baseline assessment for disarmament education in asia and ... · undss united nations department of...

Baseline

Assessment for

Disarmament

Education in

Asia and the

Pacific Common Findings Report

2019

Jane Lawson Peace and Disarmament Education Coordinator

Quantitative Survey: Drishti Bhattarai and Nicolas Quiroga

List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank ASEAN The Association of Southeast Asian Nations AV Armed Violence BA Baseline Assessment CSO Civil Society Organization DE Disarmament Education DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration DNPE Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education EAO Ethnic Armed Organizations FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) FGD Focus Group Discussion GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German

Development Agency) IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IED Improvised Explosive Device ICT Information and Communications Technology IOM International Organization for Migration INGO International Non-Governmental Organization NWT New Weapon Technologies NGO Non-Governmental Organization OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (United Nations) OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (United Nations) OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe MRE Mine Risk Education PDE Peace and Disarmament Education PVE Preventing Violent Extremism SALW Small Arms and Light Weapons SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNODA United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNRCCA United Nations Regional Centre for Preventative Diplomacy for Central Asia UNRCPD United Nations Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament UNRCO United Nations Resident Coordinator Office UN Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women UNV United Nations Volunteers USAID The United States Agency for International Development

UXO Unexploded Ordnance WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction WPS Women Peace and Security YPS Youth Peace and Security

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Introduction 4

Objectives, Activities and Methodology 7

Common Findings

Perceptions and Understandings 9

Disarmament and Sustainable Development 14

Structures for Disarmament Education 15

Disarmament Education Needs Identified 18

Disarmament Education Priorities and Conclusion 21

Annexes

Annex A – 2002 UN Study DNPE Recommendations 23

Annex B – Baseline Assessment Participant Summary 27

Annex C – National Findings: Kyrgyzstan 29

Disarmament Education Baseline Assessment

Common Findings Report

2

Executive Summary. The United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124) builds upon and seeks to revitalize past disarmament education efforts, which it considered an integral part of peace education. Its main contribution is the 34 recommendations for action to be undertaken by Member States, UNODA and its regional centres and others. In July 2017, these recommendations were reaffirmed in the Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (A/72/185) and calls for a reinvigoration of disarmament education activities. In May 2018, the Secretary-General launched his Disarmament Agenda in which he underscored the importance of increased disarmament education and training opportunities. Therefore, in 2019, in support of and in line with the above, the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD) conducted a Baseline Assessment of Peace and Disarmament Education needs in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Tajikistan. The objective was to determine how best to support member states in order to enhance the effectiveness of Disarmament Education in the promotion of international peace, security and sustainable development.

Activities were carried out using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Seven focus group discussions and 146 one-on-one semi-structured interviews were complemented through offering a quantitative survey. A total of 302 individuals (133 female/ 169 male) representing 214 offices/organizations participated in the qualitative portion of the Assessment and 154 individuals (69 female/ 84 male) completed the quantitative survey. Participants included Government offices/Ministry representatives, various United Nation agency representatives, international non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations.

The Assessment itself proved to be a transformative exercise in Disarmament Education (DE) as preliminary notions of Disarmament Education were deepened through Assessment discussions. Initially, participants explained that as disarmament and arms control processes are regulated to senior levels of government they do not understand how these are connected to conflict prevention mechanisms at community levels beyond Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration programmes found within peace processes. Significantly, as conversations progressed and participants had space for deeper reflection there was an evolution of thought and almost all participants began to understand disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control as a precondition for peace. Participants also acknowledged the relevance of DE activities as it relates to various forms of peace, security and development programming. Participants agreed the lack of understanding of DE results in underestimating its value which, in turn, results in the exclusion of Disarmament Education activities, discussions and prioritization. All participants concluded that DE is critical to preventing conflict and sustaining peace. Disarmament Education is considered vital to strengthening knowledge and understanding on disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control with a variety of stakeholders; from government officers and political parties to public servants, both police and military, to civil society, youth, media and teachers. Based on the participants perceptions and understanding alongside a review of existing structures for educational interventions the following priorities for Disarmament Education have been identified:



3

1. YOUTH PROGRAMMING: Programming and educational content must be created for youth, with youth. We need to work with youth to learn more how adolescents and young adults view peace and the usage of weapons. Responsible innovation and emerging threats posed by new technologies are a space for engagement to bridge youth interest in the subject of disarmament and arms control. Activities within current UNSCR 2250 Youth, Peace and Security programmes are an entry points for Disarmament Education activities.

2. GENDER PROGRAMMING: Weapons are associated with exaggerated perceptions of masculinity and power, therefore, it was highlighted Disarmament Education is critical to the prevention of violence against women and girls. DE is considered a means to help remove patriarchal, masculine views about arms and to promulgate new social norms. Educational activities should highlight issues on gender and how they relate, affect (positive and negative) both the understanding of disarmament and arms control as well as inform the design of activities and interventions.

3. EDUCATING THE EDUCATORS: Disarmament Education programmes targeting academics is a priority. This also applies at the institutional level in terms of content and programme creation for university level academic programmes. Disarmament Education training opportunities must extend to include peace and security practitioners in the development sector, including UN personnel, helping practitioners understand contextual and thematic correlations on how arms control can build sustainable peace, increase security and contribute to sustainable development.

4. TRAINING POLITICAL PARTIES: Armed violence is critically linked to political power, political transitions and political protests. Disarmament Education is considered a vital component to reduce armed violence associated with politics and to promote cultures of accountability, in relation to violence, amongst political leadership and groups. Disarmament Education activities linking peace and non-violence themes with leadership training and diplomacy skills strengthening is essential to promote healthy democratic debate and mediation around policy issues.

5. MAINSTREAMING DISARMAMENT EDUCATION: There is a need to mainstream Disarmament Education into peacebuilding and conflict prevention programmes especially within the scope of preventing violent extremism and counter terrorism activities through unpacking individuals perceptions of weapons and armed violence. This is linked to cybersecurity and digital literacy programming focusing on education around the dangers of information communication technologies being weaponized, namely social media platforms, for recruitment and as a means to incite violence.

6. AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS: To address the lack of understanding around current issues in disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control and their relation to peace, security and development it is critical to create awareness raising campaigns. These campaigns must be educational in nature and produced in various languages. Content needs to be adapted to regions, sub-regions and national contexts. These campaigns should include educational opportunities for media personnel, journalists, social media influencers and gaming leaders as media plays a critical role connecting government to people, as well as raising awareness about disarmament and arms control issues.



4

Introduction. The overall objective of Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education (DNPE)1 is to impart knowledge and skills to individuals to empower them to make their contribution, as national and world citizens, to the achievement of concrete disarmament and non-proliferation measures with the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control.2 Disarmament Education (DE) equips citizens to actively engage in disarmament activities and policy-making. It opens people-to-people channels and partnerships for informed discussions and decision-making. More importantly, it is critical to our efforts to build non-violent resilient communities for our sustainable development. The objectives of DE are:

a. “To learn how to think rather than what to think about issues; b. To develop critical thinking skills in an informed citizenry; c. To deepen understanding of the multiple factors at the local, national, regional and

global levels that either foster or undermine peace; d. To encourage attitudes and actions which promote peace; e. To convey relevant information on and to foster a responsive attitude to current and

future security challenges through the development and widespread availability of improved methodologies and research techniques;

f. To bridge political, regional and technological divides by bringing together ideas, concepts, people, groups and institutions to promote concerted international efforts towards disarmament, non-proliferation and a peaceful and non-violent world;

g. To project at all levels the values of peace, tolerance, non-violence, dialogue and consultation as the basis for interaction among peoples, countries and civilizations.”3

In 2002, a United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124) was submitted to the First Committee of the General Assembly at its 57th session.4 The Study built upon past Disarmament Education efforts, which are considered an integral part of Peace Education and looked to see where best to revitalize DE. Its main conclusions were 34 recommendations for action to be undertaken by Member States, United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and its regional centres and others.5

In 2017, these 34 recommendations were assessed and reaffirmed in the Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (A/72/185)6. The Board noted that while certain elements of Disarmament Education (DE) have to be strengthened, there is no need for a new study, rather, the focus should be on further and full implementation of the recommendations. It was stressed there is a pressing need to put disarmament into the context of international security, raise awareness, build partnerships, strengthen the involvement of women, youth and the media, increase measurement and reporting and overall continue to make strides on the 34 recommendations with concrete DE activities and engagements.

1 Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education (DNPE) is often understood as an extension of peace education. It is also known as Disarmament

Education (DE) or Peace and Disarmament Education (PDE). 2 As outlined in the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124) 3 As outlined in the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124) 4 The United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124). 5 See Annex A. 6 Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (A/72/185).

http://undocs.org/A/57/124






5

In response to the above, the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD) conducted the first ever Baseline Assessment of Peace and Disarmament Education (PDE) needs in select States, in Asia-Pacific, from March to November 2019. The assessment’s aim was to determine how best to support Member States in order to enhance the effectiveness of Disarmament Education in the promotion of international peace, security and sustainable development.

The Assessment was guided by the framework of the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament, Securing Our Common Future. The Agenda provides a platform to reinvigorate dialogue on international disarmament and lays the path on how to integrate disarmament into the priorities of the whole United Nations system. It focuses on practical measures and indicates four pillars of engagement in support of Member States in carrying out their responsibilities.

The countries which took part of in the assessment include: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Tajikistan. Countries were selected based on their current fragile and conflict-affected situation status. Countries in a post-conflict status or with existing subnational conflict in which fragility remains a concern, and there is a need for special attention, were also selected. All nine countries were identified based on their ‘Elevated Warning’ to an ‘Alert’ status on the Fragile State Index 2018.7 In addition, 5 countries were assessed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as having a ‘fragile conflict-affected situation’ status. It is important to note, as ADB highlights, addressing fragility is central to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 16, which aims to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”8

In an increasingly interconnected and complex world, it has become clear peace, security and development are mutually conditional. Threats to security have socio-economic roots which risk an enormous cost in terms of human, financial and infrastructure resources. The peace, security and development nexus places prominence on the need to address the structural as well as operational causes of conflicts and propels development policies and activities to the forefront of the conflict prevention agenda explicitly placing disarmament as essential to sustainable development. As the Disarmament Agenda notes, “The SDGs take an important step towards articulating how arms control, peace and security contribute to development. Beyond addressing

7 The Fund for Peace, 2018 Fragile State Index, https://fundforpeace.org/fsi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/951181805-Fragile-States-Index-Annual-Report-2018.pdf 8 Mapping Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations in Asia and The Pacific - The ADB Experience, 2016; https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/211636/mapping-fcas-asia-pacific.pdf

Disarmament Education contributes to the creation of a culture of peace and non-violence. The overall objective of Disarmament Education and training is to impart knowledge and skills to individuals to empower them to make their contribution, as national and world citizens, to the achievement of concrete disarmament measures. Disarmament Education focuses on the process of disarmament itself, the steps to achieve it and the positive effects that disarmament has on socioeconomic development. It promotes a deeper understanding of the multiple factors, from the local to global levels, that can either foster or undermine peace. It emphasizes approaches to reducing and eliminating violent conflicts of all kinds, as well as reducing and eliminating all forms of armaments and warfare.”

- Securing Our Common Future – An Agenda for Disarmament

https://fundforpeace.org/fsi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/951181805-Fragile-States-Index-Annual-Report-2018.pdf

https://fundforpeace.org/fsi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/951181805-Fragile-States-Index-Annual-Report-2018.pdf

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/211636/mapping-fcas-asia-pacific.pdf



6

illicit arms flows, there remains a vast potential to operationally link the implementation of disarmament objectives with many other SDGs. The SDGs provide a critical framework to bring the historical relationship between disarmament and development back to the forefront of international consciousness.”9

Therefore, the Baseline Assessment (BA) activities were aimed to support Sustainable Development Agenda’s Goals and its targets, specifically, SDG 4.7, supporting quality education through promoting a culture of peace and non-violence and SDG 5.5, ensuring women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in political, economic and public life. Moreover, the outcomes of the BA will be directed to contribute to SDG 16.7 on ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels as well as support Member States in addressing SDG 16.1 on significantly reducing all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere and 16.4 reducing illicit arms flows.

Objectives, Activities and Methodology. The Peace and Disarmament Education Baseline Assessment’s main objective is to determine how best to support Member States in order to enhance the effectiveness of disarmament education in the promotion of international peace, security and sustainable development. The project was implemented in accord with UNRCPD’s mandate as the only United Nations regional entity specialized in non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control in Asia-Pacific.10 Understanding disarmament education as a long-term engagement the BA also aimed to learn how to build local levels of ownership, responsibility and leadership among main stakeholders. The Baseline Assessment forms the initial phase of, and themes identified for, a comprehensive set of Disarmament Education activities to be conducted in Asia and the Pacific.

A desk analysis of the current status of DE in the region resulted in the conclusion that there are very limited Disarmament Education activities and programmes in the Asia-Pacific region resulting in low numbers of potential Assessment participants actively engaging in direct DE interventions. Subsequently, perceptions and needs around disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation education were gathered through targeted stakeholder selection of groups working on community cohesion, peace and/or security programming alongside a few stakeholders engaged directly in the non-proliferation and disarmament space.

Activities were carried out using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) and 146 one-on-one semi-structured interviews were complemented through offering a quantitative survey. A total of 302 individuals (133 female/ 169 male) representing 214 office/organizations participated in the qualitative portion of the Assessment and 154 individuals (69 female/ 84 male) completed the quantitative survey.11 Participants include government offices/ministry representatives, various United Nation agency representatives, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs) as well as additional

9 Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament, Securing Our Common Future – An Agenda for Disarmament, May 2018, P.7.

https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/ 10 UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/42/39 D on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia. 11 See Annex B.

https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/

https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/42/39



7

stakeholders identified throughout the Assessment. Special attention was given to the inclusion of youth-led and women CSOs.

Data collected was coded based on concurrent themes and discussion points identified by the participants responses. These themes and their content were collated to form a participant narrative on the needs for their respective country.12 The coding was then repeated between the National Findings Reports to form the Common Findings Report showcasing the compiled results based on participants view points and suggestions. It highlights main entry points, recommendations for engagement and overall considerations when looking at the implementation of Disarmament Education activities. It forms a concrete narrative necessary to apply the recommendations to other countries in the region and lays a baseline for potential measurement of future DE activities.

As with all levels of inquiry through the construction of the tools some key limitations are apparent, mainly language challenges amongst participants in both the qualitative and quantitative survey. In addition, due to budgetary and implementation considerations only a short window of time, three days, was spent in each country limiting time and location availability to speak to participants. Skype calls were offered to off-set scheduling limitations. Due to the lack of a large sample size the results can be best framed as a detailed scoping assessment providing the baseline for any future in-depth inquiry for Disarmament Education in the select countries.

All findings presented represent the common narrative across all nine countries, unless otherwise indicated. Regional and sub-regional averages presented from the quantitative data are weighted to adjust for over and under-representation due to strong variation in number of responses by country.

12 The National Findings for each of the nine countries can be found in alphabetical order in Annex C to K.



8

Perceptions and Understandings. The majority of opinions and understandings on Disarmament Education expressed at the beginning of discussions transformed upon further reflection and considerations once participants were presented with further understanding on the Disarmament Agenda, disarmament machinery alongside a clarification of terminology. In general, understanding on what is, what is included and purpose of Disarmament Education is extremely limited among peace and security practitioners and government officials. Almost all participants have never heard of the Disarmament Agenda or initially understood how DE contributes to peace, security or sustainable development. Government representatives had the highest level of immediate understanding regarding what Disarmament Education is, however, it was often thought to be technical training for government officials only and not necessary for the general public. Participants acknowledged they consider DE activities specifically for diplomats, countries with weapons of mass destruction or countries and communities with access to guns. It was more often than not initially understood as solely part of post-conflict programming in relation to Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration activities. Significantly, as conversations progressed and participants had space for deeper reflection there was an evolution of thought and almost all participants began to understand disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control and their mechanisms, as a precondition for peace. Participants also acknowledged the relevance of DE activities as it relates to various forms of peace, security and development programming. The viewpoint on beneficiaries also expanded, for example, government officials began to express the value of university based disarmament educational academic programmes. Therefore, the Assessment itself proved to be a transformative exercise in Disarmament Education. As perceptions changed practitioners articulated that they had forgotten this aspect to sustaining peace. They also began to discuss the lack of understanding on DE themes of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament has contributed to increased risks to national, regional and international security as there is limited capacity to advocate, support and strengthen the maintenance of disarmament machinery infrastructure. Participants admitted they only thought of DE as a priority if there is on-going armed conflict. Participants agreed the lack of understanding of DE results in underestimating its value which, in turn, has led to the exclusion of DE activities, discussions and prioritization. All participants concluded that DE is extremely important and various activities need to be designed to address this knowledge gap amongst a variety of stakeholders alongside strengthening existing capacities. As discussed above, basic knowledge on peace and disarmament terminology is very low amongst peace and security practitioners, including UN personnel. Many participants have never heard of terms such as positive peace, negative peace, conflict transformation and non-proliferation. Some people did not know what weapons of mass destruction meant. Philippines had the highest understanding of terminology followed by Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Participants across all countries discussed language sensitivities (both political and social). Most participants felt there is a need for new or clarifying discussions and framing around lexicon/terminology for disarmament, which should include some form of cultural interpretation. Some countries, notably, Myanmar and Philippines highlighted the negative connotation around the term disarmament as ‘surrender’. Participants discussed ideas around weapons being connected to

COMMON FINDINGS



9

positive viewpoints of masculinity and power and this, in turn, prevents a change in behaviour or mindset towards a need for arms and armaments. Stakeholders agreed there needs to be a reframing around terminology and deeper reflections on how disarmament connects to values of power, peace and security in order to help organizations find relevance and connection to their current activities in times of both conflict and peace as well as help communities resist a “call to arms”, to address grievances.

Participants identified disarmament as having two categories; 1) physical disarmament – the act and processes around the removal of weapons, from guns to weapons of mass destruction and, 2) mental disarmament (‘disarming the mind’) – the change in a state-of-being meaning to remove the need or want of weapons. Disarmament Education was considered the main intervention in order to achieve category 2, disarming the mind. This includes educational activities supporting non-violence, removing the idea of relying on weapons as a tool for political leverage (at local, national and international levels), and ultimately laying the foundation for all arms control and non-proliferation activities with the goal for total disarmament.

Perceptions on arms and armament appeared to be interconnected to the importance of responsible and trustworthy state security apparatus. Most participants agree that when individuals do not feel secure with the state or do not feel that the state can maintain their safety people will arm themselves with legal, illegal or homemade weapons depending on access and means. If people feel secure with the state, this reduces the desire to arm oneself, however, this does not necessarily, ‘disarm the mind’. They underscored the values of power attributed to the accumulation of arms and armaments do not necessarily change with increased or decreased levels of individual or national security. For example, if there is trust of the state participants agree increases in military spending caters to feelings of national pride and strength even though they believe there are other priorities. The ideas of what constitutes power becomes key. It was concluded by many participants that DE through a human security lens would shift power attributes, help address root causes of conflict and form an architecture for armed conflict prevention.

In every country surveyed, a majority of quantitative respondents indicated possessing weapons (be it small arms and light weapons (SALW), heavy arms, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or new weapon technologies (NWT)) would not make their families, communities or country feel safe (Table 1). Weapons of mass destruction are perceived as providing the least safety, as an average of 80% in the assessed countries feel possessing WMDs would not make their country feel safe. Solomon Islands and the South Asian assessed countries have the highest perception that possessing weapons does not lead to a feeling of safety. Central Asian States of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan results ranked the lowest amongst the assessed countries leading to the conclusion that possessing weapons makes them feel more safe than their sub-regional counterparts.

Table 1: Possession of Weapons and Safety Perceptions

Possessing WMD* would not make my country

feel safe

Possessing arms would not make

my community feel safe

Possessing SALW** would not make my

family feel safe

Possessing NWT*** would not make my country

feel safe

Central Asia Kyrgyzstan 73% 67% 67% 47%

Tajikistan 50% 67% 83% 67%



10

South Asia Bangladesh 77% 77% 74% 55%

Nepal 85% 79% 82% 74% Sri Lanka 100% 88% 94% 100%

Southeast Asia Indonesia 67% 89% 67% 44% Myanmar 77% 65% 65% 73%

Philippines 81% 69% 50% 63%

Pacific Solomon Islands 100% 100% 100% 100%

Participants agreed there is an increase in concern around issues of cybersecurity and new weapon technologies and felt communities are vulnerable to risks associated with these new areas of concern but most participants expressed they did not understand this area well enough to engage. It was also noted that special attention must be given to ‘new weapons of concern’ which include homemade weapons and improvised explosive devices. It was stressed there is increasing security concerns over the perceived growth in individuals’ and organizations’ capacity to build and use these weapons. Furthermore, as many households have cultural/generational weapons participants noted there is a need to understand how they fit into the discussions on arms control and disarmament as people view these as weapons differently. Additionally, most countries assessed have strict gun control laws in terms of access, Philippines is the notable exception, nevertheless, participants expressed concerns over immediate security risks due to perceived increases of illicit trafficking of arms due to poor border control.

When discussing the Pillars of the Disarmament Agenda perceptions on various themes were gathered. While all participants agree that weapons of mass destruction created fear, they stressed they do not think about WMDs in relation to security unless concerns or discussions appear on the news. In general, WMD concerns are associated with other countries and only relevant to those countries who possess weapons of mass destruction. During FGDs, as people discussed treaties and instruments for WMD the idea we should be advocating for the protection of these multilateral instruments was clear. Overall, all country participants from senior officials to local community members emulated a strong commitment to safeguarding against WMD proliferation. Yet, they also stressed there needs to be means to help maintain focus and engagement on WMD. Disarmament Education was considered key to build and sustain knowledge and understanding alongside other areas of concerns perceived as more relevant to respective communities and countries.

At least half of all quantitative respondents from the assessed countries indicated they do not feel safe from armed violence, weapons of mass destruction and new weapons technologies. The latter is the most worrisome as 61% of respondents do not feel safe from them (Table 2). Sub-regionally, the South Asian respondents feel the most unsafe from all forms of weapons, representing an average of 10% higher than the other sub-regions. Inversely, Central Asian assessed countries feel the safest as, on average, respondents feel 19% safer than the other sub-region countries. This may reflect the impact of Central Asia being a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Compared to other States of the region, Nepali respondents felt the most unsafe from armed violence (68%) and new weapons technology (82%). Although there is low response rate from the Solomon Islands, all respondents felt the most unsafe from WMD (80%).



11

Table 2: Safety Perceptions

Do not feel safe from new weapons technologies

Do not feel safe from weapons of mass

destruction

Do not feel safe from armed

violence

Central Asia Kyrgyzstan 53% 20% 13%

Tajikistan 67% 67% 33%

South Asia Bangladesh 58% 52% 58%

Nepal 82% 74% 68% Sri Lanka 63% 56% 63%

Southeast Asia Indonesia 67% 44% 33% Myanmar 42% 31% 38%

Philippines 69% 69% 56%

The Pacific Solomon Islands 60% 80% 60%

When asked about existing disarmament challenges, less than half of the quantitative respondents answered that there are disarmament challenges in their community (Table 3). Only in Sri Lanka, Philippines and Solomon Islands did a majority of respondents believe there are disarmament challenges in their community. Southeast Asia had the most varied answers, where only 11% of Indonesian respondents believe there are disarmament challenges in their community while 81% of the respondents in the Philippines feel there are challenges. Conversely, almost three-quarters (73.4%) of all respondents for the assessed countries answered that there are disarmament challenges regionally or globally (Table 4). South Asian respondents responses were higher that there are regional or global disarmament challenges at 81.5%, with a maximum positive answer in Sri Lanka where 87.5% were of that opinion.

* includes the following answers: "Neither Yes nor No"; "I don't know"

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Krygyzstan Tajikistan Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka Indonesia Myanmar Philippines SolomonIslands

Table 3: Are there disarmament challenges in your community?

% Yes % No % Other*



12

* includes the following answers: "Neither Yes nor No"; "I don't know"

Qualitative participants noted there is a vast difference in how conflict and non-conflict affected areas view peace and security, therefore participants stated DE interventions should address identified challenges tailored for each. For example, in peaceful communities, education and awareness should be around strengthening critical thinking skills, general understanding of themes, learning how to advocate for and engage with these themes and overall sustaining disarmament arms control education. In conflict and post-conflict areas, it was noted, focus should be on challenges such as illicit trafficking concerns, violence against women and community-police relationships. Participants noted educational ciricullum on disarmament should be an extension of peace education and peacebuilding interventions, especially in areas at risk to political group violence, terrorist activity and violent extremism leveraging disarmament as a preventative and non-violence approach to armed violence.

Within the quantitative survey respondents identified the following priority topics for peace and disarmament education and training13:

Priority Group I ▪ How to encourage new attitudes and behaviours which promote peace and non-

violence ▪ Critical thinking skills ▪ Conflict prevention and peace building methodologies ▪ Linkages between disarmament, arms control and sustainable development ▪ Linkages between disarmament, arms control and preventing violent extremism

Priority Group II ▪ How to bring people, groups and institutions together to promote national and

international efforts towards peace and disarmament ▪ Linkages between disarmament and gender themes ▪ Understanding small arms and light weapons and their impact

13 Themes were presented based on the definition of disarmament education as outlined in the United Nations Study on Disarmament and

Non-Proliferation Education (A/57/124) and themes presented in the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament, Securing Our Common Future – An Agenda for Disarmament, https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/, alongside current conflict trends in the region.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka Indonesia Myanmar Philippines SolomonIslands

Table 4: Are there disarmament challenges regionally/globally?

% Yes % No % Other*

https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/



13

▪ Factors that foster or undermine peace and security at local, national, regional and global levels

▪ Implications of peace and security around of illicit/uncontrolled trading and transfer of arms

Priority Group III ▪ Implications of innovations and new technologies on international peace and

security and the risks associated with their potential misuse ▪ Understanding of ammunition and its impact ▪ Disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation tools, treaties and instruments

and how to use them ▪ Understanding of conventional weapons and their impact ▪ Understanding of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, chemical) and

their impact

The low prioritization of priority group III underscores the qualitative respondents conclusion that a lack of understanding on DE topics results in underestimating its value which, in turn, results in its de-prioritization. Across the region, 87% of the quantitative respondents believe educating people on non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control would increase levels of safety and security.

Disarmament and Sustainable Development. Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control are understood at having an interdependent relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants identified each SDG as having a direct or indirect connection. Participants expressed this relationship in terms actions to support the achievement of each goal to be either armed conflict preventative in nature or, subsequently, the failure to address a goal results in a driver to armed violence, insurgency and war. Disarmament Education was considered a positive intervention to promote security, facilitate development and sustain peace. SDG 4 – Quality Education and SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions were considered as a having the strongest relationship with Disarmament Education as it promotes a culture of peace and non-violence.

Participants categorized the SDGs as push and pull factors to armed conflict. For example, the realization of specific SDGs like SDG 4 – Quality Education, SDG 5 – Gender Equality, SGD 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG 16 – Peace Justice and Strong Institutions; were considered critical to the achievement of disarmament and arms control goals as they address root causes to armed conflict. While others like; SDG 2 – Zero Hunger, SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities, SDG 13 – Climate Action, SDG 14 – Life Below Water, SDG 15 – Life on Land, may trigger a mobilization to arms if needs and action under these development goals are not addressed. Participants concluded that



14

progress made within the SDGs would increase life standards and reduce a demand for arms. Additional highlights from discussions on the link between sustainable development and disarmament are:

Participants agreed spending on arms and armaments means less resources for addressing the SDGs. They stressed most people do not know how much is actually being spent on defence budgets and do not understand how this potentially affects other social and development programmes and activities. It was noted, the wealth gained by organizations manufacturing of arms and their associated supply chains influences power structures. Poverty was said to be a potential cause for individuals and communities to become involved in the illicit trade of arms.

The inclusion of women in disarmament, arms control and overall peace and security decision making is considered vital to the prevention of armed conflict and in order to sustain peace. Participants highlighted the importance of unpacking the gender dimension to armed violence as essential to Disarmament Education programmes. It was agreed that weapons are associated with exaggerated perceptions of masculinity and power, therefore, DE must unpack these notions in order to change perceptions. DE was considered vital to the prevention of violence against women and girls. Participants elaborated on the harmful impact weapon manufacturing and testing has on our global environmental ecosystems. Contamination from remnants of war and manufacturing were specifically identified as problems in countries such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Solomon Islands. These disastrous environmental risks were considered cross-border in nature and leading to

increased regional insecurity. Most participants pointed out that as their communities are increasingly affected by environmental degradations due to climate change this will inevitably increase resource competition resulting in arms accumulation to ensure access to resources.

Structures for Disarmament Education. When looking at entry points for disarmament education, existing structures were identified outlining what types of complimentary activities exist and where there are gaps.14 As noted previously, most participants looked at Disarmament Education as tied to a peace process and this was reflected in how it has been implemented within the countries of inquiry. Myanmar and Philippines noted Disarmament Education was part of their ceasefire, for the former, and decommissioning activities for the latter. However, much of these interventions are logistical in nature covering the how and why of a DDR process and do not include learning on the importance of and linkage to broader notions of community, national regional security through arms control.

Discussions with government officials highlighted the importance to continued access to trainings, conferences and discussion platforms to increase their knowledge and technical

14 For specific details please see Country Findings, Annex C to K



15

capacity. Many officials were familiar with trainings offered through UNODA and UNRCPD, some participants were recipients of various training opportunities. These opportunities were considered very important, however, many officials expressed that due to the high internal movement/turnover of representatives within government ministries creates a continual need for training resulting in unsustainable structures for creating internal transferable knowledge systems. Some officials noted there are attempts to address this problem through implementing a form of peer to peer training once an government representative has returned from a specialized training programme, however, they have limitations in terms of depth of learning (becoming a ‘teacher’ after one training) and timing due to other priorities once officers return to their daily schedules. It was noted that national military and police training academies have some course or modules on disarmament and arms control however they were said to be limited in nature and focus more on the technical aspects. It was noted discussions on theories and frameworks connecting disarmament and arms control to broader notions of security is largely absent thought would prove beneficial.

Disarmament Education within academia was identified as limited both within undergraduate and graduate university academic programmes. Elements of disarmament and arms control were said to be covered in topics such as International Strategic Studies, Human Security, History, International Law (humanitarian and human rights), and Peace and Conflict studies. Only participants in Nepal and the Philippines indicated as having a course on disarmament within their university graduate level academic programmes. Although Disarmament Education is being taught at the university level, participants noted it is not implemented in a concrete manner as it is briefly covered under other main topics, diluting its true importance and therefore, impact. Additionally, it was believed that disarmament and arms control is not interesting to students and they do not understand its relevance to their learning and future career aspirations, even amongst future policy makers. It was pointed out, as student interest drives academic programming it is critical to address this lack of interest in order to justify building academic courses and/or programmes in disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. Participants noted, Pillar III of the Secretary General’s Disarmament Agenda, covering the emerging means and methods of warfare which bridge science and technology with disarmament, is a strong entry point to increase student interest as this would contextualize disarmament as a modern area of engagement and not solely a historical one. Importantly, participants pointed out that interest in disarmament and arms control themes need to be an extension of peace education introduced at a secondary school level then integrated through dedicated elective and required courses at the undergraduate and graduate university levels. Participants discussed that driving interest in this area requires a systematic approach which bridges Disarmament Education from peace education. All countries indicated that peace education exists in their country both in formal and informal spaces. While some participants felt their peace education programmes are not as robust as they should be, most felt the academic programmes which focus on civic education promoting good citizenship are important to maintain and/or strengthen. However, it was noted peace education is often introduced as response to conflict and not prioritized in times of peace. Peace education was also said to be lacking in non-violence curricula. Non-violence was considered the thematic area which bridges peace education and Disarmament Education and would provide students with the



16

ability to understand disarmament as a conflict prevention process and strengthen critical thinking skills for conflict management and resolution.

It was stressed that if children are exposed to broad notions of global citizenship in primary education and introduced to complex disarmament and non-violent education pedagogy during secondary education this would ensure students understand the multi-disciplinary nature to disarmament and arms control and, in turn, advocate for its inclusion in undergraduate and graduate level programmes. Mainstreaming disarmament education into existing university level academic programmes was considered a starting point for most participants. The lack of knowledge amongst academic professionals and teachers was considered another barrier to incorporating Disarmament Education into current programmes. Many academics discussed that if teachers and, importantly, university professors understand the topic matter this would drive its prioritization, creating more research and increased inclusion across various fields.

It is important to note that most participants agreed there is a lack of content available which is contextualized to their national context and is easily understood and digestible. This was particularly important to civil society actors which claim a lack of training opportunities prevented them to engage in this space and the materials that are available are not easy to understand. It was said that most content available only provides information on treaties and instruments but not how these processes connect to deeper theory and philosophical understanding of how they interact with peace and conflict themes. In the quantitative survey respondents predominantly identified community programmes as the best medium to learn about peace and disarmament, followed by undergraduate courses and graduate courses at colleges or universities. This was followed by technical schools, conference and workshop opportunities and, lastly, online programmes. The qualitative discussions stressed the importance of merging offline and online opportunities. Most participants in both the quantitative and qualitative portion of the assessment expressed limited exposure to Disarmament Education (Table 5). When asked about exposure to training opportunities, half of the quantitative respondents have received training on peace at least three times and given training on the same at least four times. Regarding training on disarmament, arms control or non-proliferation, however, half of the respondents have never received nor given training on those subjects. This supports the overall

Table 5: Training on Peace and Disarmament

Median number of trainings on

Peace

Education, received

Peace Education,

given

Disarmament Education, received

Disarmament Education,

given

Central Asia Kyrgyzstan 3 4+ 1 0

Tajikistan 2.5 3 0 0

South Asia Bangladesh 1 3.5 0 0

Nepal 3 4+ 1 0 Sri Lanka 4+ 4+ 0 0

Southeast Asia Indonesia 4+ 4+ 0 0 Myanmar 2.5 4+ 0 0

Philippines 4+ 4+ 2 1

Pacific Solomon Islands 2 3 1 0



17

discussion around the prevalence to peace education opportunities and limited number of disarmament education opportunities.

All countries assessed, most notable Tajikistan, Sri Lanka and Solomon Islands discussed their past or present Mine Risk Education (MRE) programmes. It was noted these activities continue to need support until the last landmines are removed. Many participants believe the success in advocating and mainstreaming MRE is a good model for other Disarmament Education activities as it has a top-down and bottom up implementation and policy support structure. It is considered advantageous to use MRE as an entry point for broader discussions on disarmament.

Disarmament Education Needs Identified. The Baseline Assessment showed disarmament education activities are needed amongst a variety of stakeholders; from government officers and political parties to public servants, both police and military to civil society, youth, media and teachers. In the quantitative survey respondents identified politicians, military, police, civil society organizations, diplomats, returning foreign fighters as the top target groups for disarmament education. Discussions on stakeholder engagement reflected the overall importance for strengthening knowledge and understanding on disarmament and arms control with local and national level leadership paying specific attention to border communities or conflict affected communities. Participants noted disarmament is an abstract, high level space but in reality, it needs a local level mindset. Academia While most countries assessed agree they have arms control experts within political and military divisions it was expressed this knowledge does not ‘trickle down’ and reach others. There is a pressing need for academic institutes to strengthen and build institutional knowledge on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation through a combination of institutional sharing of experience on curriculum development and the opportunity for educators to learn more on emerging challenges especially those around new weapon technologies and responsible innovation. Teacher and institutions need to learn how to integrate DE content into related courses and curricula. Shared experience was considered important to help teachers and institutes understand how to engage students in this topic matter. Support from the Ministry of Education was seen as necessary to build support, coordination capacity and sustainability for DE activities. Religious based academic programmes, notably within Madrasas, were considered as a main beneficiary within these discussions. Youth and Gender In the quantitative survey, respondents have predominantly identified male youth (18-29 years old) as the group for which Disarmament Education would have the highest impact, followed by female youth and male adolescents (11-18 years old) and adult males (30 years old and older). This was also the same amongst the qualitative participants, however, they noted there must be equal opportunities for both men and women of all age groups. The Assessment showed that current DE content is not made for a youthful audience. It is considered vital to develop youth-centered content aimed to help youth understand and relate to issues around disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. This includes country content on current status of arms control and disarmament in terms of military expenditure, treaties,



18

viewpoints and statements. Curriculums and overall content should involve consultation and meaningful input by youth. It is essential to open informal educational spaces to discuss how adolescents and youth view peace and the usage of weapons. Most participants stated that if youth do not learn how arms and arms control affect peace and security, they may be vulnerable to learning about arms from “the wrong side”, for example terrorist groups or criminal organizations. UNSCR 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security is considered an entry point for education on disarmament and arms control especially as it relates to youth becoming involved in track two level diplomatic discussions. It was noted, youth-led civil society groups and leaders need to learn how they can meaningfully participate with the government on policy. DE activities need to include how youth can practically apply what they learned. The Assessment showed threats posed by new technologies and ideas around responsible innovation important to bridge youth interest into arms control thematic areas and allow spaces for broader discussions on what is considered traditional areas of disarmament and non-proliferation notably topics concerning WMD and conventional arms. It is important to utilize Training of Trainer programmes for youth-led advocacy and peer to peer learning. More data is needed on how many youth are engaged in conflict and in what way, for example, how many youth holds guns and how many are peace makers. This data needs to be extended to disarmament and arms control spaces. It is critical to create an evidence base to contextualize how issues of disarmament and arms control relate to youth and engage youth. Disarmament Education is thought of to be the tool in which to open discussions and space for the removal of patriarchal, masculine views about arms and to promulgate new social norms. Weapons were associated with exaggerated perceptions of masculinity and power, therefore, it was highlighted DE is critical to the prevention of violence against women and girls. Most participants understood and could articulate the differing gender dimensions within armed violence. This included understanding on direct and indirect dynamics as a result of unequal representation of women in peace processes as well as the differing gender roles in conflict, post-conflict and peacebuilding activities. Overall, women’s participation and leadership is seen as lacking in all peace and security spaces. Participants noted that with the rise of women engagement, in supportive and/or combatant roles among non-state actors, alongside increased numbers of women in the security sector it is critical to understand the various roles women take in armed conflict and peace processes. DE was considered essential to unpack these elements and ensure gender mainstreaming principles are applied to all levels of peace and security. UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security is seen as an entry point for Disarmament Education activities. Peace and Security Practitioners Many peace and security practitioners, including UN personnel, noted they lack understanding on current challenges related to issues of disarmament and arms control. There was keen interest in understanding contextual and thematic correlations on how arms control can build sustainable peace, increase security and support development. It was posited that specialized training for UN personnel, military and police personnel as well as civilian administration working in the peace and security space is critical. Participants noted the need for increased DE for border guards and border communities for the prevention of illicit trafficking. Transborder DE interventions were



19

perceived to be beneficial between Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, Philippines and Indonesia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Idea sharing on best practices from other countries and regions was considered important in this space. This was also linked to import and export controls as well as maritime security technical trainings. In most countries it was considered important to mainstream Disarmament Education into police/military community safety/partnership programmes in order for communities to build understanding on how arms control contributes to broader community and national security. It was believed DE should be done through a ‘whole of community approach’ as it is perceived to be a trust building activity. Political Leadership All participants discussed the linkage between armed violence and political power. This was not only directed at leadership but at their workers and student wings. It was thought, by most participants, that targeting these stakeholders with DE would not only help reduce armed violence but help train future leaders creating an environment of accountability. Many stakeholders noted political youth are losing their ability for healthy debate highlighting the essential need to link disarmament education, non-violence communication and critical thinking skills building policy leadership and promoting healthy democratic debate. This was linked to the need for more DE opportunities which target younger public servants with more sustainable features for dissemination beyond peer to peer sharing of knowledge. Participants see educating future policy makers and their constituents on international security, diplomacy and negotiation in relation to disarmament and arms control as key to reaching disarmament and non-proliferation goals. In many of the assessed countries it is believed the people who have political power control the spread of arms. With central leadership unable to reach remote communities it is believed this has created vacuums of power in remote communities enabling warlords or armed clans to take over leadership and governing control of communities. Participants stated that where violent conflict is on-going those who have guns have the power and need to keep their arms in order to maintain and spread their power. It was said weapons have increased the risk to feudal wars at local levels. In Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Philippines participants discussed how gang warfare, gang violence and armed violence are linked to political patronage associated with trafficking. Therefore, the importance of DE activities reaching local level leadership was highlighted. It was said, it is at the local levels where possessing arms is progressively linked to the right to determination. Political parties were said to be using this armed power against political rivals. Media outlets, reporters and journalists were considered a part of this problem as participants felt public political messaging increasingly incites violence. This was also largely connected to ownership of and/or control over media as linked to political parties and their agendas. Preventing Violent Extremism Terrorist groups and criminal organizations are perceived to hold the key to accessing arms therefore participants posited the linkage between the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) and the prevention of armed conflict and violence. Participants stated that in post-conflict areas or fragile areas DE should be integrated as a prevention methodology and tailored to at-risk



20

communities. Activities were said to be needed with fragile groups who may be vulnerable to recruitment and engagement in trafficking of arms. This was tied to changing the mindsets about violence and how to respond to grievances. Participants noted the increase in malicious use of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) by State and non-State actors and the threat this poses to international peace and security. Individuals need to understand how they contribute cybersecurity and understand how this relates to overall security; nationally, regionally and globally. They also need to understand how to look at content critically and become responsible digital citizens. On-line spaces were said to be weaponized both as a platform for recruitment into criminal behaviour and as a mechanism to incite division and violence. DE is understood as a missing piece to digital literacy programmes as it supports creating social norms around the responsible use of social media ensuring respect for international law and human rights in cyberspace. Participants posited that without gun control terrorism can flourish and gang related armed violence and other forms of violent crime increase. It was stressed Disarmament Education should be integrated into non-violence education, learning the different dimensions of conflict with the focus on prevention of individual and community mobilization to arms. This was considered especially important to localized peace education programmes aimed at transcending identity based conflict. This includes changing views around the glorification of arms, violence and extremism. Many participants stated if we do not become the teacher, who will? Participants noted that PVE interventions should address how people are driven to, acquiring or becoming involved in the illicit trafficking of arms and/or producing homemade weapons. It was believed DE would help people understand how dividers and connectors influence communities and how to manage these through a human security lens in order to address the root causes of conflict. DE is considered important to ensure low reoccurrence and recidivism for youth at risk, returning foreign fighters or communities with former or current armed combatants. Raising Awareness and Media Participants noted the critical importance to building awareness raising campaigns for disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. These campaigns were said to need knowledge enhancing materials produced in various languages and adapted to regions, sub-regions and national contexts, for example in Kyrgyzstan the need to raise awareness on the risks due to abandoned uranium tailing sites was seen as important. It was noted these activities should include trainings for media personnel, journalists, social media influencers and gaming leaders. DE campaigns need to include discussions with media leadership on responsible journalism helping the industry understand their impact as well as how they can use their reporting on a larger scale to advocate for disarmament and arms control for conflict prevention. Many participants believe media actors (social media and other forms) often discredit narratives found in peace education by reinforcing old biases and inciting violence. Many participants felt there needs to be new content created for media, some mentioned a need to rebrand disarmament. This idea was linked to the sensitivities around terminology discussed earlier in the report. Building content with youth is considered valuable to address these challenges around terminology. It is noted that DE activities should be implemented beyond urban centres as rural areas are perceived to have specific vulnerabilities to criminal groups and non-state actors involved in trafficking arms or feelings of disconnect to their centralized



21

communities creating conditions for a mobilization to arms. Border areas were considered particularly vulnerable. Disarmament Education Priorities and Conclusion. Based on the participants perceptions and understanding alongside a review of existing structures for educational interventions the following priorities for Disarmament Education have been identified:

1. YOUTH PROGRAMMING: Programming and educational content must be created for youth, with youth. We need to work with youth to learn more how adolescents and young adults view peace and the usage of weapons. Responsible innovation and emerging threats posed by new technologies are a space for engagement to bridge youth interest in the subject of disarmament and arms control. Activities within current UNSCR 2250 Youth, Peace and Security programmes are an entry points for Disarmament Education activities.

2. GENDER PROGRAMMING: Weapons are associated with exaggerated perceptions of masculinity and power, therefore, it was highlighted Disarmament Education is critical to the prevention of violence against women and girls. DE is considered a means to help remove patriarchal, masculine views about arms and to promulgate new social norms. Educational activities should highlight issues on gender and how they relate, affect (positive and negative) both the understanding of disarmament and arms control as well as inform the design of activities and interventions.

3. EDUCATING THE EDUCATORS: Disarmament Education programmes targeting academics is a priority. This also applies at the institutional level in terms of content and programme creation for university level academic programmes. Disarmament Education training opportunities must extend to include peace and security practitioners in the development sector, including UN personnel, helping practitioners understand contextual and thematic correlations on how arms control can build sustainable peace, increase security and contribute to sustainable development.

4. TRAINING POLITICAL PARTIES: Armed violence is critically linked to political power, political transitions and political protests. Disarmament Education is considered a vital component to reduce armed violence associated with politics and to promote cultures of accountability, in relation to violence, amongst political leadership and groups. Disarmament Education activities linking peace and non-violence themes with leadership training and diplomacy skills strengthening is essential to promote healthy democratic debate and mediation around policy issues.

5. MAINSTREAMING DISARMAMENT EDUCATION: There is a need to mainstream Disarmament Education into peacebuilding and conflict prevention programmes especially within the scope of preventing violent extremism and counter terrorism activities through unpacking individuals perceptions of weapons and armed violence. This is linked to cybersecurity and digital literacy programming focusing on education around the dangers of information communication technologies being weaponized, namely social media platforms, for recruitment and as a means to incite violence



22

6. AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS: To address the lack of understanding around current issues in disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control and their relation to peace, security and development it is critical to create awareness raising campaigns. These campaigns must be educational in nature and produced in various languages. Content needs to be adapted to regions, sub-regions and national contexts. These campaigns should include educational opportunities for media personnel, journalists, social media influencers and gaming leaders as media plays a critical role connecting government to people, as well as raising awareness about disarmament and arms control issues.

In conclusion, it is evident national capacities remain low and there are many gaps in understanding disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control themes as well as a lack of sustainable opportunities to engage in these spaces. In order to bridge these gaps it is critical to engage new stakeholders and bring disarmament into a modern context. It was concluded that Disarmament Education can create cultures of peace and non-violence if applied through a systematic approach. Disarmament Education is considered an underutilized conflict prevention tool and is vital to help a multitude of stakeholders understand the positive effects that disarmament has on socioeconomic development alongside promoting a deeper understanding of the multiple factors that can either foster or undermine peace.

It was agreed, Disarmament Education would support the reduction and elimination of violent conflicts, contribute to reducing and eliminating armaments and warfare. Importantly, it is considered a key element to prevent the mobilization to arms, particularly amongst youth, as well as a mechanism to transform mindsets towards violence. Disarmament Education helps remove exaggerated notions of masculinity and power around weapons which is essential to the prevention of violence against women and girls. Participants stressed disarmament and non-proliferation must be put into contextual focus, in order to support national and regional security efforts and for the fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Baseline Assessment for Disarmament Education provided an in depth understanding of the gaps in knowledge and programming which exist in the select countries while indicating potential themes and needs at sub-regional and regional levels. The United Nations Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific will use this Baseline Assessment to develop adequate and effective means to bridge gaps in knowledge and understanding on disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control in order to support Member States reach their disarmament education goals. While there is it much work to be done, the Baseline Assessment provides a promising foundation for future Disarmament Education activities focused on building more safe and secure environments for future generations in Asia and the Pacific.


Annex A – 2002 UN Study DNPE Recommendations

23

2002 United Nations study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

34 Recommendations (A/57/124)

“All the following recommendations are important. They vary, however, in the resources required for their implementation, the pace with which they can be put in place and the amount of time needed before they yield significant results. Those recommendations with asterisks represent steps that can and should be taken rapidly and at a relatively low cost.

Ways to promote education and training in disarmament and non-proliferation at all levels of formal and informal education

*1. Member States are encouraged to accord importance to disarmament and non-proliferation education and training in their programmes and policies, consistent with their national legislation and practices, taking into account present and future trends. They are also encouraged to use, designate or establish public advisory bodies, where appropriate, whose responsibilities include advising on disarmament and non-proliferation education and training practices. Member States are encouraged to share their experience in disarmament and non-proliferation education and training with other Member States, international organizations, civil society and the Department for Disarmament Affairs.

*2. Relevant United Nations offices and other international organizations and agencies should prepare, adapt and disseminate a wider range of user-friendly educational material on disarmament and non-proliferation. The current experience in this field should be tapped and existing educational material, including educational modules, resource books, guides and online programmes, should be tailored to the needs of individual countries, specific audiences or the international community at large.

*3. The United Nations and other international organizations should translate its disarmament and non-proliferation educational material and publications into all United Nations official languages and, when possible, into other languages for additional dissemination. Upon request by the United Nations or relevant international organizations, Member States, academic and research institutions and NGOs are encouraged to support or assist in translating relevant materials.

4. The United Nations and other international organizations should increase their capacities to disseminate disarmament and non-proliferation education-related materials (print and audio-visual) more widely to all regions of the world. While strengthening existing distribution channels, they should explore new ones, such as cooperation with educational networks, teachers unions and curriculum committees as well as electronic access. Member States, local academic institutions, research centres and NGOs are also encouraged to assist in dissemination efforts. As it is essential to reach the local community level, channels of dissemination such as school libraries, gathering places, radio and television are highly recommended.

5. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should gather information about the involvement of regional and intergovernmental organizations in disarmament and non-proliferation education, training and data collection activities. The Department should examine ways to foster an exchange of experiences and regional perspectives to facilitate the development of disarmament and non-proliferation education programmes.

6. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should examine, accumulate and make public and easily accessible the different disarmament and non-proliferation curricula and programmes that States have developed for their formal school systems and university courses as well as for informal training.

7. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to develop intensive postgraduate and other courses on disarmament and non-proliferation for representatives of all regions of the world, including government officials, legislators, military officers, NGOs, the media and students, working in cooperation with academic and non-governmental institutions that have expertise in designing and implementing such courses. UPEACE, in coordination with the Department of Disarmament Affairs, may wish to host seminars and workshops as well as to develop model university and school material.

8. Member States are encouraged to include parliamentarians and/or non-governmental advisers in delegations to United Nations disarmament related meetings, taking into account national legislation and practices.




24

9. The Department of Disarmament Affairs and its regional centres, in cooperation with UNIDIR, UNU and UPEACE, are encouraged to establish a virtual library of reports of “lessons learned” on disarmament-related aspects of peace operations and make it available to both Governments and NGOs on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendation 25).

10. Municipal leaders, working with citizen groups, are encouraged to establish peace cities, as part of the UNESCO Cities for Peace network, through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, web sites and the production of booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking.

11. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to provide assistance to those city councils and prefectures that are willing to host seminars on disarmament and non-proliferation issues for the media, academics, local and national politicians, trade union representatives, religious leaders and the wider public.

12. Religious leaders and institutions are encouraged to develop educational material promoting a culture of peace and disarmament.

*13. Member States, in cooperation with the United Nations and relevant international organizations, are encouraged to sponsor training, fellowships, and awareness programmes, on as wide a geographical basis as possible, for researchers, engineers, scientists and other academics in areas of particular relevance, but not limited to treaties and their means of delivery. They are also encouraged to give special emphasis to training customs, licensing and law enforcement officers for the purpose of fulfilling international obligations of Member States in the disarmament and non-proliferation fields.

*14. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNU and UPEACE, should be encouraged to organize a programme of training for educators and trainers in disarmament and nonproliferation. These programmes may be implemented cooperatively with international organizations such as IAEA, OPCW and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

15. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNESCO, UPEACE, UNIDIR and NGOs, should produce and maintain an updated international bibliography of reference literature for teachers, including an updated directory of peace studies programmes and disarmament and non-proliferation research centres, and make this available on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendation 25).

16. UNESCO IBE is encouraged to convene regional meetings with ministers of education, educational administrators and university presidents to discuss the issues involved in developing disarmament and non-proliferation education for primary, secondary and university students. The International Conference on Education is encouraged to devote one session of a future meeting to disarmament and nonproliferation education, for example, through a workshop on science and ethics.

*17. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, NGOs and research institutes should develop and strengthen programmes, workshops, fellowships and materials on disarmament and non-proliferation topics for journalists and media representatives in order to enhance their knowledge of these issues. Special attention should be paid to the development of programmes and materials designed for local media in post-conflict situations, as essential partners in the disarmament and non-proliferation education process.

18. Disarmament and non-proliferation educational materials developed by the United Nations, such as the Cyberschoolbus web site, should include complementary material on how parents can encourage attitudes of peace and nonviolence. Efforts should also be made by educators, parents and the business community to devise and produce toys, computer games and videos that engender such attitudes.

19. Additional fellowships and scholarships should be provided for various target audiences by or through the Department of Disarmament Affairs (directly or through its regional centres), UPEACE, UNIDIR and the NGO Committee on Disarmament, among others. An important educational supplement to disarmament and non-proliferation classroom training should be on-the-job training, which may be conducted at the sites of international organizations, national governmental agencies, NGOs and research centres. Opportunities for such on-the-job training should be expanded.

*20. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, and corporate and private donors are encouraged to provide assistance, including funds, educational material and equipment to NGOs in different regions of the world and to universities to establish or expand their disarmament and non-proliferation libraries with free



25

and open public access to their resources. Member States should be encouraged to fund research institutes that focus on disarmament and non-proliferation and offer scholarships for advanced university students to carry out research on disarmament and non-proliferation and its pedagogy. The United Nations should make greater efforts to tap the financial resources of private enterprises in the fields of information and communications technology.

Ways to utilize evolving pedagogic methods, particularly the revolution in information and communications technology

*21. Organizations of the United Nations system and other relevant international organizations are encouraged to promote and provide financial support for disarmament and non-proliferation education and training using such techniques as distance learning, the Internet, and as well as cost-efficient and cost effective media such as CD-ROMs.

*22. Regional organizations, academic institutions and NGOs are encouraged to develop and disseminate material online in languages other than English.

23. Educators should consider a full range of pedagogical methods for inclusion in any educational material. In addition to computer-based learning, model United Nations programmes, other role-playing and simulation games, videos, film, dance, song, theatre, puppetry, poetry, photography, origami, visual art and creative writing, to name a few, are all useful methods. Special emphasis should be given to participatory learning approaches that can be applied to a wide variety of disarmament and non-proliferation problems and audiences.

*24. Internships in United Nations organizations with special competence in disarmament and nonproliferation are a valuable tool for educating graduate and undergraduate students and should be continued and expanded.

*25. The Department for Disarmament Affairs should develop a disarmament and nonproliferation online education resource site in the six official United Nations languages. This site should be based on:

(a) Links to existing resources of United Nations and other relevant international organizations, Member States, universities, research institutes and NGOs having web sites on disarmament and non-proliferation and with education-oriented online programmes;

(b) Existing web pages of the Department for Disarmament Affairs on the United Nations web site;

(c) Recommendations by the Secretary- General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters;

(d) Recommendations of the inter-agency group on disarmament and non-proliferation education and training. The Department for Disarmament Affairs should develop the online educational resource site in cooperation with interested research institutes, IT companies, NGOs and/or regional centres for information technology. It should have chat rooms and testing tools and be user-friendly.

26. The Department of Public Information and relevant international organizations, in coordination with the Department for Disarmament Affairs and, when appropriate, NGOs, are encouraged to produce video programmes to promote disarmament and non-proliferation to the widest possible audience.

Ways to introduce disarmament and nonproliferation education into post-conflict situations as a contribution to peace-building.

27. International organizations, regional organizations and representatives of civil society, where appropriate, are encouraged to include Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education and training in their programmes in post-conflict situations.

*28. Member States are encouraged to ensure that their military staff colleges include disarmament and non-proliferation elements in their curricula.

Ways in which the United Nations system and other international organizations can harmonize and coordinate their efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation education

*29. United Nations bodies and other international organizations with special competence in disarmament and non-proliferation education and training should designate a focal point for the subject. Representatives should meet periodically at the inter-agency level to:



26

(a) Promote disarmament and nonproliferation education and training at all levels in all regions of the world, with the active participation of civil society, especially educators and NGOs;

(b) Network and share experiences and best practices on disarmament and non-proliferation education;

(c) Consult and actively seek partnerships with Governments, regional organizations, academic and research institutions, educators, civil society, including NGOs, and private and corporate donors on further practical disarmament and nonproliferation education and training projects;

(d) Encourage the incorporation of disarmament and non-proliferation education elements into future public information products of the United Nations and relevant international organizations;

(e) The Department for Disarmament Affairs should facilitate the work of the interagency group. The inter-agency group is encouraged to invite the participation of civil society, especially educators and NGOs, in its work.

30. In the context of its current mandate, the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters is encouraged to consider periodically follow-up action related to disarmament and non-proliferation education.

Next stages and implementation

*31. Member States are encouraged to designate a focal point for disarmament and non-proliferation education and training and to inform the Department for Disarmament Affairs on steps taken to implement the recommendations contained in the present report.

*32. The Secretary-General is encouraged to prepare a report on a biennial basis reviewing the results of the implementation of the recommendations in this study.

*33. Member States and the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs are encouraged to include in their remarks to the First Committee of the General Assembly information on the results of the implementation of the recommendations in this study.

34. In order for the Department for Disarmament Affairs to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of this study, the General Assembly is encouraged to allocate adequate human and financial resources to the task.”


ANNEX B – Baseline Assessment Participant Summary

27

DISARMAMENT EDUCATION BASELINE ASSESSMENT PARTICIPANT SUMMARY

Number of Participants - Qualitative

Nepal Bangladesh Myanmar Sri Lanka Philippines Indonesia Solomon Islands

Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Totals

Female 19 8 12 18 20 11 15 22 8 133

Male 23 26 19 13 21 13 11 21 22 169

Other

Total Qualitative Participants 302

Number of Respondents - Quantitative



Female 12 7 12 8 13 2 3 8 4 69

Male 21 24 11 7 3 7 2 7 2 84

Other 1 1

Total Quantitative Participants 154

Type of Agencies/Organizations - Qualitative



UN Agency 7 10 4 7 9 7 2 7 10 63

NGOs 11 3 3 4 4 3 5 5 1 39

Government Ministry/Office

3 2 7 9 6 2 5 3 4 41

Academic Institute/Think Tank

6 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 23

INGOs 5 3 5 3 3 2 4 5 2 32

Regional Organization

2 2 4

Special Organization/ Specialists

1 1 3 1 1 1 4 12

Total Qualitative Organizations 214


ANNEX B – Baseline Assessment Participant Summary

28

Type of Agencies/Organizations - Quantitative



NGOs 23 15 9 7 11 3 5 4 3 80


6 10 2 1 5 1 3 2 30

INGOs 4 3 7 5 3 5 1 28

Regional Organization

1 2 3 2 2 3 13

Special Organization/ Specialists

1 2 3

Total Qualitative Participants 154

Regional Demographics

▪ 161 respondents. ▪ 14% are in Central Asia (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan), 50% in South Asia (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal), 32% in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Myanmar,

Indonesia), 3% in the Pacific (Solomon Islands), 1% in other). ▪ 85 males (53%), 75 females (47%), 1 neither identifies as male or female. ▪ Median age is 40 years old. ▪ 40% of the respondents work in a national NGO, 9% in a regional NGO, 19% in an international NGO, 17% in an academic institute, 14% in “other”.


ANNEX C – National Findings Kyrgyzstan

29

KYRGYZSTAN Disarmament Education Baseline Assessment National Findings

Country Profile

Country size: 199,951 sq. km. Capital: Bishkek Population: 5,849,296 (July 2018 est.) GDP: $7.565 billion (2017 est.) Youth age: 14 -28 years (NYP, 2009) Sex ratio: 0.96 male(s)/female (2018 est.) Literacy: 99.5%

Find more information on Kyrgyzstan’s disarmament and arms control activities here: http://unrcpd.org/region/kyrgyzstan/

Source: CIA World Factbook

General Overview

The United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament (UNRCPD) conducted a baseline

assessment for Peace and

Disarmament Education (PDE) in

Kyrgyzstan in October 2019 as

part of a nine-country regional

assessment. Perceptions around

issues of disarmament, arms

control and non-proliferation

were gathered from speaking

with targeted stakeholders

working on community cohesion,

peace and/or security

programming. UNRCPD held a

focus group discussion,

conducted 19 one-on-one semi-

structured interviews and offered

a quantitative survey to

determine the needs for

Disarmament Education (DE) in

Kyrgyzstan.

1 Special organizations may refer to organizations set up under a peace process with the main criteria as being a temporary

specialized agency, it could also refer to a donor government included based on supported programming. Specialists, are individuals who were recommended based on their current expertise in the area of peace and security.

Participants

Gender Qualitative Quantitative

Female 22 8

Male 21 7

Other

Total participants 43 15

Quantitative Survey - Respondents 9

One Focus Group Discussion - Participants 11

19 One-on-One Semi-Structured Interviews - Participants 32

Type Qualitative Quantitative

UN Agencies 7

NGOs 5 4

Government Ministry/Office 3


2 3

INGOs 5 5

Regional Organization 2 3

Special Organization/Specialists1

1

Total Organizations/Agencies

25 15

http://unrcpd.org/region/kyrgyzstan/



30

Overall, all participants noted Kyrgyzstan’s positive position to become disarmament and arms control champions for their region (Central Asia). DE activities were considered extremely important to build this capacity from university to government level educational activities. Kyrgyzstan reflected that disarmament education should increase awareness on the environmental, health and security risks associated with nuclear programmes based on the in-country challenges in relation to the abandoned uranium mines and unprotected uranium tailings (waste byproducts of uranium mining) from the former Soviet Union nuclear infrastructure. Participants highlighted that specific DE interventions should be implemented in border communities with Tajikistan within a potential cross-border intervention. Stakeholders identified the need to integrate disarmament education into current preventing violent extremism programming using the dual use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) as an entry point to raise awareness and knowledge on the Secretary General’s Disarmament Agenda.

Participants highlighted that guns, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and militarization are positive masculine symbols. They are also symbols of strength and security. To discuss the negative impacts of arms would require contextualization and a conflict sensitive application. There are strict gun laws in the country. According to government officials 90% of the police do not carry guns. In 2010, during the conflict non-state actors stole weapons from police and military stockpiles. There was a campaign to disarm people through a voluntary disarmament programme and most of the weapons are believed to have been returned. Although some participants expressed concerns that not all the weapons have been recovered. Overall, most participants understand the purpose disarmament and arms control is for security after a conflict and is connected to a disarmament process like the one noted above. If there are no guns, then there is nothing to disarmament so no educational programmes needed. Participants identified that disarmament has a two-fold meaning; 1) physical disarmament - for guns and weapons of mass destruction and, 2) mental disarmament – no attachment for needing weapons. This was linked to physical disarmament being an act for negative peace and mental disarmament as a behavioural change for positive peace. It was noted disarmament education should focus on a holistic understanding of disarmament and its processes, so people understand it as a pre-condition for sustainable peace, development and stability. Programmes on arms control awareness is recommended in conflict-affected areas.

Participants discussed the increase of violence against children as a result of economic migration. Children are being left be raised by extended family members. A generation of youth are growing



31

up without fathers, and increasingly both parents. In the absence of role models there is the potential to push young individuals towards organized crime looking for parental figures.

Disarmament and the Sustainable Development Goals

Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control are understood at having an interdependent relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions was considered as directly related to disarmament while other SDGs were highlighted as having important linkages, such as:

SDG 1 – No Poverty. Considered directly tied to inflated military budgets diverting resources away from social and other economic programmes.

SDG 4 – Quality Education. Disarmament education was considered an essential element of global citizenship. DE is also critical to raise awareness on the environmental and health impacts WMD and other arms and weapons systems.

SDG 5 – Gender Equality. Gender-balance in decision is considered especially critical to the success of all peace and security goals.

Participants highlighted the incredible destruction caused by nuclear weapon testing and its effect on the following SDGs:

People discussed the environmental and health dangers facing Kyrgyzstan due to the aforementioned abandoned uranium mines and unprotected uranium tailings.

Structures for Disarmament Education Peace education is covered in schools under ‘human and society’ curriculum. It covers topics such as tolerance, inclusion, peaceful co-existence and human rights. It is largely connected to civic responsibility, but it lacks non-violence education which participants noted is vital to link disarmament education and learning about larger processes and systems which prevent armed conflict. Participants noted that for children and adolescents the focus should be on peace education then it should shift to disarmament education when youth are able understand more complex topics.



32

At the university level disarmament themes appear as a sub-topic under subjects like history, comparative politics, globalization or international law courses. While academic participants believed it would be useful have modules or a specific course in disarmament and arms control, they highlighted that students do not view this thematic area as a subject of interest. It is critical to first raise knowledge and awareness among faculty so they can feel confident to conduct research, give lectures, build inter-disciplinary modules and drive overall programme creation in undergraduate and graduate academic programmes. It was noted, it would be good to involve secondary school teachers as well to help bridge understanding on these topics between high school and university levels.

Participants pointed out that traditional topics, like the non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction are not found interesting. It is considered a ‘lost’ topic, distant and remote to most students as it is not relevant to them. Academics noted that students feel World War II is a long time ago and not a current, critical subject which they need to learn for their future. Participants said, utilizing topics such as the implications of emerging weapon technologies, like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and cybercrime are seen as advantageous entry points for students to learn about the disarmament machinery and would gather interest among students.

While most participants feel there is a definite need for DE activities a few interestingly pointed out that due to the overall lack of critical thinking skills there are concerns as youth begin to learn about, for example, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) it may peek their interest in a negative sense. While most participants disagreed, it seems appropriate to note to ensure DE is implemented in a conflict sensitive manner ensuring target populations have the sensibilities and acumen to navigate learnings around various weapon systems.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is very actively engaged in supporting the government with various programmes and trainings for countering terrorism, border security, automized weapon systems and other non-proliferation and arms control related activities. However, knowledge and understanding is limited in country outside state offices. Government representatives support the inclusion of DE within senior education institutes as they recognize the limitations of having this critical knowledge with only a limited number of individuals. They highlighted that it is important for more citizens to understand the health and environmental issues Kyrgyzstan, and potentially the region, is facing due to the former Soviet Union’s abandoned uranium mines. There are also some concerns over the security of these sites against non-state actors and the importance of keeping them secure. Moreover, more education around cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, especially when it comes to dams was also considered essential.



33

It was also pointed out there is no context specific, easy to understand information available on disarmament in Kyrgyzstan. People said there is a need to see the data and analytics on military spending, arms import and export as well as information on how various international instruments and treaties are implemented in Kyrgyzstan in order to fully understand disarmament in their context and be able to engage effectively in these spaces.

Educating Stakeholders on Disarmament Along with the stakeholders identified above, training opportunities for state representatives, security sector and law enforcement officers dealing with disarmament issues, especially on topics related to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was said to be needed. It should include technical and legal assistance for drafting laws and implementing international instruments. Participants commented that there needs to be a systematic approach to trainings due to the amount of turnover within the government system. Considerations on sustainable dissemination is necessary.

Participants discussed the modern reality that education is happening outside formal systems and is often happening online. It was said media has become a powerful teacher therefore, participants noted it would be prudent to provide information to the media sector and work with them for awareness campaigns on specific topics relevant to Kyrgyzstan and the region. It would also be important to include advocacy and inter-faith organizations. It was highlighted, religious leaders and institutions must be a part of programming, whether informally or through the madrasas systems. They are said to be essential as without religious groups goals for changing mindsets around disarmament and arms control could not be achieved. For long term impact, informal programmes for youth and women CSOs were said to be important to ensure civil society has the capacity to engage in the disarmament arms control space.

73% of the quantitative respondents believe that educating male adolescents (10-19 years old) and male youth (20-30 years old) on disarmament would have the most impact, followed by male adults, female adolescents and female youth. 80% of respondents mentioned that educating politicians and military about disarmament, would have the most impact. Similarly, 73% respondents believe that the most impact can be achieved through educating the police.

53%

60%

60%

73%

60%

73%

20%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Female adults (> 30 years old)

Male adults (> 30 years old)

Female youth (20-30 years old)

Male youth (20-30 years old)

Female adolescents (10-19 years old)

Male adolescents (10-19 years old)

Female children (< 10 years old)

Male children (< 10 years old)

Demographic group who would most benefit from disarmament education?



34

The following disarmament education themes from the quantitative survey were identified as beneficial:

▪ Critical thinking skills ▪ How to encourage new attitudes and behaviours which promote peace and non-violence ▪ Conflict prevention and peace building methodologies ▪ Linkages between disarmament and preventing violent extremism ▪ Understanding small arms and light weapons and their impact

Additional Participant Conclusions In addition to the above-mentioned perceptions and needs, further points of interest were brought to the discussion, for example:

▪ It was discussed, Disarmament Education should focus on the responsible usage of ICTs as social media is increasingly being used to incite violence. The importance of working with teachers to build critical thinking within digital literacy programmes was noted. This was referred to as ‘the softer side of disarmament’ essential to prevent the online recruitment for both combatants and potential brides for combatants. Vulnerable youth in at-risk communities are considered important stakeholders for these activities.

▪ Disarmament Education interventions were said to be important around high-risk areas along border areas to raise awareness on the impact and consequences of drugs and arms trafficking and, overall, how smuggling routes affect community security. Participants noted there is an increase in weapon usage along the border areas. They posited it would be beneficial to have cross-border joint educational programmes for law enforcement, military personnel, armed forces and citizens in border areas to build confidence amongst various neighbouring countries around conflict prevention.



35

With much appreciation, here is our list of valued participants:

▪ Ministry of Internal Affairs - Department of Legal Support and International Cooperation ▪ Ministry of Foreign Affairs ▪ Armed Forces and State Committee for Defence Affairs ▪ UNESCO ▪ UNICEF ▪ UNDP ▪ UN Women ▪ UNODC ▪ UN Peacebuilding Fund Secretariat ▪ United Nations Regional Centre for Preventative Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) ▪ OSCE ▪ GIZ ▪ American University of Central Asia ▪ Center for Non-Proliferation and Export Control ▪ International Alert, Kyrgyzstan ▪ Forum of women's NGOs of Kyrgyzstan ▪ Women’s Progressive Social Union (WPSU) “Mutakalim” ▪ Youth of Osh ▪ Eurasian Council on Security and Cooperation ▪ International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) ▪ Search for Common Ground ▪ Saferworld ▪ Regional PVE Programme Specialist ▪ Legacy International ▪ International Centre Interbilim

baseline assessment for disarmament education in asia and ... · undss united nations department of...

Documents