Tag:

Shirin Ebadi

The Defenders for Human Rights Centre’s Statement on recent mass executions in Iran

by adminl August 5, 2016

written by adminl

The Defenders for Human Rights Centre’s Statement on recent mass executions in Iran

At dawn on Tuesday, 2 August 2016, a number of Sunni and Kurdish citizens were executed for alleged vague and non-specific accusations. Moreover, the identity, place of burial or even the exact number of those executed remains unknown.
After the 1980s, it was thought that the era of mass executions of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience had come to an end. But this disaster once again sounded the alarm bells in the Iranian legal community and reaffirmed the lack of independence of the judiciary.
Those executed were deprived of a fair trial, spent some time in solitary confinement and were tortured. The lawyers and the defendants had not been officially notified of the verdict and therefore it is not clear that all legal procedures had been followed for them. Not only do these mass executions based on vague and non-specific grounds demonstrate absence of justice, but they also indicate the establishment of an atmosphere of fear and terror in society.

On the other hand due to the political situation in the Middle East, the illegal performance of the judiciary could be harmful to national security and exacerbate religious differences that have always been exploited by politicians.

Therefore, the Defenders for human rights Centre while condemning this act of the Iranian government and offering its condolences to the families of those who have been executed, calls on Iranian authorities to respect their international obligation on the implementation of human rights standards.

Shirin Ebadi

President of the Defenders for Human Rights Centre

August 5, 2016 0 comment

Videos

Why won’t my fellow Nobelist Aung San Suu Kyi help a Muslim minority?

by adminj July 21, 2016

written by adminj

By Shirin Ebadi

In advance of a United Nations envoy’s visit to the country, Burmese officials in June instructed U.N. officials to refer to Burma’s Muslim minority as “people who believe in Islam in Rakhine state.” This is the latest chapter in what has become a tragic campaign to reassure Buddhist nationalists that the government will continue to oppress the Rohingya—even to the point of denying them their name and citizenship in Burma.

Sadly, this campaign is being led by Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

After decades of defiant activism, house arrest and unimaginable personal sacrifice, Ms. Suu Kyi is finally in a position to bring democracy to her country. Ms. Suu Kyi’s party won Burma’s national elections in November 2015, and this spring, in addition to being named foreign minister, she was appointed state counselor, the de facto prime minister. The new title effectively gives her the power to run Burma.

I’m sure it is a responsibility that my fellow Nobel peace laureate—a woman who was under house arrest off and on for more than two decades—takes very seriously. Yet those of us who spoke up for Aung San Suu Kyi those many years when her human rights were being violated—including His Holiness the Dalai Lamaand Archbishop Desmond Tutu—are deeply pained that she won’t extend the same respect for human rights to Burma’s more than one million Rohingya.

Like thousands of human-rights defenders around the world, we have also called upon Burma to respect the rights of other political prisoners and minorities in Burma—including the Karen, the Shan and the Chin. Global human-rights organizations, along with courageous grass roots organizations in Burma, have documented how the Burmese military and state have suppressed these minorities through religious persecution, killings, rape, disappearances, torture and other crimes against humanity.

After at least 100 Rohingya were killed during 2012 riots and clashes with Buddhists in Rakhine state, we spoke out publicly to help Burma’s Muslim minority.

As a Muslim woman, I feel it is my particular responsibility to ring the alarm bells about the Burmese government’s campaign against the Rohingya. Burma has long denied the Rohingya the recognition and basic rights, like access to education and freedom of movement, that citizenship would afford. Since the riots, more than 140,000 Rohingya have been forced into refugee camps, and many of them now live in conditions much resembling concentration camps. Tens of thousands have risked losing their lives to make the dangerous journey by sea in overcrowded boats to leave Rakhine state.

The Buddhist majority in Burma—even many seasoned democracy activists—seem to see no contradiction in their call for democracy and the cruel and inhumane treatment of the Rohingya. This includes Aung San Suu Kyi.

This is grimly ironic, given that her supporters—including me—have for many years defiantly rejected the word Myanmar, the name assigned to the country by the autocratic military that ran the country since 1962. We respected the fact that Ms. Suu Kyi and her followers called themselves Burmese, and the country Burma.

So how can Ms. Suu Kyi now turn her back on the Rohingya?

I have paid a high price in my life advocating for freedom, including defending the rights of the Bah’ai, a religious minority, in Iran. Since 2009, I have been forced to live outside of Iran—and have lost not only my home but also my marriage and many friends. But I strongly believe there is no other way to live. Up until recently, I thought that Ms. Suu Kyi and I shared this conviction.

In May, Ms. Suu Kyi’s party announced that she will head up a committee dedicated to promoting peace and development in Rakhine state. The announcement said the committee—which reportedly will include 27 members of the new cabinet—will “coordinate” the activities of U.N. agencies and international nongovernmental organizations in that state.

This looks suspiciously more like an effort to further tighten her government’s authoritarian control over the region than a response to a human-rights crisis. Let’s hope not. I’ll be the first to applaud if my sister Nobel peace laureate bravely ignores the internal pressure to dehumanize the Rohingya and instead stands up for their rights.

Ms. Ebadi, the author of “Until We Are Free: My Fight for Human Rights in Iran” (Random House, 2016) and a co-founder of the Nobel Women’s Initiative, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.

July 21, 2016 0 comment

News

If Iran’s rulers will ever make peace with their own people

by adminl January 19, 2016

written by adminl

Honourable Mr. Rouhani, The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The beginning of the implementation of the nuclear agreement and lifting of the economic sanctions on Iran have been positive steps, the outcomes of which I hope would benefit Iranian citizens. However, a deep sorrow remains for Iranians because of the waste of billions of dollars on wrong and futile programs. However, what prompted me to write this letter was the happy news of the release of four Iranian-Americans who had been held hostage by the Islamic republic on false pretexts. Undoubtedly, their release is the result of reconciliation between Iran and the US. I am glad that the stalemate that had overshadowed Iran-US relations- which had had a sever impact on Iran’s economy – has come to an end. And the fruit of this reconciliation was the exchange of political prisoners or, to put it better, hostages, of both sides. The Supreme Leader, the Judiciary, the Supreme National Security Council and yourself are well aware that in the absence of an independent judiciary, political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are deprived of a fair trial and, in fact, they are held hostage by the security forces. Now, many Iranians are asking if Iran’s rulers will ever make peace with their own people, hence releasing of hostages held by the security forces, including Omid Kokabi (a young genius), Abdolfatah Soltani (lawyer), Nargess Mohammadi (civil rights activist), Bahareh Hedayat (student’s rights activist), Eisa Saharkhiz (Journalist), Saeid Madani (political activist) and dozens of other prisoners?

Honourable President

Iranian government has made peace with a country that was its enemy for 37 years and I cannot help wondering why it cannot make peace with its own people?

If the Supreme National Security Council can release a journalist who has been taken hostage as “sweetness” for reconciliation with the US why can it not release a university professor and a female artist, such Zahra Rahnavard?
If the judiciary can release Saeid Abedini, whose crime was his religious belief- due to his dual nationality- why does it not take any action to facilitate the release of Mehdi Karoubi whose only crime was to protest election’s results?
If Mr. Zarif could negotiate with superpowers, such the US, to release some Iranian businessmen from US prisons why does he not do the same for prisoners of the 2009 events?
While once again I express my joy at the release of Iranian- American hostages, I am sorry that other prisoners who only hold Iranian citizenships should remain in the prison.
Have you forgotten your oath to preserve the Constitution? Which political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Iran have been tried openly and in the presence of a Jury?
I hope the day to make peace with Iranian people will come soon and as “sweetness” of that day we may witness the release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Iran.

Shirin Ebadi

January 19, 2016 0 comment

News Nuclear Energy Shirin Ebadi

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi on Nuclear Deal, Islamic State, Women’s Rights

by adminl May 1, 2015

written by adminl

We are broadcasting from The Hague, where we are speaking with the women Nobel Peace Prize laureates who have gathered to mark the 100th anniversary of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

In an extended interview, we speak with 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the award for her human rights advocacy, in particular for the rights of Iranian women, children and political prisoners. She was the first female judge in Iran, but she has lived in exile since 2009. Ebadi discusses the threat posed by the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and the significance of the framework deal agreed to by Iran and world powers including the United States and Israel to curb its nuclear program for at least a decade. “I do not agree with any of the nuclear energy programs,” Ebadi says. “Therefore, it has to stop as soon as possible. But at the same time, a country that does have an atomic bomb cannot judge in this manner about other countries.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re continuing our broadcast from The Hague in The Netherlands, where we turn to Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. In 2003, she became the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the award for her human rights advocacy, in particular for the rights of Iranian women, children and political prisoners. She was the first female judge in Iran, but she has lived in exile since 2009.

Shirin Ebadi is in The Hague this week for a conference marking the hundredth anniversary of the International Congress of Women, when over a thousand women traveled here to call for an end to World War I. The event marked the formation of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, known as WILPF. Well, this week, WILPF has brought together a new generation of feminist peace activists at The Hague in the centennial celebration of their organization for a conference called Women Stop War. On Monday, Shirin Ebadi spoke at the opening session about the threat posed by the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] We have to remember that ISIS is not simply a terrorist group. It’s an ideology. And an ideology cannot be fought with bombs. This wrong ideology can only be fought with a correct interpretation of religion. Had books been thrown at people, at the Taliban, instead of bombs, and had schools been built in Afghanistan—4,000 schools could have been built in memory of the 4,000 people who died on 9/11—at this time, we wouldn’t have had ISIS. Let’s not forget that the roots of the ISISrest in the Taliban, so let’s not repeat the experience that was a loss.

I only have a very short time to speak, so I have a specific suggestion for the United Nations. I demand that the United Nations, through a convention, encourage all countries to reduce their military budgets by 10 percent and use it for the education and welfare of the people. And I want to ask the United States and the Western world to throw books at people. You will see that we will have a better world in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: The 2003 Nobel Peace laureate, Shirin Ebadi, speaking at the opening of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Women Stop War centennial conference here at The Hague. On Sunday, I interviewed Shirin Ebadi at a gathering of Nobel Peace Prize winners, the women winners, at the Nobel Women’s Initiative. I began by asking Dr. Ebadi to talk about the significance of the framework deal agreed to by Iran and world powers to curb Iran’s nuclear program for at least a decade.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] I hope that the negotiations come to a conclusion, because the sanctions have made the people poorer, and there is a lot of economical pressure in Iran. Of course, the extremists on both sides, both Iran and America, do not agree with the agreement. Me, personally, do not approve of the nuclear program of the government, because it’s very expensive and also economically doesn’t respond to what we need. We could have spent much less money and invest in solar energy. In general, nuclear energy powers are not good for the environment of Iran. Iran is located on earthquake faults. And we are scared that something like Fukushima could happen in Iran. Therefore, our national interest is for this agreement to come to a conclusion, and we can benefit from the results.

AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says that this is a dream for Iran, but the deal is a nightmare for the rest of the world. Your reaction?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] As I said earlier, in general, I do not agree with any of the nuclear energy programs. Therefore, it has to stop as soon as possible. But at the same time, a country that does have an atomic bomb cannot judge in this manner about other countries.

AMY GOODMAN: Netanyahu says this will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] It can and it may result in a nuclear race. But who started it in the Middle East? Which country in the Middle East had the first bomb in the region? I think the answer to this question is easy.

AMY GOODMAN: Because of the pressure that’s being put on President Obama around the nuclear deal, he says that part of the deal will be a phased lifting of sanctions.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Laws in America, also the type of the sanctions, do not provide that the sanctions be lifted at one time. It’s very natural that it has to be done in phases. However, it shouldn’t take a long time. Sanctions have resulted in people becoming poorer, of course. The economic policy of the government and the corruption that exists, and also the fact that the government is not transparent, hurts people as much as the sanctions. In reality, it’s not only sanctions that hurt the people, but also lack of transparency, corruption and the wrong economic programs of the government have made the people poor.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ebadi, you can hardly be called an apologist for the Iranian government. You’re living in exile, for one thing. Your husband has been arrested by the government, your sister has been arrested—all this since you won the Nobel Peace Prize. What do you say to those who criticize the deal, saying that it will strengthen the Iranian government?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] I do criticize the government of Iran, but it is on the basis of violations of human rights and also the corruption that exists in the country, whereas when the United States criticizes the government of Iran, it is due to the fact that they are scared that the government of Iran becomes atomic and becomes closer. And there is a difference between my criticism of the government and the criticism of the United States. This means that those who criticize the government of Iran in America do not bring up the violations of human rights. It doesn’t look like it’s important for them. We see that they’re close friends of Saudi Arabia, which has the most violation of human rights in the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your criticism of the Rouhani government? How does Rouhani compare to, well, his predecessor, Ahmadinejad?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Rouhani smiles more than Ahmadinejad. That’s it. Because pursuant to the constitution, all the power belongs to the leader, and the president’s power is limited. This is why after Rouhani came to power, we haven’t seen any change. The situation of human rights has not gotten any better. If they’re talking to America now, it is because the leader has had to permit such negotiations.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the number of arrests, women’s rights in Iran, how women are able to express themselves under the Rouhani government?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Unfortunately, the situation of women has not improved under Rouhani. At universities, have come to the solution of separating girls and boys. Musical concerts, women cannot play instruments any longer, something they could do in the past. Political prisoners are still in prison. Mr. Rouhani had promised that Mousavi and Karroubi, who have not been tried but who are under house arrest, would be released, but up to now he hasn’t been able to do that and doesn’t even speak about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Mousavi, Karroubi, both influential Iranian politicians, they ran against Ahmadinejad for president.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Mousavi was a nominee in 2009. However, since he had disagreements with Khamenei, the leader, he’s been under house arrest. Rouhani promised that he would release him. But not only he has not released him, since the date that he has come to power, he hasn’t even talked about it publicly, and he hasn’t said anything about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ebadi, I wanted to ask your opinion of Marzieh Afkham, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson. It’s believed she will become Iran’s first female ambassador since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] There is a proverb which says, with one flower, you don’t get spring. Comparing her to all of the women who have been made to sit at home, having a woman who is politically very close to the government does not change much. You know very well that pursuant to the statistics of the government, unemployment in Iran is three times as much among women than it is among men, whereas the number of the university students, if we look at it, proves that 60 percent are female. This means that women in Iran are better educated, but they’re unemployed. And in order to prove to the world that we respect women, they use one woman, for example, as an ambassador—which is a good thing to do, but it shouldn’t be limited to one person. It should be expanded.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue our interview with the 2003 Nobel Peace laureate, Shirin Ebadi, in 30 seconds.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’re on the road in The Hague in The Netherlands, as we return to my interview with 2003 Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi.

AMY GOODMAN: Your assessment of ISIS, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and its growth in power?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] ISIS is not only a terrorist group, it’s a wrong ideology. Using a wrong interpretation of Islam, they kill people, they rape women, they sell women. And in order to fight ISIS, a coalition of 40 countries, under the leadership of the U.S., has formed, which bombs these people a few times per day. But this is not going to work, because we cannot put an end to ideology using a bomb. It’s a wrong ideology, which can be fought with a correct ideology. Instead of bombs, books should be thrown at them.

AMY GOODMAN: Has President Obama asked your opinion on what should be done? And what would you advise him?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] I would tell him, instead of bombs, try to build schools, throw books at people, try to fight the corruption that exists in the region where they’re at. Then you will see that ISIS will gradually go away.

AMY GOODMAN: When were you last in Iran, Dr. Ebadi?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Exactly on June 21st, 2009, I left Iran. I left a few hours prior to the presidential elections in Iran, the elections that resulted in the killing of people on the streets. And as a result, Mousavi and Karroubi were put under house arrest. And I couldn’t go back to Iran. And since I was not in Iran to be arrested, my husband and my sister were arrested. They were hoping that by keeping them as hostages, I would be silenced. But I wasn’t. Then the government decided to expropriate all of my property and auction them off. Unfortunately, a number of my colleagues are still in prison. But I’m glad to say that I did not even close down for an hour. And my friends in Iran continue their work.

AMY GOODMAN: When you say not close down even for an hour, your organization works for women and girls?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Yes. Of course, prior to that, I used to do it publicly, but now I have gone underground, because I don’t want my colleagues to get into trouble.

AMY GOODMAN: And your husband and sister, where are they now?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Of course, they were set free after a while, because the government found out that I would not become silenced anyway. Under the pressure of public opinion and international organizations, set them free, because they were really innocent. And they were not my colleagues at all. They each have their own business.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you seen them since 2009?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] I have seen my husband once and my sister once.

AMY GOODMAN: Could they leave the country if they wanted to?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Each of them have been able to leave once.

AMY GOODMAN: So how does that affect you personally? You’ve seen your husband, what, only once in six years?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Naturally, the life that I’m living is not a very comfortable life. But this is the price that we have to pay for freedom in Iran. I’m not the only one paying this price. My colleagues who are in prison are paying a higher price.

AMY GOODMAN: So, just to be clear, Dr. Ebadi, you’re a target of the Iranian government, yet when it comes to sanctions and the nuclear deal, you’re for lifting those sanctions, right?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Yes, because if the negotiations do not come to a conclusion, then the sanctions will continue. And they may even get worse. And it may result in hurting the people more and more. All of my endeavors in life is for my people to live a better life.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you trust the Iranian government?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Never.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, that’s exactly the reason opponents give for not supporting a deal with Iran.

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] In the agreement, it has been provided that if the government of Iran breaches the agreement, they can return the embargoes and the sanctions easily.

AMY GOODMAN: So I’ve asked you to share your advice you’d give to President Obama, what you’d say to opponents of a nuclear deal with Iran. What about what you say to peace activists around the world?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Peace activists should, in reality, work for justice. And also, they should work on holding governments responsible. For example, when we look at like the Middle East region, we see that it is on fire. Why? Because a bunch of dictators have been there for numerous years. They violate human rights. They were corrupt. They didn’t let the civil society grow. And people became poorer every day. And unfortunately, the world closed its eyes on them. One day, people became tired and threw or deposed the dictators. But the civil society has not been formed. There is anarchy, and resulted in the whole region being on fire now. And unfortunately, people have two bad options. They either have to put up with a dictator or anarchy and insecurity. They’re both bad. We shouldn’t let it get to this point. The people have two bad options. Look at Syria. The Assad family has ruled there over 40 years. The situation is such that some people think that if Assad leaves, ISIS will take over. And so, people don’t know whether to choose between ISIS or Assad, who has killed all these people. Therefore, when I talk to peace activists, what I say is, don’t let countries get to this stage where they’re on fire and then try to put the fire out. We shouldn’t let fire to grow. We have to come to a conclusion to provide for the infrastructure. In medicine, we say it’s better to prevent than to treat. The same thing is true about peace. Let’s stop it. Let’s prevent it.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re living in very violent times. The U.S. is involved in the longest war in its history, in Afghanistan. Then you’ve got the wars in Iraq, in Syria, in Yemen, in Libya. Can you share your advice to the world, as a Nobel Peace laureate, as a woman?

SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] My advice is to want what they want for their own people for the people of these countries, as well. These countries have been destructed, obliterated, because big corporations want to become wealthier, so that they can sell arms. Therefore, my advice is: Treat the people of Afghanistan the same as you treat your own people. Look at Iraqi children the same as you look at your own children. Then you will see that the solution is there.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Shirin Ebadi, thank you very much for joining us.

SHIRIN EBADI: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Iranian human rights attorney Shirin Ebadi. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, becoming the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Shirin Ebadi is in The Hague this week at the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom centennial conference and the Nobel Women’s Initiative. You can visit our website to see yesterday’s interview with three other Nobel Peace laureates, Leymah Gbowee, Jody Williams and Mairead Maguire.

Source: Democracy Now

[youtube url=”video_url” width=”560″ height=”315″]

May 1, 2015 0 comment

Nobel peace prize laureates at the conference: Mairead Maguire, Leymah Gbowee, Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams. Photograph: WILPF

News Shirin Ebadi

Shirin Ebadi: ‘If books had been thrown at the Taliban instead of bombs … we would not have Isis’

by adminl April 30, 2015

written by adminl

Nobel peace prize laureates at the conference: Mairead Maguire, Leymah Gbowee, Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams. Photograph: WILPF

The Nobel laureate called on governments to cut arms budgets and increase education spending at a female peacemakers’ conference in The Hague.

If books instead of bombs had been thrown at the Taliban, and if schools had been built in response to the terrorist attacks on New York in 2001, we would not now be contending with Isis, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi told a conference on Monday.

Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2003 for her work in promoting human rights in Iran, criticised the west for how it dealt with terrorist groups in the Middle East, and called on governments to cut their arms budgets.

Speaking in The Hague at the 100th anniversary of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Ebadi said: “If books had been thrown at the Taliban instead of bombs, and had schools been built in Afghanistan – 4,000 could have been built in memory of the 4,000 people who died in 9/11 – at this time we would not have Isis.

“Let’s not forget the roots of Isis rest in the Taliban. Let’s not repeat the experience. We have to remember that Isis is not simply a terrorist group, but an ideology, and ideologies cannot be fought with bombs. This ideology can only be fought with the correct interpretation of religion.”

Ebadi, the first Muslim woman to be awarded the Nobel peace prize, called on UN member states to reduce their military budgets by 10% and spend the money saved on education and social welfare.

To cheers, applause and standing ovations, the three-day conference, entitled Women’s Power to Stop War, opened with a tribute to the women who travelled to The Hague in 1915 seeking an end to the first world war, and whose actions led to the creation of WILPF.

Four Nobel laureates addressed the audience of more than 900 delegates from 80 countries. A fifth Nobel laureate, Tawakkol Karman, the Yemeni rights activist who received the prize in 2011, was unable to travel.

“We don’t need another cold war, or to demonise other countries or dehumanise leaders,” said Mairead Maguire, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1976 for her work addressing sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. “We have no right to dehumanise other people and then take them out. How far have we sunk when we can sit down and plan how to take out another human being because we don’t agree with their politics?”

Madeleine Rees, secretary general of WILFP since 2010, told the audience the global system was not equipped to bring peace. “We have a UN system, we have a charter, a declaration of human rights and we have treaties and conventions. We’ve had four world conferences on women, we have the women, peace and security agenda and world courts to adjudicate on all the above. So we should be pleased. But it’s not working. We’re still not able to bring the peace we have been demanding.”

Rees, who previously worked for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia, said a multilateral system is needed but the current one is failing: “Our default position is intervention, when we know the cost and consequences of that intervention.” She said the trillions of dollars spent annually on arms could have paid for the millennium development goals several times over, and warned that the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few will continue the cycle of violence.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total global military expenditure stood at $1.8tn in 2014. One year of the world’s military spending would finance more than 650 years of the UN’s regular budget and more than 6,300 years of the budget allocated to UN Women.

“We have to reclaim peace,” said Rees. “It’s easier to not pay attention, and get on with our lives and be distracted. But we can band together. Each in our own way, we can all do something, and if we pay attention to what others are doing, then we have a movement. There are more of us wanting to end war than those who want it to continue.”

At a later session, delegates heard that engaging men and boys in debates around violence was crucial to end conflict.

Anthony Keedi, programme manager at Abaad: Resource Center for Gender Equality, which works in the Middle East and north Africa, said men were conditioned to think that conflict is natural, but violence is a choice. “Men are taught not to empathise, not to cry or show vulnerability as these are weaknesses. They are taught to be stoic,” he said. “Being taught not to empathise makes it easier to point and kill, to act violently.”

Part of Abaad’s work is to offer free psychosocial support to men and boys to reduce violence.

On Tuesday, WILPF will publish its manifesto, which will recommit the organisation to campaign for total worldwide disarmament and demilitarisation, to support an international system that guarantees international law and “to work towards a new international order free from neo-colonialism, political tyranny, economic exploitation and financial speculation, in which income, resources and opportunities are justly distributed between and within countries”.

“Violence is not inevitable. It is a choice,” says the manifesto. “We choose non-violence, as means and as end. We will liberate the strength of women and, in partnership with like-minded men, bring to birth a just and harmonious world.”

Source: The Guardian

April 30, 2015 0 comment