Civic BRICS Working Groups Recommendations Politics Draft as of 06.05.2015 Chair: Georgy Toloraya Preamble 1. We, representatives of Civic BRICS Working Group on Politics, are increasingly concerned with the growing level of tensions in international relations in the second decade of 21st century. 2. We stress that the celebration of the 70th Anniversary of the Second World War and establishment of the UN gives an opportunity to look back at the lessons of the past and offer solutions for the future. These anniversaries make it important to understand the lessons from that tragic conflict and stress the need to objectively evaluate them and jointly counter attempts of re-writing of history and of reinterpretation of tragic events of the 20 th century. We firmly oppose any attempts to rehabilitate the Nazi ideology as well as the situation around the so called ‘proactive pacifism’ of Japan, as well as steps taken by certain forces to try to delegitimize the United Nations Organization as the institution created as a result of the World War II. 3. BRICS countries civil society should support the efforts to promote security, development and equality, address social problems, reform the global financial and economic architecture, developing inter-civilizational dialogue and cooperation. We should especially pay attention and become the part of the BRICS governments’ policies to create global representative system of governance reflecting the diversity of cultures and interests, which should strive for peaceful resolution of existing and emerging conflicts and exclude one-sided approaches based on any single societal model. 4. BRICS has important role to play in creating the rule-based world order, which would provide security for all and guarantee the legitimate interests of all nations and peoples. We reiterate that peace, understood, as both absence of danger and absence of fear, is the ultimate and universal value of all nations. Thus, there is no viable reason, which could justify threat or use of force in resolution of international conflicts. We, BRICS Civil society representatives, oppose any attempt of any state or group of states or institution to justify use of force in international relations by a unique moral right and urge all governments to strengthen and develop mechanisms of peaceful conflict resolution in respective regions as well as on a global scale. 5. At the same time analysis of the main trends in conflicts shows that since the 1990s after the bipolar world order ceased to exist the number of conflicts in the world have been steadily increasing, both involving state and non-state agents. Peaceful global development seems no longer guaranteed, as the arc of instability stretches from North Africa, Middle East via Europe to East Asia, not to mention Africa and other territories ravaged with local conflicts. Moreover, a global confrontation is brewing, involving, inter alia, Russia, NATO, as well as some other BRICS countries. A “big war”, involving major powers, thought to be thing of the past, may raise its ugly head again. 6. Globalized world requires all nations to take extra care while considering any activity that could be perceived as undermining global, regional of local stability: use of force in one region may affect peace and stability in almost any other region of the world. Growing interdependence requires all countries with hard power potential to consider outcomes of its use with highest responsibility and awareness of its consequences. 7. We support the ideas and ask our respective authorities to start discussions on a declaration and further possible conclusion of a multilateral nonaggression and peaceful coexistence treaty between our countries, thus establishing trans-continental zone of peace and security with global reach. Such an arrangement should be open to other countries, adhering to the same principles of peace and security, promotion of non-violent means, respect for the international law, democratic international system, where all parties are equal and respect each other, and which promotes primacy of commonality of interests as opposed to geopolitical rivalry and strive for global domination. 8. We are deeply concerned that new emerging types of weapons and technologies (such as missile defense, possible prompt global strike technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, military robots, militarization of outer space, cyberwarfare etc.) pose dangers to global stability, disrupt the established balance of power and in specific cases, their usage could lead to a conflict. Since the side, which starts operating innovative types of weapons, gets an advantage, new kinds of weapons could also trigger an arms race. Civil organizations should strive to limit development of such technologies and insist on setting specific legal regimes to monitor already existing ones. 9. There is no more topical task for both the governments, mandated by the peoples, and civil society to sustain stable, safe and fair world order through peaceful diplomacy and multilateralism. It is evident that forging fruitful partnerships and a stronger global governance paradigm requires cooperation between both developed and developing countries. BRICS has one of the most important role to play in this regard. 10. BRICS should strive to mobilize new mechanisms for constructing a new global order where power is more diffused and responsibilities are appropriately shared. Rule-based global governance architecture is the best guarantor of stability, which provides an effective framework for asserting common values and interests whilst upholding the principle of the sovereignty of nations. Civil societies should have a role in it. 11. To these ends, we urge the BRICS governments to increase cooperation for building partnerships around existing national, regional and international peace and security initiatives, as well as developing new strategies and mechanisms to ensure a secure future and the world that is not based on confrontation, competition and rivalry. BRICS should become one of agenda-setter in the issues of global security and exercise strong will to defend stability. New institutions and leverages might be needed for that if the existing institutions would further proof to not to be up to this task. Civil society should be a major part of these efforts creating atmosphere of mutual understanding and pacifism conducive to these goals. I. 1. Regional Conflicts and Civil Society We are seriously concerned about current military-political situation near BRICS borders, which is fraught with large-scale armed conflicts that directly endanger their security. Some of conflicts like in Ukraine reflect not only contradictions between regional nations and interest groups but also the each of overall secures system, which existed in the past. For example, the system of security architecture in Europe needs a new initialization. 2. External interventions in general appeared to be of low effectiveness in solving ethnic and political conflicts, especially those of trans-border nature. Moreover, it turned out that intervention often aggravates the situation and delays a possible solution. Stopping hostilities does not always result in final solution, which should encompass with the most intricate ethnic, political and other problems. This is for the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. We believe that BRICS should play a more proactive role in conflict management through institutionalised coordination and collaboration based on common principles, including but not exhausted by the following: a. Adherence to international law and recognition of the United Nations as the primary global legitimate institution to enforce peace and security, based on principles of mutual respect and equality; b. Abstention from the use of force or threat of force and use of diplomatic means in resolution of international conflicts; c. Principle of neutrality when one of the BRICS countries is in any way involved in the conflict with the third parties; d. Principle of impartiality and thorough investigation of the roots and causes of conflict in order to suggest best possible solution, involving interests of all parties to the conflict. 3. We suggest that BRICS must evolve as a platform for creating contextualised multilateral policies, and by mutual consultation develop viable and credible mechanisms to respond to local, regional and international political and social turbulence including implementation mechanisms. These mechanisms must include structures providing coordination of diplomatic, political, military, information and other activities at all stages of the conflict management and adequately empowered to do that. BRICS might consider enhancing cooperation with relevant regional and global structures, where those five countries are involved. 4. More and more civilians die and deprived of their livelihood or displaced in these conflicts. BRICS governments should undertake coordinated measures to address this problem. As there are obvious double standards with respect to the civilian casualties and “collateral damage” in conflicts which are usually taking place in non-Western countries, as if universal rules are not applicable there (see examples of Iraq, Libya, African countries, Ukraine…). For example, BRICS countries can urge to legally define the status of combatant and non-combatants in armed conflict; issues of humanitarian limitations to economic and other sanctions, levied by international community; clearer definition of “indirect aggression”; illegitimacy of sanctions levied unilaterally without authorization by the United Nations Organization; legally consistent definition for the international terrorism; R2P concept and responsibility for using it; the status of de-facto POWs in internal and civil conflicts (including the role of established institutions such as Red Cross and Red Crescent). II. Rule of International Law, Increasing Role of Institutions 1. The interests of long-term stability require respect for international law as opposed to the use of force, as well as a consideration of the objective aspects of civilizational development: history, religion, culture, national legal traditions to prevent the competition between local human civilizations to become a conflict. We reiterate our shared position that the democratic international system and international law should be observed in accordance with the UN Charter principles, based on the sovereign equality of states and mutual respect of all countries irrespective of their political, economic, social and ideological positions. Selective use or double standards when international law norms are concerned should be opposed, as well as the practice of extraterritorial application of national law without consent of other countries to which such national law is being applied. 1. BRICS countries are ready to work on the elaboration of long-term legal solutions so as to avoid short-term interest of re-interpretation of legal norms that entails instability. We stress that it is unacceptable for any country to offer diplomatic or military support to opposition movements in another country without prior approval of the UN Security Council. Special consultative groups under the aegis of the UNSC should be established to develop long-term viable solution in such cases. 2. International law should be based on norms, not precedents CIVIL SOCIETY AND ACADEMIA can join actively into the process of strengthening practical foundation of the international relations and filling in plethora of lacunas and differences in the international law., as well as become involved into discussions with their counterparts both in BRICS and non-BRICS countries to promote public support and understanding of these initiatives. 3. This concerns, for example, contradictions between imperative norms of international law such as principle of territorial integrity on the one hand, and principles of self-determination, on the other; dilemma of sovereignty of state and individual rights and freedoms. It is not a secret that such contradictions continue to give rise to a number of conflict situations, which are actively used as a pretext of intervention by external actors, pursuing their own goals, sometimes instigating these conflicts to create a pretext for such intervention. 4. In order to counter process of further violation of international law, BRICS should promote both bilateral and multilateral official diplomacy and other peaceful methods to resolve international disputes, using network of different regional and global organizations presenting a consolidated and coordinated position, as well as public diplomacy. The governments should interact with civil society to this end. We could recommend creating the specialized BRICS Commission on International Law for regular consultation on most urgent international issues, strengthening international law and adding “multicivilizational” content to it. The Parliamentary Forum, created at the imitative of Russian chairmanship, could be an “umbrella” for such efforts. 5. In broader sense, BRICS should aim at the elaboration of a common system of values and priorities, which would also contribute to promotion of BRICS global initiatives. This is the job not only for professional experts, but also to the whole of society, with vanguard role of civil movement organizations. BRICS governments should to this end also promote exchange and popularization of theoretical and historical heritage of their respective national philosophers and lawyers, as well as provide a platform for regular exchange on the institutional and individual basis on these topics. III. Priority Threats and Challenges (Terrorism, International Cybersecurity, Drug trafficking etc.) 1. We urge hat BRICS should strengthen cooperation between relevant law enforcement agencies for exchange of information and mutual assistance in pursuit of criminals, fleeing prosecution for terrorist activities and establish joint monitoring system over those, suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. It might deem necessary for BRICS to sign agreement on joint investigation of terrorist activities, practices on the territories of BRICS countries with commitment to extradite terrorists, plotting or implementing terrorist acts on the territory of either of BRICS countries. 2. Based on recommendation elaborated by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and further documents, adopted under the auspices of the UN, BRICS should deepen cooperation in exchange of information on terrorist groups financing and sign interbank agreement to prevent free flow of financing for terrorist and other illegal trans-border activities. 3. We support that BRICS should consider conducting conduct joint counter-terrorism exercises aimed at prevention, detection and combat against terrorist activities in the BRICS countries (including elimination of terrorist training bases), with possible involvement of regional structures and neighbors, suffering from similar threats. 4. We underline that today the BRICS states constitute one of the most massive and rapidly growing segments of the global internet community, accounting for 38% of the world’s internet audience. At the same time, this remarkable statistics only stresses the underrepresentation of the BRICS states in the field of global internet governance and cyber governance. In fact, the ICT agenda remains a “missing pillar” in the BRICS identity. That is why BRICS countries should offer a consensus-based vision of the new global internet governance architecture. Independent civil experts might play a major role in formulating the agenda and implementing it. 5. We suggests that Global internet governance architecture should be based on a set of principles that might include: 1) limits to governmental esurveillance and responsibility of states for conducting it; 2) the right for access to the internet; 3) globalization of the internet governance, implying responsible international and multistakeholder control over the internet’s critical functions (the IANA functions) as well as multi-stakeholder approach, network neutrality, openness, integrity, universality of the internet, etc. 6. One more essential component of the ICT agenda is a joint IT- infrastructure and internet-sector projects. For the moment, members of the forum already accumulated enough experience, technological background, financial resources and political leadership to move this agenda forward in a more dynamic way. First project of such kind probably was the BRICS Internet Cable aimed at diversification of the global network of backbone transcontinental fiber-optic cables (not been finished yet). 7. We believe that next steps might include major software development initiatives that might bring together market demands and certain imperatives for the BRICS states. Therefore, the BRICS states could join their human, financial and technological resources for developing better security standards for the internet protocols, protected operation systems and applications, including market-oriented solutions for “civil cryptography”. 8. We are deeply concerned that each of the BRICS countries have common problem of illegal drug trafficking. 9. We are determined to combat problem of drug production in certain areas in an integrated, interdisciplinary, complementary and balanced approach, which implies cutting on drug production in and outside our countries, elimination of drug infrastructure, alternative development of the ‘risk zone’ states and implementation of strategies to reduce drug supply and demand. 10. We appreciate the commitment to anti-drug cooperation of our competent authorities, including the creation of the BRICS Anti-Drug Working group. 11. We endorse the decisions made at the Ministerial Meeting of the BRICS to combat the drug threat and at the Second Moscow Ministerial Anti-Drug Conference and support the initiatives of the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Drugs in 2016. 12. We support the idea of introducing compulsory drug checks at schools and higher education institutions to counter the problem. 13. We agree that regular exchanges and exchange of best practices by relevant anti-drug agencies of BRICS countries should be introduced. BRICS countries should jointly develop recommendations aimed at improvement of the national legislations and efficiency of legal cooperation between the states with regard to illicit drug trafficking. BRICS need to consider establishment of the multilateral regular consultations mechanisms to involve BRICS, Latin American and Central and West Asian countries in order to exchange best practices on the fight against drug trafficking, including signing agreement on exchange of relevant information and assistance in investigation of illicit drug trafficking. 14. BRICS should elaborate on the national and multilateral level common educational programs to promote drug-free society at schools, universities, community centers with special target on youth. This could be among the tasks for future BRICS Network University with regards to raising public awareness of the issue. Joint work of relevant health, anti-drug, youth and other organizations should result in development of social inclusion programs and health procurement in order to prevent further expansion of drug use nationally. BRICS should elaborate joint projects on promotion and social advertising to counter further expansion of drug use through traditional (newspapers, TV, radio) and social media.