No Bases Network and Governments

States play an important role in the fulfillment of the No Bases Network's aims to abolish foreign bases. States as coalition partners would allow the No Bases Network to become stronger in advocating sovereignty and peace through demilitarization. Ecuadorian activists, notably the Coalicion No Bases Ecuador, has been successful in pressuring the government to halt the renewal of U.S. military stationing in Manta, Ecuador. While the U.S. has shifted its attention to Colombia to station further bases in the region, Colombian activists have activated a Colombian counterpart for the No Bases Ecuador organization (Colombia No Bases).

In addition to being the key policy gate-keeper, states can play a norm- (or agenda-) setting role in line with the No Bases Network. Viewing U.S. stationing of troops on foreign soil can be characterized and framed as a friction between countries of the Global South and the North, and an expansion of U.S. hegemony and domination in Latin America and elsewhere.

Therefore, it will be beneficial for the NO Bases Network to work more closely with states that are affected by foreign bases, or states that are not involved in or affected by the stationing of foreign bases to act as neutral players within the anti-military bases network. States can further affect agendas through international organizations, and most notably the United Nations. If the presence of foreign military bases can be more successfully framed to represent the perpetuation of war in the world, against the UN norm of global peace, the No Bases Network will be able to rely on the normative strength of their network. In addition, states within a network are more likely to coerce or convince other states to accept or expand the already existing definition of a norm.

The No Bases Network and the United Nations

The central NGOs within the larger No Bases Network do not have consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in the United Nations. The World Peace Council has roster consultative status, which only gives them limited access to the United Nations proceedings, but can serve nonetheless as a partner for the No Bases Network. It is unclear, to what extent the No Bases Network has sought access to the UN. While linking their global agenda to the UN mission of peace and security, the No Bases Network has not directly pitched their agenda to UN agencies.

The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) focuses on security and disarmament issues, which plays an important role in the No Bases framework of peace, security and disarmament. UNIDIR characterizes itself as the bridge between NGOs, the research community and UN member states. UNIDIR covers a variety of issues through its research projects, including women and disarmament, explosive weapons, arms trade, nuclear disarmament, and humanitarian concerns in disarmament.

It is unclear to what extent UNIDIR is involved directly with studying adverse effects of foreign bases. UNIDIR's approach, partly at least, is characterized by an attempt to reframe disarmament as a humanitarian issue and link it to the greater human security framework. Foreign bases as such are not tackled, but the No Bases Network or rather one of its members within the larger network (namely, peace organizations) could attempt to gain access to UNIDIR, as it relies on NGOs for information and perspectives, particularly in the field.

The disarmament frame could become powerful for the No Bases network, as it is directly connected to a UN agency.

The Geneva Forum, one of UNIDIR's central activities, brings together UN personnel, NGOs and academics to "build agendas" around emerging issues in arms control and disarmament and can serve as a tool for the NO Bases Network to voice their concerns.

A project launched by the Bonn International Center for Conversion that publishes on the impact of war and military spending on human development, is part of the Geneva forum's activities and is related to the issue of military spending. The reports conclude that military spending leads to less aid promised needed in countries for significant development. The report thus concluded that military spending is indirectly detrimental to human development.

This can be linked to the presence of military foreign bases, which can be regarded as a double-burden on the poor countries that are a) dependent on aid income, and b) suffer under the negative consequences of foreign military bases in their countries. If the No Bases Network is not able to connect with the UN agency directly, this would allow them to link to a research think tank that the UNIDIR views as part of the agency's research partners.

What are the connections between peace groups in the larger No Bases Network and UN agencies?

NGOs and Global (Un)Civil Society

The No Bases Network is composed of a variety of NGOs including: (among others)

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA), Asian Peace Alliance (APA) , Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK) , Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (UK) , Campaign for the Demilitarization of the Americas (CADA) , Centro Memorial Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Cuba) , CETIM , Chagossian Support Group Waiheke Island , Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques (Puerto Rico) , Confederacion COBAS (Italy) , Focus on the Global South , For Mother Earth , German Peace Council , LALIT (Diego Garcia) , Nasion Chamoru-Fuetsan Famalao’an’ (Chamoru Nation-The Woman’s Power/Strength) , Peace Boat (Japan) , OCLAE (Cuba) , Stop - USA (Belgium) , Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women (TW-MAE-W) , Transnational Institute , US Peace Council , World Peace Council

Some other organizations connected to the No Bases Network can be found here

The No Bases Network could more closely align with anti-war organizations in the United States, which are actively opposing U.S. involvement through wars. The norm entrepreneurs view bases largely as the perpetuation of war and violence, and should build coalitions with organizations with similar goals, such as the Iraq Peace Action Coalition, Peace Action, among others. U.S. NGOs may be more powerful in affecting their domestic agenda than a diffuse network of international organizations against foreign bases. In addition, this alignment would not require frame extension activities, but rather support the existing frame of the coalition.

While the No Bases Network has attempted to frame the problematic of foreign bases as a violation of human rights, it has not successfully connected with the powerful NGOs working on human rights. It is debatable, however, how successful the network will be in the human rights networks, as one of its constituent part is made up by organizations that focus on the geostrategic consequences of US, EU and NATO military deployment (such as the Transnational Institute, Global South etc.). While the focus is distinct from the human rights debate, these organizations present the No Bases Network's international agenda and representation.

International Organizations:

The No Bases Network is in need for an international treaty or regulation that will lead to a more controlled stationing of foreign bases, as expressed by the head of the network's Secretariat (Wilbert Van der Zeijden, 2010). To achieve any sort of legal status, the No Bases Network should attempt to target the appropriate agency within the United Nations. This will also allow the network to advocate the issue and consequences of foreign bases as an infringement on "human rights" . In addition, the No Bases Network can address the necessary policy gatekeepers directly through the states' respective UN representatives.

In addition, the No Bases Network could attempt to target a global NGO that focuses on economic exploitation, as it is part of the network's framework to oppose foreign bases. The network also highlights that foreign bases are increasingly used for political and economic aims carrying out civilian missions, rather than for the purpose of war preparation (Van der Zeijden, 2010).

Choosing a Target, Identifying Political Opportunities

The master global and anti-war frame provides the No bases network prominence and connection to local anti-base oppositions. A transnational "identity" or global movement emerges through different venues post-2003.

At the 2003 Jakarta Peace Conference, a link between military bases and war can be created and the Iraq War provides an opportunity to enhance the opposition to war and imperialism. The No Bases network that had remained local hitherto, begins to emerge globally through this venue in 2003. The opportunity structure, through the global anti-war sentiments, allows the network to garner global support to the linkage between bases and perpetuation of war and imperialism.

At the 2004 Mumbai World Social Form, U.S. bases were attacked as being a form continuing control over the global South. This forum allowed activists to connect with other organizations on the issues of foreign bases, while the focus was around U.S. bases, in particular.

At the 2005 World Social Forum in Porte Allegre, the official name to-date is adopted by consensus: International Network against Foreign Military bases. The adoption of this name reflects a fledgling, but growing, organizational identity that has been in process since 2003. It also suggests that U.S. bases should not be sole target, but that foreign bases in general, particularly from the global North, should remain the network's focus.

The 2007 Quito-Manta (Ecuador) No Bases Conference is the first conference that is hosted by the network and focuses on the organizational structure and coordination between regions, while also establishing the need for adjusting the local initiatives to international frames. Prior to 2003, the no-bases network can only be seen as diffuse opposition to foreign or domestic bases. The establishment of an international network also arose the need for local networks to shift their foci towards greater global objectives.

From the Declaration of the International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, 2007:

"Foreign military bases and all other infrastructure used for wars of aggression violate human rights; oppress all people, particularly indigenous peoples, African descendants, women and children; and destroy communities and the environment. They exact immeasurable consequences on the spiritual and psychological wellbeing of humankind. They are instruments of war that entrench militarization, colonialism, imperial policy, patriarchy, and racism."

In this document, the network clearly articulates a master-frame that connects the issue of foreign bases to a human right and emphasizes their use as tools of imperialism and colonialism. In addition, the document calls for the abolition of all U.S., EU, NATO foreign bases.

These four forums have proven important to the network's ability to articulate clear objectives and strategies (particularly in the final declaration in Quito-Manta, 2007). The network expresses the need to connect with academics and scholars for better information dissemination, which might provide the network a chance to expand their reach to the educational and policy community.

In addition, the network should attempt to connect with the United Nations more explicitly. It is unclear to what extent local, regional or international members of the network have attempted to connect with UN agencies. Expressing foreign bases as a violation of a human right will allow the network to connect with organizations that have human rights orientations. Though, it is uncertain, how successful that move would be.