UN Reform, and Upcoming Vacation Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A quick post before I head off on a week's vacation.  Earlier this week, in tandem with the announcement on Bolton's recess appointment, came a boast from the White House that - while the new Ambassador's nomination languished - the Administration had swiftly gone about correcting the world organization's flaws such that - lo and behold - UN reform was "well on its way."   

Lee Feinstein seems to agree with this view (or at least the idea that Condi Rice has turned a page in US-UN relations, citing as evidence the U.S.'s opposition to legislation conditioning its dues payments on reform, and the U.S.'s abstention in the referral of the Darfur abuses to the International Criminal Court.

I don't agree.  Opposing the dues reduction was sound policy, a position taken not least because the dues conditionality would make the Administration's life at the UN a living hell.  The decision to abstain on the ICC referral was made only because the Administration was backed into an impossibly tight corner trying to seem tough on Darfur while single-handedly holding the line against any international response to crimes that we and we alone had dubbed genocide.  More details on their calculus here. 

But my bigger quarrel is with the Administration's claim of victory on UN reform.  I applaud Bush and Rice for pushing hard on important issues like the reform of the UN's Commission on Human Rights, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission and a major treaty on terrorism.   Those are all on my list of high priorities in terms of what needs to be done to turn around Turtle Bay and I am impressed at the vigor with which the Administration has pressed on them.

But truly reforming the UN will take years, not months, and requires a sustained effort to reeducate, reorient and in some cases replace UN staff and the national missions that serve at the world body.   Dealing with ineffectual UN bodies, eliminating waste, making the leadership more dynamic, avoiding distractions, surmounting the vaccuum of political will that surrounds so many important issues, and expediting the UN's effectiveness in the field are long term challenges, as anyone who has served at the UN can tell you. 

A small but telling example appeared in my inbox today courtesy of UN Watch:  UN bureaucrats are opposing the organization's involvement in implementing the Mideast Roadmap as at odds with the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion decrying Israel's construction of a security fence.

The head of UN Watch put it well: 

“The one-sided statement by the rapporteurs poses an obstacle to what has been encouraging progress on Middle East peace, and could not have come at a worse time . . .With Israeli-Arab negotiations suddenly breathing new signs of life—and with Israel making agonizing concessions for peace, even under the continuing fire of Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks—the rapporteurs’ express attack on the UN-sponsored Road Map negotiations is perplexing, and represents a giant step backwards . . .It is a sad day when eight UN officials—citing formalistic arguments over pragmatic principles of conflict resolution—openly oppose bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians that are taking place under the internationally-recognized Road Map for peace.” 

No one will much care what these experts say, but their behavior illustrates a much more pervasive problem with the UN, and one that will be tough to root out.  It is an example of relatively low level UN officials needlessly wading into politics at the expense of progress on what ought to be one of the international community's highest priorities, a phenomenon that happens all too frequently.   It is also just one tiny piece of evidence that declaring victory on UN reform is at best premature.

On a personal note, I am heading off for a week's vacation.  In my absence, Michael Osborne, a South African lawyer and law professor will be subbing in.  Michael is an advocate at the bar in Cape Town, and handles constitutional law, human rights and immigration law cases.  He has also spent years (as well as this past summer) working in New York City at a major private law firm and, most recently, as a Professor of Law at the New School University.  He and I have had many discussions on politics and international affairs over many years and I've always sensed that he loves America and wants us to defend our interests and put our best foot forward around the world.  I know you'll enjoy hearing from him.   When I get back I've got a lot more to say on Iraq.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

Ms. Nossel,

I find it interesting that you accept the judgment of UN Watch, an organization whose directorate has been composed of such progressive luminaries as John Bolton, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Ruth Wedgewood. Their latest press release repeats some of their customary distortion and misdirection, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is involved.

Here is part of the actual statement by the UN Special Rapporteurs that UN watch cites:

“In large measure it seems that the ICJ's Opinion has been ignored in favour of negotiations conducted in terms of the Road Map process. The exact nature of these negotiations is unclear but it seems that they are not premised on compliance with the Opinion of the ICJ. They seem to accept the continued presence of some settlements, which were found by the ICJ to be unlawful, and by necessary implication the continued existence of some parts of the wall in Palestinian territory. In short, there seems to be an incompatibility between the Road Map negotiations and the Court's Opinion that should be of concern to the United Nations which is also a party to the Quartet. The United Nations clearly cannot make itself a party to negotiations that are not based on the Opinion of its own judicial body.

“The Special Procedures mandate holders would like to express their concern at the fact that the wall violates Israel's obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminations against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The wall particularly violates freedom of movement, as well as the rights to adequate housing, food, family life, education and health. Furthermore, the wall violates important norms of international humanitarian law prohibiting the annexation of occupied territory, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of private land and the forcible transfer of people. The disproportionately severe impact of the wall on women and children is also a grave concern that calls for immediate action.”

Now a story from the New York Sun, apparently based on the very UN Watch press release you cite, and one to which UN Watch is happy to link, reports the UNHRC statement in this way:

“The Geneva based U.N. Human Rights Commission yesterday called on the United Nations to dissociate itself from the Middle East peace plan known as the road map, based on objections to Israel's security barrier.”

And you describe it in a similar way:

“UN bureaucrats are opposing the organization's involvement in implementing the Mideast Road map as at odds with the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion decrying Israel's construction of a security fence.”

But in fact, the statement does not at all describe the implementation of the road map, or UN involvement with that implementation, as themselves at odds with the ICJ opinion. Indeed, of the six points of emphasis with which the statement concludes, one is an assertion of the desire of the Special Rapporteurs to:

“draw attention to the fact that every effort should be made to ensure that the United Nations, operating within the Quartet and engaged in the Road Map process, does its utmost to ensure compliance with the ICJ Opinion and fulfils its role in upholding international human rights standards.”

So, you and the Sun turn a statement of dissatisfaction with certain “negotiations conducted in terms of the Road Map process” into flat opposition to UN involvement with the Road Map. In fact, the statement could best be described as recommending certain conditions for UN participation in the negotiations. Not surprisingly, given that the statement comes from Human Rights officials, their recommendation is that such negotiations be premised on compliance with established human rights law, especially as articulated by the UN’s own judicial body.

The UN Watch press release also says: “U.N. analysts question the timing of the experts’ press release”, but then proceeds to quote only their own executive director Hillel Neuer! According to Mr. Neuer,
“It is a sad day when eight UN officials—citing formalistic arguments over pragmatic principles of conflict resolution—openly oppose bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians that are taking place under the internationally-recognized Road Map for peace.”

I suppose by “formalistic arguments”, Neuer means in this case advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice. The press release continues:

“Neuer noted that the U.N. mandates of several signatories to the statement—including the experts on trafficking, discrimination, or violence against women—bear no apparent nexus to the issue of the security barrier. Judge Koroma of the ICJ ruled in 1999 that “[the appointment of] a special Rapporteur, or the fact that he has been entrusted with a mission by the United Nations, does not of itself allow him to operate outside his mandate.”

Mr. Neuer should perhaps read the following report from Medecins du Monde to get some sense of the impact of the Wall on Palestinian health care, and an understanding of why UN human rights officials have found the barrier inflicts a disproportionately severe impact on women and children:

http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2005/mdm-opt-14feb.pdf

See particularly section V.3 of the report.

Neuer also notes:

“The statement by the experts made no mention of the terrorism that in the past five years has killed over 1,000 Israelis and injured more than 7,000. According to The Jerusalem Post, public opinion polls show that upwards of 90 percent of Israelis support the barrier as an effective means of preventing further suicide bombings.”

This is the usual boilerplate distortion and misdirection, promulgated ad nauseum on behalf of the defenders of the Israeli right in their tireless efforts to muddy the waters of the ICJ decision. The IJC decision focused on the wall as a means of annexation of West Bank territories, and of its effect of disrupting life and separating peoples and fragmenting property within the West Bank. Neuer, of course, would like us to see the wall as merely a security measure – a purely defensive step taken for the protection of Israel – a barrier between Israel and something else outside it. Yet that does not reflect the reality of the Wall’s more insidious purpose.

I suspect that in wandering off into irrelevancies, he also distorts Israeli public opinion in the process. While it may be true that 90% of Israelis support the idea of the barrier as such, I don’t believe it is at all true that anything close to that same percentage supports the actual implementation of the barrier-construction policy, the actual course the barrier follows, and its plain intent to annex large swaths of the West Bank on behalf of the settlers’ movement.

The UN statement actually seems particularly timely given this little news item:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/africa/web.0804westbank.php

According to the report, “Israel revealed plans on Thursday to build 72 housing units in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, despite a call by a US-backed peace “road map” for a halt to settlement expansion.” Despite Neuer’s professed love of the Road Map, his own statement made no mention of this violation.

UN Watch also attempts to recruit moderate Arabs to the side of ignoring the barrier in its complaints about the release of the statement:

“The release comes on the same day as moderate Arab leaders are urging support for the negotiations. “Implementing the Road Map, which includes Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is the only way to garner peace and guarantee the rights of all parties to ensure peace and stability in the region," said King Abdullah in a meeting with visiting Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz. “The Road Map plan — which was drafted by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — provides for an independent Palestine at peace with Israel,” said the King.”

But the authors of the release neglect to mention other portions of Abdullah’s full statement. As reported by the Jerusalem Post, though tucked away at the end of the news report:

“A statement issued by the Jordanian Royal Palace said that King Abdullah II told Mofaz that Israel must proceed with the peace plan for an independent Palestinian state after it withdraws from Gaza. According to the Palace statement, King Abdullah told Mofaz that implementing the road map, including Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, was the only way to achieve peace, to guarantee the rights of all parties and to ensure peace and stability in the region.”

It is hard to reconcile Abdullah’s stated position with tolerance of the barrier, given the Wall’s property of snaking through and chopping off large parts of the West Bank, from which Israel is supposed to withdraw.

You, yourself, say this latest statement from the Special Rapporteurs:

“It is an example of relatively low level UN officials needlessly wading into politics at the expense of progress on what ought to be one of the international community's highest priorities, a phenomenon that happens all too frequently.”

Yet the statement seems to be an entirely appropriate statement by these officials, on the anniversary of the ICJ decision, and in conformity with their charge.

I wonder how even-handed you intend to be in your disdain for these “low-level” bureaucrats and their impertinent attempts to “wade into politics”. What, for example, do you think of this October, 2004 statement from Mr. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar?:

http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/GA2004-SRM-oral.htm

As you can see, Mr. Pinheiro also wades into the touchy issue of negotiations conducted in the name of a “road map,” and suggests human rights considerations should be part of those negotiations:
“This year saw the revival of the National Convention, which had been adjourned since 1996. It was convened from 17 May to 9 July 2004. It marked a beginning of the implementation of the seven-point road map for national reconciliation and democratic transition announced by the former Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt, in August 2003. The National Convention was attended by 1,076 delegates, compared to 702 participants at the previous Convention. The increase was largely made up of representatives of ethnic nationalities, including ceasefire groups that had emerged in the new political environment created as a result of ceasefires between the Government and former armed groups. In terms of potential for conflict resolution, the 2004 National Convention may be a unique opportunity for ethnic minorities. That being said, the challenges should not be underestimated. The ceasefire groups, comprised of ethnic minority-based former armed opposition groups, were included in the "specially invited guests" category. They raised issues of local autonomy for the ethnic minority areas, and some substantive discussions with the authorities reportedly took place about these concerns. The outcome of these discussions remains to be seen at subsequent sessions of the National Convention, the dates of which are yet to be announced. The National League for Democracy (NLD) and other political parties that won a majority of seats in the 1990 elections did not participate. Proceedings at the National Convention took place in the context of the six objectives and the 104 principles already laid down during the previous Convention.

“While noting serious concerns about the current National Convention process, in particular with respect to inclusiveness and the procedures governing its proceedings, I hope that its final outcome will bring some concrete solutions that will benefit the entire population of Myanmar. Now, after the recent changes in the Myanmar Government, many fear that the achievement of those outcomes may become more difficult. What could be a turning point towards this direction is the fulfillment of some fundamental human rights requirements.”

Similarly, there was a significant a report earlier last year by another UN Special Rapporteur dealing with the condition of women in Jordan, and the prevalence of abuse. Another meddlesome intrusion by a low-level bureaucrat?

I wonder: do you really oppose the intervention of the Special Rapporteurs as an instance of a systematic problem? Or is it only a problem when the views they’re defending are not your own? And given your own claim that, “no one will much care what these experts say”, it is hard to discern your basis for asserting that this is “a pervasive problem with the UN, and one that will be tough to root out.” In a word, what’s it to you?

[gw gold]

I miss the GuildWars Gold because i like to meet it. I want to earn the Guild Wars Gold to make me strong. I want to give my friends a lot of GuildWars money, so i have to try my best to get more and more cheap gw gold to add my stock to have enough money to give my friends.

[Atlantica online Gold]

I hope i can get Atlantica Gold in low price.

[LOTRO Gold]

I likeLOTRO Gold, I like the ending,Lord Of The Rings Gold will be better.

[wakfu money]

I hope i can get wakfu kamas in low price,
Yesterday i bought wakfu gold for my friend.

[runescape money]

I like the runescape gold, my brother usually
buy runescape for me. I appriciate him.

[aion online kina]

Once I played Aion, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have aion kina. He gave me some aion online kina.

[Marc Jacobs Replica Handbags]

I like the runescape gold, my brother usually
buy runescape for me. I appriciate him

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!