March 11, 2010
Enough Project

Abstract:

The Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA, continues to pose a severe threat to civilians in northeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since the LRA began attacking civilians on Congolese soil in September of 2008 through the end of 2009, it has killed approximately 1,800 civilians, with 300 deaths during December 2009. More than 100 people were killed during January 2010. Units from the Congolese national army, or FARDC, sent to protect civilians and fight the LRA have shown little interest in either task. Congolese soldiers largely refuse to engage LRA while constantly harassing the local population. Incidents of rape, looting, beatings, and even killings of innocent civilians by Congolese soldier abound. There were 116 reported cases of rapes allegedly committed by Congolese soldiers last October in just one neighborhood near the Congolese army base in Dungu. Meanwhile, the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo, or MONUC, is stretched too thin to adequately protect civilians in the vast region where the LRA operates, often in diffuse cells....

March 11, 2010
United Nations World Food Programme // ReliefWeb

Abstract:

This map represents the areas reporting conflict in Nigeria and shows the population density in states affected by violent clashes, as of March 8th, 2010.

March 11, 2010
United Nations Children's Fund // Innocenti Research Centre // Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School

Abstract:

As targets of grave violations of human rights and forced participation in violence, children are among those most affected by conflict. The physical, psychological, social and emotional impacts that conflict has on children have increasingly become a focus of international and national peacebuilding measures, truth commissions, and courts. Children and Transitional Justice: Truth-Telling, Accountability, and Reconciliation explores questions raised when children's issues -- and children themselves -- are prioritized in transitional justice processes. It analyzes practical experiences to determine how the range of international courts, truth commissions and traditional processes can be applied, both to improve accountability for crimes perpetrated against children and to protect the rights of children involved. The chapters of the book include: Chapter 1: Child Rights and Transitional Justice, by Saudamini Siegrist; Chapter 2: Basic Assumptions of Transitional Justice and Children, by Alison Smith; Chapter 3: International Criminal Justice and Child Protection, by Cécile Aptel; Chapter 4: Children and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, by Piers Pigou; Chapter 5: Child Participation in the Sierra Leonean Truth and Reconciliation Commission, by Philip Cook and Cheryl Heykoop; Chapter 6: Children and the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, by Theo Sowa; Chapter 7: Accountability and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda Accountability for Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes by the Lord’s Resistance Army, by Kristopher Carlson and Dyan Mazurana; The Potential and Limits of Mato Oput as a Tool for Reconciliation and Justice, Prudence Acirokop; Chapter 8: Disappeared Children, Genetic Tracing and Justice, by Michele Harvey-Blankenship and Rachel Shigekane; Chapter 9: Truth Commissions and National Curricula: The Case of Recordándonos in Peru, by Julia Paulson; and Chapter 10: Realizing Economic Justice for Children: The Role of Transitional Justice in Post-Conflict Societies, by Sharanjeet Parmar....

March 11, 2010
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Abstract:

This map represents the refugee camp population in South Chad as of December 31st, 2009.

March 11, 2010
United States Agency for International Development

Abstract:

This map represents the types of humanitarian aid allocated by the United States government to different regions in Somalia. Additionally, the map depicts varying degrees of food insecurity throughout the country as of March 10th, 2010.

March 11, 2010
Center for American Progress

Abstract:

The proliferation of small arms and light weapons is an immediate security challenge to individuals, societies, and states around the world and an enormous hurdle to sustainable security and development. Small arms fuel civil wars, organized criminal violence, and terrorist activities. They also undermine multimillion dollar development programs and other assistance to fragile states. Fragile and failing states should be of particular strategic interest to the United States because even small insurgencies, if unchecked, can erupt into larger civil wars and possibly destabilize entire regions. In some cases fragile and failing states can also become bases for terrorist groups directly hostile to the United States. In many conflict zones small arms and light weapons are the weapon of choice, the main instrument of death and destruction, and are often used to forcibly displace civilians, impede humanitarian assistance, prevent or delay development projects, and hinder peace-keeping and peace-building efforts. When conflicts end or abate small arms often remain in circulation, which may lead to additional violence and suffering since fighting can resume or conflicts may erupt in neighboring regions. In nonconflict areas small arms may be used in criminal violence or may be used in homicides, suicides, and accidents. And they are frequently the primary tools of terrorists bent on sowing chaos and discord. The weapons can exact a staggering toll. For example, in January 2010 narco-traffickers armed with assault rifles massacred 16 people—mostly teenagers—attending a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez on the U.S. border. In November 2008 roughly two dozen terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba with AK-47-type assault rifles, 9 mm pistols, and grenades killed nearly 200 people and wounded 350 in Mumbai, India. Approximately 875 million small arms are in circulation worldwide, and only about a third are in the hands of legally constituted security forces. Because small arms are simple to use, durable, and easy to conceal they are especially prone to misuse, and their misuse directly and indirectly affects hundreds of thousands of people and severely undermines sustainable development in scores of countries around the world....

March 11, 2010
Small Wars Journal

Abstract:

We can debate whether we are at war with Al Qaeda, but rest assured Al Qaeda is at war with us. The targets, methods, diversity, geographic dispersion, and lethality or near lethality of the recent series of Al Qaeda inspired attacks should cause us to reassess the very nature of this conflict. Attacks in the last few months include a shooting spree by U.S. Army Major Dr. Nidal Hasan, at Fort Hood; an attempted aircraft bombing by Abdulmuttalab, a Nigerian, over Detroit; an axe attack by Muhamed Geele, a Somali, in Denmark; and a precision suicide bombing by Dr. al-Bawali, a Jordanian, in Khost, Afghanistan. Only al-Balawi had ever been to Afghanistan or Pakistan; and he was apparently sent there by the Jordanian intelligence service, perhaps with help or urging by our Central Intelligence Agency. These events show that Al Qaeda franchisees are operating without need of direction from the corporate headquarters. Al Qaeda today is a flat, dispersed, multi-celled structure which executes on “commander’s intent” not waiting for orders from above. Actors self radicalize, seek out and connect with inspirational figures like Al Aulaqi in Yemen, and execute plots independent of commands from senior leaders. This paper proposes a change in our approach. It argues that Al Qaeda is conducting an “outsurgency”- similar to, but different from - an insurgency. Furthermore, that this movement is underpinned by virulent and violent Zawahirist ideology, and that containment (as in the context of the Cold War) and counterinsurgency doctrines might be adapted to form the basis of an improved U.S. national strategy to combat Al Qaeda. Strategists should take a page from Sun Tsu. “Know your enemy.” Since 9/11 we have construed Al Qaeda as “terrorists”, first a group, then a network, then a network of networks. We have sought to capture, kill, dismantle, or destroy them. Regrettably, this approach is not working – in fact it may be contributing to their recruiting. Our attacks have certainly led to their dispersal, and the flattening of their organizational structure. The failed Christmas attempt over Detroit shows us that attacks continue. America should change its view of this enemy, and implement a new strategy which addresses not terrorism, but the “ism” which mobilizes the enemy. Unless we do, we are condemned to continue on the path of the last eight years...

March 11, 2010
German Institute of Global and Area Studies // Leibniz-Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien

Abstract:

The literature on institutional determinants of intra‐state violence commonly asserts that the presence of multiple political parties reduces the conflict potential within countries; by co‐opting oppositional groups into an institutionalized political arena, dissidents would prefer parliamentarian means over violent rebellion in order to pursue their goals. The present paper shows that this proposition does not necessarily hold for fuel‐abundant states. In the presence of natural resources such as oil or gas, countries exhibiting numerous non‐competitive parties are actually more susceptible to internal conflict. Fortified by the establishment of legal political parties, regime opponents succumb more easily to the prospects of securing resource revenues, adopting rapacious behaviour. Fuel‐related internal grievances as well as the opposition’s disaffection over the lack of effective political leverage and government use of political violence provide a seemingly legitimate motive for armed rebellion. Moreover, financial means for insurgency are raised by extortion or the possibility of selling future exploitation rights to natural resources. Logit models using different estimation techniques and alternative operationalizations corroborate the proposed. This paper seeks to ask how formal political institutions may affect the outbreak of internal violence in countries with abundant natural oil and gas resources of their own. In particular, it analyses whether the establishment of multiple political parties affects the risk of civil conflict occurring in the presence of natural resources....

March 11, 2010
Senate Armed Services Committee // Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee

Abstract:

To successfully develop and implement Counter Violent Extremism programs, we must understand the dynamics of the communities at risk. Every community, whether long-rooted or part of a new diaspora, possesses a unique political, economic, and social landscape. For this reason, one-size-fits-all programs are likely to have limited appeal. Instead, our efforts must be tailored to fit the characteristics of the intended audience. Thus, it is critically important that our Embassies are on the front lines of our CVE efforts and that they play a key role in designing CVE programs. They can best identify the people in-country who can serve as credible voices and who can successfully implement projects. Partly for this reason, I have spent about half of 2010 and much of last year on travel to the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe. There I met with numerous officials from State and other departments, including DoD, to discuss and support Post efforts on CVE and explore ways to elaborate these initiatives. Besides working to keep those at risk of radicalization from becoming violent, we must also beat back the al-Qa’ida narrative in the broader public. Framing our interaction with the rest of the world, especially with Muslim communities, through the lens of counterterrorism can be counter-productive. Engaging mainstream communities around the world is that much harder if our audiences believe we see them as part of the problem, rather than as part of the solution, or are only interested in using them to get at the small number of violent extremists who actually threaten us. Moreover, we believe that engagement framed with mutual respect and the pursuit of partnerships in areas of shared interest actually marginalizes violent extremists by contrasting our positive vision with the terrorists’ commitment to murder, violence, and destruction. We must do a better job of explaining U.S. policies to foreign publics and debunking myths about the United States. Building personal relationships and deepening existing cultural and economic ties are some of the best ways to dispel misperceptions about U.S. interests and motives. Immigrant and youth populations should be treated not as threats to defend against, but as communities of potential partners who can play a lead role in changing our world for the better....

March 11, 2010
International Peace Institute

Abstract:

The global nature of the common challenge we face is clear. Citizens from dozens of countries around the world, the vast majority of them not from the United States, are being victimized by terrorism and violent extremism. President Obama recognizes that the United States cannot address this threat alone. Rather, we have and will continue to reach out, and, on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, forge international coalitions. We are building (and sometimes rebuilding) partnerships-- bilateral, with multilateral organizations such as the UN, and with the private sector, and civil society. This is a critical part of our comprehensive approach to addressing the threat. It is based on the premise that military power, intelligence operations, and law enforcement alone will not eliminate the underlying political, economic, and social conditions that help put so many individuals in situations where they might choose the path to violence. Pillars of this new U.S. approach where our partnership with the UN is critical: First, we are focused on building political will through consistent diplomatic engagement with counterparts Second, we are committed to addressing the state insufficiency that allows terrorists to operate freely Third, we are working with partners, including with UN agencies such as UNDP, UNICEF, and UNESCO, to help countries confront he political, social, and economic conditions that terrorists try to exploit to win over new recruits. Fourth, we are ratcheting up our efforts to resolve longstanding political and other conflicts that fuel the grievances that violent extremists can latch on to. Fifth, and at the heart of the Obama Administration’s approach, is to identify the drivers of radicalization and identify how to address them most effectively. Finally, our approach recognizes that our counterterrorism efforts can best succeed when they make central respect for human rights and the rule of law....

March 11, 2010
International Crisis Group

Abstract:

Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua saw an upsurge in political violence in 2009, continuing into 2010. One factor was the increased activity of militant activists from the central highlands, many of them members of the West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, KNPB). They decided there was no longer any hope of achieving their main objective – a referendum on independence – through peaceful means, and led some to advocate violence and in some cases directly participate in violent acts. Their tactics are decried by many Papuans, but their message resonates widely, and the frustrations they articulate are real. A dialogue between Papuan leaders and central government officials, if carefully prepared, offers the possibility of addressing some longstanding grievances, without calling Indonesian sovereignty into question. The KNPB had its origins in the growth of pro-independence student activism in Papua following the fall of Soeharto in 1998. As various coalitions formed and fissured, KNPB emerged as a group of mostly university-educated students and ex-students who adopted a militant left-wing ideology and saw themselves as revolutionaries, fighting the Indonesian state and the giant Freeport copper and gold mine near Timika. There were two main consequences to their increased militancy. They moved closer to their highland counterparts in the guerrilla army of the Free Papua Movement (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional/ Organisasi Papua Merdeka, TPN/OPM) and they increasingly saw that the only hope of achieving their cause lay in showing the world that Papua was in crisis – and that meant more visible manifestations of conflict....

March 11, 2010
United States Agency for International Development // ReliefWeb

Abstract:

This map represents IDP movement in Pakistan since September 1, 2009 to IDP camps and to outside organized IDP camps, as of March 9th, 2010.

March 11, 2010
United Nations Human Rights Council // Burma Campaign UK

Abstract:

Report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Tomás Ojea Quintana, to the UN Human Rights Council. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the UN consider establishing a Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma. The report states that the ‘gross and systematic’ nature of the abuses and the lack of action to stop them indicated; ‘a state policy that involves authorities in the executive, military and judiciary at all levels.’ It further states; ‘According to consistent reports, the possibility exists that some of these human rights violations may entail categories of crimes against humanity or war crimes under the terms of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.’ ... ‘UN institutions may consider the possibility to establish a commission of inquiry with a specific fact finding mandate to address the question of international crimes.’ The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 10/27 of 27 March 2009 and covers human rights developments in Myanmar since the Special Rapporteur’s second report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC 10/19) and his report to the General Assembly (A/64/318) in October 2009. The Special Rapporteur has travelled three times to Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur conducted his third country visit from 15 to 19 February 2010 at the invitation of the Government after several postponements of planned visits by the Government. The report elaborates on the issues related to the protection of human rights. Despite calls, by the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, the Human Rights Council, government representatives from many nations, Nobel Laureates and other respected leaders, for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the more than 2100 prisoners of conscience, the Government of Myanmar has not yet met this important step in its preparations for transition to democracy, in Government of Myanmar to announce an election date and an electoral framework that adheres to international standards for a free, fair, participatory and transparent election process. For far too many of Myanmar’s people their basic rights to food, shelter, health and education, which are not only human rights in and of themselves, but are also essential for the exercise of other human rights, are denied . At the same time, conflicts along the border areas continue to abet serious human rights abuses against civilian populations, including the ongoing recruitment of child soldiers. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the systematic and endemic discrimination faced by the Muslim community in Northern Rakhine State. This discrimination, which is framed as an immigration problem, leads to basic and fundamental human rights being denied to this population. Measures taken against this population include restriction of movement, limitations on permission to marry, and forced labor....

March 11, 2010
United Kingdom // House of Commons // International Development Committee

Abstract:

The proposals in the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) White Paper published in July 2009 change the emphasis of the Department’s activities. It will focus more of its work in fragile states. This is a necessary step if global poverty reduction goals are to be met. Some of the poorest people in the world live in conflict-affected countries and those where governments are unable or unwilling to deliver basic services. DFID’s commitment to assist these countries is therefore welcome. However, the 2008-09 Annual Report and Resource Accounts reveal a number of performance issues for the Department. It needs to address these if it is to meet its own objectives for efficient and effective operations in the face of the additional demands on resources which operating in insecure environments imposes. We are unsure whether DFID will have sufficient trained and experienced staff willing and available to work in more fragile regions, given the requirement to make further efficiency savings in its administrative budget, including reducing the number of staff employed. We were keen to explore with DFID what it had gained from its experience of working in Afghanistan and how this had informed the new policy direction set out in the White Paper. The Secretary of State cautioned that the central focus on Afghanistan might “elide the distinction” between the specific circumstances in that country, and in particular the presence there of thousands of British and coalition forces, and the “broader issue of how the international community can work effectively […] in circumstances of state fragility and conflict”....

March 11, 2010
Department for International Development

Abstract:

Addressing discrimination, inequality and human rights is a core challenge of the state-building and peace-building process. It is at the centre of the negotiation of state–society relations and is a process rife with contradictions and tensions. Donors thus have a responsibility to address discrimination within their support to peacebuilding and state-building. The first section of this paper sets out what we understand by discrimination, drawing on human rights principles and DFID’s conceptualisation of social exclusion as systematic disadvantage which results from discrimination. The second section explores why discrimination matters in contexts of fragility, conflict and violence. The third section sets out how DFID and other donors can address discrimination as part of efforts to support peace-building and state-building. The paper concludes with a summary of key lessons....

March 11, 2010
United Kingdom // House of Commons // International Development Committee

Abstract:

The proposals in the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) White Paper published in July 2009 change the emphasis of the Department’s activities. It will focus more of its work in fragile states. This is a necessary step if global poverty reduction goals are to be met. Some of the poorest people in the world live in conflict-affected countries and those where governments are unable or unwilling to deliver basic services. DFID’s commitment to assist these countries is therefore welcome. However, the 2008-09 Annual Report and Resource Accounts reveal a number of performance issues for the Department. It needs to address these if it is to meet its own objectives for efficient and effective operations in the face of the additional demands on resources which operating in insecure environments imposes. We are unsure whether DFID will have sufficient trained and experienced staff willing and available to work in more fragile regions, given the requirement to make further efficiency savings in its administrative budget, including reducing the number of staff employed. We were keen to explore with DFID what it had gained from its experience of working in Afghanistan and how this had informed the new policy direction set out in the White Paper. The Secretary of State cautioned that the central focus on Afghanistan might “elide the distinction” between the specific circumstances in that country, and in particular the presence there of thousands of British and coalition forces, and the “broader issue of how the international community can work effectively […] in circumstances of state fragility and conflict”....

March 11, 2010
Department for International Development

Abstract:

Addressing discrimination, inequality and human rights is a core challenge of the state-building and peace-building process. It is at the centre of the negotiation of state–society relations and is a process rife with contradictions and tensions. Donors thus have a responsibility to address discrimination within their support to peacebuilding and state-building. The first section of this paper sets out what we understand by discrimination, drawing on human rights principles and DFID’s conceptualisation of social exclusion as systematic disadvantage which results from discrimination. The second section explores why discrimination matters in contexts of fragility, conflict and violence. The third section sets out how DFID and other donors can address discrimination as part of efforts to support peace-building and state-building. The paper concludes with a summary of key lessons....

March 10, 2010
Council on Foreign Relations // International Institutions and Global Governance Program

Abstract:

If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not exist today, the United States would not seek to create it. In 1949, it made sense in the face of a potential Soviet invasion to forge a bond in the North Atlantic area among the United States, Canada, and the west European states. Today, if the United States were starting from scratch in a world of transnational threats, the debate would be over whether to follow liberal and neoconservative calls for an alliance of democracies without regard to geography or to develop a great power concert envisioned by the realists to uphold the current order. The United States is not, however, starting from scratch, and NATO should not disappear. While the bonds across the Atlantic may be frayed, they are stronger than those tying the United States to other parts of the world. Common history and values matter, as do the resources (both financial and military) that Europe possesses. The NATO allies share a common interest in preventing disruptions to the global economy, including attacks on freedom of navigation. As a community of democracies, the member states are threatened by forces such as Islamic extremism and the rise of authoritarian states. For the United States, the alliance is a source of legitimacy for actions in places like Afghanistan. For Europe, NATO is a vehicle for projecting hard power....

March 5, 2010
Royal United Services Institute Journal

Abstract:

The demands of counter-insurgency have sparked much discussion about the need for army reform. But it is also the case that government, as a whole, must adapt to the present campaign. Britain has lagged behind the US in this regard, and it is not clear that sufficient political will exists in the UK for real change. However, British capacity is only ever the first step: ultimately, what matters for successful stabilisation is the capability and legitimacy of the host government.

March 5, 2010
European Council on Refugees and Exiles

Abstract:

This research paper focuses on the European Union funding priorities in four Eastern European countries neighbouring the EU (Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) for refugee protection, migration management and border reinforcement, which has been completed by the Eastern Europe project funded by the EU's Aeneas programme. The research was undertaken from Autumn 2007 to Spring 2008, with a final update in November 2008. The focus of the research is on EU's funding programmes in 2004-2007.