In this issue:

•Lloyd Axworthy meets Sec-Gen Guterres

•MARCH FOR EUROPE!

•Redeeming Globalization?

•Preventing and addressing armed conflict: The role of women in the implementation of RtoP

•Dynamics of Democracy and Inequality in the context of Globalization

•Yemen: Effective Humanitarian Aid Depends on a Peace Accord

•Binding UNGA Decisions Without Charter Amendment

•The Women, Peace and Security Agenda – Canada prepares to renew its National Action Plan

•UN 2020: Will this be a Happy Birthday? BOOK REVIEW: The Euro: How a common currency

threatens the future of Europeplus UPDATES:

COPLA Campaign, UNPA Campaign, ICC

V O L . 1 , I S S U E 1J U N E , 2 0 1 7

Building a world community

Published by the World Federalist Movement, a non-governmental organization that advocates more just andeffective global governance through the application of the principles of democratic federalism to world affairs.

| www.wfm-igp.org |@worldfederalist World Federalist Movement / Institute for Global Policy

In January, WFM International President LloydAxworthy, along with three other former ForeignMinisters, met with UN Secretary-GeneralAntónio Guterres. e following is his descriptionof the meeting.

“On Friday I met with the New UN Secretary-General António Guterres in the company ofMadeleine Albright and other colleagues from theAspen Ministerial Group, David Milliband andKnut Vollebæk. 

We had the opportunity to have an open exchangewith him and other senior UN officials on refugeeissues, a subject that the Ministerial Group hasbeen working on the past year. 

e Sec-Gen focused on how important it is thatthe UN takes the lead in working out apreventative strategy for solving the conditionsthat generate the movement of people seekingsecurity, food and water and basic rights. Heclearly saw that the best way to offset the anti-immigration politics rampant in so manycountries is to demonstrate concrete, collaborativeaction, and reform. 

One of the ways is through reform of UN practicesand policies. He particularly pointed out that inthe case of Syria the major burden is being borneby the neighboring states like Jordan and Lebanon,with very few other states sharing responsibility.e UN must take the lead in organizing a moreequitable global response. 

ere was also a dialogue on the application ofnew digital technology in the registration andservice delivery of existing refugees, and how therecan be greater participation of refugees themselvesin finding innovative ways to meet their needs.It was certainly the conclusion of our group aerthe meeting that Secretary-General Guterres willbring leadership and dynamism to his challengingtask, but will also need strongly committedsupport to counter the inward lookingnationalisms that undermine international effortsto meet global problems.” And in May, Dr.Axworthy was announced as the chair of theWorld Refugee Council, which will provideresearch into new approaches for dealing with theglobal refugee crisis. e Council will becoordinated through the Centre for InternationalGovernance Innovation (CIGI).

JUNE 2017

page 2COVER   S TORY

Lloyd Axworthy meetsSec-Gen Guterres

from left to right: David Milliband, Knut Vollebæk,

Madeleine Albright, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and WFM

International President LloydAxworthy

Photo: UN photo

Click here formore

informationabout the WorldRefugee Council

JUNE 2017

page 3COVER   S TORY

At least 10,000 European citizens, coming from allEuropean countries, attended the March 25 “Marchfor Europe!” organized by European Federalists.is year marks the 60th anniversary of the signing ofthe Treaty of Rome, which established the EuropeanEconomic Community and from which the process ofEuropean unification has, in the following decades,been consolidated. Seemingly, the politicalcircumstances for a demonstration in favour ofEurope were not as favourable as they could havebeen. Populism and nationalism are rising in allEuropean countries and the European project is inquestion. But these same developments provideimportant reasons to demonstrate that Europeanpeople favour a European federation.In fact, the March 25 demonstration was preceded bytwo main events: one that took place on 24th Marchand the other one the same day as the demonstration.e first one, a European intellectuals’ forum, wasarranged by Fabio Masini and Roberto Castaldi, andtook place at the University of Rome. is initiativefollowed signature by 300 European intellectuals,such as Giuliano Amato, Yves Bertoncini, StephanCollignon, Anthony Giddens and Miguel Maduro, ofa manifesto calling for a more European unification,and whose title was “A genuine European Union toensure welfare, security and democracy.” Keyparticipants at the forum included Yuri Ratas, Primeminister of Estonia, Mario Monti and Enrico Letta,former Italian Prime Minsters, Edmond Alphandery,former French Minister of Economy and MarkkuMarkkula, President of the European Committee ofthe Regions.e manifesto calls upon Heads of State andGovernment to celebrate the Treaties of Rome andopen the way to a re-foundation of the EU on thebasis of the European Parliament’s recent proposals tostrengthen EU institutions and policies, especially onforeign and security, economic and social policies.e manifesto also includes an articulation of animproved EU foreign policy: “We European citizensare aware that globalization is transforming theworld. We need a European government to foster ourcommon values and contribute to the solution of theglobal problems threatening humanity. e worldneeds an outward-looking cosmopolitan Europe to

help build a more effective and democratic globalgovernance to cope with climate change, peace, globalpoverty, and the transition to an environmentally andsocially sustainable economy.”On the morning before the march a forum on thefuture of Europe was held, on the theme, “EuropeFights Back: Re-gaining Vision, Rebuilding Trust,Relaunching Unity.” Dozens of regions, counties andmunicipalities were represented, many with theirlocal banners, as well as dozens of Europeanparliamentarians. Among the speakers who took the floor at the forumwere, Giulio Saputo, General Secretary of YoungEuropean Federalists (JEF), Pier Virgilio Dastoli,President of the Italian Council of the EuropeanMovement, Bálint Gyévai, General Secretary of StandUp for Europe, Gianni Pittella, President ofProgressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats inthe European Parliament, Sergei Stanishev, Presidentof European Socialist Party, Guy Verhofstadt, MEP ofAlliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe,Benedetto Della Vedova, Italian Deputy Minister forForeign Affairs and International Cooperation,Stavros eodorakis, founder of Greece’s To PotamiParty, Jo Leinen, President of European MovementInternational, Christopher Glück, President of JEFEurope, Guillaume Klossa, President of Europa Nova,Elmar Brok, President of Union of EuropeanFederalists, Alyn Smith, MEP and Giorgio Anselmi,President of European Federalist Movement. AlynSmith, of the Scottish National Party, was welcomedby a standing ovation, in recognition of his passionatespeech spoken in the hemicycle of the EuropeanParliament, “Don’t leave us,” expressing the views ofScottish and English citizens against the Brexit.e federalist demonstration, was joined by anotherdemonstration (more than 5,000 people) in favour ofEurope, mainly organized by trade unions,environmental groups and other organizations of civilsociety. Both demonstrations headed toward acommon rendezvous: Rome’s Colosseum. Timed tocoincide with a meeting of the EU Council, thismeans that at least 15,000 people have attended ademonstration in favour of Europe, sending a clearmessage to European leaders and publics that there ismuch support for a stronger European Union.

MARCH FOR EUROPE!by Domenico Moro

DomenicoMoro is amember ofthe Italiansections of theWorldFederalistMovementand the Unionof EuropeanFederalists.

Click here formore

information onMarch for Europe

On Sunday November 6th, 2016,distinguished labour leader, Larry Brownaddressed the annual fundraising brunch ofthe Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,Manitoba Division. It was tough stuff. Mr. Brown added concretenumbers to the litany mostly-bad news wehear in popular media. He advised thegathered activists that roughly one third ofthe number of people gathered to hear himthat morning, say 80 people, controlled morewealth worldwide than is held by 50% of theplanetary population. And it’s getting worse.is was on top of the gloom over the policiesof the U.S. president; a transnational assaulton labour and labour rights; the continuingdisregard for the health and welfare ofindigenous people everywhere; the egregiousincreases in global military budgets and armstrade deals; the genocide of the Yazidi;political attacks on the International CriminalCourt; the Russian supported perfidy ofPresident Assad of Syria; the global heel-dragging on climate change and, forfederalists of all persuasions, the tragedy ofBrexit.For World Federalists, all this grim news isnothing new. Save for the current situationaldetails it is a case of “plus ca change, plus c’estla meme chose.”We have long held to the mantra that globalchallenges require global solutions. Of course,not all global solutions are of equal merit.During the 2016 United States Presidentialcampaign, the apparent mutual admirationsociety between Donald Trump and VladimirPutin has raised more than a few eyebrows onboth the le and the right of the politicalspectrum, in the U.S. and internationally. Ithas brought to mind the sobering speculativeproposition of Dr. Jerry Pournelle, still awidely respected voice in the genre of sciencefiction. In the 1980s, Pournelle imagined anot-to-distant future in which the UnitedStates and the then Soviet Union essentiallydivided the world between them for the sakeof a putative peace. One shivers.

Globalization has seemed to many a chillingresponse to the planetary chaos which seemsto grip the human community and endangerlife on earth. Certainly the economic impactof globalization appears thus far to haveincreased inequity among nations andpeoples, especially indigenous peoples. And yet . . . As limiting as globalization hasthus far proved to the hopes and aspirationsof world citizens, there is some light at theend of one particular rabbit hole: the topsyturvey, long overlooked and oen despisedworld view of religion.First, of course, let me acknowledge the usualand necessary confessions and disclaimers –i.e. that religion has been complicit in muchunforgiveable violence and repression.Religion is also, however, foundational tovirtually every system of ethics extant. In anemerging global village, it is clear that religionis not going away, even though it is in theprocess of radical transformation.It is also in the process of developing a newrelationship with global political processes.e legitimacy of the G8/G20 economicsummit system may well be debated,especially by advocates of the United Nationsand the concept of a United NationsParliamentary Assembly.at is for another day, another spilling ofink.At the current historical juncture, let us takethese G-Summits as a given, as we doglobalization itself and the reemergence inthe global commons of religion.Beginning in 2005, at Lambeth Palace inLondon, annual gatherings of world religiousleaders have convened to address the G8political leaders on the priorities of theworld’s religious communities. Employing theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs)which emerged in 2000 from then SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan’s Millennium Forum as a“Rosetta Stone” (author’s description),religious leaders determined to keep theMDGs on the G8 agenda through at least one

JUNE 2017

page 4

Redeeming Globalization?Dr. James ChristieJames Christie

is a Past-President of

WFM – Canada(1988 – 92)

and currentlyProfessor of

DialogueTheology at

the RiddInstitute for

Religion andGlobal Policy,University of

Winnipeg.

JUNE 2017

page 5

full cycle of G8 summits. From 2005 inLambeth, to Moscow, Köln, Kyoto/Sapporo,Rome, Winnipeg, Bordeaux and Washington,the meetings which are now referred to as theF8 Summits have largely succeeded in achievingthat modest agenda. e essence of the endeavour is something newunder the sun. Positive discourse between“religion and the state” has emerged, withoutthe political leadership being lectured or thereligious leaders being compromised. In 2014,the Global Interfaith Summit process wasrenewed as the F20 Summits, thus far convenedin Gold Coast, Istanbul and, with someconstraints, in Beijing in August last. An F20Summit is being planned for Berlin in July2017, alongside the G20; and in an entirely newcontext, a Commonwealth Interfaith Summit isdeveloping around the Commonwealth Gamesin Australia in 2018. e focus is now theSustainable Development Goals.

And meanwhile, according to Professor PatriceBrodeur of the Université de Montréal and theKing Abdullah International Centre forInterfaith and Intercultural Dialogueheadquartered in Vienna, well over 6,000centres of local interreligious dialogue haveemerged and are being chartered in the lastgeneration. e better angels of every world religion and ofall indigenous spiritualties have ever held thatthe unity in diversity of humanity and thehealth of the “oikumene” inform their verybeing.To many of the first generation of worldfederalists, religion will seem a strangebedfellow. But it has taken all aspects ofhumanity to make the much tousled andglobalized bed of the human community.It will take all of us to strip and remake it.

e international community continues not only to bechallenged by its failure to prevent armed conflictsbefore they occur, but also in addressing them in atimely and effective manner. e ongoing crises inBurundi, Syria and Yemen, to highlight a few,emphasize the need for renewed leadership andengagement in putting prevention up front. A wide range of treaties and norms are available toaddress the root causes of armed conflict and preventits recurrence. In 2015 the United Nations carried outhigh-level reviews of its Peacebuilding Architecture,UN Peace Operations and the implementation of theWomen, Peace and Security agenda. e subsequentsynthesis of these three reports provides a basis forrenewed efforts in preventing armed conflicts,including the prevention of mass atrocity crimes. e reviews drew linkages between the implementationof the Responsibility to Protect norm, the inclusion ofwomen in peacebuilding and peacekeeping, and theratification and implementation of the Rome Statute forthe International Criminal Court as tools andmechanisms for the prevention of armed conflict andensuring lasting peace.

ey also underscored that systematic violations ofhuman rights, in particular of women’s rights, andprevailing impunity for mass atrocity crimes, are amongthe root causes of armed conflicts and their recurrence.Further, they reminded us that participation of womenconstitutes a crucial dimension of broadening inclusionfor sustaining peace and that peace negotiations andaccords that are truly locally owned and inclusive ofcivil society and women have at least a 50% greaterchance to succeed than those that do not.e Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) norm offers arange of measures to reinforce national sovereignty andprevent the commission of mass atrocity crimes. RtoPis now widely understood to include three pillars ofresponsibility: (1) e responsibility of states to protectpopulations from mass atrocity crimes (genocide, warcrimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing);(2) e wider international community’s responsibilityto encourage and assist individual states in meetingthat objective; and (3) If a state is manifestly failing toprotect its populations, the international communitymust be prepared to take appropriate collective action,in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance withthe UN Charter.

Preventing and addressing armed conflict: The role of women in the implementationof the Responsibility to Protect

by Jelena Pia-Comella

Jelena Pia-Comella isDeputyExecutiveDirector, WorldFederalistMovement –Institute forGlobal Policy

Implementing RtoP is needed now more than ever ifthe international community is determined to preventmass atrocities once and for all. Ensuring that the scopeof the Responsibility to Protect norm includes a genderand accountability lens will further address the root

causes of mass atrocity crimes, hence enhancing theRtoP preventive efforts. rough preventingdiscrimination and the violation of women’s rights,national stakeholders support the long-term preventionof atrocity crimes and their recurrence. Furthermore, linking RtoP with the UN’s Women,Peace and Security agenda reinforces the internationalcommunity’s ability to assist states to fulfill theirresponsibility to protect, under pillar two of the norm. United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution1325, which gave rise to the Women, Peace andSecurity Agenda, was a landmark decision inaddressing the gender gap in the peace and securityarena. It recognized not only that women and girls aredisproportionally affected by armed conflicts, but alsothat women are poorly represented in formalpeacebuilding and peacemaking processes.Safeguarding women’s rights and their participation inpeace and security is essential for the internationalcommunity to effectively assist in promotinginternational human rights and humanitarian law andto strengthen national legislation and institutions toprevent mass atrocities. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions1820 and 1960 went further in recognizing sexual andgender-based violence as a weapon of war, and fightingimpunity for these crimes as necessary in ensuringgender justice and long-lasting peace. ese resolutionsunderscore a new standard in multilateralism by notonly recognizing the crucial role of women in massatrocity crimes prevention, but also by drawing thelinkages between peace, security and accountability. e Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

is the first and, so far, the only international treaty thatcriminalizes and explicitly defines sexual and gender-based violence as crimes against humanity (Article 7(1)g); as war crimes (Article 8 (2) a (xxii)) and, to a certainextent, as genocide (Article (6) d). In this way, theRome Statute not only ensures access to justice forwomen who are victims of the gravest crimes underinternational law, but also sets new standards fornational legal systems. e Rome Statute recognizes rape, sexual slavery,enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, and enforcedsterilization as crimes against humanity and warcrimes. In so doing it offers three main improvementsin the fight against impunity: (1) by codifying thesecrimes in law; (2) by ensuring victims’ protection,participation and reparations in the Court'sprocedures; and (3) by affirming that sexual andgender-based mass atrocities are in fact war crimes andcrimes against humanity -- and not collateral acts ofwar. With these groundbreaking provisions, there isfurther assurance that the voices of women, oenoverlooked in prosecutions, can finally be heard incourtrooms across the world.e International Coalition for the Responsibility toProtect (ICRtoP), a network of global civil society actors,works in partnership with governments, the UnitedNations and other networks to promote understandingand support of the RtoP norm. Additional measuresadvocated by the ICRtoP include:

Coordinating and reinforcing support for universalratification and implementation of the Rome Statute(in partnership with ICRtoP’s sister coalition, theCoalition for the International Criminal Court);Ensuring that National Action Plans on UNSC 1325holistically address the four pillars of Women, Peaceand Security: prevention, protection, participation,and relief and recovery; Ensuring that early-warning mechanisms are locallyowned and include women’s views and rights;Coordinating and reinforcing support for universalratification and implementation of the Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW);Carrying out awareness-raising campaigns on genderjustice and recognizing that sexual and gender-basedviolence is not a collateral act of war but constitutes acrime of war;Strengthening the working methods of the UNSecurity Council to be more consistent and coherentin addressing and preventing mass atrocities;Mainstreaming the 1325 and RtoP agendasthroughout all the decisions and resolutions of theUN Security Council.

JUNE 2017

page 6

Mediation workshop on strategiesfor effective engagement ofwomen in the prevention andmanagement of conflicts, held inMay 2016 in Juba, South Sudan ledby the Civil Affairs Division of theUnited Nations Mission in SouthSudan (UNMISS).

UN Photo/JC McIlwaine

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

JUNE 2017

page 7

Below are excerpts from a paper presented at theInternational Inequalities Seminar, LondonSchool of Economics, 21 March 2017. “e work of a number of economists hasdocumented the huge increase in inequality that hastaken place in many parts of the world since the1970s. is paper is concerned with the question ofwhy economic inequality has increased sodramatically in recent decades. e situation appears rather paradoxical because thisupswing in inequality has taken place at the sametime as a major spread of democracy worldwide.Democracy has long been assumed to lead toreductions in inequality. And yet in the post-1970sera we are seeing a significant increase in inequalityin both the long-established democracies and also inthe new ‘third wave’ democracies in Latin America,Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Neoliberal globalization was initiated in the 1970s. Afundamental idea of neoliberalism is that ‘theeconomy’ is scientific and neutral and that thedynamics of growth are a technical matter that canbe understood and modelled by calculations andformulae.A key part of this is the idea that the ‘economic’should be kept separate from the ‘political’. usneoliberalism calls for a re-structuring of the state inorder to increasingly free the economic frompolitical constraints. is idea, as I will discuss morebelow, has been fundamental in the post-1970srestructuring of the state. And in the process it hasled to the removal of large areas of economic policy-making from democratic oversight.In order to understand the rise in inequality that hasoccurred in the post-1970s period of globalization itis necessary to look at the way that democracy itselfhas changed in this period. A basic tenet ofdemocratic theory is that “the fate of a nationalcommunity is largely in its own hands” (Held1995:13). In the context of the neoliberalglobalization of production and finance in the post-1970s period, this is becoming less and less the case.Instead, globalization has led to a process ofeconomic de-democratization. I am not claimingthat there has been a complete erosion of democracy,or that states have been washed away by global

capital. Rather, decisions regarding the organizationand functioning of economic matters have becomeless subject to democratic influence. I will discussthree major ways that this has happened – by thedirect removal of certain economics matters frompolitical control, by increasing restrictions on thepolicy options available to policy-makers, and bytransformations in the structure of the policy-making process itself.All of these changes add up to a really rather

significant transformation in the nature ofdemocracy. e policy-making prerogative of stateshas been redistributed ‘up’ to the supranational level,‘down’ to lower state levels and ‘across’ to the market.And in contrast to the state, these new arenas ofdecision-making are largely insulated fromdemocratic control. In this way economic issues havebeen de-politicized and increasingly removed fromthe arena of electoral politics. Furthermore, in eachof the shis that I have discussed the representationof capital in economic policy-making has been

Dynamics of Democracy and Inequalityin the context of Globalization

by Dena Freeman

Dr. Dena Freeman at theInternational InequalitiesSeminar, London School ofEconomics, 21 March 2017

Photo: doctorho via Flickr

JUNE 2017

page 8

significantly increased, while that of labour has beencorrespondingly decreased. us I would contendthat we re not just seeing a transformation ofdemocracy, as some scholars have argued, but ratherthat we are witnessing a process of de-democratization.In all of the changes that I have documented, the

representation of capital has increasedwhile the representation of labour hasdecreased. us economic policies haveincreasingly been made in the interests ofcapital and the class compromise of thepost-war period has been undermined.ese structural, political changes, Icontend, are the fundamental reasons thatunderlie many of the more proximatecauses of the upswing in inequality.If this analysis is correct, it has majorimplications for how we should go abouttackling the contemporary rise in

inequality. It implies first and foremost that in orderto reduce inequality it is imperative to democratiseeconomic policy-making at both the global and thenational level. is would mean devising ways toboth democratize global economic governance and

to re-democratize national level economicgovernance. It could involve a process of bringingpolicy-making back from decentralised networksand into state structures at the national level,alongside the creation of state-like structures at theglobal level which would be able to regulate globalcapital for the good of society and through whichpolicy alternatives, such as global social democracy,could be democratically debated - possibly in somesort of global parliament. Or it could involvedevising ways to democratize de-centralised policy-making in national and global policy networks andin national and international financial organizations.However it is done, if we are serious about tacklinginequality then we must be serious about democracy.”

Dr Dena Freeman is a Senior Visiting Fellow in theDepartment of Anthropology at the London School of

Economics and Political Science, an Associate of theInternational Inequalities Institute, and the Deputy

Director of One World: Movement for Global Democracy.

Mondial is published twice annually by the World Federalists. Editorialproduction is undertaken jointly by the international secretariat of theWorld Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy and the WFM-IGP member organization, World Federalist Movement – Canada.

Founded in 1947, the World Federalist Movement is a nonprofit,nonpartisan organization committed to the realization of global peace andjustice through progressive strengthening of the rule of law, democraticaccountability and global governance institutions such as the UnitedNations.

ISSN number: 1488-612X

Mondial’s editorial working group: Monique Cuillerier, YasminaGourchane, Bill Pace, Jelena Pia-Comella, Fergus Watt. Material is notcopyrighted. Submissions are welcomed.

Publication in Canada is also supported by the World FederalistFoundation, a Canada Revenue Agency registered charitable organization(reg. #: 123998957RR0001).

In this issue, articles the World Federalist Foundation is responsible forare Articles entitled “Lloyd Axworthy meets Sec-Gen Guterres,” “MARCHFOR EUROPE!” “Redeeming Globalization?” “Preventing and addressingarmed conflict: e role of women in the implementation of theResponsibility to Protect,” “Dynamics of Democracy and Inequality in thecontext of Globalization,” “Yemen: Effective Humanitarian Aid Dependson a Peace Accord,” “Binding UNGA Decisions Without CharterAmendment,” “UN 2020: Will this be a Happy Birthday?,” “How muchdoes the Euro cost?,” “e Transnational Criminal Law in the Americasconference and further updates on the COPLA campaign,” “ICC Update”and “Inter-community problem-solving for trust building: Subsidiarity inpractice” are the responsibility of the World Federalist Foundation.

WFM-IGP international secretariat:308 3rd Ave., suite 1715, New York NY 10017 USATel: + 212 599-1320www.wfm-igp.org

WFM – Canada national office:110 – 323 Chapel St., Ottawa, ONK1N 7Z2CANADATel: +1 613 232-0647www.wfmcanada.org

click here towatch thecompletepresentation

Dynamics of Democracy and Inequality – continued

e United Nations, together with thegovernments of Sweden and Switzerland whohave oen led on humanitarian issues in theUN system, held a high-level pledgingconference in Geneva on April 25, 2017 toagain draw attention to the deepeninghumanitarian crisis in war-torn Yemen. is iscurrently the largest food security emergencyin the world. Some 60% of the population arein a food-insecure situation.More than 3.5 million people have beendisplaced in the cycle of escalating violence.“We are witnessing the starving and thecrippling of an entire generation. We must actnow, to save lives” said Secretary-GeneralAntonio Guterres, who presided over theconference. Realistically, he stressed thatfunding and humanitarian aid alone will notreverse the fortunes of the millions of peopleimpacted. Diplomatically, he called for acessation of hostilities and a political settlementwith talks facilitated by the Special Envoy of theSecretary General, the Mauritanian diplomatIsmail Ould Chekh Ahmed.UN officials and most diplomats are reluctantto call the armed conflict by its real name: “awar of aggression.” e aggression of the SaudiArabia-led coalition (Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan,Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Sudan, and the UnitedArab Emirates) against Yemen began on March24, 2015.e Saudi-led coalition is helped with arms and“intelligence” by the USA and the UK, whichappreciate Saudi money for arms and do notwant to antagonize a large segment of the Arabworld when the conflicts of Syria-Iraq-Kurds-Turkey are still “on the table.”However, the aggression of the Saudi coalitionis what has turned an internal struggle forpower between the current and the formerpresidents of Yemen into a war with regional

implications, now drawing Iran into thepicture.Intellectually, the “political solution” is clear.ere needs to be an end to the Saudi bombingand a withdrawal of its coalition troops. en,the different factions in Yemen can try to

develop some sort of inclusive government. eSwiss Foreign Minister, a co-host of theconference, hinted to the issue in suggestingvery briefly that, if asked, Switzerland couldprovide expertise on forms of decentralizationand con-federal government.e effort to create a centralized Yemengovernment has failed. e future lies in a verydecentralized government with great autonomyfor the regions, taking into consideration thediverse tribal configuration of the country.With intelligence and patience – always inshort supply – a single, highly decentralizedState might be developed.e most difficult first-step is ending Saudi-ledaggression, aer which an effectivehumanitarian aid and development programcan be put into effect.

JUNE 2017

page 9

Yemen: Effective Humanitarian AidDepends on a Peace Accord

by Rene Wadlow

Rene Wadlowis based inGeneva and isPresident oftheAssociation ofWorld Citizens.

A destroyed house in the southof Sana’a, Yemen

Photo: Commons. IbrahemQasim. 2015.

For well over half a century, proponents of astrong United Nations have called for reformthat would enable the General Assembly tomake binding and enforceable decisions on“important questions.” According to Article 18, paragraph 2 of theUnited Nations Charter, such matters “shall bedecided by a two-thirds majority . . . of themembers present and voting.” While I am notin favor of this clause, I recognize that it doesgive a significant voice to the many small tominuscule states (a couple with populations ofonly around 10,000) that constitute a greatmajority of the UN’s total membership.Presently, it would be possible for only 65states – the least populous, with just over athird of the total membership, but a combinedpopulation of only 1% of the world’s total – toblock the wishes of the other 99%.Alternatively, the 129 least populous states –with just over two-thirds the total membershipand not much over 8% of the world’spopulation – theoretically have enoughcollective votes to push through a resolution.Is it any wonder that GA resolutions areregarded as non-binding and are frequentlyignored?Charter reform to do away with the specialprivilege of the otherwise weak majority ofUN member states would be exceedinglydifficult. e same may be said in regard toreform of the increasingly ineffectual SecurityCouncil, especially so in respect to thepermanent membership and veto privilegeaccorded solely to the P5 powers (China,France, Russia, U.S. and UK). us, despite theneed for reform of both those bodies, let us,for purposes of this note, assume that theCharter will remain as is for the foreseeablefuture. Is there any way out of the presentimpasse in dealing with important questionswith respect to which the SC is hopelesslydivided, or in preventing the passage ofineffectual GA decisions by coalitions of stateswith small populations? Further, is there a wayto make GA decisions binding andenforceable? In what follows, I hope to makethe case that there is.

Consider the following proposal (shorn of allthe introductory “Whereas” clauses):Now, therefore, be it resolved [numbers/wordsin square brackets would be negotiable]: In situations in which the Security Councileither cannot or will not act effectively, certainresolutions of the General Assembly may bedeclared to be “binding and enforceable.” For aresolution to be so declared, it must be approvedby two-thirds of the members present andvoting, as specified in Article 18 of the Charter;must be approved by a cohort of member statescollectively accounting for at least [50%] of theworld’s population, as per a stipulated date ofrecord, which shall be updated every [ten]years; and must also be approved by a cohort ofmember states collectively accounting for atleast [two-thirds] of the total votes allocated ina weighted voting formula agreed to by theGeneral Assembly.e weighted voting formula shall be an easilyunderstandable mathematical equation, whichmay include both demographic and economicterms as well as a term relating to the sovereignequality of states. is formula shall be appliedequally to all members. e empirical valuesused for the terms of the allocating equationwill be updated at [ten-year intervals] in lightof demographic and economic changesworldwide. e equation itself may be adjustedfrom time to time based on experience [but notmore frequently than every ten years]. Failure of any state to live up to the letter of abinding and enforceable resolution shall, on therecommendation of the General Assembly,subject that state to punitive sanctions.  Suchsanctions may be progressively increased byeither the Security Council or, should theCouncil fail to act, by the General Assembly,based on the severity and duration of that state’snon-compliance. [ese sanctions may entail,inter alia, forfeiture of voting privileges inspecified UN agencies, and may, in extremecircumstances, culminate in indictedindividuals’ being subject to apprehension byarmed police intervention.]

JUNE 2017

page 10

Binding UNGA Decisions WithoutCharter Amendment

by Joseph E. SchwartzbergJoesephSchwartzberg

isDistinguishedInternational

ProfessorEmeritus,

University ofMinnesota and

the author of“Transforming

the UnitedNationsSystem:

Designs for aWorkable

World.”.

Joseph E. Schwartzberg,TRANSFoRMING ThE

UNITED NATIoNS SYSTEM:DESIGNS FoR A WoRKAbLE

WoRLD United Nations, 2013.

continue on page 12

JUNE 2017

page 11

It has been over fieen years since the first UnitedNations Security Council resolution (1325) tospecifically address the women, peace and securityagenda. In that time, sixty-three countries havedeveloped National Action Plans (NAPs) — andsixteen new ones are in progress — to provideframeworks for viewing their approach and work inwomen, peace and security.Canada’s first national action plan expired at the endof March 2016 and there has been a gradual processto develop the next one.e process was delayedwhile related federal government consultations — oninternational assistance and defence policy — tookplace over the summer of 2016.Canadian civil society — particularly in the form ofthe Women, Peace and Security Network - Canada(WPSN-C) — has been eager to participate incraing a NAP that addresses the shortcomings ofthe first C-NAP and learn from the lessons of othercountries who have taken different approaches.During the first few months of 2017, a consultationprocess — funded by Global Affairs Canada,administered by the World Federalist Movement -Canada, and organized by the WPSN-C — tookplace. e process was multi-faceted and includedonline and in-person components. e online aspectincluded a series of webinars — addressing defencepolicy, refugees, and feminist foreign policy andinternational assistance; background documentsfrom both GAC and WPSN-C; a hosted Twitterconversation; and a survey. At the end of April, atwo-day in-person consultation was held in Ottawa.More than seventy-five individuals, from bothgovernment and civil society, attended.e form of the in-person consultation wasinfluenced by previous work by the WPSN-C thatexamined the best practices and varying approachedof other countries. A roundtable was held in Ottawain September 2016 by the Embassies of theNetherlands, Norway and Sweden, and WPSN-Cwith specific support from the Nobel Women’sInitiative. Following this discussion, WPSN-Cproduced a comparative document looking morebroadly at the structure and content of NAPs (andtheir accompanying consultation processes, when

held) from a number of countries, includingAustralia, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway,Sweden, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and theUnited States.

Having considered different elements of the otherdonor country NAPs — their goals and objectives,focus countries, and monitoring and evaluationframeworks — and outreach to civil societyrepresentatives in a number of these countries,trends for improvement were identified. Forexample, there was general disappointment inconsultation processes in the draing of NAPs andongoing civil society engagement and funding. Civilsociety representatives also felt that indicators weregenerally weak (this held true across differentcountries’ chosen indicators) and that the lack of adedicated budget weakened the quality ofimplementation. As well, few NAPs includedrepresentation and/or involvement of diaspora andrefugee women. (is was something particularlytaken into consideration during the Canadianconsultation. Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipCanada participated in the in-person consultation,along with civil society representation from refugeeand diaspora communities. As well, one of thewebinars specifically discussed refugees.)

MoniqueCuillerier isWFM-Canada’sMembership &CommunicationsDirector

The Women, Peace and Security Agenda– Canada prepares to renew its National Action Plan

by Monique Cuillerier

More than 75 representativesfrom civil society andgovernment gathered inottawa at the end of April toparticipate in a consultation onCanada's next National ActionPlan on WPS.

Photo: Monique Cuillerier

JUNE 2017

page 12

Having reflected on these successes and challengesfrom other countries, the two days of discussionalternated between panel discussions withrepresentatives from government and civil societyand 'work sessions' in which participantsbrainstormed ideas, priorities, and suggestions andthe topics covered included:

Reviewing and consolidating understanding ofthe key lessons from the previous C-NAP;Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of theprevious C-NAP, from the perspectives of theparticipants;Identifying priorities for the new C-NAP,including emerging issues and Canadiancomparative advantages;Discussion on the scope and structure of thenew C-NAP with participating governmentdepartments;Priority objectives for participating governmentdepartments as a result of small discussiongroups with both government and civil society;

andIdentifying strategies and possible indicators onpossible C-NAP objectives.

Additionally, Hannah Bond from Gender Action forPeace and Security - United Kingdom (GAPS-UK),Mavic Cabrera-Balleza from the Global Network ofWomen Peacebuilders (GNWP, New York) andJacqueline O’Neill of Inclusive Security(Washington) participated in the consultation ontwo panels: Context and Opportunities for Canadaand Lessons Learned on Building Effective WPSNAPs. Both of these panels are available to watch atcnapconsult.org.A report summarizing the results of the consultationprocess, Looking Back, Looking Forward: Report ofthe Joint Government - Civil Society Consultationon a New Canadian National Action Plan (C-NAP)for the Implementation of United Nations SecurityCouncil Resolution 1325, is available athttp://cnapconsult.org/report/

e proposed changes do not require anyrevision of Article 18 or any other clauses ofthe existing Charter. e weighted votingproposal is flexible and responsive todemographic, economic and political changes.And they could be rescinded by a vote of theGeneral Assembly aer a trial period of aspecified number of years.e UN’s small-state majority would continueto be able to block resolutions inimical to theirinterests.  And the resolution’s specificationthat an economic term be included in theweighted voting formula should allay the fearsof wealthy states that they could be regularlyoutvoted by populous states of the globalSouth.e possible forms of the weighted votingformula are virtually endless and it goeswithout saying that there will be muchbickering before any agreement is reached.Nevertheless, I believe that the simplecompromise solution discussed in Chapter 3 ofmy book would have a reasonably good chanceof being adopted. e formula follows:

W = (P + C + M) / 3Here, W indicates the weight of a memberstate’s vote expressed in the form of apercentage of the total votes for all states; P indicates a member state’s populationexpressed in the form of a percentage of thetotal population for all member nations; C indicates a member state’s paid contributionsto the regular UN budget over the past fiveyears expressed in the form of a percentage ofthe total contributions for all states; and M is a constant indicating a state's membershipexpressed in the form of a percentage of thetotal membership for all states (presently 1/193or 0.518%).e P term of the equation should gain favoramong relatively poor, but populous states; theC term would be favored by relatively powerfulstates with large economies; and the M termwould appeal to most of the numerous smallstates, be they wealthy or poor. All states wouldhave to accept the necessity of a trade-off to reachan accord that maximizes the good of the whole.

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Women, Peace and Security Agenda – continued

Binding UNGA decisions Without Charter Amendment – continued

Click here forresources relatedto the CanadianNational Action

Plan on WPS

JUNE 2017

page 13

Anniversaries oen mark an opportunity forstock-taking, renewal . . . and occasionallyreform. e year 2020, marking 75thanniversary of the United Nations, presentsadvocates of a more effective UN the chance tocall for measures to strengthen the world body.In 1995, at the time of the UN’s 50thanniversary (and soon aer the end of the ColdWar) there was much advance study andanticipation of ways governments could act toimprove the UN system. Remember theCommission on Global Governance? Butmajor powers were able to suppress movementtoward any progressive reforms. However, ten years later, in time for the UN’s60th anniversary Secretary-General KofiAnnan led efforts that resulted in substantiallyupgraded UN Human Rights machinery, thecreation of the Peacebuilding Commission, theadvent of the Responsibility to Protect andother measures (enumerated in an October2005 Outcome Document).In addition to the 75th anniversary, the year2020 will also be the occasion for several multi-year reviews of major treaties and processes,including the Sustainable Development Goalsand the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.So why not capitalize on this importantmoment for the UN?e UN2020 Initiative is canvassing the viewsof a variety of stakeholders -- civil society

representatives, Member States and UNofficials – to explore the inclusion of a UNreform preparatory process in preparations forthe anticipated UN 2020 Summit Meeting. AMay 4, 2017 consultation involved discussionsamong over 30 New York-based NGOs. ecampaign has also met with over a dozen keygovernments as well as UN Secretariat staff. Coordination for the project is provided by theWFM-IGP New York secretariat and WFM –Canada’s national office in Ottawa. Projectpartners include CIVICUS (the “world alliancefor citizen participation”), e Stimson Center(a Washington-based think tank), and theWorkable World Trust (Minnesota). It is too early in the process to know whetherthe initiative will succeed. According to WFMExecutive Director Bill Pace, “We’reencouraged by the kinds of hearings we’regetting. Senior officials and diplomats aretaking the idea of a 2020 reform processseriously. Perhaps part of the interest is areaction to Donald Trump and the U.S. threatsto cut funding for the UN. At a time whenpowerful governments are demonstrating lesssupport for multilateralism and the benefits ofinternational cooperation, there are also anumber of small and medium-sized states notwilling to sit idly by while the UN is furthermarginalized and diminished.”

UN 2020: Will this be a HappyBirthday? by Fergus Watt

Fergus Wattis ExecutiveDirector ofWorldFederalistMovement –Canada.

JUNE 2017

page 14

Joe Stiglitz probably needs no introduction as heis among the international elite group of economistsand someone whose writings always demandone's attention. is book could not be moretimely, as Europe struggles with its identity. eFrench election results allowed us to breathe asigh of relief, but the contentious background issueshave by no means been put to rest. e future of theEuro is by far not the least of these issues. Up until about five years ago, I never gave muchthought about the Euro -- unless I was checkingits conversion rate when travelling internationally.I just took it for granted that it was an essentialcomponent of an ever-evolving architecture ofEuropean-wide institutions. Like world federalistseverywhere, I just took it for granted as anunmitigated good. I should not have been sosanguine. On this the twenty-fih anniversary ofthe Maastricht Treaty, which launched the Euro, wereally have no choice but to take a second hard look. Was it a wise initiative, and what should be itsfuture? What does Stiglitz have to say? Here is asampling of quotes from his book:

"… a fatal decision in 1992, to adopt a singlecurrency, without providing for theinstitutions that would make it work. Goodcurrency arrangements cannot ensureprosperity, but flawed currency arrangementscan lead to recessions and depressions.""e founders of the Euro changed the rules ofthe game. ey fixed the exchange rate andthey centralized the determination of theinterest rate. ey created new rules governingdeficits and new rules governing the bankingsystem. Hubris led them to believe that theyunderstood how the economic systemworked.""It was a political project; it was supposed toenhance the political integration of Europe,bringing the people and countries of Europecloser together and ensuring peaceful co-existence. e Euro has failed to achieveeither.""Had they known back in 1992, when theysigned up for the Euro, what they know now -and had the people of Europe been given achance to vote on joining the Euro - it is hardto see how they could have supported it. Butthat is a different question from thatconfronting Europe today. at question is,

having created the Euro, where do they gofrom here?""e alternative, entailing 'more Europe',creating a Euro-zone that works, is almostsurely the best path forward for Europe, but itappears too much for at least some of thecountries in the Euro-zone to stomach.""Many within Europe will be saddened by thedeath of the Euro. is is not the end of theworld, as currencies come and go."

is gives a flavour of what the book has to offer.Now let me fill in some of the gaps and summarize.e Euro works -- except when it doesn't. Andthat's the rub. Simply put: when the international/regional economy trends downward - as it mostassuredly will do from time to time - the nationsinside the Euro-zone will be extremely vulnerable.Fenced in with a fixed exchange rate, a singleinterest rate, and without any type of fiscal unionto protect them, Euro-zone nations - and particularlyits weakest members - have little ability toregenerate their economies. And as we have seen,when the rubber hits the road it only gets worse,as the Euro-zone powers that be then chooseausterity to hopefully restore the balance sheet ofits most vulnerable members. Everybody loses. Does all this mean that the Euro is on its last legsor that it should be put out of its misery? Notnecessarily. Even today, Euro-zone membersgenerally agree that the single currency needsmore integration. But the agreement ends there asthey strenuously disagree over how. Stiglitz wouldprefer that the Euro be modified and/or enhancedbut sees little or no appetite among Europeanpublics for the "more Europe" (fiscal and bankingunion) steps to do so. en there are numerousproposals out there for splitting the Euro-zoneinto separate smaller Euros based on blocks ofeconomies with more similar characteristics.ere are options and question marks all over theplace regarding both the Euro's membership andits direction. Don't be surprised if there continues to be a lot oftalk and no action. Muddling through -- until thenext crisis -- will most likely be the way forward.at would be most unfortunate. I'm sure JosephStiglitz would tell his European friends thatsimply singing Ode to Joy -- the EuropeanUnion's anthem -- just doesn't cut it.

How much does the Euro cost?Review by Simon Rosenblum

BOOK   R E V I EW

Joseph E. StiglitzThE EURo: hoW A CoMMoNCURRENCY ThREATENS ThE

FUTURE oF EURoPE. W W Norton, 2016.

SimonRosenblum isa member of

the WFM –Canada

board ofDirectorsliving inToronto.

•

•

•

•

•

•

JUNE 2017

page 15

In May 2017 I travelled to Windsor, Ontario,Canada to introduce the campaign for COPLA(Spanish acronym for the proposed LatinAmerican and Caribbean Criminal Courtagainst Transnational Organized Crime) at theConference “Transnational Criminal Law in theAmericas,” organized by the Transnational Lawand Justice Network of the University ofWindsor Faculty of Law. Jacob Leon (Dalhousie University), presented apaper in which he analyzed the dra statuteprepared by the COPLA legal experts team. estatute attempts to establish the basic structureof the Court, serve as a tool for debate and as amodel for the international treaty that wouldcreate COPLA. Inspired by the Rome Statute for theInternational Criminal Court, the COPLAdraft sets out the seven core crimes that theCourt would have jurisdiction over. It is basedon the UN Convention Against TransnationalOrganized Crime – the “Palermo Convention”– and its three supplementary protocols, aswell as the Vienna Convention (1988). Theseinstruments have been ratified by all states inthe region. Similar to the Rome Statute, theCOPLA is intended to be complementarywith domestic law: the Court only acts when agovernment is either not able or not willing todo so. This, together with the focused subjectmatter and the smaller, regional membership,indirectly addresses some of the argumentsraised by the international community whenthe Caribbean states (led by Trinidad andTobago) pushed to include treaty crimes suchas drug trafficking and smuggling within theICC jurisdiction. The restricted jurisdictionand the goal of prosecuting the highestechelons (“cúpulas”) of the criminalorganizations would increase the Court’sability to enforce and investigate crimes suchas the trafficking of drugs, people andweapons, money laundering and politicalcorruption.

e dra statute proposes a very “economic”structure, avoiding the addition of expensivebureaucracy. Each country would appoint itscandidates (a judge and a prosecutor), andwould be expected to cover their expensesshould one of them be chosen. e hostcountry (to be determined in the first Assemblyof State Parties) would provide infrastructurefor offices. Each state party would provideaccess to a maximum security prison anddesignate one of its elite security forces to beavailable and on call for the Court. Some legal experts and former officialsattending the Windsor conference believed thatmore can be done to clarify and guarantee thefinancial sustainability of the new body. It wassuggested that a small percentage of the assetforfeitures be set aside for paying operationalcosts. e Statute so far only assigns these as areparation fund for victims and their families. Regarding more sceptical views (Why wouldanyone want to create another doomed-to-failure institution? How will you get thesecountries to comply?), COPLA proponentsbelieve that governments have no basis foropposing the establishment of this Court,considering their ratification of relatedinstruments and the urgency of the matter. Keynote speaker and COPLA enthusiast, Prof.Robert Currie (Schulich School of Law,Dalhousie University) suggests there needs tobe more focus on transnational criminal lawliterature, and stresses the importance ofeducating domestic criminal justice systems ontransnational crimes. By considering some ofthese crimes “petty”, we choose to ignore theenormous and disruptive impact they have ondaily life. Transnational crimes still attract lessattention compared to the amount of studygiven to international criminal law. e uniquenature of these crimes means that establishing aconnection between international law anddomestic criminal codes is a key objective whendraing the statute.

The Transnational Criminal Law in theAmericas conference and further updateson the COPLA campaign

by Florencia Gor

Past-President ofDemocraciaGlobalArgentina anda currentmember ofthe ExecutiveCommittee ofWFM –Canada.

JUNE 2017

page 16

The campaign so fare COPLA campaign’s evolution has beenanything but linear. It started out as a smallNGO's project looking to build civil societysupport in the region. However, receivingpolitical endorsement from the Argentinegovernment has given the project anundeniable boost. Last year, the ArgentineChamber of Deputies called on thegovernment to “lead the efforts in the regiontowards the creation of such a Court,”following a previous resolution of support fromthe Senate. e Parliament of MERCOSUR alsopassed a declaration of support.

Argentine Vice-President Michetti wasencouraged by initial support from thePresidents of Uruguay, Chile, Ecuador andBrazil (Dilma Rouseff at the time) whenmentioning COPLA on her first regional tourof early 2016. e President of the BrazilianSupreme Court of Justice suggested organizinga seminar in Montevideo with regional leadersto start the discussions. For Michetti, COPLAis a logical and necessary step towards therestoration of the rule of law in the region. e time has come for COPLA to be a trulyregional initiative. Civil society and politicalleaders involved since the early stages knowthat progress is now tied to having theircounterparts in the rest of the region adopt thiscampaign as their own and work toward

strengthening essential civil society networks.In Canada, we continue to meet with expertsand aim to organize regional conferenceswhere all stakeholders (government officials,media, academics, security forces, legalexperts, representatives from regional andinternational organizations) will discuss howto build support in the most efficient way. Weare thankful for the support and interest ofProf. Robert Currie, Jacob Leon, Prof. SaraWharton and her amazing team at theTransnational Law and Justice Network atWindsor Law and all the global experts that

were part of the Conference. Transnational organized crime is atthe root of the region's most seriousthreats to human security. Nationalauthorities have been unable tosignificantly address the problem.With a COPLA, a vast percentage ofthe budget that states are currentlyallocating to security could beinvested in health and education.Furthermore, there would be abetter climate to receive foreigninvestment, as multinationalcorporations are currently wary ofestablishing their business andhaving to face extra costs forsecurity.

COPLA is also a tool for regional integration, achance for Latin America and the Caribbean todeal with regional problems independently ofthe United States, and thereby surmount their“backyard syndrome” and combat the criminalorganizations that have infiltrated theirpolitical elites and judicial and securitysystems. To learn more about the campaign and itssupporters, please visitwww.coalicioncopla.org. You can join theCOPLA campaign by signing the petitiononline. Soon the dra statute will be available(in Spanish) for citizens´ comments onhttps://www.justicia2020.gob.ar/ and an initialEnglish translation is under development.

At a January 2017 forum in buenosAires, Argentine Vice-PresidentGabriela Michetti discusses the

proposed Latin American andCaribbean Criminal Court against

Transnational organized Crime. Atleft: Fernando Iglesias, President of

Democracia Global. At right,Christian Cao, head of the legal

team that produced the draftstatute.

Photo credit: Democracia Global

Updates on the COPLA campaign – continued

JUNE 2017

page 17

Ten years ago the Campaign for a United NationsParliamentary Assembly (UNPA) was launched toadvocate democratic representation of the world'scitizens at the United Nations.Usually, UN bodies are composed of officials whoare appointed by the executive branches ofnational governments. By contrast, a UNPAwould for the first time give electedrepresentatives and members of the opposition aformal role in the world organization. eassembly would directly represent the world'scitizens -- not governments. Supporters envisagethat it would act as an independentwatchdog and as an engine for UN reform,including a progressive democratization ofglobal governance.According to the campaign, states initiallycould choose whether their UNPAmembers would come from national (orregional) parliaments, reflecting theirpolitical spectrum, or whether they wouldbe directly elected. Eventually, all membersshould be directly elected. Step by step, theassembly should be provided with rights ofinformation, participation and oversightvis-à-vis the UN and the organizations ofthe UN system.e idea of a UNPA has been put forwardagain and again ever since the UN wascreated. Today, however, it is has becomehard to argue against it since important regionalorganizations such as the European Union, theAfrican Union, or the Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe (which actually spansacross the whole Northern hemisphere) allinclude a parliamentary component, and becausea majority of UN member states are nowdemocracies. e European Parliament whichover decades developed into a legislative body ofthe EU is considered an important example todraw upon.By now, a UNPA has been endorsed by thousandsof politicians, former UN officials, distinguishedscholars, cultural innovators, representatives ofcivil society organizations, and committedcitizens from all walks of life. In particular, thecampaign was supported by nearly 1,500members of parliament from over 100 countries(around half of which are still in office). Amongthem are Federica Mogherini, today’s EuropeanUnion Foreign Minister, Justin Trudeau, who is

now Canada’s Prime Minister, and GabrielaMichetti, now Vice-President of Argentina. efull list is published on the campaign’s website.One of the most important advocates was formerUN-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.When the campaign was launched he wrote thatthe establishment of a UNPA “has become anindispensable step to achieve democratic controlof globalization. “Other former UN officials whotook a stand include former Under-Secretary-Generals Ibrahim Gambari, Shashi aroor, BrianUrquhart and Heitor Gurgulino de Souza.

Ten current and former UN experts elected bythe UN Human Rights Council in Geneva are onrecord as well. According to Maina Kiai fromKenya, who endorsed in 2016 and was untilrecently the UN’s rapporteur on rights to freedomof peaceful assembly and of association, “oneweakness of the United Nations is that its memberstates are represented solely through the executivebranch. e involvement of additional actors suchas parliamentarians and civil society is critical todemocratizing the UN.”Recent additions to the ranks of UNPA Campaignsupporters include several Nobel Laureates: theDalai Lama (peace), John Hume (peace), RichardJ. Roberts (medicine), Eric S. Maskin (economy),and Mohamed Fadhel Mahfoudh from Tunisiawho received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015 onbehalf of the Quartet for National Dialogue. “Weneed to act now and implement democraticprinciples at the largest scale of government if wewant them to survive the recent rise of

Update: The Campaign for a UnitedNations Parliamentary Assembly

by Andreas Bummel

The Pan-African Parliamentrecently passed a resolution

calling for a UN ParliamentaryAssembly.

Photo: UNPA Campaign

Andreasbummel isInternationalSecretary-General of theCampaign fora UnitedNationsParliamentaryAssembly.

nationalism that is threatening peace andinternational understanding,” Mr. Mahfoudhstated when he endorsed the campaign inDecember 2016. All in all, the campaign hasidentified around 25 Nobel laureates who at somepoint have supported a citizen-elected UN body,among them Albert Einstein.e overall goal of the campaign is to mobilizegovernment support for the establishment of aUNPA. One possibility is a vote of the UNGeneral Assembly according to Article 22 of theUN’s Charter, which allows the General Assemblyto create subsidiary bodies. To get there, weadvocate the proposal vis-à-vis parliamentariansand civil society organizations and work towardsachieving popular awareness of a UNPA as aresponse to the global democratic deficit.e adoption of a pro-UNPA resolution by thePan-African Parliament, the African Union’sparliamentary body, was one of the highlights ofthe previous 12 months. In addition, thecampaign organized two panels on the questionof a world parliament that featured eight speakersat the conference on “New Topics in GlobalJustice” at Yale University.

Following numerous bilateral meetings in NewYork, an off-the-record information session on aUNPA was held in early May 2017 incollaboration with the permanent mission ofCanada to the UN. Representatives of 12government delegations participated.At the meeting, representatives of civil societyorganizations, among them the World FederalistMovement, argued that a parliamentary UN bodywould make the UN engage directly with electedrepresentatives in discussing global governanceand thus help strengthen support for the UN’swork. An important new topic underconsideration is the creation of a UNParliamentary Network (UNPN) as a preliminarystep towards a UNPA. is was advocated in the2015 report of the Commission on InternationalSecurity, Justice and Governance, chaired byformer U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albrightand former Nigerian Foreign Minister IbrahimGambari.

JUNE 2017

page 18

Update: The Campaign for a UNPA – continued

Join Our Global Movemente World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policyhas Member Organizations (MOs) around the world that arededicated to spreading the ideas of World Federalism. Currentlyour MOs are working on diverse issues such as raising support forthe International Criminal Court, strengthening the EuropeanConstitution, creating a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly,and reducing small arms trafficking.

In addition to the WFM Member Organizations and Associate Organizations, WFM-IGP’s programsCICC and ICRtoP also have thousands of members around the world. For more information on theirmembers, please visit www.coalitionfortheicc.org and www.responsibilitytoprotect. org.WFM-IGP also welcomes your individual membership in our global efforts to promote the principles ofinternational democracy, federalism, global governance and human rights.

click here to find aMember

Organisationnear you

click here to donate

click here to become a

member

page 19

Over the course of its existence, there have been 23 cases in ninesituations brought before the International Criminal Court.Preliminary examinations are currently being conducted intosituations in Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia, Gabon, Guinea,Iraq/UK, Nigeria, Palestine, Ukraine, and Registered Vessels ofComoros, Greece, and Cambodia.Central African Republic (I)is situation was referred to the Court by the Government of theCentral African Republic in 2004. Jean-Pierre Bemba was foundguilty of two counts of crimes against humanity (murder andrape) and three counts of war crimes (murder, rape, and pillaging)in March 2016. Appeals and victims’ reparations are pending.Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-JacquesMangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu, and Narcisse Arido,were found guilty of offences against theadministration of justice allegedly committed inconnection with the case above in October2016 and sentenced in March 2017. Sentencesranged from 6 months to two years and 6months imprisonment (with time served beingconsidered) and, in addition, fines were leviedof EUR 300,000 for Bemba and EUR 30,000 forAimé Kilolo Musamba.Central African Republic (II)e second investigation in Central AfricanRepublic is still ongoing.Côte d’Ivoiree trial of Laurent Gbagbo and Charles BléGoudé, who are in the Court’s custody and areaccused of four counts of crimes against humanity, began in lateJanuary 2016 and continues. Additionally, an arrest warrantagainst Simone Gbagbo remains outstanding.Darfur, Sudanere has been no change in the four cases concerning thesituation in Darfur, Sudan where the suspects -- Ahmad Harun,Ali Kushayb, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Abdallah BandaAbakaer Nourain, and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussei --remain at large.Democratic Republic of the CongoLubanga Dyilo has been convicted and sentenced to 14 yearsimprisonment. In October 2016, the Court approved and orderedthe implementation of the plan submitted by the Trust Fund forVictims for symbolic collective reparations. e TFV will filereports on their progress every three months.In the case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and MathieuNgudjolo Chui, Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted, while GermanKatanga was sentenced to twelve years. He has been transferred toa prison facility in the DRC. At the end of March 2017, individualand collective reparations were awarded to the victims of hiscrimes. Symbolic compensation of USD 250 was awarded to eachof the 297 individual victims. Collective reparations are to take the

form of support for housing, income-generating activities,education and psychological help. In May, the government of theNetherlands said that they would imminently underwrite thesymbolic individual compensation through the TFV, whileKatanga's financial situation is monitored for future repayment.e trial of Bosco Ntaganda, which began in September 2015, on13 counts of war crimes (including rape and sexual slavery ofcivilians and children and conscription of child soldiers) and 5counts of crimes against humanity (including murder andattempted murder; rape; sexual slavery; and forcible transfer ofpopulation) continues. Over two thousand victims have beengranted the right to participate in the case.An arrest warrant was issued for Sylvestre Mudacumura in 2012,but he remains at large.

GeorgiaAt the end of January 2016, the Prosecutor beganan investigation into crimes allegedly committedin and around South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008.LibyaArrest warrants remain open in the cases of SaifAl-Islam Gaddafi and Al-Tuhamy MohamedKhaled.KenyaArrest warrants for Walter Osapiri Barasa, PaulGicheru and Philip Kipkoech Bett for variousoffences against the administration of justiceremain outstanding.Mali

Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi was found guilty of the war crime ofattacking historic and religious buildings in September 2016 andwas sentenced to nine years. e case is at the stage ofdetermining reparations and/or compensation.Ugandae suspects Joseph Kony, and Vincent Otti remain at large.In the case of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Ongwen wassurrendered to ICC custody in 2015. His trial began in December2016.OtherTo date, 124 countries have ratified the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court.Prior moves by South Africa and the Gambia to pursuewithdrawal from the Court have recently been reversed. And inZambia, where the government decided to consult people onwhether the country should remain in the ICC, opinion samplingshowed over 93% in favour of continuing as a part of the ICC.irty-four countries have now ratified the KampalaAmendments on the Crime of Aggression, the latest two beingArgentina and Portugal in April.

I CC  UPDATE

by Monique Cuillerier (Communications, WFM – Canada) and Yasmina Gourchane (Program Associate, Coalition for the ICC)