From the UN

Articles from the UN
by Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld and Temma Ehrenfeld

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld is an International Humanist and Ethical Union Representative to the UN.   Temma Ehrenfeld is a writer and editor in New York. You can see more of her work at her website, temmabooks.com.

In the year 2000 the member states at the UN undertook an ambitious challenge to meet the basic needs of the globe. They set eight goals to be achieved by 2015.These goals, for the worlds well being, are designed to free a major portion of humanity from the shackles of extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease.They also established targets for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women. The plan was designed to be affordable, measurable and doable. Progress can be monitored. Read the complete document here.

Drug-related violence in Reynosa, Mexico leads to deaths of journalists.

Five journalists were assassinated in Honduras last month, all in drive-by shootings. In a wave of drug-related violence in the Mexican city of Reynosa, near the Texas border, several journalists were abducted and one reporter found mysteriously dead.

These are brutal times for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 71 journalists were killed last year. In 2008, another source reports that 929 were physically attacked or threatened. Most of these victims were not international correspondents covering war zones. As large newspapers shed their foreign bureaus, they hire more vulnerable freelancers instead. These brave local writers risk being murdered, kidnapped, or assaulted when they throw light in the dark corners of their societies, with stories about local politics, drug trafficking, and political or business corruption.

They also risk being thrown in jail. Laws that forbid "inciting hatred," "endangering national security" or, specifically, commenting on religion or ethnicity, are becoming more common. Libel and defamation laws are also used to punish the press. At this moment, some160 journalists are in jail.

Press freedom is on the block. For every courageous story, another isn't’t written because journalists and their editors and publishers censor themselves.

Some people argue that the Internet will ultimately make it impossible for anyone—including governments--to hide the truth from their people. As the technology of media changes, we increasingly share information online, rather than through paper newspapers and television or radio, which gives governments great power when they filter and block Internet access. But on-line journalists can circumvent restrictions, using anonymous personas and social networking technologies, to get the word out.

In Cuba, for example, at least 25 journalistic blogs cover social issues and political news. Despite repressive censorship, bloggers cobble together personal computers from parts sold on the black market or move between public Internet cafes.

Freedom House, in its annual survey on the state of the press, reports that global press freedom declined for a seventh straight year. The new survey found that only 17 percent of the world’s inhabitants live in countries that enjoy a free press, while 41% have a partly free press and 42% have a not free press. These numbers are skewed by the huge populations in China, with a “not free” press and India, where the press is partly free. Even excluding these populations the percent free is still a troublesome 25 percent. Iran became a country with a “not-free” press last year when it cracked down and became the world’s biggest jailer of journalists.

The United Nations celebrates “World Press Freedom” Day to remind us to defend our press. Freedom of speech and press is a vital moral issue, intrinsically connected to human rights worldwide, and the basis on which other freedoms rest. What we don’t know can harm us. And who decides what we are to know?

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, International Humanist and Ethical Union and National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union representative to the UN and Temma Ehrenfeld, a freelance writer based in New York City.

Back to Top

A woman on her way to a water distribution site in Tora, Northern Darfur. 26 July 2009

World Water Day, March 22, 2010

There are about a billion people without clean water and 2.5 billion without adequate sanitation,a major silent humanitarian disaster, of great concern to the UN. Unlike wars and natural disasters it does not make media headlines and claims more lives through disease than wars claim through guns.

One hundred and one UN staff members died in the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Nevertheless, UNICEF was ready with its emergency WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene ) program. Along with food and shelter, safe water and sanitation are high priorities in emergency situations as there is danger of an outbreak of diarrhea , cholera and other diseases.

UNICEF, partnering with a local water-purification and distribution company, distributed 2.6 million liters of drinking water daily to over half a million people in the capital Port-au- Prince and other cities. Every day at least 150 trucks , each filled with 5000 liters of water, are send out to 200 distribution points. Also, water purification tablets and family water kits are provided. UNICEF is working with partners to install 30,000 latrines in the next six months.

The WASH emergency interventions has been used in many emergencies such as the earthquake in Indonesia, Darfur and the major 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

Is there enough water in the World? Is it a question of scarcity?

Some commentators trace the global challenge in water to rising population and the resulting increase in demand . A major UN report rejects this view and claims that the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in flawed water management of a basically renewable resource, in unequal power, poverty, and inequality. and not in physical availability. In short, it is a political problem relating to inequality.

There are great inequalities in access to clean water and sanitation. In high- income areas of cities in Asia, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa people enjoy access to several hundred liters of water a day delivered into their homes at low prices by public utilities. Meanwhile, slum dwellers and poor households in rural areas of the same countries have access to much less than 20 liters of water per day.

Agriculture is the main use of water. In water stressed parts of India irrigation pumps extract water from aquifers 24 hours a day for wealthy farmers while neighboring smallholders depend on the vagaries of rain.

People living in rich countries are only dimly aware how clean water fostered progress in their own countries. Just over a hundred years ago London, New York and Paris were centers of infectious diseases. Child death rates were as high as they are now in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. The sanitation movement and sweeping reforms changed this picture by spending the money for sewage systems and the required infrastructure for clean water .By one estimate water purification explains much of the great mortality reduction in the US in the first third of the 20th century. In Great Britain the expansion of sanitation contributed to an unprecedented increase in life expectancy of 15 years in the four decades after 1880.

One UN report states that the toilet and the latrine , which helped revolutionize public health in the wealthy countries are the most underused tools to combat poverty and disease. The report blames governments of paying little attention to water and sanitation and seriously under funding programs for improvement. In developing countries , without regulation, more than 90 per cent of sewage and 70 per cent of industrial wastewater is dumped untreated into surface water.

Water resources often cross political boundaries without a passport in the form of rivers, lakes and aquifers. This hydrological interdependence raises issues of conflict and cooperation. Some have raised the spectre of water wars.The facts are otherwise. Conflicts over water do arise and give rise to political tensions, but most disputes are resolved peacefully. The permanent Indus Water Commission which oversees a treaty on water sharing survived and functioned during two wars between India and Pakistan. Another example is the low-level water cooperation between Israel and Jordan began, under UN auspices ,in the early 1950s when the countries were still at war. In 1994 they created a Joint Water Committee for coordination, sharing and dispute settlement- an arrangement that survived some acute tensions.

The message of this , and many other examples, is that the most hostile enemies have the capacity for cooperation on water.

Since the world is ever more interdependent lets hope that the necessary cooperation in water is a model in other areas.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, International Humanist Ethical Union and the National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union representative to the UN and Temma Ehrenfeld , free lance writer.

Back to Top

Photo Credit: UN Photo/Sean Sprague

Social Justice is a matter of life and death. It affects the way people live, their consequent chances of illness and their risk of premature death. A girl born today can expect to live for more than 80 years if she is born in some countries, but less than 45 years if she is born in others.

About 90 percent of the world’s health resources are spent on less than 20 per cent of the world population living mostly in wealthier countries. You can expect to live about the same number of years, until the age of 78, if you are born in Costa Rica or the United States today, even though Americans on average are four times as rich. If you are born in South Africa, your life expectancy drops by 27 years to 51, even though it is on average as rich as Costa Rica.

What's the difference? Social and health services and inequality. Poor Costa Ricans have more access to clinics and other social services. Once a country reaches a per capita income of about $10,000--currently true of Costa Rica--education, social services, preventive health care and local access to treatment when you are ill, is more valuable for the average citizen than a bigger economy.

In 1978 the World Health Organization (WHO) promoted the strategy of Primary Health Care (PHC) which stresses local participation in managing health services, the use of local clinics and the training of local people in performing basic treatments that do not require a doctor. It stresses health education and prevention. Complex cases are referred to the next level of care.

Some governments and international donors were unhappy with the concept of community control over health. It also didn't appeal to the medical establishment. Some communities associated quality care with big hospitals. PHC was often under-funded, reinforcing the idea that it was second rate care.

Sadly, as countries became richer they tended to skew health spending toward big-city hospitals and specialist care and the chance to expand primary health care was lost. People in rural areas around the world often travel hours to get basic services. WHO estimates that empowering communities could reduce disease globally by as much as 70 per cent.

WHO is again promoting primary health care. It is more important now than ever. Firstly ,the cost of the current approach is not sustainable. Furthermore, there is an extreme shortage of doctors and health workers. The global shortage of health workers is about 4 million. The solution isn't to accept and train medical students from poor countries. Doctors and other health professionals naturally go to richer countries where working conditions and the pay is better, leaving poor countries in dire straits. There are more doctors of Ethiopian decent in Washington DC than all of Ethiopia.

In one study of 42 countries, accounting for about 90 per cent of child deaths world wide, 63 per cent of these deaths could have been prevented if good primary health care had been available. Government policy that focuses on medicine for the rich-enriching providers- is deadly for the majority of the world’s population. The United Nations is fighting for their lives and needs all our support.

Equity and Social Justice is more important than ever.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, International Humanist Ethical Union and the National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union representative to the UN and Temma Ehrenfeld

Back to Top

Seen from space, a gray ring of junk orbits the Earth

Outer space has become a global commons. Around a thousand operational satellites, launched from more than forty countries, are now orbiting around the earth, and another eight dozen objects are launched into space each year. Space is also an increasingly busy and dangerous place. Today's satellites are tomorrow's space debris. About 300 satellites in orbit are no longer in use. More than 300,000 pieces of space junk travel aimlessly, risking collision with satellites in use, most recently in February last year, when a U.S. communication satellite collided with a nonfunctional Russian military satellite and generated a large amount of debris flying at high speeds.

Clearly, we need rules of the road. Here on earth, we enjoy the benefits of space every day. Communication satellites enable broadcasting, telephone and television signals, provide internet linkages, and support financial transactions. When a communication satellite malfunctioned in 1998, thirty million pagers went silent, credit cards failed and some radio and television networks went off the air. Satellites provide data about the weather and the earth’s ecosystems. They are used to verify compliance with treaties and help us provide relief during disasters, mapping places otherwise inaccessible to humans. After the devastating cyclone in Myanamar in 2008, for example, satellites restored vital communication links and provided key images of the damage. Since 1994, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has developed standards that although not legally binding are of obvious interest to all countries. The United Nations is especially wary of military uses of outer space. Under a globally binding UN 1967 treaty,ratified by most countries and the nuclear powers nations have agreed not to place nuclear weapons in space. But the treaty does not prohibit nuclear warheads on missiles launched from the ground into space, or using force against a country’s satellites or other space assets. Clearly more agreements are needed.

The United States has opposed multilateral legal agreements covering outer space. In fact, the Bush administration spoke of achieving "total space dominance." The Obama administration is committed to a workable ban on weapons in space and is currently reevaluating U.S. space policy. Meanwhile, the space capabilities of other countries are growing fast. China, for example, showed that it can destroy a target in space when it destroyed its own defunct weather satellite in 2007. Outer space can bring great benefits to mankind, but only if countries work together to avoid violence and chaos.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld. International Humanist Ethical Union and the National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union representative to the UN and Temma Ehrenfeld.

Back to Top

Since the 1980s, advocates for children have increasingly agreed that children need rights protected by international law. Charity is not enough to protect children around the world. International law exists: November 2009 was the twentieth anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the first legally binding agreement setting standards for the care,treatment and protection of all persons below age eighteen. The treaty covers child labor, child marriage, child soldiers, juvenile justice, trafficking,,violence against children as well as the fundamental right to birth registration, to acquire a name and a nationality. Embodied in law violators can be held accountable.

More countries have ratified this human rights treaty than any other. About 70 countries have incorporated children's codes into national legislation based on the conventions provisions. The US has, unfortunately , not ratified this treaty. American law reflects many of the provisions and ratifying the Convention would send an important message of humanity to the world.

As part of the treaty, the UN has established the Committee on the Rights of the Child to which countries have to provide regular reports. These reports allow us to track global progress.

While many problems remain ,there has been progress in the past two decades.The number of under-five deaths fell from 12.5 million in 1990 to less than 9 million in 2008. The number of children out of primary school declined from 115 million in 2002 to 101 million in 2007. Currently, around 84 percent of children, of the appropriate age,are in primary school. Immunization programs and vaccines have saved millions of lives and helped reduce global measles deaths by 74 percent since 2002.

The declaration spurred many developing countries to register all births. Still, an estimated 51 million were born but not registered in 2007 and one in four developing countries register only half of their births. Unregistered children are legally invisible. They risk losing access to medical care, education and passports, and as adults the right to marry, vote, open a bank account or to inherit.

Child labor is both a cause and consequence of poverty. Children miss school when they work. UNICEF estimates that 150 million children between ages five and fourteen are working, mainly in agriculture. Brazil has helped some 27 million citizens climb up to the middle class since 2002 in part by paying a monthly allowance to families who keep their children in school and take them for regular health checks. Inspired by this success has promoted adaptations in almost 20 countries including Chile, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey and Morocco.

More than a third of women aged twenty to twenty-four report that they were married by age 18, often much younger and sometimes without their consent.The average age of first marriage is very gradually increasing in many countries.

At any one time, more than a million children are being held by the justice system, usually for offences such as running away from home, truancy, living on the street, alcohol abuse or illegal immigration..In Myanmar, children are legally responsible by age seven. Five countries have executed a child since January 2005.

The US has about 2000 people under age 18, serving life sentences ,which violates the convention if they do not have possibilities of parole. In 2005 the US Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles and recently announced it will consider the constitutionality of life sentences for minors in two Florida rape and robbery cases. In one, the crime was committed by a thirteen year old.

How we treat children and the vulnerable is an important gauge of the humanity and hopefulness of our culture. Children are the future and represent our vision for the years to come.

Much work still needs to be done. The United Nations will continue to push countries to protect children's rights, providing the bedrock for better lives.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, UN representative from The International Humanist Ethical Union and the National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union and Temma Ehrenfeld.

Back to Top

Joseph Stiglitz put it well: "What you measure affects what you do…if you don’t measure the right thing you don’t do the right thing."

So how should we judge the progress of a nation?

The much-quoted Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a tally of goods and services bought and sold with no distinction between transactions that add to well-being and those that diminish it.. A car accident that creates business for hospitals, insurers, lawyers and auto repair shops increases the GDP. So does economic activity that damages the environment. But household and volunteer work, which improve our well-being, aren’t counted if no money is exchanged.

The man who created the GDP, New Deal economist Simon Kuznets warned us not to use it as the sole measure of a nation’s health. As he told Congress, "Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between cost and returns and between the short and the long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what for what." We would also add “for whom.” The GDP includes no measure of income distribution. For example from 1973 to 1993 the GDP of the United State rose by over 50 percent while wages declined by almost 14.

The GDP was better than no measure at all. During World War II, it allowed policymakers to track production for the war and it now gives us useful information on consumer purchases, which are linked to new jobs. But the GDP should not be our sole measure of progress.

The current economic crisis has spurred renewed interest in finding alternatives . Last year President Sarkozy of France created a Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress . Noble laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Armartya Sen, who serve on the commission, have both urged that new assessment tools incorporate a broader concern for human welfare than just economic growth.

Several new ways to measure national progress have been proposed:

The Genuine Progress Indicator adjusts the GDP for changes in income distribution, adds the value of household and volunteer work and subtracts for crime and pollution.

The Gross National Happiness measure includes subjective and objective indicators such as sustainable development, preservation of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and good governance. This idea comes from King Wangchuck the former ruler of Bhutan.

The Happy Planet Index combines subjective life satisfaction,based on surveys, life expectancy and environmental impact as measured by the ecological footprint which is based on a complicated formula relating to CO2 emissions and the use of natural resources.

The trouble with these and other indexes is that they include data that requires interpretation.

The founding charter of the United Nations calls for the promotion of social progress and a better standard of life. The UN publishes a yearly Human Development Report, which tabulates each member country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product)—the dollar value of all the goods and services produced by a nation that year--as well as measures of life expectancy, education, health, nutrition, sanitation, the availability of clean water, gender discrimination and the distribution of income. The aim of the HDR is to track how development affects daily life. To measure progress, the United Nations frequently refers to the Human Development Index (HDI) which combines GDP, life expectancy, and educational level. As an example, Oman, which has a very high GDP per capita, but relatively low educational levels,ranks 58th ,lower in HDI than Uruguay, which has about 60 percent of its GDP and has rank 46.

It’s time to measure what is most important—improvements in national well-being.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld,representative to the UN from the International Humanist Ethical Union and the National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union and Temma Ehrenfeld

Back to Top

There are twenty-seven million slaves in our world today. Girls and boys ,women and men of all ages work against their will in the rug loom sheds in Nepal,sell their bodies in brothels,break rock in the quarries of Pakistan and fight wars in the jungles of Africa.

A common form of slavery is debt bondage which traps many in loan agreements they can never pay off. Others are lured by deception and false promises into forced labor situations where they are coerced to stay under threat of violence. Slavery also includes the worst forms of child labor and sexual exploitation of women and girls.

A growing type of slavery is the result of trafficking where people are transported either by force or deception into slavery. In a report by the US department of justice about one million people are trafficked across borders each year and many more within their own country.

The UN estimates that there are three million women and children worldwide who are trafficked into the sex trade and up to fifty percent are under the age of 18.More women and girls are shipped into brothels each year in the early twenty -first century than African slaves were shipped into slave plantations each year in the eighteenth or nineteenth century.The modern global slave trade is larger in absolute numbers than the then African slave trade.The world population was of course smaller then.

The slave business,much of it organized by international criminal gangs,generates $32 billion annually according to UN estimates.

Since 2003, the UN has defined human trafficking as a crime and the UN protocol has been ratified by more than 110 countries, with procedures for cooperation between countries. However, not many criminals are convicted and most victims receive little help.In fact,many victims themselves are convicted on charges such as illegal entry or unlawful residence.The United Nations' efforts have been grossly under funded,at less than $15 million over the past seven years. As one UN official said,"we have the tools but do not have the political will,large scale public awareness or the resources" to counter the slave trade."Because slavery is a hidden crime,the great challenge is to raise consciousness and expose it in all its forms.

This huge tragedy has been mostly ignored by the media.But,a modern abolitionist movement is slowly growing,with much help from the powerful book, "Half the Sky" by New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof and his wife Sheryl Wundunn.( The title comes from a Chinese proverb: women hold up half the sky.) Kristof and and Wundunn emphasize by example and in their talks that individual action can turn the tide.

That was true in the 1800s when Thomas Clarkson, a student at Cambridge University first became outraged by slavery while researching his answer for a University essay contest asking the question:"is it lawful to make slaves of others against their will"?. the fact that this was controversial tells one a lot about the period.He won the contest and dedicated the rest of his life to abolitionism, publicizing the horrors of the "middle passage" and organizing the first ever consumer-goods boycott asking the British not to buy slave grown sugar. Clarkson recruited a young Tory William Wilberforce to bring successive abolitionist bills before Parliament succeeding finally in 1807. Clarkson was certainly an early hero of the Human Rights movement.

Edmund Burke presented the challenge two centuries ago,"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing"

"Half the Sky" has an extensive appendix listing organizations fighting slavery that deserve support. Among them:

Equality Now: www.equalitynow.org

Shared hope International: www.sharedhopeinternational.org

Anti-slavery international: www.antislavery.org (founded in 1839 it is the oldest human rights organization)

Free the slaves: www.freetheslaves.net

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld,International Humanist Ethical Union representative to the UN and daughter Temma Ehrenfeld

Back to Top

Articles from the UN
by Phyllis Ehrenfeld and Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld

Phyllis Ehrenfeld is the President of National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union and a Representative to the UN.
Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld is an International Humanist and Ethical Union Representative to the UN.

BIODIVERSITY AND THE UN

The United Nations is the only institution focused on advocacy for the total well being of humanity. Hence its emphasis on biodiversity--often neglected when countries and organizations consider their response to climate change. A seemingly infinite variety of living organisms, genetic diversity and ecosystems worldwide have produced the plenty that sustains human life, the water and soil that provides the food we eat and the air we breathe. Now life on earth faces an unprecedented challenge, as the world's climate grows steadily warmer. Never before in human history has the capacity of ecosystems been destroyed at the present rate--estimated at 1000 times the natural rate of loss.

The United Nations is promoting 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity. Protecting the variety of plants and animal species is nothing less than protecting the underpinning of life itself and is essential to human survival. In 1992 the United Nations formulated the Convention On Biological Diversity which has raised awareness and suggested practical steps some countries have initiated. The Convention has been ratified by 189 states. The United States is a tragic exception.

Changes in the landscape, river basins and oceans have already closed off survival options for many species. Pollution, the introduction of invasive species and over-harvesting of wild animals all reduce the likelihood of natural adaption to climate change. The rural poor are especially vulnerable to the resulting change in soils, availability of medicinal plants and fresh water.

At least 40 per cent of the world economy and 80 percent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological sources which require genetic diversity to sustain them. To understand the importance of variety in agriculture, consider the fact that nearly all potential crop pests are now controlled by a variety of other organisms and these natural pesticides are often superior to artificial equivalents, since pests often develop resistance to chemical controls.

Biodiversity is vital for medicine. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of people in the developing world rely on traditional medicines derived mainly from plants to treat malaria,stomach ulcers,syphilis and other diseases. Of the top 150 prescription drugs in the US, 118 are based on natural sources. Of these 74 percent come from plants. Microbes and animal species contribute to a range of medicines, including Penicillin and Anesthetics.

Climate change is not the only threat. The world's human population is growing fast as well, while natural resources shrink. Fish, for example, is our most important source of protein, yet, as fishing experts say, we, the people, are at war with fish--and we are winning. The number of species of fish, as well as the total population in our lakes and oceans steadily declines. This is but one instance of a "silent tsunami" of biodiversity loss.

The United Nations is building awareness of the extraordinary challenge to biodiversity through a variety of projects. May 22, 2010 will be "World Environment Day" focusing on Biodiversity for Development in agriculture . Research in land farmed by indigenous people has uncovered 47 local varieties of rice, some of which may be better able to survive climate change and feed people already feeling shortages. Another project, The Equator Prize, aims to use the cooperation and knowledge of rural people. It seeks out and honors standing community initiatives that reduce poverty through conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Its outreach is diverse, paying particular attention to youth and women.

In its efforts the United Nations strives to protect cultural diversity, such as Indigenous languages that also provide valuable knowledge about biodiversity. All religions share in a respect for the earth and its bounty. In Indonesia, when Buddhist priests consulted with environmental experts on deforestation, they explained their traditional way of saving trees by sanctifying the trees as priests, so local people would be forbidden to cut them down.

To those who see nature as sacred, loss of biodiversity is a spiritual devastation. It is a practical threat to the survival of all human beings.

Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld International Humanist Ethical Union representative to the UN, with the help of Phyllis Ehrenfeld before her untimely death.

Back to Top

RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA CONFERENCE 2009

Worldwide, the UN is tackling the divisive and explosive issues of racism and human rights. As expected, the April 2009 conference in Geneva became very turbulent because of a provocative Israel-bashing speech by Iranian President Ahmedinejad. His abusive language caused many delegates to walk out and precipitated an unprecedented rebuke by the UN’s habitually diplomatic Secretary General. As an additional attack, the speech came on Holocaust Memorial Day, April 20. All of this volatility created very poor press coverage which completely obscured the real purpose of the conference.

The original decision to boycott the conference by the US and other countries was taken because the 2009 Conference had approved the original document which some claimed equated Zionism with racism. This claim is inaccurate and deceptive. The original 2001 document had become confused in the public mind with the anti-Semitic statements of the NGO side conference. The official UN document completely rejected the sensational and hate-mongering statements. Thanks to the then High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson, with the help of the delegate from South Africa, a well reasoned and morally acceptable document was drafted, with a plan for action.

This document expressed deep concern about both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and omitted reference to Israel as a racist state. The document expressed concern with the plight of the Palestinians and supported their right for self-determination, the right of security for all states including Israel, asked that the Holocaust never be forgotten, and called for support of the Middle East peace process.

In the current official UN 2009 follow-up to the 2001 conference, a number of Islamic countries brought up an effort to make defamation of religion a breach of human rights. Such a declaration would be a very serious threat to the precious right of freedom of expression. They did not succeed. The final document did not include the proposed references to defamation of religion or identify Israel as a racist state. Instead it focused strongly on freedom of expression.

The positive tone of the document finally adopted was not at all reported in the mainstream press. The conference news disappeared rapidly from public attention.

The conference did have flaws. It did not adequately list the many situations of racism and human rights abuses worldwide, such as hostility and violence towards women, gays and the 250 million untouchables. Darfur was ignored in the final document.

There was discussion of the history of the terrible transatlantic slave trade, but it focused only on West African slaves shipped to the Americas and the Caribbean. There was no acknowledgement of the slave trade of North and East Africa across the Indian Ocean, involving mostly women. Westerners were not alone in the vice of the slave trade!

How best to respond to such serious divisions? The policy of a total boycott doesn’t seem to be valid or useful. Almost all of those delegates who walked out during President Ahmedinejad’s speech returned to work on drafting an ethical final document. In spite of the omissions, the final document was acceptable, though incomplete.

A more recent example of the possible benefits of participation is President Obama’s decision, unlike former President Bush, to seek a US seat on the Human Rights Council. The new and severely flawed council is a permanent body organized on geographic, regional, and totally political lines. Hopefully, the voice of the US will be heard speaking out on the most explosive, divisive and usually neglected issues on the world scene.

Back to Top

WORLD DAY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

Adam Smith,the guru of the freemarketers, had it right in 1759. In his first book,"The Theory of Moral Sentiments," he stated that 'prudence is a virtue for individuals', but "humanity, justice, generosity and public spirit are the qualities most useful to others." The extraordinarily timely World Day of Social Justice recently established by the UN builds on the same fundamental idea that economic success depends on the well being of people.

The followers of Adam Smith have ignored all these qualities. The market gurus who have distorted their prophet's message to claim that the market can heal all ills should have heeded what their prophet actually wrote. Adam Smith stressed the need for regulation of financial activities. Capitalism's success has increasingly come within the control of institutions that curtail its side effects and excesses, while providing the tools of a civilized society which exist outside the market system.

The global financial meltdown affecting the rich countries is even more drastically hurting the poorer countries.Each day millions of the marginally poor are falling into unemployment, food scarcity and poverty-- a global tsunami that politicians are warning could create political and social havoc both within and outside the borders of their countries. Any solution will require worldwide cooperation in a nexus of laws, business and trade. The present crisis has highlighted the inadequacy of the growth imperative and unregulated markets from the model of rational decision makers.

Many thinkers believe that this model of capitalism is bankrupt. Funny man Art Buchwald commented " An economist is a man who knows a hundred ways to make love, but doesn't know any women." Even Allen Greenspan, a free marketer, and former head of the Federal Reserve has admitted that he was wrong about deregulation. Billionaire Bill Gates, speaking at the Economic Summit at Darvos, stated that unfettered capitalism cannot solve broad social problems.

In the UN's World Day of Social Justice on Feb. 20, speakers proposed that an economic system needs to be just in order to function and to take into account the social and economic rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 22 to 27 spell out rights to water, sanitation, food, housing, education,---all outside the market driven model of economics.

Classical economics calls the negative effects of market activities "externalities" Attention to these crippling consequences are what is driving Bill gates, when he speaks of a kinder, "creative capitalism" that can create wealth through responding to these needs. Growth and prosperity should be judged by the well being of people.

In the last 20 years, in the US, family income has risen only very modestly, but income inequality has mushroomed into a gap greater than any since the twenties.In 1975 the top 1% earned 8% of all the income in the US. But by 2005, that top sliver of the population earned almost 20% of the total income in the country. The top 10% of the population collects 44% of total income and the top 20% collects a walloping 60%. Here in the US we are increasingly a top-heavy economy.

In the world's population in 1980, the median income of the richest 10% was 70 times that of the poorest 10%. But in 2000 the gap has widened to 122 times. It is no joke when we say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Prior to the present financial crisis there were already warnings that the observed trends in income inequality might not be sustainable. The grossness of the inequality gap and the environmental damage from the emphasis on growth has undermined the stability of the system. Inadequate wages for workers and their families are causing them to rely more on debt.

There are numerous reasons for growth of inequality--deregulation, the decline of unions, stagnation in the minimum wage,and growing emphasis on technology. President Obama's top economic advisor Lawrence Summer has described the trend of increasing inequality as if each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution was sending a $10,000 check every year to the top 1% of earners.

Nobel Prizewinner in economics Amartya Sen, has proposed that instead of measuring only the GDP (gross domestic product) as an indicator of a country's well being ,it should be measured by a persons capabilities--'what people are actually able to do and be'. One such measure,used by the UN , is the Human Development Index(HDI) which is a composite of income,longevity and education.

By this measure the US ranks eighth to Australia's third. Australia's annual income per head is $9000 less than America's income. Nevertheless it ranks higher because Australians are better educated and live longer. The essential message of the World Day of Social Justice is that we need a global economic system which shifts from a narrow preoccupation with markets to a broader perspective on the well being of people.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld, president of the National Ethical Service of the AEU & representative to the UN, Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU representative to the UN.

Back to Top

SIXTY YEARS OF CLAIMING RIGHTS

Sixty years ago ,in response to the horrors of World War 2, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This remarkable historic document declared "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".A first global statement. All persons should be treated with dignity simply because the person is human. It has inspired and energized human rights workers worldwide. It spurred the creation of the International Criminal Court,and inspired the creation of human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

The UDHR introduces two very important new features. First, it is universal. Some human rights ideas go back a long time as in 1740 BC when the Babylonian king Hammurabi codified his laws against unfair trials,torture and slavery. However his laws applied only to his own people. His enemies the Assyrians, fell outside his code's protection. They could be tortured and enslaved without compunction. Similarly , The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the US Bill of Rights guaranteed rights for the French, and eventually for all Americans.

The UDHR is revolutionary precisely because it is universal, and so takes precedence over every political ideology and parochial claim. It transcends national borders and spells out rights regardless of race, gender or class.

A second significant new feature is that the declaration encompasses both negative rights as well as positive rights. Negative rights are limits to what harms can be done to restrict an individual. For example freedom of speech,freedom from arbitrary detention and torture, free assembly, freedom of the press and a fair trial, as expressed in the US bill of rights. These are important civil and political rights.But-a big but -is the concept of positive rights,social and economic such as education, health care, food and housing, necessities because they are required for the dignity of every human being.This concept articulates a serious responsibility of governments toward its population.

In the discussions leading to the formulation of UDHR,the Soviet Union objected to the civil and political rights,the US government did not support the social and economic rights. Saudi Arabia objected to equal rights of men and women in marriage, and also freedom of religion. Southern senators in the US, shared with South Africa, unhappiness with civil rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt led the commission of Human Rights in the formulation of the UDHR. Under her brilliant guidance and the difficult discussions, especially with the Soviet Union,she managed to craft an historic document. For example she convinced the US State Department to support the social and economic sections by reminding them of her husbands 1941 state of the union address stressing both freedom from fear and the freedom of want. Together they form an organic unity.

It is remarkable that in 1948 while these discussions were taking place the world was experiencing major changes. The Soviet Union consolidated its hold over Eastern Europe, the Middle East war erupted when the Arab armies invaded the fledgling State of Israel. In China the totalitarian Mao was on the verge of gaining power. In spite of all this the General Assembly passed the declaration with no negative votes and only 8 abstentions, the Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

These rights were later spelled out in greater detail in two International covenants one on Civil and Political Rights and one on Economic and Social Rights. Many countries have ratified them. Unfortunately the US has never ratified the Economic and Social covenant. Human rights are easier to endorse than to enforce.

The UDHR comes perennially under attack, as for example the justifications offered for torture in the US-a moral outrage. The most recent attack on the idea of universality comes from resurgent Islam. In Dec. 2007 the Organization of Islamic Conference, representing an important bloc of 56 Islamic states renewed their opposition to the universality of human rights focusing on the status of women and freedom of religion.

The new and potentially revolutionary feature of economic and social rights is one of the UN's major focuses in their manifold humanitarian activities in fighting poverty,hunger,disease, unclean water and poor sanitation. All these blights undermine civil and political freedoms. In Eleanor's words both types of rights go hand in hand and are required for dignity and the betterment of humanity.

The principles embodied in UDHR underlie the beliefs and concerns of humanists.They need constant and vigilant defense.

A basic pillar for ethics is empathy.The struggle for human rights is the ongoing effort to enlarge the circle of empathy.

Back to Top

DISARMAMENT, NON - PROLIFERATION AND THE UN

Since its founding, the UN has been trying to put the Nuclear genie back into the bottle.In 1946 it was the subject of the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly.

The number of nuclear warheads has decreased since the end of the Cold War. However,the combined stockpile remains at a very high level: more than 25,000. Of these,more than 10,000 are considered operational and ready for use on short notice.

The situation is becoming increasingly dangerous.More nations are showing an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons technology. Today the gravest threat comes from the possibility of terrorists acquiring this nuclear capability. A further concern is the possibility that unstable or failed states can become nuclear.

Why do states want the bomb? One reason is prestige and the belief that it enhances their security.This deterrent effect is questionable. Even the greatest nuclear powers have actually lost wars against weak adversaries without being able to extract the slightest advantage from their colossal arsenals. Think of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam.

An important step towards the UN's goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which entered into force in 1970. It provides that the non nuclear states agree to forgo developing or obtaining nuclear weapons. Further, it is very important to note, the nuclear weapon states are committed to pursuing general and complete disarmament. The non nuclear states in return receive help in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Most states have signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Only India, Pakistan and Israel have never signed the NPT.

NPT has had a certain amount of success.For example, the apartheid government in South Africa ,on the eve to majority rule in 1993, announced it had destroyed its six secret nuclear weapons. Similarly, civilian governments in Brazil and Argentina in the 1980's stopped nuclear weapons research the military juntas had started. Also, we now know that UN inspection and dismantling programs ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program in 1991. In 2000, Libya became the most recent nation to abandon a secret program. Such progress may not last. The nuclear power states have not seriously honored their commitment under the NPT treaty to move towards disarmament.

As one UN report remarks,"non nuclear proliferation is not helped by the fact that the nuclear weapon states continue to insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security,while in the hands of others they are a threat to world peace."

Can civil society and a peoples movement help? The American Hydrogen Bomb Test on the Bikini atoll in 1954 made the world acutely aware of radioactive fallout. This was the beginning of a world wide test-ban movement started by a handful of London housewives-marches and demonstrations all over the world. The protests resulted in the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which bans any nuclear explosion in the atmosphere, in outer space or underwater. Nations voluntarily agreed to stop testing even underground. More recently North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in in 2006. A comprehensive treaty to include underground testing has not been signed by the US but has so far not tested underground.This may change , since the US stockpile is aging and some in the military want to modernize and may be tempted to resume testing.

Other disarmament victories for people power are the public campaigns to outlaw land mines and the use of anti-personnel cluster munitions.

There is some hope for a further and significant reduction in nuclear weapons. There is a window of opportunity. In January 2007,the Wall Street Journal published an article by George Shultz, Perry and Kissinger, lapsed cold warriors, outlining the need and vision towards zero nukes.US policy depending on nukes is totally outdated - a heritage of the long gone cold war and presently dangerous.In 2008 they reiterated their concerns and outlined detailed steps to be taken.They also urged signing the comprehensive test ban treaty. In October 2007 the Stanford Hoover Institute , a very conservative think tank, convened a conference with many veterans of the past six administrations.They found support from most secretaries of State and Defense as well as national security advisors for the Schultz and Kissinger vision of the importance of a world free of nuclear weapons and discussed the needed steps.

President-elect Obama has also proposed signing the comprehensive test ban treaty as well setting a goal of moving towards the elimination of nuclear weapons to lessen the threat of nuclear terrorism. When even conservatives, liberals and many leaders in the security field agree, there is a real window of opportunity for a change in policy.

Albert Einstein, fearing world war 3 foresaw the dangers of nuclear weapons. "I do not know what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

Phyllis Ehrenfeld, president of the National Ethical Service of the AEU & representative to the UN, Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU representative to the UN

Back to Top

WORLD MENTAL HEALTH DAY 2008

In its commitment to human rights and the dignity of the person, the United Nations has focused on the underserved needs for mental health. The message of October 10, Mental Health Day has made it clear that mental disorders are truly universal. Mental and behavioral disorders are found in all regions, all countries and all societies, among rich and poor, in both urban and rural areas.The overall prevalence is the same among men and women. The prevalence of the severe mental disorders, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is also the same. But depression is more common among women, and substance abuse disorder is more common among men.

Rare is the family that is free from an encounter with mental disorders .One out of four people around the world , about 1.7 billion,experience some kind of passing mental illness in their lifetime. In fact, one in four families is likely to have at least one member with a behavioral or mental disorder. 12% of the world's population, about 800 million people, have a mental disorder. These numbers are staggering. Such illnesses create a particularly heavy burden on individuals, families, and communities.

The UN is concerned about the disparities in resources available for treatment and care. The mentally ill are some of the most neglected people in the world. In many communities mental illness is not considered a real medical condition but viewed as a weakness of character, or as punishment for immoral behavior. Victim blaming!

More than 75% of people suffering from mental disorders in the developing world receive no treatment or care.

The UN message states:" Health care systems around the world face enormous challenges in delivering and protecting the human rights of people with severe disorders."

Scaling up services should be a priority. The extra cost is modest. A study conducted by WHO revealed that in low-income countries the scaling up for 3 disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and for the risk factor, hazardous alcohol use, requires an additional investment of $0.20 per person per year.

In the past, in some societies sufferers have been given high social status in the belief they could mediate with gods and the dead. In medieval Europe and elsewhere, these ill people have been burned at the stake. They have been locked into large mental institutions where they have been often beaten or abused.

Significant progress in psychopharmacology, the neuroleptic drugs and anti- depressants have helped. But even in the U.S., society has a long way to go to achieve basic human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, half of the prison population, somewhat over one million, have a mental health problem. Many, if not most, are not receiving needed services.

New approaches put forth in a recent UN report highlight the need for changing attitudes--replacing psychiatric institutions with community care and increasing investment in mental health research and care. WHO provides support to countries in developing mental health laws. It also provides assistance through technical information, regional and national training workshops. In this area the UN is guided by three principles. The first is that there should be no discrimination simply on the grounds of mental illness. Decisions should be job related. Another is that as far as possible, every patient has the right to be treated and cared for in their own community. A third is that treatment should be humane.

Many organizations are working to help. The World Federation For Mental Health (www.wfmh.org) is a good source for information and suggestions for action. The dignity of every person is one of the credos of ethical humanism. Mental health is central to human dignity.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President National Ethical Service of the American Ethical Union and NES Representative to the UN. Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the UN.

Back to Top

THE US AND THE UN: AN EVOLVING STORY

Dag Hammarskjold, the UN's second Secretary-General said it bluntly."The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell." Realism tells us that the UN is a mirror of the world, which reflects divisions and disagreements as well as hopes and altruistic goals. In the new century it is becoming ever more obvious that no nation can solve--or even escape from the interconnecting complex of world problems alone No matter how wealthy or how powerful, no nation can build a safer, better world, alone.

Global challenges require global solutions. The UN is the only universal institution formed to deal with these problems. Sometimes the failures of its powerful member states are blamed on the UN. A notable example: American officials blamed the UN for not preventing the genocide in Rwanda, despite the fact that Washington, in the person of Madeleine Albright at the behest of then President Clinton, blocked the Security Council from taking action. The previous Secretary General known in the UN as the SG, has joked that the letters stood for scapegoat.

What do Americans think of the UN? From May 2000, to Feb 2002, both before and after 9/11, the UN received some its best ratings from the American people, with a majority consistently applauding its efforts. When the UN rebuffed the US request for authorization for use of military force in Iraq, American views polled in Feb.2008, had turned sharply negative, down to a "good" rating of only 27%. This low was augmented by bad publicity in the media and misrepresentation of the Oil For Food Program.

Despite significant image problems, the UN still continued to earn Americans' support as a major policy making body. 68% of Americans still wanted the UN to pay a major or leading role in world affairs.The UN is generally still viewed favorably for its humanitarian work, efforts to reduce poverty, help for refugees who are victims of natural disasters or political strife, for its mammoth food aid programs, and its impressive work in fighting the spread of disease.

Some disappointments have continued over time., particularly the failure to halt the genocide in Darfur, the attempt to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, and the UN's limited ability to stop human rights abuses.

However a newer poll in July 2008 shows a significant improvement in the UN's image. There is now overwhelming concern about America's standing in the world, as well as America's failure to work through international institutions. 79% of Americans think that strengthening the UN should be a priority of US foreign policy. Sizeable majorities think the US should participate in a new international climate change treaty, and the International Criminal Court.

80% of voters have abandoned the "go-it-alone philosophy and believe that working together with major allies and cooperating with international organizations is a wiser strategy for achieving US goals in international affairs. Americans now are beginning to realize that international involvement is essential both in meeting the challenging humanitarian needs and the even more difficult political arena, as well as the pressing issues of energy sources and climate change.

The UN is sometimes the only practical means of response to US needs. As an obvious example, the international framework for the global battle against terrorism was arrived at in a binding Security Council resolution after the 9/11 attack. Without this cooperation and legal authority, Washington would have been forced to negotiate and ratify separate treaties with 191 countries, taking many years for a barely possible task.

Through its specialized separate agencies, the UN has alerted the world about epidemics such as the SARS virus,and the possible pandemic of avian flu. The UN organized research on climate change has brought this issue to US national attention,. Here as elsewhere, the public understands that the US cannot go it alone.

The UN's agencies have great expertise in delivering humanitarian aid quickly in both natural disasters and man-made emergencies arising from wars. The US contribution to humanitarian assistance is helped immeasurably by working through the UN. The change in US attitudes should lead to a change in action. We urge that the new administration reflect the growing wish of the American public. As a first step, the US should honor its commitment and pay off its one billion dollar debt to the UN.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld, President of the National Ethical Service of the AEU, and NES Representative to the UN Dr Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the UN

Back to Top

At the start of the new century world leaders and representatives of 189 countries gathered in a summit meeting at the UN. Their purpose, springing from a global consciousness, was to make commitments to help promote the well being of the entire world. They decided on eight goals, to be reached by 2015, planning them to be achievable, affordable, and measurable. From an ethical perspective, it was a dramatic event and a revolutionary commitment to reduce extreme poverty, increase primary education, reduce child mortality and disease, and promote maternal health..They also committed themselves to providing the basic minimum for civilized living, sanitation and clean water. These goals can be monitored, have mobilized actions by governments, who can be accountable and held to their word. Three of the goals focused on health, specifically on the health of the world's poorest people.

Statistics from the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States provide valuable information on the importance of public health measures Data from England, Wales and Sweden tell us that in 1700 the average male lived just 27 to 30 years. Yet by 1971 male life expectancy had reached 75 years, More than half of that achievement had occurred before 1900. Most of the decline in death from infectious diseases occurred prior to the age of antibiotics. The great improvement came earlier from public health measures providing sanitation and clean water.

In rich countries people have the illnesses of advanced societies, cardiovascular disease and cancer, where medical intervention is very important. In poor countries people die mostly from infectious and respiratory diseases. Modern medical care is obviously important and much needed, but especially in poor countries, it must be combined with public health measures.

Popular wisdom has always held that the health of a population automatically improves as a result of economic growth. Is prosperity the creator of health? Or does health promote prosperity? Research has shown that economic development, most particularly in poor countries, depends very much on the general health of the population. Health can be the horse that pulls the cart--not as has been previously supposed,only a consequence, but also a cause. Thinking in concrete terms it becomes more obvious-- the prevalence of disease and disability, early death damages family life, hurts community life, and inevitably makes a country less productive and poorer.

The link between health status and social well being was recognized by the German leader, Otto von Bismarck in 1883 when he enacted the first national health insurance program. Recently there has been a welcome and unprecedented increase in financial support for health care in developing countries. Between 1997 and 2002, the amounts donated ranged from 6 to 8 billion from the Gates Foundation and the Global Fund for Malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS.

The vast majority of the funds has been allocated to specific disease projects, not the less glamorous improvements needed for population health. Little or no funding is designated for preventive measures, primary care services, the all important training of local community workers to perform some of the simple tasks which have been shown to have enormous success. Malaria is a great 
killer of African children. Yet this disease is preventable and entirely treatable if treatment is given early. Highly effective medicines, notably the Chinese herbal extract of artemisinin, can cure the disease if given within the first few hours of fever.It is effective , cheap and can be given by anyone.

Rushing children to a hospital far away , often over difficult or barely existing roads is a recipe for more disease, not cure. Research coordinated by WHO has demonstrated that pneumonia, the number one killer of young children, can be treated in homes as well as in hospitals, perhaps even more safely, as in the hospitals they can be exposed to other infections.

Another example of an extremely cheap and simple method to reduce the horrifying childhood death rates for diarrhea.is oral rehydration therapy-- clean water with a mix of sodium and glucose-- a treatment that any mother can be taught to give. Many lifesaving interventions of simple, safe, inexpensive and highly effective treatments are not available. 10 million young children and pregnant women continue to die for lack of access to these simple treatments.More than 1 billion people suffer from disabilities caused by neglected tropical diseases which have simple low cost solutions. These are extremely disturbing facts. In the words of Aldous Huxley," facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

The World Health Organization is promoting the revitalization of primary health care in communities. A separate campaign to strengthen primary health care around the world is named "15 by 2015." They are requesting donor organizations to allocate 15% of their disease-specific funding towards sustainable comprehensive primary health care, accessible and affordable to everyone.(www.15by2015.org). Because of escalating costs everywhere and a tremendous shortage of trained health workers, the importance of prevention and primary health care continues to grow.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld, President of the National Ethical Service of the AEU & NES Representative to the UN. Dr Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the UN.

Back to Top

PEACEKEEPING AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT(ICC)

Crimes against humanity continue. World opinion is less willing to tolerate these atrocities. Peacekeeping and the ICC are a first line of defense in the struggle against conflicts and impunity. This is evidenced by the rise in the use of UN peacekeepers and the development of limited time war tribunals and the more vigorous activities of the ICC, thankfully now a permanent institution determined to pursue and prosecute criminals.

This intensifying consciousness promotes the mission of the UN to further international peace and security. Because of the cold war, in the first 40 years in the UN's history, only 13 peacekeeping operations were organized. In the 20 years since then 47 missions were developed. Over the past few years the demand for peacekeeping operations has greatly increased in part because of a greater willingness to use them.

Today there are more than 110,000 men and women --there is an increasing use of women--deployed in conflict zones.They come from nearly 120 countries, representing a sevenfold increase in UN peacekeeping since 1999.

The UN does not have its own military force and depends on contributions from member states. The UN's Security Council creates and defines the details and clear rules of engagement of the peacekeeping missions. Peacekeeping troops, popularly known as blue helmets, participate under terms carefully negotiated by their governments and remain under overall authority of these governments, while serving under UN operational command. The authority to deploy peacekeepers remains with the governments that volunteered them, as does the responsibility for pay, discipline and personnel matters.

In May 2008, a wreath-laying ceremony at UN headquarters in New York honored the more than 2400 peacekeepers who have given their lives in the cause of peace over the past 60 years. The number of peacekeepers recently killed in the Sudan testifies to the deadliness of the task. Studies show that generally as peacekeeping operations increase, casualties drop. The Rand Corporation has examined eight completed peacekeeping missions and concluded that two-thirds of them were successful.

Recently, there have been allegations of abuse and sexual scandals among peacekeepers in the Congo and elsewhere. The UN is very concerned but is caught in a legal and administrative bind. It can and does investigate but has no jurisdiction over the alleged culprits. Only their home states have the authority to try and punish them. Some countries prefer to ignore these events. The UN can dismiss those involved and recommend their return. An entire Moroccan troop was suspended for discipline reasons. A police contingent in the Congo was sent home for conduct violations.

The UN has strengthened its procedures. A recently adopted Model Memorandum of Understanding (MMU) requires governments to explicitly agree to strengthen legal proceedings, and training of troops before sending them into the field. This new arrangement was applied to alleged abuses by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti. Over 100 soldiers now face courts martial.

The world's response to atrocities is changing. A further sign of this burgeoning mood is the recent confidence, independence and renewed vigor of the ICC and other tribunals to pursue accountability and impunity of criminal genocidal behavior. Witness the possible indictment of Sudanese president Bashir. This unprecedented move raises the moral dilemma of PEACE versus JUSTICE. Will it make peace efforts more difficult and jeopardize humanitarian efforts or will it bring pressure for accommodation? It remains to be seen.

A most wanted war criminal, Karadzic, former Bosnian Serb president was recently arrested after a 13 year hunt for war crimes in Srebrenica. The cause-- Serbia's wish to join the European Union, who demanded his arrest.

The time is coming when a country's leaders can no longer commit atrocities against their population and then peacefully retire in Switzerland.

With the aid of improved communications world opinion knows more about these abuses and are less willing to accept them. The rise in consciousness, in spite of the many political conflicts among nations, is a very exciting and welcome development. From an ethical standpoint, whatever we can do to contribute to this consciousness, is a keystone of our effort.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President of the National Ethical Service of the AEU & NES Representative to the UN. Dr Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the AEU

Back to Top

Other Articles from the UN

Read PDF document here

Read PDF document here

Read PDF document here.

Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, At New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, “A New Course in the World, a New Approach at the UN,” August 12, 2009

Thank you, Bruce, for that incredibly kind introduction. I don’t think it gets any nicer than that, so I am very grateful. I am also very grateful to Lynne Brown for all her work to pull this event together and to Bruce and Vera Jelinek for their warm welcome here at NYU. And I’m also pleased to see so many friends and colleagues here in the audience, including the distinguished former President of NYU, Congressman John Brademas.

I’m frankly delighted to be at this marvelous institution, because NYU, despite what Vera says, reaches today far beyond New York City. Yours is truly a global institution, with campuses from Accra to Abu Dhabi. NYU’s Centers for Global Affairs and International Cooperation are doing pioneering work in international relations, which is a tribute to the cutting-edge scholarship of its faculty, staff, and students, under the able leadership of Bruce and Vera. These Centers, as many of you well know, are major contributors to the intellectual life of the United Nations.

Your innovative contributions are especially valuable at the start of this new century, at a time when the world is morphing by the minute. As you and others in the academy seek more certain paths across a rapidly shifting global landscape, we too in the U.S. Government are reshaping and renewing American leadership for a very different era.

Six months into the new Administration, as we look ahead to the opening of the 64th General Assembly next month, many of my colleagues on the President’s national security team have been outlining how their departments and organizations are implementing the President’s national security strategy. Secretary of State Clinton recently explained the ways that our diplomacy furthers U.S. interests by building new partnerships, promoting universally held values, and reinforcing the power of our example. Secretary of Defense Gates is reorienting our armed forces for the unconventional, irregular conflicts of the 21st century.

Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano recently highlighted the local, state, federal and international partnerships that we need to keep America secure from catastrophic terrorism. John Brennan, the President’s principal advisor on counterterrorism, just last week detailed our new approach to safeguarding the American people from the evolving threat of al-Qaeda and other violent extremists. And General Jones, the President’s National Security Advisor, explained how the Administration will tackle transnational challenges through a newly integrated National Security Staff at the White House.

And today, as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, I’d like to offer some thoughts about how the United States is changing the course it charts in the world—and how, consistent with our new direction, we are rather dramatically changing our approach to the United Nations.

That change is essential because we face an extraordinary array of global challenges: poorly guarded nuclear weapons and material, a global financial meltdown, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and North Korea building their nuclear weapons capabilities, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, genocide and mass atrocities, cyber attacks on our digital infrastructure, international crime and drug trafficking, pandemics, and a climate that is warming by the day. These are transnational security threats that cross national borders as freely as a storm. By definition, they cannot be tackled by any one country alone.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has acted internationally on the basis of three core premises. First, the global challenges we face cannot be met without U.S. leadership. But second, while U.S. leadership is necessary, it’s rarely sufficient. We need the effective cooperation of a broad range of friends and partners. And third, others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes, corrects course when necessary, forges strategies in partnership and treats others with respect.

The reach, scale, and complexity of these 21st-century security challenges put unprecedented demands on states and the entire infrastructure of international cooperation that we helped to build after 1945. If ever there were a time for effective multilateral cooperation in pursuit of U.S. interests and a shared future of greater peace and prosperity, it is now. We stand at a true crossroads. We must move urgently to reinvigorate the basis for common action. The bedrock of that cooperation must be a community of states committed to solving collective problems and capable of meeting the responsibilities of effective sovereignty.

A fundamental imperative of U.S. national security in the 21st century is thus clear: we need to maximize the number of states with both the capacity and the will to tackle this new generation of transnational challenges. We need a modern edifice of cooperation, built upon the foundation of responsible American leadership, with the bricks of state capacity and the beams of political will.

Let me elaborate a little bit more on the bedrock issues of state capacity and state will.

The United States needs to grow the ranks of capable, democratic states—states that can deliver both on their international responsibilities and their domestic responsibilities to their own people. Capable states control their territory, govern justly, provide security and essential services, protect their citizens’ rights, and offer their people hope for a better future. When a country cannot—or will not—perform these core functions, when a nation is wracked by war, when a state becomes a shell, its people suffer immediately. But over the longer term, a fragile state can also incubate global trouble that can spread far beyond its borders. And that is where the transnational threats of the 21st century too often begin.

In the past, many dismissed poverty, hunger, and despair in faraway countries as other people’s problems, preferring to focus on the supposedly “hard” questions of war and power. But in a globalized age, the troubles that ravage fragile states can ultimately menace sturdy ones.

Standing aside while the world’s most vulnerable endure conflict, disease, and despair is surely a breach of our common humanity. But it is also a threat to our common security.

Our values compel us to reduce poverty, disease, and hunger, to end preventable deaths of mothers and children, and to build self-sufficiency in agriculture, health, and education. But so too does our national interest. Whether the peril is terrorism, pandemics, narcotics, human trafficking, or civil strife, a state so weak that it incubates a threat is also a state too weak to contain a threat.

In the 21st century, therefore we can have no doubt: as President Obama has said time and again, America’s security and wellbeing are inextricably linked to those of people everywhere.

Building the capacity of fragile states is a major part of our work every day at the United Nations, since it is the UN that is leading the charge in many of the toughest corners of the world. At its best, the UN helps rebuild shattered societies, lay the foundations of democracy and development, and establish conditions in which people can live in dignity and mutual respect. I have seen first-hand how the UN delivers—in Haiti, where peacekeepers flushed out deadly gangs from the notorious Cité Soleil slum and now are training a reformed Haitian police force. I have seen it in Liberia, where the UN Development Program supports impressive efforts to teach literacy, computer skills, and trade skills to jobless ex-combatants. I have seen it in Congo, where the UN has made it possible to hold the first democratic elections in that country’s history.

It is not enough though simply to build up the corps of capable, democratic states. We need states with both the capacity and the will to tackle common challenges. As we have been reminded in recent years, we cannot take that will for granted, even among our closest allies. The simple reality is this: if we want others to help combat the threats that concern us most, then we must help others combat the challenges that threaten them most. For many nations, those threats are first and foremost the things that afflict human beings in their daily lives: corruption, repression, conflict, hunger, poverty, disease, and a lack of education and opportunity.

When the United States joins others to confront these challenges, it’s not charity. It’s not even barter. In today’s world, more than ever, America’s interests and our values converge. What is good for others is often good for us. When we manifest our commitment to tackling the threats that menace so many other nations; when we invest in protecting the lives of others; and when we recognize that national security is no longer a zero-sum game, then we increase other countries’ will to cooperate on the issues most vital to us.

We build that will by demonstrating responsible leadership. We build will by setting a tone of decency and mutual respect rather than condescension and contempt. We build will by abiding by the rules we expect others to follow. We build will by pursuing pragmatic, principled policies and explain them with intelligence and candor. And in the broadest sense, we build will when others can see their future as aligned with ours.

All of this helps explain why so many of America’s security interests come together today at the United Nations. Day in and day out, my colleagues and I at the U.S. Mission to the UN are working to build the will of countries to cooperate and to strengthen their means to act. We are actually on the front lines of what President Obama calls “a new era of engagement.”

And that is why, I have to confess, it is actually a great time to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Everyone notices when a superpower becomes an agent of change—in word and deed, in policy and tone. We are demonstrating that the United States is willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas.

In both the Security Council and the General Assembly, we seek to forge common purpose with other nations. But the fact is: we cannot and will not always agree. Some things are not negotiable. We will always choose to stand firmly on principle rather than fade like cowards into a crowd.

And we have no illusions. A serious gap still separates the vision of the UN’s founders from the institution of today. The Security Council is less driven than it was in the coldest days of the Cold War, but it still stumbles when interests and values diverge, as they do over such issues as Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Burma. In the General Assembly, member states still often let political theater distract from real deliberation and decision. Israel is still unfairly singled out. And the UN system still must confront waste and abuse even as it struggles to meet daunting new responsibilities for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and development.

As President Obama has said, the UN is imperfect; but it is also indispensable. There can be no substitute for the legitimacy the UN can impart or its potential to mobilize the widest possible coalitions. There is no better alternative to sharing the costs and burdens of UN peace operations and humanitarian missions around the world. There is no doubt that we are more secure when the UN can foster nonproliferation and promote disarmament. It is we, along with others, who gain when the UN spurs sustainable development and democracy, improves global health, upholds women’s rights, and broadens access to education. And we reap the benefits when the UN sets little-known global standards that enable our cell phones to work properly and our airplanes to fly more safely.

In short, the UN is essential to our efforts to galvanize concerted actions that make Americans safer and more secure.

Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear: We value the UN as a vehicle for advancing U.S. policies and universal rights. We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand strong in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions. We meet our responsibilities. We pay our bills. We push for real reform. And we remember that, in an interconnected world, what’s good for others is often good for the United States as well.

Let me share with you six ways that we are putting these principles into practice every day.

First, we work at the UN to promote America’s core security interests. Consider North Korea. We recently negotiated a unanimous Security Council resolution imposing the toughest array of sanctions on any country in the world today—including new asset freezes, sweeping financial sanctions, a complete embargo on arms exports, and an unprecedented set of obligations for the inspection of suspect vessels. These sanctions are aimed at pressing North Korea to fulfill its commitments and at achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

We also continue to work in the Security Council to ensure that Iran meets its international obligations.

In both cases, our efforts are advancing one of President Obama’s top priorities: nuclear nonproliferation. Through the UN’s Conference on Disarmament, the U.S. is seeking a new treaty to verifiably end the production of fissile materials. We can thereby reduce the chance that al-Qaeda or another terrorist group could lay hands on nuclear weapons or their deadly material. We’re aiming to achieve a successful NPT Review Conference next year. And this year, next month, on September 24, during the U.S. Presidency of the Security Council, President Obama will chair a rare summit meeting of the Council to create a new momentum toward nonproliferation, nuclear security and disarmament.

The UN is also playing vital roles in two countries at the top of our national security agenda where American troops are in harm’s way. In Iraq, the UN is providing expert advice on elections, mediating the longstanding internal boundary disputes between Arabs and Kurds, and assisting Iraqi citizens displaced by war.

In Afghanistan, the UN is helping to promote political development, coordinate donor assistance, support the August 20 elections, and build the capabilities of the Afghan state. All of this buttresses our comprehensive, new international strategy for Afghanistan.

And elsewhere, the UN strengthens America’s security by preventing the smoldering embers of conflict from blazing back to life. For 60 years, the UN has played a crucial role in ending violent conflicts in such places as Korea, Namibia, Mozambique, Guatemala, Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Haiti, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Where people are suffering—where conflict is enduring—where hope is fleeting—that is where you will find the United Nations.

Second, we participate constructively. Rather than throw up our hands, we roll up our sleeves to get things done.

Consider the UN Human Rights Council. Through three election cycles, the United States refused to seek a seat, dismissing the Council as flawed and anti-Israel—which obviously it is. But what did this approach achieve? Dictators were not called to account for their records of repression; abused citizens did not have their voices heard; obsessive, unproductive Israel-bashing raged on.

So in May, we changed course and we won a seat on the Human Rights Council with 90 percent of the votes cast. We join this body well aware that, in many ways, the Human Rights Council is the poster child for what ails the UN. But sitting on the outside will not stop the posturing in Geneva nor defend those bleeding under the boot of despots.

Real change does not come from sitting on the sidelines. Real change can only come through painstaking, principled diplomacy. So we will work hard to reduce customary divisions. We will demand fair treatment for Israel. We will amplify the voices of those suffering under the world’s cruelest regimes. And we will lead by example through our actions at home and our support for those risking their lives for democracy and human rights abroad.

It will not be easy. It will not be quick. But let’s remember the words of a former university president who once said, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” Well, if you think engagement is imperfect, try isolation.

Third, we stand firm on principle and resolute on the issues that matter most—but we are resisting indulging in petty battles. In the past, we have sometimes let ourselves be defined by what we stand against, not what we stand for. Well no more. Over the past six months, the United States has taken a fresh look at our positions across the board—including some policies that left us and others scratching their heads to understand what we objected to—policies that failed to advance our interests or our values.

And that’s why we have taken concrete steps in a new direction. We have changed course, embracing as our own the Millennium Development Goals, which the United States once shunned. We rescinded the Mexico City policy that barred U.S. assistance to programs that support family planning and reproductive health services. We stopped withholding U.S. contributions to the UN Population Fund. We signed the first new human rights convention of the 21st century, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We reversed course to back a General Assembly resolution, excuse me, statement opposing violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. We no longer oppose mentions of reproductive health or the International Criminal Court. We no longer balk at every reference to the “right to food” or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And we’re forging a new path on climate change commensurate with our global responsibilities.

These steps contribute to a world that is more prosperous, more peaceful, and more aligned with the universal values that this nation was founded upon. Through word and deed, the United States is showing that we are ready to lead once more.

Fourth, we seek constructive working relations with countries large and small. While we pursue more effective cooperation among the Security Council’s five permanent members, we are also mindful of the fact that the Council has not just five members but 15, and that the UN has 192 in total. All of them vote in the General Assembly, and more than half of the UN’s membership consists of small states with populations of less than 10 million people.

So we’re reaching out not just to "the Permanent Five" and to our Western partners but to nations of all sizes in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands—and to the dozens of Muslim-majority countries, many of whose Ambassadors gathered at my residence to watch President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo.

We will work with the vast majority of countries on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect and we will do so to bridge old divides, resisting the efforts of a handful to spoil shared progress. The rifts between North and South are almost as outdated as those between East and West. Yet there’s still a widespread perception at the UN that the North cares only about security, and the South cares only about development. But such truisms ignore a central truth: there can be no security without development; and there can be no sustained development without security. These old-school rifts belie today’s realities. Our fates are not opposed; they are intertwined.

And that makes engaging across the full UN membership much more than good manners. It’s also smart diplomacy. So we invest in relationships, because in diplomacy, as in life, it can make the difference.

Take the recent vote in Geneva about whether to end the Human Rights Council’s mandate for the Special Rapporteur on Sudan—the only international mechanism that looks at abuses countrywide. In June, the Human Rights Council voted to keep the independent expert for Sudan on the job—by just one vote.

Or take the recent coup in Honduras, where the United States was able to work with a broad range of Western Hemisphere nations in the General Assembly to give clear and constructive voice to global condemnation.

As President Obama has made clear, we did so for a simple reason: if the United States is to support democracy abroad, then we must respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders freely—whether they are leaders we agree with or not. That is how you live your values. That is how you lay the foundation for democratic growth that spreads peace and prosperity.

Fifth, we meet our obligations. As we call upon others to help reform and strengthen the UN, the United States must do its part—and pay its bills. Our dues to the United Nations are treaty obligations, and we are committed to working with Congress to pay them in full and on time.

Thanks to strong support from Congress, we are now able to clear U.S. arrears to the UN’s regular budget and to those on the peacekeeping budget, which accumulated between 2005 and 2008. And we will meet our 2009 peacekeeping obligations in full.

The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request, if fully funded by Congress, will keep us current on both our regular and peacekeeping accounts—and allow us to move toward ending the practice, started in the 1980s, of paying our bills to the UN and many other major international organizations nearly a year late. The United States cannot lead from a position of strength while we are awash in arrears. We cannot champion important UN missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and then turn around and oppose the budgets to fund them. So we will continue to work with Congress in a bipartisan spirit to meet our responsibilities.

And finally, we push for serious reform. All the world’s citizens deserve a UN that runs right. So we are working to strengthen the UN’s ability to deliver responsibly. It’s not enough that costs be contained and funds spent without corruption; each dollar must serve its intended purpose, be it for development or peacekeeping. The UN needs greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Central to our reform effort is our focus on the next generation of UN peacekeeping. UN missions have saved untold lives, averted numerous wars, and helped restore or establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries. But the system is under severe strain. More than 115,000 military, police, and civilian peacekeepers are now deployed in 15 operations around the world—often in areas where there is hardly any peace to keep.

So we need mission mandates that are more credible and achievable. We need peacekeeping operations to be planned expertly, deployed quickly, budgeted realistically, equipped seriously, led ably, and ended responsibly. And we need to strengthen the security sector and the rule of law in such places as Liberia and Haiti so that peacekeepers can return home certain that their missions are truly accomplished.

We will increase U.S. support to UN peacekeeping—including by being willing to contribute more U.S. military staff officers, military observers, civilian police, and other civilian personnel to UN missions and by refocusing the U.S. Global Peace Operations Initiative on helping partner countries train their own peacekeepers. We are encouraging others to do more as well.

At the same time, we aim to ensure the UN has the management culture and leadership it needs to succeed. Our priorities are greater transparency and accountability, stronger ethics and oversight mechanisms, and buttressing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s initiatives to overhaul the UN’s procurement and human resources practices.

Today’s United Nations is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise facing greater demands than ever in more places than ever. As in any organization, there is no substitute for first-rate leadership. Both at UN Headquarters and in the field, far-sighted, hard-driving, broad-minded UN officials can make all the difference in the world. We want to work with others to continue to identify, promote, and empower.

UN reform also means realizing the full potential of the majority of the world’s population: the world’s women. That’s why we are strengthening the UN instruments that advance the status of women. The current structures are often uncoordinated, inefficient, and ineffective. We are committed to a streamlined, empowered UN architecture to combat rape, sexual slavery, and discrimination and to secure universal rights, equality, and expanded opportunity for women. That will advance the cause of human rights, and it will advance security and prosperity as well.

I want to conclude by reinforcing a simple message: the United Nations is vital to our efforts to craft a better, safer world.

We have inherited a vast array of challenges. The world will no doubt hurl others at us. But we are not daunted. We are determined. We are advancing the vision, strategies, and programs that will renew America’s leadership, strengthen our security, uphold our values, deepen our prosperity, and reinforce the alliances and partnerships that multiply our strength.

There will continue to be setbacks and frustrations. There will be differences that remain intractable and predicaments that feel hopeless.

But we’ve seen the costs of disengaging. We have paid the price of stiff-arming the UN and spurning our international partners. The United States will lead in the 21st century—not with hubris, not by hectoring, but through patient diplomacy and a steadfast resolve to strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity.

Just six months ago, in his Inaugural Address, President Obama said: “To all other peoples and governments… from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend to each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.”

Just six months into the new Administration, we are putting those words into practice. One can see it in concerted international action to tackle the global financial crisis. We see it in warmer ties with our allies and in more productive relationships with Russia and China. We see it in a fresh U.S. determination to work for a world free of nuclear weapons and the peril of proliferation.

We see it in a transformed U.S. approach that supports Iraqi sovereignty as we responsibly redeploy all of our forces. We see it in a comprehensive new strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates and to deny them safe haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We see it in vigorous U.S. efforts to broker the two-state solution that Israelis need to live in peace and security and that Palestinians need to realize their legitimate rights and aspirations for statehood, dignity, and prosperity. We see it in the ongoing outreach by the United States to Muslims around the world, exemplified by President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo.

We see it in the early decision to close Guantanamo within a year, to prohibit “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and to make it plain that America does not torture. And we see it in vigorous efforts to tackle climate change, as we acknowledge both science and our own responsibilities for the environment we share.

Those changes are not just happening in Washington and in foreign capitals. They are happening here—at the imperfect yet indispensable institution where I am proud to represent our country. This is the work that my colleagues and I do, day in and day out.

We work with passion and resolve, because we know that the change that has come to America can also change the world. The time for action is now. The challenges we face are vast. But the opportunities are even greater. And we will seize them—because the United States is back.

Back to Top

Statement by the Delegation of the United States Delivered by Charge d’Affaires, a.i., Mark C. Storella. June 19, 2009

Charge d’Affaires, a.i., Mark C. Storella and Political Officer Mark Cassayre

"Mr. President, Madam High Commissioner, Distinguished Delegates,

First, Mr. President and other officers of the bureau, please accept the congratulations of the United States on your election. We look forward to working closely with you. We would also take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to Ambassador Martin Umohoibhi for the leadership he so consistently demonstrated during his tenure and the sense of decorum he brought to this hall. Sir, you have been a lion; you have inspired us; during tense times you have leavened our work with humor; and you have even kept the Council on schedule. We thank you.

The United States assumes its seat on the Council with gratitude, humility, and in the spirit of cooperation. President Obama recently underscored that spirit, stating: “There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.”

Mr. President, we hope that this spirit is something shared by all countries, and particularly those elected to serve on this Council. If we are to ensure that together we effectively address the pressing human rights concerns of our time, we must be dedicated to finding and pursuing constructive paths toward our shared goals.

When the United Nations was formed, it sent a powerful and historic message by placing human rights at the very core of its charter. To fully realize the charter’s aspirations, all member states must work to ensure that the United Nations offers a credible, balanced and effective forum for advancing human rights.

For our part, the United States hopes to reinforce the ability of this Council to speak with one voice about situations that are an affront to human dignity.

We will also be stalwart in our promotion of universality, transparency, and objectivity and we urge other members to dedicate themselves to these goals as well. We are mindful that adherence to these principles requires that all states be subject to review by this body, including our own.

Charge d’Affaires, a.i., Mark C. Storella and Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, newly elected President of UN Human Rights Council

The United States further commits to continuing to be a strong advocate for all people who suffer from abuse and oppression, and to be a tireless defender of courageous individuals across the globe who work, often at great personal risk, on behalf of the rights of others.

On this day in 1865, Union soldiers rode into Galveston, Texas to carry the news of the end of the U.S. Civil War and to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. With their arrival, word finally reached the frontiers of the United States that the war had ended, that slaves were free.

It is a day of celebration and solemn remembrance for Americans. We recognize that it has been a very long and difficult journey from 1865 to 2009; and that journey is not yet complete. However over the course of these years, the promotion and protection of human rights has become an ever-deepening fundamental value in American society. We look forward to sharing our national experience in pursuit of the enduring challenge of achieving these ideals, while also standing in solidarity with all those who promote the advance of human rights around the world.

Thank you, Mr. President."

Back to Top

1 April - The State Department announced yesterday that the United States would run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in elections scheduled for May 15, 2009. The decision marks a sharp break from the Bush administration’s relationship with the council, which was established in 2006 to replace the much-criticized Human Rights Commission. Under the Bush administration, the US was one of only four UN member states to vote against the council’s creation, joining Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. The Bush administration never ran for election to the council. Last year, it ended US participation as an observer.

In the State Department release, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice, explained that the US was seeking to join the council "because we believe that working from within, we can make the Council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights."

The release noted that the decision was "in keeping with the Obama Administration’s ‘new era of engagement’ with other nations" and that both Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the United States would work in partnership with other countries to improve the effectiveness of the council and the UN human rights system. The decision was praised by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, while the response from Congress was mixed. (…)

Members of the council serve three-year terms, with elections held every year for one-third of the council’s 47 seats. The US will run on an uncontested slate of candidates for the May 15 elections, ensuring a victory. Seats are apportioned based on the UN’s regional group system. The US is a member of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) and will run on a slate with Belgium and Norway for three open seats reserved for this region. New Zealand had announced its candidacy for one of the three WEOG seats, but withdrew yesterday after the State Department announced its decision to run.

Alan Averyt is UNA-USA’s advocacy coordinator, based in Washington, DC.

http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1221

Back to Top

Dear AMICC members, observers, supporters and alliance leaders,

We are pleased to send to you the excellent report of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) report of its Task Force on US Policy Toward the International Criminal Court. The Task Force, co-chaired by Judge Patricia M. Wald and former Department of State Legal Adviser William H. Taft IV, reached consensus and recommends specific steps to further positive US engagement with the Court. The recommendations of the Task Force include many of the policy actions AMICC and its members have been advocating, including formally reversing US hostility toward the ICC; examining areas where the US can cooperate with the Court; and US participation as an observer in the meetings of the Assembly of States Parties and the 2010 Review Conference. Full disclosure requires us to note that we are listed as experts consulted by the Task Force. The report is available on our website and at www.asil.org/icc-task-force.cfm.

There are several points in the report we would like to highlight. First, the report recommends “a stated policy of the U.S. Government’s intention, notwithstanding its letter of May 6, 2002 to the U.N. Secretary General, to support the object and purpose of the Rome Statute of the Court” (p. 17). It does not, however, call for the reactivation of the US signature to the Rome Statute which many of AMICC’s members are pushing for. The Task Force’s report rightly points out that the Bolton note relieved the US of its obligations as a Rome Statute signatory but did not “unsign” the Statute or otherwise eliminate the US signature (p. 29). When we asked the Task Force members about this at the presentation of the report at the ASIL Annual Meeting last week, William Taft explained the Task Force’s position that the US could reassume the obligations of a signatory by making a policy statement and that this does not require a formal note to the Secretary-General. We were pleased to learn that under Task Force’s recommendation the US would reassume signatory obligations, though we are concerned that it would not provide adequate notice of this renewed obligation to others through the Secretary-General as the depository of the Rome Statute or send a sufficiently clear signal that the US as it reengages will not undermine the object and purpose of the treaty.

Second, also regarding the status of the US signature of the Rome Statute, the report correctly states that “As a Signatory, the United States could assume its observer status within the Assembly of States Parties“ (p. xi). This is provided in Article 121 of the Rome Statute which also states that the right to participate as an observer can be based on signature of the Final Act in Rome. This applies without reference to signature of the Rome Statute itself. The effect of the US deactivating its signature and on its power to convey observer status is unclear.

Third, in several places in the report, the Task Force recommends that “The President should initiate an inter-agency policy review to reexamine whether, in light of the Court’s further performance and the outcome of the 2010 Review Conference, to recommend that the United States become a party to the Rome Statute with any appropriate provisos, understandings, and declarations similar to those adopted by other States Parties” (p. 23). Since ratification is still considered a long-term goal, this issue will not arise soon. However, it should be noted that any declarations that are interpreted by the ICC judges in the course of judicial proceedings to be reservations, and thus prohibited by the Rome Statute, will not be recognized. Accordingly, when the time for ratification comes, its supporters should not give Congress the impression that declarations or reservations would be effective in limiting the reach of the Court. Uruguay has already withdrawn a declaration following the objections of several countries that it was in fact a reservation (For more information, view this link under “Objections” and End Note 11).

Fourth, regarding complementarity, the Task Force recommends that “Congress should consider amendments to U.S. law to permit full domestic U.S. prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court so as to ensure the primacy of U.S. jurisdiction over the Court’s jurisdiction under the complementarity regime” (p. 40). This is a desirable and laudable goal and one which many of AMICC’s members likely support. We would note, however, that Article 17 of the Rome Statute and the Court’s early jurisprudence in the Lubanga case suggest that the ICC would recognize national proceedings that encompass that same persons and conduct. Thus, the ICC would not require a defendant to be charged with genocide by killing in a national case dealing with mass murder provided that the case dealt with the person charged by the ICC and the same alleged conduct of killing. Some ICC advocates are concerned that the failure to implement legislation on the ICC crimes could be used as an excuse to delay US ratification of the Rome Statute.

The ASIL Annual Meeting also convened a plenary meeting on “The United States and International Law During the Obama Administration: Executive and Legislative Perspectives” featuring the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter and Acting Legal Adviser Joan Donoghue as well as a former US Senator and a current congressional staffer. President Obama’s nominee for legal adviser, Harold Koh, was also present. In Ms. Donoghue’s presentation, she stated that the US had not yet decided on questions such as the status of the US signature of the Rome Statute and whether the US would engage on the Review Conference. During the question and answer period, we followed up on her statement by asking whether the ongoing inter-agency policy review on the ICC would deal with the status of the signature and the US participation in the Review Conference and we made the points that (1) a drawn-out review process will mean that the US will miss a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Review Conference preparations and (2) that the reactivation of the US signature would enhance US credibility as it reengages with the ICC. The acting legal adviser responded by noting that the ASIL Task Force had issued a very good report and that it the major points included it in are the issues that would be examined in the inter-agency policy review.

We hope that the Task Force’s report is useful to your in your advocacy. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues we raised or any other points in the report.

Best regards,

John Washburn, Convener jwashburn@unausa.org

Matthew Heaphy, Deputy Convener mheaphy@unausa.org

American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court www.amicc.org

Back to Top

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations is pushing the United States and Canada to drop their concerns about a conference on racism and take part in the meeting later this month, the U.N. human rights chief said Thursday.

Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she expected the United States to decide soon whether to take part, following a decision by President Barack Obama's administration to seek membership of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.

The South African judge said she also written to Canada's foreign minister Wednesday urging Ottawa to participate.

Pillay told a news conference she welcomed Obama's decision to seek a U.S. seat this year on the 47-member council, reversing a move by his predecessor George W. Bush when the body was set up three years ago to promote human rights.

"I see that in line with his immediate decision to close Guantanamo and that means to engage and advance human rights not only in the United States but all over the world," she said, referring to the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba where the United States holds foreign terrorism suspects.

The April 20-24 meeting in Geneva will review a racism conference held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, and discuss how to implement its conclusions.

The United States and Israel walked out of the Durban meeting in protest over efforts to pass a resolution comparing Zionism to racism, amid street marches targeting Jews.

The final declaration adopted by consensus by 189 countries did not include such references. It was hailed by Israel's then foreign minister Shimon Peres as a "very important achievement."

Council members Israel and Canada have both said they will not take part in the review meeting, known as Durban II, and the United States said in February, after attending some preparatory work, that it would stay away because it disagreed with language in the draft final document.

But after some European states threatened to walk away too, diplomats reworked the draft to remove references to Israel and to religious defamation -- an issue that Western countries fear could be used to restrict freedom of speech.

Pillay said the U.S. decision in February had been worded in a way that did not rule out possible participation.

"The statement carefully leaves it open for their re-engagement if clauses that they identify as contentious.. are out of the picture. Now those are out of the picture," she said.

"I expect them to make a decision soon."

The removal of the language on defamation or religion and Israel should also clear the way for Canada to take part, she said.

Pillay said she was particularly keen for Canada to be in the conference so that other countries could learn from its practices of dealing with indigenous peoples.

(Reporting by Jonathan Lynn; Editing by Stephanie Nebehay)

Back to Top

Dear AMICC members, alliances, observers and friends,

On March 4, 2009 Pre-Trial Chamber I issued an arrest warrant for Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan, on seven charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity. The charges in the warrant do not include genocide, although the Prosecutor had requested it, because the prosecution’s evidence failed to provide reasonable grounds to believe that the Government of Sudan acted with specific intent to destroy a group because of its identity. It is the first time that the ICC has issued a warrant for a sitting head of state. The Prosecutor alleged in his application of July 14, 2008 that President Al Bashir targeted and sought to destroy the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups in Darfur by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the groups’ destruction. The resulting attacks and massacres justified charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity even though the Court decided that the other elements necessary for the crime of genocide had not been established.

The war crimes and crimes against humanity charges contained in the arrest warrant include murder, extermination and rape. Some have already expressed disappointment that the crime of genocide was not included. This was a decision of the judges based on the evidence presented to them, not a judgment as to whether genocide occurred in Darfur. Proving that an individual is responsible for genocide is especially difficult because of the “intent” requirement: the Prosecutor has to produce evidence showing that the person intended to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic or other group because of its identity as such. While intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances, it is not enough to establish intent to prove that killings occurred and that the suspect was responsible for certain actions. The failure to charge genocide may also reflect that the evidence did not show a sufficient direct connection between President Bashir and the alleged crimes. It should be noted that the crimes charged in the arrest warrant are just as serious as genocide and the issuance of an arrest warrant means that the judges are satisfied that the Prosecutor has sufficient evidence to go to trial on them.

As you know, the case against President Bashir has already generated significant attention internationally and in the media. There will be much debate and discussion about this case in the near future, especially around dilemmas of peace and justice and whether the UN Security Council should suspend the case against President Bashir. The Obama Administration has already indicated and recently repeated that it supports the ICC case and would oppose a 12-month deferral by the Security Council. There may also be efforts to blame any violence hereafter against civilians or peacekeepers on the ICC action and to use the arrest warrant as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

This case will challenge the ICC and the international community. It is important to bear in mind that the ICC is an independent judicial institution which relies on its States Parties and the Security Council to enforce its decisions. It is difficult to predict what will happen next or whether Mr. Bashir will ever come before the Court. It is possible that the arrest warrant could weaken him politically and eventually lead to his arrest within Sudan or his expulsion to be arrested elsewhere. The Court could not hold a trial against Mr. Bashir in his absence, though it could formally indict him in a confirmation of charges hearing in his absence which would bring the evidence against him to light and preserve it.

For more information, read our fact sheet on the Bashir arrest warrant which is available at http://www.amicc.org/docs/Bashir_Warrant.pdf. Additional information, including the Pre-Trial Chamber’s 146-page decision, is available from the ICC’s website.

The Bashir case will likely provide new opportunities to explain the ICC and engage your communities about the work of the Court. We encourage you to reach out to Darfur or organizations concerned with atrocities or with particular aspects of them, such as crimes against women, as well as the media to discuss the ICC case. Please let us know if we can provide materials or how we can otherwise help your advocacy. You will also find updated information about the Bashir case on the AMICC website.

Best regards,

John Washburn, Convener
jwashburn@unausa.org
212-907-1317

Matthew Heaphy, Deputy Convener
mheaphy@unausa.org
212-907-1374

American Non-Governmental Organizations
Coalition for the International Criminal Court www.amicc.org

Back to Top

The Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the five UN regional commissions jointly published the annual World Economic Situation and Prospects 2009. It provides an overview of recent global economic performance, including a detailed analysis of the evolution of the global financial crisis, and short-term prospects for the world economy and serves as a point of reference for discussions on economic, social, and related issues taking place throughout the UN system during the year.

To read the complete 3.96MB PDF document, click the following link: http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2009files/wesp2009.pdf

Back to Top

By Christopher J. Tangney, UNA-USA

www.unausa.org

As the financial crisis unfolds and world leaders grapple with potentially more damaging results in the near and long-term future, presidents and prime ministers in the East and the West as well the United Nations are racing to set up summits and deal with escalating economic, social and humanitarian repercussions.

General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, for one, has established a high-level task force, calling it the G-192 to compete with the G-20 of industrialized nations, to review the global financial system. He will convene an interactive panel on the crisis tomorrow, Oct. 30, reflecting continuing UN efforts to cultivate an international consensus on how to protect the most vulnerable populations in the economic turmoil.

D'Escoto named several high-profile experts to the task force, including Joseph Stiglitz, an economics Nobel laureate, Columbia University professor and a former chief economist at the World Bank, to lead it. D'Escoto said that guidelines for the group's work would be announced after the panel discussion.

Stiglitz will speak on the panel with economists Prabhat Patnaik of India and Pedro Páez of Ecuador, sociologist François Houtart of Belgium, Calestous Juma of Kenya, professor of the practice of international development at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and Sakiko Fukuda-Parr of Japan, professor of international affairs at the New School University.

Member-state delegates are expected to discuss strategies with the panelists during the daylong session, which will essentially launch D'Escoto's campaign to build support for reforming the financial institutions established near the end of World War II. D'Escoto's task force tracks his personal mandate as GA president to reform the UN so that it represents developing nations more fairly. Since announcing his goal in September in his opening remarks at the GA, attention on the economic crisis has most recently shifted toward reforming global financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"The developing world includes many more powerful economies than in 1944, its role in the trading system has grown significantly and it includes prominent creditor and debtor nations," he said in a statement announcing the task force. "As such, developing countries have an abiding interest in a democratic rules-based financial system with effective financing mechanisms and impartial institutions."

Meanwhile, Asian and European leaders concluded a two-day meeting in China last weekend calling for tighter regulatory supervision in the international markets. More than 40 world leaders attended the summit, including Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. At the end, they signed a statement pledging "to undertake effective and comprehensive reform of the international monetary and financial systems."

Although no specific reform proposals emerged from the Chinese meeting, those gathered were clearly laying groundwork for talks with a broader group of nations next month in Washington, when President George W. Bush will host a global financial summit on Nov. 15. Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, is expected to attend.

Bush has scheduled the meeting for leaders from the G20 nations, which includes the major industrialized countries and main developing nations, to discuss the crisis and assemble preventive strategies for the future. It is to be the first in a series of summits and may include Barack Obama or John McCain, depending on who wins the Nov. 4 presidential election.

Participants at the Chinese gathering reiterated what foreign ministers at the IMF/World Bank annual meeting on Oct. 16 urged -- that the IMF increase lending to developing nations. Merkel said that the IMF should become a "guard for the stability of the international finance system."

The IMF has already agreed to lend Iceland $2.1 billion after that country's banking system collapsed earlier this month. The IMF is discussing emergency loans with up to a dozen other countries, including Hungary, Ukraine and Pakistan, and it is finalizing plans to ease its borrowing requirements for developing nations to help them survive the fallout of the world crisis.

The GA's interactive panel tomorrow comes a week after Ban convened five prominent economists, including Joseph Stiglitz, and Kemal Davis, the head of the UN Development Program to address the impact of the crisis on the Millennium Development Goals and climate change. Besides Stiglitz, the other economists were Kenneth Rogoff and Dani Rodrick of Harvard, Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, and Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

The concern is how drastically the worldwide economic downturn will affect the ability of developing countries to reach the 2015 antipoverty targets set by the MDGs. Ban has urged industrialized nations to honor their aid commitments.

Ban reinforced this message in a speech he gave at the John F. Kennedy School of Government last week. "We cannot allow the financial crisis to turn into a prolonged human crisis. That is why the race to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the target of 2015 has become even more pressing," he said. For more information about the secretary-general's speech at Harvard, read Simon Minching's article in this E-Newsletter.

Ban's sentiments were echoed by Anna Tibaijuka, the executive director of the United Nations Settlement Program, on Oct. 23 in London, where she unveiled UN Habitat's State of the Cities 2008/2009 report. The report found that 1 in 3 people residing in cities worldwide live in slums, where the levels of deprivation, including access to clean water and sanitation, are highest.

Tibaijuka said the recent credit crunch and stock market collapses were more evidence that free-market forces alone will never create affordable housing for the one billion people subsisting in slums.

"The financial crisis we are facing today cannot be seen as an event," she said. "It is a process that has been building up over time and has now bust."

Christopher J. Tangney is a communications assistant at UNA-USA

Back to Top

24 October 2008

UNITED NATIONS/NATIONS UNIES THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

On this 63rd anniversary of our Organization, I join you in celebrating UN Day.

This is a crucial year in the life of our United Nations. We have just passed the midpoint in the struggle to reach the Millennium Development Goals -- our common vision for building a better world in the 21st century. We can see more clearly than ever that the threats of the 21st century spare no one. Climate change, the spread of disease and deadly weapons, and the scourge of terrorism all cross borders. If we want to advance the global common good, we must secure global public goods.

Many countries are still not on track to reach the Millennium Development Goals by the target date of 2015. I am also deeply concerned about the impact of the global financial crisis. Never has leadership and partnership been more important.

This makes our success at the high-level MDG event in September all the more remarkable. We brought together a broad coalition for change. Governments, CEOs and civil society. We generated unprecedented commitment in pledges and partnerships to help the world's poor.

The final tally is not in yet, but the total amount pledged at the MDG event may exceed 16 billion dollars.

Partnership is the way of the future. Just look at the advances on malaria. Our global malaria effort has brought us within range of containing a disease that kills a child every 30 seconds. It is doing so through focused country planning. Greater funding. Coordinated global management. Top-notch science and technology.

We need models like these to tackle other challenges, including climate change, as we approach the conferences on Poznan and Copenhagen. We need them to achieve all the other Millennium Development Goals.

Let us keep building on this as a way forward. There is no time to lose. The United Nations must deliver results for a safer, healthier, more prosperous world. On this UN Day, I call on all partners and leaders to do their part and keep the promise.

Back to Top

New York, Sep 23 2008 10:10AM

The President of the United Nations General Assembly today opened its annual high-level debate with a call for the 192 Member States to "choose the path of solidarity" to overturn what he described as a culture of selfishness that allowed millions of people worldwide to suffer in poverty or as a result of other man-made problems.

Miguel D’Escoto told dozens of world leaders gathered at UN Headquarters in New York that "a confluence of large-scale, interrelated crises" – including climate change, high food prices, natural disasters and the current global financial troubles – highlighted that it was time to change the way peoples and countries interacted with each other.

"If we are to seize the opportunities, we must move beyond lamentations, speech-making and statements of good intentions and take concrete action based on a firm resolve to replace the individualism and selfishness of the dominant culture with human solidarity as the golden rule that guides our behaviour," he said.

Mr. D’Escoto warned that the world was in danger of drowning in a "morass of maniacal, suicidal selfishness," causing problems as diverse as a lack of access to clean water, human trafficking, the arms build-up and gender inequalities.

These problems are hampering progress towards the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the series of targets to slash a host of social and economic ills by 2015, he said.

"More than half the world’s people languish in hunger and poverty, while at the same time more and more money is spent on weapons, wars, luxuries and totally superfluous and unnecessary things."

"We must resist the temptation to bury our heads in the sand in an attempt to deny reality. Let us be brave enough to acknowledge the vast inequities that exist in the world and within most of our countries, even in many of the most developed countries. These inequities are time-bombs that will not simply go away if we ignore them."

The President said the world’s most pressing problems were all man-made and could be largely traced back "to the lack of democracy at the United Nations. A small group of States take decisions based on selfish motives, and the world’s poor are the ones who suffer the consequences."

He added that too many important decisions on key issues did not go through the General Assembly, even though it is supposed to represent the peoples of the world, and that the Assembly’s decisions were often casually ignored.

While the UN "has done many laudable things" since its inception in 1945, "we must admit that in terms of eliminating war, achieving disarmament and ensuring international security, we have failed."

But Mr. D’Escoto spoke out against the attitude that this culture of selfishness was irreversible.

"The world has reached a point at which we have no alternative – either we love one another or we all perish; either we treat each other as brothers and sisters or we witness the beginning of the end of our human species. If we choose the path of solidarity, recognizing each other as brothers and sisters, we will open up new horizons of life and hope for everyone."

Mr. D’Escoto urged countries to commit themselves to respecting and defending two principles: the sovereign equality of all UN Member States, and the obligations of all members to meet their obligations under the UN Charter.

Nearly 120 heads of State or government are in attendance for today’s opening of the high-level segment of the General Assembly, and representatives of all 192 Member States are expected to address the segment before it concludes next week.

Last Friday the Assembly adopted a work programme for the current session, its sixty-third, in which Member States will consider more than 150 separate agenda items. These included a request to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February.

Today’s opening of the high-level segment follows a day-long meeting yesterday at UN Headquarters on Africa’s development needs, while on Thursday Member States will meet to discuss progress towards the MDGs.

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Back to Top

UNEP NEWS RELEASE from James Sniffen

Take a Five-Second Flight to Top Environmental Hot Spots

NAIROBI/WASHINGTON DC, 4 September 2008. People can "fly" to some of the world’s most dramatic environmental hot spots courtesy of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)’s innovative use of the popular mapping tool Google Earth.

The new computer service allows armchair environmentalists as well as politicians, researchers and business executives to zoom in, whiz past and monitor close to 200 sites.

Here they can witness at first hand in 3D the impacts of climate change and other destructive human activities on the Earth’s environment and natural resources.

Highlights include the appearance of road networks in the remote rainforests of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the dramatic expansion of many West African cities.

Other highlights, presented as a series of "before and after" images include the surprising changes in the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska and the loss of biodiversity-rich spiny forests to farms in Madagascar.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "If we are to change the hearts and minds of the global public we need to surprise, to excite and occasionally perhaps to shock. These images, allied to modern computer technology, do all three."

"But these 'fly-by' satellite sets do more. They also show humanity is equally capable of positive, intelligent and empowering change—from the reforestation of parts of Niger to a new management plan for the Itezhi-tezhi Dam in Zambia which is helping to restore natural and seasonal flooding", he said.

These virtual "trips" are featured in UNEP’s popular series of changing environment atlases including "One Planet Many People: Atlas of Our Changing Environment" from 2005 and the recently released "Africa, Atlas of Our Changing Environment".

Notes to Editors

On 13 September 2006, the Google Earth team released "UNEP Atlas of Our Changing Environment" as a part of the Featured Content layer including these environmental hotspots through their worldwide distributed data servers.

On 10 April 2007, Google Earth released the new UNEP materials for 120 environmental hotspots (the original Atlas has information on 79 environmental hotspots).

Google Earth created a new folder, called "Global Awareness" to showcase featured layers that are non-profit, public-benefit -- where they want to help draw the world's attention to an issue. Google Earth has over 300 million users worldwide. This release incorporates the latest technological tools developed by Google Earth.

Project coordinator, Ashbindu Singh, of UNEP's Division of Early Warning and Assessment, said: "Google Earth technology already allows a more informative and accessible means of delivering information about our changing environment. By keeping pace with the changing world of technology and media, UNEP helps the environmental community keep pace with the real changes in our real world."

The new service contributes to the International Year of Planet Earth which aims to capture people’s imagination with the exciting knowledge we possess about our planet, and to see that knowledge used to make the Earth a safer, healthier and wealthier place for our children and grandchildren.

The International Year runs from January 2007 to December 2009, the central year of the triennium (2008) having been proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as the UN Year. The UN sees the Year as a contribution to sustainable development targets as it promotes wise (sustainable) use of Earth materials and encourages better planning and management to reduce risks for the world’s inhabitants.

One Planet Many People: Atlas of Our Changing Environment and Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment are available to view at http://na.unep.net and at http://earth.google.com/

Both are available to purchase from UNEP's online bookstore http://www.earthprint.com

For more information, please contact: Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson, on Tel: +254-20-762-3084 or E-mail: nick.nuttall@unep.org

Ashbindu Singh, Regional Coordinator for North America, UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment, on Tel: +1-202-785-0465, E-mail: as@rona.unep.org

Google and Google Earth are trademarks of Google Inc.

UNEP News Release 2008/30

Back to Top

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) http://www.celdf.org announced that Ecuador became the first nation in the world to shift to rights-based environmental protection. There was a time when people were considered property (slaves) and this idea is no longer generally accepted in the developed world. Yet, Ecuador is the first country to begin to codify in its Constitution the concept that nature is not just property, but has an inherent right to exist.

New York, July 14 2008 10:00AM

Three years after the United Nations Security Council requested him to investigate atrocities committed in Darfur, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court today presented evidence against Sudan’s President for alleged war crimes in the strife-torn region, including genocide. ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is seeking an arrest warrant for President Omar Al-Bashir, who he believes "bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," according to a news release issued by the Court.

An estimated 300,000 people have died in Darfur, either through direct combat or because of disease, malnutrition or reduced life expectancy, over the past five years in Darfur, where rebels have been fighting Government forces and allied Arab militiamen, known as the Janjaweed, since 2003. "His motives were largely political. His alibi was a 'counterinsurgency.' His intent was genocide," Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said.

The evidence presented today at the ICC, which is based in The Hague, shows that Mr. Al-Bashir masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups, on account of their ethnicity. Mr. Moreno-Ocampo says that for over five years, armed forces and the Janjaweed attacked and destroyed villages on Mr. Al-Bashir’s orders. They also uprooted millions of civilians from their lands, killed the men and raped the women. "I don’t have the luxury to look away. I have evidence," the Prosecutor said.

The President’s intent to commit genocide became clear, according to the Prosecutor, with well coordinated attacks on the nearly 2.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in camps. Instead of helping the people of Darfur, Mr. Al-Bashir "mobilised the entire State apparatus, including the armed forces, the intelligence services, the diplomatic and public information bureaucracies, and the justice system," in carrying out his campaign of violence. "They all report to him, they all obey him. His control is absolute," the Prosecutor added.

The Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber will now review the evidence presented and decide whether to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Al-Bashir. If indicted, the Sudanese President would become the first sitting Head of State to be charged by the ICC. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized that the Court is an independent institution and that he does not have any influence on the ICC Prosecutor, a point he reiterated to Mr. Al-Bashir in a telephone conversation with the Sudanese President on Saturday. In a statement issued today, the UN said its peacekeeping operations in Sudan will continue to carry out their functions in an impartial manner, "cooperating in good faith with all partners so as to further the goal of peace and stability in the country." The world body will also continue its vital humanitarian and development work there.

"The Secretary-General expects that the Government of Sudan will continue to cooperate fully with the United Nations in Sudan, while fulfilling its obligation to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations personnel and property," the statement added. In addition to the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), a joint UN-African Union force – known as UNAMID – has been in place since the beginning of this year to try to end the violence in Darfur, which has uprooted some 2.7 million people, many of whom are living across the border in eastern Chad. 2008-07-14 00:00:00.000

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Back to Top

New York, Jun 4 2008 11:00AM

The United Nations World food Programme said today it will provide $1.2 billion in additional food aid in the 62 countries hit hardest by the current crisis resulting from the surge in food and fuel prices.

"With soaring food and fuel prices, hunger is on the march and we must act now," WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran said in written remarks delivered today to the food summit taking place in Rome.

"If we do not act quickly, the bottom billion will become the bottom two billion virtually overnight as their purchasing power is cut in half due to a doubling in food and fuel prices," said Ms. Sheeran, whose agency will provide some $5 billion to assist nearly 90 million people in 78 countries this year.

To address the current crisis, WFP is tripling the number of people who receive food in Haiti, doubling those who will receive food in Afghanistan, and delivering more critical food aid to people in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya.

The three-day High-level Conference on World Food Security, hosted by the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), has brought together leaders from around the globe, international organizations and financial institutions to tackle the current crisis arising from the recent dramatic escalation of food prices worldwide.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened the meeting yesterday by calling on world leaders to take "bold and urgent" steps to address the crisis, including boosting food production and revitalizing agriculture to ensure long-term food security.

Also www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/media.aspx addressing the summit yesterday was High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, who told those gathered that human rights violations by Governments often lie at the roots of food crises and hinder efforts to assisted affected populations.

"Food insecurity is often compounded by warfare, bad governance, and natural disasters," Ms. Arbour said. "In such cases, it becomes painfully evident that we cannot always rely on the willingness and ability of national authorities to discharge their obligations towards people in need. Not surprisingly, Governments that commit or turn a blind eye to gross violations of human rights are also the most likely to disregard their duties and responsibilities."

The High Commissioner emphasized that problems of access to hungry populations did not simply emerge at the start of a crisis, but were part of a much longer-term pattern of human rights violations. "Long-standing international tolerance for human rights abuses allows both the obstruction of international assistance when a need arises, as well as the hindrance of corrective international efforts in the long term," she said.

For more details go to UN News Centre at www.un.org/news

Back to Top

As of June 1st, The Rose L Walker Fund started by The National Ethical Service of The American Ethical Union has risen to $9000 within the first three months of its inception. The Fund is a cooperating fund between the NES and AEU and has been invested in stable Socially Responsible Investments. The NES intends to grow the fund to use both for emergency assistance amidst world disasters and to pay for professional representation of the Ethical Culture perspective at The United Nations. Only the accrued interest may be taken from the fund until it reaches one million dollars. For contribution, contact: marlalamar@mindspring.com or the AEU office at 212-873-6500.

New York, Apr 7 2008 5:00PM

The Universal Periodic Review, a new mechanism to examine the human rights record of every United Nations Member State, was launched today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Over the next two weeks, a first group of 16 countries – starting with Bahrain and Ecuador – will have their records scrutinized, as part of the Review, one of the reforms which differentiate the Council from the Commission on Human Rights, which it succeeded in 2006.

The Review meetings will feature interactive discussions between the States in question and a working group comprises all of the Council’s 47 members, according to a UN spokesperson.

The discussions will be based on national reports and information from a variety of sources, including treaty bodies, Special Rapporteurs – independent experts on specific topics that report to the Council – non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and academics.

Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Indonesia, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Tunisia and the United Kingdom are the other countries being reviewed over the next two weeks.

Under the Review's work plans, 48 countries are scheduled to be reviewed each year, so that the UN’s complete membership of 192 countries will be reviewed once every four years.

Last month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the Council to assure that all countries were scrutinized equally. "The Review must reaffirm that just as human rights are universal, so is our collective respect for them and our commitment to them," he said.

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

Back to Top

http://aeu.org/library/eactions/EAR200804.pdf

At the United Nations, there is renewed energy and hopefulness about humanity's ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. With the aid of the United Nations Foundation, the Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors, and the Permanent Missions of Austria, Qatar and the United Kingdom, the President of the General Assembly, Dr. Srgjan Kerim convened the following thematic debate in the early part of April: "Recognizing the Achievements, Addressing the Challenges and Getting Back on Track to Achieve the MDGs by 2015."

With the aid of the United Nations Foundation, the Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors, and the Permanent Missions of Austria, Qatar and the United Kingdom, the President of the General Assembly, Dr. Srgjan Kerim convened the following thematic debate in the early part of April: "Recognizing the Achievements, Addressing the Challenges and Getting Back on Track to Achieve the MDGs by 2015."

In opening the debate, Dr. Kerim reported much promising information to the 110 participating delegations, including the following:

Since the Millennium Declaration in the year 2000,

• 34 countries are now on track to meet the infant mortality goal;
• 44 more countries are on track to meet the poverty goal;
• 47 more countries are on track to meet the education goal;
• The debt of more than 22 countries has been fully cancelled.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also delineated the areas of "undeniable progress," globally and in specific countries. However, all present stressed the fact that "the MDG track record is mixed," and that humanity yet has a long way to go before achieving them fully.

Importantly, and as is the case increasingly, the interdependent nature and synthesis of all issues and all sectors of society were recognized, as evident in Dr Kerim's following assessment: "global consensus recognizes that economic growth, by itself, is not enough. Inclusive growth needs to be accompanied by good governance, care for the environment, social justice, human rights, gender equality and quality public services."

Back to Top