In Focus

International Criminal Tribunal: Rwanda

In 1994 French President, Francois Mitterand, said of Rwanda "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important.” Unfortunately, the position of the US administration at that time was that no genocide was taking place in Rwanda and therefore there was no reason to act.

Later, President Clinton apologized to the Rwandan people, saying “All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror…We didn't do anything to stop the genocide, but we didn't know a horrific nightmare was happening.”

Now we have the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that is sitting at the cost of $130 million per year and judging indicted war criminals at a snail's pace.

The Rwandan massacres occurred in 1994, but the first trial at ICTR only started in January 1997, 8 months after the arrival of the first accused. As of March 2005 only 17 judgments, involving 23 accused, have been handed down. Take the case of Joseph NZIRORERA, President of the Rwandan National Assembly. Arrested in June 1998, his first appearance before the ICTR was in April 1999, but his trial only started in November 2003. The present status of his case, according to ICTR web site, is “Trial to re-start. Date not fixed.”

However, the Tribunal is congratulating itself that it is on track to finish the trials by end 2008 – some 14 years after the events in question! “Justice delayed is justice denied”. So what does this record of the ICTR mean for the newly-established International Criminal Court (ICC), a court formally opposed by the United States?

First, look at how the ICC money is to be spent – and, remember that, as of now, the ICC has no trials in progress. This year's budget is for over $75 million and that provides for a staff that will build up to a total of 489. Apparently the ICC reckons that it will need 147 people in the “Office of the Prosecutor”; 41 judges and others in the “Judiciary”; and 294 in the “Registry”.

This is a new organization, so how much paper is to be produced to justify a 294-person “Registry” to look after it? It sounds like UN bureaucracy as usual. ICC Judges will each earn over $200,000 a year; and a judge who has completed a full nine-year term will get a retirement pension of $100,000 a year for the rest of his/her life. Note that these salaries are higher than those of the Justices of the US Supreme Court. So, what are all these highly-paid people doing to earn their inflated salaries?

At the end of March, a UN Security Council resolution referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commended “the Council for using its authority.….to provide an appropriate mechanism to lift the veil of impunity that has allowed human rights crimes in Darfur to continue unchecked.” He congratulated all Members for overcoming their differences to allow the Council to act to ensure that those responsible for atrocities in Darfur are held to account.

But the war crimes in Darfur are continuing, with an estimated death toll of over 400,000. The Washington-based Coalition For international Justice and experts from Northwestern and Toronto Universities estimate that 140,000 people have been killed by Sudanese government forces and their proxy militia (known as Janjaweed) and 250,000 civilians have died from either disease, starvation or exposure. The UN says that more than two million of the estimated six million population have fled their homes. The death toll from malnutrition and disease is estimated to be more than 500 per day.

Will the referral of these crimes to the ICC have any deterrent effect on the criminals? If the ICC does not get down to work quickly and establish a track record of efficient and prompt investigations of alleged crimes and subsequent indictment and speedy trial and conviction of the criminals, it will turn out to be just one more of the tribunals set up under UN auspices – an enormous waste of time and money that breeds contempt for the rule of international law.

The victims in Rwanda are still waiting for justice. How long will the people in Darfur have to wait?

The Status of Arab Women

“Now we see a springtime of hope across the Middle East,” US First Lady Laura Bush recently told the audience at the World Economic Forum in Jordan. But how true is this, especially for the oppressed women of the region?

"Freedom, especially freedom for women, is more than the absence of oppression. It's the right to speak and vote and worship freely”, the First Lady stated. "Human rights require the rights of women.” Unfortunately, the position of many women in many countries in the Middle East is a disadvantaged one.

Laura Bush stressed the importance of education and granting full rights to women to participate in economic and public life, but let us look at some alarming statistics.

According to the United Nations' Arab Human Development Report, in the Middle East some 65 million adults are illiterate, almost two-thirds of them women. In fact, one in every two Arab women can neither read nor write and some 10 million children still have no schooling at all.

What kind of civilized society can one have when many of the mothers - the most important influence on a child's development and early education - are illiterate and considered to be second class citizens? The widespread authoritarian style of child rearing affects how the child thinks by suppressing questioning, exploration and initiative. It is no wonder that so many illiterate or badly educated children fall prey to Islamist fanatics who indoctrinate them with hatred for the West.

Utilisation of Arab women's capabilities through political and economic participation remains extremely low. In many countries of the region, women suffer from unequal citizenship and legal entitlements. In some countries with elected national assemblies, women are still denied the right to vote or hold office.

Freedom House has just published a comparative assessment of women's rights in the Middle East in a report entitled "Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Citizenship and Justice”,, This seeks to explain the causes and consequences of sex-based discrimination in the region. The organization says its study is the most comprehensive look at women's rights in 17 Arab countries and ranks countries on the rights and freedoms they offer women.

According to the study, all but Saudi Arabia have constitutions mandating the equality of women, but basic criminal, family and labor laws are consistently skewed against women. Women face a systematic gender gap, aided in large measure by discriminatory laws and by the routine lack of enforcement of existing laws guaranteeing equality and fair treatment. None of the countries evaluated meets internationally recognized standards for women's rights protections. None of the countries has a law declaring domestic violence a crime, and there are no efforts to inform women of the laws that do exist to protect them.

So, where is the “springtime of hope”? Laura Bush stated that women have enjoyed "extraordinary progress" in recent months, especially in Kuwait, where they recently won the right to vote, and Lebanon, where they protested the Syrian presence there alongside men. It is interesting to note that Kuwait and Lebanon have high (80%) female literacy rates, whereas in Yemen, for example, 74% of females are illiterate.

"Women who have not won these rights are watching," said Mrs. Bush. "They are calling on the conscience of their countrymen, making it clear that if the right to vote is to have any meaning, it cannot be limited only to men.”

One of the greatest obstacles to progress is distorted interpretation of Islamic law. There are many examples where the teachings of the Prophet have, according to some scholars, been distorted to support existing customs and legislation where women are treated as second class citizens. Thus one can find quotes that appear to justify keeping wives confined to the home, stoning for adultery, and strict separation of men from women.

The First Lady was right to raise the issue in a public forum. The criticisms by the UN's Arab Human Development Report and by Freedom House can only help focus international attention on the problem.

It may be “politically incorrect” to judge other cultures by so-called Western standards, but I believe that in this case it is necessary. It remains to be seen whether the Middle Eastern countries will themselves pay attention and develop a more modern and equitable approach to treatment of their women.

French Vote on European Constitution

Some believe that the French worker suffers from a reluctance to perform hard work, combined with a conviction that French “civilization” is superior to any other.

This was clearly reflected in the decisive rejection of the proposed new constitution for Europe. In spite of an energetic government propaganda campaign and personal pleas from President Chirac, the French were unwilling to go along with increased centralization of Europe and the implied weakening of French independence and culture.

One of the great fears raised by opposition to the new constitution was the specter of the “Polish Plumber” who would arrive on time, work better than a French plumber, and charge half the price. With the enlargement of the European Union to cover many former Soviet bloc countries has come an influx of cheap labor into France and other rich Western European countries. The French are most unhappy about it. And, looking at their high unemployment rate (over 10.2 per cent), who can blame them for being worried about their future?

But they only have themselves to blame. Strong unions have forced through legislation reducing the official work week to 35 hours and they are entitled to a legal minimum of five weeks paid vacation in addition to 11 public holidays. On average, a French worker works 339 hours less per year than an American worker. On average, they retire before the age of 60 with a pension that can be as high as two thirds of their final salary. It is no wonder that other Europeans are now able to produce goods and services far cheaper than can the French and that French factories are closing in the face of competition from imports.

When French workers look at their net pay check and compare that with what they can make by doing nothing, the cost of not working is low. But who will pay for these welfare benefits in the future?

France is aging rapidly and every year there will be fewer in the active working population supporting an ever increasing percentage of retired. By 2030 the population aged 65 and over will rise to 39.1 per cent. Adding the population aged 0-14, 68 per cent of the population will be supported by the remaining 32 per cent.

Already France is one of the more heavily taxed countries and employers are extremely reluctant to create new jobs because of the high social taxes the have to pay (80-90 per cent in addition to the employee's salary) and the difficulty of downsizing in the event of a downturn. If you think that our own social security system may have problems in 20 to 30 years, just image the French problem that is not nearly so far away.

A number of French unions have blamed the eastern expansion of the EU for job losses, believing French workers are losing out to the low wage economies of the new EU member states, such as Poland and the Czech Republic. But the French unions themselves have contributed to the mess. Public sector workers such as firemen, police, teachers and doctors regularly go out on strike. And strikers not only strike against their own employers but often undertake industrial action “in sympathy” with other strikers. Just imagine the reaction in this country if truckers were to bring the highway system to a complete stop by blocking Interstate entrance and exit ramps, with the police standing by doing nothing.

The results of the referendum on the Constitution show that most French resent domination by Brussels, and now they have put a spanner in the works of the European Union. I hope that they are prepared to live with the consequences.

Corruption at the United Nations: Waiting for the Report

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has described 2004 as a “horrible year”, but 2005 may be worse. In the United States, there has been growing criticism of UN management, particularly of the Oil for Food Program.

And the world-wide UN staff are not happy either. Earlier in 2004, the UN published an independent integrity perception survey conducted by Deloitte & Touche that concluded that UN staff perceive a lack of integrity particularly at the higher levels of their organization.

According to the survey, there was a general perception that breaches of integrity and ethical conduct are insufficiently addressed. At the same time, staff voiced concern about the consequences of “whistle-blowing” or reporting on misconduct, and uncertainty about the mechanisms for such reporting. This report was followed by official disciplinary investigations of complaints against two senior officials. They were subsequently cleared of misconduct by Kofi Annan.

And, last month the UN Staff Union took the unprecedented step of voting on a resolution that they decided “that the senior management no longer displays the level of integrity expected of all employees of the organization”.

Staff Union President Rosemarie Waters said that the vote wasn't directed at Secretary-General Kofi Annan who is “in a very difficult job under very difficult circumstances, but we continue to have hope that he is doing his best. We only want his senior managers to exhibit the transparency and accountability that he has prescribed for the organization."

But, a number of politicians in this country are expressing no such confidence in Kofi Annan. Senator Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and sixty Members of Congress have called for him to stand down. They include nine members of the House Appropriations Committee, which provides 22 percent of the UN's annual budget. Senator Coleman's call has recently been supported by a hard-hitting Heritage Foundation article “The White House Should Call on Kofi Annan to Resign”, and by influential New York Times columnist William Saffire, Fox News, the National Review and other media. President Bush has demanded a “full and open disclosure of all that took place with the Oil for Food program.”

These calls for resignation, however, are premature. In this country we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the jury is still out. Currently numerous investigations of the Oil for Food Program are being pursued, including one by the UN Independent Inquiry Committee headed by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve. An interim report by Volcker is expected in January 2005 and should provide interesting reading.

The Volcker investigation is apparently “following the money trail”, but is hampered by the existence of a multitude of “ghost” companies, set up to prevent such an investigation by effectively hiding the flow of funds. While many companies and individuals have been identified as having benefited from “vouchers” entitling them to purchase Iraqi oil at below-market prices, it has so far been difficult to prove that any favors were returned in the form of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.

Of particular interest to readers of the Volcker report will be coverage of allegations against Benon Sevan, appointed by Kofi Annan to head the $60 billion Oil for Food Program. Documents found in the Iraqi oil ministry since Saddam's fall suggest that Mr Sevan secretly received vouchers to sell 14.3 million barrels of oil, which would have yielded an illicit profit of around $2 million. But Mr Sevan has denied any wrongdoing and said that the documents could well be forged.

Even if these allegations were to be proved, would Sevan or any other senior UN official have to pay a price? The UN has a history of allowing senior officials accused of misconduct to resign, and Sevan is due to retire in June 2005.

However, what is more important than allegations against individuals or companies is that confidence be restored in the UN's ability to police itself. The key problem is a UN culture of secrecy and lack of transparency. This is summed up by Merrill Cassell, a former budget director of UNICEF, who has commented: “It is sad to see the UN labelled as a corrupt institution…There is a culture of walls when what we need is a culture of windows…If some of the things that happen at the UN took place in a big corporation, people would have been fired.”

What is needed to restore public confidence in the UN is prompt corrective action by the Secretary-General after he receives the interim Volcker report. Otherwise, he can expect a growing chorus for his resignation in 2005.

Libya's WMD

Libya's WMD – the case for stick rather than carrot

Libya's recent admission that it has been developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that it would agree to IAEA inspection and subsequent verification of elimination of the program was a major surprise to the IAEA and reinforces criticism of that Agency, that it is a toothless watchdog. In spite of having signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, as have North Korea and Iran, Muammar Qaddafi proceeded with a secret nuclear weapon development program under the noses of the IAEA inspectors. Meanwhile it has taken the combined efforts of UK and US intelligence services to unmask Libya's illegal WMD activities and months of secret negotiations between US, UK and Libyan authorities to end up with Libya's capitulation.

Proponents of multilateral diplomacy and the use of carrots rather than sticks like to point out that the result was a triumph for quiet diplomacy. But followers of realpolitik and the measured use of the threat of force claim that it was no coincidence that Libya started negotiations when the US and UK made it clear that Iraq's obstinacy and failure to abide by the will of the international community, as expressed in UN resolutions, would result in the use of a really big stick. And the Bush administration has repeatedly made clear that diplomacy unbacked by a credible threat of force is ineffectual.

While Colonel Qaddafi has a poor track record with regard to sponsoring terrorist acts, he is unlike Saddam Hussein in that his primary motivation is the good of the Libyan people. While Saddam diverted billions to his secret bank accounts and murdered and tortured his own population, Qaddafi has always lived modestly and ensured that Libyan oil wealth was diverted to housing, hospitals, education, roads and electrification. There is no doubt that sanctions have had an adverse impact on Libya's economic development and that it is high time that the Libyan people are relieved of this consequence of Qaddafi's misguided actions in the past. The fact that Libya wishes to emerge from the category of “Rogue State” and become once more a respectable member of the world community is a testimony to the effectiveness of the big stick approach to diplomacy. The Libyan people can be grateful that this time around the threat of more coercive action has been avoided.

UN Role in Post Conflict Iraq

In May the Foreign Policy Association focused its Global Q & A on the subject of

Reconstructing Iraq -- The Role of the United Nations

At that time I noted that it appeared that the U.S was extremely reluctant to have any Security Council role in Iraq other than that of lifting the sanctions and terminating the Oil for Food Program. In particular, there was great resistance to any on-going role for the UN inspectors in the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, to UN involvement in peacekeeping or in establishing a new government. But I also commented that any realistic assessment of Security Council politics would mean some kind of behind the scenes deal to protect France and Russia from the economic consequences of an abrupt end to the (lucrative) Oil for Food Program.

Security Council Resolution 1483 lifted trade and financial sanctions and, as I predicted, there was an extension of the Oil for Food Program, for six months. The Council also requested appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General who would "work intensively" with the occupying Powers to advance the establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance. The Special Representative would also act as coordinator amongst United Nations and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities.

Subsequently, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed as Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who is now taking a four-month leave of absence from his current post as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In mid June, Sergio Vieira de Mello, after meetings with a full spectrum of Iraqi political leaders, said he was discovering a convergence of views on the need for the "Iraqi-ization" of the process of moving the country forward. He told reporters there was agreement on the need to move swiftly to new transitional institutions that will embody Iraqi sovereignty in this phase leading to the elaboration and adoption of a new constitution and democratic elections.

What is uncertain, however, is the extent to which the occupying Powers will be willing to follow any UN lead in this area. As Secretary-General Kofi Annan said at the time of Mr de Mellos' appointment, "First of all, this is a unique situation. It is the first time we are working on the ground with an occupying Power, side-by-side, trying to help the population in the territory. Therefore, there are certain things that we will have to work out on the ground. We have to define and work out our relationship with the coalition Authority or the occupying Power, and also our relationship with occupied Iraq."

It remains to be seen how much influence the Security Council and the UN will have. Previously questions were raised about the future credibility of the UN, given the tensions in the Security Council. Resolution 1483 was a compromise resulting from intense discussions and, as described by the representative of Mexico, "members of the Council had to rebuild understanding and reconcile opinions to retrieve the purpose and direction of the Council". The representative of Angola noted that the resolution's adoption would contribute to restoring the unity of purpose that had been bruised by divisions over Iraq. It had also reinstated the spirit of multilateralism enabling the Council to better play its mandated role in maintaining international peace and security.

It is to be hoped that the UN will take this opportunity to restablish its credibility and to demonstrate its continued relevance. Much will depend on the diplomatic skills of those involved. The recent intemperate remarks of Inspector Blix, who is widely reported to have criticized senior officials in the United States, show the damage that can be caused to the prospects for international cooperation by prima donnas with hidden agendas. We wish Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello,every success in his(temporary)new role.

UN Works - an overview of UN activities

Many people only know the United Nations for its peacekeeping operations or for the sessions of the General Assembly in New York.

The "UN Works" web site gives a good introductory overview of activities in a number of areas: Business, Children, Culture, Development, Emergencies, Environment, Health, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, Labour, Peace, Women. This is an excellent place to start in order to obtain a better understanding of the UN System's wide range of activities.

N.Korean Refugees -time for UNHCR to act

A new documentary, “Seoul Train”, is drawing attention to the plight of North Koreans who have fled to China. At the same time, the U.S. Senate will shortly begin deliberations on the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004, unanimously passed in July by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill calls for the U.S. government to be actively involved in the North Korean human rights issue and to protect North Korean defectors. The bill also specifically provides for the U.S. to take certain steps and to include the North Korean human rights issue as a major topic of discussion with Northeast Asian states.

China is a signatory state of the 1951 Refugee Convention (and 1967 Protocol thereto), which stipulates that party states are obliged to provide protection and humanitarian aid to asylum-seekers and not send them back to their countries where they may face persecution. But Beijing claims that the North Koreans who enter China without proper travel documents are illegal “economic migrants”. China has hunted them down and sent many of those it has detained back to the North. This in spite of the fact that these “defectors” are considered political criminals by the North Korean government and, according to Article 47 of the North Korean Criminal Code, their flight is punishable by a minimum of seven years in a "re-education camp" and a maximum sentence of execution. Thus China's failure to live up to international obligations is of serious concern to all in the international community who seek to protect human rights.

“Seoul Train” documents the fear that North Korean refugees have of the Chinese authorities and shows dramatic footage of Chinese officials attacking and arresting a family in the process of entering the Japanese Embassy in Beijing in order to seek political asylum. The documentary also criticizes the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for failing to take effective action to protect the refugees.

At the 50th anniversary celebration of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a high Chinese official stated that this landmark international law is the "Magna Carta" of refugee law and a "guide to action" to countries who have signed the convention. China also, indicated unequivocally, on the 12th of May, 2000, that the 1951 Convention on Refugees will take precedence over its own domestic law in case of a contradiction.

But the reality is that the Chinese government does not allow UNHCR staff to visit the North Korean border area, let alone interview North Korean defectors who live in constant fear of being caught by Chinese police and repatriated to North Korea. A bilateral treaty signed in 1995 between the UNHCR and the government of China provides for "unimpeded access" to areas where border crossing takes place to enable the UNHCR to determine by interview who is a refugee. But in the film, an UNHCR official states that this has not been done since a last failed attempt some years ago.

UNCHR in China also has the right of "binding arbitration" in the event that there is a disagreement between its office and China regarding how to handle a refugee issue. But it appears that neither the UNHCR office in China, nor UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva have invoked this right.

It is a sad comment on the lack of UN will to act that the proposed US legislation includes text urging the UNHCR to use all available means to gain access and provide assistance to North Koreans in China. UNHCR can little afford to ignore the United States' position. The US is by far the largest (over 20%) contributor to UNHCR's budget. In contrast, China is not even included on the list of the 30 largest contributors, which means that its contribution is even less than that of “private donors, Switzerland”!

It is high time that the UNHCR and other UN organizations start to take seriously the international agreements signed by Member States. Too often UN bureaucrats are excessively concerned about offending the host government and not concerned enough about the human rights violations occurring under their noses. The United States should continue to push for change; and the publicity arising from the dramatic footage of “Seoul Train” may well provide a catalyst for change in China as the wider international audience wakes up to the realities of these human rights abuses.

Eradicating Polio

Why we should care about Polio Eradication?

Thanks to polio vaccines brought to market in 1955, we in the United States have largely stopped worrying about polio. So why should we worry? Isn't polio a disease that only affects poor people thousand of miles away?

Fifty years ago, the US had an annual average of 16,316 cases of polio resulting in 1,879 deaths. With vaccination, cases dropped to under 1,000 in 1962 and declined further to less than 100 cases in subsequent years. There have been no naturally occurring cases here since 1979.

But we were lucky in having the means to buy, distribute and administer vaccines. Many poor countries could not afford them or lacked ways of getting them to the children at risk.

Through its PolioPlus program, established in 1985, Rotary International was the first to have the vision of a polio-free world. More than one million Rotary members have volunteered their time and personal resources to protect more than 2 billion children in 122 countries from polio. Rotary members provide valuable field support during National Immunization Days through social mobilization and by administering the oral polio vaccine to children. By the time the world is certified polio-free, Rotary's contributions to the global polio eradication effort will exceed US$600 million.

In 1988, when the World Health Assembly resolved to eradicate polio, Rotary was joined by WHO, UNICEF, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to establish the global Polio Eradication Initiative. Funding has also come in from national governments, non-governmental organizations and foundations.

Today, the disease has been eliminated from 210 countries and from large geographic areas of the six remaining endemic countries, Nigeria, Niger, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Over 90% of the world's cases are from Nigeria.

But while enormous progress has been made, there is no reason for complacency. Consider the following alarming statistics:

This year, there have been 885 cases so far, compared to only 491 in 2003. Transmission in West & Central Africa is more than 3 times higher this year than for the same period last year. World-wide there were only 483 cases in 2001, but the following year this rose to 1918 cases. At that rate of growth, it does not take that many years to wreck the progress made.

The continued existence of polio anywhere in the world endangers us all.

Unless polio is totally eradicated, world-wide, even one remaining case can start the process all over again. For years the world ignored the development of AIDS, as the cases were concentrated in Africa. Now many of us are at risk, and the world death toll from AIDS is in the millions.

Statisticians calculate that the 2 billion inoculations of children mean that nearly 5 million children are walking who would otherwise have been paralyzed by polio. Are we prepared to let millions suffer in the future? Remember that the cessation of mass immunization campaigns in most polio-free countries has left the world increasingly vulnerable to importations of this disease. Even here in the United States, we are only a plane ride away from places where polio is still killing and paralyzing children.

Polio can be stopped in Africa by end 2005. Similar campaigns in 2000, 2001 and 2002 stopped polio in all countries across the region, except in Nigeria and Niger. But since then polio has spread from these two countries to neighbors who had eradicated their own polio. More efforts are needed in Nigeria and Niger, to improve the quality of the immunization campaigns.

If all children can be reached during National Immunization Days, India and Pakistan could stop transmission of the virus by the end of this year or next. But this will mean maintaining a very high level of political commitment that is essential to the success of immunization activities. . For example, particular focus is required to reach young, Muslim children in India's western Uttar Pradesh.

It is essential to reach some 80 million children in 23 countries across west and central Africa. And in a number of key districts in Asia and Egypt, special care must be taken to reach specific, individual population sub-groups.

Last month, governments in Africa and Asia - supported by the partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative - conducted polio immunization campaigns to immunize more than 300 million children. The Africa campaign was the largest immunization campaign ever conducted on the continent.

We must all pray that these internationally-supported efforts succeed in ridding the world of the scourge of polio. If this happens, we should all be thankful to the World Health Organization, UNICEF and the millions of private citizens who played a vital part in keeping us, and the world, safe.

Universal Postal Union

While world attention is focused on the Security Council and on what it might resolve on Iraq disarmament inspections, other UN System organizations continue in their quiet way to ensure the safe and reliable functioning of key elements in the world of international commerce and communication. This note looks at one of the specialized agencies, the Universal Postal Union. (UPU).

The UPU is one of the oldest organizations in the UN System, as it was established in 1874, with its Headquarters in the Swiss capital Bern, well before the UN or even the League of Nations was even dreamed of.

With 189 member countries, the UPU fulfils an advisory, mediating and liaison role, renders technical assistance where needed, provides the primary forum for cooperation between postal services and helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services. It sets the rules for international mail exchanges and makes recommendations to stimulate growth in mail volumes and to improve the quality of service for customers.

More than six million postal employees work in over 700 000 postal outlets to ensure that some 430 billion mail items are processed and delivered each year to all corners of the world. While the postal services of the 189 member countries form the largest physical distribution network in the world, they are also increasingly tied to newer means of communications such as electronic transactions. Products ordered over the Internet can be delivered through the postal network, while more posts are also providing Internet services through their own outlets by setting up Internet cafés or kiosks in post office lobbies.

The UPU 2002 Strategy Conference, held in Geneva in October 2002, discusses postal reform in the context of globalization and sustainable development; markets and regulation; the role of the postal sector in the information society; the new economy and the social dimension; and preparing for the future. We trust that this will be just another step in keeping world postal services moving with the times and functioning smoothly for the benefit of all.

US turns once more to the UN on Iraq

Commentators all over the world have been stressing that the United States should not act unilaterally with regard to its stated aim of regime change in Iraq, but rather should act within the framework of the United Nations and Security Council resolutions. Addressing the General Assembly on September 12, President Bush provided reasons for ending Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq in terms of Saddam's failure to comply with U.N. resolutions.

Before turning to points made by the President, it is interesting to bear in mind issues raised in two recent articles in Foreign Policy magazine. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his article "Problems without Passports", states that:

"Too often the international community fails to do what is needed. It failed to prevent genocide in Rwanda. For too long it reacted with weakness and hesitation to the horror of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia".

Professor Ruth Wedgwood, in an article on "Gallant Delusions" makes the point that:

" Only states can uproot a rogue regime that threatens nuclear terrorism. Only states can exercise the police authority necessary to dig out al Qaeda....Laws are not self-enforcing. The world's truly heedless regimes don't care what others think of them. The lawless scoff at an international community whose words have no supporting cannon fire."

In this light we should read the President's statement and the underlying, but not expressed, view that the UN may not have what it takes to act decisively in this matter. President Bush said:

" The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war--the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. . . .The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Responding to pressure from allies, including the United Kingdom which supports the aim of regime change but would like Security Council backing for action, the United States has taken a sensible first step towards acting multilaterally, but this is done with the clear intent of providing Professor Wedgwood's "supporting cannon fire" if the United Nations proves once more to be incapable of prompt and effective action.

The White House has provided on http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf a detailed list of sixteen Security Council resolutions, going back to 1990, that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated.

While Kofi Annan may well declare " There is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations", try telling that to those massacred in Rwanda, Bosnia and East Timor while the international community dithered and talked rather than acted. It is up to the international community to reclaim its legitimacy by ensuring that this time its will is not ignored.

Churchill once said " If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival."

President Bush laid down a challenge:

"We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."

Let us pray that we do not miss the bus this time.

Going to War without UN Resolution

The Bush Administration and its coalition partners went to war without a “second resolution”, i.e. dropping the idea of a follow up resolution to Security Council Resolution

1441. Critics, including the United Nations Secretary-General, claimed that the war lacked the legitimacy that the proposed second resolution might have

provided if it had been adopted, and some even describe the US (and allies)action as illegal.

However, in the light of France's clear statement that it would use its veto if the second resolution were to authorize the use of force, President Bush decided that it

would be best to drop plans for the follow up to SC 1441 and instead to rely on the legitimacy provided by previous resolutions. A succinct summary of the legal

basis for the use of force is given on the British Prime Minister's web site.

Briefly, the argument for the legal basis is that resolution 678, which originally authorized force against Iraq, was in due course suspended when resolution 687, which set out

the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. All that resolution 1441

did was to give Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”, to state that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687

and to warn that any further failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441 would result in “serious consequences”. As Iraq has

failed to comply, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and the “serious consequences” are to be expected at any moment.

Anyone familiar with long history of the UN inspection process and the details of the recent (March 6, 2003) UNMOVIC 175-page working document

(“Unresolved Disarmament Issues”) cannot help but be dismayed at the cavalier attitude of uninformed people who suggest that there is no evidence that Iraq has ever

had weapons of mass destruction and/or that the inspectors should have been allowed further time. Even a cursory examination of the UN documents provides evidence of a

continued, long-term pattern of lies and deception and concealment of weapons and evidence. For example, Iraq has admitted in writing that it produced 13,600 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin at the Al Hakam plant from January 1989 to August 1990. It took the inspectors until 1996 to first find and then destroy the plant. They have not recovered one litre of the toxin; the Iraqis claim to have destroyed it without records or traces and without submitting to the required supervision by the inspectors.How much of this remains hidden and ready for use? Where is the 8,275 litres of concentrated anthrax produced at Al Hakam? The inspectors do not know and are still demanding proof of destruction.

An interesting December 2002 paper(

href="http://www.csis.org/burke/iraqishellgame.pdf">The new Iraqi Shell Game”)

by the Center for Strategic and International Studies comments. " Iraq has every incentive to make this (inspection) task as difficult as possible, to

overreport, create red herrings, and hint at sacrifice pawns as a fallback position”. The paper also makes the point that Iraq has every incentive to shift to

creating overcapacity in dual use civil plants with legitimate purposes but where the facilities can be rapidly converted to WMD production. UNMOVIC could

monitor these but never identify them as weapons facilities.

If President Bush had followed the French, German and Russian proposals for continued patience with the flawed

inspection process, there would have been continued postponement of necessary action to disarm Iraq. Now we are on the way to resolving a problem that may otherwise have lead to far worse results than the human and financial costs of the recent US and allied action.Whether or not the hidden WMD are ever discovered, the regime change has prevented their use by an unscrupulous madman.

UN Risking Danger of Irrelevance?

Following the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was subjected to UN-imposed sanctions and weapons inspections. Security Council Resolution 1441 called for a new round of inspections in view of Iraq's continued failure to comply with previous resolutions. There has since been a build up of US and UK forces in the Gulf in order to apply further pressure on Saddam Hussein and to be ready, if necessary, to undertake forced destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In the Security Council, France and Germany are resisting US and UK calls for action in the light of Iraq's continuing obstruction and lack of cooperation.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has said in the Security Council, "This body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it does not respond effectively and immediately." He was referring to the need to respond to Iraq's continuing pattern of deception, denial, and refusal to cooperate fully with UN inspectors.

More aggressive, less diplomatic views are being expressed by other commentators. Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post said "The consequences of doing nothing... are dire and somewhat predictable. The United Nations will be revealed as a toothless debating society - a duty-free store on the East River - and every rogue will have learned a lesson from Saddam Hussein: Stall until everyone loses interest."

A Washington Post editorial points out that twelve years of experience have demonstrated that it is impossible to strip an unwilling totalitarian government of its weapons of mass destruction. By failing to act decisively "the Security Council would send Saddam Hussein the message that it remains the ineffectual body that shrank from enforcing 16 previous resolutions...[and would be] setting the stage for another momentous development...the transfer of responsibility for countering the most serious threats to international security from multilateral institutions to the world's sole superpower."

In the view of many commentators, the UN has already suffered a loss of credibility by having Iraq and Iran co-chairing the May session of the UN Conference on Disarmament and by electing Libya to chair the March session of the Human Rights Commission. Defense Secretary Donald. H. Rumsfeld's reaction was "that these acts of irresponsibility could happen now, at this moment in history, is breathtaking...Those acts will be marked in the history of the UN as either the low point of that institution in retreat or the turning point when the UN woke up, took hold of itself, and moved away from a path of ridicule to a path of responsibility."

But these bodies have for a long time been viewed as largely ineffective and as powerless as the UN General Assembly to enforce resolutions. The Security Council is a different matter, as its resolutions, if enforced, can dramatically affect the course of history and demonstrate that a multilateral approach, backed by leading nations, is the optimum way of ensuring world peace and stability.

Is a follow up resolution to Resolution 1441 likely or will the United States, the United Kingdom and other allies use the "serious consequences" text of 1441 as a green light for military action? Secretary of State Colin Powell is reported as having told Security Council members that their endorsement of Resolution 1441 meant that the United States would expect them to authorize the use of force and that they "can't be afraid to go down this road because the going's going to get tough or hard." A new Security Council resolution that acknowledges that Saddam Hussein has continued in material breach of disarmament resolutions and that authorizes member states to use "all necessary means" to "uphold and implement" relevant resolutions would serve to legitimize US actions and show that the multilateral approach championed by Colin Powell works.

On the other hand, continued resistance by France and Germany to the use of force would strengthen the hands of those in the administration who consider the UN as "past its sell-by date" and probably lead to further unilateral acts with the consequent undermining of the UN's credibility. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has pointed out the importance of ensuring that we continue to send a signal of strength. "If Saddam believes for a single instant the will of the international community has abated - that the international community does not have the solidity of purpose that it needs to see this thing through - the consequences of either conflict or prolonged conflict are increased...the threat is real, and if we do not deal with it the consequences of our weakness will haunt future generations."

While public support in the United States for military action would only be enhanced by a positive Security Council move, in the United Kingdom such support appears to be highly conditional on UN approval. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that, having already sent one quarter of the UK's army to the Gulf, Tony Blair would fail to participate in a US-led coalition war even in the absence of a Security Council resolution. Thus, if UN approval is not forthcoming, it is highly probable that unilateral military activities will proceed. The German and French governments may now think that their resistance is to the "cowboy" actions of a country determined to control a key oil supplier, but this resistance may backfire to the detriment of the UN and its future credibility as the principal legitimate initiator of effective multilateral action

UN Iraq Resolution : Creative Ambiguity Rules

The skills of diplomacy include the ability to think one thing and say something completely different; this skill is especially valued in the UN Security Council when Big Power interests collide. The successful passage of Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq after months of tense negotiation is a testimony to the advantages of creative ambiguity, whereby conflicting views get resolved in words that can mean different things to different people.

In the negotiations both Russia and France were insistent that, in the resolution sponsored by the United States and United Kingdom, there be no "automaticity" of military action were Iraq to engage in actions determined to be a further "material breach" of its obligations.

In his 28 October Letter from America broadcast by the BBC, Alistair Cooke commented :

"The French and the Russians especially are expert at composing gobbledegook, so-called diplomatic sentences that weave and tiptoe around every practical act and are most likely to leave us with a wordy lamentation, and Saddam with his nuclear and biological programme undisturbed."

The resolution that was eventually passed reflects the Russian and French position that the Security Council must have a central role in reviewing any non-compliance; thus in the event that the inspectors report any interference with inspection activities or any failure of Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, the Council will "convene immediately in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance".

This, in the view of some countries, implies that US military action is ruled out without further Security Council discussion and approval. Support for that view is given in the statement of US Ambassador Negroponte who told the Council that the resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. But he did add that " If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security." And US. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CNN's Late Edition. "If (Hussein) doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means..If the U.N. isn't willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully."

In the light of the long history of Iraq's obstruction of the inspection process and Security Council reluctance to take a firm stand on previous "material breaches", it is to be hoped that this time any Iraqi failure to comply will be met with an appropriate use of military force rather than continued postponement of action and resort to use of ineffectual sanctions. In the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, " This is a time of trial for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world.If Iraq's defiance continues the Security Council must face its responsibilities".

Given Russian and French economic interests in Iraq, there may be considerable resistance to facing this responsibility promptly and effectively. But, in the words of William Safire, "Should the United Nations deny the fact of Saddam's repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions, the world body will henceforth play only in a little league of nations." If this happens, the US is likely to follow Barry Goldwater's advice that "We must never attempt to use the United Nations as a substitute for clear and resolute US policy". Thus it is likely that, if necessary, the US will act alone or with a small coalition of like-minded states, with all that implies for the credibility and authority of the United Nations. That would be a pity.

More About the UN

Research and Analysis	Post a Comment	Maps
Related Organizations	News Sources	Site Search

Recently In Focus

In Focus Archive »

• Middle East
  
• Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
  
• Food
  
• Middle East
  
• United Nations - General
  
• International Criminal Court
  
• Population activities
  
• Terrorism
  
• US relations with UN
  
• Human Rights
  
• United Nations - General
  
• Racism
  
• International Criminal Tribunal
  
• Climate Change
  
• International Criminal Court
  
• Global Compact
  
• International Criminal Court
  
• Financial Situation