work in this first part of the 2003
session. While the proposal outlined by the former Presidents
does not meet our expectations of the CD, the deadlock of the
last six years has considerably altered our expectations of
this body. The program outlined would at least see the negotiation
of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. This is more urgent than
ever due to the increased dangers posed by toxic materials of
the nuclear age, which should stop being produced immediately.
The Proposal should also include discussion on arrangements
towards a binding agreement on negative security assurances,
and an exchange of information on nuclear disarmament toward
potential future work of a multilateral character.
It would be our hope that the elaboration of a regime capable
of preventing an arms race in outer space could be elaborated
rather quickly due to the investment, research and development
by one member state in this field, which are significant enough
to trigger an arms race should other member states join that
race.
2. Because it is unacceptable for a handful of CD member states
to hold the time and concerns of the majority in contempt, a
coalition of willing states should begin informal deliberations
on the above five areas, thereby utilizing the time and expertise
available in Geneva constructively, and generating draft documents
and draft treaties as food for thought for when political will
finally reaches a critical mass.
3. Conduct a serious review with the aim of developing new mechanisms
for a more inclusive role of NGOs in the life and work of the
Conference on Disarmament. This review should consider the modality
for participation, and assistance with the important "partnership"
role that NGOs can play and the essential opinion-formulating
role of civil society, vital for the success of your work. NGOs
stand ready to work with you in the conduct of this review and
the development of appropriate mechanisms.
Thank you for taking the time to hear our perspectives on disarmament.
Your commitment to doing so each year on this day should not,
however, be marked with statements thanking women for their
interest, which implies that our work on disarmament issues
is invisible for the other 364 days of the year. For us, International
Women's Day is more than symbolic. It is an opportunity to remind
you that your ongoing and serious engagement with issues of
global security requires the systematic integration of gender
in your work, when that work actually begins anew. As the world's
sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body, you can only
be said to represent us and remember, women constitute at least
50% of those you represent if you engage with and reflect our
perspectives in your work.
