WILPF International Update
September 2008

Dear WILPF Members,

In this mailing you will find:

1. Update from the Executive Committee
2. Message from the Secretary General
3. Update and Action at the UN General Assembly
4. UN Security Council Resolution 1820- Sexual and Gender Based Violence
5. Report on the 8th Session of the Human Rights Council
6. Section Update - IKFF in Almedalen
7. Letter to Nordic governments
8. WILPF at the European Social Forum
9. WILPF and CEDAW
10. A brief history of missile defence in South Korea
11. ACT:  Appeal for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

As always, we welcome feedback and input to these mailings.  If you have something to contribute to the next mailing, please send it to susi.snyder@wilpf.ch no later than the 17th of the month. 

Past updates are archived on the website at: http://www.wilpf.int.ch/updates/up_index.htm,

Warm greetings,

Susi Snyder

The ExCom has worked quite a lot on the International Board meeting in Geneva in November. Realizing that e-mail communication is not always working well we have now telephone conferences (using Skype) once a month which enables smoother discussion and decision making. 

Kerstin just returned from South Korea, where she participated in a Women's Six Party Peace conference.   She was one of the keynote speakers and met with women from China, Japan, and South Korea, among other places.

Annelise (as well as Susi) was invited to participate in the US Congress and give an introduction to WILPF history and politics at a seminar.

Annelise and Amparo have been working on preparing the 2008 Gertrud Baer Seminar.  This seminar, designed for young women and new WILPF members, will discuss the history, structure and political programme of WILPF. 

Felicity recently returned to Australia from the World Conference Against A & H bombs, in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War held in Japan in early May was a huge success that attracted over twenty thousand participants from all over the world including many young people. Kozue participated in the conference and moderated a panel discussion, "Women's Power of Building Peace -- Weaving Together Women's Initiatives Worldwide," in which Ellen Woodsworth, President of the WILPF Canada section was among the panelists.

The entire ExCom looks forward to welcoming the International Board in Geneva for the board meeting in November.

[top]

2. Message from the Secretary General

In the office in Geneva we're fortunate to welcome two new interns Malin and Josefine.  As part of the cooperation project between the Swedish section and the International offices, several times a year young women will spend part of their time in one of the three offices- New York, Geneva and Stockholm.  Malin is working on the international board meeting and Josefine is doing fundraising research for the office.  

The office has been preparing for the international board meeting- arranging logistics, drafting the agenda together with the rest of the ExCom and preparing some of the reports and documents that will be needed by the board in their role as a governing body of WILPF.  All documents are made available on the website as soon as they arrive, and will be sent to those who request it on their registration forms.  The deadline for registration and document submission is 1 October.

In New York, PeaceWomen project associate Sam Cook spent much of her time at the end of May and in early June working to educate UN Security Council members on the need to address rape and gender based violence as an international security issue.  As a result of the work of Sam and other NGO colleagues in New York, the Security Council passed resolution 1820 in June.   The PeaceWomen project is WILPF's eye on the Security Council, and is in need of financial support.  Donations can be made to keep the project alive through the website here http://www.wilpf.int.ch/donate/index.htm (scroll down to support PeaceWomen).  More on resolution 1820 can be found below.

 The UN office in New York is preparing for the General Assembly of the UN.  During the general debate of the general assembly, WIPF produces to indices- one on peace and security and one on gender issues.  These indices provide an immediate snapshot of global government opinion on issues including disarmament, women, UNSCR 1325, weapons of mass destruction and more.  To find out more about the General Assembly, check out Reaching Critical Will's two-page fact sheet that explains what the General Assembly is, why its important for disarmament, and how you can make an impact. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/factsheets/ga.pdf. The 2007 indices can be found here http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com07/disarmindex.html and here: http://www.peacewomen.org/un/genass/GA62/Women_62GA.html.

We have had a lovely summer here in Geneva and look forward to seeing many of you at the International Board Meeting and Seminar in November. 

Warm Regards,

Susi Snyder

[top]

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is consensus-building body, where issues of international peace and security are collectively discussed among all UN member states. Its regular session convenes in September of each year. For two weeks, heads of state, foreign ministers, or other high-level representatives have the opportunity to address the entire international community with their concerns, priorities, and opinions about a variety of topics.

During the first segment of the UNGA, the General Debate, Reaching Critical Will complies all references to disarmament, peace, and security and posts them online by country and topic. The statements from the General Debate will give us an idea of the issues upon which governments will be focusing during the UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, which begins on 6 October.

The Disarmament Index will be available in near-real time during the General Debate on the RCW website:
By country: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com08/disarmindex.html
By topic: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com08/disarmindextopic.html

Keeping up with the First Committee
UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security: 6 October–4 November 2008

The General Assembly's work on disarmament is conducted through one of its main committees, the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security. The First Committee provides space for each state to discuss their positions on disarmament-related matters, to build consensus on the issues or highlight divergences, and to table and adopt non-binding resolutions. Of course, the First Committee often fails to make good use of its potential, but it provides one of the best opportunities for outreach, education, and advocacy efforts on disarmament and non-proliferation issues.

For more information on the First Committee 2008, see http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com08.html.

There are many opportunities for NGOs to get involved with the First Committee:

First Committee Monitor
Since 2000, Reaching Critical Will has coordinated a group of NGOs sharing the monitoring and reporting responsibilities in an attempt to make the work of the First Committee more transparent and useful for people not directly involved in the small New York disarmament community. We edit a weekly newsletter, the First Committee Monitor, covering the broad range of issues discussed by the First Committee. The Monitor is distributed to all delegates of the First Committee, and is available on our site and through a free email-based subscription service in both PDF and HTML. It has been hailed by diplomats, UN staffers, and activists as one of the most useful resources produced during the General Assembly.

First Committee Monitor: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM.html

If your group would like to participate in this important collaboration, contact the Project Associate today by emailing ray[at]reachingcriticalwill.org. In the upcoming weeks, we will be holding a meeting to coordinate the various responsibilities required for such an effort.

If you are interested in following events at the First Committee, subscribe to the First Committee Monitor today by sending an email to ray[at]reachingcriticalwill.org with the subject line "subscribe First Committee Monitor". Please indicate whether you would like the PDF or HTML version.

Side Events
Side events are an excellent way to educate each other, delegations, and members of the Secretariat on a broad range of disarmament and security issues. NGO side events are becoming increasingly popular with both diplomats and civil society. If you are planning a side event, meeting, or strategy session during the First Committee and would like to hold it in the UN, please contact RCW.

A calendar of events is available at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com08/calendar.html - please note that dates, times, and locations are tentative and subject to change. Please check back regularly for updates.

If you have already booked your event through other means, please let RCW know so that we can add your event to the calendar, which is the number one resource for all those looking for updates on the First Committee.

What else can civil society do around the First Committee?
Media Outreach: While decisions taken on matters of disarmament and non-proliferation are some of the most critical issues to the world, there remains a lack of adequate coverage of these issues by the mainstream media. Many mainstream media agencies are subsidiaries of military corporations. These agencies are never going to give positive media coverage to groups and messages that challenge their power. Notice the correspondents in the print, radio, and TV media covering nuclear or foreign policy matters. Build a data base of media contacts and keep a select group of journalists, or your entire list, informed of your activities and analysis of events and developments in this field.

Create your own media: newsletters, radio shows, video documentaries, email lists, webpages. To find out how to get involved with local independent media near you, see: www.indymedia.org.

Organize an event at home: With the First Committee in session, it is a prime teachable moment to continue your own education, outreach and advocacy efforts at home. To find out what disarmament NGOs are working in your area, check our NGO contact database: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/ngocontacts/contactsindex.html

Reach out to your representatives: Contact your representatives in New York and in your capital. Fax or email them letters urging them to support disarmament-focused resolutions. Offer them resources for more information and demand a response. For more information on writing a letter, see http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/action/tips.html.

Organize a meeting with your representatives; listen to their opinion on nuclear issues and share yours. Find out who represents you at our database of governmental decision-makers, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/govindex.html.

[top]

4. Security Council Resolution 1820: A move to End Sexual Violence in Conflict

On June 19, the Security Council under the Presidency of the United States held an Open Debate on women, peace and security. An Open Debate – in which non-Council members have an opportunity to address the Council – is not unusual in relation to this theme on their agenda. Each October for the last seven years there has been such a debate to mark the anniversary of the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325. This debate was different however. For one this was June – and it was quite heartening that the Security Council was taking up this theme outside of what has become an almost habitual anniversary occasion. Another difference was that the outcome of the debate was not another Presidential Statement but a rather more binding document – a resolution that builds on SCR 1325 of October 2000 (some 7 1/2 years and 495 Security Council resolutions later). At the conclusion of the Open Debate, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflict, which was, through a procedural provision also co-sponsored by some 32 other UN member states.

This Resolution and advocacy for its adoption was not without controversy – a situation not helped by the fact that there was not broad and open consultation with women’s groups on its drafting. In addition, the fact that the US was leading the debate was itself politically fraught. While this latter point was a difficult one for women peace activists, it was alleviated by the fact that the US was taking up an initiative driven by many women’s groups and governments over a longer period of time than the US presidency of the Council in June. On the Resolution itself, there were several substantive debates. One important question was: why the focus on sexual violence? For one, Resolution 1325 provides a broad and fairly comprehensive framework for a range of issues. It was felt that selecting this issue was somewhat arbitrary and dangerous. It was argued that this focus would take away from the powerful breadth of SCR 1325 and reduce its importance by reducing the focus of the women, peace and security agenda to issues of sexual violence.

For many, focusing on sexual violence in conflict is seen as reducing the issues of women and conflict to the mere victimhood of women. As many rightly argue, Resolution 1325 represented an important recognition of women as agents in conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding. It should not simply be seen as a way to make war safe for women. On other occasions where advocacy was done to have the Council address the issue, there was opposition from some NGOs on this very ground. For many the more important issue is women’s participation in decision-making at all levels – recognizing women as agents. It is undeniable that the larger goal is to ensure women’s effective and full participation in peace and security issues. However, the reality is that women are not either victims or agents. This is a false dichotomy. Many women who are powerful agents of change have also been affected by sexual violence and have been victims of violence. That does not itself define them as mere victims. The issues of participation and violence are inextricably linked – sexual violence is both a cause and consequence of low levels of women’s participation in all decision making and, in fact, participation in day-to-day life. Sexual violence does more than discourage political engagement, as a women’s rights activist from the DRC explained, sexual violence holds communities hostage and prevents access to markets, water-points and schools. Getting women and gender equality concerns into the highest levels of decision-making is critical if we are to eliminate such violence. But, this is not an easy sequential or separable exercise. First, women’s participation is not just a high level concept. Women must be included in discussions and decisions about their security needs and concerns and strategies and programs for protection. It is also necessary urgently and immediately to act to prevent and respond to sexual violence as it is happening.

It is undeniable that sexual violence is being used as a method of war and being perpetrated at levels that defy belief and with impunity. And as many studies, including the 2006 Secretary-General’s Study on violence against women, have shown, ending such violence requires a multi-dimensional and integrated response from many different actors. The Security Council is one such actor. As the body whose mandate is to maintain international peace and security and as the body that through its resolutions sets the mandates of UN peacekeeping missions and which has the power to act against countries waging war through illegal methods, its role is vital. Women affected by violence in the DRC and elsewhere have called on the Security Council to fulfill this role. Many may agree with this assessment and still argue that what is needed is to fully implement Resolution 1325. Indeed 1325 does address the issue of sexual violence and the implementation of its commitments must continue. Indeed, a new resolution was not needed to recognize that sexual violence can constitute a war crime or crime against humanity. International law’s recognition of this has outpaced the response of the Security Council. The Security Council has done little to prevent such violence or to sanction the use of sexual violence as a method of war.

As WILPF and other NGOs have seen as we monitor the work of the Security Council, peacekeeping missions are not given explicit mandates to provide protection from sexual violence; high rates of violence are not considered in discussions on arms embargoes or sanctions; and the rates and patterns of such violence are not reported in the Secretary-General’s reports to the Council on countries on its agenda. Where there is no information in country-specific reports, the Security Council, claiming a lack of credible information (the reports of human rights and humanitarian NGOs on the ground aren’t counted) then does not include an explicit mandate to peacekeepers to prevent, protect and respond to sexual violence. Time and again members of the Security Council argue that the issue of sexual violence is not within their purview. It is not, they argue, a matter of international peace and security. While this argument may seem somewhat absurd, Resolution 1820 puts this debate to rest – as the US Secretary of State, chairing the debate, noted, on the question of whether systematic sexual violence belongs on the Council’s agenda – the answer is a resounding yes.

Much work remains to be done to implement 1325 and now Resolution 1820 and 1820 is itself not a perfect response. As with most negotiated texts, provisos, passive language and sovereignty concerns make commitments weaker than they might have been. Certainly there are vital issues like the provision of comprehensive services to survivors and commitment of resources that are not comprehensively covered. In part this is because some of these issues must be taken up elsewhere in the UN system and by national governments. Also, because of the work done to link the issue to the protection of civilians – an explicit theme on the Council’s agenda, Resolution 1820 at times conveys the idea that it is only sexual violence against civilians that is of concern. These various issues must be addressed but it is important at the same time to recognize this resolution is an important step forward:
1) The Resolution clearly establishes that sexual violence in conflict situations is a matter for the Security Council to consider and act upon. The Security Council in the resolution’s first operative paragraph,

Stresses that sexual violence, when used or commissioned as a tactic of war in order to deliberately target civilians or as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations, can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security, affirms in this regard that effective steps to prevent and respond to such acts of sexual violence can significantly contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and expresses its readiness, when considering situations on the agenda of the Council, to, where necessary, adopt appropriate steps to address widespread or systematic sexual violence.

In terms of actions to be taken, the Council affirms its intention when renewing sanctions regimes to consider taking measures against parties who commit rape and other forms of sexual violence in armed conflict (see OP 4) It also provides explicit examples of possible measures to provide protection from sexual violence (see OP3) – including vetting armed and security forces to take into account past abuses, evacuation of those under imminent threat of sexual violence and, in a first in terms of language and concepts for a resolution from this body – “debunking myths that fuel sexual violence.”

2) While this Security Council Resolution does not itself make rape and other forms of sexual violence a war crime, crime against humanity or constitutive act with respect to genocide, it does note that such violence can constitute such (see OP 4). It essentially explicitly notes existing international law, although it does not include explicit references to torture or to the inclusion of crimes of sexual violence in the statute for the International Criminal Court – no doubt an omission driven by the sponsoring US government’s attitude to these two issues. It does, however, emphasize and reiterate previous calls to end impunity – both at the international and national level – and, in language that is somewhat stronger than Resolution 1325, “stresses the need for the exclusion of sexual violence crimes from amnesty provisions in the context of conflict resolution processes” (see OP 4).

3) The Resolution explicitly requests the Secretary-General to include information and recommendations on the protection of women and girls in his country-specific reports to the Council. It also requests the Secretary-General to provide an extensive report on the implementation of Resolution 1820, information on the use of sexual violence (including prevalence and trends), strategies to prevent such violence and benchmarks for measuring progress in this. A significant request here, and one which goes to the root of the problem of the Council’s inattention to the issue, is for the Secretary-General to report on his plans for improving the flow of information on sexual violence. This will hopefully then contribute to a significantly improved response.

4) The Resolution recognizes the importance of women’s participation and reaffirms their role in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in post-conflict peacebuilding as well as the importance of their full participation in peace and security matters. Significantly these paragraphs also recognize the link between sexual violence and women’s participation where the Security Council notes that it is:

Deeply concerned also about the persistent obstacles and challenges to women’s participation and full involvement in the prevention and resolution of conflict as a result of violence, intimidation and discrimination, which erode women’s capacity and legitimacy to participate in post-conflict public life, and acknowledging the negative impact this has on durable peace, security and reconciliation, including post-conflict peacebuilding.

The inclusion of participation is also included to some extent in the operative parts of the resolution. In demanding that parties to armed conflict take appropriate protection measures and that the Secretary-General facilitate dialogue to address the issue in the context of conflict resolution, it requires “taking into account, inter alia, the views expressed by women of affected local communities” (see OP3). The Secretary-General and UN entities to are requested to develop protection mechanisms in relation to refugee and IDP camps and in DDR, justice and security sector reform processes. The development of these is to be “through consultation with women and women-led organizations” (albeit with the weakening proviso that this be done where appropriate) (see OP10). The role the Peacebuilding Commission can play is also stressed through “ensuring consultation and effective representation of women’s civil society in its country-specific configurations” (see OP11). More broadly the Secretary-General and his envoys are urged to include women in peace processes and encourages parties to such talks to facilitate women’s full and equal participation (see OP12). Finally, in developing his “global” report, the Secretary-General is requested to include “appropriate input from United Nations implementing partners in the field” – which could include women’s groups and other NGOs (see OP15).

Other important provisions include explicit requests for training of personnel including pre-deployment training and urging the development and strengthening of the response capacity of national institutions (including judicial and health systems) and local civil society networks

While this resolution is not perfect and while it alone does not constitute effective action to end sexual violence, it is an important and welcome step. It is another tool to bolster our broader work on Resolution 1325. We must remain vigilant in ensuring that implementation of Resolution 1325 continues and that Resolution 1820 is implemented in ways that include women and that place the well-being of survivors at the centre of all efforts. We look forward to the Security Council, in particular, putting into practice the words and notions of Resolution 1820.
 
For a printer friendly version of this analysis please visit: http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/Open_Debates/Sexual_Violence08/PW_1820_Analysis.pdf

For the full text of Resolution 1820, please visit: http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/Open_Debates/Sexual_Violence08/SV_res_final_draft08.pdf

Reprinted from the 1325 PeaceWomen E-News.  To subscribe to 1325 PeaceWomen E-News, email subscribe@peacewomen.org with "subscribe" as the subject heading.

[top]

Human Rights Council
Session 8
[2- 18 June, 2008]

The 8th Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) concluded with the adoption of only 14 resolutions, the Council deciding to focus more on the implementation of existing resolutions than the passage of additional ones.

WILPF co-signed statements on violence in Zimbabwe and the protection of Zimbabwean women and girls ,  the review, rationalisation and improvement of the mandate of the independent expert on human rights and extreme poverty (French), the human rights situation in Bolivia (French), the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (French) and the follow up to the Special Session on the food crisis (French).

Interactive panel discussions on the prevention of violence against women and maternal mortality were held.

The HRC held interactive dialogues with Special Rapporteurs on the human rights of migrants, on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, on the right to education, on the independence of judges and lawyers, and with the independent expert on of Human rights and extreme poverty and the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

During the session, certain States violated the protocol of the interactive dialogues and the mandate review, rationalization and improvement process by criticizing the conduct and the views of the mandate holders themselves. Moreover, India, supported by Algeria, China, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka attempted to alter the text of a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, to require the President to begin a search to replace him. The Special Rapporteur on torture similarly came under fire, accused by Russia of violating the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures, while Indonesia complained of the Rapporteur’s unannounced visits to prisons. At length, the mandates of all 8 Special Rapporteurs were renewed by consensus. However, a significant compromise came in the form of a Presidential declaration, adopted by the HRC, stating that the second three year term of mandate holders would not be automatically renewed, arguably threatening the mandate holder’s independence and impartiality.

The second week of the HRC 8th session was taken up with the adoption of reports from the first and second sessions of the UPR. It was decided at the last minute that States under Review, Member and Observer States, and NGOs be allocated 20 minutes each to make interventions during the adoption of each State report. However, OIC States, Egypt, Algeria and Pakistan in particular, tried to restrict the speech of NGOs, by frequently raising points of order based on a narrow interpretation of the HRC institutional text. These objections were raised solely when NGOs were addressing the situations in OIC or African States.

After five long years of negotiation, an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was adopted by the HRC, and will go before the General Assembly for approval and adoption later this year. The optional protocol creates a mechanism to receive individual communications on the violations of economic, social and cultural rights, as currently exists for rights guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The major issue of contention was the non-inclusion of the right to self-determination (Part I of ICESCR). However, the final wording did provide for the inclusion of this right, leading the UK, Canada, Australia and Switzerland to declare that they would favor a narrow interpretation of the text, and that the right to self-determination alone would not be considered grounds for a complaint.

The 9th Session of the HRC opens on September 8 and will include interactive dialogues with Special Rapporteurs on: the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; the situation of human rights in the Sudan; contemporary forms of slavery; the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict and the Working Group on the right to development. Additionally, there will be a report from the Special Rapporteur on Racism concerning the defamation of religions. If you wish to receive daily reports during the 9th Session send an email to information@ishr.ch with 'subscribe' in the subject line.
-- Kirsty McKay, WILPF Human Rights Intern

[top]

Events and seminars arranged by IKFF were co-organized with governmental agencies and other organizations who in diverse ways work with security related issues; Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten), Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), The Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA), The Swedish National Defence College (Försvarshögskolan), United Nations Association of Sweden (Svenska FN-förbundet), The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (Svenska Freds- och skiljedomstolen) and The Swedish Institute of International Affairs (Utrikespolitiska Institutet). The common ground was to highlight the urgency of a broad definition of security and to awake a dormant domestic interest in national and international security issues. The broad spectrum of organizers made events and seminars successful, diverse and well attended, even though it was the first time that this specific co-operation took place in Almedalen.

Even though events were co-arranged, each agency or organization had the possibility to contribute with two seminars of their own choice. IKFF chose to highlight the importance of a peaceful development of the European Union and its civil capacity to prevent war and build peace. The panel constituted well known politicians and experts, who ended the panel discussion by stating concrete recommendations for future security building actions. Among other things, the importance of civil capacity and the inclusion of civil society in all decision making was pointed out as crucial to reach peace and security in the region of the EU as well as in the rest of the world.

The second seminar arranged by IKFF focused on terrorism and its consequences. The panel featured politicians representing the largest political parties in Sweden, and they all gave their view on how to understand terrorism in a broader context. While sharing the opinion that terrorism is a serious problem, the panel attendees had difficulties to agree on its extent and effects. Some of the participants underlined that other threats than terrorism are more urgent to address, such as domestic violence, disease and environmental threats. Representatives of parties in opposition to the present government also highlighted negative consequences that are the outcome of the war on terrorism, such as limited rights of speech and movement for people with an origin in Muslim countries.

By being represented in Almedalen, IKFF managed to reach out to a large number of experts and politicians and thereby to point out the importance of a gendered peace perspective in national as well as international politics. We also made the important point that security policy is not only a matter concerning the Armed Forces. We look forward to be present next summer and to continue discussions on topics emphasized this year, and also to bring up new issues that need to be addressed further in the interest of peace.

7. Letter to Nordic governments
 
The Nordic WILPF sections met on 30 and 31 August, and a decision was made to write a letter to the Nordic governments regarding their obligations to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 in regards to responding to crises and peace building. The letter was co-signed by representatives from the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Sections, Tove Krag, co-President, Denmark, Lillian Angelo, IB member, Norway and Anna Lisa Eneroth, President, Sweden. Unfortunately there were no representatives from the Finnish Section.
 
“The European Sections of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) have examined security issues in Europe for a long time.   
During the last year we have worked on a project “Politics for Peace”. We have noted that the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” is not mentioned in the present EU security strategy, “A Secure Europe in a Better World”. We note that France, as the current EU President is responsible for preparing a revised European Security Strategy.
 
We request that the Nordic governments in the EU ensure that the UNSCR 1325 is integrated in the revised security strategy. Moreover the UN Security Council has adopted the resolution 1820 on sexual and gender-based violence during armed conflicts which should also be integrated.
 
As UN member states the European countries are obligated to implement UNSCRs 1325 and 1820 in all peace-making and crises handling.
 
The Nordic WILPF Sections meeting the 30th-31st August agreed to watch our governments closely in this issue.”
 
- Annelise Ebbe, WILPF Denmark

[top]

8. WILPF at the European Social Forum
 
The European Social Forum takes place in Malmö, Sweden 17-21 September
 
WILPF has two seminars:

Working for a Nuclear Free and Peaceful Europe with Perspectives from Women and the Global South
Time: Saturday the 20th September, 9.30-12.30.
Place: Chokladfabriken, Bergsgatan 33   
Speakers: Rae Street (CND, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and WILPF), Berit Ås (Norge), Agneta Norberg (SKV), Ulla KLötzer (Kvinnor för Fred, Finland), Gérard Halie (Mouvement de la Paix), Cynthia Cockburn (Women's International league for Peace and Freedom, WILPF, og Maj-Britt Theorin(Operation 1325).
Moderators: Annelise Ebbe and Kirsti Kolthoff
Abstract of program activity:  
How to create a culture of peace in Europe, proposing alternative security policies, promoting nuclear disarmament, solidarity and justice, cooperation with the South, the resolving of conflicts by peaceful means within the framework of the UN and OSCE and the involvement of women in decision-making.  

Arr.: Operation 1325 (Sweden), Left Federation of Swedish Women (SKV - Sweden, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Le Mouvement de la Paix (France), Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND - UK), International Peace Bureau -IPB (Sweden), Women Towards a different Europe (WTDE), Women for Peace (Finland).

War on Terrorism and Human Rights
Time: Thursday the 18th of September 18.00-21.00
Place: Enskifteshagen, Tent 1
Speakers: Among others Ingela Mårtensson, WILPF Sweden, Gothenburg Branch
Moderator: Kerstin Grebäck
Abstract of program activity:  
The US-led “war on terror” has been a devastating attack on international law and the framework of human rights around the world. This seminar will focus on the role of European governments in the practices of enforced disappearance and secret detention and also focus on how this ‘war’ has contributed to the erosion of the human rights of targeted communities.
Arr.: Amnesty International (UK), Statewatch (UK), WILPF (Sweden).

Not arranged by WILPF but probably quite interesting for some of us:
 
Free Trade, Feminism and the Lisbon Treaty:
The Fight for Women's Economic Rights
Time: Friday the 19th of September 9.30-12.30
Place:  Enskifteshagen
Speakers: Annette Groth (Die Linke - Attac, Germany) Eva-Britt Svensson MEP (Vänsterpartiet Sweden), Maite Mola (PCE, El-fem, Spian), Torunn Kanutte Husvik (Nej til EU – No to EU, Norway), Beata Grudzinska (Polen), Litsa Doudoumi Synaspismos - EL-fem, Greece), John Hilary (UK), and two persons from the Global South.
Abstract of program activity:  
 An interactive discussion with women's organisations from Europe and beyond, on how EU neo-liberal policies shape women's economic rights and feminism. We will focus on (a)the new 'Global Europe' trade strategy and how it particularly affects women (b)how the same neo-liberal approach has disadvantaged women within Europe. The seminar aims to stimulate debate and collective action.
Arr.: Women Towards a Different Europe, IFE-EFI (France), Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (Turkey), IGSO (Russia), Seattle to Brussels Network, WIDE (Women in Development Europe, Belgium), War on Want (UK), Gender and Development Network (UK), Left Federation of Swedish Women (SKV - Sweden), EL-fem.

[top]

WILPF - IWRAW CEDAW cooperation and training opportunity for members WILPF has signed a cooperation agreement with the International Women's Rights Action Watch (IWRAW) to facilitate trainings and participation at the CEDAW sessions in Geneva. IWRAW was formed in 1985 at the World Conference on Women in Nairobi, in order to promote recognition of women’s human rights under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). IWRAW is now a leading international nongovernmental organization that facilitates the use of international human rights treaties to promote women’s human rights and rights within families. As part of our cooperation agreement, IWRAW are offering four places on their CEDAW 2 day orientation training in October, and four places to WILPF members on their 4 day full training plus one week of CEDAW observation in January 2009 (15 – 24 Jan). Interested WILPF members please contact rights@wilpf.ch for more information. See the IWRAW website here: http://iwraw.igc.org/

[top]

On 10 June 2003, the South Korean Deputy Defense Minister for Policy announced that Seoul has mid- and long-term plans for theater missile defenses and that the country needed to develop its own missile defense capability regardless of whether the United States requested South Korea join the US ballistic missile defense program. Addressing the "needs" of South Korea in September 2003, the United States announced that it would be upgrading its missile defense capability in South Korea as part of an $11 billion effort. These plans were reconfirmed by US military sources when it was announced that the United States would be deploying Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 missile defense systems in South Korea later in 2004. On 30 November 2004, the US military completed the PAC-3 deployment in South Korea.

In 2006 the South Korean government announced further plans to develop its missile defense capabilities in response to North Korea's nuclear and missile tests. However, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff also made it clear that South Korea would not join the United States and Japan in developing joint missile defenses, due to financial burdens, opposition from China, Russia, and North Korea, and largely because the South Korean military wanted instead to focus on developing a system to intercept low-altitude missiles such as Scuds or Rodong missiles.

South Korea continued purchasing equipment and upgrades from abroad. In June 2006, South Korea announced plans to buy additional Patriot interceptor missiles from Germany to replace its outdated Nike-Hercules missiles by 2010. Seoul also considered buying 48 Standard Missile (SM)-2 ship-borne missiles from the United States to defend its new KDX-III Aegis destroyer. In 2007 South Korean and German defense officials entered negotiations on the purchase of Patriot interceptors. Also in 2007, South Korea launched its first Aegis-equipped destroyer, which the military plans to equip with interceptor missiles by 2015. South Korean media also reported that the military has developed a mobile truck-mounted laser weapon, which the government hopes to deploy by 2010. In 2008 South Korea bought an upgrade contract from Raytheon for its Patriot interceptors.

When the new government took power in early 2008, the Defense Ministry briefed the new government about the US-led global missile defense system, but spokespeople emphasized the briefing did not imply Korean participation or interest in participation in that system. Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo clearly expressed his opposition to Korea's joining the global missile defense system, citing financial problems during a press conference earlier in January 2008. However, the presidential power transition team is reportedly considering participation given its focus on more strengthened relations with the United States.

Throughout 2008 and earlier, the US has reportedly been pursuing South Korea as a candidate to host elements of its system against the growing missile capabilities of North Korea. This is very similar to its determination to place elements of missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Much the same way that Russia sees these plans as offensive to its own capabilities, China is hostile to the idea of having US interceptors based so nearby in Korea.

In August 2008, the presidents of Korea and the United States met for a summit in which they discussed the possibility of Korea's participation in joint missile defense, among many other issues, though nothing was concretely decided. A joint statement vaguely indicated that the presidents 'agreed to develop the Korea-U.S. alliance in a direction that contributes to peace and prosperity on a regional and global level."

This overview was written by Ray Acheson, project associate of WILPF's Reaching Critical Will project, for the Arms Control Reporter, an annual disarmament and security reference journal co-convened by WILPF and the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy.

[top]

Dear friends,

　　We announce that a new signature campaign on the appeal "For a Nuclear Weapon-Free World" (see the attached) was launched  on Aug. 6 in the 2008 World Conference against A and H Bombs which was held on Aug.2-9 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

(Appeal)

Toward the 2010 NPT Review Conference - Appeal for a Nuclear Weapon-Free World

    Even now, in the 21st Century, world peace and security are still threatened by 26,000 nuclear weapons.
   As the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show us, nuclear weapons instantly destroy countless lives, torment people in future generations, and ruin civilizations.

   The Hibakusha, the A-bomb survivors, continue to warn that humanity cannot coexist with nuclear weapons.  Never again should we create more victims of nuclear weapons.
   For the survival of the human race and for the future of our children, let us achieve a world free of nuclear weapons through our actions in solidarity.
   Towards the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states are called to honor the “unequivocal undertaking” of May 2000 to eliminate their nuclear weapons.
   We call on the nuclear weapons states and all other governments to agree to commence and conclude negotiations of a treaty, a nuclear weapons convention, to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons without delay.

NAME__________________________________________________________   

ADDRESS_______________________________________________________

This Appeal is issued on August 6, 2008, by the representatives of the peace movement assembled in Hiroshima from around the world. 
The signature drive is under way worldwide, and the petitions will be presented to the next NPT Review Conference to be held in Spring 2010 in New York. 
　　This appeal was first proposed at the International Meeting that started on Aug. 2 and was elaborated based on the suggestions raised in the three days that followed.  The text was also sent by e-mail to many peace movement leaders overseas.  Mr. Sergio Duarte, U.N. High Representative, also kindly went through the text.  We did the very best to make the text short, easy to understand and accurate in formulating our demands so that anyone who goes through it agrees with it at once and sign it.

　　This campaign is going to be a common action for liking various creative actions that will be developed towards the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in New York in the spring of 2010. It is also intended to go in support of and in solidarity with “Vision 2020” and “Hiroshima/Nagasaki Protocol” launched by “Mayors for Peace”, the newly launched “International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)” and others that call for a total ban and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

     Please be the signer of the Appeal, and start collecting signatures in every local community, workplace and school for some 20 months. Let us, thus, heap up tens of millions of signatures in Spring 2010 in Central Park in New York!  We call on you to support the Appeal in the names of :

NZ: Una McGurk/ Youth Programmes Coordinator, The Peace Foundation
Australia: Scott Ludlam, Senator, The Australian Greens/  Katherine Gale, Seccretary, The Australian Peace Committee
Fiji: Paul Ahpoy, Fiji Nuclear Test Veterans Association
Marshall Islands: Abacca Anjain-Maddison,  Rongelap Atoll Local Government/ Former Senator
The Philippines: Corazon Valdez Fabros, Secretary General, Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition/ International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases
Vietnam: Pham Thanh Cong, Director, Son My Vestige Site Museu/  Tran Nguyen Hanh, Son My Vestige Site Museum/  Phan Van Do, Chairperson, My Lai Peace Fund/  Nguyen Trong Nhan, Vice-Chair, Central Vietnam Agent Orange  Victims Association (VAVA)/  Do Minh Nghia, Director of Labor Safety Department, Vietnam General Confederation of Labor (VGCL)/  Nguyen Viet Duy, International Coordinator, Vietnam General Confederation of Labor (VGCL) Pham Van Chuong, Vice-President, Vietnam Peace Committee/  Quach Quang Dong, Secretary, Vietnam Peace Committee 
Republic of Korea: Koo Kab-woo, Director of Center for Peace and Disarmament, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy/  Baek Young Ki, Vice President, Korean Atomic Bomb Casualty Association/  Han Pan Gae, Vice President, Korean Atomic Bomb Casualty Association
China: Wang Changyong, Deputy Secretary General, Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD)/  Wen Desheng, Program Organizer, CPAPD/  Shen Jianguo, Staff member, CPAPD Shen Fang, Staff member, CPAPD
India: John M. Itty, General Secretary, Christian Peace Conference-India/  Sindhu Joy, Vice President, Student Federation of India/  Nogen Chandra Chutia, Secretary, Assam State Committee of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU)/  nanta Kumar Banerjee, All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation (AIPSO)/  Kallol Mazumdar, AIPSO/  Manoj Kumar Goswami, Editor, Amar Asom　
Nepal: Subash Kaji Shrestha, Secretary, Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Committee of Nepal (AAPSO-Nepal)/ Rasmi Shrestha, Executive Member, AAPSO-Nepal
Pakistan: Pirzada Syed Imitiaz Ali, Secretary General, All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions/  Tahir Hussain Shah, Senior Vice President, All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions Syed Sikander Mehdi, Visiting Researcher, Department of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, Former Professor of Karachi University, Japan Foundation Fellow
Afghanistan: Mariam Rawi, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) 
Russia: Milya Kavirova, Chairperson, Chelyabinsk Nuclear Victims Organization “AIGUL”/  Dinmukhamet Shagiakhmetov, “AIGUL”/  Andrey Talevlin, Chairperson, Chelyabinsk Public Fund “For Nature”
Germany: Manfred Sohn, Chairman, Faction DIE LINKE, Parliament of Lower Saxony/  Burkhard Sohn, Individual/  Hannelore Toelke, National Board Council Member, German Peace Council
France: French Peace movement -  Pierre Villard, Co-President/  Francois Gagnaire, National Bureau Member & Youth Coordinator/  Boris Vasquez, Saintes Committee/  Laurent Grolleau, Poissy Committee Sabrina Bouklerouba, Saint Ouen Committee/  Andrea Taquet, Saint Ouen Committee/  Marion Baudouin, Saint Ouen Committee/  Christina Raphael, Bouches-du-Rhone Committee Elise Taillaumard, Bouches-du-Rhone Committee/ Jacques Mollemeyer, Committee of railway men of Marseille/  Evelyne Mollemeyer, Committee of railway (wo) men of Marseille
Italy: Stefania Maurizi/ Journalist
United Kingdom: Bruce Kent, Vice President, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)/  Anna Liddle, Peace Education Officer, CND
Norway: Ole Kopreitan, General Secretary, No to Nuclear Weapons/  Tor Berger Jorgensen, Bishop, Church of Norway, No to Nuclear Weapons/  Jon B. Reitan, IPPNW-Norway/  Siri Eriksen, Individual
Lithuania: Janina Kumpiene, State Secretary, Ministryof Health/  Gediminas Rimdeika, Director, Sapiega Hospital, Chernobyl Medical Center
Iraq: Faraydoon Muhammad, Director, Kurdish Japanese Solidarity/  Sali Rida Fouad, Harabuja City Mayor/  Saeed Fatar Omar, Harabuja Deputy City Mayor/  Merza Azhi Dler, Interpreter, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)
Canada: Marie-Josée Turgeon, Advisor, Center of Quebec Trade Unions (CSQ)
U.S.A: Joseph Gerson, Director of Programs, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) -New England/  Lani Gerson, AFSC - New England/ Craig Matsuzaki, AFSC - San Francisco/ Celeste Zappala, Co-founder, Gold Star Families Speak Out/ Member, Military Families Speak Out/  Carl Rosen/ President of Western Region, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers’ of America (UE), US Labor Against War (USLAW)/  Iris Roman, / Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199/  Sandra Joseph, SEIU, Local 1199/  Everett Allen Foy, Observer/Chaperon, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Memorial Peace Commemoration Committee of the National Capital Area/  Odetta King, Hiroshima/ Nagasaki Memorial Peace Commemoration Committee of the National Capital Area/  Matthew Johnson, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Anti-War Coalition Roy Mike Boehm, Madison Quakers, Inc., Vietnam War veteran
International organizations: Felicity Hill/ Vice-President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

Inter-governmental Organizations: Mohamed Ezzeldine Abdel-Moneim, Special Advisor on Disarmament and Strategic Affairs, League of Arab States

In addition, we have received support and endorsements from many  friends abroad. We will inform you of part of them as listed below. As soon as we can complete the list, we will give you updates.

Tomihisa Taue, Mayor of Nagasaki
Gerald O'Brien, Pesident of honour, Peace Council of Aotearoa-New Zeland Inc.
Barney Richards, President, Peace Council of Aotearoa-New Zealand Inc.
Kim Seung Kuk, Peace Making, South Korea
Ronald McCoy, President, Malaysian Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility
Kate Hudson, Chair, CND, UK
Alice Slater, Director, Nuear Age Peace Foundation, USA
Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation, USA
Phyllis Creighton, Science for Peace, Canada
and others.

If you have not yet supported, please send your support to our email address. Thank you very much.

Yayoi Tsuchida
Assistant general secretary
=============================================
Japan Council against A & H Bombs (GENSUIKYO)
2-4-4 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8464 JAPAN
phone: +81-3-5842-6034
fax: +81-3-5842-6033
Email: antiatom@topaz.plala.or.jp
URL: http://www10.plala.or.jp/antiatom
=============================================

[top]