View previous stories
	Development, Security, Human Rights depend on each other by Louise Frechette United Nations   15/06/2005   (Following is the text of the address, as delivered, by Deputy UN Secretary-General Louise Fréchette to the Group of 77 Second South Summit, in Doha, Qatar, today)   For over 40 years, the Group of 77 has worked to make sure that the voice of a majority of the world's countries and inhabitants is heard loud and clear at the United Nations - and this year, more than ever, the creative engagement of the G-77 at the United Nations is vital.   In September, world leaders will meet in New York to review progress in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. That Summit is an opportunity to remove some of the obstacles that have hampered the achievement of the vision of the Millennium Declaration - including insufficient resources for, and commitment to, our agreed development agenda, as well as lack of consensus on how to ensure security and human rights for all.   To seize this opportunity, all nations must recognize that development, security and human rights are ends in themselves - but also that they reinforce each other, and depend on each other. In our interconnected world, the human family will not enjoy development without security, it will not enjoy security without development, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. And no nation can expect others to cooperate on the issues which it deems to be of greatest urgency if it does not recognize the need to cooperate also on the issues to which others give highest priority.   In March, the Secretary-General suggested a framework for decisions by Member States at September's Summit.   The number one priority must be an all-out global effort to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 - with both developing and developed nations living up to their commitments.   Your countries must have effective national strategies in place for achieving the Goals. You should also promote transparent and accountable governance, as many of you are already doing. And you need to do more to help each other in a range of fields - from trade and investment to technology transfer and human resource development.   But developed countries must also meet their responsibilities. The summit outcome must incorporate a major boost in international assistance, and development-conducive arrangements on trade and debt.   On this score, we have reasons to be hopeful.   Last month, the European Union agreed that its members would increase official development assistance substantially over the next decade, so that its more affluent members reach the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2015.   Last Saturday, the G-7 Finance Ministers agreed to cancel immediately $40 billion of debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest nations, mostly in Africa, and there is the hope that the scheme will be extended to other countries soon.   And in a little over three weeks from now, we will be looking to the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, chaired by Prime Minister Blair, for further positive decisions in favour of the developing world.   We must also press ahead with the development round of trade negotiations launched here in Doha, so that your countries can compete in the global trading system on a fair and equal basis.   The development agenda, vital as it is, is only one leg of a tripod whose other two legs -security and human rights - are also of great importance to all the countries represented here.   After all, your peoples suffer more than any others from the strains placed on the peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding, disarmament and human rights machinery of the United Nations.   They suffer most from inaction in the face of massive violations of human rights. They are too often the victims of acts of terrorism and the events that those acts unleash. They pay a high price for the proliferation of small arms, light weapons and land mines. They would pay an even higher price if our global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime were to be undermined, fuelling nuclear arms races and cutting off technology transfers vital for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.   September's Summit is your opportunity to work with others to strengthen multilateral action in all these areas. And just as you challenge rich countries to free up resources for development on a scale never before seen, so you, too, must be prepared to break new ground and forge consensus with other Member States on issues such as terrorism, human rights, and the responsibility to protect.   Last but not least, I come to the question of institutional reform. The institutions of the United Nations should reflect the world of 2005, not 1945.   Security Council reform is long overdue, and must be addressed in a way that recognizes its basic importance while not overshadowing the rest of the reform effort.   Member States need to ensure that the work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council is more strategic and relevant to the pressing challenges facing the world's peoples.   The creation of a Peacebuilding Commission would enable the various actors involved in helping countries move from war to lasting peace to come together to agree on an integrated approach.   A new Human Rights Council would give us a chance to restore human rights to their prominence accorded by the UN Charter. Its purpose would not be to single out particular countries for punishment. We see too much of that now. Its job would be to promote respect for all human rights in all countries.   Secretariat reform is also vital. The Secretary-General needs the support of the Member States to ensure that the Secretariat is able to live up to the highest standards of performance, efficiency, accountability and transparency, and can implement the agreed priorities of the Member States in a fast-changing world.   These issues are today on the table. The time for creative engagement is now. A functioning, effective United Nations is critical for all countries - and for many of your citizens, it can mean the difference between life and death.   That is why the Secretary-General hopes that you will come to New York in September ready to approve a historic reform and renewal of the United Nations, so that we can unite the strength of nations large and small, and advance towards a world of development, security and human rights for all.
	Landslide win for Tehran mayor in Iranian president poll by IHT / Reuters / AP Iran   June 25, 2005.   "Landslide win for Tehran mayor in Iranian president poll". (Reuters)   Ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has swept to a landslide win in presidential elections, spelling a possible end to Iran's fragile social reforms and tentative rapprochement with the West.   Mr Ahmadinejad, 48, received the backing of the religious poor to defeat moderate cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was supported by pro-reform parties and wealthy Iranians fearful of a hardline monopoly on power in the Islamic state.   "The figures show that Ahmadinejad is the winner," Interior Ministry spokesman Jahanbakhsh Khanjani told reporters.   He will be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years when he takes office in August.   An official at the Guardian Council, which must approve the election results, said that out of 24.8 million voted counted, Mr Ahmadinejad had won 61.7 per cent of ballots cast, defying pre-poll predictions of a tight race.   The official said turnout was 26 million, or 56 per cent, down on the 63 per cent of Iran's 46.7 million eligible voters who cast ballots in an inconclusive first round on June 17.   "It's over, we accept that we've lost," a close Rafsanjani aide, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.   Although Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the last word on all matters of state, a hardline presidency would remove the moderating influence on decision-making exercised by outgoing reformist President Mohammad Khatami since 1997.   "This all but closes the door for a breakthrough in US-Iran relations," said Karim Sadjadpour, Tehran-based analyst for the International Crisis Group.   Washington broke ties with Iran in 1980 and now accuses it of developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism. Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, denies the charges.   28 June, 2005   "Iran's president-elect: A hard-liner, for a change", by Amin Saikal. (International Herald Tribune)   The triumph of the mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the second round of the Iranian presidential election completes the conservative Islamists' takeover of all the branches of the Iranian government.   Given Ahmadinejad's ultra-conservative Islamic credentials, he can be expected to work in concert with Iran's unelected but powerful supreme spiritual and political leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, and his supporters, who dominate the legislature and judiciary as well as the security and armed forces.   Ahmadinejad is likely to follow a more restrictive Shiite Islamic path in his domestic and foreign policy dispositions than his two immediate predecessors, the outgoing President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist, and Rafsanajani, a pragmatist.   Ahmadinejad has promised to resist "Western decadence," to build a "powerful modern Islamic Iran" and to press on with Iran's nuclear program. These are not goals that will please Washington, which has already labeled Ahmadinejad's election a fraud.   Why did the Iranian voters turn to Ahmadinejad?   First, Rafsanjani did not have a very credible record with the Iranian electorate. He is a pragmatic conservative follower of the founder of the Iranian Islamic regime, Ayatollah Khomeini, and was Iran's president from 1989 to 1997, but over the years he has gained the reputation of being a political opportunist who is more interested in his own fortunes rather than the well-being of the Iranian people.   He is regarded as corrupt, having amassed huge personal wealth. Since his presidency, he has sought to use his ties with both conservatives and reformists in his role as the chairman of the powerful Council of Expediency for his own gains.   At the same time, the reformist Islamists under Khatami - who believe in Islam as an ideology of political and social transformation but reject violence as a means to achieve it - failed to deliver on their promises.   Khatami had promised the Iranians, who elected him twice in landslides, to create what he called "Islamic civil society" and "Islamic democracy," with a "dialogue of civilizations" underpinning Iran's foreign relations.   Although he made some progress, Khatami ultimately found himself greatly limited and frustrated by his conservative opponents, led by Khamanei.   Khatami failed to sufficiently enhance the cause of democratic rights and freedoms. Nor did he bring about an equitable distribution of Iran's oil wealth, open up the economy or improve the living conditions for a majority of Iranians.   Khatami's approach to dealing with his factional opponents was one of political passivity; he was careful not to rock the boat that had also produced him. This disillusioned many conservative voters who found him too liberal, and many young voters who felt that he was too cautious.   Iran has a fast-growing population of more than 70 million, of whom 65 percent are below the age of 25. They are keen to secure wider political participation and enjoy better standards of living.   Khatami also received little international support for his reformist efforts. The European Union continued its critical engagement with Iran, but paid only lip service to Khatami's reforms, partly because it did not want to offend the conservatives who were necessary for continued lucrative trade with Iran.   Added to this was the pattern of U.S. demonization of Iran ever since the overthrow of the U.S.-backed regime of the shah 26 years ago. The demonization intensified after the election of President George W. Bush and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush's labeling of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" and the charge that it was seeking to produce nuclear weapons did not help Khatami and his supporters.   Indeed, Bush's approach played straight into the hands of their conservative opponents, preventing the reformists from taking any action that might expose them to the charge of "sleeping with the enemy." This contributed considerably to the strengthening of the conservatives' position at the expense of the reformists in Iranian politics.   Ahmadinejad's election now presents Bush with a dilemma: to come to terms with the Islamic regime and pursue a course of understanding and reconciliation, or opt for a policy of confrontation that could prove very costly for all sides.   It is here that the European Union might play a useful bridging role to avoid conflict.   (Amin Saikal is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.)   June 24, 2005 (AP)   Iranians began voting Friday to decide a two-man presidential race between a well-known political moderate and his hard-line rival who says the nation must reclaim the values of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.   The run-off election is considered too close to predict. First results are expected early Saturday.   The winner of last week's first round, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, has received a flood of support from liberal and business groups seeking to protect the liberalizing reforms since the late 1990s.   His surprise opponent, Tehran's ultraconservative mayor Mahoud Ahmadinejad, has built on his strong appeal among Iran's impoverished classes and powerful forces opposing any changes to the Islamic regime.   Iran's stance in delicate nuclear talks with the West is shaping up as a key issue dividing the two presidential candidates. It also is a top campaign issue for Iranians themselves, who view the nuclear program as a source of both national pride and worrying tension with the United States and Europe.   Ahmadinejad, 49, has indicated he will push for a tougher position at the talks if he becomes president. But key nuclear officials have said they'd like to see the country's top job go to Rafsanjani, 70.   The United States accuses Iran of using a peaceful nuclear program as a cover to develop an atomic bomb. Iran maintains its program is peaceful and aimed only at generating electricity.   Ahmadinejad, in comments that drew sharp criticism from the Foreign Ministry, accused Iran's nuclear negotiators Monday of being weak and bowing to European pressure at the negotiation table. He also told a news conference last week he could not foresee improved ties with any country that "seeks hostility" against Iran, a reference to the United States.   The two face the head-to-head runoff after both failed to win a majority in the first round of the election, which ended with bitter accusations that Republican Guards and other hard-liners helped fix the vote in Ahmadinejad's favor.   Iran's 70 million population is tipped toward the young. More than half are under 25 years old and many tend to support self-declared moderate Rafsanjani.   Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, finds support among backers of the Islamic system and the millions of impoverished Iranians who believe he will give them a fairer share of the regime's money and attention.   Rafsanjani, who served as president from 1989 to 1997, has been lauded by Iran's top nuclear officials. They say the country needs his wisdom and experience to handle the nuclear negotiations.   Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said during a recent interview that Rafsanjani was the only person who could positively present Iran's position, given his influence, moderate views and political clout.   Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said Iran needed a powerful and experienced president to successfully handle the issue - an open reference to Rafsanjani.   Iran suspended all uranium enrichment-related activities last November to avoid possible United Nations sanctions.   In negotiations with Europeans last month, Iran agreed to continue its suspension in exchange for a European pledge to come up with comprehensive proposals for a new round of talks later this year.   However, Iran has always said its suspension is temporary and it will never abandon enrichment. Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs. France, Britain and Germany have offered economic incentives in the hope of persuading Iran to permanently halt enrichment.   Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. Visit the related web page
	View more stories