27/51 Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2014 Jul
Session: 27th Regular Session (2014 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.14-08730 (E)
*1408730*
Human Rights Council Twenty-seventh session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas* **
Summary
The present, third, report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order to the Human Rights Council, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 25/15, summarizes the activities of the Independent Expert undertaken from June 2013 to June 2014 and supplements his previous reports to the Council and the General Assembly. In the report the Independent Expert (a) undertakes a preliminary study of the adverse impacts of military spending, including ongoing armed conflict, the war on terror, surveillance, procurement, military research, diversion and corruption, on the realization of a democratic and equitable international order; (b) recalls that peace is a condition for a just international order necessitating good faith disarmament negotiations and a gradual transition from military-first budgets to human security budgets; and (c) makes pragmatic recommendations to States, parliaments, national human rights institutions, civil society and the Human Rights Council.
* Late submission.
** The annex to the present report is circulated as received, in the language of submission only.
Contents Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 3
II. Activities ................................................................................................................. 2–5 3
III. Facts and challenges ............................................................................................... 6–34 5
A. Human security............................................................................................... 10–15 7
B. The sword of Damocles and nuclear annihilation........................................... 16–20 9
C. Obstacles ........................................................................................................ 21–34 10
IV. Good practices and positive developments ............................................................. 35–62 13
A. United Nations Conference on Disarmament ................................................. 36–37 13
B. General Assembly resolutions and Secretary-General Pronouncements ........ 38–39 14
C. Role of the International Court of Justice....................................................... 40–42 15
D. Arms trade and zones of peace ....................................................................... 43–44 15
E. Recent studies on the negative impact on economic growth of inequality in wealth distribution .......................................................................................... 45–48 16
F. The Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review mechanism .... 49–53 17
G. Human Rights Council workshop on unilateral coercive measures................ 54–57 19
H. International Day of Peace and Global Day of Action on Military Spending 58–59 20
I. Brussels Declaration....................................................................................... 60–62 20
V. Conclusions and recommendations......................................................................... 63–88 21
A. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 63–66 21
B. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 67–88 22
VI. Postscript................................................................................................................. 89–90 24
Annexes
Excerpts from or full text of relevant documents............................................................................. 26
Agenda for the expert consultation, 15 May 2014 ........................................................................... 28
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, 29 January 2014 (full text) .................................................. 29 PEN International Bled Manifesto of the Writers for Peace Committee (full text) ......................... 31 Declaration of Brussels: Toward a democratic and equitable international order, 16/17 October 2013 (full text).......................................................................................................... 33 Danish Institute of Human Rights submission on participation....................................................... 35
The fifteen countries with the highest military expenditures in 2013 .............................................. 37
Comparison of budget share allocated to military, education and health care ................................. 38
Allocation of income tax dollars 2013 (United States of America) ................................................. 39 World nuclear forces........................................................................................................................ 41
“The global arms trade, and its accompanying glut of military spending, continues to represent the single most significant perversion of worldwide priorities known today. It buttresses wars, criminal activity and ethnic violence; destabilises emerging democracies; inflates military budgets to the detriment of health care, education and basic infrastructure; and exaggerates global relationships of inequality and underdevelopment. Without massive and coordinated action, militarism will continue to be a scourge on our hopes for a more peaceful and just 21st century.” (Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace Laureate.)1
I. Introduction
1. The present progress report should be read in conjunction with the Independent Expert’s previous reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, which are cumulatively aimed at addressing the vast scope of Council resolutions 18/6, 21/9 and 25/15, taking due account of observations and proposals made by States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, communications addressed to the mandate holder, answers to a questionnaire and interactive dialogues. Inspired by the conviction that peace is an indispensable condition for achieving a democratic and equitable international order, the present preliminary report on disarmament for development corroborates the idea that disarmament must be a priority concern of the international community. Such disarmament must include cessation of the production and stockpiling of weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, accompanied by a significant reduction in the arms trade. Downsizing military budgets will enable sustainable development, the eradication of extreme poverty, the tackling of global challenges including pandemics and climate change, educating and socializing youth towards peace, cooperation and international solidarity. A concerted effort at the conversion of military-first economies into human security economies will also generate employment and stability.2
II. Activities
2. In the period from 15 June 2013 to 30 June 2014, the Independent Expert undertook numerous activities in pursuance of the diverse facets of the mandate. In February 2014, he sent a questionnaire to States (see annex I), intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations in order to inform his thematic report to the Council. He expresses thanks for all responses.
3. He received letters and appeals from individuals and groups, which he acknowledged and considered. During the reporting period, the Independent Expert joined other mandate holders in appealing to Governments. He also issued numerous media
1 See “Fundación Arias para la Paz y el Progreso Humano”, available from
www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=amdg10&id_article=2592. See also http://arcwebsite.org/pages/vj_arc_oxfam_birm_jan06.htm.
2 Miriam Pemberton, “Demilitarizing the economy” (Institute for Policy Studies), available from
www.ips-dc.org/blog/demilitarizing_the_economy_a_movement_is_underway; Replacing Defense Industry Jobs, available from http://newprioritiesnetwork.org/fact-sheet-replacing-defense-industry- jobs/http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/miriam; C. N. Makupula, “Disarmament and development: a South African perspective”, in Disarmament Forum (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 2003). See UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2014, available from http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=937, and commentary, available from www.rtcc.org/2014/06/24/sustainable-development-goals-face-2-5-trillion-funding-shortfall/. See also www.scidev.net/global/mdgs/feature/jeffrey-sachs-sdgs-big-science.html.
statements on a wide array of issues and regularly met with Permanent Missions in Geneva and New York, special procedures mandate holders, civil society activists and other stakeholders. In addition, he participated in pertinent United Nations panels during the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth sessions of the Human Rights Council.
4. The Independent Expert’s involvement in mandate-related events includes:
(a) From 24 to 28 June 2013 he participated in the annual meeting of special procedures mandate holders, held in Vienna;
(b) On 27 and 28 June 2013 he participated in a workshop on the post-2015 development agenda at the Vienna + 20 Conference;
(c) On 16 and 17 October 2013, he attended the fifth international conference on a world parliamentary assembly, held at the European Parliament in Brussels, where he spoke on the right to participation;3
(d) On 11 March 2014, he submitted a substantive paper to the Business and Human Rights workshop hosted by the Permanent Mission of Ecuador in Geneva;
(e) From 3 to 5 April 2014, he lectured on public participation and budget transparency at a meeting organized by the Academic Council on the United Nations System and by the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in Vienna;
(f) On 15 May 2014, he convened in Brussels an expert consultation on military expenditures and international order (see annex II);
(g) On 23 May 2014, he delivered a statement at a workshop on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, held in Geneva;4
(h) From 8 to 11 June, he participated in the National Congress of American Indians Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America, to learn about the impact of military and mining activities on their territory.
5. Pursuant to paragraph 18 of Council resolution 25/15, the Independent Expert interacted with academia, think tanks and research institutes and,
(a) Contributed to a workshop on public participation at the Danish Institute for Human Rights in Copenhagen, on 24 and 25 September 2013;
(b) Gave a lecture on the scope of his mandate at the University of Geneva on 27 September 2013;
(c) Delivered a lecture on the mandate at Harvard Law School on 24 October 2013;
(d) Gave a televised interview on 25 October 2013 on the work of the mandate at Amherst Media;5
(e) Participated in a panel and recorded an interview at the International Peace Institute, in New York, on October 29, together with the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of assembly and association, and on the independence of judges and lawyers;6
3 See http://blog.unpacampaign.org/2013/10/uns-independent-expert-alfred-de-zayas-time-for-a-world-
parliamentary-assembly/.
4 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14639&LangID=E.
5 See https://archive.org/details/85211HumanRightsMinute.
6 See http://theglobalobservatory.org/interviews/611-with-democracy-one-size-does-not-fit-all-
interview-with-alfred-de-zayas.html.
(f) Delivered a lecture on the mandate at the University of Geneva on 6 November 2013;
(g) Moderated an event on human rights organized by the Future of Human Rights Forum and Earth Focus at the Geneva International Conference Centre on 10 December 2013;
(h) Delivered a lecture at the Zürcher Fachhochschule, in Zürich, Switzerland on 19 December 2013;
(i) Gave an interview on the Declaration by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) proclaiming Latin America and the Caribbean as a “zone of peace”, on 3 February 2014;7
(j) Participated in a briefing at the Permanent Mission of Canada in Geneva on the topic of the diversion of material from peace operations, on 9 March 2014;
(k) Contributed to a conference at the Danish Institute for Human Rights on the International Expert Working Group on Public Participation, in Copenhagen, on 11 and 12 March 2014;
(l) Deliberated with Eden Cole, Head of Operations for New Independent States, at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), on 31 March 2014;
(m) Conferred with the newly elected Secretary General of the Inter- Parliamentary Union, Martin Chungong, on 8 April 2014, to explore possible cooperation;
(n) Participated in a panel discussion on the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, hosted by the International Peace Bureau in Geneva on 14 April 2014;
(o) Participated in several panels at the International Association of Democratic Lawyers Congress in Brussels, from 15–17 April 2014;
(p) Addressed the annual conference of the PEN International Writers for Peace Committee, held from 7 to 10 May 2014 in Bled, Slovenia;
(q) Met with officials of the European Commission Directorate-General for Justice in Brussels on 14 May 2014;
(r) Spoke at a consultation on the right to peace, held at the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica in Geneva on 4 June 2014.
III. Facts and challenges
6. In paragraph 17 of resolution 25/15 of 27 March 2014, the Human Rights Council requested that the Independent Expert submit a report to the Council at its twenty-seventh session. In that resolution, the Council reaffirmed that a democratic and equitable international order requires, inter alia, the realization of the right of all peoples to peace. Pursuant to paragraph 10, “all States should promote the establishment, maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security and, to that end, should do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures are used for comprehensive development, in particular that of the developing countries.”
7 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14215&LangID=E.
7. The above-mentioned commitments are central to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and essential to achieving a just international order. In that context, the Independent Expert is exploring the adverse impacts of military expenditures on the enjoyment of human rights, and the possibilities of reducing military budgets and redirecting resources to the post-2015 development agenda. He is convinced that a democratic international order presupposes a commitment to a democratic domestic order, and that an international equitable order can best be achieved when the right to development is promoted. Such a world order cannot be achieved unless domestic and international priorities are changed. One way to change those priorities is to make economic and social rights enforceable in the courts of all countries, and to make decisions regarding those rights reviewable by regional courts as well as, perhaps, an international court of human rights. Budget and fiscal transparency are necessary tools to prevent the hijacking of the international order by the international military-industrial complex,8 which seeks endless profits through the production and sale of weapons and thereby fuels conflict worldwide, hindering negotiation and peaceful solution of disputes.9 However, transparency is not enough. Balanced spending for economic and social rights will only be achieved through the rule of law.
8. The United Nations has adopted countless resolutions reflecting that understanding shared by think tanks and civil society alike. Nevertheless, in spite of accurate diagnoses, there has been little progress in redirecting military expenditures toward peaceful industries. Indeed, one of the challenges faced by the present mandate is precisely how to transform the “ethically obvious” into the politically feasible. The present report on the links between disarmament and development and on the urgent need to reduce military expenditures worldwide can be seen as a preliminary report only, since the problem is endemic and strategies to solve it have hitherto failed. The Independent Expert intends to continue examining this vast issue as a component of the overall strategy to overcome obstacles to the establishment of a just international order.
9. Other crucial elements of all the Independent Expert’s reports to date include a pertinent discussion of democracy and self-determination, which are closely related, both having individual and collective dimensions, as well as national and international implications. The ideal of direct democracy, including the power of legislative initiative of citizens and control of issues through genuine consultation and referenda has been partially achieved only in few countries. The prevalent model of representative democracy is not perfect and needs improvement. Representative democracy deserves the predicate “democratic” only if and when parliamentarians genuinely represent their constituents. Elected members of parliament hold the trust of the electorate and must proactively inform the latter of relevant developments that impact on decision-making, including on the allocation of national budgets for the military, education and health care. They must be committed to inquiring into what the voters need and want. In other words, representatives are accountable to the citizens, must act transparently and regularly consult with their constituency, since they are not plenipotentiaries, but represent the people with a mandate limited in time and scope, which must be administered in good faith and not in usurpation of power.
8 See http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/12/perpetual-war-and-americas-military-industrial-complex-50-
years-after-eisenhowers-farewell-address/.
9 See Rebecca U. Thorpe, The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2014).
A. Human security
10. Democracy and self-determination serve the overall goal of enabling human security and human rights. The concept of “human security” is not new. It is to be found, for example, in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”, notably in the concepts of “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want”.10 The United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report (1994) defined human security as “the security of people through development, not arms; through cooperation, not confrontation; through peace not war”.11 It encompasses: “first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second … protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities. Such threats can exist at all levels of national income and development”.12 A major shift in priorities is necessary, because human security cannot be achieved for as long as governments, corporations, banks and universities continue to invest trillions in the technology of war rather than in the promotion and protection of human rights.13 As the former Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Federico Mayor, wrote in 1998, “Concepts of security must change. Until now we thought that investment in arms was the key to security. Now we know that our real enemies are poverty, ignorance, the destruction of the environment.”14
11. One of the problems with addressing military spending is the lack of an all- encompassing definition. That absence allows governments to dissimulate certain expenditures by attributing them to budgets not immediately identified as military-related. Frequently, military expenditures are “secret” or concealed, thus frustrating the right of citizens to know how their taxes are being spent. Military expenditures may be allocated, not only to the Army, Navy and Air Force, but sometimes also to a department of energy,15 to “research and development”,16 “national security”, “intelligence”, “foreign relations”, etc. A definition of military expenditures must include not only procurement of weapons of all kinds, nuclear arms, conventional arms, tanks, aeroplanes, submarines and drones, but also expenditures for military exercises, bases, weapons research, testing, environmental damage, removal of land mines and explosives, personnel costs, demobilization, rehabilitation, health care of veterans, national surveillance, global espionage, and – not to be forgotten – the interest paid on debts from ongoing and past wars.17
12. Military expenditures are staggering18 and there is scant hope that disarmament negotiations will result in a significant reduction of military budgets and stop the trend to
10 See www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fourfreedoms.
11 See http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf P.6.
12 See http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf P.23.
13 See Colin Archer and Annette Willi, Opportunity Costs: Military Spending and the UN’s
Development Agenda (Geneva, International Peace Bureau, 2012). See also Colin Archer, Warfare or Welfare. Disarmament for development in the 21st Century (Geneva, International Peace Bureau, 2005), p. 9.
14 UNESCO International Conference of Experts, Barcelona, November 1998. See also Joseph Wronka,
Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century (New York, University Press of America, 1992).
15 See http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/defenseprograms. See also
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms.jsp?formurl=document/press/pc26.html.
16 Los Alamos National Laboratory, see www.lanl.gov/index.php; http://energy.gov/articles/top-10-
things-you-didnt-know-about-los-alamos-national-laboratory.
17 See International Peace Bureau, “Opportunity costs: military spending and the UN’s development
agenda” (Geneva, 2012), definition of military spending on p. 15. See also SIPRI definition, available from www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database/copy_of_sources_methods.
18 See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS.
militarization in the foreseeable future. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that, in the year 2013, approximately 1,747 billion dollars were spent worldwide for the military.19 The biggest spender devoted as much as 40 per cent of tax revenues to the military.20 The Independent Expert joins the United Nations Secretary- General in deploring this situation; “the world is over-armed and development is underfunded”.21
13. The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University published a study on the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, estimating it at somewhere between four and six trillion United States dollars.22 This study focused on the cost to the United States taxpayer, not to other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the “coalition of the willing”, or to the population of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much good could have been accomplished if a fraction of those military expenditures had been devoted to the promotion of the Millennium Development Goals.
14. The links between militarism and development as well as the connection between war and the environment must be taken into account. The environment requires protection; the testing of new weapons, their use in war and their continuing polluting effects cause long-term environmental and economic damage that should be factored in when the costs of militarism are computed. It is useful to recall principle 24 of the Rio Declaration of 1992: “warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law by providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.”23
15. Many international statesmen have already pondered the issue of budgetary priorities. More than 60 years ago, the President of the United States of America, Dwight Eisenhower eloquently addressed the predicament: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”24 Expenditures for military nuclear research and the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction have been astronomical, exceeding US$100 billion per year.25
19 SIPRI, Fact Sheet April 2014, “Trends in world military expenditure, 2013”.
20 See Friends Committee on National Legislation, http://fcnl.org/action/alert/2014/0408/;
https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/FY2015piechart-BW.pdf; and https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/.
21 See www.un.org/disarmament/over-armed/. See also Melissa Gillis, Disarmament: A Basic Guide
(New York, United Nations, 2012), available from www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/AdhocPublications/PDF/Basic_Guide-2011- web-Rev1.pdf#page=15. See also www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/AdhocPublications/PDF/guide.pdf.
22 See https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=8956 Joseph
Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, “There will be no peace dividend after Afghanistan”, Financial Times, 24 January 2013.
23 See www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.
24 Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Chance for Peace, 16 April 1953, available from
www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_for_peace.html.
25 See www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion-of-public-resources/.
B. The sword of Damocles and nuclear annihilation
16. Since the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, mankind has possessed the capacity to annihilate itself many times over.26 Winston Churchill was one of many alerting us to the grave dangers inherent in weapons of mass destruction, noting that “the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind may even bring about its total destruction”.27 More recently, this has been echoed by senior statesmen, including Vaclav Havel, Ricardo Lagos, Fernando Cardoso, Yasuo Fukuda, Ruud Lubbers and Helmut Schmidt, who launched the Global Zero campaign28 to advocate total nuclear disarmament.
17. Eminent figures like Mikhail Gorbachev29 have pointed out the constant danger that nuclear weapons pose for humanity and the consequent necessity to eliminate this danger, because nuclear destruction may occur not only as a result of a deliberate first strike by an aggressor but also by human, electronic or technical error. In view of numerous “close calls” since 1945, it is fortunate that a technological glitch has not ushered in the end of humanity.30
18. The General Assembly has adopted many resolutions concerning the nuclear threat, most recently resolution 68/40 in 2013, in which it urged States to take the measures necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapon, requested the Secretary-General to intensify efforts and support initiatives that would contribute towards the full implementation of the seven recommendations identified in the report of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war and urged States to convene an international conference, as proposed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.
19. Disarmament is not just an idle promise; it is also a commitment under article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates: “In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.” The world is waiting for an effective system of disarmament that will ensure human security without warfare.
26 See www.nuclearsecurityproject.org/publications/next-steps-in-reducing-nuclear-risks-the-pace-of-
nonproliferation-work-today-doesnt-match-the-urgency-of-the-threat.
27 See “The Sinews of Peace” Fulton, Missouri, 5 March 1946, available from
www.historyguide.org/europe/churchill.html.
28 See www.globalzero.org/ and www.globalzero.org/get-the-facts/cost-of-nukes.
29 Mikhail Gorbachev, “Resetting the Nuclear Disarmament Agenda”, Geneva lecture, 5 October 2009,
available from www.unitar.org/gls/third-edition. See also www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/qa-25-years-on-gorbachev-recalls-nuclear- milestone/472644.html; and www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Lk9m-Wqy0.
30 See Chatham House, Too Close for Comfort. Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy
(London, 2014), available from www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/199200. See also http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/document-friday-narrative-summaries-of-accidents- involving-nuclear-weapons/; www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/20/goldsboro-revisited-declassified-document; www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/09/30/130930crbo_books_menand?currentPage=all; and Eric Schlosser, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety (The Penguin Press HC, 2013).
20. In this context it is useful to recall the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 holding that “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”31 In the post-nuclear world, a war of aggression would not only be a crime, but quite possibly would mean the destruction of any and all international order.32 The existence of zero nuclear weapons may sound utopian, but the effort is required in the name of humanity. We must not forget the sword of Damocles still suspended over our heads.33
C. Obstacles
21. In previous reports, the Independent Expert has identified multiple obstacles to the realization of a democratic and equitable international order. In the present report, he turns to the issue of spending imbalances prevalent in many countries, which privilege the military sector at the expense of peoples’ basic needs.
22. Military spending is driven by a range of factors, including threat perceptions, which may be real or imagined, and which are exacerbated by warmongering and propaganda. During the cold war the superpowers justified almost any level of spending by the “missile gap” numbers game. Today a new all-purpose enemy has been identified: national and international terrorism. This adversary gives military alliances and defence contractors a new lease on life. Yet, it would seem obvious to everyone, not only economists, that the law of diminishing returns applies, and that there is a level beyond which further militarization is futile. Focusing on the root causes of human insecurity is more important than trying to apply stopgap solutions here and there.34
23. Notwithstanding the jus cogens obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means as stipulated in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, the demonization of adversaries and sabre-rattling is practised by media and politicians alike, resulting in an atmosphere hardly conducive to fruitful negotiation. In fact, the prevalent culture of fear and paranoia adds oil to the fires of distrust and hostility among peoples and artificially creates a perceived need to buttress “security” by increasing military expenditures. This in turn provokes the designated “enemy” to reciprocate in kind, unleashing a spiral of armament and rearmament. The media could play a calming role in this cycle by encouraging solutions consistent with the Charter35 and with article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which specifically prohibits war propaganda, but the opposite is frequently the case. This culture of hostility appears to be nurtured by the
31 See www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-related-to-robert-h-
jackson/the-crime-of-waging-aggressive-war/.
32 A first strike would certainly be incompatible with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of
Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. See www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. See also the United States deterrence fact sheet, available from www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employment- strategy-united-states; Francis Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence (Atlanta, Georgia, Clarity Press, 2002): see www.claritypress.com/files/BoyleI.html; and www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic- growth.html?_r=1.
33 Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.
34 See Colin Archer, Warfare or Welfare (see footnote 13), p. 35.
35 See www.usip.org/publications/the-news-media-and-peace-processes-the-middle-east-and-northern-
ireland www.globalresearch.ca/stop-the-disinformation-war-machine-support-independent- media/5311094.
military-industrial complex, which has an interest in greater profits through the production and use of weapons. It is not surprising that the value of the international arms trade reached 385 billion dollars in 2012.36
24. In recent years, international tensions were stirred up in a manner that gives reason to fear that some governments might manoeuvre themselves into positions that would not allow them to retreat without losing face. There is a dynamic to this kind of media- and government-sponsored “hype” regarding the use of force, whereby a supposed adversary is demonized in such a manner that it feels threatened and reacts nervously, thus giving ex post facto “justification” to those who claim that the adversary must be put down by force, and pulling the rug from under the feet of those who propose diplomatic solutions. As the Independent Expert illustrated in previous reports, the corporate media often stand to gain from wars and this may explain the level of disinformation and profit-oriented propaganda disseminated. There is a need for a de-escalation committee with consultative competences in this regard.
25. Demonization of, and threatening gestures against, targeted States that are party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the Non-Proliferation Treaty) may induce them to denounce this treaty under its article 10.37 That is exactly what the international community would have to avoid. In that context it would be more important to engage in serious disarmament as envisaged in article 6 of the Treaty. It is clear that if a State party to the Treaty genuinely feels threatened, it may want to join the club of nuclear weapon Powers – not as an aggressive measure, but in exercise of the fundamental right of self-preservation, in response to a legitimate concern over threats that contravene article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations.
26. In the light of continued warmongering by some States, it is apparent that resolutions of the General Assembly, including its resolution 68/28, have not succeeded in reducing tensions.38
27. The spiral of world military expenditures goes hand-in-hand with a false culture of “patriotism”, “heroism” and chauvinism, which frequently equates love of country with promoting a large military force, while defaming sceptics and “pacifists” as unpatriotic or even as traitors. In many countries, the idea of being a good citizen is associated with military virtues and traditions, with a sense of awe towards the armed forces. Even in the twenty-first century young people in some countries are educated to believe that honour and glory are won on the battlefield, that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country”.39 It would be preferable to teach that honour and glory can also be won through civil courage and working for social justice.
28. That militaristic trend is also facilitated by the lack of transparency in budgetary matters. Indeed, military expenditures are frequently treated as a matter of “national security” and shrouded in secrecy. A truly democratic country must proactively inform the public so that the public can decide on spending priorities.40
36 See www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/lockheed-remains-top-in-weapon-sales-ranking-amid-
russian-rise.html.
37 See www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml.
38 Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the
use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (General Assembly resolution 50/68, 10th, 12th, 13th and 16th preambular paragraphs and paragraphs 2, 4 and 5).
39 “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” Horace.
40 Colin Archer, Whose Priorities? (Geneva, International Peace Bureau, 2007).
29. Following the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the international community had a legitimate expectation that the world could be reoriented towards cooperation and solidarity and that the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations would be vindicated. Billions of human beings were relieved to move away from needless distrust and confrontation. When, in 1991, the Warsaw Pact was dismantled, many considered that NATO had lost its raison d’être as a bastion against expansionist communism and that the expensive military alliance would be dissolved. Instead, NATO expanded eastward and military expenditures continued. The hope of many that finally there would be long-term disarmament for sustainable development was dashed.
30. It is not unusual for regional military alliances to pressure their members to increase military expenditures,41 even at the expense of education and social services. Would it not be better to leave peacemaking and peacekeeping in the hands of the United Nations as envisaged in its Charter? According to a 2014 report, the European Union is spending at least 315 million euros on drone-related projects.42 Yet the use of armed drones against civilian targets having been found to be contrary to international humanitarian law, the research funds could certainly have been better spent elsewhere.43 Drones are no substitute for foreign policy. On 25 February 2014, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the use of drones.44
31. Those States that undergo domestic unrest frequently fail to extend the degree of protection which the population deserves. According to the doctrine of non-intervention, foreign interference in the domestic affairs of other States and the sale of weapons to the incumbent government or to insurgent groups are no solution. What is necessary is international solidarity in helping a State’s authorities to better protect the human rights of its population. There is a distinct danger of politically-motivated recourse to the right to protect (R2P) doctrine (formerly the “humanitarian intervention” doctrine),45 which would actually erode Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and ultimately be counterproductive.
32. There are other obstacles to a democratic and equitable international order which cannot be examined in the present report, for instance the complications caused by the diversion of weapons to unauthorized groups or individuals.46 While military expenditures for the procurement of nuclear weapons are not justified, expenditures for conventional weapons are also fraught with problems, including diversion, corruption, bribery, theft, etc. Organizations such as the Small Arms Survey serve an important function by monitoring small arms stockpiles held by States throughout the world, ferreting out corruption. The
41 Following the NATO meeting in Brussels on 24 and 25 March 2014, President Barack Obama stated
that he was concerned that defence spending in Europe had fallen in several countries: “If we have collective defence it means everyone has to chip in.” See www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/nato-spending.htm. See also www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/03/26/president-obama-holds-press-conference. Germany is accordingly increasing military spending: see ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence- watch/germany-to-increase-defence-budget-but-rejects-gdp-percentage-method-for-mapping-levels- of-military-spending.
42 See www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/011453_tni_eurodrones_inc_br_3e.pdf.
43 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson (A/HRC/25/59).
44 See www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+P7-RC-2014-
0201+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
45 See paragraphs 130–139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, available from
www.unric.org/html/english/library/backgrounders/R2P.pdf.
46 Eric Berman, Small Arms Survey, various articles, available from www.smallarmssurvey.org/armed-
actors/state-security-forces.html.
Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index published by Transparency International makes useful proposals on how to address corruption.47
33. Another growing problem is the penetration of the military into universities and laboratories, creating a dangerous level of dependence, so that institutions of higher learning become reliant on government subsidies and research priorities are driven not by what science needs or what a population wants, but by what the military-industrial complex is willing to finance.48 A regrettable misuse of brainpower contributes to the technological development of weapons of mass destruction and other weaponry. The military research sector has emerged as a powerful lobbyist for armaments budgets. Other competitors for research and development funds are at a disadvantage.
34. Local military-employment concerns and a worrisome level of disinformation also hinder efforts to downsize the military. A frequently heard argument, though fundamentally flawed, is that the military creates jobs. The truth is that civilian investment generates more jobs than military investment.49
IV. Good practices and positive developments 35. The United Nations annual Reports on Military Spending, compiled from information submitted by States, are potentially a vital confidence-building tool for facilitating disarmament negotiations. Unfortunately, fewer than half of the States report in any one year. Here too, transparency is conducive to mutual reductions.50 In view of this situation, the General Assembly, in its resolution 68/23, requested the Secretary-General “to establish a group of governmental experts, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to review the operation and further development of the United Nations Report on Military Expenditures, including the establishment of a process for periodic reviews in order to ensure the continued relevance and operation of the Report, commencing in 2016, taking into account the views expressed by Member States on the subject and the reports of the Secretary-General on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures, and to transmit the report of the group of experts to the General Assembly for consideration at its seventy-second session.
A. United Nations Conference on Disarmament
36. The United Nations Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979 in Geneva, is the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum for the entire world, and hence has a vital mandate which must translate into coordinated action worldwide.51 Its mandate includes practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament issues, focusing on the
47 Transparency International, Watchdogs? The quality of legislative oversight of defence in 82
countries (London, September 2013).
48 See www.openmediaboston.org/content/subrata-ghoshroy-us-military-funding-academic-research.
49 Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett: see
www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/PERI_military_spending_2011.pdf.
50 United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations Report on Military Expenditures,
available from www.un-arm.org/Milex/home.aspx. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 20, November 2010 “Promoting further openness and transparency in military matters: An assessment of the United Nations standardized instrument for reporting military expenditures, available from www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/OccasionalPapers/PDF/OP20.pdf.
51 See www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/dcf457.doc.htm.
need to stop the nuclear arms race and agree on the modalities of nuclear disarmament, the prevention of nuclear war, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems including radiological weapons. In general terms it promotes a comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments. However, since 1996 the Conference has failed to agree on any programme of work. It is encouraging, however, that other initiatives are emerging. Michael Møller, the Acting Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, made reference to the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in Nayarit, Mexico, in March 2014,52 which built on the 2013 Oslo Conference53 and heightened the awareness of the catastrophic toll that any use, deliberate or accidental, of a nuclear bomb would have on every aspect of human life: “for humanity, real security and freedom from fear will never come about as long as nuclear weapons exist.”54
37. Delegations at the Conference on Disarmament, held in Geneva in May 2014, again endorsed the commitments made in New York on 24 September 2010 at the high-level meeting on revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament,55 recalling the standard-setting of prior decades, including the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
B. General Assembly resolutions and Secretary-General Pronouncements
38. The General Assembly adopts every year a resolution on disarmament and development with a focus on military spending. In resolution 68/37, it urged the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries. The Assembly further expressed concern about nuclear weapons and the need to take measures to prevent any nuclear conflagration. In resolution 68/39, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”, the goal of complete nuclear disarmament is reaffirmed and the creation of nuclear-free zones endorsed. In paragraph 11, all States are urged to pursue the 2010 commitments to revitalize the Conference on Disarmament resolution.
39. Similarly, the United Nations Secretary-General, in his speech of 24 March 2014 at the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, called on all nations to honour security guarantees: “clearly the time has come to strengthen the rule of law in both disarmament and non-proliferation. Commitments to undertake disarmament negotiations in good faith must be honoured. So, too, must security assurances provided to non-nuclear-weapon States by nuclear-weapon States.” He called on delegates to “address the legitimate interest of non-nuclear States in receiving unequivocal and legally-binding security assurances from nuclear-weapon States” and he concluded: “together we must ensure that nuclear weapons
52 See www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/others/hinw/nayarit-2014/report.
53 See John Borrie and Tim Caughley, After Oslo: Humanitarian Perspectives and the Changing Nuclear
Weapons Discourse (Geneva, UNIDIR, 2013).
54 See www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/%28httpAssets%29/CCB0AA6D778C809EC1257CDE00
44CD66/$file/1316ASG+Moller%27s+address_AsDelivered.pdf.
55 See www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/dcf457.doc.htm.
are seen by States as a liability, not an asset.”56 In December 2013, the United Nations High Representative on Disarmament observed: “any high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament advances nuclear disarmament, simply because it underlines the urgency of what needs to happen. The cornerstone of the whole architecture is clearly the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has three pillars. One of them is nuclear disarmament. But when you look at how much disarmament has actually taken place, it really isn’t there. There’s an increasing urgency on the part of those countries that do not have nuclear weapons to say to the nuclear weapons powers: you need to disarm, you need to fulfil your side of the bargain. Having a high-level meeting with many ministers underlined the fact that more needs to happen.”57
C. Role of the International Court of Justice
40. Bearing in mind the dangers inherent in the mere existence of stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed applications before the International Court of Justice, on 24 April 2014, against nine nuclear-armed States for their alleged failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non- Proliferation Treaty.58
41. Many civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, applauded the initiative of the Marshall Islands to engage the World Court in an overdue action against the nuclear-armed nations and the stagnation of negotiations. It should be remembered that the people of the Marshall Islands continue to suffer today from the effects of nuclear weapon tests that took place on their territory in the 1940s and 1950s, and they want to ensure that such devastation is never brought on anyone ever again.59 Moreover, it is important to have a pronouncement of the International Court of Justice concerning the international legal obligations assumed by nuclear weapons States pursuant to article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
42. While the current applications are of a contentious nature, the General Assembly could consider, pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, referring a pertinent legal question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion: What are the legal consequences of the non-respect of article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
D. Arms trade and zones of peace
43. On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty. As of July 2014, 118 States have signed the Treaty and 41 have ratified it.60 Fifty ratifications are necessary for its entry into force. However, the mere existence of the Treaty provides an example of good international practice that slowly but surely can bear fruit.
44. On 28 and 29 January 2014 the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) held its second summit in Havana and adopted a declaration on 29 January 2014
56 See www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47417.
57 See www.un.org/apps/news/newsmakers.asp?NewsID=100#sthash.T597InnU.dpuf.
58 See www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/0/18300.pdf.
59 See www.wagingpeace.org/the-nuclear-zero-lawsuits-taking-nuclear-weapons-to-court/.
60 See www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/, www.un.org/sg/dsg/statements/index.asp?nid=514.
proclaiming the entire region a “zone of peace”61 (see annex III). The Declaration, which constitutes a strong and positive example for the entire world, is based on the desire of the inhabitants of the zone to preserve and consolidate peace through the promotion of friendly relations between States and the commitment of United Nations Member States to resolve differences through dialogue and peaceful means, in conformity with international law. It recalls the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established a nuclear-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean 45 years ago. The Declaration commits all members of the organization to strengthen regional integration with a vision to establish an international order based on the human right to peace.62 That vision excludes the use of force and illegitimate means of defence, including weapons of mass destruction. This implies the need to negotiate in order to reach complete nuclear disarmament and arrive at a significant reduction in the production and stockpiling of conventional weapons and trade thereon. The establishment of zones of peace and cooperation in an increasing number of regions of the world is to be welcomed, as it would carry the commitment of the governments concerned towards a significant decrease in military budgets and spending.
E. Recent studies on the negative impact on economic growth of inequality in wealth distribution
45. In March 2013, the South Centre in Geneva issued a working paper illustrating that the fiscal contraction strategy in many countries, as well as specific austerity measures are not conducive to socioeconomic recovery or the achievement of development and employment goals. Austerity with regard to social services is counterproductive. Austerity should instead begin by reducing military spending.63
46. In April 2014, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published its World Economic Outlook,64 followed by a paper concerning the negative consequences of wealth inequality for national and international economic growth.65 The paper argues that, not consistently with the Fund’s traditional position, income inequality can actually lead to slower or less sustainable economic growth, while redistribution of income, when measured, does not hurt, and may help, the economy. This constitutes a welcome sign of a shift in IMF thinking about income disparity. “It would still be a mistake to focus on growth and let inequality take care of itself, not only because inequality may be ethically undesirable but also because the resulting growth may be low and unsustainable,” according to the study.66
47. In June 2014, the International Labour Organization published the World Social Protection Report 2014–15,67 providing a global overview of the organization of social protection systems, their coverage, benefits and public expenditures; analysing recent
61 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14215&.
62 Carlos Villán-Durán, The Emerging Right to Peace: Its Legal Foundations (Cambridge, United
Kingdom, Intersentia, 2014). David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2008).
63 Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Commins, “The age of austerity: a review of public expenditures and
adjustment measures in 181 countries” (Geneva, South Centre, March 2013).
64 See www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/pdf/text.pdf.
65 “Redistribution, inequality, and growth”, prepared by Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, Charalambos
G. Tsangarides (Washington D.C., IMF Research Department, April 2014). See Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press, 2014). See also Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium.
66 See www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/income-inequality-economic-growth-
economy_n_4860228.html.
67 See www.ilo.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.do?tid=3985.
policy trends, including negative impacts of fiscal consolidation and adjustment measures; and calling on States to expand social protection for crisis recovery, inclusive development and social justice. The report notes that more than 70 per cent of the world population lacks proper social protection.
48. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva conducts ongoing projects on a variety of subjects, including transparency and accountability in nuclear disarmament, concerning which it is endeavouring to develop a set of practical proposals based on the arms control experience of Russia and the United States to facilitate universal transparency and accountability in nuclear disarmament.68
F. The Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review mechanism
49. The Human Rights Council is an appropriate forum in which to examine the human rights commitments of States as reflected in their budgetary priorities. If a State is truly committed to the larger concept of human security, which rests on the promotion and protection of human rights, it will allocate the budget accordingly, devoting not just a minimum of resources to education, health care, housing, infrastructure and the administration of justice,69 but a progressively larger proportion thereof. If, however, a State practises a “military-first” policy and subordinates social services to a perceived “national security” need, then the Human Rights Council can make sensible recommendations on how to shift priorities so as to promote and protect human rights more effectively. Thus, a systematic examination of the level of military expenditures by States and a comparison with national expenditures in the social sector would be instructive. The two following examples from the nineteenth session of the universal periodic review illustrate contrasting approaches.
50. The draft report of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea takes note of the Government’s report and its explanation with regard to its “military-first” policy (Songun), namely that “safeguarding national sovereignty provided a guarantee for the enjoyment by people of their human rights.70 The right to life was the foremost issue in guaranteeing human rights and of great importance to the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who had been exposed, for more than half a century, to persistent military threats by hostile forces. Military-first politics served to safeguard national sovereignty and had prevented the outbreak of war, making it possible to attain tangible achievements in the economic front.”71 By contrast, the universal periodic review compilation of United Nations information on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea quotes the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as expressing concern over the allocation of the country’s resources for the elite and its “military-first” policy, to the detriment of the
68 The researcher in charge is Pavel Podvig. See www.unidir.org/programmes/weapons-of-mass-
destruction/transparency-and-accountability-in-nuclear-disarmament.
69 Article 26 of the Draft International Bill of Rights provides for increased funding to strengthen the
rule of law, recognizing that “the rule of law and rights herein benefit the citizens and businesses of all countries … each country shall annually contribute one percent of its gross national product into an international fund for the use and support of educational, healthcare and judicial facilities and salaries internationally, including the Courts described in articles 27–34.” See internationalbillofrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IBORv9.pdf.
70 A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/1.
71 A/HRC/WG.6/19/L.8, para. 58.
population.72 In the summary of stakeholders’ information, the Life Fund for North Korean Refugees claimed that the nuclear programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was at the expense of basic needs of the population, and urged the Government not to divert precious resources to further military development.73
51. Many recommendations from the aforementioned report deserve exploring, including the recommendations that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: “undertake profound legal reforms in accordance with international law, legalize and support free market activities that provide citizens with a livelihood, and release all prisoners detained for exercising private economic activities” (Germany); “consider further increase in State expenditures on the health sector with a view to meeting the demand for medical supplies, including essential drugs” (Belarus); “develop and implement more substantiated programmes and initiatives for the provision of enhanced level of the rights to education and health for all” (Cuba); “continue to promote economic, social and cultural development to provide better conditions for the enjoyment of all rights by its people” (China); and “strengthen measures to reinvigorate the national economy including allowing more people-to-people contact through engagement in economic, commercial activities, including tourism” (Malaysia).74 Such constructive recommendations show how to convert from a military-first to a human security paradigm.
52. During the same universal periodic review session, the Council also examined the report of Bhutan. The compilation of United Nations information highlights the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) assessment of the high share of public expenditure devoted by Bhutan to the social sectors. “The budget for 2011–2012 was confirmed as pro- poor, with about 25 per cent earmarked for the social sector, including 17 per cent for education and 7 per cent for health care. In the draft United Nations Development Assistance Framework, Bhutan ONE Programme 2014–2018, it was stated that the Bhutanese concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) promoted a balanced approach to development, encompassing good governance, conservation and community vitality, in addition to traditional socioeconomic progress indicators, and that that development paradigm, prudent economic management and political stability had brought about a significant rise in living standards and an improvement in development indicators.”75 Besides praise, the draft report of the Working Group also gives practical recommendations. Among those are recommendations to: “attach more attention to job creation, especially addressing youth unemployment” (Turkey); “continue the programmes related to poverty reduction and continue the efforts to create a stronger system of social protection” (Kuwait); “continue the implementation of a more concrete system of social protection, through the initiatives listed in the national report and call on the international community to support those national efforts (Cuba)”; “remunerate the internship programmes and accompany them with technical education training processes with shared programmes with the country’s economic sector (Mexico)”; “further consolidate successful health programmes that provide medical care that is universal, free and of quality for all Bhutanese” (Venezuela Bolivarian Republic of)).76
53. The above recommendations quoted prove that the universal periodic review procedure has the potential to become an excellent forum for promoting an international order that is more democratic and equitable, including in the context of fiscal and budget priorities, transparency, disarmament and peacemaking.
72 A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/2, para. 68. See also A/HRC/13/47, para. 28.
73 A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/3, para. 63.
74 A/HRC/WG.6/19/L.8, para. 124.
75 A/HRC/WG.6/19/BTN/2, para. 9.
76 A/HRC/WG-6/19/L.6, para. 118.
G. Human Rights Council workshop on unilateral coercive measures
54. The Independent Expert participated in the one-day workshop convened in Geneva on 23 May 2014 pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 24/14. He endorsed the pertinent study being conducted by the Advisory Committee, which was presented by Advisory Committee member Jean Ziegler. The consensus of the expert meeting was that economic sanctions are not “peaceful” but a form of violence whose effects are often incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
55. Denis Halliday, a former Assistant-Secretary-General, stated that “in respect of unilateral coercive measures, this session needs to establish that all such measures are illegal, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, and recommend complete cessation… [yet] recognizing unilateral measures will be hard to stop, we must find a means to demand close monitoring and accountability in respect of those States that illegally continue to impose such measures. Perhaps devices such as United Nations suspension, loss of General Assembly voting rights, payment of reparations, and payment of individual citizen compensation could be considered. Tight monitoring by the Human Rights Council would be required, with quarterly reporting to the General Assembly, or to a revitalized and operational International Court of Justice.”77
56. The Independent Expert observed that unilateralism and exceptionalism are anachronisms under international law, incompatible with the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations and with a democratic and equitable international order. Although sanctions, in particular unilateral sanctions, are sometimes imposed with spurious human rights justifications, they frequently have opposite effects to those intended. Considering that many victims of sanctions are not governments but innocent populations, it is important to test the legality of sanctions regimes on a case-by-case basis. This can be done through the individual complaints procedures established pursuant to several human rights treaties, including the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Sanctions regimes should also be reviewed in the context of State reporting procedures before the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and under the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council.78
57. Experience confirms the futility of trying to coerce States to change their human rights performance simply by imposing sanctions, which more often than not are avoided by governments and result in injustices vis-à-vis innocent people. What is necessary is to persuade States that it is in their own interest to strengthen human rights in law and practice, for which the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) can provide advisory services and technical assistance. The Independent Expert would also like to see the watchdog role of the media enhanced,79 with more attention being devoted to the human rights consequences of sanctions regimes. It is the function of the media to alert the public about the suffering that sanctions bring to innocent human beings, not to sweep it under the rug. In totalitarian States citizen have no voice. In democratic countries, however, citizens bear responsibility for the decisions taken by their
77 www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/Seminars/CoercitiveMeasures/DenisHalliday.pdf
78 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14639&LangID=E.
79 On 13 August 2013, the New York Times published an interview with Edward Snowden in which he
deplored the failure of the media to inform the public. “After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America abdicated their role as a check to power – the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government – for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism”. See www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html?_r=0.
democratically elected officials. If crimes are committed in their name, it is their responsibility to demand accountability.
H. International Day of Peace and Global Day of Action on Military Spending
58. Since 1981, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 36/67, the United Nations has celebrated the International Day of Peace on 21 September.80 In 2011, civil society launched the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, which on 14 April 2014 was celebrated worldwide by the organization of conferences and other events.81 Since part of the problem with regard to military spending has been lack of transparency and accountability, heightened awareness on the part of civil society will hopefully persuade governments that priorities must be shifted away from military spending and towards education and social services. In Geneva the International Peace Bureau convened a panel attended by, inter alia, the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations Disarmament Conference, a representative of SIPRI and the Independent Expert. There was consensus that budgetary decision-making should be open, with the reasons for spending clearly outlined so as to be understood by the public. Parliaments should monitor accountability in the budget decision process82 and implementation of expenditure, with procurements controlled by rigorous procedures and subject to civilian control. Auditing of military spending should be regularly carried out, with improper practices investigated and prosecuted.
59. From 6 to 10 June 2014, the Sarajevo Peace Event was attended by some 2,500 participants from 32 countries, who demanded an end to war and the threat of war. Probably the largest peace event in 2014, that civil society gathering included more than 190 workshops and cultural events as well as a youth camp in Sarajevo. As Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire said, “Let Sarajevo, where peace ended, be the starting point for the bold beginning of a universal call for peace through the wholesale abolition of militarism.” Again the importance of the UNESCO Culture of Peace programme as an alternative to war and militarization was emphasized.83 At the Peace Event it was announced that the Global Day of Action on Military Spending is now to become a year-round campaign.
I. Brussels Declaration
60. At the invitation of the European Parliament in Brussels, a fruitful two-day conference was held at the European Parliament on 18 and 19 October to discuss the enhanced participation of citizens in domestic and global decision-making, including on national priorities and military spending. The Independent Expert was invited in view of operative paragraph 6 of Human Rights Council resolution 18/6, which stipulates that a democratic and equitable international order requires: “(g) The promotion and consolidation of transparent, democratic, just and accountable international institutions in all areas of cooperation, in particular through the implementation of the principle of full and equal participation in their respective decision-making mechanisms; and (h) The right to
80 See www.un.org/en/events/peaceday/.
81 See www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/1899-monday-14-april-global-day-of-action-on-military-
spending.
82 Willem van Eekelen, The Parliamentary Dimension of Defence Procurement (Geneva, DCAF, 2013).
83 See www.peaceeventsarajevo2014.eu/press-releases/articles/more-peace-action-are-needed.html.
equitable participation of all, without any discrimination, in domestic and global decision- making.”
61. Human Rights Council resolution 24/8 on the right to equal political participation was also discussed, as well as working papers on the right to public participation prepared by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (see annex VI).84 The Independent Expert argued that the right of public participation is not a vague promise, but actually has a solid legal basis in universal, regional and national legislation as well as in case-law. Participation is a hallmark of democratic governance, entailing a measure of timely consultation so as to legitimize the exercise of governmental power
62. Among the Independent Expert’s recommendations was that a study be conducted by the Human Rights Council on how the establishment of a World Parliamentary Assembly could significantly advance the goal of making a democratic transition from military-first to human security budgets and helping to realize an international order that is more democratic and more equitable.85 At the end of the conference, the Brussels Declaration was adopted (see annex V).
V. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Conclusions
63. Bearing in mind that peace is indispensable to achieving a democratic and equitable international order, every effort must be undertaken to settle disputes through peaceful means, to prevent armed conflict and to end ongoing wars. Disarmament and demilitarization are keys to development and human security. Both must be democratically decided and implemented. This requires an enduring consciousness of the threat of nuclear annihilation, and enhanced awareness of the waste of resources. Reduced military budgets will release funds for the promotion and protection of human rights and for addressing global problems such as pandemics, climate change, deforestation and acute water shortages.
64. For decades civil society has demanded the recognition of peace as a human right. The Human Rights Council has heard that call and its open-ended intergovernmental working group on a draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace has been carrying out important work on a draft declaration for adoption by the Council and the United Nations General Assembly. The draft is supported by civil society organizations, including PEN International, which adopted the Bled Manifesto of the Writers for Peace Committee (see annex IV) in September 2013. 65. A democratic and equitable international order requires a comprehensive shift in priorities and a strategy for achieving human security through enhanced public participation in decision-making, in particular in the determination of domestic and international policy, including in budgetary matters. This entails more than a culture of transparency. States should proactively educate and inform their populations so that they can meaningfully exercise their democratic right of shaping policy and choosing among options. States should consult the electorate on budget priorities, including military expenditures, which must not be accepted as permanent features of
84 See also DIHR, The Right to Public Participation – A Human Rights Law Update (Copenhagen,
2013).
85 Richard Falk, Andrew Strauss, A Global Parliament: Essays and Articles, with a foreword by Boutros
Boutros-Ghali (Berlin, Committee for a Democratic U.N., 2011).
government, nor shrouded in secrecy, nor justified on grounds of “national security”. Civil society rejects fear-mongering and sabre-rattling. Only through resolute political will can the dynamics of the military-industrial complex be countered, the demands of which on the public purse lack democratic legitimacy and whose success relies on undemocratic lobbying activities.
66. Sustainable solutions to both the international financial crisis and the dislocated economies of many countries lie in part in the recognition that military budgets are woefully inflated and must be downsized, that large armies and nuclear arsenals are anachronisms. Civil society demands transparency, accountability and most importantly the right to effective participation in setting budgetary priorities, which must not be left in the hands of defence contractors and corporate lobbyists.86 A significant downsizing of military budgets should result in the creation of jobs elsewhere – not for the production of more consumer goods, since people can consume only so much, but in social services, education, food security, clean water, health care, infrastructures, research into sustainable sources of energy and the control of pandemics. Austerity is necessary in the military – not in the progressive achievement of economic, social and cultural rights. Retrogression in the latter field entails violations of articles 2 and 5 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
B. Recommendations
67. As in his 2013 report, the Independent Expert is honoured to put forward a few pragmatic recommendations.
1. Recommendations to States
68. States should regularly report to the Human Rights Council on their military expenditures and contrast them with expenditures for education, health care, the administration of justice, etc. States should ensure that such expenditures are discussed within the framework of the Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review mechanism and governments should be persuaded to devote a greater percentage of their budgets to the promotion of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and to make concrete proposals to convert from a military-first to a human security paradigm. Military expenditures incurred by States in conflict zones and internationally disputed territories that give rise to confiscation of territory and exploitation of the colonial and occupied peoples resources should also be examined under the universal periodic review.
69. States should report annually to the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to General Assembly resolution 66/20 on their military expenditures for the most recent fiscal year.87
70. States should pro-actively inform their populations of military expenditures and encourage public participation in determining budgetary priorities. States should not conceal military expenditures by attributing them to other departments, such as
86 See James Carafano, Private Sector, Public Wars: Contractors in Combat – Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Future Conflicts (Praeger, 2008). See also www.batr.org/corporatocracy/021914.html.
87 See the report of the Secretary-General on objective information on military matters, including
transparency of military expenditures (A/68/131). See also www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Milex/Publications/.
“intelligence” or “research and development” or “energy”. Secret funds, slush funds or “contingency funds” must be subject to regulation by parliament. 71. States should significantly reduce military spending and develop conversion strategies88 to reorient resources towards social services, the creation of employment in peaceful industries, and greater support to the post-2015 development agenda. States should individually and multilaterally devote savings released from reduced military spending to resourcing the economic and social transition required to respond to the global climate change challenge, as envisaged by the United Nations in establishing the Green Climate Fund established by the United Nations pursuant to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.89 Furthermore, a portion of the financial resources released should be devoted to research and development of sustainable energy, including solar energy, and should be used to address the looming problem of water shortage, which has the potential to fuel future wars. An international effort to develop efficient desalination industries should be envisaged.
72. States should increase funding for research into conflict-prevention, addressing the roots of conflict and promoting sustainable development, and significantly reduce funding for military projects at universities and other scientific institutes. 73. States should ferret out waste, corruption and bribery in the arms trade and impose severe penalties on offenders. States should investigate the diversion of weapons, which sometimes fall into the hands of criminals and cause additional chaos and death.
2. Recommendations to parliaments
74. Parliamentarians should regularly inform, and consult with, their constituents, particularly on matters of fiscal and budget priorities. They should resist the pressure of vested interests, and the lobbies of defence contractors and others belonging to the military-industrial complex.
75. Parliamentarians should put in place specialized and well-resourced cross- party parliamentary defence committees with competence to oversee military spending and ferret out diversion, corruption and waste.
76. Parliaments should organize training programmes for parliamentarians to assist them with the complexities of military budgets and with assessing the risks of diversion and corruption.
77. Parliaments should develop interparliamentary capacity-building and cooperation programmes to strengthen oversight functions in young democracies at bilateral and multilateral levels.
78. Parliaments should counter lobbyists who engage in undemocratic influence on behalf of the military-industrial complex.
3. Recommendations to civil society and national human rights institutions
79. Civil society and national human rights institutions should demand public participation in defence policy and procurement and public participation in national budgeting, supporting the reallocation of military spending to meet urgent environmental and social needs, such as in the areas of climate change and income
88 See www.ips-dc.org/blog/demilitarizing_the_economy_a_movement_is_underway.
89 See www.gcfund.org,
unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/green_climate_fund/items/5869.php.
inequality, and call for conversion from military production to civilian production, including strategies to create employment in peaceful industries.
80. Civil society and national human rights institutions should demand transparency and accountability from government officials in matters of fiscal and budgetary policy.
81. Demand from government that it redirect its energy policies toward research into renewable energy, and transition to renewable energy in a manner consistent with the United Nations Decade of Sustainable Energy for All.
82. Support the global campaign on military spending.90
83. Launch petition campaigns for disarmament as a necessary condition for development.
84. Build a wide alliance of groups that would benefit from a realignment of national budget priorities.
85. Divest from funds and investments that are used for arms production, war and nuclear research.
4. Recommendations to the Human Rights Council
86. The Council may consider tasking an existing mandate holder to focus on worldwide military expenditures and to report every year to the Council and to the General Assembly on trends and options.
87. Under the universal periodic review procedure, the conduct of States should be reviewed with regard to unilateral and multilateral coercive measures that result in grave violations of the human rights of the affected populations.
88. The Council may consider assigning to an existing mandate holder the task of monitoring war propaganda and fear-mongering worldwide, on the basis of the prohibition of war propaganda stipulated in article 20, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.91
VI. Postscript
89. The Independent Expert is grateful that enhanced recognition of the mandate is leading to greater consciousness about the need to work together for a peaceful, just and equitable world order. He welcomes contact with stakeholders from all related fields and looks forward to engaging with them in the upcoming reporting year.
90. By way of conclusion, the Independent Expert would like to reiterate his expression of appreciation to the hard-working OHCHR staff, and request the General Assembly to give increased resources to that secretariat, which actually makes a difference in the lives of many people. He would like to quote from a favourite poet, Walt Whitman: “the greatest country, the richest country, is not that which has the most capitalists, monopolists, immense grabbings, vast fortunes, with its sad, sad foil of extreme, degrading, damning poverty, but the land in which there are
90 See www.ipb.org/web/.
91 This recommendation is similar to that on the creation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (stemming from article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
the most homesteads, freeholds – where wealth does not show such contrasts high and low, where all men have enough – a modest living – and no man is made possessor beyond the sane and beautiful necessities of the simple body and the simple soul.”92
92 See www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel/WWWiC/2/med.00002.20.html.
Annexes
Annex I
[English only]
Excerpts from or full text of relevant documents
Questionnaire sent to States, intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions and selected non-governmental institutions on 20 February 2014 1. What is the level of information provided to the population at large on military expenditures, including Army, Navy and Air Force contingents, military research, the production and stockpiling of weapons, maintaining domestic military bases and military bases in foreign countries, national defence, intelligence and surveillance, anti-terrorism, involvement in armed conflicts, private military and security companies, etc.?
2. What is the level of secrecy that accompanies military expenditures, including concerning weapons of mass destruction? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse and waste, especially when the crucial information is “classified” and not subject to public debate?
3. What measures are in place to ensure budget and fiscal transparency, and to what extent can the electorate participate in establishing budget priorities?
4. Does the Government pro-actively seek to inform the public and to obtain input from civil society and non-governmental organizations concerning military expenditures?
5. Are official or unofficial opinion polling on military expenditures and public referenda on aspects of the military budget conducted, e.g. concerning the continued production and/or testing of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, concerning measures of “surveillance” of communications, telephone and internet?
6. What is the actual level of all military-related expenditures in real terms, and what actual percentage of national budgets (not percentage of GNP) does this represent, regardless of whether the expenditures are separately assigned to the “defence” budget, the “intelligence” budget, the “anti-terrorism” budget, the “research” budget?
7. By comparison, what is the percentage of national budgets devoted to education and health care, medical research, the administration of justice, road safety, infrastructures, etc.?
8. What level of accountability exists when military expenses exceed the budget approved by Parliament?
9. What strategies, if any, exist to reorient budget priorities away from military expenditures and into the promotion of all human rights, the protection of the environment, climate change, clean water, sustainable energy, medicine and other peacetime industries as well as to achieve the millennium development goals and the post 2015 development agenda? To what extent can civil society and human rights institutions participate in shaping these strategies?
10. What strategies, if any, exist to recycle the workforce away from military industries into peacetime industries, conservation, medical research, renewable energy sources,
maintenance of infrastructures. To what extent can civil society and human rights institutions participate in shaping these strategies?
11. Are there regional agreements in force (e.g. military alliances) that commit the State to devote a certain percentage of its budget to military expenses? If so, what percentage and how is it enforced?
Annex II
Agenda for the expert consultation, 15 May 2014
09:00 – 09:15 Opening remarks
Welcome and introduction by the Independent Expert, Mr. Alfred de Zayas. Objectives of the consultation, including overview of the requirements of the report
09:15 – 11:00 Session 1 Transparency in budget and fiscal matters relating to military expenditures/ Trends in military expenditures worldwide Main resource persons*: Tobias Bock (Transparency International), Pieter Wezeman (SIPRI), Philipp Fluri (DCAF) Moderator: Mr. de Zayas
11:15 – 13:00 Session 2 Transparency (cont’d)/Obstacles to the meaningful participation of the public in determining budget and fiscal policies Main resource persons*: Jamie Shea (NATO), Colin Archer (IPB), Andrew Lane (QCEA) Moderator: Mr. de Zayas
14:00 – 16:00 Session 3 How resources currently devoted to the military-industrial complex could be redirected to the promotion of peace and development Main resource persons*: Jan Grebe (BICC), Melanie De Groof (GRIP), María Muñoz (WILPF), Moderator: Mr. de Zayas
16:15 – 17:30 Session 4 Strengthening national and international security through the promotion of human rights
Main resource persons*: Nils Duquet (Flemish Peace Institute), Marc Bossuyt (University of Antwerp), Filip Reyniers (International Peace Information Service) Moderator: Mr. de Zayas
17:30 Closing remarks
Preliminary conclusions and recommendations
Annex III
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, 29 January 2014 (full text) The Heads of State and Government of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) gathered in Havana, Cuba on January 28 and 29, 2014 at the second Summit, on behalf of their peoples and faithfully interpreting their hopes and aspirations,
Reaffirming the commitment of member countries with the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and International Law, and aware of the fact that prosperity and stability in the region contribute to international peace and security,
Mindful that peace is a supreme asset and a legitimate aspiration of all peoples and that preserving peace is a substantial element of Latin America and Caribbean integration and a principle and common value of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Reaffirming that integration consolidates the vision of a fair International order based on the right to peace and a culture of peace, which excludes the use of force and non- legitimate means of defense, such as weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons in particular,
Highlighting the relevance of the Tlatelolco Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean establishing the first nuclear weapon free zone in a densely populated area, this being a contribution to peace and to regional and international security,
Reiterating the urgent need of General and Complete Nuclear Disarmament, as well as the commitment with the Strategic Agenda of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), adopted by the 33 Member States of the Organization in the General Conference held in Buenos Aires in August, 2013.
Recalling the principles of peace, democracy, development and freedom underlying the actions of countries members of SICA,
Recalling the decision of UNASUR Heads of State of consolidating South America as a Zone of Peace and Cooperation,
Recalling the establishment, in 1986, of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic,
Recalling also our commitment, agreed in the Declaration of the Summit of Unity of Latin America and the Caribbean, on 23 February 2010, to promote the implementation of our own mechanisms for the for peaceful conflict resolution,
Reiterating our commitment to consolidate Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, in which differences between nations are peacefully settled through dialogue and negotiations or other means, fully consistent with International Law,
Cognizant also of the catastrophic global and long-term humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and the ongoing discussions on this issue,
Declare:
Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace based on respect for the principles and rules of International Law, including the international instruments to which Member States are a party to, the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations Charter;
Our permanent commitment to solve disputes through peaceful means with the aim of uprooting forever threat or use of force in our region;
The commitment of the States of the region with their strict obligation not to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of any other State and observe the principles of national sovereignty, equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
The commitment of the peoples of Latin American and Caribbean to foster cooperation and friendly relations among themselves and with other nations irrespective of differences in their political, economic, and social systems or development levels; to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors;
The commitment of the Latin American and Caribbean States to fully respect for the inalienable right of every State to choose its political, economic, social, and cultural system, as an essential conditions to ensure peaceful coexistence among nations;
The promotion in the region of a culture of peace based, inter alia, on the principles of the United Nations Declaration on a Culture of Peace;
The commitment of the States in the region to guide themselves by this Declaration in their International behavior;
The commitment of the States of the region to continue promoting nuclear disarmament as a priority objective and to contribute with general and complete disarmament, to foster the strengthening of confidence among nations;
We urge all Member States of the International Community to fully respect this Declaration in their relations with CELAC Member States.
Annex IV
PEN International Bled Manifesto of the Writers for Peace Committee (full text) PEN International, the world’s leading association of writers, promotes a culture of peace based on freedom of expression, dialogue, and exchange. PEN is dedicated to linguistic and cultural diversity and to the vibrancy of languages and their cultures whether spoken by many or few. PEN International’s Writers for Peace Committee has therefore approved this Manifesto calling for the universal right to peace, based on the Lugano Declaration for Peace and Freedom (1987), the Appeal of Linz Protesting Against the Degradation of the Environment (2009) and the Belgrade Declaration (2011). It was adopted by the Assembly of Delegates at the 79th PEN International Congress in Reykjavik (September 2013). Bled Manifesto of the Writers for Peace Committee:
(a) All individuals and peoples have a right to peace and this right should be recognized by the United Nations as a universal human right.
(b) PEN promotes discussion and dialogue between writers from countries in conflict and across regions of the world where wounds are open and political will is unable to address tensions.
(c) PEN seeks to bring together people from around the world through literature and discussion amongst writers and with the broad public.
(d) PEN considers one of the world’s greatest challenges to be the transition from violence to debate, discussion and dialogue. We aim to be active participants in this process promoting where necessary the principles of international law.
(e) In order to achieve the conditions for peace, freedom of expression and creativity in all its forms must be respected and protected as a fundamental right so long as it respects all other basic human rights in accordance with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(f) PEN acknowledges that it is of primary importance to be permanently committed to creating conditions that can lead to ending conflicts of all kinds. There is neither freedom without peace, nor peace without freedom; social and political justice is inaccessible without peace and freedom.
(g) In order to achieve sustainable conditions for peace, PEN calls for the respect of the environment in conformity with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). We condemn the excesses of technology and financial speculation that contribute to the impoverishment of a large part of the world’s population.
(h) PEN respects and defends the dignity of all human beings. PEN opposes injustice and violence wherever they are found, including oppression, colonisation, illegal occupation and terrorism.
(i) In accordance with the principles of freedom of expression and justice, every individual or group involved in conflict has the right to demand non-violent solutions to conflict and should be free to petition and appeal to international institutions and government authorities.
(j) All children have the right to receive a comprehensive peace and human rights education. PEN promotes the implementation of this right.
Annex V
Declaration of Brussels: Toward a democratic and equitable international order, 16/17 October 2013 (full text) Recalling and affirming:
(a) the “Appeal for the Establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations” of April 2007,
(b) the “Conclusions regarding policies of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly” of November 2007,
(c) the “Statement on the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union” of November 2008,
(d) the “Call for global democratic oversight of international financial and economic institutions” of April 2009, and
(e) the “Declaration of Buenos Aires” of October 2010, We, the participants in the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), reiterate our joint appeal to the United Nations and its member states to advance the necessary processes for the establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations.
We express our concern that in the intergovernmental realm no adequate measures have been taken to address the democratic deficit of global governance in general and of the United Nations in particular.
We reiterate our view that a UNPA is a vital component to strengthen democratic participation in and the democratic legitimacy of the United Nations as well as other intergovernmental organizations such as the World Bank Group, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.
A UNPA would enable citizen representatives, i.e. elected parliamentarians, to be directly involved in global political deliberations, agenda-setting, and decision-making, in a formalized and institutionalized manner.
Global problems require global solutions. The daily lives of the world’s citizens are increasingly shaped by economic, social and political forces that transcend national boundaries and demonstrate a growing need for more inclusive, effective and transparent global governance.
The universality of human rights and the necessity of a democratic basis for legitimate governance are widely acknowledged. Yet, far too many people are denied their human rights and democratic participation. We are convinced that a UNPA as a global democratic body of elected representatives would strengthen the practice of democratic governance and fulfillment of human rights regionally, nationally and locally. Conversely, we believe that excluding democratic principles and participation from global governance undermines democracy at the regional, national, and local levels.
We emphasize our conviction that a UNPA needs to be inclusive and open for participation of parliamentarians of all UN member states and observer states. We acknowledge that ensuring the democratic character of a UNPA presents challenges. We are convinced that these challenges can be overcome, and that with political will a
parliamentary assembly for the United Nations can be constructed in a manner that is both representative and legitimate.
We welcome the decision of the UN’s Human Rights Council to mandate an Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, and encourage the Independent Expert to keep considering the question of a UNPA and in particular to examine possible processes towards its creation.
We welcome the recent and ongoing broad-based consultations among a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, to develop a global consensus on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. We feel encouraged that these consultations have emphasized (1) the importance of a “rights-based” approach to sustainable development; and (2) the necessity of a comprehensive, global approach, to address poverty and inequality in all countries.
The UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda recently noted that achieving the post-2015 vision will require “reshaped and revitalized global governance partnerships” to ensure that “the United Nations, multilateral systems, and all development actors effectively support the post-2015 development agenda.” Indeed, we observe that sustaining a multi-stakeholder consensus for shared global goals is one of the key functions that a UNPA would be expected to provide.
To maintain political support, to reinforce accountability and to bring global governance in the pursuit of post-2015 development goals closer to those directly affected, we encourage the creation of a UNPA when the international community adopts its Post- 2015 Development Agenda.
A UNPA is a global parliamentary body that includes distinctive innovative features that go beyond the characteristics of existing national and regional assemblies and parliaments. Acting as an institutionalized “network of networks”, a UNPA could allow representatives of existing parliamentary networks and institutions to formally participate in its work, thus providing them with more leverage and influence. Consideration should be given to the possibility of involving local authorities and representatives of indigenous peoples and nations in the activities of a UNPA.
We affirm that a UNPA can and should evolve gradually. Eventually members of a UNPA should be directly elected. From the UNPA’s inception its statutes should allow participating states to opt for direct elections of their delegates if they wish to do so.
With a view to exploring innovative forms of civic participation in a UNPA, implementing models of electronic direct or “liquid” democracy that allow citizens to participate in deliberations or to influence decision-making processes could be considered.
We congratulate the European Parliament on its pioneering role in promoting the establishment of a UNPA, dating back to resolution A3-0331/93 adopted in 1994, and most recently expressed in resolution P7_TA 0255 of 2011, which called on the EU Council to introduce the establishment of a UNPA into the proceedings of the UN General Assembly.
We call on the European Parliament and its members as well as on all other parliaments and their members to reinforce their commitment to more democratic global governance through continued support for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.
Annex VI
Danish Institute of Human Rights submission on participation93
Public participation as a human right is a process through which individuals and groups have an opportunity to influence public decisions. This constitutes the basis of democratic governance and a key to the promotion and protection of human rights. It is recognized as fundamental for the legitimacy and authority of government and a crucial element for the quality, inclusiveness and sustainability of decision making processes.
From a human rights perspective, the ability of the individual to shape their lives and participate in the realization of human rights is inherent in human dignity. The principle that the authority of government should be the will of the people is also widely recognized.
The right to participate is rooted in Art 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognizes the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and the right to have access to public service.
Under the provisions of the Covenant, states are required to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy this right, including by initiative of the state being actively involved in public decision-making processes (working groups, observation groups, commissions), and to be given space to voice their opinions. The right to participate in the conduct of public affairs is a composite right and is not limited to or fulfilled by merely organizing periodic free elections. Additionally, the right is equally not limited to instances where individuals participate directly in the conduct of public affairs as members of the legislative or executive branches; or indirectly, through freely chosen representatives. Individuals also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives, or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression (including the right to access to information), assembly and association. Taking part in public affairs also goes beyond mere political activities. People may seek influence in many other ways; therefore the three freedoms mentioned above are fundamental to all public participation. The close link between these three and democratic governance is recognized in a number of international documents.
The right to participate in public affairs has been standardized in the sphere of civil and political rights, but details on the quality and conduct of the participatory process have been elaborated mostly in the sphere of economic, social and cultural rights (environment, housing, education, health etc), and in relation to certain groups requiring specific attention, such as women, children, persons with disabilities, migrants, indigenous peoples and persons belonging to minorities, among others.
Traditionally, human rights law has taken a somewhat narrow approach to the right to participation, which is also reflected in the current general comment No. 25 of the Human Rights Committee on Art 25 of the ICCPR. Under this narrow approach, the right to participate does not imply a general right to be heard, and even participation itself is a right which does not belong to everyone in every situation.
93 Submission for a side-event to the Human Rights Council on 11 June 2014, partly based on input
from the Independent Expert, who participated in the Copenhagen workshops in September 2013 and March 2014.
However, during the 18 years since the adoption of the general comment, human rights law has started to gradually move beyond the above described narrow interpretations of the right to participation. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as a number of other treaty bodies, have adopted general comments pointing to governments’ responsibility to inform and hear the opinions of groups affected by political decisions on, among other things, water and sanitation, adequate food and eviction from houses. Other examples of expansion of consultation rights can be seen in relation to the rights of certain group requiring particular attention.
Additionally, new human rights instruments have adopted hitherto unprecedented obligations on States parties to consult with certain groups or with regard to particular issues. In particular, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has adopted unprecedented obligations on States parties to consult with representatives of people with disabilities in the monitoring mechanisms of the convention.
We are witnessing similar expansion in the understanding of the scope and content of the right at the national, regional and international level as well. At the international level states are increasingly called upon to consult with relevant segments of the society before submitting information to UN human rights bodies and to include them in follow-up activities on recommendations stemming from these bodies.
While there has been increased recognition of the importance of the right, this has not been reflected in a corresponding level of international elaboration and standardization of what the rights and obligations entail or what quality of participation is required and how it should be enforced. This should establish the duty of states to ensure consultation in the development, implementation and monitoring of public legislation, policy, programmes and projects and also that this should involve everyone and not only citizens as is the case when exercising participation in relation to elections.
The increasing importance attributed to participation as a key principle has spawned growing interest in defining the extent to which states should open up to wider dialogue with the general public. The quality and nature of such participatory and consultation processes has not yet been addressed in an international human rights document that is generally applicable. Additionally, accountability mechanisms for the conduct and outcome of participatory processes are either weak or non-existent, or only relate to a very narrow segment of the process (right to access to information). The challenge therefore is manifold. It is crucially important to raise awareness among governments and members of the general public of the current understanding and interpretation of the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. Equally important is to attempt to arrive to a coherent understanding and interpretation of the right to participation and to fill the concept with content that is generally applicable and can be used as a tool by communities and relevant authorities at the local, national, regional and international levels.
The aim is to ensure that participation is recognized as a right at all relevant levels and to design more informed, effective and legitimate public participation processes with a strong evaluation and accountability component. There is also a need for new approaches that emphasize two-way interaction between decision-makers and the public as well as deliberation among participants. Lastly, enforcement mechanisms should be defined in order to ensure the implementation of the right at all relevant levels.
Annex VII
The fifteen countries with the highest military expenditures in 201394 Spending figures are in US$, at current prices and exchange rates. Figures for changes are calculated from spending figures in constant (2012) prices.
Rank Spending as a share of GDP (%)b
2013 2012 Country Spending
2013 ($ b.) Change,
2014–13 (%) 2013 2004
1 1 USA 640 12 3.8 3.9 2 2 China 188a 170 2.0a 2.1a
3 3 Russia 87.8a 108 4.1a 3.5a
4 7 Saudi Arabia 67.0 118 9.3 8.1 5 4 France 61.2 -6.4 2.2 2.6 6 6 UK 57.9 -2.5 2.3 2.4 7 9 Germany 48.8 3.8 1.4 1.4 8 5 Japan 48.6 -0.2 1.0 1.0 9 8 India 47.4 45 2.5 2.8 10 12 South Korea 33.9 42 2.8 2.5 11 11 Italy 32.7 -26 1.6 2.0 12 10 Brazil 31.5 48 1.4 1.5 13 13 Australia 24.0 19 1.6 1.8 14 16 Turkey 19.1 13 2.3 2.8 15 15 UAEc 19.0a 85 4.7 4.7
Total top 15 1 408
World total 1 747 26 2.4 2.4
Notes a SIPRI estimate.
b The figures for military expenditures as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) are based on
data from the IMF World Economic Outlook database, October 2013. c Data for the United Arab Emirates is for 2012, as figures for 2013 are not available.
94 See SIPRI Fact Sheet, available from: http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476.
Annex VIII
Comparison of budget share allocated to military, education and health care
Economic indicators
% of central government expenditure (2000–2009 a) allocated to
Countries and territories Health Education Defence
Australia 14 10 6 Brazil 6x 6x 3x China 0 2 10 France – – –
Germany 20 1 4 India 2 3 13 Italy 14 11 4 Japan 2x 6x 4x Republic of Korea 1 15 11 Russian Federation 7 3 12 Saudi Arabia – – – Turkey 3 10 8 United Arab Emirates 7x 17x 30x United Kingdom 15x 4x 7x United States 24 3 19
x Data refer to years or periods other than those specified in the column heading. Such data are not
included in the calculation of regional and global averages.
Note: The above table is an excerpt from a UNICEF table of economic indicators of the state of the world’s children. The complete table is available from www.unicef.org/sowc2012/statistics.php.
Annex IX
Allocation of income tax dollars 2013 (United States of America)
“[…] This imbalanced spending has consequences: cuts in programs that help give people ladders out of poverty, as well as missed opportunities to prevent war and address climate change. The Pentagon budget still accounts for 40 cents of every tax dollar the U.S. Government spends.”
Friends Committee on National Legislation explanation of USA Government spending:
(a) “For current and past wars: 40% This includes the Pentagon budget and related programs with a military function, such as nuclear weapons production in the department of energy, and foreign military assistance (28%); interest on the federal debt accumulated from past Pentagon spending (7%); and care and benefits for veterans plus other costs and obligations from past wars (5%). (b) For general government operations: 11% This includes interest on the rest of the federal debt – the part that is not attributable to past military spending (10%) – and other government operations such as Congress, the judiciary, most of the department of homeland security, the IRS, treasury, etc. (1%) (c) For health care, health care financing and health research: 23% This includes Medicaid, public health programs, Indian health, the national institutes of health and the centers for disease control. (Most of the money for Medicare comes from a dedicated payroll tax, not from income taxes, so the Medicare trust fund, with its separate income, is not considered part of the “federal funds budget” and is not included here.)
(d) Energy, science and the environment: 3% Includes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of the Department of the Interior, plus the Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(e) To assist low income households: 16% This category includes programs such as housing, income, education, and food assistance that are available to people who meet certain income guidelines. Some help to alleviate poverty (food assistance, income supplements) while others provide a firm foundation and ladders out of poverty (such as housing, health care and education.) (f) Development, diplomacy and war prevention: 2% This tiniest category includes funding for all the ways we relate to the rest of the world that do not engage our military capacities – the entire State Department, including the diplomatic corps and the agency for international development, support for the United Nations and other international institutions and non-military aid to other countries.”95
95 “Where do your tax dollars go?” Data taken from graph available from
www.fcnl.org/assets/flyer/FCNL_Taxes13_final.pdf.
Annex X
World nuclear forces96 Country Year of first nuclear test Deployed warheadsa Other warheadsb Total inventory
United States 1945 2 150c 5 550 ~7 700d
Russia 1949 ~1800 6700e ~8500f
United Kingdom 1952 160 65 225 France 1960 ~290 ~10 ~300 China 1964 – ~250 ~250 India 1974 – 90–110 90–110 Pakistan 1998 – 100–120 100–120 Israel .. – ~80 ~80 North Korea 2006 .. .. 6–8?
Total ~4 400 ~12 865 ~17 270
a “Deployed” means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces.
b These are warheads in reserve, awaiting dismantlement or that require some preparation (e.g.
assembly or loading on launchers) before they become fully operationally available. c In addition to strategic warheads, this figure includes nearly 200 non-strategic (tactical) nuclear
weapons deployed in Europe. d This figure includes the United States Department of Defense nuclear stockpile of c. 4,650
warheads and another c. 3,000 retired warheads that are awaiting dismantlement. e This figure includes c. 700 warheads for nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in
overhaul and bombers, 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons for use by short-range naval, air force and air defence forces, and c. 4,000 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement.
f This includes a military stockpile.
96 See SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, available
from www.sipriyearbook.org. See also www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report.