A
CANADIAN ACTION AGENDA ON CONFLICT PREVENTION
BACKGROUND
AND CONCEPT NOTE
In
June 2001, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for the ‘mainstreaming’ of
conflict prevention within the UN system, urging international and regional
organizations to work more closely with civil society.
The underlying premise of the Secretary General’s statement was that
conflict prevention can only be successful if it rests on the coordination of
activities between the UN, regional organizations, states and civil society
organizations (CSOs), capitalizing on each group’s expertise and skill.
In
response to this call for more concerted action, the European Centre for
Conflict Prevention (ECCP) initiated a process of transnational networking to
address the challenges of more effective civil society involvement in conflict
prevention. Since 2001, the ECCP has
collaborated with both regional and international partners to work toward a
global strategy of research, dialogue and consultation leading to a number of
regional conferences and culminating in a major international conference at UN
headquarters in 2005. The objective
of this process is to increase the effectiveness of conflict prevention by
improving coordination and interaction among CSOs, the UN, regional
organizations and governments.[1]
In
order to contribute to the global process, as well as to build civil society
conflict prevention capacity within
Expected
outcomes
TOWARDS A CANADIAN ACTION
AGENDA
Consultations to Date
In
cooperation with the ECCP, several regional conferences have been held, for
example in West Africa, South Asia, Latin America & the Caribbean, and
Western Europe, in preparation for the July 2005 UN conference on conflict
prevention. The action agendas that
have resulted will not only feed into the global agenda but will inform the work
of conflict prevention professionals in these regions.
Recommendations for action have generally focused on two-tracks: those
that should be undertaken by CSOs in the region, and those that should be
undertaken by other actors in conflict prevention, namely governments, regional
bodies and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations.
The substance of the meetings has been region-specific, often focusing on
the underlying causes of recent or current conflict situations and mapping out
the way forward.
In
The
final report also informed a meeting immediately following these consultations,
organized by CCPI, of conflict prevention professionals from
The
CCPI is now working with Canadian, US and Latin American colleagues toward both
North American and hemispheric meetings on conflict prevention, tentatively
scheduled to take place on consecutive days in early December of this year.[3]
The CCPI is preparing a Canadian Action Agenda to help inform these
discussions, on the basis of the input of Canadian conflict prevention
professionals.
Through
the processes outlined above, many important areas of Canadian expertise in
conflict prevention have been identified. The
CCPI hopes to continue to deepen the dialogue on these issues at the national
level, engaging practitioners, academics, government representatives, youth, the
media and other constituents.
At
the same time, the CCPI feels it is important to focus on a few of these areas,
that may receive greater attention at the 2005 UN conference as a result of
Canadian input. Falling into the
categories of both structural and operational prevention, these have been
tentatively identified as:
·
National governance models, such as federalism,
separation of powers, rule of law, and mixed economy.
·
The “human security” approach, including such
specific initiatives as the landmines treaty, the International Criminal Court,
conflict diamonds, and women, peace and security.
·
International law and global governance, including
the Canadian experience with the UN, OAS and OSCE.
·
Operationalizing the “responsibility to
prevent”, for example early warning and analysis, and direct prevention
efforts including political, diplomatic and preventive military measures.
These
issues will be examined through the lens of collaboration among CSOs,
government, regional bodies and the United Nations.
The focus will be on the role of the various actors and the interaction
between them.
From
an examination of these experiences will flow recommendations for greater
collaboration among these actors as they seek to enhance the effectiveness of
their conflict prevention activities. Following
the lead of other regional processes, the recommendations for action will focus
first on CSOs, and then on others, including the Canadian government, other
national governments, regional bodies and the United Nations.
This
Background/Concept Note is being distributed to Canadian conflict prevention
professionals such as the national membership of the Canadian Peacebuilding
Coordinating Committee and the participants in the CCPI survey, with
encouragement to distribute it further to their own members and colleagues.
Input is being sought on the proposed content of the Canadian Action
Agenda, and all are invited to a meeting in
It
should be emphasized that this dialogue will remain on-going in the lead up to
the 2005 UN conference. It is also
expected that the UN conference itself will serve as a catalyst for greater
awareness of and interest in conflict prevention activities, including in
Please
direct your comments to:
Jayne
Stoyles
(613)
237-1884
Canadian
Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee
Tel
(613) 241-3446 Fax: (613) 241-4846
[1]
Carment, D. and Marriott, K., “Conflict Prevention in
[2] “Canadian Conflict Prevention Initiative 2003-2005 Program Concept Note”, 28 May 2003.
[3] Note that these meetings were intended to coincide with the 2004 Canadian Peacebuilding and Human Security Consultations in mid-November, but the Consultations have now been moved to January 2005 and the CCPI made the decision to proceed with these meetings before the end of this year.
A CANADIAN ACTION AGENDA ON CONFLICT PREVENTION
prepared by the Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating
Committe
ACTION
AGENDA PREAMBLE
In
addition to providing the global and national context for the development of the
Canadian Action Agenda, the preamble should set out the principles upon which we
base all of our recommendations. To
this end, the Canadian Action Agenda could consider endorsing, in whole or part,
the “Guiding Principles”, set out in the Dublin Action Agenda on the
Prevention of Violent Conflict, adopted at the European Conference on “The
Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict”
1.
Shift to Prevention
Promoting peace and security
in the 21st century requires a fundamental shift in how we respond to
the challenge of violent conflict. Our priority is to prevent it from occurring
and, thereby, to avoid the massive human and economic cost of war. We believe
that CSOs can have a major impact in bringing about this shift away from
‘reaction’ to ‘prevention’ and overall transformation.
While Chapter VI of the UN Charter provides a strong mandate for preventing violent conflict, collective security has been pursued largely by reacting to crises rather than by preventing them. Instead of only reacting to crises, when it is often too late to act effectively without the use of force, we must focus on addressing the root causes of conflict and the factors that enable them to become deadly. Non-military prevention activity will obviate the need for the deployment of force. Whilst there is no single reason why violent conflicts erupt, experience demonstrates that most wars are fought in countries that have a poor development record and a weak system of governance.
Efforts to prevent violent
conflict necessitate strengthening systems for peacefully managing competing
interests, challenging the abuse of state power, upholding human rights,
promoting humanitarian values and directing resources to fulfil basic human
needs. We see some of the strategies deployed in the ‘War on Terror’ as
counter-productive because, by further entrenching cycles of violence, they risk
being ultimately self-defeating. The ‘War on Terror’ can also be used as a
cloak under which CSO actors, including those who promote human rights, are
targeted.
2.
Building a ‘Culture of Prevention’ and ‘Culture of Peace’
The key to fostering
sustainable peace and security over the longer term is to generate a ‘culture
of prevention’ and ‘culture of peace’ from the bottom-up as well as from
the top-down. This will require governments and IGOs to mainstream conflict
prevention and constructive conflict management as fundamental goals of their
security institutions and instruments, as well as of their other policies and
programmes. To do so successfully they will need to look beyond short-term
considerations, ensure a re-orientation towards preparedness for prevention and
address basic human needs and human rights. Historically, the emphasis has been
on strengthening the institutional capacity for military response. The emphasis
now needs to be on strengthening the institutional capacity for non-violent
civilian response.
Efforts to generate a
sustainable culture of peace must be rooted deeply in the population. A holistic
and pluralistic approach is required. Education for peace is a fundamental
element of this transformation. Special attention should be paid to providing
everyone - and the young in particular - with conflict resolution life skills.
Context is critical, and education in divided communities must be culturally
sensitive. People of all ages have to be empowered to become agents of change to
address conflicts from the grassroots. As their knowledge about prevention of
violence and of conflict transformation grows, it should become entrenched in
the mainstream consciousness.
3.
Security for People, as well as for States: Human Security
As
CSOs committed to conflict prevention, we affirm the essential value of the
human security paradigm. We are committed to promoting the security of people:
their physical safety, their socio-economic well-being, respect for their
dignity and identity as individuals and as members of communities, and the
protection and promotion of their rights and fundamental freedoms. We
acknowledge the particular role played by women in promoting this concept. We
are especially concerned to protect vulnerable and disadvantaged groups as well
as those experiencing discrimination. We affirm that the security of people is
as important as the security of states. We believe that each has the potential
to be mutually reinforcing.
4.
Responsibility to Prevent and Protect
We share the view of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which concluded
that the international community has a responsibility to act decisively when
states are unwilling or unable to fulfil their basic responsibilities to their
citizens. We welcome the Commission’s call to “all members of the community
of nations, together with non-governmental actors and citizens of states, to
embrace the idea of the responsibility to protect as a basic element in the code
of global citizenship, for states and peoples, in the 21st
century”.[1]
This responsibility must be fulfilled with extreme care and only pursued in
accordance with clearly defined criteria, as articulated by the Commission. It
does not mean a free license for military intervention. CSOs can play a vitally
important role in non-military protection, as well as in prevention and
peacebuilding. We welcome the adoption of the EU Guidelines on Children and
Armed Conflict, including the EU`s commitment to consider appointing a Special
Representative on Children and Armed Conflict.
5.
Multilateralism
Fulfilling
an expanded vision of human security can only be achieved on the basis of a
truly co-operative endeavour. Major global problems can only be addressed
effectively through the co-ordinated efforts and policies developed collectively
through multilateral fora - above all through the UN - and not on the basis of
unilateral action. This approach is one built on the principle that
international norms and standards should apply to all and be complied with by
all. We call on our governments to fulfil their commitments and to demand the
consistent adherence to these standards by all countries. This will counter the
destabilising effects of unilateral action. An effective system for conflict
prevention, therefore, should be undertaken within a strong multilateral
framework that includes co-ordinated and systematic responses. We believe that
CSOs have an important role to play in an expanded conception of
multilateralism.
6.
A New Partnership for Prevention between Civil Society, Governments and IGOs
Effective conflict prevention
requires the creation of collaborative, strategic partnerships for prevention at
the national, regional and international level. CSOs can undertake initiatives
that government officials cannot and are well placed to mobilise wider societal
support for prevention. The effectiveness of this partnership hinges on official
acknowledgement of the legitimacy of CSOs that are representative and
accountable in peace and security matters; recognition of their roles in the
conflict prevention partnership; and mechanisms and resources to fulfil their
potential operationally. This new partnership will serve to affirm and build on
the principle identified in UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Report on “The
Prevention of Armed Conflict”, where he recognised that conflict prevention
cannot happen without civil society involvement.
7.
Primacy of Local Ownership
Primary responsibility for
conflict prevention rests with local actors: a key role belongs to those local
CSOs that directly represent the conflict-affected populations. Governments must
live up to their responsibilities to protect, to prevent violent conflict and to
build a culture of peace. For prevention to be sustainable, the people must feel
that the process is ‘theirs’ and that it is not externally imposed.
Generally, initiatives should be internally generated and externally supported
in order to build on existing capacities. The international community –
foreign governments, multilateral institutions, and international NGOs –
should create spaces and support inclusive processes that enable people directly
involved to build their own capacity and to make decisions on ways to resolve
violent conflict. As a general rule, ‘outsiders’ should avoid displacing
local initiatives. Where democratic institutions do not already exist, the
international community should encourage their creation. It should also promote
the inclusion in conflict prevention and peacebuilding processes of all relevant
groups – particularly women, youth and minority groups – which are often
excluded.
8.
Inclusion and Equality
A failure to ensure effective
political participation is often one of the root causes of conflict because
those who feel excluded invariably try to defend their interests through other
means, sometimes through violence. One of the difficult challenges for
preventing or resolving violent conflict is to generate sufficient confidence
and establish specifically agreed arrangements to ensure that this exclusion is
addressed and does not repeat itself. The will of the people can only be truly
represented if there are effective mechanisms for genuine public participation
by the different elements that comprise that society. To promote human security,
governments, international agencies, and CSOs must ensure that their actions
actively promote gender equality, and include people from diverse political,
ethnic, religious, cultural, socio-economic and other minority backgrounds in
processes that promote social justice. This is particularly relevant to immigrant and
diaspora communities in the European context. We strongly support UN Security Council Resolution
1325 on Women, Peace and Security that
specifically addresses the impact of war on women, and women's contributions to
conflict resolution and sustainable peace. We call on relevant decision-makers
and agencies to resource its full and consistent implementation.
9.
Learning from practice and accountability
To become more effective in
our work, we need to reflect upon and examine the lessons we are learning from
that work, and how we are learning them. We must aim to be reflective
practitioners: cognisant of our role, mandate, and contribution at every stage.
There are various approaches and methodologies to guide us in this task.
Monitoring and evaluating our own activities is, however, just a starting point
for a more generalized learning. A significant body of knowledge on best
practices in the field of conflict prevention can only be assembled if
practitioners understand that they have a responsibility to pass on the
knowledge they gain to those who are likely to face similar challenges in the
future. This task is an essential aspect of developing the accountability, not
only of CSOs, but also of governmental and inter-governmental institutions, and
of the field as a whole. It will also be a vital component of developing
effective and accountable partnerships for prevention involving CSOs,
governments and IGOs.
10.
Sustainability
All the points mentioned above will combine to
produce an integrated, holistic and more sustainable approach towards conflict
prevention. Without a culture shift towards prevention over the longer term,
security for the people, true multilateralism and new partnerships, local
ownership and inclusion of people from different backgrounds, no conflict
prevention effort can be sustainable. The obstacles to achieving this
sustainability should not be underestimated and will necessitate persistent
effort on the part of CSOs, as well as their partners in governments and
multilateral institutions. Traditionally, CSOs have a long-term perspective
towards conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts. They, in turn, require
increased funding to enhance their sustainability.
The challenge is to achieve
sustainable peace in a context that is characterised by a lack of conflict
sensitivity by a range of actors, passively condoned or actively promoted by
governments and IGOs. Some areas of trade policy and investment promotion are
major obstacles to the goal of preventing violent conflict, for example. This
lack of policy coherence undermines some governments’ and IGOs’ own
objectives for sustainable development and peace. Therefore CSOs need to ensure
that advocacy for social and economic justice is at the core of our own work for
sustainable peace. In addition, governments and IGOs need to involve CSOs in
designing broader policy frameworks on trade, security and development that are
strategically coherent with peacebuilding objectives.
Additional
“foundational principles” were proposed in a draft paper entitled
“Canadian Action Agenda: Core Principles and Priorities,” prepared by Lowell
Ewert,
·
Many effective strategies to prevent armed conflict
currently exist.
The overarching focus of the Conflict Prevention Initiative to prevent
armed conflict can lead to an implicit assumption that armed conflict is the
norm in international affairs and that peace is abnormal.
Without minimizing the appalling consequences of the numerous armed
conflicts that continue to plague the world, it is important to keep in mind
that most nations and most peoples, most of the time, live together and
interrelate mostly without violence. Many
effective strategies to prevent, resolve or contain conflict currently exist.
The challenge is not to replace these effective mechanisms, but rather to
build on the foundation of peaceful co-existence that exists, strengthen
mechanisms that have been proven to be deficient, and to develop new mechanisms
that can address the increasingly complex conflicts that exist.
·
A vision for peaceful co-existence already exists
and has been adopted by the world community.
The goal of creating an “armed conflict free” world is not an
unrealistic utopian dream. The
world’s most thoughtful and creative diplomats have already given shape to a
realistic and achievable vision of peace with which the vast majority of nations
have concurred. This vision is
spelled out by two sets of documents - the
United Nations Charter and the International Bill of Rights (composed of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights). The Universal Declaration
of human rights most clearly articulates this vision by its claim stated in its
Preamble that armed conflict is avoidable if fundamental human rights are
respected. Its provisions together
with the United Nations Charter, operationalize the collective wisdom of the
world community gleaned from the lessons of two horrific world wars on how armed
conflict is to be prevented. These
principles are still valid but need to be reaffirmed and operationalized more
effectively.
·
Armed conflict not authorized by the United Nations
is prima facie a breach of international law.
As defined by its Charter, the United Nations was created in order “to
save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind.” It’s
mandate is to “maintain international peace and security, ... to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the
peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the
peace.” As such, the
decision to pursue political goals by resort to warfare resides with the United
Nations and not with individual nation states.
·
Every sector of society has a duty to avoid armed
conflict. All
sectors of international society (international organizations, governments, the
business sector and civil society) have a duty to abide by and promote agreed
fundamental international human rights which have as their purpose the
prevention of armed conflict, to adhere to basic rules of international law
designed to manage, limit and mitigate conflict, and to rely on legal processes
to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved through bi-lateral or multi-lateral
negotiation. Although the extent of
this duty on the part of non-state actors to avoid violent conflict is still
evolving in international law, the
clear trajectory of responsibility is to expand this obligation to apply to
these non-state entities. In some
circumstances, non-state entities have greater practical impact on peace and
stability than do some governments and the move to recognize this in
international law is a logical next step.
BODY
OF THE ACTION AGENDA
Through
the processes outlined in the Background/Concept Note circulated in October
2004, many important areas of Canadian expertise in conflict prevention have
been identified. For the
purposes of the global process, the CCPI feels it is important to focus on a few
of these areas, that may receive greater attention at the 2005 UN conference as
a result of Canadian input. These
have been tentatively identified as:
·
National governance models, such as federalism,
separation of powers, rule of law, and mixed economy.
·
The “human security” approach, including such
specific initiatives as the landmines treaty, the International Criminal Court,
conflict diamonds, and women, peace and security.
·
International law and global governance, including
the Canadian experience with the UN, OAS and OSCE.
·
Operationalizing the “responsibility to
prevent”, for example early warning and analysis, and direct prevention
efforts including political, diplomatic and preventive military measures.
The
following section sets out some of the key points that have been made with
regard to these issues by Canadian academics, NGO representatives and other
Canadian experts in the field of conflict prevention.
I.
National governance models, such as federalism, separation of powers,
rule of law, and mixed economy.
·
our history has lent itself to a unique inflection
to our democratic values, defined in our first constitution as “peace, order
and good government”, in contrast with the Jeffersonian vision of “life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and these commitments remain anchored
in the Canadian constitution
·
in balancing liberty and order, free enterprise and
government action, we believe that freedom without order risks violence, and
liberty without government action risks injustice and inequality
·
what is distinctive about the Canadian political
tradition is the idea that government action is a precondition both for economic
development and the creation of a political community that is equitable between
classes, religions and regions; our intuition is that human rights and tolerance
have to be anchored in good institutions, with separation of powers,
independence of the judiciary, free press, entrenched minority rights guarantees
and the rule of law[i]
·
Canada has a free market system, but with public
provision of health care, unemployment insurance and social security, along with
redistribution of revenues from rich provinces to poorer ones
·
·
it is a divided rather than a shared model of
federalism, including: watertight
compartments for the division of powers; independent taxing authority for both
orders of governments; and weak provincial representation at the centre
·
Canadian federal experience since World War II has
been shaped by several forces: the
construction, consolidation and then constraining of the Canadian welfare state;
the emergence in the 1960s of a form of liberal nationalism in predominantly
French-speaking province of Quebec; the ‘province building’ enterprises of
several Canadian provinces; the aspiration for self-determination of Canada’s
aboriginal peoples;[ii]
and the increasing ethno-cultural diversity within the country
The
Role of Municipal Government
·
municipal government in
·
municipal governments have established credible,
trusted, accountable and responsive systems of administration, budgeting, hiring
and procurement at the local level, with the participation of citizens from
diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds as an established feature
·
in the area of service delivery, municipalities in
Canada are relied on and trusted to manage the delivery of basic services such
as drinking water and garbage collection, transportation systems, roads, urban
planning and land use, etc. in an equitable manner
·
municipalities strengthen new immigrant and refugee
communities by increasing their access to employment and municipal services
through language training, subsidized daycare and public transit; they also
support local economic development, manage subsidized housing etc. in a way that
cuts across racial, ethnic, religious and socio-economic boundaries[iii]
Minority
Rights
·
the history of Canada’s treatment of its
aboriginal communities is a painful example of the failure of the ‘peace,
order and good government’ creed; in more recent history, the government is
developing a compensation model for historical government policies that damaged
aboriginal identity and caused physical and emotional harm to aboriginal people,
and is negotiating some land claims settlements and self-government[iv]
·
Canada has managed the relationship between the
majority English and minority French-speaking citizens in part through the
recognition of French language rights; including: provisions for use of either
language in Parliamentary processes dating back to Canada’s first constitution
in 1867; the passage of the Official Languages
Act in 1969 with the objective of the equality of French and English in
Canadian society; the creation of the Commissioner of Official Languages in
1970; and further entrenchment of French language rights in the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms passed in 1982[v]
·
two parliamentary resolutions have also addressed
this issue: one acknowledging Quebec (the province with a majority of
French-speaking citizens) as a distinct society and the other promising to
recognize a veto for Quebec over future, general constitutional amendments; in
addition, responsibility for several policy fields was transferred to the
provinces chiefly in recognition of Quebec concerns and Canada sought an
advisory opinion on its legality of Quebec secession from the Supreme Court of
Canada
·
with regard to newer Canadian minority communities,
·
minority rights are also protected by both federal
and provincial human rights and employment legislation
·
incorporate activities to strengthen institutions
and practices for good governance as a key facet of long-term peacebuilding
efforts[vi]
·
build awareness that local government
capacity-building is necessarily a long-term process intended to enable
municipal government to prevent or mitigate the likelihood of violent conflict,
and seek to keep this on the agenda of other partners in the peacebuilding
process[vii]
·
enhance research on the role played by respect (or
non-respect) of minority rights in the incidence of violent conflict, and
incorporate minority rights into conflict prevention work[viii]
The Government of
·
focus foreign policy on the crisis in state order
that is sweeping the world, undermining “peace, order and good government”,
understanding that this is not just a humanitarian issue, but one with direct
national impact on domestic immigration, on national security, environmental
degradation, and on our efforts at effective global governance and development[x]
·
make development assistance more effective and
efficient by identifying areas where resources can have the largest structural
impact, through distributive justice, encouraging the rule of law, protecting
fundamental human rights, and fostering the growth of democratic institutions[xi]
·
put the Canadian institutional memory about the
legislative and legal requirements for the accommodation of linguistic and
religious diversity to work, helping countries on the path to democracy,
monitoring elections, assisting in the design of courts, prosecution services,
police services, creation of central banks and writing of property and
inheritance law
·
specialize both in a policy framework that brings
all our “governance” activity together in a single powerful program of
action, making available a tool kit of preventive intervention:
conflict resolution at the village and community level, political
dialogue at the national level, constitutional change, in the form of devolution
to empower disenfranchised regions or groups and minority rights guarantees to
end discrimination and injustice; these should be put together with economic
assistance, into a coherent stand-by capability, bringing together NGO,
government and professional capacities and serving as a co-ordinating forum to
respond to acute institutional failure accompanied by violence
·
adapt Canadian government capacities to serve this
agenda, which requires making better use of our governance capacity and
developing a national civilian capacity to promote peace, order and good
government; an agency would broker requests for assistance, maintain a
government-wide roster of experts in government and out[xii]
·
commit to non-discrimination and effective
participation of all citizens, including minority groups, in government
decision-making and in economic activity
·
respect and support the rights of minorities to use
their own languages, enjoy their cultures and practise their religions[xiii]
·
work to ensure that development processes
adequately address the concerns of minorities and benefit all communities, for
example by offering services and programs in minority languages, and allowing
minority groups to participate in the design, implementation and evaluation of
programs affecting them[xv]
·
in the domain of economic policy, give priority to
infrastructure rehabilitation, social investment and macro-economic
stabilization in the short run; stabilization and growth are crucial but should
not be pursued at the expense of goals such as poverty reduction and equity
(rural-urban, gender, etc.)
II. The “human security” approach, including such specific initiatives as the landmines treaty, the International Criminal Court, conflict diamonds, and women, peace and security.
·
·
the concept of human security, promoted most
prominently by
·
Canada has played a major leadship role in all of
the major international humanitarian campaigns, including landmines, the
International Criminal Court, child soldiers, conflict diamonds and others;
these have been successful in putting individual needs ahead of state interests,
providing a concrete example of theory becoming practice and of the importance
of partnerships between governments, civil society organizations and
inter-governmental bodies[xviii]
·
engage in making human security the cornerstone of
local and global governance; expand and build a culture of human security, both
in the North and the South, not as a substitute for national security but as a
complement to it
·
work towards the development of new institutions to
act as counterweights to existing state-centred intergovernmental
decision-making forums to give a voice to human security concerns
·
focus on cases where basic human security needs are
neglected, addressing the challenge that prevention must take place in a culture
of reaction rather than proaction; in other words, reaction to ‘observed
slippage’ in the provision of basic security needs can amount to the
prevention of eventual violent conflict and war
·
be wary of reference to human security and human
rights being used as a useful tool to sell one’s public on military
intervention for possibly quite different purposes[xix]
·
consider the lessons learned from previous ‘human
security campaigns’ in considering collaborative action in new areas, for
example: the importance of focusing
campaigns on the regional and national levels; the desirability of creating a
network of ‘like minded’ governments; the power of ‘soft power’ tactics
such as persuasion, communication, negotiation and organization; the need for a
clear message that resonates as part of the humanitarian discourse; the
desirability of working within a coalition framework despite disagreement on
particular issues; the utility of establishing a coalition steering committee to
help shepherd the process; and the need for a dedicated coalition secretariat to
coordinate and support the work of member organizations[xx]
·
continue to have the concept of human security as
the guiding principle of
·
emphasize the need for economic equality and
self-sufficiency; ensure that the security of individuals is not subordinated to
the needs and wants of multinational corporations, including the exploitation of
the resources of Southern countries by corporations of the North, and pursue
reforms to the global trade system to increase its equitability[xxi]
·
pursue with determination measures to ensure the
implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and
security[xxii]
·
increase Canadian foreign aid to the goal of 0.7%
of our Gross National Product, with an emphasis on food security
·
use membership in the G8 Global Partnership to
pursue economic policies and support to other countries which encourages self-sufficiency[xxiii]
·
at the national level, Ministries of Peace and
Human Security should be created, endowed with a distinct mandate to promote
human security as guiding principle of foreign policy making in collaboration
with Ministries of Culture, Education, Foreign Affairs and Defence
·
these institutions could base their work on human
security initiatives currently being proposed and discussed, such as a Human
Security Audit and Human Security Report
·
horizontal collaboration between these bodies would
have to be supplemented with vertical collaboration with the UN, regional
organizations and national governments[xxiv]
·
power sharing arrangements need to be worked out
between regional organizations and the UN, with the UN maintaining a degree of
authority to monitor the actions of regional organizations and ensure that
effectiveness will not come at the cost of injustice and noncompliance with UN
prerogatives and human security concerns
·
a Peace and Human Security Council, a parallel
institution to the Security Council (SC) should be established, with the power
to consider actions brought to the SC, consult the SC and veto SC actions that
disregard human security concerns because of national security prerogatives
·
similar institutions are needed within regional
bodies (Note that the African Union is planning to set up such a council)
III. International law and global governance, including the Canadian experience with the UN, OAS and OSCE.
A.
THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE
·
·
·
·
with regard to the OSCE,
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
CSOs
·
develop a good understanding of the processes and
structures of regional organizations, and clearly define policy input
·
exchange information about activities and plans with
other CSOs in order to increase transparency within the community and prepare
the ground for joint action
·
consult with governments at an early stage, including
ensuring that CSOs have a hand in developing agenda items before they are
circulated to government officials[xxvii]
·
with regard to the OSCE, there are a number of
mechanisms and opportunities which CSOs can take advantage of to provide input
and increase cooperation:
- the OSCE uses CSOs as a
source of information on human rights, environmental, economic and security
matters, with the main contact poin the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights, or ODIHR, and its NGO Unit
- through a number of
assistance projects, it seeks to establish constructive dialogue between CSOs
and government or state reps on legislation affecting civil society and on
important human rights issues
- in post-conflict areas, the
ODIHR brings together actors from different parties involved to support
reconciliation efforts; it builds public awareness of national human rights
provisions through TV and radio programs; and it enhances the capacity of CSOs,
facilitates their participation in major OSCE events such as summits, review
conferences or human dimension meetings and seminars
·
focus on the gap between early warning and early
response by the OSCE, finding ways to push the organization to get around the
challenges inherent in its consensus-based decision-making processes and the
sensitivities of member states around issues affecting their own region[xxviii]
The Government of
·
continue to endorse and promote the indispensable
role of the United Nations in preventing and solving conflict and the necessity
of achieving security through peaceful rather than military means
·
work to change the policies of countries with poor
human rights records, and promote adherence to international humanitarian law,
laws against torture and laws about the rights of women and children[xxix]
Regional Organizations
·
with regard to the OAS, there is a need for a
single cross-organization strategy for public consultation (the Summit Process
currently has two separate tracks, and the OAS has approved a set of guidelines
for CSO accreditation and a new strategy for participation in sustainable
development initiatives)
·
CSO input must be fed directly into the
decision-making spaces
·
national governments must consult with their own
civil society organizations on agenda items in a comprehensive fashion[xxx]
·
OIDHR and OSCE missions should facilitate
networking between regional NGOs and those based in the capital, local
international NGOs, local NGOs and governments
·
OSCE missions should organize regular meetings with
local NGOs to inform them about OSCE activities in support of civil society
·
OSCE missions could offer to be a coordinating
framework for international organizations working to increase interaction with
local NGOs in the countries where they are active
·
work towards a better conceptualization of the
place and role of CSOs in the OSCE[xxxi]
IV. Operationalizing the “responsibility to prevent”, for example early warning and analysis, and direct prevention efforts including political, diplomatic and preventive military measures.
A. THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE
· Canada has played an important role in encouraging the international community to respond to both the causes and consequences of violent conflict; nevertheless, there has not been a shift in orientation towards conflict prevention, the link between development activities and conflict prevention (in terms of their potential both to address and to exacerbate conflict) has not been made, and prevention has been considered only a facet of development and not an end in itself[xxxii]
· Canada’s most distinct contribution to peacebuilding was to propose the first deployment of an international peace force under the UN flag; since that time there have been over 50 peacekeeping missions and Canada has served in almost every mission
· Canadian involvement in international peace support operations has expanded in response to the changing nature of conflict, for example to include deployment of personnel with a variety of skills to work with military personnel; this takes place not just through the UN but through regional forums such as NATO, the OSCE and the African Union[xxxiii]
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
·
increase involvement in the UN Framework for
Coordination on Early Warning, an interagency/departmental mechanism for
information sharing, situational risk analysis, and identification of potential
preventive measures[xxxiv]
·
support
·
advocate for the creation of a civilian contingent
of 10 million volunteers (with 10 countries each contributing 1 million), whose
basic needs would be provided for by the contributing country, to be sent to an
area of conflict with the goal of having their presence contribute to peaceful
resolution of conflict[xxxv]
·
create a civilian peace service, using the model of
those established in European countries[xxxvi]
·
pursue the integration of risk assessments into
strategic and contingency planning, perhaps beginning with developmental aid, in
order to develop coherent, sustainable and long-term policies on conflict
prevention; this requires a clear understanding of the structural factors
responsible for violence
· link risk analysis to a five-step process including: closer integration of risk assessment data into the foreign policy activities of all relevant departments; use of assessments to identify links between conflict processes and activities in which the end user is engaged; use of information that helps plan for contingencies; harmonization of effectiveness measurements; and the establishment of a research bureau under a conflict prevention secretariat[xxxvii]
· emphasize conflict prevention when promoting the keys findings in the Responsibility to Protect report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, including seeking ways to increase the political will for early response to emerging conflicts[xxxviii]
· increase conflict prevention capacity, for example by establishing a function similar to the OSCE’s High Commissioner on National Minorities (HSNM), including its root causes, problem-solving, human rights-informed approach which combines preventive diplomacy, policy advice and technical assistance, addressing situations where leaving problems unresolved may lead to violent conflict[xxxix]
· continue to develop field level tools for early warning and conflict management
· invest in more training to enhance the understanding of conflict prevention and management mechanisms by those who use them; in particular, those working in the field need to understand the UN headquarters (HQ) mechanisms, and those working at HQ need to develop a better appreciation for the relevance of field-based tools to their work
· make wider, more practical use of the Headquarters (HQ) forums, including identifying vulnerable countries earlier through the UN Development Group, with a need to raise UN consciousness about how to mainstream CP approaches
· increase vertical information-sharing within the organization
· move away from results-based planning and monitoring in conflict prevention situations as this approach cannot be transferred from normal development situations to those of civil and political unrest
·
seek to take strategic leadership, remaining
flexibility about the organization’s role depending on the involvement of
regional organizations, bilateral actors, and others, while still providing
strategic vision[xl]
· consider designating a single body with overall responsibility for early warning, including the coordination of an early warning system; this body should: be able to draw upon national information and intelligence agencies; be in close contact with UN human rights agencies; develop partnerships with CSOs engaged in early warning; monitor early warnings issued by other organizations; explore new information-gathering norms; be accountable for failures at early warning; incorporate a learning mechanism; issue regular reports on early warning to the UN Secretary General and UN membership; and contribute to the identification of options in response, without having primary responsibility for this role
· consider the creation of an Information and Analysis Centre or Unit with responsibility for handling information at all stages of conflict[xli]
· focus on the translation of early warning into early response[xlii]
·
become better prepared for diverse peace
operations, including modest enforcement, rapid deployment, the protection of
civilians and the prevention of armed conflict, with the understanding that
these are overlapping and not distinct objectives including: reinforcing
existing arrangement such as SHIRBRIG, UNSAS and the UN Emergency Service;
consolidating capability in a sound operational environment, including a UN
rapid deployment base and an operational-level headquarters at the UN; co-locate
national contingents; and initiate a UN Emergency Service[xliii]
·
the UN Commission on Human Rights should draft an
Optional Protocol establishing a treaty-monitoring body to the Genocide
Convention, with a mandate to consider communications and petitions from
persons/groups or their representatives alleging violations of the Genocide
Convention
·
the High Commissioner for Human Rights should
establish within her Office a Special Adviser on Minorities to head an expert
analyzing unit[xliv]
Other
issues and ideas proposed by CPCC members:
·
peace education: the development of a teaching
program that involves a number of components, drawing from the Earth Charter,
the UN Global Compact, the UN Millennium Development Goals and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights[xlv]
·
weapons proliferation: oppose unequivocally
Canadian participation in the US missile defense system and any measures towards
the weaponization of space and act to achieve the total abolition of nuclear
weapons and all weapons of mass destruction[xlvi]
and pursue policies and treaties in the United Nations that seek to reduce
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons worldwide; we should also work to
stop the arms trade, by focusing first on stopping the Canadian arms trade
[1] ‘Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canadian Government, para 8.33. Found at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report2-en.asp#foreword
[i]
Michael Ignatieff, “Peace, Order and Good Government: A Foreign Policy
Agenda for Canada”, transcript of the OD Skelton Lecture at the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, March 12, 2004.
[ii]
David R. Cameron, “
[iii]
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, “Building Capacity for Peace and
Unity: The Role of Local
Government in Peacebuilding”, March 2004.
[iv]
Terry
Glavin, “Canada’s Native Peoples Fight for Self-Government on Many
Fronts,” in Federations, What’s
New in Federalism Worldwide, Vol. 1, No. 1, November 2000.
[v]
Canadian Heritage, “History of Bilingualism in
[vi]
Colleen Duggan, “UN Strategic and Operational Coordination”, in Albrecht
Schnabel and David Carment, Conflict
Prevention: from Rhetoric to Reality, Volume 1: Organizations and
Institutions, (
[vii]
Federation of
[viii]
John Packer and Erik Friberg, “Genocide and Minorities: Preventing the
Preventable,” Minority Rights Group International, Briefing, April 2004.
[ix] Stephen Baranyi and Kristiana Powell, “What kind of peace is possible in the post-9/11 era? Local agency, transnational coalitions and the challenges of sustainable peace,” Draft, (North-South Institute, July 2004).
[x] Ignatieff, “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
[xi]
David
Carment and Karen Garner, “Early Warning and Conflict Prevention:
Problems, Pitfalls and Avenues for Success,” NPSIA,
[xii]
Ignatieff, “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
An emphasis on promoting democracy by supporting political
participation and accountable and transparent governance was also emphasized
by Kawartha Ploughshares, “The Role of Canadian Society in Conflict
Prevention,” October 2004, submitted to CPCC by email.
[xiii]
John Packer and Erik Friberg, “Genocide and Minorities.”
[xiv] Stephen Baranyi and Kristiana Powell, “What kind of peace is possible in the post-9/11 era?”
[xv] John Packer and Erik Friberg, “Genocide and Minorities.”
[xvi]
Baranyi
and Powell, “What kind of peace is possible in the post-9/11 era?”
[xvii]
Albrecht Schnabel, “Human Security and Conflict Prevention”, in Albrecht
Schnabel and David Carment, Conflict
Prevention: from Rhetoric to Reality, Volume 2: Opportunities and
Innovations, (
[xviii]
Lloyd Axworthy, Navigating a New
World: Canada’s Global Future, (
[xix]
Schnabel, “Human Security and Conflict Prevention”.
[xx]
Don Hubert, “The Landmine Ban: A Case Study in Humanitarian Advocacy,”
Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, Occasional Paper
#42, (
[xxi]
Kawartha Ploughshares. These
recommendations were echoed in the email submission to CPCC by
Religious Society of Friends – Quakers, Simcoe-Muskoka Monthly
Meeting,
[xxii]
Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice (Toronto Branch), resolution for
Biennial Conference, submitted to CPCC by email.
[xxiii]
Kawartha Ploughshares
[xxiv]
Schnabel,
“Human Security and Conflict Prevention”.
[xxv]
Yasmine Shamsic, “Engaging with Civil Society:
Lessons from the OAS, FTAA, and Summits of the
[xxvi]
See CANADEM website at www.canadem.ca.
[xxvii]
Shamsic, “Engaging with Civil Society.”
[xxviii]
Monika Wohlfeld, “The OSCE as Primary Instrument of Conflict Prevention in
[xxix]
Kawartha
Ploughshares.
[xxx]
Shamsic, “Engaging with Civil Society.”
[xxxi]
Wohlfeld, “The OSCE as Primary Instrument of Conflict Prevention.”
[xxxii]
David Carment and Karen Garner, “Early Warning and Conflict Prevention.”
[xxxiii]
Foreign Affairs
[xxxiv]
Duggan,
“UN Strategic and Operational Coordination.”
[xxxv]
Home Planet, submitted by email to CPCC, October 2004.
[xxxvi]
See
the proposal of a coalition of Canadian CSOs at www.superaje.com.
[xxxvii]
Carment and Garner, “Early Warning and Conflict Prevention.”
[xxxviii]
Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice (
[xxxix]
Kawartha Ploughshares.
[xl]
Duggan, “UN Strategic and Operational Coordination.”
[xli]
Walter Dorn, “Early and Late Warning by the UN Secretary-General of
Threats to the Peace: Article 99 Revisited,” in Albrecht Schnabel and
David Carment, Conflict Prevention:
from Rhetoric to Reality, Volume 1: Organizations and Institutions, (
[xlii]
See
Anton Ivanov and David Nyheim, “Generating the Means to an End:
Political Will and Integrated Responses to Early Warning”, in
Albrecht Schnabel and David Carment, Conflict Prevention: from Rhetoric to
Reality, Volume 2: Opportunities and Innovations, (
[xliii]
Dr. Peter Langille, “UN Efforts and Options to Improve Diverse
Peace Operations: Protection of Civilians, Prevention of Armed Conflict,
Modest Enforcement and Rapid Deployment,” paper prepared for the World
Federalist Movement Canada, Seminar,
[xliv]
John Packer and Erik Friberg, “Genocide and Minorities.”
[xlv]
Home Planet.
[xlvi]
Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice (