2013 Global Convening To End Mass Atrocities Convening Summary Istanbul, Turkey ~ June 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Chatham House Rule Introduction Convening theme: Emerging Powers Key Outcomes and Themes Responsibility to Protect Current crises Challenges and Opportunities About The Nexus Fund Conclusion
3 3 4 6 8 8 8 9 10
2
ACRONYMS ASEAN AU BRICS CSO DRC, or CONGO EP EU IBSA MAPREV NATO NGO RtoP, or R2P UN UNSC
Association of Southeast Asian Nations African Union Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa Civil Society Organization Democratic Republic of the Congo Emerging Power European Union India, Brazil, and South Africa Mass Atrocity Prevention North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non-Governmental Organization Responsibility to Protect United Nations United Nations Security Council
NONATTRIBUTION In order to promote the substantive, critical, and reflective dialogue sought, the convening was subject to the Chatham House Rule: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. INTRODUCTION In June 2013, representatives from 33 countries on six continents gathered for The Nexus Fund’s Global Convening to End Mass Atrocities. Participants came from NGOs, think tanks, foundations, academia, and other civil society organizations, and spent four days learning from each other, building relationships, discussing difficult issues, and planning to work together as a global community to support each other in the effort to halt and prevent mass atrocities. The content for the first three days of the convening was planned by a volunteer Participant Advisory Committee (PAC), comprised of seven leading experts in the atrocities prevention community from six countries on five continents. Utilizing the results of a survey of convening invitees the PAC formulated a convening with five components: a focus on emerging powers; participant presentations on a wide variety of atrocities-related issues; skill-building sessions; sessions on current crises; and relationship building / networking. The fourth day of the convening was hosted by the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. For more information about this day, please contact Sapna Chhatpar at chhatpar@wfm-igp.org. In the opening plenary, the PAC challenged the audience of experts and panelists to frame an open, truthful, and collaborative environment. They also posed the following goals for the convening: 3
1. To provide a space for debate and learning on the main theme of engaging emerging powers in atrocity prevention. 2. To build and strengthen the atrocities prevention community of practice. 3. To facilitate relationship building / networking. 4. To determine how best to support local actors and governments. 5. To develop joint strategies and share information. HOW TO USE THIS OVERVIEW The purpose of this overview is not to reflect session notes verbatim. Rather, this document seeks to capture the cross cutting themes, concepts and debates that emerged from the convening. It is impossible to fully develop long-term strategies for solving the issues facing the field in a few days. However, a short-term review of where the field finds itself today on certain issues, coupled with current information on new problem areas and emerging topics, is certainly valuable when asking the question, “What next?” CONVENING THEME: EMERGING POWERS One of the overarching themes of the convening was how emerging powers leverage their capacity and influence at different points along the local, national, regional, and international continuum. The emerging powers’ sessions provided the keystones for subsequent discussions during the convening. For the purpose of the convening, emerging powers were loosely defined as countries that have increasing political and economic influence and status internationally. As these nations define and shift their places in the world order, they face great opportunities, as well as substantial socioeconomic, geopolitical, and human rights obstacles. The focus of the convening was on how to engage these countries on atrocity prevention and related issues. Overview of the emerging powers’ sessions Engaging the emerging powers is sensitive and strategies for engagement with each of the states must be informed by an understanding of each countries unique context. During the convening participants explored the positions of China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa on mass atrocity prevention and opportunities for engagement by civil society with these actors. Common themes that emerged from the various panels include that there is a lack of familiarity amongst policy makers of mass atrocity prevention and that the ‘boutique’ nature of these issues makes getting governments to prioritize them a challenge. In many of the countries engaging the youth who are seen as more internationalist and open to human rights norms could be part of a long-term strategy for engagement. While in the short-term, working with trusted think tank partners to engage the governments in discussions about mass atrocity prevention related officials would be beneficial. The Chinese government remains on the periphery of discussions about the prevention of mass atrocities. Retaining a traditional position on state sovereignty the government is uncomfortable with what is sees as interference in the domestic affairs of states on human rights grounds and is opposed to military intervention to protect civilians at risk of mass atrocities. However subtle
4
shifts in China’s position is emerging. As China invests more in the economies of African states the government is beginning to show more openness to discussions about conflict prevention. Furthermore, China is increasing its commitment to UN peacekeeping. These shifts suggest openings for civil society to engage with government. Civil society needs to establish long-term strategies for engagement premised on identifying key government officials to serve as interlocutors on issues related to mass atrocity prevention like peacekeeping and conflict prevention. One expert noted that, “People hugely overestimate how difficult it is to work in China,” and opportunities for a fruitful conversation with the government exist. South Africa is a critical actor in mass atrocity prevention. They are supportive of the norms that underpin this agenda, including the responsibility to protect and accountability measures like the International Criminal Court. South Africa has also taken steps to protect populations through its contribution to UN and AU peacekeeping. South Africa is somewhat unique within the emerging powers. It has an vibrant NGO and think tanks community that is engaged on mass atrocity prevention related issues. The government is somewhat suspicious of many of the actors, questioning where their receive their funding and favoring those institutions that are seen as ‘independent’ of the west. An anti-western outlook permeates certain political actors thinking, primarily those within the ruling African National Congress (ANC). There are many openings for engagement directly with political actors in the ANC and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Efforts at public mobilization around issues like the transfer of arms to Zimbabwe through South Africa has led to public outcry and a shift in policy positions. Furthermore, strategic litigation has proven a useful tool for advocates working on this agenda. Brazil is currently experiencing a shift in its position from one of non-intervention to nonindifference towards human rights abuses perpetrated by other governments. Keenly aware of its status as an emerging power, Brazil is eager to stake a place for itself in international peace and security debates, including those on mass atrocity prevention. They are expanding their involvement in UN peacekeeping and a Brazilian general will be leading the new UN Intervention Brigade in the DRC. Brazil also has economic interest in Africa and is seeking to enhance its role on the continent through supporting initiatives that strengthen states’ capacity. Civil society has been able to impact the Brazilian government positions. For example, civil society has been able to shift Brazil’s stance at the Human Rights Council from one of regularly abstaining on resolutions involving populations at risk to take a position in favor of upholding human rights. Of the emerging powers India appears to be the least engaged on issues related to mass atrocity prevention. Embracing a traditional conception of state sovereignty, premised to a degree by a desire to shield India from international interference into its own affairs, India remains skeptical of concepts like the responsibility to protect. Civil society interest in India’s foreign policy, let alone its position on mass atrocity prevention is scarce. Think Tanks could be a useful interlocutor for engaging the government in discussions on mass atrocity prevention although the conversations would have to be couched as being about conflict prevention, development or peacekeeping. Indonesia aspires to play a larger role on international peace and security issues and is the driver of related initiatives within the regional organization ASEAN. Yet Indonesia struggles domestically with ongoing risks of atrocities and the lack of accountability for past crimes. Also a troop
5
contributor to UN peacekeeping the current president has spoken out on a number of crisis involving mass atrocities, in particular those affecting Muslim populations like the Rohingya in Myanmar/Burma. There is a robust domestic civil society that does engage the government on its international foreign policy and position on mass atrocity prevention. Utilizing the media to educate and spark debates about what Indonesia’s future role on mass atrocity prevention. For in-depth analyses of the opportunities and challenges that Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, India, China, and Indonesia bring to the goal of atrocity prevention, please see the full-length papers prepared for the convening by Naomi Kikoler and Kim Nackers. Email William@nexusfund.org or access them at community.nexus-fund.org. KEY OUTCOMES AND THEMES Throughout the convening, a few key concepts and ideas were stated repeatedly by participants from all backgrounds and regions. There was widespread agreement that our community of practice should be doing the following – or doing it better: 1. Turn early warning into early action Participants and panelists alike recognized the need for major shifts in the way problems are approached from the very earliest stages. Participants noted that many early warning systems exist, but that the real problem is the lack of early and effective action from potential interveners, including governments, regional bodies and the international community including the UN. 2. Focus on empowering and incorporating those on the ground There was emphasis by participants about the gains of looking to local capacity first. In most cases of looming atrocity preventive alliances and networks already exist at the local level and the challenge is how to support those actors to resolve conflicts before they flare into larger scale violations. For example, a presentation of the Know Your Rights campaign, launched in advance of the Kenya 2013 elections, showed how local groups were able to identify early warning signs of problems and take necessary action. Participants suggested that the model of identifying, reacting and swiftly addressing issues via local networks could be useful in similar situation like what applied in Kenya. Participant recommendations include: • Effectively engage by building trust and relationships with local actors. This helps increase external understanding of the local context and empowers local actors. • Work with local CSOs to build their capacity. • Foster local agency and ownership over the solutions. • Understand that putting local organizations first is not just about the locals’ role. Rather, it is about reframing the outsiders’ role, and avoiding the mindset that “government is (always) bad and local CSO’s are (always) good.” ( I don’t understand what this means?) These seem to me two points; ie the recognition of the capacity of the local’s role and managing the relationship between the local and how they are perceived by the government they are trying to challenge? I am not sure • •
Understand that locals should be the primary agents in defining the protection they need. Exclude no one from the solution; Recognize that working with current or former perpetrators of atrocities in order to stop immediate violence may be necessary.
6
• •
Make connections between victims-survivors and the international actors engaged in the conflict Recognize that women are often at the very center of the victim-survivor equation, and suffer disproportionately and should therefore be part of the solution.
3. Increase communication in both directions (grassroots to national and international, and vice versa) Clearly, the need to better integrate the local – national – regional – international response frameworks is important. Participants indicated frustration with determining how to work at the local level while still maintaining engagement internationally. While there is broad in-principle agreement about the merits of supporting local actors first, there seems to be a disconnect about how to sustain this commitment when faced with a lack of political will, capacity, education, or ability to deliver sustainable peace solutions. Participant recommendations include: • Support local networks for early warning; engage local offices with situational expertise; maintain observers in rural areas; use local peace committees as first responders to potential outbreaks; and cultivate political will at the national level. • Continue education initiatives and build political will for prevention and early warning. 4. Engage emerging powers on MAP-related issues Participants discussed how emerging powers are leveraging their influence at different points along the local – national – regional – international continuum. A recurring concern was that civil society organizations within the emerging powers countries have varying degrees of access to the policy-makers in their governments. Participant recommendations include: • Find opportunities to engage emerging powers on atrocity prevention at the earliest stages through education and capacity building / prevention at the earliest stages through education and targeted advocacy. • Acknowledge that entry points will be different in each country; cultivate individual plans for engaging each country. 5. When working on mass atrocity prevention, choose to “do something effective” rather than “doing something.” The desire to ‘do something’ can have unintended consequences. Participants noted that the tools for engagement vary from country to country, situation to situation, and actors should not assume that what has been effective in one situation will be effective in another. Participant recommendations include: • The tools for engagement vary from country to country, situation to situation. Practitioners should be fully aware of the different contexts in play, and know where, when, and who to engage. • Organizations and governments should be aware of unintended consequences before taking action. • Organizations and governments should commit to seeing through their actions until a community or country has been returned to a peaceful state, rather than intervening and leaving behind a mess for the locals to deal with on their own.
7
•
“Do not throw out the toolbox, but recognize the problem of using tools practitioners think will work without having proof that those tools actually do work,” said one participant.
6. Build skills and knowledge Participants universally recognized that skills and knowledge building are essential to strengthening the field. Participant recommendations include: • Disseminate knowledge gained from the experience of experts and local voices. This is central to our collective ability to understand and prevent atrocities. • Provide networking and engagement guidance to help local NGOs make inroads at the national level. • Help build networking and coalition skills, particularly with governmental actors who may have vastly different priorities and challenges. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT R2P was discussed throughout the convening, and was the full focus of the fourth day, which was hosted by the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. To get more information about this day or to learn more about R2P, contact Sapna Chhatpar at chhatpar@wfmigp.org. CURRENT CRISES Four sessions were held to discuss current crises in Burma, Sudan/South Sudan, DRC and Syria. For full notes on these sessions, visit community.nexus-fund.org or email William@nexusfund.org. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES As the atrocities prevention community moves forward, these are the challenges and opportunities that it will face, according to participants at the convening: Challenges Opportunities • Partisan issues • Educate government officials • Genocide or not genocide? • Increase capacity of local actors • Former perpetrators in power • Institutionalize the atrocities prevention agenda • Foreign policy focused initiatives • “Peer” pressure between inter• Atrocities prevention seen as a military governmental officials issue • Knowledge transfers from organization • Consequences for protesting to organization across the community of • Harassment and intimidation practice. • Defamation • Draw lessons from U.S. movement • Trumped-up legal proceedings against • Harness optimism activists • Civic engagement • Unrealistic expectations leading to early • Networking burn-out
8
• • •
Connecting grass roots to international level Finding organic solutions Securing long-term funding
• •
Maintain momentum, even if slow Train practitioners
ABOUT THE NEXUS FUND On the final day of the convening, The Nexus Fund (www.nexus-fund.org) outlined its mission and rolled out its resources. The driving purpose behind The Nexus Fund is to provide resources specifically identified as pressing needs by practitioners themselves. The mission of The Nexus Fund is to support and empower a global community of practice to end mass atrocities. The Nexus Fund has four areas in which it currently provides resources: Community Building By facilitating convenings, meetings, online education tools, and information sharing, The Nexus Fund responds to the needs of practitioners. (The online tool can be found at www.community.nexusfund.org.) Professional Development The Nexus Fund sponsors the Civil Society Exchange Program, an exchange and immersion program through which participants work with and learn about other practitioners as a way of creating benefit well into the future. The first short-term (10 day) pilot exchanges took place this Spring with participants from the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and were rated successful by sponsoring organizations and participants. Additionally, The Nexus Fund is developing a Professional Development Training Program for practitioners in the atrocities prevention community. This training curriculum will include both knowledge and skills trainings and aims to address specific practitioner needs, which will be determined through surveys conducted August through November 2013. Trainings will be offered online and in person beginning in 2014. Research The Nexus Fund has sponsored two research projects so far: the papers on the emerging powers for the convening, and a “global directory” of the atrocities prevention community. The papers are available at community.nexus-fund.org and the global directory will be available in Fall/Winter 2013. Under its research agenda, The Nexus Fund offers a Retrospective Grant program to capture the knowledge and wisdom of highly experienced experts in the field. Recipients take 1-2 months to reflect on their experience, and provide writings and presentations on three topics: lessons learned, best practices, and a “wish list” for the field. The first recipient of this grant provided insights into the experience at the convening and will be hosting a webinar of her findings this Fall. Applications are now open for potential grantees looking to spend 1-2 months in reflection.
9
Innovation The innovation component of The Nexus Fund is still in development. One area of interest is connecting the community with the innovators, social entrepreneurs and others to develop potential new tools for practitioners. There will also be Innovation Grants available in 2014 (details are still being fleshed out for what this grant program will entail). For more information, email William@ nexus-fund.org. CONCLUSION The intersection of human rights, humanitarian response, and mass atrocities prevention continues to ignite powerful discussions that will refine the community’s approaches to atrocities prevention, especially in light of the unique dynamics of working with emerging powers. Having good contextual understandings of specific crises, past and present, can provide the nuanced strategies necessary to move the field forward. The breadth of topics covered was important to generate new questions. Not surprisingly, there were more questions than answers, indicative of the work that remains ahead. The field must continue to encourage and recognize the place of emerging powers on the global stage, in general, but also help voices dedicated to atrocities prevention within those countries to be heard and their needs integrated and engaged at the local, national, and international levels. More importantly, the convening created and expanded the network of people who are committed to working as a community on the prevention of mass atrocities, and who will continue to work to work, both separately and together, toward the collective goal of ending mass atrocities.
10