myMADRE

Don't Let NATO Chill the Arab Spring

Yesterday, MADRE released the below statement on the US intervention in Libya:

MADRE stands with the people of Libya fighting for democracy and an end to repressive government.

MADRE opposes NATO’s military intervention, which threatens civilians’ lives and undermines prospects for self-determination and true democracy in Libya. Days ago, an African Union delegation arrived in Libya to broker a truce to end the violence. These diplomatic moves should prompt a renewed international push for negotiations. MADRE calls for an immediate ceasefire and an end to US and NATO intervention in Libya.

Why We Must End the No-Fly Zone and Bombing Attacks

Many people were moved to support this intervention in response to gross human rights violations committed by Qaddafi’s forces. Yet, NATO airstrikes launched in the name of protecting civilians have killed civilians. Observers have condemned the bombings as “disproportionate” and “careless with civilian lives.”

UN Resolution 1973, authorizing the no-fly zone, says nothing about regime change. Yet, the US has made it clear that its goal is to oust Qaddafi. The escalation of militarized conflict and the open calls for regime change foreclosed opportunities for peaceful negotiations.

Meanwhile, Libyans face a growing humanitarian crisis. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced, and civilian casualties are mounting. Hospitals lack medical supplies and food is growing scarce. The global response to the crisis in Libya must ensure that the basic needs of Libyan civilians are met and that human rights are protected.

Addressing Arguments from Progressive Supporters of the No-Fly Zone

“The intervention averted a massacre.” In March, as Qaddafi’s forces approached the city of Benghazi, a stronghold of the opposition, the possibility of a mass killing loomed. But the airstrikes also puts civilians at risk. We have already heard reports of civilians killed by NATO bombs. We’ll never know what would have happened if NATO had not been deployed. But we can say what needs to happen now: ceasefire.

“The Libyan opposition called for a no-fly zone.” This is indeed a valid criterion for determining when humanitarian intervention is legitimate. But satisfying this one criterion doesn’t guarantee reflexive support from progressives for intervention. We still have the responsibility to analyze the policies and actions of our own governments, particularly when we have reason to question their purportedly humanitarian motivations.

“The no-fly zone was sanctioned by the Arab League.” This statement is misleading. Of the 22 members of the Arab League, only 11 took part in the vote and only nine voted in favor. Six of the yes-votes were from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council a US-supported and Saudi-led grouping. As an expression of broadly based regional support, this does not go very far.

Moreover, UN diplomatic sources report that Saudi Arabia secured the call from the Arab League for a no-fly zone only in exchange for US consent to invade Bahrain and crush its pro-democracy movement.

“The UN Security Council resolution authorizes intervention.” What Resolution 1973 authorizes are measures to ensure civilian protection, including the no-fly zone. But the US and NATO quickly discarded non-violent measures, including negotiations led by the Arab League or the African Union, in favor of military action. As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The international community has a “responsibility to protect”, as recognized by the UN and by international law, to save civilian lives when their government commits extreme, large scale human rights abuses. But this has been used to justify a rush to military intervention. Progressives should demand that peaceful means are exhausted before endorsing any resort to force. Even before Qaddafi’s siege of Benghazi, Arab pro-democracy activists called on the international community to freeze government assets, end all flows of military aid, impose economic sanctions and undertake human rights investigations. Yet, these viable options were bypassed in favor of bombing.

Moreover, a Security Council resolution should not guarantee progressive support. The UN also gave its belated stamp of approval to the US occupation of Iraq, which most progressives consistently opposed.

Libya in Context

While the Libyan uprising is new and unpredictable, the US/NATO response is not. The latest US war follows a familiar pattern of military intervention in the name of humanitarianism.

Look at the US invasions of the Philippines (1898), Haiti (1918), Vietnam (1954-1975), the Congo (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), the many US sponsored wars in Central America in the 1980s, Panama (1989), former Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003). Each of these wars was billed as a humanitarian intervention.

Also familiar is the old pattern of subverting international consensus in favor of a manufactured multilateralism. Resolution 1973 came about only through heavy-handed lobbying by the US to demand the votes of countries on the fence, like South Africa. Many of these countries have since reversed their position and are now calling for a ceasefire.

Finally, the image of NATO being deployed to “protect civilians” in places where US and European interests are clearly at stake is familiar. Having lost its original mandate with the end of the Cold War, NATO was rebranded as a US-dominated intervention force. Its primary mission now is to help maintain control over energy resources for the US and its allies.

What Are the US Motivations in Libya?

One thing we know for sure: the US is not driven by humanitarianism. If it were, it would have enforced a no-fly zone over Gaza in 2009 when Israeli warplanes killed 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children. Instead, Israel was rewarded after the assault with $30 billion in US military aid. Israel is not alone: as recently as February, the Obama Administration was preparing to send Qaddafi another $77 million in armored troop carriers.

There is a long list of humanitarian crises that have failed to trigger US intervention or that the US has supported outright. So what does motivate the US?

Oil: Libya has more proven oil reserves than any other country in Africa. US companies bought oil from Qaddafi before this war, but the intervention is an opening to actually gain control of this vital resource. That move would give the US great leverage over economic competitors like Russia and China.

Military Bases: AFRICOM, the US military command for Africa, is currently headquartered in Germany because no African government will host its operations. Replacing Qaddafi with a more compliant regime may give the US an opportunity to overcome this failure and finally establish a permanent military base in Africa.

“Stability”: We all watched what happened in Tunisia and then in Egypt, when thousands of protestors took to the streets. These mass mobilizations rallied people from all walks of life, including trade unionists, women’s groups and youth organizers who all demanded their rights as citizens. More than anything else, the progressive potential of these movements stemmed from their truly grassroots and broad-based nature. At its onset, the home-grown rebellion in Libya also included mass organizing and peaceful protests.

Turning a popular mobilization controlled by citizens themselves into a top-down, foreign military operation takes the struggle out of people’s hands. It ensures that whatever regime comes next won’t be a product of people-power, but of NATO’s power and that the new regime will be dependent on the West.

In fact, people-power is not what the US wants to see, especially in the world’s biggest oil-producing countries. If all people in the Middle East were able to participate meaningfully in national policy-making, there is little chance that they would direct oil revenues to US banks. More likely, they would try to ensure that oil revenues be used to fund education, employment, health care, national infrastructure and other necessities. In fact, these are the core demands of the Arab Spring. But what most people call democracy, the US calls extreme Arab nationalism—and it’s not tolerated for long.

Despite Obama’s lofty rhetoric about honoring democratic struggles in the Middle East and North Africa, a main motivation for the NATO intervention is to extinguish the progressive potential that inspired Libyans and thousands of others in the region to rise up and demand change.

As we search for ways to support them, we should evaluate calls for military intervention according to lessons we’ve learned over time. Given that very few conflicts can be resolved by force, will a military intervention remedy the problem? Will force be kept to a minimum and used only as a last resort? Will the intervention keep the door open for peace negotiations? Does the intervention prioritize the human rights and needs of civilians for open borders, safe humanitarian relief corridors and aid delivery that responds to the disproportionate impact of conflict on women?

MADRE believes that progressives should oppose the NATO intervention in Libya and call for:

• The delivery of urgent food relief and humanitarian aid to civilians.
• An immediate ceasefire by NATO and Libyan government forces.
• Renewed efforts to seek a diplomatic solution.

Ensuring Grassroots Collaboration with UN Women

Yesterday, I took part in a conversation with the Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) campaign and UN Women, organized by our friends at the Center for Women’s Global Leadership. The GEAR campaign is an international network of women’s, human rights and social justice groups, including MADRE, that fought for years for the creation of a UN entity focused on gender equality. In February of this year, our fight became a reality with the launch of UN Women.

I was thrilled to get the opportunity to speak at the event. Now that we’ve reached a milestone with the creation of UN Women, it’s important to ask how women will be represented in this new entity, and whose voices will be heard. Recently when I was in Haiti and Guatemala, I met with MADRE’s sister organizations and talked to them about UN Women. These two countries face epidemic levels of violence against women. Our partners are clear that they need UN Women to be part of the solution to their crisis. And in both countries, women asked me how they can make their voices heard by UN Women.

The GEAR campaign has done a great job in providing us with a model for engaging community-based women in UN Women. The hundreds of organizations that are involved in the GEAR campaign can bridge UN Women with the women of the world. Ultimately what we need is to continue to perfect a model where community-based organizations, international organizations like MADRE, and UN Women work collaboratively to make gender justice a reality worldwide.

To read more about the demands being put to UN Women, click here. To read my open letter to Michelle Bachelet, the head of UN Women, click here.

The Situation of Women Human Right's Defenders

Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, released a report detailing the situation of women human right's defenders around the world. The report is the first to focus specifically on the situation of women human rights defenders and those working on women's rights or gender issues globally.

The report reveals a worrying trend of violence. As stated in the report, "women defenders are more at risk of suffering certain forms of violence and other violations, prejudice, exclusion, and repudiation than their male counterparts. This is often due to the fact that women defenders are perceived as challenging accepted socio-cultural norms, traditions, perceptions and stereotypes about femininity, sexual orientation, and the role and status of women in society.”

The report also presented findings on what is being done to protect women human rights defenders. Unfortunately, protection mechanisms were found to be highly ineffective due to lack of implementation, political will or gender sensitivity. In response to these shortcomings, the report outlines a variety of recommendations, most of which are aimed at states. Recommendations are also put toward national human rights institutions, regional protection mechanisms, and national and international NGOs.

The report highlights the lamentable trend of increased violence and discrimination against women defenders, and it is a significant contribution to the work of women defenders around the world. It acknowledges the extremely important role women play in defending human rights and portrays them not as passive victims, but as active agents.

Read the full report here.

Continuing to Question the No-Fly Zone: AFRICOM's Role in Libya

One week ago, the UN Security Council declared a no-fly zone over Lybia with Security Council Resolution 1973. As MADRE Executive Director Yifat Susskind noted in her Q&A on military intervention in Libya, "We cannot allow the focus on the no-fly zone to divert our attentions away from the need to identify alternatives to promote democracy and human rights in Libya."

Recent discussion of the role of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) in the conflict further calls into question the humanitarian justification. As Horace Campbell of Syracuse University reveals,

AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for U.S. military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. U.S. military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. The U.S. needs to stop bombing Libya and meaningfully work with the African Union, which (less mailable to Western interests than the Arab League) has been pushed aside.

Emira Woods, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies and specialist in Africa, continues the critique of AFRICOM by stating,

AFRICOM makes its first major foray in Africa with massive air strikes on Libya. The velvet glove of humanitarian trainer has at last been taken off to reveal the fist of the military and its dominant role in U.S. Africa engagement. Established under the Bush administration and strengthened under Obama, AFRICOM has been rejected by African governments, scholars, and human rights champions. AFRICOM’s lead role in the assault on Libya will breed greater anti-Americanism while draining much needed monies and threatening civilian lives, with each bomb dropped.

As the military intervention in Libya escalates, we must continue to ensure that the demands of Libyan civilians and their human rights be at the forefront of this analysis. For more on MADRE's coverage of the conflict in Libya, click here and here.

A Call for Action on the Right to Water

In celebration of World Water Day this week, MADRE is calling on you to take action.

Every human being needs water to survive. Yet, we have had to fight for governments to recognize access to clean and safe water as a universal right. Finally, last October, the United Nations Human Rights Council officially recognized that the right to water is contained in existing human rights treaties, affirming it as a legally binding obligation.

But there is more to be done. The next step in the process of making clean and safe water accessible is for our governments to put their human rights commitments into action. All UN member states must devise and implement a plan of action showing how they will make the right to water a reality – and the Obama Administration must be part of this effort. 

You can help realize this demand by telling President Obama that his Administration must produce a plan of action to uphold the right to water. Click here to take action.

Q&A with Yifat Susskind, MADRE Executive Director, on Military Intervention in Libya

[I sat down with Yifat Susskind, our Executive Director, to ask her some questions about recent developments in Libya. Our Q&A is below:]

Last week’s UN Security Council resolution on the no-fly zone in Libya has triggered days of bombing campaigns, and the worldwide progressive community is still divided on whether to support the no-fly zone. What are your thoughts?

After decades of Qaddafi’s repressive rule, the uprising of the past few weeks represents for many the first chance to demand a democratic future for Libya. In the face of a brutal crackdown, the calls of this rebellion have struck a chord worldwide and galvanized a need to act.  In the past days, the political will of world leaders has coalesced around a Security Council Resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone, and bombing campaigns led by the US, France and other NATO powers have already begun.

Despite the humanitarian rhetoric, progressives are right to be wary of this escalating military campaign. It is notable that, unlike his predecessor, the Obama Administration did seek out the approval of the Security Council, giving the launch of this military action some international legal cover. But we should not be overly impressed that this military intervention is technically legal.  From a human rights and social justice perspective, legality is not a litmus test for progressive support.  An action may meet the technical status of legality and still be unethical. Part of our criteria for supporting an action can be legality under international law, but that cannot be the end of it.

We need to consider important questions, like those I raised on the MADRE blog last week.  Yes, the Security Council resolution highlights dangers to civilians as a justification for their authorization of the no-fly zone. But, the prospects for civilians faring well in the entrenched conflict that is likely to continue are grim. We cannot allow the focus on the no-fly zone to divert our attentions away from the need to identify alternatives to promote democracy and human rights in Libya.

How would you relate the uprising in Libya to the broader developments in the region?

It is easy to conflate Libya with the broader progressive mobilizations in the region, namely the successful overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. But the reality is that Libya is not Egypt. Despite the incredible speed with which protests have spread across borders and have responded to each other, each instance is defined by the people who take part and by the conditions they confront.

In Libya, there is no indication yet that this uprising represents a broad-based progressive social movement. Unlike in Egypt, an ideologically diverse civil society was never allowed to develop in Libya. The coalition of feminists, youth and trade unionists that animated so much of the protest in Egypt—and created that progressive potential—does not exist visibly in Libya. The people behind the opposition that has lined itself against Qaddafi’s regime remain largely unknown to us, and yet, their words are being repeated by those pushing for an international military campaign.

What do we know about the Libyan opposition movement?

What we know for sure about the opposition is that they want to see an end to Qaddafi’s rule. Their calls for a no-fly zone are propelled by this argument; they say that it is necessary in order for them to rally their own forces to effectively unseat Qaddafi.  But that doesn’t mean they deserve international support from progressives.

We have also seen an uncritical acceptance of anyone who’s willing to confront Qaddafi as representative of the opposition. A New York Times article this week quoted a man identified only as “Muhammed” saying “We want the international community to go all the way to bomb this bloody dictator into submission.” The article labels him as a “rebel spokesman” for the city of Misurata, but otherwise his identity is a mystery. We have heard much about the demands of the Libyan opposition for a no-fly zone but little about who they are.

The UN Security Council Resolution that authorized the no-fly zone justified itself on the basis of seeking an “end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians.” How do you respond to these arguments for humanitarian intervention?

We must be reminded of the extreme unlikelihood of US-led NATO launching this effort for humanitarian reasons. Their repeated warnings of the risk of massacres have emerged as they attempt to construct a humanitarian banner to attach to these attacks.

NATO is a military institution casting about for a reason to exist; it should have been dismantled after the Cold War. Instead, it was reinvented as a US-controlled intervention force. Nowadays, NATO forces are deployed either as part of a “humanitarian intervention” or in the “war on terror.” Both of these frameworks cannot be separated from the concerted projection of US power. 

The humanitarian credentials of this operation can be further called into question. We need to look no further than Bahrain.  What is being called a humanitarian crisis in Libya is being ignored in Bahrain. What’s more, Saudi Arabia, a favored US ally in the region, has sent in its army to Bahrain to put down a revolt of people protesting for progressive democratic reform. In this instance, the US is allowing for violent repression to take place.

Here’s another example. World leaders dithered for years about creating the no-fly zone in Darfur, when the degree of humanitarian crisis was much clearer than it is currently in Libya. They were never able to muster the political will. Fast forward to last week, and the debate over the no-fly zone in Libya moved to a conclusion at lightning-speed.

In the end, the people who do unquestionably deserve our support are the Libyan civilians who are living through what looks more and more like a civil war.  As the violence escalates, MADRE calls for the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid and the distribution of such relief in ways that recognize and protect the human rights of people affected by war and displacement.  Furthermore, we call for open borders with neighboring countries, including European nations across the Mediterranean, so that people seeking refuge will not be turned away.

Questioning the No-Fly Zone in Libya

Yesterday, the UN Security Council voted to authorize a no-fly zone in Libya to be enforced by NATO, after weeks of violence and rebellion in that country.  Part of a wave of uprisings that have swept across the region, pro-democracy protests in Libya have been met by brutal force.

In response, many voices in the international community have called for a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians and to dislodge the regime.  However, many who cheered the successful protests in Tunisia and Egypt are questioning whether progressives should support or oppose a no-fly zone. Opponents recognize that such a military campaign includes bombing raids that endanger civilian lives. Supporters of a no-fly zone argue that the Libyan opposition is calling for the intervention and deserve international assistance.

 As you formulate your own position in this fast-moving debate, here are some questions to consider:

• Does the imposition of a no-fly zone with humanitarian justifications cover up other underlying intentions?
• Does the Libyan opposition have a progressive vision? Who are the voices among the Libyan opposition that progressives should support?
• Is the no-fly zone the best way to protect Libyan civilians? What alternatives exist to promote human rights and democracy in Libya?

As we work towards answers to these questions, we will share resources and analysis here.

A Welcome US Policy Shift on Sex Workers' Rights

Sex workers around the world have long been criminalized and persecuted by police and government alike. By failing to recognize sex work as labor, sex workers are consistently denied health benefits and employment regulations that protect other workers' health and safety. As MADRE Executive Director Yifat Susskind wrote in an article entitled Sex Workers' Rights Are Human Rights,

Criminalization and stigmatization of sex work makes workers more vulnerable to human rights violations.  For example, if a sex worker suffers abuse on the job or poor working conditions, she or he has no legal recourse. Even seeking emergency medical care can make a sex worker vulnerable to prosecution.

Last week, the US government expressed a welcome change in policy toward sex workers, stating that “…no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution.”  This statement was issued in response to over 200 recommendations put forth to the US government by this year’s UN human rights evaluation. This marks the first time that the US government officially denounced discrimination against sex workers and is a firm step toward ensuring that sex workers' rights are once and for all recognized as human rights. 

Violence in Sudan Displaces 20,000 People

On January 15, the voting process ended in Sudan, resulting in the impending creation of South Sudan as a separate country. Despite an overall “peaceful and orderly” end to the voting, violence has broken out in Abyei, a territory sandwiched between North and South Sudan. Residents of Abyei were supposed to vote in the referendum January. But the vote never happened due to disputes over who could vote and the inability to create a referendum commission. The Abyei territory has frequently been the site of outbreaks of violence between the central government and local communities.

Now, an estimated 20,000 people have been displaced due to the violence. The United Nations is warning that these displaced persons are in need of food, shelter, medical assistance and sanitation facilities. In an article released today, the UN independent expert on human rights in Sudan has issued a statement that the violence in Abyei could effectively “derail the implementation of the peace agreement that ended the country’s civil war.”

MADRE works in Sudan with our sister organization, Zenab for Women in Development. Zenab’s Director, Fatima Ahmed, was recently in New York City and she stopped by the MADRE office to update us on the situation in Sudan. To read what she had to say, click here. To learn more about MADRE’s work in Sudan, click here.

Violence against Women and HIV/AIDS

I was able to attend a panel organized by the Women WON’T Wait campaign at the 55^th Committee on the Status of Women last Wednesday.  Representatives from Action Aid International, UNAIDS, and UNDP discussed the campaign's initiative to integrate and address issues of HIV, violence, and sexual reproductive health.

Women account for slightly more than half of the people living with HIV in the world. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, women constitute 60% of people contracting HIV. By adopting a human rights approach to ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the campaign addresses stigma and discrimination against women, and also confronts violence against women. 

There is a lack of sufficient acknowledgement of the relationship between HIV and violence, namely that violence as a consequence of actual or perceived HIV status.  Women who discover they are HIV-positive are often blamed for bringing the disease into the household.  They might be sent away, abandoned or subject to violence, while carrying the burden of being HIV infected.

The newly launched UNAIDS “Getting to Zero” campaign fights for zero discrimination with a goal of zero tolerance for gender-based violence (GBV) to advance human rights and gender equality.  They are working to develop strategies that engage men and boys in transforming social norms and to expand action for GBV and HIV awareness.

A few women in the audience introduced themselves as HIV-positive women and urged the campaign panel to include the voices and perspectives of positive women in their advocacy campaign; “otherwise you are excluding us and discriminating against those you are trying to save,” one woman said.  Another positive Bolivian woman advocated “we must hear their voices. We must unite the HIV positive with the feminist movement.”