|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 12th, 2008 UN’s Ban Avoids Questions of New Cold War, U.S. War on Terror, Excluded Journalists Speak. Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis. UNITED NATIONS, September 11 — A new Cold War is how many have described recent dynamics in the UN Security Council. Things came to a boil when American criticized Russian military and political moves with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, breaking away from Georgia. Russia countered by citing the precedent of Kosovo, not only the recognition of its break-away from Serbia earlier this year by the U.S. and most of the European Union, but also NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999. Russia vetoed a draft resolution to impose sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, along the China, put Iran sanctions on the slow boat thereto, and asked the U.S. whether it had found the weapons of mass destruction it had claimed were in Iraq. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was largely invisible during these fights. On September 11 he finally held a press conference, and began by apologizing for what he called his summer absence, promise to henceforth do monthly question and answer sessions. Inner City Press asked about what’s called the new Cold War, what Ban thinks and is trying to do about it. Video here, from Minute 14:28. (see the site) *** After reading from notes about humanitarian aid to Georgia, Ban did not answer the question. So Inner City Press repeated it, linking the rift not only to Georgia but also Kosovo and Zimbabwe and asking if Ban is seeking to be an impartial mediator between the U.S. and Russia. “As Secretary-General, I really try to avoid your question,” Ban said. “I do not want to think of that kind of possibility.” Video here, form Minute 19:33. This candidly admitted attempt to avoid questions was repeated in the balance of the press conference. Ban was asked twice to comment on U.S. military incursions into Pakistan in search of insurgents. First he said he was not ready for the question, then that he did not want to answer it. *** A journalist from Lebanon asked about Ban’s previous envoy to Beirut, Johan Verbecke, who as Inner City Press reported left his assignment due to death threats. Ban called these “unavoidable circumstances,” adding that “I do not wish to discuss [them] with you publicly.” Ban was asked, is Kim Jong Il of North Korea dead? “I am not in the position to have any independent source of information to confirm” that, he said. Some of Inner City Press’ sources opine that the North Korean military may have moved against Kim Jong Il, finding him too conciliatory to the West, and then moved to restart North Korea’s nuclear program. Surprisingly, Ban did not raise and no one asked about either Iran or Sudan. The latter can be ascribed to Ban himself. He described Darfur and climate change as his two signature issues. Now things are going so badly in Darfur — even the U.S. contractor to which Ban’s UN gave a $250 million no-bid contract, Lockheed Martin, is leaving in failure — that Ban has dropped the issue. The press corps shouldn’t. *** Speaking of failure, Inner City Press asked Ban about the trip of his envoy Ibrahim Gambari to Mynamar without having met with democracy leader Aung San Soo Kyi or military strongman Than Shwe. “I do not like to characterize it as failure,” Ban said. “Video here, from Minute 14:50. Ban also took issue with press reports, presumably including this one, that focused on a speech he gave to or at his managers in Turin, Italy. Ban said he was misunderstood, that he is flexible, that if anything he was criticizing senior officials, not lower level staff. He was not asked to example the phrase, “I tried to lead by example. Nobody followed.” That line is more and more repeated in the UN and now beyond. How to avert a Cold War, in the UN and more importantly the wider world? While there were on September 11 more responses than before, which must be noted here, no real answered were advanced. Footnote: After the press conference, there were complaints about perceived bias in the way questions were allocated. James Bone, who among other things famously questioned Kofi Annan about the financing and whereabouts of his son Kojo’s Mercedes until being called “an overgrown school boy,” told Inner City Press he has not been called on for a question since. Nizar Abboud, representing both a television station and a newspaper in the Middle East, was again not called on. He told Inner City Press, on the record, that he asked Ban’s Spokesperson why he hadn’t been called on. The Spokesperson in turn asked, “Remember when you walked out of the briefing?” Abboud did remember, it had been in protest of not being called on. “Well it was wrong,” the Spokesperson said. Abboud comments that this shows the arbitrary basis of exclusion, which is also inconsistent because Ban personally is nothing but polite with Abboud and others. Abboud notes that another correspondent more favorable to the U.S. position on Lebanon was called on for three questions. Another long-time correspondent, who asked for anonymity in order to retain access, said that everything Ban does is in favor of the U.S.. But that analysis can wait for another day. To be charitable, Ban was better on September 11 than in previous press conferences. His offer to come at least once a month is welcome. Whether anything will be accomplished is another question, the results of which will be reported on this site. www.innercitypress.com Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 22nd, 2008 From: media at avaaz.org The August 23, 2008 - PRESS RELEASE - Will Appear In the International Herald Tribune and China’s Ming Pao, on the Day of The Beijing Olympics’ Closing. It Willl Say - Love China / Love Tibet / Love Burma / Love Darfur - and Will Promote Human Rights For China - a Hanshake to the World. 175,000 STRONG GLOBAL HANDSHAKE TO LAND IN BEIJING AHEAD OF OLYMPIC CLOSING CEREMONY see avaaz.org A virtual global handshake will land in Beijing tomorrow ahead of the Olympic Closing Ceremony. To culminate the campaign, this weekend, Avaaz.org has taken out an advertisement in Saturday’s International Herald Tribune and China’s Ming Pao to deliver the handshake to the world.
*** The global handshake petition reads: “With this handshake, we reach out to one another as citizens round the world in the Olympic spirit of friendship and excellence, committing to hold all our governments to a higher standard of peace, justice and respect for human dignity wherever they fall short – be it in Tibet, Iraq, Burma or beyond. Dialogue is the best way forward, for China, and the world.” *** AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW Ricken Patel, Executive Director, ricken at avaaz.org, +1 646 229 5416 *** Avaaz is a global web movement with over 3.3 million members worldwide, working to ensure that the views and values of people everywhere inform global decision-making. Avaaz means “voice” in many languages. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 30th, 2008 From: unobserver at iom.int MYANMAR - UK Backs IOM Medical Teams in Cyclone-Affected Irrawaddy Delta - The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged £428,000 (US$ 850,000) to support IOM medical teams providing primary health care to Cyclone Nargis survivors in the Irrawaddy Delta. IOM mobile medical teams, using Zodiac inflatables and other boats to access remote locations hit by the cyclone, have treated over 24,600 patients in 327 villages in the Delta townships of Bogale, Pyapon and Mawlamyinegyun since the cyclone struck Myanmar on 2nd May. IOM has also set up 15 temporary tent clinics in areas where medical infrastructure was completely or partially destroyed by the cyclone. “People are mainly suffering from the effects of unclean water and food, lack of proper shelter and clothing, and a lack of proper sanitation,” says IOM Myanmar National Health Coordinator Dr Aye Aye Than, who heads up the Bogale health team. The DFID funding will support both the mobile teams and the clinics for up to six months, employing some 44 medical staff, together with ancillary logistics and coordination personnel, as well as paying for essential medicines and medical supplies. “This funding will allow us to meet one of our top priorities - continuing to deliver primary health care to cyclone survivors - while communities start to recover and rebuild pre-cyclone health infrastructure,” says IOM Health Programme Manager Dr Nenette Motus. “We are also appealing for additional funding to rebuild primary health care facilities and birth centres, strengthen the delivery of mental health services and raise HIV and AIDS awareness in communities displaced by the cyclone,” she adds. IOM’s Cyclone Nargis relief operations in the Delta are now coordinated from offices in Bogale, Pyapon and Mawlamyinegyun townships. In addition to providing direct medical aid, they have included the ongoing distribution of relief items including tarpaulins, jerry cans, chlorine for water purification, hygiene/family kits, rain ponchos and insecticide-treated mosquito nets. Other donors contributing to IOM’s response to the disaster include the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), USAID/OFDA, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), AmeriCares Foundation, International Medical Corps, and Chevron. ——————– In the light of the continuing releases by Inner City Press - from the UN building in New York - the UN has lost at least US$10 million in fraudulent exchange rates with the Myanmar government - so how does the UK handle these disbursements for the humanitarian activities in Myanmar/Burma? Sir John Holmes, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, is from the UK and it seems that he is continuously fooled by the Burmese Officers’ junta. We just picked up articles with information right out of Myanmar - http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art… http://www.irrawaddy.org/article1.php?ar… Currency Loss Unacceptable, but UN Aid to Continue: Holmes
“The losses are significant, but not absolutely gigantic,” John Holmes, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York on his return from a three-day trip to Burma. Holmes was in Burma last week visiting parts of the Irrawaddy delta, which was devastated by Cyclone Nargis in the first week of May, to review the progress of humanitarian relief work in the region, and then traveled to the new capital, Naypyidaw, to meet the prime minister and other senior junta officials. This was the first visit to Burma by a top-level UN official since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s trip to the country in May. Holmes estimated that the UN, which was initially reluctant to acknowledge the substantial loss of foreign aid money due to a currency exchange mechanism dictated by the junta, has lost some US $10 million of the $200 million in aid money it has so far dedicated to the relief effort.
Holmes said, clearly the current situation “is not acceptable when we’re losing 20 percent, even if it’s only on some of our expenditures.” He acknowledged that donors have expressed concern about the matter, but this is unlikely to have any adverse impact on these countries’ contributions towards the UN flash appeal, which now totals $482 million. “This is a complicated issue, which we’ve had some time getting our heads around,” he said, adding that OCHA, which he heads, was not aware of the extent of the loss when he presented the revised appeal. “If we had known it at that time, maybe it would have been better to include it in the appeal,” he said in response to a question. “Obviously we would like to have a situation where there was no exchange loss. The ideal situation would be if we could pay with our dollars and get the market rate back in kyat—and that is what we’re asking for,” he said. “Perhaps we were a bit slow to recognize—because the spread suddenly widened in June—how big a problem this was going to become for us. We have recognized it and are taking it up with the Government,” Holmes said. Giving his impression of the progress of the humanitarian relief operations in the Irrawaddy delta, Holmes expressed a sense of satisfaction and said he appreciated the steps taken by the Burmese military junta in this regard. “We’re in a much better position than we were just a couple of months ago,” Holmes said. Citing major efforts to rebuild homes, repair schools and get health clinics up and running, Holmes said there has been a lot of progress in the last two months. Farming and other agricultural activities were also picking up, he said. “A degree of normality” is beginning to return in some areas around the delta region, with many schools functioning and increased traffic on major waterways, he observed. At the same time, Holmes asserted that challenges remain with regard to the humanitarian relief work in the Irrawaddy delta. “There is no room for any kind of complacency. There is still a lot to do to make this operation a lasting success and to reach all people with what they need for a sustained period,” he said. The main challenge for the next few months, Holmes said, is to ensure a more systematic pipeline of aid, both food and non-food items. It is important to reach out to those in the most remote areas who were difficult to reach because of poor infrastructure. “Systematic aid delivery is needed for at least six to nine months,” he said. Among other challenges for the relief operation is the drop in the number of World Food Programme helicopters from ten to five. Holmes hoped that some of these five could be kept flying for at least three or four months. This is to ensure that the most remote areas could be reached by aid workers delivering goods and supplies, he said. ——————- UN loses $10m aid in Burma exchange rate scam. The UN has admitted losing about $10m (£5m) to the Burmese regime while delivering emergency aid to the country in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis because of a distorted official exchange rate. The UN’s senior humanitarian aid official said it had suffered the “significant” loss because the junta enforced an artificial exchange rate that was at least 15 per cent lower than the genuine rate. It has been alleged that the UN had been aware of the loss for weeks and had accepted it as the price of “doing business” with the regime. “We were arguably a bit slow to recognise… how serious a problem this has become for us,” John Holmes, the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, told reporters in New York. “It’s not acceptable.” The losses came about because of the system whereby, when providing aid, the UN uses foreign exchange certificates with a nominal value of $1 each that are then exchanged for the local currency, the kyat, at a rate set by Burma’s military government. The market rate for kyats is close to 1,100 per dollar, but the UN exchange rate is now about 880. As a result, the Burmese regime has been making a healthy profit even as the UN provides emergency support. Mr Holmes said he did not know where the money was going or who was directly benefiting. The Inner City Press blog that first posted the allegations of the losses said some humanitarians believed that allowing the government of General Than Shwe to make a profit was a price worth paying. It also said officials have been aware of the losses since early June. This month, the UN issued an appeal for more than $300m in extra aid for the country. —————— We do not say that the loss of funds caused by the fact that the humanitarian activity happens within a country with a very unsavory regime, but we do say that in the private enterprise world a manager with performance like this would be sacked - and this performance is not from just now, and not only by Sir Holmes, but just the same from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon under whose watch this goes on, and under the Administrator of the UNDP Kemal Dervis, under whom similar activities went on in other similar unsavory regimes the like of North Korea. As said, much more on this can be found on www.InnerCityPress.com and we posted also a general article about this lack of oversight on the part of the UN: “Now it is Accepted Officially At the UN, Something www. SustainabiliTank.info Argued Three Years Ago - The UN Funds The World’s Worst in a Neat Way - Call It Exchange Rates. We Had Brought This Up As A Way UNDP Did Fund The North Korean Atom Bomb, Now UNSG Holmes Recognized As Correct The ICP Statement That The UN Funds The Myanmar Government.” As we realize that it will be hard to come by accountability at the UN, the purpose of our posting this is to ask if the UK government is ready to assume oversight for the funds for which it caries responsibility to UK taxpayers? Further, we see that also USAID/OFDA, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), or the US and Swiss taxpayers, are funding these operations also. So what do the US and Swiss Administrations say of the transfer of funds to the Burmese junta rather then the full use of those funds for the humanitarian work? Also, even when NGOs or an oil company like Chevron, spend money on a humanitarian operation, these funds are mostly tax-deductible, so again the regular Joe who pays the taxes, it is his money, that was mismanaged under UN auspices.
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 29th, 2008 U.N. admits “significant” Myanmar exchange rate loss. http://www.smartbrief.com/alquemie/servl… UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The top U.N. humanitarian affairs official said on Monday the world body had suffered “significant” losses while delivering cyclone aid to Myanmar due to a distorted official exchange rate. Earlier this month, the United Nations issued an appeal for more than $300 million (150.5 million pounds) in extra aid to cope with the effects of Cyclone Nargis that struck the Irrawaddy Delta region in early May, leaving around 140,000 people dead or missing. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes told reporters the United Nations has lost about $10 million in currency exchanges so far as it pays for a variety of goods and services in Myanmar. “We were arguably a bit slow to recognize … how serious a problem this has become for us,” Holmes said, adding the loss was “significant” and that the spread between the market and official rates widened suddenly in June. “It’s not acceptable,” he added. (THAT IS MR. HOLMES OF THE UN.) The market rate for kyats is around 1,100 per dollar but the U.N. rate is now around 880, according to the Inner City Press www.innercitypress.com), a blog that covers the United Nations and first raised the currency exchange issue. Holmes said the United Nations did not include the issue of the exchange rate losses in the appeal documents because U.N. officials “were not aware of the extent of the loss.” Holmes, who spoke at the United Nations after returning from a trip to the Irrawaddy Delta, said relief efforts were improving, with almost everyone affected by the cyclone now having been reached with items like food or shelter. A revised appeal for aid of $482 million had raised about $200 million so far, he said, adding that initial indications from donors were “quite positive.” He later said he was not aware of any countries refusing to contribute because of the currency loss but that donors were only just realizing themselves the extent of the problems. Withdrawing aid would only hurt the people of the Delta who needed help, he said. OVERVALUED EXCHANGE RATE U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said he was looking into the issue. “Of course we are against any waste of resources that taxpayers around the world and member states provide to meet the needs of people around the world,” he said on the sidelines of a Security Council meeting on unrelated issues.
The International Monetary Fund raised the issue of what it described as Myanmar’s distorted official exchange rate in a report in November 2007. { www.SustainabiliTank.info raised the issue way back in 2006 and this was one of the reasons that when the UNSG for Communications and Public Information (the UN DPI) was changed by the incoming new UNSG Ban Ki-moon, our accreditation with the UN DPI was withdrawn - the UN just was not ready to accept our line of questioning. We wondered for how long this suppression of facts will continue, and are now gratified that changes are forthcoming. We hope therefore that with a new US President there might be a higher demand for the truth also at the UN. we know that here, like at the US Supreme Court, changes will have to grow organically - so the world will still have to do with the present conditions for a long time to come. } “The use of the highly overvalued official exchange rate for conversion purposes results in understatement of external trade and the foreign component of consumption, government expenditures, and investment,” the IMF said in the report said then the IMF. Holmes said it was unclear where the exchange rate losses were going and who specifically was benefiting. {YES, EVENTUALLY THE UN WILL START SEEING WHERE THESE MONEYS WERE GOING - WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT A PERSON OF HOLME’S STATURE WILL BE CAPABLE OF SEEING THE DARKNESS IN HIS TUNNELS - WILL THE TAXPAYERS IN THE DONOR COUNTRIES SPEAK UP? FACE IT, EVEN CHARITIES END UP BEING BAILED OUT BY THE SIMPLE JOE WHO PAYS THE TAXES - MOST NGO CHARITIES ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE - SO PLEASE THERE IS NO BAMBOOZLE HERE. } Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 1st, 2008
But this was not the end to the sub-humanity - it is being demonstrated in continuing fashion. We know of Rwanda, Bosnia, and we try not to see now Darfur. Different people have different views on ongoing killings. Are these genocide? Let’s sit down and talk - this while the killings go on daily. Neigh, there is no UN decision to go in and stop the killings but we preach that every individual has the responsibility to do what the Governments sitting at the UN refuse to do. Mr. Akasaka, a UN UnderSecretary-General, opened the meeting and said that fundamental human rights are the basis for the UN charter codified three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also told us that the Paris September 3-5, 2008 gathering of DPI and NGOs will deal this year with Human Rights as this is the 60th celebration of the signing of the Declaration. Mr. Akasaka said here something very important. The UN Charter governs relations between States - large and small; the Universal DHR guards the relations between human beings and the States - The INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS. And furthermore - on December 9, 1948, the day before the signing of the UDHR, The UN General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention. Thus he continued this logic by saying that the UNSG has said that preventing genocide is a collective and Individual Responsibility and called for the entire UN system to be empowered to prevent massacres. He Continued by saying that the panel will present stories on how individuals have helped, also how modern technology like satellite imaginary can help and that we will hear how NGOs and media have brought to the front the horror stories. Prior to that he also said that the UN was established because of the horrors of the Holocaust and the two- the Holocaust and the UN are interrelated like cause and effect that was intended to avoid any repeat of such horrors. Mr. Akasaka finished his introductory. left the place and Mr. Eric Felt took over. Mr. Felt introduced Mr. Jean-Marc Coicaud as moderator. He is the Head of the New York Office of the Tokyo based UN University. He wrote: an article “Meaning and Value of Political Apology” that he presented on May 23, 2008, at an earlier part of this two part series of the UN DPI Outreach Programme on Genocide related issues. DOWNLOAD: age-of-apology-jm-coicaud.pdf That presentation was based on a chapter from “The Age of Apology: Facing Up To The Past” that was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. That book was a product of the Tokyo office of the UNU Peace and Governance Program. So we see the UN relates Holocaust and Genocide to the future of humanity and the future of the UN - by first taking the step to recognize the wrongs of the past. On June 26 Dr. Coicaud made reference to that first round of these meetings, and said that the first session dealt with “Can Genocide be Prevented?” and he said that the answer was not clear. WHAT WAS MISSING WAS THE OPERATIONAL ANSWER - how to achieve results in operational terms. He expressed the hope that in this second session we might come up with an answer - and that would be an achievement. We clearly blessed on his hope, but we, honestly, do not expect such a thing from the UN - though clearly, an institution like the UN University should be allowed to point fingers and say just that - the UN does nice talk sometimes, but is short of actions most of the time. The world cannot do just with talk and demands actions - so one must think of reforming the UN so it would act when action is warranted. Mr. Felt added to Mr. Coicaud that there is an individual as well as a collective responsibility to prevent genocide. Now, the first presentations by the Holocaust Remembrance institutions. First to make the presentation was Mr. Robert Rozett, Director of Libraries at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel. He presented cases of rescue in the hope we can learn from actual happenings. He said that we are trained to look at rescue in the form of a cavalier on a white horse, but in the Holocaust we look mostly at neighbors, at the Pope, at people as individuals. (a) the rescue of Aron Wolff and his family by a neighbor in Carpathia at Scoll. In this case it was a man who was once helped by a loan. Swisten remembered that deed and came to help now without doing this for money. In the end of the war Swisten was killed by another neighbor because he helped a Jew. (b) the case of Rabbi Weissmandel who tried to get the Vatican to help with the Slovak government. His argument was to create labor camps right there in Slovakia rather then send the Jews to Poland for working camps there (this as in the euphemism for the extermination camps in Poland). His idea would benefit the slovaks he said. Eventually 60,000 Jews were deported - 30,000 stayed. August 1944, Weissmandel himself and his family were in a car to go to Auschwitz, but was allowed to stay and had to leave his family in the railroad car. He was smuggled to Switzerland to continue his rescue efforts but never forgave himself for leaving his family to go to their death. (c) the case of a little boy saved by a dog while the farmer who knew the boy was in the dog-house never took a stand - not for the boy nor against him. The dog stood guard for the boy and not just shared his food with him, but actually let him eat first. The lesson here is about the ethics of the dog vs. the ethics of humanity {just go and tell this today to those committing genocide in Africa, Bosnia, or to the likes of Ahmedi-Nejad}. Here, Mr. Joseph Rubagumya, now with the School of International Public Affairs of Columbia University, originally from Rwanda, told about his own experience from Africa’s wars of extermination. His family left first from Rwanda in 1960 to Congo, then to Uganda,Sierra where they worked on a coffee plantation. He returned in June 1994 to Rwanda and everything they had was from cans sent in from donors. Eventually people from an NGo helped him get a scholarship to the US. Further material about Rwanda was distributed at the entrance to the room. It spoke about “Never Again” and the “Responsibility to Protect: Who is responsible for protecting vulnerable peoples?” It also had a couple of pages about “Sexual Violence: A Too of War.” It extolled “Supporting Survivors” and paragraphs about the various International Criminal Tribunals. The third speaker was a lady with experience at many of these International Criminal Tribunals - Sierra Leone, Cambodia ….Ms. Daphna Shraga is Principal Legal Officer in the UN Office of Legal Affairs. She seems to be a top lawyer and the crispness of her presentation was in itself a demonstration how tough it is to do justice in a warped UN system. The UN recognizes as punishable crimes of genocide if bodily and mental harm are committed and killings if it is an act by one group against another by reasons of religion or ethnicity, but excepts if harm is done because of political or cultural differences. So, the genocide convention refers only to racial, ethnic, religious differences. Prevention and Punishment are two different notions. If punishment prevents - this is only for next cycle of violence - and obviously the violence was not committed yet - so this is something that does not come under the convention. These strange principles were established at Nuremberg - that the individuals are responsible because states are abstract entities that do not commit crimes. The responsibility thus falls on individuals. The genocide is about the fact that one is born into the group - this is why political and cultural reasons are not included. In the case of Bosnia-Herzegowina - the Serbs against the Muslims - there was killing of the young only - not the whole group - the argument was that this does not constitute by definition genocide! As no other crimes come under the statute except crimes a defined genocide by that statute - these crimes were not punishable. In 2007 the International Court of Justice made the judgement that if the individual is made responsible it is still the responsibility of the State - also because the State did not prevent or punish the crime. Srebeniza was a special case as here there was enough evidence that genocide was committed against a whole group - basically - here all men were killed - not just young ones. Is there an obligation of all States to prevent genocide in any State? Even though it was decided already that the obligation extends from the State were it was started - the prevention is to be obligatory to those outside that State. {we had here a belly full of doubts about much of what was said - legalistics aside. What is culture if not a combination of ethnicity and religion? How can one exclude crimes against people because of their culture? Albeit, it is obvious that the Soviets and China had no interest in safeguarding rights of politics and culture in those dingy days of post San Francisco negotiations, but should not the UN step in and straighten this mess out today?). Presentations four and five take us back to the Holocaust. Both presenters part of the Washington DC US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Ms. Bridget Conley-Zilkic, the director of the Committee on Conscience, who stated that there is a commitment that the memory is tied to action today - Agitation, Memorialization and Conscience are the three committees in the Museum. Mr. Larry Swaider, Chief Information Officer at the Museum stepped in explaining the communication technology he use at www.ushmm.org a website with 17 million uniques/year coming from 100 countries. He uses now GoogleEarth and can see villages being burned. Looking at what happens today in the world he can see people fleeing when he picks at following a particular person. there is today the possibility to use “World of Witness” - a Geo-blog. Also some book clubs, like Oprah’s do follow genocide. The sixth and last presentation was by the honorable Edward C. Luck, Now on leave from his position at Columbia University, he is Director of Studies at the International Peace Academy and is and was Special Adviser to the last two UN Secretary-Generals. He was also a President of the UN Association of the US. His Focus is on the obligations that come under the Responsibility To Protect and he was involved with former UNSG Kofi Annan in getting this concept accepted by the UN. So, no wonder that his topic was about the Responsibility of the State to Protect its Citizens. He started by saying that he is sorry Mr. Akasaka is not in the room anymore. This because he wanted to set the record straight on a very important issue. He said that the Holocaust was not mentioned in San Francisco of 1945. The Holocaust teaches us that genocide today is not just about Africa - it is about anywhere. just think what one of the most advanced nations - Germany - did. It can thus happen in a most advanced country in Europe - it can happen anywhere. There are now policy tools, institutions, and individuals themselves that can make a difference. Mostly - there is now a responsibility to try. To recognize what is happening and to do something. In Darfur we see a response. 1998 - 1999, Kofi Annan, with the help of Canada worked on this and came up with the R to P idea in 2001. Responsibility to Protect is not the enemy of Sovereignty because States were created with the responsibility to protect their citizens. The international community has the responsibility to assist the State. Not to punish the State when they failed, but to help them solve the internal problem. When they fail - there is a responsibility to use diplomacy and help. Here Prof. Luck brought to his help front page recent news - the Kenya case when Kofi Annan went in recently to mediate between the two warring factions. Another not so distant case was the dilemma the US had in how do you prevent WWIII with the USSR and all those economic and social issues that came up? The US did not pay enough attention to those issues - only to the National Strategic side. Ms. Daphna Shraga pointed out that there is this concept that the UN is immune - but it is for the member states to evoke the UN immunity in court. To this Prof Luck said that there is also something like a Court of Public Opinion. Yad Vashem found very strong interest in China - this also because of receptivity from their own experience at Nanjing. Young audiences in China are interested in how the memory of the Holocaust is kept alive. The task is to keep good documentation of what has happened and such documentation is being organized now in China. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 19th, 2008 Statement by Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Attorney General of England and Wales, The UK, At the Security Council Open Debate On Women, Peace and Security. 19 June 2008 Thank you Madam President. The United Kingdom welcomes the leadership shown by the United States in holding this debate during their Presidency of the Council, and your presence here today Madam President demonstrates just how important it is for us all to tackle the growing problem of sexual and gender-based violence if we are serious about resolving conflict. And I Madam President rejoice at the sight and the fact that of the 20 representatives round this Council table, seven are women, and are here to add their voice to the wise counsel given by their male counterparts and colleagues adding substance and support to this resolution which focuses on the plight of women caught in the pernicious tentacles of conflict and may I commend too the Secretary-General for his vision and his determination to increase the number of women who will be able to make their contribution to this Council’s work and the reduction of conflict. But before I turn to the issue of sexual violence, I would like to say a few words about Aung San Suu Kyi, who as you rightly reminded us Madam President, today spends a further Birthday under house arrest. The Burmese people have suffered under military rule since 1962. And it is fitting that we remember Aung San Suu Kyi as we talk about Women, Peace and Security in today’s debate and remember, too, the many ordinary women of Burma who have often borne the brunt of violence, persecution and economic deprivation imposed upon them by the military government. We call for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released immediately, and that she should be allowed to play a full part in Burma’s political process. Madam President, in conflict women and children suffer disproportionately. Sexual violence is among the very worst atrocities that they face, and it is increasingly being used as a deliberate method of warfare. Every day, we hear reports from the United Nations, from non-governmental organisations, the media and most recently from the International Criminal Court of systematic use of sexual violence to terrorise civil communities and populations, to drive forward ethnic cleansing, and to destroy communities. And we have seen it in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the ex-genocidaires from Rwanda are primarily responsible. And we see it in Darfur, in Somalia, and elsewhere. In Zimbabwe, the hired thugs of Mugabe’s regime brutalise and murder the wives and children of leaders of the opposition MDC. Only yesterday, the wife of the newly-elected Mayor of Harare was savagely beaten and killed by the so-called war veterans, in order to intimidate the opposition party in next week’s elections. In all these places we see the physical and psychological scars of the survivors of sexual violence; and chillingly, the silent testimony of the horribly disfigured bodies of those who did not survive. And we see the empty burnt out villages from which the population has fled to avoid further attacks. And that is the point. The trauma and injuries caused by sexual violence are designed to cripple communities, trigger revenge attacks, and cause lasting bitterness. In this way gender-based violence feeds the fires of conflicts that this Council is dedicated to extinguishing. But some of course will say what’s new about this? After all, it is true that rape and sexual violence have been associated with conflict since before records began. Three things have changed. Firstly, sexual violence is now being used as a tool of warfare, rather than it being just a tragic by-product of conflict, and is taking place on a much larger scale than we have seen before. Secondly, we now better understand how sexual violence damages the prospects of post-conflict recovery. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we have the means to tackle this problem within our reach. Security Council Resolutions 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and 1674 on Protection of Civilians have provided an important foundation. And many nations, international organisations, and non-governmental organisations are doing valuable work to tackle sexual violence. But sexual and gender-based violence is evolving, and this Council’s responses must also evolve. My government believes that the Security Council should show leadership on the issue of sexual violence by firstly, recognising that widespread and systematic sexual violence can pose a threat to international peace and security; secondly, ensuring that we provide for women’s participation in all processes relevant to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The proliferation of sexual violence against women is in part aimed at excluding and marginalising women’s role in society and rebuilding communities. We have to correct that. And thirdly, proposing practical measures that parties to armed conflict can take to prevent sexual violence, and ensure that those who commit such crimes are brought to justice. And this includes peacekeepers as well as belligerents. And fourthly, but not lastly, requiring regular updates about sexual violence in situations of armed conflict, so that we can better understand how to prevent it. We are realistic. Sexual violence will sadly not go away overnight. But Security Council Resolution 1325 is a crucial building block to tackling this growing problem. And the civil populations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Zimbabwe and elsewhere need the Security Council’s continued efforts to tackle this growing scourge. And the United Kingdom supports this Resolution without reservation and we thank you Madam President and all those round this table who have lent their voice to this end. Thank you Madam President. Hazel Foster (Miss) |