Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 13 - Evidence - October 26, 2009 - Morning
OTTAWA, Monday, October 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 10 a.m. to examine issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is here studying under its reference to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
Under that broad mandate, we have specifically zeroed in to look at the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and within that topic we will study the subsequent resolutions that have passed the United Nations and the Security Council.
We are pleased to have witnesses here by way of video conference. We expect more senators to attend, but at the moment I am Senator Raynell Andreychuk, the Chair of the Committee on Human Rights. As well, we have Senator Jaffer, Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Senator Munson and Senator Brazeau.
I ask senators, when we come to the question portion, to identify themselves for the purposes of the video conference.
Our witnesses today, from the United Nations, are David Haeri, Chief, Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, Department of Peacekeeping Operations; and with him is Fernanda Tavares, Senior Gender Adviser.
Our usual practice is to have an opening statement. We then go to questions from the senators.
I turn the floor over to David Haeri.
David Haeri, Chief, Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations: Fernanda Tavares and I work closely on this issue. I will give a short opening set of remarks, but if at the end Fernanda wants to jump in and remind me that I have forgotten something important, then that would be one way to make the opening remarks in tandem if necessary, but I will kick off the remarks.
With regard to follow-up to implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325, I will say a bit about what the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO, as a department has done, a little about what partnership with troop- and police-contributing countries looks like, maybe a word about partnership with regional organizations, and then some issues regarding how we work to empower local women in peace processes. I will try to be brief in terms of a table set to begin with.
In terms of our own progress in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to develop policies, guidance and accountability frameworks, we have a policy framework in place. A gender equality policy directive was adopted in 2006, and guidelines and tools have been developed to assist missions to translate that policy into operational practice in peacekeeping. By guidelines and tools, I mean we have gender guidelines for the police, gender and elections guidelines, gender guidelines for political officers, and others are being worked on.
An action plan is therefore in place at headquarters in most missions, and in most missions, a gender task force serves as an implementation and monitoring mechanism to help track achievements and measure progress on Resolution 1325. That monitoring mechanism will bring together different elements of the mission so that the responsibility does not rest only with the gender unit, for example, but with the disarmament and demobilization people, with the elections people and with the political affairs officers, the police and the military. The point is that this resolution is a broad, wide-ranging one that should and does impact on almost all aspects of the multi-dimensional mission.
We also have invested in reviewing and updating our core pre-deployment materials, which we make available to troop- and police-contributing countries, as well as to civilians. Right now, those updated materials are available on the DPKO's training website. The materials now have language that reflects basic human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as more specific gender issues under Resolution 1325, Resolution 1820 and sexual gender-based violence issues.
Training is also provided in follow-up in the mission area. Our gender focal points train trainers, who then are able, post-deployment, to provide training to all the various elements of a mission: military, civilian and police.
In terms of our partnership, we have troop- and police-contributing countries. We have convened a series of policy discussions with troop and police contributors in the last three years to build a partnership approach to have more women in uniform for peacekeeping, to facilitate sharing of best practices in recruitment and retention of women. Along with that effort, we conducted a baseline survey in 2006 on women's participation in troop- and police-contributing military and police forces.
We are developing gender guidelines for military personnel in peacekeeping missions and those guidelines will be made available to troop-contributing countries to help them in their own pre-deployment planning processes.
In terms of partnership with regional organizations, we have a range of different issues. In April 2009, most recently, we partnered with Folke Bernadotte Academy and hosted a one-day meeting to create a systematic framework for cooperation between DPKO and regional organizations for the implementation of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. That meeting brought together for the first time gender specialists from DPKO, peacekeeping missions, European Union, African Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, to exchange experiences and strategize on opportunities for future cooperation.
At the end of that consultative process, we identified three concrete areas for cooperation, collaboration with regional organizations on harmonizing training standards, and approaches related to gender and peacekeeping — to develop an online community of practice that will allow for gender advisers in DPKO and their counterparts in regional organizations to share knowledge and information in a real-time and collaborative basis, and to work with regional organizations on draft gender guidelines for military peacekeeping personnel, which are currently under development by DPKO.
Meanwhile, we have taken specific steps to increase the number of women in peacekeeping, including at senior level. DPKO and our sister department, Department of Field Support, which is responsible for personnel and recruitment matters, have set up a senior leadership appointment section that, in part, is dedicated to keeping track of upcoming opportunities and maintaining a database of senior women.
The chair will probably know the Secretary-General himself has made it a requirement and a priority to bring more senior women into peacekeeping leadership positions, and has made it a requirement that all short lists for senior appointments that are brought to his attention include at least one woman among three finalists.
We also undertook a study on promoting an agenda-friendly work environment in peacekeeping so that we could try to improve our retention of skilled and capable women in peacekeeping as they move along their career path.
I will say something about our experience with foreign police units. You may know we deploy an all-women foreign police unit in Liberia. I was recently on a mission to some of our bigger troop-contributing countries in South Asia, those being Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, and all said they were willing and ready to provide more female police units. The experience of that unit in Liberia has been remarkable in that it has sent strong signals throughout the mission and indeed the country on the potential role of women as peacekeepers.
Finally, I will say a word not only about our own processes as the Department of Peacekeeping to train and mainstream the issue in our own work but of course a little on the impact on the ground and in the countries concerned.
We have worked to ensure that disarmament, demobilization and re-integration, DDR, programs in Liberia, Sudan and Burundi have been gender-sensitive and that women have a voice in DDR programs, and are programmed for and taken account of. We have been promoting the participation of women in security sector reform processes in Liberia, Timor-Leste and Kosovo. In Timor-Leste there has been a lot of recruitment of women in the national police, civil service and the army.
We have also provided technical and capacity-building support to the ministries of women and gender affairs in Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, and Liberia, on issues of gender violence and the implementation of Resolution 1325.
I will stop there. Those are only some examples of what inevitably is a broad pallet. As you may be aware, our multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations have wide-ranging mandates from security to state sector reform, governance, political transition and electoral processes, and the standing up and beginning of new civil administration structures and early recovery and peacebuilding.
Our aim, of course, is to ensure that women are taken account of, and that they participate in and, indeed, lead as national actors in all these processes. I tried to give you a snapshot of a much broader effort. I do not know if Fernanda Tavares would like to add to that snapshot.
Madam Chair, do you want us to cover Resolution 1820 specifically as well? I provided more coverage on Resolution 1325.
The Chair: Yes, Resolution 1820 is within our mandate. We started with the historic first resolution but all subsequent resolutions are of importance to us also.
Fernanda Tavares, Senior Gender Adviser, Peacekeeping Best Practices Section, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations: After the adoption of Resolution 1820, DPKO was tasked to draft the Secretary-General's report on the resolution. That report was submitted on June 13, 2008. It originated an open discussion. The first draft was prepared on the basis of inputs from peacekeeping and political missions as well as the UN departments and agencies, member states and non-governmental organizations.
The main pillars of the Secretary-General's report were on combating impunity for sexual violence through greater focus on perpetrators of sexual violence, enhanced intervention and response to sexual violence, and to put in place measures to protect those at risk, and ensuring complementary implementation of Resolution 1820 and Resolution 1325.
The report was submitted, and it originated an open debate held on August 7, and for follow-up, we developed Resolution 1888. At this moment, we are in the field assessing the main ways and trends to provide operational guidance to all peacekeeping operations to implement the resolutions in the field, putting together Resolution 1820, Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889 to complement Resolution 1325, of course. However, before that, we were active in the field, providing training on sexual and gender-based violence with other components of the mission because, as it is rightly said, sexual violence is not only a gender issue. Other components of the mission have been actively working on sexual violence. Human rights, rule of law, and police, have always worked together with gender, child protection and HIV groups to try to provide insight into missions, and insight into trends of sexual and gender-based violence to try to support the government in addressing the issue, building the local capacity of the magistrates, corrections and the police. We even include training modules in the police academy to address the issue.
At this time, immediately after the adoption of Resolution 1888, we are already in the field in Chad and Darfur and our colleagues have been in DRC. We are coming up with a standardized approach to provide guidance in the field on the best ways to address and implement the resolution in the field.
Mr. Haeri: One other thing is that the Secretary-General is moving as fast as possible to try to establish the office of the special representative of the Secretary-General, envisaged in Resolution 1888, and the operational elements that flow from that office. That initiative is moving fairly fast. Obviously, these sorts of appointments take a little time but it is at a high priority with the Secretary-General.
The Chair: Resolution 1888 also has the difficulty of being general. The Secretary-General will have to identify it clearly to put it into practice because at the moment the resolution is broad-ranging with many questions and not many answers.
Mr. Haeri, you started by describing the measures that the United Nations is taking. In some cases, you said they are putting guidelines in place; in some places you said guidelines were in place; and in some places you said they were updating guidelines. Where do we go to track exactly what is happening with Resolution 1325?
My difficulty, personally, and I think this committee's difficulty, has been to identify exactly what progress has been made on Resolution 1325. The resolution is excellent, but there is little ability to look at whether it has been implemented, and how it is being implemented.
Can you assist me in that difficulty?
Mr. Haeri: Ms. Tavares may want to provide more detail. Obviously, Resolution 1325, as you noted, is also a wide-ranging resolution, so work is taking place in a wide range of elements in our missions. Bringing all the elements together is a challenge because of the breadth. When we report on an election that we supported, disarmament, demobiliation and re-integration, our human rights work or our early recovery and peacebuilding work, Resolution 1325 should move through all those elements. We report constantly on the work of our missions, and therefore, potentially, the amount of information is relatively vast.
On the question of guidelines, the answer is somewhat simpler. We have a website where all the training material and guidance material is available, and that information can be tracked there. We are in close contact with your permanent mission here as well as all the other permanent missions in New York on the development of training materials as they come along.
On the broader part of your question as to where Resolution 1325 is tracked as a whole, I agree that it is perhaps a little less concisely tracked.
Fernanda, do you want to say something about reporting on Resolution 1325 and how we follow up through various mission reports versus one generic report?
Ms. Tavares: Resolution 1325 advanced very much the work of gender in the field missions. We now have 12 senior gender advisers in all peacekeeping missions, and we have gender focal points in traditional missions. Before, gender advisers did not exist; now we have full-time gender advisers and full-time gender capacity in all peacekeeping missions.
We have mandatory training on gender, both pre-deployment and during the training in our missions. We have a gender capacity in the mission, but in these advisory roles, we are not expected to be operational. However, we should build the capacity of the mission to address gender concerns throughout to implement the mandate. We build capacity to include gender in disarmament, demobilization and re-integration; security sector reform; police; rule of law; and all sections of the mission. All the DDR training modules have gender components. When it comes to policy, we are now revising the gender equality policy directive adopted in 2006 to include the provision of the newly adopted Resolution 1820 and Resolution 1888.
We have the guidelines and tools because we have the policy, but we are obliged to translate it into practical terms because we face this high turnover of staff, both civilian and uniformed personnel, and we always have to translate and link the policy to the mandates in the field.
We have operational guidelines for the police, and we are at the last stage of development of guidelines for the military. We have been doing it in close consultation with the troop-contributing countries and member states, and next month, we will have the validation here in New York. However, we have actively ongoing in the field the gender guidelines for the police and for DDR, and two kits for the security sector reform, SSR. We have gender guidelines for elections, and all the electoral officers are aware of how to include gender in the advocacy campaign, voter registration and civics campaign to cover all aspects, even the gender balance of polling stations.
Furthermore, the senior management has been more proactive and clear about how to implement the gender-related concerns in the missions.
Since the adoption of the resolution, much has been done in peacekeeping missions. We have the reporting. We have a quarterly report from the missions on implementation of the resolutions that are provided to headquarters, and we have the annual reporting to the Security Council that is added by the Office of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women. The office puts information out and prepares the report in close consultation with us.
Mr. Haeri: Madam Chair, your question was on reporting. Ms. Tavares, would you say that one place where you have everything consolidated is in the report of the special adviser?
Ms. Tavares: We publish our progress report annually in DPKO, and we have a community practice where we share all the outcomes in the field. A lot has been done except for the mediation process, where we need to do more to implement the aspect that calls for the participation of women in peace processes and for women to sit at the negotiation table.
We have been working with United Nations Department of Political Affairs, DPA, on this process. In June there was a big colloquium, and as the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM, we all addressed the issue, and everybody felt the need to improve the participation of women in peace negotiations and peace processes.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much; you have given us so much information.
I will start with Resolution 1820. You said that the Secretary-General is looking to appoint that person. Do you have any timelines as to when the appointment will be made? When can we expect that appointment?
Mr. Haeri: I am not able to say more than I have said, which is that the Secretary-General has made this appointment a priority, and I know the Secretary-General is consulting at a high level on possible names of people who might be worthwhile. I know he is receiving this sort of information, but in terms of the timeline, that is really his prerogative, and I do not honestly know by what time you can expect the appointment to be made, except to say it is a high priority. I expect that relative to other such appointments, it will move fast. We are receiving many requests at the staffing level to input and prepare talking points for the Secretary-General for meetings on this subject. Down here in the trenches, one has a feeling of a great deal of emphasis being given to this issue.
Senator Jaffer: I absolutely respect what the Secretary-General does, but when you said that he would appoint someone shortly, I thought you had a timeline.
I am more interested in the training part. You said you have training modules. Can you tell us how many training modules you have? More important, what is the amount of training that happens before troops are deployed, and then while they are deployed, on issues around Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820, especially with respect to issues of sexual violence?
Mr. Haeri: We have a section in the department of peacekeeping operations called the "integrated training service." It is integrated because it brings together civilian, military and police training elements.
As you may be aware, at the moment we have some 115,000 personnel in the field. As for the military and police elements, they rotate every six months to a year, so in the course of a year, we are talking about close to 200,000 peacekeepers who are either in the process of preparing to come to, or preparing to leave, a peacekeeping operation.
I do not know the exact numbers, but I think our integrated training service has some 35 to 40 people. I use those numbers to make the point that, obviously, our training service is not delivering the training to these 200,000 people. The way training works in terms of pre-deployment is that we provide core pre-deployment materials that are available on line. Those materials cover a wide range of issues from what they are expected to do professionally as soldiers and policemen, to the environment in which they can expect to operate.
A third unit of that package is on issues that are necessary to bear in mind for them to implement their mandate effectively. That third unit covers human rights, international and humanitarian law, and gender issues. Gender issues cover Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. Obviously, Resolution 1888 is recent, so we will have to look at updating the unit. That unit is available for pre-deployment training. The member states themselves are responsible for delivering that pre-deployment training. Our training service liaises with them to ensure they have what they need.
We also liaise closely with training centres for peacekeeping around the world, some delivering and some supporting training, and we have worked closely with Canada's institute. Before we came here, Ms. Tavares was telling me about training she was involved with in supporting peacekeepers in West Africa.
Beyond providing standards, setting standards and providing modules, we are not able to deliver the training ourselves pre-deployment. Post-deployment, when uniformed personnel arrive, our missions will have an integrated training cell. That cell brings together training focal points from the military, police, civilian and gender side, as well. The trainers work on ensuring that the follow-up training is provided in mission. They provide training of trainers. For example, if a contingent comes from a troop-contributing country, the country is supposed to provide a trainer who can then be trained by this integrated mission training cell to provide training to the troops that have come with them, as needed in the mission. Obviously, sometimes language is an issue, and that is one of the reasons we need a training model. That post-deployment training includes training on the relevant resolutions on gender issues that we are discussing now and of course, the training can provide a little more on the local environment than can be provided pre-deployment.
Ms. Tavares may also want to weigh in, having been involved both at headquarters and on the ground in Côte d'Ivoire in such a position.
Senator Jaffer: I have a particular question. I respect your challenges and your short staff. I do not expect you to have trained 200,000. I am interested, Ms. Tavares, if the training of the trainers is provided, how do you ensure that it is done? I do not expect you to provide the training but when the troops are trained, does someone tell you that this training has been provided? How do you keep track of whether troops have been trained?
Ms. Tavares: Actually, we do provide training because we do not have the capacity in the field. We are the ones creating that capacity. People have the pre-deployment training, but when they come to the field, we do not train on Resolution 1325 only. We train on the gender concept and the norms and standards of the United Nations. Those people who are deployed to serve for six months do not have the UN background, which is one of the challenges we face. People who are deployed have their own cultures and perceptions. That is why we need to better inform them and to put information in the context of what is expected from them from the operational mandate and what is expected from all of us in the field perceived by the population as UN officers.
We train them, but do we train trainers when it comes to the contingents? We are the ones training officers, the military service and high-ranking officers for the police and the military. We also train civilians, but when possible, we train trainers who are placed in integrated mission training cells that can go on tracking and giving the training throughout the districts in the countries where we are deployed. The gender unit must provide this expertise and capacity to monitor how the training is delivered, and to assess the gaps and try to fill them.
When it comes to the contingents, we have a bigger challenge because of the language. The language is a real challenge for most of the troop-contributing countries. However, we follow the trainers through the integrated mission training cell.
We also organize thematic training in the field on gender for the DDR personnel and for elections. For elections it is important for all types of people deployed in the field to be trained in whatever competence on gender we have to provide to them. We work closely with them.
When it comes to DDR, before going to profiling the background of the ex-combatants of the countryman's sides, we have a close link with the DDR officers to uphold these aspects relating to women associated with fighting forces to be included in the package. When it comes to the security sector reform, we are training the officers in each of the competencies to uphold these aspects relating to women: what structures we are looking to put in place for the police in each country; how we assess sexual violence; how we train people that deal with victims; and how we put into place operational units dealing with these issues of gender? We provide this training throughout the time we are involved in the mission, but at the same time, we have the generic training: induction briefing, induction training and mandatory generic gender training for all civilian and military police personnel.
Senator Jaffer: I do not mean to interrupt. I can find on your website what kind of training you provide. I want to know how many hours of training you provide when the troops are on the ground. Do you keep track of how many hours of training are provided before the troops are deployed? I want to know how you keep track of training being provided on Resolution 1325, Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1820.
Ms. Tavares: We provide one-hour training when it comes to induction briefing.
Mr. Haeri: To answer your question, if I understand it correctly, senator, is that we know that the bulk of the uniformed personnel pre-deployment training is happening by the troop-sending countries. We obviously are not there. You want to know how we know that the training is taking place. As I said, we have a sister section, an integrated training section. This level of detail is something I prefer them to answer on, and I will a response by email with all the details.
In terms of my level of engagement, most of the larger troop-contributing countries either have or use a national or regional training centre. We are engaged in those training centres. Many of the countries have asked us for validation of their training exercises, and that is one way we can leverage our smaller training service to try and ensure standardization. When we can, we go out and sit in their training centres for two or three days; we watch people being inducted and we validate. We say this does seem to meet the standard. That is one way of standardization across what is a diverse pool of contributors.
In Sydney in November, there will be a meeting of all the international peacekeeping training centres, and we will be there with our training section, with my director Izumi Nakamitsu, and we will talk with them about precisely these sorts of issues. Leveraging our relationship with the training centres is probably the one way.
In terms of the back-end monitoring, I will hazard a guess but I will give a more detailed answer. It is difficult for us at this scale to undertake close training follow-up. To be honest, accurate training follow-up is a difficult challenge for even standing militaries that have a captive audience that they can work with throughout their tenure because the impact of training is something one must measure again and again.
I will come back with a more detailed answer, if you wish, in terms of what other monitoring mechanisms we have.
Senator Jaffer: I have many other questions, but I will go to the second round.
The Chair: I remind our witnesses and senators that we have a limited amount of time. I hope the questions and answers can be crisp. If there is more detail, you can follow up in a written form, which will be helpful.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Tell us, then, about monitoring in the field. When you receive your written reports back, how do you evaluate them? How do you even figure out what are best practices?
I would love to hear a story about in which country the UN has worked and made a difference, besides Liberia and the women's police section — or include that — where it has not worked and maybe something in the middle. In the end, it is all about being in the field.
Mr. Haeri: In terms of our reporting, most of our missions are reported at least on an annual basis, and most of the complex, multi-dimensional missions of the type we are talking about here are every six months, or even less, in terms of their reporting timelines. They have written reports at least once a year. The Security Council receives our reports every month or even every three months.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can I interrupt you to ask who "they" are? Are "they" the gender specialists? Who is "they" that are reporting?
Mr. Haeri: This reporting relates to the report to the Security Council on a specific mission. Let us take Darfur. There will be a briefing on Darfur. Last year, the report was every month. That report will be delivered by the Under-Secretary General or Assistant Secretary-General here at headquarters, or, if the Special Representative is visiting, a Joint Special Representative. That reporting is at the senior level. They bring together all aspects of the mandate to report.
The annual report on the mission, the written report, also usually covers gender issues and human rights issues as well. The UN Security Council will take up the missions as an agenda item and we will be obliged to report on them.
Then the Gender Unit provides quarterly reports to DPKO headquarters, and that is then drawn in as part of our general reporting to the council and to the UN General Assembly.
I talked about briefing the council on mandate implementation. The broader General Assembly is, of course, also interested in these issues and calls our Gender Unit, for example, to briefings. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, C-34, is a committee of the General Assembly. Canada is represented there, as are all our other troop-contributing countries. That special committee will also hold sessions on gender implementation.
You also asked how we know what the best practices are. Gathering best practices is the job of the Best Practices Section and the Gender Unit. We both have best practices officers and gender focal points in the missions. It is partly the job of these officers to prepare after-action reviews of major mission activity that has important implications on gender; to compile a lessons-learned report. When we see an issue that we want to focus on more broadly to bring together a few missions and prepare a review, we can do that as well and provide lessons learned. We have guidance material of all the lessons learned that is then available for all the missions. We have a community of practice, which I think I mentioned earlier, so that focal points from mission to mission can share experience real time.
You asked for a good experience. I will provide an anecdotal example. In Timor-Leste, you may recall that the UN was tasked as a transitional administration to help the country move from the point of referendum, when people in Timor said they wanted independence, to the point of independence. During that period, we were setting up nascent government and public institutions, including the civil service.
When we set up the civil service, we put out an ad saying that if people had experience or qualifications, please apply, and we began recruiting. We were in a hurry, as we always are in these situations. We found that mainly men responded to those ads. We were halfway through our recruitment and we had less than 5 per cent women.
We understood that we had to reach out to women in a way that empowered them to come forward and apply to the civil administration and civil service. That recruitment involved reaching out to churches and local communities, using women's NGOs, et cetera, and going out and encouraging women to apply. We had to ensure they felt there was both a welcome call from the mission and societal support for them to apply.
With only half of the civil service remaining to recruit, we managed to bring the overall representation of Timor-Leste to about 25 per cent or 30 per cent. Little Timor-Leste has risen in the ranks of the presence of women in the civil service; I have no idea to what point, but I imagine it is well above the halfway point of all countries.
Ms. Tavares: It is 26 per cent, and in the region it is 12 per cent.
Mr. Haeri: It is 26 per cent, and in the comparative region, it is 12 per cent of women in the civil service. The Gender Unit of the mission was not originally engaged in that civil service exercise. I do not think there was any bad will. I think the people involved were only hurrying to do the best job they could. However, it was the Gender Unit that reached out to counterparts in women's NGOs and began to answer the question: How do they conduct this exercise in Timor to make it work?
That is one example. Obviously, there are many examples. You asked for an example where the mission did not work well. Maybe Ms. Tavares can pick up on that part.
Ms. Tavares: I will point out the example of Burundi. We have all kinds of problems, but we have women in peace negotiations in Arusha. After that, we managed to have a quota system for women included in the constitution and we revised the electoral law, including gender concerns, specifically in the electoral legislation.
In the disarmament, demobilization and re-integration, we were able to address gender concerns in demobilization by putting women mostly into the police force and some in the army. In security sector reform, we introduced standard operating procedures addressing sex and gender-based violence from the outset.
Burundi is one example, from 2004 to the end of 2006, of a good mission addressing gender concerns. I will not say the fact that it was headed by a woman had an impact, but it sure did from the gender perspective. It was headed by Carolyn McAskie at the time.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We are proud of Ms. McAskie.
Senator Munson: I am curious about how you practice what you preach, when in September 2009 only 2,022 out of 83,853 military personnel deployed by the UN were women. Is your expectation with all these programs to increase the level of participation of women in the first military personnel going to these missions who have been trained?
Mr. Haeri: That is certainly our aim. Obviously, we are a demandeur in this sense. We are not producing the troops, so the level of participation depends on the militaries that send the troops. I do not know if one can say this as a generalization, but I will take a guess that the number of women in the Armed Forces of our mainstays in terms of troop contributors is probably low; it is 2 per cent. That situation is what we have to work with.
We are trying to accomplish a few special things that I mentioned earlier, such as the all-women-formed police units. That initiative had a lot of success in Liberia and has created a certain amount of precedence. As I said, recently when we were in Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example, they also offered the same initiative.
We are trying to promote this idea. We have been talking with our military and police advisers here. All the permanent missions — Canada included, of course — have police and military advisers represented in New York, talking to them about how to source more women. Part of the problem of the uniformed personnel is the source countries that we have, and their relatively low representation. On the police side, the average is 8 per cent women amongst our troop-contributing countries.
Senator Munson: Are member states paying their way? I ask that in light of the costs of these activities. Is there a need for increased financial and training support amongst member states? We have heard recently regarding the big picture of the UN that only about 15 or 20 countries pay their rent and pay their way at the UN. In this specific environment, are member states paying their way for training and so on?
Mr. Haeri: There are two elements, of course, in terms of how we receive budgetary support. One is through an assessment, which is made of all member states. There, obviously, some countries are in arrears but others are not. Generally, the picture looks good as one country that had large arrears has paid all of them off recently.
That assessed budget covers the mission per se: the personnel, equipment and the deployment of the mission. A lot of the training responsibilities, as we mentioned earlier, falls into the pre-deployment phase. That is something that the country sending the troops is primarily responsible for. Countries often seek support for training.
We mentioned earlier the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre has been involved in providing training support for sending police- and troop-contributing countries. There is room for greater assistance in that area in terms of pure need. At this scale of deployment, with 115,000 in total deployed, we are calling on new troop- and police-contributing countries, and many of them do not have a lot of experience. The training standards and equipment standards often are not up to the level we want.
As part of our broader reform agenda — we have been talking mainly about gender issues here — peacekeeping has put forward a broader form of agenda in a paper called New Horizon where we talk about a number of challenges facing peacekeeping. One challenge is to increase a focus on performance: not only the numbers that we have discussed, not training per se, but performance outcomes; not what a unit should look like, but what it should be able to do.
There, to be honest, we see performance gaps in the field. Part of the problem is, to an extent, that we are stretching thin the resources out in the world at this level of deployment.
Training assistance is important from member states that have the wherewithal, particularly for countries that are less able to train troops. In these states, I would also say there is an issue of sustainability of training; meaning one-off workshops are fine, but the states train a few people and there is not necessarily a follow-up. I do not want to use a paternalistic phrase like godfathering or godmothering, but some kind of longer-term relationship is needed between member states that may have resources but may not be deploying directly under blue helmets, and those that are deploying directly under blue helmets but have fewer resources. That sort of thing could be more useful. There are gaps in this area.
The Chair: I know your next question will be brief. Can I ask for a brief answer as well so all senators will have a chance to ask questions?
Senator Munson: I am looking for a picture of what is happening in peacekeeping. Canada had a great reputation as a peacekeeper, and these programs are laudable when it comes to training on gender.
In this new day and age, I want your viewpoint on where peacekeeping is on a scale of things now. It seems we are a bit lost in another area where the idea is to go to war, not to go to peace.
Mr. Haeri: It will be a challenge to answer that question briefly. I commend to you our New Horizon paper. It lays out where the challenges and gaps are.
In about five sentences, I would say there is a question of scale and a question of complexity. We run 15 peacekeeping operations, and another two civilian ones, including one in Afghanistan. That number is taxing the peacekeeping system.
There is also a question of key issues, even within peacekeeping, where the use of force is becoming more of an issue in terms of the protection of civilians and women, and in terms of robust peacekeeping, et cetera.
I would say there is an issue in the UN right now because, as peacekeeping operations become more demanding, as they have greater complexity and scale, as host nations provide us with less and less consent and as the missions become more dangerous, this duality within the UN system is creating a tension where some countries provide troops and some countries provide mandate and perhaps policy, training and other things.
The countries that provide troops do not necessarily have a direct national strategic interest. To pick a few, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India do not necessarily have a national strategic interest in entering the Congo. If the UN is an organization based on collective response to a collective security threat, and only some countries send troops and others do not, that situation naturally creates tension, as it would in any organization involved in a collective response. That duality is an issue.
At the same time, there is more tension and support for peacekeeping and, in general, more resolve from the UN Security Council for member states to see it work. There are reasons for optimism and opportunity as well.
An intensive dialogue is taking place within the Security Council. Canada has been a leader in that dialogue. Canada is working with us to have seminars on various issues right at the forefront of what is challenging peacekeeping here in New York.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for taking this time with us. It has been useful.
Canada, as my colleague has alluded to, has played a great role in peacekeeping and other missions over the years. We are proud of our Armed Forces, particularly now for the work they are doing in Afghanistan.
However, some of us feel the forces do not have as many women as we would like to see. There is some question as to whether we really emphasize an operational understanding of Resolution 1325 and the other resolutions.
Can you tell me, when you become engaged in training centres pre-deployment — I think that is what I heard you say — have you been engaged in some way in pre-deployment training in Canada? Has Canada consulted you? Are you aware that we have been using your modules in Canada? Have you had people here to help us?
I think you also mentioned that you have integrated mission training operations. Do those operations apply to our forces in Afghanistan?
Mr. Haeri: To your second question first, the training operations would not have applied to Canadian Forces in Afghanistan because, while you are under the Security Council mandate, you are not under blue helmet command and control. That is a matter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
We have a civilian mission — the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UNAMA — that focuses on the politics and donor coordination side of things.
In terms of training follow-up, to do justice to that question I should ask my colleagues involved in training on a day-to-day basis. I know we are closely engaged with the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre on a wide range of training support. Ms. Tavares mentioned training we provided in West Africa. These missions are opportunities for us to engage — with Pearson at least — on the issue of the modules, et cetera, that we prepare for peacekeepers generally.
As to whether your Armed Forces training avails itself of our modules, I am not able to answer that question directly. I can see if my colleagues know, but I assume the best place for that question is with your training people.
Senator Mitchell: I was wondering what your impression was, and whether you had worked with our forces.
You alluded to the idea that perhaps sponsor states, states not necessarily in a location or under a UN mandate for a given mission, might support this Resolution 1325 training elsewhere.
More broadly, are there nations that you would pick out immediately that are champions of Resolution 1325 in the world — they promote it, push it, elevate it — and that there are nations you look to for leadership in the United Nations in making progress with Resolution 1325? Is Canada one of them?
Mr. Haeri: I think you can say Canada has been fully engaged on the issue. I think we partner actively with Canadian diplomats here at the mission on peacekeeping issues generally. Certainly in terms of being a policy leader, I think undoubtedly in the area of peacekeeping Canada is here in New York and around the world.
I referred to some degree — and this is not a knock on Canada but in general — a situation is occurring in peacekeeping where large troop-contributing countries are on the ground and other countries are not on the ground but they are engaged on the policy front. As things become more and more dangerous on the ground, that tension occurs.
We now have countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and others saying they want to be at that policy table. I think that is fine. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. I think the task is to bring the Security Council, the troop-contributing countries and other concerned countries together earlier in the planning for missions to address these issues and to ensure everyone feels they are an equal stakeholder. Obviously, the capabilities in terms of training institutes, media usage and other things of some countries are much more developed than in many of our troop-contributing countries, and that is an issue within the UN family.
Canada, as such, is a leader on these issues, I would say unequivocally, yes, and we are grateful for the coordination and cooperation we have with your mission here. As I mentioned, as part of our effort to review peacekeeping and the Security Council's effort this year, the Security Council has had three thematic meetings on peacekeeping as such. Canada has conducted a number of seminars and workshops, bringing together at senior levels the ambassadors in the UN to thrash through the real challenges facing peacekeeping. That activity, in and of itself, is a sign of their engagement. They put a lot of time and energy into it.
Senator Mitchell: They talk about Resolution 1325, I am sure, at those round tables?
Mr. Haeri: Absolutely.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you to both of you for feeding into our study and for the information you have provided.
My question is along the same lines as Senator Mitchell's question. In your opinion, how is Canada faring vis-à-vis other countries in terms of its contributions to the UN for the promotion and implementation of Resolution 1325? Is there a gap that exists, or that you see, between the work that Canada is doing and the work other countries are doing, for example?
Ms. Tavares: I do not know about the UN specifically, but we have been very much in contact with Canada about Resolution 1325. We receive a lot of support. I keep mentioning Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, because it received Canadian funding to support the deployment of francophones. One challenge we are facing is that we have big missions in francophone countries and not enough French speakers. Canada has been very much supportive on that challenge, as well as on the deployment of the police. As to the overall contribution of Canada to the UN, I do not know, but on gender, we count on it very much.
Mr. Haeri: You asked if we see a gap. From our perspective and from where we work, the issue is more on the policy side, more on the development of standards, more in terms of building a framework of knowledge that is needed for successful peacekeeping. Canada is undisputedly a leader in that regard.
Talking about the UN more broadly is a little beyond my remit. I would say, not specifically focusing on Canada but more generally, as you well know, peacekeeping at this scale needs capabilities that are more specialized as well as large numbers of troops. The Under-Secretary-General and the Secretary-General have made a general plea to the capable developed countries and armies of the world also to consider how they can contribute to peacekeeping more directly. That contribution does not mean necessarily battalions on the ground. It may mean specialized units and things that we need that make all the difference in these difficult mandates. That contribution means communications, air mobility, information analysis and intelligence, engineering and the sorts of things that countries like Canada have. We have a general plea that applies to Canada as well, which is that we need some of the old-line peacekeeping partners like Canada to come back into blue helmet peacekeeping in a more direct way. Some of the newer countries, for example, in Europe have not participated before. There are positive signs of that participation. We have a number of European troops in Lebanon and Chad, but I think this is an area where you would hear this plea echoed at the highest levels. Clearly, Canada is a staunch partner, and that is clear in terms of peacekeeping policies and support politically, but we would probably have that message on peacekeeping more broadly.
Senator Jaffer: We have run out of time, but you kindly offered to provide us with answers. If I may, I will provide you with specific questions on the operations of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820, and if you are able to, I would appreciate you sending the answers to the chair. The chair will send you my questions, and then maybe we can have specific answers from you.
Mr. Haeri: I would be happy to do so.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our session. We thank you for taking the time to provide us with these answers. Clearly, the issue is complex. All these resolutions are well-intentioned and broadly based to cover issues affecting women in conflict, but our particular study is geared to whether the resolutions are having any effect on the ground. We want to see the progress for these women who are in conflict and who are intended to be helped by these resolutions. If you wish to pass on anything else as you reflect on this issue, please do so. Thank you again for participating in this videoconference with us.
In continuing our study, we have before us, a panel of witnesses. We have from the United Nations Association in Canada, Kathryn White, Executive Director; from the Voice of Women for Peace, Janis Alton, past chair; and from Rights and Democracy, Michael Wodzicki, Deputy Director of Programmes and Isabelle Solon-Helal, Women's Rights Programme Officer and Coordinator of the Coalition for Women's Human Rights in Conflict Situations. Welcome to you all.
I will now turn to Ms. White, since she is first on the agenda. I think all of you have testified at one time or another before Senate committees. I ask you to make short opening comments and then we will enter into a dialogue, and senators will have questions.
Kathryn White, Executive Director, United Nations Association in Canada: I appreciate this opportunity greatly. I am pleased you are bringing attention to Resolution 1325. Many of you already know that the United Nations Association in Canada, as a Canadian NGO with not only professional staff throughout the country but also volunteer branches across the country, also monitors Canadian opinion on such issues as the involvement of women in the UN and Canada's role.
UNA Canada is also part of a global network, the World Federation of UNAs. I am honoured to be the chair of the board of that network, which allows us to be part of an important global network as well.
While our mandate is to educate and engage Canadians in international issues of concern to us all as the people's movement for the UN, we also work internationally through sharing made-in-Canada good practices and lessons and through working with other UNAs in building their capacity.
You will know that as of August 5, there are now two more UN resolutions relating to women, peace and security. Resolution 1325, with its tenth anniversary rushing upon us, has, perhaps, not had the traction that we had enthusiastically hoped for 10 years ago. The resolution now has Resolution 1889, which encourages us to come up with indicators and action on this resolution. Resolution 1889 was promoted by Vietnam at the Security Council. There is also Resolution 1820, which has been around, and its subsequent resolution, Resolution 1888, which concerns sexual violence.
To assist in framing these two sets of resolutions, I find it helpful to think of Resolution 1325 as prevention and Resolution 1820 as treatment, using a medical analogy. I urge you to remember that we need both those things. I think a focus substantially on prevention is an important part of the work you do here.
It is time that Canada increased its leadership and visibility on these issues. Canada has a strong history of pushing issues of gender equity forward within the military and security sectors in Canada, but also within the international community.
Some of you may know that I was involved in the development of the first course at Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, where they had a doctrine that talked about the peacekeeping partnership and gender. I think that leadership role has been somewhat diminished in spite of our very diplomatic UN diplomats before us.
What we should also see from government and, of course, what you should look at in terms of government agencies, is to address the commitments we have made. Canada needs its own national plan. We have not been a leader on this initiative, but I understand through leadership at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, that this plan is in the works. I urge you in your role to encourage and support the earlier and rigorous development of a national plan and the inclusion of the role of civil society in that plan.
The Canadian government, through the Canadian Forces, needs to share its good practices and lessons. It seems to me that we all know we have now had this hard-won lesson in Afghanistan of working especially where gender rights are known only in the breach. We have lessons and we should bring them to the international community.
How are we sharing the lessons? Are women in senior positions in leadership? What are we seeing in Afghanistan?
I have not made the arguments about the resolution in general, and I believe I do not need to in this room at all. However, it is important: we have recently launched again the human development report for the year, and one of its key measures is that the full engagement of women in societies gives us more peaceful, more robust, fairer societies. That is as true in peacekeeping and peace operations as it is in anything else.
We are a highly respected partner of the UN, and our mission to the UN sponsors the working group on women, peace and security. We have shown leadership in this area, and I express our gratitude to the UN ambassador, John McNee, and his team there.
We need to put more resources into showcasing our leadership and the implementation of Resolution 1325 and its sister resolutions. We need to share the work undertaken by the Canadian Forces to retain women as they rise through the ranks. This issue is another one that has not come up here this morning.
At the UN, women tend to step out on the peacekeeping side at about the P3 level, which is mid-management, at about 34 years of age. I do not know if you ask these questions when the Canadian Forces leaders come before you but I know in my dialogue with them that they talk about not having a particular problem with retention, although they have one with increasing recruitment. This issue is important.
Likewise, if we are performing well, let us tell the world how we are doing it: how we have managed to accomplish that work under challenging circumstances. Then, let us make sure that women are involved in these deployments. Of course, I would include the RCMP and the Solicitor General because increasingly, peace operations are about them as well.
The UN needs a woman force commander to deploy to missions, or two or three. We need not only to talk about the role of women in peace and security, but Canada can provide leadership and a way forward on this role.
The Canadian Forces and government undoubtedly are reviewing what will happen after 2011 at the end of our combat mission in Afghanistan. This moment is exactly the one to talk about what kind of increased role we can have at UN DPKO and, of course, every Canadian, as we know — because we survey Canadians every year — thinks we are continuing to contribute at the highest level. We are now at number 63 in terms of troop commitments. We could probably fill a school bus.
I will tell you, as my colleagues will also tell you, these people are important force enhancers, and they are trainers, and so on. I believe most Canadians think we can do more and I agree.
Again, in showcasing the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, you will know they have issues of funding. Perhaps this room is where an arm's length voice like UNA Canada can say that we have a gem there and we need to make commitments to their funding as well as having them rely on selling packages to others.
Our colleague who just spoke talked about relying on the forces to do their training here. The fact is Pakistan, as you know, and Bangladesh, are countries that deploy the most peacekeepers and they do not have internal training at all on gender issues, never mind on Resolution 1325.
The UN, of course, will look at codes of conduct as they should; in other words, how one behaves when one works with us, but the reality is that they also need training that has more depth than those kinds of briefings.
By the way, one key way we can role model women in these positions of leadership is through building women's full participation and importantly, their participation at the peace tables of the world. The Canadian government can and should promote women's involvement within the UN and within our own political system, because that involvement is how we tell a tale to the world as well.
In conclusion, I note that both the chair and co-chair of this committee, and Senator Nancy Ruth as well, have been extraordinary leaders in championing the role of women from the smallest communities of Canada to the global stage, and I am here to thank you very much and thank you for the privilege of coming before you.
The Chair: Maybe we can stop the meeting now. Thank you for the comments and the intervention. I now turn to Ms. Alton.
Janis Alton, Past Chair, Voice of Women for Peace: I will draw from the long-standing activism of our volunteer women's organization since its founding in 1960. At our inception, we called for an end to war; not how to make war safe for women and for women's rightful inclusion in decision-making at all levels on matters related to peace and security. We still do.
Our pioneering activism focused on the abolition of nuclear weapons. Sadly, they continue to exist. As we near our fiftieth anniversary, our record includes a host of educational and advocacy efforts to address the folly of the military system and the rutted, undemocratic pattern of exclusion of women's voices from the foreign policy arena.
As our understanding of the interconnectedness of issues grew, so did our outreach. The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, coined the phrase "culture of peace," not long ago. When they coined that phrase, we had an "aha" moment, recognizing in its description a compact way of expressing what we had come to be about with a plethora of activities from coast to coast and internationally.
For example, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace since the 1970s has been an affiliate of the United Nations through the Department of Public Information, and since 1996 with the Economic and Social Council. We have actively used this linkage, lobbying extensively at multiple UN missions for demilitarization in New York, Geneva and Vienna, and at NATO headquarters and at Warsaw Pact headquarters, among others.
We were active in the civil society run-up and adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325 and we continue our deep interest in its implementation. We are especially encouraged by the strong language of the preamble, which recognizes the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflict, and in peace building.
The resolution stresses the importance of women's equal — and I underscore "equal" — participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and the need to increase women's roles in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution. This resolution was absolutely music to our ears.
We thank you for this Senate initiative to prod the implementation of this historic resolution. We say that even if article 1 were fully implemented, which calls upon member states to increase — it does not say to "equal", it says "increase" — representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international mechanisms for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict, we believe that this implementation would contribute to the deterrence of rape.
Women's heightened visibility in this area will help build respect for women, and will help men to stop treating women like trash.
Canada deserves praise for its continuing leadership at the UN-based Friends of 1325. You are probably well aware that the group is a small but growing number of states seeking ways to promote women and gender sensitivity within the UN system and its conflict management processes, but where is the sustained leadership at home? Like my colleague, Kathryn White, I ask: Where is our national plan of action?
We applaud Canada's long-standing financial support of the International Women's Tribune Centre in New York and, specifically, its international working group on women, peace and security, However, where is the sustained, adequate financial program of support at home for NGO coalitions such as Peacebuild, of which Canadian Voice of Women for Peace is a part, trying to educate and advocate for women's right to participate?
We strongly recommend that equality and peace-building NGOs be given sustained and adequate funding to help move towards women's equal representation in all aspects of peace-building from prevention to conflict resolution.
Currently, as you likely know, Canada plans to commit a massive $490 billion to military spending over the next 20 years, continuing to drive the prevailing culture of war. We ask you to consider whether the adoption of equality practice in all aspects of decision-making related to peace and security and at all levels should be voluntary. We need women who are peacemakers, and who support gender equality, sustainable development, justice, and all human rights for all people. There are plenty of creative and progressive voices. It is, at least, a moral obligation to move at a faster rate.
Canada should continue to support the presence of progressive women at the decision-making tables for resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan.
I will tell you a story, which you may know. When women in Northern Ireland went to see George Mitchell, who was chairing the Good Friday agreement to bring peace to the many years of the Troubles, he told them that to be seated and eligible, they had to represent a political party; so they went out and formed the Women's Party and obtained two seats at the table. Their presence made a sustained difference. They insisted on institutionalizing human rights in the agreement.
We would go further. We have already recommended to personnel within the UN peacekeeping unit that peace education be integral to every peace agreement. The education can include rewriting textbooks, holding encounter sessions with educators from all sides, having student exchanges and other creative ways to reduce hatred and to build reconciliation. We know teaching Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 would make a difference. We recommend that all troop-contributing countries sending peacekeepers to zones of violence be trained. We have heard a lot about that aspect this morning, but we say, not only should they be trained but also tested on Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. You know as well as I that sexual abuse by peacekeepers is not uncommon. We heard this morning that there are about 150,000 personnel, including peacekeepers, from 117 countries on 18 UN-led operations on four continents directly impacting the lives of millions of people, half of whom are women.
We recommend that not only the military but advisers and negotiators be sensitized to gender issues in conflict, to appreciate the importance of implementing Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. The man from New York emphasized that the work is under way.
Other stakeholders in a conflict zone, such as police and government personnel, should be similarly educated. The specific requirements of girls and women must be addressed. In Canada, the Manley report supports these demands specifically for Afghanistan.
Canada must also encourage the development and reinforcement of women in the role of the judiciary and in government, in states recovering from conflict. We recommend that Canada and other states provide dedicated funding to these approaches, including general capacity-building for women and girls. I think this recommendation is what Ms. White referred to in terms of the right to development.
Ideally, within Canada and elsewhere, every single piece of legislation, every resolution should be screened by legislators at all levels of governance to ask, how does this legislation affect women? Are women included in the vetting of the resolution and in its implementation?
We recommend that systematic consultations be undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with relevant NGOs. The last of these informal consultations was, I believe, in 2006. We recommend revival of the specific consultative process implemented in Canada following the adoption of the Security Council resolution, which brought together relevant NGOs, civil servants, members of Parliament and senators, including Senator Jaffer. This process was under joint MP and Senate leadership. I am not certain whether this practice of new diplomacy was led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or how it came to be except that it came out of a G20 meeting. The practice was all too brief. It fizzled for lack of governmental financial support.
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace urges that consultation, including this consultation today, be considered a new right of civil society. The peace-building process of the 21st century must be a proactive inclusive tool for the prevention of war. As well, the process must meet the clear human rights obligations of implementing Security Council Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820.
I will end by saying that these resolutions are international law. Along with Cora Weiss in New York, whom some of you perhaps know — she was, among other things, president of the Hague Appeal for Peace — we suggest that the work of women's organizations to implement these resolutions could include using the courts, particularly if a table is set for a peace agreement and it remains only that women are seated.
Michael Wodzicki, Deputy Director of Programmes, Rights and Democracy: As our colleagues have also stated, it is a privilege to be here. We are encouraged by the committee's hearings on Security Council Resolution 1325 as well as the subsequent resolutions.
As many of you know, Rights and Democracy was created by an act of Canada's Parliament more than 20 years ago, in 1988, with a clear mandate to support democracy in developing countries by ensuring the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights as laid out in the International Bill of Human Rights and subsequent international mechanisms. Those mechanisms include Security Council Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820.
Women's human rights have always been a key element of our programming in the last 10 years, specifically women's human rights in conflict situations where our focus is on the fight against impunity for crimes of sexual violence, and reparations for victims of those crimes.
One program we proudly support in this regard is the Coalition for Women's Human Rights in Conflict Situations. This coalition was founded in the aftermath of the Rawandan genocide. A group of activists, lawyers, academics and development practitioners led by Rights and Democracy were concerned that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda did not include a gender dimension.
Before my colleague, Isabelle Solon-Helal, who coordinates the work of this coalition describes in greater detail its efforts to fight against impunity for crimes of sexual violence, allow me to quote briefly from an independent evaluation of the coalition's activities undertaken last year. This evaluation is a five-year evaluation required by the law that created Rights and Democracy. In 2007, the evaluators decided to examine the work of the coalition. The third finding of the evaluation notes that "The coalition's work is unique and no other organization to date has dedicated itself to such a mission, which gives it a specific niche and adds to Rights and Democracy's" and, we would argue, Canada's "reputation."
Isabelle Solon-Helal, Women's Rights Programme Officer and Coordinator of the Coalition for Women's Human Rights in Conflict Situations, Rights and Democracy: Thank you for inviting me here today. I will focus my presentation on aspects of the resolution that relate to ending impunity for crimes of sexual violence and the work of international tribunals by using examples of the coalition's initiatives and, in particular, the story of the trial of Jean-Paul Akayesu at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
The coalition, as Mr. Wodzicki indicated, was formed from the initiative of individuals committed to ensuring that those at the highest levels of responsibility be tried for their accountability in the commission of sexual violence crimes during the Rwandan genocide. At the time, none of the indictments issued by the tribunal contained charges of sexual violence despite reports that sexual violence was widespread during the genocide. The indictment against Mr. Akayesu was no different. He was mayor of a small commune in Rwanda called Taba. Human Rights Watch, a member of the coalition, had been in Taba and documented the sexual violence that occurred there. Following this documentation, the coalition wrote letters to Prosecutor Goldstone and later to his successor, Louise Arbour, urging them to include these charges in the indictment.
[Translation]
Meanwhile, the trial had already begun. And despite the fact that the indictment did not contain charges of sexual violence, in January 1997, while testifying, witness J mentioned the rape of the girl. It was the first time that rape had been brought up before the court judges.
Witness J is a Tutsi who said that she saw members of her family being murdered by a group of Interahamwe militiamen sent by Akayesu. At the judges' request, witness J confirmed during her testimony that she had never been questioned by anyone from the office of the rape tribunal. Two months later, witness H, who was the last witness for the prosecution, said that she was both a rape victim and a witness to other women's rapes.
During the cross-examination, the defence did not ask any questions about the rapes. The judges, however, asked the witness about Akayesu's whereabouts during the rapes. In May 1997, as a friend of the court, the coalition filed an amicus curiae brief asking the court to bring charges of rape and other sexual violence crimes against Akayesu. The media response to the brief among non-governmental organizations, as well as the public, focused the international community's attention on this aspect of the Rwandan genocide and put considerable pressure on the prosecutor's office and investigators.
In January 1997, the prosecutor's office, led by Louise Arbour, amended the indictment to include counts of sexual violence. When the trial resumed, witnesses were called back to testify about those crimes.
Finally, more than a year later, in October 1998, the court sentenced Akayesu, the former mayor, to three prison terms for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It marked the first time that an international tribunal had punished someone for committing sexual violence during a civil war and recognized rape as an act of genocide and torture.
[English]
For the coalition, the Akayesu trial was only the beginning. We continued to monitor the work of the Rwandan tribunal as well as other tribunals. Despite this monitoring, the Akayesu judgment is an exception rather than the rule for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Approximately 70 per cent of all the charges of sexual violence at the tribunal have resulted in acquittals or non-convictions.
Over the years, we advocated for gender-sensitive investigations and prosecutions, and more indictments that charged sexual violence and reflected the multi-faceted character of sexual violence inflicted upon women. We also advocated for the need to interrogate all witnesses about sexual violence, the importance of a comprehensive prosecution strategy on gender crimes, the importance of ensuring that, within the office of the prosecutor, there be a team dedicated to both the investigation and the prosecution of sexual violence, and that this team be led by a high-level adviser on these crimes. We learned that political will is key for the prosecution of gender crimes.
Rwandan women told us that it is important for international justice to condemn, prosecute and convict perpetrators of sexual violence, to acknowledge the crimes committed against the women, and to break the silence and stigma related to sexual violence. Rwandan women also taught us it is essential that the international justice process be respectful of their experiences.
For us, this respect means the need to obtain informed consent from witnesses who testify and the importance of communicating to the witness information about the judicial process to ensure that he or she is adequately prepared. It also means the importance of the following: communicating the outcomes of trials to affected communities; witness protection before, during and after trial; creating an enabling court environment to hear testimony of sexual violence; and the issue of gender training at all levels of the organizations of the international tribunal.
Finally and importantly, we learned that international justice as it was conceived by the Security Council's ad hoc tribunals was incomplete because it did not encompass provisions to allow for reparations to victims of those crimes. The realization led to our organizing an international meeting where women's rights activists and advocates, as well as survivors of sexual violence from around the world, issued the Nairobi Declaration on Women's and Girls' Right to a Remedy and Reparation. The International Criminal Court allows for reparations, and in a few weeks we are organizing a colloquium in The Hague for the judges of the court on this issue.
Before I end my presentation, I will tell you about the situation of witness J, about whom we heard a little earlier today.
I visited her in 2003, and she graciously welcomed me to her home. She lives in a small house built of clay with no plumbing and clay floors, like many houses in the countryside in Rwanda. The house was in need of repair. J lives with her children and grandchildren. They sleep on the floor.
She has no income, and she complained of health problems resulting from the sexual violence she experienced during the Rwandan genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, now provides witnesses who have testified with a monthly package of food and medication, including HIV medication. What will happen to J when the ICTR closes in a few years? Who will take over?
After witnessing J's situation, women's organizations recently built her a brick home on a small piece of land for her subsistence. It is the least we can do for women whose courage led to the most important decision in international gender jurisprudence.
All these lessons learned must be incorporated into Canada's action plan to ensure the implementation of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 and, in our view, the lessons learned should inform our policy on the International Criminal Court, our implementation and budget allocations with respect to our own Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the reform of the State Immunity Act.
Impunity for crimes of sexual violence through prosecutions in national and international courts is an essential component to preventing such crimes. Canada must continue to be a strong supporter and advocate for the International Criminal Court. We must urge the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the United Nations Organization Mission in DR Congo, MONUC, to arrest Bosco Ntaganda. We must continue to urge that the International Criminal Court protect intermediaries who collaborate with the court to ensure that human rights defenders who are partners in the field are not targeted and killed for saying what I am telling you today.
We must also urge the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to respect the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and hire a permanent high-level adviser on gender crimes within the prosecutor's office.
Since the establishment of the first tribunals, international justice has come a long way, but there is still much work to be done to ensure that gender crimes are prosecuted adequately and to ensure women and girls obtain justice.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you all for appearing and for the work you do. I am sure it seems awfully slow at times, but your work is essential. I have a couple of particular questions.
I share your concern about the need for greater participation of women in military peacekeeping missions. I am on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence with others here as well, or others that have been on the committee. We ask that question and push that issue, but the response always is that it is difficult to find women who want to participate. One thing acknowledged by the RCMP, to the commissioner's credit, is that women reach a certain point — I think one of you mentioned it, the mid 30s, and it seems to be an issue with the RCMP as well — when they need flexibility. Often they have children and need to be somewhere at 4:30. The commissioner said the RCMP does not offer flexibility. Why do they not offer that flexibility as it could solve the problem, but is not always easy when they are in a remote location.
Having said that, if flexibility is one of the solutions for retention, what other solutions can you suggest, and how can we encourage women to take these roles, or is it necessary to look to women in NGOs and parallel roles, and that kind of thing?
Ms. White: Since I brought up that point, I put to you that some of the answers to these questions reside within the forces, the police and the Solicitor General. You have said as much, that if we are committed to the full participation of women, then we have to realize that they go through this period of child-bearing years, and we must find a way to provide that kind of flexibility.
I applaud you for thinking of the opportunity of engagement of civil society in a peacekeeping deployment, but again, as far as the military and the police are concerned, there is specific training. In some ways, those issues are institutional issues that are not as simple as saying, you must do this. Having said that, answers can be found. You will remember that we heard some of the same issues when it was said that women could not be in banking.
Senator Mitchell: Or in the Senate.
Ms. White: Exactly; those women are probably running NGOs, now that I think about it, so there are solutions. We have wonderful people in leadership in the forces and the RCMP. It behoves them to focus on this problem and put it to rights.
Senator Mitchell: Has your organization, or organizations like yours, been invited by the senior military staff to talk about these issues; to contribute to training programs?
Ms. White: I have many off-line conversations and I feel that I am listened to. In fact, UNA Canada hosted a training program — again, this opportunity is also sometimes about resources being put on the table — where we provided training for deputy senior representatives of the Secretary General, SRSG; in other words, the UN commander of UN peacekeeping missions. There are opportunities like that one where we engage senior women — whether they are senior women in the military, and that is our wish — to showcase this participation and provide options to ensure we are promoting women within these sectors to the highest level, and we are then deploying them.
The quick answer is yes, if I make a phone call, it is returned, which is important. Additionally, we need infrastructure changes as well.
Senator Mitchell: You spoke about this Rwanda case, rape and so on, and it not being acknowledged in the way it should, although in that case it finally was, in indictments. Can you give us a summary of what you feel are the gaps in the international justice system that need to be filled — that Canada can advocate to fill — that will focus on the issue of rape and rape as a weapon? Is that question too large? Are there too many gaps?
Ms. Solon-Helal: With the International Criminal Court, the Rome statute of the court has provisions to prosecute rape and violence. The provisions are extensive. Women's rights advocates and human rights advocates were instrumental in ensuring those provisions were in the Rome statute. I think all the elements are there.
As I mentioned, the question is one of political will and how to implement the legislation and ensure that those crimes are prosecuted. To date, at the International Criminal Court, currently half the charges contain crimes of sexual violence. That situation represents progress, but there is still much work to be done. For example, currently the Lubanga case is based in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thomas Lubanga is charged with conscripting child soldiers but not with sexual slavery. The nature of the crimes committed against girls in that case is not reflected in the indictment.
Senator Mitchell: Maybe this is little more than a comment, and I mentioned it earlier in a discussion with several of you, there is so much research that supports the fact, and it is obvious, that until women have stature — largely money and perhaps employment and education — in society that we will not have social progress and we probably will not have peace. Ironically, it is not only educating men about these issues; it is educating women generally so they can play that role they play in advancing the social development of their communities and their society. I only make that point.
The Chair: I think some heads are nodding, so we will take that.
Senator Jaffer: I also want to thank you all for being here. Each one of your presentations answered so many questions I had. We are almost out of time. Not necessarily today, but if you can help our committee in our recommendations to look at Resolution 1325, we would appreciate it. Our tenth anniversary with respect to Resolution 1325 will soon be upon us. I cannot speak for the whole committee, but I would certainly, in our recommendations, like to look at what we can suggest to our own country in advancing Resolution 1325, Resolution 1820 and Resolution 1889 — all those resolutions — and raising awareness within our country, and also what we can do within the UN. We know our country provides resources to MONUC and resources in Darfur in training, but perhaps you can suggest what we can do specifically.
I look at the tenth anniversary as a Christmas or a celebration. I look at what we can ask our country to contribute to further Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. I do not expect you to have a full answer today, but we would appreciate if you can send your recommendations to the chair.
The Chair: They should be sent to the clerk, who has been in touch with you, so you will have that access.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Welcome; I am interested in the clarity with which you all more or less say the issue is about political will. I have a series of questions — so please make a note — particularly for Ms. Alton.
There have been changes in the language at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, of which you are probably all aware. For example, "international humanitarian law" has become "international law," and the word "impunity" has turned up.
What kind of reactions do you have to these changes and how do you think they will impact political will on Resolution 1325?
I understand, Ms. Alton, that Voice of Women for Peace is probably a smaller group, in terms of funding and membership, than the other groups represented here, so I am curious to know how contact government agencies.
I am interested from all of you about whether government agencies contact you. Is the relationship satisfactory or do you feel stymied?
Ms. Alton: I can help answer the question of how we contact government agencies. We have enormous will within our organization to make that connection happen, and 99 per cent of the time contact is initiated by us.
The Canadian mission in New York has generally been an aid in that respect. They provided a letter of introduction, which we have used widely to gain appointments with many of these missions that I have mentioned. The only mission that turned us down is Cambodia, but we have been all over the map, in many cities and many countries, seeking those appointments, and generally we have been welcomed. Most of the mission staff we met with asked why we did not come sooner.
We are a volunteer organization. We have no funds, apart from our membership, to support us in those endeavours, so it is a huge financial outlay for most of us to do this work.
That allows me to make a second point, perhaps, in that it would be an enormous boost to women's participation and inclusion in many more opportunities if this country provided core and sustained funding to peace-building NGOs.
I will remind you of the core funding that was withdrawn from many groups that were once members of the 700-member organization called the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Within that organization, there were about 20 or 22 groups that received over the years some sustained core funding; enough to allow them to have a small staff. You are aware, I think, that the funding was pulled and different arrangements were made within Status of Women Canada that were not workable for these groups.
This whole wonderful structure, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, collapsed. We have nothing that compares with that wonderful, strong, largely feminist-oriented coalition in Canada. We were once the pride of the international community. We struggle now. We need and want critical funding support.
Ms. White: If I can address particularly the question around language, you will know the piece about international law, but there was also the issue around gender, which was the equality of men and women, boys and girls, instead of the gender equality that was called for. I am happy to say that this language is changed for a reason. There is a will to change the substance, so of course language does make a difference and I think that point has been heard. Questions are being asked increasingly about this issue in the international community, as they are in other ways.
This is an important time for Canada. As you know, we are in the midst of a campaign for a seat on the Security Council. The idea that we are moving away from that place of offering leadership on issues of human rights and issues of the full engagement of society is worrisome.
I am happy to report that with regard to the language around gender, at least internationally, we have returned to the internationally accepted language, but it does send a signal, as I presume it is intended to do.
In terms of engagement, I agree with Ms. Alton that no doors are slammed. Calls are returned and so on, especially from public servants. It has been challenging — it might be the nature of the minority government — to attract the kind of attention and traction in ministers' offices that would be helpful. After all, we probably reach three million Canadians directly a year. We survey them every year. We continue to knock on doors and try to provide helpful information.
However, that is the reality that we are dealing with, and it is a challenge because of the issues with funding, as mentioned by Ms. Alton. There are fewer and fewer NGOs out there. These people have core funding. No one else at this table does. It is a challenge to provide the information that the government needs to make decisions.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When you were talking about changes in the language at DFAIT, you did not say this but you presumed there was intent behind the change. What do you think that intent is?
Ms. White: Since we are talking about Resolution 1325 and gender equality, the department may be moving away from the widely acceptable international principles of gender equality. In the language that we are engaging Canadians with, we feel that language is important. Human rights are human rights, whether you are a man or a woman. When talking about gender, to say that we now must say "men and women," and "boys and girls," as though somehow the implication is that the international human rights regimen does not fully consider men, is perhaps injudicious. I think that all our centuries of human rights show that we do care about the full human rights of all genders.
The Chair: Another debate we could get into with you is that it has not always been the case from culture to culture. We know in our case that we must continue to talk about human rights. I will not get into that other debate of definitions.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am keen to hear Ms. Solon-Helal's response to my question, since she is the one who deals with the law.
Ms. Solon-Helal: When I read the international law reference, as opposed to international humanitarian law, I was a bit puzzled because international law, as you know, is the law that regulates the conduct of nations and their conduct among themselves. International humanitarian law is the law that regulates war or the conduct of warfare. International humanitarian law is a branch of international law, so it is less specific, but international law includes international humanitarian law.
I have not seen that there has been a change of policy on this issue yet, so I do not know what impact the change in the language will have right now. I know that bills are coming up that will need the Canadian government's help to push through.
For example, I have heard there is a private member's bill to reform the State Immunity Act. For us, that amendment is key, because currently the State Immunity Act does not allow for Canadians who are victims of torture or war crime to have redress from foreign governments, because the State Immunity Act protects the immunity of foreign heads of state. It would be better if the State Immunity Act were amended to allow Canadian victims of torture to seek redress overseas. I do not think the change of language will have an effect — I hope not — in that regard. I hope that Canada, as a government, will support the amendment.
Another way to address the issue is to increase the resources provided to the section that works on war crimes and to increase the number of prosecutions internally in Canada. We recently had the Munyaneza decision in which a Rwandan was prosecuted in Canada, as you know, for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide. That case was the only one. Hopefully, there will be an increased allocation of resources to that section to ensure further prosecutions to show Canada is committed to this issue.
We have not seen in the International Criminal Court any change of policy. However, with respect to the prosecution of sexual violence it is essential that those working in the field — for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo — be protected. Some of our partners, who worked and collaborated with the prosecutor to ensure that the indictments contained charges of sexual violence, were threatened. Some of them were targeted and attacked as a result of their work for the International Criminal Court, but as NGOs.
The court has no provisions to protect intermediaries, only witnesses. In that sense we hope the court will create new provisions to protect intermediaries. Ensuring that the court functions well and prosecutes sexual violence is key.
We hope the Canadian government will continue to push for those kinds of things. I hope that the change of language does not affect that effort.
The Chair: Ms. White, you have talked about political will, and I think others on the panel have as well. One difficulty in making the international community and states parties, et cetera, understand this issue of rape and sexual crimes — understand that these crimes are war crimes, crimes against humanity and are included in genocide — has been that these acts have been part of war since time immemorial.
One of the issues I have heard more recently is that it is not enough to talk about the political will to charge those who perpetrate these crimes as a weapon of war if they are in a society when, in civil times, it is okay to do some of those things; for example if preying on children sexually is not a crime or not taken seriously.
Is there more work to be done, not only on political will, to move the issue in the International Criminal Court, the Rwanda trial and in peace negotiations, but in creating a fundamental change that these crimes are unacceptable even in peace time?
Ms. White: Chair, the answer, as you know, is a profound and resonating "yes." In fact, this may be a role for our leaders — political, military, policing and judicial — to think about again, post-2011 and our engagement in Afghanistan.
This role then becomes state-building and institution-building. The organization, of course, to carry out that role is through our commitment to a multilateral organization like the United Nations.
You have hit on something profoundly important because, of course, that role is also the work of peace-building. The role is building that kind of robust respect for the rule of law and democracy in those countries. War rarely happens between democracies. This concept is the underpinning of that work.
I want to share with the committee the most recent survey we conducted of Canadians' perceptions of the UN. Interestingly, that commitment to seeing the UN as an implement of state-building is profound. Even more interesting — and we do not have the answer to this question — the perception exists more so in Quebec. Canadians see this state-building as the role of the United Nations and the role that Canada should play in the UN.
I have learned so much from my colleagues at this table this morning. You have heard that we need justice, social justice, access and the equality of women in societies generally, and then we do not need to have these heart-breaking conversations about rape as a weapon of war, and war.
The Chair: Part of the dilemma with the United Nations, and particularly in the human rights aspects, is that in recent years we have been better at creating awareness through resolutions, conventions, treaties and the international court.
However, the UN, with its myriad of committees and political issues, has not been as effective because of implementation. What might any of you say about the implementation of Resolution 1325? You pointed out that Canada should play a continuing or more assertive role around Resolution 1325. We have the tenth anniversary coming up. Can we recommend anything specific in a mechanism or function that will give more resonance to Resolution 1325 in the UN structure?
If you do not have the answer now and want to ruminate on it, you can send the clerk the answer.
Ms. Alton: I want to reiterate a thought or two that I tried to express. If we look at the issue beyond education only on Resolution 1325 or Resolution 1820, peace education is a concept that is not new, but it does not receive the attention it deserves because that department within the United Nations is underfunded. The department did have personnel in Paris at the UNESCO office, and that has folded; there may be one part-time staff person now.
That whole opportunity of peace education, which includes human-rights education, is ripe for much greater development within the system, within our own domestic provisions that we can make provincially. We are very much in need of its development and still have, unfortunately, a pioneering attitude towards its push.
Ms. Solon-Helal: My recommendation is for the creation of a special representative position, similar to that of the Special Representative on Children and Armed Conflict. We could have a special representative to the Secretary-General on women and armed conflict to focus specifically on the aspects of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820.
In our work with international tribunals, we found that if there are not specific positions, gender always falls to the wayside. If there is not a gender adviser to the prosecutor who is charged with leading prosecutions on those issues, it does not work, does not work efficiently and things are not coordinated as well.
Structures need to be put into place to ensure there is follow-up and implementation.
The Chair: I thank all the witnesses for contributing to our study. As you know, we started this study with the specific intention of seeing how we can make recommendations to the broader community, but also to our government on what measures need to be taken to ensure Resolution 1325 is taken seriously, and how to give that advice in a practical way.
We thank you for bringing your experiences and recommendations to us.
(The committee adjourned.)