Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN

Below is an excerpt from the proposal launched by Ambassador Chowdhury at the working meeting on SCR 1325 on 27 July 2010 at the United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC.

In March 2000 it was Ambassador Chowdhury, as the Security Council’s President on Women, Peace and Security, who took the initiative for the adoption of a statement that eventually served as precursor to 1325.

In response to a Security Council resolution 1889 (2009), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has submitted on 22 April 2010 to the Council a set of 26 indicators for use at the global level to track implementation of 1325.

The international community had to wait for ten years to receive a set of indicators from the UN (actually 31 in number, as five of the indicators come in pairs) that is expected to take, according to the Secretary-General, another two to five years–it would be for sure five years or more in all the developing countries–to be operational. He says that making the indicators operational will require a pilot phase to develop a baseline data collection method.

The Secretary-General’s set of indicators puts all responsibility in the hands of the governments, as data collection and statistical responsibility in most countries are handled by them. 50% of the indicators relate to numbers, percentages and indices that would present the statistical rather than real life change in situation on the ground. These indicators fail to underscore the importance of policy change and policy orientation that could trigger real action for implementation. Some indicators ask for information that is not available realistically in conflict-affected countries. Think of indicator 16 which intends to know about “level of women’s participation in the justice and security sector in conflict-affected countries.”

A number of indicators focus on the numbers and percentages of  instructions, codes and regulations. If past experience is any guide, such recommendation will result in shrewd moves by the concerned authorities to create and adopt all the needed rules without the will in their real implementation. One can recall cases of countries that have become parties to many human rights treaties but at the same time are the worst violators of those rights.

A good number of indicators has presumed existence of “human rights bodies”, “courts equipped to try cases of violations of human rights of women and girls”, “transitional justice mechanisms”, “national mechanism for control of small arms” etc. In reality not many developing countries, particular those going through or coming out of conflicts, have any such real institutional support system. Even for quite a number of the existing institutions, there is no mandate to cover the areas where the indicators are expecting to track progress.

Take  indicator 14 that asks for “Index of women’s and girls’ physical security” and goes on to explain that given the difficulty of collecting reliable data on perceptions of physical security, it is proposed that data on this indicator be collected through consistent, replicable and ethical surveys. The UN secretariat should know better that is easier said than done.

Indicator 15 seeks to measure the “extent to which national laws protect women’s and girls’ human rights in line with international standards.” Given the current global situation, how unrealistic one would be to expect national laws protecting women’s and girls’ rights in line with international standards, which in any case remain ill-defined.

Again, indicator 22 aims at knowing about the “extent to which strategic planning frameworks in conflict-affected countries incorporate gender analysis, targets, indicators and budgets.” It seems that the Secretary-General decided to ignore the reality on the ground in a conflict-affected country.

Most indicators ask for very complex set of data in conflict-ridden countries. Such data are unavailable even for many of the normally peaceful countries. For such countries, data gathering is one of their last priorities. Even the Secretary-General himself admits that “a number of measurements will require system-wide changes to track the necessary information” and requires “direct data collection and specialized and careful technical and conceptual development.”

Indicators mention a good number of times about measuring national level resources and budgetary allocation and disbursement, but not increase in funding. Given the inherent economic and financial distress that most developing countries face, these proposals have the recipe for creating the conscious indifference of commitment by those countries.

Curiously, while a major responsibility has been put at the national level, support to developing countries by the international community through increase in funding has not been put in the indicators – there is no indicator to show the progress in official development assistance (ODA) support for the 1325 implementation.

In short, such indicators are utopian in nature, totally out of reality, oblivious of the situation in developing countries, and will provide an opportunity to the countries to ignore their implementation. A serious reality check is needed here.

Advocates for 1325 implementation believe that the Secretary-General’s indicators, if approved by the Council, will result in prolonging the frustration and agony of all concerned about the insignificant implementation of 1325 so far.

*     *      *

Stayed tuned for a follow-up post in which Ambassador Chowdhury proposes a set of practical action areas to replace the Secretary-General’s indicators.

To see the full text of this proposal (which includes background and rationale) follow this link: http://listserv.nethelps.com/main/wa.exe?A2=ind1008b&L=wunrn_listserve&T=0&F=PP&S=&P=196