Another challenge for RAMSI?

In the June 2007 edition of the Letter from Suva you highlight the current roadmap for the review of RAMSI. As you note from the outset, there continues to be several challenges facing the future of RAMSI.

I would like to add one more—and that is the full compliance with the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1325, titled Women, Peace and Security.

A Security Council resolution is a commitment made by the United Nations and member states to take action on specific issues. States are expected to comply and work towards implementation.

Resolution 1325, therefore builds on a number of international and regional commitments to women’s rights, including the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

As member states of the United Nations, all Pacific Islands Forum countries must comply with relevant Security Council resolutions, and “1325” has unfortunately seemed to have been forgotten when it comes to RAMSI.

The adoption, on October 31, 2000, of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security was an historic landmark. Historic because it marked the first time the Security Council addressed specifically the role and experience of women in the context of armed conflict.

Key elements of 1325 are:
• Participation of women in decision-making and peace processes.
• Inclusion of gender perspectives and training in peacekeeping.
• Protection of women and girls in conflict zones and refugee camps.
• Gender mainstreaming within UN system—reporting and programmatic implementation.

UN Security Council resolution 1325 clearly provides a relevant gender equality checklist for consideration to ensure the future of RAMSI, notwithstanding other peace support operations and initiatives in our region, are not void of the realities and commitments to gender equality. After all for peace to be sustainable, you can’t afford not include half of the population.

—Sharon Bhagwan Rolls
Coordinator, femLINKPACIFIC: Media Initiatives for Women
Suva, FIJI

---

Sogavare’s one year in power

Your story on Sogavare’s one year in power and references to Julian Moti in the June edition appeared to have been one-sided and biased.

For your information, a Vanuatu court dismissed the Moti case on a technicality. Moti was never declared “not guilty”. So it is wrong to say Moti was “cleared”.

In fact, a judge during the civil case questioned whether Moti had perverted the course of justice. Surely, Moti settling out of court in Vanuatu was a clear admission of guilt—or else why would he not let the charges be heard in court? As it is, Moti is still running—and in contempt of PNG court as well for skipping bail. If not guilty, why is he running?

It is not up to John Roughan, Sogavare, Howard or Downer to check any new evidence in the case. New evidence does not need to be presented to governments—governments are not judges or prosecutors to decide if a case should proceed. That is a matter only for the Australian courts. And Australian citizens should always face Australian law in Australia. Sogavare is interfering with Australian sovereignty by not sending Moti to Australia to have the case properly heard and finalised.

With such contempt for two courts—how can such a foreigner be appointed as attorney-general ahead of a local?

—John Matheson
Boroko
PAPUA NEW GUINEA