Thursday, July 10, 2014

Recap of Pacific Partnerships to Strengthen Gender, Climate Change Response and Sustainable Development


In early June, I got to go to Fiji for a meeting on Pacific Partnerships to Strengthen Gender, Climate Change Response, and Sustainable Development (as I mentioned earlier). The meeting brought together a total of 60 participants - most of them women, most of them from the Pacific, and pretty much all of them amazing - for five days of strategizing, capacity-building, and collective planning towards the SIDS, post-2015, UNFCCC, and relevant regional processes.

here we are

The set-up of the meeting - two days CSOs, then two days CSOs with national women's machineries, followed by a high-level dinner and final day - was the best-designed of any I've been to. All of us staying in the same hotel the whole week, sharing meals, drinks, swims (not to mention the unexpected presence of the entirety of the Fijian national rugby team) built an incredible atmosphere of camaraderie and collectivity. 
me with the amazing rapporteur team - representing GIZ/SPC, Pacific Youth Council, DIVA for Equality, & SPC

The participants worked hard on two outcome documents: a civil society/social movements/Major Groups statement, and a joint outcome agreed by both the civil society and the government representatives present - the first of its kind, with strong language on climate finance, structural issues of trade and the international financial system, and gender equality as a cross-cutting regional priority. 

The statements were presented by participants at the high-level dinner and have already served as advocacy tools in the second SIDS prepcom, held the week before last in New York. 

For more on the meeting, see its Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube page (don't miss my fairly awkward recap of my presentation) and stay tuned - this important intersectional analysis, led by the Pacific itself, will continue to be taken forward in key regional and global fora. 

Friday, June 20, 2014

Thoughts on Iraq, from Beirut

Sitting in Doha airport last Saturday, waiting for my third flight of a 30-hour journey, I read this article, and immediately burst into tears. At first I chalked it up to exhaustion, to the peculiar effects of an airplane journey, to the strange coincidence of landing in my first trip to the Middle East just as my country steps back into a never-ending mess of a military situation. All true, but it's more than that.

The war on Iraq made me a political person. I was fifteen when it started, studying abroad in Rome. We went to protest marches in every Italian city, hung PACE flags in our dorm rooms, lied and said we were Canadian to anyone who asked. We cut class and went to a rally at the Coliseum, chanted with Italians holding makeshift torches that blew ashes into our faces as the sun set, aghast with them at Berlusconi's agreement to send troops when 80% of his country was against it. I watched CNN International in the school cafe, shocked at what they showed on television outside the US. I came home and wrote scathing essays in my American History class, mocking the "PROUD TO BE AMERICAN" bumper stickers that popped up on every SUV. Proud to be American - as opposed to what?, I wrote. Iraqi?

My first year in college I worked at an indie coffeeshop, wearing a t-shirt with a red line through the president's face, making friends with the Eritrean ladies who worked 12-hour shifts there, chatting with the customers about "anyone but Bush." I was seventeen and a half during Bush's reelection, livid at being six months away from eligibility to vote, staging heated arguments with my father, accusing him and all other Republican voters of standing against everything I stood for. We sat on couches in the Barnard student lounge in stunned silence, crying at Kerry's concession speech, ashamed and embarrassed of our leadership. Not My President, we said.

And then 2008 came and Obama was elected. I stayed up all night in another student lounge, in London, watching the results come in. I cried myself to sleep at 6am in utter gratitude and disbelief. We'd come so far. We had a black president! A true liberal, a community organizer, who'd been against the war in Iraq from the beginning, who promised to close Guantanamo and ensure real social services and stand up for all those the Republicans kicked to the curb in their preference for corporate profit, oil money, global policing. My friends who were in New York for election night told stories of taking city buses in which all the riders spontaneously burst into our national anthem. I bought every newspaper with Obama's picture on it, put them all up on my wall, told anyone who asked that I'd voted for him in both the primary and the presidential election, that this was the first time I was old enough to vote, that I was proud of him and no longer ashamed to say I was American, abroad.

It was bound to be disappointing. He would never have been able to live up to the hype of how we felt reading his books, watching him speak during his campaign at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. Private insurance companies and the American right were never going to let him create a true public option for healthcare; Obamacare has been frustrating at best. He hasn't closed Guantanamo. He's only recently started talking about climate change. And we're no longer eighteen, stunned into believing that anything was possible.

Even so, how can we be right back where we started? How can Obama be sending "advisers," planning airstrikes, eleven years later, in Iraq? Because we dismantled a state and now have to prop it up forever, to justify the sacrifices and the money spent and the efforts and injuries and deaths of all those Iraqi civilians and American soldiers and everybody who loved them and worried about them? Because the War on Terror is real, and we're losing? Because Obama is just another politician, because Bush and Cheney didn't account for the consequences of their choices, because in the end the US cares more about being a military powerhouse than anything else? Because now we have drones, and drones "don't count," new war isn't the same as old war, we can just press a button and destroy whole villages, wedding parties, and maybe some terrorists while we're at it? Because it was all for nothing: all that political awakening and shouting in the streets, the mobilization of young voters, the reuniting of a disgruntled left with the concerns of the people, the forming of new identities of what we thought was good about being American? 

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Pacific Partnerships on Gender, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development (why I am in Fiji)

Tomorrow we start getting ready for Pacific Partnerships on Gender, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, a five-day regional meeting bringing together civil society, women's machineries, and heads of state. Dag Hammarskjold Foundation is funding it and A and I are supporting it, but she's had to go home on a family thing so it looks like I'm about to learn a whole lot real fast.

I spent the past couple of weeks putting together background documents for the meeting:
- an overview of government positions based on the OWG and the Asia Pacific HLPF regional meeting http://bit.ly/1q4RIm5
- an in-depth document looking at the OWG Zero Draft and Member State positions, as they pertain to our meeting http://bit.ly/1pltggK 
- an in-depth document that provides an overview of the Asia Pacific HLPF regional meeting as it pertains to our meeting http://bit.ly/RUv3gm 

Sharing here in case they're useful! Follow updates from the meeting via its Facebook page, here: https://www.facebook.com/PPGCCSD 

And now off to put aloe on my sun rash and hop into bed! The 16 hour time difference is no joke. 

Fiji is better than Bali; or, I feel really good about my recent life choices

Ni sa bula from Nadi, Fiji, where I have returned after three days in the Yasawa and Mamanuca islands, having pretty much the best possible solo holiday. Snorkeling, beach-lying, beer-drinking, friend-making, sun-sitting, and no wifi - AT ALL - until yesterday evening. I read (and left behind in the Fiji traveler universe, passed along to whoever may appreciate them) both of Teju Cole's books. In my humble opinion, Open City is more profound but Every Day is for the Thief might be a little better.

My backpack died a slow and painful death in LAX. It accompanied me through hell and high water, Ethiopia to Bali to Vermont, and served me well in the 10+ years since I stole it from Manda. Rest well, old friend.

Last night I stayed on the Mamanucas' "party island," Beachcomber, which my guidebook promised me was the "Club Med for the under 35 set on a budget." Not so! It was nearly empty, but blasting great music (including this Nigerian gem, the world is a funny place), and had a pretty awesome (and pretty airless) phone booth where I took a two hour conference call with New York. I was half asleep and sitting barefoot on the floor, watching a cockroach walk by:

Friday, May 23, 2014

Tracking the Open Working Group (It's Target Time)

A few weeks ago, I attended (almost all of) the 11th session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs). It was useful for all three of my consulting jobs - I took 102 pages of notes and highlighted them according to a color scheme: one for the Fiji meeting, one for Beirut, one for the Mining Working Group, and one for the privatization of post-2015 work I'll be doing when I get back. Then I did one tracking who said what on civil society - always good to know your allies.

Now that I'm finally finished, I figured I would share this work so that all of these hours of my life served as many purposes as possible. Also, I'll be in Fiji and Beirut for the informals and 12th meeting of the OWG (respectively) so I won't be able to contribute much around the next one... unless I decide to be really insane and watch all the webcast archives when I get back.

To read some (I hope) useful info, which I have already shared with a few civil society colleagues, please click the links below:


Positions of the Group of 77 and China (G77/China) as of OWG11

Positions of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) as of OWG11 

Positions of the African Group as of OWG11

Mentions of Civil Society during OWG11


and let me know if you want the whole 100 pages of notes. I'll sell them to the highest bidder. :)

Friday, May 16, 2014

Soundtrack to a rainy work day

It's crunch time! This week, next week, and the following are all I have left before my trip to Fiji and Beirut, which is now confirmed. A + I will be supporting two civil society meetings, on gender and climate change (Pacific) and social protection and tax policy (Arab States). I'll also be doing some traveling (pointers welcome!) - my guidebooks came yesterday and I'm already making lists.

My main task this week, which I've been plugging away at at Regus business lounges (shared workspace = genius idea, with added perk of eligible bachelors, apparently), is to compile background documents for the two meetings based on ongoing sustainable development processes at the UN. It's involved a lot of shuffling documents and copy and paste, so I've been listening to music while I work. My iTunes hasn't been updated in a while, so this has involved lots of flashbacks: Elgar Cello Concerto in E Minor (high school), and the Kronos Quartet cover of this one (early college):


Saturday, May 10, 2014

Peaceful Societies Reflection and Strategy Meeting - Summary and Thoughts on Next Steps

On April 25, I moderated a Reflection and Strategy Meeting at the conclusion of the Thematic Debate of the President of the General Assembly on "Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies." (I already wrote about it a little.)

I've finally finished the summary, which is excerpted below and available in full here.



On Friday, 25 April 2014, at the conclusion of the Thematic Debate of the President of the General Assembly on Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies, a Reflection and Strategy Meeting was held at the UN office of the Baha’i International Community. This event was co-convened by Global Action to Prevent War; Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s New York office; the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA); and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Alongside myself as an independent consultant, these groups sought to bring together diverse constituencies, as a starting point for potential collaboration between civil society organizations, diplomats, and UN representatives around a wide range of post-2015 development and security priorities.

The event, drawing a full room of 35-40 participants, began with introductions and reflections from civil society representatives on the Thematic Debate: Rosa Emilia Salamanca González, of Corporación de Investigación y Acción Social y Económica (CIASE) (Colombia), Richard Smith of Action Support Centre/Action for Conflict Transformation (South Africa), and Laura Ribeiro Pereira of Global Partnership to Prevent War and Armed Conflict (GPPAC) (New York). These reflections were followed by a group discussion on priorities and strategies moving forward across the intersections of peace and security and development priorities, through various pieces of the UN apparatus.

From my perspective as moderator, Rosa Emilia touched on two issues that are at the heart of both what was discussed at the Thematic Debate and of the current state of the post-2015 discussions more broadly. The first is the question of the relevance and legitimacy of the UN – how to ensure that lived realities of people on the ground, e.g. civil society, meaningfully influence this global intergovernmental space. The second is how to resolve the tension between the three pillars of the UN (human rights, peace and security, and development) and the three dimensions (economic, social, environmental) of sustainable development. As raised by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal of Guatemala during the Thematic Debate, how can it be that the UN’s other two pillars must somehow be kept separate from its development work – especially at this moment when we are setting a universal and global agenda?

Richard’s remarks pointed to another central tension of the Thematic Debate, in my view: the issue of whether the global sustainable development agenda should address the internal factors related to peaceful societies, more external, international factors, or both. Focus Area 16 of the Working Document of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs) is currently framed in terms of national issues of organized crime and violence, in response to Member States’ argument that only the issues of peace and security that directly relate to development should be covered. As Ambassador Antonio Aguiar Patriota of Brazil (also on behalf of Nicaragua) raised so pointedly during the Thematic Debate, this narrow definition of the factors contributing to peaceful societies ignores issues of disarmament, embargoes, sanctions, military spending, and claims of “exceptionalism” by certain countries with regard to international law. While I understand the argument made by Magdy Martinez-Soliman of UNDP during the Thematic Debate that “a line must be drawn” at some point, Ambassador Patriota clearly and effectively reminded us that the broader, international dimensions of peaceful societies can affect development to an even greater extent than the internal ones. It begs the question, at least for civil society organizing around these issues: while Member States or UNDP may indeed have to draw a line, do we? And are we drawing the line where it most needs to be drawn?

Regarding the terminology of “peaceful societies,” I was particularly taken by Ambassador Sofia Mesquita Borges of Timor-Leste, who identified the usefulness of this approach as a non-linear, comprehensive alternative to business-as-usual and a way to capture the connections between development and security through encouraging national institution and capacity building. Timor-Leste has spoken strongly in favor of a “peaceful societies” goal, while Bangladesh and other Member States have pointed out the conundrum of the “chicken and egg” problem: if development and peace are mutually reinforcing, which should be addressed first? In the context of the Open Working Group, these States call for a strict adherence to the mandate of Rio+20 and the three dimensions of sustainable development, while Ambassador Borges used her country as an empirical illustration of the need to simultaneously integrate both concerns, and indicated that post-2015 provides the opportunity to “recalibrate” the global approach to peace and development.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on addressing roadblocks in the SDGs negotiations. The UN representatives who spoke at the Thematic Debate addressed several issues that have come up among Member States, among them potential difficulties in the measurability and universality of a “peaceful societies” goal and how it might negatively affect national sovereignty, including through the imposing of aid conditionalities based on a country’s progress in this area. These are legitimate concerns, the latter in particular, and one thing that the pro-“peaceful societies” countries will have to do is figure out how to assure (the mostly South) countries that this goal would not establish a new “condition” for development assistance. Canada offered that assurance at the Thematic Debate, but so far I haven’t heard the “how” – and if I were a “fragile” or “conflict-affected” Member State, such assurances would not be particularly convincing anyway. That said, it was a bit disheartening to hear the UN reps, particularly Sarah Cliffe, ASG of Civilian Capacities, assuring those present at the Thematic Debate that the inclusion of “peaceful societies” would not be used to signify “external criticism, conditionality, or additional reporting.” I worry that in the desire to reach consensus, the UN as well as the Member States will reach a “lowest common denominator” that reduces this concept to the point where it is no longer meaningful. Figuring out how to make this norm robust without establishing new conditions will be key to ensuring the inclusion of a “peaceful societies” goal, but even more, to ensuring one that has any potential at all of making a difference to communities worldwide.

Read the full summary of the Reflection and Strategy Meeting here.