Boko Haram has persistently defied all attempts by the Nigerian government to stop the violent spread of its activities from the northern part of the country, and sectarian violence and attacks have assumed new and dangerous dimensions in Africa’s most populous state. Nigerians are currently experiencing an era characterized by intensive military operations similar to those previously launched against Niger Delta militants, and an uncertain mood is prevailing which some have compared to the state of affairs during the Nigerian civil war.

Military regiments of the Joint Task Force (JTF) have been deployed across areas considered to be the country’s “geographies of terror,” from the cities of Maiduguri to Jos, and from Kano to Damaturu, the extent of which is reflected in unprecedented security expenditure figures rising to nearly a quarter of the national budget for 2012. In spite of these efforts, the first half of 2012 has seen a rise in the incidence of Boko Haram attacks. While armed action cannot be totally discounted, its utility as a single tactic has proved futile and has underscored the need for the Nigerian government to unify under a common goal and intensify its efforts at dialogue and mediation.

Key Conclusions:

The excessive militarization of some states in northern Nigeria has resulted in a tense martial atmosphere and a concomitant increase in cases of armed brutalization, civilian intimidation, and human rights violations by members of the Joint Task Force. This situation has inadvertently amplified the level of state-directed grievance among affected citizens, as well as an unfortunate provocation of local sympathies for Boko Haram’s cause. The predominant use of force by the Nigerian government is inherently problematic, and would only work successfully if there is a simultaneous application of other approaches such as mediation, particularly because of the dangerous permutation of ideological, political, and economic issues involved.

The degree to which mediation can be a useful tool in the Nigerian situation depends upon a number of complex factors suggested by analysts such as Jacob Bercovitch. These include: the nature of the issue, the mediators involved, the context, and the parties to the conflict.

Since the rainy season began in July, Niger has experienced its worst flooding in eighty years, affecting over 500,000 people. Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, desperately needs international aid to help flood victims. But on September 8, Interior Minister Abdou Labo announced that some aid had been stolen.

This tragedy is yet another challenge for the new government, which has worked to promote transparency and unearth foul play. Authorities have created a hotline to report corruption and established a national anti-corruption body with representation from government, civil society, and private sector. But the fight has not gone smoothly. In July 2011, three months after President Mahamadou Issoufou took office, soldiers angry at firings and probes connected to the anti-corruption campaign plotted to assassinate him. In January of this year, arsonists targeted the Ministry of Justice, destroying key files used in the investigations. Critics even charge (French) that members of the president’s own entourage “have hastened to fill their pockets before packing up.”

Corruption is a problem across the Sahel. Out of 182 countries profiled in Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, Sahelian nations occupied some of the worst spots. On a list where the number one country, New Zealand, was the least corrupt, Sahelian countries ranked 100 (Burkina Faso), 112 (Senegal), 118 (Mali), 134 (Eritrea and Niger, tied), 143 (Mauritania and Nigeria, tied), 168 (Chad), and 177 (Sudan).

The problems caused by corruption are legion. Corruption among top politicians and officials drains millions of dollars from public treasuries. When Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha died in 1998, for example, the Washington Post described his regime’s pervasive corruption in these terms:

The Haitian National Police (HNP) may be the best functioning state institution in Haiti and can therefore arguably be considered one of the few post-2004 crisis success stories. With support from the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), it grew from 3,500 in 2005 to just over 8,000 elements by 2010, and in spite of having been strongly affected by the January 2010 earthquake (the HNP headquarters was destroyed), it reached a strength of 10,000 in 2012. The HNP is now both visible and active, day and night, including in former gang strongholds of the capital’s slums, and its reputation has also improved with its capacities and professionalism.

Most importantly, the HNP remains the only national security force of Haiti (the army having not yet been formally reinstated–see below). And while it continues to rely heavily on the presence of MINUSTAH’s 12,000 international troops and police, its performance is likely to be a key determinant for the gradual handover and planned downsizing of MINUSTAH between now and the end of 2016. In this context, two major developments this past month merit our attention.

Key Conclusions

First, the mandate of longtime HNP director Mario Andresol (pictured above, left) ended on August 18 after serving two consecutive mandates since 2005. A new HNP director Godson Aurélus (pictured above, right) was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Second, a new HNP development plan 2012-2016 was adopted by the Supreme Council of National Police (CSPN), which key objective is to bring the HNP from 10,000 up to at least 15,000 officers by 2016.

• The smooth transition of a new HNP director after seven years and the fact that the new HNP head came up through the ranks are encouraging signs;
• The tense political and security context in which this transition is taking place is, however, a source of concern as regard the risk of manipulation and politicization of the HNP;
• While the HNP may well be the best functioning state institution in Haiti, much work remains to be done, in particular to build a professional HNP middle and senior management;
• It may also be time to revisit the lessons from the first UN-supported attempt to build a professional Haitian police in the late 1990s;

Much analysis has been devoted to states and international efforts to stabilize peace and rebuild societies in the aftermath of conflict. However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the “end game” of these operations. When should a mission be scaled down or closed? What are the criteria for successful disengagement from a post-conflict society? These are questions that bear great policy relevance, but have not generated much enthusiasm in the academic community. A new excellent book, Exit Strategies and State Building, edited by Professor Richard Caplan at Oxford University, is filling this gap.

The volume, which contains case studies covering the exit challenges in operations from the colonial time to the recent Iraq case, is worth reading in its entirety. After all, the best way to strengthen our knowledge in this field is to learn from specific cases. For those short of time, but still interested in the topic, here are a few general conclusions, as summarized in the volume’s concluding chapter.

1. Exit is a process, not an event. “Exit as a process” is not just a slogan, but has policy implications. First of all, it means that exit is linked to entry. A roadmap to exit cannot be fixed at the beginning of an intervention. However, the strategy and modalities of engagement in a country determines to some extent the transition phases. Effective planning requires continuing reassessment of goals and progress, calling for greater flexibility. The orientation should be toward “end states,” rather than “end dates."

2. Exit means transition. A second policy implication of exit as process is the likeliness of exit occurring in phases, with different actors withdrawing or passing responsibilities at different times. This means that rather than just talking about exit, one should talk of transition, moving from one operation to another, or transferring responsibility from international actors to national authorities. The end of an operation rarely marks the end of all international involvement, as we have seen in the Balkans and in West Africa. Well-managed transitions require targeted follow-on activities to reinforce peace- and statebuilding measures (e.g., continuing troop presence in certain hot spots) and stronger collaboration among the multiple players who generally operate in a post-conflict country.

The use of indices to measure changes in countries across different policy areas is becoming increasingly frequent. From human rights to conflict, from governance to gender, many organizations have invested in developing statistical models that derive data from multiple sources and rank countries according to their score.

The IPI’s Global Observatory provides the first list of country indices available in open-sources. It reviews thirty indices and provides a description of the methodology and results.

In addition, the Global Observatory has prepared an interactive world map (beta version) that shows data from all thirty different indices. Users can also see results from combined indices  in different thematic categories.

Click here to view interactive map (beta version) >>

The indices are organized in six categories:

1.    Conflict, Fragility, and Instability
2.    Environment
3.    Freedoms and Rights
4.    Gender
5.    Governance
6.    Socio-Economics

Indices add to the world’s knowledge and provide an easy read into trends and changes that would require otherwise the analysis of a large amount of data. At the same time, indices are difficult to construct, and have little comparative power. They tend to give “black and white” pictures of countries, and some of the criteria can be quite subjective. Policy prescriptions cannot be devised on the basis of a numerical score.

1. CONFLICT, FRAGILITY, AND INSTABILITY

Failed State Index

By The Fund for Peace

Description: The 2012 Failed State Index measures risk for instability or risk of violence in 177 states. The Failed State Index is accompanied on Foreign Policy by a map with country rankings and a photo essay series entitled “Postcards From Hell.”
Issued: Annually since 2005.
Methodology: The Fund for Peace uses its Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) software which scans open-source articles and reports using Boolean logic, which consists of key phrases designed to capture the twelve indicators and a number of sub-indicators covering social economic, political, and military facets of state fragility (which is reviewed through human analysis). For more on methodology, click here.

Global Peace Index

By Institute for Economics and Peace

Description: The 2012 Global Peace Index measures peace as the “absence of violence” and seeks to determine what cultural attributes and institutions are associated with states of peace in 158 states. The Global Peace Index is accompanied by a yearly report.
Issued: Annually since 2006.
Methodology: The Global Peace Index  uses 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators, ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighboring countries and the percentage of prison population. For more on methodology, click here.

Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger

By University of Maryland

Description: The 2012 Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger ranks 163 countries based on their projected risk of political instability or armed conflict over a three-year period (2010-2012). It focuses in particular on violent events like war and genocide. The Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger is accompanied by the biennial Peace and Conflict Report.
Issued: Biennially since 2001.
Methodology: The Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger includes 5 indicators across social, economic, political, and security dimensions based on expert data and public statistics measuring institutional consistency (the extent to which the institutions which make up a political system are uniformly autocratic or democratic); economic openness; infant mortality rates; militarization; neighborhood security. For more on methodology, click here.

Political Instability Index

By The Economist Intelligence Unit

Description: The 2010 Political Instability Index assesses 165 countries on how susceptible they are to social unrest.
Issued: in 2010, using a 2007 baseline.
Methodology: The Political Instability Index is based on four factors: (1) the level of development as measured by the infant mortality rate; (2) extreme cases of economic or political discrimination against minorities (according to assessments and codings by the Minorities at Risk Project); (3)"a bad neighborhood" (if a country has at least four neighbors that suffered violent conflicts) and; (4) regime type (intermediate regimes that are neither consolidated democracies nor autocratic regimes combined with the existence in these regimes of intense factionalism in domestic politics, as coded by the Polity Project on democracy). There are 15 indicators in all—12 for the underlying and 3 for the economic distress index. For more on methodology, click here.

State Fragility Index

By George Mason University

Description: The 2010 State Fragility Index rates 164 countries on state fragility and monitors change in fragility over time.
Issued: Annually since 2007. The State Fragility Index is accompanied by the 2011 Global Report.
Methodology: In the 2010 State Fragility Index, fourteen indicators are derived from expert data and public statistics measuring effectiveness and legitimacy, with four sectors each (security, political, economic, and social). Categories are ranked 0-3: 0-no fragility 1-low fragility 2-medium fragility 3-high fragility with all categories weighted equally. 

Country Indicators for Foreign Policy: Failed and Fragile States

By Carleton University, The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs

Description: The Country Indicators for Foreign Policy examines state fragility using a combination of extensive structural data and dynamic events monitoring to prove and overall pictures of state fragility. Its 2012 report provides a global fragility ranking for 2011 for 197 countries. The Country Indicators for Foreign Policy on Failed and Fragile States is accompanied by a yearly report.
Issued: Annually since 2006.
Methodology: The Country Indicators for Foreign Policy bases its rankings on 75 indicators of state fragility and robustness, which are organized in six categories: governance, economics, security and Crime, human development, demography, and environment. For more on methodology, click here.

2. ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Performance Index

By Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for Internatinoal Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, and the Joint Research Centre European Commission

Description: The 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks 132 countries on 25 performance indicators tracked across ten policy categories, on a national government scale, covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. EPI is featured in the annual Performance Index Report.
Issued: Biennially since 2000.
Methodology: The Environmental Performance Index measures two broad components: environmental health (air pollution, water) and ecosystem vitality (climate chance, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, biodiversity and habitat, water, and air pollution). For more on methodology, click here.

3. FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS

Freedom in the World Index

By Freedom House

Description: The 2011 Freedom in the World Index measures the levels of political rights and civil liberties in 195 countries and 14 related and disputed territories. The index is featured in the yearly Freedom in the World Report.
Issued: Annually since 1972.
Methodology: The Freedom in the World Index gives countries a numerical rating of 1-7. The rating is based on survey findings carried out by regional experts and scholars. For more on the methodology, click here.

Press Freedom Survey

By Freedom House

Description: The 2012 Press Freedom Survey measures the state of global press freedoms in 197 countries. The Press Freedom Survey is featured in the annual Freedom of the Press country reports.
Issued: Annually since 1980.
Methodology: The Press Freedom Survey rate countries press freedom in three clusters: “Legal Environment” (0-30 points), “Political Influences” (40 points), and “Economic Pressures” (30 points). Countries are ranked as 0-30 “Free”, 31-60 “Partly Free”, 61-100 “Not Free.” For more on methodology, click here.

Worldwide Press Freedom Index

By Reporters without Borders

Description: The 2012 Worldwide Press Freedom Index measures the state of media freedom in 179 countries to reflect the degree of freedom that citizens, journalists, and news media enjoy in each country. The Worldwide Press Freedom Index is featured in the annual Press Freedom Index Report.
Issued: Annually since 2002.
Methodology: Based on a questionnaire sent to partner organizations and 130 correspondents (18 freedom of expression groups in all five continents), and to journalists, researchers, jurists, and human rights activists based on 44 criteria related to press freedom. For more on the methodology, click here.

Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database

By David L. Cingranelli (Binghamton University, SUNY and David L. Richards, University of Memphis)

Description: CIRI measures governments’ overall level of respect for human rights in a particular year in 195 countries. CIRI does not measure overall human rights conditions (which may be affected by non-state actors).
Issued: Annually from 1981 to 2010.
Methodology: CIRI measures a range of rights, including physical integrity rights (such as the right not to be tortured, summarily executed, disappeared, or imprisoned for political beliefs); civil liberties (such as free speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of movement); workers’ rights; and rights of women to equal treatment politically, economically, and socially.

Economic Freedom in the World Index

By The Fraser Institute

Description: The Economic Freedom in the World Index measures the degree to which the policies and institutions of 144 countries are supportive of economic freedom. Economic freedom includes personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete, and security of privately-owned property. The index is featured in the annual Economic Freedom in the World Annual Report.
Issued: Annually since 1997.
Methodology: The Economic Freedom in the World Index is based on forty-two data points used to construct a summary index to measure the degree of freedom based on five broad areas: (1) size of government: expenditures, taxes, and enterprises; (2) legal structure and security of property rights; (3) access to sound money; (4) freedom to trade internationally (5) regulations of credit, labor, and business.

Index of Economic Freedom

By The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal

Description: The 2012 Index of Economic Freedom examines economic freedom in 184 countries (economic freedom refers to property ownership, fully realized freedoms of movement for labor, capital and goods, and an absolute absence of coercion or constraint of economic liberty beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself). The Index of Economic Freedom is featured in the annual Index of Economic Freedom Reports.
Issued: Annually since 1995.
Methodology: The Index of Economic Freedom measures ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The 10 economic freedoms are grouped into four broad categories or pillars of economic freedom: (1) rule of law; (2) limit government; (3) regulator efficiency; and (4) open markets. For more on the methodology, click here.

4. GENDER

Gender Inequality Index

By The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Description: The 2011 Gender Inequality Index provides insights into gender disparities in health, empowerment and labor market in 187 countries. It can be useful to help governments and others better understand the gaps between women and men. The Gender Inequality Index is featured in the annual Human Development Report.
Issued: Annually since 2010 (replaced the Gender Related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure).
Methodology: The Gender Inequality Index is a composite index based on the following dimensions measuring inequalities between women and men: reproductive health, empowerment and the labor market. The measure varies between 0 (when women and men fare equally) and 1 (When women and men fare poorly compared to the other in all dimensions). For more on the methodology, click here. 

The Global Gender Gap index

By The World Economic Forum

Description: The Global Gender Gap Index benchmarks national gender gaps on economic, political, educational, and health based criteria and provides country rankings.  135 countries are ranked between 0 (inequality) and 1 (equality). The Global Gender Gap Index in the annual Global Gender Gap Report.
Issued: Annually since 2006.
Methodology: The Global Gender Gap Index measures the gap between men and women using four main categories: (1) economic participation; (2) educational attainment; (3) health and survival; (4) and political empowerment. The GGI combines quantitative and qualitative measures from the executive survey of the World Economic Forum, a survey of 9,000 business leaders. For more on the methodology click here.

5. GOVERNANCE

Corruption Perceptions Index

By Transparency International

Description: The Corruption Perceptions Index measures the levels of perceived corruption in countries around the world. The Corruption Perceptions Index is accompanied by the annual report.
Issued: Annually since 2001.
Methodology: The Corruption Perceptions Index measures the perceived levels of corruption as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/territories is done by two groups: country experts, both residents and non-residents, and business leaders. For more on methodology click here (see “What are the date sources for the CPI?”).

Democracy Index

By The Economist Intelligence Unit

Description: The 2011 Democracy Index measures the state of democracy worldwide for 167 independent states. The Democracy Index is accompanied by the annual Democracy Index Report.
Issued: Annually since 2007.
Methodology: The Democracy Index is based on a weighted average of public opinion surveys and expert assessment based on the answers of 60 questions grouped ito five categories : (1) electoral process and pluralism;  (2) civil liberties; (3) the functioning of government; (4) political participation;  and (5) political culture. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries.

The World Bank Governance Indicators
Description: This index by the World Bank measures the level of governance in 200 countries–governance meaning the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.
Issued: Annually since 1996.
Methodology: The aggregate indicators combine the views of a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. The index consists of six composite indicators of broad dimensions of governance: (1) Voice and Accountability; (2) Political Stability and Absence of Violence; (3) Government Effectiveness; (4)Regulatory Quality; (5) Rule of Law; (6) Control of Corruption. Countries are given a percentile rank on each governance indicator indicating the percentage of countries that rank below the selected country. For more on methodology, click here.

Bertelsmann Transformation Index (Status Index)

By Bertelsmann Stiftung

Bertelsmann Transformation Index (Management Index)

By Bertelsmann Stiftung

Description: The Bertelsmann Transformation Index examinesanalyzes quality of democracy and the market economy (Status Index) and political management in 128 developing and transition countries (Management) Index. Analysis of the Bertelsmann Transformation Index is included in country reports.
Issued: Biennially since 2001.
Methodology: The Bertelsmann Transfomation Index uses two out of forty-nine questions from the country assessments, which employ one primary researcher per country, one peer reviewer and two calibration rounds by regional and global coordinators. The BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management Index, both of which are based on in-depth assessments. For more on methodology, click here.

6. SOCIO-ECONOMICS

Gallup Global Wellbeing (thriving) Index
By: Gallup
(This Index is updated continuously and does not rank countries.)
Description: The Gallup Global Wellbeing Index measures life satisfaction at the country level in over 150 countries.
Issued: Gallup surveys have been regularly updated since 2006.
Methodology: The Gallup Global Wellbeing Index is based on telephone and face-to-face interviews in which interviewers were asked questions related to their wellbeing (feeling well-rested, being treated with respect, smiling/laughter, learning/interest, enjoyment, physical pain, worry, sadness, stress, and anger) on a scale from 0-10. For more on methodology, click here.

Global Hunger Index

By International Food Policy Research Institute, Concern Worldwide, Welthungerhilfe

Description: The Global Hunger Index measures and tracks hunger globally and by country and region for 81 countries. The Global Hunger Index is featured in the annual Global Hunger Index report.
Issued: Annually since 2006.
Methodology: The Global Hunger Index is a composite index using a number of different indicators that fall into three broad categories, 1. Undernourishment 2. Child underweight 3. Child mortality. The GHI ranks countries on a 100 point scale (0 is the best, ‘no hunger’, 100 the worst). For more on the methodology, click here.

Human Development Index (HDI)

By The United Nations Development Programme

Description: The 2011 Human Development Index measures progress since 1980 in the three basic dimensions: health (life expectancy at birth), knowledge (mean years of schooling) and income (GNI per capita) in 187 countries. The index is intended to assess development beyond just economic growth by looking also at the people and their capabilities. HDI is featured in the annual Human Development Report.
Issued: Annually since 1990.
Methodology: HDI measures development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite index. For more on the methodology, click here.

Multidimensional Poverty Index

By The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and UNDP Human Development Report Office

Description: The 2011 Multidimensional Poverty Index measures acute poverty by giving a “multidimensional” picture of people living in poverty in 109 developing nations. The MPI has supplanted the Human Poverty Index, which had been included in the annual Human Development Reports since 1997. The Multidimensional Poverty Index is featured in the annual Human Development Report.
Issued: Annually since 2011.
Methodology: The Multidimensional Poverty Index examines information on household members. The index examines health, education, and living standards using ten indicators across 109 countries (2011). For more on the methodology, click here.

World Bank Ease of Doing Business Indicators

By World Bank International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Description: The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Indicators assess whether the regulatory environment in 193 countries are conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Indicators is accompanied by an annual Doing Business report. 
Issued: Annually.
Methodology: The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Indicators averages the percentile rankings of ten indicators that measuring the climate for doing businesses in economies, such as starting a business, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, accessing electricity, etc.. For more on methodology, click here.

Global Competitiveness Index

By World Economic Forum

Description: The Global Competitiveness Index measures the business operating environment and microeconomic and macroeconomic levels of competitiveness of over 144 economies worldwide (competitiveness defined as the institutions, policies, and factors that determine the productivity of a country). The Global Competitiveness Index is featured in the annual Global Competitiveness Report.
Issued: Annually since 2008.
Methodology: The Global Competitiveness Index is a weighted average of what it refers to as “pillars” of competitiveness, including institutions, infrastructure, higher education and training, good market efficiency, etc.

Impunity Index on the Murder of Journalists

By The Committee to Protect Journalists

Description: The Impunity Index on the Murder of Journalists identifies countries where journalists are murdered regularly, and where governments fail to solve the crimes. Impunity for threats and harassment/ killing of journalist is seen as a key indicator of press freedom and freedom of expression.
Issued: First issued in 2011, covering previous ten years.
Methodology: The Impunity Index on the Murder of Journalists identifies the number of unsolved journalist murders as a percentage of each country's population. Only the thirteen nations with five or more unsolved cases are included in this index. Cases are considered unsolved when no convictions have been obtained. For more about the methodology, click here.

Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)/ International Development Association (IDA) Resource Allocation Index

By The World Bank

Description: CPIA/ IDA Resource Allocation Index assesses developing countries’ policies to reduce poverty, promote sustainable growth, and effectively use development assistance to help guide the allocation of IDA lending resources.
Issued: Annually since 2005.
Methodology: The CPIA/ IDA Resource Allocation Index is based on the results of the CPIA, which are grouped into four clusters: (1) economic management; (2) structural policies; (3) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (4) public sector management institutions. In each, countries are rated from 1 (low)-6 (high). Ratings are made by expert survey conducted by UN staff reflecting a variety of indicators, observations and judgments. For more on methodology, click here.

Approximately 250,000 children are fighting as soldiers around the world, and scores are killed or injured in conflicts like the one happening in Syria right now. The recruitment and use of child soldiers, sexual violence, maiming, and killing are just some of the egregious crimes committed against children in conflict that members of the UN Security Council will have in mind today as they hold their annual Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict.

While the inclusion of this issue on the Security Council’s agenda in the last decade has been a vital step toward protecting children during conflict, the council could take specific steps today to address the many challenges that remain.

This was the view expressed by grassroots child protection organizations last Monday at an event co-organized by Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict and the International Peace Institute. Reflecting on the progress made thus far, these actors proposed that the Security Council strengthen the UN’s Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism and focus on fighting impunity.

The Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM), which was formalized in 2005 by Security Council Resolution 1612, has had a fundamental importance in the field for local organizations as a structuring framework. Besides the implementation of action plans—concrete, time-bound commitments by parties to a conflict to halt violations of children’s rights, which are central to the MRM—this mechanism gave a strong framework under which local NGOs could strengthen their capacities, document in a consistent and systematic manner child rights’ violations, and structure local advocacy work while amplifying local voices at the global level.

Despite these advances, grassroots child protection actors agreed unanimously that shortcomings remain when it comes to addressing impunity and strengthening the accountability of armed actors. While demobilization of hundreds of child soldiers is an achievement, the risk remains that more will be recruited tomorrow if perpetrators of violations are not sanctioned for their wrongdoings. Yet, the reality is that, despite the many very positive aspects of the MRM, perpetrators are rarely brought to account for their crimes.

In a survey conducted by Thomson Reuters' TrustLaw Women, a hub of legal information and legal support for women's rights, India ranks with Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia as one of the most dangerous place for women. While women in India also face numerous disadvantages–poor health indicators, lower literacy rates, lower income levels, poor female-to-male ratio due to sex-selective abortions and female infanticide, to list a few–the last few years have witnessed some astonishing acts of violence against women in the country. Acts of violence registered against women in 2010 total to around 213,585. Swayam, a Kolkata-based NGO asserts that between 2005 and 2009, when the overall crime rate rose by 16%, the rate of crimes against women rose by 31%. This problem cannot be solved by the government alone but by a national awakening involving the entire country and civil society willing to stand up and defend the rights of its women and children.

In the aftermath of some high-profile acts of violence against women, the solutions put forth by law enforcement agencies tends towards restricting the movement of women, rather than taking action against the perpetrator or the culture that allows such acts to continue. At various times, officials have suggested that women should not work after 8PM, should not travel in the dark without a male escort, or be employed in jobs such as in bars. Somehow, the onus of not being attacked is placed on the victim, i.e., the woman, and one could suspect that sex crimes were being used as a pretext to infringe on the freedom of women.

Changing this culture of violence is a task that will take years. There are numerous steps that can be taken at the local, state and central levels, with concerted action on the part of the government, NGOs, local community leaders, healthcare professionals, religious and community elders, women’s and children’s rights groups. These are actions that can be taken immediately, and there are policies that can be put into place with just months of careful planning.

But these actions require political will that must cut across party lines and deal with this malady as a national security issue at the highest levels of government, both at the central and state levels. A recent letter signed by various prominent citizens and activists, was sent to the prime minister in May 2012. The letter drew his attention towards various actions suggested by government reports themselves that need to be enforced, including re-working how rape victims are examined, ensuring that the police are held accountable, as well as creating a dedicated 24-hour helpline for women. This letter lays out some very practical steps that can be taken immediately.

As armed groups strengthen their hold over northern Mali, the UN Security Council is set on September 17 to weigh a plan by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to support a Malian government offensive in the north. While the details of the plan remain unclear, Mali’s interim President Dioncounda Traoré has requested assistance from both ECOWAS and the UN in reforming and training the country’s army, as well as logistical assistance in a government offensive that could include ECOWAS troops to secure cities in the north. Army officers and politicians close to the leaders of the March 22 military coup have been openly critical towards the plan, particularly of the latter component.

Key Conclusions
A purely negotiated solution to the conflict in northern Mali is unrealistic; any strategy to address the conflict will need to include a military component. But the ECOWAS approach harbors major risks. The international community–which would have to back any ECOWAS mission in Mali financially and logistically–should focus its efforts on supporting the re-establishment of an effective Malian government and army. These efforts could suffer a serious setback as a result of the current ECOWAS plan, which is fuelling political tensions in the capital Bamako.

Secondly, ECOWAS is not the right regional framework to coordinate a response to the conflict in northern Mali. Neither Algeria nor Mauritania is a member of the bloc, and both are opposed to its approach. At the regional level, the key challenge is how to integrate Algeria into an international strategy to tackle the conflict.

Analysis
The current drive towards external military intervention is partly based on the assumption that northern Mali has fallen victim to external actors and dynamics outside its control. The conflict erupted, the story goes, when Tuareg fighters returned from Libya with heavy weapons and worsened when al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) emerged as a key force, drawing on militants from across the region.