View previous stories
	Bring back the politics of race harmony by Allan Patience, Michelle Grattan The Age Australia   Dec. 2005   "Howard got it wrong on racism, poll finds", by Jason Koutsoukis,   Voters have delivered a rebuff to Australian Prime Minister John Howard over his response to the Sydney riots, with three-quarters of people disagreeing with his claim that there is no underlying racism in Australia.   After a week of racially charged civil unrest in the Sydney beachside suburb of Cronulla, 59 per cent of voters said the violence would harm Australia"s international reputation, and 75 per cent agreed there was underlying racism in Australia -challenging Mr Howard"s view that the unrest was essentially a law-and-order issue. Despite the majority of voters agreeing there was underlying racism, the poll also found that 81 per cent of voters supported the policy of multiculturalism.   Dec. 2005   "Bring back the politics of race harmony", by Allan Patience.   An intelligent response to the Sydney events would be the revival of one of Australia"s greatest achievements - multiculturalism.   The multiculturalism that began unfolding from the late 1960s was about people coming from different cultural backgrounds and learning to share their stories, to understand each other"s points of view, to sympathise with the hardships they faced in coming to Australia, and to discover the advantages of living in harmony.   This revolved around a clear obligation for everyone born here, or choosing to live here, to respect certain core Australian values. These include allegiance to the practices of democratic government and the rule of law, believing in a fair go, just recognition for essential and voluntary work, a wonderfully irreverent sense of humour, security within and outside the country, a preference for egalitarianism, and a commitment to the right of everyone to fair access to education, health, employment, and housing.   These core values were the foundations on which all sound multicultural policies were built in the 1970s and 1980s. This was especially true of government initiatives on ethnic welfare services, education, SBS radio and television, and the sadly defunct Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs.   At their best, these policies made Australia a world leader. For a time, Australia"s rates of inter-ethnic violence were among the lowest in the world and ethnic out-marriage rates were relatively high, leading to human links across cultural boundaries. The country was widely admired for its multicultural achievements.   What we failed to do was to establish how and why these achievements were so successful. Good multicultural researchers were hung out to dry by successive governments. A lot of excellent policy knowledge and experience was lost.   What multi-culturalists do understand is that cultural change, if it"s managed well, can be enriching as cultures rub up against each other. If people really want to be positive Australian citizens they must understand that all living cultures are always changing. Ethnic and religious leaders sometimes have to accept the responsibility to advocate positive change in their own communities.   It is also important to remind ourselves of what multiculturalism is not. It is not a defence of ethnic narcissism. Ethnic groups that believe they possess exclusive and unchanging identities superior to other cultures have no place in Australian society. Multiculturalism has never been an apology for patriarchy or for limiting human rights. It has nothing in common with mob violence, sexual predators, payback killings, religious intolerance, racial bigotry or acts of terrorism.   The architects of Australian multiculturalism warned against ethnic minorities being excluded from mainstream society because of economic, educational, language or cultural barriers.   If policies are not in place to stop this happening, people in the minority groups will soon be over-represented in poverty, unemployment, crime, and similar statistics.   Policies to counter structural inequality include the provision of English language and skills training programs, accessible translations and interpreting services, and well-targeted community welfare programs. They also require effective public education programs for the wider community so that mainstream citizens understand the problems minorities face and what to do to alleviate these problems.   The past decade has seen a sustained and deliberate white-anting of Australia"s multicultural achievements. The campaign has been fostered by neo-conservative elements in the Federal Government and inflamed by shock-jocks on talkback radio. The ugly consequences of these opportunistic politics are evident in the riots in Sydney"s south and west. If unchecked, the disturbances will spread.   There is a crimson thread of racism still running through Australia"s hard culture. There is no point in denying this. Our racism has to be confronted intelligently, through wise education programs, sensitive legislation, and a bill of rights. And it will never be dealt with until an acceptable apology for the stolen generation is offered and a treaty with Aborigines is finally signed and sealed.   What more needs to be done?   First, political parties must abandon electoral strategies that promote fear and loathing. Second, research has to be conducted into flawed and failed social policies that are aggravating the shutting out of ethnic minorities from mainstream Australian society, and new policies - some of which will need to be quite radical - will have to be implemented.   Third, a new Institute of Multicultural Affairs needs to be established, to conduct cogent public education programs about our multicultural achievements and how they can be sustained and progressed. Rather than be made to stand alone, it should be placed in a university that has the resources and community connections to ensure its survival.   Over the past decade there has been too much making scapegoats of minorities for cheap electoral advantage and macho political point-scoring. It has serious long-term implications for Australia"s survival as a coherent and decent society. The warning signals must be heeded.   (Professor Allan Patience is a visiting fellow in the research school of Pacific and Asian studies, Australian National University, Canberra).   Dec. 2005   "The terror of racism", by Michelle Grattan. (The Age)   The unfolding racial violence in Sydney has links to the fight against terrorism and complicates that challenge.   While debate has been going on for months about how to fight terrorism, this extraordinary and frightening racial rioting has crept up on the Australian community. Worried about the Muslim community harbouring terrorists, we"re suddenly reminded that both the Lebanese and wider Australian communities contain lawless and aggressive thugs who can terrorise ordinary citizens.   This must be seen as the latest blow in what has been a bad year for multiculturalism, a term John Howard recently admitted he didn"t particularly like. Howard, anxious to avoid highlighting the glaringly obvious central role of race in the riots, has sounded off-key in trying to explain the most ugly scenes in Australia for years.   "I do not accept that there is underlying racism in this country," he said on Monday.   Most Australians are not racist. But anyone denying the strands of racism that can be — and in this case have been —tapped into is rejecting history and current reality.   Malcolm Thomas, president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, believes Howard is trying to perpetuate a "myth". An element of racism is always there, Thomas says: it bubbles up periodically— "the maturity of the society is to be able to handle it".   One of the most shocking and startling images was of the Anglos wrapped in the Australian flag — a confrontingly nationalistic response to ethnic violence.   Yet Howard, always preoccupied with the Australian symbols, was not galvanised by this sinister side. Rather the opposite. "Look, I would never condemn people for being proud of the Australian flag," he said. It was a totally inappropriate comment on what had been a traducing of the flag, although he did go on to condemn "loutish behaviour, criminal behaviour".   Howard has several reasons for not wanting to get drawn on the race aspect. The race issue has haunted his political life. The Government"s border control policy exploited it. On some occasions, on the other hand, he"s been burned by it. In the late 1980s, his comment that Asian immigration should be slowed a little got himinto huge trouble. His abhorrence of political correctness and a desire not to alienate a section of voters made him slow to attack Pauline Hanson.   The riots also come at an embarrassing time internationally for Howard who, as he left yesterday to attend the East Asian summit, was anxious to play down the implications for Australia"s reputation. "Every country has incidents that don"t play well overseas," he said. It sounded almost as if he hadn"t come to grips with the seriousness of what"s happening.   Opposition leader, Kim Beazley also kept away from the race side when he insisted on Monday, "This is simply criminal behaviour, and that"s all there is to it."   What seemed a blinkered response drew a sharp comment from Labor backbencher Harry Quick, who observed that despite Australia espousing multiculturalism, "deep down we have this fear of people who are different from us". Yesterday Beazley"s spokesman said Beazley had no doubt that "hard-core racism was part of the equation" including neo-Nazi elements.   The Cronulla violence is not only about race. The clash between beach boys and those from Sydney"s west stretches back a long time. But the introduction of race to an old conflict is especially dangerous when fears about terrorism are putting new strains on relations between ethnic-religious communities and the wider community.   The riots should be a wake-up call to politicians, ethnic leaders, the community, and perhaps to the security organisations. ASIO is watching and listening to terrorist suspects, but what information is it getting about the far-right groups who seemed able to mobilise so many people so quickly?   The immediate reaction has been predictable: the NSW Government has already foreshadowed tougher police powers.   In the longer term, attempted solutions must involve parents, young people, community groups and their leaders and the question of how to promote desirable values and ensure acceptable behaviour.   There are challenges in particular for the leaders of the Lebanese community but questions over how much they can do. Labor federal MP Daryl Melham, of Lebanese extraction, believes the leaders don"t speak for youth and it"s necessary to drill down to encourage the young people themselves to look to positive role models and throw up good leaders from among their own ranks.   Despite being reluctant to concede overtly what a big part race has played in the riots, Howard has brought race into it when talking about the way forward.   We must, he said, reaffirm the non-discriminatory character of Australia"s immigration policy. We also needed to reaffirm our respect for freedom of religion in Australia but also "place greater emphasis on integration of people into the broader community and the avoidance of tribalism within our midst".   Yet much of what has been done this year in the name of the fight against terrorism has made minority communities feel more besieged and isolated, and has not contributed to a better feeling of belonging.   Terrorism doesn"t just blow up people and buildings; it destroys tolerance. The riots are not acts of terrorists but to the extent they blow away trust within the community, they have aided its cause..
	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".
	View more stories