Issue of February 20, 2012

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
2/20/12 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

Contents of this issue: US efforts for women and girls worldwide.

Esther Brimmer, US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, said on February 15th at Spelman College:

“It is truly an honor for me to be in Atlanta at America's oldest historically black college for women, particularly during Black History Month, to discuss some of the many ways the President and Secretary of State are supporting the empowerment of women and girls globally.

“As Secretary Clinton and officials across this Administration have stated repeatedly, the major security, governance, environmental, and economic challenges of the 21st Century cannot be solved without the participation of women and girls at all levels of society.

“As women progress, everyone in society benefits, including men and boys. Tapping into the limitless potential of women and girls is not only the right thing to do but it is the smart thing. That is why the United States and our international partners are invested in a historic effort to empower women globally.

“As the Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, I am responsible for U.S. engagement across the United Nations system as well as with other multilateral institutions. In all those institutions, we are hard at work to find new ways, new actions, and new energy to empower millions of women and girls across the world.

“In that context, allow me to make a bold statement:

“The United States is not an island. Now, that may confirm what you all learned in third grade geography, but it may not resonate in the same way when we talk about political geography, cultural geography, economic geography, or environmental geography.

“When President Obama was elected, he made clearly very early his intent to reengage with the multilateral community - the community of international organizations including the UN, with international civil society, with the global business community. He expressed that intent with a keen understanding of some important global truths, which I will summarize.

First, today’s shared challenges demand shared solutions. Consider just a few examples. Climate change, food security, water, public health, trade, transportation. Our modern world faces numerous challenges that cannot be effectively addressed or resolved in the absence of international conventions and agreements. That isn’t to say that international organizations are a guaranteed path to international cooperation, but it does indicate that the United States cannot stand on the sidelines while the rest of the world plays the big game.

Second, we must engage actively in international arenas because there are plenty of nations willing to fill any void we provide. New centers of power are emerging around the world to play larger roles on global issues. India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, and others. If we are not at the table, at all the various tables where global issues are addressed, we cannot assume that our interests will be represented.

Third, I would note that non-state actors are playing more important roles in international affairs. There are many places where this is becoming obvious. Violent extremism remains a threat, as does piracy and other forms of transnational crime. Regional and sub-regional organizations such as the African Union and the Organization of American States are playing more influential roles on their issues.

"And finally, I would note that in our globalized world, power and influence increasingly stems from being part of networks. As a generation more connected, more wired that any previous, you understand what I mean. U.S. influence must now be much, much more than simply sending an Ambassador to Country X and relying on that relationship to guide our affairs. We must be part of multiple, overlapping conversations between governments, publics, academic institutions, NGOs. And as we have demonstrated over the last few years, when the United States engages actively with those networks, we can accomplish a great deal.

“Now, to the issue at hand. Women and girls around the world face a breadth of challenges - lack of education and basic literacy skills, sexual and gender-based violence, rampant discrimination, the lack of economic opportunities and political participation, and more.

“Access to education is another challenge on which we are working multilaterally to address. Today, women, mainly in the world’s poorest communities, represent about two-thirds of the nearly 800 million illiterate adults around the world. That is why the United States is working the specialized agencies such as United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to expand girls’ and women’s access to education. Seeking to end this imbalance, Secretary Clinton spoke at to UNESCO last May to launch the Global Partnership for Girls’ and Women’s Education. In Paris, she joined UNESCO’s Executive Director Irina Bokova, world leaders, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, including American companies, in pledging to support education for women and girls.

“As the Secretary pointed out at the Global Partnership launch, ‘No society can achieve its full potential when half the population is denied the opportunity to achieve theirs.’ We know that opening the door for women and girls to greater education leads to more choices, opportunities, and useful information in how to live their lives. Indeed, we also know that birth rates, HIV infections, incidents of domestic violence and female cutting all decline when education rises.

“That is why we are deeply committed to the Partnership because it has the power to transform the lives of women. Together, we are working to ensure that money and resources are best used to promote basic literacy training and secondary education for girls around the globe. Working together with other governments, NGOs, and private partners also allows us to multiply our impact, reaching more women and girls in meaningful ways than if we acted alone. It is because of the power of these partnerships that we have been at the fore-front of bringing together diverse groups of governments, foundations, and corporations.

“For example, the United States helped broker an agreement between Procter and Gamble and UNESCO to fund literacy training for girls in Senegal. Today only 33% of Senegalese women are literate. This modestly funded agreement will impact 40,000 women in Senegal enhancing their literacy and increasing their income and quality of their environment.

“We also have partners, like Nokia, with whom we work in multiple venues. Nokia is a partner in the UNESCO Global Partnership, but they are also one of our partners in the mWomen program. This initiative – led by the Cherie Blair Foundation and the GSM Association, a mobile telephone In-dustry group – aims to reduce the gender gap in access to mobile technology of 300 million in the developing world, by 50 percent, in the next three years. By increasing women’s access to cell phones, the programs enables them to gain access to mobile education and mobile banking, which are critical tools for girls and women to strengthen their education and participate in developing markets.

“Not only has this administration focused on how to help address the challenges that women face, this administration has also focused on ensuring that more women are holding leadership positions. We have seen progress on this front; year after year we see more women entering government and taking on senior positions, including heads of state. There is still much work to do, the road forward remains rocky and the numbers disproportionate given that women make half of the global population. When women are not serving in governments, when their voice and experience are muted, when they are not at the negotiating table their absence has direct impact on society, on peace and security, on strengthening democracy in the communities, nations and world in which we live.

“The Administration is implementing policies and programs to bolster women’s leadership capacity in all areas of political participation and decis-ion-making. To that end, we have worked to strengthen the institutional arrangements and mechanisms at the UN for support of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

“We were at the forefront in 2009 and 2010 in leading efforts at the UN to support the consolidation of the UN’s existing gender-related institutions into a single more effective women’s agency. It was our goal at the UN to elevate women’s issues to their rightful status.
“Our efforts were successful; UN Women formally began operations on January 1, 2011 with a comprehensive mandate to work on all issues related to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Its Executive Director, Michelle Bachelet, is an impressive leader, as you know she is the former President of Chile.

“UN Women has several strategic priorities, one of which is expanding women’s leadership and participation. The events of the Arab Awakening have focused international attention on the importance and fragility of women’s political participation. In some cases, gains previously made by women in the Middle East and North Africa are being challenged, and women who had taken part in democracy movements are now excluded from negotiations on future systems of government. These trends jeopardize political stability, economic security, and human rights in countries undergoing transition.

“To address these concerns, UN Women, in conjunction with the United States and other partners, held a high-level roundtable discussion during the UN General Assembly last September to examine the role of women during periods of political transition, like in the Middle East and North Africa. This meeting was the first debate on gender equality since the formation of UN Women in January 2011 convening several high-level government representatives from UN Women, the United States, Brazil, the European Union, and other member states.

“Additionally, the Administration supports UN Women efforts to advance women’s political participation through technical assistance, research, and training, with a focus on countries in transition, including countries in the Middle East. We hope to complement ongoing UN Women projects aimed at greater political participation for women in Latin America and in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

“Another UN Women strategic priority is enhancing women’s economic empowerment. Executive Director Bachelet has often said that women’s economic security is a precondition for further improvements in their lives.

“Every day, women are starting their own businesses. Between 1997 and 2008, women-owned businesses in the U.S. grew at twice the national average for all other business types. An estimated 10.1 million companies, 40% of all privately-owned firms, were owned by women as of 2008.

“What we know is that women-run small and medium sized businesses in the U.S. and internationally accelerate economic growth, and many countries have made progress on laws and regulations concerning inheritance and property ownership, working hours, and retirement ages. Yet women face barriers in the U.S. and globally starting these businesses, including challenges connected with access to training, mentors, finance, technology, and markets. These challenges need to be addressed in order for women to fulfill their potential to increase their livelihoods and contribute to the broader economy.

“This Administration continues to address some of the most troublesome challenges facing women and girls, such as the disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women, the role of women in peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building and combating sexual and gender-based violence.

“It is a priority for the U.S. in areas of post-conflict and transition, to ensure that women participate in peace processes, political transitions, new constitutions, and the electoral process. Thus, we have been blunt in urging others join us in implementing the series of UN Security Council resolutions on these topics, including those we have taken leadership on, such as Resolutions 1325, 1888 and more recently 1960.

“As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton promised during the 10th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in October of 2010, the United States has developed a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security that will guide our approach to this issue in the coming years. It focuses on the four pillars of 1325: participation, prevention, protection, and relief and recovery, and outlines how the principles of 1325 will be integrated and institutionalized in the United States' work in conflict-affected environments over the next several years. Our ultimate objective is to fully incorporate women and girls into our diplomatic, security, and development efforts – not simply as beneficiaries, but as agents of peace, reconciliation, development, growth, and stability.

“The NAP is accompanied by an Executive Order mandating that, within five months, key departments and agencies will develop comprehend-sive agency-level implementation plans. Secretary Clinton gave two speeches on December 16 and 19 highlighting the critical role of women in building peace around the world, particularly in conflict-affected zones.

“In making this promise, the Secretary also committed nearly $44 million in U.S. funding to a set of initiatives designed to empower women, with a large share of the funding to support civil society groups that focus on women in Afghanistan. The U.S. has been adamant that rights of Afghan women will not be sacrificed.

“Resolution 1888 was a major achievement for the Administration because it established a Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sexual Violence in Conflict as well as a team of experts to support accounta-bility mechanisms targeting impunity for rape as a weapon of war. The Special Representative position is currently held by Margot Wallstrom.

“Resolution 1960, passed at U.S. urging last December, further empowered the UN to address sexual violence in armed conflict by establishing monitoring, analysis, and reporting arrangements, and mandating annual reports to the Security Council on progress towards implementing resolution 1888.

“Today we are continuing to work hand in hand with Special Representative Margot Wallstrom to lead and coordinate efforts to end conflict-related sexual violence against women and children.

“The United States is also playing a leading role, along with international partners, in supporting empowerment of women, within the UN system, through our participation in the Commission on the Status of Women. The theme of the spring 2011 UN Commission on the Status of Women session was ‘Access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science, and technology, including for the promotion of women’s equal access to full employment and decent work.’

“At that Commission meeting, the U.S. pointed out that the emerging green economy is shaping employment opportunities, and women can gain a stronger position in the workforce through green jobs. The Department of Labor is leading efforts domestically along with policy-makers, employers, workforce professionals, educators, and trainers to focus their efforts on having women participate in and benefit from the new green economy. Women have made great strides in some male-dominated occupations, but still make up only a small portion of the workers in these jobs.

“At the Spring session, and with the goal of further advancing the capacity of women in addressing climate change policy, our delegation led by Ambassador Melanne Verveer, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, announced a new international exchange program, which will target women climate leaders from the developing world and the critical role they play in developing climate-related policies.

“Participants will travel to the United States for three weeks to learn about the development of new policies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as information about cutting edge small scale clean technologies and how to promote women’s entrepreneurship opportunities and markets for them in their countries.

“Building on the Administration’s strong commitment to expand educational exchanges and new opportunities in entrepreneurship and science, the U.S. launched the TechWomen Program in 2011 to promote professional development and sustainable relationships for women tech-nology leaders from the Middle East and North Africa. Some of the most prominent U.S. technology companies are committed to participating in the program. Last summer we saw the first graduates from this program, thirty-seven women from places such as Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Moroc-co, the West Bank and Gaza. Building on the success of the TechWomen program Secretary Clinton also announced a similar initiative called TechGirls that will bring teenage girls from the Middle East and North Africa for educational programming in the United States.

“Earlier this month, we commemorated the Ninth Annual International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation. Female genital mutilation/cutting occurs in many countries around the world transcending cultures and religions. In addition to causing intense pain and psychological trauma, the procedure carries with it severe short and long-term health risks: including hemorrhaging; infection, including increased risk of HIV transmission; birth complications; and even death. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stressed, violence toward women and girls isn't cultural -- it's criminal. We have supported efforts to abandon this egregious practice since the early 1990s, and consider it not only a public health issue, but a violation of women's rights and dignity.

“Challenges like FMG reveal why institutions like the UN are essen-tial. Through multilateral engagement, we can exchange ideas and rally inter-national support to address these issues.

“Before concluding, I want to highlight the Obama administration’s firm commitment to working with the United Nations and international partners, as well as the NGO and private sector communities to advance the rights, freedoms and opportunities of women. President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy recognized that ‘countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women are accorded full and equal rights and opportunity. When those rights and opportunities are denied, countries lag behind.’

“We know our goal to empower women and girls is an historic effort that will not be achieved overnight. It will require persistence and a long-term commitment of the United States and international community to realize the lasting change we seek for women and girls on a global scale.”

Issue of February 27, 2012

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
2/27/12 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

Contents of this issue: Crime in West Africa; Responsibility to protect.

Crime in West Africa.

On February 21st, US Ambassador Susan E. Rice spoke in these terms to the Security Council: “Transnational organized crime is a scourge every-where, but West Africa and the Sahel are plagued by a particularly insidious version. Criminal networks corrupt societies that face pressing development-al challenges in a region emerging from years of conflict. The Security Council must address the situation using a holistic approach, in tandem with the African Union, sub-regional organizations and other actors.

“Governments in West Africa and the Sahel have made significant efforts to fight organized crime, through the Economic Community of West African States, the West Africa Coastal Initiative, and numerous other bilat-eral and sub-regional partnerships. However, the dangers continue to grow. West Africa and the Sahel face increasingly complex and sophisticated criminal activities, including terrorism, embezzlement of public funds, and the illicit trafficking of drugs, arms, oil, people and counterfeit goods, which threaten regional stability by inflaming conflicts and undermining development.

“Drug trafficking remains a principal threat. As we have heard, according to UNODC, the UN Office for West Africa, and reports provided to the Security Council, drug trafficking is increasingly intertwined with other forms of trafficking in the region. The United States continues to support the West Africa Coastal Initiative through UNODC in order to address border and corruption issues in an area of the world where an estimated $1 billion in cocaine is trafficked annually - a number more than twice the GDP of many West African nations.
“Criminals that conduct kidnap-for-ransom operations have substantially supported terrorist networks in the Sahel. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has demonstrated its ability to carry out criminal activities and attacks against soft targets across significant distances.

“Illicit arms trafficking is another serious aspect of transnational crime in West Africa and the Sahel. Poorly secured stockpiles of conventional weapons and ordnance are a potential source for arms smugglers in the region. In October 2011, the United States completed a project in Guinea-Bissau that destroyed over 80 metric tons of obsolete military ordnance at the request of the host nation.

“We encourage states to assist, where possible, governments in North and West Africa to destroy surplus, obsolete or poorly secured weapons and ammunition stockpiles. The Libyan crisis has introduced a new set of cross-border challenges. We remain concerned about the risk of weapons, includ-ing man portable air defense systems or MANPADS, moving across borders. As Secretary of State Clinton announced in Tripoli last October, the United States is providing $40 million to assist Libya in securing and recovering its weapons stockpiles. So far, we have scoured over 1,500 bunkers and helped to identify, recover, and secure approximately 5,000 MANPADS and components.

“We appreciate the financial and technical assistance provided, including by the UK, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Italy. We support the work of the United Nations Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts assessment on MANPADS and other proliferation threats, and we encourage states that have exported MANPADS to Libya in the past to share information with the Libyan authorities to assist them in accounting for unsecured missiles.
“Finally, we note with appreciation the decision by this Presidency to hold a separate session on piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, since piracy and armed robbery at sea also increasingly threaten the peace, security and sta-bility of West Africa and the Sahel. And we look forward to that discussion about this topic on February 27.” Today is the 27th; we will see what comes.

Responsibility to protect.

Also on February 21st, the following statement was made by Elizabeth Cousens, Principal Policy Advisor at the US Mission to the UN, on “our common commitment to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

“Seven years ago, all member states of the United Nations came together to endorse and accept a shared responsibility to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. While aspects of this principle would need to be elaborated further, we embraced a principle of protection anchored in the essential responsibility of States to protect their own citizens, our shared responsibility to take appropriate steps to assist States in exercising that solemn duty, and our preparedness to take timely and decisive action where national authorities manifestly failed to do so. The consensus agreement in 2005 reflected a recognition of our common humanity and a new clarity in our collective conscience that certain actions could not be allowed to stand.

“The United States was then and is now a strong supporter of the concept of Responsibility to Protect. R2P raises complex issues both in the abstract, as we are speaking today, and in specific situations, particularly when violence is escalating, good choices are narrowing, and tough judgments about collective action need to be made. Brazil’s contribution to this debate can help us refine and advance our shared commitment to R2P.

“There is much in the spirit of Brazil’s paper with which we agree. We agree that ‘violence against civilian populations must be repudiated wherever it takes place;’ that ‘prevention is always the best policy’ and preventive diplomacy needs to be strengthened; and that it is always preferable when States live up to their sovereign responsibilities to protect their own populations. We believe that force should only be resorted to when peaceful means are inadequate, and that the use of force has costs and risks that must be weighed judiciously, including against the costs and risks of inaction or different actions. And, we appreciate the paper’s acknowledgment that all three pillars of R2P are integral to the concept.

“There are also important elements with which we disagree, two of which we would highlight here. We believe it is a grave error to equate ‘manifest failure’ with strict chronological sequence. Appropriate decision-making in this area requires not just ‘temporal’ considerations but a compre-hensive assessment of risks and costs and the balance of consequences, as the paper calls for elsewhere. We further regret any implication that in those circumstances where collective action is necessary, diplomacy should be considered ‘exhausted.’ We should not eliminate the possible role of diplomacy, even – perhaps especially – in situations where forceful action is required.

“The United States is committed to working with international part-ners to advance the concept of R2P. We are also looking at how to improve our own capacity to address situations at risk. Last August, President Obama affirmed that ‘preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.’ He directed a government-wide review of U.S. ability to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and mandated creation of a new Atrocity Prevention Board to coordinate our internal efforts, with priority on prevention. This initiative emphasizes the need to mobilize a full and diverse range of tools. It also puts a premium on enhanced cooperation with international partners, including the United Nations.

“Situations where the risk of mass atrocity is high can be volatile, un-predictable, and fast-moving. In the early 1990s, the civil war in Rwanda had so few casualties that it wasn’t even counted by the annual reports that track armed conflicts. Yet in just four months in 1994, nearly a million people were slaughtered, according to deliberate plans for their extermina-tion. At any point in a swiftly moving catastrophe, we will need to ask ourselves when events are approaching a threshold of enormity that warrants collective action and assess the balance of cost and consequence between action and inaction. We all have to carry in our conscience the stain of col-lective failure in the spring of 1994. We will also always have to make judgments in the absence of certain answers.

“There are no easy solutions when we confront the gravest of threats to innocents. But we cannot bind ourselves to inaction based on an unreal-istic prerequisite of assured success. We welcome the opportunity for on-going dialogue and continued work together with Brazil and other interna-tional partners to fulfill the Responsibility to Protect that we embraced in 2005.”

Issue of April 26, 2010.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
4/26/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Judge Goldstone targeted.[1]

Richard Goldstone told The Associated Press on Saturday April 24th that his presence at his grandson’s Bar Mitzvah next month in South Africa is now possible because protests against his attendance had been called off. After retiring from South Africa’s Constitutional Court, Judge Goldstone went on to prosecute war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Last September a 567-page report on 2008-09 Israeli and Palestinian use of force in Gaza and southern Israel was issued by a UN-appointed committee chaired by Judge Goldstone and consisting also of Christine Chinkin, Law Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science; Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders; and Desmond Travers, former colonel in the Irish Armed Forces.

The report has been called “seriously flawed” by the US State Depart-ment and rejected as biased by a 344-36 vote of the US House of Representatives. Others have used stronger language. My question is how many of the critics actually read the report, or even the 27 pages of recommendations that I read in UN document A/HRC/12/48 (ADVANCE 2). The following are incomplete but striking excerpts from the first seven pages. They may help show why the report has given rise to so much fury.

1876: “This in no way implies equating the position of Israel as the occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it. The differences with regard to the power and capacity to inflict harm or to protect, including securing justice when violations occur, are obvious and a comparison is neither possible nor necessary. What requires equal attention and effort, however, is the protection of all victims in accordance with international law.”

1878: “The continuum is evident most immediately with the policy of blockade that preceded the operations and that in the Mission’s view amounts to collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the Government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip. When the operations began, the Gaza Strip had been under a severe regime of closures and restrictions on the movement of people, goods and services for almost three years. * * * These measures were imposed by Israel purportedly to isolate and weaken Hamas after its electoral victory in view of the perceived continuing threat to Israel’s security that it represented.”

1883: “While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right of self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.”
1884: “In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations.”

1886: “In this respect, the Mission recognizes that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that, under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by the Israeli armed forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that, as a whole, they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the ‘support-ing infrastructure.’ In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.”

1887: “The timing of the first Israeli attack, at 11:30 a.m. on a weekday, when children were returning from school and the streets of Gaza were crowded with people going about their daily business, appears to have been calculated to create the greatest disruption and widespread panic among the civilian population.”

1889: “The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guid-ance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses.”

1890: “The Mission recognizes that some of those killed were com-batants directly engaged in hostilities against Israel, but many were not. The outcome and modalities of the operation indicate, in the Mission’s view, that they were only partially aimed at killing leaders and members of Hamas, al-Qassam Brigades and other armed groups. They were also to a large degree aimed at destroying or incapacitating civilian property and the means of subsistence of the civilian population.”

1891: “It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.”

1893: “The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel.”

1984: “The Mission has noted with concern public statements by Israeli officials, including senior military officials, to the effect that the use of disproportionate force, attacks on civilian population and the destruction of civilian property are legitimate means to achieve Israel’s military and political objectives. The Mission believes that such statements not only undermine the entire regime of international law, they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and, therefore, deserve to be categorically denounced.”

1900: “Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel since April 2001. These have succeeded in causing terror within Israel’s civilian population, as evidenced by the high rates of psychological trauma within the affected communities. The attacks have also led to an erosion of the social, cultural and economic lives of the communi-ties in southern Israel, and have affected the rights to education of the tens of thousands of children and young adults who attend classes in the affected areas.”

1901: “Between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, these attacks left four people dead and hundreds injured. That there have not been more casualties is due to a combination of luck and measures taken by the Israeli Government, including fortification of public buildings, the construc-tion of shelters and, in times of escalated hostilities, the closure of schools.”

1902: “The Mission notes, with concern, that Israel has not provided the same level of protection from rockets and mortars to affected Palestinian citizens as it has to Jewish citizens. In particular, it has failed to provide public shelters or fortification of schools, for example, to the Palestinian communities living in the unrecognized villages and some of the recognized villages. It ought to go without saying that the thousands of Palestinian Israelis – including a significant number of children – who live within the range of rocket fire, deserve the same protection as the Israeli Government provides to its Jewish citizens.”

These excerpts are taken from the first seven of the 27 pages of recommendations in the Goldstone report. They may help to explain the extent of the opposition it has aroused. Whether the extent of the charges leveled against the report and Judge Goldstone are justified is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

I heard Judge Goldstone state in a television interview that he had thought before the report was issued that the Israeli Government would give more open-minded consideration to its merits in view of his being a fellow Jew. My question is: did he really think that any government could sit silent when charged with war crimes, or did he realize how vehement the reaction would be and decide to launch the charges anyway in what he may have deemed to be the interests of justice and peace?

That’s all for this April 26th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send your own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.


[1] I write as one who has been thanked “on behalf of the Jewish people everywhere” by an Israeli Ambassador.

Issue of April 18, 2010

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
4/19/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: definition of “torture”; US housing policies examined.

Definition of “torture.”

A February report of Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, included the following under a heading “What is torture?”

“43. The term ‘torture’ should not be used in an inflammatory manner. It is reserved for one of the worst possible human rights violations and abuses human beings can inflict upon each other, and therefore carries a special stigma. It therefore holds a special position in international law: it is absolutely prohibited and this prohibition is non-derogable. Where torture has been inflicted, it is a very serious crime against a human being, who most likely will suffer from its consequences for the rest of his or her life, either physically or mentally.

According to the definition contained in the Convention against Torture, four elements are needed in order for an act to be qualified as torture: firstly, an act inflicting severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; secondly, the element of intent; thirdly, the specific purpose; and lastly, the involvement of a State official, at least by acquiescence.

“44. Only acts which cause severe pain or suffering qualify as torture. Severity does not have to be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death. Another element which distinguishes torture from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is the powerlessness of the victim. Torture is predominantly inflicted on persons deprived of their liberty in any context and therefore rendered particularly vulnerable to abuse.” A.HRC/13/39 at 10-11.

What does the language about “organ failure” remind you of?

Mr. Nowak’s 417-page first addendum to the document just quoted summarizes cases transmitted to governments and, if any, replies received. Pages 373-389 are devoted to US cases involving seven named individuals as well as “on-going use of shackles and other restraints on pregnant women incarcerated or detained in U.S.A. prisons or jails” and violence against nine named women and girls. No US responses are given on the cases of US citizen Naji Hamdan or of Spanish citizen Mustafa Setmariam Nassar or of US citizen Romell Broom or of the pregnant women.

US housing policies examined.

“The Special Rapporteur deeply regrets the demolition of thousands of public housing units in New Orleans. Many residents and victims of Hurricane Katrina were prevented from returning to their homes (many of which according to residents sustained little storm damage) and had their homes demolished. [footnote: “No report is publicly available on the state of New Orleans housing projects and the comparative cost of rehabilitation versus demolition.”]

The current housing crisis in New Orleans reflects the disastrous impact of the demolition policy. In particular, the demolition of the ‘Big Four’ housing complexes (B.W. Copper, C.J. Peete, Lafitte and St. Bernard) has displaced approximately 20,000 individuals. Only one public housing complex still remains, Iberville, which is in need of better mainten-ance. Residents of Iberville fear demolition of their homes.

In addition, former public housing residents of New Orleans are facing grave housing challenges in other cities. One New Orleans resident told the Special Rap-porteur that he had met Katrina survivors who are homeless or close to homeless in other cities, ‘the legacy of the demolition policy’.” A/HRC/13/20/Add.4 at 9.

The report quoted from starts with a summary noting that the Special Rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik,[1] visited the US from October 22 to November 8, 2009. It then states that, “The first part of the report provides a brief overview of the evolution of housing policies, focusing on public subsidized housing programmes. It refers to the context of the current affordable housing crisis – with a growing proportion of people living in the United States facing serious challenges in accessing affordable housing.

“The second part of the report discusses the realization of the right to adequate housing, particularly affordability, discrimination and participation. The report highlights the implications of significant cuts in federal funding for low-income housing, the persistent impact of discrimina-tion in housing, substandard conditions such as overcrowding and health risks, as well as consequences of the foreclosure crisis. It also focuses on participation and underlines the importance of adequately informing the public of housing opportunities and involving them in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of programmes and policies that directly affect their lives.

“The Special Rapporteur discusses and welcomes new measures adop-ted to address the current housing crisis, and concludes her report with a number of recommendations to contribute to these efforts.”

Another report from Raquel Rolnik, A/HRC/13/20/Add.1, contained summaries of communications on the right to adequate housing sent to 33 governments and two “other actors,” the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Newman Ghana Gold Limited. The following governments, in addition to the US, had not replied when the report was finalized: Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroun, Congo, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkmenistan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

The summary of the communication sent to the US states that it concerned “imminent forced evacuations of the residents of the Villas del Sol in the municipality of Toa Baja in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. According to the information received by the Special Rapporteur, Villas del Sol is a squatter community housing an estimated 211 families, most of whom are of Dominican descent and many of whom are poor, female-headed households with children. * * *

An agreement between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Puerto Rican Govern-ment agreement [sic] allegedly required the community of Villas del Sol to be relocated by December 2009. A failure to do so would allegedly have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars of FEMA funding. An appropriate relocation site remained unidentified by government authorities.” Id. at 46-47.

That’s all for this April 19th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send us your own views on these or other UN-related issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

[1] According to the UN website, Rolik “is an architect and an urban planner, with over 30 years of experience in planning and urban land management and with large experience in the implementation and evaluation of housing and urban policies. Based in Sao Paulo, she is a professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of Sao Paolo and is the author of several books and articles. She has held various government positions including Director of the Department of Planning of the city of São Paulo (1989-1992) and National Secretary for Urban Programs of the Brazilian Ministry of Cities (2003-2007) as well as NGO activities, such as Urbanism Coordinator of the Polis Institute (1997-2002). She has advised national and local governments on policy reform and institutional development as well as on planning and management of housing and local development programs.”

Issue of April 12, 2010.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
4/12/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

UN versus crime.

The 12th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice will take place in Salvador, Brazil, from 12-19 April 2010. UN Crime Prevention Congresses have been held every five years since 1955. As a global forum, the Congresses facilitate exchange of information and best practices among States and professionals, in order to promote more effective crime preven-tion policies and criminal justice measures all over the world.

There are 8 items on the agenda:
· children, youth and crime;
· terrorism;
· crime prevention;
· smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons;
· money-laundering;
· cybercrime;
· international cooperation in fighting crime;
· violence against migrants and their families.

The Congress will also hold five workshops on:
· international criminal justice education for the rule of law;
· survey of UN and other best practices in the treatment of prisoners;
· practical approaches to preventing urban crime;
· links between drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime;
· overcrowding in correctional facilities.

There will also be numerous side meetings organized by non-governmental organizations covering issues relating to crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule of law.

The Crime Congress is a global forum that brings together the largest and most diverse gathering of policymakers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as individual experts from academia, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, specialized agencies and other UN entities, and the media.

The Congress is expected to adopt a declaration, which will contain recommendations based on discussions at the various segments of the Congress. The declaration will be submitted to the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its 19th session in May.

The Congress will also provide a platform for increased cooperation between governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the whole spectrum of crime prevention and criminal justice issues, in order to promote more effective international action.
In order to provide a regional perspective on the issues, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) organized a series of regional preparatory meetings in 2009, held in San José, Costa Rica; Doha, Qatar; Bangkok, Thailand; and Nairobi, Kenya. These enabled participants to highlight their special concerns and share their lessons learned.

At the 1955 First UN Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, a set of Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prison-ers was adopted. The Rules were approved by the Economic and Social Council in 1957 and again in 1977. One of the Rules provided that: “Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself. If for special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central prison admini-stration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two prisoners in a cell or room.” This Rule against “double-bunking” became relevant in a 1979 US Supreme Court case, although the Court paid it no attention.

The case was Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, in which the majority led by Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the due process clause of the Federal Constitution forbids neither double-bunking, nor body-cavity searches, nor rules against food or books (except from publishers) sent from outside. Dissenters were Justices Stevens, Marshall and Brennan.

At the time of Bell v. Wolfish I had been editing the United Nations Law Reports for 30 years and, being aware of the Standard Minimum Rules, was disappointed that the rule against double-bunking was not mentioned by either the majority judges or by the dissenters. There are of course those who think US courts should never cite non-US cases, let alone non-US rule-making. But even if that is your view of how narrowly US judges should cast their intellectual nets, surely something can be learned by observing how others solve the same problems that we face.

Since Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has just announced his intention to retire after reaching the age of ninety, it would be only fitting to quote some of what he said in Bell v. Wolfish. Stevens is quite prepared to scold his fellow Justices; witness these quotes:
“Relying on nothing more than the force of assertion, . . . the Court states that the presumption of innocence ‘has no application to a determina-tion of the rights of a pretrial detainee during confinement before his trial has even begun.’ . . . But having so recently reiterated that the presumption is ‘fundamental,’ . . . I cannot believe the Court means what it seems to be saying.”

And again, ‘ “the Court abjectly defers to the prison administrator unless his conclusions are ‘conclusively shown to be wrong.” ’ “In short, a careful reading of the Court’s opinion reveals that it has attenuated the detainee’s constitutional protection against punishment into nothing more than a prohibition against irrational classifications or barbaric treatment. Having recognized in theory that the source of that protection is the Due Process Clause, the Court has in practice defined its scope in the far more permissive terms of equal protection and Eighth Amendment analysis.”

“Prior to today, our cases have unequivocally adopted a less obeisant and more objective approach to punishment than the one the Court applies here.” Any Supreme Court Justice who has a thin skin and has not been siding with Stevens may be glad to see him go. But so clear a voice will be missed, agree with him or not.

Having been myself overruled by a higher court, I can attest to how hurt one’s feelings can be after working hard on a decision to have it torn to shreds or simply ignored by an appellate body. This is especially annoying when the appellate body simply changes the facts as you have found them to be. Facts are normally supposed to be found by the trial court (or jury) which has heard the testimony at trial, seen the witnesses and had a chance to evaluate their credibility. Appellate courts are supposed to accept the facts as found by the trial court (or jury) and respect them accordingly.

So with that lecture, we will say good-bye till the next issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. Do send along your own thoughts on these or other UN issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of April 2, 2010

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
4/5/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

US-Cuba relations; the UN institution of “Friends;” nearly ten billion dollars for Haiti.

US-Cuba relations

On April 2nd BBC News hailed “rare talks at UN” between Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and Cheryl Mills, Secretary of State Clinton’s chief of staff. They talked at a UN forum on aid to Haiti. “Havana” was quoted as saying: “We would hope that future exchanges of this nature are a possibility.” BBC did not quote any official US comment.

This brought to mind my own exchanges over the years with a Cuban diplomat, Miguel Alfonso Martinez. He was an elected Member of the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission when I was Alternate US Member. A frequent and passionate orator, toeing the party line but receptive to friendly contacts across ideological lines, he was widely respected.

Only once was he not taken seriously by some of his colleagues. He wanted to emphasize a factual assertion that seemed a bit doubtful. To demonstrate his belief in what he was saying, he offered to support it with his “oath as a Communist.” At this time, communism was faltering even in the USSR, so the impression he made was not overwhelming.

Alfonso Martinez was an eager beaver if I ever saw one. He frequently volunteered to take on the burden of conducting studies requiring months if not years of research. While the UN Secretariat would lend a hand, the ball was with the responsible Sub-Commission member. One such study that Miguel volunteered for was on the long-term effect of treaties between Western powers and indigenous peoples in the Americas.

I told the local US Ambassador that I thought it would be a good idea for me to try to co-author the study, to limit its attacks on alleged US violation of treaties with Native Americans. The Ambassador did not seem greatly in favor, given our policy of non-contact with all things Cuban.

But I went ahead anyway, inviting Alfonso Martinez for a discussion over coffee at a favorite Geneva patisserie. He did not seem to like the idea any more than the US Ambassador had. He didn’t say “no” but he didn’t say “yes” either. No doubt he needed to consult Havana. I never heard back from Miguel, and his solo study dragged on for years.

Whether the Cuban ever got his study done, I don’t recall. The subject matter was huge; he said for instance that he expected to consult ancient colonial records in Madrid,. Given the extent of what I had proposed to undertake myself, I was lucky he turned me down. Alfonso Martinez went on to head up the world-wide Non-Aligned Movement, a consortium of dozens of countries that claimed they wanted to avoid taking sides between the US and USSR.

The UN institution of “Friends”

At a March 25th press conference, the Secretary-General’s spokes-person told the press that Mr. Ban had that day reconvened his Group of Friends on Myanmar, to review developments ahead of this year’s elections -- the first in two decades. The Group had met for an hour and a half.

What are groups of “Friends” in UN usage? A bit of history may shed some light. In March 1996, at the Spokesman’s press conference, I asked how groups of Friends are started, how member states are invited to join, and whether there was anything written down about them.

Spokesman Ahmed Fawzi replied that there were no written rules, that ordinarily neighboring states approached the Secretary-General asking for a group to be formed, and that such groups are informal and ad hoc. Later in 1996, a “revised text of a draft convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism proposed by the Friends of the Chairman” was before an Ad Hoc committee charged with elaborating such a convention. A/54/37 at 1. So that group of “Friends” was playing a prominent role, not provided for in the UN Charter.

In 1999, increased contacts between the sides in the conflict in Ab-khazia, Georgia, was deemed by the Secretary-General to be “attributable primarily to the determined efforts of my Special Representative, supported by the Russian Federation as facilitator, as well as the group of Friends of the Secretary-General, in insisting to the sides that continuation of the status quo is not an acceptable option . . . .” S/1999/805 at 11.

In the Security Council on July 30th , 1999, Germany stated that, “As a member of the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General on Georgia, Germany fully supports and welcomes the draft resolution before the Council today.” S/PV.4029 at 5.

The following month, Barbara Crossette wrote that, “In order to avoid leaving Haiti in a lurch, the six countries that call themselves ‘friends of Haiti’ here – the United States, France, Canada, Venezuela, Chile and Ar-gentina – want to move responsibility for Haiti out of the Security Council, where China has always opposed operations in Haiti because Mr. Aristide has ties with Taiwan. * * * ‘We are opening the door to a new type of mission in Haiti, which would pursue the work of the U.N. without a Security Council resolution,’ said Michel Duval, Canada’s deputy chief representative.” New York Times, August 27, 1999, at A8, col. 4.

So you see, the institution of “Friends,” referred to nowhere in the UN Charter, can be inventive while operating fairly freely. There’s more than one way to skirt the veto.

Nearly ten billion dollars for Haiti.

The International Donors’ Conference “Towards a New Future for Haiti” raised almost $9.9 billion last week in immediate and long-term assistance for the earthquake-devastated nation’s reconstruction. See UN press release GA/10932.

Of the $9.9 billion pledged by 59 donors, $5.26 billion was for the financing of specific projects of the national action plan, a figure exceeding the estimated $4 billion needed over the next 18 months. The funds would be managed by a multi-donor reconstruction fund for Haiti and an interim commission over which Bill Clinton, United Nations Special Envoy for Haiti, would preside alongside Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.

Attending the Conference were almost 140 countries, some repre-sented at the ministerial level, as well as international institutions including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The event was organized by the United Nations and the United States, in cooperation with the Government of Haiti, and with the support of Brazil, Canada, the European Union, France, and Spain.

Opening the Conference, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that for weeks, experts had been assessing the needs and costs of the 12 January disaster. Haiti’s President, Prime Minister and Government had worked out the blueprint for a national strategic plan to guide recovery and reconstruct-tion. “Our goal is not to rebuild. It is to build back better,” he said. “A Haiti where the majority of people no longer live in deep poverty, where they can go to school and enjoy better health, where they have better options than going without jobs or leaving the country altogether.”

Conference co-host Hillary Rodham Clinton, US Secretary of State, recapped the assistance given so far, saying the Haitian Government had received support from 140 nations in the form of food, temporary shelter and medical care for thousands. However, emergency relief was only the beginning of a long road to recovery, she cautioned, pointing out that of Haiti’s 9 million people, more than a quarter of a million had died in the earthquake and more than a million others had been left homeless. Hundreds of thousands now lived in temporary camps without sufficient food or access to sanitation.

Before the earthquake, migration had drained Haiti of talented citizens, many of whom had chosen to live in the United States, and more would leave unless new opportunities emerged, she said. Quality health care had been a challenge that was now even more urgent, given Haiti’s high rates of tuberculosis; HIV; infant, child and maternal mortality; and child malnutrition. The country faced possible outbreaks of lethal illnesses due to lack of sanitation, especially where drug-resistant strains of disease could cross borders.

Recalling that a food riot had toppled the Government in 2008, she said food had become scarce after years of deforestation had stripped Haiti’s rich topsoil, preventing farming. Drug trafficking was a half-billion-dollar-a-year industry thriving on social and political instability. Trafficking in human beings was similarly rampant. “We are called to do better than in the past,” Ms. Clinton said, stressing that leaders must make the decision to guide a strong, accountable and transparent recovery.

Announcing that her country would pledge $1.15 billion towards strengthening the agricultural, energy, health, security and governance sectors, she promised that the US would work with a wide range of stakeholders, including Haitian Americans, and stressed the importance of empowering Haitian women.

Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank said that the inter-national community had an opportunity to forego flag-waving, feel-good projects and to institute programs according to Haiti’s stated needs. Learn-ing from the experience of Aceh, it was time to create anti-corruption tools, conduct regular audits, institute better pay for public servants, publicize detected cases of corruption, and ask officials to make ethics pledges.

Bill Clinton, UN Special Envoy for Haiti, then described outreach consultations on Haiti, noting that many others besides country representa-tives were involved in the process. The Special Envoy’s role is to bring donors together and ensure that they meet their commitments, of which only about one third were being met. That role also entailed ensuring the maximum involvement of the Haitian diaspora, the international non-governmental community, global investors and elements of Haitian society that were working to implement their own plans, such as the Government, the private sector and civil society.

President Clinton noted that the few months preceding and following the earthquake had been the first time that all of Haiti’s neighbors had shown commitment to its success. Referring to the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean countries, Venezuela and Cuba, he joked that: “The only thing we agree on is Haiti”. However, until Haitians could begin to lead more normal lives, it would be difficult to implement the Government’s long-term plans, he cautioned. With the rainy season approaching, the country must move 20,000 to 40,000 people to ensure they were not at risk of drowning. It was also crucial to build shelter, at the lowest cost possible, where people could retreat during a hurricane. Additionally, sanitation for those in concentrated living conditions was inadequate, leading to diarrhea, dysentery and cholera, particularly dangerous for children under five.

Mr. Clinton thanked the President and Prime Minister of Haiti for having invited him to co-chair the interim commission whose main goal was to provide a forum where legitimate stakeholders could be heard as they came together to implement the national action plan. It had taken the Indonesian Government one year to establish a recovery agency following the 2004 tsunami that had hit Aceh, he recalled, saying he would try to connect both internal and external forces in such a way as to maximize the input and impact of all players in Haiti. A system for tracking pledges and disbursements would be accessible via the Internet to improve transparency, he added.

A representative of civil society said Haiti’s non-governmental organ-ization infrastructure was the largest in the world, and non-governmental organizations were in the process of mapping how resources were spent. Echoing that point, Mr. Clinton said Haiti had the world’s largest number of non-governmental organizations per capita, with the possible exception of India, but they operated in a highly fractured way. It was significant that they had promised to work together, in accordance with the Haitian Government’s action plan.

That’s all for this April 5th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Do share your own views on these or other UN issues by sending them to www.unweek.blogspot.com. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of March 29, 2010

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
3/29/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Palestinian complaints about the wall; recognition of Palestine as a state; sexual misconduct by UN personnel.

On March 26th in Vienna a UN meeting of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People heard about actions taken against the barrier or wall built by Israel. The July 2004 advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice regarding the wall was stressed.

Ray Dolfin, a Humanitarian Affairs Officer from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Jerusalem, said that since its inception the wall had had four official routes. In 2003, the route had incorporated more Palestinian land under Israeli control than the current one, he said, adding that the original plan had also envisaged a wall down the Jordan Valley, which was later dropped. In 2004, the Wall had travelled dramatically into the southern West Bank, and in 2005, it had followed the Green Line in the Hebron area. However, a large area around Jerusalem had been added, cutting the city off from the West Bank.

He said that the current route, approved in 2006, was about 60 per cent completed and 10 per cent under construction. About 9.5 per cent of the West Bank would be effectively annexed to Israel, and although officials claimed that the route was not political, it took in the major settlement blocks in the West Bank, which Israel had said it wished to keep.

Communities closely connected to Jerusalem had been physically separated from the city, he said, adding that the six hospitals designated for the West Bank and located in East Jerusalem were now cut off. Muslims and Christians were also cut off from their places of worship in East Jerusalem, he noted.

The wall would isolate most of the agricultural land in Bethlehem, he continued. About 10,000 Palestinians living in closed communities between the wall and the Green Line were required to have permanent residence permits just to live on their own land, he said, adding that they were forced to access the West Bank through checkpoints and were cut off from health and education facilities.

Recalling that the land between the Green Line and the wall had been declared closed military zones, or “seam zones”, he said that in order to reach their land, farmers now had to obtain permits in order to pass through gates or checkpoints. Only 20 per cent of the farmers in 52 villages of the northern West Bank, or 3 per cent of the population, were getting permits to access their land, with the result that those communities were no longer agricultural.

That had a major impact on livelihoods, Dolfin stressed, pointing out that of the 10 checkpoints and 62 gates designated for farmers, only 11 gates were opened on a daily basis. Since access was increasingly denied, farmers were now refusing to apply for permits, he said. Asserting that the wall was one of the Israeli measures to restrict movement, he said it was having a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, farmers in particular. The wall should be dismantled and reparations paid, he added.

Search of Israeli Government web sites has not so far uncovered an official explanation of the present purpose of the wall (or separation barrier). When some such comes to light, it will receive at least as much coverage as the above summary of Dolfin’s remarks.

Recognition of Palestine as a state.

Also in Vienna, on March 25th, Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine, said that the Palestinian Authority was willing to participate in proximity talks, though they were unlikely to succeed, he continued, adding: “But we are not going to wait until they fail.” There was global consensus about a two-State solution, and in that context, he urged European and other countries supporting a two-State solution to recognize the State of Palestine within its pre-1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Palestinians could then “march” to the Security Council to get a “birth certificate” that would recognize the State of Palestine, said Mansour. If some countries wished to add a caveat with some adjustments, the Palestinian Authority might be willing to consider it. After such a resolution, Pales-tine would seek United Nations membership and raise its flag as the 193rd Member State in 2011, he said. GA/PAL/1159.

Since international law expects new states not to be recognized unless and until they are in effective control of specific territory and population, it may be premature for Mr. Mansour to be urging recognition now. But what I have never understood is why, between 1963 and 1967, when the Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat controlled the West Bank, it did not declare an independent Palestine and seek broad recognition. They had their chance, and it may be a long time before another such opportunity arrives.

Sexual misconduct by UN personnel.

Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Alain Le Roy, and Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, Susana Malcorra, briefed correspondents at Headquarters on March 25th. Referring to the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation, Malcorra said addressing the issue was a process of changing a deeply-rooted culture throughout the world. That must be done on the basis of an absolute established policy of zero tolerance, but it also had to be recognized that 250,000 troops a year were being pulled together from totally different places in the world with different back-grounds. Pre-deployment training had been established, which set zero tolerance at the forefront.

Induction admissions were being conducted to ensure that troops and police and civilians were fully aware of the need to comply with that policy, and clear instructions were issued to ensure that peacekeepers were not exposed to unnecessary temptation. Those measures included curfews and restriction of movement. But it still happened, and it was being handled on a case-by-case basis. Her view was long-term, and in that context, she was starting to see improvement.

Mr. Le Roy stressed the full engagement with troop- and police-contributing countries, adding that they were fully compliant. He agreed that it was a learning process, but he was satisfied with the level of engagement in that regard. The “violators” were a small number, out of 250,000 men and women deployed each year, eager to be on the ground ‑‑ to become peacekeepers and make a difference. He emphasized that the black sheep ‑‑ though they were too many if they were more than zero ‑‑ should not taint the overall good attitude of the peacekeepers on the ground.

Fifty-five cases were too many and must be condemned, he added. At the same time, there were 124,000 peacekeepers on the ground today, and with rotation, there were 200,000. All armies and organizations of the world had their black sheep.

Ms. Malcorra explained the situation not only involved police and military, but also civilian colleagues. In terms of culture, she said an effort was being made to reach out to the local population, because sometimes cultural aspects of local populations “accept that as a normal thing”. Cam-paigns were under way to reach out to women’s groups and to children, to empower them to understand that this was “just plain wrong” and to “have them tell us what is happening so we can take action”.

One action I have long advocated is creation of UN jurisdiction to try UN personnel for sexual and other misconduct. No army can control its personnel if it does not have courts martial with the ability to punish. At present, miscreants can only be sent back to their home countries for trial, where witnesses against them can hardly be expected to appear. So serious crimes go unpunished, to the grave detriment of military discipline.

Since there now is an International Criminal Court, its statute could be amended to give it the ability to bring to justice those serving in UN peace-keeping forces who bring shame on not only the UN but their own countries.

That’s all for this March 29th 2010 issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do share your own views on these or other UN issues, by passing them on at www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of March 22, 2010.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
3/22/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: doing business with the UN; Mr. Ban on slavery; more on freedom of religion.
Doing business with the UN.

A web site, www.business.un.org, exists for companies wishing to do business with the UN. Three choices are presented: one to look at past partnerships by region or industry; another to search UN needs; and the third to make a proposal to the UN for a business relationship. The site also shows how businesses can make donations to specific humanitarian causes. This is an offshoot of the UN’s Global Compact.

The Global Compact was begun in 2000 by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to encourage industries and businesses to adopt 10 sustainable and socially responsible policies, including decreasing the use of child labor. It also generates donations and partnership plans to support broader UN goals, including the Millennium Development Goals. Membership has grown in the last 10 years from 40 companies to 5,200.

Companies that join the Global Compact are encouraged to make a voluntary contribution to the Foundation for the Global Compact, which supports the group’s work. Companies are also expected to publish annual reports detailing the measures they take to improve their practices in Global Compact’s key areas of interest: anti-corruption, labor, the environment and human rights. See www.unglobalcompact.org.

Mr. Ban on slavery.

The following is the text of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, on 25 March:

“Slavery is abhorrent. It is explicitly prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations has reaffirmed this principle many times, including in the Durban Declaration adopted at the 2001 World Conference against Racism.

“But slavery and slavery-like practices continue in many parts of the world. Slavery is mutating and re-emerging in modern forms, including debt bondage, the sale of children, and the trafficking of women and girls for sex. Its roots lie in ignorance, intolerance and greed.

“We must create a climate in which such abuse and cruelty are inconceivable. One way is by remembering the past and honoring the victims of the transatlantic slave trade. By reminding ourselves of past injustices, we help to ensure that such systematic abuse of human rights can never be repeated.

“Those who controlled the transatlantic slave trade made huge profits from death, misery and exploitation. They presided over the forcible removal of millions of people from their homelands in Africa. Slave traders and owners subjected these forced migrants and their descendants to the most callous physical, mental and emotional abuse.

“We see the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade in all the countries it affected. If we are wise, we will use this legacy for good. We will recognize that it is clear evidence of what can happen, if intolerance, racism and greed are allowed to triumph.

“We should also take heart from those who, with great courage, succeeded in ending this institutionalized abuse. Their bravery ensured the eventual triumph of the values the United Nations represents: tolerance, justice, and respect for the dignity and worth of all human beings.

“Today, we salute all the victims of slavery and we commit ourselves to ensuring that this practice, in all its forms, is eradicated.”

More on freedom of religion.

Last week we noted the comment from Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir that, “the right to freedom of religion or belief does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.” Her report on communications sent by her to governments between December 1, 2008, and November 30, 2009, with replies received by February 8, 2010, A/HRC/13/40/Add.1, refers to her web site, www2.ohchr.org/English/issues/ religion/visits.htm. Links from there lead to reports on various countries in-cluding a 1998 report on a visit to the US by a predecessor of Ms. Jahangir.

A report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights dated January 11, 2010, A/HRC/13/57, included this: “41. The United States of America, in its contribution, affirmed that the concept of defamation of religious was inconsistent with international human rights law and risked being abused by Governments to restrict the human rights of religious minorities or dissidents. While sharing the concerns underlying Human Rights Council resolution 10/22, such as the negative stereotyping of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination, the United States considered that placing limitations on freedom of speech was unacceptable and, more-over, inadequately addressed genuine concerns.

“42. After 11 September 2001, the Justice Department had implemented the Backlash Initiative to combat violence and threats against Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs and South Asians, or individuals perceived as such. More than 700 incidents had been investigated and 34 federal convictions obtained. The initiative had also assisted local law enforcement agencies in bringing over 160 criminal cases to justice. Since 2001, the Department of Justice Community Relations Service had held over 250 community meet-ings around the country to address backlash issues and deployed conflict resolution specialists to over 50 communities. Likewise, based on feedback and input from the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and Middle Eastern American communities, cultural competency training had been developed for personnel of the Department of Homeland Security. The United States also actively encouraged civil society actors, including religious groups, to participate in interfaith dialogue, education efforts and alliance-building with domestic and international religious groups and leaders to foster understand-ing within and among communities and promote conflict prevention.

“43. The United States also reported on its strong belief in and vigor-ous defense of the freedoms of religion, belief and expression. As a result of its protection of freedom of religion, the Department of Justice had won the right of a Muslim school bus driver to have his schedule adjusted so that he could attend Friday prayers. As a result of its protection of freedom of speech, United States courts had upheld the rights of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and white supremacist groups to march in public and distribute literature. The United States expressed the view that Government censorship or prohibition of speech based on stereotypical or intolerant content only forced hateful ideology to find new and alternative outlets. Instead, the Unit-ed States advocated concrete action in support of tolerance and individual rights as the best way to combat hateful ideologues.” Id. at 10.

In the same report at page 14 the following appears: “60. On 17 July 2009, the United Nations appealed to parents, the Internet industry and policymakers to join hands to eradicate hate speech from cyberspace. Addressing a day-long seminar title “Unlearning Intolerance” on the danger of cyberhate, the Secretary-General lauded the benefits of the Internet but regretted that some used information technology to reinforce stereotypes, spread misinformation and propagate hate. He warned that some of the newest technologies were being used to peddle some of the oldest fears, decrying what he called ‘digital demonization’ which targeted innocents because of their faith, their race or their ethnicity. The Secretary-General said that the Internet industry could help ensure that hate speech did not proliferate online and he urged policymakers to safeguard people while balancing basic freedoms and human rights. The United Nations began its ‘Unlearning Intolerance’ series in 2004 with a forum on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and has since continued the program with lectures and seminars.”

That’s all for this March 22nd issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, share your views on these or other UN issues by posting them at www.unweek.blogspot.com
Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of March 15, 2010.

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
3/15/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: Security Council’s Al-Qaida and Taliban list; Uzbekistan under scrutiny; the Goldstone Report on Gaza; free speech and defamation of religions.

Security Council’s Al-Qaida and Taliban list.

Last week’s issue of United Nations Week included information about the deletion of two entities from the Security Council’s Al-Qaida and Taliban list. Here is information about two entries added to the list:

“On 11 March 2010, the Security Council Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee approved the addition of the two entries specified below to its Consolidated List of individuals and entities subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 1904 (2009) adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

C. Individuals associated with Al-Qaida

QI.A.276.10. Name: 1: AKRAM 2: TURKI 3: HISHAN 4: AL-MAZIDIHName (original script): أكرم تركي هاشم المزيدهTitle: na Designation: na DOB: a) 1974 b) 1975 POB: na Good quality a.k.a.: Akram Turki Al-Hishan Low quality a.k.a.: a) Abu Jarrah b) Abu Akram Nationality: na Passport no.: na National identification no.: na Address: Zabadani, Syrian Arab Republic Listed on: 11 Mar. 2010 Other information: Other possible date of birth: 1979. He is a cousin of Ghazy Fezza Hishan Al Mazidih (QI.A.277.10).

QI.A.277.10. Name: 1: GHAZY 2: FEZZA 3: HISHAN 4: AL-MAZIDIHName (original script): غازي فيزا هاشم المزيدهTitle: na Designation: na DOB: a) 1974 b) 1975 POB: na Good quality a.k.a.: a) Ghazy Fezzaa Hishan b) Mushari Abd Aziz Saleh Shlash Low quality a.k.a.: a) Abu Faysal b) Abu Ghazzy Nationality: na Passport no.: na National identification no.: na Address: Zabadani, Syrian Arab Republic Listed on: 11 Mar. 2010 Other information: He is a cousin of Akram Turki Hishan Al Mazidih (QI.A.276.10).

“In accordance with paragraph 14 of resolution 1904 (2009), the Committee has made accessible on its website narrative summaries of reasons for listing of the above names, at the following URL: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/narrative.shtml.

“The Committee’s List is updated regularly on the basis of relevant information provided by Member States and regional organizations. This is part of the fourth update of the List in 2010. An updated List is accessible on the Committee’s website at the following URL: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml.” SC/9870

Uzbekistan under scrutiny.

Uzbekistan presented its 3rd periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, touting its abolition of the death penalty, expansion of the duties of the Human Rights Ombudsman and recitation of “Miranda” rights to accused persons. Professor Ruth Wedgwood, US Member of the Committee, stated that respected bodies had described prisons in Uzbekistan as systems of torture or even “islands of torture.” She stated that, “I could not have the courage to be an independent journalist in Uzbekistan.”

The Government’s representative responded that, if his delegation was offended by certain statements, it would deal with it, and that he was not satisfied with the Committee’s condemnatory tone, since the dialogue should be one of equals. He added that Uzbekistan was one of the few countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States to have concluded an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose prison visits were confidential. Furthermore, he said, any non-governmental organization that wanted to visit Uzbek prisons could do so.

The Goldstone Report on Gaza.

“And while we have a series of specific concerns about the Goldstone report, which we have outlined in the past, we will continue to call upon all of the parties to conduct serious reviews of the allegations in the report and to establish credible accountability systems. * * * We support the notion of complementarity, which assumes that the best way to address these issues is for each party to conduct its own investigations and to carry out its own remedial actions.” So said Maria Otero, US Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, to the UN Human Rights Council at its opening session on March 1st.

Otero’s use of the word “complementarity” seems to have been bor-rowed from its usage in connection with the International Criminal Court. There, it means that a government has the first option to prosecute, and the ICC will not prosecute unless the government is unable or unwilling to do so. But the analogy breaks down for lack of any third party alternative in the Gaza context. The Washington Post on March 11 reported that two Israeli staff sergeants had been indicted for forcing a Palestinian boy to open bags suspected of being booby-trapped with explosives.

A day earlier, the Post told how the European Parliament had urged its 27 member states to monitor the Israeli and Palestinian probes into alleged war crimes in Gaza. A spokesman for the Israeli mission to the EU was quoted as saying that, “We find this resolution flawed and counterproduc-tive” and that, “it is regrettable that the European Parliament chooses to concentrate on a highly controversial issue.”

Free speech and defamation of religions.

Secretary Maria Otero also said on March 1st: “We are seriously concerned about inflammatory speech and language that reinforces negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion. These are issues that need to be addressed in practical and effective ways. But we do not support the concept of ‘defamation of religions,’ that has been proposed here. We also do not endorse calls to criminalize and ban speech that is offensive to members of religious traditions. We strongly believe that censoring offensive ideas cannot and will not prevent racism or religious discrimination.”

A year ago, before the US became a member of the Human Rights Council, its resolution 10/22, entitled “Combating defamation of religions,” was adopted by a vote of 23-11-13. Those voting against were: Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. One of the operative paragraphs was: “5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of def-amation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.” A/HRC/10/29 at 54.

The same resolution also “10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights and reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare.”

In January a letter from the Organization of the Islamic Conference said that a report of the Conference “clearly confirmed that negative perceptions and religious prejudice targeting Islam and Muslims in large parts of Western societies were indeed mobilized for short-term political gain by extremists while tolerated by the political establishments of their respective countries. Whatever the underlying causes, the political manipu-lation of such sensitive issues only serves to boost stereotypes and intoler-ance while widening cultural, religious and political divisions. In this climate of growing tension and as part of global efforts to combat the matter, it seems that considering the adoption of a related legally binding mechanism by the international community is more relevant than before.” A/HRC/13/G /3 at 1.

In a perceptive refinement of related issues, the summary to the report of Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/13/40, states in its first-page summary that, “ . . . she distinguishes between discrimination and violence on the grounds of religion or belief (i.e. based on the religious affiliation of the victim) and discrimination and violence in the name of religion or belief (i.e. based on or arrogated to religious tenets of the perpetrator).”

Jahangir “notes with concern the worsening situation of minority communities in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 and the estrangement of communities who earlier lived together without suspicion. * * * Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has noticed a number of restrictions imposed on different forms of religious expression, for example, on the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings. At the same time, she is concerned about reports of women who are forced to wear religious dress in public in certain countries.” Id. at 12.

At the same time, Jahangir cautions that, “the right to freedom of religion or belief does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize the important role of an independent judiciary, which needs to adjudicate in each particular case according to its own circumstances and taking into account the specific context.” Id. at 13.

Jahangir also notes that, “The Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Belief in Public Schools provide practical guidance for preparing curricula for teaching about religions and beliefs, as well as preferred procedures for ensuring fairness in the development of such curric-ula.” A footnote explains that the 130-page Guiding Principles come from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and are available at: www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/11/28314_993_en.pdf Id. at 13.

That’s all for this March 15th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, do send us your own views on these or other issues, to www.unweek.blogspot.com Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.

Issue of March 8, 2010

UNITED NATIONS WEEK
News and Views
3/8/10 TV Program Notes
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
J_PCarey@verizon.net
www.unweek.blogspot.com

In this issue: gender equality and women’s rights; cash-for-work in Haiti; Security Council Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee.

Gender equality and women’s rights.

We, the United States, are the only country in the world that has signed but never ratified the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been in effect since 1981. March 3rd was celebrated as International Women’s Day. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking as “a son and a husband, as a father and grandfather of girls,” noted with sorrow that, “Up to 70 per cent of women experience violence in their lifetime. Most commonly they are attacked by an intimate partner.”

Continuing, Mr. Ban stated that, “We sometimes hear it said that such practices are a matter of culture. They are not. They are abuses and they are criminal and they deny women’s fundamental rights. So too do early and forced marriage, so-called ‘honor killing’, sexual abuse and trafficking. My ‘UNiTE to End Violence against Women campaign and the recently launched Network of Men Leaders are striving to put an end to these abuses.”

Then he turned to advantages women have: “Whether interviewing victims of sexual violence, working in women’s prisons, assisting female ex-combatants reintegrate into civilian life, or mentoring female police cadets, women personnel have a clear advantage. They can help empower women to rebuild their war-torn countries and act as role models. In Liberia, seeing an all-female police unit from India has boosted interest among Liberian women in joining their own police service.” SG/SM/12773-OBV/856-WOM/1781.

On March 2nd, Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro told the General Assembly that, “The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, and which we commemorate this afternoon, is at the heart of this normative and policy framework. * * * The influence and passion of the women’s movement helped define the agenda. Almost 30,000 non-governmental organization representatives attended the NGO Forum. The involvement of so many stakeholders gave enormous legitimacy and force to the Platform for Action and its call for action in 12 critical areas of concern.”

The Deputy Secretary-General called violence against women and girls “the most common, most shameful and least punished crime in the world. In the past 15 years, understanding has grown that the empowerment of women and girls is not just a goal in itself, but is key to all our international development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.” She then emphasized that, “The impact of recent multiple global crises on women and girls has further heightened this understanding.” DSG/SM/491-GA/10919-WOM/1779.

But on the other hand, at the 54th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, Ireland’s Minister of State with responsibility for Equality, Disability Issues and Mental Health, said that country’s sustained economic growth could be attributed in part to a marked increase of 400,000 ‑‑ or 60 per cent ‑‑ in the number of women working in Ireland since the mid 1990s. To date, Ireland’s economic downturn had put more men than women out of work. In many cases, women’s earnings had supplemented the income of families that would otherwise have to rely on the male breadwinner’s unemployment benefits. Moreover, by introducing a national minimum wage, and better childcare services, maternity leave and child benefits, the Government had made it easier for women to balance work and family life, while narrowing the gender pay gap to below the European Union average.

The Deputy Secretary-General of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) said the global economic downturn demonstrated the need for a dramatic shift to a more equitable globalization and action to make trade an instrument for women’s empowerment. In practical terms, mainstreaming gender in trade policies required assessing the impact of those policies on the well-being of men, women and households. Such analysis would allow for better understanding of the challenges and opportunities women faced from market liberalization, as well as facilitate women’s transition to a more competitive market structure.
Tajikistan’s Deputy Foreign Minister and Sri Lanka’s representative pointed to efforts in their nations to bolster women’s entrepreneurship through training, skills development, marketing assistance and microcredit schemes ‑‑ all effective tools for reducing poverty. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates’ delegate noted the creation of a Business Women’s Council among other steps to strengthen women’s entry into the national workforce, where they accounted for 22.4 per cent of all employees.

Andrew Byrnes, Professor of International Law of the University of New South Wales of Australia, said the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which monitors States Parties’ compliance with the Convention, had gone far towards developing the concept of dis-crimination against women by coming up with a substantive definition of equality, and not just a formal one. But on a practical level, nearly all cases decided by the Committee had been against members of the Council of Europe, casting doubt over why other regions were not engaging the Committee in the same way.

Cash-for-work in Haiti.

Time magazine, reporting on the UNDP’s cash-for-work program in Haiti, said it has employed more than 35,000 out of a goal of 100,000 earthquake victims, at a cost of $175,000 a day. Participants receive about $4.50 per six-hour shift for two weeks.

One has to wonder why immediate employment relief like this has not been instituted in the United States. While we do not have vast amounts of earthquake rubble to be cleared, work not requiring much training, our aging infrastructure certainly needs enormous amounts of renovation. Those who remember measures of this kind being put in place during the 1930s ask ourselves why federal authorities are not now pursuing this form of rescue for the economy and its victims.

Security Council Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee.

On March 1st the Committee approved de-listing of two entities from its Consolidated List, ending the assets freeze and arms embargo set out in paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 1904 (2009). Each of them has an address in Vaduz, Liechenstein. One was described as liquidated and “eleted from the Commercial Registry.” Individuals, groups, undertakings and entiies removed from the Consolidated List by the Committee appears at:
www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/removed.shtml. The Committee is reviewing the List to ensure that it is as updated and accurate as possible.

That’s all for this March 8th issue of United Nations Week: News and Views. We’ll be back with the next issue. Meantime, so send your own views on these or other UN issues to www.unweek.blogspot.com. Good-bye for now, and thanks for watching.