View previous stories
	US spurns Treaty after Treaty by Isaac Baker, Jim Lobe Reuters,UN News, Inter Press Service   24 Dec 2005   UN votes for budget; averts financial crisis, by Evelyn Leopold. (Reuters)   The U.N. General Assembly late on Friday passed a budget with an unprecedented spending cap aimed at pressuring countries into approving management and other reforms within six months.   Under the deal between wealthy and developing nations, the assembly adopted a resolution for a two-year, $3.8 billion administrative budget, thereby averting a financial crisis.   But the resolution capped U.N. spending at $950 million - enough only for the first six months of 2006 - after which Secretary-General Kofi Annan has to ask the assembly for more funds to pay staff.   The 191-nation General Assembly"s decision, after months of arduous negotiations, was taken by consensus, without a vote.   Several nations, including Egypt, India and Jamaica, refused to link reforms to the budget. But outspoken U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said this was implicit since the assembly would have to approve additional funding in six months time.   In a rare public disagreement, the European Union, headed by Britain, took credit for the compromise.   British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters that for "95 percent of the time, it has been us (the EU) who have been building a bridge with the G-77," the U.N. grouping representing 133 developing nations. The EU objective, he said, was to "avoid confrontation but give an impetus to the reform process."   France was even blunter. Its U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said: "The European Union was at the center of the game.   Until Friday, developing nations dug in their heels, fearing the changes would dilute their influence over U.N. programs and priorities by weakening the role of the General Assembly, where each member has a vote and no nation has a veto. Several argued that the dues they paid represented a large sum for their country.   December 22, 2005 (IPS News)   Less than two weeks before a Dec. 31 deadline, the United Nations is in danger of beginning the new year inauspiciously - without an approved budget and unable to pay staff salaries.   "I am not sure if the light in this room can and will be on," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Wednesday. Annan was hinting at an impending financial crisis which could shut down the world body, dimming the lights in the 39-story U.N. Secretariat, come January.   "I really, really hope that member states understand the implications of a budget crisis and will do everything to avoid it," the secretary-general said at his year-end press conference.   The potential crisis has been sparked by implicit threats by the United States that it will not support the U.N."s biennial budget for 2006-2007 if member states refuse to back proposals for a radical overhaul of the world body, including management reforms.   Since the budget is traditionally approved by consensus by all 191 member states, a single country can withhold its support, thereby throwing the entire process into disarray.   John Bolton, the abrasive U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has said the U.N."s biennial budget for 2006-2007 should be shrunk into a three-month budget giving member states a deadline of Mar. 31 to agree to a set of U.S.-inspired reforms.   But the 132-member Group of 77, comprising developing countries, is refusing to conform to artificial deadlines or rush into a decision under threats.   Last month, Bolton warned U.N. member states, specifically the 132 developing nations, that if they don"t play ball with the United States, Washington may look elsewhere to settle international problems.   Addressing a gathering at Wingate University in North Carolina, Bolton said: "Being practical, Americans say that either we need to fix the institution (the United Nations), or we"ll turn to some other mechanism to solve international problems."   In an implicit reference to Bolton"s aggressive stance, Annan told reporters that the atmosphere at the United Nations these days is a "bit tense". He said that "tempers are high, and there is quite a bit of mistrust."   "There is a sense that they are operating in an atmosphere of threats and intimidation, which some of them say they resent," he added. "But quite frankly," Annan pointed out, "I think the only choice they have is to sit down and talk honestly and sincerely and frankly to each other, and try and come to an understanding. But they have to put the interest of the Organisation first, not narrow interests."   The Group of 77 (G77) says that U.N. reforms are primarily driven by right wing neo-conservatives in the United States who have made U.N.-bashing into a fine art.   The G77 has told Annan that it is strongly opposed to the neo-conservative view that the world body should be run like a U.S. corporation, with the secretary-general playing the role of a chief executive officer (CEO).   The proposal to give Annan more powers would correspondingly diminish the authority of the 191-member General Assembly, the highest policy making body in the Organisation.   Asked about the deadlock, Annan said: "I know there have been some differences between the G77 and other groups of countries. But I think they all want to see reform and they all want to see the United Nations move ahead. I am hopeful they will be able to come to an understanding and agree on a budget (before the end of December)."   21 December 2005   UN reform among top priorities for 2006, Annan tells year-end press conference. (UN News)   Outlining his top priorities for 2006, his last year as United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said today that alongside efforts to promote peace and combat poverty and disease, he was determined to follow through on his wide-ranging agenda of reform and renewal of the world body.   “If there’s one thing I would like to hand over to my successor when I leave office next year, is that it should be a UN that is fit for the many varied tasks and challenges we are asked to take on today,” Mr. Annan told an end-of-year press conference at UN Headquarters in New York, stressing that a strong programme to do that was already embraced by Member States at the 2005 World Summit.   He said the objectives for his last year fall into three priority areas: the fight against poverty and disease; peace and security; and reform of the United Nations.   Among global issues, Mr. Annan said he thought terrorism and weapons of mass destruction would continue to take centre stage at the UN, along with the situation in the broader Middle East, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli and Lebanon-Syria situations. He advised keeping “a very close eye” on the Darfur region of Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well.   On organizational reform, Mr. Annan said he hoped to continue making the concrete changes that follow up on the Summit outcome and the agreements from that meeting that have already come to fruition in the form of the Emergency Relief Fund and the Peacebuilding Commission.   His first focus within those areas, he said, will be the establishment of an effective, impartial Human Rights Council and a package of management reforms that he will submit to Member States in February.   The Secretary-General stated he was hopeful that the Human Rights Council could be established before the regular session of the existing Commission on Human Rights begins in March. Over the last two weeks he has been holding talks with Member States on this issue.   “It is slow,” he said, “but I am still hopeful that we will be able – we should be able – to establish a Human Rights Council, if not by the end of the year, [then] probably early in the New Year.”   Affirming that there seemed to be a divide between developed and developing countries on that and other questions, Mr. Annan said good-faith negotiations were the only solution.   “I think the only way to deal with it is for them to dialogue… to sit across the table, look at each other in the eyes and explain their positions, and work ahead – work in the spirit of give-and-take to make progress,” he noted.   Dec 8, 2005   "NGOs urge Rice to Curb Bolton", by Jim Lobe.   Concerned about an impending confrontation between the United States and other member states over the U.N."s budget, a group of 20 non-governmental organisations (NGOS) has appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to rein in her ambassador, John Bolton, and take a more conciliatory approach.   The groups, which include the U.S. section of Amnesty International, Oxfam America and Citizens for Global Solutions, say Bolton"s threats to prevent the world body from adopting the proposed 2006-7 budget by consensus unless it first enacts Washington"s reform proposals are counter-productive.   "U.S. negotiating tactics appear to be undermining the opportunity to complete negotiations on and implement more attainable, but equally important, reforms, such as replacing the Human Rights Commission with a Human Rights Council and creating a Peacebuilding Commission," the groups wrote in a letter sent to Rice Thursday.   "Similarly, strategies that threaten to disrupt or delay the biennial budget process, such as Ambassador Bolton"s suggestion to adopt a three-month provisional budget, could seriously undercut reform efforts and the United Nations" ability to carry out ongoing, critical activities, like peacekeeping, election facilitation in the Middle East, or earthquake relief missions," the letter stated.   The letter echoed the concerns of senior U.N. officials who have also warned that a delay in the approval of the organisation"s budget, which is due no later than the end of this month, will not only further alienate Washington from most other member states, particularly developing countries who make up the Group of 77 (G77), but may also make it much for difficult for the U.N. to carry out its responsibilities.   "It"s a very serious situation," Warren Sach, an assistant secretary-general and the U.N."s controller, told the New York Times after Bolton first threatened to deny consensus on the budget last month. "It"s fragile and creates real problems in terms of the operational capacity of the organisation."   U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned last week if the budget is not approved by the end of the month, the U.N. will face a "serious financial crisis".   The NGOs" appeal to Rice to intervene in the budget battle comes amid growing tensions between Bolton and the U.N. secretariat on a range of issues.   On Wednesday, Bolton harshly attacked a statement by the U.N."s High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour that global efforts to ban torture had become a "casualty of the so-called "war on terrorism".   Although Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge, did not explicitly refer to the U.S. or reports that it has used methods amounting to torture or inhumane treatment against suspected terrorists,   A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has voiced increasing exasperation with Bolton in recent weeks, told reporters Thursday that his boss agreed with Arbour"s comments and that she would not be "impressed or intimidated" by the U.S. envoy.   And last week, when he called on Annan to put off a planned trip to Asia in order to take part in the budgetary negotiations, the U.N. chief snapped to reporters that the U.S. envoy "doesn"t run my programme", although he delayed his trip anyway.   It was precisely these kinds of exchanges that Bolton"s critics, who were plentiful, predicted would take place when President George W. Bush first nominated him in early 2005.   His confrontational - some say bullying - manner, combined with his radical nationalism and hostility toward multilateral institutions, particularly the U.N., ultimately persuaded a near-majority of U.S. senators that he was unfit for the post. As a result, he is the first U.S. ambassador to the world body who failed to be confirmed by the Senate.   Indeed, his political position was so shaky that Rice, who had rejected Vice President Dick Cheney"s suggestion that Bolton serve as her deputy secretary, publicly promised to carefully oversee his performance there.   Nonetheless, many observers believe that Bolton is far more inclined to answer to Cheney, as he did as undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security during Bush"s first term.   In that context, the current controversy over the U.N. budget, as well as the rising tensions between Bolton and the U.N. secretariat, raises a key question about whether Rice approves of the policy and Bolton"s confrontational tactics and style.   "The State Department had very reasonable goals on U.N. reform this year until Bolton came on the scene," said Don Kraus, executive vice president of Citizens for Global Solutions. "We need Rice to play a more effective role in this."   The G77, which, when unified, controls a majority of votes in the U.N. General Assembly, the body that ultimately must approve the budget, has given approval for a number of reforms backed by Washington, including the creation of a new Human Rights Council and Peacebuilding Commission.   That makes Bolton"s intransigent stance all the more frustrating for the activists who favour reform. "Threatening to withhold consensus risks putting the low-hanging fruit that is achievable now out of reach," Kraus told IPS. He noted that Bolton"s position had even alienated Washington"s closest allies, including Britain, which has called for the proposed 3.6 billion dollar budget to be approved this month.   Dec 8, 2005   "US spurns Treaty after Treaty", by Issac Baker. (IPS)   In 1989, the United Nations put forth the Convention on the Rights of the Child - a treaty that protects the civil and economic rights of children around the world. To date, 192 nations have ratified the treaty. Only two have not.   A decade later, just seven countries voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent body created to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity.   And in October of this year, members of the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted overwhelmingly to pass a new treaty aimed at protecting cultural diversity worldwide. Only two states voted against it.   The United States is the only nation to oppose all three. And the list of U.N. treaties and conventions that Washington has not signed or has actively opposed goes on and on.   While the vast majority of the world"s governments support these treaties, as well as other U.N. diplomatic efforts and conventions, the U.S. government can almost be expected to stand in opposition each time such treaty proceedings arise.   Indeed, the United States, especially in recent years, is increasingly being seen in the world as a lone state, thumbing its diplomatic nose at international pacts on everything from banning the use and production of landmines to curbing global warming.   This staunch refusal to join with other nations on such a wide range of treaties, experts say, is hurting the already tarnished image of the world"s sole superpower in the eyes of the international community.   "It sends the message that the United States has been the biggest violator and thrasher of international law in the post-war period," Richard Du Boff, a professor emeritus of economic history at Bryn Mawr College in the state of Pennsylvania, told IPS.   Du Boff added that while the U.S. has often opposed U.N. conventions since the end of the Second World War, its isolationist posture "has escalated dramatically and reached a level never before challenged" during the presidency of George W. Bush.   This, Du Boff said, makes the U.S. a "rogue" in the realm of international law. "The term is inspired by U.S. officials themselves," he said. "This is a term that they constantly apply to any country that does something we may not like: "rogue state."   However, it is the record of the U.S. and its stance on international legislation, he said, that stands in such stark contrast to that of the rest of the world.   The U.S. stands alone with the East African state of Somalia in its refusal to ratify the 1989 Convention on the Rights of a Child. The treaty, which the U.N. calls "the most powerful legal instrument that not only recognises but protects [children"s] human rights", is one of the most widely supported international agreements in the U.N."s history.   While the U.S. government has publicly stated its support for the treaty, it has not taken the necessary steps to ratify it.   Others that Washington has rejected include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines, a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.   The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Commission, and the U.N. framework Convention on Climate Change.   One of the touchiest areas in the rocky relationship between the U.S. and the international community is Washington"s overt hostility toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.   The U.S. was one of seven states to vote against the formation of the ICC in 1998. In taking this stance, the U.S. defied the rest of the democratic world"s support for the court.   The U.S. continues to stand alone among even its closest allies in its refusal to recognise the authority of the ICC.   The Bush administration maintains that U.S. personnel must be exempt from prosecution by the court, and has pressured ICC member states to sign bilateral deals promising not to hand over any U.S. nationals to the courts jurisdiction.   Human rights advocates and non-governmental organisations say the U.S. government"s stance toward ICC creates a two-tiered system of international law: one for U.S. nationals and one for everyone else.   Organisations such as the New-York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) have blasted the U.S. for its refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the court, saying such a stance hurts the image of the U.S. in the world.   "U.S. ambassadors have been acting like schoolyard bullies," Richard Dicker, director of HRW"s International Justice Programme, said in a statement. "The U.S. campaign has not succeeded in undermining global support for the court. But it has succeeded in making the U.S. government look foolish and mean-spirited."   The U.S. continues to reject the ICC, leaving no room for argument.   In the most recent example of the U.S."s rejection of U.N.-backed treaties, the U.S. and Israel voted against UNESCO"s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in mid-October.   While the treaty is largely symbolic - it doesn"t carry any real means of enforcement - supporters say it is an important declaration of the importance of cultural diversity and national aspirations.   Among other provisions, the treaty gives nations more leeway to support local culture through subsidies of domestic films and publications to help them stand up to foreign competition.   At the UNESCO meeting, Timothy Craddock, the ambassador from Britain, one of Washington"s allies, called the treaty, "clear, carefully balanced, and consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights". However, he added that Britain and the European Union had "agreed to disagree" with "one country".
	Hong Kong rally calls for Democracy by SBS World News Hong Kong   5.12.2005.   Hundreds of thousands of people have joined a march in Hong Kong to demand a fully democratic political system.   The demonstrators included trade unionists, activists and ordinary citizens. They called for universal suffrage to be introduced to elect the Chinese autonomous territory"s next leader.   Organisers, the Civil Rights Front, said 250,000 people took part in the march, while police said the figure was nearer to 63,000. It was the biggest show of public anger since the new leader, Donald Tsang, took office in June.   There have been a series of huge rallies for political change since the territory reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. One drew more than 500,000 people in 2003.   Leading pro-democracy legislator Ronny Tong described it as a “defining moment for Hong Kong. The single message is clear: we want universal suffrage,” he said. The protestors included people of all ages.   One of them included 83-year-old Au Wai-chi, who said: “I’m old but still haven’t seen proper democracy here. I’ve waited for too long now. Without universal suffrage, we don’t have real freedom.”   It is hoped the large turnout will send a clear message to Beijing that they want direct leadership elections and a fully-elected parliament. "This is make-or-break time," Martin Lee, the veteran leader of the pro-democracy movement told Agence France Presse. "The more people that come on the march, the more the government will have to do something about this," he said.   Following the protest, Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang said he shared the same goal as the protesters. "I"ve heard their voice. I have felt their feelings and I share their pursuit," he told a press conference. "I am 60 years of age. I certainly want to see universal suffrage taking place in Hong Kong in my time. What I am proposing is a step forward towards democracy,” he said.   In response to those mass protests, the Chinese government in Beijing made some concessions. The chief executive is currently chosen by a committee made up of about 800 Hong Kong residents selected by Beijing. The government has now offered to enlarge the election committee charged with selecting a new leader.   However, opposition leaders said the proposals do not go far enough. They believe it would be a step backward for the full democracy spelled out under the Basic Law post-colonial constitution. But the island"s constitutional document, or Basic Law, contains provisions for ultimately electing the leader by universal suffrage.   However, China has refused to implement such reforms to allow the people of Hong Kong to elect their next leader in two years time.   Pro-democracy campaigners say they should be given a timetable and told when they will be allowed to vote for who rules them.
	View more stories