UN On A Roll

By Bill Miller

If someone in America listened to right-wing talk radio, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation or the isolationist wings of various political parties, one might erroneously surmise that the United Nations is useless, ineffective and is usurping US sovereignty, none of which would be correct. A recent poll indicates that those myths are not accepted by the bulk of the American public.

A recent public opinion poll was sponsored by the Better World Campaign (BWC), a sister organization of the UN Foundation, and conducted by two independent professional pollsters: Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research Associates. The poll found that overall the UN's popularity is at an all-time high.

One finding was that respondents overwhelmingly believe the United Nations has important roles to play in Syria, and that the United States should be supportive of these UN roles. A whopping 92% believe that the UN should oversee the collection and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons and should provide humanitarian aid, relief, and shelter to Syria’s refugees.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), established in 1997 and coordinating closely with the UN, has taken the lead to eliminate the weapons before the end of the year. In regards to humanitarian assistance, the UN agencies dealing with food, human rights, refugees, education, sanitation and other services are on the ground assisting the Syrians.

Arguably, one of the reasons for this extraordinarily high support is probably due to the fact that there is no magic bullet or effective solution to end the intractable Syrian civil war. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans do not want the US military involved, do not support targeted bombing, and are supportive of letting the UN attempt to broker peace and eliminate the chemical weapons.

Part of that stratospheric approval for the UN in Syria apparently carried over to the UN's image. In fact, according to BWC, an incredible 88 percent of Americans believe it’s important for the U.S. to maintain an active role in the United Nations. Additionally, the UN’s favorability rating rose 10 points from this time last year with 60% favorable, 9% neutral and 28% unfavorable.

Often, the UN's popularity can shift in a manner of a few days or weeks. For example, when the Security Council approved a 'no-fly' resolution that gave NATO political cover to restrict Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan jets from strafing civilians, the UN was viewed as being more effective and working cooperatively. On the other hand, when the Security Council was temporarily paralyzed because Russia and China threatened to veto a binding resolution against Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, it was perceived as ineffective and weak.

An ancillary issue that has sparked heated debate in some sectors, especially with a few members of the US Congress, has been the dues the U.S. pays to the UN and to support peacekeeping missions. The UN relies on dues from its 193 member states to cover its expenses, given that it is not a one-world government that can initiate taxes or levies.

Regarding the financial payback, various studies over the past several years indicate that the US earns about $1.66 for every $1.00 invested in the UN. The 16 UN peacekeeping missions are vital to the US because they bring stability to war-torn areas, keep US troops out of harm’s way, and are cheaper (according to the US Government Accountability Office) in that they may cost one-eighth of that of a US Peacekeeping Mission.

Poll respondents believe the United Nations supports America’s goals and objectives around the world with 63% supportive and 32% not supportive. The US and the UN System, although not always in agreement, have consistently had similar goals, such as rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, encouraging human rights, promoting economic and social development, reducing conflicts, combating terrorism, and many more. Some areas of cooperation are seldom reported on, such as working to move aircraft, ships, mail and weather information around the world.

Other BWC poll findings showed that significant majorities of Americans believe the United States should be supportive of the following UN programs and functions and view these as important roles of the UN:

-- Working to better the lives of adolescent girls around the world by helping assure girls have access to quality education and health care, adequate livelihoods, and freedom from violence and harmful practices.
-- Improving the health of women and children in poor, developing countries by making sure they have access to vaccines and maternal health care.
-- Promoting gender equality, women’s rights, and the advancement of women and girls around the world. 
-- Helping eradicate extreme poverty and hunger around the world.
-- Building peace in countries emerging from conflict.
-- Taking the lead in efforts to address climate change. 

Since the founding of the UN in 1945, various polls such as Roper, Wirthlin and Gallup to mention just a few, have determined that Americans generally support the UN anywhere from 45-85%, depending upon the issue and topic polled. Although the vast majority of the people support the UN, they do not understand the UN. This dichotomy is quite reasonable when one looks at the prevailing headwinds battering the UN’s image.

First, everyday there are major activities being confronted by UN agencies that deal with war and peace, refugees, genocide, health, international trade, drugs, piracy, only to mention a few. Although these are important issues, American media coverage of the UN generally is mediocre and, at times, hostile, which means the American public is not getting a complete picture of the various programs, both with their strengths and weaknesses.

Second, often when the media do report about a UN activity, they will say that an “international conference” was held, rather than the UN sponsored a conference on AIDS or some other issue. To compound the confusion, many UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, are not identified by the media as affiliated with the UN.

Third, large segments of the media will grab onto a problem in the UN, such as the transgressions by a small number of UN peacekeepers (out of a total of 120,0000) who may violate both the Military Code and people's human rights by trading sex for food or abusing someone under their protectorate. Although the UN has a Zero Tolerance Policy that automatically removes the perpetrator, that is often not reported in detail by the media.

Fourth, the virulent UN bashers provide a constant stream of nonsensical myths about how the UN is usurping American sovereignty, is draining the US's financial coffers, is undermining US foreign policy, and is totally corrupt. Much of this misinformation comes from a large number of radio talk show hosts who are both anti-UN and do not understand how the UN operates.

Public opinion polls are helpful to gauge the level of support for the UN and to point out where the media and the general public need to focus their attention to learn more about an organization that, although it is far from perfect, is necessary. This poll highlights that the UN is viewed as vital by the vast majority of Americans, and it should be used more aggressively to deal with thorny international problems that no one country, no matter how powerful, can defeat. The ideal situation would be for the American public to learn more about the UN's strengths and weaknesses, as well as contributing to making the organization more effective and efficient. As the maxim goes, “If the UN did not exist today, we would have to create it tomorrow.”

Bill Miller, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Climate Change: #1 Challenge

By Bill Miller

The climate is changing quite rapidly and dramatically. Sea levels and temperatures are rising, species are disappearing, climatic conditions are becoming more extreme, desertification and drought are accelerating, storms are more frequent and violent, glaciers are melting and reefs are bleaching and deteriorating at an alarming rate, primarily because of human activities. Burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are the main culprits, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC, which was established by the UN in 1988 and currently consists of over 800 eminent scientists, will issue its fifth report later in the fall, but some of the preliminary findings were leaked early.

Some of the IPCC recommendations and conclusions are sobering:

1. In the 2007 report, the IPCC indicated the 'unequivocal' link of warming with humans, indicating that possibly 90% of the climate change was because of humans. The recent 2013 report is more forceful, bumping the probability up to 95%. Previously, the IPCC has often been accused of being rather cautious, even conservative, in directly connecting the extreme weather and climatic changes to human activities.
2. Sea levels could conceivably rise by three feet by 2100 if current levels of emissions are maintained. Even more daunting than the IPCC study is a recent National Academy of Sciences study that indicates a worse-case scenario. With a temperature gain of 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) the seas would rise nearly 30 feet. Many island countries, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, and coastal areas worldwide would be inundated. Closer to home, low-lying parts of urban Queens, New York flood frequently. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pursuing possibly investing $20 billion over the next several years to protect 520 miles of coastline from rising sea levels. That is just one city of the thousands that will be affected worldwide. At current global warming levels, over 1,400 US cities will be adversely affected by 2100.
3. The temperature rise could be as low as 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, but could be 5 degrees or more if carbon dioxide levels double. NASA has reported, along with other scientific bodies, that 2012 was the ninth hottest year on record, and the nine warmest years have all occurred since 1996. This is not a climatic aberration, but the evolution of a troublesome pattern.

The UN 's IPCC is the international mainstay in providing a forum for climate change discussion, securing scientific information, conducting evaluations and developing major reports on the contentious issue of climate change.

The first of the five IPCC reports was released in 1990. Although the 2013 report had over 800 reputable scientists involved, they did not do the initial research. The IPCC, which was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with former US Vice-President Al Gore, reviews the scientific literature that has been published by scientists, governmental agencies and other groups, and then draws its conclusions and makes recommendations. The IPCC is widely-viewed as one of the most credible entities in the scientific community.

Other parts of the UN have helped to shine the spotlight on the climate change issue for two major reasons. From the time that Ban Ki-moon, the eighth Secretary-General of the UN, took office in 2007, he has made climate change one of his top five priorities. Ban has pushed the issue with governmental leaders, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the general public. In a dramatic eleventh hour intervention in a 2007 Climate Change Conference in Bali, which was on the verge of collapse, Ban passionately and persuasively warned that it was necessary to prevent climate change and that it was the 'moral challenge of our generation.' He turned the conference around.

Ban also led delegations to the Arctic, Antarctic and the Amazon Basin to view the negative effects of climate change first-hand.

Another role played by the UN has been to convene major international conferences on environment and sustainable development. Of the various climate conferences, two of the most important were in Rio de Janeiro.

In June 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly called the Earth Summit, produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Agenda 21 (a voluminous list of suggestions on how to promote sustainable development, conserve resources and reduce energy costs); Forest Principles; the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The 'Rio + 20 Conference on Sustainable Development,' held in June of 2013, exactly 20 years after the Earth Summit, was characterized as 'modest,' primarily because it failed to secure a Grand Bargain that the countries of the world would accept that would identify specific actions and timelines to confront the devastating consequences of climate change.

The most important achievement at the Rio + 20 Conference was that more than $500 billion, with over 700 commitments, was made to take action on sustainable development initiatives. These commitments addressed a myriad of global issues that include access to clean energy, food security, water and sustainable transportation.

There was also a call for a vast range of actions, including countries to re-commit themselves to sustainable development, establishing a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and launching a high-level political forum on sustainable development.

At a UN Conference in Bonn, Germany, in 2013, the participants discussed the looming 2015 deadline (which is hanging like the proverbial Sword of Damocles) for implementing a new binding global climate pact. This agreement is even more pressing since global carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere recently surpassed the crucial threshold of 400 parts per million (PPM).

This international agreement would be applicable to all countries, adopted by 2015 and implemented by 2020. Although it will be an uphill battle, the main goal is keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.

Although the scientific evidence regarding climate change is overwhelming, there are many obstacles to realizing how devastating this could be. Some obvious impediments are:

-- The media do not cover the issue adequately. The IPCC report was a one-day story in most media outlets. Climate change is so profound and devastating that the media should cover it on a daily basis.

-- There are huge amounts of money funneled into advertising and faux-science by the fossil fuel industry, such as coal, petroleum and gas, to create doubt that climate change exists. The debate is over, climate change is impacting us. This is the same technique used by the tobacco companies to disabuse a link between smoking and cancer. 

-- Another subterfuge by the fossil fuel industry is that cheap, plentiful fuel is readily available by building an XL Pipeline to transport tar sands sludge from Canada, mining the melting Arctic, extracting coal in East Kentucky or Wyoming or fracking for gas. 

The facts are that the Keystone XL Pipeline, if approved by President Obama, is predicted to wreak environmental havoc on the environment, aquifers and terrain.

Although Arctic shipping lanes would be open in summer, thus saving large sums of money and time for ships, as well as drilling for oil and natural gas, many predictions are not so rosy regarding the melting Arctic. The University of Cambridge predicts Arctic mining would cost the world over $60 trillion due to rapid melting, rising sea levels, crop devastation and methane gas releases. Methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, even though it dissipates more quickly in the atmosphere.

Coal mining has moved from deep mining to mountain top removal and strip mining in many areas, which still pollutes, distorts the landscape and enhances black lung disease. Fracking shale for natural gas has brought gas prices down quite dramatically and devastated the coal industry. Although coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel, it may have been given a reprieve as more studies indicate that fracking is extremely detrimental because it consumes large sums of water (often in areas that are in drought), pumps toxic chemicals into the porous earth that may get into water supplies, produces deadly methane and is becoming more linked with earthquakes.

Even though the horrendous civil war in Syria is occupying the front pages of every newspaper in the country, climate change still remains the #1 problem because it affects all 7.2 billion people on the Earth. The challenge is to be aware that a changing climate is like a slow-motion car wreck. When the final impact is felt, it will be too late.

Although the politicians, businesses and public clamor for more jobs, it is imperative to comprehend there are millions of jobs in clean energy sources, which are more beneficial to the society and cheaper to secure. The solar energy industry employed over 100,000 people and was 20 times larger than in 2002. Last year, the US lost over $140 billion due to wildfires, crop losses and other climate devastation, which amounted to $1,100 per taxpayer.

Bill McKibben, President and Co-Founder of 350.org, summed it up in a dour article in theNew York Times, Dec. 5, 2010.

'There’s no happy ending where we prevent climate change any more. Now the question is, is it going to be a miserable century or an impossible one, and what comes after that.”

The choices are bleak but the choice is ours to make. What comes after that? The policymakers may be pursuing the wrong approach by asking how can they extract fossil fuels more cheaply. Given that all fossil fuels are devastating to the environment and many living organisms, perhaps the UN and enlightened leaders in the public and private sectors should launch a worldwide campaign called OFFF--Out of Fossil Fuels Forever.

Bill Miller, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

US Arms Treaty Passes Overwhelmingly

By Bill Miller

Frequently the UN is on the cutting edge of major initiatives regarding international peace, economic and social development, climate change and human rights. One recent bombshell took place on April 2, when the United States, along with 153 other member states of the UN General Assembly, posted a landslide victory to adopt a treaty to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons. Although 23 countries abstained, only Syria, North Korea and Iran voted against it. This victory was a major achievement that was resurrected like the mythological Phoenix Bird after seven contentious years of discussion, recrimination, and often campaigns of misinformation and disinformation.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) covers six comprehensive areas:

-- States are required to establish regulations for arms imports and exports in eight major categories: battle tanks; armored combat vehicles; large-caliber artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters; warships; missiles and missile launchers; and small arms and light weapons;

-- States, which have the option to authorize arms sales, are required to assess the potential that the transfer 'could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law' and 'international human rights law,' terrorism or organized crime. Additionally, states should review the risk of serious acts of gender-based violence or acts of violence against women and children. If there is compelling evidence that any of these potentially dangerous situations are present, they are required not to authorize the export;

-- If the state 'has knowledge' that the transfer of arms or exports of ammunition or weapons parts and components would be used in the commission of 'genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, or other war crimes,' the state is required to prohibit the transfer;

-- States are required to establish effective regulations on the export of ammunition and weapons parts and components. This is extremely critical since perpetrators can continue a conflict long after they receive the initial weapons, if they can secure ammunition and spare parts;

-- An annual report is required on all arms transfers. This will show states are reacting legally and morally, as well as to strengthen the transparency and public accountability for their actions; and

-- There will be regular conferences of states parties to review implementation of the treaty and developments in the field of conventional arms. This is one of the major provisions that will indicate a state's commitment to the treaty, encourage the sharing of information, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the treaty and allow states to consider new types of conventional weapons that may come into play in the future.

One remaining major obstacle may be the U.S. Senate which has to approve the international treaty by 67 votes, out of a total of 100 Senators. At present, it is highly doubtful the Senate would approve it. Immediately prior to the UN vote, the Senate voted 53-46 on March 23, for a nonbinding amendment to its budget resolution calling for the treaty's rejection. The basic argument was that it would infringe on U.S. gun rights.

Supporters of the ATT have argued persuasively that the treaty has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. domestic gun policies and would not encroach upon the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to bear arms. The ATT applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and explicitly mentions, 'the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms' within its territory.

Running parallel with this disinformation campaign in the Senate, prompted to a large degree by the National Rifle Association, is a horrific lack of knowledge about UN programs and treaties, and an almost knee-jerk skepticism of and rejection of any UN proposal. The sentiment in the Senate is not synchronized with the American public that, in one recent Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research Opinion Poll, indicated that 86% of the people queried supported the US actively participating in UN programs.

As another stark example, one need only to look at the Senate vote in December that rejected a UN treaty to ban discrimination against people with disabilities. It was defeated 61-38. Although key supporters, such as President Obama, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, (R-KS), and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) strongly supported it, the opponents erroneously argued that it would undermine US sovereignty, create new abortion rights and restrict people from homeschooling disabled children; all bogus charges, according to the supporters. In essence, the treaty would have extended the standards covered in the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act to people worldwide.

There are four major issues to consider in the future as they pertain to the ATT:

First, the ATT will have to be monitored closely to check member state's compliance, how effective it is in reducing conflicts and devastation and if there are any unintended consequences. Many of the African countries, which have suffered the brunt of illegal arms sales, argued that the treaty should have been even stronger.

Second, the ATT will be open for signature by various governments on June 3rd. Once fifty countries adopt the treaty, which should be easy to secure given the huge vote, it will go into effect. The American arms industry accounts for about 30% of the whopping $70 billion annual trade in conventional arms. Close attention will be paid both to how this industry responds and how it is affected by this treaty.

Third, as with many UN treaties, one weakness is that it does not have an enforcement mechanism. To be effective, close monitoring and peer pressure will be critical among the member states. At times, the UN is blamed for the failure of a particular program or treaty. In reality, it is the member states that spell success or failure for the undertaking. The UN is the framework within which the 193 members of the General Assembly come together to determine whether and how they will or will not agree to a proposal.

Fourth, hopefully the media will get more involved in providing coverage of this landmark treaty. During the discussions and even after the vote, the vast majority of the US media, albeit there were some exceptions, were totally lacking in disseminating the information. Many of the media outlets that did cover this monumental decision buried it on page A-4 or gave it short-shrift. Given this lack of coverage by the media, it is more understandable how Americans may support the UN, but still not understand the international organization very well.

The second UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold (1953-1961) said, 'The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.' For the millions of child soldiers and innocent civilians adversely affected by illegal firearms and civil conflicts, it may very well be that the Arms Trade Treaty will save them from a hell-on-earth. Time will tell.

Bill Miller, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Palestine and Israel: UN Showdown

By Bill Miller

A major historical event took place on November 29 when the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution to elevate Palestine from an 'entity' to the status of a non- member observer state, which is basically the same classification as that of The Vatican. The lopsided vote was 138-9 with 41 abstentions.

The US and Canada were the only major countries to vote Nay. The majority of the 138 countries in the affirmative were not anti-Israel per se, but appeared to be frustrated with the lack of movement in the peace discussions, which have been comatose for well over two years. The US and Israel roundly condemned the UN vote as setting the peace process back.

A wide array of Mideast political observers encouraged the European Union, and even the US and Israel, to support the Palestinian bid, rather than fighting a rear-guard action that was inevitably going to fail, given the international frustration over the nonproductive status quo of further divisions between the parties and a dead peace process. The argument was that the Israelis would deal from a stronger hand of cooperation, rather than confrontation, which would resuscitate a beleaguered Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and help weaken Hamas's message.

Many US media personalities, political pundits and even PA representatives have incorrectly labeled the United Nations vote as 'simply symbolic.' It is partially symbolic but more so extremely substantive. What does it mean to have this elevated status?

First, the UN General Assembly basically gave prestige to and created the State of Palestine which has certain rights, responsibilities and limitations. The Palestinian Authority still cannot introduce resolutions in the UN General Assembly, but it can get another member state to do so on its behalf. Undoubtedly, it will not be a major challenge to get other states to support PA issues. It cannot run for other elected positions, such as a member of the Security Council.

Second, the Palestinians do have a right to participate in various UN agencies, although there is no automatic assurance of membership. The PA, if accepted, will have a forum through the myriad of UN agencies to raise issues of importance. This is the truly significant part of being a non-member state observer. For example, if the PA joined the International Criminal Court, it could level the charge that Israel is violating international law by building settlements or engaging in war crimes. The flip side of the argument is that the Palestinians would be liable for assaults on Israeli civilians.

Taken a step further, the UN System could be of great importance to amplify Palestinian grievances. For example, international law allows that individual countries control their airspace and territorial waters. At present, the Israelis control the airspace over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Mediterranean Sea off of Gaza. The UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization could potentially raise the pressure on the Israelis. A counterproductive US law requires that any UN entity that allows Palestinian involvement would be defunded. Recently, UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, accepted the PA as a member. US funding of nearly $80 million was discontinued. The defunding of UNESCO has hurt both the agency and the US, especially since some vital US programs being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan may be dropped. Additionally, the US will not be a viable player in the future if it does not pay its fair share of the budget.

What would happen if the various UN agencies allowed the PA to participate? Does anyone actually believe that, given that Americans are 40% of the international flying public, US airlines, e.g. Delta or US Airways, could actually do well and prosper without participating in the UN ICAO? Will US seagoing shipping companies want to drop out of the IMO? How badly would US health policies be affected if it bowed out of the UN World Health Organization, a front line agency combating a wide range of diseases from polio to Avian Bird Flu?

After the bombshell vote, the backlash was swift and severe. Israel, who has an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA) to collect taxes and customs duties and income taxes and social security donations from Palestinians working in Israel, withheld about $118 million it was to send to the Palestinian government. These withheld funds, which would be used to pay police and other public workers, could spark serious social upheaval in a poverty stricken area. Ironically, the Israeli military opposes this action because many of the funds go to the Palestinian security forces that assist in maintaining security in the West Bank. The PA is in dire financial straits with a $500 million financing gap and a $1.3 billion budget deficit.

Israel also moved forward to develop 3,000 new settlement homes on Palestinian land in an area called E-1. The action, condemned by the US, the UN, and the international community as illegal, may pull the plug on any hope of an agreement. The E-1 borders would fracture contiguous lines for a future Palestinian state because it would cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank, thus making the two-state approach impossible.

The Israeli settlement issue is one of the major obstacles to reaching a peace agreement. There are over 500,000 Israeli settlers living, in violation of international law, on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. It will be very difficult to get the settlers to leave voluntarily if, and when, a peace agreement is brokered.

The US Congress also has threatened to withhold funds for the Palestinian Authority which, if social unrest spread, could do more to weaken the hand of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and strengthen Hamas. A major loser would be Abbas, whereas, the winners would be the hard-liners or radicals.

There are several options available for a peaceful resolution: future settlement construction must be completely halted; Israel and the Palestinians must negotiate a return to the 1967 borders, or some variation thereof; there must be a two-state solution, (although Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be moving away from this position; and Hamas, which was democratically elected in the Gaza Strip, and is viewed by the US and others as a terrorist organization, will have to be involved in the peace process. If key constituencies are excluded from the discussions, they could derail them through violence or other disruptive tactics.

Interestingly, the November 29, 2012, date of the UN vote occurred exactly 65 years after the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which established a Jewish state beside an Arab state in the former British Mandated Territory of Palestine. History may be repeating itself in reverse with the Palestinians asserting a vote for the two-state solution.

The famous US comedian Will Rogers once opined, 'Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.' The Oslo Peace Accords were on the right track, but they just sat there, and the recent UN vote just ran over them. One obvious conclusion may be that if the parties do not get serious and realize they must both make major concessions, the next step, born from heightened frustration, will be a bloody Intifada, which few people want and which would weaken both parties. Time is running out.

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN Climate Conference in Rio

By Bill Miller

From June 20-22, 2012, the countries of the world, with over 100 heads of state and nearly 50,000 participants, met in Rio de Janeiro for a “Rio + 20 Conference on Sustainable Development.”

The crux of the discussions focused on the main themes of building a green economy to achieve sustainable development and to raise people out of poverty, providing assistance to economically- developing countries that will assist them in locating a green path for development and enhancing international coordination for sustainable development.

The 'Rio + 20 Conference' was held 20 years after the productive '1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development', known as the 'Earth Summit,' that brought together world leaders (including US President George H.W. Bush) to hammer out several major international agreements.

The Earth Summit produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Agenda 21 (a 900 page list of suggestions on how to promote sustainable development, conserve resources and reduce costs); Forest Principles; the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

A few logistical challenges plagued the 2012 Rio Conference before it ever began. For example, the dates had to be changed because the original ones conflicted with Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee; Rio hotels reportedly had only 33,000 beds for an anticipated influx of 50,000 visitors that led to severe price gouging and skyrocketing room rates, ultimately causing several delegations to cancel their plans to attend, and the city was plagued with traffic jams.

Regardless, these were minor nuisances that confronted the governmental, private sector and civil society attendees who were often at loggerheads with one another on how to deal with what may be the greatest challenge to planet Earth and all living species: climate change. Figuratively speaking, mountains of scientific data and reports conclusively show that the weather patterns are changing, glaciers are melting, seas are rising, desertification is occurring and heat waves, forest fires, floods and storms are becoming more frequent and severe. Just in the US, nearly 4,000 daily high temperature records were set for the month of June in 2012.

The 'Rio + 20 Conference' has been categorized by such descriptive terms as “a political charade,” and a 'failure of epic proportions.' UN Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon first described it as 'modest... a firm foundation,' and then later as a 'success.' It may be a partial combination of all of these observations since there were both achievements and setbacks.

After contentious wrangling, world leaders did approve the outcome document for Rio+20 entitled “The Future We Want,' which was agreed to by the Member States of the United Nations.

Perhaps the most important achievement at the conference was that more than $500 billion, with over 700 commitments, was made to take action on sustainable development initiatives. These commitments addressed a myriad of global issues that include access to clean energy, food security, water and sustainable transportation.

The document also calls for a vast range of actions, including countries to re-commit themselves to sustainable development, establishing a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and launching a high-level political forum on sustainable development.

Additionally the document emphasized how the green economy can be used as a tool to achieve sustainable development, strengthen the UN Environment Program and promote corporate sustainability reporting measures.

Regarding corporations, the business community is a prime economic generator and contributes to a large part of the climate change problem, thus should be part of the solution. One major meeting prior to the Rio Conference was a Forum, organized by the UN Global Compact and others, that brought together 2,700 business leaders, investors, academics, government officials, environmentalists and grassroots activists.

The Forum issued the 'Rio+20: Final Business Forum Text' that included a commitment by business leaders to help create and implement new Sustainable Development Goals. CEOs from 45 major corporations suggested how governments can better manage water supplies and how businesses can use and restore natural resources more efficiently. Nearly 300 institutions of higher education signed on to placing sustainable development as a major part of college and university curricula.

The United Nations Global Compact (www.unglobalcompact.org), the largest voluntary association of over 7,000 business in 135 countries, is committed to ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.

Another suggestion from the Rio Conference was that nations need to re-define the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to assess the well-being of a country. Rather than solely use the economic benefit of GDP, emphasis should be upon a macro approach to view the health and viability of natural resources, such as forests, oceans and rivers, as well as the hidden social and environmental costs associated with consuming fossil fuels--especially major pollutants such as coal and petroleum. This ties into the concept of adopting a framework for tackling sustainable consumption and production and making the 'polluter' pay for the damage.

Another approach is to eliminate the $750 billion subsidies governments dole out each year to promote the use of fossil fuels. Although alternative clean energy sources are still rather expensive and not commercially competitive in some areas, subsidizing clean energy sources would make them more competitive. Some significant projects include Germany moving from nuclear power to renewable sources of energy. In Southern California, the cost per kilowatt hour of solar energy is reportedly equivalent to that of current electricity. When an alternative, such as solar, is economically viable -- and it may be in the not-too-distant future -- the term 'coal mine' will be about as obsolete as the 'iron lung' is to a discussion of polio today.

A major recommendation of the Rio Conference was to empower women economically, socially and politically. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who represented the Obama Administration in Rio, expressed approval of the final document's endorsement of women's sexual and reproductive health; however, she expressed her dismay and concern with the deletion of references to reproductive rights, which is construed by pro-life proponents as a euphemism for abortion. Observers contend that the 'pro-life' conservative groups, led by the Vatican which has Observer Status at the UN, deleted the reference.

A critical path to empower women is to provide educational opportunities, the ability to determine their family size and to have access to reproductive health choices.

What were some other major trends or lessons learned from the conference?

1) It may be unrealistic to expect that a Grand Bargain will be adopted by 193 governments. Some of the governments have vested interests in fossil fuel industries and receive benefits in the form of jobs, economic investments, financial assistance for charities and other institutions, as well as campaign contributions to politicians who then develop laws and regulations that favor those industries. Although governments play a key role, the Rio Conference demonstrated that other players, e.g. nongovernmental organizations, academia and businesses, were decentralizing the process and making more commitments, in many cases without governmental support.

2) On the other hand, many governments are taking bold action to confront climate change. For instance, Germany, hardly known for its sunny weather, apparently receives over 40 % of its electricity from solar units. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Australia has put a price on carbon, and California is launching a comprehensive cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A US federal appeals court, for the first time ever, upheld regulations to reduce gases that are often linked with global warming. Given the climate change-denial mentality of the US Congress, legislation of this type would be impossible to pass through normal legislative processes.

The Yasuni-ITT Initiative is an Ecuadorian Government project to permanently protect the oil reserves in the pristine Yasuni National Park. Although Ecuador is a poor country and is an oil producer, it hopes to receive $3.6 billion over 13 years from the international community in exchange for not tapping 846 million barrels of oil, with the rationale to conserve biodiversity, protect indigenous peoples and reduce CO2 emissions.

The Virginia Legislature, denying both irrefutable scientific evidence and common-sense logic, is sending out conflicting, schizophrenic messages. The Legislature has appropriated state funds to study and to combat erosion of the Virginia coastal areas; while, at the same time, taking legislative action to ban using the terms 'climate change' and 'sea level rise,' which are key cause-and effect terms as to what is impacting the Atlantic Ocean. The journal 'Nature Climate Change' reported a study indicating a 600-mile 'hot spot' in the Atlantic Ocean causing sea levels to rise 3 to 4 times faster than the global average since 1990. Computer models estimate that sea levels globally could rise by 3.3 feet by 2100, or perhaps sooner.

3) Currently, the planet is straining under a population explosion. How much pressure will be on resources when, as the UN predicted, there will be 9-10 billion by 2050? Even at 7 billion people today, the strains indicate that the earth's finite resources are being consumed at a more rapid rate and an expanding population puts additional pressure on the ecosystem.

A recent example of environmental pressures and human improvement was driven home in an article in the New York Times on the proliferation of window air conditioners in the slums of Mumbai, India. As the residents' income increased so did their aspirations to improve their quality of life and to enjoy various amenities. The air conditioners are using an environmentally friendly coolant but are still belching out a warming effect of 2,100 times that of carbon dioxide. Most people, which is to be expected, want to improve their standard of living by acquiring better food, refrigerators, autos, and other necessities when their incomes rise.

4) The climate change discussion -- even with its shortcomings -- would not have reached this point had it not been for actions by the United Nations, such as establishing the international scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988, bringing key players together at various UN conferences on climate change and utilizing UN agencies to combat this problem. The UN's main strength is to provide a forum or structure within which climate change can be discussed and acted upon. Perhaps the most important ingredient in this recipe was the Herculean effort of UN SG Ban Ki-moon who -over six years ago-identified climate change as one of the major challenges and encouraged governments and others to be involved in confronting the problem. The SG's 'Good Offices' elevated the topic and shone the spotlight on a problem that affects all living beings.

5) Climate change deniers may be diminishing. Over 96% of climate scientists believe that climate change is occurring, yet there is some minor professional disagreement as to how damaging the phenomenon may be. One group that has consistently been in the 'climate change -denier camp' are meteorologists, of which about 20% believe climate change is factual. That may be changing. Paul Douglas, a self-described free-market Republican, practicing Christian and professional meteorologist in a Bloomberg Businessweek article, indicated he no longer believed climate change is a hoax, given the overwhelming evidence that the last decade was the warmest on record and included nine of the 10 hottest years. Other areas of concern are the 71% drop in the Great Lakes peak ice since 1973, winters are shorter, animals and plants are moving northward and humans pump out 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Another potential convert is Rex Tillerson, Exxon's Chief Executive, who did a 180 degree flip and professed that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are warming the planet. Mr. Tillerson, who erroneously suggested that climate change is 'manageable,' heads a company that has been a major contributor to faux-science think tanks and pseudo scientists that have fought climate change reports and have disseminated disinformation and misinformation to cultivate doubts about the science.

6) The climate change discussion directly ties into the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were adopted in 2000 and come to fruition in 2015. The MDGs aim to halve abject poverty, provide universal primary school education, reduce maternal and child mortality rates, empower women, combat AIDS, promote sustainable development and develop cooperative international partnerships. Achieving the MDGs will depend on how successful the climate change battle is waged, and vice-versa.

Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt said, 'Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.' These are prophetic words for political leaders who are still making foolish mistakes by funneling subsidies to fossil fuel industries, by denying or downplaying overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is occurring and by fighting rear guard actions to keep alive industries, such as coal, that are destroying the planet. Earth is near the 'tipping point,' which some scientists say is 2015 -- if we are to keep warming below 2 degrees. Political leaders, public administrators, businesses, environmentalists, media, along with every human being, need to focus like a laser beam on this problem. Given the Rio Conference agreement failed to stress the need for urgency, more substantive action is needed now, not tomorrow, to confront the world's number one major threat.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Haiti: A Glimmer of Hope?

When the 'CNN Effect' ended, Haiti was no longer in the spotlight

By Bill Miller

What a difference two years can make. On January 12, 2010, the world was horrified to witness the aftermath of the devastating 7.0 earthquake that decimated Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and killed over 200,000, maimed thousands, dispossessed over 1.3 million and caused losses of approximately $7 billion, which is 120% of Haiti's 2009 gross domestic product (GDP).

For a brief period, media from all over the world chronicled and documented the human and physical devastation. When the 'CNN Effect' ended, Haiti was no longer in the spotlight.

During this two year-plus interim, a multitude of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and United Nations (UN) agencies--in tandem with many governments and private sector groups--stayed involved and lent a hand to help Haiti re-build. Although considerable progress has been made, there are still monumental challenges that will extend well into the future.

During a press conference in late November, Nigel Fisher, Deputy Special Representative to the UN Secretary General (Ban Ki-moon), placed some of the challenges of rebuilding Haiti into perspective. He mentioned that the country's 'economic and social infrastructure had long been broken,' even prior to the quake. Some jaw-dropping statistics indicated that over 50% of children did not attend school, approximately 75 % of the population had no electricity and only 5% of the roads were in decent condition.

Other pre- earthquake statistics showed that only 50% of the Haitians had access to safe drinking water, 55% of the population lived on less than $1.00 per day, and 24% of children under five suffered from chronic malnutrition. The earthquake only heightened the misery and suffering of a society exhibiting major problems that adversely affected the quality of life.

In a recent fact-finding trip to the ravaged country, Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), highlighted that more than 60% of the 10 million cubic meters of rubble has been cleared, with UNDP as the main coordinator of the removal effort. A major impediment to rescue and rebuilding was because over 80,000 buildings had collapsed, leaving impassable mounds of debris.

The UN and US State Department assert that many other signs of progress are visible. For example, the number of refugees living in tent camps has declined from 1.5 million to just over 500,000; the health and sanitation sectors have reduced cholera infections to around 200 new cases per day; 75% of the displaced children are now in school; 1.5 million people now have shelter, clean water, emergency kits, and access to latrines; solar lights have been installed to help keep women and girls safe from violent attacks; and, even though the recent elections were flawed, this was the first time in 25 years all three of the Haitian branches (executive, legislative and judicial) are actually in place.

Other international public administrators in the UN agencies are working to clear irrigation canals, restore phone and postal services, immunize children against childhood diseases, and implement a cash-for-work program. UNICEF (UN Children's Fund) is developing maternal and child health care programs, as well as focusing on child abuse and illegal trafficking of children. UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is working to develop the educational system.

One program to resettle quake victims is the 16/6 Program that focuses on re-locating displaced people -- living in six refugee camps -- back to their original neighborhoods. The goal is laudable and considerable progress has been made; however, the program reflects two of the major impediments: 1) Donor funding is chaotic and unpredictable. Costs are estimated at $78 million, yet only $30 million has been received by the Haiti Reconstruction Fund, ostensibly due to bureaucratic snags. 2) Of the 515,000 people (in July of 2010 it was 1.5 million) living in 700 camps, this program will assist only an estimated 30,000.

Another UN operation is the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (with the French acronym of MINUSTAH). The mission, which got off to a bumpy start in 2004, has received high marks for providing stability and order to a country that had major gang problems and corrupt governmental and private sector leaders. Even with its success, the mission has suffered a public relations setback for three events. In 2011, 114 Sri Lankan troops were sent home in a 'sex-for-pay' scandal where food was exchanged for sex with hungry young Haitian girls. Later that year, four Uruguayan solders were charged with beating and sodomizing a young man; and three Pakistani troops were repatriated to be punished for sexual abuse of a Haitian male.

The UN's Zero Tolerance Policy requires that if the military code is violated the guilty soldiers will be returned to their host countries and be dealt with by their respective governments. Along with a Zero Tolerance Policy, the UN has assisted victims of sexual abuse and exploitation with psychological and medical support.

The UN Peacekeeping force is composed of about 11,000 military personnel and police. At present, 70% of the Haitians want the UN Peacekeepers to stay; however, as the police and military become more professionally trained, the UN will gradually withdraw its forces in order to avoid instability and chaos that would be created by an immediate pullout.

A third problem for the peacekeeping mission was accidentally causing a cholera epidemic. After a recent visit to Haiti, former US President Bill Clinton, UN Special Envoy to Haiti who has been involved in the rebuilding effort, attested that a Nepalese soldier in the UN Mission probably was unaware that he had cholera. Apparently, the soldier's dumping of waste in the waterways, coupled with Haiti's lack of health facilities, may have inadvertently caused the deaths of 7,000 Haitians and infected over 525,000 in a cholera epidemic.

Major challenges in the future :

1) Lack of political stability: In February, Prime Minister Garry Conille, who served less than five months, resigned after being requested by President Michel Martelly. Apparently, Mr. Conille disagreed with the president over an audit showing about $300 million had been let on no-bid contracts. A lack of competition, transparency, accountability and oversight are still major problems in Haiti.

2) Lack of competition: In 2010, the US government awarded more than 1,500 contracts worth $267 million. All, except 20, went to US firms. Only $4.3 million went to Haitian businesses. Some of the US corporations that received contracts had previous contracts cancelled for bad practices, had been investigated by Congress for unethical or illegal practices, or had been accused of waste fraud and abuse. The Haitian leadership and business community must be brought into the process; however, there must be more of a crackdown on corruption and cronyism.

3) Commitments: It is crucial that the donors stand by their commitments. Of the $5 billion in international aid, only $3.5 billion has been received, and a large part of that has been unspent.

4) Coordination: Although the UN is trying to coordinate the various relief efforts of NGOs to reduce inefficiency and waste, large number of donors providing medicine, food and other services are not coordinating and are working at cross purposes with little coordination among their activities.

5) Untapped Resources: One huge untapped resource is Haitian females who should be playing a larger role in the society. Ms. Clark, UNDP Administrator, met with a group of Haitian women leaders from both the private and public sectors to discuss their strengths and areas of involvement. Although women can, and should, play a key role in Haiti, they are not well-represented. For example, females head up 40% of the Haitian families, yet only hold four percent of seats in parliament. 60% of Haitian women are illiterate.

6) Overpopulation: Haiti is overpopulated which adversely affects both the environment and unemployment. Haiti and the Dominican Republic occupy the island of Hispaniola, which is strategically located between Cuba and Puerto Rico. Haiti, with a population of over 10 million and a per capita income of about $800 per year, is relatively small at 27,750 sq. km. (10,714 sq. mi.), which is about the size of Maryland. By contrast, the Dominican Republic covers 48,442 sq. km. (18,704 sq. mi.), which is about the size of Vermont and New Hampshire and has a per capita income of nearly $6,000.

One of the most environmentally tragic aerial views is the shot of the Haitian-Dominican border. The Dominican side is lush and green with vegetation; whereas, the Haitian side is desolate and denuded with little vegetation. Heavy rainfall causes the topsoil to wash into the streams and ultimately the ocean. Many demographers view Haiti as a microcosm of what many parts of the world will look like unless there is a reduction in population growth. Compounding the problem, Haiti has the highest fertility rate in the region (4.8 per woman between 15 and 49), as well as the highest maternal mortality rate in Latin America and the Caribbean: 670 deaths for every 100,000 born.

Although a large number of Haitians displayed a tremendous decorum and triumph of the human spirit after this disaster, they can only accomplish so much with their meager financial resources. Haitians have to become more responsibly involved in rebuilding, and the international community must keep its promises to provide technical and financial aid.

While en route to Mexico shortly after the quake, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden made a surprise visit to Haiti to meet with then-Haitian President Preval. They visited a children's safe space established by First Lady of Haiti Elisabeth Delatour Preval and danced with some of the children. Perhaps another visit by these prominent international celebrities would be an excellent way to shine the spotlight back on a country that still needs massive assistance. The 'CNN Effect' should be 24-7 and year-round.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Rough Road from Durban to Rio

By Bill Miller

The 17th Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that recently concluded in Durban, South Africa, has been categorized by such descriptive terms as “underwhelming,” “modest,” “positive” and “historic.” It may be a combination of all of them since there were both accomplishments and setbacks.

The 194 parties in attendance agreed to work toward a new global treaty and to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for five years. The target date for the new international agreement is 2015, but it may not be ratified until 2020. Regardless of the date, the goal of holding the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius to restrain irreparable climate change will not be met at this modest pace.

The conference developed a package called the “Durban Platform” that established a new climate fund to assist poor countries to confront climate change, prevent deforestation and convert to cleaner energy sources, but did not stipulate how the $100 billion for the Green Climate Fund would be generated.

On the positive side, China and India, which had been holdouts, did agree to abide by the same legally binding targets agreed to in the Kyoto Conference, although the Chinese accused the US of having a double-standard now that a large part of the industrial production and emissions that formerly were in the US are now in China.

Climate crisis alarms are ringing around the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which was set up in 1988 by the United Nations and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) -- has been a major scientific player in climate change discussions and reports. The IPCC recently suggested that earthquakes may not be linked to climate change; however, it could be causal with severe droughts, flooding, hurricanes and other severe storms. Last year, all records were shattered when a dozen weather disasters in the US cost over $52 billion. Principal causes of the high expenses have been more severe disasters, larger populations and more valuable property in the path of the storms. As an example, the tsunami in Japan hit a staggering $261 billion which is the most expensive natural disaster recorded.

Other scientific reports offer even more distressing news: the decade between 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, with 2010 and 2005 the warmest years; desertification is expanding; hundreds of species are moving toward the poles; heat is reducing wheat yields; glaciers worldwide are rapidly contracting; ocean levels may rise from 35-63 inches by 2100; the Arctic Ocean summer ice cap shrunk by 50% and is expected to vanish between 2030 and 2040, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

With the melting of the ice pack, methane, a gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is bubbling from beneath the Arctic Ocean. The Global Carbon Project, a consortium of international scientists, reported that emissions from carbon dioxide had surged 5.9%, the highest one-year jump on record. Also, carbon emissions far exceeded previous estimates by spiking an incredible 49% since 1990. And the litany of bad news continues.

One recent poll shows that Americans who believe in climate change fell precipitously from 71% to 51%. A large part of this decline may be attributed to a well-funded disinformation and misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, primarily petroleum and coal, that funds pseudo-scientists to discredit the 95% of the scientists who professionally document changing climatic conditions. The corporate interests also manipulate the media to provide equal time to unscientific, delusional climate change deniers who create “doubt” through their baseless charges, much the way the tobacco companies did to confuse the public.

One of the most ridiculous examples was Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who reiterated his fallacious claim that manmade global warming is “the greatest hoax ever,” even blaming the Weather Channel to be in on the conspiracy in order to jack-up its ratings. Senator Inhofe’s own church, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, has recognized, “Global climate change is predominantly caused by our burning of fossil fuels.”

The evidence is overwhelming that climate change is occurring. The media should ignore faux climate change researchers and lobbyists like the Global Climate Coalition, which was set up by the U.S oil and coal interests to tout how their products do not contribute to global warming. Their bogus pseudo-science is duplicitous, especially since one of their own scientific documents concluded that climate change is indisputable.

Climate change deniers had a rude awakening when one the few scientists who scorned climate change did a 180-degree reversal. Professor Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of Berkeley and a climate change skeptic, with some funds from the fossil fuel industry, endeavored to prove the 95% of the scientists who believe in climate change were wrong. Muller’s studies indicated that the climate change studies were correct and that the data had not been biased or manipulated. Muller’s former denialist colleagues proceeded to attack him as part of the conspiracy and questioned his motives and his scientific reasoning. Muller concluded that, “…global warming is real.”

Other significant voices supporting climate change include: Pope Benedict XVI believes there is a “global responsibility” to find the “moral will” to combat the “threatening catastrophe” of climate change. American ecumenical organizations, including Church World Service and the National Council of Churches of Christ, urged President Obama to achieve “a fair, ambitious and binding agreement that sets forth a truly moral response to climate change.” Of the 500 largest companies, nearly 400 have placed climate change as a critical component of their business, thus implementing projects to reduce emissions, save energy and train staff to focus on sustainability.

As the world moves well into the 21st Century, there are some maxims that should be considered:

1) Nations should continue to work through the UN to combat climate change; however, countries can take individual action, e.g. Obama Administration pushing increased automobile efficiency and tighter Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will eliminate several coal-fired power plants.

2) The main stream media, which excludes supplicants of the fossil fuel industry such as Fox News, should provide more objective coverage of the climate change debate and not give equal time to faux scientists that shill for the fossil fuel industry. The media are abandoning their main responsibility to inform the public. For example, in 2007, the three major networks did 147 stories on climate change; in 2010 they ran 32 stories. When the media give the climate change deniers equal coverage to espouse their discredited attacks, it is almost equivalent to providing a forum for the Flat Earth Society to debate.

3) Although alternative energy and green technology can produce millions of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue, it may also be challenging and painful to shift to a more environmentally –friendly economy. As Naomi Klein highlighted in an article for The Nation (November 9, 2011), “Capitalism vs. The Climate,” major changes should be implemented, such as replacing a more reckless, Wild West form of “free trade” with a more responsible trade that does not wreak havoc on the environment, destroy workers’ rights and eliminate jobs and encourage the public to over consume. Other approaches may be necessary, such as taxing the super-wealthy to pay their fair share in combating climate change; move from an overconsumption mentality to a more modest lifestyle; reject environmentally devastating projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline; reduce massive profits to a company’s shareholders; re-regulate the unaccountable corporate sector that has run amuck with reckless investments and criminal activities; and encourage the private and public sectors to move into renewable energy and conservation. In short, the extravagant consumptive economic model will need to change.

4) In 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion; whereas, on October 31, 2011, the UN predicted that the 7 billionth person was born. Burgeoning populations put more pressure on finite resources and damage a fragile environment through agricultural overgrazing, desertification and water pollution to mention a few. Climate change and overpopulation, which are inextricably linked, may be the two greatest challenges in the 21st Century. The Earth’s resources are stretched. Everyone, especially governments, must get serious about promoting voluntary family planning initiatives to maintain or even reduce the size of the population. Given current projections, the population will soar to nearly 10 billion by 2050, which is totally unsustainable. To get an update on this issue, go to the UN Population Fund at www.unfpa.org.

5) In 1992, the countries of the world met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). UNCED produced several major initiatives, especially the concept of “sustainable development,” which highlighted the importance of utilizing the Earth’s resources, yet leaving them in a sustainable condition for future generations to use. Another UNCED legacy was Agenda 21, a 900-page compendium on how to conserve energy, promote sustainable development and emphasize efficiency and effectiveness in the energy areas.

From June 20-22, 2012, the countries of the world will meet in Rio de Janeiro for a “Rio + 20 Conference on Sustainable Development.” The crux of the discussions will focus on two main themes: building a green economy to achieve sustainable development and raise people out of poverty, including assistance to economically- developing countries that will assist them in locating a green path for development. A second goal will be to improve international coordination for sustainable development.

UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon was rather sober about the discussions in Durban saying “Binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach--for now.” The Rio + 20 Conference offers another chance for the world to move forward and grasp the opportunity before the window slams shut. As painful as dealing with climate change may be today, it will be much more severe when the environmental deterioration worsens tomorrow.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Israeli-Palestinian Train Wreck at UN?

By Bill Miller

Even after massive pressure was applied by the US and Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority ( PNA) and Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), presented his request for Palestinian statehood to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who then referred it to the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council's Committee for Admission of New Members is reviewing that request. Since all 15-SC members are on that committee, and they must have a consensus agreement, it is uncertain how long the review will take. The US is lobbying other members to abstain or vote no, because it does not want to be in the precarious situation of vetoing the Palestinian membership, which would reverberate negatively through the Arab World, especially with the Saudis.

If, and when, the committee confirms that Palestine is 'peace loving,' which is a very broad definition, and accepts the UN Charter provisions, the application then goes to the full 15-member Security Council where it must receive at least 9 votes and not be VETOED by one of the five Permanent Members, that is the US, UK, China, Russia or France.

If it passed out of the Security Council, then the resolution must receive two-thirds of the General Assembly's 193 members, which it will do overwhelmingly because over 130 have indicated they will vote 'Aye'.

If the SC delays the approval or defeats it, the Palestinians will fall back to Plan B, which is to request that the UN General Assembly (GA)--through the 'Uniting for Peace Resolution' that allows the GA to circumvent the Security Council-- approve the PNA to be elevated from observer status to observer state, a classification similar to the Vatican. This would allow the Palestinians to join UN agencies, where it could highlight perceived Israeli injustices. In particular, if it ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) Rome Statute, presented it to UN SG Ban, and was recognized by the ICC, the ICC could conceivably prosecute Israel for illegal actions such as transferring settlers to Palestinian territory, which violates the Geneva Convention.

Other major pitfalls loom for Israel if the PA joined UN agencies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or the Law of the Sea Treaty. The ICAO, which works with governments and airlines for the safety of international air traffic, gives members full control over their airspace, which would conflict with the Israelis controlling the space over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Palestinians would gain control over their national waters off of Gaza--where Israel now has a naval blockade. Also, the Palestinians could re-claim the offshore natural gas fields that Israel currently controls.

In order to be considered a state, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States requires an entity to have: 1) a permanent population, 2) a defined territory, 3) a government, and 4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. If the mutually agreed-upon pre-1967 border issue were resolved, the PA would meet the criteria.

Perennial UN critics, such as former UN Ambassador John Bolton, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, are railing about anti-Semitism at the UN, and saying the US should withdraw its payments to the UN. This is the 'shoot yourself in the foot' philosophy.

Now-deceased Senator Jesse Helms, and others who loathed the UN, discovered in the 1990s that the US and the UN desperately need one another. Imagine if the UN were not assisting the US in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, pulled back from the battle against terrorism, eliminated peacekeeping missions, and the list goes on. The financial and personnel demands on the US to fill the void would be staggering.

Coupled with the tough talk to defund the UN, several members of Congress are threatening to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding $550 million in aid. The fallout from that action could very well be the Abbas Government would fall, another Intifada of violence would break out and a Hamas-style government could take over. and aid to the Palestinians. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees this approach is counterproductive to the US, Israel and the Palestinians.

Although the situation is tense and the future uncertain, there are several truisms to keep in mind:

-- The UN, although it is being criticized in some areas, is the perfect forum -- even though the two parties will ultimately have to reach an agreement -- to bring conflicting parties together to work out peacefully their disagreements and to jump start a moribund peace process.

-- The UN, even if the US curtails its funding, is not going to disappear. The UN Human Rights Council and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) survived several years before the US got re-involved. Besides, the world needs an organization that brings together the 193 countries to discuss major problems and work together to eliminate many of them.

-- The US is one of the major beneficiaries of UN programs, such as peacekeeping which keeps US troops out of harm's way and is much cheaper than if the US military ran the missions. US businesses and the general public benefit directly from UN agencies that draft the rules to move ships, mail, aircraft and weather information internationally. The New York area earns over $3 billion spent by diplomats, which is a far smaller amount than the US allocation to the UN.

-- Israel should recognize that there is a tsunami of frustration, even among some of its strongest supporters, due to its inflexibility to negotiate and inability to keep its word, as exemplified by the continued building of settlements on Palestinian territory. Inflaming the situation even more, Israel recently announced plans to build 1100 new homes for Jewish settlers in the Gilo illegal settlement, in occupied East Jerusalem. Approximately 300,000 Israelis live in the occupied West Bank.

Supporters of Israel, such as the Financial Times editorial page and Tom Friedman, NY Times writer, believe that the Palestinians have made monumental mistakes; however, many observers opine that the major impediment to peace is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu's hostile reaction to a Palestinian state, coupled with a fragile political coalition of ultra-conservative parties--as well as many of his own Likud Party members--does not bode well for negotiations, consensus, and agreement.

Yitzhak Rabin, a politician, statesman, general and the fifth Prime Minister of Israel and certainly not an appeaser or dove, realized the stark reality that demographics had entrapped Israel. 1.3 million Arabs are Israeli citizens and the Palestinian population is exploding. If the situation did not change, Israel would either be overwhelmed by larger numbers or have to operate an apartheid state, similar to that of South Africa. Neither option was viable to Rabin.

As if the situation were not muddled enough with several Arab countries undergoing social and political upheavals during the 'Arab Spring,' which may prove dangerous to Israel, the PLO Ambassador to the US, Mein Areikat , said that a future Palestine should be free of Jews and other religious groups, thus embracing ethnic cleansing.

Frustration and desperation are the bywords of the past 20 years. In 1991 the Madrid Peace Conference launched direct negotiations between the two parties. The 1993 Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn, but have produced no permanent benefits. Mr. Abbas referred to the next phase which he described as the 'Palestinian Spring.' Arguably, Abbas is frustrated, plans to retire soon and has little to lose.

Many Middle East observers wondered why, after a tortuous, unproductive 20-year process that accomplished little, it took the Palestinians so long to go to the UN. Israel, which is under severe threat at times from Palestinian militants, must be secure; however, the Palestinians have a right to no longer live under illegal Israeli occupation. The winds of change are blowing across that land. Now is the time to act before the winds become violent and turn into a gale force.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN Under Siege

By Bill Miller

Never in the 66-year history of the UN has the US ever needed the international organization more, and vice-versa.

The UN is in the forefront in promoting peace in dangerous areas of the world, providing humanitarian assistance, implementing economic and social development activities, shepherding climate change efforts and enhancing human rights worldwide, all of which are important to US foreign policy and the overall strength of the country.

As philosopher and poet George Santanya said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” From all indications, the perennial onslaught of the UN is well underway by several members of the US Congress who seem determined to repeat previous mistakes.

In the mid-80s and early 90s, the US dramatically damaged its credibility, international leadership, and security by refusing to pay its legal assessments until the UN complied with its demands to make internal management reforms and reduce the US assessment from 25 to 22%, as well as lower the peacekeeping assessment to 25%. In 1999, Senator Joe Biden (D-RI) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), both of whom recognized that the US was injuring itself, cobbled together an agreement that agreed to pay back over $900 million of the $1.2 billion bill.

At the end of 2010, according to the UN, the US owes a total outstanding assessed (mandatory) $736.2 million.

In the last session of Congress, Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) introduced H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which is a legally-binding treaty adopted by the US Senate that the US must honor in paying its legal UN dues.

Currently, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the new House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman, threatened to withhold payments ostensibly to coerce the United Nations to cut costs and improve its management.

Ros-Lehtinen also indicated that other legislation will improve oversight of UN agencies and defund the Human Rights Council because it is viewed as anti-Israel and includes nations guilty of human rights violations.

As Congress deliberates, it should remember how the UN provides assistance to the US and the world:

First, one of the major goals of the UN is to eliminate the scourge of war, which it attempts to do by helping to reduce conflicts around the world. Since 1948, the UN has fielded over 60 peacekeeping missions that saved lives, averted wars, and helped bring democracy to dozens of countries. Over 120,000 military, police, and civilian peacekeepers are now deployed in 14 operations around the world, from Haiti to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Darfur to East Timor. Only 87 personnel are Americans in uniform. Recent findings on peacekeeping show:
-- The total cost of UN peacekeeping dues to the US is equivalent to what we spend in a few days in Iraq and Afghanistan, a small investment for a major return;
-- A Rand Think Tank Report reported that when the UN can conduct a peacekeeping mission, it is more successful than when the US military takes on a unilateral peacekeeping assignment; 
-- A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) study indicated that UN peacekeeping costs US taxpayers only one-eighth of what a US military mission would cost. 
Although the US pays 25% of the peacekeeping’s $8 billion budget, it is still a bargain because other countries contribute most of the troops, which keeps Americans out of harm’s way, and pay 75% of the total.

Second, the UN is critical to help foster democracy by providing expertise and oversight and to strengthen fragile state institutions through peace building efforts. The UN has developed free elections in such dangerous areas as El Salvador, Cambodia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq and dozens more.

Third, UN humanitarian agencies are available to move quickly to a disaster zone to provide life-saving food, shelter, and medicine. In 2010 when floods devastated Pakistan, the World Food Program helped feed 6.9 million people. Similar efforts are underway in Haiti, Chad, Bolivia and Libya.

Fourth, the UN has not only been the US’s number one partner in fighting terrorism and Al Qaeda, it also combats the flow of illegal drugs, is the backbone of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and works to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Just last week the world was shocked and outraged when Terry Jones, the minister of a fringe, fundamentalist church in Florida, burned a copy of the Islamic holy book, the Quran. This act spurred an attack by rioting Afghans who overran a UN office in Northern Afghanistan, killing at least 10 workers and beheading two of the victims.

A few other examples of UN support for US policies include: in 2009, President Obama chaired a major Security Council summit that unanimously adopted far-reaching, binding steps to reduce nuclear dangers. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency has exposed Iran and North Korea’s nuclear violations. Additionally, the UN Security Council imposed the toughest sanctions that Iran and North Korea have ever confronted.

Fifth, the UN has been the driving force behind developing the lifesaving Millennium Development Goals. These logical and quantifiable goals, which have targets to be achieved by the year 2015, focus on reducing abject poverty by 50%, providing universal primary school education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development. Depending upon the country and the region, several goals are on-track to be achieved -- whereas, others are not.

Regarding the sustainable development goal of the Millennium Development Goals, the UN, primarily through establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and conducting its international environmental conferences, has moved the climate change discussion to center stage.

Sixth, UN agencies develop international standards and regulations. For example, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) sets the rules for international mail among its 190 member countries, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) sets standards for air travel, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) helps to make the seas more secure and the World Meteorological Organization is pivotal to move weather information around the world. Airlines, shipping companies and people worldwide directly benefit from these services.

Lastly, the UN is a place where countries convene to promote universal human rights and condemn the world's worst atrocities. The UN General Assembly, with US leadership, has condemned Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea’s human rights abuses by large vote margins, and just recently voted to toss Libya off of the Human Rights Council. The Security Council set up the legal machinery for a 'no-fly zone' over Libya and referred Moammar Gadhafi and his inner circle for possible crimes against humanity, to the International Criminal Court, a highly-unprecedented move that only occurred against Omar Al-bashir, president of Sudan.

UN Women, a new agency, is just coming on-line to focus attention on assisting and empowering women to play stronger more productive roles in their families and communities. Studies have consistently shown that women play a tremendous role in every community, even in ones where they may not enjoy the equal rights or benefits of men.

The UN has improved its internal management quite dramatically over the past 12 years. Arguably, although the UN should continue internal reforms, many UN programs are more cost-effective, less wasteful and more efficient than some US Government programs, such as FEMA’s mismanagement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraqi Economic Assistance Project where tens of billions of dollars were misspent or stolen, not to mention the Defense Department which has billions of dollars of waste.

For the past 66 years, since the UN was founded, public opinion polls have consistently indicated that the vast majority (a recent poll was at 65%) of the US public wants the American government to work through international bodies, primarily the UN, in dealing with the myriad of intractable international issues and problems. Another recent poll showed that 72% want the US to pay its dues on time and in full to the UN.

In a recent speech, Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent US Representative to the UN, laid out how much it costs when she reported, “Out of every tax dollar…34 cents goes to Social Security and Medicare, 22 cents to national security and our amazing military, and a nickel to paying interest on the national debt. Just one-tenth of a single penny goes to pay our UN dues.”

Members of Congress should keep in mind that the UN is not a one-world government, it does not infringe on American sovereignty, it does not have the power to tax America, and it does not have a fleet of secret black helicopters, nor a standing army, poised to swoop in on Washington, DC to take over the government.

Although the latter was misinformation disseminated primarily by the John Birch Society, some Members of Congress still subscribe to this bogus conspiracy theory. Freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently put out a frightening and erroneous screed as to how the UN Small Arms Treaty would ostensibly infringe on the Second Amendment and could lead to arms control in the US, which is totally fallacious.

There are several truisms that persist: the UN is not a perfect organization, but it has become much more accountable; the UN is in the US’s interest and helps the US achieve many foreign policy goals; the US earns more off of the UN than it pays in legal dues; the US is not paying its fair share at 22% of the budget (it should be closer to 28% according to a fair and equitable formula); and the world needs a strong, effective UN.

Governments at all levels are gearing up to cut back on expenditures as they strive to balance their budgets. The UN, undoubtedly, will suffer reductions in some agencies. The pragmatic UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested that the UN incorporate a 3 percent reduction in its budget.

Humorist and author Mark Twain once said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

Hopefully, Congress will only focus on the facts for the sake of the US and the world. Even with its flaws, the UN is absolutely critical to the success of many US foreign policies, is a bargain for the services it provides and if the UN disappeared today, it would have to be created tomorrow. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said that the UN is not perfect, but it is indispensable. Are these not words of wisdom for the US Congress?

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN Goals: On Track or Off the Rails?

By Bill Miller

In September 2000, 189 member states of the UN drafted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to overcome eight major problems over a 15-year period.

The MDGs committed to the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger by 50%, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality by two-thirds, improve maternal health by three-quarters, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development.

The MDG Summit was unique because it identified basic human needs and basic rights to which every human is entitled. Rather than talking about vague generalities, the MDGs are specific, quantifiable and measurable.

Recently, the countries of the world met at the UN to identify progress, review obstacles and gaps and develop concrete plans to achieve the MDGs. Are the goals being achieved? There is reason for both optimism and pessimism.

Goal #1, Poverty. Even with the international economic downturn, overall poverty rates declined from 46% in 1990 to 27% in 2005 which, if continued, will be on-track to halve the proportion of the 2 billion people living on $1.00 per day, thus achieving Goal number 1. One reason for improvement is due to China and India reducing poverty in their countries. The UN estimates that 920 million will still be living on less than $1.25 a day in 2015.

The reduction of hunger and malnutrition is trending downward, but at a much slower pace. The UN projects that 830 million people are undernourished.

UN agencies and several governments have embarked upon assistance programs to create jobs, provide food assistance cooperatives, invest in agriculture research and develop voucher programs for fertilizer and seed, as a few examples.

Goal #2, to promote universal education, highlights that enrollment for boys and girls, in developing areas, reached 89% from 2008, up from 83% in 2000. At that pace, the 100% goal will not be met by 2015.

Various governments, such as Kenya and Nepal, abolished school fees; whereas, Ghana and Tanzania have provided additional classrooms and educational materials. The UN World Food Program is providing meals for school children, and the UN Population Fund in Ethiopia is working to put an end to child marriages and to keep girls in school.

Goal #3, to enhance gender equality and empower women, has had limited success. The enrollment ratios of girls in primary and secondary schools have risen dramatically; whereas, many women to not have sufficient access to higher education, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.

Bangladesh provides secondary school stipends for girls; whereas, Mexico awards a 'Gender Equity Seal' to companies that recruit, train and employ females. The UN Population Fund is working to reduce female genital mutilation in places such as Egypt, Gambia and Senegal, and to offer microfinancing for women in Vietnam.

This week the US announced new commitments and $44 million in funding to empower and protect women in conflict. This 'national action plan' is geared to help implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in October of 2000, which highlights the role women must play for global security and strives to bring more women into the business and political arenas.

Goal #4, to reduce child deaths, is improving but not quickly enough. Of the 67 countries defined as having high child mortality rates, only 10 are poised to hit the mark by 2015. To reduce death rates, several African countries are providing anti-malaria mosquito nets; whereas Cambodia promotes breastfeeding to foster healthy babies.

Goal #5, to improve maternal health, is not meeting the 5.5% annual decline to meet the national mortality ratio. Over 350,000 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related complications, of which 99% are in developing countries.

Many countries are expanding maternal health services, combating fistula and dispatching mobile maternal health units.

Recently, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, along with governments, businesses, foundations and NGOs, launched the 'Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health' to focus attention and resources on an issue that was languishing.

Goal #6's battle against AIDs is showing considerable progress, given that new HIV infections fell from 3.5 million in 1996 to 2.7 million in 2008. Programs such as free access to antiretroviral treatment to the development of reproductive health and HIV prevention training are showing positive results.

Goal #7, to ensure sustainable development, will surpass the target of gaining access to drinking water, and the goal of improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers has been achieved twice-over.

On the down side, the goals to slow the decline in biodiversity and provide toilets and latrines are not going to be met. Over 17,000 species of plants and animals are on the brink of extinction and 2.7 billion people lack adequate sanitation.

Examples of successful programs include reducing ozone-depleting substances, providing solar energy systems and installing water systems.

Goal #8, to develop global partnerships for development, has had mixed results. A level of Official Development Assistance (ODA) of .7 of 1% of gross national income, which was agreed upon in Monterrey in 2002, and at the Gleneagles Group of 8 Summit and at the UN World Summit in 2005, has not been achieved.

Although the US, France, Germany and Japan are the largest aid donors, only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have achieved the ODA goal of .7%.

To help achieve the MDGs, the UN has taken several major steps:

-- 1. Secretary-General Ban established the MDG Advocacy Group of eminent personalities, such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner and Bob Geldorf, to build political will and mobilize global action to achieve the MDGs.

-- 2. The UN sponsored the UN Private Sector Forum, a meeting of over 300 major business executives, UN agencies, governments and NGOs, to brainstorm as to how companies can help achieve the MDGs.

-- 3. The UN established the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UNGAID) which is a web-based knowledge tool and information resource to help developing countries achieve the MDGs. UNGAID can disseminate better market information to businesses, students can access educational materials and physicians can provide long-distance health care.

Although the MDG results are mixed, progress has been uneven and some regions will achieve some or all of the goals, the reviews show that the MDGs are achievable with proven policies, sufficient levels of financial and technical investment and international support. But what more can be done?

First, wealthy nations need to keep their promise and deliver on the .7 of 1% commitment, which is only 70 cents on every $100.00. Many of these MDG problems can be defeated with increased funding.

Second, economic growth, that is trade rather than aid, will do more to reduce poverty. Developed countries should open their markets more to exports from poorer countries. Businesses should be more involved in job creation.

Third, any assistance funding must be more transparent, accountable and effective in reaching the target population.

Improving the plight of the most needy will reduce suffering and death, promote social, economic and political stability and create new markets.

'We must not fail the billions who look to the international community to fulfill the promises of the Millennium Declaration for a better world,' said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently.

Hundreds of thousands of faith-based groups, businesses, sports associations, youth groups and individuals are getting involved to help achieve the MDGs. No one country or group can be successful by itself, yet the sheer force of numbers and sharing resources can virtually make the difference between victory or defeat.

The world has the knowledge and financial resources to the job. Does it have the political will? Time is running out.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Spotlight Back on Haiti

By Bill Miller

Immediately after the horrific 7.0 earthquake that decimated Port-au-Prince, Haiti on January 12, 2010, the world media descended on the poverty-stricken country and provided nearly '24-7' coverage of the disaster that killed over 225,000, maimed thousands, dispossessed over 1.3 million and caused losses of approximately $7 billion, which is 120% of Haiti's 2009 gross domestic product (GDP).

Shortly thereafter, the media and the public lost interest. The coverage disappeared and little was reported about one of the most devastating natural disasters to afflict the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti's 'CNN Moment' was over.

On March 31, the spotlight returned when the United Nations and the US, in conjunction with the Haitian Government, convened a high-level donors' conference --'Towards a New Future in Haiti'-- at the UN Headquarters in New York. The attendees heard from key players, such as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Haitian President Rene Preval, and the UN Special Envoy for Haiti, former President Bill Clinton, who urged that countries be generous and commit the financial resources necessary for Haiti's recovery.

The US led the way with a pledge of $1.15 billion, in addition to $900 million previously donated. France, which was the imperial power in Haiti until a slave rebellion in 1804, contributed $188 million and canceled a $75 million debt. China put up a minuscule $1.5 million, along with an earlier $14 million; the 27-nation European Union pledged over $1.6 billion, as well as $370 million previously donated; and the other occupant on the island of Hispaniola and Haiti's neighbor, the Dominican Republic, contributed $50 million. At the end of the day, over 50 countries and international organizations pledged over $10 billion to achieve the goal of not rebuilding but to 'build back better...a new Haiti.'

The bulk of the money will be to fund social sectors, such as water and sanitation, health and education; infrastructure, such as housing, transportation and energy; and production such as agriculture, industry, trade and tourism.

Former US President Clinton and Haiti's Prime Minister, Jean-Max Bellerive, will co-chair the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission to monitor the reconstruction with the aid of countless international technical assistance advisers, many provided by the US government. Their main goals will be to make sure the money is spent properly and the projects are coordinated.

These are intertwined major challenges since the former Haitian governments, especially under the dictator Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, were notoriously corrupt and inefficient. Untold millions of dollars disappeared into overseas bank accounts and other nefarious destinations.

Closely aligned is the issue of coordination. Haiti developed the moniker of the 'Republic of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).' A large number of donors started giving money to various NGOs to provide medicine, food and other services, rather than working through the Haitian government. It is estimated that close to 10,000 private groups were involved in Haiti, often at cross purposes and with little coordination among their activities, which created considerable inefficiency and waste. Former President Clinton emphasized how it was imperative to have better coordination of the disparate aid efforts underway in Haiti.

What are some of the other challenges to guaranteeing a successful outcome in building a new Haiti?

First, now that the pledges have been made, it is crucial that the donors stand by their commitments. In the past, many have failed to deliver on their promises.

Second, in order for donors to have confidence and to continue their financial and technical assistance, it will be imperative that the process be accountable, transparent and show that the investments been expended efficiently and effectively. No donor wants to put money into projects that are bogus or have marginal value.

Third, the Haitian leadership and community must be brought into the process. Haitians who are living outside of the country can provide doctors, engineers or financial assistance to help with the reconstruction. The Haitian government, as it displays its capacity to operate professionally and honestly, must shoulder more of the responsibility and decision-making. True success will be Haitians rebuilding Haiti, not external players who do not have a direct stake in its future.

Fourth, Port-au-Prince was home to over 3 million people, out of a total population of 9 million. Efforts may be made to develop new population centers that would be smaller and more removed from the immediate earthquake fault line. This may be a challenge if people wish to live in the capital, not to mention that Haiti is a mountainous country with scarce flat land.

Regardless of how the development process occurs, the UN and its battery of agencies, programs and international public administrators will play a central role. Just a few examples include:
--UNICEF ( UN Children's Fund) is developing maternal and child health care programs, as well as focusing on child abuse and illegal trafficking of children;
--The World Food Program had fed over 3.4 million Haitians and 850,000 get daily five-liter rations of water;
--United Nations Peacekeepers, which suffered a drastic loss of their top two leaders on January 12, have been invaluable in providing security in a very chaotic and dangerous situation;
--UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is working to develop the educational system.

Other UN agencies are working to clear irrigation canals, restore phone and postal services, immunize children against childhood diseases, provide tents and temporary shelter and implement a cash-for-work program, just to mention a few.

The UN agencies that were on the ground generally have received high marks, especially at the outset of the crisis, for developing, coordinating and implementing the initial relief efforts under some very dire circumstances. According to a leaked e-mail by John Holmes, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), more should have been done to launch the humanitarian 'cluster strategy.' This strategy coordinates the delivery of basic needs in 12 sectors, for example water and shelter, while coordinating the overlapping services of various aid agencies that have a tendency to duplicate efforts and compete with one another, which reduces efficiency and effectiveness.

Even prior to the earthquake, the situation was bleak with only 50% of the Haitians with access to safe drinking water, 55% of the 9 million population lived on less than $1.00 per day, and 24% of children under five suffered from chronic malnutrition. This could change quite dramatically.

Recently, the US showed even more of a commitment to help Haiti get back on its feet. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, while en route to Mexico, made a surprise visit to Haiti. They met with President Preval, visited a children's safe space established by First Lady of Haiti Elisabeth Delatour Preval and danced with some of the children.

Additionally, the US Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Debt Relief for Earthquake Recovery in Haiti Act which seeks to get more grants to Haiti until 2015 so that it will not incur more debt. It also focuses on encouraging international institutions to cancel the debt that Haiti owes them.

If the international community lives up to its promises, and the Haitians, who generally displayed a tremendous decorum and triumph of the human spirit during this disaster, become full-fledged partners in the rebuilding, it may very well be that Haiti will become a beacon of hope and modernity in the 21st century, rather than a poverty-stricken land that offers little hope for a brighter future.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN: Long Road to Copenhagen

By Bill Miller

In the vernacular used during the Kentucky Derby, they are rounding the turn for home and heading for the finish line. As the nations of the world prepare for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, from December 7-18, it may be helpful to look in the rear view mirror to see how various groups, especially the United Nations, have helped the world to arrive at this historic and critical point, and to speculate as to what might happen at the conference.

Let’s speculate as to what may happen: First, the major barriers to an international environmental agreement to encompass the Kyoto Protocol and establish more specific criteria will be the potentially huge cost, both financially and in terms of potential job-loss. A UN study recently estimated that between $500-$600 billion will be needed each year for the next ten years to help develop the infrastructure in developing countries, including China and India, to meet their energy needs from renewable resources, such as solar. Some economists predict it could be a staggering $1 trillion.

An off-setting study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences shows the detrimental costs of using coal and oil peaked at over $120 billion per year in health care costs, primarily due to deaths from air pollution.

Second, the recent Bangkok climate change talks ended on a sour note, with the divide between the rich and poor countries even wider than before. However, just over the past few days, the developing countries have softened their insistence for free access to low-carbon technologies from developed countries.

Both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, optimistically predicted that Copenhagen will not create a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol; however, it will produce the political framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, according to Carol Browner, a key climate and energy official in the Obama Administration, the US will not have a specific climate and energy bill for President Obama to sign before the Copenhagen Conference. Regardless, the US still has a major role to play in committing itself to being a world leader in combating climate change. The hope for this US leadership, not only in the environmental area, was one of the reasons Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Fourth, overpopulation is extremely important, yet it has gotten short shrift in the discussions. As the population swells from 6.8 billion to at least 9 billion by 2050, the majority of poor people aspire to improve their standard of living—which will consume more energy and finite natural resources. Each person—even if living in a poor country—expands the carbon footprint. A desired goal, which will NOT happen in Copenhagen, would be for the enlightened world leaders to promote an official “2.1 Children per Family Program” worldwide. Although there is neither political spine nor courage to address this issue, eventually it will happen since the earth cannot support a spiraling population. Efforts to defeat climate change will not succeed without some focus on population expansion.

A few years ago, the climate change debate did not seem to have sufficient traction to become one of the top three international crises, along with the financial collapse and terrorism. There have been a multitude of players who helped encourage the dialogue and catapult climate change to the top of the agenda. Some include former US VP Al Gore with his “Inconvenient Truth” documentary, environmentalists, businesses, faith-based groups, service organizations, such as Rotary International, governmental leaders, environmentally-oriented public administrator academicians and practitioners and many others. Two of the most important players were the UN System and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who have lubricated the environmental dialogue process and glued it together when it was on the verge of collapse. Just a few of the UN initiatives:

-- In 1988 the United Nations World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Program established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which co-shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. The IPCC was charged to scientifically study climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. The IPCC, composed of 2,000 eminent scientists from over 130 countries, issued four hard hitting scientific reports that contained a litany of potential doomsday scenarios ranging from violent storms, melting icebergs, rising sea levels, loss of species, massive droughts, desertification, and destruction of rain forests.

-- In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) expanded the sustainable development concept, issued Agenda 21 (an international blueprint to help conserve resources) and adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a major international treaty to reduce global warming and confront the challenges of climate change.

-- In 1995, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, indicating more global warming, paved the way for the Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which set binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for industrialized countries by 5% between 2008-2012. The US Government never signed-on to the Kyoto Protocol and, during the Bush Administration, actively worked to undermine it.

-- Another key player was UN Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon. Early on in his tenure, Ban--who has received very little credit for his leadership-- took a hands-on approach in elevating this issue. For starters, he helped guide the IPCC’s fourth report that paved the way for a substantive 2007 climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. He diplomatically confronted and goaded the US and China, the two major polluters, to get involved in finding a solution. Incidentally, Ban had to fly to Bali to help rescue a conference that teetered on the brink of abject failure.

After the successful Bali Conference, the UN brought 100 environmental ministers to Monaco to continue the process and launched the Climate Neutral Network that highlighted the “best practices” in confronting global warming.

Ban Ki-moon was the first UN Secretary General to lead a delegation to Antarctica and Brazil to experience firsthand the melting of the glaciers and the disappearing rain forest, which is often compared to being the “lungs” of the earth.

Most recently, SG Ban went to Norway and the Arctic Circle to witness first hand the devastating effects of global warming and the “collapsing, not slowly melting” of the glaciers. Unfortunately, the main stream media paid little or no attention to the visit by the world’s chief diplomat. Imagine how many media would have been in-tow if Barack Obama had gone to the Arctic? Poor media coverage of Ban’s trip is not only a major problem in enhancing the discussion about climate change, but it is prevalent as to how the media cover, or do not cover, life-and-death issues at the UN.

SG Ban has spearheaded a campaign to encourage governments to “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. The campaign promotes environmental and financial assistance to the poorest countries, encourages developed countries to sign-on to ambitious greenhouse reduction targets, works with developing countries to cut emissions, lays out financing and technological support for countries that are most vulnerable due to climate change and establishes an accountable institutional and equitable governance structure to channel resources efficiently to developing countries.

Ban Ki-moon, the only one of eight of the UN Secretaries General, has an advanced degree in public administration, which may provide him a balanced approach to problem-solving. Ban is a low-keyed, behind-the-scenes negotiator who is committed, knowledgeable and tenacious in achieving his goal. Over his nearly three years as SG, climate change has been one of his top priorities. Without his tenacity, it is highly probable that Copenhagen would not be taking place.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “The climate change negotiations are proceeding at a glacial speed. The world’s glaciers are now melting faster than human progress to protect them—and us.” Hopefully, Ban will have uttered a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy for Copenhagen participants. Time is running out.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

President Obama and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon - Still Popular?

By Bill Miller

In a recent World Public Opinion Poll, President Barack Obama and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held the top two slots as most respected world leaders. Obama was at a stratospheric 61%, with Ban running at 40%.

Slightly lower, Germany’s Angela Merkel (40%), UK’s Gordon Brown (38%), and France’s President Sarkozy (36%) rounded out the next three spots in the survey that included 20,000 people in 20 countries. China’s Hu Jintao (32%), Russia’s Vladimir Putin (34%), and Iran’s President Ahmadinejad (28%) brought up the rear.

Polls can be very helpful to project an image to the public and to reflect a public opinion snapshot as to how leaders, policies and issues are perceived at a given moment in time. President Obama still enjoys high personal popularity ratings in the US, even though his poll numbers pertaining to his policies are sagging slightly as the public and his Administration wrestle with the intricacies of how to address the financial meltdown, the health care crisis, climate change and a multitude of other problems.

UN Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon is also benefiting from positive poll numbers, more so overseas rather than in the US, as he crossed the halfway mark in his five-year term as head of the UN. When Ban was elected SG, with the blessing of the Bush White House, he was perceived as having a totally different managerial style and persona from former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Annan had achieved rock star status with his highly visible efforts to reform and strengthen the UN and to challenge some of the key players on what was widely perceived as foreign policy blunders that destabilized peace and security. Kofi Annan and President Bush disagreed on what was, and still is, widely viewed as the US’s illegal invasion of Iraq, an unpopular and unnecessary intrusion into a sovereign country.

Some UN watchers opined that Ban Ki-moon was too closely aligned to the Bush Administration and would be a toady for US foreign policy. Indubitably, the UN does assist US foreign policy goals in many spheres, such as by maintaining 17 peacekeeping missions and promoting peace and security. These missions share the financial burden and keep US troops out of harm’s way. UN programs are also vital in Afghanistan and Iraq by providing humanitarian assistance and arranging the free and democratic elections, just to mention a few.

However, Ban Ki-moon may have been underestimated by the Bush Administration and some of the UN detractors. Ban, who began slowly and quietly, has blossomed into his own person and has developed a managerial style that is quietly effective, yet unobtrusive. He is intelligent, well-prepared and tenacious, in a positive sense, in pursuing his and the UN’s goals.

Just a few examples of his tenacity:

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) normally receives most of the publicity, as well as one-half of the Nobel Peace Prize it shared with Al Gore, SG Ban Ki-moon is widely credited by many UN observers as being the spark plug in moving forward the debate on climate change. Specifically, he was the first secretary-general to lead a delegation to Antarctica and Brazil to experience firsthand the melting of the glaciers and the disappearing rain forest. When a climate conference in Bali, Indonesia was on the verge of collapse, Ban dropped his plans, flew to Bali and rallied the participants to move forward with their discussions, which ultimately proved successful.

And in 2008, after the ferocious Cyclone Nargis killed nearly 140,000 people and devastated the Irrawady River Delta Region of Myanmar (formerly Burma), dozens of aid agencies queued up in Bangkok, hoping to get into Myanmar. Due to an upcoming election regarding a constitutional change and a general paranoia of outside meddling, the military strongmen, led by General Than Shwe, refused to allow entrance. After a few frustrating weeks in a standoff, Ban got on a plane, flew to Myanmar, met with the general and got a crack in the door that ultimately allowed humanitarian relief to be delivered.

Ban Ki-moon appears to be constantly in motion. Barbara Crossette, UN columnist for The Nation and a former New York Times reporter, wrote that just a few of his activities last May included: attending a UN World Health Organization Assembly and convincing leaders of pharmaceutical companies to donate vaccines; helping coordinate UN strategies to combat the Swine Flu outbreak; visiting with Congressional leaders in Washington to discuss UN funding; addressing an international summit in Bahrain on disaster planning; encouraging business leaders in Copenhagen to get involved in overcoming climate change; conducting 21 meetings in one day with various Danish leaders and environmental experts, and then heading off to an official visit in Finland. And the list goes on.

Ban has been criticized for a variety of managerial decisions and personality traits, such as some curious upper-level personnel appointments, surrounding himself with a small cadre of Koreans, having his reform efforts stymied by various UN member countries, being isolated from public input, not speaking English well, being a behind-the-scenes, low-keyed negotiator and not speaking forcefully enough on atrocities in Gaza, Sri Lanka and the Congo.

Normally, the Wall Street Journal confines its vitriolic attacks against the UN to its editorial pages, but not always. Recently it did a supposedly straight news piece on “The UN’s Invisible Man,” Ban Ki-moon. The article contained some legitimate concerns but downplayed most of Ban’s major accomplishments. Organizations such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times, as well as Heritage and other right-wing groups, seem to be on an untiring crusade to disparage the UN.

Of course, the clear winner in the character assassination and distortion category has to be the Journal of Foreign Policy’s (July/August 2009) article on the “Most Dangerous Korean.” Jacob Heilbrunn, senior editor of the National Interest (an ultra-conservative publication) had a rambling, perhaps libelous, screed about Ban being an “accidental tourist…(Ban) frittering away his influence.” Apparently, Mr. Heilbrunn has little knowledge of Ban’s accomplishments, forgot that Kim Jong Il is a Korean (North, that is) and failed to even remotely prove that Ban was a danger to anybody or a failure. The article’s title and content were 180 degrees apart.

With articles like Mr. Heilbrunn’s, Foreign Policy may be trying to become the print version of Fox News, as well as the gossip tabloid in the international relations field. One inevitable conclusion is that the journalistic professionalism of the WSJ and the FP has certainly been damaged.

Given that it is legitimate to criticize and scrutinize many UN programs and activities, the US media should not give the UN or Ban Ki-moon a pass, but should cover the UN objectively and professionally. However, that is not what is happening. Each day, major decisions that impact billions of people are discussed at the UN. Little coverage actually takes place.

The UN has an immense challenge to get its message out to the media and the general public. Following are just a few examples of media bias it encounters:

-- Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the UN’s World Health Organization, has led the charge against the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic. Seldom do any media outlets identify WHO as a UN agency or Ms. Chan as a UN official. This bias is prevalent in most stories about almost all UN agencies.

-- Often when the UN sponsors a conference -- and a heavy percentage of international conferences are under the UN’s auspices -- on climate change or AIDs for example, the media lists it as an “international conference,” and seldom mentions the UN’s involvement. PBS recently ran a documentary on the founding and evolution of the International Criminal Court and failed to mention the UN’s role in establishing this unique body.

-- The UN has a host of activities it is sponsoring that receive virtually zero recognition, much less commendation, such as putting together the free and democratic elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, mobilizing the world to combat piracy, launching major international campaigns against autism and suicide, and the list has hundreds more examples of services provided.

-- In 2001 when former Secretary General Kofi Annan and the UN won the Nobel Peace Prize, US News and World Report (another notorious UN basher) scarcely mentioned this Herculean accomplishment. Shortly afterwards, it did a full-page spread on Annan being on the Muppets Show, which trivialized Annan and made him look foolish.

-- Another challenge is the “Foxization” of the news in general and the UN in particular. Fox Television personalities start their unverifiable attacks on the UN and many other entities with three commentators on Fox and Friends in the morning, do a modicum of objective reporting during the day, and wrap-up in the evening with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, who consistently present a biased and distorted portrayal of the news, facts and issues, especially when discussing the UN. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also falls into this category to a lesser degree.

The “Foxization” effect follows Mark Twain’s sage advice to “Get your facts first, then you can distort them how you please,” rather than be “fair and balanced” as Fox purports to be.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicated that 81% of Americans had never heard of Ban Ki-moon or had an opinion about him. Even SG Ban indicated that he felt like an “invisible man.” Although Ban may be unknown by most Americans, a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project Poll reported that the UN’s popularity in the US has spiked from 47% in 2007 to 61% in 2009.

Ban Ki-moon appears to be a low-keyed, consensus builder who is more of a “work horse” rather than “show horse.” Achieving the goal and getting the job done appear to be his key criteria. This has worked to his advantage in helping to promote cooperation, forge consensus-building and maintain lines of communication, while not making waves.

Ban Ki-moon grew up knowing the horrors of the Korean War, which arguably shaped his belief in the UN and what it could do to promote peace in an intractable conflict, much as it did when the US and other allies liberated South Korea from 1950-1953.

Also, Ban is the first SG to have an advanced degree in public administration. Undoubtedly, this provided him with a certain professional development outlook, and a toolbox of skills that emphasizes diplomacy, fact-finding, objectivity, determination and results-oriented approaches to dealing with problems.

The first UN Secretary General, Trygve Lie, said to Dag Hammarskjold, the second SG, that being UN Secretary General was the “most impossible” job in the world. Ban Ki-moon may actually agree with that prophetic statement.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

President Obama and the UN

By Bill Miller

President Barack Obama’s “inbox” certainly is not suffering from a paucity of suggestions on how to deal with both domestic and international crises. Undoubtedly, the most important challenge is how to get the US economy out of the recession, which could conceivably become a depression. The Obama Administration has developed an ambitious and comprehensive series of proposals — some critics say too many --- dealing with many of these issues.

Focusing on the international side of the coin, a recent Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll indicated that in 15 of the 17 countries (with the exceptions of Japan and Russia) polled, majorities believed that the Barack Obama’s election would lead to improved relations with the rest of the world. Obama is mobilizing to make the polls a self-fulfilling prophecy. For starters, he nominated Susan Rice, a highly-competent career diplomat, US Permanent Representative to the UN, and elevated the position to Cabinet-level status. Being a member of the President’s Cabinet is extremely important because UN issues would be basically on-par with the others and should not get lumped in with, filtered or sublimated under other issues.

Ms. Rice is off to a good start by emphasizing Obama’s pledge to strengthen the relationship between the US and the UN. In a spirit of bipartisanship and a recognition of the UN’s importance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) encouraged Rice to be a vocal advocate for the UN to the American public and Congress. Ambassador Rice also stressed the US paying its legal UN dues in full and on-time. The US will soon be $1.6 billion in arrears to the UN, as was pointed out by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during a recent visit on Capitol Hill. The US is in danger of reverting to its unflattering moniker of the 1980s and 90s of being an “international deadbeat” by not paying its legal financial obligations.

Arguably, the US benefits more overall from the UN than probably any other country. For example, the UN blue helmets, operating in 18 dangerous areas around the world, work to bring peace and security, reduce violence, and help people resume their normal lives. UN peacekeeping missions operate without US troops on the ground, the financial burden is spread among several of the 192 UN member states, and the US has veto authority to approve each mission.

Other facts highlight the UN’s value in these operations. For example:

-- A Rand Think Tank Report shows that when the UN can conduct a peacekeeping mission, it is more successful than when the US military takes on a unilateral peacekeeping assignment. The US plans to aid the UN to deploy and manage future complex peace operations even more effectively.

-- A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) study indicated that UN peacekeeping costs US taxpayers only one-eighth of what a US military mission would cost.

The Obama Administration views the UN as an imperfect, but necessary, institution. To improve its overall operation, one major thrust will be a renewal of the international body to make it more effective and efficient, which includes improvements in management, financial accountability, transparency, ethics, internal oversight and program effectiveness. The UN has improved its internal management quite dramatically over the past 8 years. Ironically, although the UN should continue internal reforms, many UN programs are more cost-effective, less wasteful and more efficient than some US Government programs, such as FEMA’s mismanagement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the bloated Defense Department budget with cost overruns, and the Iraqi Economic Assistance Project where tens of billions of dollars were misappropriated or stolen.

Three other areas of emphases by President Obama are to:

1. Strengthen global nonproliferation and the disarmament regime. The US can play a substantive role in 2010 during the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by emphasizing the commitments made -- by both the nuclear and non-nuclear countries -- to make sure they adhere to their original agreements. Emphasis should be on commitments made by nuclear powers to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their arsenal and the by non-nuclear states to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

Obama should also halt the herd-like stampede by some military advisers to rapidly install an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. This system will not achieve its goals, will alienate the Russians, and will cost close to $9-13 billion, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office study. For 24 years, the US has invested over $100 billion in a US missile defense shield that does not work. The US should secure the help of the Russians in dealing with Iran and completely halt funding a failed system that is projected to cost close to $1 trillion if implemented worldwide—and still not be effective.

Congress should be encouraged to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The recent civil unrest in Pakistan emphasizes the frightening scenario that could occur if Al-Qaeda or the Taliban got access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Arms reduction at all levels should be a high priority.

2. Support the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce abject poverty affecting 2 billion people, reverse the AIDs epidemic and other diseases, secure universal primary education, reduce child and female mortality rates, battle environmental degradation, empower women, and cooperate internationally to achieve these goals. These are logical, quantifiable, and agreed upon goals that may be achieved if the 192 UN member states, in conjunction with the private sector and non-governmental organizations, provide the necessary political and financial support, With the recent economic downturn, many countries are reneging on their pledges to work towards these laudable goals. The US should forcefully support the MDGs and play a leadership role in rallying international support for them.

3. Play an active role in helping draft the follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 that will confront the ill-effects of global warming and climate change. As a run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of 2009, both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and President Obama, at a recent White House meeting, stressed that 2009 would be the year for climate change and agreed that climate change is an “existential threat” to the world. Once the financial crisis is averted, climate change should move into the number one slot as the major problem confronting the world at large

To its credit, the Obama Administration recently restored US support for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) by contributing $50 million to promote safe pregnancies and childbirths, as well as HIV/AIDs prevention and gender equality in over 150 countries and territories around the world. The Bush Administration withheld a total of nearly $250 million over a seven year period. According to UNFPA, every $34 million available prevents 2 million unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions. By withholding for seven years, the US contributed to approximately 14 million pregnancies and 5.6 million abortions. According to its bylaws, UNFPA does not encourage or fund abortions.

What should President Obama do in the immediate future?

-- The US should seek a seat on the Human Rights Council (HRC) in the upcoming HRC election of May 2009. The HRC which, according to many UN watchers, is not reaching its potential, must have more hands-on leadership to broaden the agenda dominated by a handful of countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Cuba, that often violate the human rights of people within their boarders and want to focus exclusively (albeit there is much to criticize) on Israeli transgressions against the Palestinians. The US, now that it is moving to improve its own human rights problems with the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay atrocities, can be more of a moral compass for the HRC.

--The US Congress should bring up for discussion and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty, (CLOST) which interestingly is supported by business and military groups. CEDAW and CRC both inculcate major human rights provisions that are extended to everyone in the US and guaranteed by the Constitution. The US is only one of a few countries, such as Somalia, that has not signed on to these treaties.

-- The US should join the International Criminal Court that pursues individuals who have committed genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. The concept of “complementarity,” which allows a national court to deal with any of its citizens accused of these crimes, negates the bogus argument that US troops who inadvertently committed some crime would be hauled before the ICC.

President Obama sent a powerful message when his first official visit was to the US State Department, as opposed to the Defense Department. He signaled that diplomacy and working with other countries would take precedence over the “Neoconservative shoot first and ask questions later, might-makes-right philosophy” that led to several disastrous actions by the Bush Administration, which attempted to create a quasi-Cold War mentality of “with us or against us.” Arguably, the most disastrous action was the ill-fated invasion of Iraq which today is widely viewed as unnecessary, illegal, damaging to US and Middle Eastern interests and the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.

The White House reported that President Obama, after taking office, telephoned 37 world leaders, including Pope Benedict XVI and the Palestinian Authority President Abbas, before he contacted UN SG Ban Ki-moon. As all American presidents have learned, some quicker than others, that one of the first calls Mr. Obama will make in the future will probably be to the UN.

With massive problems worldwide such as the economic meltdown; explosive conditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran; negative, climactic changes; social unrest in Italy, Pakistan, Ukraine, Iceland, Ireland and dozens of other countries, as a few examples, it will take a multilateral forum and many countries’ involvement at the UN to bring the key players and resources together to confront these challenges. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, “The UN is indispensable…and even superpowers needs friends.” No one country can deal with these massive problems by itself.

For the past 63 years since the founding of the UN, public opinion polls have consistently shown that the vast majority (a recent Better World Campaign poll was at 75%) of the US public wants the American government to work through international bodies, primarily the UN, in dealing with the myriad of intractable international issues and problems. These problems range from combating terrorism, drugs and climate change; promoting peace and security; eliminating diseases such as AIDs and polio; reducing poverty, hunger and illiteracy; and helping move aircraft, ships, mail and weather information safely around the globe, to mention just a few.

Dealing with a cumbersome UN bureaucracy and oft-times obstinate member states will be frustrating and challenging but absolutely necessary to overcome the grave problems confronting the US and the world. During the campaign, candidate Obama said, “No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States.” That phrase is even more accurate and more timely today than it was a year ago.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Magna Carta for the World

By Bill Miller

A major milestone will be reached on December 10, 2008, when the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) marks its 60th anniversary. It was in the aftermath of World War II (with the vivid reminder that Europe and parts of Asia lay in ruins, over 60 million people died, and millions more had their inalienable rights violated) that former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UN’s Human Rights Commission and applied her immense talent to crafting this unique document. She adroitly shepherded the UDHR through the UN General Assembly, a document that has positively affected the lives of hundreds of millions of people over the past six decades.

The UDHR, adopted on December 10, 1948, in Paris, lays out the minimum human rights at birth that should be available to everyone on the planet. Among the basic entitlements are rights of people to choose their form of government, express freedom of religion and thought, enjoy privacy, and receive a fair trial. The UDHR condemns slavery, torture and arbitrary arrest. Many of the Declaration’s basic concepts were borrowed from the French Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791).

Since 1948, a key UN accomplishment has been to draft over 60 human rights declarations dealing with issues ranging from refugees, genocide, torture, workers rights, and discrimination. More information can be accessed at www.un.org.

All of the agencies within the UN System attempt to focus on the key element of human rights, regardless of whether it is the World Health Organization, UNICEF (UN Children’s Fund) or the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The human rights definition has expanded over the years so that today it is included when discussing other major international challenges to UN agencies, such as climate change, sustainable development or even nuclear disarmament.

What can be done to strengthen human rights domestically and internationally? For starters,

-- The general public and policymakers should learn more about the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and share information about the uniqueness of this exemplary document. Although the declaration is not legally binding, it has evolved as the foundation upon which customary international law has developed because it is universally perceived as “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.”

-- Although it has gotten off to a rocky start, the US Government should actively support the UN’s Human Rights Council, as well as other organizations that strive to stop religious persecution and encourage freedom of speech and freedom from want.

-- The US Senate should be encouraged to ratify immediately two critical human rights documents that have languished for years on Capitol Hill, the “Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women” and the “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

-- The US should join the International Criminal Court which prosecutes and punishes persons responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.

-- Finally, efforts should be made to banish torture and political killings. Many human rights activists, as with the UDHR, believe that capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

During a recent “Global Connections Television” interview, Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and past President of Ireland, indicated that the principles for human rights are “universal and indivisible”; however the gap between reality and human rights rhetoric must be closed.

Although all 192 UN member states have incorporated all or parts of the Declaration into their legal framework, tragically some governments still systematically deprive their citizens of their basic rights. Flagrant violations of human rights persist, such as the genocide in Darfur, illegal human trafficking, and inhumane acts of rape and mutilation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is doubtful that any country has a perfect human rights record; however, achieving the laudable principles of the UDHR should be the ultimate goal of every UN member. The US is fortunate to have an excellent Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even so, the US is not immune from human rights violations. Often, the media report on the several hundred police officers under investigation for violating suspects and prisoners’ rights; the battered women and their children who cower in fear at the local spouse abuse center; the same-sex couples who are denied basic services; professional women who hit the discriminatory “glass ceiling;” or the raft of human rights violations conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Human rights violations and discrimination come in a variety of forms and venues. The guarantee of each person’s inalienable human rights must be a 365-day a year endeavor that is not limited to lip service but is steeped in a vocal and informed conviction that human rights must apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. Support for human rights cannot be passive.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

US and UN: On a Slippery Slope?

By Bill Miller

Over the past several years America has relied more so on the UN’s help in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur and many other hot spots around the world. Since the UN has been a major ally in combating terrorism, rebuilding Afghanistan, promoting democracy and market economies, why would the US consider returning to its deadbeat status of the 1990s by not paying its legal dues to the international organization?

The US is nearly $2.8 billion in arrears on its legal obligations to the UN. Of this total, $1.2 billion are for UN dues that were assessed at the beginning of 2008. President Bush’s FY 2009 budget request may have a projected shortfall of $600 million which would adversely impact UN peacekeeping operations.

A major irony is that the US benefits overall more from the UN than does any other country. Take peacekeeping as an example: The UN peacekeeping missions operating in 17 dangerous areas around the world strive to promote peace and security, reduce violence, and help people get their lives back on track. UN peacekeeping operations are normally conducted without US troops on the ground, the financial burden is spread among several of the 192 UN member states, and the US has veto authority to approve each mission. The missions are not forced on a subservient US.

Other facts highlight the UN’s value in these operations. For example,

-- the total cost of UN peacekeeping dues to the US is equivalent to what we spend in three days in Iraq, a small investment for a major return; 
-- a Rand Think Tank Report shows that when the UN can conduct a peacekeeping mission, it is more successful than when the US military takes on a unilateral peacekeeping assignment;
-- a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) study indicated that UN peacekeeping costs US taxpayers only one-eighth of what a US military mission would cost.

If the UN did not have a 9,000 member peacekeeping mission in Haiti, a country strategically located near Florida, the US would have to deploy American troops to this dangerous area and pick up the entire tab.

Many foreign policy observers are confused as to why, as the US relies more on the UN, President Bush is repeating a major mistake of the Reagan-Bush-Congressional Era in the late 80s and early 90s: not complying with US’s legal obligations to pay its UN dues.

By withholding, the US dramatically damaged its credibility, international leadership, and security in refusing to pay its legal assessments until the UN complied with its demands to make internal management reforms and reduce the US assessment from 25 to 22%, as well as lower the peacekeeping assessment to 25%. Fortunately, in 1999, Senator Joe Biden (D-RI) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), both of whom recognized that the US was injuring itself, cobbled together an agreement that agreed to pay back over $900 million of the $1.2 billion bill.

Some political leaders on Capitol Hill and the White House proffer that the cost of the Iraq War, a weakening economy, alleged UN mismanagement and the US shouldering an unfair burden of the UN budget are coalescing to make it impossible to fund the UN adequately. This is a bogus argument since the US is actually paying less than its fair share that should be based upon its percentage of international wealth (which is closer to 28%).

The UN has improved its internal management quite dramatically over the past 8 years. Arguably, although the UN should continue internal reforms, many UN programs are more cost-effective, less wasteful and more efficient than some US Government programs, such as FEMA’s mismanagement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraqi Economic Assistance Project where tens of billions of dollars have been misspent or stolen.

As Iraq slides into a failed state, the US is quietly drafting a strategy on how, perhaps not when, to extricate itself from the quagmire of the Iraqi sand. As the power equation changes in Iraq, the UN, which has been the backbone of development programs in Kosovo and Afghanistan and setting up elections in Iraq, will be even more crucial in helping rebuild the Iraqi society, which has been decimated. President Bush, US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad and other Administration officials have encouraged the UN to get more involved in Iraq.

President Bush and Congress (which to its credit has increased the UN appropriation) must move quickly to shore up one of its most important partners and pay its full and legal bills to the UN. If not, the counterproductive moniker of “international deadbeat,” which was so prevalent during the 80s and 90s will be back in vogue. It is more beneficial to the US, and a more effective investment, to pay $4.00 for each American to cover the legally-owed UN dues, as opposed to squandering it in a war in Iraq that, from all indications, is not going to achieve the Administration’s original goals of promoting democracy, enhancing economic and social development, installing a pro-American government and controlling the oil fields.

For the past 62 years, public opinion polls have consistently indicated that the vast majority (a recent poll was at 75%) of the US public wants the American government to work through international bodies, primarily the UN, in dealing with the myriad of intractable international issues and problems. These problems range from combating terrorism, drugs and climate change; promoting peace and security; eliminating diseases such as SARs, AIDs and polio; reducing poverty, hunger and illiteracy; and helping move aircraft, ships, mail and weather information safely around the globe, to mention just a few. Now is not the time to cut funding for these vital services.

Supporting the UN is more critical for the US since it has had its superpower status tarnished over the past seven years by ignoring the Kyoto Protocol, undermining the climate change debate, negating the 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty with Russia, and passively sitting on the sidelines while the North Koreans developed at least 10 nuclear weapons and the Israelis and Palestinians stared into the abyss of open warfare. The major faux pas, of course, was launching what is now widely perceived as an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign Iraq, ironically a country that posed neither a threat to the US nor Israel.

A large number of international relations experts and historians view this as the worst foreign policy debacle in the history of the US. The Bush Administration undertook a preventive, not preemptive which is legal under international law, strike against Iraq. Conclusive evidence has proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Saddam had no operational links to Al-Qaeda and was not involved in the attacks on September 11, and Iraq was not an imminent threat.

After this disastrous blunder, the US does not need to make one more embarrassing mistake and weaken its world standing by failing to fund a major ally that is indispensable in helping to carry out major US foreign policies. The US, which should continue to push for reform at the UN, should immediately pay its legal UN dues in full and on-time, which is in the US’s best interest. The UN needs the US; however the US needs the UN perhaps more than at any other point in its history.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN Spearheads Climate Change Debate

By Bill Miller

By  A year or two ago few of the climate change observers would have predicted that the debate would have gained the incredible traction and visibility it has recently. Although many groups were involved, much of the credit for showcasing this critical issue goes to various UN entities, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon and former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore, who attained international rock star status, effectively used the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth to explain in understandable terms very complex, scientific climatic changes and how they may negatively impact the earth.

Undoubtedly, Al Gore was instrumental in identifying the climate change problem, developing a systematic way to explain it, and focusing the public’s attention on what most scientific studies suggest will be a crisis that could adversely affect most forms of life on the planet.

Another key player in the debate was a group that co-shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore: the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unfortunately, some xenophobic American media outlets had a difficult time reporting that both the IPCC and Al Gore won the prize. A large number of newscasters either reported late in the story -- or not at all -- about the UN sharing the coveted award. They gave the erroneous impression that Al Gore was the only recipient.

The IPCC, established in 1988 and consisting of over 2,000 eminent scientists from over 130 countries, issued four hard-hitting scientific reports that contained a litany of potential doomsday scenarios ranging from violent storms, melting icebergs, rising sea levels, loss of species, massive droughts, desertification, and destruction of rain forests, to mention a few.

The last report by the IPCC was a “synthesis” report that combined lessons learned from the first three: scientific arguments, how the world can adapt to global warming, and ideas to reduce greenhouse gases.

Another key player, who received little credit for his role in the debate, was UN Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon. Early on in his tenure the Secretary General took a hands-on approach in elevating this issue. For starters, he helped guide the IPCC’s fourth report that paved the way for a substantive 2007 climate conference in Bali, and he diplomatically confronted and goaded the US and China, the two major polluters, to get involved in finding a solution.

Ban Ki-moon was also the first UN Secretary General to lead a delegation to Antarctica and Brazil to experience firsthand the melting of the glaciers and the disappearing rain forest, which is often compared to being the “lungs” of the earth.

Perhaps in an effort to raise consciousness and develop coalitions, one of Ban Ki-Moon’s most notable, yet quiet, accomplishments was addressing the National Association of Evangelicals, where he was apparently very well-received. Although evangelicals have not traditionally been close allies of the UN and its programs, polls show that many of the leaders and rank-and-file members are starting to view the UN more favorably, especially on issues like Darfur, humanitarian assistance and global warming.

Some of Ban Ki-Moon’s friends and foes alike have wondered whether he may be too docile when dealing with the US and may be viewed as a toady for President Bush. Apparently, if the climate change issue is an accurate barometer, Ban will pick his battles carefully. He will maintain his diplomatic façade, work behind the scenes, and then implement his strategy.

Ban drove the point home at a 2007 climate conference at the UN when he commented that the “cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of early action.” President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice have strenuously argued that a technological energy revolution and voluntary goals were needed so as not to stifle economic growth. Apparently, Ban Ki-Moon did not get the memo about kowtowing to the US. Arguably, the Bush Administration was probably not very pleased with the SG’s enthusiasm and independence in promoting the climate change debate.

What role can the UN play in further discussions about global warming? There are several critical areas where the UN can continue to lead. For example:

-- SG Ban Ki-Moon recently reported that the climate change issue would top the UN agenda in 2008, along with peacekeeping, pre-emptive diplomacy, Millennium Development Goals, and internal reforms. He also indicated that the UN is the logical venue to promote a discussion and resolution of the climate change since the UN has all 192 countries of the world as members. Global warming problems will not be resolved by a handful of countries, but will require massive international cooperation.

-- As the Arctic ice melted, Russia recently planted a flag at the North Pole, thus claiming a swath of territory for its own. It is anticipated that the US, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark will contest control over what may be a very lucrative area consisting of oil and other natural resources.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Treaty, to which the US is not a signatory, and a UN hosted organization, called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, will play a crucial role in determining which country has a legal claim to the land that is being exposed. Ironically, there is strong support from the Bush Administration, private sector, military, and nongovernmental organizations for the US to join the UNCLOS. By shunning the UNCLOS, a small number of US Senators has blocked the treaty and weakened the US’s bargaining position.

-- The UN Environment Program (UNEP), under the able leadership of a new and dynamic director Achim Steiner of Germany, will be more proactive in providing new scientific information regarding climate change. Recently, UNEP did a study that highlighted how governments are ignoring the seriousness of global warming. The study indicated that human consumption had outstripped available resources and “every human now requires a third more land to provide his or her needs than the planet can supply.”

-- In early February, the UN sponsored a meeting with two dozen organizations that highlighted the importance of governments and scientists worldwide to upgrade their climate prediction capabilities, which will save lives and help protect economies. The UN World Meteorological Organization will be a major player in monitoring climate shifts.

Some scientists believe that the earth has already hit the “tipping point” where it cannot reverse the negative effects of climate change. Although a recent poll showed that 62% of Americans considered global warming a serious danger, incredulously, given all of the dire reports and predictions, only a slim majority considered global warming to be a “very serious problem.”

One ray of hope is that the four leading Democratic and Republican presidential contenders have the climate change crisis on their radar screen, much more so than President Bush. In the latest State of the Union speech, the president offered a tepid endorsement of extricating the US from fossil fuels and a disingenuous proposal to develop an international agreement to deal with climate change. The Bush Administration has stonewalled, even to the point of re-writing official scientific reports, any meaningful discussion of and implementation of aggressive measures to reduce the carbon footprint and other environmental irritants.

Another encouraging sign is that over 740 US cities have indicated they would work to achieve the Kyoto Protocol goals, which the US Administration has both ignored and undermined.

The handful of skeptics that doubt that global warming is happening will argue that this is a natural cycle that occurs every so many centuries. In the past, that may have been the case when the earth had a couple of million people who were emitting small amounts of pollution. Today’s reality is that there are 6.6 billion humans, predicted to be 9 billion by 2050, spewing out an overwhelming myriad of wastes and contaminants that pollute the air, water and land, not to mention the human body. Increasing the population will only exacerbate this problem.

-- Since most of the environmental degradation is aggravated by humans, it would be logical, but perhaps not politically popular, for the next US president to develop a “profile in courage moment,” confront head-on the hard reality that there are too many people on Terra Firma, and diplomatically recommend that a goal of 2.1 children per family should be a stated goal in the US and worldwide. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), a major UN agency in family planning (not abortion promotion), is working tirelessly to help educate women and men so that they can have control over when and how many children they wish to have.

At the recent economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that there is a looming water crisis in the world that may pre-empt the climate change problems. Nations and peoples will go to war and commit unspeakable atrocities to secure sufficient water supplies that are basic to their survival. Today, a large part of the problem in Darfur is attributed to a lack of water and desertification of the region.

British author G.K. Chesterton once suggested, “It isn’t they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.” For the past several years, there has been overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is a reality. Although some people have refused to see the problem, hopefully, they and the financial barons at the Davos conference will realize that the Secretary General is on target and they need to move quickly to deal with this imminent tragedy today—not tomorrow when it may be too late.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

Can the UN Save the US and Iraq?

By Bill Miller

Lately, the only trickle of good news out of Iraq is that the number of suicide bombings has decreased, fewer American troops have been killed and the troop “surge” may have temporarily driven the insurgents underground.

Conversely, the Niagara Falls of negative news is overwhelming: part of Iraq’s electrical and water systems are on the verge of collapse; experts estimate that 600,000 to 1 million Iraqis ( of a total 27 million) have died since the unnecessary and ill-advised US led invasion; more than 3,600 American troops and over 1,000 private contractors have been killed; according the US Government Accountability Office, the military lost track of at least 110,000 AK-47s and pistols given to Iraqi security forces; the cost of the war has mushroomed to about $12 billion per month, with a projected total price tag between $1 to 2 trillion dollars; the Middle East is more destabilized; the US National Intelligence Estimate Report indicated that Al Qaida and other terrorist groups are strengthening; Iran’s influence is growing; the resignation of key Sunni ministers brings the government closer to collapse; billions of dollars have been fraudulently wasted, and the list goes on.

The Bush Administration, which has consistently sidelined the UN from being too involved in Iraq, is apparently desperate to try both innovative approaches and new partners to stem the downward spiral. The US leadership at the UN — under the highly-qualified, coalition builder US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (as opposed to his heavy-handed, arrogant predecessor John Bolton) — helped cobble together a united front at the UN.

One — and maybe the last — glimmer of hope for Iraq emanates from the UN Security Council, which unanimously adopted a resolution to increase the UN’s involvement in Iraq. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “the (UN) was deeply committed to helping the Iraqi people… in crucial areas such as national reconciliation, regional dialogue, humanitarian assistance and human rights” through the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI).”

The UN can provide invaluable assistance in these areas, as well as working with the Iraqi government in political, economic, electoral and constitutional projects. The UN would probably not be helpful in providing peacekeeping troops since this war is so unpopular in most countries that might provide troops to a peacekeeping mission. Also, the UN has neither the administrative capacity nor funding for such a large operation.

Specifically, the UN could:

— Serve as a neutral broker, undertake some very tricky international, regional and domestic mediation among warring parties and hostile countries that could possibly assist Iraq or refrain from de-stabilizing the area. Khalilzad enhanced the UN role when he indicated that the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a key Shiite religious leader, would talk to the UN representative, but not to the US’s. The UN has credibility, the US does not.

— Encourage the Iraqi Parliament to adopt a hydrocarbon law, reform the de-Bathification law and review the constitution. This is a potential minefield for the UN, especially if it is viewed as a US puppet that pushes unpopular policies to privatize Iraq’s natural resources. 63% of the Iraqis oppose foreign control of the oil fields.

A greater UN presence is contingent upon the US and its rapidly dwindling coalition to provide security, which is the number one challenge. Another potential impediment to this buildup is with the UN Staff Council that has called on the secretary general to pull all UN personnel out of the country until security improves. The UN staff union has little confidence that the US can provide sufficient security for the UN personnel. Ironically, the US State Department is confronting the same challenge recruiting career Foreign Service Officers who do not want to serve in Iraq.

After the UN headquarters in Baghdad was bombed in August of 2003 (killing 22 of its best international public administrators), the UN took a low profile. Although it has not gotten much media publicity, there are currently 16 UN agencies operating quietly below the radar screen that are involved in helping to stabilize the chaos and improve the quality of life in Iraq.

Just a few examples of the UN activities include launching an “International Compact with Iraq”, which is a partnership with the international community over the next five years; setting-up three democratic elections and developing an equitable national constitution; immunizing 4 million children against measles, mumps and Rubella; providing basic services in health and nutrition, water and environmental sanitation, and child protection; assisting refugees, as well as working on educational, scientific and cultural projects.

The vast majority of the 192 UN member countries correctly believed that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); did not participate in the horrendous 9-11 attacks; was not an imminent threat to the US or Israel; and, did not have an operational link to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Regardless, it appears most of the UN members are willing to focus on the future and aid Iraq, rather than blaming the US for illegally invading a sovereign country.

Recent polls show that, both at home and abroad, the Iraqi invasion is being depicted as a disastrous US foreign policy blunder. Most respondents believe the war will not end by ushering in democracy and peace for the Iraqi people. Regardless, the new UN-US partnership offers an excellent opportunity to accomplish:

— A more positive working relationship between the US and the UN, which could ultimately lead to a greater reliance on the UN to deal with future problems

— A new public administration arrangement that involves several UN countries and UN agencies that would not only share the burden, but also participate in the decision-making

The caveat is that the UN will have to be on guard as not to be co-opted by the US. Many UN watchers believe the US will be eager to blame the UN when anything goes wrong and dump as much of the Iraqi mess on the UN as possible.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a recent interview on the “Charlie Rose Show,” indicated his greatest disappointment was that “…we (UN) could not stop the war in Iraq.” Irrefutably, when Ban Ki-moon retires, he would probably like to cite his greatest accomplishment as helping end the tragedy in Iraq. Hopefully, it is not too late.

_____________

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA's Council of Chapter and Division Presidents, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN and is the Producer/Moderator of “Global Connections Television.”

UN - Still Popular in US and Abroad

By Bill Miller

While a small number of politicians and some governments may fret about the United Nations (UN) becoming too powerful, the vast majority of their citizens have the opposite viewpoint.

A recent survey conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs andWorldPublicOpinion.org documented that the bulk of people in the US and worldwide firmly believe that the “UN should be the vehicle for conflict resolution and international cooperation on a wide variety of pressing problems,” according to Christopher Whitney, Executive Director for Studies at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The extensive poll, which represented 56% of the world population and was conducted in the US, Russia, Mexico, South Korea and 14 other countries, made several dramatic findings that conclude:

-- By 64% to 23%, respondents favored developing a standing UN peacekeeping force that would be selected, trained and commanded by the UN. Many UN observers have argued that it was more logical, as well as cost-effective and efficient, to select (with a sponsoring country’s support) troops that would train together, speak a common language, adhere to a high code of ethics and be on call for rapid deployment when a crisis arose.

-- Somewhat surprisingly, even Israeli and the US respondents agreed by 54% and 60%, respectively, that decisions should be made within the UN -- and the countries of the UN should abide by these decisions. Had this been the prevailing sentiment at the UN in 2003, when 40 or so of the 192 UN member countries joined -- for a multitude of reasons -- the US’s Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq, the invasion would not have taken place and the Iraqi War would not be the disaster it is today. Interestingly, among the Coalition countries (except for three), the overwhelming majority of their citizens opposed their governments launching a military invasion in Iraq.

-- By a 75% to 25% margin, respondents felt the UN should have the authority to go into countries to investigate human rights violations. This concept is remarkable in that it could apply to the vast majority of countries that are UN members. Only a handful of countries have squeaky-clean human rights records, as witnessed by the Abu Ghraib torture, political repression in Cuba, and genocide in Darfur.

-- 50% of Americans do not support (45% do) the suggestion to “give the UN the power to fund its activities by imposing a small tax on the international sale of arms or oil.” The UN depends primarily on the 192 member states for its revenue, and it does not have the power to impose taxes or similar fundraising initiatives. This should be a wake-up-call to the US, which is both the largest donor and the major beneficiary of UN services, that it is necessary to stay current and pay its dues.

For example, in 2008 the US could be $1 billion in arrears on peacekeeping operations. The 18 UN peacekeeping missions are vital to the US because they bring stability to war-torn areas, keep US troops out of harm’s way, and are cheaper (according to the US Government Accountability Office) in that they cost one-eighth of a US Peacekeeping Mission.

Although the vast majority of Americans support working through the UN and giving it more authority and resources, the level of dissatisfaction with how the UN carries out its responsibilities and provides services is still around 60% (ironically, many governments would probably get a higher dissatisfaction rate in how they provide services to their citizens).

Much of this dissatisfaction is due to a lack of information about the UN. This broad based international poll has confirmed what virtually every poll since the founding of the UN in 1945 has discovered: the vast majority of the people support the UN, BUT they do not understand the UN. This dichotomy is quite reasonable when one looks at the strong current the UN’s image is swimming against.

First, everyday there are major activities being confronted by UN agencies that deal with refugees, genocide, health, international trade, drugs, and moving ships, mail and aircraft safely worldwide, only to mention a few. How many of these do the American public read or hear about? Very few. Generally speaking, American media coverage of the UN is mediocre and, at times, hostile.

Recently, one exception to the rule was how the media, by and large, did very professional, comprehensive and unbiased coverage of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change Report. Kudos in this case!

Second, often when the media do report about a UN activity, they will say that an “international conference” was held, rather than the UN sponsored a conference on AIDS or some other issue. To compound the confusion, many UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, are not identified by the media as affiliated with the UN.

Third, large segments of the media will grab onto something about the UN, such as the Oil for Food Program (OFFP), that they perceive to be totally negative. In reality, even though the OFFP tarnished the UN’s reputation because of some management problems, it was a very successful program because it kept Saddam Hussein constricted and helped provide basic humanitarian and infrastructure services to 80% of the Iraqi population.

Fourth, the virulent UN bashers provide a constant stream of nonsensical myths about how the UN is usurping American sovereignty, is draining its financial coffers, is undermining US foreign policy, and is totally corrupt. Much of the misinformation comes from the 80% of the radio talk show hosts that are anti-UN.

International polls are helpful to gauge the level of support for the UN and to point out where the media and the general public need to focus their attention to learn more about an organization that, although it is far from perfect, is necessary. This poll highlights that the UN is viewed as vital, and it should be used more aggressively to deal with thorny international problems that no one country, no matter how powerful, can defeat. As the maxim goes, “If the UN did not exist today, we would have to create it tomorrow.”

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN.

UN: Back (or Still) in Iraq?

What a Difference Four Years Make

By Bill Miller

Support, both domestic and international, for the Bush Administration’s unpopular war in Iraq is eroding faster than the New Orleans’ levees under the ferocious battering of Hurricane Katrina. Interestingly, the United Nations, an organization whose vast majority of 192 member states opposed the US-led invasion, is actively lending a hand to shore up the political and humanitarian landscape, as well as the economic and social development of that ravaged country.

Prior to the war in Iraq, most UN members correctly believed that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), nor did he participate in the murderous 9-11 attacks. Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US or Israel and did not have an operational link to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Flashing back to 2002-03 during the buildup, most Americans probably have three vivid memories of interactions between the US and the UN: 1) President Bush was fond of challenging the UN to be “relevant”; 2) the UN Security Council withheld a resolution that the US desperately needed to provide legal and moral cover for the invasion; and, 3) a horrific explosion destroyed much of the UN Headquarters in Iraq and killed over 20 of the UN’s best and brightest international civil servants.

What a difference four years make. Today, President Bush, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Bush Administration heavyweights have apparently come to the conclusion that the UN is absolutely crucial to achieve success in Iraq, as well as in other hotspots around the globe.

After the explosion at the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August of 2003, the UN took a low profile. So low, in fact, that some UN observers complained it had abandoned the country. Such was not the case. Predictably, the US media did little to dispel the abandonment myth because they were either not knowledgeable of the UN’s assistance or they did not want to give the UN any credit. UN bashing talkshow hosts and anti-UN publications, it seems, were quite happy to perpetuate the myth and to denounce the UN for not doing its fair share.

Even though the war was not sanctioned by the UN, was a war of choice, and was widely viewed as an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, UN members and UN agencies arrived at the inevitable conclusion that it was imperative to help innocent Iraqis adversely affected by the conflict; re-build the country’s physical and human infrastructure; and establish a democratic government that would govern for the benefit of the people.

UN agencies have played a major role in helping stabilize the situation and improve the quality of life for many Iraqis.

Just a few examples of the UN activities include:

-- The UN and Iraq recently launched an “International Compact with Iraq”, which is a partnership with the international community over the next five years. The Compact will bring together countries and international organizations to help the Iraqi government develop a democracy, a sustainable economy, good governance principles, professional security forces and a respect for the rule of law;

-- The UN has been the key player in planning and implementing the three democratic elections held in Iraq and in developing an equitable national constitution;

-- The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) launched one of the largest lifesaving drives, with over 8,000 immunizers, across Iraq to immunize 3.9 million Iraqi children from ages one to five to avert a potential outbreak of measles, mumps and Rubella. UNICEF supports other basic services in health and nutrition, water and environmental sanitation, and child protection.

-- UNHCR (UN High Commission for Refugees) estimated that there are 1.9 million displaced Iraqis internally and over two million living in other states, primarily in Jordan, Egypt and Syria. UNHCR is assisting 50,000 non-Iraqi refugees in Iraq and aiding 200,000 Iraqis in neighboring countries.

-- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) assists Iraqis in safeguarding and reconstructing their cultural heritage by retrieving looted art treasures and preventing vandalism of cultural artifacts and sites.

Aldous Huxley, the British author who wrote Brave New World, once stated that “facts do not cease to exist because they have been ignored.” The facts are that the US Administration totally ignored the findings of Dr. Hans Blix, head of the UN’s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in Iraq, that there were no WMDs. To compound the problem, the US launched a preventive strike against Iraq which is widely viewed as illegal (as opposed to preemptive action against a foe that is authorized under international law). The Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq, prior to getting authorization from the US Congress and the UN, according to former CIA Director George Tenet in his book, At the Center of the Storm.

Tenet confirms many lingering suspicions regarding the duplicitous and mendacious process that allowed little, if any, substantive discussion about the actual threat posed by Saddam, such as the cherry picking of information, a reliance on inaccurate sources and information about WMDs, and the lack of ethics and incompetence of several Bush Administration policymakers.

What are some of the lessons for the future?

1) Although the Bush Administration has a legacy of misinformation and disinformation in depicting the threat from Islamic radicals and anti-American forces, it still has considerable clout and partial credibility at the UN. The US’s leadership role helped develop the coalition of resources of UN agencies and countries to assist the Iraqis;

2) More frequently, the Iraqi invasion is being depicted as the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in US history. That mistake has fueled the conflict with Islamic fundamentalists, made the US Government more unpopular (and even hated) around the world, diminished the US’s role as a Superpower, weakened the US military, fomented more instability in the Arab world, sharply increased the US debt and cracked the veneer of an invincible US military (remember the missile climbing a chimney in the First Gulf War). On every front, except a saturation bombing campaign, the US’s hands are tied if it tries to deal militarily with North Korea and Iran.

3) Recently, the Iraqi Parliament, which now is in sync with public opinions taken in polls of the Iraqi people, passed a resolution declaring that the US is an occupying force and calls for a specific timetable for withdrawal. Where were the American media in reporting this earth shattering event?

4) The UN, even with its imperfections, is the “go-to” international forum to resolve future problems. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright said about the UN, “…it is indispensable…”

The chaos in Iraq is intensifying. It is serving as a recruiting tool for Islamic radicals and is destabilizing many parts of the Middle East. The chaos will likely contribute to even more bloodshed and conflict both within and outside of Iraq. Sixteen UN agencies have been providing assistance to the Iraqi people since 2003. Not only should the UN be thanked profusely, it should also be listened to since it has been right about almost all the major findings concerning Iraq. As former Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his aphorism, “A page of history is worth a volume of logic.” The UN has the history, the ideologues and fanatics have the logic.

Bill Miller, former Chair of the UN Association of the USA, is the accredited Washington International journalist covering the UN.