Christiana Wyly  - christianawyly.com
Posted: July 3, 2009  The Huffington Post

Towards the 2020 Climate Leadership Campaign to take place in Brazil in early August 2009.

The Juggling Contest — Balancing the Global Economy: An interview with Economist James Quilligan.

This interview is a follow-up to Guest Blogger James Quilligan’s blog which appears in my previous post “Stimulate This!”

In the previous post Mr.Quilligan shares with us what is emerging out of the UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development, along with some insights on the barriers to achieving equity and stabilization.

This post will be followed by a continuation interview with questions and answers specific to our shared passion of economic and environmental equity including a new take on the Waxman-Markey measures.

——-

CW: You mention that there are discussions happening on both emergency and long-term measures on financial reform — how much long-term thinking is possible in the midst of such an urgent crisis? It seems as though there are all hands on deck just to keep the plates spinning? Is there room for innovation? Is there an openness to creating new models?

JQ: A lot of exciting dialogue and planning is taking place. While the world is still engaged in its old juggling contest involving foreign reserves, trade balances, financial leveraging, international balance of payments and the global balance of power, many new variables have now inserted themselves into the prime equation — including human needs, human rights, human security, energy security and ecological debt. In trying to manage all of these factors without adequate global standards, rules and institutions, the de facto policy of laissez-faire competition continues to shape our global attitudes and practices. Yet at the international level, many leaders have recognized that there are major problems with our traditional concepts of legal boundaries — including private property and sovereign borders — and much progress is being made on trans-border cooperation agreements.

But the real epistemic break is happening where individuals with deeper understanding are organizing to preserve and manage a particular commons which they depend on for their own livelihood or well-being (be it natural, social, cultural or intellectual), and allowing the energy of shared governance to flow in and through that space. These autonomous commons groups are organizing spontaneously across the world in response to the global economic crisis and will eventually develop a unique ontological identity and power as a third sector to solve the local and transnational problems that businesses and governments are not equipped to address on their own.

CW: In your article you say, “Without coordinated efforts by developed nations to help the world’s poorest nations, 100 million people may fall into extreme poverty each year for the foreseeable future.” What would real coordinated efforts look like, and what would it take to facilitate those?

JQ: The Outcome Document of the UN Economic Conference states, “Strong action is needed to counter the impact of the crisis in poor countries and help them restore strong growth and recover lost ground in progress toward their development goals.” Where to start? Let’s recall what John Maynard Keynes proposed at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 — an international requirement for trade surplus nations to recycle their financial excess through a global resource pool, which would then be redistributed to poor nations that need help. In rejecting Keynes’ proposal, the United States assured him that the poor nations of the world would develop rapidly if a few rich countries would provide them with capital and technical knowledge on a discretionary basis. If international trade and market-driven investment are not enough to end poverty, the US told Keynes, then loans for credit payments adjustments and development issued by the new International Monetary Fund and its sister institution, the World Bank, supplemented through foreign aid, philanthropic grants and remittances, would be sufficient to end poverty.

So that’s the deal that went down at Bretton Woods. Now, fast-forward sixty-five years to the present: the post-war laissez-faire system for the distribution of world resources has utterly failed to curb global poverty, while many entrenched interests are still trying to breathe life back into the dying carcass of that system. The point is that we need an updated version of Keynes’ proposal for automatic — not voluntary — recycling of the world’s resources and an economic multilateralism that includes the equal participation of rich and poor nations in the international rules and institutions for managing these global allocations. In the short-term, it means creating global stimulus measures through new liquidity and development financing to boost trade, financing, infrastructure, agriculture, green technology and human security needs in all nations, not just the richest ones. In the long-term, it means the creation of development measures beyond the UN Millennium Development Goals, the protection of our common global resources including a strong climate change treaty, the restructuring of global economic rules and institutions, the establishment of new forms of governance, and the generation of multilateral financing through the implementation of global standards.

CW: The global economic summit called for the creation of a new body, a Global Economic Council, to coordinate and oversee the international economy. This would certainly be a departure from our present lack of international economic coordination, but is it possible that a council could be effective? How would it function? Who would be involved?

JQ: Long before the recent UN proposal, the Brandt Commission and the Commission on Global Governance also called for a high-level body to monitor and coordinate the international economy and development. It is still a brilliant idea. Instead of a large bureaucracy, it would be a small council that would provide oversight and advice on the coordination of global policies, specifically to monitor the state of the international economy, anticipate monetary and financial crises, track currency exchange rate stability, take the risk out of international financial flows, provide a long-term policy framework for sustainable development, secure consistency between the major international organizations, register input from regional organizations and build consensus between governments on new global economic policies.

The UN is also calling for new mechanisms through its Economic and Social Council and the UN system for resource mobilization, surveillance, regulation, and coordination of the global economic system and multilateral financing for development. Obviously, in order to earn respect and legitimacy, this council and the other proposed oversight committees and agencies must be comprised of people of the highest integrity, who are globally representative and thoroughly transparent public servants. Certainly, this would require an unprecedented degree of international trust, but that is precisely what this economic crisis is about — restoring trust in our social and financial institutions on the basis of a new global system of value.

CW: The global economic and environmental transition is clearly the major issue of our time. It’s a large question, but what will this change really involve? How long do you expect it will take before we resolve the present crisis and create a new global economic system that is environmentally sustainable?

JQ: It’s safe to say that this transition will play out for most of the 21st century. That means successive waves of intensive transformation for us and for our descendants. Our generation is tasked with the hardest part, because we are between the tides of the outgoing and incoming forces of this global evolutionary change — and we have been caught flat-footed, inadequately prepared for this axial moment. The main challenge now is to develop a new global understanding of the relationship between economics, energy, the environment, food and water, all within an international, intergenerational and interspecies context. Here in the US, our modern interpretations of the values of the Enlightenment — famously enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution — are quite strong on freedom but particularly weak on the equity of individuals with each other and with nature.

As the G-2 (that is, China and the United States) seeks common ground on a range of issues for a new international balance of economic and political power, the US is facing a partner which — despite its many political deficiencies — is deeply committed, historically, culturally and economically, to finding harmony between human beings and nature. Liberal democracy will not lead us wisely through this period of Great Adjustment unless we understand that the ultimate source of value comes, not from business or government, but from our natural, cultural, social and intellectual commons. Government should not be granting anyone the rights to these commons, we should be taking them — they are ours by right of birth.

The immediate crisis we are facing is to shift from seeing energy, nature, food and water as monetized commodities to recognizing them as reserve values that are essential for our survival and well-being. Only then shall we understand that money is a cultural creation expressing the intrinsic value of these commons — and not a function of the marketplace or of a Central Bank. The creation of a new international monetary system is just around the corner and global value must be integrally informed by human beings, culture, the environment and energy, which means a complete rethinking of all our values for a fair, inclusive and sustainable globalization supported by an authentically new and resilient multilateralism.

CW: Thank You James, its a rare opportunity to get to hear some “behind the scenes” information on the process of the UN Economic team, and even more rare to hear innovative thinking on our collective economic future. I certainly hope that many of the strategies on creating aligned global economic governance and value allocation to the commons come to fruition. Thank You so much for your time and willingness to share.

To read more from James Quilligan, visit his website: http://www.global-negotiations.org.

President Obama will this week become the first African American President to make an official visit to an African country.

The most interesting fact is that he does not go to South Africa or Nigeria - the two countries that compete for the unofficial title of leaders of black Africa. President Obama decided to go to the oil producing belt of West Africa, and this cut out South Africa;  then he chose the unassuming Ghana, rather then the feisty Nigeria - the most populous black state and important partner of the US in oil trade.

Why? What does he teach in this visit?

Nigeria is a corrupt state to its bone. Even its son, the Nobel Price winning Wole Soyinka said that neglecting Nigeria was just the right medicine that Nigeria needed. He continued then with the shocking statement: “I’d ’stone’ Obama if he showed up in Nigeria and conferred legitimacy on its sorry government.”

Ghana on the other hand, a much smaller West African nation, as of now with little US trade, did hold fair multiparty democratic elections since 1992, and  has a history of incumbents stepping down once they reach their term limits.

Ghana is a beacon of hope to Africa and has produced the only two-terms African UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, who we hope will be at hand when President Obama arrives for a day at the end of this week.

Yes, we know, it is rumored that the US is interested in Ghana also as it is the newest arrival to the West Coast Oil-belt, and with China making inroads in the region, the US might be interested to establish here a military base as well as an oil trade relationship.

But even so, this US President showed preference for clean government if this is at all possible.

Africa watch and learn!

The Japan Times, Saturday, July 4, 2009

Amano signals goal is to fight proliferation

By GEORGE JAHN
VIENNA (AP) The International Atomic Energy Agency picked Yukiya Amano as its next chief, ending a months-long succession battle to replace Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei for the watchdog’s top post.

After the agency’s 35-nation board made its decision Thursday, Amano touched on the devastation that U.S. atomic bombs wreaked on his country in pledging to do his utmost to prevent the spread of nuclear arms.

ElBaradei saw his agency vaulted into prominence during a high-profile 12-year tenure.

North Korea left the nonproliferation fold to develop a nuclear weapons program on his watch, and his agency later launched probes to get to the bottom of suspicions it was trying to make atomic weapons.

ElBaradei’s activist approach often rankled Washington, which had a strong preference for Amano, who was viewed by the United States as a technocrat amenable to pursuing a hard line on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Amano’s allusions to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki pointed to a deep commitment to nonproliferation. And Japan keenly shares the U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear threat.

Developing countries supported Amano’s rival, South African Abdul Samad Minty, who was considered ready to challenge the U.S. and the other nuclear powers on issues such as disarmament. They are generally supportive of Iran’s claims to having a right to nuclear power.

An initial session in March ended inconclusively, and Thursday’s meeting went down to the wire, with Amano, 62, winning only in the fourth round.

That and the fact that Amano barely eked out his victory, just clearing the required two-thirds majority, reflected a continuing divide between the two camps. The divisions have served as an obstacle in one of its key tasks — probing nations suspected of secret, possibly weapons-related, nuclear activities.

While Amano was born after the U.S. nuclear strikes that ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, he alluded to those events in brief comments to reporters, suggesting that as a “national coming from Japan” he would work particularly hard to reduce the threat from atomic arms.

Expanding on that theme in recent comments to Austrian daily Die Presse, he said he was “resolute in opposing the spread of nuclear arms because I am from a country that experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

Now his country’s chief delegate to the IAEA, Amano was previously his country’s senior official for disarmament and related issues.

Amano will be taking control of the IAEA at a particularly difficult time. Its nuclear investigations of Iran and Syria are both deadlocked, and it has no overview of North Korea, which is forging ahead with its nuclear arms program.

———–

Saturday, July 4, 2009

VIENNA (Kyodo) Amano was voted in as first Asian head of IAEA in sixth round of ballots.  Yukiya Amano, Japan’s ambassador to the Permanent Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna, was elected the next director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday.

Yukiya Amano

Amano, 62, won against South Africa’s Abdul Samad Minty after six rounds of voting, making him the first IAEA chief from Asia.

“I am very pleased with this support,” Amano told journalists after the final vote, adding that as the next director general he will do his utmost to enhance the welfare of human beings, ensure sustainable development through the peaceful use of nuclear energy and try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

“For that, the solidarity of all the member states, countries from North and South, from East and West, is absolutely necessary,” he said.

Amano also said he will demonstrate Japan’s efforts to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

He will take the helm at the nuclear watchdog in December, after formal approval at its annual general meeting in September.

Challenges facing him after taking up the post will be the Iranian nuclear issue and the nuclear threat of North Korea, which conducted a second nuclear test recently.

Luis Echavarri from Spain dropped out of the voting process after the first round as he garnered the fewest votes.

Neither Amano nor Minty could secure enough votes in each of the four following rounds to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, with Amano falling just one vote short.

However, in the sixth round, which was a straight yes and no vote on Amano, he finally managed to get a two-thirds majority, with 23 countries voting in favor and 11 voting against. One of the 35 countries eligible to vote abstained.

Thursday’s balloting was the second attempt to find a successor to Mohamed ElBaradei, who will leave office after 12 years at the head of the organization when his term expires in November.

Amano, who is married and speaks English and French fluently, joined the Foreign Ministry in 1972 and was appointed deputy director of its Disarmament Division in 1982.

He held several different positions in the ministry, including director of the Nuclear Energy Division and director general for the Disarmament, Nonproliferation and Science Department, before being appointed to represent Japan at the International Organizations in Vienna in 2005.

Japan backing was vital: The government was quick Friday to pledge full support to newly elected International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano, and may also make a financial endowment to the nuclear watchdog.

Helen Clark of New Zealand (former three term Prime Minister) and new  UNDP Administrator made First Visit to a donor country capital by going to Washington to meet  with officials from the Obama Administration, the House and Senate and major NGOs.

As well she met the Ambassadors from the Pacific community States.

To the Americans she explained that UNDP helps the US in its foreign policy - something that was not always the case under previous leadership in New York or Washington DC.

 http://www.us.undp.org/BulletinPDFs/June…

The United Nations mission in Iraq has condemned yesterday’s deadly bombing in al-Shourga market in Kirkuk, which killed and injured dozens of people, calling it yet another attempt to stoke up sectarian and ethnic conflict.

“The Secretary-General notes that Iraq has been benefiting from an improving security environment, and appeals to the people of Iraq to continue to reject these attempts to incite further violence in the country,” his spokesperson said in a statement.

 http://democracyctr.org/blog/2009/06/amb…
 http://www.as-coa.org/article.php?id=173…

SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 2009
Ambassadorial Moves

Last September, in the midst of violence by opposition groups in the Bolivian departments of Santa Cruz and Pando, President Evo Morales accused U.S. Ambassador Phillip Goldberg of having a clandestine hand in that violence and ordered him out of the country.

That set off a chain reaction of diplomatic tit-for-tats. The Bush administration kicked out Bolivia’s ambassador to Washington, Gustavo Guzman, then “decertified” the Morales government’s anti-coca program and based on that cut Bolivia from the ATPDEA trade preference program. Unable to resist a good diplomatic mud-wrestling match with Washington, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez pushed himself into the game and kicked out the U.S. ambassador to his country as well, leading to the Bush administration’s ouster of Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.S.

By the time it was over. this diplomatic version of “screw you, no screw you“, left behind four embassies operating on auto-pilot, a path or torched diplomatic relations, and with the elimination of the trade preferences, thousands of Bolivian workers with their jobs on the line.

Well, this week, as part of the ongoing game of making nice between the Obama administration and the Chavez government, the two countries announced that they are returning their respective ambassadors to Caracas and Washington. U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy and Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez are dusting off their suitcases and getting ready to return to their former diplomatic outposts. This follows Obama’s and Chavez’s “all smiles” visit in April at the Summit of the Americas in Tobago.

So what about the diplomatic rift that started it all, between the Washington and La Paz?

Interestingly, even as Chavez, the supposed “bad boy” among the South American left presidents is rebuilding bridges, Morales’ moves with the U.S. are still sour. At Tobago, while Chavez was handing Obama a book to read, Morales was demanding that the U.S. President declare that his fingerprints weren’t on the alleged assassination conspiracy linked to four men killed by government troops in Santa Cruz.

So, will U.S. and Bolivian ambassadors be returning to their posts anytime soon? Certainly, the same ambassadors won’t be, as in the case of Venezuela.

Former Ambassador Goldberg probably wouldn’t choose to return to La Paz for all the saltenas in Cochabamba, given the constant state of combat between he and Morales. This week Mr. Goldberg was handed his new U.S. diplomatic assignment, leading the U.S. team in charge of implementing sanctions against the government of North Korea over its recent atomic tests. That probably fits Mr. Goldberg better anyway, who in Bolivia seemed much more at ease chastising foreign leaders than forming good relations with them, a task that Morales never made especially easy.

Former Ambassador Guzman, who I visited with a couple of months after his return to La Paz, probably wouldn’t head back to Washington for all the Starbucks coffee in Dupont Circle. He and his family, including a new baby, seemed quite happy to be back home in Bolivia once more.

This past week Secretary of State Clinton sent an emissary to talk with Morales, following up on a high level U.S. diplomatic mission here not long before. Clearly the Obama administration would like to get its Bolivian relations in order. Where Morales is on this is anyone’s guess.

But if an announcement between La Paz and Washington is forthcoming, akin to the one this week between Washington and Caracas, both countries will have to go through the process of nominating and approving a new pair of ambassadors.

In Washington that process will likely go smoothly, with few in the Senate likely to challenge whomever President Obama selects (I am betting on a Latino or Latina). In La Paz the case may be different. The opposition in the Senate already denied, last year, President Morales’ appointment of Pablo Solon as Ambassador to the UN (he now essentially serves in that post, but under a different title). That was pure politics, given the fact that Solon is probably the most able representative Bolivia could have in the U.S.

So watch in the next week or two for signs that Bolivia and the U.S. are ready to follow suit with Venezuela and refill the ambassador positions in their respective capitals. And then watch for it to get weird, as U.S./Bolivia relations just seem to have a tendency to do.

from  Hazel.Foster at fco.gov.uk
In the wake of recent significant events involving North Korea, Peter Hughes, the UK’s Ambassador to Pyongyang, will be giving a media briefing on DPRK and the international reaction on 3 July in London.
Peter Hughes will be speaking via video-link live from Pyongyang. The FCO will be streaming questions (from media attending the event in London) and his answers through our website www.fco.gov.uk

The briefing will begin at 1015 UK time, 0515 NY time. If you don’t want to get up that early, it will be archived on the FCO website once it happens, so you should be able to view it later.

Hazel Foster (Miss)
Third Secretary Press
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations
One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
885 Second Avenue (48th Street & 2nd Avenue, 28th Floor)
New York, NY 10017
Tel:  00 1 212 745 9288
Fax:  00 1 212 745 9316
FTN:  8451 2288

UKMis Web:  ukun.fco.gov.uk
Visit our blogs at http://blogs.fco.gov.uk

UN DAILY NEWS from the UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE.
29 June, 2009

SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES NEW UK CLIMATE CHANGE FINANCING SCHEME

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today welcomed the new initiative announced by the Government of the United Kingdom on financing for climate change, ahead of this December’s meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, where countries are expected to wrap up negotiations on an ambitious new pact to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

According to media reports, last Friday, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown unveiled the “Roadmap to Copenhagen” proposal for $100 billion to be raised annually to finance mitigation and adaptation measures, especially in the world’s poorest nations.

“This initiative comes at a critical time, and is precisely the kind of leadership developed countries must demonstrate” if talks on a new climate change framework, seeking to replace the Kyoto Protocol whose first commitment period ends in 2012, are to succeed, Michele Montas, Mr. Ban’s spokesperson, said.

“Without a serious commitment on financing from developed countries, a deal in Copenhagen is unlikely,” she added.

The UK proposal’s focus on adaptation, the Secretary-General believes, is especially crucial since the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries are suffering most acutely from climate change.

“He also welcomes the reaffirmation of the principle that additional public funding, beyond existing pledges for development assistance, is necessary to finance adaptation,” Ms. Montas noted.

Mr. Ban also voiced hope that the UK scheme will spur discussion and financing commitments from other Member States.

Last week, he invited heads of State and government to attend an “unprecedented” global summit at UN Headquarters to propel action towards “sealing the deal” on a new global warming accord in Copenhagen.

“Climate change is the greatest challenge facing this and future generations,” he said at a press conference in New York. “Emissions are rising and the clock is ticking.”

The high-level meeting will be held on 22 September, just over two months before the start of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in the Danish capital.

————-

We tried to obtain the UNSG Press Conference on the subject matter but all what we got was the statement by his spokesperson, or alternatively her lauding the UK position. We also got the following about the laudatory how great Mr. Ban Ki-moon is in the eyes of the world, and we quite see herewith his campaign for reappointment when his present term in office runs out. We see how he tries to make himself nice in the eyes of the P-5 but we still wait for him to take personally full position on anything really important.

————

BAN RANKS AMONG MOST TRUSTED WORLD LEADERS, SAYS NEW SURVEY

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is one of the world’s most confidence-inspiring political leaders, according to a new survey made public today.

Mr. Ban ranked second to United States President Barack Obama in the poll by the non-governmental organization WorldPublicOpinion.org, in which nearly 20,000 people in 20 countries were surveyed.

On average, his evaluations across all countries polled were positive, particularly in Africa, Africa and Western Europe.

Some 90 per cent of respondents in the Republic of Korea gave the Secretary-General positive confidence scores, while in Kenya and Nigeria he polled at 70 and 69 per cent, respectively.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, which conducted the poll between 4 April and 12 June of this year, is a collaborative research project bringing together research centres from around the world, and is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

————–

Secretary-General welcomes new UK climate change financing scheme

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

The UN Secretary General generally receives better ratings than most other world leaders who are heads of nations. On average his evaluations across the 20 nations are positive (40% to 35%) and 11 nations express confidence, seven do not, and two are divided. This places him second among the leaders studied, below Obama, but slightly above Merkel.

Views of Ban Ki-moon are particularly positive in Africa and in Asia - nearly all Asian nations give him positive confidence scores led by South Korea (90%). Indonesia is an exception: views are divided. Large majorities in both Kenya (70%) and Nigeria (69%) express confidence in him.

Countries polled in Western Europe have confidence in the Secretary General, including Britain, Germany, and France, but Poland and Russia do not, and Ukraine is divided. A majority of Americans (57%) report little confidence in him, while Mexico leans toward having confidence (38% to 33%.)

Prominent in the program is: Professor Susan Shirk - an expert on Chinese politics and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State during the Clinton administration. She was in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs (People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mongolia). She is currently a professor at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego. She is married to Samuel L. Popkin, another prominent UCSD professor.

The UN is Getting its Active Think Tank to Help it Understand  Intricacies of the 21st Century - this comes not one day too early.

The UN has back in place a genuine think tank operation. Yes, in the distant past Professor Oscar Schachter of Columbia University thought that this function will be taken up at UN headquarters by UNITAR that was billed as the UN Institute for Training and Research - and research was understood as think tank. This seemed to be too much for a UN that has difficulty accepting independent thinking. The Research function of UNITAR had to go - and the remnant of the institution - thanks to the French government - was rescued and sent over to Geneva.

Eventually the UN University was established in parallel, with Japan’s help and later a UN second University of Peace was based in Costa Rica. The UN thought probably that these will be more controlled institution then the previously free wheeling original, Schachterian, UNITAR.

From our angle we say “Luckily” things seem now so bad with the direction of the world economy that a real think tank operation is needed at UN headquarters, and having been involved with the UNITAR of old, and with The Hudson Institute of the days of Herman Kahn, we now track with increasing interest the advances of the UNU as a whole, helped in this by the New York Office of the UN University  -  ony.unu.edu - that is moving closer and closer to the point it will indeed be a Schachterian UN Think Tank. We hope that this will help and create also a better future for the UN institution as a whole.

More recent news:

The Economic Crisis presents the world with two challenges:  Ensuring speedy recovery, and taking actions to prevent a repeat of the crisis. This crisis is global and both challenges require significant international cooperation. UNU believes that one immediate task is to ensure that confidence in a properly regulated financial system, are restored.   A second task is to implement measures to reduce the impact of the crisis on developing countries. These measures should ensure that demand for the goods produced in developing countries quickly returns, that aid commitments are kept, disbursements are accelerated and that emerging bridge financing is readily available. It is vital to assist developing countries in coping with the effects of the crisis. Social safety nets, targeted assistance to the most vulnerable and maintenance of political and social stability, need to be prioritized. However, these actions cannot lead to the accumulation of unsustainable future. In order to address the global macro-economic imbalances and global inequalities, over the longer term, fundamental structural changes are needed in the global financial and trade architectures.

On the occasion of the UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, June 24-26, 2009 at UN Headquarters in New York, the United Nations University has assembled a multimedia intellectual forum, “UNU Conversation Series: The Economic Crisis”.   The objective is to bring clarity to some of the key issues at the center of the economic crisis, to explain what is at stake and what should be done to overcome the problems that we currently face.

The objective of this forum is to bring clarity to some of the key issues at the center of the economic crisis, to explain what is at stake and what should be done to overcome the problems that we currently face.

With this in mind, the United Nations University is interviewing some of the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe, including Olivier Blanchard, Janos Bogardi, Francois Bourguignon, Noam Chomsky, Richard Cooper, Evsey Gurvich, Robert Johnson, Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Wim Naude, Leonce Ndikumana, Eisuke Sakakibara, Luc Soete, Joseph Stiglitz, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Aude Zieseniss de Thuin, to name a few.

Through these conversations, there is an opportunity to learn about the causes of the financial and economic crisis, how this crisis manifests itself in developed and developing countries, how long it is likely to continue and, perhaps more importantly, what can be done to address it.

more information on the UNU’s position please find by going to Conversation Series on Economic CrisisPresents Richard Cooper & Barry Eichengreen

TOP OFFICIALS CONVERGE AT UN TO TACKLE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS

As high-level delegates from around the globe gathered in New York today to discuss how to address the economic meltdown while taking the interests of all nations into account, top United Nations officials issued urgent calls for action to ease the burden on the world’s poorest.

“At this critical moment, we must all join our efforts to prevent the global crisis, with its myriad faces, from turning into a social, environmental and humanitarian tragedy,” General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto said at the start of the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development.

He called for a solution to the current turmoil that will not leave “the vast majority of humanity to their fate,” exhorting the representatives from nearly 150 Member States expected to address the three-day gathering to “take decisions that affect us all collectively to the greatest extent possible.”

For his part, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon underscored that the current crisis is “not a cause for any one person, nation or group of nations. It is a challenge for us all.”

Despite signs of financial stabilization and growth in some pockets of the world, he said that “the real impact of the crisis could stretch for years.”

A multi-pronged approach is needed to stem the catastrophe, Mr. Ban said, that incorporates boosting access to education, promoting ‘green’ growth, helping subsistence farmers and increasing resources to fight diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis.

“The world institutions created generations ago must be made more accountable, more representative and more effective,” he pointed out, voicing regret that reforming financial institutions has divided Member States.

The crisis has revealed the need for a “renewed multilateralism,” he said, adding that “challenges are linked. Our solutions must be, too.”

The event will also feature several roundtable discussions on topics including the role of the UN in responding to the crisis and how to mitigate the impact of the downturn on development, featuring, among others, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator Helen Clark.

Earlier this year, an expert panel appointed by Mr. D’Escoto and chaired by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz emphasized that international finance structures must be drastically overhauled in the face of the current global economic crisis, calling on wealthier nations to direct one per cent of their economic stimulus packages to help developing countries address poverty.

A coordinated approach – bringing together not just the G-8 or even G-20 nations, but the “G-192″ representing all members of the Assembly – is needed to pull the world out of the recession, according to the recommendations of the Commission of Experts on Reforms of International Finance and Economic Structures.

The experts also called for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to increase the availability of funds for hard-hit nations.

* * *

SECRETARY-GENERAL DISCUSSES SITUATION IN IRAN WITH NOBEL LAUREATE SHIRIN EBADI

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has voiced his concern regarding the situation in Iran and his dismay over the post-election violence, particularly the use of force against civilians, in his talks with Iranian human rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi.

The two spoke by phone yesterday, according to information provided by Mr. Ban’s spokesperson.

On Monday, Mr. Ban urged an immediate end to the arrests, threats and use of force taking place in Iran amid the post-election violence that has already claimed a number of lives.

Protesters have taken to the streets following the 12 June presidential poll, which opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has said was fixed in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Secretary-General told Ms. Ebadi that he had called on the Iranian authorities to respect fundamental civil and political rights, especially the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of information.

He has also called on the Government and the opposition to resolve peacefully their differences through dialogue and legal means, and hoped that the democratic will of the people of Iran would be fully respected.

* * *

BAN CALLS ON G8 TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BOOST SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT

Climate change and development top the list of challenges requiring action that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has laid out in a letter to leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations ahead of their upcoming summit.

In the letter, Mr. Ban asks G8 governments to take the lead on the issue of climate change by making “ambitious and firm commitments” to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 per cent, the levels the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says are required on the part of industrialized countries to ward off the worst effects of global warming.

“He says that he hopes that G8 governments will commit to a specific timetable and modalities to deliver the billions of dollars needed during the next few years to assist the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change,” his spokesperson, Michele Montas, said.

Resources must be committed to help the poorest and most vulnerable adapt to climate change as well as to “seal the deal” on an ambitious new pact in December in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012, the letter says.

On the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline, the Secretary-General writes that annual aid to Africa is still at least $20 billion below the targets set at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, United Kingdom, in 2005.

“He urges the G8 to set out, country by country, how donors will scale up aid to Africa over the next year to make the Gleneagles commitments real,” Ms. Montas said.

This year’s G8 summit will be held from 8-10 July in the Italian city of L’Aquila.

The Neda or the “Iran Libre” - the new non-alcoholic green drink of choice.

It is non alcoholic in deference to the Islamic people.

It is based on cool mint and lime juice tamed with some black chocolate syrup and strawberry pulp.

The latter two in memory of old United States and its new President.

Garnish with a rim of salt and in major bars, like the Delegates’ Bar at the UN, with glass hang-ons of two lions - the Iranian lion and the British lion.

Drink when discussing Climate Change and Green Energy Policy.

Oil or Trees? Germany Takes Lead in Saving Ecuador’s Rainforest.

by Jess Smee
24 June 2009

Oil companies are salivating over the supply of black gold beneath Ecuador’s rainforest. The South American country is pledging to keep the oil in the ground — if the international community provides compensation. Now Germany has taken a leading role in raising the necessary cash.

There are many attributes which make the Yasuni National Park special: It is one of the most bio-diverse places on the planet, it is home to indigenous tribes which hunt and gather in its remote interior, and there’s a unique breed of small bat. But the national park also has a geographic curse: It sits atop Ecuador’s largest known oil reserve, thought to contain hundreds of millions of barrels.

And this potential fortune threatens its very future. In response, Ecuador has come up with an unusual plan to safeguard the UNESCO biosphere Reserve. The cash-strapped South American country has pledged to leave the oil in the ground forever — something unheard of among oil nations — if the international community compensates for some of the lost income.

The scheme, which was first mooted by Ecuadorian President Raphael Correa more than a year ago, got off to a slow start. By the end of the year the country extended its self-imposed deadline, in a last ditch bid to rally international support. Meanwhile, international oil giants were queuing to exploit the supply of black gold.
But now, all of a sudden, the ball seems to be rolling. Following a two-day visit by the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Fander Falconí to Berlin, Germany had positioned itself at “the forefront of the initative,” the Ministry for Economic Cooperation said.

However, officials urged caution on a newspaper report which said Germany would pay $50 million (€36 million) into a yet-to-be-established international fund. “There will be emphatically no financial promises. The conversation in the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development focused on the framework of the project and also on the efforts that Ecuador itself has to make,” Stephan Bethe, spokesman for the ministry, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

He stressed that Ecuador’s idea had caught Berlin’s imagination: “It offers a new approach to rainforests and, from the perspective of development politics, it is very promising,” Bethe said. “Combining climate protection and fighting poverty will play a growing role in the future.”

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Falconí told the German daily Die Tageszeitung that Germany had pledged “the first significant contribution” to a yet-to-be-created international fund. The paper reported that Ecuador was pushing Germany to pay up within one month.

Hat in Hand

Ecuador estimates that by leaving the oil untouched, some 410 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions will be averted. Oil is Ecuador’s most important export, generating around a third of its income. With the value of the untapped supply under the Yasuni National Park estimated at some $6 billion, the country argues it has little option but to approach international donors, hat in hand.

Environmentalists welcomed the plan as a way to save Ecuador’s rainforest from destruction. Preventing forests from disappearing is a vital element in the fight against climate change as they absorb huge quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Still, doubts lingered about the Ecuador model. Tobias Riedl from Greenpeace Germany’s Forest Campaign warned that the scheme was far from perfect. “It is a double-edged sword. While we welcome moves to save this unique environment, the fact is that all rainforests need to be saved, regardless of whether they lie on valuable natural resources or not,” he told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

“There needs to be a broader move with industrialized nations paying money into a fund to save these forests. Preservation of these bio-diverse areas comes at a price.”

Meanwhile, environmental groups are looking to the Copenhagen Climate summit in December which aims to hammer out a new United Nations accord to replace the Kyoto Protocols which expire in 2012. Riedl remained upbeat, despite mounting signs that worldwide climate negotiations are stalling: “We expect to see how the preservation of forests can be brought into a new climate protection framework,” he said. “That is a step in the right direction.”

But there is a long way to go. Greenpeace estimates that €30 billion are needed to secure the future of the rainforests worldwide. And with 80 percent of all ancient forests (including rainforests) worldwide already gone, the clock is ticking. And Ecuador knows it.

Links:    Original article at www.spiegel.de

EYEontheUN Alert

The UN’s “reformed” Human Rights Council Abandons Human Rights in the so called Democratic Republic of the Congo.

On June 18th, 2009 the Human Rights Council President announced that the Council “has decided in a closed meeting to discontinue consideration of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” This marks the first time in 15 years that the UN’s lead human rights body has wiped the horrific range of human rights abuses in the DRC off its investigative agenda.

Consideration of human rights abuses in the DRC had been taking place under a behind-closed-doors procedure which permits the Council to consider “consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights.”

After announcing the abandonment of DRC human rights victims, the Council President also imposed a gag order and required all Council members not “to make any reference in public to the confidential decision and material concerning the DRC.”

Terminating the behind-the-scenes investigation of human rights abuses in the DRC was the final blow in a series of steps taken by the UN’s lead human rights body to save the state violator and ignore its victims. In 1994 the Council’s predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission, established the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DRC. In 2004 it downgraded the position to that of “Independent expert to provide assistance to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the field of human rights”. In 2006, the newly-created Council renewed the position temporarily pending a review of Commission investigatory positions. In March of 2008 it discontinued the position of Independent Expert. This left no UN public investigation (or light of day) on egregious violations in the DRC. With its latest move, even closed door pressure on the DRC is gone.

–

the full e-mail :  http://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbo…

then why be upset? After years of little achievements of the UN, why continue the charade by spending money on no results?

then, who needs the UN if we throw our hands up and say that nothing is achieved unless one of the Big Permanent 5 has there a bone to defend?

Too little, too late? The UN and the global financial crisis, Alison Evans and Dirk Willem te Velde, OpenDemocracy.
A major summit on the impact of the “great recession” on the developing world is an opportunity for the United Nations to take a lead in a critical area, say Alison Evans and Dirk Willem te Velde.

23 - 06 - 2009

The title of the summit being held at the United Nations in New York on 24-26 June 2009 - the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development - suggests a large ambition that some observers already think is misplaced. Their argument is that it has already been overtaken by events. After all, the global financial crisisis already almost two years old. The problems in the United States housing market emerged in August 2007, in banks and financial institutions (such as Bear Stearns and Northern Rock) by early 2008, and the implosion of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. The crisis is, in this perspective, well into its third wave. A summit held now to pinpoint the action needed to ease its impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, seems - at first sight - “too little, too late”.

Alison Evans is director of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Also by Alison Evans in openDemocracy: “Financing development: from Monterrey to Doha” (26 November 2008) - with Simon Maxwell

Dirk Willem te Velde is a research fellow at the International Economic Development Group (IEDG).
There are arguments to the contrary - status (it is being attended by heads of state and government, as mandated in December 2008 at the Financing for Development conferencein Doha), timing (it comes neatly between the G20 summit in London on 2 April 2009 and its follow-up in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September), and reach (this, unlike the G20 discussions, is a meeting of the entire UN membership - the most wide-ranging and inclusive body able to reflect seriously on the scale of the global financial crisis and its impact on development). The last point in particular should in principle be the summit’s strength; but it could also be its weakness.

The context

The context of the summit is sobering. Developing countries are being hit by falls in trade, private-capital flows, remittances and (possibly) in the value of official development assistance (ODA). Research by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and developing-country teams have provided new evidence on these transmission-belts in ten poor countries. Moreover, the predicted effect of these trends is a rise in poverty levels, social unrest and even conflict.  The much-discussed recent “green shoots” are at best showing only some levelling off in the heavy losses to date.

The groundbreaking ODI research into ten developing countries shows how high the economic and human costs of the crisis already are. Some countries may see the strong positive economic growth that lasted into 2008 sink into negative growth in 2009. There is no doubt too that jobs are being lost, with some sectors being especially hard hit. The garment industry in Cambodia, for example, employed around 350,000 people, but saw approximately 51,000 people - many of them women - laid off between September 2008 and March 2009.

The implications for poverty are alarming. The crisis is likely to push many households into poverty, far more than would otherwise have been the case: as many as 650,0o0 in Indonesia, for example; 300,000 in Bangladesh; 233,000 in Uganda; 230,000 in Ghana; and 110,000 in Cambodia. Behind these numbers are countless human miseries: illnesses acquired and untreated, children unable to go to school, families broken or degraded. What is more, the research suggests that poorer countries have been hit even harder than initially expected, and that the worst is yet to come. This sentiment is echoed in the World Bank’s prediction in June 2009 of “multiple waves of economic stress”, and in the fear of eminent economists such as Paul Krugman of a lost decade ahead.

The G8 ministers of finance may talk about “exit strategies” and the need to shore up confidence to pull their countries out of the recession. But from the perspective of poorer countries, for whom “monitoring and coping” remains the mantra, this is to say the least premature.

The opportunity

Does all this indeed make the United Nations summit “too little, too late”? There are certainly real concerns about the role and effectiveness of the UN in the global financial and economic crisis. A dominant view is that the UN as a whole is hobbled by its internal divisions and bogged down in opaque, bureaucratic procedures and processes of consensus-building that make it look bloated and inefficient to the outside world. By contrast, the smaller “clubs” of the international system that operate independently of the UN - the G8, G8+5 and G20, for example - have less legitimacy but are able to agree on things and deliver accordingly.

At the time of the G20 summit on 2 April 2009, the ODI’s former director Simon Maxwell noted that the United Nations Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) - the UN body established to take the lead on global economic and financial issues - “has played no part yet in solving the current financial crisis”.

But it would be “too much, too early” to give up on the UN. Rather, this crisis provides two strong spurs for UN reform that if pursued would establish once and for all its role in leading global debate on issues of worldwide concern.

The first spur relates to the impact of the crisis on the global political order;  in particular, the damage that has been done to the reputation of OECD economiesand the longstanding belief that “the west knows best”. It is now not only donors who are asking for clean governments - politicians in Cambodia, for example, are asking that the west be held to account for its financial “crimes”.

The second spur lies in the attention now being given to the need to refurbish global governance.

The G20 may have allocated most of its “crisis resources” to the international financial institutions (IFIs), but the UN will remain a crucial part of any long-term governance solution. The IFIs too lack the UN’s legitimacy; and in any case the draft report prepared by a commission of experts (headed by Joseph Stiglitz) for the 24-26 June summit highlights the failures of the IFIs rather than seeing them as an immediate solution to the crisis. The UN has a pivotal role to play in monitoring the crisis, especially its impact on the poorest and most vulnerable groups. But to fulfil this, it must be stronger in coordinating dialogue on country-development models, and facilitating this process at country level.

The UN is already expanding its own monitoring work, in cooperation with others. The Overseas Development Institute has worked with Unicef to look at how the crisis might affect children, for example. If the summit in New York achieves just one thing, it should be to agree on the monitoring role of the UN. This could turn out to be its greatest strength. A UN that works “above” the smaller groupings with their specific agendas and vested interests, is the body best placed to pioneer the monitoring of this systemic global crisis, and to host the global dialogue on how to respond both now and in the future.

 We got the following in an e-mail and we are still trying to figure out if this could be the answer that the UN Summit on finances and the economy will be looking for at the June 23-25, 2009 meetings that are being led with the help of a document prepared by Professor Stiglitz.

———

It is August. In a small town on the South Coast of France, holiday season is in full swing, but it is raining so there is not too much business happening.
Everyone is heavily in debt.

Luckily, a rich Russian tourist arrives in the foyer of the small local hotel.
He asks for a room and puts a Euro100 note on the reception counter, takes a key and goes to inspect the room located up the stairs on the third floor.

The hotel owner takes the banknote in a hurry and rushes to his meat supplier to whom he owes E100.
The butcher takes the money and races to his supplier to pay his debt.
The wholesaler rushes to the farmer to pay E100 for pigs he purchased some time ago.
The farmer triumphantly gives the E100 note to a local prostitute who gave him her services on credit.
The prostitute goes quickly to the hotel owner, as she owed the hotel E100 for her hourly room use to entertain clients.

At that moment, the rich Russian is coming down to the reception and informs the hotel owner that the proposed room is unsatisfactory and takes his E100 back and departs.

There was no profit or income.
But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.

COULD THIS BE THE SOLUTION TO THE Global Financial Crisis? Or, is there a catch here?

Why Condemn Israel But Not Iranian Government Brutality? - Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini, Maariv.

Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel disappear to? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran?

How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, the world is silent? Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran but in the West Bank. Policemen on motorcycles butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper, dying before the cameras.

If there is a truly free world, let it appear immediately and impose sanctions on those who slaughter their own people.

There is a different Islam, even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too. (Maariv-Hebrew)

——————-

That is what we say - get the UN leaders take real measures. Do not wait for the impossible consesus but tell UN’s 38th floor that they do not earn their salaries and pomp if they do not show they have any guts. Mr. ban Ki-moon - this means you!

 While the US President and the British Prime Minister must be very careful what they do about the Iranian scene - this because their position could lead to further blood-shedding of innocent Iranians - and because both countries have a history of past activities in Iran. But what does the UN Secretary General stand for? His position, the way he handles himself, is no threat to the Iranian thugs, he never stood in their way and his utterances today are less then insignificant. Would his claim to World leadership not command him to speak up - by himself - and call the UN to action - any action - rather then just for contemplation? Has he read theUN dictum passed under the aegis of his predecessor THAT THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT in the armory of the UN body?

Could he not at least suggest to shine this weapon by saying at least that the UN should consider at least removing temporarily at least the full membership of Iran if it does not take immediate consideration of its responsibility to its own people?

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE
22 June, 2009 =========================================================================

BAN URGES END TO ARRESTS, USE OF FORCE AMID POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE IN IRAN

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged an immediate end to the arrests, threats and use of force taking place in Iran amid the post-election violence that has already claimed a number of lives.

Media reports say nearly 20 people have died in the unrest that has followed the 12 June presidential polls. Opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has contested the results of the vote, which he says was fixed in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Ban “is dismayed by the post-election violence, particularly the use of force against civilians, which has led to the loss of life and injuries,” his spokesperson said in a statement.

“He urges an immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force,” the statement added.

The Secretary-General called on the authorities to respect fundamental civil and political rights, especially the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of information.

He also called on the Government and the opposition to peacefully resolve their differences through dialogue and legal means, and reiterated his hope that the democratic will of the people of Iran will be fully respected.

Last week, the United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, voiced concern over reports of the use of excessive force and violence, as well as rising numbers of potentially extralegal arrests in the post-election period.

———-