21st Century Vision

Law and Peace

It isn't easy to imagine anyone commanding a large and admiring audience for a lecture on some rather recondite aspects of the interpretation of international law. At the SOAS Brunei Gallery earlier this evening however (10th March), one elderly Swedish professor pulled it off. Of course he is more than an academic: Hans Blix is also the chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) which has just produced its report Weapons of Terror, making 60 recommendations for ending the threat of nuclear annihilation that hangs over us all. But more than that, as chair of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) from March 2000 to June 2003, he led the UN inspection regime in Iraq which steadfastly reported the truth, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country. Compare the collapse of our own security services into endorsement of the "dodgy dossier".

Blix's topic tonight was rather different, however. At its core was a discussion of two apparently discrete but in practice related issues: the development in international law of the responsibility to protect; and the claim to exercise a right to anticipatory self-defence. The first is one which commands immediate sympathy: despite the commitment in the UN Charter to sovereignty of states and non-intervention in internal affairs, who can quarrel with the idea that where a population is being brutalized within national boundaries the international community should do something? But however resonant the cry of "no more Rwandas", the fact is that many in the developing world see it as a formula for intervention by powerful nations with agendas of their own.

If intervention is to be acceptable it must be even-handed and legitimate, which in turn means overcoming the democratic deficit in UN institutions themselves - especially the security council.

The second major theme was the stark contrast between the principles of international law and the doctrine of anticipatory self defence propounded in the US National Security Strategy in the aftermath of 11th September 2001. Not only did this arrogate to the US the right to engage in pre-emptive war, but to do so on the basis of a "distinctive American internationalism" and to apply it to non-state actors. This radically breached the prohibition against pre-emptive war and created criteria for military action which were open to public scrutiny only after the event, if at all. A pair of quotations made the point: "when a threat is imminent it is too late" (George Bush) and "no need to wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud" (Condoleezza Rice). And though, as the WMDC report showed, the threat of nuclear proliferation was growing, there was no reason to think that "anticipatory self-defence" was the answer to it: on the contrary it required persistent multilateral action.

As with the responsibility to protect, many states, whatever they might think for example of Iranian nuclear technology, saw in this claim to anticipatory self-defence another formula for unwarranted intervention.

Perhaps for the benefit of the large phalanx of lawyers among the audience of 350, Blix spiced his remarks with a delicate dissection of our own Lord Goldsmith's legal opinions on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Finally however he noted that far from being a failure, what happened in 2003 was a credit to the UN: the sheriff had not been allowed to shoot at will.

Following questions the lecture ended in a near ovation. This owed something to the subject matter, but more to the feeling that the speaker represented a commitment to principle for which they all too often looked in vain in government and international institutions.

The full text of the talk is available on the website (www.unawestminster.org.uk) of the Westminster UNA branch which - together with the Bar Council and Clifford Chance - organized this event, the 6th Ruth Steinkraus-Cohen International Law Lecture.

The Thin Blue Line

In what international roll of honour do Pakistan, Bangladesh and India come first, second and third, followed by Nepal, Jordan and Ghana? A clue to help you: the US and the UK are nowhere to be seen in the top 20, where the only permanent members of the UN Security Council to figure are France at number 10 and China at number 13. No, it is nothing to do with awards won at the Cannes film festival or Olympic hockey medals. It is the current rank order of contributors to UN peacekeeping operations.

Tomorrow (29th May) at the UN in New York, the fifth annual International Day of UN Peacekeepers will be marked. This year's commemorative ceremonies come at a time when the services of of UN peacekeepers are in greater demand than ever. There are currently more than 100,000 peacekeepers from 115 countries serving in 18 operations on four continents, with additional deployments on the horizon.

"We hope this occasion will serve as a reminder of the invaluable work of our Blue Helmets, who each day risk their lives trying to bring peace to conflict-torn societies," said Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. "It should also underscore the importance of strengthening UN peacekeeping, with its solid record of promoting a return to stability, to foster even greater gains in the future, for the sake of the innocent victims whose lives have been ravaged by war."

As part of the commemoration ceremonies Dag Hammerskjöld medals will be awarded posthumously to the military, police and civilian personnel who lost their lives last year serving in UN peacekeeping operations. While these medals pay tribute to the sacrifice of those who died, the greatest monument to their contribution is a set of UN peacekeeping successes in 2006. These include helping the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold its first elections in 40 years; helping solidify peace and ensure justice in West Africa by transferring indicted war criminal and former Liberian president Charles Taylor to face charges for crimes committed in Sierra Leone; helping implement a major peace agreement in southern Sudan; and supporting elections and helping establish the rule of law in Haiti by working with the national police to curb gang violence.

The year also saw a major European re-engagement in UN peacekeeping as countries from the continent stepped forward to bolster the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, including by providing the Organization's first major naval force, to support a ceasefire in southern Lebanon following last summer's conflict between Israel and Hizbullah.

Of course everyone remembers Rwanda and Srebrenica, where UN peacekeepers failed to protect civilian populations: what we are less inclined to remember is that the fault lay with UN member states, which refused to provide the resources necessary for effective action. The reality is that in many parts of the world a thin line of blue helmets protects the human rights of the vulnerable. And where its does not, as in Darfur and Somalia, responsibility lies not with the UN as an organization or an idea, but with the governments of the member states.

Click here for more on UN peacekeeping

UN Panel Recommends First Agency Dedicated Solely to Women

Office of the UN Special Envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa (Toronto)

November 10, 2006

The following is a statement from the Office of the UN Special Envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa.

A giant step towards equality for women was taken today at the United Nations when a High-Level Panel on UN reform recommended to the Secretary-General the creation of the world body's first full-fledged agency for women. We are heartened that the panel, appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan earlier this year, has reached the conclusion that women's rights and development have always received substandard treatment in the United Nations system. Its recommendation of "an enhanced and independent" policy, advocacy and operational agency for women's empowerment and gender equality, to be headed by an Under Secretary-General, is an inspired and entirely welcome remedy. If implemented and funded as recommended, the new organization will begin to correct over six decades of UN neglect and indifference toward women.

The High-Level Panel's recommendation goes next to the General Assembly. Member States' decisions on three critical elements will determine whether today's announcement will be recorded as a turning point in the life of the UN and the lives of women.

First, understanding that women's empowerment and equal rights are central to development and peace, the panel recommended that the new women's entity must be "fully and ambitiously funded". We agree whole-heartedly; to make up for lost time and turn rhetoric into reality, the new organization will need a budget of $1 billion. To quote a recent joint statement by Liberia's President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf;  Graça Machel, President of Mozambique's Foundation for Community Development; and the Ministers of Health of Botswana and Kenya, Hon. Sheila Tlou and Hon. Charity Ngilu: " Let's put that in perspective: last year, UNICEF had a budget of over $2 billion for children. Surely half of that would not be excessive for the world's women. Surely ameliorating the lives of half the global population is worth $1 billion a year, for a start."

Second, success hinges on approval of the plan to replace the UN's weak women's machinery with "sharply focused operations on gender equality and women's empowerment issues, equipped with high-quality technical and substantive expertise, to provide leadership in regions and countries". A destructive pattern has taken hold of landmark agreements on women's rights: gender equality advocates work tirelessly to gain international consensus, only to see their hard-won declarations and resolutions reach dead ends for lack of expertise and operational capacity at country level. The women's organizations and advocates who have pressed the case for a UN women's agency know that targeted programmes and experts will be needed in every country to end that pattern forever.

We have great hopes for what the new women's agency can accomplish through targeted programmes in developing countries. At long last, the UN is poised to act on behalf of more than 17 million women living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and the additional 225 young women between 15 and 24 who will become infected every hour today.  It can now begin to reverse injustices that have forever been tolerated: the fact that one in three women worldwide has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime; that women produce most of the world's food but own just one per cent of its deeded land; and that they make up the majority of the poor and illiterate.

Finally, the new agency for women will need a leader with vision, expertise, authority, empathy and devotion unparalleled in the history of multilateralism.  Let the global and transparent selection process begin.

A new broom

The October-December issue of New World - UNA UK's excellent quarterly journal - carries an article by the Executive Director Sam Daws on "The Challenges for Ban Ki-moon", successor to Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General. As a contribution to getting to know the new man at the top, we publish here an interview which appeared on 5th November in Le Monde

How do you envisage future reform of the United Nations?

I have three priorities. First, it will be necessary to reform the secretariat general. It is regrettable that the UN should be criticised for inefficiency. The secretariat must have a sense of mission and of responsibility towards the member states. Second, greater harmony must be achieved. There are unfortunately too many divisions between rich and poor, between large states and small states and between the states and the secretariat. I shall try to build bridges. Finally, there must be more coherence and co-ordination between the UN agencies. We must honour our promises. The UN must be relevant, effective and responsible.

Three weeks after its nuclear test, North Korea has announced it wants to return to the negotiating table. Are the sanctions imposed by the Security Council beginning to produce results?

The North Korean leaders realised they had no other option, and that they would gain nothing by possession of the bomb. Their economy is in serious difficulty. They know that they must open their economic and social system if they are to promote the interests of their people and their own future. I welcome their decision to rejoin the six-member discussions (China, the US, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas). We do not yet know when talks will restart, but it will certainly be before the end of the year. The participants must then engage in in-depth and concrete discussions on how to apply the joint declaration of the Six (adopted in Beijing, 19th September 2005) on the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. This declaration involves the abandonment by North Korea of its nuclear programme in exchange for economic assistance and guarantees on matters of security. We call on North Korea to comply. The nuclear test creates a threat not only to the Korean peninsula, but to the international community as a whole. The Security Council acted appropriately in adopting sanctions under resolution 1718. In my capacity as incoming UN Secretary General, I shall ensure its application in full.

Some opinion in South Korea criticises the US approach as too harsh towards Pyongyang. Do you share this point of view?

I am not in a position to comment on the particular stance of this or that member state. The US and South Korean governments consult closely, including on resolving the question of North Korean nuclear weapons. We have had no difficulties in these discussions. The US decision to impose financial sanctions seems to be the result of the illegal fabrication of counterfeit dollars in North Korea, and the negative attitude shown by North Korea's missile tests and nuclear programme.

But don't you think the US desire for regime change could drive some states to seek nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves?

I do not think that efforts to resolve nuclear issues in North Korea or Iran are accompanied by a desire to change these regimes. We are proceeding in a peaceful manner through dialogue.

On Darfur, China and Russia have opposed in principle any form of sanctions which undermine the sovereignty of Sudan. Aren't you therefore going to inherit a Security Council deadlocked as during the cold war, with the risk of tragedy that carries with it?

The problem arises from the non-co-operative attitude of the Sudanese government. Sudan must apply the Security Council resolution (adopted on 31st August) providing for the deployment of UN peacekeeping troops to replace the African Union mission. It is regrettable that the Sudanese government has not responded positively. I intend to take the initiative and raise this question with Sudanese officials. I expect to meet them soon.

Read Sam Daws's article in New World

American Support for the UN is Strong

A large majority of Americans believe in a strong United Nations and continue to support active U.S. engagement with the UN. According to a poll we released yesterday, 78% of Americans believe “it is in America’s best interest to continue to actively support the United Nations.” Americans are also aware of the key role the UN is playing on international security issues, with 76% of those polled believing “recent events prove we need to make the United Nations stronger so it can do more to address problems like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”

Key Findings include:

78% of Americans believe “it is in America's best interest to continue to actively support the United Nations.” (% Agree: 61% GOP/78% IND/91% DEM)

76% of Americans believe “recent events prove we need to make the United Nations stronger so it can do more to address problems like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” (% Agree: 69% GOP/71% IND/85% DEM)

74% of Americans believe “ t he U.S. needs the UN now more than ever because we cannot bear all the burden and cannot afford to pay to go it alone around the world.” (% Agree: 59% GOP/75% IND/86% DEM)

74% of Americans agree with the following statement: “ The U.S. right now has the power to influence what happens at the UN and make sure America's interests are protected through its position on the UN Security Council. It would be a mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN.” (% Agree: 61% GOP/71% IND/87% DEM)

73% of Americans agree with the following statement: “ The United Nations was created after World War Two to help put an end to global warfare. It is frustrating, but it works. There have been no world wars since then and the United Nations has played a critical role because it provides each nation a forum to air grievances and to work out problems to help stop major conflicts. That is a role no other organization plays and it is a role that is more important than ever today.” (% Agree: 56% GOP/73% IND/87% DEM)

Read more ….

Good New From The USA

Not all is bas news in the USA. The Seattle United Nations Association is a very active one and has come out strongly against confirming the position of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN. They say,

John Bolton was named as U.N. Ambassador in 2005 as a recess appointment by the President, despite Senate opposition.  This opposition was based on the assessment that John Bolton had neither the temperament nor the diplomatic skills necessary for a U.N. ambassador and that he was, in fact, contemptuous of the U.N.  Senator Voinovich, was, at the time, outspoken in his criticism of Bolton's capacity to serve.  Now, Senator Voinovich claims that he will support Bolton's confirmation because his performance during his year at the U.N. has been satisfactory and has not borne out earlier criticism.  We believe that Senator Voinovich is incorrect in this appraisal.  Analysis of Bolton's performance and behavior at the U.N. during his year of tenure has confirmed his unsuitability to continue as U.N. Ambassador.  He has been combative and disdainful of his colleagues and high-level U.N. officials.  He has impeded the process of U.N. reform and even acted against current administration policy, requiring intervention by the Secretary of State and even the President.  This has led to the growing suspicion, untenable for a U.N. ambassador, that his public statements may not always be trusted to represent the policies of his own Secretary of State or his President. 

The following constitute examples of this deleterious behavior.

1. Ambassador Bolton has made public statements contemptuous of the U.N., including assertions that it did not really exist, that the U.S., not the U.N., was the only real global power, and the derisive remark that the U.N. building in New York could be reduced in size without affecting productivity.

2. Ambassador Bolton has sabotaged constructive U.N. reform by insisting on over 300 last minute changes in a laboriously crafted U.N. reform document, causing confusion and anger among U.N. delegates, and resulting in a watered down plan which he has later disingenuously cited as evidence of an organizational failure.

3. Ambassador Bolton has opposed the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, requiring both Secretary of State Rice and President Bush to intervene to reassert U.S. commitment to these goals.

4. Ambassador Bolton has been undiplomatic and arrogant in his public criticism of high-level U.N. officials including Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mark Malloch-Brown, the U.N. Deputy Secretary General.

5. Ambassador Bolton has shown contempt for the U.N. Human Rights Council by missing all but one of 35 negotiating sessions on its development, and then by being one of only 4 U.N. ambassadors voting against its creation.  This led to the Swiss U.N. ambassador to characterize his behavior as "intransigent and maximalist."

6. Ambassador Bolton has been publicly unsupportive of negotiation with Iran on its nuclear development program.  His now well known statement about not doing "carrots" has been seen as reflecting his opposition to negotiations, and, as such, contrary to Secretary of State Rice's policy to enter with other European partners, into give and take negotiations with Iran on this subject.

7.  Ambassador Bolton was instrumental in an attempt to withhold U.N. dues if the agency did not adopt his reform proposals.  He then attempted to interrupt the biennial funding cycle, which would have ended in U.N. paralysis.  Again, he had to be reined in on this issue by his own Secretary of State.

8. In the face of the genocide in Darfur, Ambassador Bolton showed callous disregard as the only Security Council member who did not accompany his 15 other Security Council colleagues on a mission to Darfur in June 2006.  Rather, he traveled to England to deliver a speech in which he criticized the U.N. Deputy Secretary General.

9. He has voiced strident opposition to the very concept of international law, thereby expressing disdain for the international courts that exist within the framework of this law.

10. Over 30 U.N. ambassadors of countries friendly to the U.S. have raised concerns about his obstructive behavior.

We believe that the above provides ample evidence, deriving from his current interim tenure at the U.N., that John Bolton does not possess the qualities essential for a U.N. ambassador.  Further, we believe that his behavior has been deleterious to effective U.N. functioning and is unworthy of being the representative of the United States.  Our country was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and was a signatory to many of the international treaties and conventions, which Bolton has opposed or chosen to ignore.

Seeds Of Hope ....

As the world takes another step into chaos in the Middle East, terror hits mainland India and the US is finding its strategy to forge the world it wants a forlorn nightmare, there is hope that many in the United States are being positive about the United Nations and the need for a negotiated world order. Paul T Scott, Campaigns Manager of Global Solutions has sent this letter out to many organizations in the US including their local United Nations Associations……

The problem started when U.S. Ambassador John Bolton demanded that U.N. funding be linked to the adoption of reforms. As a result, the U.N. General Assembly, under pressure from Bolton,authorized only enough money in December for the U.N. to operate for six months. Though improving the way the U.N. does business is a concept embraced by many, this play by Bolton was seen by other countries as a heavy-handed negotiating tactic to gain leverage over poor nations.

As you can imagine, the agreement last week to keep the lights on was a huge relief to supporters of a strong, effective, and, above all, operational United Nations. Here are the major pros and cons that came out of last week’s decision:

The upside:

The U.N. can continue to provide essential services to the international community.

Translation = 14,000 U.N. staff can keep their jobs. They can continue to promote human rights, provide assistance in conflict areas, conduct public information work, put on international meetings and conferences, and address the crises in Darfur, North Korea, and Iran, among other things.

 

Even though the U.S. dissociated itself from the General Assembly decision to lift the spending cap, it did not block the decision to do so.

Translation = The U.S. was one of only four countries that decided not to speak for or against the decision to get rid of the spending limit. This means that, ultimately, while the Bush Administration wanted to keep the spending cap as leverage, it was not willing to risk a shutdown of the U.N.

The downside:

Ambassador Bolton does not share the above-mentioned view of the Bush Administration.

Translation = It seems that Ambassador Bolton is now encouraging his friends in Congress to withhold U.S. dues to the U.N. What’s worse is that many of his friends are promising to do just that.The budget cap has hindered, rather than aided the implementation of proposed reforms

.
Translation = Although there has been more reform progress at the U.N. in the last year than at any other time in the organization's history, many of the important improvements that Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Bush Administration, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and Citizens for Global Solutions have proposed for the U.N. have not yet taken place, in part because of the United States' heavy-handed diplomacy. Our nation needs good diplomats to convey the message that these reforms are a win-win situation for all countries. + Click here to read more about reform at the U.N.

The long and short of all of this is that while a big victory was achieved at the U.N. last week, there are still some bumps in the road ahead. We need to continue to let our leaders know what we, as Americans, really want. + Click here for ideas on how you can help affect change for a 21st Century United Nations.

Saving The UN

The “Better World Campaign” has organised the following petition. If you would like to sign it then you will find it here on the Better World Campaign Website.

The United Nations is facing a crisis. Strong differences of opinion about the direction of reform and governance at the UN threaten to collide with a rapidly approaching spending cap. Unresolved, these differences could paralyze the UN - paralyze diplomacy, paralyze operations, and paralyze the reform process. Some UN operations could even be curtailed or shutdown.

Ongoing political crisis, including the threat of the shutdown of some UN operations, does not serve the interests of any nation or group of nations and would represent a failure of diplomacy by all leaders and governmental representatives responsible for stewarding the United Nations’ essential functions.

The United Nations has operated uninterrupted as a platform for global peace and progress for more than 60 years. A political stand-off, or shutdown of UN operations now, for the first time in its history, would have significant consequences for the UN’s development, security and humanitarian efforts.

The UN is a work in progress, but remains the world’s hope for international cooperation. All nations and peoples have a shared interest that its important work continues, uninterrupted. We, the undersigned, urge world leaders to forge the common ground necessary to allow the United Nations to continue its life-saving work.

An unequal equality

The UN needs a real women's agency

I don't propose to write a long article here, as I want you to read the words of Stephen Lewis, the UN Secretary-Gereral's Special Envoy to Africa on Aids, and I don't want to exhaust your attention span before you get there. Stephen Lewis is far more eloquent than I could ever be.

Although he is the Envoy on Aids, his thesis in these speeches is about the role of women and their scandalous neglect by the elite of the world, not excluding the UN itself. He points to the subsidiary status of UNIFEM (have you even heard of it?), the UN Development Fund for Women, the pathetic proportion of high-ranking women within the UN heirarchy and the fact that the recently-announced High-Level Panel on UN System-Wide Coherence in areas of development, humanitarian assistance and environment includes just 3 women out of 15 panel members - and he calls for the formation of a new UN agency to deal with the problems of women, on a par with other major agencies such as UNICEF and UNFPA.

There is of course a connection between Aids and women's issues: the majority of the HIV-positive are women, and it is on them that most of the burden fall of trying to keep society together in the face of the depradations of the disease.

Now to those speeches by Stephen Lewis: First, one he made on March 17th at a press briefing, following a visit to Lesotho and Swaziland. Second, a speech to the University of Pennsylvania's Summit on Global Issues in Women's Health on April 26th, 2005.

If those have whetted your appetite, you can find more speeches on the website of the Stephen Lewis Foundation. He's even more eloquent when he gets onto the subject of Aids.

Finally, here's a link to the UNIFEM site.

Divisions 'could tear UN apart'

This is the story published by BBC News from Geneva by Imogen Foulkes and is worth discussing as the UN Deputy Secretary has raised some vital issues for the future of the UN

The UN's deputy secretary general says member states must renew their commitment to the United Nations or risk tearing it apart. Mark Malloch Brown said deep divisions within the UN, primarily over the conflict in Iraq, were hindering crucial reforms of the organisation.

But the US assistant secretary of state for international affairs said blaming Iraq for the UN's problems was unfair. The UN is deep into a reform process that was agreed last year.

Divided aims 

The creation of a new human rights body has already been achieved after some bitter wrangling. But now big divisions are emerging in other areas.

Crucial management changes, for example, or expansion of the Security Council.

Mr Malloch Brown said the debate had turned into what he called "a knock down, drag out bar room brawl".

"The real background to that is this very divided membership since Iraq," he said.

"We've got to encourage member states to come back to renew their vows to the organisation... We need member states to do this because they are tearing this organisation apart," he said.

Mr Malloch Brown also said the UN must return to its spirit of universality and warned that powerful countries could not expect to dominate.

Mark Lagon, US assistant secretary of state for international affairs, agreed relations between UN members were bad, but denied it was all down to Iraq, and said it was in part, over reform issues.

"I think it's unfair to characterise the poisonous atmosphere as strictly the product of the Iraq war." "Yes, indeed it was controversial. But the poisonous atmosphere... has a larger context and the United States is not the bull in the china shop that is singularly causing this."

Where there is agreement at least is that the UN Security Council should expand.

The five permanent members should no longer reflect the victorious powers of World War II.

But there is no agreement on who might join this privileged group, how big a new council should be, or how members should be selected.

It is a debate that is likely to run and run.