|
|
| |
|
Think & Ask: Can you recite the 30 articles on human rights that Kofi Annan swore to protect?
Introducing Universal Declaration of Human Rights, c1948
Article 1.
Article 2.
Article 3.
Article 4.
Article 5.
Article 6.
Article 7.
Article 8.
Article 9.
Article 10.
Article 11.
Article 12.
Article 13.
Article 14.
Article 15.
Article 16.
Article 17.
Article 18.
Article 19.
Article 20.
Article 21.
Article 22.
Article 23.
Article 24.
Article 25.
Article 26.
Article 27.
Article 28.
Article 29.
Article 30. | |
The White House has spent more than $600 billion since September 2001, shoring-up its military, stabilizing Afghanistan, and placing the former country of Iraq under United States military rule. The price tag equates to $2,055 for each man, woman, and child living in the United States (US), or roughly $5,730 per taxpaying household.
The US share of United Nations (UN) dues cost each resident of the US about $11 a year, up from $8 in 1998, or about $33 per household.
A minimal expense hidden on tax bills, can not compare with the anti-terrorism tab to hit each taxpayer in 2004 and beyond, but why pay any dues to the UN? Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser to President George W Bush, wrote, in Foreign Affairs magazine, 1999, that US policy should proceed from national interest, not the interest of an "illusory international community." Yet, White House contributions under the Bush administration rose from $2 billion in 1998, to more than $3.5 billion in 2002.
The US "contribution" funds about one quarter of UN costs, and these "membership dues" are representative across the global economy for each member state -- the US pays the most because it earns the most. The US, in other words, pays its fair share.
Kofi Annan, seventh Secretary General of the United Nations, is a pleasant man to meet. He is kind, and polite. His priorities begun January 1997, during his first term, aimed to revitalize the UN through "programme reform," by strengthening the organization's traditional work in development and maintenance of international peace and security. He set to encourage and advocate human rights, and adhere to the universal values of equality, and tolerance, human dignity, and to restore public confidence in the UN by reaching out to new states.
Annan is a self-described "hands-on" leader. He led the first UN team to negotiate "oil for food," with Iraq. In December 2001, Annan, received the Nobel Peace Prize, but conferred stating "the only negotiable road to global peace and cooperation goes by way of the United Nations." So, what is his stance on President George W Bush's plan to invade and occupy Iraq? Annan will not say.
Throughout his career, Annan, 65, engages speech to justify diplomacy with an edge -- in other words -- carry a big stick, and use diplomacy without war whenever possible. That covers all expectations, and secured Annan reelection from the US delegate.
US Ambassador John D. Negroponte was appointed by President George W Bush to represent the United States, filling a UN vacancy from the Clinton era. Negroponte resurfaced without much public recall of the Iran-Contra scandal. At the time Bush announced his star to the UN, the press found more intrigue with Rep. Gary Condit's sado masochist sex life. Negroponte's appointment came under fire from democrats, and was set to fail -- that was all before September 11, 2001.
During Negroponte's stay in Honduras in 1981-1985, the Reagan administration attempted to oust communist Sandinistas from neighboring country Nicaragua, by funding and arming guerillas, which is against the charter of the UN. But, let us move past US-military coverups quickly.
Negroponte built military outposts inside Honduras in aid of US military intelligence. White House cash for the cause jumped from $4 million to $77.4 million as long as Negroponte assured Congress that there were no human rights abuses. Negroponte wrote to Congress in 1983 stating, the "Honduran government neither condones nor knowingly permits killings of a political or nonpolitical nature."
The Iran-Contra trial proved otherwise, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, charged the Honduran government with practice and policy of systematic violations against citizens, according to Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. Negroponte negotiated the release of journalist Oscar Reyes and wife after their kidnap and torture, but he did not count that as a human rights violation.
In hindsight, September 14, 2001, could have been another business day at the White House. However, it was three days after terrorists hit New York City. The Bush administration, announcing a "War on Terror," rushed through the Senate his UN appointment. With the exception of three Senators, the united and patriotic voted put Negroponte at the UN.
One of Negroponte's critics was the late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Senators Russell Feingold and Barbara Boxer shared Wellstone's opposition.
Denying the existence of death squads is contrary to evidence accepted by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, said Wellstone in his closing statements. He accused Negroponte of violating UN human rights articles, and that he knowingly withheld information of human rights violations from Congress.
He [Negroponte] did not give a satisfactory response regarding his embassy's reporting of abuses or his contact with Contra guerrillas, said Boxer. Feingold voted against the appointment based upon data Negroponte didn't provide the State Department on human rights, which is in violation of Congressional mandate, he said.
In retrospect "I could have been" more vocal, but "that's the way I handled it," Negroponte, 64, said after the Senate hearing. Negroponte denies knowledge of death squads, or that he tried to restrict reporting of human rights violations under his representation.
Following Negroponte's appointment to the UN, two key UN roles fell under attack by the White House.
Mary Robinson, the former Irish president, vocally opposed US involvement in Afghanistan, and the treatment of US-labelled terrorist prisoners held in Cuba. The US pressured Annan to seek Robinson's resignation. She did not finish her term as United Nations High Commissioner on human rights. Annan replaced her with Sergio Vieira de Mello from Brazil.
Vieira de Mello offered an extensive UN background, but no human rights experience. The US fully supports Vieira de Mello, says the White House press release. And no further anti-US remarks came from UN diplomats.
The burden is on Annan to show he won't cave into governments serving to weaken human rights, said Reed Brody, Director of Human Rights Watch. Annan should have appointed someone with the moral leadership of Robinson, he said.
Prior to the 2002 Earth Summit, the US set-out to remove diplomat Robert Watson who was vocally opposed to the Bush environmental policy. He chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was quickly replaced with Rajendra Pachauri, former director of the Tata Energy Research Institute. The US voted against environmental protection efforts to decrease fossil fuel emissions and curb global warming at the Earth Summit.
Pachauri is not a meteorologist, nor a scientist familiar with global warming. And Watson's demise may have gone unnoticed had it not been for a White House leak -- a memo from ExxonMobil asking Bush to replace Watson immediately. Bush replaced Watson in April 2002. At first, ExxonMobil did not deny lobbying the White House for Watson's removal.
In the United States, we have the right to contact our government and tell them what you think about various issues, Tom Cirigliano of ExxonMobil told BBC World news. ExxonMobil later refuted the claim, and said the memo was not written by an employee. The Bush administration and ExxonMobil share views that human activity is a factor in climate change, and we must accommodate the change, not prevent, according to Rice.
A third UN appointee change also occurred in April 2002, at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The US openly lobbied to remove the department head Jose Mauricio Bustani, only one year after he was unanimously reelected on second term. The OPCW outlaws chemical weapons and arranges weapons inspections to ensure political stability. Bustani oversaw the destruction of 66 percent of the world's chemical weapons facilities, according to the UN. He was also one of the few diplomats who knew exactly what Iraq had, and had not.
First the US lobbied with Brazil to recall Bustani. That did not work. Then the US approached Bustani and asked him to resign, on February 28, 2002. With this request, the US violated UN rules, which states a director general shall not receive instructions from any government. Bustani held his ground. The US moved to an election recall, reporting only through hearsay that Bustani had mismanaged funds, and had demoralized his staff. Annan remained silent about the issue.
An internal audit of the OPCW showed all accounts were square. However, The New York Times reported that OPCW ran a deficit of $4 million, and had not met half of its planned weapons inspections in 2001. Is this business-as-usual for a UN department? With Annan set to reform UN organizations, why wouldn't he address Bustani's malfunctioning OPCW?
In Bustani's place, the US admits they withheld intervention from process of appointment, which is itself a strange admission. In July 2002, Argentinian, Rogelio Pfirter, 54, was elected to the post. Pfirter is a long-time diplomat, and a member of The Society of British and Argentine Lawyers (SOBAL) an insurance industry services firm.
Pfirter said that his first priority would be to "get the organization back on its feet and make it fully operational." History will report if Pfirter is successful.
During the first committee report of disarmament dated January 2003, additional funds were already requested for OPCW. The US opposed to a verification protocol for the biological weapons convention, and urged downgrading the text from resolution to procedural. In a separate committee resolution present "total elimination of nuclear weapons," the US and India were the only two states to vote against the resolution, while China abstained. On "reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons," the US, United Kingdom, and France voted no. But the US argued they were committed to tackle questions of reductions and it should be left up to each state to decide how to implement steps undertaken from the 2000 agreement.
And, what is the future of the UN if the US wages war against Iraq? Isn't such a war in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30 ?
Oh, and just one more question, who enforces UN resolutions now? Who ensures the 30 Universal Declaration of Human Rights are upheld in member states?