Justice. Peace. Security.

After the Shalit deal: freedom for the 164?

2011-10-21T23:20:00.000+01:00

One can only begin to imagine the immense relief and jubilation being felt by Gilad Shalit and his family this week after his release from captivity after five long years.

However, while Shalit's release is cause for celebration, the prisoner exchange deal does not represent any major advance in the "peace process", and aspects of the deal are more a cause for gloom than optimism.

When the first list of prisoners to be released from Israeli jails was published, the first thing I did was to look down the list at the year in which each prisoner was born. Not one of them is a minor. According to the Israeli Prison Service, there are 164 Palestinian children aged between 12 and 17 in Israeli prisons.

When Gilad Shalit was originally captured, Hamas demanded the release of all Palestinian women and children from Israeli prisons in exchange for his release.[1] While I do not endorse capturing a young man and depriving him of his basic rights as a means of securing the release of those children, it is to Hamas' shame that they have prioritised the release of their own activists over those children's freedom. In the past, when the Israeli state has released large numbers of Palestinian prisoners, as it did in August 2008, it has chosen 'low value' prisoners, often with little left of their sentences to serve, Fatah members released to bolster the Palestinian Authority in its struggle with Hamas. The 164 Palestinian child prisoners would surely fall more into this 'low value' category than those who were released this time round, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes against Israeli civilians. However, in this case, Hamas haggled with the Israeli Government over which prisoners it wanted released, prioritising its own key party activists.

While the Hamas leadership is known to have little respect for human rights, the Israeli Government is far from blameless in all this, as Amnesty International has pointed out, and not only because it chooses to imprison children. It continues to hold Palestinian prisoners on Israeli soil in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, often denying them family visits and arbitrarily placing them in solitary confinement for long periods. Furthermore, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon pointed out in a recent report, while Israel punishes Palestinians who have carried out attacks on Israeli civilians, Israelis who have carried out attacks on Palestinian civilians often are not brought to justice. Citing several cases where Israeli authorities apparently either turned a blind eye to abuses or actively supported them, Ban Ki Moon called on Israel “ensure that all serious allegations concerning criminal acts committed by settlers or the Israel Defence Forces are subject to independent, impartial, effective, thorough and prompt investigations, in accordance with international standards.” Indeed, bearing in mind some of the shocking abuses for which justice has never been served, one might of the consider the 164 child prisoners to be the lucky ones when compared with the fate of some Palestinian children, such as ten-year-old Ahmed Musa.

However, the detention of children - and their mistreatment whilst incarcerated - can have profound and lasting effects upon their wellbeing which last into adulthood. As part of the Shalit deal, the Israeli Government is due to release a further 577 Palestinian prisoners in December, but it is not yet known whether any of them will be minors.

[1] I do not discuss the issue of women prisoners here along with children as I do not believe that women should be regarded as akin to children as per the "womenandchildren" conglomeration - nor should it be assumed that men are any less deserving of their freedom.

Time to export our arms controls to the UN

2011-01-18T13:38:00.007Z

In February 2011, UN member states will attend the third of four Preparatory Committees (PrepComs) with the aim of preparing the ground for agreement on an international legally-binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2012. The 2012 negotiations will represent the culmination of 15 years of campaigning by NGOs, parliamentarians, Nobel Laureates and victims of armed violence.

The poorly regulated trade in arms fuels conflict, destabilises entire regions, undermines sustainable development and contributes to human rights abuses and violations of international law. While states have a right to self-defence and a legitimate need to retain arms for defence and security, poor regulation of the trade has devastating consequences. Approximately two thousand people die each day as a result of armed violence, with many more injured, displaced or traumatised.

Read the full article in Parliamentary Brief magazine.

Leaked cables confirm long-held suspicions over Chagos

2010-10-12T20:58:00.015+01:00

The Chagos Islanders - no strangers to disappointment - have had their hopes of returning home to the British Indian Ocean Territories (BIOT) raised and then dashed again this year.

The Liberal Democrats' party policy has long been that the Chagossians should be allowed to return to their islands, and in opposition they campaigned strongly for the Labour Government to drop its case against the Chagossians at the European Court of Human Rights. While the Conservative Party did not explicitly call for the case to be dropped, the now Foreign Secretary William Hague stated publicly that a just solution must be sought, and the then Conservative Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Keith Simpson stated that:

"...if the consequence of [the 2010 General Election] is that my party finds itself in government, I think we will want to revisit the whole issue with an open mind, because we cannot continue the present policy."

Indeed, even the US administration believed that the new government may bring with it a reversal of Labour's policy on Chagos, as one of the memos recently published by Wikileaks reveals that US embassy official Richard Mills wrote:

"We are not as sanguine[...]that the Conservatives would oppose a right of return."

After the General Election in May, the new coalition government stated that it was carrying out a review of its policies in relation to "the whole pattern of issues raised by the British Indian Ocean Territory's situation." As recently as July, the Foreign Secretary is reported to have told Dr Philippa Gregory in a constituency surgery that it appeared that the best solution was for the Chagossians to be allowed to return to the outer islands.

However, in August the Foreign Office revealed in several letters to campaigners that it was not changing its "fundamental policy on resettlement", and would continue to fight the case at the European Court of Human Rights. The reasons given were the same as before: compensation has been paid, the 2002 Feasibility Study said resettlement was not viable, defence and security risks, environmental concerns, financial costs of resettlement - all arguments which can be and have been easily refuted.

It seems that those who are totally unconvinced by FCO officials' arguments when on the outside, once in government can be quickly convinced to tow the line. Which raises the question, what do Foreign Office officials know that we don't?

The leaked US embassy cables have shed some light on the reality behind some of the FCO's arguments, confirming what many had suspected.

When Gordon Brown announced the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the last weeks of his premiership, Foreign Minister Chris Bryant stated that,

"the extension of the marine protected area and the new measures we are taking will not have any direct or indirect effect on the rights or otherwise of Chagossians to return to the islands. These are two entirely separate issues.”

According to the cables, FCO Overseas Territories Director Colin Roberts described the proposed MPA as the "most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT."

The cable further reveals that while the US was concerned that the creation of an MPA would raise opposition to the US military presence on Diego Garcia, Roberts "insisted that the establishment of a marine park[...]would in no way impinge on US Government use of the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, for military purposes" and that "the UK and U.S. should carefully negotiate the details of the marine reserve to assure that U.S. interests were safeguarded and the strategic value of BIOT was upheld."

In addition, despite previous (perhaps carefully worded) statements by the UK Government that "the historical treatment of Chagossians by the British Government at the time is a scar on our history" and "we should be ashamed of what was done in the name of this country", Roberts states that "We do not regret the removal of the population."

So what is the real reason for concocting stories to justify preventing the Chagossians from returning? According to Roberts, "the primary purpose of the BIOT is security." Many have rightly questioned what possible threat a small community of Chagossians living on the outer islands could pose to a US military base. It is true that they would pose no direct threat to the operation of the base; after all, "Many yachties today enjoy the "island paradise" for months at a time. They simply pay a fee for the right to stay in the territory".[1] However, it may be instructive to look at the US Government's original reasoning for asking the UK to evict the Chagossians in the first place. In the 1960s, many of the developing countries which were host to US military bases were gaining independence, and often allying themselves with the USSR. As a result, they were evicting the US military from their territories. If the Chagossians were to push for self-determination, they could demand the expulsion of US forces from Diego Garcia. As one 1966 foreign office brief put it:

"The primary objective in acquiring these islands from Mauritius and the Seychelles[...]was to ensure that Her Majesty's Government had full title to, and control over, these islands so that they could be used for the construction of defence facilities without hindrance or political agitation and so that when a particular island would be needed for the construction of British or United States defence facilities Britain or the United States should be able to clear it of its current population. The Americans in particular attached great importance to this freedom of manoeuvre, divorced from the normal considerations applying to a populated dependent territory."[2]

The logic of removing the Chagossians was not that they would pose a threat to the secure operation of the base on Diego Garcia, but that they would threaten the very existence of a base whose purpose, like 1,000 others, is to maintain the ability of the US to project its military might across the world in the 'post-colonial' era. It would seem that the new UK Government, just like the last one, considers maintaining the (steadily waning) global military dominance of the USA to be more important than the human rights of 2,000 indigenous Chagossians.

[1] David Vine, Island of Shame (Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2009), p15

[2] 'Presentation of British Indian Ocean Territory in the United Nations', quoted in Vine, Island of Shame, p78

Development assistance, David Cameron style (part 2)

2010-06-04T21:23:00.014+01:00

Back in December I blogged about David Cameron's plans for international development policy under a Tory government. I argued that his proposed MyAid programme, which would give the public the opportunity to vote on which aid programmes should received funding from DFID, may not lead to resources being allocated to the work which is most needed. This point was well made in the House of Commons recently by Jim Sheridan MP, who highlighted the need for funding for programmes tackling female genital mutilation, and questioned how the MyAid programme would "protect vital programmes that do not have the X factor and do not receive an internet vote?"

Now, Britain has a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government, and its programme for government includes, alongside the MyAid idea, some commendable commitments to introduce greater transparency on aid spending, support an Arms Trade Treaty and make progress on the MDGs. Cameron has announced his intention to set up a new monitoring body to assess the effectiveness of DFID's spending.

Of course, we all want to see development aid being spent on programmes that have a real impact. But my concern is that the desire to see instant, concrete results can actually divert funding away from programmes which would bring the greatest long term benefit.

Sometimes, what is needed to bring about development is not just accelerating economic growth or providing much needed goods and services in poor countries - although these things are important. The UN measures development not just in terms of economic development but in terms of human development, which is reflected in the MDGs. In some cases this can require social change, which may take decades to come into fruition.

In 2008 I spent three months in Palestine carrying out research on methods and frameworks for evaluating the the effectiveness of development programmes, specifically those devoted to women's rights and women's empowerment. What I found concurred with arguments in the development literature that the trend towards an increasing focus on evaluating the impacts of development projects and programmes, if not applied with caution, can have the opposite of its intended effects.[1]

Sari Hanafi and Linda Tabar summarise the point with a quote from a member of one Palestinian women's organisation who said: "Sometimes donors expect a revolution for the $60,000 they contributed. I will not work with such donors again. If they think they can see such results right away there is a problem."[2]

Many programmes for women's empowerment adopt the 'training the trainers' model, teaching women how to train other women in their communities in advocacy skills, gender analysis, citizenship, IT skills and more. Such programmes aim to plant the seeds of social change, which may take years to grow into a wider social movement with real impacts on society. Meanwhile, projects which produce quick, tangible results may attract more funding even if ultimately they do less to bring about the social change which is needed and desired.

David Cameron must also not forget, amid the upcoming frenzy of budget cuts, that thorough evaluation requires funding dedicated for that purpose. Many development NGOs are funded only on a project-by-project basis, and if that budget does not include funds for the evaluation process itself then it may not be carried out. It is a cost worth bearing, as only through evaluation of its activities can any organisation learn from its experience. However, it is a long term investment, and donors must ensure that development NGOs have the space and the resources to carry out evaluations which are not just tools for donor accountability and future funding decisions, but also provide a useful basis for organisational learning.

In a competitive environment where continued funding depends on producing evidence of instant impacts, the allocation of resources can become skewed toward low-risk, short-termist projects, and the financial need for a positive evaluative result can get in the way of the kind of honest appraisal which is vital to building long term strategies for development. A push towards transparency and thorough evaluation of impacts is, on the face of it, a positive thing, but it must be done with sensitivity, ensuring that the evaluation process serves not only the agenda of donors such as DFID, but also that of the organisations whom they fund and, most importantly, the communities whose quality of life they aim to improve.

[1] e.g. Islah Jad, 'NGOs: Between buzzwords and social movements' in Development in Practice, vol 17 no. 4, pp. 622-629 (2007); Sari Hanafi and Linda Tabar, The Emergence of a Palestinian Globalized Elite: Donors, International Organisations and Local NGOs, (Jerusalem: Institute of Jerusalem Studies, 2005).

[2] Hanafi and Tabar, The Emergence of a Palestinian Globalized Elite, p. 186.

The price of Brown’s green legacy

2010-04-29T12:22:00.002+01:00

In January 2009, shortly before the end of his Presidency, George W Bush announced the creation of a Marine Protected Area around its overseas territories in the Pacific Ocean. It was widely speculated in the news media at the time that this was an attempt to create a positive legacy for a deeply unpopular leader.

Roll on 2010, and Gordon Brown is preparing to say goodbye to Number 10 Downing Street. At the beginning of this month, the Government announced the creation of a Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Islands – the UK’s overseas territories in the Indian Ocean.

I have documented before the British Government’s attempts to prevent the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islanders returning home, having been exiled in the 1960s to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia. The creation of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) means that no fishing will be allowed in the waters around the islands, thereby removing the only viable means the Chagossians would have of making a living should they return to the islands. The Foreign Office insists that this does not prejudice the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, expected later this year, on whether or not the Chagossians should be allowed to return. An unusually flustered Chris Bryant, Minister for Europe, tried to defend the Government’s decision in the House of Commons, acknowledging no contradiction in this position. He said, “The extension of the marine protected area and the new measures we are taking will not have any direct or indirect effect on the rights or otherwise of Chagossians to return to the islands. These are two entirely separate issues.”

In itself, the MPA is a good idea, which will help to protect a precious marine ecosystem. But it could have been created, as many Parliamentarians requested, with a condition to allow limited fishing in certain areas, to support the Chagossians should they win their battle to return. Bizarrely, the MPA will include – much as Bush’s does – for an exclusion zone to allow for continued military activity in the area. Somehow, the Foreign Office believes that while small-scale fishing to support a small community on the outer islands will cause unacceptable damage to the environment, a large military base on Diego Garcia is perfectly acceptable.

More recently still, the Government’s current justification for preventing the Chagossians’ return – that its resettlement feasibility study showed the islands could not support repopulation – has been seriously called into question. One of the consultants commissioned by the Foreign Office to produce the study has revealed that his conclusion that the resettlement was a viable option was silenced by his client.

Just as the Government has evaded democratic scrutiny at every turn in this sorry saga, the announcement of the MPA was made while Parliament was in recess. Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis, who promised just weeks earlier during an excellent debate on the subject that MPs would be fully briefed before any final decision was made on the MPA, was nowhere to be seen.

One can hardly begrudge Gordon Brown for wanting to make protection of the planet and marine biodiversity a part of his legacy, but this needn’t be incompatible with human rights. Jeremy Corbyn MP, who has long campaigned for the rights of Chagossians, pointed out that “every other marine protected area proposed anywhere in the world by anybody includes a local human element to protect the zone” – a role which those Chagossians who do wish to return would be more than happy to fulfil. Diane Abbott MP (Labour) has said the Government “cannot hide behind environmentalism to mask what many of us fear is an encroachment on the rights and legitimate expectations of the Chagossian people”, while Mark Field MP (Conservative) accused the Government of “using the environmental issue as a fig leaf for the continued abuse of these human rights”.

I leave you with the words of human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who wrote:

"The truth is that no Chagossian has anything like equal rights with even the warty sea slug. There is no sense that the British government will let them go back. The government is not even contemplating equal rights for Chagossians and sea slugs."

I spoke too soon...

2010-03-21T21:44:00.006Z

Just a few short weeks ago, on International Women’s Day, I lambasted the UK Government for its lack of commitment to promoting women’s rights in its foreign policy. I referred to Action Aid’s excellent campaign for the establishment of a Ministerial role to co-ordinate the work of the Foreign Office, Department for International Development and Ministry of Defence to tackle violence against women overseas. Referring to a Parliamentary answer to Jo Swinson MP in which the Prime Minister gave an indifferent response to the suggestion, I stated that the Government had no plans to create such a role.

Naturally, shortly after the piece was published on The F Word, the Prime Minister announced a new role for Foreign Office Minister Baroness Kinnock. Obviously I coughed and spluttered a little. I wondered how I had got it so wrong. Clearly the PM declined to reveal his plans in response to a Parliamentary question, preferring to save the announcement for International Women’s Day (somewhat calling into question the point of Parliamentary questions, but that is another matter). I even considered eating my words.

However, I won’t be eating my words, at least until a few more questions have been answered. So close to a General Election, I couldn’t help but wonder whether the Government had announced this new role in the knowledge that Baroness Kinnock was highly unlikely to be a Minister (or indeed, Gordon Brown unlikely to be Prime Minister) in a few weeks’ time, making it a somewhat meaningless appointment. On top of that, most Government departments, including the Foreign Office, are facing significant budget cuts, and it seems highly unlikely that the Government will announce additional funding for this work at this stage, let alone create civil service posts to support Baroness Kinnock’s work. In which case, the move would be purely cosmetic.

The other big question is, if the Conservative Party should happen to win the General Election, would they continue this post or abolish it? I used the opportunity of a Women’s Question Time hustings event in Westminster to question all the main political parties on whether they support the continuation of this role. The always-articulate Caroline Lucas MEP offered the Green Party’s support, and Liberal Democrat Women and Equalities Spokesperson Lynne Featherstone MP said her party would also support the role. Of course Vera Baird QC, speaking for the Labour Party, offered her support, but the party I really wanted to hear from was the Conservatives. Theresa May MP first insisted that this was an Ambassadorial Role, not a Ministerial Role (quite whether this is true and what are the implications, I don’t yet know). She then explained that she was in discussions with her party about this question, but that she did not yet know whether the Conservatives would keep the role alive. A Parliamentary motion calling on all parties to commit to keeping the role has, at the time of writing, been signed by 13 MPs, including 1 Conservative, but the party has not yet announced its official line on the issue.

So, the first major question is whether or not there will still be a Minister co-ordinating this work after 6^th May. The second is whether it will have adequate resources and support to make a difference. To her credit, Theresa May also said that there is a difference between creating an Ambassadorial role and creating real change on the ground – which is absolutely true. We have yet to find out whether this role is purely symbolic, or if it will have real clout. Until then, my words will remain uneaten. In the meantime, congratulations to Action Aid and the Gender and Development Network on their campaign success.

International Women’s Day 2010

2010-03-08T09:00:00.001Z

This blog appeared on The F Word today.

Each year, International Women’s Day provides a welcome opportunity to assess the progress which has – or has not – been made toward gender equality and the advancement of women’s rights around the world. This past year has seen the 30th anniversary of CEDAW, the UN’s international bill of rights for women, which defines discrimination and lays out an agenda for the 186 countries who are party to the treaty to put into action. Though we are still a long way from global gender equality, some important steps have been made in the right direction.

The UN General Assembly’s resolution, passed in October, to create a new ‘super agency’ combining the work of the UN’s four disparate bodies working to end discrimination against women, was the result of years of campaigning to create an organisation whose resources and status reflect the importance of the cause at hand.

The UN Security Council has reaffirmed its commitment to promoting women’s participation in decision-making in matters of peace and security around the world, and created a new Special Representative post to take forward its important work to address sexual violence in armed conflict.

But for all these resolutions and statements of good intent, progress is slow when it comes to actually improving women’s lives. A new report by Action Aid reveals the extent of continued inequality across the world; 60 million girls are assaulted at or on their way to school each year; 41 million girls do not receive a primary school education and two thirds of illiterate young people are women. As many as 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in their lifetime, and women make up less than 20% of MPs in national Parliaments.

The conference rooms and negotiating tables where lofty ideals become international treaties are far removed from the realities in which the majority of women live; indeed, often these two worlds seem to have little impact on each other. But those of us who have the privilege of being citizens in a democracy (however imperfect), can at least make our voices heard, to try to hold our own government to account and force it to play its part in the global campaign for gender equality.

The British Government’s record on promoting women’s rights internationally is mixed – perhaps not surprisingly, given that our own Parliament is just 19.5% women. Selling the invasion of Afghanistan as a mission to liberate women was a terrible blunder which may well have done more harm than good to efforts to promote women’s rights abroad, confirming for many their suspicions that gender equality is a concept used for advancing an imperialist agenda. But for all its faults, when compared with other governments around the world, ours deserves some praise for its efforts. The British Government was one of the leading advocates for bringing the women’s movement to the table at the UN Security Council, and remains one of only 14 UN member states to have developed a National Action Plan for incorporating gender analysis into all our foreign policy.

However, in the 30 years of CEDAW’s existence, the UK has not once put forward a candidate for election to any of its 23 committee seats, nor is it fielding a candidate in this year’s elections. The UK will not nominate a candidate for the position of Under Secretary General to head up the new UN Agency for Women, or for the post of Special Representative Against Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict.

While the Obama administration has appointed an Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, Gordon Brown has no such plans – and I’ll be more than a little surprised if the next government does.

This has caused considerable upset among activists and campaigners in the UK. “Surely,” asks gender expert Lesley Abdela, “the Government cannot be suggesting that there is no one in the UK who is qualified for any of these posts?”

I suspect the reasons have far more to do with political calculation and horse-trading, to which Baroness Kinnock almost alludes in her explanation of this omission. It is not that the Government doesn’t care, but that it has only so many funds, and so much political capital with other UN member states, and it is not prepared to use up those resources on rights for women.

For all the lip service it has paid to this issue, our Government has decided that women’s rights are not a high priority in this country’s relations with the wider world.

Essay: The "Other" in popular culture and US foreign policy

2010-02-06T19:30:00.005Z

This week saw the beginning of the long-awaited final season of ABC drama Lost, which I for one am über excited (and a little nervous).

You're probably wondering what this has to do with the topic of this blog.

We'll aside from the recently reported (though perhaps slightly misleadingly presented) story that President Obama scheduled his first State of the Union address so as not to coincide with the return of Lost, I believe popular culture does play a role in our political lives.

There have been various essays written about US films and TV shows, and the way they represent American foreign policy. We are all familiar with the romanticised image of 'the American soldier' and his heroic masculinity, an image which can be found in popular culture and political discourse in equal measure (indeed, the same is true of 'British soldiers', but with a little less schmaltz).

In 2008, I wrote an essay using Lost as an example of a popular TV series which, in some respects, subverts the ideas and assumptions which have gained (increased) currency in foreign policy discourse since 11th September 2001.

To celebrate the beginning of Lost's final season, I decided to share this essay with you.

The "Other" in popular culture and US foreign policy: ABC's Lost and the War on Terror

Development assistance, David Cameron style (part 1)

2009-12-27T19:36:00.007Z

It is more than likely the 2010 General Election in the UK will see the Conservative Party taking control of government, with David Cameron the new Prime Minister. After 13 years of New Labour's deeply disappointing "ethical foreign policy", it will be interesting to see what changes the new Government will bring. I am not optimistic.

Little has been announced in the way of Conservative foreign policy priorities, but Cameron has laid out some principles of his plans for international development assistance.

The Conservatives propose to implement a "Commonwealth-centric" aid policy, reducing the number of countries to which the UK gives development aid from 108 to 60-70. While this has been criticised as appealing to an old imperialist mindset, I believe there is an argument - aside from imperialist nostalgia - which would support such a priority. Nonetheless, it is outweighed by arguments of both morality and prudence.

One powerful argument as to why developed countries like the UK should give development aid to poorer countries is that the our affluence has been built, in part, upon the exploitation of other countries. The accelerated development of the industrial revolution would not have been possible on such a scale if Britain and other imperial powers had not exploited the resources of their colonies at the expense of colonial populations. Although we, living in the 21st Century are not (by and large) personally responsible for this, we nonetheless enjoy the benefits of it, and we therefore have a historical responsibility to redress that injustice. I support this argument, which could be used to support the notion that we have a particular, though not exclusive, responsibility toward Commonwealth countries when it comes to development assistance. It should also be noted, however, that not all former British colonies are members of the Commonwealth, and some of those that aren't, such as Burma, are in great need of aid.

Many people, myself included, would argue that we have a moral responsibility as human beings to help those in need, whether or not we are responsible for their impoverishment. David Cameron would most likely argue that it is not the role of the state to make such moral judgements on behalf of its people, and that philanthropy is the role of charity and not government. But, as I will explain, charitable donations are often not directed to where they are needed most, and cannot be relied upon to meet every crisis. Furthermore, aid to developing countries outside the Commonwealth is necessitated not just by morality but by enlightened self-interest - an argument to which Conservatives will be much more receptive. It has become widely recognised, particularly since 11th September 2001, that poverty abroad can represent a security threat to "us" at home. Cameron knows this, but without further details of his plans, it is impossible to tell how his aid policy will reflect it.

Cameron's other announcement has been the cringe-worthily titled 'MyAid' plan, which would allow the public to vote on how £40 million of the Government's foreign development aid is spent. While more democratic accountability in international development policy could certainly be a good thing, setting up a website to let people vote on which projects we fund sounds more like a token PR stunt than a genuine effort towards democratisation. What's more, it gives no guarantee that our money will be better spent.

The priorities of the British public can be baffling, as was illustrated last year when it emerged that Britons give more money to a donkey sanctuary than to charities which combat domestic abuse. The Charities Aid Foundation apparently calls this "the eccentric nature of British philanthropy", and our priorities when it comes to development aid are no exception, nor is the phenomenon limited to the British public alone. It is not uncommon for charitable donations to come flooding in response to some humanitarian crises while other, equally deserving ones, receive little help. For example, an estimated 80% of British adults made donations in the aftermath of the 2004 'Boxing Day' tsunami, a cause which ultimately received more aid than humanitarian agencies could usefully spend. In total, $7,100 was received from international donors for every tsunami victim, compared to around $3 for each victim of flooding in Bangladesh in 2004. Conor Foley, who was part of the tsunami relief effort in Sri Lanka, reports that "it was not uncommon to see brand new camps with piped running water, for 'tsunami IDPs [internally displaced persons]' right next to squalid camps where many 'conflict IDPs' had been living for years." [1]

The basic principle that voters should have a greater say over how our taxes are spent - including how it is spent is spent abroad, which is often less clear than domestic spending - is sound. But a website and voting buttons is not democratic reform, it is a token appeal to a public enamoured with "vote for your favourite" shows like The X Factor. There are many factors - lack of information, media bias and so on - which may explain why people prefer to give to some causes more than others. None of this makes for a coherent aid policy. Rather, it looks more like a part of David Cameron's PR strategy.

In part 2 I will look at Cameron's plans for "performance-based funding" in development aid.

[1] Conor Foley, The Thin Blue Line: How Humanitarianism Went to War, (London: Verso, 2008), p. 126.

Democracy vs Colonialism: the Chagos case

2009-10-22T11:20:00.006+01:00

A year ago today, the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands lost their UK legal battle for the right to return to their home in the British Indian Ocean Territories (see this post for a history of the case). The British Foreign Office has fought tooth and nail for 11 years to prevent a just conclusion to this apalling saga, and used every trick in the book to avoid democratic accountability at every turn. Even now, as it prepares to go before the European Court of Human Rights, the FCO refuses to be made answerable to anyone on this matter of basic human rights.

In 2004, the British Government used the Privy Council to issue two Orders in Council that effectively overruled the High Court, legislating that no one should be able to settle in the Chagos archipelago. This decision was never put before Parliament. It was nominally based on a feasibility study on which the Chagossians themselves were never consulted. The announcement was slipped under the radar on a big news day in the UK. All of this points to a shocking lack of engagement and accountability over a decision with grave consequences for the lives of many. The Privy Council officially advises the Queen on her use of the Royal Prerogative, but in practice evokes her powers to make executive orders quickly without consulting Parliament, in cases where time is of the essence. In May this year, Justice Minister Jack Straw admitted on BBC Radio 4 that he had "exchanged speed for legitimacy" when he chose to use Orders in Council in the Chagossian case, as they were "simpler" than putting the decision before the House of Commons.

The final House of Lords ruling, one year ago, cited arcane statutes in British law to justify the Orders in Council - for example, that "in a conquered or ceded colony the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative, has full power... to act both executively and legislatively" provided this does not contravene an Act of Parliament (which in this case it doesn't, because Parliament was never consulted). Indeed, the Lords ruled that the Queen may make law for any of her colonies, regardless of whether the laws are "for the benefit of the inhabitants of that colony."

Now, I'm no lawyer, and can't offer judgement on the legal complexities of the argument made in the ruling, but I do know bare-faced colonial arrogance when I see it. That the British legal system should be utilising such laws in the 21st century is disgraceful. That the UK legislates at all for these territories is questionable enough - that the Privy Council can do so without going through Parliament beggars belief. This was no national emergency requiring urgent government action. Legitimacy was the huge price paid for speed which was never really necessary.

The European Court of Human Rights asked the FCO to reply by 17 July this year indicating how it will respond to the Chagossians’ appeal. Jeremy Corbyn MP tabled a motion, signed by 47 MPs at the time of writing, calling on the Government to consult Parliament before submitting its response to the Court. However, the FCO sought an extension to the deadline which allowed it to delay its response until the summer recess, once again evading Parliamentary scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the FCO’s response was to decline the Court’s recommendation to reach a “friendly settlement” with the Chagossians, and instead to fight the appeal.

The Foreign Office’s efforts to avoid any democratic check on its actions in this shameful story represent a tacit acknowledgement that its decisions do not bear scrutiny. The environmental concerns used to justify this enforced exile are apparently totally undermined by continued military activity polluting the area, but the “cloak of secrecy” surrounding the islands makes it extremely difficult for anyone on the outside to judge for themselves. It is up to the European Court of Human Rights now to decide on the Chagossians’ fate. But as the Foreign Office spends even more of our money fighting this appeal, we should be asking, if its reasons are so decisive, why is the British Government so afraid of public debate?

Listen to Palestinian Women

2009-08-13T15:20:00.005+01:00

I recently wrote an article for The Guardian's Comment is Free pages in response to the total absence of women on Fatah's Central Committee after its recent Congress in Bethlehem.

You can view the article here.

The Advocacy Project, with whom I interned last year, has sent another Peace Fellow to Ramallah this year to work with Women's Affairs Technical Committee. Corrine Schneider is blogging all summer about her experiences there. You can read her blog here.

Book Review: Independent Diplomat - Carne Ross

2009-07-01T18:31:00.001+01:00

I would not normally write a review of a book that is not reasonably current. This one was released two years ago, but I only read it recently and I thought it was so good I wanted to review it anyway.

Carne Ross entered the British Civil Service's Diplomatic Faststream in 1989 and went on to become a career diplomat. This book is, in part, a memoir of some of his more notable experiences in that role, and some of the most interesting sections recount his part in negotiations at the UN Security Council in the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. But, far more importantly, it is a thorough critique of the practice of diplomacy in the modern world, which takes apart some of the most basic assumptions upon which the very concept of diplomacy rests, and questions whether this age-old profession is fit for the 21st century.

The book centres upon 8 observations about modern diplomacy:

1. "Diplomacy is not democratic, even in democracies." Most of us don't know who are the diplomats who claim to speak in our name, and we have no ability to influence them.

2. The "we" that diplomats speak for (as in "we, the British, believe x or want y") bears little relation to the people on whose behalf they actually claim to speak.

3. Most of us, as citizens, are quite happy to accept this situation. Our lack of influence is convenient for us as it allows us to abdicate responsibility. "A pact between the unaccountable and the irresponsible."

4. The prevailing realist conception of world politics, which views nation-states as self-serving entities which compete with each other to secure their own interests, is flawed and produces bad outcomes.

5. Many of today's most prescient concerns - global warming, resource shortages, epidemic diseases, migration - are problems we all share, but supranational institutions (such as the UN) do not deal with them effectively because they treat them as matters which require bargaining between states' competing interests.

6. Information which is presented as "objective" is routinely favoured above all other information, glossing over the fact that every presentation of fact is oartial, reflecting subjective choices about what information is important to include. Vital information is often missed out, especially that which cannot be measured, and the practice of diplomacy does not acknowledge this deficit.

7. Governments, states and diplomats have an interest in presenting the world as simple and comprehensible, as though it can be explained with a single theory. The world is actually extremely complex, and such simplifications are at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.

8. The practice of diplomacy is "deeply unbalanced and unfair", advantaging the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalised.

None of these observations are new. Ross' arguments about the nature of information derive largely from post-structuralist thought, which has been applied now quite extensively in academic circles to the study of international relations. What is new and truly refreshing about the book is that it is written by a diplomat, based upon extensive experience in the field - that is, this is an insider concurring with the theories which have come largely from people who are very much outsiders. What's more, Ross hasn't just written a book about it, he's actually gone and done something about it, setting up his own organisation, Independent Diplomat, which aims to develop a new model of diplomacy.

I was struck by the similarities which some of Ross' observations bear to some feminist thought on international politics, in particular the work of Carol Cohn and others. Ross makes no mention of the concept of gender, but his descriptions of trying to code the messy, emotional realities of morally vexing situations into the kind of cold, technical language which is acceptable in diplomatic discourse bears great resemblance to Cohn's writings on weapons of mass destruction, which brilliantly analyse how masculinist values can make moral considerations irrelevant at the negotiating table.

Ross' central argument is that we need to be much more critical of what goes on in the world of diplomacy, and much more intrusive. International relations is not different and separate from other forms of politics, and it should not be left to diplomats, immune from democratic control. In the case of the Iraq war, we can only hope that the forthcoming inquiry will shed some light on what went on in the corridors of power and how so many bad decisions were reached. Radical change does not look a likely outcome, however, as already 'security' is being cited as a reason for giving special status to the hearings which justifies keeping some of them behind closed doors. So it is that some of the most important decisions made in our names are the ones in which we have no say.

An "honest broker" in the Middle East?

2009-06-02T10:06:00.015+01:00

I was delighted when I heard that Tony Blair would be giving oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee as part of its inquiry into 'Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories'. Despite (or, more likely, due to) being one of many people who hold Blair in, shall we say, less than high esteem, I was excited to be able to go along and see him speak in person for the first time, not least because the subject is one I'm particularly invested in.

Blair was invited to talk to the Committee about what he has been doing in his role as Envoy to the Middle East Quartet (UN, EU, US, Russia). Given his busy schedule of lecture tours, consultancy jobs, teaching at Yale and work for his Faith Foundation, some concerns have been raised about whether he has time for this job. Unsurprisingly, then, he was questioned on his level of involvement. He responded that he visits the region a couple of times a month, usually spending a week to 10 days each month on his work for the Quartet. Time is not the issue, he told MPs, the issue is the political situation, which he described as having been difficult for the last 9 months due to Israeli politics (Olmert's departure, elections), the conflict in Gaza and the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations in the US. Blair has visited Gaza only once, and he once again cited security concerns as the reason for this, although interestingly on the two occasions he mentioned this, he said that he had to consider the security of those travelling with him (not his own security, of course - great leaders don't worry about things like that - this was altruism, not fear). Asked by Sir Ming Campbell MP whether he had the co-operation of the Israeli government and Hamas administration if he wanted to visit Gaza or invite people from Gaza to visit him, he said "That's what we strive for." Campbell described this as a "diplomatic answer".

Indeed, though Blair spoke enthusiastically about his work and his ideas, one got the impression he was on his guard, holding back at times. In a sense this is understandable, since diplomacy requires a level of trust from each of the parties which could be easily lost by saying the wrong thing. But equally, we have often heard of the need for an "honest broker" in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Surely that means sometimes airing truths that the conflicting parties do not want to hear. Sir John Stanley MP pushed Blair to say whether he would describe Gaza as a prison. In response, he stuttered, "Well... I don't... I'm involved in trying to sort everything out..." In fact, aside from the odd reference to the "humanitarian situation" in Gaza, it struck me that Blair gave no indication that he really understood what that situation was like for the people of Gaza. Interestingly, he also avoided a question from Eric Illsey MP as to whether the currently Israeli government genuinely wants a two state solution, replying simply that the majority of Israelis do.

That said, Tony Blair is obviously a good public speaker and has a manner which somehow compels people to agree with him. He got even some of the most sceptical MPs on the Committee nodding in agreement with his responses, and I was surprised that, though I certainly didn't warm to him, I didn't find myself wanting to hurl abuse either. The one answer that had me cursing under my breath was when he implied that it was Hamas who broke the ceasefire in November, a statement which will not become true no matter how many times it is repeated.

Blair's central message, aside from that he is optimistic as ever, was that the "facts on the ground" need to change first before any political settlement can be reached. What most concerns Israelis about the prospect of Palestinian statehood, he said, is how it might threaten their security - withdrawal from Gaza* didn't improve the security of Israel, and the idea of a Hamas-run state in the West Bank is not at all welcome (I suspect this is also true for most Palestinians). What makes Palestinians pessimistic about the prospects for statehood, Blair said, is that with the present restrictions on movement within the Occupied Territories, a state simply wouldn't be viable. His solution, then, is to strengthen Palestinian security forces so that they can take full responsibility for security matters, which would then enable the Israelis to remove checkpoints in the West Bank. Only once these measures have been taken to address the primary concerns of both sides can a political settlement be achieved.

The internal logic of this argument sounds reasonable and pleasingly simple, but leaves out a number of important factors. Firstly, when talking about "restrictions on movement", he refers only to checkpoints, whereas the presence of settlements and their infrastructure (such as settler-only roads) and of course the "security barrier" are for many Palestinians much more significant obstacles. Blair made no reference at all to the separation wall, which is still being built despite the head of Israel's security service saying there is no security reason to continue building it. He made very little reference to settlements - perhaps he is leaving Obama to be the 'bad cop' on that one. Either way, there is much more to the "restrictions on movement" issue than his simple plan addresses, and these other elements will require much more in the way of negotiation.

I also question Blair's assessment of the progress made so far. One of his main projects has been to support capacity building within the Palestinian security forces, and he argued that they are now making a substantial difference to the security situation. He cited Jenin as success story, where he said despite some IDF incursions the Palestinian Authority are doing most of the work. I was surprised that he would choose this case to demonstrate the point, as when I visited Jenin a little under a year ago, residents of the refugee camp there reported incursions by the IDF almost every night, and regular news reports suggest little has changed since then. Unsurprisingly, Blair also did not mention that the brutality of the Palestinian security forces and their co-operation with the IDF has undermined both their authority and that of the government, and that six people were killed just a day earlier in a shootout between Palestinian security forces and Hamas (who have since declared that they will fight PA forces as if they were Israelis). This latter observation bears heavily on Blair's plan, as it suggests that, contrary to his thinking, political negotiations must go ahead before the security situation can be improved.

Blair knows about these additional factors. Of course he does. As is often the case with Blair, one is left wondering whether he is utterly deluded or deliberately deceptive. His optimism is a little baffling unless it is regarded simply as spin. In this case, he seems to have been doing little more than preparing the ground for President Obama's speech today. As for his work as an envoy, I only hope that he is being much more frank with leaders in Israel and Palestine than he feels he can be with British MPs. Even if he is, it should be remembered that it is not just those leaders, but the populations of their countries that they must take with them if this conflict is to be resolved. Optimism is very much need, but if they are also to have confidence that Blair and his colleagues can be honest brokers, then public and candid acknowledgement of the difficulties, complexities and inconvenient truths is also required.

*NB: Since Gaza's borders, sea and airspace are still under Israeli control it is, de facto and de jure, still occupied.

How others told the story:

The Times: Tony Blair makes his case for optimism in the Middle East (Bronwen Maddox)
The Guardian: Tony Blair flags 'way forward' in Middle East peace process
The Times: Tanned, slick Blair is back, putting Brown in the shade (Ann Treneman) (this one is just good for a laugh)
New Statesman: The Tony Fan Club (Sophie Elmhurst)

Women and Peacebuilding in the Middle East: the UK and UNSCR 1325

2009-05-21T19:58:00.016+01:00

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 represents the first ever official acknowldgement by the UN Security Council that women often play a crucial role both in conflict and in peacemaking. It is one of very few Security Council resolutions which has its own constituency, and there are all kinds of debates around its assumptions, its significance and its implementation, some of which I hope to go into in more depth later on. For me, though, the most important thing about UNSCR 1325 is that gives women's organisations the right to demand that they be included in the processes of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Of course, having the right to something doesn't always mean you get it, and international law is full of theoretical rights which mean little to the many people who do not, in practice, have them fulfilled. Nonetheless, UNSCR 1325 offers an internationally legally binding document which women can point to to say "this is why you must include us".

Six years after the Resolution was passed, the UK Foreign Office came up with an action plan to implement UNSCR 1325. The plan includes several elements, which involve everything from the UK's role in framing UNSC resolutions to the training of UK soldiers and civil servants in gender issues to encouraging its partners in the international community, including states and civil society institutions, to put women in senior decision-making positions in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Monitoring the government's performance in carrying out this plan is a huge task. Just as NGOs were instrumental in framing UNSCR 1325 and getting it passed, so they are still the driving force in pushing for its implementation, and GAPS UK carries out that role in this country. Here I focus on one small but important area: the Middle East conflict.

Why should the UK government be supporting the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in Israel and Palestine? It can't do so in every part of the world, after all - the money just isn't there. The answer is fairly simple: the UK has historically been, and continues to be, a significant player in the Middle East conflict and the "peace process". I do not wish to overstate this - clearly the US became the major third party when Britain terminated its mandate and turned the 'Palestine Question' over to the UN, and today Britain's involvement in the region is channelled largely through the EU. Nonetheless, the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged almost £47 million to help Gaza recover from the most recent conflict there, and the government plans to provide over £250 million over three years to help build the institutions of a future Palestinian state. It is therefore closely involved in many of the processes to which UNSCR 1325 directly applies, and is in a good position to support its implementation.

In response to a Parliamentary question from Jo Swinson MP, Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell gave the following answer:

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to promote the inclusion of women in conflict resolution and peace building in Israel and Palestine as provided for under UN Security Council Resolution 1325; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: In both international organisations and at local levels, the UK remains a leading supporter of women's roles in delivering sustainable peace and security. We led the call for the adoption of both UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 and the follow on resolution UNSCR 1820 and continue to support the inclusion of language that reaffirms the importance of UNSCR 1325 in UN peacekeeping mandates.

In Israel and Palestine, we have supported organisations working to promote women's roles in political processes and their ability to influence public policy.

I must admit, after reading this response I was deeply sceptical as to whether the UK government was doing anything at all to promote UNSCR 1325. Answers to Parliamentary questions are notoriously vague, evasive and often misleading. A statement of commitment is not a description of action, and "the inclusion of language" in resolutions often, as people on both sides of the Middle East conflict know, means little. The phrase "we have supported organisations", I suspected, implied "we no longer support". It turns out I was right, though the record is not quite as bad as I had anticipated.

A Freedom of Information request I submitted to the DFID revealed that it does not currently provide funding to any organisations in Israel or Palestine which promote women's participation in political processes and their ability to influence public policy.

However, the answer to another Parliamentary question to the Foreign Office revealed that last year it provided £7,050 for a project by Itach Maaki, or Women Lawyers for Social Justice, in the Negev. Between 2005 and 2007 the FCO gave £329,600 to a project run by the Civic Forum Institute to train newly elected women in Palestinian local councils.

If the answer to what the UK is doing to promote UNSCR 1325 in Israel/Palestine is that it has provided support to women's organisations, but in fact it is not currently providing any such support, then, by a process of deduction, it would appear the UK government is currently doing nothing to that end. This may simply indicate that the projects it funded (and the project-based nature of donor assistance is another topic I hope to come back to) have finished, and perhaps it is seeking new opportunities. But when the government is giving so much funding to improve the situation in that region, particularly in relation to peace, security and state-building - when we know that women are suffering in many of the ways UNSCR 1325 highlights and yet none of that money is going towards its implementation - doesn't that suggest that our government's statement of commitment is more talk than action?

The treatment of Chagos Islanders brings shame on Britain

2009-04-30T19:00:00.010+01:00

Britain's overseas territories rarely get a mention in our national media. The Chagos Islands, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, are best known for their use by the CIA for the extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists. We now know that the island of Diego Garcia was used in 2002 for the refuelling of two flights carrying detainees headed for Morocco and Guantanamo Bay. There is also strong evidence that the island is host to a CIA "black site" where "interrogations" have taken place, although the British government has denied this since questions were first raised about it in 2003 by Lord Wallace of Saltaire. But the history of human rights abuses on those islands goes back further, and continues to this day.

An estimated 2,000 Chagossians - descendents of Mauritanian workers brought there by the French in the 18th century - were expelled from their homes between 1967 and 1971 after the British government decided in 1966 to lease the largest island, Diego Garcia, to the US military. Most settled in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and although they received some monetary compensation, the Chagos Islanders, who now number more than 5,000, wish to return to their homes, and have been engaged in a legal campaign to do so since 1998. Olivier Bancoult, leader of the Chagos Refugees Group, told the Foreign Affairs Committee last year:

"We were all removed and forced to leave everything behind. Arriving in Mauritius was a nightmare for us. No planning had been made. No house, no job; cast aside without any provision."

The British High Court ruled in November 2000 that the expulsion of the Chagos Islands' inhabitants was illegal, granting the Islanders the right to return to all of the islands except Diego Garcia. The British government has given numerous apologies, and repeated very recently that "we deeply regret the forced resettlement of the Chagossians and the hardship that has resulted from it." But such apologies mean nothing when the government is still fighting tooth and nail to prevent them from returning home.

The then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook promised that the government would not seek to appeal the High Court's decision, but in June 2004 the government issued an order banning the Chagossians from returning home, citing security considerations and the costs to the UK government of protecting them from flooding - flooding which has never been recorded on the islands. The decision may well have had more to do with the use of the US military base there as a launchpad for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is where de ja vu begins to set in: after another legal challenge from the Chagos Refugees Group, the High Court ruled the orders to be unlawful in May 2006; the Foreign Office appealed against that in 2007 but was again defeated, at which point it decided to appeal directly to the Law Lords.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee in 2008 revealed that the government had spent more than £2.1 million appealing the High Court's decision. Since then the case has gone to the House of Lords, where in October 2008 the Chagos Islanders lost their legal battle. The case will now go to the European Court of Human Rights, although a ruling is expected to be some years off.

The main reason given by the British government for denying them the right of return of is that they pose a threat to security, being so close to a US military base. However, the Chagossians are not asking to return to Diego Garcia - they only wish to return to the outer Chagos Islands, which lie 60 to 100 miles off the coast of Diego Garcia. Given that any boat is allowed to pass freely up to 3 miles from the island, the suggestion that people settling at that distance could pose a threat to the most powerful military in the world is laughable.

Some environmental campaigners, including the Chagos Environment Network, oppose the resettling of the islands on the grounds that it would threaten the natural environment. However, leaders of the exiled Chagos Islanders have said they are eager to be trained as guardians of the local ecosystem. Given that they preserved it so well for two centuries, it is difficult to believe that this community could pose more of a threat to the islands' wildlife than the military hardware and 4,000 personnel currently in the archipelago. I have also been informed by one campaigner that the founder, the treasurer and a third member of the Chagos Environment Network's Committee are Royal Navy commanders, which rather suggests that environmental concerns may be, at least in part, a ruse for the aforementioned "security considerations".

One might hope that President Obama's order to close all CIA black sites might signal a change in the security status of Diego Garcia, though Obama himself has yet to weigh in to the debate on the fate of Chagossians. In a recent debate on British Overseas Territories, Foreign Office Minister Gillian Merron restated the government's position that, as sorry as the government may be, "we cannot turn the clock back". I'm sure Chagos Islanders are only too aware of that fact. Here's hoping that the European Court will finally put an end to our government's shameful efforts to avoid doing the right thing.

No military victory in Gaza

2008-12-28T23:15:00.014Z

The bombardment of Gaza by Israeli F-16s this weekend and the resulting death of over 300 Palestinians marks a brutal and bloody end to a ceasefire and a peace process that already lay in tatters. Little over a year ago, when the Bush administration initiated peace talks in Annapolis, it confidently announced that the "definition" of a Palestinian state would be agreed upon by the end of 2008. As the year draws to a close, in some respects that goal has never felt more remote.

The Israeli government and Hamas leadership blame each other for breaking the ceasefire, and in reality they are both correct. Israel has launched incursions into Gaza and failed to ease restrictions on supply routes into the Strip, while Hamas has failed to stop qassam rockets being fired into southern Israel. The Israeli government cites these rocket attacks as the reason for its current onslaught against Hamas in Gaza, however it is widely believed that many of the rocket attacks since July have come not from Hamas but from rival groups, including the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Fatah's military wing, who feared the ceasefire would strengthen Hamas' position. The Israeli government has blamed Hamas for not preventing militias firing rockets into Israel, however with its security apparatus reduced to rubble and at least 140 security personnel killed in a single day, the prospects of this happening are even lower than before. Furthermore, with employment opportunities suffering as a result of Israel's EU-backed economic blockade, more and more Gazans are turning to the Hamas administration for jobs. In all likelihood, many of the policemen and security officers killed this weekend were not militia-men, nor even Hamas sympathisers. They were ordinary Palestinians who policed the streets to make a living and feed their families. Their deaths promise to create a security vacuum in Gaza which threatens both the people of Gaza and southern Israel.

Rather than mere revenge attacks, this weekend's air raids are an attempt to undermine and topple the Hamas regime in Gaza once and for all. There is no doubt that the fracturing of the Palestinian Authority and political deadlock between Fatah and Hamas represents a huge obstacle to any Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As a recent report from the International Crisis Group (ICG) points out, both parties feel they have more to lose by reconciling with each other than by maintaining the status quo. Something has to give, but military action is not a solution. In my recent visit to the West Bank, I heard many Palestinians express the view that what was taken from the PA by force must be taken back by force. Perhaps the Israeli government is hoping that prisoner releases, aerial bombing and a ground invasion which looks increasingly likely, will be enough to enable President Abbas' forces to retake Gaza. However, Fatah is suffering politically from the perception that it is now collaborating with the IDF in its crackdown on Hamas. "Even more damaging from this perspective would be a massive Israeli military operation," wrote ICG only two weeks ago. The point being, if Fatah takes advantage of the IDF bombing of Gaza for its own political gain, it risks further undermining its credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian public. Meanwhile, the high civilian death toll has provoked anger in the Arab World and beyond, diminishing any appetite for further negotiations.

Public support for Hamas in Palestine is waning, and there can be little doubt that both Palestinians and Israelis would be better off were they to relinquish power in Gaza. It is also true that, as many have pointed out, Hamas must have seen this coming and yet they continued their qassam attacks. In doing so they have endangered the lives of civilians in Gaza, and they too have blood on their hands. However, the argument that "there is not a country in the world which would allow such assaults to take place on a daily basis without taking action to defend their citizens" applies equally to Palestinians as it does to Israelis. To expect Gazans to sit back and quietly take it as they are driven to desperation by the flagrant disregard of their human rights is as hypocritical as it is naive. Who will protect them when the thousands of IDF soldiers amassing on the border invade their homeland? Unlike the people of Sderot, they are not citizens and no army is standing by to defend them, however the terror they experience is no less real. If the bombings increase support for violent attacks against Israel using whatever means are available, how many people will expect Israelis to submit and agree that they have brought this upon themselves? Far from protecting Israeli civilians, this military operation threatens to inflame anti-Israeli sentiments, render Gaza even harder to govern, and delay Palestinian elections which are sorely needed if there is to be any hope of re-igniting the dying peace process. Recent polls have indicated that Hamas stood to lose out to Fatah in Presidential and Legislative Council elections - a defeat that would, ultimately, deal a more shocking blow to Hamas' cause than Israeli military action ever could. Whether that is still possible after this "war to the bitter end" is another matter.

Securitisation of Climate Change: the Kingsnorth Verdict

2008-11-09T20:48:00.017Z

When we think of global security, the usual threats that come to mind are terrorism, interstate conflict and weapons of mass destruction. However, scholars of security studies are increasingly embracing more expansive concepts of security which are concerned not only with organised violence but with other threats to the security of people, including environmental damage, food shortages, lack of access to healthcare and suitable accommodation. It is well known that these factors can be causes of violent conflict, from fighting over arable land in a desertified Darfur to water disputes in the Middle East, however there is a growing trend towards viewing issues such as climate change not just as causing security threats, but as security threats in themselves.

'Securitisation' is a word used to describe the process by which issues come to be incorporated into the security agenda. Although non-traditional conceptions of security have more currency in academic circles, they are beginning to surface in policy arenas, prompting speculation about what might be the impacts of securitising climate change. Matters of national or international security remain high on government and IGO policy agendas, receive enviable levels of funding and may justify extraordinary measures where an existential threat is perceived.[1] According to members of the Copenhagen School, a successful act of securitisation is one where an actor convinces a separate audience to accept that a specific matter is a security threat, and in doing so wins the right to use exceptional means to counter it.[2] While this could be a positive move if climate change is addressed with more urgency, critics of securitisation highlight the danger that it can be anti-democratic, increasing the power of militaries and elites to curtail civil liberties, and reducing political contestability of the issues at hand.[3] Just imagine the UN Security Council taking on climate change.

Ralf Emmers argues that while it is easy to see how governments and militaries could use securitisation to increase their power, it is difficult to see how NGOs such as Greenpeace could employ "an extraordinary measure that goes beyond standard political procedures" to further their aims.[4] However, on 11th September 2008, they did just that. In this case the securitising actor was not a government or military but six Greenpeace protesters and their defence lawyers who convinced a jury of 12 British citizens that climate change poses an existential threat to people from around the world. They were consequently acquitted of causing £30,000 criminal damage to an E.on smokestack in Kingsnorth when five of them climbed it in 2007 to paint "Gordon, bin it" on it, in protest against plans to build a new coal-fired power station there. Calling a range of witnesses, including climate scientists and an Innuit leader from Greenland, the defence argued that the threat posed by a new generation of coal-fired power stations was far greater than the threat to property and security posed by the protesters, which constitutes a lawful excuse for the damage they caused.

Just what these "extraordinary measures" will change is uncertain; Gordon has not responded publicly to the verdict. Nonetheless, that the protesters were convicted of no crime raises the question of what other measures NGOs and other activists can legally take whilst invoking the threats posed by environmental degradation. A binding precedent cannot be set by the Crown Court in British law and so all future cases will be judged individually, however environmental groups expect to make use of the same arguments. The argument in this case focused primarily on damage to property caused by climate change, however the witness statements referred repeatedly to threats posed to people's lives and livelihoods, and the case meets the criteria for an act of securitisation.[5] This suggests that securitisation is not synonymous with militarisation as some might imagine[6], but can be used by members of civil society to advance a progressive agenda.

[1] Ralf Emmers, 'Securitization' in Alan Collins (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 112.

[2] See Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998).

[3] Alan Collins, 'Securitization, Frankenstein's Monster and Malaysian Education' in The Pacific Review, vol. 18 no. 4 (2005), p. 585; Kyle Grayson, 'Securitization and the Boomerang Debate: A Rejoinder to Liotta and Smith-Windsor' in Security Dialogue, vol. 34 no. 3 (2003), p. 430-1.

[4] Emmers, 'Securitization', p. 114.

[5] See Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, Security, p. 26.

[6] See Grayson, 'Securitization', p. 339, 341.

Peace, Justice and Palestinian Women

2008-10-30T18:23:00.012Z

I kept a blog this summer as part of my work as a Peace Fellow for The Advocacy Project in the West Bank, Palestine, and it was this that inspired to start my own blog to carry on putting my writing into the public domain. I hope that this will be a useful exercise for me and provide a resource for readers interested in global affairs, international security, peace and social justice.

I will post articles and book reviews soon, and a selection of my research as soon as I can work out how to attach downloadable documents. In the meantime, my summer blog begins to explain how the Palestinian women's movement has grown and changed to respond to the many threats to their rights as women, as Palestinians and as human beings. I interviewed several prominent activists in the women's movement, who explained to me how they believe these struggles intersect. I worked with Women's Affairs Technical Committee, a coalition of Palestinian women's NGOs whose common goal is to bring about a democratic Palestinian society that does not discriminate between men and women. WATC acts as a network for women of all party affiliations to work together to campaign for legal reforms for women's rights, as well as running income-generating projects and advocacy projects in the West Bank and Gaza. I also followed events in Ni'lin, a West Bank village where clashes between protesters and Israeli border police over the constructions of the 'security barrier' or 'separation wall' have claimed the lives of unarmed village residents. On the blog are two short films my colleague and I made; one about the first women's demonstration in Ni'lin, and the other an interview with 17 year-old Salam Kanaan whose video was viewed all over the world but had repercussions for her family.

The following authors have all produced books or articles for further reading on the Palestinian Women's Movement:

Nahla Abdo, Rabab Abdulhadi, Jamal Amal, Sama Aweidah-Liftawi, Andrea Barron, Rita Giacaman, Sherna Berger Gluck, Rema Hammami, Sari Hanafi, Frances Hasso, Joost Hiltermann, Maria Holt, Islah Jad, Penny Johnson, Eileen Kuttab, Julie Peteet, Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Rosemary Sayigh, Maha Abu-Dayyeh Shamas, Simona Sharoni, Linda Tabar, Lynn Welchman.