The Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice Staff Blog

Monday, September 29, 2008

The third and fourth panels rounded off the 2008 Women PeaceMakers Conference last Friday, September 26.  The third panel, moderated by IPJ Senior Program Officer Dustin Sharp, was titled “Advancing Inclusive Security in Multiple Settings: What are strategies, resources and good practices for security and civil sectors to prevent and respond to sexual violence?”  Panelists included Karen Grimm of the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), Sarah Masters of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Nicola Popovic of the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), i Deborah Avant of the University of California, Irvine, and Kathleen Staudt of the University of Texas, El Paso.  The panels were followed by a report back from the Knowledge-Building and Working Sessions held throughout the conference, and closing statements were by co-conveners.

Karin Grimm of the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) addressed the topic with her presentation, “Global need for gender justice in security sector reform.”  She called for an inclusive approach to security involving all possible actors and implementation in a variety of settings, including countries in relative peace.  Five main groups of security sector actors include:

1. Core security actors entitled to use force (armed forces, police, border guards, coast guards, intelligence, security services, etc.)
2. Security management and oversight bodies (parliament, relevant committees of security, ministries of defense, justice)
3. Justice and rule of law institutions (Justice ministries, prisons, judiciaries, courts, tribunals, human rights commissions)
4. Non-state security forces (guerilla and liberation forces, non-state actors, as well as private military and security companies)
5. Non-state civil society groups (media, advocacy, women civil society orgs)

Grimm highlighted the particular lack of security sector institutions in addressing gender-based violence (GBV) in security situations.  Further, she noted that security sector institutions are highly unrepresentative of the sectors they serve.  More women in security detail can mean more oversight and accountability, especially with regard to sexual harassment.

Security sector reform processes should also uphold full respect for human rights and the rule of law, and, Grimm stressed, be nationally-owned processes rooted in the particular needs and conditions of the country in question, while complying with international legal frameworks and standards.

Sarah Masters of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) presented “Being part of the security process – controlling arms.”  Masters began by explaining that discussion surrounding weapons involved in GBV is often missing, perhaps because they are seen as an instrument, rather than a cause, of GBV.

Masters relayed several significant statistics: Most small arms are in civilian hands, including security guards in private security.  875 million guns are currently in circulation worldwide, with a global annual trade totaling $4 billion in legal trade, and $1 billion in illicit.  “Half of the countries in the world produce small arms, and the rest of the world buys them,” she said.  Every day, about 1,000 people are killed, whether by homicide, war, suicide, or accidental death.  And though about 90% of those killed or wounded by gunshot are men, women, who are rarely the owners or users of small arms, are disproportionately affected.  Disability, injury, intimidation, trauma, gender-based violence, psychological and economic burden, the undermining of development and employment, and the legitimization of the use of force are both direct and indirect impacts of gun violence.

Masters stated that women need to be involved in the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) process.  Women’s knowledge of trading groups and weapons storage, alone with perceptions of security and danger, should be taken into account.  Women should also be actively involved in the disarmament, collection, and monitoring of the destruction of weapons. Finally, there should be discussion surround removal of ammunition and licensing and registration in talks of reconstruction.

Groups like IANSA work in various ways including policymaking, assessment, increasing public awareness, training police, and promoting the inclusion of women in the arms movement. Women need to be involved in security sector reform (SSR) processes, including that of private security, governments will not be committed to banning small arms due to the lucrative nature of the trade.  Women must work within a patriarchal culture that in general supports the use of guns  and regards men as traditional protectors.

In Nicola Popovic’s “Reforming toward equality: Integrating a gender perspective into security sector institutions and policies,” Popovic stressed that gender is not exclusively a woman’s issue. Men’s issues are also absent from discussion, due to taboo, lack of funding, space to share, and access to justice for male victims of gender violence.  She also shared practical tools and specific ways to conduct gender mainstreaming in program design as well as in measurement and evaluation (M&E):

•    Data disaggregated by sex, age, religion, ethnic origin, sexual preferences, disabilities
•    Gender sensitive indicators (i.e., How do men measure success?  How do women?)
•    Gender balance in the personnel of security sector institutions
•    Gender-sensitive security policies
•    Codes of conduct
•    Gender mainstreaming in program analysis and budgeting

Specific M&E mechanisms offered included key questions from a Gender Audit  assessment tool to measure how gender sensitive an organization is.  For example, how many women and men are there, who makes the decisions, who has access to justice, is there gender-sensitive capacity-building and expertise?  Another tool is an SSR Assessment Key, which provides a survey of questions to assess actors involved in prior reform efforts.

Finally, Popovic shared the Gender Sensitive Training and Capacity-building Training Cycle, which includes the components of preparation, implementation, evaluation, and feedback and follow-up, all of which must feed into the other in a continuous loop to ensure balanced integration of gender perspectives in security sector institutions and policies.

In her research, Deborah Avant of the University of California, Irvine, has asked “What does privatization mean for security?  Avant commented that as we look at human security in general and how to protect vulnerable groups, we not only have to think about states and rebel forces, but we increasingly have to think about private security actors. Private security actors are working under contract through private companies doing things soldiers normally do: Personal security details, site security, building and reconstruction, rescuing, and sometimes also shooting and harming.

Avant alerted that we often forget that the some 190,000 other private security personnel the United States has deployed to Iraq does not include those working for news and oil companies.  Avant argued that because all these actors employ security personnel and therefore develop security policies for their personnel, we have to take them into account.

In her book, “The Market for Force: The Consequence of Privatizing Security,” Avant looks at three primary relationships:

1.    Governments and violence forces:  Privatization of security refers to demolition of state power to private actors.  Private security delivery and financing thereof has grown immensely in the last twenty years. That the government contracts private forces rather than operating through military channels means that there are great shifts in control, depending on whether it is a strong government, like in the U.S., or a weak one, as in Sierra Leone
2.    Governments and violent actions of their citizens abroad:  Since the mid-19th century, states have recruited forces from their own territories and deployed them abroad but restricted the ability of its citizens to conduct violence outside of that state structure.  The U.S. is a prime example of a state having much less control over their citizens abroad given market demands.
3.    Private corporations and NGOs and other private actors:  These organizations develop their own security plans and policies, and they increasingly play a political role in conflicts, though they should be playing an apolitical role.  With guns and barbed wire fences, these organizations have intrinsically political effects, and sometimes disastrous consequences.

Avant remarked that it has become routine for international organizations to be responsible for maintaining their own security in unstable parts of the world.

Kathleen Staudt of the University of Texas, El Paso, spoke about the use of democratic spaces to confront U.S. border security and immigration policies.  Staudt noted that while the United States is not engaged in a war with Mexico, the nation’s second largest trading partner, the U.S. has built high walls and installed high-tech surveillance equipment to detect individuals crossing the border into the U.S.

Staudt distinguished the U.S. as a national security state, meaning that it is state-centered.  This makes the U.S. a highly militarized country that tends to criminalize people, including the undocumented, in order to gain control.  Countries employing a human security approach, on the other hand, operate at the community level and work on strategies to open opportunity and redistribute resources between women and men.

Staudt noted that in addition to sharing a 2000 mile-long border, built by private contractors, the United States and Mexico share a host of human security problems.  500 of the 2000 miles is fenced or walled-off, and there are currently 18,000 U.S. border patrol agents along it.  There has been murder, rape, torture, death and mutilation of persons trying to cross this border from Mexico into the U.S.  Another potential hazard for potential migrants are the harsh conditions in the desert.  Heat and lack of water certainly also have contributed to the number of deaths.

Police check points along the border requiring proof of citizenship and national security numbers have drawn protests by women activists and other El Paso human rights and faith-based activists.  The check points have resulted in over 800 deportations of illegal immigrants.  Humanitarian agencies have been sued for leaving water in the desert for the immigrants trying to cross the border.   Staudt called for national action for comprehension and reforms to end violence in the U.S.

Panel Four, “Enforcing Gender Equality Mandates as Central to Peace and Security: What is the New Vision of the Role of Law?” discussed new legal tools for enforcing equality rights during conflict and essential for transition to peace which restructure governmental bodies based on gender parity.  The panel was moderated by William Aceves, professor of law and associate dean for Academic Affairs at California Western School of Law.

Andrea Friedman of the Global Justice Center, who on the first panel emphasized how the law is relevant to all aspects of conflict, post-conflict, and building stable societies, focused this talk more specifically on the advances in international law through transitional justice processes.  In Rwanda and Yugoslavia, international criminal tribunals brought to the forefront the issue of criminal accountability for violations of international law, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  They were major advances in recognizing that rape and other sexual violence could be a form of all of these crimes, not just an incidence of war, and should be prosecuted as such.  Through the international tribunals, women’s right to autonomy were recognized.  This has been particularly important in advancing women’s access to justice.

Friedman offered that international tribunals can be helpful to the advancement of women if they:

•    Develop international jurisprudence and recognize sexual violence as a sort of international crime, define rape as gender-neutral, discuss what consent means in a situation of conflict, and other kinds of jurisprudence that helped make the law more real and accessible to women.
•    Have women judges at both the domestic and international level.  If the individual charged with interpreting the law interprets with a patriarchal, old, male-dominated perspective on what sexual violence should mean, violations against women will not be recognized as the crimes that they are.
•    Are removed from the domestic forum where there are a lot more challenges around religion and culture.  They must take place in more neutral territory.  Judges need to be made to see the connection between their role as judges on international tribunal and as leaders in society.

Friedman concluded that international justice must move beyond trying the world’s five worst criminals at the Hague.  One piece of this is defining access to justice and how socioeconomic rights play a part therein.  She called upon women to take this opportunity of a changing and maturing law to define it and interpret it to best advance women and women’s rights moving forward.

Alma Perez, in “Translating gender international mandates into domestic policies & instruments: How do we do that?”, presented useful ways to apply international commitment, mandates, and translate them into policy instruments at a national level, whether advocating from within the government or without.

1.    Have a legal framework. If the country already has signed and ratified treaties, the country has commitments on the international level.  Being aware of these commitments enables one to ask for them when they are not fulfilled.
2.    Identifying entry points, both at the international and national levels.  One instrument is a treaty organ, which contains mechanisms that can be used to set complaints, to right situations, and to go to countries with reporting obligations and hold them accountable.  Another instrument is the Universal Periodic Review, which systematically reviews human rights for every U.N. member state every four years.

If at the international level the goal is to find commitments, at the national level we need to determine how gender policy can be implemented.  This involves staying away from stereotypes, overcoming polarization, and collaborating with other NGOs and men as well.  Perez reiterated Lousie Arbour’s point that while it is persons who make things happen, without institutions, nothing with last.  She suggested trying to set up a permanent commission on gender equality that addresses economic, social and cultural rights, engages in complementarity, and uses available accountability resources to strengthen the national system.

Helen Mack, who founded the Myrna Mack Foundation, spoke about “Women’s Encounter with Justice.”  Before she was a human rights activist, Helen Mack shared that she was first a victim of the system.  Her transformation came from a series of traumatic events, one of which was the execution of her sister, Myrna Elizabeth Mack, on September 11, 1990, her sister.  Myrna Elizabeth bled to death from more than 50 stab wounds in the vital parts of her body, inflicted by the military in Guatemala.

Myrna helped found AVANCSO, an association dedicated to empowering the social sciences as a means for understanding national problems and seeking solutions.  They were convinced that the political opening in Guatemala, following the end of military rule and installation of civilian and democratic regime, was the propitious development of social sciences.  Myrna studied internally displaced persons fleeing from communities due to irrational violence by the army, and documented human suffering at the hands of cruel State policies.  She was passionate about her work, and it was this passion that drew military intelligence to order her killing.

Through the judicial system shaped in part by the Myrna Mack Foundation, those people who were responsible for Myrna’s death were identified and punished.  As a result of the Foundation’s work, human rights violations are now studied judicially and are subject to criminal investigation, prosecution, trial and sentencing.  The Foundation prepared systematic data showing how and when impunity was produced and who are its agents.  Systematic analysis of problems, situations, and persons have allowed the proof of patterns of denial of justice, the flaws and anomalies, the weaknesses and the deficiencies in justice institutions and how all these factors combined to create conditions for impunity.

The judges of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights validated evidence condemning the State of Guatemala for its role as assassin, accomplice and in covering up execution of Myrna.  In the sentence that condemned the State, handed down in November 2003, the InterAmerican court described in detail the justice institutions that had promoted impunity and denied justice.  Thanks to that sentence, Guatamala now has a list of lawyers individually named in the condemnation and censure of the InterAmerican court for having manipulated the system in order to deny justice to the Mack family.  With this ruling the candidacy of several men and women who had some point opted in favor of impunity have now been successfully vetoed.

Mack remarked that the battle against impunity has been led by women: “From the field of justice administration to social organizations, and even within the academic world, the media, the arts, women are developing discourses and concrete activities to challenge the mechanisms of impunity and their agents.”  In the fourteen years of Mack’s work, five guilty sentences have been given against the military and one international sentence against the State.

Peter Sampson, from the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, has worked closely with a network made of U.N. states, NGOs, and academic institutions called the Forum on Early Warning and Early Response.  Discussions with the network regarding the reconstruction of the rule of law and justice programs in the Great Lake region created the background to his talk, “Justice and the Rule of Law in Central Africa.”

Sampson shared that in Africa, it is estimated that 50% of post-conflict countries return to conflict within five years.  Despite improvements over last ten years, such as the reduction of the prevalence of rape in Eastern Congo, elections held in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Burundi and Rwanda, and growing awareness of gender-based violence, on a daily basis, the situation has not improved and sometimes has gotten much worse.

In general, the court system does not function for the majority of people, as they are less than 2% of women in judicial system, an overlack deficiency of 1,250 judges, a general lack of trust, and dearth of expertise in GBV in any of the 500 national courts.  Sampson stated that even if there were enough judges to fill 1,250 empty positions, about 80% of the population does not have access to any kind of legal system; even if there was a program to put all necessary tribunals in the DRC, it would take an estimated 25 years.
For now, Sampson reported there is an interesting overlap taking place between customary and national justice structures. The law in the DRC is such that if the population does not have access to national court within 100 kilometers, then customary or informal law can apply.

Sampson stated that during the peace process and the peace agreement, the main objective is not for people to participate, but simply not to return to conflict.  In the post-peace process and agreement, the last stage of the conflict cycle, suddenly participation becomes of utmost importance.  All members of society are expected to engage with the government at only this last stage.  Sampson suggested that perhaps we should look at a pluralistic legal system when re-establishing rule of law, since “in different places, different laws may apply to different people.”

During the closing session, regional caucus groups from Latin America, South Asia, and Africa read statements compiled throughout the conference.  The statements were followed by a report back from working group sessions.  Closing statements were made by Dee Aker, interim executive director of the Institute for Peace & Justice, and Stephanie Ziebell of UNIFEM, co-convener of the conference.  Ziebell thanked the IPJ, the 2008 Women PeaceMakers and PeaceMakers of years past, and to all those participants and panelists who came from far away to attend the conference and share their experiences and expertise.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Dee Aker, interim executive director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice (IPJ) gave the conference welcome yesterday morning to an audience of conference delegates, USD students, the 2008 Women PeaceMakers and Peace Writers, and the IPJ community.  She made brief comments emphasizing that crafting human security is far more than ending conflict and returning to a pre-war state.  Frameworks need to be implemented for inclusive peacebuilding that diminish threats to security.  And when it come to violence against women, “the personal is international and the international is personal.”  Aker then invited a few key individuals to make remarks.

Brief statements were made by Stephanie Ziebell of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Shreen Abdul Saroor, founder of the Manmar Women’s Development Foundation and 2005 Woman PeaceMaker, Joyce Neu, Team Leader of the  United Nations Standby Team of Mediation Experts (statement read by Harin Song, Cornell University student and IPJ volunteer, in Neu’s absence), and Andrea Bell, Conference Coordinator.

Aker also served as the moderator for the first panel, “Ending Cycles of Conflict through Gender-Inclusive Peacebuilding: Where are we? Where do we need to go to obtain viable human security and justice?”  Each panelist spoke for about fifteen minutes on this topic before the floor was opened to the audience for questions.

Hodan Addou of the United Nations Development Programme spoke about the “Realities in mainstreaming women’s perspectives into peace and security.”  Addou asserted that we need to first understand the types of conflicts that are taking place in this world, and the common factors and issues of war such as historic legacies, power dynamics, and social dynamics.

Addou also reflected on the fact that cycles of violence perpetuate themselves over generations.  Today, children are growing up knowing nothing other than violence.  This means great social consequences for the poor, the young, and other marginalized communities during wartime, as a society’s economic resource base and social networks are degraded by conflict.  Quoting a former Executive Director of UNIFEM, Noeleen Heyzer, Addou reminded us that “Peace is defined by not only the absence of war, but a world free from hatred, violence, poverty, and a world that is prosperous and inclusive for all.”  Addou claimed that we have not learned enough from previous or recent conflicts in terms of protection and intervention.

Addou affirmed that existing forms of justice often discriminate, but in truth and reconciliation processes that have occurred, women have concretely asked for medical services, training, housing, and education, to no avail.  For transitional justice to be effective, said Addou, we must address social justice, and have implications for peacebuilding.

Modibo Goita, of the Peacekeeping School Alioune Blondin Beye of Bamako, presented “The Liberian Case: Criminality, peacekeeping and the rule of law.”  Goita maintained that peacekeeping operations are essential tools for the U.N. to maintain peace and security, but in Africa, where the highest concentration of peacekeeping operations are in place, Goita questions whether the operations do in actuality help maintain peace and security.  He cited the examples of Darfur and Liberia, situations that have been studied to determined why many peacekeeping operations fail.

Goita cited many factors that have led to the increase of rapes, sexual violence, armed robberies, and other brutality during conflict:

•    Legacies of civil war (in Liberia, 13 years of bloody civil war).  Parties using rape as a method of warfare.
•    Breakdown of traditions and religious beliefs, and of the human family.
•    Mixed success of Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR)
•    Lack of motivation and low salaries for police
•    Corruption

Goita noted that many human rights coalitions and civil society movements are making progress, such as by forming task forces charged with stamping out sexual violence.  A report to be published in November will make further recommendations.  Among them: A review of the mandate of UNMIL and UNPOL, an increase the number of trained Liberian police, the selection of recruits representing different ethnic groups, the enhancement of salaries of the Liberian National Police, an increase in the number of African trainers, rehabilitation of the traditional courts system, and the authorization for foreign lawyers to practice in Liberia.

Goita concluded by stating that Liberians need to stop placing personal and tribal interests above national interests, and commit to living together in harmony: “No peacekeeping effort can succeed if the people of Liberia don’t want peace.”

Jebbeh Foster of the United Nations Development Fund for Women then presented
“Integrating gender issues into peace negotiations: The northern Uganda experience.”  Foster shared that Uganda generally has good policies of gender inclusion.  The country’s constitution recognizes gender equality, gender balance, affirmative action, and is in the process of creating an Equal Opportunities Commission to ensure gender representation in Ugandan society.  Uganda has also ratified CEDAW, Security Council Resolution 1325 and the African Charter for People’s Rights.

However, during the Juba Peace Talks between the rebel LRA and the government of Uganda earlier this year, women were not actually present in negotiating parties, shared Foster.  The LRA had two women in their delegation, and Uganda had only one.  The principal agreement that was drawn did not initially have strong gender dimensions, but in the final February 2008, document, the implementation protocol developed called upon the principles of 1325 more than any other peace agreement.

Foster called for the need for  mass awareness building.  She called the conflict in Uganda one of the worst “forgotten conflicts” in history, having raged for 20 years before the international community was alerted.  The eventual formation of Ugandan women peace coalitions helped to increase the importance of women’s representation in negotiating teams, as the coalition called for the root causes of war to be addressed.  A mediator and later the gender advisor appointed to the UN Special Envoy were women.  This led to greater gender sensitivity by negotiating parties and agreements, and showed that high level advocacy can draw greater attention to resolution 1325.

Foster concluded by strongly urging for more support to women’s movements, women’s early participation in the peace process, high level negotiations with consideration of regional effects of decisions, and the inclusion of gender training for delegation teams to help pave the way for inclusion of gender in future peace agreements.

Luz Mendez, of the National Union of Guatemalan Women, discussed “Beyond the peace table: Post-conflict gender influence for finding security and justice.”  With the signing of a final peace agreement in 1996, Mendez saw the end of a conflict in Guatemala that lasted 36 years.  The truth commission said that the armed conflict originated from within a situation of socioeconomic inequity, ethnic discrimination, and a very undemocratic political system.  The Guatemelan Peace Accords gave women the possibility to take part in the peace process, and so specific commitments to gender equality were included in the accords.  One such example was the creation of a national office of the defense of indigenous women.

However, Mendez cautioned, the peace process doesn’t necessarily bring justice or security for women; it simply opens possibilities for social and political participation in national life.  Even after the peace negotiations, high levels of violence against women have continued in Guatemala, particularly the phenomenon of femicide.  In 2007, more than 700 women were killed.

Despite opportunities for women’s participation in civil society, despite disarmament and reintegration of insurgent forces who became a legal political party, the peace accords did not address enduring political and social inequalities.  Mendez offered that two very important reforms need still to be made in order to promote redistribution of socioeconomic resources: fiscal and rural development.  Another goal of the peace accords was to put an end to military repression, but the military, rather than defend national sovereignty, largely protects the interests of the economic elite.  Today, the exceedingly strong army, well known for its brutality and countering of surging campaigns within Guatemalan society, have overcome weaker forces and are again gaining terrain.

Women’s organizations are beginning to speak out about rape, and those few who survived violent attacks are forming small groups to talk about their experience, and provide psychosocial support and women’s rights trainings.  They are advocating for national reparations programs with very specific measures of implementation.
Sensitization methods have included going to Guatemalan cities to present theater pieces based on real-life situations and broadcasting soap operas based on those stories, in order to curb the stigmatization and isolation women receive in their communities.  Mendez concluded: “As you know, sexual violence is the only human rights violation in which women are seen as the guilty.  We can nothing but continue working in order to have a real process of peacebuilding which can mean justice, reparations, security and real peace for women.”

Andrea Friedman, Vice President and Senior Counsel for Global Justice Center, presented “From Policy to Power: enforcing int’l law for gender equality in conflict and post-conflict situation.”  In the presentation, Friedman addressed three primary questions in her talk about enforcing international law for gender equality in conflict and post-conflict situations: Why the law?, Why now?, and What does it mean?

Friedman explained that the law needs to be used to bring women power, which can be seen long-term by increasing the percentage of women in government.  Law can also play a critical role because it is enforceable, it can change attitudes, and it can be used to push culture forward.  Because the law is malleable, it depends how it is interpreted and defined, where it is being used and how, then women can be strategic in using the law to push forward our case.  Friedman also stated that we are at a time that is seeing new constitutions, new presidents, new courts, and new legislators, but not any significant increase in the number of women.  Instead of creating a paradigm of patriarchy, she said, it is time to create a new paradigm where women are equal players, and more women judges, lawyers, and parliamentarians are ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.

According to Friedman, existing laws and norms can be strengthened by using international legal tools and access points such as international criminal tribunals, domestic courts, parliaments, ministries, regional mechanisms, human rights bodies, security cooperatives, and Security Council.  Friedman concluded by stating that we are living in a global transnational world, and thus need to enforce laws globally.  “It is time to make “soft” law for women into “hard” enforceable rights, ensure access to justice is more than ending impunity, and demand power not pity for real equality.”

The second panel was held on Tuesday afternoon, and was moderated by Leymah Gbowee of the Women, Peace and security Network.  The topic was “Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflict from Violence, Including Sexual Violence: UNSCR 1325 and 1820: Addressing Sexual violence as a Method of Warfare – What way forward?

Stephanie Ziebell of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) presented “Shifting the discourse: Sexual violence as a matter of international peace and security.”  She stated that we are learning more about “the war within the war,” in which civilian casualties and sexual violence are not seen as security issues, there is an increasing scale and brutality of sexual violence, a historical absence of formal accountability, and women and girls are deliberately targeted.  A lack of movement and access during times of conflict holds entire communities hostage and undermine economic security.

Ziebell reported that at the DPKO/UNIFEM Wilton Park Conference in May 2008, the topic of women affected by armed conflict was discussed.  The main roles for military peacekeepers and methods employed were identified.  Looking forward, discussion should undoubtedly involve guidance, resources, training, political leadership, and most importantly, the engagement of the Security Council.  UNIFEM is currently engaging in capacity-building, advocacy, strategic partnerships, and programming.  Security Council Resolution 1820, while wonderful, was passed with unprecedented speed, and now the task remains to build the institutional infrastructure with which to implement it.

Ziebell concluded by sharing that a U.N. website: U.N. Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict: http://www.stoprapenow.org.

Next spoke Clare Hutchinson of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations on “Peacekeeping, protection and prevention: The role of DPKO.”  Hutchinson stressed that sexual violence, by mandate of Resolution 1325, is truly a matter for the DPKO, which has twelve gender advisors spread across missions all around the world.  Moving forward, she stated that sexual and gender-based violence needs to be included in the wider analysis of security and peacebuilding, in light of the fact that “It has become more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in armed combat” (Wilton Park Conference).

Hutchinson listed a variety of challenges to ensuring security, including problems with traditional justice, customs and practices, weak institutional mechanisms, lack of trained officials, lack of ownership, a culture of impunity, limited awareness, and a lack of data. While the primary responsibility for protecting civilians lies firmly with the national authorities, according to Hutchinson, the job of peacekeepers is to assists the State in providing this protection.

Hutchinson provided several specific measures moving forward.  Among them, she offered stronger and more specific language on the protection of women and girls against sexual violence, especially in Security Council mandates, gender equality not at the end of the peacebuilding process but early at the table of negotiation, the deployment of uniformed female personnel to both prevent and respond to sexual violence, and the revision of existing standardized materials for pre-deployment training on preventing and responding to sexual violence in conflict situations.

We then heard from Lieutenant General Jasbir Lidder of the Indian Army, formerly of the United Nations Mission in Sudan.  He spoke on the “Protection of civilians: Peacekeeping Challenges and Responses.”

Lt. Gen Lidder explained that post-conflict violence against civilians is largely attributed to a general lack of a rule of law, the absence of significant peace dividends, incomplete DDR, the absence of community disarmament programmes, and the abduction and trafficking of women.

The passage of Resolution 1820 has allowed us to more clearly identify widespread systematic sexual violence as a major security threat to international peace and security, attach responsibility and accountability to conflict situations, and establish peacekeeping requirements.  The Secretary General report on the Resolution is expected in June of 2009.

Moving forward, Lt. Gen. Lidder hopes to see the clarification of mission mandate ambiguities, see the protection of civilians distinctly made a national priority, and for a convergence of the humanitarian and military perceptions of protection, which have traditionally looked purely from a rights angle, and purely from a security angle, respectively.

A peace & gender activist for Darfurian women, Safaa Elagib Ada from the Community Development Association in Sudan spoke about “Combating Sexual Violence: The challenge of participation and protection.”  Ada said Sudan is a country that is seeing a generation that only knows war.  Sexual and gender-based violence deeply affects the participation of women.  Because they are stakeholders, not just victims, women need to included from the grassroots levels to achieve justice.  Law reforms need to address injustice and violence issue.

In the evening, Deborah Lindholm of the Foundation for Women introduced Leymah Gbowee, who showed “Pray the Devil Back to Hell,” a powerful documentary film by director Gini Reticker about the women of Liberia (including Gbowee herself) in a “relentless pursuit for peace.”  The film was the 2008 Best Document Feature winner at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

iiiiiiiiiiThe Joan B. Kroc Distinguished Lecture Series was pleased to welcome The Honorable Louise Arbour at the Peace & Justice Theatre at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice last night.  Arbour spoke before an overflow audience, and for the first time, the lecture streamed live on the Web for online viewers.  

iiiiiiiiiiInterim Executive Director Dee Aker welcomed the audience and highlighted that besides launching this year’s international working conference, the lecture also commemorates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). She introduced Arbour as one of the great human rights advocates of our time.

iiiiiiiiiiIn her lecture titled “Integrating Security, Development and Human Rights,” Arbour explained that there is often much confusion when talking about human rights and security. Fundamental rights are often talked about as constraints: prohibition of the use of torture, for example, is argued to be a direct threat to security. However, Arbour said, security is a human right, and when we speak about human security, not state security, we are very much talking about fundamental human rights.

iiiiiiiiiiArbour, while delighted by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s 2005 report stating that the U.N. architecture rests on three interlinked pillars (security, development and human rights), was nonetheless skeptical of the metaphor.  She extended the metaphor by describing the pillar of security as made of concrete, development of steel, and human rights of glass: fragile, most of the time invisible, decorative at best, supporting nothing, and therefore requiring buffing so that if seen, it looks good.

iiiiiiiiiiArbour spoke at length about the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, a product of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which was endorsed by the General Assembly in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit.  The document states that each individual State “has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means.” Further, it states that “[t]he international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means … to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

iiiiiiiiiiArbour stressed that the language of the doctrine holds much importance.  It speaks not only of the right to intervene, but the responsibility to do so. However, this language still carries a considerable element of discretion, leaving to interpretation whether there exists a moral, political or legal obligation to intervene. Debate continues as to the conditions during which intervention by the international community is warranted: Is it restricted to circumstances encompassing only the most egregious threats to human life? Does the non-action of the government of Myanmar, for example, amount to a form of criminal negligence? Are legal obligations to intervene necessarily followed by intervention? As we have seen from the Genocide Act of 1973, the answer is no, this has not shown to be the case.

iiiiiiiiiiArbour went on to name the Human Rights Council (HRC) as a body that should move beyond its symbolic, political role and truly promote universal protection of human rights for all by monitoring and responding to both acute and chronic human rights situations through regular and special sessions, and universal periodic review. The HRC, she said, has the potential to be an institution which serves the prevention and early warning role to human security. Similarly, the Security Council should be called upon to effectively carry out the UDHR and come to a consensus among its permanent five members regarding the appropriate use of veto powers. Finally, the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission established in 2005 is equipped to handle the rebuilding phase of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, and “multilateral justice mechanisms are also available to the international community to address punishment as a part of reconstruction. International criminal justice has been and can be activated when domestic systems fail.”

iiiiiiiiiiArbour continued by stressing that this tri-part sequence of prevention, action and rebuilding is often merely an intellectual construct, rather than a reality, as there does not exist a chronological unfolding of responses. Military protection, for example - a response commonly deployed as a last resort - can also be used as a tool of prevention, such as in the threat of genocide. And the action phase to hold States accountable cannot be pushed back to the rebuilding phase. According to Arbour, the call for accountability calls for the earliest possible investigation of war criminals; if justice serves a protection function, then “justice delayed is still justice denied.”

iiiiiiiiiiArbour concluded by pointing out that a legal landscape is emerging, under which peace and security will be enhanced by enforceable legal mechanisms which support democratic ideals and uphold the doctrine of the responsibility to protect all people. 

iiiiiiiiiiArbour’s lecture will be re-broadcast on UCSD-TV and a full transcript and will be posted to the institute’s Web site in the coming weeks.  Please see http://peace.sandiego.edu/programs/lectures.html for more information.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

iiiiiiiiiiThe 2008 Women PeaceMakers Conference opens today at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice (IPJ) and continues through Friday, September 26. This year’s conference is an international working conference to probe and address global acquiescence to impunity, gender violence and exclusion that continue to obstruct peacebuilding and deny human security. Beginning tomorrow, this blog will provide daily updates of the preceding day’s panels and working sessions. We are also very pleased to offer this year streaming Webcast of Thursday’s and Friday’s panels as well as tonight’s opening lecture for those who cannot attend.

iiiiiiiiiiThe conference opens this evening with a welcome and introduction by Dee Aker, interim executive director of the IPJ, followed by a lecture by our keynote speaker, The Honorable Louise Arbour, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The lecture is part of the IPJ’s ongoing Distinguished Lecture Series, and is open to the public.

iiiiiiiiiiThroughout the conference, delegates will also have the chance to visit a Human Rights Watch Photography Exhibit, “China’s Olympian Human Rights Challenges,” currently on display at the IPJ. This collection of recent photos from China illuminates some of the human rights issues raised by the recent Olympic Games held in Beijing. The exhibit also includes a photographic tour of human rights issues around the globe, including genocide, domestic slavery, migrant labor, exploitation in extractive industries, civilian casualties of armed conflict, and more. It is open free to the public Wednesdays and Thursdays from 12 – 7 p.m., and Fridays and Saturdays from 10 a.m. – 3 p.m through Saturday, November 8.

iiiiiiiiiiWe would like to take this opportunity to thank our conference co-conveners, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), the Global Justice Center (GJC), and the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), as well as acknowledge the generous support of the Fred J. Hansen Foundation for their primary sponsorship of the conference and the Women PeaceMakers Program at the IPJ, and the Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego for making it possible for delegates from around the world to attend and share their knowledge with us.

iiiiiiiiiiPlease check back here for updates, and visit the IPJ main Website at http://peace.sandiego.edu for conference agenda and details.

Assessment Trip to Guatemala, June 15 – 23, 2008

“Impunity remains the rule.” [1]

“Guatemala is among the four countries in the world with the biggest gap between rich and poor.”[2]

“Abre la oportunidad de plantear al Estado recomendaciones que deberían ser acatadas.”[3]

A number of challenges and opportunities face the Guatemalan state and its citizens over a decade after the signing of the historic 1996 Firm and Lasting Peace Accords. As a new government took control in January 2008, many still questioned the strength of the state to overcome historic discrimination and address lingering consequences of the 36-year internal armed conflict that ravaged the country.

To assess the current windows of opportunity and analyze potential mechanisms to support a just peace in Guatemala, IPJ program officers Elena McCollim and Laura Taylor will conduct a series of interviews and consultations with diverse sectors of society. Informed by this broad engagement with a range of actors at various levels, the institute will build on existing relationships with individuals and organizations within Guatemala to better understand the peacebuilding needs of the country and its people.

Relation to University of San Diego’s mission

Undertaking a new country project would advance the university’s international mission while also fulfilling the mission of the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies to create new knowledge in peacebuilding. As a community of practitioners in peace and conflict studies, the IPJ is positioned to support the school in this mission and thus further more broadly the university’s goal to grow as a globally competent institution. With the IPJ as a laboratory for the School, it could eventually integrate graduate students and faculty from the School in its projects and programs.

[3] “ONU examinará al país en DD.HH” Prensa Libre, Feb. 7, 2008, accessed on May 19, 2008 http://www.prensalibre.com/pl/2008/febrero/07/218876.html

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 

Elections are one step in a long-term peace process. Two years ago, Jana Anadolan II set the foundation for this change. With a new leadership, what role will Nepali people play in the determining the future of the democratic transition of the nation? The IPJ and MSBK-Nepal (see below) roundtable “Reaching Stable Peace: Roundtable on Reconciliation” held in Pokhara encouraged participants to identify and articulate some of the key challenges still facing their respective sectors.  

Fourteen representatives of three political parties, eight civil society organizations and five security sector bodies contributed to the two-hour dialogue on their concerns about the peace process and the challenges and issues for those they represent, namely socio-economic development, rule of law, impunity, ending corruption and accountability of elected officials. 

With a vision for the long-term nature of peacebuilding, one political representative stated: “Although there may be many disturbances along the way that act as hurdles, the main concern is in the process of establishing a republic. The second challenge is the social economic disparity that the country is now facing; there isn’t a lot of work being done to empower the people economically. If this feudal system ends, in 10 years time, then this period is an opportunity, and it will be possible for the resources to be distributed to the citizens and the power will be disseminated to the people.” “The most important thing is to maintain law and order,” another expressed. Adding to the discussion on rule of law, one participant stated: “I want to raise an issue related to the security field, there is a great challenge in the integration of the Maoist army and the National Army; there is little consensus on how to integrate the forces.” In addition, “everyone is talking about a federal system, but as we the security personnel see, no one is talking about the framework of the security personnel in that system and how that will be addressed.” Restructuring of the existing forces and incorporation into the evolving government structures were key concerns raised during the discussion. 

One of the threats to ending impunity is the politicization of the security sector and the silencing of the victims and their families. “There are weak sanctions. Sometimes we [state security personnel] bring in the culprits, only to have pressure of the political parties to release them. The new constitution will have to have strict laws so Nepal is a more secure place and it is easier for us to work.” “No one discusses the disappeared and the murdered,” shared a civil society representative. Another cited lack of criminal investigations as one of the challenges; “compensation may be given to the victim’s families in some cases, but the investigation is not done.” One advocate concluded, “the real conflict is over, but the consequences of conflict still remain, like the conflict victims. There needs to be more policies to give attention to the conflict victims” and reminded the group of the provision for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the Interim Constitution. 

“One of the most dangerous things in Nepal is corruption and bureaucracy and until that is changed, people will not feel peace.” While corruption is rampant throughout Nepal, in the political realm, the “administration and bureaucracy only serve the parties, and the people are still suffering. The parties’ only agenda has become the political agenda, but we must focus on human dignity to reach sustainable peace and development.” A political party representative noted, “in the drafting of the constitution, 26 seats were reserved for intellectuals. Those seats have been mis-used; the parties have divided the seats among themselves, trying to make themselves stronger, rather than focusing on the people’s needs. Thus, there are no independent candidates that are fighting for the people’s needs in the cabinet. In the very first stage of the drafting of the constitutions, [the major parties] are making it about getting power.” One method to curb corruption is increased accountability of the political parties to those that they represent. As voters, “we have influence on the elected member, but the question is whether those people elected will be ultimately by influenced by the people or the party? If the party influences more than the people, then it’s no use.” The fact that many members of the CA are new, and perhaps less experienced, was seen as a two-edged sword: they might be more susceptible to pressure to follow the party line, or they might be more open to listen to the people’s concerns if they were voiced clearly. “In spite of political connections, there are still people [in the CA] who represent castes and other areas.” 

Another aspect of accountability raised was the decentralization of power. While there was a heated debate on the value and practicality of federalism, there was consensus that the people of Nepal “are expecting decentralization. They want skills training in decision making to be enhanced so that they can make their decisions for themselves.” Regardless of the divisions designed in the new constitution, one step is to “empower the existing system of the government such as the mayors, village development committees (VDCs) and district development committees (DDCs).” Despite the many challenges addressed during the roundtable, participants reaffirmed their commitment to work for peace and security in Nepal. They emphasized the importance of working across party lines, as well as among the diverse sectors represented in the room, to achieve their vision for sustainable peace.  

Manabiya Srot Bikas Kendra Nepal (MSBK-Nepal) is an NGO working in Nepal with the vision of ideal society building with effective mechanism to bring up human potentialities. Its main objective is to enhance capacities of the grass root NGOs and communities for the empowerment of disadvantaged section of the society. Currently MSBK-Nepal is working in 10 districts of Western Development Region in the areas of education, good governance, peace building, youth leadership development, ICT and capacity building.  

Joining Aker and Taylor in facilitating the dialogue was Upendra Malla Tara, member secretary / director of MSBK-Nepal, who has worked in the field of development since last eight year. Upendra has served in Western Development Region in areas of good governance, peace building, education development and capacity building in partnership with various reputed NGOs and INGOs. As a coordinator, he has worked for peace radio project in 10 communities from 5 districts of Western Development Region in partnership with IPJ. The project was focused on facilitating community discussions on radio episodes broadcasted by Equal Access Nepal for peace building process.   

TODAY’S YOUTH ASIA

NEWS RELEASE
25th May, 2008

Maoist Chairman Prachanda presents “Everest Summit Award” to IPJ

Dr. Dee Aker on behalf of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice at the University of San Diego’s Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies received the “Everest Summit Award” on 25th May, 2008 by Maoists Chairman Prachanda in Kathmandu, organized by Today’s Youth Asia (TYA).
Associate Editor of Today’s Youth Asia magazine, Ayusha Nirola said, “Today’s Youth Asia in Nepal launched this humanitarian award to recognize those international figures who have been successful in bringing about a constructive positive reform in the society, to benefit global humanity through their tireless contribution to humanitarian works, peace, education and media.”

Chief Guest at this award ceremony, Maoist Chairman Prachanda said that he welcomed the participation of the international community in the development process of Nepal. He also congratulated Institute for Peace & Justice and said, “I am convinced that our next generation will contribute to Nepal’s progress and development and the Everest Summit Award is the first step towards achieving that positive identity worldwide.”

Santosh Shah, the Publisher & Editor of Today’s Youth Asia magazine and the Director of the Everest Summit Award stated that, “Despite several shortcomings of Nepal’s politics and developments, TYA is making an effort to create at least some young leaders who can serve Nepal in various technical fields. Institute for Peace & Justice has contributed to the peace and justice of several conflict-ridden nations worldwide. We are impressed with their practical approach and innovative and effective methods.”

The recipient of the award Dr. Dee Aker said, “In our work around the world, perhaps it is the inspiration and dedication of the women peacemakers and commitment of youth that teaches us the most about the essentials in peace building.” She also said, “People want to cultivate a new respect for diversity while working for inclusion of voices and the profound rights of citizens. We hope to support you in the creation of a truly inclusive, democratic and just state.”Everest Summit Award was launched as an international award from Nepal in February 2008 and the first award was offered to Ms Aram Hur & Indigo Sowon of South Korea.
For further information:
Santosh Shah, Editor & Publisher, Today’s Youth Asia Magazine.
Mobile: 98510-91562.

youthmag@wlink.com.np

Additional News Coverage:

http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/3079894.cms

http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/detail.php?article_id=923&cat_id=8

http://www.sandiego.edu/insideusd/?p=317

Saturday, May 24, 2008 

As Nepal passes through this crucial transition, it provides an opportunity to look back, build on past experiences and plan for what is needed on the path towards greater democracy and freedom.  

“The Power of Negotiation: Constructive Communication Techniques” is an extension of the negotiation, conflict management and communication skills building programs, which have been conducted with Nepali senior and emerging political leaders, civil society spokespersons and women representatives since 2003.  

Through international case studies and exercises, 37 participants of the CPN-M party, including constituent assembly representatives, central committee members and leadership of the women’s and students’ association, examined how negotiation and communication provide methods to transform violent struggles and address conflict. It provided an introduction to relevant skills to a new community of leaders committed to a new democracy. The program encouraged each participant to reflect on personal resources for getting beyond confrontation and on the path to solutions.

Thursday, May 22, 2008 

At 8 a.m. we gathered in the SAP-Nepal offices, reunited with Naresh Phuyal, our interpreter from 2005-2006, Anil and Niraj Khanal, the SAP-Nepal staff who had been instrumental in arranging the logistics and outreach for the two Kathmandu workshops. A flurry of printing and photocopying, and we were ready when the first participants arrived at 9:30 a.m. 

Sixteen women from 4 parties participated in the day-long participatory workshop, “Gender Power: Activating a Common Agenda.” Aker and Taylor were welcomed by the experienced politicians of the Inter-Party Women’s Alliance (IPWA), a consortium of women from the major parties who invited the IPJ to convene this workshop, as well as newcomers from the recently formed Madhesis People’s Rights Forum (MJF). In the shifting political landscape leading up to the constituent assembly (CA) elections, the MJF emerged as the major party representing the historically marginalized southern Terai region, and earned a comparable seats to the past leading parties of Nepali Congress (NC) and Communist Party of Nepal-Marxist Lenin (CPN-ML). 

“It is a pleasure to welcome back Dee and Laura, you are like a family member in Nepal” Prativa Rana, Central Committee, RPP, former chair of IPWA

The workshop “Gender Power: Activating a Common Agenda” encouraged new leaders to find the common agenda of women from diverse experiences and help in developing a common “language” to build support for and advance common concerns. The Election Commission called for greater representation of women and how it is time for women to consider the constituencies they represent by gender as well as party. Through exercises and case studies, participants’ examined common challenges and strategies to address them when women come to power.  

The program is a continuation of the IPJ Nepal Project which has been conducted with Nepali senior and emerging political leaders, civil society spokespersons, and women representatives since 2003. Programs are designed to enhance personal skills, build broader constituencies for democratic participation, and establish collaborations to address root causes and consequences of conflict. 

After Taylor provided a brief review of the impact of the Women, Politics and Peace Working for a Just Society series over the past three years, Aker share a case study of Uganda. Illuminating how women were able to get gender on the agenda for the constitution, Aker described the process, product and impact of the women’s movement on democratic change in Uganda. “Women decided that if a new constitution was going to be written, they would have to go out and make sure that everybody, understood what a government was supposed to and what a constitution could do.” The Ugandan women’s movement led the educational campaigns about constituent assemblies, as well we efforts to collect the voices of people to inform the new document. Through multiple means, e.g., radio, print, TV, etc., the women said, “We are going to be the bridges, the voices from the people, to the political leaders.” 

“We are going to be the bridges, the voices from the people, to the political leaders.” 

In the next exercise, the participants worked in small groups to use the analytic framework for understanding the conflict in Uganda, to adapt and apply to understand the current transition in Nepal. “We haven’t felt security in Nepal,” shared one of the participants, however, we hope the constitution will “help to build a successful nation.” “The role played by civil society organizations can be further strengthened to make a good constitution,” another participant added. Key issues across the small groups discussions were insecurity, mechanisms to implement necessary legislation, the dissemination of information to the people, transparency, the commitment of the political parties, honesty of the part of the government, and free and strong fair judiciary. One participant concluded, “We are thankful for what you bring, I had no idea about Uganda until now. We will do our best to bring this information to our parties.” 

After common priorities emerged during the previous exercise, Taylor shared some key consultation mechanisms to channel constituents’ voices to policymakers. Constitution-making is a “deliberative” process. Interim agreements, like the one Nepali leaders forged in 2006, help society to establish basic clarify basic legal rules and provide sufficient change from past root causes of conflict. A constitutional committee can help reframe a constitution from a “contract” to a “conversation” and carry out three key phases: civic education, popular consultation and synthesis of multiple contributions and submissions. This methodology helps increase public participation and promote an ownership model of civic engagement. 

Through a media simulation, participants practiced asking local constituents about their interest and ideas for a new constitution based on the strengths and weaknesses of the 1990 constitution and the 2006 interim constitution, and summarized key points in 3 sentences. They brainstormed mechanisms to share this synthesis, including more traditional channels such as radio and television, but also SMS (cell phone texting) and local suggestion boxes at throughout VDCs. 

Constitution-making processes can be transformation if given adequate resources and time to include a multitude of voices and perspectives. Public participation increases local ownership as well as the legitimacy of the final product. With wider societal support, it is more likely the impact of the constitution will be inclusive and empowering in light of the root causes of conflict.

After over 30 hours of travel on three planes, we landed in Kathmandu to a shockingly quiet airport. Outside, the official taxi prices were doubled because of the bandh (strike), and there were only a few faces lining the window waiting for the arrival of our flight. Finally, Anil Khanal, one of our partners at South Asia Partnerships-Nepal (SAP-Nepal) emerged on his bike through the thin crowd of men offering us taxi rides. Anil explained that the entire city was shut down to protest the Maoists’ alleged abduction, torture and killing of the businessman Ram Hari Shrestha.

 We were the last two people stacked into the tourist bus, whose front was covered with a bright blue banner labeling it as such so as to avoid confrontation who those calling the bandh. The eyes of the young police woman at the front of the bus confirmed the severity of the situation as we slowly passed an 8-foot fire fueled by tires in New Baneshwor. Dozens of young men tended the flame.

 Arriving without incident, however, the tourist bus made three stops and finally dropped us at the Malla Hotel. We were greeted by the familiar faces of staff at the hotel we have come to call home over the past years, and a number of messages from our friends and colleagues who had planned to met us at the airport and were unable to because of the travel-ban. Unable to leave the hotel, we re-scheduled our afternoon meetings, and set to work finalizing our plans for tomorrow’s workshop with the Inter-Party Women’s Alliance.

To read a news article and see photos of the bandh, go to: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWYd6Uuf_xj-8STdmYDRwjKbUXfw