UN On A Roll

By Bill Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change: #1 Challenge

By Bill Miller

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

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

Some of the IPCC recommendations and conclusions are sobering:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Charter for Compassion

By Patricia Keegan

As we face each day trying to process an immense tide of information, there is one general theme popping up everywhere. While we have always lived with undertones of uncertainty, the concerns were familiar and ageless, balanced by the optimism of a new generation. But more and more of us have gradually accepted a harsher, more pessimistic view of the state of our country and the world. Our futures don’t seem as promising on a communal or national level. Responding to the negatives only zaps energy by adding to the fear factor, but we have a choice. Rather than reiterating a litany of all the things we now fear, I will jump to how we could change the direction of some of these currents and move forward with faith and courage.

Despite the dissonance and the pain, a new wave of creativity and YES, idealism, is taking place across America. It is planting seeds of hope and connecting people in this digital age, in a way unprecedented in the history of our country and the world. There are hundreds of high energy, proactive efforts out there which hold great promise for the future.

Most of us are already familiar with the fantastic work of the Bill Gates Foundation in preventing malaria and saving lives, but not everybody can have such a major impact on the world. During the past few weeks I have looked at some of the less well known projects and found inspiration in what is possible when people come together with compassion. Three of the most exciting to me were Groceryships, The Center for the New American Dream and especiallyThe Charter for Compassion. Visit and discover some of the new energy at the grassroots of our nation.

Groceryships is an inspiring story of 30 year-old Sam Polk, a successful hedge fund trader on Wall Street who made “a pile of money,” but felt “empty and unfulfilled,” so he left to find something more satisfying.

Now he is looking outward, well beyond the money chase. He is working on projects that will remove some of the obstacles that deplete hope, bring misery and cast the “unfortunate” totally outside the realm of the “American Dream.” When he and his wife started the non-profit Groceryships, they wanted to help impoverished families who are food insecure and struggling with health issues. Groceryships is a six month program where families receive financial help, weekly nutrition classes, emotional support groups, cooking classes, guided shopping trips and exercise classes. By providing some of the tools to help people climb out of misery, the Polks will be exposing them to a better, more healthy lifestyle which will make for happier families and healthier children. Let us not forget that there are 50 million Americans going hungry, one in six of us, and one third of them are children.

The mission statement of The Center for the New American Dream at newdream.org states, “We seek to cultivate a new American dream one that emphasizes community, ecological sustainability and a celebration of non-material values.” New Dream offers two publications, Guide to Going Local to help people build community, reduce consumption, and support local economics, and Guide to Sharing, on how to begin building a sharing community.

In facing just two of the seemingly insurmountable challenges of this century -- feeding the hungry and preventing our planet from burning up -- one’s singular effort may seem comparable to an ant climbing a mountain. It can only become successful if the glue of “compassion” can hold these endeavors together. So how do we ignite this fire of compassion with urgency, so it has a magnetic pull, a contagious affect that would bring hundreds of thousands together with a common purpose to make a difference in our own communities?

In my research I discovered The Charter for Compassion, an organization reaching out and calling for change at the grass roots level. Membership in the Charter has grown steadily since its inception in 2009. It includes cities, towns, states and even some countries. The Charter is rapidly gaining momentum with signatures of well-known celebrities, writers, artists and educators, all making a commitment to “awaken compassion in our children, ourselves and our world.” The Charter for Compassion articulates why we who live in these times should be concerned about our fellow humans and our planet, and be inspired to take action.

The Charter is the brainchild of Dr. Karen Armstrong who received the TED Award in 2009. The TED organization was conceived in 1984 at a conference bringing together people from the three realms of Technology, Education and Design. Since then, the scope has become even broader and offers three yearly prizes of $100,000 to a leader in her/his chosen field of work. The winner must have an unconventional viewpoint and a vision to transform the world. The Charter For Compassion is Dr. Armstrong’s vision to promote the principles of the Golden Rule across the religious and global spectrum. It is a document that aims to inspire compassionate action around the world. This effort to build an interfaith ‘charter for compassion’ is guided by the Council of Sages, a multi-faith, multi-national group of religious thinkers and leaders, which includes Desmond Tutu, the Dali Lama and other notable international visionaries.

Oxford graduate, former nun and prominent scholar of the world’s religions, Dr. Armstrong has written more than 20 books around the ideas of what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common, and their effect on world events. In her extensive travels and study of the world’s religions, Dr. Armstrong has managed to connect some of the dots that factor into the pain of human chaos, and raises questions about the “unfulfilled promise of religion.” Her studies have revealed that the one common thread that runs through all major religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism – is compassion. Compassion is the core of spiritual traditions and the basis of ethics in general. In her writings she raises the question, “If compassion is the fabric of morality, why then has religion failed us?”

When the spirit of compassion is put into action, it’s not outside the realm of human understanding, but an act, which even a young child feels and understands. Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you is the Golden Rule we recite routinely. So if we see around us a world lacking compassion, it probably means that we are not living up to the ideals of our religions. Arguably, in some ways we see progress, but in others there is obvious regression.

We don’t yet know the long- term effects of living in a global community, in a high tech digital age, with instant communication in which most of one’s day is spent staring at a screen. Could the time come when we are too busy or too over-stimulated to stop and feel the pain of those around us? Does that offer us an ultimate sense of emptiness, and how could that emptiness manifest itself in society other than destructively? One of my favorite Russian writers, Fyodor Dostoevsky, wrote in The Idiot that “Compassion is the chief law of human existence.”

Martin Luther King, in his philosophy of non-violent activism, emanated compassion; never sounding bitter, always looking toward the greater good of humanity. From his own interpretation of the golden rule, he was carrying out what he believed to be his purpose for existence. He once said, “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

Compassion is not easy, it means investing care and love into someone else, or into a “dream” for millions, as Dr. King demonstrated, without needing, or expecting a reward. In his interpretation of compassion, Vietnamese Zen Master Tich Nhat Hanh, one of the most influential spiritual leaders of our time, writes, “The essence of love and compassion is understanding. It is the ability to recognize the physics, material and psychological suffering of others. We go inside their bodies, feelings, and mental formations and witness for ourselves their suffering. Shallow observation as an outsider is not enough to see their suffering. We must become one with the subject of our observation.”

Karen Armstrong’s discovery of the thread of compassion is woven through us all, and really is the gold we carry around casually. It is buried deep within our being, but once ignited could become a driving force to set a new direction in the world.

To learn more about The Charter for Compassion visit charterforcompassion.org

Albrecht Durer: Master Drawings, Watercolors, and Prints from Vienna’s Albertina

On display until June 9, 2013

By Patricia Keegan

The first time I beheld Albrecht Dürer’s drawings, I was spellbound. It was in Weimar, in the former East Germany, shortly after the Berlin wall came down. I remember looking at the lines, at the detail, but mostly at the emotion depicted in the head’s slight tilt, in the eyes, in the fineness and confidence of each line. To me it spoke of a heroic intimacy with life. Far from being an art critic, I only know what excites me -- and what doesn’t -- and here was the epitome of the combined magic of pencil, soul and paper.

On a recent visit to the National Gallery of Art, once again I saw even more of the amazing work of this great master. I particularly love the head drawings starting with the artist’s self portrait at 18 years of age, the Head of Christ, Head of a Young Woman, Head of an Apostle with cap, Head of an Apostle Looking Up, until finally I became teary-eyed standing in front of An Elderly Man of Ninety Three Years. The set of the head, the sadness of lowered eyes, the lined, dry-looking skin, the curly beard, all combine to create a profoundly moving image of life. In my humble opinion this drawing should inhabit the same space in the world’s consciousness as Leonardo da Vinci’s, Mona Lisa.

Albrecht Dürer was a contemporary of Leonardo; he was the reigning genius of the Renaissance in northern Europe, just as Leonardo was for the Renaissance in Italy. They were similar in their intense intellectual curiosity, but art historians site a major difference -- while Leonardo looked outward at the bigger world to find out how things worked, Durer was determined to look inward and explore the mystery of the human soul.

Born in Nuremberg in 1471, Albrecht Dürer grew up in an environment of late Gothic courtly grace and religious intensity. This, and the combined influence of trade scholarship and culture, is intertwined with each of his watercolors, prints and drawings. Not only is this the largest collection of Dürer’s work in the world, it is also distinguished by the sheer number of the artist’s greatest works.

The National Gallery exhibit is a wonderful reflection of the trust and friendship of the Albertina, in Vienna, in sharing this magnificent collection with American art lovers who live in Washington, or come for a visit. It offers an opportunity to press the PAUSE button on a world of stress, while experiencing the depth and quiet impact of each of these masterpieces.

For more information on the Dürer exhibit, as well as other current National Gallery exhibits, visit the Gallery's website at nga.gov.

US Arms Treaty Passes Overwhelmingly

By Bill Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gathering -- Ireland’s Doors Open for a Reunion in 2013

Get Ready for the Party of Your Life

By Patricia Keegan

In Dublin, during its 2012 New Year’s Eve celebration, in spectacular style, Ireland launched its 2013 plans for the “Gathering” -- a unique celebration of what it means to be Irish. This is an open invitation to friends and family around the world to step across Ireland’s doorstep and embark on a great adventure. They will discover that the legend of Irish hospitality, the drama of its landscape, and the charm of the Irish, was not just a fairytale told by the leprechauns -- it truly is what makes Ireland unique in the world.

Former president Mary Robinson upheld this welcoming tradition by placing a lighted candle in her window, symbolizing the warm, Irish welcome. Ireland, the land of saints and scholars, bursts with a lively, young population of talented and creative people. In recent history, Riverdance left an indelible imprint when this dynamite dance production arrived on the world’s stage, and the singers ofCeltic Woman played our heartstrings with emotional Irish ballads. This, and so much more, showcases the creative power and poetry of a small island.

To walk the land, as one of the family, and partake of its attributes, has the potential to be life changing. One finds shop keepers and taxi drivers who enjoy a good “craic” (chat), sharing a laugh, a story, calling you “luv,” and making you feel at home. A good laugh is never far from the Irish perspective on life, a welcome adjustment that one makes with ease.

In preparation for the Gathering, Ireland’s Tourist Board continues to add to a packed calendar of local events, with music, dance, poetry, and story telling throughout towns and villages across the heart of Ireland. What promises to make the “Gathering” successful is that each town and community will choose how they will host their guests by bringing Irish clans back to their homeland. A good example of “clan gathering” is the initiative of Damien Stack, a businessman in Listowel, County Kerry, who is organizing “The Stack Clan Gathering” for July 19-20, in spectacular northern Kerry.

Damian says that in the 1800’s there were over 1,200 Stacks registered, and though the name remains one of the most popular Kerry names, there are thousands more scattered across the world. Damian is the fifth generation owner of the shop with the name “Stack” over the door. Throughout the summer he is greeted by tourists from Argentina, New Zealand, Canada, the US and other parts of the world, who stop to ask if he knows their people. So the Clan Gathering gives the Stack family a chance to meet each other, within a fabulous environment, in an atmosphere of festivity.

For information on how to become part of the Gathering visit TheGatheringIreland.com.

For information on traveling to Ireland please visit DiscoverIreland.com.

Palestine and Israel: UN Showdown

By Bill Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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