UN Challenges “Conflict of Civilizations” Theory

Religion is Not to Blame

By Bill Miller

Is there a conflict between the Koran, the Torah and the Bible? Not according to a recent UN report and former Secretary General (SG) of the UN Kofi Annan, who believes that religion is not the main culprit in promoting hatred and mistrust between the Western and Muslim worlds.

Shortly before retiring after a 10-year stint as SG, Annan commented on how it is not “faith… but the faithful” that interpret the sacred books and react to one another, often with devastating consequences that create many of the problems.

One of the conventional beliefs underlying the notion that there is a “conflict of civilizations” (often embodied in an intrinsic, unyielding religious conflict) between the West and the Muslim societies is based upon theories promulgated by authors such as Samuel P. Huntington in his The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order.

A recent UN report issued by the Alliance of Civilizations Project, which had 20 outstanding members such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Frederico Mayor (former UNESCO Director-General), squarely refutes this notion.

The Alliance of Civilizations Report suggests that many of the problems confronting the Western and Muslim societies can be localized in several areas. For example: Globalization can create challenges to traditional lifestyles. The introduction of something culturally diverse (such as movies, cartoons or paintings) may be perceived as decadent or damaging to a more traditional, religious society. A person living in abject poverty may feel tremendous resentment against others and be resigned to a very low standard of living and quality of life. Consistent discrimination by one group against another can exacerbate misunderstandings and hatred.

A large number of suicide bombers who survived indicated that the main reason they participated was due to a feeling of helplessness and a belief that there was no other way to have their grievances addressed. Desperation trumped religious fervor.

Shamil Idriss, Acting Director of the Alliance of Civilizations Project, stresses that there are several Western policies affecting Muslim countries that increase the tension. Two of the most prominent policies are the constantly festering Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio and the military operations in Muslim countries, especially in Iraq.

On the Muslim side of the coin, there are negative influences such as a bitter debate between progressive and regressive leaders on a myriad of social, political and religious issues, especially the interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law. Many of these key players have thwarted reforms and adopted repressive political, cultural and legal policies against their opponents and the general public.

Another report issued by the UN Development Program (UNDP) vividly described how the social and economic progress in the Arab world is considerably slower than in the West, and is actually stagnant or atrophying in some areas.

The Alliance of Civilizations Report proffered several common-sensical and specific recommendations to overcome this challenge to social and economic progress and promote a dialogue between Western and Muslim countries. Note the following:

-- A re-affirmation by the international community would seek to find a permanent and equitable solution to the Middle East crisis and the development of a White Paper that objectively analyzes the Israeli-Palestinian situation. By providing a narrative of each group’s position, reviewing the successes and failures of other peace initiatives and delineating specific conditions that must be adhered to by all parties, it is hoped that the two sides will develop their own strategy for a peaceful coexistence with two separate states living in peace.

-- Establish an international conference that brings together all parties that have a legitimate role to play in the peace process and developed a Forum for the Alliance of Civilizations. Both would be under the auspices of the UN. In particular, the Forum would provide a formal mechanism that would encourage representatives of governments, the private sector, international organizations and civil society to engage in partnerships and to commit them to action in overcoming this gulf between the two societies.

-- Training would be implemented in intercultural understanding for journalists to better understand the religious and political forces at play. Also, journalists, as well as religious and political leaders, are encouraged to write objective articles that would provide background information, an analysis of complex issues and develop a bridge for better understanding.

This will be a major challenge since many journalists often parachute in and write an article on something they know little or nothing about, look for the most sensational and negative angle on a story, and tend to report a story as “us versus them.”

Other recommendations include promoting youth exchange programs and reviewing educational materials to guarantee accuracy, fairness and balance when discussing other cultures, especially religion (not to be confused with censorship).

Some UN reports are rather lengthy and jargon-ladened. This is not one of them. The recommendations are practical, comprehensible and possibly achievable. The Alliance of Civilizations Report, which is a very important blueprint for understanding the basic causes of much of the conflict between the West and Muslim societies, should be acted upon immediately by the UN and should be a must-read for anyone interested in isolating and remedying the basic causes of conflict. More information can be found at www.UNAoC.org

Winston Churchill once said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Perhaps the “clash of civilizations” believers will read this report, change their minds and change the subject. A just and lasting peace in the 21st Century may depend upon it.

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

Back in the Limelight on Center Stage

By Bill Miller

The general public and some UN observers, who erroneously believed the rhetoric about how the UN was not relevant and was precariously hanging on the brink of extinction, may wish to review Mark Twain’s famous quote, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

A major Achilles heel afflicting the UN’s credibility, public image, and reputation was the Oil for Food Program (OFFP) scandal and the atrocious behavior of a handful of UN peacekeepers (out of a total of nearly 85,000) who violated their moral and legal authority by exchanging sex-for-food.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker conducted a thorough investigation that basically exonerated UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the staff (except one person who has been accused of corruption, but has not been proven guilty) of any criminal activities or wrongdoing. However, the Volcker Report did criticize Annan’s managerial capabilities and the administration of the OFFP, while making specific recommendations to improve future programs.

Regarding peacekeeping abuses, the UN has established a “zero tolerance” for any peacekeepers violating the stringent ethical and military guidelines that direct peacekeeping missions. After these two embarrassments for the UN, some pundits thought —and most UN critics were probably hoping — that the international organization would be impotent in dealing with future challenges and fade into oblivion.

A quick glance at the UN agenda quashes that doomsday scenario. World leaders, even President Bush, who has frequently questioned the UN’s relevancy, and non governmental organizations (NGOs) are encouraging the UN to roll up its sleeves and confront even more aggressively the spiraling panoply of international problems.

These problems range from Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Darfur, Southern Lebanon, tension between Israelis and Palestinians, international peace and security challenges, globalization inequities, and Tsunami relief to controlling health problems and achieving the Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty, infant mortality rates and providing an education for all elementary school children.

The UN’s agenda is overflowing with major crises and challenges that have the potential to spin out of control and become even greater disasters. One bright spot is that the UN has had many major accomplishments over the past year or so. For example it:

— Implemented a Peacebuilding Commission that will work with a state moving from armed conflict or a failed condition to creating one that is stable, peaceful and productive. The Commission will mobilize the international community to develop strategies — after the fighting stops — to focus attention on “reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable development.” If the Commission had been in place a few years ago, perhaps Timor Leste (East Timor) would not have collapsed back into chaos.

— Created the Central Emergency Response Fund that will allow the UN to move financial resources quickly in the event of a humanitarian disaster. A major challenge for the UN, which has a very limited budget and human resources, has been to rapidly intervene to provide immediate assistance.

— Launched the Democracy Fund, which was first promoted by President Bush in a 2005 UN General Assembly speech, to promote and consolidate “new and restored” democracies. The Fund will provide electoral assistance to emerging democracies, emphasize the rule of law and democratic governance, and develop a comprehensive framework to combat corruption.

— Provided humanitarian assistance to people ravaged by war or nature, such as in Darfur and the Tsunami affected countries of Asia. Even though the Security Council was unable to convince the Sudanese Government to allow a stronger peacekeeping force into Darfur, UN agencies have been quietly and effectively working with victims by providing food, shelter, health and educational services. The UN took a page from the OFFP playbook and improved upon it, when providing assistance to the hundreds of thousands of Tsunami victims, by mobilizing human and financial resources more quickly, by upgrading its managerial and administrative capabilities and by being more accountable and transparent in all of its dealings and purchases.

— Saw the UN Security Council pass substantive resolutions to contain Iran’s nuclear enhancement program and apply sanctions to encourage the North Koreans to halt nuclear testing and weapons development.

A few of the major shortcomings of the UN this past year have been with:

— The widely acclaimed Human Rights Council, which replaced the somewhat flawed Human Rights Commission, has been criticized for failing to live up to its mandate and for allowing a bloc of countries to hijack the agenda and disproportionately criticize Israel, while ignoring other countries that have committed major human rights violations. There is a mechanism to review each Council member’s human rights records and to oust those who are egregious human rights violators. The Council has, for the first time, encouraged its members to abide by the highest human rights principles in their own countries.

— Not expanding the Security Council to encompass a greater diversity of geographical, financial and demographic representation by bringing in major UN players, such as Japan, India, Brazil and Germany.

Although the UN had several successes, and a few failures, one poignant example of the UN's importance occurred with the forceful action of Secretary General Kofi Annan who personally inserted his “good offices” into dealing with some very delicate issues.

For example, after the Security Council — which had been tied up for over a month by US Ambassador John Bolton in order to give the Israelis more time to throttle Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon — agreed to a resolution promoting a ceasefire and delineated certain steps to permanently end the conflict, Annan conducted a 10-day whirlwind peacemaking tour. He visited ten Middle Eastern countries to confer with the key players and cement the fragile peace agreement so that it would not crumble.

By meeting with Israelis, Syrians, Iranians and others, Annan was filling the role of an “honest broker and catalyst,” a role which used to be played by the US. Given the US’s dramatic tilt towards Israel and its official policy of not negotiating with enemies, such as Iran and Syria, the US has relegated itself to the sidelines and drastically diminished its influence.

There are dozens of examples as to how the UN has played a critical role in defusing tensions or providing assistance under adverse conditions. Two in particular are the Herculean efforts made by the UN agencies during the violent conflict in Southern Lebanon and the genocide in Darfur to assist the victims.

Many questioned why the UN was not effectively stopping the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah or inserting more peacekeepers into Darfur. The mantra was, “Where is the UN?’

Answer: The UN was quietly providing a vast array of services to refugees in Lebanon even while the intense fighting was underway, and UN peacekeepers were escorting civilians to safety and out of harm’s way.

In both Lebanon and Darfur UN agencies provided food, shelter, sanitation, and maternal and child health care programs, to name just a few, under extremely dangerous conditions. The UN was on the ground working while the bullets were flying and people were suffering. Ironically, very few media outlets — perhaps because of their myopic fixation with the Security Council’s wrangling and their “herd” mentality to cover Hugo Chavez’s antics at the UN — generally failed to report these activities. (Speaking of Chavez, his undiplomatic attack on President Bush probably cost Venezuela a seat on the UN Security Council. Apparently, diplomats did not want to suffer through two years of unproductive, vitriolic exchanges between Venezuela and the US).

Arguably, the countries of the world have come to the conclusion, more or less, that the UN — even with its faults — is still the only major international forum that has the expertise and authority to deal with the vast array of thorny, intractable international problems. One lesson learned by the 192 countries of the UN is that, even if the Security Council is tied up in knots and unable to play a constructive role immediately, UN agencies can still pitch in, in most situations, and deal with either an environmental or humanitarian disaster.

Incoming UN Secretary General Ban Ki -moon, a highly-respected South Korean diplomat, summed it up during his acceptance speech, “The surge in demand for UN services attests not only to the UN’s abiding relevance… The UN is needed now more than ever before.”

A recent national opinion poll by the Better World Campaign has confirmed what many other polls have shown over the history of the UN: '78% of Americans believe it is in America's best interest to continue to actively support the United Nations.'

Nations, including friends and critics alike, are rapidly coming to the same conclusion that the UN is still the only game in town. Perhaps the debate about the UN’s relevancy is close to being decided.

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

US and UN: Strange Bedfellows

By Bill Miller

Both supporters and critics alike should have cause for celebration in the recent selection of members for the newly established Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the somewhat embarrassing Commission on Human Rights. In a recent election to the new and improved HRC, a few human rights violators were elected to the council. The bad news was that China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan were elected.

The good news is that this is a smaller number and percentage of the total members than were on the old Commission on Human Rights. It is unlikely that these six countries will wrestle moral and procedural control from the remaining 41 members.

Many human rights experts, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, believe the new council is a marked improvement over the commission and the process has derailed the hopes of several violators from securing seats. For example, Iran and Venezuela did not receive sufficient votes to be elected. Other countries with poor human rights records, such as Sri Lanka, Eritrea and Ethiopia, did not participate. Unfortunately, the US did not run for a seat primarily because it probably would not have garnered a sufficient number of votes.

The situation with the Human Rights Council may be viewed as a microcosm of the somewhat schizophrenic relationship between the US and the UN. During the deliberations to implement the council, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton stressed that the US wanted to improve the UN and achieve the best council possible. That was the rhetoric.

The reality was different. During the process of deliberating the new Human Rights Council, Bolton rarely participated in the discussions, was vague as to how the US wanted the Council to develop and was acerbic and undiplomatic, actually weakening the US’s bargaining position. Confusion and arrogance were the bywords.

The creation of the Human Rights Council is endemic of the tangled relationship between the US and the UN. Over the years, President Bush has questioned the UN’s “relevancy,” only to reverse himself and run back to the UN for assistance in Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, Iran, North Korea and every hotspot imaginable.

Mr. Bolton claims to be a team player working for the good of the organization, while simultaneously undermining its activities, throwing up unnecessary roadblocks and undermining the UN on many fronts. Bolton is rapidly becoming an isolated figure at the UN, not because the other 190 countries hate the US, but because he is such an arrogant and incompetent paladin for US interests. According to the polls and diplomatic discussions, the ire is aimed at the US Government, not at Americans per se.

Mr. Bolton has, with his classic sledge hammer approach, stalled work on refurbishing the UN (which will run costs up for US taxpayers), stymied the UN reform efforts, alienated friend and foe alike at the UN, and threatened to cut off UN funds if reform is not implemented by early summer.

Given that the UN has been indispensable in leading the Asian tsunami relief, keeping pressure on Sudan and Iran, providing the backbone of Afghanistan’s rebuilding, working to set up the three democratic elections (along with educational and humanitarian programs) in Iraq, it is incredulous that the US appears to be going out of its way to harass the UN. Axiomatically, the US needs the UN, and vice-versa.

Recently, UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, while giving a speech at a major foreign policy gathering, referenced how important it was for the US to be more engaged in the UN. Brown indicated he was not attacking but encouraging more US engagement to help the UN through its reform transition and imminent financial crisis. Although Brown did not directly mention Bolton, apparently Mr. Bolton perceived this to be a breech of protocol and a direct partisan attack on him. Brown has been blatantly honest in previous speeches about the shortcomings of various UN member states, including the US. For months, Bolton and many UN watchers have been calling on the UN to return to its original purposes and lofty goals. Brown turned the tables and called on the US, which was the main founder of the UN and benefits more from it than probably any other country, to also return to its core principles to strengthen the organization.

Interestingly, Brown also referenced the “stealth attack” by the media to undermine the UN and its accomplishments. Apparently, this was a reference to the virulent UN bashing media, such as Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, US News and World Report, the Washington Times, and the Heritage Foundation, just to mention a few. The polls consistently show that the American public strongly encourages the US to work through the UN, whenever possible; however, the polls also show that the vast majority of the public knows very little about the UN. The “stealth attack” crowd helps perpetuate that ignorance, which unfortunately also carries over to a large number of Members of Congress.

Arguably, the White House has come to the conclusion that the UN, even with its imperfections, is critical to the US achieving many of its foreign policy goals. It is tragic that Secretary Rice, who supposedly is keeping Bolton in check, cannot convey that important message to him. It is long overdue to drop the Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde/Good cop-bad cop routine because it is counterproductive and is wearing thin.

To his credit, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, a strong ally of the US, agreed with Brown’s statements. Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” Ambassador Bolton has had a proliferation of failures; however, a substantive success is still elusive.

UN Approves Landmark Human Rights Council

By Bill Miller

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly recently approved a groundbreaking resolution that created the Human Rights Council to replace the somewhat discredited Commission on Human Rights.

By an overwhelming vote of 170 in favor of, 4 against (the US, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau), with 3 abstentions (Venezuela, Iran and Belarus), the green light was given to select the 47 members of the Human Rights Council (HRC) on May 9, and convene the new Council in Geneva on June 19.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had originally proposed a tougher version of the HRC (and President Bush would probably agree) that would have eliminated many of the shortcomings of the former Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Annan originally proposed that a 2/3 vote be required to secure a seat on the Council, which is the US’s position. It will now take an absolute majority of 96 member states in an up-or-down secret vote on each nominee for a country to be selected to the HRC.

An abstention counts as a nay. The General Assembly will not have to automatically accept a slate of candidates -- no matter how severely they violate the human rights of their peoples -- as offered by a regional bloc.

Several of the advantages of the new HRC is that it will meet year-round, thus being able to respond immediately to gross human rights atrocities; it will have a mechanism to recall a member that is involved in human rights violations; and it will stiffen the criteria for a country to become a member.

Realistically, during the give and take of legislative negotiations in the 191-member General Assembly, Annan’s original proposed Human Rights Council has been diluted somewhat, however, it is far superior to what currently exists.

Many of the more consistent UN-bashers, such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Heritage Foundation, attacked the HRC as being ineffective and no better than the CHR. Even some of the more respected mainstream media outlets, such as the New York Times, suggested that the vote be delayed and further discussions take place.

What these critics overlooked was that more discussions would have opened Pandora’s Box and made the Council even weaker since many of the major human rights violators -- concerned about too much intrusion into their sovereign affairs -- would have introduced more diluting amendments.

Although the often-criticized Commission on Human Rights (which is being replaced by the Human Rights Council) had many successes in its nearly 60-year tenure, it was viewed as an embarrassment to the UN because some of the worst human rights violators, such as Zimbabwe, Cuba and Sudan, wound up as members. This handful of violators was able to manipulate the commission’s parliamentary procedures, push bloc voting and gain control of key positions of leadership. Mary Robinson, Former President of Ireland and highly-respected Former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, indicated that this manipulation overshadowed many of the Commission’s tangible accomplishments, such as using the Commissions’ Special Rapporteurs to expose human rights violations, promulgating the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, implementing the comprehensive body of international human rights law, and mobilizing international public pressure against many human rights violators.

Robinson (who was ousted as Human Rights Commissioner by the Bush Administration), along with former US President Jimmy Carter and many human rights organizations, strongly encouraged the creation of the new Human Rights Council.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said that the US stood on “principle” and voted against the new Council. Many of the UN member states probably perceived that statement to be partially true, but somewhat of a false Potemkin Village. When many countries peeked behind the façade, they noted several conflicting arguments that damaged the US’s credibility and its arguments (although the US made some excellent points that supported Annan’s original proposal). The US, even though it has fewer human rights violations than many of the UN member states, has slid from its previous moral high ground as a champion for human rights.

For example, several countries noted that:

-- The recent US Annual Report on Human Rights, which focuses attention on human rights violations around the world, mentioned nothing about gross US human rights violations at Abu Ghraib, Camp Nama and Guantanamo Bay, not to mention other secret detention centers used by the US Government.

The report criticized Egypt for its violations, but was silent about its US complicity in quietly taking potential enemy combatants (or possibly innocent bystanders) to Egypt and torturing them.

Even more disturbing recently is the growing number of reports filed against US military personnel in Iraq for summarily executing civilians. The Defense Department acknowledged that “most” of these incidents did not occur, yet they still have not adequately addressed the ones that did take place. Tragically, these allegations harken back to the anger and frustration of the Charlie Company soldiers who committed the My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, in Vietnam;

-- The Bush Administration has systematically worked to circumvent the Geneva Convention, and is illegally spying on some innocent Americans who have no ties to terrorists;

-- The duplicitous and mendacious manipulation of information to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq that has ultimately resulted in the deaths and maiming of potentially tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Although Saddam was not involved in the 9-11 attacks, did not have an operative relationship with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and did not possess WMDs, a recent leaked report indicates that the Bush Administration had decided to invade Iraq even if WMDs did not exist and if the UN Security Council failed to draft a resolution that sanctioned the invasion.

-- Ambassador John Bolton is widely viewed as a virulent UN basher who purportedly stresses the US wants to improve the UN. In the process of deliberating the new Human Rights Council, Bolton rarely participated in the discussions, was quite vague as to what the US wanted the Council to be and displayed his caustic, undiplomatic lack of interpersonal skills in conveying the US position. Apparently, there was great confusion among the US delegation as to the final product.

Jan Eliason, the President of the UN General Assembly, bent over backwards to accommodate the US and try to get them on board by delaying the vote for further negotiations, but to no avail. The US -- which now must play a key role if this Council is to succeed -- must stop dragging its feet, get actively involved in the discussions, and lend its support (both financial and technical) to guaranteeing its success. On a positive note, Ambassador Bolton indicated the US would be supportive.

The US, Kofi Annan, human rights supporters, and many others hoped for a stronger Council. Now is the time for realism to prevail. As Kofi Annan said, “The true test of the Council’s credibility will be the use the member states make of it…the Council can breathe new life into all our work for human rights.” Now is the time for the member states to fully support the Human Rights Council, or it will surely fail.

_________________

Bill Miller is past Chair of the United Nations Association of the USA’s Council of Chapter Presidents.

Oil for Food Program: RIP

By Bill Miller

Perhaps the final shovel of dirt will soon be heaped on the coffin of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP) that the media have covered ad nauseum, and in some cases unprofessionally, over the past few years. May it rest in peace! Fortunately, many constructive lessons have been learned that will strengthen the UN in the 21st Century and will improve its public administration effectiveness in future programs.

Paul Volcker, the highly respected former Federal Reserve Chair and head of the UN Oil-for-Food Program Inquiry Committee, recently released the final report of a very exhaustive investigation that spanned 18 months and cost $34 million. The report consisted of interviews with over 1,100 people in 20 countries, examined 12 million pages of documents, and arrived at some very important conclusions in the 623 page report.

The Oil-For-Food Program (OFFP), operating from 1996 until 2003, was established to allow the Iraqi government to sell oil. The proceeds were to be invested in the purchase of food, medicine, humanitarian goods, and rebuilding the infrastructure, which ultimately would reduce the suffering of the Iraqi populace. As Volcker mentioned, the program was relatively successful because it provided basic provisions to the Iraqis but was achieved at a “heavy cost” since there were some problems with mismanagement, ethical lapses, and corruption.

On the positive side, the program fed 80% of the 27 million Iraqis; raised the average daily caloric intake of the people by 83% from 1,200 calories to 2,200 calories per person per day; and decreased the malnutrition rates over 50% throughout most of the country. Tragically, the Iraqi caloric level and standard of living have declined dramatically since the 2003 American-led invasion.

Some of the major conclusions of the inquiry were the following:

-- Apparently, the major culprits involved in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein were the 2,265 out of the 4,758 oil companies, such as Daimler-Chrysler and Volvo. Some of the companies were unaware this practice occurred on their behalf.

-- Another administration problem was with the UN Security Council (called the 661 Committee) that controlled many of the “key administrative responsibilities,” rather than delegating them to the Secretary General and various UN personnel. The lines of authority, programmatic responsibilities, and areas of accountability were blurred. Actually, the 661 Committee held virtual control over the approval and dispersion of the various contracts and knew fully about the flow of illegal oil to Jordan and Turkey. Of approximately $12.8 billion in illicit funds going to Saddam, about $10.2 billion came from smuggling and trade outside the OFFP, of which the UN staff had NO control over this activity.

Ironically, Benon V. Sevan, former director of the OFFP and the individual who alerted the 661 Committee to many of the irregularities, has been accused of receiving $147,000 in kickbacks, though this is yet to be proven. No action was taken because the goal was to allow the sale of oil under Article 50 of the UN Charter to countries that were suffering under the sanctions and whose economies had been ravaged due to the 1991 Iraq War.

-- Over the course of the investigation, there was “no evidence” that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had been involved in any illegal activities to rig the bidding process or direct contracts to Cotecna, a Swiss-based firm who had employed his son Kojo. Although Annan was vindicated of any wrongdoing or corruption, he was criticized for his lax managerial oversight of the OFFP and for not conducting a more thorough investigation of his son Kojo's employment with Cotecna. Volcker has consistently indicated that the UN staff had been very cooperative in helping with his investigation.

One of the report’s main messages was that UN administrative reform should begin immediately through:

(1) Establishing clear mandates and delegation of authority from the Security Council to the Secretariat and UN agencies, with unambiguous “lines of reporting responsibility.”

(2) Strengthened administration and creation of a Chief Operating Officer position that has direct access to the Secretary General and the Security Council.

(3) Improving auditing and investigative capacity and creating a strong independent oversight board with adequate resources.

(4) A more effective coordination of UN agencies, especially with agreed upon memoranda of understanding and the use of common accounting and auditing standards.

Paul Volcker has impeccable credentials as a no-nonsense public administrator who excelled at several public administration tasks he undertook, especially in the area of financial management. A major criticism of Volcker is that he, perhaps, bent over backwards to assuage the rabid and vicious media attacks on his character and credibility when he began the investigation. Also, he could have provided a more forceful defense of Kofi Annan and explained in greater detail how most of the corruption actually came OUTSIDE of the OFFP under the watchful gaze of the US and other 661 Committee members, far from the reach of the UN staff.

Some politicians, such as Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), and media outlets, e.g. the Washington Times, Fox News, US News and World Report, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, through their myopic and biased coverage, seem to have embarked upon a personal vendetta against the UN, and especially Kofi Annan. The media should be encouraged to legitimately criticize the UN because there is much to criticize; however, they should also attempt to be more objective and not develop tunnel vision about reporting mostly negative news.

Just as a suggestion, if the media would like to cover other important and timely issues that are of interest to the public they might look into the following that have received little publicity. For example:

(a) Several UN agencies are spearheading a successful relief effort to help the tsunami disaster victims in Asia get their lives back together. Also, several UN agencies pitched in and offered assistance in the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane disaster.

(b) The international climate change follow-up conference to the Kyoto Protocol made a major breakthrough and developed a manual of the rules to implement the treaty.

(c) Israel’s status and clout improved at the UN since it’s ambassador became Vice-President of the General Assembly, and the UN commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Nazi death camps and pledged “never again” to tolerate future genocides.

(d) The UN blasted China for its “widespread” human rights violations.

(e) The Bush Administration and Secretary General Annan have some excellent proposals to reform and strengthen the UN, such as moving forward with the new Human Rights Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Unfortunately, the acerbic US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has been diplomatically inept in garnering international support to implement the reforms.

(f) The UN is quietly working under the radar to help people in Iraq by setting up elections and implementing education and humanitarian projects, such as providing school supplies, developing nutrition programs for pregnant women and combating polio and malaria.

If the media would like to report on more corruption, fraud, abuse and incompetence, it should focus on:

(a) The mysterious disappearance of nearly $10 billion unaccounted for funds distributed by the US controlled Coalition Provisional Authority that Jerry Bremmer administered in Iraq.

(b) The millions allegedly swindled by Halliburton and other contractors through no-bid contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast.

(c) The gross inability of the local, state and federal agencies (especially FEMA and its incompetent director Michael D. Brown) to assist Katrina victims.

(d) The Downing Street Memo reference to “fixing” the facts to justify an invasion of Iraq and many of the media’s failure to accurately report the Administration’s mendacity and duplicitness in convincing Congress and the American public to go to war and to undertake what is now becoming widely viewed as an unnecessary, costly and militarily unwinnable war. All reputable investigators have reported that no WMDs were located, Saddam apparently was not involved in the 9-11 attack, and Hussein did not have an operational link to Al-Qaeda.

(e) A recent C-SPAN interview with David Walker, Director of the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office, who gave the Department of Defense a “D” grade due to the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant in this agency and the wastefulness in its bloated $450 billion budget.

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance appear to be thriving in some governmental and private sector programs. Obviously, both the US and the UN need to reform and improve their management and public administration capabilities. Hopefully, the double standard of requiring the UN to be absolutely perfect and the US agencies to fail without penalty is coming to an end. Journalist Gay Talese was quoted as saying, “The real problem is what to do with the problem solvers after the problems are solved.” Americans, the UN, and the world should be so lucky that ALL the problems would be solved!

Reform or Perish?

By Bill Miller

With the General Assembly convening in mid-September in New York, the 191 members of the United Nations have a unique opportunity to confront two challenges that will strengthen the UN, make it more effective and streamlined, and allow it to improve the quality of life for billions of humans.

The first challenge confronting the member states will be to seriously commit to implement the laudable Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were agreed upon at a summit held in 2000. The eight practical, achievable and measurable goals are generally supported by governmental and nongovernmental entities worldwide.

To achieve the MDGs by 2015, UN member states have agreed to reduce extreme poverty by 50%; provide a primary education to all boys and girls; promote gender equality; reduce by two-thirds infant mortality rates; reverse the spread of AIDs; reduce by 75% the ratio of women dying in childbirth; integrate sustainable development principles and reverse the loss of environmental resources; and create a global partnership for development.

If these important goals are to be realized, the wealthy, developed countries must make sufficient financial and human resources available, while the economically developing countries must assist with some resources and commit to transparency and accountability (which neither group has done sufficiently). It has often been suggested that the goals would be primarily accomplished if all countries would dedicate 10% of their bloated $1 trillion defense budgets to the MDGs. Another possibility is that the richer nations make good on their commitment to appropriate .7 of 1% (70 cents of each $100.00) of their GDP to assisting poorer countries. Unfortunately, neither is a viable option today.

The second major challenge will be to implement a broad range of reforms to strengthen the UN and to make it more effective and efficient. During UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's eight plus year tenure as CEO, the UN has made great strides in reducing staff, implementing a more professional management and personnel system, curtailing waste, and enhancing cross-agency communication and coordination. Yet, as with any bureaucracy, more needs to be done.

Two UN Reports, 'A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility' and the 'High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,' have served as the foundation for Annan to present a bold and ambitious panoply of 101 suggested reforms. A principal premise is that the UN is at a critical juncture -- as it plunges into the 21st Century -- to reshape itself and redefine collective security (especially in light of the imbroglio in the Security Council (SC) over whether to invade Iraq). UN members should realize that today's threats transcend national boundaries, are inter-related, and must be confronted collectively and individually if they are to be defeated.

Some of the proposed UN reforms include:

-- Abolish the largely discredited Human Rights Commission and replace it with a Human Rights Council that would be elected by a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly. It would by composed of countries that 'undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards,' according to Annan. Ostensibly, this would reduce participation by the major human rights violators, such as Zimbabwe.

-- Implement a Peacebuilding Commission to work with countries that are moving from a disruptive conflict to economic and social normalization. It is extremely important to make sure these countries do not slide back into a dysfunctional condition. A classic example is the mercurial rise of the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan after the former USSR withdrew and the western powers offered little assistance in the transition.

-- Review two separate proposals to expand the UN Security Council from 15 to 24 members in an effort to broaden and democratize the SC representation. Also, this would involve countries who pay more to the UN and who could share the burdens of peacekeeping.

Supports will probably be adopted. However, the myopic media and the jingoists in Congress may be tempted to focus on several minor distractions and miss the major stories. The perennial UN bashers, such as CNN's Lou Dobbs, Fox News, US News and World Report, Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the Heritage Foundation, will probably lead the charge in disparaging the UN.

Hopefully, the more professional and well-respected mainstream media will focus their attention on the real stories and adhere to high journalistic standards. It is rather curious how the Tsunami relief effort, which is the largest humanitarian assistance program ever undertaken and, by all accounts, is a spectacular UN success story, has received little media coverage.

What are some of the distractions that will get more coverage than they deserve? For starters,

-- The battle over whether India, Germany, Japan and Brazil should become permanent SC members will be front-page news. Arguably, this may be one of the least important proposals, especially since the four countries have several foes and regional organizations, such as the African Union, lining up to oppose them. This should NOT be a litmus test of success.

-- The Oil for Food Program (OFFP) is the Pandora's Box of misinformation for UN critics to bash the organization. Some Congressional zealots and ill-informed media types seem to have difficulty in comprehending that there may have been some minor UN mismanagement, however, the US and other SC members were fully aware of Saddam's illegal oil sales and his skimming activities. How? Because UN staff alerted them and the SC members signed off on the illegal sales of oil to Turkey and Jordan.

-- John Bolton's recess appointment as US Ambassador to the UN will be a headline grabber. Mr. Bolton, who has worked tirelessly to undermine many international agreements (such as the International Criminal Court (ICC)) and to disparage the UN (ironically both the ICC and the UN are in the best interest of the US), will need to make a 180-degree turn if he expects to be effective in promoting the interests of the US at the UN. Many international relations experts view Bolton as being unqualified for the post because he lacks diplomatic, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, as well as not being cognizant of how the UN benefits the US more than any other country.

Perhaps Mr. Bolton should remember a few facts: the UN is New York City's third largest employer and pumps over $3 billion in the area economy; the UN is still dominated by the US and is indispensable in assisting the US in the disastrous Iraqi quagmire and in reconstructing Afghanistan; the UN's 18 peacekeeping missions help keep US troops out of harm's way and are more cost effective than a US-led operation; and, the UN is providing critical services to Americans on a daily basis. Many of these services include moving aircraft, ships, mail, and weather information safely worldwide.

Arguably, when John Bolton traipsed around the world stonewalling international agreements, irrationally undercutting the UN, and bullying friend and foe alike, he may have done more than any other US official to increase international disdain for the US Government and its foreign policies. In many capitals, he was the face of the 'Ugly American.' Hopefully, Bolton will reverse course, drop the hubris and represent the US well at this critical session of the UN.

For the past several years, some national and international leaders have railed that the UN must reform or become irrelevant. Irrelevancy -- an oft-quoted hyperbole -- will not afflict the UN for a wide range of reasons. As President Bush apparently has discovered, even with its imperfections, the UN is still the only international forum that brings the countries of the world together to deal with thorny, intractable challenges and to stamp the imprimatur of international legitimacy on dealing with problems ranging from dangerous peacekeeping missions, confronting environmental degradation, promoting human rights, to battling diseases or drug abuse. The real question is not relevancy but how effective and efficient the UN will be in achieving its goals to end the scourge of war, promote economic and social development and enhance human rights. Today, there is no other alternative to the UN. The UN will still be here when most of today's leaders have long faded away.

The US, still the most powerful country, must play a pivotal, positive role in achieving these goals. Will it? Also, the other 190 UN members must be statesmen and not politicians. This is one the most important crossroads in the UN's young 60-year history. As the famous playwright Tennessee Williams said, 'If people behaved the way nations do, they would all be put in straightjackets.' Hopefully, key UN member states will mature by mid-September.

Allegations Against UN Oil for Food Program Are Murky

By Bill Miller

Paul Volcker, the respected former Federal Reserve Chair and head of the UN Oil-for-Food Program Inquiry Committee, recently released the second phase of a very exhaustive investigation of the UN operated Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP). One of the major conclusions was that there was “no evidence” that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had been involved in any illegal activities to rig the bidding process or direct contracts to Cotecna, a Swiss-based firm who had employed his son Kojo.

Annan was criticized for not conducting an adequate investigation of Kojo's employment with Cotecna. Actually, Annan had received professional advice from then Under-Secretary General Joseph Conner, a squeaky-clean, no nonsense investigator, who looked into the allegations and found them baseless. Few of the media ever mention this important piece of evidence

Mr. Volcker went on to say that, “…this institution, (the UN), has been scrubbed very hard. I don’t know of any institution that has received (such intense scrutiny) …” He proceeded to indicate that the UN staff had been very cooperative in helping with his investigation; however, Kojo Annan has not been forthcoming with the inquiry committee. One UN employee who is being investigated is Benon Sevan, the UN head of the OFFP, who was not truthful with the Security Council; and his dealings, according to Volcker, were “ethically improper” and “a serious conflict of interest” and “undermined the integrity of the UN.”

Another major criticism was that the UN auditing system needed to be strengthened. An internal UN audit also indicated that there was some mismanagement, such as contractors overcharging (this sounds similar to the Halliburton situation in Iraq) the UN several million dollars

Unfortunately, there is a gigantic chasm of myths and misinformation emanating from this investigation. Some of the major myths are that the UN:

-- Did nothing to raise concerns about kickbacks and irregularities. In fact, on several occasions the Secretary General and the UN employees alerted the Security Council that the oil pricing formulas were incorrect and did not reflect the fair market value. No action was taken. Not a single one of the 36,000 contracts reviewed by this committee was derailed because of overpricing.

-- Should have stopped the smuggling. In fact, the UN had no authority and no military force to interdict the oil that was flowing to Turkey and Jordan. This task fell to the Multinational Interception Force (MIF) that was composed primarily of the US Navy’ Fifth Fleet. No action was taken.

-- Approved Saddam's illegal smuggling (or legally selling) oil to several countries. In fact, The Security Council, led by the US and the UK, gave their tacit approval to sell oil under Article 50 of the UN Charter to countries that had been adversely affected economically due to UN sanctions. NO action was taken to stop this flow of oil. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush, while being aware of the oil sales to Turkey and Jordan., also recommended that Congress continue military and financial aid to the two key US allies.

-- Attempted to obstruct the investigation. In fact, Kofi Annan wanted the Volcker Inquiry Group to take on the volatile issue of looking at the S-G, his son, Kojo, and Benon Sevan, head of the OFFP, so that Annan could get this distraction behind him and move forward with some of the more important work of the UN, especially the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and UN reform (which Annan has been a strong proponent). Annan has basically been cleared of any bid tampering or favoritism, however, Kojo and Sevan are still under investigation

The Oil-For-Food Program (OFFP), in operation from 1996 until 2003, was established to permit the Iraqi government to sell oil with the proceeds spent to reduce suffering of the Iraqi populace and improve their quality of life by purchasing food, medicine and humanitarian goods, and rebuilding the infrastructure. For example, the program:

-- Fed 80% of the 27 million Iraqis; raised the average daily caloric intake of the people by 83% from 1,200 calories to 2,200 calories per person per day; and decreased the malnutrition rates over 50% throughout most of the country. Sadly, since the 2003 American-led invasion, the Iraqi caloric level and standard of living have declined dramatically. As the UN has reported, the daily living conditions are dismal with intermittent water and electricity supply; chronic malnutrition, and rising illiteracy rates;

-- Alleviated international pressure to weaken the sanctions. The sanctions and the OFFP purchases of key commodities’ combination derailed shut down Saddam’s plan to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Professional and responsible journalists who wish to inform the public will scrutinize the UN OFFP and the Secretary General and objectively report the facts. The OFFP irregularities are serious charges that must be investigated thoroughly. However, the vitriolic UN-bashing media and misguided Members of Congress should just report the facts, not rumors and innuendoes and stop clamoring for Kofi Annan to resign. If every CEO who experienced mismanagement by his/her employees resigned, there would probably not be one governmental agency or private company, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, spared this charge.

OFFP has been chastised by many ill-informed media outlets as being ostensibly the largest scandal ever and the most failed program (which it was certainly not in both cases). The OFFP was really quite successful. However, some of the “Minotaurs of the Media”, driven by a maniacal obsession to devour anything --such as truth--that impedes their quest to prove their unsubstantiated claim that Annan is guilty, regardless of the facts, should make a concerted effort to elevate themselves as paradigms of journalistic excellence and professionalism.,

Unfortunately for the US, the UN, and the general public, media outlets such as the Washington Times, Fox News, US News and World Report, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, to mention only a few, have created a new low in their so-called objective coverage of the UN. As Sir Winston Churchill once opined, “ A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has chance to get its pants on.” As more information is revealed about the OFFP, hopefully the public will research the issues, ignore many of the media pundits, and determine the facts of the program.

The Volcker Committee is moving aggressively into Phase 3, which will emphasize the role and responsibilities of the Security Council member states. What did they know? When did they know it? What were their responsibilities? By June 30 when the report is issued, the truth will be have its pants on.

Much Ado About Little

By Bill Miller

What ever happened to the legal cornerstones of innocent until proven guilty and due process? These fundamental foundations of American jurisprudence have apparently been tossed aside and replaced with a media circus event that instead prefers to vilify UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the UN’s Oil-For-Food Program (OFFP). The cacophony of cries for Kofi Annan to resign over the Oil-for-Food Program’s alleged irregularities blatantly illustrates the sociological phenomenon of the “media herd mentality” where the UN bashers are piling on at an unprecedented rate, even among some of the mainstream media outlets.

If the truth were known, most of these journalists, who piously pontificate that they really just want to improve the UN, do not share that laudable goal. Their real aim is to humiliate, weaken and ultimately destroy the organization that they perceive—erroneously—to be detrimental to US goals, especially because most UN member states and people worldwide opposed the unpopular and unwarranted war in Iraq. These media gurus have little or no praise for the UN which has done Herculean work in combating SARS and polio, working with the US to combat terrorism, spearheading the Tsunami relief operation, and re-building Afghanistan (not to mention trying to put a partial facade of legitimacy on the war of choice in Iraq by helping to cobble together a legitimate election). The list has many of the reliable UN bashers such as Lou Dobbs of CNN, former NY Times columnist Bill Safire, the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the new member of the choir, Senator Norm Coleman, (R-MN), Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, who has been particularly acerbic and irrational, to mention only a few.

There are at least five Congressional committees tripping all over themselves to investigate this alleged scandal. Some political cynics believe that part of this zeal to investigate what happened to Iraqis oil money, (not US taxpayer money), is to pay back the UN for not supporting the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Several of these media and Members of Congress admit that there is no evidence of corruption or criminality against Annan; however, some of them keep up the mantra that he resign, which would leave the UN in turmoil and rudderless and deprive it, arguably, of the most effective leader it has had in its history.

Let’s step back and have a reality check of the Oil-For-Food Program (OFFP), in operation from 1996 until 2003, which allowed the Iraqi government to sell oil to reduce suffering and raise the standard of living for Iraqis by paying for food, infrastructure, medicine and humanitarian goods.

-- The OFFP was actually quite successful in feeding 27 million Iraqis; the average daily caloric intake of the people increased by 83% from 1,200 calories to 2,200 calories per person per day; and malnutrition rates decreased over 50% throughout most of the country. Most importantly, from the US standpoint, the combination of the sanctions and the OFFP kept Saddam Hussein in a box and deprived him of developing his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.

-- The responsibility of the OFFP was vested in the UN Security Council’s 661 Committee that approved the contracts that allowed sales and purchases. The UN staff, who actually reported several irregularities starting in 2000 with reports of illegal surcharges, was the lower echelon employees reporting to their bosses. Blaming the UN staff for this debacle is like blaming the low level whistle blower who has virtually no authority and power to confront someone who is committing a criminal act.

-- The US had scores of people monitoring the contracts, but not a single one had been stopped because of corruption, pricing irregularities, or kickbacks. The US, UK and the other 661 members were fully aware that Saddam was skimming funds, yet they chose NOT to take forceful action. The only option would be to choose the lesser of three evils: cut off the program, let more Iraqis die and experience an international public relations outcry; confront Saddam and possibly re-invade Iraq militarily; or continue the program and turn a blind eye, which is what they did.

-- Paul Volcker, the highly-respected former Federal Reserve Chair and head of the independent OFFP inquiry, recently stated that there were irregularities but nothing bordering on criminal activity and nothing that would produce a “smoking gun.” An internal UN audit also indicated that there was mismanagement, such as contractors overcharging (this sounds similar to the Halliburton situation in Iraq) the UN by several million dollars, but they found no irregularities or corruption on the part of the UN staff. Remember, it was the 661 Committee, not the UN civil servants, who had the oversight authority. Ironically, Volcker is getting considerable cooperation from the UN and is being stonewalled by countries such as Russia and the US, both of which apparently had several companies involved in the OFFP.

-- News media estimates of illicit profits of $20 billion are grossly exaggerated, with the number being closer to $1.7 billion, as reported by Charlie Duelfer, who was the US’s chief inspector in Iraq.

What should be done? The logical approach is to report ONLY the facts and let Paul Volcker continue the investigation, with a final report to be published in June. The OFFP irregularities are very serious charges that must be investigated thoroughly. However, the crusading UN-bashing media should just report the facts, not rumors and innuendoes, stop clamoring for Kofi Annan to resign (if every CEO who experienced mismanagement by his/her employees resigned, there would probably not be one governmental agency or private company spared this humiliation). Kofi Annan has vigorously pledged that any employee found to have done anything illegal will lose immunity and will be prosecuted.

Undoubtedly, the anti-UN crowd will continue to bash the organization over the OFFP since it is such an easy target and can be distorted so easily with ridiculous rumors and misinformation. President Bush was quite right to call for a full investigation and accounting of the program. The UN should be held accountable, all of the facts must be exposed, and the UN-bashers should stop demonizing an organization that they desperately need to help in Iraq and other trouble spots around the world.

Truly professional and responsible journalists that wish to inform the public will critically analyze the UN and the Secretary General and objectively report their successes and failures. As the old joke goes: if Kofi Annan were Christ like and walked on water, the next day’s headline would be “Annan can’t swim.” Unfortunately, for many of the media, it is truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.

____________________

Bill Miller is past Chair of the United Nations Association of the USA’s Council of Chapter Presidents.

World to Rally Around UN Goals?

By Bill Miller

Arguably, it would it would be a gross understatement to claim that the term “millennium development goals (MDGs)” is a kitchen table discussion topic. Few Americans have been exposed to the eight goals adopted by the heads of the 147 nations that met at the United Nations four years ago. Fortunately, they will hear much more about them in the future.

As background, the Millennium Development Goal Summit was the brainchild of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who ably orchestrated the conference in September of 2002 at the UN Headquarters in New York. Annan, being pragmatic and visionary, focused upon how the UN could be more efficient and effective to create a better world in the 21st Century. He used his considerable prestige and clout with the world community to launch the summit and to identify eight targetable goals that are practical, quantifiable, time-specific, and achievable.

The eight UN Millennium Development Goals are:

1) reduce by 50% the number of people living on less than a dollar a day (some 2 billion people) by 2015;

2) by 2015, ensure that all boys and girls complete primary school;

3) promote gender equality, also in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and no later than 2015;

4) by 2015, reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five;

5) reduce by 75% the ratio of women dying in childbirth by 2015;

7) halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDs and the incidence of malaria and other major diseases by 2015;

8) ensure environmental sustainability by integrating sustainable development principles in country policies and programs, by reversing the loss of environmental resources, by providing people with more access to safe drinking water, and by improving significantly the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers; and,

9) create a global partnership for development by developing an open trading and financial system that includes good governance and poverty reduction, and provide decent and productive work.

Accomplishing the MDGs would improve the world quite dramatically by reducing both suffering and costs in the eight areas, improve the quality of life and standard of living for billions, and reduce some of the negative factors, e.g. abject poverty and grinding illiteracy, that may help spawn terrorism.

The first seven goals can be quantified and monitored over a specific period of time to see if they are being achieved; however, goal number 8 is a bit more nebulous and is one that the US Government has more control over. A major part of creating a global partnership for development is providing international assistance, or foreign aid, to economically developing countries.

In 1992, at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the US and other countries agreed to work towards an Official Development Assistance (ODA) goal of .7 of 1% of the gross domestic product (GDP). In reality, the US’s share of contributions had been declining—after reaching a high in the Carter Administration—to where the US ranked behind Japan, Germany, and France in total financial assistance levels. This precipitous slide was reversed at the 2002 Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development when President Bush committed the US to a 50% increase over a three-year period that would bring its share up to $15 billion.

National leaders adopted the MDGs in 2000; however, the campaign to achieve them extends far beyond national governments. Governments at all levels, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as religious groups and service clubs, are striving to accomplish many of these goals, although they may not have the foggiest notion of what came out of the MDG Summit. For example, consider the fact that state governments are conducting a wide-range of programs and activities to provide for more decent living standards for people residing within their borders. Rotary International, one of the largest private service organizations, has as three of its major goals this year to enhance educational opportunities, provide clean drinking water, and combat diseases around the world.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recently gave an update as to how well the world is doing in achieving the goals. Briefly, the first group, which comprises most of Asia and Northern Africa, is making great strides in halving extreme poverty by 2015 and achieving other goals. A second group, principally in West Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, has done well towards some individual targets such as achieving universal primary education, but is less successful in reducing poverty. The third group, sub-Saharan Africa and least developed countries in other regions, due to internal ethnic conflict, few financial resources, and rampant health problems, such as AIDs, has not made adequate progress.

Most people around the world can enthusiastically rally around the common-sensical MDGs. At times, a national representative who frequents the hallowed halls of the UN will speak in glowing terms about some laudable goal or program, only to return home to promptly forget about it. As Kofi Annan said, “The Millennium Development Goals are still technically feasible in even the poorest countries, but the window of opportunity is rapidly narrowing and the political will remains largely absent…new realities call for new solutions.” Numerous studies indicate that these problems can be reduced with a firm political commitment, clearly defined and measurable goals, qualified professionals and programs, and, most importantly, sufficient financial resources. All the players in this card game must rally around to achieve the MDGS--over the next 11 years-- because the stakes are too high if they fail.