Issue of December 28, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
12/28/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: confusion after Copenhagen; what really happened there; the UNFCCC context.

On December 21st Robert Orr, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, urged journalists not to overlook the “immediate operational consequences” of the recently concluded Copenhagen climate talks, in the form of a widely backed political agreement that would allow the treaty process to begin in earnest.

The group of least developed countries, the Alliance of Small Island States, the African Union and the European Union had all announced their support at the final plenary meeting, he said, represent-ing no less than 140 countries. “If this document takes on the kind of support that was indicated in the final plenary, then you have a real centre of gravity for the treaty negotiations throughout 2010.”

In response to a question, Mr. Orr said it was unclear whether Sudan ‑‑ when it had registered its negative support for the text ‑‑ was speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, of which it was Chair, or if its representative was speaking purely in his national capacity. But he added: “If the ‘Group of 77’ were added, it would push the number up almost to the full membership.” He was evidently referring to the 194 membership of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control – more on that later.

Mr. Orr said negotiations on the text had taken place among 29 Government representatives, plus a member of the European Commission, at the Danish President’s invitation. Notice that the final negotiations were not open to all UNFCCC member countries. That may have been considered unwieldy, or more so than 29 + the EC.

Several of those officials spoke on behalf of larger groups, and together they represented the entire United Nations membership, he said. But, Sudan ‑‑ though invited as a representative of the Group of 77 ‑‑ had declared afterwards that he was speaking in his national capacity.
Adding to the confusion, he continued, was the absence of a formal roll-call describing who supported the text and who did not. The chairperson may have felt that would risk a contentious outcome.

A more complete understanding of who supported the text “will only come in the coming days”, said Mr. Orr. But, he continued, “If you look at the statements in the final plenary, you’ll have a good sense of where the balance of support lies.”

He said the Conference had tabled the consensus agreement after the Secretary-General had intervened at the closing moments of the Conference, allaying the concerns of those States that had felt excluded from the process.

“Everyone has a right to be involved in the discussion. Certainly, as we move into the negotiation phase around a treaty, that will have to be clarified and the process improved,” said Mr. Orr, saying the Secretary-General had stressed that fact to Member States. So it is clear that Copen-hagen was not expected to produce a legally binding treaty.

He described the result as “phenomenal”, which he said might not be obvious given the divergent views emerging in the media, with many members of the press leaving before the agreement was struck. The “breakthrough” document agreed by States ‑‑ dubbed the Copenhagen Accord -- contained provisions on funding, and also spoke of an under-standing on reporting and verification of national policies that had not been seen in prior agreements. When he says “agreed,” that is different from “takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” as the final document puts it.

He spoke of the major role played by the Secretary-General in rallying world leaders around the need to tackle climate change, and in urging them to own the climate issue. “It was phenomenal what we saw in Copenhagen -- 120 Heads of State and Government getting down into the real guts of the debate over climate change. This would not have been possible a year ago,” he said. Note the difference between 120 and 194, representing the 74 countries that did not get to join in the negotiations.

What actually happened there.

Here is some of the key language from the Copenhagen Accord: “We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development. * * *

“3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. * * * We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

“4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. * * *

“5. * * * Least developed and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. * * * 6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.”

The UNFCCC context.

What was really taking place at Copenhagen cannot be understood without realizing that it was taking place in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. When you see a references to “COP 15 Copenhagen,” you should know that this refers to a meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.

The US ratified the UNFCCC in October 1992, when George H.W. Bush was President. Its stated objective was to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

There are two lists annexed to the UNFCCC, both of which include the US. Under a heading on commitments, “1. All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: * * * (e) Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate methods, for example impact assessments, formulated and determined nationally, with a view to minimizing adverse effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of the environment, of projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate change; . . .”

Also among specified commitments, “4. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in annex II shall also assist the developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects.”

Article 7 of the UNFCCC begins as follows: “1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties, as the supreme body of this Convention, shall keep under regular review the implementation of the Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt, and shall make, within its mandate, the decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the Convention.”

Further organizational features are found in Article 8, under which: “1. A secretariat is hereby established. * * * 3. The Conference of the Parties, at its first session, shall designate a permanent secretariat and make arrangements for its functioning.” Mechanisms are provided in Article 13 for dealing with implementation questions and in Article 14 for resolving disputes over interpretation or application of the Convention. Article 17 provides that: “1. The Conference of the Parties my, at any ordinary session, adopt protocols to the Convention.” One such is the Kyoto Protocol.

As a Presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, he withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, refusing to submit it to the Senate for approval of ratification. Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measured the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.

While Bush’s decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, he was not alone in his opposition. Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate had passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

That is all for this December 28th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send your own views to www.unweek.blogspot.com. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of December 21, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
12/21/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Copenhagen outcome; UN ombudsman for terror suspects; UN naval operations.

On December 19th the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that, “After a marathon all night session, talks aimed at injecting new and more wide-ranging momentum into the international effort to combat climate change ended with a positive outcome. Countries attending the UN climate convention's summit in the Danish capital agreed to 'take note' of a document entitled the Copenhagen Accord.

“For the first time in the history of climate change cooperation, developing countries including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and the small and threatened Republic of the Maldives outlined intentions to decouple emissions from economic growth.

“Developed countries including the United States will also outline a range of emission reductions targets up to 2020 by 1 February 2010. Both commitments and intentions in terms of greenhouse gas reductions will be subject to international monitoring and verification.
“Countries accepted to work towards limiting the rise in global temperatures to below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, emission reduction commitments by 2050 were in the end not included in the final document.

“Importantly, the Accord outlines support for technology transfer and capacity building for developing economies while also putting forward a financial package aimed at assisting developing ones adapt to climate change and to begin de-carbonizing their economies.
“Additional resources of US$30 billion, covering the period 2010-2012, will be available immediately and developed nations also supported a ‘goal of mobilizing jointly US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries’.

“The Accord recognized the crucial role of forests in addressing climate change, saying there was a need to recognize reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) via the immediate establishment of a mechanism to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.”

The outcome of two weeks of talks and two years of negotiations was welcomed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said: "The U.N. system will work to immediately start to deliver meaningful results to people in need and jump-start clean-energy growth in developing countries."

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of UNEP, said: "This was perhaps not the big breakthrough some had hoped for, but neither was it a breakdown which at times seemed a possibility. The litmus test of developed countries' ambitions will in a sense come immed-iately. If the funds promised in the Accord start flowing swiftly and to the levels announced, then a new international climate change policy may have been born."

"Trying to take over 190 countries through the same door towards a more cooperative global warming policy has proved challenging but, ultimately possible and do-able. Time will be the true judge as to whether 19 December 2009 was indeed an historic date for accelerating a response to combating dangerous climate change and for more sustainable management of economically important ecosystems, such as forests," said Mr. Steiner. He noted that many countries, including some small-island developing states had been urging that temperature increase be no higher than 1.5 degrees C. Such states have the most to lose – their very survival above sea level.

The acronym REDD is seen more and more in connection with the UN’s efforts on climate change. It stands for reduction in the destruction and degradation of forests, which is said to cause 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Here is information from the REDD website:

“At the global level, the UN-REDD Programme supports country efforts to build consensus and knowledge, and ensures consistency in approaches and economies of scale in the delivery of REDD. The Pro-gramme actively explores and documents examples of ‘best practices’. These activities seek to promote confidence-building in REDD and raise awareness about the options for including a REDD mechanism in a post 2012 regime.

“The four specific outcomes of the UN-REDD Programme activities at the global level are:

Improved guidance on Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) approaches, including consensus on principles and guidelines for MRV and training programmes.

Increased engagement of stakeholders in the REDD agenda, including raising awareness of REDD amongst stakeholders, ensuring Indigenous Peoples representative groups and non-Annex 1 decision makers are informed and engaged.

Improved analytical and technical framework of social and environmental benefits maximising the contribution of REDD to sustainable development, including the establishment of indicators to assess governance and socio-economic factors in national REDD frameworks, and developing tools to capture the benefits arising from forest ecosystem services.

Increased confidence in REDD amongst decision makers on the feasibility of methodologies and the implementation of REDD, through coordination within agencies and with partners, as well as through knowledge management and sharing and support to partner countries.”

The UNEP’s web site records this as of 10:30 am on December 19th, the day after the Conference was to have ended: “Decisions at a Conference of the Parties are made by consensus, and even one country, no matter how small, can hold up an agreement that everyone agrees to. All sorts of ideas are bandied about. Footnotes and appendices are among the devices urged to allow the countries that didn’t want to go along with the consensus to maintain their positions and allow agreement to go forward. But to no avail. Ultimately, a way forward is found. Instead of adopting the Copenhagen Accord, the conference would “take note of” the Accord. This would give all countries a way to whole heartedly support the deal. The Accord would then be voluntary—only countries that wanted to take part could join up.”

At 3:30 on the afternoon of the 19th, shortly after agreement was reached, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the press that the talks had been exhausting. “The Copenhagen Accord may not be everything that everyone hoped for. But it is a beginning--an essential beginning.” He said countries have agreed to work toward a common, long-term goal to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius and many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions. Significant progress was made to preserve forests and there was agreement to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change. And he said, “the deal is backed by money,” about $30 billion for short term use. “We have the foundation for the first truly global agreement that will limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support adaptation for the most vulnerable, and launch a new era of green growth.”

Some pundits have sneered at the Copenhagen Accord for not being legally binding. If they said that knowing that Copenhagen was never intended to produce anything binding, then they were being dishonest. If they did not know it, then they failed to do their homework.

UN ombudsperson for terror suspects.

On December 17th the Security Council unanimously authorized the creation of an ombudsperson to help deal with the question of removing individuals and entities from the list of those subject to sanctions in connection with Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The Office of the Ombudsperson would function for an initial period of 18 months and follows a report to the Council last month by Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting of Austria, chairman of the so-called 1267 (1999) Committee on sanctions against individuals and entities linked to the two groups, in which he called for the sanctions regime to be updated to keep pace with the evolution of the threat.

Acting under UN Charter Chapter VII which authorizes the use of force, the Council reaffirmed much that was contained in previous resolutions, calling for immediately freezing funds, other financial assets or economic resources of those linked to the groups, preventing their entry into or transit through Member States’ territories, and banning the direct or indirect supply of arms, related materiel and paramilitary equipment.

“Terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security and… any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomso-ever committed,” the Council said, condemning unequivocally Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and those linked to them.
“Sanctions are an important tool under the Charter of the United Nations in the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security,” it added, stressing the need for robust implementation in combating terrorist activity.

In his presentation to the Council last month, Mr. Mayr-Harting said UN efforts to combat terrorism must keep up to date with the evolving threat through effective counter-measures such as sanctions and reinforced regional cooperation to prevent the smuggling of materials for weapons of mass destruction.

“Ten years after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1267, the threat posed by Al-Qaida and the Taliban persists, both worldwide and especially in South Asia,” he added. “At the same time, over the years this threat has evolved considerably and we must ensure that the existing sanctions regime against Al-Qaida and the Taliban remains a relevant and effective tool in countering terrorism.” He stressed that his committee was reviewing all entries to ensure that the sanctions list “remains dynamic and accurately reflects the current threat.” As of then there were 504 entries.

US Ambassador Susan Rice told the press that, “We think this ombuds-man is a very important step because it will ensure that the information and the data -- that those who seek delisting may be able to provide, are under-stood by the committee, assessed by the committee, and that the committee's transparent and fair assessment is communicated back to those individuals.”
Interesting that Rice prefers the time-honored original term, “ombuds-man.” To the politically correct usage “ombudsperson.” Or was she just misquoted?

UN naval operations.

The United Nations maritime task force serving off the Lebanese coast has saved the lives of the crew of a cargo ship that sank Thursday night in rough seas. The task force, part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL, has so far rescued at least 35 survivors and recovered the bodies of eight others on Friday. Three more people have been rescued by other ships in the area.

The cargo ship sent out a distress signal Thursday night after it capsized about 10 nautical miles from the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. UNIFIL dispatched three ships - the frigate Zeffiro, the mine hunter Laboe and the supply ship Mosel - to the scene Thursday night. Survivors of the sinking are being provided with immediate medical care aboard the UNIFIL ships, before they are transported ashore in Lebanon.

The UNIFIL maritime fleet has been deployed since 2006 in the wake of the war between Israel and Hizbollah. The fleet is tasked with helping the navy secure its territorial waters and prevent the unauthorized entry of arms or related material by sea, into Lebanon. Last week the task force rescued a crew member from a merchant ship that had sunk off the southern Lebanese coast, and in 2008, the force rescued 14 people from a disabled vessel.

Stick with this program and you will continue to learn new facts about the United Nations that you will never hear about in other news media.

That’s all for this December 21st (shortest day of the year) issue of United Nations Week: News and Views.” We’ll be back with the next issue, the last of this year 2009. Do send us your reflections on the year now coming to an end. www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of December 14, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
12/14/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Keeping score on Copenhagen

The indifference of Big Media to the UN, even when the future of the planet is at stake, is demonstrated by the New York Times’ failure in yesterday’s paper to say a word about the half-over climate change talks in Denmark except to describe on page 10 the behavior of demonstrators. The only sentence on the substance of the talks was this unoriginal cliché: “Given that the lion’s share of greenhouse gases have been emitted by industrialized nations, developing countries have argued that they have a duty to help poor lands deal with the consequences of global warming, including drought, floods and tropical storms.”

Times readers who want to keep up to date on Copenhagen cannot rely on the “Gray Lady” as the Times is called, and would do better to follow United Nations Week: News and Views. Here is what we have to offer:

First to be noted is the danger of a gap between the 2012 end of the existing Kyoto Protocol and the effectiveness of a new, replacement greenhouse gas treaty. It took eight years from when Kyoto was ratified until it entered into force. Given that a new treaty might be equally slow in coming, we must extend Kyoto long enough to prevent a gap, as was pointed out on December 10th by the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ivo de Boer.

John Holmes, the UN”s top relief official, told the press on the 9th that, rather than concentrating on mitigation or the reduction of emissions, “the focus should be on adaptation.” In other words, don’t just plan on curing the harm of global warming or reducing its main cause but at the same time devise techniques for surviving an ever-hotter Earth.

On December 11th at Copenhagen there was launched the Climate Pledge Tracker, which compares and consolidates all emission reduction pledges made to date with the goal of keeping global temperature rise at or under two degrees centigrade from pre-industrial levels. The Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that to stave off the worst effects of climate change, industrialized countries must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 % from 1990 levels by 2020, and that global emissions must be halved by 2050.
Said Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director. “With this tracker, everyone – within the conference and beyond – can, from their office or living room, monitor the ambition of governments to ‘seal a convincing deal’ by 18 December,” when the gathering at Copenhagen is to end. The tracker will continue after the meeting ends. It now lists pledges and proposals from 25 countries – including developing ecomonies like China, India and Costa Rica – and the European Union’s 27 Member States.

The tracker estimates that, if the most ambitious pledges are fully realized, including financial support for developing countries, the world would be on track to achieve emissions reductions of 47.5 billion tons by 2020, which is close to what is required to give the world a 50% chance of meeting the 2 degrees centigrade temperature increase limit.

At www.enep.org/climatepledges, the UNEP Climate Pledges web site, you can click on any country on a world map to bring up details of its pledges or proposals. Clicking on the map of the US produces this information: “Pledge: -17% in 2020; -83% in 2050 based on 2005 levels
Comment: ‘Both bills reduce GHG emissions by 83% in 2050. The Kerry-Boxer Bill reduces GHG emissions by 17% in 2020, The Waxman-Markey Bill reduces GHG emissions by 20% in 2020. The President Obama pledge is of 17%”. “The 7th December 2009, the US EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson stated that I’m proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution, and is now authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”

As former Under-Secretary-of-State Frank E. Loy has noted, “From the United States point of view, the most difficult problem is the fact that we do not have a domestic law that permits us to make commitments that we know we could keep.”[1] That must be why Obama’s speech was so qualified.

China announced on November 26th that it would reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product [GDP] in 2020 by 40 to 50 % compared with the 2006 level. How that works was explained by Qi Jianguo, an economic and environmental policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: “In 2020, the country’s GDP [gross domestic product] will at least double that of now, so will the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). But the required reduction of emissions intensity by 40 to 45 percent in 2020 compared with the level of 2005 means the emissions of GHG in 2020 has to be roughly the same as emissions now.” In other words, no increase in GHG for China from 2005 to 2010.

China’s State Council declared that both the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and the Bali Roadmap should be observed. But under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries such as China and India do not need to present any emissions targets. This omission was cited by the Bush administration as a reason why the US did not need to present targets either.

The Indian Minister of State of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Shri Jairam Ramesh, told the Lok Sabha, according to an uncorrected transcript, that, “. . . the most vulnerable country in the world to climate change is India, not Maldives, not Bangladesh and not America, but India. * * * Now, the uncertainly caused by climate change on the monsoon is of first and over-riding priority for India. * * * But what happens to the Himalayan Glaciers will determine the water security of our country.”

Then the Minister made an argument that every country should take to heart: “There is no country in the world which has all these four dimensions of vulnerability. That is why, I have been saying time and again that India, of all the 192 countries in the world, owes a responsibility not to the world but to itself, to take climate change seriously. We are not doing the world a favour. Please forget Copenhagen; forget the UN. We have to do it in our own self-interest. Our future as a society is dependent on how we respond to the climate change challenge.”

The same point was made later in response to an argument that India’s “per capita emissions will always remain below/never exceed per capita emissions of the developed world. But, Sir, we have to offer something more to ourselves, not to the world.”

The Minister announced that he had gone to China over the last weekend. “China, South Africa, Brazil and India have tabled a draft in Copenhagen yesterday on what the Copenhagen Agreement should look like. Denmark as the host country also has a draft. * * * But on negotiations, we are in the same boat. We have a strong alliance with China, a strong alliance with Brazil and a strong alliance with South Africa. We are also part of the G-77.” Then came a more ominous note:

“The first non-negotiable is that India will not accept a legally binding emission reduction cut. * * * We will not accept under any circumstances an agreement which stipulates a peaking year for India.” And, “There is a third non-negotiable, but depends on the concessions that we can get from the western countries. Perhaps, we could modulate our position in consultation with China, Brazil and South Africa. We are prepared to subject all our mitigation actions, whatever we do, which is supported by international finance and technology to international review. * * * The problem arises on the mitigations actions, which are unsupported, that is, which we are doing on our own. We certainly would not like the unsupported actions to be subject to the same type of scrutiny that the supported actions are subject to. * * *

“Basic national interest means no legally binding emission cuts, no legally binding emission peaking year and, as far as possible, distinguishing between supported mitigation action and unsupported mitigation action. * * * So, we have an action plan in transportation, industry, buildings, forestry and in various sectors of our economy which will ensure 20 to 25 per cent cut in emissions intensity between 2005 and 2020.”

So, friends, now you have a far more informed view of what is likely to happen during the four remaining days of talks at Copenhagen than you would be likely to gain from other news media. And now we will say good-bye until the next issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. Do send you own views to www.unweek.blogspot.com

[1] The Chronicle, Newsletter of the Council on Foreign Relations, December 2009 at 2.

Issue of December 7, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
12/7/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Stevie Wonder as UN Messenger of Peace; US dips its toe into ICC water; Women’s Rights Convention: 30 years without the US.

Stevie Wonder as UN Messenger of Peace.

On December 3rd, US Ambassador Susan Rice made the following announcement: “We are here today to celebrate the appointment of Stevie Wonder as the 11th UN Messenger of Peace; and we are here to simultaneously observe the seventeenth International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

“Throughout his career, Stevie Wonder has worked for a world in which all persons with disabilities can realize their full potential. He has served, as you have heard, on the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, he has worked with the Junior Blind of America, and founded the Wonder Vision Awards to encourage innovations to help the disabled. He has performed for countless charities working for justice and equal opportunity for all.

“And this work is vital. Today, 650 million people—10 percent of the world's population—live with a disability. In developing countries, 90 percent of children with disabilities don't attend school. Far too often, people with disabilities lack the choice to live in communities of their own choosing; their unemployment rate is much higher than those without disabilities; they are much more likely to live in poverty; health care is too often out of reach; and too many children with disabilities are denied an education.

“Discrimination against people with disabilities is not just simply unjust; it hinders economic development, it limits democracy, and corrodes societies. And it holds us back from achieving a better, stronger, more equitable world.

“Through songs of romance, of heartache, of injustice and heroism—through songs of soul, songs with funk, and songs of hope—Stevie Wonder has encouraged all of us never to lose sight of our dreams of a better world.

“I think Stevie Wonders captures the significance of this day best with his words when he said: ‘Just because a man lacks the use of his eyes doesn't mean he lacks vision.’

“Stevie Wonder has a vision of a world in which every child can learn in their public school in the manner best for them; in which, upon graduation, they can apply for a job without fear of discrimination, and live and work independently in their communities if that's what they choose.

“The United States is pleased to work with the United Nations towards that goal. In July of this year, I was deeply honored to be able to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first human rights convention of the 21st century, which urges equal protection and equal benefits under the law for all citizens, which rejects discrimination in all its forms, and calls for the full participation and inclusion in society of all persons with disabilities.

“This was an important first step, but great challenges lie ahead. We have far more work to do. And we must never lose sight of our vision of a better world. In this effort, we are extraordinarily fortunate to have as our 11th UN Messenger of Peace, one of the world’s greatest artists and a true visionary— Mr. Stevie Wonder.”

US dips its toe into ICC water.

US Ambassador Rosemary A. DiCarlo told the Security Council on December 4th that: “Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the United States was pleased to participate last week for the first time as an observer to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute. This decision reflected the U.S. commitment to engage with the international community on issues that affect our foreign policy interests. Ending impunity for crimes against humanity—including crimes on the staggering scale of those committed in Darfur—ranks high among our commitments. The United States will therefore continue to be supportive of the ICC’s prosecution of these cases, to the extent consistent with U.S. domestic law.

“Mr. President, let me say a word about the African Union High-Level Panel on Darfur, chaired by former South African President Thabo Mbeki. On October 29, the Panel made several recommendations to combat impunity and advance the cause of accountability, peace, healing, and reconciliation. We welcome efforts to strengthen Sudan’s national legal system to let it deal appropriately with those who committed atrocities in Darfur. But efforts to strengthen Sudan’s legal system will not succeed unless they are backed by the political will to bring perpetrators to justice. The Mbeki report’s recommendations about a hybrid tribunal are worth further study, but we believe that the ICC's prosecution of the key architects of the conflict in Darfur remains critical.”

Women’s Rights Convention: 30 years without the US.

Following are UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks on the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, delivered on December 3rd in New York:

“I am delighted to join you to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, known to us all as the CEDAW Convention.

“The CEDAW Convention is at the core of our global mission of peace, development and human rights. The legal obligations contained in the treaty flow from the United Nations most basic mandate for equal rights and the dignity of every human being.

“The Convention is also one of the most successful human rights treaties ever. From Cameroon to Morocco, from Kyrgyzstan to Thailand, it has been a catalyst for legal reforms and new national laws that enshrine women’s human rights and gender equality.

“We can see the Convention’s influence in the huge strides that have been made towards realizing women’s human rights on the national and international stage.

“We see it here at the United Nations, where the number of women in senior posts has increased by 40 per cent under my tenure.

“And we see it in the “UNiTE to End Violence against Women” campaign, which I launched last year. Violence against women cannot be seen in isolation from discrimination against women.

“The Convention will also underpin the work of the new United Nations gender equality entity that the General Assembly has decided to establish. I urge Member States to get this new entity up and running quickly. The Convention has had a transformative force and its anniversary is rightly being celebrated in events all over the world.

“But discrimination against women and girls persists. Violence against women and girls is found in all countries. The results are devastating for individuals and societies alike: personal suffering, stunted development and political instability.

“So while we recognize the Convention’s successes, we must also acknowledge the urgent need for the entire United Nations system to support its full implementation.

“I call on those few countries that have not ratified the Convention to do so. I am happy to note that many of today’s events take the form of debates and discussions -– like the one you are having here. However, we must move beyond debates to concrete action that will increase the impact of the Convention.

“Let us all work even harder to raise awareness and to work for the Convention’s full implementation worldwide.”

The Secretary-General surely must have had in mind the United States when he called on “those few countries that have not ratified the Convention to do so.” If the US administration did not have so many other pressing matters on which it is asking the cooperation of Congress, I feel sure the Women’s Rights Convention would be at the forefront of the administra-tion’s legislative agenda.

That’s all for this December 7th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. By all means do send along your own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com

Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

November 30, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
11/30/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: how the US has changed on global warming! Corruption.

How the US has changed on global warming!

Picture a group of friends in their 30s, who have been smoking cigarettes since they were teenagers. Finally one day someone pipes up and says, “Listen, we are not getting any younger, and our chances of avoiding lung cancer by quitting are fast running out. So what do you say we all pledge to each other -- no more cigarettes, ever again? It will be easier if we do it as a group, supporting each other when the craving seems to be getting out of hand.”

But one of the heaviest smokers says, “Fine for you guys, but I’m going to take my chances.” Others point out that he would then be spared the secondary smoke of the rest while inflicting on them his own secondary smoke and continuing to endanger himself. Finally, he agrees to quit, but only after all the others have quit. Isn’t this what we the US will be doing if we condition our carbon emission cuts on those of other countries?

In any case, consider how far we have come. The New York Times’ lead editorial on December 13, 2005, just four years ago, began: “The best that can be said of the recently concluded meeting on climate change in Montreal is that the countries that care about global warming did not allow the United States delegation to blow the whole conference to smithereens. * * * Why should India and China make major sacrifices while the United States, in effect, gets a free ride?”

For contrast, here is what the White House announced on the 25th: “in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a step-ping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.” www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks

It would be interesting to see how this language comes out in the Chinese, Russian, French, Arabic and Spanish translations. Maybe it is more precise in those versions. But in English it seems to be saying that: 1) there must be an overall deal; 2) the deal must include robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies; 3) a U.S. emissions reduction target is not the same as a specific offer; 4) “in the range of 17%” means nothing, since a range has upper and lower limits not just one dimension; 5) “ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation” means that the target must be approved by both house of Congress; and 6) the “provisional target” language places it even farther from an actual offer.

No doubt other countries will engage in similar circumlocutions, so it remains to be seen whether Copenhagen will, as hoped, pave the way for a binding agreement to take effect in 2012 after the Kyoto Protocol expires.

Corruption.

We hear a lot about corruption in Afghanistan and other foreign countries. We also hear about corruption here in the United States. Both public officials and private citizens are in the news almost every day for some infraction of the law relating to corruption. In New York State it is even illegal to slip a bill as a tip to any employee or official of the State or a county, city, town, village, school board member or teacher.

The never-ending struggle against corruption continued at the UN earlier this month. From November 9th to the 13th the third session of the States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption was held in Doha. As of June there were 136 parties to the Convention. A report prepared for the session included this:

“29. A number of technical assistance activities for the implementation of the Convention are currently being carried out by bilateral and multilateral donors. According to the information received through the self-assessment reports, such technical assistance is being provided by Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. With regard to multilateral organizations, it was reported that assistance was being provided by the Asian Development Bank, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, FATF [Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering] and relevant regional bodies such as the Task Force of South America against Money Laundering and the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Laundering Group, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, OECD, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, the United Nations through agencies such as UNDP and UNODC [UN Office of Drugs and Crime], and the World Bank.” A/64/122 at 13.

This list illustrates what a multitude of international organizations there are, some affiliated with the UN and others not because they are regional or free-standing. There is even soon to be an anti-corruption school. “34. UNODC, in cooperation with INTERPOL, is working towards the establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy. * * * The Academy will be the world’s first educational institution dedicated to fighting corruption within the framework of the Convention against Corruption. * * * It is foreseen that the Academy will open its doors in mid-2010.” Id. at 14-15.

That’s all for this November 30th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Do send your own ideas on this or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of November 23, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
11/23/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Copenhagen fast approaching.

December 7-18 is when the long-awaited Copenhagen conference on climate change is scheduled. The Secretary-General sounded pessimistic on November 19th when he told the General Assembly: “I hear the deep concern of the Group of 77 and China, and also member States of the [Alliance of Small Island States] AOSIS about there being a ‘major setback’, or disappointment, because there may not be a treaty agreed in December in Copenhagen.

“Let me suggest that we still have everything to play for. Therefore, it should not be seen as a failure from the beginning. It will be an important and decisive foundation towards a legally binding treaty.

“We are not lowering our expectations. We are not compromising our principles. Copenhagen can witness a concrete agreement that will have immediate operational effect ‑‑ unlocking resources immediately to begin the transition to green growth. The agreement can also take decisions that will have immediate effect on deforestation, technology transfer, and capacity-building. The agreement can, and must, also include concrete commitments on mitigation ‑‑ what all countries are doing, and are prepared to do.

“Let me again emphasize, that our end goal must remain a treaty, a legally binding treaty. The more ambitious the agreement we reach in Copenhagen, the more quickly this can be codified in a treaty as early as possible in 2010. In that regard, I support many delegations’ suggestions that there should be a target date.”

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the four essential questions to be answered in Copenhagen are:

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? 2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? 3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? 4. How is that money going to be managed?

If a new climate treaty is agreed upon, it will replace the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005.

De Boer told the press on November 19th that an agreement in Copenhagen must comprise three points. First, “it must record, in black and white, individual targets of industrialized countries to reduce emissions”, a list that must include the United States. Secondly, an agreement must provide clarity on the scope and extent of engagement by developing countries, especially major developing economies. Thirdly, Copenhagen must deliver clarity on short- and long-term financing to support developing countries on mitigation and adaptation.

He said that, to his mind, rich countries must put at least $10 billion on the table to kick-start immediate action. They must also list what each country would provide and how funds would be raised to deliver very large, stable and predictable financing in the future without having constantly to re-negotiate commitments every few years.

“If the lungs of the world collapse, the rest will die,” he warned, pointing to strong support for action on the pressing need for international cooperation to preserve and sustain forests. Governments must also agree on a tight deadline to finalize all parts of that agreement into a legal treaty. Long-drawn-out processes were no longer acceptable. For all those reasons, Copenhagen would be a turning point where talking about action would stop and action would begin. “We need a last push, and this can be done,” he added.

Asked what was “already on the table” on the eve of the conference, Mr. de Boer said that, on the whole, “the picture actually looks pretty good, given the fact that Copenhagen is still to begin”. All industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States, had already come up with their offers of targets. The Russian Federation had, in fact, increased its targets and a number of others had indicated they could do the same if an international agreement was reached. Europe, for instance, having set a minus-20 target, had said it could go to minus-30 if an agreement was in place. In addition, many developing countries already had national climate change and energy strategies in place, including China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

It is too bad the US has not been able to make a target offer, but considering how the two parties are locked in combat over health care reform, it does not seem likely that global warming will get much attention from Congress for the rest of the year 2009. And the President cannot make any offer on his own; doing so would risk threats of impeachment.

A one-time train link between Kyoto and Copenhagen was scheduled to begin last week – a United Nations-sponsored one-month, 9,000-kilometre journey symbolically joining the site of the last global warming pact with what is hoped to be the birthplace of the next major, and stricter, treaty to combat climate change. I can’t tell you that the train actually left Kyoto on schedule because sometimes the UN does not keep its own news up to date. So I can only assume the train is now rolling along.

Launched by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Union of Railways (UIC) and the global conservation organization WWF, the Train to Copenhagen – in fact a carriage – will roll across the globe through the vast wilds of Russian Siberia and into Europe as part of the UN Seal the Deal! campaign to galvanize political will and public sup-port for reaching a comprehensive global climate agreement in December.

Train operators from around the world participate in the Train to Copenhagen, raising awareness of the impact of the transport sector, which already accounts for over one fifth of global CO2 greenhouse emissions. These emissions are projected to double within only 40 years and railways are crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing sustainable transport systems.

“We are on the road to nowhere if existing policies and economic models prevail with their over-emphasis on private cars and on shifting shipments of goods to the roads,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said. “The Train to Copenhagen project is a showcase of sustainable trans-port solutions that will be part and parcel of a resource-efficient, low-carbon Green Economy of the 21st Century.

“By Sealing the Deal on an ambitious climate agreement in Copenha-gen, governments will get into gear to propel the world to a low-carbon fu-ture so that societies may also finally embark on a journey to more sustain-able transport.”

During the journey, environmental experts and climate change campaigners will send eye-witness accounts of global warming signs under way. Siberia is a global climate change hotspot, where thawing permafrost and melting peat bogs could slowly release billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over coming years.

The Train rolled out of Kyoto station on 5 November – leaving behind the Japanese city where the Kyoto Protocol that sets binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Union (EU) was adopted on 11 December 1997 – and made its way by ferry to Daejeon, Republic of Korea (ROK).

There it boarded another ferry for Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East for that vast transcontinental journey to drum up support for a new compact with much stronger cuts to replace the Protocol on the expiration of the first commitment period at the end of 2012.
Rumbling across Siberia, it will be hauled along the famous Trans-Siberian Railway and go by ferry across Lake Baikal, the most voluminous freshwater lake in the world, and stop in Moscow, the Polish city of Poznan and then Berlin before arriving on 5 December in Brussels, where it will join the Climate Express, which will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy.

This Express will take on board more than 400 climate change negotiators, campaigners and other high-profile personalities going to Copenhagen, for a 12-hour on-track conference focusing on how to solve the challenges posed by the transport sector with regard to global warming. On arrival, the Climate Express will remain at Copenhagen Central Station throughout the two-week conference, serving as a mobile exhibition open to the public about low-carbon transport solutions.

“It is clear that business as usual is not an option if we want to reverse current trends and prevent catastrophic climate change,” UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said. “If we can really integrate the costs of pollution into the price of transportation, rail will be a big winner.”

It is a great pity that the United States is not more involved in this process. But the legislative morass we are stuck in is an aspect of freedom of speech and assembly. In China, decisions like what to offer in the way of greenhouse gas reductions can be decided upon with a minimum of disruptive debate. We would not want that way of conducting government, no matter what the cost in delay and anxiety.

That’s all for this November 23rd issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send your own comments on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com

Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of November 16, 2009

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
11/16/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: US presentation in GA on defamation of religion; US views on Security Council reform.

It is your Editors’ belief that media coverage of UN activities is generally woefully inadequate. That is the raison d’être of this publication. Nowhere is this defect more apparent than in regard to positions stated by US representatives in UN bodies. Examples follow.

On November 12th, US Ambassador John F. Sammis explained to the General Assembly why the US was voting against a proposed resolution on combating defamation of religion. Here is what was prepared for him to deliver, as it appears on the US Mission’s web site:

“The United States has long had concerns with the concept of defamation of religions, but we have tried, over the course of the last year in Geneva and New York, to articulate an alternative vision to address what we view as the root concerns behind this resolution. We believe that the increasingly splintered views on this resolution, both here and in Geneva, suggest that while a majority of member states may recognize that the underlying issues are extremely important, those issues are not adequately addressed in this resolution, and require careful consideration. We were pleased that we had the opportunity at the last Human Rights Council session, working in collaboration with our colleagues from Egypt and over 50 co-sponsors from all regions, to come to consensus on another divisive and connected issue, freedom of expression. We regret the early vote on the resolution this year, and more importantly, regret that there has not been an opportunity to address this problem in a spirit of consensus.

“ ‘So long as our relationship is defined by our differences,’ our President noted in June, ‘we will promote conflict rather than cooperation, and continue to sow the cycle of suspicion and discord.’

“United States concerns with the concept of the ‘defamation of religions,’ and with how it seeks and has resulted in unacceptable restrictions on freedom of religion, and freedom of thought and conscience, are well known. But I would like to emphasize a few points here:

“Freedom of religion is a foundation of civil society; it is a human right, a social good, a source of stability, and a key to international security. The United States believes it is the duty of all governments to respect the ability of every individual to profess and practice his or her own faith, and we applaud the efforts of so many UN Member States that are actively doing so. We recognize, and deeply respect, that religion is a global phenomenon, a key source of identity, and a powerful motivating and mobilizing force around the world.

“We have also seen first hand the discrimination and violence that can be exacerbated by ignorance, intolerance and fear of persons with different religious faiths. We join the call of leaders from all parts of the world in saying that we believe it is incumbent upon governments to model respect and welcome diversity of religious belief.

“We also believe that governments have the tools to address intolerance at their disposal, and that these include a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minorities – including educating them on their means of redress, and the vigorous defense of freedom of expression and religion without discrimination.

“We have a good deal to learn from one another about how best to foster interreligious cooperation and dialogue. There are hundreds of thousands, if not more, examples of diverse communities living in peace and partnership in all regions of the world, and we hope that the United Nations will help to give voice to these stories.

“Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As many here have recog-nized in their own countries, we strongly believe that robust protections of speech and free and open dialogue are also an important part of the solution. When held up to the bright light of public scrutiny, hateful ideas are shown for what they are – lacking merit, and based on fear and ignorance. We be-lieve that respectful and welcoming societies are built by the people on the basis of open dialogue and are informed by their experiences; they cannot be imposed by the government’s laws about who can say what when.

“We also believe that the United Nations must remain faithful to the central tenet of human rights law. Rights are held by individuals, not by governments or other institutions, and not by religions. We should embark on a conversation on how to build mutual respect and tolerance among the individuals who practice different religions, but in doing so should not lose sight of our overall goal to realize our dream of universal human rights for all individuals, including the rights to both freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

“The United States will vote against this resolution because we can not agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the “defamation of religions” concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world. Con-trary to the intentions of most Member States, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the United Nations. We are deeply committed to addressing concerns of intolerance and discrimination and are eager to work with the cosponsors and the rest of this body to address the root concerns behind the resolution in the spirit of consensus. Until then, however, we urge others to join us in voting no.” http://usun.gov/briefing/statements/2009/131923.htm

We would do well to recall the words of Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he spoke in April 1998 on the “Challenge of Diversity,” declaring that: “Religions may manifest themselves in widely varying practices and belief systems; the United Nations may display the outward signs of secular pursuits; but at heart we are dealing in universal values. To be kind, to be merciful: no single religion can claim a monopoly on such teachings. * * * Religion, sadly, has been misused throughout history in the cause of division, discrimination and even death. From antiquity, through the Crusades, to the present day, religion has been distorted, turned from a personal matter of faith and sustenance into a weapon on power and coercion. The cry of the soul for meaning and for God has been drowned out by the battle cry of those claiming to have God on their side.” SG/SM/6541.

The following month, May 1998, the Secretary-General pointed out that, “For too long during Bosnia’s dark days of war, religion was used not to unite but to divide, not to teach mercy, but to incite hatred; not to resolve differences peacefully but to make those differences the cause of conflict.”

We should also not forget the stirring words of the Statement of Shared Moral Commitment which had been issued in July 1997 in Bosnia-Hercegovina: “We, the Reisu-l-Ulema of the Islamic Community of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the responsible representatives of the two Christian Churches (Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and the President of the Jewish Community of Bosnia-Hercegovina, recognize that our Churches and Religious Communities differ from each other, and that each of them feels called to live true to its own nature. At the same time, we recognize that our religious and spiritual traditions hold many values in common, and that these shared values can provide an authentic basis for mutual esteem, cooperation and free common living in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

“3. Each of our traditional Churches and Religious Communities recognizes that the dignity of man and human value is a gift of God. Our faiths and religions, each in their own way, call us to recognize the fundamental human rights of each person. Violence against persons or the violation of their basic rights is for us not only against man-made laws but also breaking God’s law.”

If this far-reaching pledge could be made in Bosnia-Hercegovina after the frightful acts of mass murder and torment that had been inflicted, then leaders today should be able reach the same sort of accommodation.

US views on Security Council reform.

US Deputy Permanent Representative Alejandro Wolff told the General Assembly on November 13th that, “As we stated during the first three rounds of these negotiations and will continue to elaborate in more detail in those negotiations, the United States supports expansion of the Security Council. Such expansion, however, should neither diminish the Council’s effectiveness nor its efficiency. Let me briefly summarize key elements of my government’s position:

“The United States is open in principle to a limited expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members. In terms of categories of membership, the United States strongly believes that any consideration of an expansion of permanent members must be country-specific in nature.

“In determining which countries merit permanent membership, we will take into account the ability of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and other purposes of the United Nations.

“As we have previously stated, the United States is not open to an enlargement of the Security Council by a Charter amendment that changes the current veto structure.

“To enhance the prospects for success, whatever formula that emerges for an expansion of Council membership should have in mind Charter requirements for ratification.” http://usun.gov/briefing/statements/2009/131936.htm

The mention of Charter requirements for ratification clearly refers to the requirement of Article 108 by which two-thirds of the Member States must approve, “including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” Each permanent member can veto any Council expansion that is not to its liking. With five available vetoes, it is not surprising that so little progress has been made over the years in regard to expansion of the Security Council.

That’s all for this November 16th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Do send your own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

November 9, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
11/9/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: General Assembly votes 114-18-44 to support Goldstone Gaza report; Special Rapporteur on executions criticizes the US on use of drones; water, and how to share it.

General Assembly votes 114-18-44 to support Goldstone Caza report.

The Assembly on November 5th adopted a resolution, A/RES/64/10, giving Israel and the Palestinians three months to undertake “independent, credible investigations” into serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law allegedly committed during the conflict in Gaza that broke out in late December 2008.

The next day, Assembly President Ali Abdussalam Treki, possibly in an effort to enlarge the Assembly’s competence in relation to that of the Security Council, told the press that the vote highlighted the Assembly’s role in addressing human rights, peace and security. Peace and security are domains the Council would be reluctant to share with the Assembly.

The resolution endorsed the report of the UN Human Rights Council on its twelfth special session, which had considered on 15 and 16 October the work of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. That Mission was led by South African Jurist Richard Goldstone, and its report, widely known as the “Goldstone Report”, concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed possible war crimes during the conflict.

The Assembly requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to send the Goldstone Report to the Security Council. It further recommended that the Swiss Government, as depositary of the Geneva Convention relating to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, take steps to convene “as soon as possible” a Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, on measures to enforce that Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

The text, drafted by Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement delegations, asked the Secretary-General to report back within three months on the implementation of the resolution, with a view to considering further action by relevant United Nations bodies, including the Security Council.

The 18 Member States voting against the resolution were: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

The 44 abstainers were: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

In addition, the following were recorded as “absent:” Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

The report itself, A/HRC/12/48, is a massive document, 429 single-spaced pages plus annexes. Paragraph 2 recites that: “The President [of the Human Rights Council] appointed Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to head the Mission. The other three appointed members were: Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun (2008); Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004); and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.”

Pages 423 to 429 of the report consist of recommendations, to the Human Rights Council, to the Security Council, to he State of Israel, to Palestinian armed groups, to responsible Palestinian authorities, to the international community, to the international community and responsible Palestinian authorities, to the international community, Israel and Palestinian authorities, and to the Office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.

In paragraph 1975 at page 427, addressed to the international community, “The Mission recommends that the State parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 should start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of justice.”

This is a radical departure from traditional notions of territorial jurisdiction. Although the Geneva Conventions have been in existence for 60 years, seldom has jurisdiction been invoked regardless of any connection with the prosecuting country. Not since the days when prosecution for piracy and slave trading were thought to be permissible in any country whatsoever has so serious a proposal for universal jurisdiction been authoritatively put forward.

Special Rapporteur on executions criticizes the US on use of drones.

Professor Philip Alston of the NYU and Harvard Law Schools told the press on October 27th that he disputed the legality of US use of drones and Predators since the US claims that the Human Rights Council and General Assembly have no role in killings taking place in armed conflicts. Alston said the US needed to provide the legal basis on which it was operating, what agency was running the program, what accountability mechanisms were in place, what precautions were being taken to ensure legality, and what review procedures were available. Otherwise, said Alston, the CIA would be running a program that was killing significant numbers of people with no accountability under the relevant international laws. “Self-investigations” do not enhance credibility, the Alston added.

Water, and how to share it.

The last formal war over water had been fought in 2,500 B.C. between two Sumerian city-states contesting the Tigris Basin, declared Aaron Wolfe, Program Director in Water Conflict Management and Transformation at Oregon State University. The occasion was a panel discussion on “Enhanc-ing governance on water,” held by the General Assembly’s Second (Eco-nomic and Financial) Committee. GA/EF/3266.

Since 2,500 B.C. some 3,600 water-related treaties governing boundary demarcation and navigation had proven to be resilient even as cross-border conflicts raged, said Wolfe. The Mekong Committee had held technical exchanges throughout the Viet Nam War, and the Indus River Commission had survived two wars between India and Pakistan. The last armed conflict over water between Arabs and Israelis had taken place in 1970, and that raises an important question.

If Arabs and Israelis can avoid armed conflict over water for nearly 40 years, perhaps they could form a joint standing commission to resolve issues arising over the use of water from underground aquifers that straddle surface boundaries. Since both sides need protection against excessive withdrawal by the other of precious water from the aquifers, the only way to assure that short of armed occupation is for them to set up a mechanism for mutually agreeable sharing. If Arabs and Israelis found they could get along to that extent, they might be able to gradually expand their areas of cooperation.

Mr. Wolfe declared that the water crisis is bigger than the crises brought on by HIV, malaria, tsunamis, earthquakes and all the wars put together in a given year. Some 2.5 billion people lack access to water and sanitation, 1 billion have no access to safe drinking water, and 2.5 to 5 million people die each year as a result.

That’s all for this November 9th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Do send your own views to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

November 2, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
11/2/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: UN torture investigator rebuffed; Honduras v. Brazil in the ICJ; spousal rape in Libya; status of Al-Qaida and Taliban; universal phone charger approved by ITU.

UN torture investigator rebuffed.

Last week’s edition of United Nations Week led off with mention of a report on detention conditions by Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As the week ended, Mr. Nowak was in the news for having been refused entry into Zimbabwe.

The New York Times on Friday at page A4 told how Nowak, on arrival in Zimbabwe Wednesday, had been detained overnight at the airport and put on a plane to Johannesburg Thursday morning. Nowak had been invited to Zimbabwe by the government, but had been told while en route in Johannesburg to delay his arrival at Harare because a regional leaders’ conference was in progress.

At a press conference back in Johannesburg, Nowak called his expulsion “totally unheard of behavior,” adding that, “It’s a serious diplomatic incident,” reported the Times. Those remarks bear scrutiny.

Nowak is probably correct in saying that his detention and expulsion were “unheard of.” Such treatment of a UN envoy may be unprecedented. And there is a treaty prohibition against interfering with a UN “expert on mission.” But a mission of this kind is organized by mutual consent, so an expert can hardly claim to be on a mission whose schedule is not agreed to.

The other question Nowak raises is whether his treatment was a “diplomatic incident.” This involves the question whether he is a diplomat. Diplomats are people formally accredited by their governments to serve as official representatives at a particular national capital or other post such as UN Headquarters. Nowak’s authority comes not from any government but from the UN Human Rights Council. It is the Council that has conferred on him authority to investigate torture and related offenses.

Thus the incident would gain diplomatic status, if at all, not from the nature of his appointment but rather from his representation of a UN agency. I am not aware of any other UN special rapporteur’s having claimed to be a diplomat. But years ago, there was a special rapporteur named Mazilu, appointed by the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission, to which he was due to render a report in Geneva. His government, Romania, kept him home, claiming that he was indisposed. I was one of a group in the Sub-Commission who saw this as a very bad precedent. So at our request the UN Legal Office won an action in the International Court of Justice declaring that Mazilu could not legally be prevented from fulfilling his UN duties. And in due course he appeared and gave his report. This did not make him a diplomat; it was his status as an expert on mission that won the case.

Nowak’s case is not so clear-cut. It appears from the Times story that he may have been a bit undiplomatic himself in leaving Johannesburg for Harare knowing that his hosts did not want him to arrive until later. At least he was apparently not mistreated during his night at the Harare airport.

According to Wikipedia, Nowak is a Professor at the University of Vienna, where he is Professor of Constitutional Law and Human Rights. He was one of the judges of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina between March 1996 and December 2003. He was also the vice president of the Chamber between December 1997 and December 1998.

As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nowak was one of the five authors of a United Nations report on the detention of captives at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In 2005 Nowak visited China, claiming that torture remained "widespread" there. He also complained of Chinese officials interfering with his work.
In September 2006 he alleged that torture may be more of a problem in Iraq since the Iraq War than under Saddam Hussein's regime. Much of the torture, he argued, is carried out by security forces, militias and insurgents.

In January of 2009, Nowak appeared on Germany's ZDF television saying he believed the United States had a clear obligation to bring proceed-ings against President George W. Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, because of torture inflicted on detainees at the Guantana-mo Bay detention camp in Cuba. Nowak said, "We have seen the documents that show that these interrogation methods were expressly ordered by Rums-feld, but of course with the knowledge of the highest levels in the United States."

Nowak described his work as Special Rapporteur in the Journal of Human Rights Practice: http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/1/101

Honduras v. Brazil in the ICJ.

While the case may have become moot by the temporary reinstate-ment of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as President of Honduras, an application was filed by Honduras last Thursday in the International Court of Justice against Brazil. “Honduras respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Brazil does not have the right to allow the premises of its Mission in Tegucigalpa to be used to promote manifestly illegal activities by Honduran citizens who have been staying within it for some time now and that it shall cease to do so.”

Spousal rape in Libya.

In a somewhat contradictory explanation to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated: “Women who are subjected to violence are afforded equal treatment with men in respect of protection procedures, legal remedies and other appropriate measures. The Criminal Code contains no provisions which explicitly criminalize assaults against women; taking due account of women’s physiological makeup, the Code simply refers to sexual assault, indecent assault and assault against women as wives or daughters as acts which offend against a woman’s dignity or honor. Protection is provided whenever an assault takes place and is guaranteed under criminal and penal legislation. It is not clear what is meant by the term ‘violence’ in the observation to which this reply refers. If it means physical assault, then the matter will be dealt with in accordance with the law. The woman will be offered protection and her attacker will be prosecuted. If it means domestic violence, in the sense of rape, such an act cannot conceivably be carried out by a husband, as the relationship is a lawful one. If a wife is raped by force or in a way that she does not accept, she may lodge a complaint and demand that her husband be prosecuted and punished. She can then seek a divorce on the grounds of injury or spousal ill-treatment. A total of 7678 cases were reported in 2006 and 563 in 2007. Prison terms of varying lengths were handed down to the defendants.” CCPR/C/LBY/CO/4/Add.1 at 2.

Status of Al-Qaida and Taliban.

“This is the tenth report submitted by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team since it started its work in support of the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee in March 2004. During this period, both the threat from Al-Qaida, the Taliban and their associates and the Security Council sanctions regime directed against it have changed considerably.” So began the summary of the report, S/2009/502 at 5, which continued:

“Al-Qaida, even more than the Taliban, has had to adapt to relentless pressure from international, regional and national bodies in all parts of the world. Its leadership has found it increasingly difficult to manage and direct the movement and Al-Qaida has become weaker as a result. Although it remains a threat and can still work its way into the headlines, it no longer dominates the international political agenda. Increasingly, its future depends on what happens to the groups of fighters loosely known as the Taliban who have carved out space on either side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The links between the leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaida have survived for over 20 years, but their agendas do not coincide. The [UN’s] sanctions regime could become a more useful tool in splitting Al-Qaida from the Taliban and in promoting divisions within the Taliban through a more flexible use of its listing and de-listing procedures.

“The Consolidated List of individuals and entities subject to the sanctions measures needs to be a credible expression of the main elements of the threat and allow accurate identification of listed persons.”

The report distinguishes in certain respects between Al-Qaida and the Taliban. It makes this point at page 9: “The main objective of the interna-tional community in Afghanistan is to neutralize Al-Qaida, not to destroy the Taliban, and although Al-Qaida has established deep roots in the area over the past 20 years, its influence is only one factor that the local tribespeople will take into account when weighing their options. The Taliban does not have global ambitions and there is scope for reconciliation between some Taliban commanders and the central authorities.”

Universal phone charger approved by ITU.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN specialized agency, on October 22nd approved an energy-efficient one-charger-fits-all new mobile phone Universal Charger Solution. The same charger should be usable for all future handsets regardless of make and model.
A 50% reduction in standby energy consumption is estimated as well as elimination of 51,000 tons of redundant chargers and subsequent reduction of 13.6 million tons in greenhouse gas emissions per year.

The ITU is lobbying to have the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) recognized in the draft Copenhagen Agreement on climate change, which is not the case in the present draft. “ICTs are an essential element of an effective Copenhagen climate agreement,” says ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré.

That’s all for this November 2nd issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, send us your own views on these or other UN-related issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com
Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

October 26, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
10/26/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: report on detention conditions; Israel gagged on UNRWA anniversary; UN’s financial situation; monopolization of seeds through patents.

Report on detention conditions.

Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, told the press on October 20th that he believes a majority of the 10 million deprived of liberty worldwide are living in unacceptable conditions. In many countries the authorities do not even provide food for inmates, leaving that to families.
Health and sanitary services are often non-existent, wounds untreated and human waste either lived in or collected in plastic containers. Young children are often held in pre-trial detention, vulnerable to corporal punishment, inter-prisoner violence and sexual abuse.

Nowak called on other countries to accept detainees from the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, there being 40 to 50 who had not been placed. Asked about some of the worst conditions in his latest (5th) annual report, he recalled unbearable conditions in metal containers at Libertad prison in Uruguay and a torture room in Lagos, Nigeria, where more than 100 people, including women and children, were crammed together and tortured in front of each other.

Article 14 of the Torture Convention, calling for reparations for victims, is not being applied, Nowak said, adding that invocation of a State Secrecy privilege to prevent litigation in such cases is wrong. Reparations can be arranged on a voluntary basis through the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. The Secretary-General reported in August that 29 countries, not including the US, had contributed to the fund, as had two individuals, at least one of them a US citizen. A/64/264 at 5.

The report states that contributions can be made through several channels including, “by cheque payable to ‘United Nations’ addressed to: Trésorerie, Nations Unis, Palais des Nations, CH 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland.” Id. at 12. [1]

Israel gagged on UNRWA anniversary.

Israel told the General Assembly’s Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization) Committee that it “was barred from speaking at the high-level event to mark the anniversary on 24 September 2009” of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). A/C.4/64/7.

“While Israel’s inclusion at the high-level event was supported by a vast majority of the event’s steering committee, including UNRWA itself and many States, this consensus was broken by a clear political agenda of two member States of the committee, as well as an Observer Mission. * * * While protesting the outcome of the steering committee’s decision, and questioning the legality of barring a Member State, as a concerned party, from speaking, I would kindly request that this letter, as well as the enclosed undelivered remarks, be circulated as an official document of the General Assembly under agenda item 31.”

Israel’s undelivered remarks state that the occasion “offers an opportune moment to consider what can best be done to bring closer to realization the vision of peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. * * * Explicitly underscored in the 1967 Comay-Michelmore exchange of letters between Israel and UNRWA, Israel’s support for UNRWA’s humanitarian activities continues unabated. So too does its commitment to facilitating UNRWA’s operations in the field, subject to the upholding of its own security.

“Notwithstanding the above, there have been instances throughout UNRWA’s history, including recently in which its officials have exceeded the Agency’s humanitarian mission, by expressing themselves on matters of a political nature. * * * As Israel has reiterated time and again, UNRWA would do well to focus its energies on its humanitarian tasks, leaving the realm of politics to others.” Id. at 2.

UN’s financial situation.

While unpaid assessments had dropped to $2.1 billion for peace-keeping, deficits had increased for the regular budget, the Tribunals and the capital master fund, according to Angela Kane, Under-Secretary-General for Management, and the UN Controller, Jun Yamazaki. Unpaid assessments were $830 million for the regular budget, $63 million for the Tribunals and $86 million for the capital master plan.

Only 22 Member States had paid all their assessments as of October 20th, while 123 had paid their regular budget dues in full. The Secretary-General’s proposed 2010-2011 budget, $4.89 billion, is only 0.5% over the appropriations for 2008-2009, but after adjusting for expected inflation the $4.89 billion becomes $5.06 billion. The UN uses a two-year budget system.

In a mysterious reference, Angela Kane spoke of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, called by its Swahili name “Umoja,” meaning unity. She said, according to a press release, that ‘The ERP system was a unique opportunity to build an integrated global information system for the Secretariat. Umoja would represent a revolutionary step in handling the Organization’s human, financial and material resources. It would also increase transparency and accountability, and link results to the use of resources.” According to Wikipedia, “. . . a software package that provides both payroll and accounting functions could technically be considered an ERP software package.” Apparently, for the UN to be using ERP or Umoja, it must be consolidating the computerized records of multiple departments so that each of them can readily access the records of others.

Monopolization of seeds through patents.

On October 21st Oscar de Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, expressed concern about increased monopolization of seeds through patents, as well as about declining bio-diversity, speculation in commodity markets, and the ongoing fallout from the global food crisis. He referred to the impact of intellectual property rights on seed systems and the policies States should adopt to provide access for farmers to the seeds they needed.

In many developing countries, said de Schutter, two seed systems exist: a commercial seed system of improved varieties that could be cataloged and certified by Governments; and the traditional seed systems emerging from farmers exchanging seeds on informal markets. Commercial seed systems were threatening the balance between the two, as traditional seeds could not be cataloged and certified.

Intellectual property rights had been strengthened significantly over the years, contributing to the risk of farmers’ dependency. He therefore advocated that Governments should choose intellectual property suited to development needs instead of giving in to incentives. Moreover, he said research in breeding rewarded by intellectual property rights was mostly addressing the needs of rich farmers in developed countries. It neglected tropical crops on which many people were dependent. Because most seed companies were situated in the North, intellectual property rights resulted in resource transfers from the South to the North and from food producers to the owners of the patents.

This too is a subject that I must look into in depth so that in future issues of United Nations Week: News and Views I will be able to produce more informative reports. That’s all for this issue. We’ll be back with the next one. Do send along your own views on these or other UN-related issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com. For now, good-bye and thanks for watching.

[1] “Donors are requested to inform the secretariat of the Fund and the Resource Mobilization Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights when a payment has been made (a copy of the bank transfer order or of the cheque would be appreciated) to facilitate effective follow-up on the official recording procedure and preparation of the Secretary-General’s reports.” Id. at 12.

October 19, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
10/19/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: UN High Commissioner on Goldstone’s report; legality of Honduras President’s removal; Kosovo in the ICJ and Security Council.

UN High Commissioner on Goldstone’s report.

On October 15th, Navanethem Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, told the Human Rights Council, inter alia, that, “A culture of impunity continues to prevail in the occupied territories and in Israel in relation to violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. I have pointed this out in my report to this Council. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, led by Justice Goldstone, made a similar assessment.

“Let me take this opportunity to reiterate my support for the recom-mendations of the Fact Finding Mission, including its call for urgent action to counter impunity. I encourage the Council and the broader international community to give full consideration to the Fact Finding Mission's report. I also wish to underscore the necessity for all parties to carry out impartial, independent, prompt, and effective investigations into reported violations of human rights and humanitarian law in compliance with international standards.

“For those in detention, the widespread recourse to military justice systems, which do not meet international standards of due process, remains of grave concern. Due process and the rights of those in any form of detention must be respected at all times. * * *

“In seeking a political solution to the decades-long conflict, the international community must anchor its efforts in international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law.

“To conclude, all human rights are equal for all human beings, and no party can claim that, in defending or supporting its own population, it is allowed to disavow the rights of others. All parties have an obligation to respect the human rights of their own people, of their own neighbours, of all. Let me reiterate that respect for human rights is an imperative in building a solid foundation for both justice and peace. I hope you will emphasize this basic principle in your deliberations.”


The 570-page report of the Goldstone mission, A/HRC/12/48, is discussed in an American Society of International Law “Insight,” www.asil.org/insights091001.cfm. The author is David Kaye, Executive Director of the International Human Rights Program at the UCLA School of Law. He describes how the report mentions three alternatives to domestic justice, i.e., Security Council monitoring, International Criminal Court investigation and universal jurisdiction. The last is a theory whereby any country can try persons charged with the worst crimes, traditionally only piracy and slavery. Kaye concludes that, “During the debate over the Report at the Council on September 29th, the U.S. delegation was essen-tially isolated in its negative reactions to the Report.”

Legality of Honduras President’s removal.

On October 14th the Secretary-General stated that, “The United Nations wishes to clarify that its position, regarding the legality of the removal of President [José Manuel] Zelaya in Honduras has been clearly articulated by the General Assembly resolution 63/301 adopted on 1 July 2009. This resolution ‘condemns the coup d’état in the Republic of Honduras that has interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras’. * * *

“The Secretary-General urges the parties in Honduras to avoid distractions at this critical moment in the negotiations and remain focused on arriving at a consensual agreement to end the crisis in Honduras through dialogue.” SG/SM12545-CA/41.

On October 12th, Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Isabel Rodas said: “We cannot accept that a small group, after rising up in arms, can be stronger than the international community,” stressing that a restoration of the Government had been set as a precondition for talks sponsored by the Organization of American States (OAS) which were now suspended. Not resolving the situation by October 15th would jeopardize presidential elections scheduled for November, she said.

The Minister stated that President Zelaya was under a “state of siege” in the Brazilian Embassy, surrounded by police and military forces, illuminated by stadium lights and tormented by noise, light and threats.”

Kosovo in the ICJ and Security Council.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has set aside the days from December 1st to the 11th for arguments on the question of the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo (request for advisory opinion). On December 1st, Serbia will be allowed 3 hours in the morning. In the afternoon the authors of the unilateral declaration will have 3 hours. Between December 2 and 11, each of the following will be allowed 45 minutes: Albania, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Jordan, the Lao People’s Demo-cratic Republic, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, the Russian Feder-ation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain, the UK, the US, Venezuela and Viet Nam. ICJ Press Release No. 2009/29, which does not explain why Serbia is given a second time to argue while the declaration’s authors are not.

On October 15th the Security Council heard Vuk Jeremić, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia, say Serbia would never recognize the unilateral declaration of independence by the ethnic Albanian authorities in Pristina. The General Assembly had tasked the International Court of Justice with determining if that declaration conformed to international law.

There was little doubt, Jeremić said, that the Court’s conclusions would have overarching consequences for international legal order. He appealed to all Member States to respect the fact that the Court was actively considering the issue and to ensure that the Court’s procedures would not be pre-judged, including through further recognitions of the Kosovo declaration of independence.

Jeremić said the United Nations remained an indispensable actor in Kosovo. UNMIK’s (the UN Mission in Kosovo) external representation function remained especially important. The ability of the United Nations to work effectively with EULEX (European Rule of Law Mission[1]) must remain unconstrained. Disagreements on status must not impede the determination to act together on improving the lives of all residents in the province. Serbia had proactively worked with all legitimate actors on the ground in Kosovo, while ensuring that its constitutional “red lines” were not crossed.

Commitments made in the Security Council should be honored and implemented in full -- from resolution 1244 (1999) to the Secretary-General’s six-point plan. Beginning with the issue of the police, Jeremić said virtually all Kosovo Serb police officers had returned to their posts as a direct consequence of Serbia’s engagement. The Serbian Ministry of the Interior had signed a protocol on police cooperation with EULEX that was entirely status neutral and fully conformed to resolution 1244 (1999).

Unfortunately, the precarious state of Serbian patrimony remained a deeply troubling part of the reality on the ground in Kosovo, Jeremić said. In August, a whole-scale pillaging of the largest hermitage complex, dating back to the thirteenth century, in the mountains above Prizren had taken place. The authorities claimed they had no leads, and no arrests had been made. Ethnic Albanian authorities were still refusing to reconsider the outrageous decision to pave over the remains of the twice-destroyed Serbian church in Djakovica. The issue was being raised for the third time before the Council. Jeremić asked: “Is it possible that the international community is powerless to get this awful deed reversed?”

Pristina had called some local elections to be held on 15 November, Jeremić said. The legitimacy of the entire electoral process had been lost by the failure to hold them within the status-neutral framework of resolution 1244 (1999). The Special Representative had not called them, OSCE could not monitor them and the United Nations would not certify them. Under such circumstances, Serbia could not support them. An opportunity had been missed to de-politicize that vitally important issue. Had a choice been made to work in concert instead of at cross-purposes, perhaps the way could have been paved for the Kosovo Serb community to actively participate in the process.

Jeremić said that in the twenty-first century, national success could not come about in isolation. That was why Serbia would continue to engage in the best possible faith with the international community in addressing all outstanding challenges in the Western Balkans. And while Serbia remained fundamentally committed to defending its territorial integrity in a peaceful manner, it was also committed to fulfilling its European destination. Serbia’s central strategic priority continued to be European Union membership said Jeremić.

Skënder Hyseni of Kosovo said that, since June, significant progress had been made in Kosovo in the area of state institution-building on the basis of the new constitution. Two more nations had recognized Kosovo as an independent state: Jordan and the Domini-can Republic. On 29 June, Kosovo had formally signed articles of agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Efforts had intensified to fight crime and corruption. That put additional responsibilities on the government and the need to further strengthen the rule of law. The government of Kosovo had continued to address and resolve many issues of economic justice and issues of justice.

Hyseni said the well-being of minority communities and return of internally displaced persons was a standing priority of his government. Improvement of conditions in the Serb majority areas was an issue the government was paying close attention to and progress was obvious. There was however obstructive interference from Serbia in the efforts to improve the living conditions, as Belgrade had continued to support power structures in the north. Members of the Serb community had been discouraged from integrating with the rest of the population. They were under permanent pressure from Belgrade to boycott local institutions, but had failed to offer any assistance or solutions to the problems of the Serbs in Kosovo.

There was however evident improvement with EULEX deployment, he continued. EULEX had achieved full operational capability and the government of Kosovo was committed to cooperate closely with EULEX to combat crime, corruption and illicit cross-border activities. The overall security situation was calm and stable. The election campaign had been launched for municipal elections.

He said that new elections were due on 15 November, the first election after independence. It would be another democratic, free and fair poll. Participation of Kosovo Serbs would be the most effective way for them to take part in the democratic process and they had been encouraged to participate. Regrettably, the Government of Serbia had been doing the opposite, and had called for a boycott.

He said that strengthening relations with neighbors had continued to be a priority. Participation in regional trade and cooperation was critical for strengthening relations in the Balkans. Belgrade, however, had continued to block Kosovo’s participation in regional and other international bodies. It was also blocking Kosovo exports to Serbia. Establishment of an environment of cooperation in the region was critical, as all nations of the Western Balkans shared the hope for European Union membership. His government would work around the clock to deliver on all requirements for such membership. Hyseni said he looked forward to working closely with all Members of the United Nations and the Security Council to promote shared goals of international peace and safety.

That’s all for this October 19th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, send us your own views on these or other UN issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com

Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

[1] The European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) is the largest civilian mission ever launched under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The central aim is to assist and support the Kosovo authorities in the rule of law area, specifically in the police, judiciary and customs areas. The mission is not in Kosovo to govern or rule. It is a technical mission which will monitor, mentor and advise whilst retaining a number of limited executive powers. EULEX works under the general framework of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and has a unified chain of command to Brussels. www.eulex-kosovo.eu

October 12, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
10/12/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: reactions at UN to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize; Ban appeals to Information and Communication Technology CEOs; GA Committee considers self-determination for US Virgin Islands.

The following statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was issued on October 9th: “I would like to wholeheartedly welcome and congratulate United States President Barack Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. This is great news for President Obama, for the people of the United States, and for the United Nations.

“We are entering an era of renewed multilateralism, a new era where the challenges facing humankind demand global common cause and uncommon global effort. President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world's biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges. President Obama’s commitment to work through the United Nations gives the world's people fresh hope and fresh prospects.

“We at the United Nations highly applaud him, and the Nobel Committee for its choice. I look forward to further deepening the United States-United Nations partnership as a key building block to a better and safer world for all. Again, I send my deepest and wholehearted congratula-tions to President Obama. I wish him continued success.” SG/SM/12532.

Also on October 9th, General Assembly President Ali Treki, a former Libyan foreign minister, commended the Nobel Committee for recognizing Mr. Obama as a champion for peace, multilateralism and dialogue among all civilizations. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the president of a Member State of the United Nations General Assembly will encourage global efforts that President Obama is firmly committed to in addressing today’s and tomorrow’s challenges, whether on international peace and security, climate change, nuclear disarmament, development and human rights, he said in a statement.

Here is some background on the Prize, as described on the web site of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, http://nobelprize.org

“The Nobel Peace Prize is an international prize which is awarded annually by the Norwegian Nobel Committee according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will. The Peace Prize is one of five prizes that have been awarded annually since 1901 under the auspices of the Nobel Foun-dation in Stockholm for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. Starting in 1969, a Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has also been awarded.

“Whereas the other prizes are awarded by specialist committees based in Sweden, the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". The prize includes a medal, a personal diploma, and a large sum of prize money (currently 10 million Swedish crowns).

“The Nobel Peace Prize has been called "the world's most prestigious prize". With the award to Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007, a total of 95 individuals and 23 organizations have been awarded the Peace Prize. The Prize is awarded at a ceremony in the Oslo City Hall on December 10, the date on which Alfred Nobel died.” Hi will provided:

“The whole of my remaining realisable estate shall be disposed of in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually awarded as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The interest shall be divided into five equal parts, to be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or invention; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who in the field of literature shall have produced the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; for physiological or medical works by the Carolinska Institute in Stockholm; for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and for advocates of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in the awarding of the prizes no consideration shall be given to national affiliations of any kind, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not." [Emphases added.]

Here is the text of the Committee’s official announcement on October 9th: “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordi-nary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Ban appeals to Information and Communication Technology CEOs.

Following are UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks at a round table with Heads of State and chief executive officers (CEOs) attending Telecom World 2009, in Geneva, on October 6th:

“It is a great pleasure to meet all of you again and thank you very much for your strong commitment to make this world connected through your great power.

“Gradually, I have come to realize how much a big power can exercise. I am not talking about Prime Ministers or Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, or Ministers who have legal institutional power, but the most important power can come from business leaders. After all, it is the business leaders who can invest their resources, who can make technological innovations happen.

“Therefore, this round table with the CEOs will be very important. I know that this ambitious round table will talk about the current economic crisis, cybersecurity, and the digital divide. These are all important issues.

“But at this time, I would like to know how much and how we can use the power of information and communications technology in addressing climate change. On top of all these multiple crises, we have the most pressing issue and urgent issue of climate change. We talked a lot about climate change yesterday, and this information and communications technology can bring great tools. You are the persons, you are the leaders who have the tools in your hands, and I would like to urge you to use your wisdom, use your political and policy priority right to bring these information and communications technology tools to climate change.

“I know the information and communications technology industry itself is part of the problem, causing 2 to 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. But using these tools, your power, you can reduce at least 15 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the other sectors. That is quite significant. I know that, with further innovations coming, you will significantly reduce these problems.

“Therefore, you are standing here both as the problems and problem solvers. So you have answers. So I would like to use and expect more answers than problems. This is the basic purpose of our meeting today. As you know, there was a summit meeting on climate change in New York, September 22nd.

“I have been working, directly or indirectly, with the United Nations for more than 30 years. And now, as Secretary-General, I have seen only one case when and where all Heads of State, more than 100 Heads of State, gathered at one time, at one place. There have come more numbers of Heads of State over a period, maybe over a period of two weeks or so, people would come and go, come and go, but on September 22nd, you have seen all 101 Heads of State and Government, sitting together, at one place, with all the richest and all the most vulnerable countries and leaders.

“They expressed and exchanged their views and, most importantly, demonstrated their political leadership commitment. At this time, even though we are going through an economic crisis, I believe, and you will believe that, we have resources. We have financial capacity. We were able to mobilize $5 trillion to $6 trillion in London to make a stimulus of packages, internationally coordinated. The United States alone has mobilized more than $1.5 trillion, China, $600 billion, and most European countries, more than $1 trillion.

“We have, I think, financial resources, we have technology, we have technological capacity. What is largely lacking is political will. Political leaders, they have to demonstrate their leadership.
“Business CEOs, you have to demonstrate your leadership, political leadership in your company. Scientists, science, have provided irrefutable facts. So science means quite clearly that climate change is happening much, much faster than expected, than we have realized. And now it is in the hands, in the hands of political leaders, in the hands of business leaders.

“The difference between science and political leaders, business leaders, is that science is irreversible, they do not have any choice, it is there. But you have the choice. That is good things or bad things. You can make a good choice, you can make a bad choice. You have $1 million, you can use this for another policy matter, you can use this money for climate change. This is a global challenge.

“Therefore, please do not look at only your company or your country. Please look at this issue as a global issue requiring a global leadership role. Global priority, that is what I would like to really ask for your support and leadership role. And I hope we will have a good exchange of views, and I am ready to listen to your challenges.

“But please, make a wise and good choice for the benefit of humanity.” SG/SM/12524/Rev.1-PI/1915/Rev.1

GA Committee considers self-determination for US Virgin Islands.

The questions of the United States Virgin Islands as well as New Caledonia and Western Sahara were the focus of discussions on October 6th in the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), as it continued its general debate on decolonization issues, hearing from representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories and petitioners.

During the meeting, many of the petitioners expressed indignation over the existence of colonialism in today’s world, and appealed for clear measures to be taken by the international community in support of self-determination. On the question of Western Sahara, one speaker –- the General Secretary of the International Association of Jurists for Western Sahara –- said that while the Committee had seen substantial progress regarding the eradication of colonialism, the conflict demonstrated continuous violations of international law and a flagrant attempt by Morocco to expand its territory by force.

The United Nations could not remain indifferent to the plight of the Saharawi people, whose territory was being invaded and who were being forced to negotiate an agreement on equal terms with an illegal occupant, he said. Spain was still the administering Power of Western Sahara and, therefore, Morocco had no sovereignty over Western Sahara. Morocco was simply an occupying Power, and it should not be exempt from observing the rules of international law.
Edward L. Browne, community activist from the United States Virgin Islands, said that the relationship between the United States and the United States Virgin Islands remained a colonial one. It was now more important than ever that the United Nations acknowledge and support the principle of self-determination as the only principle relevant to the decolonization of the United States Virgin Islands, as well as the other remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories.

He asked the Organization for support in emancipating those Virgin Islanders born on or before March 31, 1917, in what was then the Danish West Indies. Since those inhabitants had not been emancipated before the official transfer of the Danish West Indies, they had thus remained in a serfdom system of slavery. Although the Danish Foreign Ministry had not responded to those concerns, neither had they refuted them. That continued silence of the Danish Government was both sad and troubling. The slave trade took place before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the dignity and worth of surviving individuals should be recognized.

He commended the words of the Danish Foreign Affairs Minister, who called human rights “fundamental to the lives, integrity and dignity of all human beings”, but he asked the Danish Government to recognize and address the current enslavement of the people of the United States Virgin Islands -– a human rights violation “of the worst kind”. The Danish and American Governments must confront those demons of the past and show the world that no Government was above apologizing. “No nation ever had the right to be built on the backs of slaves,” he said.
Gerard Luz A. James II, President of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands, emphasized that the local constitutional process was not designed to alter the present non-self governing territorial status in the United States Virgin Islands, but merely to “organize its internal governance arrangements”, as accurately stated in resolution 63/108 of 5 December 2008. Thus, if the constitution of the United States Virgin Islands was subsequently adopted in referendum, such an action would not serve as the basis for removing the territory from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, since the status of the territory would not have changed.

He said that the provisions in the draft constitution, including those which the governor had found objectionable, were best reviewed for United States constitutional consistency by the administering Power, based on its determination of what was allowable under the present dependency status. The elected members of the Constitutional Convention had placed in the document a structure of governance, which it was the responsibility of the administering Power to review and to respond. The Constitutional Conven-tion looked forward to that engagement.
The work of the present Constitutional Convention had been impeded by a lack of resources, he said. That had caused several inordinate delays in the drafting process, as well as in the initiation of the critical public educa-tion phase. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Convention was confident that the draft constitution would be ultimately forwarded to the administering Power for assessment, as in the case of other draft constitutions before it. The delay in the process was especially troubling, and prevented the people of the United States Virgin Islands from gaining a better understanding of the parameters of the dependency status, as defined in the twenty-first century. The Constitutional Convention was confident, however, that the political obstacles would be cleared so that the next step could be taken along a path towards a full measure of self‑government.

That’s all for this October 12th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Do send you own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com

Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

October 5, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
10/5/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: roundup by chief American member of UN Secretariat; views of new GA President, a Libyan; Security Council unanimously beefs up action against sexual violence.

Roundup by chief American member of UN Secretariat.

The highest ranking American in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, was sacked by the Secretary-General on September 30th from his job as Ban’s Deputy Special Representative in Afghanistan. Ban at the same time “reaffirm[ed] his full support for his Special Representative, Kai Eide,” Galbraith’s superior.

Two days earlier, the highest ranking American in the Secretariat, B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, took the press on a tour d’horizon of the preceding few days’ accomplish-ments. In meeting after meeting, the intensity of activities on peace and security during the first week of the General Assembly’s sixty-fourth general debate had been incredible, Pascoe said.

“It was an extraordinary week in terms of doing exactly what the UN is supposed to do and pushed front and centre the discussion of the most serious international events of the day,” he said, stressing the importance of coherence within the international community as it sought to solve the world’s most pressing issues.

During a week that featured an unprecedented level of diplomacy, the Secretary-General had met with representatives of more than 75 countries, particularly over both weekends before and after the first week of debate, he noted. A whole series of meetings beyond those attended by the Secretary-General had also been held, specifically among Member States.

Mr. Pascoe said that in many of the meetings, the warm reception and frequent mention of peace and security reforms -- particularly the emphasis on preventive diplomacy and the Peacekeeping Department’s New Horizons initiative -- was obvious. The Secretary-General’s vision of establishing a new platform for ensuring peace and security was beginning to bear fruit.
Among the week’s highlights were the Security Council’s disarmament discussion and the emergence of the best consensus in years on non-proliferation. Tied to that had been discussions about Iran’s nuclear file, particularly revelations about its newest enrichment facility and, as of this morning, its latest missile test. He pointed to the Secretary-General’s statement following his meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday for the fullest analysis of those issues.

Concerning the Middle East, he said the Quartet had talked extensively about the status of the peace process. United States Special Envoy George Mitchell had given a briefing. Also important had been the many meetings to coordinate where the international community was headed on the most critical regional issues.

“What emerged from all of these discussions was a very strong feeling that we needed to be moving this process forward together,” he said, highlighting the sense of urgency applied to both the things that were going well, such as developments on the West Bank, as well as those that were not, like access in Gaza.

A sense of urgency was also palpable during discussions of the International Contact Group on Somalia, he said, noting the increased support for the Transitional Federal Government. It was clear that the path to peace and stability in Somalia would be difficult. But that was an improvement over the last few years, when a lack of interest in that conflict-ridden country had prevailed.

He said there had also been a shift on Sudan. Although a large, formal meeting on Sudan had not been held, there were continuous discussions on working together on looming problems. The emphasis on deploying peacekeeping troops in Darfur, which had been quite strong in recent years, had been replaced somewhat by a focus this year on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the referendum on South Sudan, scheduled for 2011.

The Secretary-General had met with the Prime Minister General Thein Sein of Myanmar and had also hosted a meeting of the Group of Friends of Myanmar, which had featured the participation of 14 Foreign Ministers. The latter had revealed the evolution in the international community’s views. On the one hand, there was clear interest in keeping Myanmar’s feet to the fire regarding the release of political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi. If there was going to be a serious political process in the country, they had to be able to participate. On the other hand, there seemed to be clear agreement that “sanctions as sanctions” would not work. They had to be balanced by positive outreach.

Among other issues that were important to the United Nations were supporting national efforts to bring the Cyprus issue to a conclusion, he continued. On Pakistan, discussions with President Asif Ali Zardari and with the Friends of Democratic Pakistan had underlined that efforts to consolidate stability and democracy must maintain a strong focus on anti-terrorism, as well as on the deeper social and economic concerns.

Efforts to resolve the crisis in Honduras had not produced results, Mr. Pascoe said. The situation had taken a “seriously bad turn”, with recent threats on the Brazilian Embassy where exiled President Manuel Zelaya was staying. It would be a disaster, he stressed, if any actions were taken to violate international law on the inviolability of embassies. Also concerning was the de facto Government’s turning of the screws internally by closing news outlets and enacting state-of-emergency measures against the population.

With respect to Sri Lanka, the Secretary-General had reiterated the need to get the internally displaced persons out of the refugee camps during a morning meeting with the prime minister, foreign minister and the minister of defence, Mr. Pascoe reported, adding that a political resolution to the civil conflict and accountability were needed.

Responding to a question about expectations ahead of the Security Council’s up-coming meeting on Afghanistan, he said that the United Nations had sensed all along that the elections would be difficult. Currently, the process to review the vote was moving along, with the international complaints panel evaluating 10 per cent of the ballots rather quickly. If a second election was called for, it was hoped it could be completed before the winter snows.

He confirmed press reports that the bilateral meeting the day before between the Secretary-General and Vice Foreign Minister Park Gil Yon of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had focused on such things as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), had been positive. During the session, the Secretary-General had urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the six-party talks, and, perhaps in response to a new Japanese Government and important proposals by the President of the Republic of Korea, there seemed to be a decision “to engage after a summer of not wanting to engage”.

When asked if that meant there were signs that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would resume six-party talks, he clarified that they had not indicated they were ready to return to those talks. Rather, their attitude had been “softer and friendlier”.

Asked if recent news reports on political corruption in Pakistan had come up in the Secretary-General’s meetings with representatives of that country, he said that the Secretary-General had emphasized, as he did in all cases, that aid should get to the people for which it was intended.
Responding to a follow-up question, he highlighted the Secretary-General’s recent appointment of Jean-Maurice Ripert as Special Envoy for Assistance to Pakistan. Currently, cooperation among the Government of Pakistan and other donor Governments was being established
He said, in response to a request for comment on allegations that the United Nations was interfering in the internal affairs of Honduras, where recent events had actually unfolded in a fully constitutional manner, that no one had yet found a constitutional provision that supported the President’s being hustled to another country by the military. He stressed the sensitivity of coups in Latin America and efforts there to develop constitutional and civilian-led Governments, emphasizing that the involvement of the military in the removal of a president would inevitably cause a strong reaction beyond the Honduran Constitution.

“People really feel that it’s very important in Central America that Governments in power not feel threatened by military removal even if it’s backed by lots of other people,” he said. The United Nations had offered to get involved in the current situation if both sides wished. But the prevailing view was that the Organization should not elbow its way in if regional organizations were taking the lead, as they were in this case.

When asked about the United Nations response to the United States call for a harder line with Iran in accordance with non-proliferation policies, he said the Organization had been consistent in its position on non-proliferation. That was also the case with the Secretary-General, who had called for Iran to adhere to all Security Council resolutions. The international arms control agenda had been dormant for far too long, and it was hoped that it would now move forward.
Views of new GA President, a Libyan.

On Friday, October 2nd, General Assembly President Ali Abdussalam Treki of Libya, in his first press conference since the close of the Assembly’s annual general debate earlier this week, said this year’s gathering, had drawn more than 100 world leaders who had demonstrated their sustained interest in the United Nations and a wide array of crucial issues ‑‑ from climate change to the financial crisis to human rights.

“I was very happy with the debate,” Mr. Treki said today at Headquarters before he fielded questions from the press. “It was very constructive, and the statements showed that the world was very interested in the Assembly and the United Nations and reform of the UN.”
Responding to a question concerning the Iranian Foreign Minister’s view that the Secretary-General’s post should be elected directly by the Assembly, rather than the Security Council, Mr. Treki noted that other delegations had raised the same point. It would be the Assembly’s decision to take up that aspect of reform when it tackles the overall issue of the Organization’s revitalization later.

To a question on the Assembly’s decision on 25 October to block the self-proclaimed President of Madagascar’s High Transitional Authority from addressing the general debate, Mr. Treki said he and a United Nations legal adviser had met beforehand with representatives of the African countries concerned with Andry Nirina Rajoelina’s upcoming speech. [The Transitional Government of Mr. Rajoelina came to power in Madagascar following a military-backed coup in March.]

The legal adviser had said that Mr. Rajoelina had the right to speak under Rule 29 of the General Assembly’s Procedures. It was agreed, Mr. Treki continued, that Mr. Rajoelina would speak following interventions made by Heads of States, and that the African Group could then explain its views through a point of order.

Yet, during the debate on 25 September, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Comoros, had raised a point of order objecting to Mr. Rajoelina’s participation and requesting a vote under Article 71.

Subsequently, he said, Mr. Rajoelina’s participation in the debate was denied by a recorded vote of 23 against to 4 in favour (Denmark, Ecuador, Jamaica, Madagascar), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Mali, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu).

When Mr. Treki was asked about a prior statement calling homosexuality unacceptable, Mr. Treki said that was his personal opinion and that he respected the procedures, laws and regulations of the United Nations.

He declined to comment on a question as to whether requests by Libyan Leader Muammar Al-Qadhafi to pitch a tent in various locales in and around New York and New Jersey during his stay last week, or his long speech before the Assembly on 23 September, had distracted from the general debate. Mr. Treki said those questions were outside his competence as Assembly President.

In response to a question concerning the situation in Honduras and ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, Mr. Treki said the legitimate Honduran Government headed by President Zelaya had received much visibility recently and he hoped an agreement could be reached. Mr. Treki added that he thought all countries respected the United Nations decision regarding Honduras. [In a unanimously adopted 30 June resolution, the Assembly deplored the coup and stressed that it would not recognize any Government other than that of Mr. Zelaya’s.]
And concerning a query on the Palestinian observer’s request that the upcoming report on the investigation led by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone into the events in Gaza at the beginning of the year not be referred to the Assembly or Security Council, Mr. Treki said he would not comment unless he received the report officially or word from the Human Rights Council.

Human rights violations were a matter that concerned all humanity and was a subject the Assembly would discuss during its upcoming session, he continued. Such violations should be handled by the competent authorities, like the Human Rights Council or the International Criminal Court.

[The 575-page report issued by a four-person United Nations fact-finding mission headed by Judge Goldstone cites evidence that, during the Gaza crisis at the beginning of the year, both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian laws, which may amount to crimes against humanity.]

Security Council unanimously beefs up action against sexual violence.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the United States, which holds the September Presidency of the 15-member body, United Nations Secre-tary-General Ban Ki-moon, national ministers and other representatives of Council members praised the unanimous adoption on September 30th of resolution 1888 (2009) as a substantial step forward on many fronts.

Among other measures, the resolution called on the Secretary-General to rapidly deploy a team of experts to situations of particular concern in terms of sexual violence, to work with United Nations personnel on the ground and national Governments on strengthening the rule of law. By other terms of the text, the Council affirmed that it would consider the prevalence of rape and other forms of sexual violence when imposing or renewing targeted sanctions in situations of armed conflict.

To enhance the effectiveness of measures for the protection of women and children by peacekeeping missions, the Council decided to identify women’s protection advisers among gender advisers and human rights protection units. Other provisions of the text included the strengthening of monitoring and reporting on sexual violence, the retraining of peacekeepers, national forces and police, and calls to boost the participation of women in peacebuilding and other post-conflict processes.

“With its resolution today, the Security Council is sending an unequivocal message ‑‑ a call to action,” Secretary-General Ban said immediately following the text’s adoption. He expressed regret that previous responses to sexual violence had not been able to stem the scourge. “Parties to armed conflict continue to use sexual violence with efficient brutality. The perpetrators generally operate with impunity,” he added, pledging to continue to ensure effective follow-up by the United Nations system.

Speaking in her national capacity, Secretary of State Clinton emphasized the toll that rape had taken on the women and communities she had visited in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other conflict areas. “It shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings,” she added.

Thanking other Council members for their cooperation in adopting the resolution, she urged the body to pursue the fight against sexual crimes even beyond the measures called for in the resolution, saying that sexual violence in conflict areas could not be separated from the broader security issues on the Council’s agenda. SC/9753.

That’s all for this October 5th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, post your own comments on these or other UN issues at www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

September 28, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
9/28/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Objections to military occupations; safe haven for sharks.

On Friday, September 25th, speakers at two press conferences held in the UN demanded an end to military occupation of territory.

First of all, President Dimitris Christofias of Cyprus called on Member States to use their influence in convincing Turkey to withdraw its troops from the island so that he could attend the next session of the General Assembly as a representative of the United Federal Republic of Cyprus.

President Christofias said he had tried in bilateral meetings to convince Heads of State and Government as well as the Secretary-General that theoretical support was not enough, and that concrete policies should be put in place to transform the divided nation into a federal State, free of nationalism.

The problem was the presence of some 40,000 Turkish troops and thousands of settlers, he said, adding that it was a pity that both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders had previously been unable to create the conditions in which all could enjoy the island’s beauty. He reiterated his commitment to do the utmost -– together with his “friend and partner”, Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat -– to re-unify the country.

President Christofias stressed that he and Mr. Talat would not give up their efforts to find a resolution as soon as possible, no matter how many meetings it took. Cypriots must resolve the situation through negotiations and without external intervention, including arbitration, which had failed in the past.

He said Turkey should shoulder its responsibility to withdraw its troops and repatriate the settlers, without whom the problem would be resolved. He said he had made a “courageous” offer to Turkey entailing the acceptance by Cyprus of 15,000 settlers on humanitarian grounds, but without a response from the other side, more concessions would not be possible.

The presence of foreign troops on the island since 1974 was a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, he continued, saying he wished to see the establishment of a federal State based on agreements between the two Cypriot sides and in compliance with United Nations resolutions. Security Council resolutions –- which Turkey had violated –- did not recognize two States, he pointed out.

President Christofias said the difference with the past was that he wished to resolve the problems with the Turkish Cypriots, whom he respected as citizens of Cyprus, and with whom he wished to share the nation on the basis of equality. Calling for mutual respect, he said he had proposed a United Federal State of Cyprus with a rotating presidency from either the Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot side, and a President and Vice-President elected by the Cypriot population as a whole, adding that Turkish recognition of Cyprus would be a nice step for a country seeking membership in the European Union. Cyprus supported that membership for Turkey on condition that it respect Cyprus and restore previous relations.

Asked about possible arbitration, he said the United Nations had not suggested it. During his meeting with the Secretary-General in 2008, it had been decided that the Organization would play a facilitator’s role. None of the relevant resolutions provided for arbitration, and efforts in 2004 had failed because the proposed solution had come from outside Cyprus. A solution must be established by Cypriots for Cypriots, he reiterated.

On the same day, Friday, September 25th, Amre Moussa, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, outlined his views on the situation in the Middle East and the prospects for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Mr. Moussa gave a positive evaluation of United States President Barack Obama’s statement to the General Assembly this week, saying he had presented a clear framework of United States policy in the four main areas of peace, development, environment and disarmament. In connection with the Middle East, a viable and sovereign State of Palestine -– as mentioned by the President -– was the right goal to pursue.
Israel, Moussa said, had taken a “totally negative, rejectionist position” which would make things very difficult in the future. From what he had heard, Israel was not serious about peace. He stressed that the main issues -- the status of Jerusalem, borders, and refugees -- should form the agenda of any future talks. Another crucial question was that of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. To negotiate while Israel continued to build settlements ‑‑ thereby changing the demographic and geographic character of the Occupied Palestinian Territory –- meant such negotiations would end in failure.

He went on to say that the Arab Peace Initiative contained an important provision stipulating that normalization and recognition must be accompanied by steps by the two parties to fulfill their obligations. However, Israel had decided not to stop building settlements and to take Jerusalem out of the equation. Faced with those extremely negative policies and practices, the Arabs could not be asked or expected to make any concessions.

Regarding the Goldstone report on Gaza, Moussa said the investigation had been authorized by the Human Rights Council and would be formally presented to it this week. Prepared by a well-respected jurist from South Africa, the report contained facts and referred, among other things, to the use of prohibited weapons and a disproportionate military response. Now, it was up to the Human Rights Council to decide on recommendations.

To a question about the prospects for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, Mr. Moussa said that, while he was not prepared to comment on the latest news stories about Iran without reading a full report on the matter, he could say that the region did not need any military nuclear program, be it Iranian, Israeli or anybody else’s. The concept of a nuclear-weapons-free zone should apply equally to all countries of the region. At the same time, one could not and should not stop any member of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) from benefiting from peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Iran should not be deprived of that right.

Safe haven for sharks.

President Johnson Toribiong of Palau announced on September 25th the creation of the first national sanctuary for sharks, encompassing the country’s entire exclusive economic zone, an area roughly the size of France.

“The physical well-being and beauty of sharks reflect the health of the oceans,” he declared at a Headquarters press conference as he invited the world to join in protecting a species on the brink of extinction. He was accompanied by Stuart Beck, Permanent Representative of Palau, who presented photographs of slaughtered sharks taken on an unlicensed Taiwanese fishing vessel illegally “finning” in Palau’s waters, stripping captured sharks of their fins, which are used in shark fin soup. The boat had been intercepted by Palau’s single patrol boat and a case was pending in court against its captain and crew. One wonders how a single patrol boat can watch over an area of the sea the size of France. And whenever safe areas are mentioned, one is likely to be reminded of the UN safe area in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Muslims were supposed to by safe from the Serb forces, only to find thousands of them slaughtered near Srebeniza.
President Toribiong said the sanctuary would permit sharks, a species that had roamed the oceans since before the time of the dinosaurs, to live and breed unmolested. That was of particular importance since sharks only bred late in life and produced few offspring, making them unsuited to commercial exploitation.

Also in attendance was Matt Rand, Director of Global Shark Conservation for the Pew Environment Group, who said the full consequences of such a loss were not yet well understood, but they would undoubtedly be extremely detrimental. Up to 38 per cent of shark species were now threatened or near-threatened with extinction, and there was insufficient information to determine the status of another 35 per cent. More than 100 million sharks were being removed from the world’s oceans annually.

President Toribiong said all marine life was interconnected, and killing one species would create a negative domino effect. Mr. Rand noted that Palau was a hot spot for marine biodiversity and sharks, and he hoped its actions to prevent the killing of sharks in its territorial waters would inspire other nations to end shark finning globally and implement the United Nations plan of actions on the species. While there were currently no limits on shark fishing, the Pew Environment Group planned to work with inter-national regional fishery management organizations to set limits on the number of sharks that could be caught on the high seas.

In response to questions about climate change, the President described the devastation caused by rising tides to low-lying areas and islands of Palau, including the flooding of taro fields, which endangered a basic staple of the national diet, as well as homes by sea water. This is a problem for many other low-lying islands, such as Manhattan, home of UN Headquarters and two million people.

We’ll be back with the next issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. Meantime, do send you own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

September 21, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
9/21/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: General Assembly session begins; financial crisis analysed; British human rights practice.

The 64th session of the UN General Assembly opened last Tuesday, September 15th, Battle of Britain Day. From the 23rd to the 30th, there will be “general debate,” the time when a representative of Member States may present issues of importance to that them. Heads of state or government frequently appear, and the presidents of the US and Iran are expected. On the 18th, the General Assembly adopted its work program for the session, consisting of 160 agenda items.

Among the topics to be considered are nine new agenda items, one of which –- agriculture development and food security -– would be included under the heading of “Promotion of sustained economic growth and sustainable development in accordance with the relevant solutions of the General Assembly and recent United Nations conferences”.

The other new items to be considered are: Global health and foreign policy; Cooperation between the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; Observer status for the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission; Observer status for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in the General Assembly; Observer status for the International Olympic Committee; Cooperation between the United Nations and the Collective Security Treaty Organization; Sixty-fifth anniversary of the end of the Second World War; and Observer Status for the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region of Africa.
The Assembly also decided to allocate to its plenary and Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), the report of the Human Rights Council, on the understanding that the Committee consider and act on all of the Council’s recommendations, including those dealing with the development of international law in the field of human rights, without prejudice to States’ rights to present resolutions and decisions on all issues in the report.

The relevant UN press release states that, in the Assembly’s plenary consideration of the report, it would be understood that the current agreement was in no way a reinterpretation of resolution 60/251 (2006) and that it would be reviewed before the start of the sixty-fifth session. Resolution 60/251 was what created the Human Rights Council.

The Assembly decided that its current 64th session would recess on Tuesday, 15 December 2009, and close on Monday, 13 September 2010. In earlier times, an Assembly session would close in December, but now it is held open all year.

The Assembly also set the meeting schedule for its Main Committees. During the main part of the session, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) would complete its work by Tuesday, 3 November; the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) by Wednesday, 11 November; the Sixth Committee (Legal) by Thursday, 12 November; the Second (Economic and Financial) and Third Committees (Social, Humani-tarian and Cultural) by Tuesday, 24 November; and the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) by Friday, 11 December 2009.

Financial crisis analysed.

According to UN press release ECO/166, the severity and pervasive character of the economic crisis continues to push millions of people into poverty and is reversing some of the hard-won development gains of the past decade, states a new United Nations report on the impact of the crisis. The release of the report precedes the meeting of the G-20, which is scheduled to take place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Both forums will address the issue of the continuing crisis and the report will provide a powerful reminder of the important work ahead of the international community to protect not only the poor and vulnerable but also the increasing number of middle class families slipping into poverty.

The new UN report, entitled Voices of the Vulnerable: the Economic Crisis from the Ground Up, provides a sobering picture of how the crisis is affecting people and households around the world. The key message of the report is that, while we may be seeing the “green shoots” of recovery, the economic crisis is not over for hundreds of millions of people around the globe.

The report is part of a larger United Nations initiative called the Global Impact and Vulnerability Alert System, referred to as GIVAS. GIVAS is being developed to provide early, real-time data to the inter-national community on how external shocks, such as the economic crisis, are affecting the welfare of the vulnerable and poor. GIVAS will fill the infor-mation gap that currently exists between the time when a global crisis impacts vulnerable populations and when decision makers get information through existing channels.

As part of the new initiative to monitor and draw attention to emerging crises, the report provides a realistic assessment of the social and economic impact of the current crisis and highlights key areas to watch. The report warns that the “near poor” are in danger of becoming the “new poor”. It also cites estimates that, due to the crisis, 100 million more people are likely to have been pushed below the poverty line. Global unemployment could also increase by up to 61 million between 2007 and 2009.

Over the past year, the report finds, there has been an increase of 100 million people suffering from hunger, while infant mortality may increase by an additional 200,000 to 400,000 each year from now to 2015, if the crisis persists. The evidence, drawn primarily from the data collected and analysed by the broader United Nations system, also indicates that “the clock is running out on the coping strategies of the vulnerable and poor. Many options, such as dipping into savings or selling assets, have been exhausted by previous crises or were non-existent in the first place,” says the Secretary-General on the dangers facing poor and vulnerable communities.

The report warns that we need to be on the watch for new red flags that may signal further trouble. Policymakers need to watch for the further spread and evolution of the H1N1 influenza pandemic to countries already devastated by the economic crisis or the onset of new natural disasters that may be the last straw breaking the back of overstretched populations and Governments.

As of September 23rd, the report and supporting materials will be available online at www.voicesofthevulnerable.net.

British Human Rights Practice.

Every four years, each UN Member State in turn is being scrutinized by the members of the Human Rights Council, which since the spring has included for the first time the US. Our turn to be asked by the Council about our own human rights practices, in what is called Universal Periodic Review (UPR), will be coming up soon. Many countries have already been cross-examined, among them the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The culmination of UPR is the issuance of a report of the working group on the Universal Periodic Review, sub-titled “Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review.” That of the UK includes some interesting revela-tions. For instance: “14. Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia, a United Kingdom Overseas Territory, had not been used for rendi-tion flights, recent United States investigations have now revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when this had in fact occurred.” A/HRC/8/25/Add.1 at 3. This was in response to a question put to the UK by Russia.

In response to a Sri Lankan inquiry, the UK said: “17. There is no popular or political pressure within the United Kingdom for a referendum on the subject of a written constitution. The Government supports the Monarchy and the continuation of The Queen as the head of state. The Monarchy is the oldest institution of Government in Britain. It has existed longer than Parliament itself, and the Government believes that the present constitutional arrangements continue to be relevant to today’s society. It is a vital element in our constitution, personifying both national and Commonwealth unity.” Id. at 4.

Algeria’s urging that the UK “put an end to the so-called ‘painful techniques’ applied to children” was rebuffed in one sentence: “55. The United Kingdom does not accept the recommendation with regard to so-called ‘painful techniques’ applied to children.” Id. at 9.

Algeria was also rebuffed as follows when it recommended that the UK “facili-tate access by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to its prisons.” “65. United Kingdom prisons are subject to independent professional inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Prisons, by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and by the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture). In view of the range of national and international monitoring bodies that have unimpeded access to places of detention in the United Kingdom, the Government is not convinced of the added benefit of allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to access its prisons.” Id. at 10-11.

That’s all for this September 21st issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send your own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

September 14, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
9/14/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: unanimity on protecting the ozone layer; WHO on swine flu prevention; UN state-of-the-art public relations.

Unanimity on protecting the ozone layer.

A remarkable event in treaty-making happened on September 11th. On that day, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol became unique among hundreds of treaties deposited with the UN Secretary-General. Unique in that they have achieved universal participation. This came with the accession to the Convention and Protocol by the world’s youngest democracy, Timor-Leste.

The Secretary-General noted in a statement for the September 16th International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer that: “Accumu-lating evidence indicates that the phase-out of substances known as chloro-fluorocarbons, or CFCs, has since 1990 alleviated the progression of climate change by as much as 12 years.” SG/SM/12449-OBV/808.

Mr. Ban made the point that, “The International Day for the Preserva-tion of the Ozone Layer comes some 80 days before the Copenhagen climate conference. Governments must use that occasion to seal the deal on an ambitious, comprehensive and equitable new climate agreement. Without action on climate change, the world faces profound social, economic and environmental disruption. The example of the Montreal Protocol sends a powerful message that action on major global challenges is not only possible, but that the financial and human benefits invariably outweigh the costs.”

Mr. Ban seems to have staked the success of his term as UN Secretary-General on adoption of effective anti-global-climate-change measures much to the same extent as US President Obama seems to have staked the success of his Presidency on passage of effective health care reform. Ban has sought to dramatize his intense concern by steps like visiting the Arctic and Antarctic to see first-hand the melting of ice that had been hard as rock for hundreds or thousands of years.
Yet what dramatized the melting of the Arctic ice cap as much as anything else was the view published last week that in this century it may be possible for ocean-going ships, not just ice-breakers, to navigate both the northwest and northeast passages. Thus vessels could pass between the Atlantic and the Pacific by passing to the north of Canada or north of Siberia. How much the level of the world’s oceans would rise from the melting of so much of the Arctic ice cap would be hard to calculate, but certainly some low-lying islands would be inundated and disappear.

WHO on swine flu prevention.

On September 11th the World Health Organization issued its Pandemic (H1 N1) 2009 briefing note 10, dealing with measures in school settings, which stated in part:

“WHO is today issuing advice on measures that can be undertaken in schools to reduce the impact of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Recommen-dations draw on recent experiences in several countries as well as studies of the health, economic, and social consequences of school closures. These studies were undertaken by members of a WHO informal network for mathematical modeling of the pandemic.

“Experience to date has demonstrated the role of schools in amplify-ing transmission of the pandemic virus, both within schools and into the wider community. While outbreaks in schools are clearly an important dimension of the current pandemic, no single measure can stop or limit transmission in schools, which provide multiple opportunities for spread of the virus.

“WHO recommends the use of a range of measures that can be adapted to the local epidemiological situation, available resources, and the social role played by many schools. National and local authorities are in the best position to make decisions about these measures and how they should be adapted and implemented.

“WHO continues to recommend that students, teachers, and other staff who feel unwell should stay home. Plans should be in place, and space made available, to isolate students and staff who become ill while at school.

“Schools should promote hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette and be stocked with appropriate supplies. Proper cleaning and ventilation and measures to reduce crowding are also advised.

“Decisions about if and when schools should be closed during the pandemic are complex and highly context-specific. WHO cannot provide specific recommendations for or against school closure that are applicable to all settings. However, some general guidance comes from recent experience in several countries in both the northern and southern hemispheres, mathe-matical modeling, and experience during seasonal epidemics of influenza.

“School closure can operate as a proactive measure, aimed at reducing transmission in the school and spread into the wider community. School closure can also be a reactive measure, when schools close or classes are suspended because high levels of absenteeism among students and staff make it impractical to continue classes.

“The main health benefit of proactive school closure comes from slowing down the spread of an outbreak within a given area and thus flattening the peak of infections. This benefit becomes especially important when the number of people requiring medical care at the peak of the pandemic threatens to saturate or overwhelm health care capacity. By slowing the speed of spread, school closure can also buy some time as countries intensify preparedness measures or build up supplies of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and other interventions.

“The timing of school closure is critically important. Modeling studies suggest that school closure has its greatest benefits when schools are closed very early in an outbreak, ideally before 1% of the population falls ill. Under ideal conditions, school closure can reduce the demand for health care by an estimated 30–50% at the peak of the pandemic. However, if schools close too late in the course of a community-wide outbreak, the resulting reduction in transmission is likely to be very limited.

“Policies for school closure need to include measures that limit contact among students when not in school. If students congregate in a setting other than a school, they will continue to spread the virus, and the benefits of school closure will be greatly reduced, if not negated.

“When making decisions, health officials and school authorities need to be aware of economic and social costs that can be disproportionately high when viewed against these potential benefits.

“The main economic cost arises from absenteeism of working parents or guardians who have to stay home to take care of their children. Studies estimate that school closures can lead to the absence of 16% of the work-force, in addition to normal levels of absenteeism and absenteeism due to illness. Such estimates will, however, vary considerably across countries depending on several factors, including the structure of the workforce.

“Paradoxically, while school closure can reduce the peak demand on health care systems, it can also disrupt the provision of essential health care, as many doctors and nurses are parents of school-age children.

“Decisions also need to consider social welfare issues. Children’s health and well-being can be compromised if highly beneficial school-based social programs, such as the provision of meals, are interrupted or if young children are left at home without supervision.”

UN state-of-the-art public relations.

The Democracy Video Challenge, a worldwide online competition that engages people around the world in a global dialogue on democracy, will launch the six winning videos in a ceremony marking the International Day of Democracy on Tuesday, 15 September, at 10:30 a.m. in the Main Gallery of the Visitors’ Lobby.

Speakers at the launch will include Kiyo Akasaka, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, and Jeremy Curtin, Coordinator, Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State.

The Challenge asks people around the world to create short videos that complete the phrase, “Democracy is ….” By calling for user-generated material and by providing a platform for various points of view, the Democ-racy Video Challenge is an example of how to engage and to listen to people around the world on this important theme.

Over 900 contestants from 95 countries submitted videos, and the online voting public selected the Challenge’s 2009 class of winners. The six regional winners are from Brazil, Nepal, Philippines, Poland, United Arab Emirates and Zambia. Each of the winning videos captures a different vision of democracy in today’s world and incorporates thought-provoking creative elements, ranging from an animated short film about life without free ex-pression, to a rap documentary on the importance of sound leadership.

The Challenge’s second cycle begins on 15 September 2009. Submis-sions will be accepted until midnight GMT on 31 January 2010. The contest site at: www.youtube.com/videochallenge.

On 8 November 2007, the General Assembly proclaimed 15 September as the International Day of Democracy, which provides an opportunity to review annually the state of democracy in the world.

“…experience has taught us, time and again, that democracy is essential to achieving our fundamental goals of peace, human rights and development”, remarked United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the General Assembly on the first International Day of Democracy last year.

This display is organized by the United States Department of State, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of the United States to the United Nations. UN Note No. 6216.

Last week an article by John Heilprin (AP) reported that organizers of the UN’s September 22 climate summit had asked some world leaders to tape video statements for release on the summit web site and on YouTube. US President Obama is expected to participate in the summit and to speak on live TV.

That’s all for this September 14th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. Please share your own view on UN matters at www.unweek.blogspot.com

Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

September 7, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
9/7/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unitednationsweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: protection for the disabled; Global Seed Vault; climate change action.

Protection for the disabled.

On September 2nd, UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro told the opening of the Second Conference of States Parties to the Conven-tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York that she was:

“glad to note that while this is a Conference of States Parties, there is also ample representation today by other Member States and by civil society, particularly organizations of persons with disabilities.

“Since the entry into force of the Convention in May 2008, 66 countries have ratified the Convention and 44 have ratified its Optional Protocol. I am also pleased to acknowledge the 142 States that have signaled their commitment by becoming signatories to the Convention.

“The Convention gives us a solid normative basis for advancing the human rights of the 650 million women, men and children around the world who live with disabilities –- and for enabling their full participation and inclusion in society.

“Today’s gathering is devoted to legislative measures to implement the Convention. Indeed, legislative measures and their monitoring is an integral part of the implementation strategy. It is encouraging that a significant number of countries have already adopted new legislation and policies in line with the Convention or modified existing legislation. I urge all participants to use today’s session to share experiences and exchange ideas for action.

“This is a time of multiple, grave global challenges to development –- and therefore to the well-being of millions of persons with disabilities throughout the world. I urge all Member States to continue their efforts towards signing, ratifying and implementing this important Convention and its Protocol without delay. The United Nations is ready to support those efforts at the international, regional and national levels, including through the Inter-Agency Support Group for the Convention, which is finalizing a draft common strategy and plan of action.” DSG/SM/467-HR/4999.

Also on September 2nd, Kareem Dale, Special Assistant to President Obama for Disability Policy, stated that he was: “delighted that we are holding this second session of the Conference of States Parties to the Con-vention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And I am deeply honored to be the first representative of the United States to be here with you all. “A few weeks ago, I had the great privilege of being present when Ambassador Rice signed this treaty—the first new human rights convention of the 21st century. It enlarges the circle of liberty and equality to more fully include the 650 million people around the globe—one tenth of the world’s population—who live with a disability. The principles that guide the Convention are powerful ones: a respect for inherent human dignity, worth, independence, and autonomy; the rejection of discrimination; the shield of equal protection and benefits under law; the call for full participation and inclusion in society; an insistence on equality of opportunity and accessi-bility; a respect for difference and an embrace of diversity.

“These principles resonate profoundly in U.S. disabilities legislation. More than one in five Americans lives with a disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has become a bill of rights for millions of citizens, giving legal force to some of the strongest national protections against discrimination in the world. An important legislative follow-up, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, provides even more powerful guarantees of the rights of citizens living with disabilities. Above all, the ADA remains the achievement of the community of activists who fought vigorously and bravely for the rights and autonomy of persons with disabilities. And it remains a reminder that the shackles that hold us back can be broken, not just endured.

“As President Obama has noted, disability rights are not just civil rights to be enforced at home. They are universal rights to be promoted around the world. So on July 30, Ambassador Rice had the high honor of signing the UN Convention on behalf of the United States—and taking another step on the great and ongoing American journey toward liberty and equality for all. We are proud to join the 141 other UN member states that have also signed this important document. And I hope the Senate will give the Convention swift consideration and approval once President Obama submits it for advice and consent.

“My colleagues and I are looking forward to our work together, both over the years ahead and during this week’s Conference. In keeping with this year’s theme, with its emphasis on legislation and implementation, the Uni-ted States will present a panel discussion entitled “Addressing Challenges in Defining Disabilities: Legislating Workable Definitions.” The panel will focus on the ADA Restoration Act and will feature presentations from the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and the Equal Employment Opportu-nity Commission. This discussion will take place today, during the lunch period, in Conference Room 5. We hope to see many of you there.

“But our work together must go on beyond these halls too. For all the progress of recent decades, for all the promise this Convention holds, we all still have much more to do. As President Obama has noted, persons with disabilities still often cannot choose the communities in which they live. They often find that affordable, high-quality health care is out of reach. They are more likely to be unemployed. They are far more likely to live in poverty. And in developing nations, 90 percent of children with disabilities do not attend school.

“As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has noted, discrimina-tion against people with disabilities is not simply unjust. It also hinders eco-nomic development, limits democracy, burdens families, and erodes socie-ties.

“So we turn ourselves to defend the human rights of citizens with disabilities both because it is wise and because it is just. Let our efforts serve to guarantee the inherent dignity, worth, and independence of all persons with disabilities worldwide. Let our efforts serve as an ongoing source of inspiration to all who cherish the ideals of dignity and equality. And let our efforts serve as a lasting reminder that, when we work together, old barriers can come tumbling down.”
Global Seed Vault

On the same day that the Deputy Secretary-General was delivering the remarks quoted above, Mr. Ban was in Longyearbyen, Norway, where he said: “It is even much, much colder than in the Arctic! I am frozen. The temperature is -15°!

“It is a great experience and a unique opportunity for me to visit the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. It is a great privilege for me and thanks to my gracious Norwegian host, Minister [for Agriculture and Food Lars Peder] Brekk, for the tour of this one-of-a-kind structure built deep in the Arctic permafrost. And thanks to this, my lips are frozen!

“The world faces many daunting challenges today, one of the greatest of which is how to feed a growing world population in the context of climate change. Food security is a top United Nations priority and I have established a High-Level Task Force on Food Security in April last year.
“This is a very creative initiative to fight for food security in the face of climate change in a much longer term. The seeds stored here in Svalbard will help us do just that. They come from virtually every country in the world. They contain the essential characteristics that plant breeders and farmers will need to ensure that crops become climate-ready and even more productive.

“Sustainable food production may not begin in this cold Arctic environment, but it does begin by conserving crop diversity. No country can manage this huge task by itself. I’m glad that this Seed Vault provides back-up protection for collections held by every country. This is an essential global insurance policy for the international community within the frame-work of the FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

“On behalf of the international community, I wish to express my gratitude to the Government of Norway and its partners, the Global Crop Diversity Trust and NordGen, for the remarkable accomplishment of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. This gift to humanity and symbol of peace will continue to inspire and serve for generations to come.” SG/SM/12432.

Climate change action.

Also on September 3rd, the Secretary-General addressed the Third World Climate Conference in Geneva, including these words:

“The Copenhagen climate change meeting is less than three months away. Indeed it is closer than that. We have only 15 negotiating days left before we meet in Copenhagen. Fifteen days to resolve some of the most complex issues. Fifteen days to find common cause. Fifteen days to seal a deal. A deal that is ambitious, comprehensive and fair. A deal based on sound science. A deal that will underpin sound policy.

“I have just been in the Arctic. I witnessed the sober reality of change with my own eyes. I would like to express my deep gratitude first of all to the Government of Norway for making this fact-finding mission possible and for their strong leadership on climate change.

“The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. It may be virtually ice-free by 2030. It has been said that the Arctic is our barometer –- the canary in the coal mine. But it is much more than that. Changes in the Arctic are accelerating global climate change.
“Many of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more distant scenarios are happening now. Instead of reflecting heat, the Arctic is absorbing it as the sea ice diminishes, thus speeding up global warming. Methane, trapped in permafrost and on the sea bed, is escaping into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Increased melt from the Greenland ice-cap threatens to raise sea levels and alter the flow of the Gulf Stream that keeps Europe warm.

“Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss. Science must drive our response to climate change. Let us not waste the knowledge our scientists are giving to us. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Indeed they are accelerating.

“We are not just changing the environment. Climate change is altering the geopolitical landscape. We see this in the new scramble for Arctic resources as the North-west and North-east passages open up. We see it in increased migration from the drylands that are home to 2 billion people. And we see it in rising sea levels.

“By the end of this century, sea levels may rise between half a metre and 2 metres. Sixty million people live within 1 metre of sea level already. By the end of the century, that number will exceed 130 million. People in the great river deltas of Africa and Asia. People on low-lying small islands. Citizens of major coastal cities: Cairo, Karachi, Calcutta, Belem, New Orleans, Shanghai, Tokyo, Amsterdam. What will they do when storm surges push the sea inland? Where will they go?

“What will the people of South Asia, South-east Asia and China do when water supplies from the Himalayas dry up? These countries are home to nearly half the world’s population. What will African farmers do when the rains fail or floods wash away their crops?

“Adaptation deserves as much attention as mitigation in the climate negotiations.

“Scientists have been accused, for years, of scaremongering. But the real scaremongers are those who say we cannot afford climate action -– that it will hold back economic growth. They are wrong. Climate change could spell widespread economic disaster.

“The answer lies in green growth –- sustainable growth. We need a policy that puts a price on carbon. Policy that will send a strong market signal to businesses that are pioneering a low-carbon future. We need a global public investment programme for renewable energy. We need technology transfer for energy efficiency. We need creative solutions to protect forests and other ecosystems that soak up carbon emissions.

“The IPCC estimates that investment now to achieve our emissions targets would represent just 2 per cent of annual global gross domestic product (GDP) between now and 2030. Such an investment will bring many other benefits. Less pollution. Better public health. Improved food security. Less risk of mass migration and political instability. More green jobs.

“Yet, despite the evidence, despite the science, despite the growing calls from enlightened businesses, we still face inertia. We are seeing only limited progress in the climate negotiations. I repeat, we have 15 negotiating days left until Copenhagen. We cannot afford limited progress. We need rapid progress.

“That is why, in two weeks, the United Nations will convene a climate change summit in New York. I appreciate that national leaders have pressing domestic agendas. But these challenging times require national leaders to act as global leaders. They should look beyond their national boundaries.

“I am therefore heartened to see the many leaders who have chosen to be here today and I thank all these distinguished Heads of State and Govern-ment for their commitment. In New York, I expect candid and constructive discussions. I expect serious bridge building. I expect strong outcomes. Political support for climate change [action] is growing. But still not fast enough. Science tells us that current commitments fall far short of what is needed.
“We need to act in five key areas. First, we need to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. In particular, we must assist the poorest and most vulnerable, especially the least developed countries and many small island developing countries. They need significant fast-track funding for adaptation -- now. Second, recognizing the need for consensus on an upper limit for temperature rise, we need ambitious midterm mitigation targets by developed countries.

“Third, developing countries need to act to slow the growth of their emissions. Many are working towards this already. But to do more, they need predictable financial and technological support. This is my fourth point. Fifth, all institutional arrangements and governance structures under a new climate regime must address the needs of developing countries.

“The list is long. Time is very short. We have unleashed powerful and unpredictable forces whose impact is already very visible. I have seen it for myself in the Arctic.

“I visited Antarctica two years ago. I have been visiting all the places around the world where I could experience for myself the negative, very alarming consequences as a result of climate change. I was in Brazil to see the impact of deforestation in the Amazon River rainforest. I was in Chad to see the impact of desertification on Lake Chad. I was in Bangladesh [to see] how we can prevent disasters, if we make some necessary preparations for disaster risk reductions. We need creative ideas, creative commitments.

“This Conference is dedicated to giving policymakers the scientific information they need. It is an important job. Climate policy must be based on sound science. But let me say clearly: we know what the problem is. We know what we must do. Now is the time to do it. Now is our moment.

“We need a deal in Copenhagen that will enable deep cuts in emissions, that promotes green growth, that will provide the resources and structures needed for adaptation. We will pay a high price if we do not act and if we do not invest now. The cost of inaction today will be far greater than the cost of action tomorrow, not just [for] future generations, but for this generation too.

“I have been urging leaders of the world to act now, not only as national leaders but as the leaders of the world, as global leaders. We have to deliver this planet Earth to our succeeding generations so that they can live in a more hospitable world and in an environmentally sustainable way. That is your moral and political and even historical responsibility.

“We cannot fail. Let us work together to seal the deal in Copenhagen. I count on your commitment and I count on your strong political leadership.” SG/SM/12433-ENV/DEV/1065.

That’s all for this September 7th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We will be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send us your own views on any UN-related subject. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

August 31, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
8/31/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unitednationsweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: mining native peoples’ lands.

All too few Americans are familiar with the problem between the Navajo Nation and the Peabody Coal Company in Arizona. I came across it years ago when the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission assigned me to look into problems between the Navajo and Hopi peoples in Arizona.
The Company was mining coal very economically because veins of the black fuel lay near the surface in parts of a reservation. But how to get it from there to a point many miles to the west where it could be used effect-ively, that was the problem.

Coal could be moved by railroad car, but there was no railroad anywhere near Peabody’s mines. Coal can be moved by truck but that requires roads of sufficient strength and also expensive vehicles. So Peabody thought of an easier way -- wash it along in a large water pipe. A big pipe is cheaper to build than a highway, but you do need water, lots of it. The coal must be in the form of slurry in order for it to flow along through the pipe. And that part of Arizona is extremely dry, close to being a desert.

The answer Peabody came up with was to tap the fresh water aquifers that lie under the parched surface of Navajo and Hopi lands. Enormous quantities of precious water were extracted and mixed with coal to create a slurry able to be washed through a pipe for long distances. Water drawn from aquifers lying under dry lands will not be replenished when rain is so infrequent.

This unsustainable waste of precious water was apparently approved by the Navajo Nation and by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the US Depart-ment of the Interior? On the face of it, such blatant misuse of virtually non-renewable resources should have been prevented.

You may not be aware that problems of this kind were explored last December at a UN workshop hosted in Moscow by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North and Far East (RAIPON). A report on the workshop reached me last week from the Geneva Office of the UN High Commis-sioner for Human Rights. The report bears the title “Natural Resource Companies, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights: Setting a Framework for Consultation, Benefit-Sharing and Dispute Resolution.”

Case studies are described in the report. For example, “9. The representative of Hydro-OGK (Rosgidro) presented the case of a large-scale hydroelectric project due to be developed in the period 2017-2018 in the Siberian region. The area to be affected is inhabited by about 7,000 Evenk indigenous people, many of whom live traditionally as reindeer herders. Public hearings had begun but not environmental impact assessment had yet been made. At present, there was no dialogue with the indigenous peoples, which was a source of frustration, since the project needed to be advanced in 2009. He argued that the project was essential to the long-term energy need of the Russian Federation. He also pointed out that the local communities had few job opportunities and would benefit from economic activities of the company. Pavel Sulyandziga, representing RAIPON, indicated that discussions with the company had been attempted three years previously, but without results, and that trust between the company and indigenous peoples was low. He stated that the Evenk were being removed from their lands without any say and their traditional way of life would be affected.” A/HRC/EMRIP/2009/5 at 4. Among other surprises to me is that environmental impact assessments seem to be normal prerequisites to large Russian construction projects.

A case in New Calendonia was described as follows: “11. The authorities of France had given a nickel mining concession in Goro in the south of the island to the company Inco through a subsidiary company, Goro Nickel, in 1992. In 1999, the company began construction of the mine and infrastructure. According to Mr. Mapou, there ensued serious conflicts with the company, which led in turn to confrontations with the police and army. In 2006, the Kanak decided to internationalize their case and also make use of French environmental laws in the courts to oppose the operations of the company. The courts decided in favor of the Kanak. It was at about this time that Inco was taken over by Vale to form a new company, Vale Inco, which sought a more conciliatory approach. Following several years of negotia-tions, an agreement was reached between Vale Inco and the afftected indigenous peoples.” Id. at 4.

The final paragraph of the report brings back a flood of memories when it paraphrases “the representative of Greece, Ms. Daes.” Erica Daes is a formidable woman, a dynamic leader and an outspoken champion of the rights of indigenous peoples. She and I once conducted what was supposed to have been a joint study of problems involving the Navajo and Hopi peoples. Since we did not agree on that situation, we each turned in a separate report to the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission.

“20. In Canada, indigenous peoples have rights established under the Constitution, including a special fiduciary relationship with the federal Government and the protection of treaty or land claims agreements. A number of court cases have affirmed the ownership rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and resource development. In the case presented by Isabelle Pain, who negotiated the agreement for her community and also represented the company Vale Inco, the Innu and Inuit indigenous communi-ties were negotiating a land claims agreement with the Government at the time when nickel was discovered. The recognition of indigenous and company interests was achieved even though a final land claims agreement had not been reached.

“21. Ms. Pain noted that the involvement of indigenous peoples in the environmental assessment to consider the possible impact of the proposed nickel mine was critical to success. The impact and benefits agreements negotiations identified specific concerns of indigenous peoples related to their cultural practices and traditional relationship with the lands and livelihoods, and also served as a tool to build trusting relations with the company. The community wanted training, employment and business opportunities as well as involvement in environmental matters. One issue of particular concern was the proposed transport arrangements by ship, which in the winter months would mean breaking the sea ice that was considered vital for harvesting by the indigenous community.”

“22. The agreement took seven years to negotiate and was voted on by the local Innu and Inuit communities, with more than 75 per cent voting in favor. The agreement includes a compensation package administered through a trust, employment opportunities with the objective of hiring 50 per cent of the workforce from the local communities (54 per cent of the work force is now indigenous), workplace conditions that take into account cultural diversity, such as a cultural leave policy, business opportunities for site services, air transportation and maintenance, and a role for indigenous governments in environmental protection. The impact and benefits agreements contain a dispute resolution mechanism, which begins with discussions by a joint implementation committee and can be referred upwards to the president of the company and the chiefs of the Innu and Inuit communities, and, if necessary, to the courts. To date, disputes have been resolved by the communities.”

These examples, brought up in the Moscow meeting last December show how far behind other countries we in the US have been in our relations with our Native American neighbors in matters of resource development and environmental impact assessment. Unfortunately, we in this country too often fail to look at how problems are dealt with abroad. We can learn a lot be being less ego-centric and more open minded.

That’s all for this August 31st issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send your own views to us at either J_PCarey@verizon.net or www.unitednationsweek.blog spot.com. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

August 24, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
8/24/09 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unitednationsweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Iran and B’nai B’rith complain about Durban outcome; right of children to be heard.

On April 27th Iran told the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that “2) * * * The final document [of the Durban Review Conference] suffers particularly from the lack of substantive reference to the racist policies of the Zionist regime exercised against the Palestinian people under protracted occupation; policies and actions that culminated in the latest brutal massacres against the Palestinians in Gaza and should have been condemned in the strongest term.

“3) The final document, to the contrary, singles out the question of the Holocaust in an inappropriate manner and as a special case. It is unfortunate that different suggestions, asking for the deletion of the said reference or combining it with other cases, were rejected.

“4) Moreover, the final document lacks sufficient reference to the issue of ‘defamation of religions’. Under the circumstances where the Conference recognizes with concern the global rise and the number of incidents of racial and religious intolerance, especially against Islam, it is unfortunate that it disregards the necessity and appropriateness of reflecting this important issue.” A/HRC/11/G/2 at 2.

On April 24th the following exchange took place according to the summary record:

“79. Mr. Heideman (Observer for the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations), speaking also on behalf of B’nai B’rith International (BBI), said that the World Conference had been marred and fundamentally discredited by the anti-Semitic outrages perpetrated by NGOs surrounding the event. However, the Review Conference would forever be remembered – and blemished – by the hate speech delivered at its podium by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who had been accorded the honor of first place among high-level speakers and had been applauded by an organized claque of delegates. That Head of State had even seen fit to contravene General Assembly resolution 61/255, on Holocaust denial.

“80. The President reminded delegates to use respectful language when referring to a Head of State.

“81. Mr. Rezvani (Islamic Republic of Iran), speaking on a point of order, said that the NGO whose observer had just spoken had violated established procedure by failing to use respectful language when referring to a Head of State and by mentioning a particular State by name. * * *

“86. The President said that a President could not guarantee that such an incident would not happen again. He could only reiterate his appeal to non-governmental observers to use dignified and respectful language and request delegations not to waste time on points of order.” A/CONF.211/ SR/10.

Right of children to be heard.

At the 51st (May-June) session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, C RC/C/GC/12, the Committee’s General Comment No. 12 (2009) was issued, consisting of a 31-page analysis and discussion of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides:

“1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

“2. For this purpose the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.”

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by the United States on February 16, 1995, but never ratified.

That is all for this abbreviated August 24, 2009, issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We will be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send us your own views, either to J_PCarey@verizon.net or to www.unweek.blogspot.com.

August 17, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
8/17/09 TV Program Notes
Rye NY Channels 76 and 33
Greenwich CT Channel __
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unitednationsweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: United Nations observances.

During its sixty-third session, the General Assembly declared 19 August each year as World Humanitarian Day, to increase public awareness about humanitarian assistance activities worldwide and to honor all United Nations and other humanitarian workers, including those who have lost their lives in the cause of duty.

The Assembly has also proclaimed 2011 the International Year of Chemistry, designating the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as lead agency and focal point for the Year. It has also designated 22 April each year as International Mother Earth Day and 8 June as World Oceans Day.

The Assembly is currently observing International Year of Human Rights Learning, which began on 10 December 2008 and marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. On or around 10 December 2009, it will hold a special plenary meeting to review activities undertaken during the Year.

Also this year, the Assembly began observing 20 February as the World Day of Social Justice.
During 2009, the Assembly marks the International Year of Reconciliation, to highlight the necessity of reconciliation processes in societies affected by conflicts. Observing that natural fibers, an important source of income for farmers, can play an important role in improving food security and eradicating poverty, it declared 2009 the International Year of Natural Fibers. To promote widespread access to the fruits of astronomical observation, the Assembly is also observing 2009 as the International Year of Astronomy.

During 2010, the Assembly focuses attention on the importance of mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue, with the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures, and on the continued loss of biodiversity, with the International Year of Biodiversity. In support of the International Year of Biodiversity, the Assembly will also hold a one-day high-level meeting during its sixty-fifth session, in 2010, with the participation of Heads of State, Governments and delegations.

The year will also mark the beginning of the United Nations Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification (2010-2020). The contribution of forests to sustainable development, poverty eradication and development will be highlighted in 2011, which has been declared the International Year of Forests.

The Assembly will hold a number of high-level meetings during 2009, including one day during its sixty-fourth session to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, which met in Cairo from 5 to 13 September 1994.
On 24 September 2009, the Assembly will commemorate the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) on its sixtieth anniversary at a high-level meeting to be convened at United Nations Headquarters. It is encouraging the participation of Member States at the ministerial level.

The fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Fifth Session of the Meeting of the Parties to The Convention’s Kyoto Protocol will meet at Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December 2009.
Recognizing the importance of the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia, the Assembly welcomed the convening of an international conference on the problem of uranium tailings, to be held in Bishkek in 2009. It welcomed Turkmenistan’s initiative to convene a high-level international conference in 2009 to discuss the issue of ensuring the reliable and stable transportation of energy to international markets. And it welcomed the offer by the Russian Federation to host and provide the necessary financial support for the first global high-level (ministerial) conference on road safety, to be held in 2009.

The Assembly has decided to convene the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries at a high level in 2011, with an intergovernmental preparatory committee towards the end of 2010 and/or early in 2011.

On or around 5 December 2011, the International Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development, the Assembly will devote two plenary meetings to follow up on the International Year of Volunteers and to commemorate its tenth anniversary.

The Assembly has also invited Member States to observe in 2011 the twentieth anniversary of the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in Kazakhstan, by conducting events and functions to provide the international community with information on the deteriorating consequences of nuclear testing on human health and the environment.

The Conference to Review Progress in Implementing the Program of Action on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons will meet in New York no later than 2012. Ahead of this, the one-week, biennial meeting of States on implementation of the Program of Action will meet in New York, no later than in 2010, and a one-week meeting of governmental experts on implementation challenges relating to the Program of Action will be held no later than in 2011.
Within existing resources, the Assembly will hold a high-level dialogue on international migration and development in 2013, to be preceded by a one-day informal thematic debate on the subject in 2011.

Also during its sixty-eighth session (2013-2014), the Assembly will convene a meeting “at the highest appropriate political level” in support of the Second United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty.

Prior to issuance of this reference paper, the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met in New York from 4 to 15 May 2009. The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development -- a three-day summit where world leaders assessed the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression -- was held in New York from 24 to 26 June.

Meanwhile, the Assembly continues to observe the Decade to Roll Back Malaria in Developing Countries, Particularly in Africa (2001-2010); the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonial-ism (2001-2010); the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010); the United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for All (2003-2012); the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (2005-2014); the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014); the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life” (2005-2015); the Decade of Recovery and Sustainable Development of the Affected Regions, relating to the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (2006-2016); and the Second United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (2008-2017).

All these plans reveal not only the breadth of the UN’s activities but also its various techniques for calling attention to the goals it seeks to attain.

That is all for this August 17, 2009, issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We will be back with the next issue. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

August 10, 2009 issue.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
8/10/09 TV Program Notes
Rye NY Channels 76 and 33
Greenwich CT Channel __
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unitednationsweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: 60th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions;
Tuvalu and gender discrimination.

60th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions

This week we depart from strictly United Nations activities in order to have a look at the closely allied activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). According to ICRC News Release No. 09/152 of August 6th, the ICRC is marking the 60th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions, signed on 12 August 1949, by calling for improved compli-ance with the treaties by States and armed groups. The ICRC will also use the occasion to present its views on future developments of international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols form the backbone of international humanitarian law (IHL), which places limits on how war is waged. All 194 States are party to the Geneva Conventions, making them universal.

The ICRC is appealing to States – and to non-State armed groups, who are also bound by the rules – to show the political will needed to turn the legal provisions into a reality on the ground.
“We see violations of IHL on a regular basis in the field, ranging from the mass displacement of civilians to indiscriminate attacks and ill-treatment of prisoners,” said the ICRC’s president, Jakob Kellenberger. “Even wars have limits and if the existing rules were followed to a greater extent, much of the suffering caused by armed conflict could be avoided. On a more positive note, many of these violations are no longer going unnoticed. Increasingly, those responsible are being held accountable for their actions and that is a sign of progress.”

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols provide the most relevant existing framework for protecting civilians and sick, wounded or captured combatants. The humanitarian mandate of the ICRC – which includes visiting prisoners, organizing relief operations, reuniting separated families and other humanitarian activities during armed conflicts – is spelled out in these Conventions.

“In recent years, the relevance of IHL has been questioned in the face of the increasing complexity of armed conflicts and the difficulty of distinguishing between combatants and civilians as well as phenomena such as terrorism and asymmetric warfare,” said Mr Kellenberger. “There is no doubt that existing rules of IHL remain relevant and that achieving improved compliance with the law continues to be the main challenge. The ICRC has to examine all possible means of enhancing compliance."

“Most of the roughly 4,000 people surveyed across the eight countries – 75% – say there should be limits to what combatants are allowed to do in the course of fighting,” said the ICRC’s director for international law, Philip Spoerri.“But when asked if they had ever heard of the Geneva Conventions, slightly less than half said they knew such rules existed. Among them, around 56% believe the Conventions limit the suffering of civilians in wartime.”

"Yet the survey also shows that the perceived impact of the rules on the ground is far weaker than the support for them. We view this as a strong indicator that people in war-affected countries want to see better respect for and implementation of the law. So does the ICRC," he concluded.

Tuvalu and gender discrimination.

On July 29th, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recognized the efforts of a young, small-island nation –- Tuvalu –- to review its legal system from the top down for discriminatory practices, but expressed concern that traditional bias held sway in many areas.

Tuvalu, low-lying coral formations due east of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, has a total land area of 10 square miles. Funafuti atoll, the principal island, is the capital. The 8,400 (1983 estimate) population is Poly-nesian, mostly Protestant. Formerly known as the Ellice Islands, Tuvalu became independent of the UK in 1978. It must be one of the smallest UN Member States, and yet it is subjected to the full range of gender bias scrutiny what might be invoked for any country of any size.

Presenting Tuvalu’s combined initial and second periodic reports on the country’s compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, Willy Telavi, Minister of Home Affairs and Rural Development, said the treaty had helped to shape Tuvalu’s society by challenging traditional norms as it developed modern govern-ance. Under its guidance, the country had worked for equal opportunity for all, universal health care, free primary school education and maintaining a peaceful and harmonious society.

Since the ratification of the Convention without reservation in 1999, the Government had been reviewing laws to ensure that they were consistent with its obligations, he said. The Constitution and Native Lands Code had been scrutinized, and ratification of the Convention’s Optional Protocol -- a communications procedure that allows individuals to submit claims of rights violations to the Committee and enables the Committee to initiate inquiries into situations of grave or systematic violations of women’s rights -- was seriously being considered.

He said that it was critical, however, for efforts towards women’s equality to be placed in the context of the nation’s many challenges, including financial restraints, lack of communication between islands, and climate change. Reconciling local governance, which was based on traditional culture, with the provisions of the Convention was another major hurdle. Tradition, along with Christian principles, maintained morality and peace throughout the country.
Following Mr. Telavi’s presentation, the Committee’s experts expressed concern over the condoning of local custom in the Constitution and legal system, noting, for example, that husbands were permitted to “discipline” their wives.

The Tuvalu delegation explained that it had inherited its laws when it became independent 30 years ago and that those had not yet experienced a complete overhaul, which required consultation with the people. In the process of doing that, it first had to undertake education in the eight islands, which were not even connected to each other by telephone and were very attached to traditional practices. Thirty years ago, women could not sit in the same halls as men during consultations on those issues. Things were changing, but it was difficult.

The delegation maintained that there were very few instances of severe domestic violence; the most common offence was women being slapped. The last incidence of serious violence had occurred in 1996 when a woman had been killed and her husband had been charged with the murder. They said that any complaint lodged with the police had to be pursued under law and not disposed of by traditional mediation. Regarding forced marriage, they said there was a kind of traditional community marriage, but it was subjected to the same regulations as other marriages and the women had a right to refuse.

The delegation from Tuvalu also included: Seinati Telavi, Mr. Telavi’s spouse; Kakee Pese Kaitu, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development; Ese Apinelu, Attorney General; Saini Simona, Director of Women of the Ministry of Home Affairs; Albert Seluka, Legal Advisor of that Ministry; and Saini Malalau Seluka, Human Rights Trainer.

CORNELIS FLINTERMAN, expert from the Netherlands, said the Tuvalu Constitution gave preference to Tuvalu values and cultures, which gave greater rights to men while marginalizing women in most respects. He lauded the fact that the Government was willing to examine closely the possibility of revising laws and the Constitution. He also lauded Tuvalu for actively considering ratification of the Optional Protocol.

DUBRAVKA ŠIMONOVIĆ, expert from Croatia, said that the treaty had not been incorporated into domestic law and Tuvalu’s judges were not directly applying it. He asked if the Convention had been translated into the country’s various languages?

VIOLETA NEUBAUER, expert from Slovenia, asked what plans were there to change property laws, which were currently unfavorable to women? Was gender equality a priority for the Government and did it negotiate funding for it?

A Tuvalu delegate said that Tuvaluan was the only local language and that the Convention had been translated into it, thanks largely to assistance from the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).

Committee Chairperson, NAELA MOHAMED GABR, expert from Egypt, pointing to Tuvalu’s traditional male-dominated values and culture, stressed the need to improve women’s lot, through legislative reform, action plans, media campaigns to erase gender stereotyping, and temporary special measures. She called on Tuvalu to consider joining the International Coven-ant on Civil and Political Rights, and cultural and social rights, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

SOLEDAD MURILLO DE LA VEGA, expert from Spain, said that domestic violence against women must change. Traditions should be adapted to the present. Women’s roles were still relegated to child rearing or homemaking. She asked what future measures were envisioned to change gender stereotypes?

SAISUREE CHUTIKUL, expert from Thailand, expressed concern over the practice of husbands disciplining their wives and daughters. Was it possible to try different approaches to effect change, such as through oral traditions, community leaders and youth movements, or giving recognition to communities that had empowered women? She encouraged the Government to make good on its promise to conduct research on prostitution and to do the same for trafficking.

VIOLET TSISIGA AWORI, expert from Kenya, referred to section 156.5 of the Penal Code, under which a girl 15 years or older who was subjected to incest was criminalized and deemed a felon. The Committee had implored the Government to repeal that, since girls subjected to incest were victims, not criminals. What had been done in that regard? What concrete steps had been taken to create a law addressing all types of sexual offences?

The Spanish expert, MURILLO DE LA VEGA, asked if traditional notions could be adapted so that women did not require their husbands’ permission to participate in political life.
In terms of efforts to end violence against women, Mr. TELAVI said the Government had started with the police powers and duty act. Regarding the Penal Code, the Attorney General would need to look into sexual offen-ces and the country would need technical assistance to revise legislation in that regard. The police were also leading efforts to combat gender violence related to alcoholism. In terms of shelters for women victims of violence, according to local customs, it was the responsibility of neighbours to look after and help others in need.
Another delegate said that, regarding alcoholism, people lived in open houses, making it difficult for men to rape or abuse women since other family members and neighbors were watching. In terms of corporal punishment, schools had a policy that only the head teacher was allowed to carry out physical disciplinary measures.

Ms. MURILLO DE LA VEGA asked why educa-tion was different for girls and women and boys and men, particularly at the secondary and higher education levels. Few women entered the civil service or were in decision-making posts. There should be strong motivation for women to be present in those areas. Why were only fathers and not mothers penalized for not sending their children to school?

NIKLAS BRUUN, expert from Finland, said the 12 weeks of mandatory maternity paid leave was too short and the rate of pay during that time, at 25 per cent, was insufficient. Was the Government considering extending maternity leave time and payment?

BARBARA EVELYN BAILEY, expert from Jamaica, said data showed that girls largely pursued school diplomas, while boys pursued university degrees. Girls were largely absent from the fields of science and technology. What was being done to redress that and what was the timeline for it? She said that corporal punishment was a form of physical violence and it had serious repercussions for family and societal life, and noted that the Government had pledged to build awareness about that practice and legal arrangements to end it.

Ms. PIMENTEL, expert from Brazil, noted the increase in teen preg-ancies, decrease in contraceptive use among teens, the fact that abortion was illegal, rural women had poor access to health care and that there was no socially-responsible framework to help women with disabilities.

A Tuvalu delegate said the country depended largely on fishing for its livelihood and most of the population lived by the sea. Traditionally, there was equal opportunity for women in that area. Regarding shortfalls in education programs, he attributed those to a lack of available funding for teachers and textbooks. There were no discriminatory polices against girls in higher education. In fact, girls were enrolled in science and technology edu-cation programs, including in the field of medicine.

Regarding the rise in teen pregnancies, a delegate noted improvements in that area due to awareness programs in the outer islands. Abortion was illegal in Tuvalu, but doctors could legally perform them on a pregnant wo-man with life-threatening complications, provided they had the woman’s consent. There were no reported cases of legal abortions so far.

In the past, many children who graduated from primary school were not prepared academically to enter secondary school. To remedy that, the Government developed a secondary school entrance exam. Tuvalu had only one public high school. Many students were sent to Fiji to attend high school or were placed in vocational education programs at home. Education received the greatest percentage of the Government’s federal budget, fol-lowed by health care.
Another delegate said the law had changed to give women on mater-nity leave their full pay during the period of leave. In terms of the criticism that the 12‑week maternity leave was too short, he said women were granted longer leaves if they required it due to health reasons.
Another delegate said the country’s annual national budget was just $20 million, with education receiving the greatest percentage of funding. There was no gender-based discrimination in the education system. The system was limited due to Tuvalu’s very small population, its remoteness and the great distances between villages. People often went overseas to receive an education.
A Tuvalu delegate said fishing was traditionally a male-dominated profession, but the Government would look into ways to bring more women into the field. While there had been no women in senior posts several years ago, there were presently several, among them, the Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development.

Regarding abortion, another delegate said that women presently could legally obtain an abortion only if the mother’s life was in danger, but there had been no requests to use that provision thus far. Regarding the culture of male dominance of brothers over their sisters and the rise in teen pregnancy, she said that in the past, incest between siblings and teen pregnancy were underreported. The Government was taking those concerns into considera-tion when drafting policies to end teen pregnancy and address incest.

The delegation said that fifty dollars a month was provided to all citizens age 70 or older for subsistence.

They said that the main hospital was located in the capital and the journey was often dangerous for women who are coming there to give birth. Access to small, low-interest credit loans had also been put in place for women in rural areas.

Turning to marriage and family arrangements, RUTH HALPERIN-KADDARI, expert from Israel, said that the marriage age of 16 was not in line with the Convention’s expectations. Concerning the dissolution of marriage, she saw many problems with maintenance payments and asked if the system for such payments would be made stronger. In addition, she urged the enactment of rules for the equal distribution of property.

The delegation said that polygamy was not legal. Regarding maintenance payments, the court would only enforce such payments if a complaint was made by a woman. Divorcing parties had to put forward their claims for division of property; there was no automatic division in favor of either party.

Customary marriages, which occurred when the expenses were borne by the whole community, must be registered like statuary marriages, the delegation said. There was no obligation for a woman to accept such a marriage; she could refuse. Concerning the division of property if a spouse died intestate, the land court would decide the issue. There was no difference in divorce law that applied to customary or statutory marriages.

Mr. FLINTERMAN asked if there were any cases in which women had used the courts to obtain their rights. As the office of people’s rights was overburdened, were there more informal dispute settlement mechanisms, and was the Convention used by them?

A delegate said the age of consent of marriage in Tuvalu was 16, but anyone under the age 21 needed their parent’s consent to marry. Divorced women could stay in the marital home and were granted custody of the children. Their right to property and other shared assets was determined by the courts. Regarding provisions on property distribution in the lands code, she said the eldest son was granted preference because he was expected to take care of the family in the case of the death of his parents. As that traditional practice was changing, the land code could be revised.

Another delegate said at present there was no proper mental health-care service because the country lacked qualified professionals to provide it. The Ministry of Health worked with church pastors, who often provided mental health counseling. The Government had also adopted a plan to combat sexually-transmitted diseases and spread awareness about them. There were educational and awareness programs for seafarers and their wives. Non-governmental organizations, such as the Tuvalu Family Health Association, the Council of Women and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also assisted in that regard.

Another delegate, on implementing international conventions in domestic courts, said each of the outer islands had their own court, which determined divorce settlements. If the divorced parties could not agree on the issues of maintenance and custody, the case was referred to a senior magistrate court located on the capital island. The physical distance often inhibited women’s access to it. Only if there was ambiguity in domestic law could cases apply provisions of international conventions.

In concluding remarks, Mr. TELAVI said the session had given the Government the opportunity to look at issues raised by the Committee to ensure its compliance with the Convention. He duly noted the Committee’s comments and concerns.

Ms. GABR, expert from Egypt and Chair of the Committee, said she recognized the limitations Tuvalu faced due to its remoteness and climate change. She hoped, how-ever, that it would advance women’s rights and empowerment and that it would incorporate the Convention into domestic law and invoke it in the courts, as well as raise the legal age of marriage to 18 and accede to the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

Since so small and remote a country as Tuvalu can respond in such detail to such searching inquiries, there is no reason for any other country, regardless of its size, not to do likewise. The United States signed the Convention in 1980, but the Senate has never given its advice and consent to ratification. How curious.

That’s all for this August 10th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send us your comments to J_PCarey@verizon.net
Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.