A recurring theme throughout this workshop was the critical importance
of the United Nations. It is widely viewed as the one international
institution committed to encouraging global cooperation and the advancement
of human security. As such, there was considerable support for strengthening
the UN. Given the Organization's new responsibilities and assigned
tasks, many noted the need for additional resources and funding. But,
there was also support for encouraging member states to fulfill their
obligations under the UN Charter. It is noteworthy that these commitments
do not diminish over time or with non-compliance. They remain obligations
of membership.
Human security proved to be a timely, goal-oriented, organizing principle;
one that facilitated discussion of diverse, contemporary challenges.
Our workshop reflected numerous priorities evident in the official
human security agenda. We also discussed further cooperation to ensure
freedom from fear of violence, the direct violence of war, the structural
violence of exploitation and the cultural violence of discrimination.
We have witnessed formative events over the past two years. It appears
we should have heeded an earlier promise of a 'new world order'. This
one is clearly more divided, increasingly militarized and, arguably,
more risky. Perspectives differ over whether these changes are permanent
or temporal, but there is a general sense that we are now approaching
a crossroads. Our current trajectory should not provide comfort. It
appears that we have less political control, less capacity to brake
and slow our speed, less capacity to determine a safe course. Aside
from immediate risks, we are also beginning to understand the cumulative
effect of human behavior, with evidence, albeit preliminary, inferring
that we have only one or two generations in which to reinvent ourselves.
Working Group 3 focused on 'International Cooperation and Human Security',
under the following headings:
Specific Recommendations
The UN's capacity to monitor, to provide early warning and oversight,
as well as to act in prevention is now beginning to benefit from an
'emerging global watch'. Already, we can discern the framework for
coordination of a global monitoring system in individuals, NGOs, UN
offices and missions worldwide. There remains a need for multiple,
informal and secret sources of information, as well as rapidly deployable,
fact- finding teams. Despite the controversial nature of 'intelligence'
within the UN system, the Organization and the member states should
address the prevailing gap in information gathering, intelligence
and analysis. The alternative is to be unduly reliant on the current
monopoly held by the most powerful. There is a risk that we will continue
to be misled.
The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect, has met with unanticipated
resistance. Clearly, it will require ongoing efforts to attract support
for a new norm and multilateral action, particularly when it entails
the use of force to protect civilians threatened by genocide and mass
ethnic cleansing. Unilateral campaigns cannot be convincingly rationalized
under such pretenses. Yet legitimate questions are being raised about
'how' to protect and with 'what', establishing the need to identify
and elaborate upon the alternatives. Supportive member states should
recognize that the essential criteria will be legitimacy, credibility
and universality. Civil society will increasingly expect more than
multilateral 'coalitions of the willing'. This may imply not only
UN authorization, but also UN management. At present, this is a tall
task, but not mission impossible.
The UN's capacity to prevent armed conflict, to protect civilians
and to conduct effective peace operations also depends on the extent
to which it can organize reliable and rapid responses to diverse emergencies.
Regrettably, rather than rapid deployment, routine delays of 4-to-6
months became the norm in the late 1990s. Modest progress is evident
with the recent expansion of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
the development of 'on-call lists' for mission headquarters, the expansion
of the UN Standby Arrangements System, particularly the multinational
Standby High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG). Combined, these now provide
a more effective foundation for peacekeeping. As they remain reliant
on prompt national decision-making and access to well-trained, well-equipped
national personnel, there is little assurance of rapid deployment.
If the UN is to prevent armed conflict and to protect civilians,
there will be a need for further, more ambitious efforts and new mechanisms.
An additional SHIRBRIG would help, as would additional participants
and a larger brigade pool. In this respect, it might help to encourage
complementary national defence reforms, particularly the earmarking
of battalions specifically for UN operations.
There is also an urgent need for a UN Emergency Service-a dedicated,
multidimensional 'UN 911', that can address human needs, including
protection, security, health and hope. This service should be composed
of volunteer military, police and civilian volunteers that are recruited
globally, selected for high standards of professionalism and commitment,
and then directly employed by the UN. It is time for an in-depth,
independent, transnational study to identify the general and specific
requirements for starting and operating such a service.
Contrary to the notion that governments are constrained by fiscal
austerity rendering new initiatives unfeasible, we heard that the
'international community' could afford more effective structures and
reforms in many of the areas noted. Governmental priorities determine
the allocation of funding. To cite one example, with wider cooperation,
the proposed Tobin tax of 0.1% on international financial transactions
would have yielded $97 billion in 1997. Such a source of funding for
the UN system would make it less dependent on governmental contributions.
With respect to questions of disarmament and arms control, it is
not easy to commence or conclude on a promising note. However, it
is noteworthy that the International Committee of the Red Cross recognizes
significant reductions in use of land mines globally. The International
Campaign to Ban Landmines attests to the complete elimination of the
international trade in landmines, as well as far fewer victims of
these weapons. This progress arises despite the fact that better de-mining
technology has been frequently promised, but seldom provided. To ensure
this process concludes on a promising note, Pugwash and other supportive
parties may need to encourage governments to renew their funding.
Many believe those planting mines should, at least, be held responsible
for their removal. The big task is in figuring out how to enforce
compliance.
Small arms also figure prominently on the human security agenda,
primarily because of their large impact, low cost and availability.
It is easy to understand why they are 'the weapon of choice' in the
majority of contemporary armed conflicts. We heard compelling testimony
about the reciprocal feedback loop between insecurity, poverty, violence
and acquisition of additional small arms. We also support the need
for better incentives to turn in weapons, including individual, national
and multinational buy-back programs.
Regrettably, we are experiencing re-armament today on an unprecedented
scale in every region of the world. It is past time that the UN called
the world to account to begin reversing this process. It is proposed,
that we call for the UN General Assembly to prepare for, and conduct
a Fourth Special Session on Disarmament.
Together, we devoted considerable time to discussing human security,
the rapid militarization of much of the world and the consequences
for human welfare. Could Pugwash or a group of individual members
initiate a study on the interface of human security and military security
to determine whether and to what extent the concepts are compatible
or not, and whether both can exist within a single foreign policy?
Our working group benefited from approximately forty-three participants
from twenty-four countries. Within, there was widespread support for
Pugwash's emphasis on analysis and advocacy. Yet we also recognize
the need for critical reflection and adaptation of this organization.
It was agreed that one challenge ahead is to mainstream gender and
youth analysis, utilizing the wider perspective and strengths of each.
As noted (and agreed), "men desperately need more creative ideas
for overcoming a war system".
Another challenge is to encourage a much-needed culture of peace,
which will necessitate further support for peace research and peace
education. We know a few of the implications when there is neither
tolerance nor assistance for independent analysis, constructive criticism
and the development of policy options. This is now an evident trend;
arguably one sustained by organized fear and a culture of violence.
Clearly, the attendant risks merit further research, education and
advocacy to counter this trend.
UNESCO was mentioned favorably for a program in peace education that
might be renewed. This UN department shares Pugwash's longstanding
commitment to education, science, culture and ethics, making it a
natural partner. We also heard a compelling recommendation for the
UN to prepare an annual report on state of world peace and security.
To effect promising change, a number of participants suggested the
need for constituency-building with like-minded groups, preferably
on an issue-specific basis.
There was also support for 'outreach' to attract additional scientific
expertise, prominent members, particularly from countries that are
currently under-represented and acknowledged leaders in science, such
as Nobel laureates in the natural sciences.
It was proposed that Pugwash participate in both the world economic
and social forums. Many expressed hope that others would not only
enjoy, but also learn considerably from a repeat performance of what
has already been labeled, 'the brilliant Joe show'.
Over the past decade, we gradually recognized the need for integrated
approaches across the full spectrum of peace operations. Slowly, we
drew some connections and learned that seemingly different aspects
of the human security agenda were actually interrelated. Although
political and corporate leaders will occasionally dismiss any connection,
elementary students know that human security is related to environmental
security. Given the disappearance of the tropical rainforest, is it
for us, or for others to ask the government of Brazil what they might
need to stop the cutting?
Hopefully, we also learned the UN cannot be expected to carry additional
responsibilities without additional support and resources. An effort
could be made to engage regional organizations under the UN umbrella
(e.g. OAS, AU and OSCE), encouraging them to take on a more active
role in support of the UN Security Council. Success, and quite possibly
survival, will depend upon the extent to which civil society develops
a constituency of support for the UN through cooperative partnerships
with supportive member states, NGOs, institutes and individuals. There
will be a need for reliable information, wider efforts to educate
at the political level and smart media campaigns.
Good governance should not be taken for granted, here or elsewhere.
When under intense pressure from abroad, even respected democracies
may behave like vicious gang members. One task that merits further
thought and a final question is how we can counterbalance and offset
some of that pressure. Well-conceived, common approaches would appear
to offer better prospects than unilateral reactions.
