Mondial (August 2014)

David and Goliath’s fight over nuclear disarmament: Also in this issue:

• • • • • • • • • •

Nuclear weapons states face ICJ judgment

Japan's pacifist constitution under siege A world in need of leadership Internet governance: key issues left unaddressed EU financial transactions tax a step closer Reviews: “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” S.Rosenblum M. Frankman “Peacemakers: How People Around the World are Building a World Free of War” F.Watt Canada's cluster munitions legislation undermines treaty 'Responsibility to Protect' alive and doing fine Global summit on ending sexual violence in conflict ICC Update: Ukraine asks ICC to investigate Post-2015 Development Agenda Process: Sustainable Development Goals

www.worldfederalistscanada.org

page 2

COVER STORY

Nuclear weapons states face ICJ judgment

Nic Baird is a Program Officer at WFMCanada's national office.

Nic Baird

On April 25 of this year, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed an application with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against each of the nine nuclear powers for failing to disarm their respective nuclear arsenals. At a dramatic press conference at the United Nations, Tony de Brum, the Marshall Islands’ foreign minister stated that China, North Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are all facing judgment by the court for violating international treaties and customary international law.

1.6 Hiroshima blasts every day for 12 years.

Nevertheless, the irradiated country has made it clear they are not seeking reparations.

Instead, the Marshall Islands calls for the ICJ to acknowledge the breach of international law in both retaining a nuclear arsenal and “taking actions to qualitatively improve” the weapons systems. ey’re also seeking a court order compelling each state to begin disarmament negotiations within a year. Only a state can take another state to the ICJ, and the Marshall Islands case is the first to demand nuclear disarmament. e tiny island cluster’s crusade is supported by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a U.S. organization consulting with the country and its legal team. “ese cases by the Marshall Islands are a very bold, courageous way of challenging the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations to nuclear disarmament,” said David Krieger, the foundation’s president.

Out of the nine countries named in the applications, China, France, Russia, the U.S. and the U. K., also being the UN Security Council’s permanent members, are identified throughout the applications as the original parties to the 1970 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). e treaty exists as the only multilateral agreement between states containing a binding nuclear disarmament obligation, and now boasts 190 signatory countries.

“Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities,” said de Brum. e Pacific island state is unique as the only country where the UN authorized the use of nuclear weapons. Sixty-seven nuclear tests were conducted by the U.S. between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent to July 2014

e missing parties to the treaty are the remaining four smaller nuclear-weapon states: India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea — still bound by “customary international law” created by the near universal 1970 treaty, according to the applications filed. “In the case of all four, the argument is that although they’re not part of the NPT, they are bound by the principles of the NPT,” Krieger said. is 44-year-old treaty was strengthened by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1996

page 3

COVER STORY

advisory opinion on nuclear weapons, which interprets the NPT’s Article VI as “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” is challenges countries with more than a duty to negotiate; they must also get results.

are treated as invitations to opt in. Since all of them claim to be fulfilling their nuclear disarmament obligations under international law, Krieger said this could be an opportunity for these states to make that argument in a “weighed and balanced” context.

And if the court does rule in favour of the Marshall Islands, what would come of it? “Obviously the ICJ doesn’t have an army or police to enforce its rulings.

While there is no strict method to enforce the ICJ’s rulings, or even compel countries to attend, India, Pakistan and the e ICJ’s 1996 opinion interprets the NPT’s Article U.K. have all made declarations accepting the court’s jurisdiction VI as “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion as compulsory. “ey might try negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects… to challenge the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds,” Krieger is challenges countries with more than a duty to negotiate; they must also get results.” said. “ey all have different reservations in their acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.”

But such court decisions in the ICJ generate strong normative support,” Krieger said. “A ruling by the Considering all nine applications, the U.K. stands court could only strengthen the understanding and apart as both a signatory of the NPT and as having accepted the international court’s rulings as binding. pressure from civil society, and this will help in the is puts it in a unique position: obliged to adhere to aermath of the court opinion.” the court process, as well as having a legally wellestablished promise to disarm. “e U.K. is particularly promising,” Krieger said. “If there’s a ruling for the Marshall Islands against the U.K., and there’s an injunction to begin negotiations within a year, I think that would have implications for the other nuclear weapons states as well.”

As for the six countries that do not accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction – China, North Korea, France, Israel, Russia, and the U.S. – the applications

While the legal preparations had to be kept confidential before filing the applications, now that the action is out in the open, the initiative needs to receive wider attention. Media interest in the case has been strong, especially considering the David vs.

Goliath dynamics.

“Civil society and public opinion will make a large difference,” Krieger said. “I hope World Federalists everywhere will step up for this.”

Global Week of Action for a World Parliament The World Federalist Movement–Canada is excited to participate in the second Global Week of Action for a World Parliament, October 17–26.

Help out by speaking up for the democratization of global politics and supporting proposals for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations. Here’s what you can do: 1. Write to your Member of Parliament and ask them to sign the international “Appeal for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations” - just click right here!

2. Every citizen of the world is also encouraged to send a photo of themselves holding up a sign supporting a world parliament. Share it online with #worldparlnow. Visit worldparliamentnow.org to become more involved in the Global Week of Action for a World Parliament.

July 2014

page 4

Japan’s pacifist constitution under siege Nic Baird e Vancouver Branch of World Federalist Movement – Canada hosted a meeting May 15 with Satoko Norimatsu of ‘Vancouver Save Article 9’, speaking about preservation and promotion of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, the warrenunciation clause which the current Japanese government is trying to revoke.

“e Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes,” reads Article 9.

To effect a change to the constitution, Abe needs to obtain two-thirds of the vote in each of the houses of Japan’s bicameral legislature, known as the National Diet, and then earn a majority of “e Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign support in a national right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of referendum. As his coalition government holds 55.8 per cent settling international disputes,” reads Article 9. of seats in the House of Councillors, and 67.7 per cent in Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo- Abe is pursuing the House of Representatives, it is possible that the constitutional revisions that include freeing the popular prime minister could secure the support of pacifist state to pursue military action outside the Diet. homeland defence. However, despite parliamentary However, a nationwide poll conducted in late April support for Abe

by Tokyo Simbun showed 62 per cent oppose and for some revising Article 9, while 24 per cent support a constitutional revision. reform, most If the public will not budge on Article 9, Abe may Japanese do not still redefine Japan’s security policy by liing the selfwant the muzzle imposed ban on exercising collective self-defence. lied from their International law allows states the right to support armed forces. A one another against aggressors, but Japan voluntarily growing global abstains from exercising this right in favour of campaign international pacifism. Since Article 9 has been supports of the reinterpreted several times to allow Japan greater present Japanese defensive measures, it could potentially allow constitution. collective self-defense as well. A panel of security e country’s experts is expected to provide Abe with a report later constitution has this year. not been amended Constitutional reform has been an ongoing debate in since the Allies Japan throughout the post-war period. While public authored it sentiment is warming to the idea, anti-militarism following the remains an unshakeable part of the national identity.

Second World At the Vancouver meeting, Branch President Vivian War. To curtail Davidson read a letter from Toshiki Kaifu, President further aggression from Japan, Article 9 prohibits of World Federalist Movement of Japan and a former maintaining an army, navy, air force, or other “war Japanese Prime Minister. “We WFM Japan respect potential.” While the Japanese Self-Defense Force Article 9,” said Kaifu. “is Article and the concept acts in lieu of a formal military for domestic of World Federalist Movement go together, side by protection, participating in foreign conflicts is side….” considered unconstitutional in most cases.

July 2014

page 5

A world in need of leadership

Fergus Watt is Executive Director of World Federalist Movement – Canada.

Fergus Watt

When one thinks of some of the major political transformative changes in recent times, oen these changes have been brought about, or at least pushed forward, by bold enlightened leadership.

Individuals such as Roosevelt, Gandhi, Mandela and Gorbachev, not only brought about change in the political context within which they operated; they changed fundamentally the assumptions about how the world works, or should work.

Among the overarching political challenges of our times is the need for a new order of international co-operation and governance to address a growing number of global problems.

Multilateralism is at a crossroads with clearly inadequate progress toward a global climate change deal, years of stalemate at the World Trade Organization, the limited response of the G20 to needed financial regulation, tax avoidance and anti-corruption measures, and a UN Security Council that is globally unrepresentative and too oen deadlocked in its response to conflict, as in Syria.

We know that global governance is broken and needs fixing. But why is so little done about it?

Among the reasons, surely, is the lack of effective leadership. One need only survey most of the important states in today’s world and what we find is a crop of world leaders for whom narrow nationalism – not internationalism -- is the preferred political stock-in-trade.

• India’s recent election brought to power the Bharatiya Janata Party led by Narendra Modi with a record majority, notwithstanding Modi’s past affiliations with right-wing social movements and his governorship in Gujarat province that allowed the deaths of 1,000 people, mostly Muslims murdered by Hindus.

• In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo- Abe seeks to re-arm Japan’s military and remove

constraints imposed by the country’s pacifist constitution.

• China’s leadership under Xi Jinping

introduced a budget earlier this year that includes a rise of 12 per cent in its annual military budget. China also maintains a high state of public arousal over foreign threats, whether from Japan in the South China Sea or the U.S. military’s “pivot to Asia.”

• Russia’s President Putin has ramped up

military spending and has benefited from playing the nationalism card in the face of the loss of a sympathetic neighbour government in Ukraine.

We know that global governance is broken and needs fixing.

But why is so little done about it?

Among the reasons, surely, is the lack of effective leadership.

• In Europe, the gains made in May’s

European Parliament elections by various nationalist and anti-Europe parties threaten to roll back fundamental EU policies, such as the free movement of labour, and forestall reforms to the Union’s institutions that many believe are necessary to ensure the survival of the euro.

• In much of Africa, domestic challenges to

authority thwart political leaders, the African Union lacks sufficient institutional capacity to contribute meaningfully to social progress and public frustration over poverty and corruption is widespread.

• In Brazil, Dilma Roussef leads a

government which was once strongly committed to re-energizing multilateral institutions but is now mired in controversy rooted in corruption allegations and its handling of social unrest.

• In the United States, still the country that is the most important to the functioning of most international organizations, a

July 2014

page 6

Ban Ki-moon coming to the end of his second 5 year term as Secretary General

moderate, centrist President Obama seems at pains to keep the country from entering a new war on his watch (not an insignificant accomplishment) but fails to demonstrate the initiative or vision that would bring about the changes to global

ere’s a lot more interest in the next Secretary-General now.

Part of that relates to the groundswell this time in support of selecting a woman. governance that are so evidently necessary. is less-than-stellar cast of global citizens in the highest offices of major national governments makes all the more important the selection of the next Secretary-General at the United Nations. Ban Ki-moon’s second fiveyear term ends in December 2015. In New York and capitals around the world, the campaigning and corridor gossip has already begun.

Historically, the selection process for the UN Secretary-General, which is carried out by the General Assembly “upon the recommendation of the Security Council,” has occurred largely behind closed doors and falls far short of July 2014

existing legitimate international high-level appointment procedures. No list of qualifications is agreed. No formal screening takes place. e General Assembly is asked to declare itself on the nominated candidate without the benefit of relevant information or even informal consultations. e candidates’ vision for the UN’s future remains unexamined, and there is no established way for member states to develop a sense of the candidates’ skills in key areas like communication and political leadership. And the General Assembly does little more than politely ratify a decision effectively made by the Security Council, leaving little scope for a meaningful, considered reflection on whether or not the candidate should be appointed.

A soon to be re-launched campaign led by the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP) aims to change that.

UNSGselection.org will aim to pressure governments to develop a more transparent and accountable selection process. Here are some of the key elements of the campaign: 1. e qualities sought in a SecretaryGeneral should be articulated. e campaign will set forth relevant

page 7

qualifications for the next S-G which governments can use as a benchmark in their interventions at the General Assembly and elsewhere.

2. A systematic means should be put in place by which potential candidates can be identified. is requires a formal publicized timetable with deadlines for nominations, shortlists and final selection.

Ideally the candidate should be limited to a single term in office, perhaps a single sevenyear term.

WFM-IGP Executive Director Bill Pace expects that the UNSGselection.org campaign will have a greater impact now than a similar initiative in 2005-06. “ere’s a lot more interest in the next Secretary-General now. Part of that relates to the groundswell this time in support of

3. According to one proposal, a search In a world lacking leadership, let’s hope that the next UN committee, appointed jointly Secretary-General will be, as the old saying has it, more by the President of the Security Council and the general than secretary.

President of the General Assembly might advertise the selecting a woman as the next Secretaryposition, publish desired attributes and General (UNDP head Helen Clark and former even proactively encourage specific Irish Prime Minister Mary Robinson are individuals to become candidates. leading candidates). And part of the interest in 4. Means should be developed to facilitate opening up the process is the growing the dissemination of basic information frustration among members of the General regarding candidates. Procedures should Assembly with the secrecy and failures of the allow member states to hear from potential Security Council, particularly over Syria.” candidates in order to assess their aptitude In a world lacking leadership, let’s hope that the and get a sense of their vision for the next UN Secretary-General will be, as the old organization. saying has it, more general than secretary.

Published by the World Federalist Foundation (WFF) and the World Federalist Movement – Canada (WFMC). e World Federalist Foundation is a Canadian Revenue Agency registered charitable organization (reg. #:123998957RR0001). e World Federalist Movement – Canada is a national non-profit membership organization that advocates more just and effective global governance through the application of the principles of democratic federalism to world affairs. e WFMC President is the Hon. Warren Allmand.

WFMC is a member organization of the international World Federalist Movement (WFM), which includes world federalist organizations in 24 countries around the world.

Articles the World Federalist Foundation is responsible for are “Nuclear weapons states face ICJ judgment,” “Japan’s pacifist constitution under siege,” “Internet governance: key issues le unaddressed,” “EU financial transactions tax a step closer,” “Cure for economic inequality: wealth tax?” ”And now for something completely different,” “Roche highlights those building the peace,” “Global Summit on ending sexual violence in conflict” and “ICC update: Ukraine asks ICC to investigate.”

Material is not copyrighted. Submissions are welcome.

Il nous fera plaisir de publier les articles présentés en français.

ISSN number: 1488-612X Mondial’s editorial working group: Leonard Angel, Robin Collins, Monique Cuillerier, Karen Hamilton, Simon Rosenblum, Fergus Watt World Federalist Movement – Canada 323 Chapel Street, Unit 110 Ottawa, ON K1N 7Z2

July 2014

page 8

Internet governance: key issues left unaddressed Nic Baird Brazil meeting fails to tackle net neutrality, surveillance and power imbalances “e Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest,” began the outcome document from NetMundial, a global meeting on Internet governance (IG) that took place in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23 and 24.

NetMundial attracted thousands of participants including government officials, academics, campaigners, technical experts and business stakeholders. As the latest in a series of global talks on information technology governance, NETMundial was the most prominent conference on the topic outside the scope of United Nations supervision. While it reinforced the best parts of

Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders… previous non-binding deliberations on IG, issues concerning surveillance, net neutrality, and power imbalances were not addressed to the extent civil society had hoped.

Prompted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the United Nations has generated wide interest in governance issues. However, many in the business and non-governmental communities are fearful the UN will exert too much control over the web and lead to a multilateral system where nationstates dominate.

At the same time, there is growing concern over the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit organization licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

July 2014

e 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) emphasized a multi-stakeholder approach to IG. e second meeting of the WSIS (2005) had also echoed the multi-stakeholder approach but did not come to any final solutions for IG. It agreed to establish the Working Group on Internet Governance, which in turn established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2006. e IGF represents the ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue and is gradually becoming the centerpiece body for internet governance policy discussions. e multi-stakeholder approach is the concept that the many groups and individuals who either make use of the Internet or are critical to its operation, development and regulation should all have a voice in its future. is includes civil society, the private sector, governments, international organizations, technical and academic communities, and a range of users.

NETMundial upheld this model in its outcome document. “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multi-stakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders,” it read. Besides underlining IG with democratic values, it characterized the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders as “flexible.”

Ahead of the Brazil meeting, U.S. officials announced plans to relinquish control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web. However, there is continuing uncertainty over the plan to transfer greater responsibilities to the IGF. Brazil had other political motives for organizing the meeting. President Dilma Rousseff has made Internet security a priority ever since Edward Snowden revealed aggressive foreign surveillance activity by U.S. agencies. President Rousseff and other Brazilian officials were among those directly targeted.

page 9

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff addresses Internet conference

e heightened concern over the administrative power of certain U.S. government bodies continues to be a central issue for those concerned with IG. In addition to ICANN, U.S. non-profits such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), operate and develop online infrastructure under the philosophy of an open-web based on consensus and bottom-up decision-making. e IETF and W3C are standard setting bodies; they affect the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.

Against the backdrop of privacy concerns, many advocacy groups were hoping to see privacy recognized by the meeting as a fundamental human right. Likewise, the outcome document did not label mass surveillance as a human rights violation, but it did state that “mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem.”

A final NETMundial resolution moved that ICANN be under international control by September 2015.

While NETMundial’s governance resolutions did little to prop up the under-represented stakeholders, the inclusion of all players to some extent in a democratic online ecosystem is the right tone to

please many civil society groups. Contrarily, Russia, China, Iran, and India wanted states and governments to be recognized as rulers of their respective Internet domains with multilateral governance and standards for the overarching framework – the so-called “walled garden” approach which allows states most of the discretion regarding access to information, freedom of expression, and privacy.

NETMundial’s outcome document defines principles on how the Internet should be governed. It has received support from the majority of governments – Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India being the exceptions. It has private sector approval and endorsements by the technical community. As for civil society, while many of the issues that could have been addressed were punted down the road, in general, most organizations are just happy the meeting happened at all.

In particular, net neutrality was a common topic for the speakers and discussion groups, yet the term only barely made it into the outcome document. And even then, the document only acknowledges that it was discussed and warrants further discussion at the next IGF. is lip service to net neutrality is a small step, but at least it’s a step.

July 2014

page 10

EU financial transactions tax a step closer Nic Baird Aer years of discussions, including opposition by the United Kingdom and several other states, 11 members of the European Union have finally agreed to create a financial transactions tax (FTT).

Finance ministers met in Brussels May 6 and agreed to a progressive implementation of the new tax, introducing the levy on trades of shares and some derivatives by January 1, 2016.

Sweden's Finance Minister Anders Borg, left, talks with France's Finance Minister Michel Sapin during a meeting of EU finance ministers at the European Council building in Brussels, Tuesday May 6, 2014.

e European Parliament approved the proposal in September 2013 but the decision to proceed also required this meeting of the 11 participating states, acting under the EU’s “enhanced cooperation framework.” e FTT proposal (coined the ‘Robin Hood tax’) enjoys widespread support from the European public because it generates new revenue by taxing the significantly under-taxed financial sector.

Furthermore, advocates argue that such a small tax on financial transactions (less than one percent) would dampen much of the speculation that contributes to financial crises. ere have been a number of suggested uses for the new revenue, including reducing levies by member states to the EU, tackling social issues such as poverty, unemployment, and for international humanitarian work. However, nothing in the May 6 agreement of the finance ministers indicated how this tax should be used or how the funds would be divided between the participating member states and the EU. Enhanced co-operation procedures enable participating states to organize greater co-operation

July 2014

than that initially provided for by the EU treaties. e aim is to accelerate the building of Europe for the most ambitious member states; policies adopted under this mechanism typically leave the door open to other member states to join at a later date.

“We are willing to participate in this ongoing process with all member states,” according to a joint statement released by the finance ministers. “We are determined to finalize viable solutions by the end of the year that will also take into account the concerns voiced by non-participating member states.”

Participating governments include: Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and, most notably, France and Germany, who have been pushing for it the longest.

According to the European Commission, the FTT would lead to fewer derivatives transactions, a slight effect on economic growth (positive or negative depending how the revenue is invested) and less short-term investment and speculation.

NGOs welcomed the May 6 decision while also sounding a note of caution. Natalia Alonso, head of the Oxfam EU Office said, “Not only have they delayed putting the tax in place until 2016, but they remain worryingly vague on the taxation of derivatives, a key cause of the financial crisis which represents at least two-thirds of the potential revenue.”

“And by failing to spell out how the money will be used, governments are sending a worrying signal to the poorest people in Europe and beyond. e FTT has always been associated with helping those hit hardest by the economic crisis and climate change, and leaders cannot back away from this now.”

With London having a major stock exchange, and being the world’s largest financial centre, the UK had strenuously opposed the tax, filing a legal challenge which was dismissed by the European Court of Justice. e concept of a global FTT had been shot down at the 2008 G20. e United States is also opposed.

page 11

BRANCH NEWS

documentary “USA – Top Terrorist State,” which features an in-depth interview with the controversial linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky and discussion of the issue of nuclear weapons and international law. Discussion in May focused on the campaign to save Article 9, the war-renunciation clause of the Japanese constitution (see page 3). And in June, “World Federalist Movement 101,” presented a review of Jacqueline Papineau world federalist principles and their relevance in today’s Desbaillets, February 6, 2014 world. Congratulations to Merva Cottle who was At the Montreal branch’s January luncheon, two awarded a certificate and gi card for 50 years longstanding members were honoured. Jacqueline dedication to world federalism at a ceremony last Papineau Desbaillets and Inez Pugliese were presented December. with framed Citizen of the World certificates and scrolls enumerating their contributions. Although Jacqueline was not able to attend the luncheon, she was later presented with her certificate and scroll during a visit by WFMC board member Peggy Mason, Canada’s Patricia Philip, Blair Rourke and Carol Greene. On June Ambassador for Disarmament (1989-94), gave a public lecture on “Building Peace in the 21st Century: 22, Montreal Branch hosted their annual general Reflections over 30 years” in Toronto in February. is meeting. e evening included a screening of Do the Math, a short film on climate change, and a presentation was part of the lecture series “Vital Discussions of and discussion with WFMC President Warren Allmand Human Security” that takes place at the University of Toronto. on WFMC’s current situation.

Montreal

Toronto

Victoria

Inez Pugliese with Carol Greene, January 26, 2014

Vancouver In January, Vancouver branch welcomed activist and educator Pummy Kaur to speak on the subject of “What is the season of non-violence (Jan 31st-April 4th) and why do we need it?” e “season” begins with the anniversary of Mohandas Gandhi’s assassination (Jan 30) and ends April 4, the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. It is rooted in principles and commitments that lead toward living in a non-violent way. e regular February meeting featured Rand Chatterjee speaking on the “Future of Education in a World without Borders.” e branch annual general meeting was also held in February, with a discussion by Michael Barkusky of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics (CANSEE) and Jordan Bober, cofounder of Seedstock Community Currency on the development of a new economics in which people and planet take priority. In April, the branch screened the

In April, Prof. Paul omas led a discussion on events in Ukraine at a meeting held at the home of Mary June Pettyfer. In May, the branch held its annual general meeting. Lawyer Bill Pearce was re-elected branch president. Victoria author and environmentalist Guy Dauncey was the guest speaker at the AGM, focusing on “e climate change puzzle.”

In Memoriam Karl Grupe, president of the Winnipeg branch of the World Federalist Movement–Canada from 1997 to 2006, died this past February following complications from a long struggle with cancer. He was 69.

According to Grupe’s son, also named Karl, “My dad was very passionate about world federalism. He just thought it was so logical and fair and right, He wondered why others just didn’t get it.”

In addition to his active role with the Winnipeg branch, Grupe maintained a display of flags from around the world in the nearby town of Lockport, a symbol of the harmony among nations that he wanted to promote.

July 2014

page 12

BOOK REVIEW

Simon Rosenblum is a member of the WFMC Executive Committee.

Cure for economic inequality: wealth tax? omas Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, has written the book that, according to noted American economist, Paul Krugman “will be the most important book of the year -- and maybe of the decade.” Capital in the Twenty-First Century, whose title is an obvious allusion to Karl Marx, is a magnum opus providing a sweeping account of rising economic inequality. It is the product of an enormous amount of empirical research and significantly increases what we know about the evolution of income and wealth (capital) over the past three centuries in western nations. A lot of people are extremely excited about it.

Branko Milanovic, former senior economist at the World Bank, has said of it that, “we are in the presence of one of the watershed books in economic thinking.” World Federalists may be particularly interested, as the book concludes with a call for a global tax on wealth. Economic inequality is probably the defining issue of our era and as one who has supported a global levy on currency market transactions (the Tobin Tax), I somewhat surprisingly found myself not as taken with this book compared to the reception given by many others.

But first let’s explore what is clearly the bulk - and strength - of this 700-page book. When I studied economics, all graduate students were extremely familiar with Simon Kuznets, the Nobel winning economist, whose work demonstrated that the inequality gap grows smaller as economies develop and become more sophisticated. Piketty’s detailed examination tells a very different story: inequality does not appear to ebb as economies mature. In fact, the normal unfolding of capital development – what Piketty calls capitalism’s inherent dynamics – shows that economic inequality actually increases... except when it doesn’t, for example in the mid-twentieth century when, thanks to economic crises and world wars, wealth distribution was compressed. at was followed by high economic growth in capitalism’s so-called golden age (1945-1973), when egalitarian tax policies and social welfare programs were introduced widely throughout the western world. But that was the exception that proved the rule for Piketty, as inequalities started to rise again with a vengeance when the conservative counter-revolution (think atcher and Reagan) began to rule the roost, slashing progressive tax rates, decimating unions and reducing the role of government.

So, whether we look at the top one-tenth of one per cent, the top one per cent or the top ten per cent, we are in the midst of a return to what Piketty shows to be the general historical pattern and he fears will result in “levels of inequality never seen before.” According to a recent report by Oxfam, the richest 85 people in the world own more wealth than the roughly 3.5 billion people who make up the bottom half of the world’s population. And the Organization for Economic Co-operation July 2014

and Development reports that the top one percent of income earners took 47 per cent of total income growth in the United States over the past 30 years. e figure falls to 37 per cent in Canada and 20 per cent for Australia and the United Kingdom. e financial recession of 2008 put a brief hold on these developments but, rest assured, we are back to business as usual. Who are the one per cent? Piketty does a convincing job in demonstrating they are not simply corporate owners but also very much include a new class of what he calls “super managers” whose extravagant salaries and bonuses are the stuff of legend. What Piketty does not discuss is the increasing role of finance capitalism in the last 25 years and how that has significantly distorted income inequality. ink here of hedge fund managers, stock market traders, etc., whose overall value in the economy is suspect to say the least.

All of this leads us to Piketty’s call for a global tax on wealth – what he has called “the only civilized solution.” He argues that the “ideal policy for avoiding an endless inegalitarian spiral and gaining control over the dynamics of accumulation would be a progressive global tax on capital.” He arrives at this conclusion due to “the fact that it is very difficult for any single government to regulate or tax capital and the income it generates.” Here is where I step back and ask first of all where it is written that progress cannot be made within the nation-state on rebalancing the distribution of income and wealth. Yes, Piketty is right to say that capital le to its own devices will become even more unequal but capital is not always le to its own devices. at is why economics was once called political economy. ere is no iron law which precludes the reversal of neo-conservative/neo-liberal policies. I am no Pollyanna in that regard but, as Piketty himself notes, how history plays out “depends on how societies view inequalities and what kind of policies and institutions they adopt to measure and transform them.” Moving to a new golden age in capitalism’s trajectory within a nation is a difficult project but surely easier and more realistic than getting these very same nations to agree on a global wealth tax. An interesting theoretical model, to be sure, but one which Piketty himself acknowledges as “utopian.” None of the above is to suggest that a global wealth tax is a bad idea – far from it. It is no magic bullet but it belongs in the toolkit.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century Thomas Piketty Translated by Arthur Goldhammer Harvard University Press

page 13

BOOK REVIEW

Myron J. Frankman is a member of WFMC’s board.

And now for something completely different By the time this issue of Mondial arrives, you will probably imagine that you have heard every possible comment about Capital in the Twenty-First Century. A Google search for author “omas Piketty” brings up millions of hits. No doubt everything that could be said has been said already. Nonetheless, I will give it a try, acknowledging first that this near-encyclopedic book, with its associated web-based data, is already an indispensable reference for all those working on issues of economic justice. e 21st Century has been characterized to date by an outpouring of writings about income inequality, the unfolding environmental crisis, the rise of the Global South, global governance and paradigm shi. Only the first of these issues is addressed in detail in Capital. Climate change is given particularly short shri: it is dealt with on pp. 567-69 as a matter of how much of global GDP should be spent annually “to ward off an environmental catastrophe.” Quite remarkably Piketty says “is is a very important debate for the decades ahead.” In fact, given inertial global processes, we are decades behind, perhaps irrevocably so. ere is no recognition in Piketty’s work that we have entered the Anthropocene, the term that both e Economist and National Geographic have embraced to describe the present era, when humans are responsible for significant impacts on Earth’s systems.

Picketty’s projections to 2090 both of the world capital/income ratio and of the distribution of world capital (Figures 12.4 and 12.5) implicitly embrace the most heroic assumptions of stability, that go well beyond even the label BAU – Business As Usual – that those concerned about the Earth’s environment would apply. e paradigm for the Anthropocene must be that of everchanging, ever-incompletely understood complex interdependence. Political economy will not be a key to survival in the 21st century unless sovereignty, oen invoked by Picketty, gives way to subsidiarity, a word missing from Capital.

Despite Piketty’s central proposal of a tax on global capital, his discussion is largely rooted in a Westphalian state-centric view of the world. He envisions co-operation between nations in creating a world-wide inventory of capital assets that would be subject to his proposed tax. At one point, he makes an oand comment about redistributing “petroleum rents in an equitable manner” by way of the capital tax “if the world were a single global democratic community” (p. 537). Nonetheless, revenue sharing to support a global order is not on his agenda. Indeed the global public sector and its financing – the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD -- as institutions of global governance are essentially ignored.

e Global South is still seen as populated mostly by countries that will continue to rely on foreign aid and/or foreign investment. Aer six decades of northern cohabitation with the developing world, Picketty defers to those who recommend the latest fad for the ‘South’: RCT -- randomized clinical/controlled trials (pp. 633-34, n. 49). RCTs take considerable time to design, fund, staff and execute. As reported in the New York Times (May 21, 2014), the first RCT of the effects of using aspirin to treat women with breast cancer won’t be completed until 2025.

Economics, which has long suffered from ‘physics envy’, now has fallen prey to ‘medical envy’ as a medium-term deterrent to action.

Picketty speaks of “the difficulty of developing an effective social state with paltry tax revenues” in many developing countries (p.

634). As a global tax on capital which he deems to be Utopian (p.

515) is given pride of place, shouldn’t a system of world-wide public finance (which I advocated in my 2004 book World Democratic Federalism) be up for discussion? Ending the race to the bottom on tax rates would be a step in the right direction, but appears to take a back seat to tapping new revenue sources. ere is no sense in Capital of the need for an empathic, partnership society and no suggestion of a shi from an economic age to a cultural age. ere is, in fact, no index entry for poverty, employment or labor (as such): only capital-labor split, income from labor, and inequality of labor income. On the capital-labor split, for decades mainstream economics concerned itself only with the functional distribution of income between capital, labor and land (rents). It is curious that Piketty has fallen prey to the traditional fixation of economics with capital and labor. Indeed, his view for the 21st century is centred on a supposed necessary relationship between the rate of return to capital and the growth rate, both of which are composite statistics based on disparate measures and estimates.

Real scientists would inform us of the reliability of these numbers by specifying confidence intervals, a practice virtually unknown in economics. e most striking evidence of both dubious data and the escape from taxation is Piketty’s Figure 12.6 which shows a lower limit of “unregistered financial assets held in tax havens” to be about eight per cent of total world output. No hint of what the upper limit would be (nor does the single URL given for the sources and series of all his tables and charts lead directly to the information promised). e final sentence of Capital is hardly a battle cry: “Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interest of the least well-off.” (p. 577). Would that his discussion had led him to the conclusion that World Bank Economist Branko Milanovic reached in his 2005 Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality, which made a path-breaking estimate of world income distribution (rather than national distributions). He, too, on his final page, called for more data as we move “toward global community and global democracy, and once we do, many of the functions of today’s national governments – including dealing with extreme cases of inequality and poverty – will be taken over by global institutions.”

July 2014

page 14

BOOK REVIEW

Roche highlights those building the peace? Fergus Watt In a landmark book published in 2011 entitled e Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker comes to the conclusion that the present era is probably the most peaceful and civilized time in the history of the human species. e steady decline in violence, Pinker argues, is visible on both long and short time-scales, and found in many domains, not just military conflict and war, but also homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, treatment of women, children, homosexuals, animals, and racial and ethnic minorities.

In an age when information media provide us with a steady diet of violence and conflict, this seems counterintuitive, which probably helps account for its extended run on the New York Times bestseller list and selection as NYT Book Review “Notable Book of the Year.”

Peacemakers: How people around the world are building a world free of war Douglas Roche Lorimer

I slogged my way through to the end of Pinker’s 700+-page tome prior to picking up Doug Roche’s latest book, Peacemakers: How People Around the World are Building a World Free of War. Roche’s volume is an excellent complement to Pinker’s book. If Pinker is correct, if we are indeed living in the most peaceable time in human history, just how is this coming about? Who are the people and what are the key ideas, campaigns and political strategies that are changing human history for the better?

Drawing upon on his own extensive experience as a parliamentarian, ambassador and one of the world’s

July 2014

leading nuclear disarmament campaigners, Roche gets at the back story of a great many of the peacemaking successes that have received too little attention in recent decades.

Unsurprisingly, Roche deals in greatest detail with the unfinished business of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Also effective are sections on advances related to women in peacemaking, the evolution of the international development agenda, the forces contributing to a “global ethic” and the emerging human right to peace.

Like many peace campaigners, Roche still harbours reservations about the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) and, while I found myself scribbling the odd “C’mon Doug!” in the margin, his exploration of the pros and cons of R2P is nevertheless useful. In short, he recognizes its significance for long-term change in the world’s responses to violence while, in my view, over-emphasizing the political damage arising from the R2P intervention in Libya. is book succeeds due to the strength of Roche’s ability to concisely summarize oen-complex material, and also his knack for bringing out the personalities behind many of the diverse issues he explores. Written in the first person, this is a readable, fast-flowing volume but it is also a book that has a lot to say about how and why our world is changing for the better.

Both Pinker’s Better Angels and Roche’s Peacemakers are well worth reading. But if your stack of summer reading is already getting out of hand (whose isn’t?), here’s my advice. Go to your nearby book store and scan the author’s preface of e Better Angels of our Nature. en with this cursory grip on Pinker’s thesis, pick up Doug Roche’s Peacemakers: How People Around the World are Building a World Free of War. A dispatch from the front lines of human peacemaking, from a guy who on many counts has rolled his sleeves up and been there, it’s a solid, upliing read.

page 15

Canada’s cluster munitions legislation undermines treaty Canada’s cluster munitions legislation undermines treaty Canada’s controversial Bill C-6, An Act to Implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, passed third reading in the House of Commons in June. It is expected to be tabled in the Senate this fall. e treaty’s purpose is a prohibition on use, production, transfer, stockpiling, etc. of cluster munitions. However, Canada’s implementing legislation has drawn widespread criticism because of provisions allowing numerous “exceptions,” loopholes that would allow members of the Canadian Forces, when undertaking combined operations with armed forces of non-state parties (e.g., the United States), to engage in activities involving the use of cluster munitions. Canadians working in combined operations would be allowed to direct activity involving cluster munitions use; authorize use while on attachment, exchange or secondment; authorize transfer by Canadian Forces; authorize assistance, aiding, abetting, conspiracy; and assist other persons in carrying out prohibited acts – precisely the types of activities the treaty is designed to outlaw.

WFM–Canada had provided testimony to the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, as well as the Senate committee that considered a version of the bill in 2013. WFMC had also generated two open letters from international law and arms control experts. e first letter, signed by 27 international lawyers and former ambassadors for disarmament, called on the government to “remove or radically revise” the offending part (section 11) of the dra legislation.

Indeed, there were hopes following hearings at the standing committee on foreign affairs and international development that the government was prepared to compromise and revise the dra legislation. However, in the internal discussions that followed the views of Department of National Defense lawyers once again trumped

those from Foreign Affairs. e Conservative majority on the committee agreed to changing only one word of the dra legislation, essentially leaving all the problematic loopholes in place.

Following the review of the legislation at committee and resulting failure to bring about any meaningful amendments, WFMC mobilized a second open letter signed by another 19 international law and arms control experts as well as leading NGO representatives from the international Cluster Munitions Coalition. Sent to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and the government’s legal team earlier this year, it stated that “If Canada is not in a position to ratify this treaty in good faith, then it should postpone implementation, rather than undermining the Convention on Cluster Munitions regime with legislation that sets a bad precedent and creates incentives for others to write their own exceptions and loopholes.”

WFMC board member Robin Collins has tracked the cluster munitions debates for many years. He wrote a 2001 position paper on cluster bombs as then co-chair of the landmine and cluster munition ban coalition, Mines Action Canada.

If Canada is not in a position to ratify this treaty in good faith, then it should postpone implementation, rather than undermining the Convention…

He describes Bill C-6 as “easily the world’s worst implementing legislation.”

According to Collins, “For Canada, doing nothing would have been better than passing this law. International civil society organizations and humanitarian law experts will rightly want to stigmatize the bad example that Canada is setting. In this context, the fact that all Canadian opposition parties in the House voted unanimously against the legislation is significant.”

July 2014

page 16

‘Responsibility to protect’ alive and doing fine Fergus Watt decisive response, including the employment of coercive measures through the Security Council, should peaceful means be inadequate when states are manifestly failing to protect their populations.

To be sure, the United Nations Security Council has not taken up its mandated responsibilities, the maintenance of international peace and security, with catastrophic consequences for the people of Syria. e reasons for the Council’s failure to do so go beyond the widely reported Russian and Chinese vetoes. Fuelled by support from regional states as well as global powers on all sides of the conflict, what has been described as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis appears likely to get even worse before it gets better.

Jennifer Welsh, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect

ere have been a number of media pundits and UN-watchers who claim that the war in Syria and the NATO-led intervention in Libya have sounded the death knell of the ‘responsibility to protect.’

Is this really the case?

In 2005, more than 150 heads of government endorsed the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P), committing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as well as their incitement.

Subsequently, in 2009, the UN Secretary-General set out a “three-pillar” approach to implementing the responsibility to protect. e first pillar underscores the primary responsibility of states to protect their populations. e second pillar outlines a parallel international commitment to encourage and assist states, including those under stress, to fulfil this responsibility to protect their populations. e goal is to encourage and help states to establish or strengthen structures, mechanisms and operational capacity to reduce the risk of atrocity crimes and thus reduce the need for timely and decisive action under R2P’s third pillar. e third pillar sets out a range of tools available under Chapters VI, VII, and VIII of the United Nations Charter for timely and

July 2014

During the early stages of the Syrian conflict it was claimed by some that the international community’s failure to exercise its responsibility to protect civilians in Syria was closely connected to the manner in which the intervention in Libya was undertaken. Specifically, there were claims by many governments that the open-ended language permitting “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya was either too permissive or was exceeded when those implementing Security Council resolutions determined that the protection of civilians required ‘regime change’ in Libya. ere are a great many ‘what-ifs’ and aer-the-fact second-guessing in assessing the manner that R2P was applied in Libya and has not been applied in Syria.

My own view is that the Libya intervention was, on balance, consistent with the broad thrust of the R2P normative guidance. A greater oversight role for the Security Council (rather than handing so much over to NATO) would have been desirable, as would a more committed investment, through the UN, to restoring the Libyan state in the aermath (the ‘responsibility to rebuild’).

In Syria, the failure to take collective action illustrates many of the UN’s weaknesses, principally the limitations imposed by the Security Council veto.

page 17

But it does not signal the failure and futility of the responsibility to protect. Indeed, the efforts to get around the dysfunction of the Security Council, such as seeking to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court, or to invoke the General Assembly’s “uniting for peace” measures (whereby the General Assembly may take action when the Council lacks unanimity among its permanent members), or calls by a growing number of governments for informally agreed limitations on the veto in cases where mass atrocities are committed, all suggest that the responsibility to protect is a compelling imperative for many states, notwithstanding the continuing tragic failure to come to the assistance of the people of Syria.

Evidence that R2P is gaining legal authority and gaining the confidence of governments has been

compiled in soon-to-be published research by Maggie Powers at Columbia University. rough the collection and analysis of UN Security Council and Human Rights Council documents, Powers generates an empirical picture of how oen,

[…] all suggest that the responsibility to protect is a compelling imperative for many states, despite the continuing tragic failure to come to the assistance of the people when, and by whom R2P terminology has been utilized in decision-making at the UN. e analysis reveals that post-Libya political debate on R2P has not resulted in a decrease in rhetorical acceptance of the norm or authorization of R2P policies.

Global summit on ending sexual violence in conflict Monique Cuillerier is June, the largest gathering ever on the subject of sexual violence in conflict took place in London. Seventy-five ministers representing 123 countries, along with 1700 delegates (experts, faith leaders, youth organizations and representatives of civil society and international organizations, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court) met at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. e issue of sexual violence in conflict is, of course, not something new. However, there has been a recent increase in international attention to the problem. A series of United Nations Security Council resolutions that address sexual

violence in conflict in conjunction with the women, peace and security agenda have been passed and, in 2013, there were declarations made by both the G8 Foreign Ministers and the UN General Assembly.

Monique Cuillerier is WFMC’s membership and outreach co-ordinator

e UN Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict has garnered widespread support. Signatories of the Declaration agreed to pursue wide-ranging efforts designed to eliminate sexual violence in conflict, including ensuring that steps are taken to prevent and respond to sexual violence in conflict as a priority; providing comprehensive health and psychosocial care for survivors and children born as a result of sexual violence; and ensuring that mediation processes exclude such crimes July 2014

page 18

accountability, providing greater support and protection for survivors, ensuring fully integrated gender equality in all peace and security efforts and improving international cooperation on the issue.

Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Angelina Jolie and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague at the London Global Summit

from amnesty provisions. Additionally, there is an acknowledged need to promote women’s participation in all political and governance structures, including peace negotiations, and to strengthen efforts within the UN to address the issue. e Global Summit in London, co-chaired by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie, in her capacity as Special Envoy for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, had the stated purpose of creating momentum by developing practical agreements that focus on improving investigation and documentation, providing greater support for survivors, ensuring that the promotion of gender equality is fully integrated into peace and security efforts and improving international strategic coordination. (e parallels between these stated conference goals and the UN Declaration are clear.)

In the end, however, the main concrete Summit output was the non-binding International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict, described as setting forth basic standards of best practice. Otherwise, there was little in the way of formal product. A brief Statement of Action, signed by foreign ministers, merely clarifies that sexual violence in conflict is damaging to individuals, families and communities and is not an inevitable consequence of war and that they are dedicated to working together to address the issue. e much lengthier Chairs’ Summary of the event indicates that the Summit covered four key areas that need to be addressed: improving

July 2014

In advance of the Summit, Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, published a Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes. “e message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators must be clear: sexual violence and gender-based crimes in conflict will neither be tolerated nor ignored at the ICC,” Bensouda said on the paper’s release.

In addition to Prosecutor Bensouda, ICC President Judge Sang-Hyun Song and other high level officials from the ICC attended the Summit.

As well, civil society organizations took the opportunity, with heightened interest generated by the Summit, to do such things as launch the network Survivors United For Action, which will be funded by the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict. e Canadian Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict, an initiative of the Women, Peace and Security Network – Canada (WPSN-C), of which WFMC is a member, launched a social media campaign in the weeks before the Summit to encourage Foreign Minister John Baird to make specific commitments at the Summit on behalf of the Canadian government, including creating a global fund for grassroots women’s organizations, committing to support for survivors, funding the full range of sexual and reproductive health services and signing the Arms Trade Treaty. Unfortunately, Canada made no new commitments at the Summit, although Minister Baird did chair a ministerial dialogue on “improving international and national action to address accountability.”

In the aermath of the Summit, there was general disappointment amongst civil society organizations. e International Campaign to Stop Rape & Gender Violence in Conflict expressed disappointment that the Summit “ended with few tangible results that will make an immediate impact on the ground”.

page 19

I C C U P D AT E

Current developments: Ukraine asks ICC to investigate Preliminary examinations are currently being conducted in Afghanistan, Georgia, Guinea, Colombia, Honduras, Korea and Nigeria, while an investigation into the situation in Mali is ongoing.

In April, the Ukrainian government asked the ICC to open an investigation into possible acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that may have been committed within Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014.

In May, a UN Security Council resolution proposed by France to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC was defeated by vetoes from Russia and China. e resolution was open to non-Security Council member states for co-sponsorship and 65 countries, including Canada, did so. is was the first time that Canada had supported calls for the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC. In early June, Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda released a Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes. e subject is one of the Office of the Prosecutor’s key strategic goals in the Strategic Plan for 2012–2015.

Additionally, in June the government of the Central African Republic made a referral to the Office of the Prosecutor, asking for an investigation into crimes allegedly committed since August 1, 2012 which would fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Case updates UGanda — In the case against Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen, warrants of arrest have been issued but all four suspects remain at large. e ICC is facing difficulties ensuring reliable arrangements for witness testimony in these cases where ongoing intimidation, oen at the instigation of state authorities, is a problem. democratic repUblic of the conGo — ere have been five cases brought before the court in regards to the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Lubanga Dyilo was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. e conviction and sentence are currently under appeal.

In the case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, the latter was acquitted and released from custody in 2012. e Office of the Prosecutor is appealing that verdict. In March of this year, Katanga was found guilty as an accessory on one count of crimes against humanity and four counts of war crimes and was sentenced in May to 12 years imprisonment (with credit for the six and a half years he was already spent in ICC detention).

In 2013, Bosco Ntaganda surrendered and is currently in ICC custody.

In early June, the charges against him, including 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, were confirmed and he was committed for trial. darfUr, SUdan — Five cases have been identified in the context of the situation in Darfur.

Warrants have been issued for four suspects in three of the cases: Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (facing trial together), Sudan’s President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir and Defence Minister Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein. All remain at large. e trial of Abdallah Banda was scheduled to begin in May 2014 but has been delayed. central african repUblic — e trial of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo began in November 2010. In 2013, a warrant of arrest for Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu, and Narcisse Arido was issued for offences against the administration of justice allegedly committed in connection with the case of against Gombo. All of the accused have made initial appearances before the Court.

Kenya — e trial of William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap began in September 2013 and is ongoing. e trial of Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta is currently scheduled to start in October 2014. In October 2013, an arrest warrant was issued against Walter Osapiri Barasa, for several offences against the administration of justice consisting of corruptly, or attempting to corruptly, influence ICC witnesses. libya — e situation in Libya was referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council in February 2011. In June of that year, warrants were issued for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi for crimes against humanity allegedly committed through the state apparatus and security forces. e case against Muammar Gaddafi was terminated as a result of his death. e two other suspects are not in the custody of the Court. In May 2013, Libya’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al Islam Gaddafi was rejected and the Court reminded Libya of its obligation to surrender the suspect. An appeal against the decision is pending. e case against Abdullah Al-Senussi was deemed inadmissible before the ICC as it was currently subject to domestic proceedings conducted by competent Libyan authorities, who are seen to be willing and able to genuinely carry out such investigation. An appeal is pending. côte d’ivoire — Laurent Gbagbo, the former President of Côte d’Ivoire, has had four charges of crimes against humanity confirmed against him and he has been committed for trial.

July 2014

page 20

Next Up in the Post-2015 Development Agenda Process: Sustainable Development Goals Monique Cuillerier & Fergus Watt In his classic 1970 “Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System” Sir Robert Jackson, a top official at the time and a giant in UN history, lamented the absence of a “central brain.” He suggested that UN development programs should be coordinated and harmonized with a country’s own development plan, rather than spread across a number of separate agencies and other programs, including those of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

His report was controversial at the time. He commented that, “Here and there throughout the system there are offices and units collecting the information available, but there is no group (or "Brain Trust") which is constantly monitoring the present operation, learning from experience, grasping at all that science and technology has to offer, launching new ideas and methods, challenging established practices, and provoking thought inside and outside the system.”

[NOTE TO CANADIANS: While it is sometimes the case that “the United Nations” is criticized for its shortcomings, including on occasion by officials of our present government, the reality is that these shortcomings are in many cases the fault not of the organization, but of the member states who have responsibility for creating and managing the system. Indeed, reforms to address systemic and structural weaknesses are most oen led by the very bureaucracies that UN critics love to rail against.] e themes in the 1970 Jackson Capacity Study have been part of the UN landscape for decades. ere is a built-in tension between efforts at a coordinated “one UN” approach and a development “system” characterized by diffusion of responsibility among many July 2014

separate agencies, oen competing for resources and funding.

But over the years there has been progress.

Jackson’s critique resonated beyond the UN’s development programming, and can be seen in subsequent reforms to UN human rights machinery as well as its peacebuilding and peacekeeping practices.

And in the development field, the advent of the “Resident Coordinator” system means that there is one focal point per country for operational activities of all the organizations of the UN system. Resident Coordinators, who are funded and managed by UNDP (the UN Development Program) are the designated representatives of the Secretary-General for development activities and now lead UN country teams in more than 130 member states.

As we approach the conclusion of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015 and the effort to frame a set of “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” continues, it is interesting to see how far the system has come.

Progress is possible, and more may well be on the way!

As reported in previous editions of Mondial, the post-2015 discussions have been a massive, global agenda-setting exercise.

In 2010 the High-level Plenary Meeting on the MDGs of the UN General Assembly asked the Secretary-General to begin considering a post2015 development agenda. A high-level panel led by the leaders of Indonesia, Sierra Leone and the UK led to broadly based consultations in over 100 countries and a report in May of last year.

National, regional and global meetings included not only state representatives but also civil society networks, UN agency task teams, academics, business and other stakeholder groups.

page 21

Additionally, the 2012 UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development had called for an intergovernmental process to prepare “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” A General Assembly based working group initiated the SDGs process last year. ere is general agreement that these two processes ought to result in a single set of post-2015 development goals that acknowledges the centrality of sustainable development. is is now the focus of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group (OWG) on the Post2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

As of June 2014, there is a proposed list of 16 SDGs, each with specific, targets and indicators, in order that outcomes are measurable and there is at least the possibility for course corrections between 2015 and 2030.

For example, the first of the proposed goals is to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.”

Specific targets associated with this goal include “by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty by bringing the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero” and “by 2030, fully implement nationally appropriate social protection measures including floors, with a focus on coverage of the poor, the most marginalized and people in vulnerable situations.” is latter target -- implementing a social protection floor -- is an approach that WFM-Canada has previously endorsed.

Other dra goals of particular interest to World Federalists include goal 16: achieving peaceful and inclusive societies, rule of law, and effective and capable institutions; goal 10: reducing inequality within and among countries; and goal 5: attaining gender equality. the remaininG GoalS are:

• ending hunger; • attaining a healthy life for all at all ages; equitable education and life• providing long learning opportunities; • securing water and sanitation;

• access to affordable, sustainable, and reliable modern energy services;

• promoting strong, inclusive and

sustainable economic growth and decent work;

• promoting sustainable industrialization; • building inclusive and sustainable cities and human settlements;

• promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns;

• addressing climate change; • sustainable use and conservation of marine resources, oceans and seas;

• protecting and restoring terrestrial

ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss;

A 17th item in the list of SDGs focuses on the means of implementation and global partnerships for sustainable development.

e OWG will conclude two more meetings, in June and July 2014, before forwarding a report to this September’s opening of the next session of the General Assembly. Further political consultations are expected, leading to a September 2015 High-Level meeting of Heads of State and Government that will adopt the post-2015 goals framework.

Some of the characteristics that distinguish the post-2015 debate from the MDGs include: A human rights-based approach. Globally, thinking about sustainable development has been aligned with universal human righs obligations. is will make it easier to ensure accountability for all development actors as the goals are implemented in the years ahead.

Universality. Unlike the MDGs, which involved

July 2014

page 22

donor country programs to address development challenges, the current process will be universal, applying to all countries, including developed countries. ese universally adopted goals will be implemented according to nationally relevant targets.

Post-conflict development challenges. e additional focus on the particular challenges related to ensuring development in postconflict settings addresses a widely recognized shortcoming of the MDGs. Accountability. Much remains to be discussed regarding the detail of who will monitor and measure national and international efforts to fulfill the new SDGs. However, the Rio+20 Summit created a new “High Level Political Forum” (replacing the Commission on

Sustainable Development) that will give greater political attention to the post-2015 goals process. And the sheer weight of interest and attention that has attended the discussions to generate these post-2015 goals will ensure public interest and political pressure to deliver in the years ahead.

Although there is still the possibility for the process to get derailed, or fail to secure buy-in from important stakeholders at the end of the day, there are reasons for cautious optimism that the post-2015 goal-setting exercise will lead to a set of Sustainable Development Goals that will provide an effective framework for the international community’s development planning and programming in the years ahead.