View previous stories
	People believe the War in Iraq makes Terror "more likely" by BBC News   28 February 2006   People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.   Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.   In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision. Some 41,856 people were questioned in the poll for the BBC"s World Service.   In 20 countries, there is overall support for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.   Only in nine of the remaining 15 countries do more people believe US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilised. Six countries are divided.   The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 is seen as a mistake in 21 countries, compared with 11 countries where more people view it as the right decision. Three countries are divided.   "It"s official. Citizens worldwide think Western leaders have made a fundamental mistake in their war on terror by invading Iraq," says Doug Miller, president of the international polling firm GlobeScan, which carried out the survey. "Short of the Iraqi government asking them to stay longer, people think the troops should leave," he says.   The countries most eager for US coalition withdrawal are Argentina (80%), Egypt (76%), China (67%) and Brazil (67%). Those which favour troops staying for the time being are the US (58%), Afghanistan (58%), Australia (57%) and Great Britain (56%).   Iraqis divided   However, the picture would be very different should the new Iraqi government ask US-led forces to remain until the situation was stabilised. In that case, there is support in 21 of 34 countries for the coalition to stay.   Iraqis are the most convinced that the removal of Saddam Hussein was right, with 74% agreeing with the move.   28 February 2006   US faces sceptical world over Iraq, by Jonathan Marcus. (BBC News)   If the findings of a new opinion poll for the BBC are anything to go by, the US certainly seems to be losing the battle for global public opinion.   The poll was carried out by the international opinion research firm GlobeScan, together with the Programme on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (Pipa) in the US.   "Though the Bush administration has framed the intervention in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism, all around the world - including in the US - most people view it as having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks," Pipa director Steven Kull notes. "The near-unanimity of this assessment among countries is remarkable in global public opinion polling."   The poll also indicates that there is a strong body of opinion in 20 of the 35 countries surveyed that believes US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.   Any such survey is a snapshot of opinion at one particular moment. In this case, research work was carried out between October 2005 and early February of this year, well before the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq which may well impact upon global public opinion.   With headlines on all sides about Iraq "drifting towards civil war", will people simply be confirmed in their opinions? Or will the drama of what is happening encourage them to think again?   Public opinion today matters like never before.   In part, this is because domestic politicians in many countries have drafted in the pollsters, analysts and methods of the commercial world to better understand the political market-place.   This trend has inevitably spread into foreign policy as well. In our increasingly globalised world, many of the great issues of the day relate to attitudes and values..
	Powerful and Poor lock horns over how to run UN by IPS / OneWorld / UN News   February 24, 2006   Washington"s Clout at U.N. Challenged, by Thalif Deen. (Inter Press Service)   United Nations: - Singling out the three major contributors to the budget, Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa told reporters Wednesday that "just because United States, Japan and Germany pay more than 50 percent of the budget does not mean they have 50 percent of the voice at the United Nations".   "This is not a private corporation or a Fortune 500 company," he said. "They don"t own class "A" stock and the rest of us own only common stock. We are all assessed according to our ability to pay," said Kumalo, speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Group of 77.   Kumalo challenged the argument that the United States and Japan should have "a larger voice" because they pay "more money".   Currently, the assessed contribution for the United States is 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget, for Japan 20 percent and for Germany 8.7 percent.   On Wednesday, the 15-member Security Council, presided over by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, held a rare meeting on a U.N. audit report on peacekeeping operations.   Despite protests by the Group of 77 that procurement and management were not within the purview of the Security Council, Bolton went ahead with a meeting of the Council arguing that U.S. taxpayers had the right to know how its money was being spent by the world body.   Currently, the United States is also the largest single contributor to the U.N."s regular budget accounting for 22 percent of the budget, followed by Japan (19.6 percent) and Germany (9.8 percent).   Kumalo told the Security Council that the fundamental principle that underpins this collective effort is that the United Nations is an inter-governmental body where the voice of each and every member state must be heard and respected, regardless of the contributions made to the budget of the organisation.   "The fact that there may be a difference in the level of monetary contribution to the organisation does not imply any difference in the decision-making role of member states in the United Nations," he argued.   Kumalo said the audit report, which was produced by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), was requested by members of the Group of 77 and China. Therefore the insinuation that somehow developing countries may be tolerant of corruption, mismanagement and fraud is wrong, he added. Kumalo said the Group expects the secretary-general to take immediate action in cases of corruption, fraud or any wrongdoing within the Organisation.   Kumalo pointed out how the Security Council was criticised last year for failing in its oversight function over the administration of the 64 billion dollar, now-defunct oil-for-food programme in Iraq -- a programme that "was created, managed and overseen by the Security Council"..   February 24, 2006   Powerful and Poor lock horns over how to run UN, by Haider Rizvi. (OneWorld)   The United States is using the issue of United Nations reform to consolidate domination of the world body by wealthy and powerful countries at the expense of the majority, say two-thirds of the UN"s members.   Representatives of the mostly developing countries are pressing that charge because John Bolton, Washington"s ambassador to the UN, began rare Security Council hearings Wednesday on sexual abuse by soldiers assigned to UN peacekeeping missions and on alleged fraud in procurement contracts to supply those missions.   A 132-nation bloc of mostly developing countries and China accused Bolton of encroaching on the General Assembly"s mandate to oversee UN operations and financing.   In the first place, the UN audit report detailing the fraud was to be delivered to the General Assembly at the request of the 132-member Group of 77 (G-77), said the bloc"s chairman, South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo.   "We never interfere in their business but they have interfered in our business," Kumalo said of Bolton"s unusual move. Bolton holds the Security Council"s revolving presidency this month. The panel consists of 10 temporary member states and five permanent members--Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States--each with a veto over all decisions. The small body has enjoyed greater political clout than the General Assembly, where all 191 UN members are represented and none has a veto.   The majority of UN members have asserted that the assembly, as the more democratic forum and as the apex body under the UN Charter, should reign supreme. Officials from powerful nations--chiefly, most of the veto holders in the Security Council--have countered that the assembly"s large membership makes it unwieldy and ineffective.   For its part, the bureaucracy headed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has complained about micromanagement by the assembly.   Among wealthy states, the United States, Japan, and Germany have pushed for greater Security Council oversight of peacekeeping operations, which the panel authorizes.   "We create these missions. We write the resolutions that create these missions," Bolton said, adding that since Washington chipped in 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget, it had an obligation to let its taxpayers know how and where the money is spent and how well it is managed.   Kumalo rejected those arguments, saying they flew in the face of democratic norms and the UN Charter. "This is not a private corporation. "This is an intergovernmental body. Bigger spenders are not entitled to more votes, Kumalo said, as "we are all assessed [membership dues] according to our ability to pay. The troops on the front lines do not come from this body," he added, referring to the Security Council.   To be sure, Third World diplomats have been chagrined by Bolton"s move because they see it as stealing their thunder--after all, they said, they had requested the audit at the center of the ongoing Security Council hearings. But they also have noted that the Security Council created and supervised what turned out to be the UN"s most damaging corruption scandal: the now defunct, $64 billion oil-for-food program in Iraq.   Last week, Kumalo sent Bolton a letter saying the G-77 did not believe that the council was "the right forum" to discuss the audit report. In response, Bolton stated that "the Security Council is acting, and other bodies can act as well."   The turf war is part of a wider pattern of confrontation over numerous aspects of a major restructuring of the 60-year-old UN. Powerful and poor nations also are locked in negotiations over the formation of a proposed human rights council and over the role and distribution of jobs at the UN Secretariat, or central bureaucracy.   On the human rights council, U.S. and Western diplomats are pushing criteria that would prevent certain countries from obtaining membership but developing countries stand against this approach.   Both sides also have locked horns over whether the Secretariat should have more powers in managing the organization. Washington and other wealthy capitals want to strengthen the Secretary General"s authority but developing nations consider such initiatives as inconsistent with the organization"s charter, which states that the UN"s top official should be accountable to the General Assembly.   UN peacekeeping missions are ongoing in 17 countries and are staffed by about 80,000 soldiers, police, and civilian personnel, according to the UN. Peacekeeping accounts for about 85 percent of the UN"s worldwide spending on procurement and has more than quadrupled over the past decade.   The corruption probe so far has resulted in the suspension of eight UN staff members. Any criminal wrongdoing uncovered reportedly will be turned over to U.S. prosecutors. The UN last year introduced a "zero tolerance" policy to reinforce rules against sexual abuse. The world body has jurisdiction over civilian personnel on peacekeeping missions but cannot punish soldiers so instead, it sends them home and asks their governments to bring them to justice. Whether that happens depends on each government.   23 February 2006   Blueprint for new, more effective UN human rights body unveiled. (UN News)   Seeking to dramatically bolster the protection of human rights around the world, the President of the United Nations General Assembly today unveiled the draft blueprint for a new Human Rights Council with higher status and greater accountability than the much-criticized Human Rights Commission that meets yearly in Geneva.   “While we will build on the positive achievements and best practices of the Commission, some of the elements we are considering will make the Human Rights Council a truly new and different body – a fresh start,” Jan Eliasson of Sweden said in introducing the draft resolution for the body, which was called for by world leaders at the September 2005 summit in New York.   According to Mr. Eliasson, a major improvement of the proposed Council is the requirement that its members, elected individually by the Assembly, would be judged on their human rights records with the proviso that they can be suspended if they themselves commit gross and systematic violations.   “We were looking for something that would show muscle in cases of gross violations,” he said of this provision at a UN Headquarters press conference, after his introduction of the draft. He expressed hope that this provision, in particular, would be approved and used wisely by Assembly Members.   Mr. Eliasson also said that the new Council would have a higher standing as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, wouldmeet year round as opposed to the six-week annual session of the Commission, and conduct a “universal, periodic review” of all States’ adherence to human rights norms, starting by scrutinizing its members.   In addition, Mr. Eliasson said that the latest text took heed of the violence over the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by including a preambular paragraph on the need for dialogue and understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions.   Praising the proposed body, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Its ability to meet throughout the year, and when necessary for longer than the Commission has done, will allow the Council to sound the alarm and bring urgent human rights crises to the attention of the world community.”   At the same time, Mr. Annan said, “the Council will preserve the best features of the Commission, including the use of independent rapporteurs and the opportunity for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to play their essential role in the Organization’s human rights work.”   He stressed that the President’s text is the product of many months’ efforts to reach consensus, and that while no delegation will get everything it wants – indeed, Mr. Annan himself said he would have preferred States be elected by a two-thirds majority – the Council could be a basis for a more effective base for human rights protection.   A decision on the proposal could come as early as next week, according to Mr. Eliasson. Mr. Annan urged Member States to quickly approve the latest draft.   “But that will be only the first step in a process of change and renewal,” he cautioned. “No technical fix can make all the difference. Indeed, how different the Council is from the Commission will depend in large part on how committed Member States are to make it better, and how they act on that commitment in the weeks and months ahead,” he concluded.
	View more stories