By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Jun 25 2024 – In Part 1, I outlined how our shared existence is challenged not only by simultaneous crisis, but also by the notions – and realities – of perceived ‘holy wars’. I point out that ‘holy wars’ are not only perceptions within, or of, monotheistic faith traditions, but actually enacted by members of diverse belief systems.

I note how these ‘holy war’ dynamics are part of the vicious cycle of polarisation and sorrowful lack of social cohesion in most societies, while also coexisting with an increasing realisation amongst several decision-making entities (governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental) of how important religions have been, and continue to be.

Religious institutions, religious leaders and religious (or faith based) organisations, are indeed the original social service providers, community mediators, social norm upholders and changemakers, and actually, historically, also the original human rights’ defenders.

I emphasize how the toxic mix with narrow political interests (might that be tautological?) means that in the minds of some who hold decision making positions, and/or have access to arms, and/or control laws and their implementation, and/or impact on beliefs, behaviours and attitudes through unparalleled pulpits (or all of the above), ‘holy war’, is justified.

In the age of ‘holy wars’, we are called upon to understand that part of our social disconnect resulting in the polarisation and significant weaking of our civil societies, may well be furthered by the manner in the current interest in and on religion.

Elsewhere I have argued that appreciating the ‘good’ powers of religious institutions and leaders, and the remarkable reach of religious social services and positive changemakers, is necessary, but by no means enough.

In fact, seeking to emphasize, support and identify the religious as the panacea, is harmful – in the same ways that marginalising the religious as evil, anti-human rights, unhealthy, misogynist, unnecessary, parochial, etc. has been, and remains, harmful, to the very same fabric of the civil societies we all uphold.

It is not all about good religion or bad religion. Rather, it could be about how to generate, nurture, protect, and yes, honour, civil societies.

Neither our governments (including even the elected ones), nor our religious institutions (including those which have survived centuries) nor our corporations (including those with the highest ranking of CSR and ESG) can, alone, change the dramatic junction of our collective human and planetary realities.

The late Wangari Mathai, a Kenyan woman environmental activist who won the Nobel Peace prize in 2004, demonstrated remarkable foresight when she highlighted the interconnectedness of our challenges, thus: “[I]n a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy and peace.”

We need to begin to investigate what it will take to identify, understand, and activate, a poetics of solidarity. The Oxford Reference explains that “poetics are the general principles of poetry or of literature in general, or the theoretical study of these principles. As a body of theory, poetics is concerned with the distinctive features of poetry (or literature as a whole), with its languages, forms, genres, and modes of composition.”

If we use the term ‘poetics’ to refer to solidarity, not merely as an aspect of literature and/or theory, but as lived realities, what are the “languages, forms, genres and modes of existence” that this would entail? In the following paragraphs, I do not propose definitive answers. I merely share some thoughts to engender and provoke each of us, to reflect – and to engage.

A poetics of solidarity needs to have as a premise of its existence, an understanding that working ‘alone’ to solve the problems which impact all – whether as a lone multifaceted institution, the United Nations, corporation(s), religion/religious or multi-religious entity, secular NGO or umbrellas of NGOs, judicial actor(s) or bodies, cultural agents or entities, financial or military behemoths, etc., is clearly not enough.

We have landed here in these very challenging spaces and times, even as so many have laboured for so long in almost all domains of human existence, and even after many movements of solidarity succeeded in overcoming and righting and fighting the good fight. Yet, here we are.

A poetics of solidarity needs to hold accountable all our ways of thinking and doing, so far. I am not implying, by any means, that we have all failed. Rather, we all stand on the shoulders of many who have given their lives to make this a better world for all. We must acknowledge that loud and clear and take responsibility for what many are doing, and have done, that contributes to our shared existence.

This alone would be unlike many leaders who take office and make a point of undermining, or worst still, undoing, all that was done before them or by their predecessors. Or those who hold offices and invest so much in decrying, complaining, unravelling, and withering critiques of those trying to work alongside. Or those who claim to be part of a team, but cannot and will not support one another when things get tough.

A poetics of solidary demands that we put our money, and other resources, including activating our so-called values – where our mouths are. It is not good enough to speak about human rights, and/or the glory of our respective faiths and/or “interfaith peacemaking”, or even building edifices to such ‘co-existence’, when we do not contribute to the efforts of those who fight for these rights.

It is hard to justify killing, maiming, criminalising, imprisoning and in other ways, silencing, those who ask for their rights, and struggle for the rights of others. It is also hard to justify those who pretend to fight for the rights of others, when the going is good, and are silent or notably absent, when the going is tough.

What if, rather than undermine, constantly critique, systematically oppose, complain, or even just remaining silent (and hide behind claims that the particular issue at hand is not their business or endeavour), when we see our fellow humans give – what if we praise, give thanks, reach out to share a kind word, and better still, ask how we can help…? What if we give of the ‘little’ we have? Don’t all our faiths say that? You think this sounds too simple?

Did Einstein not say at some point something like the only difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits, and that everything should be made as simple as possible – but not simpler? Kindness, praise, and giving of what we value, to those we would normally not (want to) see or deign to appreciate, giving to those who speak and work and live differently – but aim for the collective good, is not simple. It is genius. Working together with those who may bear a different institutional flag, rather than seeking to create or consolidate your own, is also genius.

A poetics of solidarity may require us to acknowledge that solidarity is fundamentally about how we relate to one another, with kindness, empathy and willingness to serve – in words and deeds. But it is also to humbly realise that even as some of us try our best to relate and to “support”, “empower”, “engender”, or “enable”, we may well end up hurting one another, and/or even damage parts of our environment that some of us, including future generations, will need, to just survive.

When it comes to the poetics of solidarity in the age of ‘holy wars’, we cannot afford to now see anything ‘religious’ as a saviour, or the only source of our interrelated salvation. Nor can we afford to ignore the religious realms altogether, thinking we know our welfare best, or keep the religious at bay. Instead, we need to take responsibility for the fact that our faiths – including our faith in human rights – demand us to be accountable for ourselves, one another, and our planet.

What we need is a poetics of solidarity which does no harm – but this may well mean sacrificing something dear to us. We have lived – and still do – in an age where we think it is possible to have it all. Perhaps we may just have to come to terms with the fact that we each, and all, need to let go of something valuable to us – and to give, in service, instead.

All our institutions, groups, communities and our individual selves, bear a responsibility. Our long-established religious institutions, faith-based and interfaith initiatives in their mushrooming multitudes, need to be held accountable to what we give of our most valuable, to those who are not religious, those who come from different religions or religious organisations, and especially, to those who uphold all human rights for all peoples at all times.

Secular rights’ bearers and duty holders too, need to take responsibility for how we marginalise even as we ‘advocate’, how we maim as we seek to ‘protect’, and how we silence as we vocalise the ‘like-minded’. We speak of alliances and partnerships, but we walk, and work, in silos, seeking our own profit(s).

A poetics of solidarity may well be about cultivating and deliberately working alongside those we dislike, and giving the best of what we have, and of whom we are.

Professor Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; an affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Alison Kentish
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA, Jun 25 2024 – Germany’s State Secretary and Special Envoy on International Climate Action, Jennifer Morgan, has emphasized the need for urgent climate action and called on G20 nations to do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The G20 comprises 19 developed and developing nations, the European Union and, since 2023, the African Union. It represents the world’s biggest economies, totaling 85 percent of the global GDP.

In an interview with IPS on the sidelines of the Fourth International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4), the former Greenpeace International Co-Director highlighted the crucial role of the G20 in combating climate change.

“Germany and, of course, the European Union are ready to continue to take the lead on phasing out fossil fuels and building on renewable energy, but we need the G20 to step it up,” she told IPS.

“At the end of the day, there will be things that we can adapt to. By the year 2030, we have to halve global emissions and for that, we are working hard within the G20 to get all these countries, including ours, to move forward very deliberately.”

Morgan spoke of the resilience-focused narrative of small island developing states, a theme woven throughout SIDS4.

Germany’s State Secretary and Special Envoy on International Climate Action, Jennifer Morgan. Credit: X

“How can countries be resilient to the extreme weather that’s coming, the hurricanes that are coming? How can we build up, for example, water systems? This is a key focus that Germany is working on and I heard a lot about it here, so that they’re resilient to saltwater coming into a system so that they’re resilient when a storm hits. That’s one area where we can move forward,” Morgan said.

Morgan has been vocal about the need for energy transition and for ramped-up investments in clean energy in developing economies. Last week, she highlighted the fact that while investment in clean energy will double that of fossil fuels in 2024, “investment must accelerate further, especially in emerging and developing economies, where two-thirds of the global population sees only 15 percent of this investment.”

“The gap needs to be closed,” she shared on the social media platform X.

Speaking to IPS, the climate envoy said the issue of finance will also factor greatly in how small island states adapt to a changing climate. She said SIDS leaders are unanimous in their calls for greater access to finance and the reform of the international financial system.

“Germany is working globally on a range of those issues to create a fit-for purpose finance system that also works for small island developing states,” she said.

“We are working hard to get the strategies of the Green Climate Fund for example, to have special windows for SIDS and also support for putting forward proposals that are much more accelerated and having 50% of finance globally go for adaptation and resilience, which is a big priority for SIDS. We are also helping to increase the funds coming to SIDS. SIDS receive funds. I can say from a German perspective that we’re active and also from the Green Climate Fund, but we need to continue to make it more efficient and faster and also make sure that it gets to people on the ground because people on the ground, who are living in their villages in their towns, know what’s best to be able to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change.”

Morgan describes Germany’s work with SIDS on cultural heritage digitization as both ‘heartbreaking and absolutely essential.’

“For countries that are very low lying, facing sea level rise and storms, people have to leave their villages and their cultural heritage is connected to those places. We’ve been working with Tuvalu and other countries to document, through artificial intelligence and digitization, the things that are most essential for them, ensuring that they are protected and not lost,” she said.

Morgan’s messages mirrored those of United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres and Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne. The UN Chief called on developed economies to fulfill their pledge to double adaptation financing by 2025, while Browne called on the global north to honor its USD 100 billion climate finance pledge and operationalize the loss and damage fund.

“Small island developing states have every right and reason to insist that developed economies fulfill their pledge to double adaptation financing by 2025 and we must hold them to this commitment as a bare minimum,” Guterres told the conference. Browne added that “these are important investments in humanity, justice and the equitable future of humanity.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By CIVICUS
Jun 25 2024 –  

CIVICUS discusses the results and implications of recent elections to the European Parliament with Philipp Jäger, Policy Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre, an independent, non-partisan think tank focused on European policy processes and outcomes.

Philipp Jäger

The recent European elections saw significant advances by far-right parties in some but all European Union (EU) countries. They made gains in countries including Austria, Germany and France, where an early parliamentary election has been called as a consequence. In other countries, however, far-right parties stood still or lost support, while green and left-wing parties made gains. Overall, the EU’s mainstream conservative bloc held its leading position, but the results raise questions about the direction of EU policy on issues such as climate and migration.

For more civil society interviews and analysis, please visit CIVICUS Lens.

 
What are the key takeaways from the recent European Parliamentary elections?

As predicted by the polls, there was a shift to the right, with around a quarter of the seats going to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and Identity and Democracy (ID) groups. Most of the parties in these two groups, including Italy’s post-fascist Brothers of Italy, France’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative for Germany (AfD) – which was expelled from ID just before the election – are far-right populist parties.

However, the right’s gains did not amount to a landslide victory and the political centre managed to keep a majority. The conservative European People’s Party (EPP) won the most votes, improving on its performance in the last election. The vote for the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) remained stable, while the Liberals (Renew) and the Greens lost a significant number of seats.

In the outgoing parliament, the EPP, Renew and S&D formed an informal coalition and legislation was usually passed with their support. This time they still have a majority, albeit a slimmer one, with around 403 seats out of 720. Together with the Greens, the political centre still has a comfortable majority to pass laws. A centrist coalition is emerging as the most likely way forward, which would imply a degree of continuity.

However, the EPP has indicated that it is open to working informally with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy on specific issues to secure a centre-right majority. There’s virtually no possibility of a centre-left majority. As all plausible majorities involve it, the EPP is in a strong position. Whether legislation moves to the right will therefore depend largely on how much the EPP moves in that direction.

The election results are also crucial in determining the next president of the European Commission, as the European Parliament must confirm the nomination made by the European Council. Current president Ursula von der Leyen will most likely be elected for another term, supported by the votes of the EPP, S&D, Renew and possibly the Greens.

What explains the uneven performance of the far right?

Right-wing parties made significant gains in France and Germany, the two largest EU member states, which together elect a quarter of all European parliamentarians. In France, Marine Le Pen’s RN party won 30 seats, twice as many as President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party. In Germany, the AfD secured 15 seats, more than any of the three parties currently in government.

The Greens suffered significant losses in France and Germany, accounting for 14 of the 19 seats lost by the group. In Austria, the right-wing Freedom Party of Austria, part of the ID group, emerged as the largest party.

In Denmark, Finland and Sweden, however, far-right parties won fewer votes than expected, while green and left-wing parties made gains. Meanwhile in Poland, the ruling coalition achieved a solid result, successfully fending off a challenge from the right-wing Law and Justice party.

This highlights the fact that the EU elections are not one election, but 27 different national-level elections. As a result, voting in EU elections is often more about national issues than EU policy. Generalising about the EU does not do justice to the diversity of its member states, where local factors often play a role.

Nevertheless, it appears that a significant proportion of EU voters are concerned about their livelihoods. They are not necessarily already negatively affected, but they may fear for the future. One reason may be that they are exposed to events over which they have little control, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, climate change, immigration and inflation – the elements that provide fertile ground for extreme parties to grow.

What are the potential implications for national governments that suffered the biggest losses?

The results of these elections may have strong implications for national governments. In France, Macron dissolved the National Assembly and called early parliamentary elections. This is a very risky decision, as it may hand the far right a decisive win. If his party fares badly, Macron risks becoming a lame duck president, unable to push through domestic legislation.

In Germany, the conservative Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, currently in opposition, scored strong results, while the three governing parties jointly won only around 36 per cent. Combined with the strong performance of AfD, the results are seen as a damning indictment of the government. The results in eastern Germany, where AfD won more votes than any other party, are a harbinger of state elections later this year.

In Hungary, a challenge to incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has emerged. His right-wing populist party, Fidesz, scored its lowest ever EU election result.

These national-level political developments have implications for EU policymaking, given the role of the Council in the legislative process. With less political support at home, the French and German governments are less likely to push the EU agenda in the Council, as they have routinely done in the past.

What’s the likelihood of the EU Green Deal being rolled back?

It will require a major transformation of our economies, supported consistently over the next two decades, to achieve climate targets and successfully implement the EU Green Deal. Additional public funding will be essential to drive the costly process of decarbonising industry. Recent election results suggest we may lack the ambition and political will to do this. If the rightward shift continues and limits further climate action, the EU risks missing its overarching climate targets.

However, a rollback of existing environmental policies is unlikely over the next five years. While some targeted adjustments may be made to reduce administrative burdens, core climate legislation such as the Emissions Trading System is unlikely to be dismantled. Still, there is a risk that the level of ambition could be compromised under the guise of cutting red tape.

On climate, as on other key issues such as immigration, top-level personnel will play a key role. For example, Spain’s deputy minister Teresa Ribera, a vocal advocate of climate action, is a candidate for the role of climate commissioner. A leader of her stature would be well placed to defend the Green Deal in difficult circumstances. In the coming weeks, as von der Leyen seeks the Council’s nomination, political negotiations will intensify as parties vie to place their candidates in key positions.

How do you see the future of the EU?

The future of the EU as we know cannot be taken for granted. While the European Parliament’s overall shift to the right suggests a changing political landscape, the centre right is likely to retain control over most legislation. However, we may see more cooperation between the centre right and the far right on specific issues such as migration.

The situation is somewhat different in the European Council, where decisions require unanimity or qualified majority voting. Although the election hasn’t changed its composition, it has weakened the governments of France and Germany and strengthened Italy. This is highly relevant because small groups of governments, or individual governments, can block legislation or use their votes to extract concessions. EU-sceptical states or destructive forces such as Hungary’s government have often used their veto power.

The rise of Eurosceptic, right-wing governments in key EU states such as Italy, Slovakia, the Netherlands and possibly Austria, which holds elections soon, could further fuel anti-EU sentiment. If the number of hard-right, anti-EU governments increases, they will quickly gain more influence in the Council. While this scenario may not lead to the dissolution of the EU, it could result in an EU where consensus and common action become increasingly difficult.

Get in touch with the Jacques Delors Centre through its website or Instagram page, and follow @DelorsBerlin and @ph_jaeg on Twitter.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Jun 24 2024 – “Holy War” is how the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church referred to the Russian war on the Ukraine, and indeed, on “the West”¹ . “Holy War”, aka “jihad” is a foundational principle of “the Base” or “al-Qaeda”, which has grown into a non-state hydra with too many names and atrocities to list here (but if you are curious, one of the hydra faces is ISIS).

In a recent opinion piece published in Foreign Policy, columnist Caroline de Gruyter noted that “Israel and Palestine Are Now in a Religious War”, in her attempt to argue why the Middle East conflict has been getting increasingly brutal, and increasingly hard to solve.

The intersection between holiness and war is even more nuanced in Zvi Bar’el’s Opinion piece in Haaretz, when he notes that “the war in Gaza is no longer about revenge for the murder of 1,200 Israelis or the hostages.

If they all die, along with hundreds of more soldiers, the price would still be justified for the Jewish Jihad waging a war for Gaza’s resettlement” [emphasis added]. Hamas’ own name –the acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) – needs no elaboration. Neither does Lebanon’s Hizbullah (Party of God).

In India, a report by the Indian Citizens and Lawyers Initiative (in April of 2023), entitled “Routes of Wrath: Weaponising Religious Processions”, notes

Indian history is rife with instances of religious processions that led to communal strife, riots, inexcusable violence, arson, destruction of property and the tragic deaths of innocent residents of the riot-hit areas. There have been horrific riots and bloodletting caused by other factors too, most prominently the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 and the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, but no cause of interfaith riots has been as recurrent and widespread as the religious procession. This is as true of pre-Independence India as during the 75 years since we became a free nation…Post-Independence, we have faced numerous communal riots in diverse parts of India, under different political regimes, and the vast majority of these have been caused by the deliberate choice of communally-sensitive routes by processionists, and the pusillanimity of the Police in dealing with such demands, or even their collusion and connivance in licencing such routes.²

Already back in August of 1988, in an article entitled “Holy War Against India”, explicitly speaks of “Sikh terrorism” in the Punjab, noting that it “took about a thousand lives in 1987 and more than a thousand in the first five months of 1988.

If it continues at the present rate, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab will have cost more lives in two years than the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland has cost in twenty.” ³ Speaking of Northern Ireland, the marching season remains a flashpoint among Catholics and Protestants.

Politicised religion, or religionised politics – whence religious discourse is part of political verbiage, tactics, expedient alliances, sometimes informing foreign policy priorities, occasionally used to justify conflict – are not new phenomena. In fact, they may well be one of the oldest features of politics, governance – and warmaking.

The Crusades against Muslim expansion in the 11th century were recognized as a “holy war” or a bellum sacrum, by later writers in the 17th century. The early modern wars against the Ottoman Empire were seen as a seamless continuation of this conflict by contemporaries. Religion and politics are the oldest bedfellows known to humankind.

What is relatively new, is that after the 100-year war in Europe, and the subsequent moves towards secularisation or the so-called ‘separation of Church and State’ (again, really only in parts of Europe), provided a false sense of the dominance of secular governance in modern times.

Yet, even in the citadels of secular Western Europe, a relationship binding Church and State always existed, for the religious institutions and their affiliated social structures, remain critical social service providers – and humanitarian actors – till today. A reality now understood to be relevant in all parts of our world.

Nevertheless, what we are seeing today is a resurgence of religious politics, and the politics of religion, in almost all corners of the world. Before the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed its “holy war” narrative, the reference to religion and politics almost always focused on Muslim-majority contexts, specifically on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Other realities would often go unnoticed, or somehow deemed as ‘odd’ or one-time phenomena – for instance the fact that the 2016 US elections delivered a Trump administration with full and public backing by a significant part of the Evangelical movement (many of whom are backing a potential comeback of him now); or the fact that related Evangelical counterparts backed Bolsenaro’s rise to power in Brazil; or the fact that religious arguments against abortion remain a key US electoral feature for decades; or the fact that a number of right-leaning anti-immigrant political discourses and blatant white supremacist politics have religious backing in parts of Europe and Latin America.

Was it perhaps that since these took place in ‘white’ and Christian-majority polities, somehow set these aside from being factored as part of the global resurgence of religious politics?

Whatever the case may be, it is time to smell that particularly strong brew of coffee, now. And as we do so, we are also obliged to note that it is no coincidence that this ‘brew’ is taking place at a time of remarkable social and political polarisation in many societies.

Indeed. we speak of multiple and simultaneous crisis (e.g. climate change, catastrophic governance, wars, famines, rampant inequalities, soaring human displacement, nuclear fears, systemic racism, rising multiple violence, drug wars, proliferation of arms and weapons, misogyny, etc.) and we also acknowledge the wilting multilateral influence to confront these. But as we acknowledge these, we must also recognise that social cohesion is a lasting and tragic victim.

Some governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental entities have turned to religion(s) as a possible panacea. Religious leaders are being convened in multiple capitals (at significant cost) in almost all corners of the world.

Regularly touting the peacefulness and the unparalleled supremacy of their respective moral standpoints. Religious NGOs are being sought out, supported and partnered with more regularly to help address multiple crisis – especially humanitarian, educational, public health, sanitation, and child-focused efforts.

Interfaith initiatives are competing among each other, and with other secular ones, for grants from governments and philanthropists in the United States, Europe, Africa, many parts of Asia (with the notable exception of China), and the Middle East. Engaging, or partnering with religious entities is the new normal.

But just as the largely secular efforts we lived through (and some of us served for decades) in the 1960s to the 1990s, did not realise a brave new world, religious ones, on their own, cannot do so either. Especially not with the kind of historical baggage and contemporary narratives of holy war, we are living with now.

It is time we re-consider, re-engage and re-envision a poetics of solidarity rooted an abiding adherence to (and re-education about) all human rights for all peoples at all times. What would that entail?

¹ https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm
² Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf
³ Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf

Part 2 follows.

Dr. Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; a Professor and Affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 24 2024 – Perhaps two of the biggest misnomers in military jargon are “small arms” and “light weapons” which are the primary weapons of death and destruction in ongoing civil wars and military conflicts, mostly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In a statement last week, at the opening session of the Fourth Review Conference of the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was dead on target when he said there is nothing “small” or “ight” about the damage these weapons cause.

“Small arms and light weapons play a major role in these conflicts. Small arms are the leading cause of violent deaths globally, and are the weapon of choice in nearly half of all global homicides,” Guterres said.

The UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on small arms and light weapons has an ambitious goal – to “prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” But it’s a tough assignment in a political world dominated by the gun lobby and the military-industrial complex.

During the weeklong meeting, scheduled to conclude June 28, diplomats from around the world will review its implementation — against the backdrop of a political agreement that originated back in 2001. Members of civil society are also on hand to present their analyses and lobby and inform governments.

Speaking on behalf of Guterres, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu told delegates global military expenditures are on the rise.

And countries, regions and communities across the globe are suffering. New and protracted conflicts are placing millions of people in the line of fire.

“They aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence”.

According to the UN, “light weapons,” are primarily, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person.

They include, heavy machine guns, handheld under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of antitank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100 millimetres.

The current civil wars, where the choice of weapons is largely small arms and light weapons, are primarily in Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen—besides the two ongoing major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

But in these two devastating conflicts, the Russians and Israelis are using more sophisticated weapons, including fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, drones, air-to-surface missiles, armoured personnel carriers and battle tanks, among others.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, who represents the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in her work at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues, told IPS there are many obstacles to the full implementation of the UNPoA, both during the Review Conference and beyond. Two sets of these obstacles seem particularly noticeable at this year’s Review Conference.

The first set of obstacles is external.

In the end, the UNPoA is a political document, designed to be implemented primarily at the national level. States must have the political will to carry out the commitments in the UNPoA and the outcome documents of the various biennial meetings of states and review conferences, she said.

Smaller, less well-resourced States may also need financial assistance to be able to implement some portions of the UNPoA.

As a result, some smaller States are unwilling to accept programs and policies they fear will cost them money to implement, even with the potential availability of international assistance, Dr Goldring pointed out.

“The political challenge is complicated by the major roles played by the arms industry. Weapons manufacturers have financial incentives to sell as many weapons as they can. And States that supply weapons can be dependent on the power of those manufacturers. Some of these manufacturers are so intent on protecting their profits that they even attend, speak, and lobby at these conferences”.

The second key obstacle, she said, is internal.

“The Programme of Action process generally runs on a practice of “consensus”. In theory, that sounds laudable – why wouldn’t we want the process to be dominated by reaching consensus? But in this process, consensus is effectively defined as unanimity. That means that a single negative voice can block change – or progress”.

Because of the consensus process, she argued, these conferences and meetings often face an uncomfortable choice between two main options. One possibility is a strong outcome document, reached through votes, but lacking consensus. Another possibility is a weaker outcome document, reached through consensus.

“If it seems as though consensus is not going to be possible, then the supporters of the UNPoA could – and arguably should – construct an ambitious outcome document that would better fulfill the promise of the UNPoA and would require votes on some of the most controversial paragraphs. Arguably, the worst outcome would be for the proponents of a robust UNPoA to accept a lot of compromises on the text and still not reach consensus,” declared Dr Goldring

Guterres said small arms and light weapons aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence.

They block vital humanitarian aid from reaching the most vulnerable. They put the lives of United Nations peacekeeping forces and civilian personnel at risk.

And the situation is growing worse, as new developments in the manufacturing, technology and design of small arms — such as 3D printing — make their illegal production and trafficking easier than ever before, warned Guterres.

Rebecca Peters, Director, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), said in an oped piece in the UN Chronicle, that a thousand people die each day from gunshot wounds, and three times as many are left with severe injuries. If the death, injury and disability resulting from small arms were categorized as a disease, it would qualify as an epidemic.

Yet the media and popular perception tend to suggest that gun violence is simply an unavoidable consequence of human cruelty or deprivation, rather than a public health problem which can be prevented or at least reduced, she said.

“The circumstances of gun violence vary so enormously, it would be simplistic to suggest a single solution. A comprehensive approach, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the problem, is needed to bring down the grim toll of global death and injury.”

Nonetheless, the high school massacres in the US, the armed gangs in Brazil or the systematic sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo all share a common denominator: the availability of guns (or small arms, as they are known in UN circles).

She said practical steps toward reducing the availability and misuse of small arms can be classified under four headings:

1. Reducing the existing stockpile
2. Reducing the supply of new weapons
3. Closing the gates between the legal and illegal markets
4. Reducing the motivation for acquiring guns (demand)

Elaborating further, Dr Goldring said the issue of whether or how to include ammunition in the UNPoA is a key example of the difficulty of reaching consensus. This has been the case since the initial negotiation of the UNPoA, when the United States and a few others States showed their willingness to block consensus over this issue. That fight continues at this meeting.

The President of the Review Conference, she said, is a remarkably able diplomat from Costa Rica, Permanent Representative Maritza Chan Valverde. If anyone can thread the needle on having a strong outcome document and reaching consensus at the same time, it’s likely to be Ambassador Chan. But it’s a herculean task.

“I greatly admire her skill and dedication, but I think that the chasm between the supporters of the UNPoA and the obstructionists may simply be too large.”

In discussing the outcome document of the September 2024 Summit of the Future, Ambassador Chan said, “The Pact for the Future cannot remain anchored in the language of the past. Consensus must be forged, not found. Ambition must prevail in the text, and the progress of the many cannot be hindered by the reservations of the few.”

That quote, Dr Goldring said, seems to suggest that she would be willing to have votes in order to avoid having the document be undermined by the obstructionists. But only time will tell.

In the early- to the mid-90s, the international trade in small arms and light weapons was a specialist topic within an extremely small community internationally, and was not on the international policy agenda in a significant way.

Because of the work of analysts and advocates to bring attention to this issue, subsequently accompanied by the work of dedicated diplomats at the UN and elsewhere, it is now an established part of international work to reduce the human costs of armed violence.

“Unfortunately, quantitative measures of the UNPoA’s effectiveness are difficult – if not impossible — to develop. Instead, we often measure outputs and activities, rather than outcomes. We simply don’t know the counterfactual – what the situation would have been without the UNPoA,” she declared.

Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and Military Editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);