Do We Expect Too Much?

By Patricia Keegan

At a time when our country is going through an unprecedented transformation with a myriad of challenges converging simultaneously, Barack Obama’s time has come. Can he lead us back from the abyss?

For over two decades global financial problems have been building, caused by abdication of responsibility, lack of foresight and uncontrollable avarice.

Our expectations for President Obama may prove to be beyond reason, yet we see in him the potential of a steady leader, with a strong core and a sensitivity to the predicament of millions of Americans striving to keep their heads above water. Not only is Obama faced with domestic problems unraveling on a daily basis, but also with unpredictable international challenges. As of today, he is inheriting two wars, a violent clash between Israelis and Palestinians, and an ominous list of brewing confrontations. We have no idea what lies ahead and little control over the outcome. Whatever happens, from the start, we as Americans need to be united in faith behind our new leadership and in our ability to harness the courage to meet the demands ahead. The results of the last Presidential election is the evidence of a hunger for change. The change we were all hoping for may be deeper and more painful than first imagined in campaign slogans.

Obama’s skill in running his campaign, and in selecting an experienced, talented cabinet, speaks to his strong leadership skills. If he can provide inspiration, integrity, and practical solutions to our economic problems, there is a strong chance our country will come through this gracefully.

In the planned stimulus package set for Day 1, by first taking care of the most vulnerable, those in danger of losing basic needs -- including food, clothing and shelter -- he can secure the vitally important lowest rung of the economic ladder. For most Americans love of country comes directly after love of family, and we have been through an agonizing time seeing our country’s values distorted. We watched as the Executive Branch strayed from the principles of government set forth in our Constitution, and we engaged in a pre-emptive war based on false information. What stands before us now is the specter of a country we know, but barely recognize. Four years from now, when we look back on our country, how different will we be as a nation?

I believe this change represents a desire to get to the core, the truth, of what America stands for, not only to its own citizens but to a world who looks to us for leadership, justice and compassion . Hopefully, the combination of a new administration and unprecedented hardships will bring a cleansing of soul, leading to a country firmly positioned on a strong, spiritual foundation.

I recently read a prophetic speech made by the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn at Harvard University in 1975 in which he both praised and criticized America. Much of what he says applies today. He talked about the fight for our planet as both physical and spiritual, describing it as a fight of cosmic proportions which is already upon us. He asks how the West declined from its triumphal march to its present sickness. He believed that anthropocentricity was the prevailing Western view of the world, meaning a humanistic autonomy, unlinked to any higher force from above, seeing man himself as the center of everything that exists. From an historical perspective, he says that while the Renaissance through the present has enriched our experience, we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

Solzhenitsyn concluded his speech with the following.

“If the world has not come to an end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the middle ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled on as in the Modern era. The ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way but -- upward.

Now in the early stages of the 21st century, before the end of the first decade and in the midst of looming chaos, we have an inspiring, new leader in Barack Obama, who has come to turn the page to a new chapter in our history. In guiding us through this change, he has to be a statesman, head and shoulders above the rest. He has to be wise, he has to be disciplined, and he has to be a healer. In helping him deal with the enormity of the task, it is comforting to know the goodwill of our country is with him. We wish him well, while we pray for his success.

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.”

UN Bid: Determined and Pragmatic

From the Taiwan Review

After two referendums on United Nations membership failed to receive enough voter support to pass in March due to domestic party politics, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou is assessing the Republic of China's (ROC) options for joining the world body. At the same time, the government is also ensuring that the nation continues to shoulder its responsibilities as a global citizen.

The ROC was a founding member of the UN, but lost its seat in 1971 when recognition was switched to mainland China. In 1993, the government began to promote the goal of joining the UN. Today, the Ma administration's white paper guiding the quest for membership in the UN and other international organizations specifically mentions the importance of becoming a member of the World Health Organization, as well as major economic organizations including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund.

President Ma remarked in July that because both referendums had failed in March, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was evaluating new approaches for promoting Taiwan's UN bid. The white paper also suggests pursuing observer status in world organizations before seeking full membership. As for the politically charged issue of which name Taiwan should use in its membership bids, the document emphasizes selecting a pragmatic name that also protects the nation's dignity.

The continued pursuit of membership in international organizations is critical because Taiwan cannot afford to become marginalized internationally, especially in light of the accelerating trend toward globalization. However, from the perspective of these world bodies, Taiwan's lack of membership should stand out as a glaring omission because of the nation's large economy, democratic government, vital geographic location and foreign aid programs.

To its credit, even though Taiwan has not been allowed to enter the UN, many government policies adhere to UN standards. As Ma said in his inaugural address, 'Taiwan has to be a respectable member of the global village... As a world citizen, the Republic of China will accept its responsibilities in promoting free trade, nonproliferation, anti-global warming measures, counter-terrorism, humanitarian aid, and other global commons.'

For example, in May Ma laid out a plan to reduce Taiwan's carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. The plan targets cutting greenhouse gases to the 2000 level by 2025 and reducing them to half of the 2000 level by 2050. This is a courageous step because the lack of UN membership prevents the nation's participation in the Kyoto Protocol.

Taiwan also upholds UN standards in the area of women's rights. The UN's annual Human Development Report measures women's participation in politics, the economy and decision-making in member nations. As Taiwan is not a UN member, the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) compiles its own statistics based on UN standards and then ranks Taiwan among other countries accordingly. For 2007, DGBAS figures showed that Taiwan ranked 19th in the world in terms of women's empowerment.

Despite its lack of UN membership, Taiwan has also played a major part in international relief efforts. To help survivors of May's huge earthquake in mainland China's Sichuan province, Taiwan has contributed more financial aid than any other nation.

Although the second passage of the Preamble to the UN Charter emphasizes 'the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,' the UN's position on Taiwan effectively means that the rights of Taiwanese are 'less equal' than those of people in other nations. The government will do its part to prepare a membership bid that will secure widespread domestic and international acceptance. After that, it will be up to the UN to adhere to its own lofty ideals.

This editorial appears in the September 1, 2008 issue of Taiwan Review online.

Singapore: A City With A Buzz

An Interview with Ambassador Chan Heng Chee

By Alan L. Dessoff

As Ambassador Chan Heng Chee puts it, Singapore is “a city with a buzz.” The buzz applies as well to Ambassador Chan, a diminutive dynamo of a diplomat who has represented her city-state in Washington for 11 years and speaks with authority and passion about the prominent role it plays in Southeast Asia and the global community.

Small in size geographically, but significant in its political, economic and cultural stature and influence, the city-state of Singapore operates with authority and crisp efficiency, just like Ambassador Chan, goal-directed and business-savvy, who acts and speaks with conviction in the best interests of her country.

Singapore’s regional prominence was demonstrated most recently by the way it jumped in to provide aid after a massive earthquake struck Sichuan province and by the assistance it offered to Myanmar in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Nargis.

“Singaporeans rise to the occasion,” says Ambassador Chan. With the permission of Chinese authorities, Singapore sent a disaster assistance relief team, members of its armed forces, and $25 million in financial aid that included private donations.

Similarly, in Myanmar, “we certainly wanted to help immediately; we offered equipment and men. But the Myanmar government does not seem very open to support,” says Ambassador Chan.

She notes that Singapore has held the chair this year of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which established a coordinating mechanism for aiding Myanmar. “The point is that Singapore is always ready to help countries in the region if they are willing to accept our help,” she adds.

Ambassador Chan is well grounded in the issues of Southeast Asia and beyond. Formerly Executive Director of the Singapore International Foundation, which created a Singapore version of the U.S. Peace Corps, she also was Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and founding Director of the Institute of Policy Studies. She has served as Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was concurrently High Commissioner to Canada and Ambassador to Mexico.

Educated at the University of Singapore and Cornell University, Ambassador Chan has served as a member of the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Council of the Asia Society.

Now as Singapore’s chief government representative in the U.S., she keeps a close eye on a wide range of issues and opportunities that impact her country. “We enjoy a good relationship” with the U.S., Ambassador Chan says. “There is a good atmosphere, we are good friends, and we have worked with Democratic and Republican administrations very well.”

She cites a strong defense relationship that allows U.S. military forces to use facilities in Singapore. There also is “good economic cooperation” between the two countries, with about $60 billion in U.S.-Singapore trade, in favor of the U.S. Trade has increased by 40 percent since the U.S. and Singapore signed a free trade agreement in 2003, effective the next year. Now, Ambassador Chan reports, Singapore is the 15th largest trading partner of the U.S., the 9th largest export market for the U.S., and the 8th largest services trading partner.

“I find the issues in Washington very exciting,” she says. “The U.S. is straightforward and open and I enjoy working with American officials enormously. There are good outcomes as we work together.” She cites the “inspiring creative spirit” of the U.S. and its philanthropic spirit as well.

She also finds the language of politics in the U.S. to be “very stimulating, sometimes entertaining, but always interesting. This is the home of the most powerful country in the world so everything seems relevant.”

Although Singapore’s history dates from the 11th century, the island was little known to the West until the 19th century. It became an independent republic with a parliamentary system of government in 1965 and has maintained formal diplomatic relations with the U.S. since then.

One of the most densely populated countries in the world, Singapore and all of its 4.2 million people could fit inside Washington’s Capital Beltway, but it still has a need to grow and the space for it and aims to do it, Ambassador Chan says. “There is a school of thought in Singapore that believes we must have a critical mass and that we can accommodate up to 6 million people. We have not put a date on when we want to achieve that, but we see room for some population growth,” she says.

Meanwhile, Singapore has “good standing” in Southeast Asia not just because of its willingness to help other countries in the region but because of its own successes in economic development, social policies and other areas. “Many countries, especially smaller ones, come to Singapore and ask us how we did it. We try to be helpful. We offer technical assistance to other countries and show them what we have done in different policy areas — what we do with education and health, how we operate our airport, and run our tourism program,” Ambassador Chan explains.

Its strategic location on major sea lanes and its industrious population have given Singapore an economic importance in Southeast Asia disproportionate to its small size, and its economic development, principally in manufacturing, communications and services, underscores much of Singapore’s success in other areas.

“Singapore has always been known as an economic miracle,” Ambassador Chan says. These days, Singapore is focusing on growth in the “knowledge” industries, including environmental technology, biotech — “We do a lot of stem cell research under ethical rules,” she says — and digital media.

Developing water technology is critical for Singapore, which does not have water sources of its own and must buy water from other countries. Using American technology, Singapore now is trying to “create new water out of used water,” Ambassador Chan explains.

Economic growth takes place in other areas, too, including financial services. There also is “a fledging fashion industry that we are trying to build.” In recent years, Singapore has promoted its creative services. “Hollywood does some of its work in Singapore,” Ambassador Chan says.

She cites investment and trade opportunities that Singapore offers, noting that the free trade agreement that Singapore and the U.S. signed in 2003 was the first of its kind that the U.S. signed with an Asian country. That has made Singapore “an even better place for Americans to invest,” she says. She points to surveys that show Singapore has a business-friendly environment. “We are one of the top one or two places in the world to do business in,” she says. “Singapore is welcoming, pleasant to live in, and safe.”

But she acknowledges that the recent economic slowdown in the U.S. and Europe has impacted Singapore, where this year’s growth rate probably will be between 4-6 percent compared to 7.2 percent last year.

With no oil resources of its own, Singapore buys oil from nearby producing countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East and is impacted by high oil prices. Paradoxically, Ambassador Chan says, Singapore is home to the third largest oil refining center in the world.

As it seeks to expand economically, Singapore also wants to broaden its educational focus. “We are very good at producing scientists and engineers, but we feel we have to produce well-rounded graduates,” says Ambassador Chan, who points out that she received a liberal arts education. Now, a film school has opened in Singapore and a music conservatory is being developed. Culturally, Singapore has a symphony orchestra and ballet company as well as creative artists and art schools.

Meanwhile, Singapore has increasingly become a tourism destination, drawing about 7 million visitors a year. “It used to be that we were known as clean and green and staid,” Ambassador Chan says. “Singapore was green before it became fashionable to be green. We have been quite good about regulating industry to meet environmental standards. We are very conscious of that.” Recycling has been practiced “for decades,” she says.

Now Singapore has gained that “city with a buzz” reputation. “We see ourselves as a garden city that is clean and green and where things work, the food is great, and the people are pleasant and speak English,” Ambassador Chan says. Visitors often comment, she says, on how “different races lives in harmony — Malays, Chinese, Indian, expatriates.”

In some ways it’s like Washington, she says. “I enjoy Washington very much because I like the green, the beautiful flowers in spring, the good cultural life. Also, people are very friendly here. It’s a good place to be.”

Singapore’s greatest challenge currently, Ambassador Chan says, is “how to maintain and manage success.” As a small country, “we are a little red dot on the world map, and with no natural resources, we always worry about how to keep up with the competition, not just in our region, but globally. We have to always anticipate what is around the corner.”

“If you have a small space, you have to plan carefully, and Singapore is quite rational and very planning-conscious,” she continues. “We have a politics of anticipation. We have to always anticipate what is around the corner and it has to do with the size of the country.”

That’s a key reason for Singapore’s interest in growing its population. “Our only resource is our human capital,” Ambassador Chan says. “You enlarge your space in different ways and that’s what we are trying to do.”

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.”

A Reason For Hope

By Patricia Keegan

Editor’s Note: For those who brought peace to Ireland, showing the world that strife really can end when people come together around leaders dedicated to peace.

Padraigin

I am of ancient Ireland,
Descended from the Celtic ghosts
Whose whisperings come on fragrant breezes
Laden with the scent of sea, moss, and bluebells
Trembling in the sun.

Four hundred years ago today, the spirits described a joyous tale.
Look across the land, they said,
Behold the soil adorned without a flaw,
Abundance flowing everywhere.
Now you are free to follow your true destiny,
To bring the world felicity.

Upon these words our wings were starched.
We built and soared and sang in praise,
Embracing all that we could see,
We lived in peaceful ecstasy.

As time went by new centuries came
And brought some bitter winds.
My island sighed and heaved bereaved
Adrift on the breast of the sea.
Divisions came, new walls were made,
But who could understand.
A child cries why, another dies
And sadness fills my land.

But now those whisperings come again,
The Celtic ghosts return.
A brilliant rainbow enfolds the sky
From Antrim to Tralee.
“Come take my hand and we’ll ascend
To find again our dream,
And bring to all of Ireland
Its rightful destiny.”

Latvia - A Fresh Start

An Interview with Ambassador Andrejs Pildegovics

By Alan L. Dessoff

Ninety years after its founding and 17 years after it was reborn as a free and independent country, the Republic of Latvia is proud of the advances it has made in the global community and the place it occupies in contemporary world affairs. After experiencing domination through much of the 20th century, first by Nazi Germany and then by the Soviet Union, and losing a third of its population, Latvia has reestablished itself as a modern and democratic nation that seeks to promote its political stability, economic opportunities and rich cultural traditions to the rest of the world.

The territory known today as Latvia has been inhabited since 9000 BC and became famous as a trading crossroads. The early Baltic peoples who arrived in the first half of 2000 BC are the forefathers of the Latvian people. Because of its strategic geographic location on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea, Latvian territory frequently was invaded by neighboring nations, largely defining the fate of the land and its people even after Latvia initially proclaimed its independence in 1918.

Now, as a member of the United Nations and the easternmost member of NATO and the European Union, Latvia is presenting a new face to the world and is recognized as an important and strategic player in political and economic affairs in Europe and beyond.

The face of Latvia today is represented in the United States by Ambassador Andrejs Pildegovics, who began his career as a civil servant and advanced through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to become foreign policy advisor to the previous President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, and then Chief of Staff in the Chancery of the President before being accredited in his current post in July 2007.

Pildegovics was educated in international affairs, at the University of St. Petersburg, where he studied Chinese history and language, then in Chinese language studies at the Beijing Foreign Languages Institute. He spent a year in diplomatic studies at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and two years in the foreign service program at Oxford University.

Now, at 36, Pildegovics represents Latvia in a world capital that is vitally important to his country’s continued development and international standing. That was demonstrated recently by the visit of Latvia's new president Valdis Zatlers’ on his first official visit to the U.S. in April.

Zatlers met with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and senior Congressional leaders. He held a news conference at the National Press Club, addressed the Heritage Foundation, visited Arlington National Cemetery and the Victims of Communism Memorial, and was honored at a reception that Pildegovics hosted at the Latvian Embassy. Zatlers concluded his week-long U.S. visit with a trip to Cleveland, Ohio, in a part of the country that is home to many Americans of Latvian heritage.

“It was an extremely important visit for,” Pildegovics says. “The history of the 20th century was not kind to my country. The United States has been of paramount importance in helping us restore our independence and preserve our freedom and democracy. We are proud to be allies and close partners of the United States and one reason for our President’s visit was to celebrate this partnership as we celebrate the 17th anniversary of our statehood.”

Another reason, he continues, was to forge further dialogue and cooperation between the two countries. “We don’t want to rest on the laurels of previous accomplishments. We have new priorities and challenges and we would like to address them together,” Pildegovics says.

One priority is to remove visa requirements for Latvia and other Baltic countries that Pildegovics characterizes as a “remnant from the past, the Cold War” and an “artificial barrier” to further contacts and visits between the two countries.

Another objective is to solidify economic interaction with the U.S. “in areas where we are compatible” like energy production and conservation. “We see the U.S. as a pioneer in technology and expertise and we wish to have as much collaboration as possible,” Pildegovics declares.

Tourism is a growing sector of Latvia’s economy and Latvia would like to welcome more visitors from the U.S. There currently is one direct flight between Riga and New York and “it is just a matter of time until we have more,” he says.

Latvia also presents attractive investment opportunities for U.S. and other foreign businesses, Pildegovics asserts. “The time is really ripe for quantitative and qualitative leaps forward in this respect in the most advanced areas of our service-oriented economy,” he says, citing banking in particular and noting that banking and other “significant U.S. business players” are already active in the Baltic region.

Other Latvian industries that present good investment opportunities include telecommunications — “the Baltics in general are quite advanced in this ”— as well as chemicals and forest products. “Half of our country is covered by forests and given the new technologies, we are anxious to do more on the value-added side of the production chain,” Pildegovics says.

“When I first arrived in the U.S. in 1995, most people I met didn’t now about the Baltic countries or Latvia specifically,” Pildegovics states. “Now it’s a different ball game. We are small players but we play in the big leagues. We are in NATO and the European Union and we are optimistic that with the attention of the U.S., there will be more growth and interaction in the Baltic region, which already is one of the most dynamic and prosperous parts of the world. “We hope that this model of development that has been so successful in Latvia will inspire other countries in the region to follow the same path. We have shown that small countries without significant deposits of gas and coal and gold can succeed and develop with significant economic growth rates.

“The democratic transformation has been remarkable and with establishment of the rule of law we have been able, to a large extent, to overcome the legacies of the totalitarian regimes, although we still are struggling in some sectors. But we have been able to create a society with active media and a vibrant NGO community and a dynamic political process with constant competition between the parties. These changes have resulted in substantial improvements in the well-being of a majority of the people, and they appreciate the changes and see the results of independence.”

Pildegovics acknowledges that Latvia’s accession to NATO and the EU “hasn’t been a free ride. It took difficult decisions.” But “we kept the goal very clear that this was the right way and we had to succeed, and now we feel very pleased that the Baltic Sea has become almost the internal EU Sea, and we are in the same boat, the same family, with our Scandinavian neighbors and Poland and Germany. Our membership in the EU and NATO has helped us, quite significantly, to develop dialogue with our neighbors and with Russia.”

Although Joseph Stalin “left a very tragic legacy in the region,” Latvia wants to develop “mutually respectful relations with the Russian people,” Pildegovics says.

He makes clear, “there is no place for complacency” in Latvia today. “We lost too much time behind the Iron Curtain. We have to constantly modernize the foundations of our state.” He cites strengthening Latvia’s legal and education systems as internal priorities.

Notwithstanding everything Latvia is doing in its modern age, it also wants to retain its rich cultural and language traditions, Pildegovics says. A key one is music, including a national song festival; “Latvian Song Festival” first held in 1873 and featuring massed choir concerts. Even during the Soviet period, “when there was little room for expression of national identity,” Latvians managed to retain that tradition and “now we would like to pass it to our children,” Pildegovics says.

The summer of 2008 presents an opportunity to do that when the festival, which takes place every five years, and is held again in Riga, the capital. It will feature thousands of “ordinary citizens” joining together in singing songs both ancient and modern. “We are proud of this tradition and would like to showcase it to the world,” says Pildegovics, encouraging U.S. travelers to plan their vacations around the July 3-14 event.

He also hopes to bring “new bright stars” from Latvia to the U.S. in the years ahead, noting that Latvian athletes already play in the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League. Meanwhile, the Embassy displayed Latvian art at a “Passport DC” festival in May when EU countries opened their embassies to showcase their cultures.

With his wife and three children, Pildegovics is happy and comfortable in Washington. “To be ambassador here is a big privilege and absolute pleasure,” he says. “I am enjoying every minute.”

Global Disease Prevention Network Must Include Taiwan

WHO Secretariat and China Have a Secret Memorandum of Understanding

By Dr. Hou Sheng-mou, Minister of Taiwan's Dept. of Health

The World Health Report 2007 – A Safer Future: Global Public Health Security in the 21st Century, issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), elucidates the importance of cooperation and information sharing among countries in the fight against disease. It emphasizes that more resources are required to establish a seamless global disease prevention network. WHO Director-General Margaret Chan stresses in her message published in the report that “international public health security is both a collective aspiration and a mutual responsibility… The new watchwords are diplomacy, cooperation, transparency, and preparedness.”

We highly approve of the importance the WHO attaches to health security because as one of the main victims of the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic, Taiwan had to learn firsthand that once a gap appears in the health security system, epidemics can spread with alarming rapidity and seriously impact the global economy and trade. Given today’s high level of social mobility, maintaining international health security has become more urgent than ever and requires close cooperation between all countries. There is no space for loopholes or lack of transparency in the disease reporting system.

Situated in the West Pacific, Taiwan plays a vital role in disease prevention. Every winter, nearly 1.25 million migratory birds of 351 species fly from Siberia and China to Taiwan, either to stay for the winter or to continue on to the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Australia. In the event of an outbreak of a lethal strain of bird flu that is highly communicable between human beings, the exclusion of Taiwan’s 23 million people from the WHO could make it extremely difficult for the global health network to control the international spread of the disease.

Taiwan’s determination to participate in the global health network and the sincerity of its motives have been made abundantly clear to the international community. On its own initiative, it began implementing the revised International Health Regulations (2005) one year before they came into force in 2007, and has now completed all necessary preparations mandated by the regulations. Taiwan continues to be excluded from the IHR (2005) notifiable disease reporting system, however, and is thus unable to immediately access information on disease outbreaks in other parts of the world or report local outbreaks to the WHO.

Regrettably, the WHO Secretariat and China signed a secret memorandum of understanding in 2005, stipulating that the WHO must receive clearance from Beijing before engaging in any interaction with Taiwan. Undeniably, this agreement seriously hampers disease prevention efforts and violates the rights of Taiwan’s people. Following the shigellosis outbreak in Denmark associated with baby corn exports from Thailand in September 2007, for example, the WHO conveyed the news to China, but it took China ten days to notify Taiwan about this health threat. We were lucky this time round: Our Department of Health confirmed that none of the affected corn had been imported. Though infection by the Shigella bacterium is seldom life-threatening in adults, this example underlines the risk incurred by leaving Taiwan out of the global health network.

Since Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its public health system differs entirely from that of China. If an epidemic broke out in Taiwan, China could not replace Taiwan in monitoring it and providing assessments and reports to the WHO.

Such events and considerations demonstrate that the dependence of Taiwan and the WHO on China as a go-between for the transmission of epidemiological information inevitably creates a serious gap in the global disease prevention network. They underscore the necessity and urgency of establishing a direct communication channel between Taiwan and the WHO.

The first Director-General of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, was right when he said, “We cannot afford to have gaps in the fence against diseases, and any country, no matter what its political attitudes or affiliations are, can be a serious detriment to the effectiveness of the WHO if it is left outside. It is important that health should be regarded as a worldwide question, quite independent of political attitudes in any country in the world.” In this era of globalization, the risk to human health and the consequences of the responses we make have long since expanded beyond the boundaries of individual sovereign countries and become issues that must be handled within the framework of a global governance regime. No country can be excluded.

Taiwan is doing everything in its power to engage in constructive cooperation and fulfill its responsibility so that global health security can be guaranteed. Can the same be said of the WHO?

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.”

Czech Republic: A 21st Century Czech Mate

An Interview with Ambassador Petr Kolar

By Hugh S. Galford

The Czech Republic has come a long way since its Velvet Divorce from Slovakia. Having thrown off Czechoslovakia’s dreary communism, the Czech Republic has become a massive draw for tourists and a vibrant cultural nation. Long famous for its beer, its classical music and its architecture, the country is adding IT and biotechnology to its resume, hoping to become the Silicon Valley of Europe. A member of the European Union, the Czech Republic is once again taking its place on the international stage.

The country’s new-found vibrancy and outlook are embodied in Petr Kolar, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Czech Republic to the US. With degrees from Prague’s Charles University in Information Technology and Library Science and in Ethnography, and post-graduate research at the Woodrow Wilson International Center and the University of London’s Institute of Historical Research, Ambassador Kolar takes a forward-looking approach to relations, but understands the importance of looking to the past and learning its lessons as well.

The breakup of Czechoslovakia, Kolar says, “was probably inevitable. I was very sad at the time, and opposed it, but from today’s perspective, it was an important step. There were many bad spirits and irrational accusations at the time, on both sides: who paid more, who was better off…. It was like a marriage: when you start to fight about money, it’s better to separate.” But from this Velvet Divorce, he says, “a new kind of love” has developed.

“Some in Brussels joke that the Czechs and Slovaks fooled them — we just wanted more votes in the European Union Council! They say that we always work together, so why did we separate?” Economically, Kolar says, the two countries are close. “We are both signatories to the Schengen accords. There are many mixed Czech-Slovak families, and artists from both countries constantly cross the border. Our shared cultural life is strong.” He notes that the Slovaks, just like the Czechs, have “braved economic reform, leading to an increasing GDP and a progressive outlook.”

In addition to research at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo and serving as Ambassador to Sweden and the Republic of Ireland, Ambassador Kolar also served for two years as Advisor for European Integration and the Balkans to Vaclav Havel, the Czechs’ first post-Communist president. Asked if he felt that Havel’s dreams for his country have been realized, Kolar responded that Havel “is a very modest man, not very demanding personally, but never satisfied politically.” Havel, he says, still sees that there is much to be done.

“He is quite happy to see how the country is doing, the people’s improved situation, its international position as a member of both NATO and the EU, and that it is clearly defined as a responsible and reliable ally of the US,” Kolar says. “But he is still not satisfied with the quality of public life, with local issues, and with how the people take a free, democratic country for granted.

“Democracy and freedom are very fragile,” Kolar added, “and could disappear quickly. It is very difficult to win democracy back once it is lost,” a lesson the Czechs should know from their own history.

Havel, the Ambassador says, is very clear about his own political future — he will not run for office again. “While he has no direct input, he does have influence and respect as an intellectual. He is quite happy to comment in his writings and work on his playwriting.” Though it must be mentioned that he “recently launched strong comments on the Russian elections — stronger than those contained in the OSCE report,” Kolar says.

An important issue in Russia’s electioneering was the proposal by the US to place a missile defense system in the Czech Republic. Originally explained as a means of early detection of Iranian missile launches, the system has been called into question with the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that states Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been suspended in 2003. Ambassador Kolar points out that the NIE covers two broad programs: nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles.

“For me,” Kolar says, “it is not so important if these missiles have nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. What is important is what rogue states might be capable of in the future. The missile defense program is not only about Iran, but about rogue states or groups who could attack our allies. The NIE doesn’t basically change this — but if there is a change of mind in the administration or in the congress, we should be the first to know.”

The Czech Republic was chosen as a location for the system, Kolar says, by specialists who had studied distances and missile trajectories, and who decided that Central Europe was the best location for radar and interceptor installations.

Yet many Russian leaders see the missile defense system as a direct threat to their own military power. “Russia’s reactions were surprising for me,” Kolar says. “I thought the Cold War was over. The Cold War led to the defeat of Communism, not the defeat of Russia and the Russians. Russia was another winner of the end of the Cold War.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism in Europe, Russia “is building a new society and growing economically. I don’t understand why they perceive us in the West as an enemy.”

Kolar emphasizes that the missile defense system is for prevention — “before the Flood, not after it,” he says — and is not aimed against Russia. Despite “offering them information and participation” in the project, Kolar notes that “some Russian military personnel have been quoted as saying that once the system is built, Russia will target its missiles at the installation.”

Such views strengthen the Ambassador’s views that Czechs need to learn the lessons of their own history. “For us Czechs,” he says, “the question is, should we be passive or active? Should we try to prevent bad things, or be really relaxed? This is a debate we find even in our literature.” He cites Munich, 1938: “This idea of appeasement — sacrifice Czechoslovakia to prevent further attacks from Hitler — was a total failure. Some maniacs, such as Mr. Hitler, have a never-ending appetite. Always measure twice before you judge someone.”

The US, he says, understands its responsibility for the planet and for its own democracy. “We are partners. There needs to be more debate, diplomacy and dialogue between the US and the EU before events.” Kolar takes the example of the Balkans. “The attack against Milosevic — not against Serbia, but Milosevic — was a NATO undertaking. We preferred this method — a decision taken in partnership.”

Leadership, he says, “is another question. In a democratic system, the leading country is respected and chosen by the others. It is not someone who says, ‘We’re the leader. Take it or leave it.’ In our idea of partnership, leadership is earned — one must work for it. If the US wants to lead, it must build partnerships first, and then leadership will follow.”

One area that calls for partnership is climate change. After the Communist years, the Ambassador says, “we were in bad shape environmentally. The Communists only cared about profit, not about pollution and the land.” Since independence, the Czech Republic has invested heavily in the environment. “All governments since 1990 always took the question seriously,” he says, and were able to move the country forward on the question of “how we should care about the environment, clean water and air, industry and health.”

The greater question of global warming is more problematic. Asked about his country’s President’s views, Kolar says that Vaclav Klaus believes it is “important to have a serious debate of all experts, both pro and con. There is clear evidence of change, and it is clear that humans are impacting the climate, but the question is: What to do about this? Should we slow down economic growth? Should we ask developing nations to focus on the environment, or on development so they can feed their own people? Is the latter unfair? The Czech President is asking for a serious, honest, debated approach.” While it might be “hard for the Czech Republic, a small, landlocked country in Europe, to lecture others about these issues, scientists should be encouraged to measure changes and make proposals for action.”

In addition to its own moneys, the Czech Republic has received EU funds for environmental projects. The success rate is high. “Given the time I spend away from home,” Kolar says, “I can see great differences each time I go home. Both the government and the citizens are involved and making changes. Young people, especially, take this matter seriously.” Noting the age of the Czech Republic’s embassy in Washington, the Ambassador says, “we should build an environmentally friendly embassy. There are lots of green buildings in the Czech Republic, built with the owner’s own money. It’s always better to have a building that saves you money.”

The Czech Republic faces major issues during the first half of 2009, when it inherits the EU Presidency from France. The common task between the US and the EU, Kolar says, is “to destroy as many barriers — trade, exchange, economic, administrative — as possible.” The slogan “Europe without Frontiers” must be not just geographical, but must extend to free markets. “We need to make Europe an open and transparent space, governed by the rule of law, that works for all its people.”

The Czech Presidency sees some very important factors. First, there will be a new administration here in Washington. Second, there will be a US-EU Summit during their presidency, held in the US. And third, there will be changes across Europe, including a new European Council and elections to the European Parliament. “My headache and nightmare,” Ambassador Kolar says, “is knowing who will be where, and how to interact with them. It is not easy to predict how to work with all these variables.”

In the meantime, however, Kolar is focusing on “being Ambassador to all of the US, not just DC.” The US is a “huge country,” he says, with 50 states, one district, four dependencies and numerous Trust Territories in the Pacific. “The US is not one administration, or one to three politicians,” he says. “It’s a very colorful place with its different views.” While he acknowledges the stereotype of the ignorant American, as well as acknowledging the stereotype of the cynical European, he finds it “interesting that people in the United States are so impressively informed about international affairs, even in small places.”

He does not believe that “the credibility of the US has been damaged. Perhaps some US politicians or administrations might be less popular in some places yet that does not damage the credibility of the country. The worst times for Europe have always been when the US was isolated from the world. Europeans are the best partners for the US — we share the same archetype of civilization and culture. We are like two branches of the same tree, and we need to make sure that the two branches grow close together.”

The Ambassador contrasts his time in Washington now to when he was a Research Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in 1991, “the freely-floating scholar vs. the diplomat.” He says he loves Washington and finds it very beautiful, “though summer can be difficult.” He hopes to attract more investors to the Czech Republic, and to see Czechs invest more in the US. “I want Americans to see how vibrant, growing and progressive a country the Czech Republic is today. We are expanding beyond our traditional wares of beer, glass, and automobiles into IT, biotech and other value-added research and product areas.”

Ambassador Kolar summarized his office this way: “It is not only challenging to be Ambassador to the US — change here could influence dramatically all international politics — but it is also very nice. I like it even socially, living here. I get to meet both politicians and other citizens, the basic backbone of the country. I like America. I like Americans.”

The Mosul Dam - Iraq's Imminent Disaster!

By Patricia Keegan

(Nov. 30) We keep hearing that the “surge” has been a success, and we see Iraqi people, forced into refugee status, beginning to return to their country. This is promising; nevertheless, there remains an underlying sense of insecurity in the mixed messages coming from Iraq.

On October 30, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and several other major newspapers ran a startling and disturbing front page story headlined, “Mosul Dam Seen in Danger of Deadly Collapse.”

Should this catastrophe happen, the estimated death toll is as high as 500,000 people. The gargantuan impact of such a blow would shred any lingering optimism for order in an already devastated country. Hope would be washed away with human loss, and the world would be left stunned. Yet, since that story ran, there has not been the uproar I would expect. Outside of a congressional hearing, there has been little follow-up in the mainstream media.

There are many issues in today’s world that are either beyond our control or will eventually be resolved. But in this instance, we are talking about preventing a full-scale catastrophe, one that will not resolve itself or go away.

If one were to take a moment to ponder the consequences of the collapse of the Mosul Dam, it should jolt us into action. Just imagine turning on the television one morning and seeing a population being caught up in a tidal wave of one trillion gallons of water. Mosul would be under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet. The dam holds back 3.3 trillion gallons of the Tigris River. As Americans, we have seen and experienced the tragedy inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on an unsuspecting populace. This would be a calamity surpassing even the Asian Tsunami which took some 275,000 lives.

When something is preventable, and we neglect to harness the capacity of our “superpower” status to prevent it, we should not be surprised if we hear ourselves condemned by the world.

Used for both water supply and electricity, Mosul Dam is considered the most dangerous dam in the world. Built in 1984 on a foundation of gypsum, a soft mineral that dissolves in contact with water, the foundation is sustained by machines injecting the dam with grout -- around the clock!

British newspaper Independent, on November 29, said “there are irreparable, essential flaws within the foundation of the Mosul Dam.”

To make the matter even more inconceivable, the results of safety studies commissioned by the US government have been discussed with Iraq, the Iraqi government has rejected the report’s findings, and the imminent danger has not been shared with the Iraq people.

Are there not parallels between this forecast of danger and predictions of a terrorist attack on America before 9-11? Our government knew it was likely to happen, but they didn’t know when or where. Since nothing could be pinpointed, they neglected to warn the public. In the case of the Mosul Dam, they know it’s likely to happen, they know where it will happen, and it is within our means to avoid the catastrophe.

The Mosul Dam story that broke in the Washington Post included portions of a draft from an Army Corps of Engineers report. It was brought to the Post by an Army Corps official speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Despite the warning, the Iraqi government, according to the Washington Post, believes the dam is safe. Salar Bakir, Director General of Planning and Development at the Water Resources ministry, said, according to the Post, that Iraqi officials do not think it is necessary to spend an estimated $10 billion to complete a partially constructed dam downstream that could be a stopgap measure in case Mosul Dam collapses.” The Iraqi official was already thinking the unthinkable.

If this is a reflection of how Iraq’s government conducts the business of protecting its people, it is a tragic and pathetic picture of ineptitude. If they cannot show the leadership expected of a sovereign country, the US, led by Ambassador Crocker and General Patraeus in this case, should step in and do what needs to be done to protect lives while the world’s best engineers decide how to prevent this imminent, DEADLY disaster.

There will be no room for recriminations once the dam breaks loose. Thousands more Iraqi lives will be lost, and all that our soldiers fought and died for will be washed away.

Taiwan; Striving Toward Healthy Relationships

An Interview with Taiwan’s US Representative, Jaushieh Joseph Wu

By Hugh Galford

Named Taiwan’s Representative to the US in April 2007, Dr. Jaushieh Joseph Wu has hit the ground running. Energetic and engaging, Wu will need a marathoner’s endurance because of the number of issues facing Taiwan and a sprinter’s speed because of the upcoming Taiwanese elections that could shorten his tenure here.

China looms large for Wu. The international community’s concerns about China — its economic growth, rising military power and role in the UN — impact Taiwan immediately. In 2001, Wu edited a volume titled China Rising: Implications of Economic and Military Growth of the PRC that dealt with these issues.

“China’s economic growth is a blessing to and for the rest of the world,” Wu says, “but with that economic rise, we see problems.” Beyond the external issues mentioned above, Wu points to the domestic factors of corruption and pollution. The basic solution to these issues, Wu holds, is “a legal framework for China.” Taiwan, he says, “can provide assistance with this.”

Working indirectly through NGOs, Taiwanese legal groups have traveled to China to review and suggest changes to the Chinese legal system. China, Wu says, is interested in the German legal establishment, and as Taiwan shares Germany’s continental-style legal framework, China “can learn from us.” China’s lack of a legal system “leads to a lack of redress.”

Furthermore, Wu says, China suffers from “a lack of responsive government institutions. The media, for example, are subject to government control. Without oversight, the government can do anything.” This problem extends beyond Beijing to the provinces.

“Local governments follow the central government’s example, and thus they cannot deal with pollution, the environment and air quality issues.” Wu notes that the average life expectancy of a traffic policeman in Beijing is about 47 years. Beijing has recently implemented “quick fixes”, such as trying to decrease the reliance of households on coal as a fuel, moving factories out of the city and limiting traffic by alternating days on which cars can enter the city.

These moves, Wu says, have produced “only minimal change.” The International Olympic Committee has even issued opinions that some events of the 2008 Summer games should not be held in Beijing. Outside the capital the situation is equally bleak. The World Bank estimates that 16 of the 20 most-polluted cities in the world are in China. And the Blacksmith Institute, in a 2006 report, cites Linfen City, in Shanxi Province, as perhaps the most polluted city in the world. Despite these findings, Chinese officials “consider activists more dangerous than environmental degradation,” Wu says.

Taiwan also has food and health issues concerning China. While US toy and food retailers recalled Chinese-produced items earlier this fall, and Japan inspects goods before they leave China, Taiwan is at a disadvantage. “It is easy for Chinese goods to be smuggled into Taiwan,” Wu says, given its proximity, “and for Taiwan to ask China for an inspection regime such as Japan has, government-to-government talks would be needed, and these are difficult, if not impossible.” Taiwan’s Ministry of Health conducts random inspections of goods from China and has found serious problems. The Taiwanese love crabs, and commercially import them from China. Individuals returning from China are also allowed to carry them back. Last winter, the Ministry found some crabs that had exceedingly high levels of antibiotics and banned crabs altogether. “We need to advise the Chinese government on food issues,” Wu says, “and help them develop a responsive government structure.”

Health concerns in Taiwan could be mitigated by their admission to the World Health Organization (WHO). “Taiwan has tried to apply for observer status at the WHO as the ‘Health Entity of Taiwan’ for over ten years, but this effort has gone nowhere.” Wu says that while China has ignored Taiwan’s efforts to depoliticize its participation in the WHO, “more countries are voicing support for Taiwan’s real, meaningful participation in the WHO.” The US has supported this publicly for the past several years, and is trying to coordinate with other countries, especially Japan, to push for universal support of Taiwan. Wu adds that Canada and European countries have become more supportive as well.

Full participation in the WHO still seems a distant goal for Taiwan, though. In 2005, the WHO implemented a set of International Health Regulations, under which information is forwarded to national “contact points”—Ministries of Health or Centers for Disease Control. Under the current system, Taiwan’s CDC is ignored by the WHO, which sees China as contact point for Taiwan.

The danger in this was seen in September 2007, when China was notified that shipments of baby corn from Thailand might be contaminated with a pathogen that could cause serious food poisoning. Despite being informed by the WHO on September 12, China delayed passing the information on to Taiwan for ten days.

“It should be against ethics that Taiwan is treated this way,” Wu says. “We must be treated the same, and our people’s health protected.”

In 2005 China and the WHO signed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning Taiwan: If Taiwan experts are to be included on WHO- related conferences, WHO needs to notify Beijing in advance.

“The more Taiwan shares in these works,” Wu says, “the more Taiwan looks like part of China. But if we don’t participate, our health suffers. The international community does not understand this.”

Tensions between Taiwan and the PRC extend to military issues as well. Taiwan’s attempt to purchase 60 F16s from the US to supplement their current 250 and to bolster their air defenses fell through in October. “The US needs to look at China’s air defense capacities,” Wu says. In addition to SU-27s, China has acquired SU-30s, one of the most advanced fighter-bombers, and has produced its own J10 planes.

Taiwan, Wu says, has seen a threat change from China. In part this is due to China’s budget increase. With double-digit economic growth, more is available for its defense budget. It is also due to the arms being deployed. In addition to augmenting its current 1000 short-range missiles that could reach Taiwan in six to seven minutes, China has purchased or developed intermediate-range and cruise missiles. While 12 to 16 submarines would be needed to blockade Taiwan, China has 40 to 50, and launched five nuclear-powered submarines early this year.

Since 2002, China has had a “decapitation” strategy against Taiwan. While Wu says the continuing military strategy may be because “the Chinese government recognizes internal problems it cannot deal with and needs a ‘scapegoat’ issue,” he also suggests that we should take a wider view. “Maybe Chinese leaders are more ambitious,” he says. “Maybe they want more than to take over Taiwan, and are preparing to become the hegemon in East Asia.” He notes that while the USS Kitty Hawk was on exercises, a Chinese submarine surfaced alongside it, and that “Chinese naval officials want a ‘Blue Water’ navy and an aircraft carrier by 2011.”

Wu also points to China’s TF31, a long-range (8000-12000 km) ICBM; the JL-2 SLBM, that would give it second-strike capability against a US target; and unmanned aerial vehicles developed with Israeli support.

“Some congressmen understand this well,” Wu says. “The problem for the US now is that it is caught in other places, and China can expand its military without scrutiny.” And while many feel that China can use its new-found power to provide solutions to issues ranging from Darfur to Myanmar, Wu holds that “China is a problem itself” in these same conflicts. China has sent 300 troops to Darfur to rebuild, Wu says, “but continues to send arms to Bashir and to get oil from the Sudan.” Even China’s role in negotiations with North Korea is suspect, Wu says. “Christopher Hill should be credited with the results. China got to host the talks, but the US was behind all the advancements. Throughout the negotiations, China provided the DPRK with food and fuel to keep the Kim regime in place.”

For Wu, with an MA from the University of Missouri, St. Louis, and a PhD from Ohio State University, Taiwan and the US share common goals. He has two “Taiwan-US” wishes for his tenure in Washington. The first “is that China would become just another developed democracy. Taiwan’s relations therefore would not be a problem.” The second is to see a reversal of Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation. “Taiwan has no diplomatic relations with the US. We have no official recognition. It is not dignified for a fellow democracy. We want normal relations with the US.”

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.”

True Colors

Comments by the Minister, Taiwanese Government Information Office

By Shieh Jhy-wey

We live in a good world, with good people in it. The human race has shown time and again that a spirit of compassion and love can overcome adversity, fear, injustice, and aggression. Even when natural disasters, famines, disease, conflict, terrorism, and tyranny do their worst, this indomitable spirit marches on, manifesting itself every day around the globe.

Though we are just seven years into the new millennium, we have already seen humanity meet many tragedies with a great outpouring of support that has saved and transformed countless lives. Perhaps the most striking example of this came at the close of 2004, when an underwater earthquake caused a tsunami, killing people in nations from Indonesia to South Africa. In the wake of the devastation the world opened its heart, rushing supplies, medical personnel, and financial aid to the region to help people rebuild their lives. Nearly $7 billion has been pledged by people from every nation and all walks of life to help these nations rebuild.

Almost a year prior to that catastrophe, an earthquake in Iran leveled the city of Bam, causing nearly 80,000 casualties. Nations across the world—including states not on the best of terms with Iran—rushed supplies and search-and-rescue teams to the area, saving countless lives.

Relatively well-off nations have, in their turn, also been the recipients of humanitarian assistance and spiritual support. After Hurricane Katrina laid waste to New Orleans in 2005, challenging the ability of the world’s strongest nation to bounce back, charity on a global scale was again the order of the day.

In September of 1999, an earthquake devastated central Taiwan, killing over 2,000 and doing billions of dollars in damage. Rushing to the scene were rescue teams from all nations. Relief aid also flowed from around the world to quake victims, and the people of my home country Taiwan have not forgotten.

The government, organizations, and people of Taiwan are always among the first to respond to a disaster. Showing solidarity with the tsunami victims, Taiwan was the eighth-highest donor of cash and supplies, with over half of Taiwan’s 23 million people making a contribution. In response to the 2003 earthquake, volunteers from the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation rushed to Iran to help rebuild schools and distribute donated food, medicine, and supplies. Millions of dollars in cash and goods were donated in the wake of Katrina to people in the United States by the people of Taiwan, who remember clearly the aid provided to them just a generation ago by the American people.

Yet the human spirit knows more than just how to recover—it also knows how to build. The continued integration of the states of Europe testifies to this, as people divided by language, culture, and historical interpretation have joined together under the banner of the European Union, adopting a single currency and working to cooperate on all fronts.

Meanwhile, we have seen freedom spread in the past few years as oppressed people in the Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan have thrown off the shackles that bound them in the so-called color revolutions. As they moved to reify President Woodrow Wilson’s vision of self-determination, these people’s success depended a great deal on the support offered them by the community of democracies, as does that of all peoples determined to fight for freedom and human rights.

Not so very long ago, on September 12, 2001, a quiet recognition of our inseparability as human beings defined the spirit I am speaking of. As the rubble from the World Trade towers smoldered in the streets of New York City, the French newspaper Le Monde published an editorial entitled simply: Nous sommes tous Américains – “We Are All Americans.”

The world has the opportunity to collectively address a different problem today. Of the nearly 200 countries in the world, Taiwan is the only one denied a seat in the United Nations. China, which makes unfounded claims to our nation’s territory, has pressured the UN to ignore the tenets of its own Charter, which grants the unconditional right of membership to all peace-loving states.

In seeking UN membership, we are not asking the world for a favor. We are challenging the world to return to the spirit of unity embodied the aforementioned editorial—to stand behind the oft-quoted principle that we are all created equal and realize that we are all in this together. We all have the power to help make this happen. Show your true colors. The people of Taiwan are counting on you.

Portugal: At the Center of Globalization

An Interview with Ambassador João de Vallera

By Hugh S. Galford 

As part of the newly instituted trio of Presidencies of the European Union, Portugal will strive to deepen Europe’s interactions with the rest of the world. As leader of the first wave of globalization in the 15th and 16th centuries, this is not surprising. In the early 1400’s, Portugal, under Henry The Navigator, began exploring the African coast. Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope (its name a translation from the Portuguese) for the first time, and in 1498 Vasco da Gama followed Dias’ route to reach India. In 1500 Pedro Álvares Cabral had found his way to Brazil, and a few years later other navigators reached Newfoundland. Portuguese traders had relations with Iran (and forts in Ormuz) by 1507, and had reached Japan in the 1540s.

Portuguese Ambassador João de Vallera could almost be considered a direct descendent and inheritor of these early explorers. Born in 1950 in Malange, Angola, and with a degree in Economics from the University of Lisbon, he has accomplished a fair amount of exploration himself. He served at the Embassy in Bonn, at the Permanent Mission to the European Communities in Brussels, as Director General of European Affairs, as a delegate to the Convention on the Future of Europe, and as Ambassador to Dublin, Berlin and now Washington. His tenure here propels him into an international focus, since Portugal inherited the EU presidency from Germany in July.

Several of Portugal’s earliest international relationships number among its priorities for its EU presidency. The first EU-Brazilian Summit was held in Lisbon on July 4, 2007. The aim of this Summit was to deepen and develop a strategic partnership with Brazil that would complement the EU’s strategic partnership with Latin America as a whole. Ambassador de Vallera noted with pride that of the participants in the Summit — the Head of the European Commission, and the head of Governments of the President country (Portugal), the Guest country (Brazil) and the following President country (Slovenia) — three of them spoke Portuguese as their native language.

Brazil is just the first of a number of such planned Summits. De Vallera referred to the program as dealing with BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India and China. These “continental powers,” like the US or Canada, are areas deemed important to the EU for strategic, energy or economic reasons. These areas may be groupings of nations, such as Latin America or the Persian Gulf states, or major individual countries. In 2000, during Portugal’s last EU presidency, talks at that high level were begun with India.

Ambassador de Vallera expects that a second EU-Africa Summit can be held in Lisbon in December. The original idea for an EU-Africa Summit began in the 1990s as “a Portuguese initiative that had to catch on with wider Europe on one hand and all African Nations on the other.

“Europe has strong links with Africa, both Europe-wide structural links, and Member States’ national ties to individual regions of Africa,” says de Vallera.

While there has long been cooperation between the EU and Africa, this has been based on a bilateral or regional approach or on an international aid donor-receiver relationship. The EU-Africa Summit logic, on the other hand, envisions the two continents “building connections in global dialogue on the basis of equals.”

The proposed second EU-Africa Summit would “further negotiations with our African partners through the African Union (AU). We want the summit to have substance and that is why we are working on the approval of a Joint Strategy and of a concrete Action Plan both to be hopefully agreed in December.”

Topics for discussion include issues of governance, trade, development, migration, human rights and health/pandemics. The ambassador sees this new relationship as “a contribution to prevent and solve conflicts” noting the EU’s continuing support with the aim to enhance the AU peace-keeping capacities. “The Summit has been held up by the situation in Zimbabwe and a solution must be found to overcome this problem. In the meantime, Portugal and the EU are busy with preparatory work for the Summit; as I said before, we are working on substance,” he says.

Portugal has plenty on its plate. There are five scheduled Ministerial-level meetings concerning EUROMED (the Barcelona Process), along with meetings to discuss the European Perspective for the Western Balkans; the enlargement process; freedom, security and justice; and migration and integration.

“There will be over 220 international meetings in Portugal alone over the next six months,” de Vallera explains. The free circulation of people is an important issue for Portugal, as are EU citizenship and “the human face of integration.” The ambassador believes that new Member States will be helped by the Portuguese-developed “SISone4ALL” software technology, for the purpose of ensuring their full integration within the borderless Schengen area.

Portugal’s most urgent priority for its presidency, however, is to finalize talks on the EU’s Reform Treaty. This Treaty, he says, “would enhance the transparency and efficiency of EU decision-making process at different levels.” The Treaty will, he says, “enable the EU to reinforce its capacity to act both internally and in the world.”

Internally, the Treaty makes a number of much-needed reforms. Primary among these is further change in decision-making from the basis of unanimity to majority vote. Unanimity worked well when there were six or even twelve Member States, but becomes a more complex issue with 27 Member States and counting.

Another major change configured by the new Treaty is the concentration on one single personality of external relations responsibilities. The High Representative in charge will accumulate the competencies which are shared today by three different political actors: the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Presidency (as the High Representative will chair the External Affairs Council), the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for Foreign Affairs and the present High Representative of the Council responsible for Common Foreign and Security policy and the European Security and Defense policy.

The new High Representative’s term of office will ensure a much more ambitious level of institutional continuity and consistency and will allow the EU in that domain to finally have a “single address and phone number.”

Another change is the introduction of the concept of a “trio” of Presidencies. Though not yet law, the idea was recently tested by a set of countries — Germany, Portugal and Slovenia. This system is based on a sequential 18-month period of policy planning, translated into a common program, allowing for higher standards of continuity, unity of purpose and distribution of work during the three semesters concerned. As any Presidency, Portugal will launch some initiatives, build on what the previous Presidency did, and leave to its successor the responsibility to develop and hopefully conclude the unfinished work. The difference is that this time the entire process has been prepared in advance by three member States for an 18-month period. When the Reform Treaty is passed, this system will be the norm.

For Ambassador de Vallera, the EU proved to be an extraordinary achievement. In the 50 years since the signing of the foundational Treaty of Rome in 1957, the Union has validated the vision of its founding fathers, that economy combined with the right institutional framework breeds new forms of interdependence and wider and more ambitious models of integration.

Having participated in the drafting of some of the treaty revisions exercises, the ambassador is enthusiastic and knowledgeable on all the nuances and details of this elaborated and unprecedented system of governance.

“The EU is the first — and unique — experience where strong nation-states decided, voluntarily, to share sovereignty in what was not a zero-sum game.” That this decision worked is due not only to political will, but also to the institutional choices made at the time. The ambassador likens the EU Council of Ministers to the US Senate, and describes the European Commission as an independent body, representing common interests, but with some important executive capacities. The Commission is also the first body to judge whether Member States are upholding EU laws. Further, the Commission was given the monopoly of initiative, especially on economic issues. Member States have accepted, through the qualified majority logic, the possibility of being out-voted in legislative decisions that will be applied in their internal juridical order.

The European Parliament (EP) was originally a weaker institution, basically with consultative functions; but in the last revisions of the Treaty has gained more substantial power. Since passage of the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the EP has attained parity with the Council through the power of co-decision on acts dealing with the market, industry, etc., which now must be approved by the Council and by Parliament.

The EU can point to many success stories, among them the rapid economic development of its members. Portugal, for example, joined the EU in 1986 with a per capita GDP 54% of the EU average. In 2005 — in just 20 years — Portugal’s per capita GDP equaled 75% of the EU average.

De Vallera stresses the importance of the trans-Atlantic relationship to the EU. Despite recent policy differences between the US and individual EU Member States, the US-EU relationship has grown closer. Under Germany’s presidency, there were detailed talks prior to the annual EU-US Summit, with major agreements on the creation of a new economic institutional framework, (the Transatlantic Economic Council), and with promising developments on energy and environmental policy. A permanent dialogue exists, at several different levels, on global issues and on current international conflicts.

The ambassador also stresses the links of economic interdependence between the US and the EU. The US, he says, “invests more in Belgium than the whole EU does in China. And the EU invests more in Texas alone than the US does in China and India combined.” Such economic ties, he says, “makes it easier for real integration” of wider policy across the Atlantic.

Asked about the fact that Portugal’s place at the center of global issues may strike some as surprising, as for most of the 20th century, it was a largely overlooked nation. But as de Vallera mentions, not frequently occupying the front pages is not necessarily a handicap, since public attention is not always gathered for the best reasons. From 1928 to 1974, Portugal was ruled by a dictatorship, and was thus “less popular for political reasons.” It was only after 1974 that the country moved back to the democratic circle of nations and began its reintegration into Europe. At that point, “we became a big source of interest and curiosity because of the evolution of the political regime. The direction we would take was, at that time, not at all clear for everybody.”

That direction was clarified in 1986 with Portugal’s entry into the EU. Then “we were back to the European framework” and economic development followed. Despite its small size, Portugal has won a number of accolades, both European and global. In 1998, José Saramago won the Nobel Prize for Literature, (Portuguese is the sixth largest world language with over 200 million speakers and growing). Portugal has also hosted and supported a number of world-class exhibitions and events, and is today much better known for its remarkable tourist, cultural, historical and human resources. Sport — namely soccer — has also raised the image and notoriety of Portugal in the world.

In European terms, Portugal is a middle-sized nation of 10 million inhabitants. It’s generally admitted in European circles in Brussels that while smaller countries may not have the same degree of political capacity and ease that a larger state has in terms of political weight, they do have certain other advantages. “Most of the President Country’s work is to advance projects already started,” the ambassador says. “In smaller countries, there is a great deal of pride involved in doing well, and often there are not as many conflicts of interest with what has to be approved.” In small Member States, he says, “it is easier for citizens to be more motivated about ‘Europe’, and more inclined to accept what they do not see immediately as in their own interest.” Larger states tend to be more conditioned in their action by solidly ingrained national interests.

Beyond the shared global threats, Portugal’s major challenge is at home. Portugal has been a unified country with a single language and largely the same borders since 1245. As a small state with a strong identity, the concept of being part of Europe appears not to be an issue. “For centuries,” de Vallera says, “Portugal was a country of emigration. In the last decade, however, we have also become a country of immigration.” The country now has a sizeable Ukrainian population, along with newly arrived Brazilians and the more traditional Portuguese-speaking Africans.

“We consider ourselves an open country. We have lived all around the world, but now we are integrating communities within Portugal.” The major issues that need to be addressed are the issues of jobs and economic growth, the capacity to employ the new arrivals, and the size and direction of the labor market.

Ambassador de Vallera says that “the idea, and the ideal, of the European Union is still a magnet in Europe. New States want to join.” He also holds that there is “a growing demand for Europe in the world based in the belief that Europe can offer a very positive contribution to international affairs. On the other hand, the integration experience in Europe is being taken as a standard elsewhere. Other regions — Latin America, Asia and Africa, for example — take an attentive look to the evolution of the European integration process. Nobody thinks of an automatic transfer of models since different realities require adapted solutions, but this is nevertheless a domain where Europe leads by example.”

The Smithsonian’s Arthur M. Sackler Gallery is hosting an exhibition entitled “Encompassing the Globe: Portugal and the World in the 16th and 17th Centuries” through Sept. 16. For a review, see the link to the NY Times. (login may be required)

Imagine the Role of a Reunited Cyprus

An Interview with Ambassador Andreas Kakouris

By Hugh S. Galford

For Andreas Kakouris, Cyprus’ dynamic and energetic new ambassador to Washington, Cyprus represents “the EU’s lighthouse in the Mediterranean.” The Middle East, he says, is a very important area, and is only a half-hour’s flight time from the EU, given Cyprus’ accession on May 1, 2004. Cyprus, he says, “has value-added status in the region. Look at the situation in Lebanon last year. Cyprus took in 60,000 foreign nationals who needed safe passage, including 15,000 Americans. We were called upon to play an important role, we did, and we would do so again.”

Given its past and its relations with the peoples of the region, Cyprus has on occasions played a supporting role in the international community’s efforts in the Middle East peace process, by engaging in track-two diplomacy. A gateway to three continents, a member of the EU, and a reliable partner in the war on terror, Kakouris noted that “you can only imagine the role a reunited Cyprus could play.”

Ambassador Kakouris’ overarching concern is to find a Cyprus settlement and end the occupation of the northern third of Cyprus by Turkish troops. “The key to the solution of the Cyprus problem is in Ankara,” Kakouris says. The 1974 Turkish invasion and occupation resulted in over 160,000 Greek Cypriots becoming refugees in their own country. The dislocation of the Cypriot people “was the first time that Cypriots were forcibly divided along ethnic lines. If you look at a map of Cyprus, you’ll find there were mixed villages and towns throughout the island. Cyprus has never been a religious issue among the Cypriots. The conflict has never been Muslim Turkish Cypriot vs. Christian Greek Cypriot. On the contrary, Cyprus is a country where the Greek Orthodox and Muslim communities are enshrined in the 1960 Constitution.”

Prior to his arrival in Washington, Kakouris served as Cyprus’ ambassador to Ireland, and was there when, under the Irish EU presidency, his country was admitted to the Union. “It was a poignant moment to see our flag hoisted at the same time as other, larger countries during the EU accession ceremony,” he says. “Despite our small size, the flag-raising ceremony showed that we are all equal.”

The Republic of Cyprus — the whole island — joined the EU, but the acquis communautaire is suspended in the northern occupied part of Cyprus, since the government of the Republic of Cyprus, which is the only recognized government, cannot exercise effective control there, and thus can’t apply the EU’s rules and regulations. The EU recognizes the whole island as the Republic of Cyprus. Had it used Cyprus’ division because of the occupation as a reason to exclude it from accession to the EU, the message would have been that Turkey had the power to block Cyprus’ membership to the EU.

Kakouris says he feels “the EU is the catalyst for change and remains hopeful that the EU can also be a catalyst for a settlement. Cyprus now belongs to a community. It belongs to something larger than itself — a citizen of Cyprus is a citizen of the EU. A citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, whether Greek, Turkish, Armenian or Maronite can, for example, study in Ireland, reside in Sweden, or work in Italy. Consequently, as a result of their Cypriot citizenship, Turkish Cypriots have the same benefits as other EU citizens.”

The ambassador points out that Turkey wants to join the EU, adding that “we have a situation where a country seeking to join the EU is occupying a Member State and does not recognize that Member State.” Despite this, Cyprus, he says, “has extended a hand to Turkey and supports its European orientation, but it is not a blank check. We will support Turkey’s accession course as long as it upholds and adheres to EU rules and regulations. They need to take on board the EU’s rules and values lock, stock and barrel.”

A Europeanized Turkey would be a positive development, Kakouris says: positive for Turkey; positive for Cyprus, as it would have to lead to a Cyprus settlement and the end of the occupation, as well as good neighborly relations; and positive for the EU, “as long as Turkey doesn’t seek to cherry-pick its responsibilities.” Kakouris gives two such examples: Turkey currently refuses to allow Cypriot ships — or even vessels of other countries whose immediate previous port of call was in Cyprus — to dock at Turkish ports, and vetoes Cyprus’ attempts to join various international organizations. Both are in violation of Turkey’s obligations towards the European Union as a whole and run counter to the fact that Turkey must normalize its relations with all EU Member States, including the Republic of Cyprus.

Cyprus’ goal is, simply, the withdrawal of Turkish occupation forces and the reunification of the island as a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation with a single sovereignty, single international personality and single citizenship with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. A just, viable and functional settlement must be on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions and the values and principles on which the EU is founded.

“The goal is a settlement for the Cypriots,” Kakouris says, adding that the defeated Annan Plan of 2004, proposed by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was “a settlement for others.” He added that the Greek Cypriots did not reject a settlement of the Cyprus problem, but could not agree to a plan that envisages the permanent presence of foreign forces and rights of intervention, where the overwhelming majority of illegal Turkish settlers would have remained on the island and where the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees would not have been protected.

The Ambassador referred to the “cultural destruction” occurring in the occupied area. Historical sites have been illegally excavated and items uncovered and sold abroad. Kakouris cites the desecration of over 500 Greek Orthodox and Maronite churches that have been “turned into anything other than places of worship.” Icons have been stripped from churches and sold illegally abroad. Furthermore, place names in the occupied north have been changed with “the aim of erasing the past.”

Couple this with the fact that today there are nearly 160,000 illegal Turkish settlers — with more still coming — and over 43,000 Turkish troops in the north. The ambassador noted that what is taking place is the erasure of a culture and of the Greek Cypriot presence which is today under 400.

The European Court of Human Rights has also weighed in. Titina Loizidou, a Greek Cypriot refugee with property in the occupied town of Kyrenia, brought a case before the Court, which found in her favor. The Court stated that Turkey, as occupying power, continues to violate her right to enjoy her property and that, legally, the property remained hers. Turkey was made to pay her compensation for her inability to enjoy her property since 1974. The property issue, especially illegal building on expropriated land belonging to Greek Cypriot refugees, makes a Cyprus settlement even more difficult.

Kakouris points out that, as a government, the Republic of Cyprus does all that is possible to improve the economic situation of the Turkish Cypriots. Because of its policies and opportunities offered, in recent years the per capita income of the Turkish Cypriots has nearly tripled. He added that Turkish Cypriots are free to undertake intra-island trade as well as trade with the EU through the legal ports of Larnaka and Limassol. He commented that, regrettably, the Turkish side itself has stifled this possibility by pushing for direct trade, under the guise of ending the so-called “isolation” of the Turkish Cypriots.' Kakouris asks “why are the Turkish Cypriots isolated? They are isolated because of the invasion, the illegal occupation, the declaration of a separate state which was condemned by the United Nations, as well as its total dependence on Turkey. These are the reasons why the Turkish Cypriots are isolated. Turkish Cypriots can benefit from the EU,” Kakouris says. “We draw the line at actions or policies by others that aim to bolster the structures of the occupation regime through what can be described as creeping encroachment, trying to give the impression that the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ has the trappings of a state.”

“Turkish Cypriots come over to the government-controlled area on a daily basis to work, receiving the same pay, benefits, etc., as Greek Cypriots. There have been over 13 million incident-free crossings since the partial lifting of the restrictions along the ceasefire line in April 2003. This augers well for the future, as it clearly shows that the two communities can live together, and debunks the myth of trouble between the two at first sight.

Kakouris also points out that compared to over 200,000 illegal Turkish settlers and troops, there are just over 90,000 Turkish Cypriots in the northern part of the island, over 35,000 of whom have come to the government-controlled area to apply and receive their Cypriot passport, “in essence their EU passport. The Turkish Cypriot leadership frowns on this and has gone so far as to demand that those passports are returned.”

Where do we go from here? In July 2006, an agreement was brokered by the UN Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, Mr. Ibrahim Gambari, between Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat. The agreement called for the start of bicommunal discussions on substantive issues of the Cyprus problem and on issues that affect the day-to-day lives of all Cypriots. This process is necessary for the proper preparation of new substantive negotiations aiming at a comprehensive solution. As of this writing, these committees have not yet been established. “The Turkish side is trying to backtrack,” ambassador Kakouris says, adding that “the July 8th agreement is the way forward, and we wish to see the process up and running without any further delay.”

Also, the July 8th agreement foresaw confidence-building measures. The Republic’s dismantling of its fortification along Ledra Street in Nicosia in March 2007 was one solid step. Ledra Street, the ambassador says, “cuts through the heart of Nicosia, the last divided capital in the world.” In late April, the government removed another of its posts at Kato Pyrgos in the northwest of the island, again as a confidence-building measure.

The ambassador expressed the hope that the Turkish side will reciprocate the goodwill gesture taken by the Government at Ledra Street, by taking those actions needed to make it a safe and secure crossing point, and importantly, will show the necessary urgency to move forward on the July 8th agreement.

Ambassador Kakouris’ major task in Washington is “to put out the message that an island in the Mediterranean has been militarily occupied for 33 years, resulting in the expulsion and separation of people.” Further, he is committed to developing and enhancing the long-standing close and friendly relations between his country and people with the United States. Kakouris also wants to undertake cultural diplomacy through exhibits and events highlighting the richness of Cypriot culture.

It is this culture that brings more than 3 million tourists to the government controlled area of Cyprus each year. Most come from the EU, with Britons making up the largest part. Tourists, he says, “have no problems. There is a very high rate of return visitors. That speaks to the quality of the product.” Cyprus has moved from being a summer destination to a 365-day-a-year destination, with daily flights from many European cities. Visitors come for the weather, the sun and sea, and 10,000 years of history which has left an “indelible mark.” The quality of Cyprus’ hotels “is second to none,” and the “welcoming nature of Cypriots” adds to the pleasure. Tourism, and the economy at large, will also get a boost when Cyprus joins the Eurozone, if all goes to plan, on January 1, 2008.

Kakouris clearly wishes that Cyprus’ sunny physical disposition extends to the political well-being of her people. “Cyprus cannot be allowed to become a forgotten tragedy which is consigned to the back-burner of international consciousness. To do so would mean that the rule of law has been replaced by the maxim ‘might is right',' he says.

The ambassador ended by expressing his strong belief that a solution that reunites the island, its people, its social fabric, the economy and institutions can be achieved. This is what the government of the Republic of Cyprus is committed to, and it is an absolute priority and a matter of extreme urgency. Such a solution would be a “win-win” for all, firstly and foremost for the Cypriots themselves.

Hugh S. Galford is a freelance writer living in Washington, DC, with an academic background in Middle Eastern Studies.

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.

Poetry on Iraq

By Patricia Keegan

Dear Readers,

I published my first poem, For the Iraqi Children, in late 2002, just before the U.S. launched the Iraq War. That poem is reprinted below, followed by my second and most recent poem on the Iraq situation. Mere words cannot express my sadness for our country, for our soldiers and their families, and for the Iraqi people who continue to suffer and die. May the innocent be protected, the warriors calmed, and the healing soon begun.

---

For the Iraqi Children

Oh land of Abraham, and Ur, where Moses rose
Between the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Oh land of Noah’s great flood,
Where once you sank beneath the waters,
And now you call again upon the Sky God,
The Moon God, but it is the God of the Wind
Who carries your voice across the world
To this new land, Where deep inside the hearts of millions
A hallowed voice is heard.
It nags and nags and nags; It says, 'Thou shalt not kill!'

Once the capital of the world for two centuries,
Baghdad looks faded now,
Burdens of weariness etched across her face.
But children come and go and skip along in innocence
To school, to dance, to play,
While mother’s watch and wring their hands in fear.
And mornings come and go and still they rise
To put the coffee on, put on their shoes,
Then warily turn the front doorknob,
An opening to the naked sky.
Yet, still they wait, the moments drag...

Six thousand miles away
Debating voices rise...
YES, WE SHOULD BOMB IRAQ --
NO, WE SHOULDN'T.
Unseen in their chaotic world is the glorious perfection
Of the Iraqi children,
Their newborn skin, their shining eyes,
A tiny hand reaching for a father
To lift them up,
To view the wonders of the world.
For now, they are the fortunate, with precious moments left.
For others, all was lost through deprivation.
Victims of sanctions, 5000 die per month, their Fate
Carelessly tossed aside like random weeds.

And will we send our sons and daughters
To press cold buttons on laser guided bombs
O’er hospitals, schools, factories, bridges and mosques,
And think they will return to us the same?
Their minds, if not their eyes, will forever
Journey backward through the path of destruction,
Seeing bodies strewn in the lingering hell of half-death.
Oh Sky God, Moon God, Wind God, God of Abraham, God of Moses,
And all who have the power to turn the world away from war,
Stop us, Stop us, before we hear the cry:
Forgive them God, they know not what they do.

-Patricia E. Keegan / November 2002

---

From the author,  The following poem was published in November 2006.

To the People of Iraq -- I'm Sorry

Your unending anguish breaks across my eyes,
Beats upon my ears, Searing its stamp of sadness on my soul
As I stand by and watch your proud world crumble.
Five thousand miles away, detached,
My world is orderly.
In cleanliness and comfort I drink the water,
Switch on the light,
Moving through my day with confidence.
While taut and alert you stand, sacrificed,
Wedged solidly between the vise of violence and victory.

Have I forgotten you?
No! NO!
I'm sorry,
I hear my voice whisper weakly through the darkness,
And to that sorry, I repeat louder,
I am sorry!

Today I saw your little girl -- Fragility,
All splashed with blood upon her dress,
Her shoes, and in her eyes bewilderment.
I'm sorry!

And now the sorrow builds, and I cry, louder --
It echoes back to me, and no one hears.
And what was started still moves on in madness, day by day.
Men, women, children fall, as innocent victims
Of the powerful Ares.
Blood flows more clear and clean than water,
Seeping its way through ancient soil,
Buried with shocked spirits
Who once looked up to us with hopeful eyes.

The web's self-installed spider,
finding no way out,
Gropes blindly for the exit.

What can we do
When sorrow's not enough?
Should I dip into the blood
Of our dead soldiers,
And write across the sky
For all the world to see,
I'm sorry for America's mistake, or
Should I have shouted louder, Stop this war!

Then speaking for Iraq's proud people,
You sadly tell me that apologies are as futile
As wisps of saffron flung like the wind
Across the heads of burdened lives, who'll walk
Forever grasping tiny rays of hope;
Devastated, desolate, ravaged, yet unafraid!

-Patricia Keegan / November 2006

Promoting Finland’s Business

An Interview with Ambassador Pekka Lintu

By Hugh S. Galford

In describing the unique architecture of the Finnish embassy, today surrounded by snow-laden trees, Ambassador Pekka Lintu says, “It is our visiting card here in DC.” An example of homegrown Finnish architecture, it “shows the values that are important to us. The architecture is very high-tech, as is Finland itself. It is very transparent—it is easy to come and go, and it is also a statement of our policies, as we have continuously been voted one of the least corrupt nations in the world. The embassy is also close to nature, with the trees in the back almost coming into the building.”

The ambassador says that these values are also attractive to American tourists. “Finland is a small, successful country where things work quite well. It is easy to move around and people are glad to meet foreigners.” Americans enjoy the safe environment Finland provides, and the wide range of activities available, from nature hikes and watching the northern lights to cultural events such as classical music and Finland’s rich architectural and design heritage.

The history of this small, valiant country is well documented in A Concise History of Finland by David Kirby published in 2006. According to Kirby, during the past 50 years few countries in Europe have undergone such rapid social, political, and economic changes. Finland is a country that, at a great price, has had the courage to protect and preserve its own highly distinctive identity.

Installed as Finland’s ambassador to the United States in January 2006, Pekka Lintu’s focus has been concentrated on his country’s EU presidency. Now that Finland has handed the position to Germany, Ambassador Lintu plans to focus his energies on the US-Finland relation. “It is a constant challenge for a smaller country to bring its good news and our own thinking on issues” to an American audience.

The ambassador is pleased with Finland’s tenure as EU president, stating that while they had hoped to accomplish more, their successes were important and consequential. The early months, he says, were dominated by the situation in the Middle East. The EU was “in a difficult situation, but did quite well to bring about an end to hostilities in Lebanon and to see to the strengthening of UNIFIL.” Given its renewed mandate, UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) needed an increased number of troops, the great majority of which come from EU countries. Finland, a major donor for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction programs, had “hoped to take [policies] further, but now we need new steps in the Middle East, particularly concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

Turkey’s admission to the Union was another major issue during Finland’s presidency. The solution found, Ambassador Lintu says, “was a good one in difficult circumstances. It was decided to continue our talks, reflecting the not-full satisfaction of the EU nations with how talks with Turkey had proceeded so far” and the further policy changes that Turkey needs to make to meet the various EU policy stances.

Relations between the EU and Russia also saw a strengthening under Finland’s leadership. There were several important meetings, including two with President Putin, covering issues such as energy use and the framework of EU-Russian relations. Finland, he says, was able to “take things further, though not all the way to total interdependence.” While he says that there were “good discussions” on the principles of relations with Russia, “we need to see how those principles will be reflected and implemented.”

Finland’s “pet item” for its presidency was the economic competitiveness of the EU. They were able to “push legislation on some major issues, including pushing through a new service directive and a new EU regulatory framework for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH).” REACH is intended to improve the protection of human health and the environment through the better and earlier identification of chemical substances’ properties, while enhancing the innovative capability and competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.

EU-US relations were also “a success story” during Finland’s presidency. The highlight, for Ambassador Lintu, was the first meeting of high-level officials dealing with climate change, sustainable development and clean energy. Furthermore, EU Justice and Home Affairs ministers met here last year, and Economic ministers met with US Department of Commerce officials in November.

One area of EU policy still on hold is that of the proposed EU constitution. Ambassador Lintu says that consultations with member states are on-going, “trying to see what possibilities exist to take matters forward.” The Constitutional Treaty, he says, “is a good document, and we hope to revive it. We don’t want to see any changes to the document. It is good as it is, and must be accepted as a whole. Changing it is not that easy, as that would involve give-and-take negotiations,” effectively starting the process all over again.

Having completed its presidency of the European Union, Finland now steps into presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers, a consultative and cooperative council of the Nordic nations, from Iceland to Finland. The Nordic Council was organized following World War II, and is independent of other organizations. It serves as a bridge of sorts between other European and trans-Atlantic groups. For example, Iceland and Norway are members of NATO but not the EU, while Sweden and Finland are EU members but not part of NATO. This blending of NATO, EU and Eurozone nations proves useful to presenting solutions to issues that did not exist in the 1950s at the Council’s establishment.

The Council, as noted, is more a consultative body than a legislative body. It is not a single market and does not have the same legislative powers as the EU does, but it has led to closer cooperation among the Nordic countries. The Council established the Nordic Passport Area—a rough precursor to the EU’s Schengen Accords—and a cooperative labor area and market.

As with their presidency of the EU, Finland looks to implement a program of sustainable development, research, and innovation. In addition, cooperation in the Adjacent Areas, equality and equal opportunities, children and young people and Nordic-language issues will be central to Finland’s presidency.

Another major policy area is Finland’s neighbor to the east, Russia. As a former Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire, Finland has a long and tumultuous history with Russia, having had to balance Western and Soviet wishes during the Cold War. Ambassador Lintu says that, “in many ways, relations with Russia are better than ever.” Economic cooperation is good and trade booming, the situation is stable politically, and leaders of the two nations at various levels see and talk with each other on a regular basis.

There are, he says, “a number of projects to improve the border and near-border area” of the two countries. “There is more cooperation on the environment, health and transportation, which are important for a model modern relationship.” There is also cooperation in treating wastewater, with Finland having taken part in the construction of St. Petersburg’s southwest wastewater treatment plant, the first major public-private partnership project in Russia. The plant will improve the state of the Baltic Sea as it will treat the wastewater of more than 700,000 of St. Petersburg’s residents.

There is still work to do to solve border area issues such as differences in standards of living, ill-health and poverty and relations with the EU and the Nordic countries. But with normal relations and regular meetings between officials, the ambassador sees these issues as solvable.

Furthermore, trade relations with Russia are good. Finland buys the majority of its energy from Russia, and sells a wide variety of goods to Russia. Russia, the ambassador says, “is now our number three or four export market. We sell everything from telecom to engineering to foodstuffs and forestry products. In addition, the transit of goods to Russia through Finland is still important.”

Lintu’s focus on trade is not surprising. He began his career with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in 1972 after completing a Masters of Arts degree at the University of Helsinki. His prior postings included tenures in Marseilles (1972-73), at Finland’s Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva (1975-79), at Finland’s Permanent Delegation to the OECD in Paris (1984-87) and in Tokyo as Ambassador to Japan (1994-2000). He focused on economic and trade issues during his home postings, ranging from bilateral to regional issues. In the early 1990s, he was in charge of economic relations between Finland and the US, and from 2001 to 2005 was Under-Secretary for External Economic Affairs, serving at the 133-Trade Policy Committee of the EU and participating in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Round.

Interested also in theater and art, Ambassador Lintu completed a translation in rhyming verse of French poet Edmond Rostand’s play Cyrano de Bergerac in 1993. Lintu’s translation played at the Finnish National Theater for a number of years.

With Finland’s EU presidency over, Ambassador Lintu is turning his attention to other matters. Two major events in Finland this year are the parliamentary elections on March 18, and the 90th anniversary of independence and the centenary of granting full political rights to women. The embassy and consulates general will serve as election polling places for Finns living or traveling in the US. Ambassador Lintu notes that Finnish governments are normally a coalition of parties, so there is not the same built-in political confrontation as is found here. The three major parties are the Center Party, the Social Democrats and the National Coalition Party, the moderate right-wing party. Finland also has a Green Party that has served in coalition governments before. The challenge for the Greens, the ambassador says, is that “many other parties have become greener, so the Greens must find a way to become a general issues party.”

There will be programs both in Finland and here to celebrate Finland’s independence in 1917 and the achievements and sacrifices involved. Finns will also celebrate being the first country in the world to grant full political rights to women. This occurred before independence, as an autonomous Grand Duchy with its own elections to its own parliament.

While in Washington, Ambassador Lintu’s main objective is to strengthen US-Finnish relations. Finland has “good relations economically and politically” with the US, but DC, he notes, “is a place where countries want to make their views understood” and it is easy to get lost in the constant activity. He plans to continue working with US colleagues and friends to make Finland and her achievements better known to the US public. He wants to publicize Finland’s economic competitiveness, her good governance and her emphasis on environmentally sustainable policies.

Ambassador Lintu also hopes to continue the embassy’s long-standing contact with Finnish-Americans. Beyond providing consular services, the embassy “supports Americans of Finnish descent and their cultural activities.” While Finnish-American groups are independent and organize their own programs, the embassy does its best to support and participate in them.

The ambassador is looking forward to an opportunity to travel and visit some of the US’s natural wonders. He wants to visit Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon, and has a special desire to visit Yellowstone National Park. When he was a boy, he recalls, he saw photos of Yellowstone in one of his books. “I was totally captivated. It has been 50 years but I still remember those photos and their impact on me.”

Hugh S. Galford is a freelance writer living in Washington, DC, with an academic background in Middle Eastern Studies.