US Appears Set to Boycott UN Session on Racism

Published on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 by the Washington Post

Conference Stance on Israel Is at Issue; Advocacy Groups Criticize White House

by Michael A. Fletcher

The Obama administration appears to be standing by its decision to boycott the World Conference Against Racism next week in Geneva, despite efforts to focus and tone down language in a draft conference document viewed as hostile toward Israel.

The preliminary conference document ran 45 pages and called for reparations for slavery, condemned the “validation of Islamophobia,” and asserted that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is grounded in racism.

In response to objections raised by negotiators from the Obama administration, the document has since been dramatically shortened and many of its sharp statements have been removed. Still, the administration seems uninterested in attending, stoking frustration among activist groups who have said that it is ironic that the nation’s first black president would choose that course.

“For his administration not to be present at this global conversation is a disappointment,” said Imani Countess, senior director for public affairs at TransAfrica Forum, an advocacy group that focuses on U.S. foreign policy. “For President Bush not to participate, that would have been expected. For Barack Obama’s administration not to participate sends a disappointing signal. It says these issues are not important.”

TransAfrica sent a letter to Obama late last week urging him to send a delegation to the United Nations-sponsored meeting, saying that to do otherwise would contradict his promise to engage even with nations that hold views that are contrary to those held by the United States. Moreover, the letter said, U.S. participation would send an important message to the rest of the world.

“U.S. participation in the conference is critical for both symbolic and political reasons,” said the letter, which was also signed by other leaders, including Jesse L. Jackson and the heads of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.

“Nations are watching your administration and will decide either to withdraw, or to lower the level of their participation, if the U.S. doesn’t participate,” the letter continued. “Reduced global participation would mark a significant setback to efforts to overcome racial inequality around the world.”

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that although progress has been made in revising the draft text, concerns remain. “We hope that these remaining concerns will be addressed, so that the United States can reengage the conference negotiations in the hopes of arriving at a conference document that we can support,” he said.

The White House offered no further details. But last week a bipartisan group of House members sent a letter to Obama congratulating him for deciding to boycott the meeting, which is scheduled to begin Monday.

“We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda,” said the letter signed by seven members of Congress.

Israel and several Jewish advocacy groups have urged the United States and other nations not to take part in the conference. Canada and Italy have said they will not attend, and several other U.S. allies, including Australia, are considering not participating, according to representatives of several advocacy groups.

The week-long conference is expected to bring together delegations from countries around the globe and representatives of hundreds of nongovernmental organizations to take stock of the progress made in fighting bias since the last World Conference Against Racism was held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. At that gathering, much of the discussion focused on Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The United States walked out of that meeting to protest an effort to compare Zionism to racism.

The United Nations has been working on next week’s conference for the past three years, mostly without input from the United States. After Obama took office, he sent a delegation to Geneva, raising hopes that his administration would become a full partner in the effort. Hopes were lifted further when Obama had the United States rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council.

But after sending the delegation to a preliminary meeting in Geneva, the administration declared the meeting’s document unfocused, hostile to Israel and essentially not salvageable. After that, the document was heavily edited. Its original length was cut by half and specific mentions of Israel and the need to pay reparations for slavery were deleted.

The new draft created a sense among advocacy groups that the administration would reverse its decision. But the changes have apparently not been sufficient to win Obama’s support.

“This is a big blow,” Countess said. “Given the high priority the administration places on international engagement and multilateralism, this is just a little bit baffling.”

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

UN Rights Investigator Expelled by Israel

Published on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 by The New York Times

by Isabel Kershner

JERUSALEM – Israeli authorities on Monday expelled Richard Falk, a United Nations investigator of human rights in the Palestinian territories, saying he was unwelcome because of what the government has regarded as his hostile position toward Israel.

 

Richard Falk speaking in Istanbul in 2005. His positions have angered Israeli officials. (Cem Turkel/A.F.P. — Getty Images)

Mr. Falk, an American, arrived in Israel on Sunday. He was held at the airport and placed on the first available flight back to Geneva, his point of departure. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Falk had been informed in advance that his entry would be barred. Mr. Falk was not immediately available for comment. 

Mr. Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton, has the title of United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories. He has long been criticized in Israel for what many Israelis say are unfair and unpalatable views.

He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. Pointing to discrepancies between the official version of events and other versions, he recently wrote that “only willful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book.”

In his capacity as a United Nations investigator, Mr. Falk issued a statement this month describing Israel’s embargo on Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, as a crime against humanity, while making only cursory reference to Hamas’s rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers. Israeli officials expressed outrage.

When his appointment was announced by the Human Rights Council last spring, the Israeli representative said it was “impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates,” the members had made “the best possible choice for the post.”

The American and Canadian representatives also expressed concerns about Mr. Falk’s possible bias. The Palestinian representative said it was curious that Israel was “campaigning against a Jewish professor” and called the nomination “a victory for good sense and human rights.” Israel objects to the mandate of the special rapporteur on grounds that it ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. More specifically, it objects to Mr. Falk.

A statement issued on Monday by the Foreign Ministry noted that in the past three years, Israel welcomed visits by seven special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council and two other senior United Nations representatives.

In Mr. Falk’s case, it continued, his “vehement publications” made it “hard to square his appointment” with the council’s own requirements, which call for envoys to be impartial and objective. The council’s own procedures require its envoys to operate with the consent of the state concerned.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, said that Mr. Falk had come to Israel in June for what was supposed to be a personal visit, but had instead carried out work as a rapporteur. “He lied,” Mr. Palmor said.

Regardless of Mr. Falk’s views, some Israelis questioned the wisdom of banning him, noting that it would hardly make his reports more sympathetic.

Jessica Montell, the executive director of B’Tselem, an Israeli group that monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said that even if Israel had “legitimate concerns about Professor Falk’s mandate,” barring his entry was “an act unbefitting of democracy.”

Also on Monday, Israel released 224 Palestinian security prisoners from its jails as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Most of those released were serving sentences of five years or less. None had been convicted of deadly attacks on Israelis, and none were from Islamic groups hostile to the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas.

Israel has released almost 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in the past 18 months in an effort to strengthen the Western-backed administration of Mr. Abbas. At least 9,000 remain in Israeli jails.

 

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

UN Closes Gaza Aid Centers, Citing Lack of Food

Published on Saturday, November 15, 2008 by the Associated Press

by Diaa Hadid

SHATI REFUGEE CAMP, Gaza Strip – Gazans seeking food aid walked away empty-handed from locked United Nations distribution centers Saturday after a strict Israeli border closure depleted U.N. food reserves.

 

An Israeli soldier shoots tear gas at Palestinian youths throwing stones during a demonstration in the West Bank city of Hebron, November 11. Violence flared again around Gaza on Friday, wounding a woman in Israel and two Palestinian militants, as UN food delivery to 750,000 people ground to a halt in the besieged coastal strip.(AFP/File/Hazem Bader)

Israel sealed Gaza’s borders nearly two weeks ago as part of a new round of fighting with Gaza’s Hamas rulers. Hamas rocket fire on Israeli border towns and Israeli air strikes on Gaza militants have eroded a truce that had largely held for five months. 

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel to open the crossings to humanitarian aid and condemned the rocket fire on Israel. Measures that increase the suffering of Gaza’s civilians “are unacceptable and should cease immediately,” he said in a statement.

Two Palestinians were killed in disputed circumstances in northern Gaza.

Palestinian Health Ministry official Dr. Moawiya Hassanain, citing reports from local medics, said the two were killed by an Israeli airstrike. However, the military said Israeli forces were not involved and in the past, militants have sometimes been killed by Gaza rockets that fell short or exploded early.

In the Shati refugee camp near Gaza City, hundreds of people walked away empty-handed from a U.N. food distribution center Saturday. A note taped to the center’s blue gate said handouts were put off until Dec. 13 “because of a lack of food to distribute.”

In all, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency distributes food to some 750,000 Gazans, or nearly half the territory’s population. The needy get a new parcel of rice, flour, sugar and oil every three months. On Saturday, some 20,000 Gazans were to pick up food supplies, U.N. aid officials said.

Itaf Yazji arrived at the Shati distribution center Saturday, only to find it locked.

“What shall we eat now?” said the 54-year-old mother of five, who also cares for a disabled relative. Yazji said she had been waiting anxiously to pick up food because her family ran out of rice and flour.

The U.N. World Food Program, which feeds another 130,000 Gazans, says it has enough food to distribute for the next four weeks.

Most of Gaza’s 1.4 million residents live in poverty that has deepened since Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on the territory after militant group Hamas seized power in July last year.

The cease-fire began to deteriorate last week after an Israeli military raid on what the army said was a tunnel that militants planned to use for a cross-border raid. At least 11 militants have been killed since, not including the latest casualties. And some 140 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza at Israel. They include four Grad-type Katyushas that landed in Ashkelon on Friday, some 11 miles from Gaza.

Under the blockade, Israel is meant to allow in humanitarian aid, rationed fuel and some commercial goods. Israel says the closure was imposed in response to continued violence.

In the West Bank town of Ramallah, a Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said President Mahmoud Abbas will meet with the outgoing Israeli prime minister on Monday and raise his concern about the Gaza fighting.

The two leaders have met regularly for the past year as part of U.S.-backed peace talks. However, all sides have acknowledged that they will miss the end-of-year target for a peace deal. Olmert has three months left in office.

 

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

US-India Nuclear Deal Passes Major Hurdle

Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 by One World.net

US-India Nuclear Deal Passes Major Hurdle

by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS – Disarmament groups and peace activists are urging Congress to reject the Bush administration’s plan to send U.S. nuclear technology to India after the proposal gained the assent of an international monitoring body late last week.

An Indian Political party worker holds a placard at a protest against India’s disputed nuclear energy deal with the US, in Mumbai in June. The United States faces a final hurdle in the implemention of a landmark civilian nuclear pact with India — convincing lawmakers that the deal has adequate safeguards as prescribed by US law.
(AFP/File/Sajjad Hussain)”It will undermine the security of the American people and people everywhere, if Congress allows it to go through,” said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about the U.S.-India pact on nuclear technology.

On Friday, a global conglomerate of 45 nations that set the nuclear trade rules approved the U.S.-India nuclear deal by accepting New Delhi’s assertion that its nuclear cooperation with the United States was aimed solely at expanding energy production.

But many independent policy analysts in Washington, DC are not as convinced and see the Bush administration’s move as a fatal blow to international efforts aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

“We are concerned about this deal,” said Leanor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, an policy think tank on Capitol Hill. “It sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Like many others, Krieger and Tomero think the nuclear pact with India would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

“[It] risks fueling a regional arms race with Pakistan, complicating negotiations over Iran, and unraveling the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” said Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, about the nuclear technology deal.

At the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in Vienna last week, a small group of countries strongly opposed the deal, but eventually failed to sustain their dissent in the wake of intense diplomatic pressure from Washington.

The NSG is an international consortium that is responsible for monitoring and approving nuclear exports worldwide.

The resistance to the deal, according to observers, was led by six like-minded countries — Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland — which stressed that India must accept certain conditions before starting the nuclear trade.

Those conditions would have required India to guarantee that it would not use the deal to expand its nuclear weapons-related activities. In response, top Indian officials assured delegates that their country was fully opposed to nuclear proliferation.

But for critics like Tomero and Krieger, that is hard to believe because, like two other nuclear armed states, Israel and Pakistan, India remains unwilling to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“As one of only three countries that has never signed the NPT and by continuing to refuse to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, India has shunned meaningful nonproliferation commitments,” said Tomero.

“[It] may promote not only a possible arms race between India and Pakistan, but also [between] India and China,” added John Boroughs of the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy, in a recent interview with OneWorld.

In addition to calling for actions against the spread of nuclear weapons, the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty also requires the five declared nuclear powers — Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States — to engage in “good-faith negotiations” toward eliminating their nuclear stockpiles.

Analysts see the approval of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement as a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which prohibits the export of technology that could in any way “assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons.”

The 1998 resolution was adopted with consensus soon after both India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices in defiance of international agreement against the spread of nuclear weapons.

Since the 1947 partition when the British ended their colonial rule in the Indian sub-continent, India and Pakistan have gone to war with each other three times. Currently, both countries are in possession of a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons.

According to the Uranium Resource Center, India has as many as 14 nuclear energy reactors in commercial operation and 9 under construction. Currently, its nuclear power supplies are estimated to account for about 3 percent of total electricity production.

Though India strongly denies that it intends to use the deal with the United States to expand its nuclear weapons program, its officials have also argued that the deal does not preclude the country from carrying out further nuclear tests.

Critics have described the U.S. acceptance of India’s nuclear weapons program as amounting to ”a major concession” for a country that has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

But in reflecting on the consequences of the U.S.-India agreement and its approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Tomero also held Russia and other major powers responsible for the breach of international rules governing the non-proliferation regime.

“The U.S. nuclear industry has pushed hard for this deal,” she said. “[However], Japan, Russia, and France will also gain from this because they think more nuclear competition is profitable. I think the Congress will have to look at this very carefully.”

Congress to Have Final Say

Observers say they expect the Bush administration will try hard to get the nuclear deal with India approved by Congress before the presidential polls are held in November.

“I think Berman will put on a lot of pressure,” said Tomero, referring to Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee. In a statement last Monday, Berman made it clear that any final agreement “must be consistent” with the 2006 Hyde Act, which calls for “immediate termination” of all nuclear trade by NSG members if India detonates a nuclear explosive device.

“Congress needs to study the NSG decision, along with any agreements that were made behind the scenes,” said Berman. “If the administration wants to seek special procedures, it will have to show how the NSG decision is consistent with the Hyde Act.”

“The burden of proof,” according to Berman, “is on the Bush administration so that Congress can be assured that what we’re being asked to approve conforms to U.S. law,” he added in a statement.

Meanwhile, peace activists are stepping up their lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, amid calls for voters to urge their Congressional representatives to take a firm stand against the nuclear trade deal with India.

“It’s time for action,” said Kreiger. “Other countries will be looking at this deal as a model that will serve their own interests as well. If the United States can do it with India, why not China with Pakistan? Or Russia with Iran? Or Pakistan with Syria?”

© 2008 One World

Human Rights in the Age of Counter-Terrorism

Published on Thursday, August 7, 2008 by Inter Press Service

Human Rights in the Age of Counter-Terrorism

by Shiraz Deen

UNITED NATIONS – Member states of the U.N. have frequently disregarded international human rights laws and principles in the name of counter-terrorism, an expert panel here found.

The panel entitled “Fortress or Sand-Castle? Human Rights in the Age of Counter-Terrorism“, was the seventh instalment of the New Human Rights Dialogue Series, a 12 part monthly series in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ‘read today very much like a catalogue of abuses, and quite often abuses carried out in the name of something called counter-terrorism,’ said Craig Mokhiber, of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, who moderated the panel.

Some areas of concern with regards to counter-terrorism stressed by the panellists are the expansion of police powers, use of secret courts and evidence, use of preventative detention, and the application of the death penalty for non-lethal crimes.

‘Counter-terrorism laws passed worldwide have represented a broad expansion of government power to investigate detain, prosecute, and imprison individuals with minimal judicial oversight, public transparency, and due process,’ said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counter-terrorism programme director at Human Rights Watch.

These laws restrict the rights of terrorists, political dissidents, social activists, and common criminals, according to Mariner.

The legislation is partly the result of the lack of an international definition for terrorism, without which countries are allowed to create their own broad definitions of what constitutes a terrorist organisation or act. Human rights violations resulting from laws based on these broad definitions are exacerbated by international pressure from the Security Council for member states to show that they are combating terrorism domestically.

The U.S. among other nations has attempted to justify the derogation of certain international human rights laws by claiming that the ‘war on terror’ is a new kind of armed conflict that lies outside of international human rights law and warrants the creation of a new structure of humanitarian law.

Margaret Satterthwaite, co-director of the international human rights clinic at the centre of human rights and global justice at New York University School of Law, noted that, ‘this argument has been rejected by a number of key high courts of various member states of the U.N. and even if one were to accept such an argument, one would still be under the rule of international humanitarian principles of customary international law when forging those new rules.’

The panellists explained that the Security Council has been slow to incorporate human rights into its global counter-terrorism strategy.

Joanna Weschler, director of research of the Security Council Report — a non-profit organisation affiliated with Columbia University — described the Council’s progress on integrating human rights into the counter-terrorism strategy as a, ‘process of slow and partial overcoming of a very deep reluctance.’

Weschler recalled that, ‘Council members were initially quite adamant that the Council would not make safeguarding human rights part of its anti-terror agenda and I remember very vividly in that period when a P5 ambassador said to me, ‘Joanna don’t expect to see the two words human and rights together in any council documents on terrorism any time soon’, and I must say they kept their word for a while.’

Weschler referenced Security Council resolution 1390, which expanded the Council’s sanctions on Afghanistan to be applicable worldwide. One result of this resolution was the creation of a list of individuals and entities that could be subjected to asset freezes, travel bans, and other sanctions — but there were no clear rules governing how parties were placed or removed from the list, and once listed, parties could not find out the reason for their listing or challenge it. Numerous cases of mistaken identity, post-mortem listing of individuals, and other human rights violations stemmed from the creation of the list, Weschler said.

The original sanctions were imposed on the Taliban in part because of their violation of human rights and were supported by human rights groups because they targeted governing bodies as opposed to citizens. To date the Security Council members have raised strong opposition to the creation of an independent review panel for the list.

Although there are many areas in which human rights continue to be neglected, the Security Council and other U.N. bodies have recently begun to take significant steps towards integrating human rights into counter-terrorist activities. The 2006 U.N. Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy lists human rights as one of its 4 pillars and states that, ‘the promotion and protection of human rights for all and the rule of law is essential to all components of the Strategy, recognising that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing.’

The final document of the International Process on Global Counter-Terrorism Cooperation has recently been released and lists numerous recommendations for the General Assembly to consider in advance of the first formal review of the of the U.N. Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in September. Among the recommendations the document lists are numerous enhancements of U.N. efforts to promote human rights within the context of counter-terrorism including further inclusion of human rights experts within the counter- terrorist bodies of the U.N. and greater support for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Emi MacLean of the Centre for Constitutional Rights concluded, ‘There seem to be varying options as we move forward. We could see international rights and humanitarian obligations as inapplicable to the current paradigm and forcing a paradigm shift… or we can reaffirm that [human rights] laws continue to have resonance and import and indeed continue to carry obligations even, or perhaps, especially within this context when we are tempted to derogate from them.’

© 2008 Inter Press Service

U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms

Published on Saturday, July 19, 2008 by the New York Times

U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms

by C.J. Chivers

UNITED NATIONS – Diplomats from the world’s governments met throughout this week on agreements to cut the global illicit trade in small arms, but their work was curtailed in part by the near-boycott of the meetings by the United States.

The tone of the meetings underscored the political complexities of gaining full support for international small-arms agreements from the United States. The American view has balanced recognition of the dangers of illegal proliferation with the government’s own arms-distribution practices and with the American gun lobby’s resistance to the United Nations’ proposals.

Since 2001, United Nations members have endorsed a broad but loosely defined initiative, called the program of action, for a collective effort against illegal arms circulation. The agreement in part encourages governments to tighten controls on manufacturing, marking, tracing, brokering, exporting and stockpiling small arms and to cooperate to restrict illicit flows, particularly to regions perennially in armed conflict. It addresses hundreds of millions of weapons, ranging from pistols to shoulder-fired rockets, that the United Nations says are in circulation worldwide.

The initiative has spotlighted the dire effects of the flood of small arms and led to expanded research into its often chilling consequences.

The World Health Organization noted this week that small-arms violence is so prevalent in Nyanga, South Africa, that a 15-year-old boy has a 1 in 20 chance of being shot dead before turning 35. In Antioquia, Colombia, the organization said, an 18-year-old man faces the same risk of death before turning 25.

The work to date, which the State Department says it supports, has helped spur small-arms control programs around the world, including disarmament efforts, reintegration centers for child soldiers and the creation in many countries of arms-brokering laws.

But initiatives toward a more comprehensive and binding agreement have been vehemently opposed by gun-owner organizations. The National Rifle Association, America’s largest gun lobby, has labeled the process a thinly masked effort to undermine lawful civilian gun ownership and urged the United States to resist the measures.

The United Nations and advocates of gun control have said that such fears are unfounded, and that there is no effort to impose standards on nations with traditions of civilian ownership, or to restrict hunting. The programs, they said, apply largely to areas suffering from insurgencies or war.

“States remain free to have their own national legislation,” said Daniel Prins, chief of the Conventional Arms Branch of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. “This document does not try to regulate gun ownership in the whole world. This is an instrument that allows states to focus on regions in conflict and the weapons that illicitly get there.”

The movement for greater controls has also raised worries in Washington that a call to curb transfers to “nonstate actors” could restrict governments that now distribute arms to rebel groups or work with armed private contractors. United States intelligence agencies and the Pentagon do both.

The United States’ positions, and the less vocal resistance of other arms exporting countries, including China and Iran, deadlocked discussions in 2006, when the last full meetings on the subject were held here.

The agenda at the latest meetings, held Monday through Friday, was limited to issues for which broader support exists, including managing weapons and munitions stockpiles, restricting illegal brokering, and improving efforts to mark and trace weapons. A vote supporting such measures passed unanimously on Friday, with the support of 134 countries and 2 abstentions. Many nations were absent, including the United States.

The United States sent a delegation only on Thursday, to discuss an agreement for marking weapons with distinctive symbols or serial numbers, and for developing registries of government arms to help deter and detect illegal diversion.

The United States already has strict marking rules. It does not consider the issue controversial.

A State Department spokesman, Drew Haldane, said the United States had attended that session because it agreed to in 2005, and it had skipped other meetings because it had hoped states would work on areas already agreed upon, rather than holding continued sessions.

“What is needed is not an indefinite series of such meetings in New York, but an increased emphasis on practical measures that states can take to improve implementation of their undertakings in the program of action, which, unfortunately, has been inadequate in some states,” he said.

The American absence frustrated many attendees, who said the Americans courted support from the gun lobby at the expense of fighting an acute international problem. The absence, they said, was symbolically potent. “It’s just very frustrating to see that empty chair,” said Theodore Milonopoulos, co-founder of Vox Populi, an American youth organization that lobbies for gun control.

Prominent gun organizations applauded the limited American participation, and suggested that the United Nations effort was too broad. Thomas L. Mason, head of the American office of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, an umbrella organization of owner groups, said objections reflected concerns that the agreement covers not only military small arms but pistols, rifles and shotguns, too.

He said that if the agreement were narrowed to automatic assault rifles and other infantry arms, such as rocket-propelled grenades, objections might fade. These weapons have been blamed for destabilizing large portions of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. “If they would only concern themselves with military arms – fully automatic and on up – that would go a long way,” Mr. Mason said.

Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, agreed that the scope should be narrowed. But he suggested that the association remained opposed to deliberations on philosophical grounds. “I believe, and the N.R.A. believes, that in all human society there is a right for good people to defend themselves from bad people, and a firearm is an essential tool of self-defense,” he said by telephone.

The differing opinions underscored the wide range of positions, and sometimes contradictory activities, within the United States government. It has publicly supported efforts to stop illegal trafficking and underwritten programs to destroy surplus arms stockpiles and to help nations mark and trace firearms in government possession.

It also led efforts against Viktor Bout, a Russian accused of being one of the world’s more active arms smugglers. (He was arrested in Thailand in March.)

But through programs to equip the Iraqi and Afghan security services and other allies, the United States has also been a prominent supplier of small arms in volatile regions. In doing so, it has at times bought and transported arms through the same gray networks and dealers that in Europe have been accused of illegal trafficking. It has also distributed many weapons without making a serialized inventory.

Several advocates for global controls, though disappointed by the United States’ position, cautioned against pessimism or placing too much emphasis on the United States. The latest have partly revived deliberations.

They also noted that the United Nations meetings, while stalled on many points, have brought together like-minded governments and organizations, which have started national or regional programs to combat illicit trade.

“I look at where we were in 2001 and where we are now, and a huge amount of progress has been made,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, a network of private organizations.

They also said other nations – including China, widely faulted for providing most of the weapons and ammunition for the epidemic killing in Sudan, and Iran, accused of exporting arms to terrorist organizations and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan – have used the United States’ more visible resistance as a cover for their own opposition.

Some national statements met exasperation, including one by China that it does not export arms to regions suffering from instability, and one by Pakistan that called its small-arms-control efforts “watertight.” Its regions bordering Afghanistan have long been a haven for traffickers.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

For Tens of Thousands of Child Soldiers, a Short and Brutal Life

Another generation of children going through hell.  When will the world finally care enough to to do something?

Published on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 by Inter Press Service by Mirela Xanthaki UNITED NATIONS – “Child soldiers are ideal because they don’t complain, they don’t expect to be paid, and if you tell them to kill, they kill,” a senior official in the National Army of Chad reportedly told a Human Rights Watch researcher. On Tuesday, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers launched its third global report on this persistent problem. It paints a grim picture, and concludes that despite growing awareness of the situation, there has been little real improvement on the ground. “The international consensus that the armed forces is not a place for children has strengthened, and yet the situation for children caught up in hostilities around the world has changed very little,” said Dr. Victoria Forbes Adam, director of the coalition. There are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers worldwide, although the exact number is hard to verify. Experts say that one major positive development in recent years has been the end of conflicts in countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia and Southern Sudan, where the use of child fighters was widespread. Overall, the number of conflicts in which children are directly involved fell from 27 in 2004 to 17 by the end of 2007, the report says. And a “universal consensus” appears to be growing against the use of children in hostilities, with over three-quarters of U.N. member states having now signed, ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. However, the report stresses that the military recruitment of children under age 18 and their use in hostilities is a much larger phenomenon, which still takes place in one form or another in at least 86 countries and territories worldwide. Where armed conflict does exist, the report warns, “child soldiers will almost certainly be involved. The majority of these children are in non-state armed groups, but the record of some governments is also little improved.” According to media reports this week, the Pakistani army claims to have swarmed an al Qaeda training camp in South Waziristan, where militants had transformed a government-run school into a site where boys aged 9 to 12 were taught how to conduct suicide attacks. “Armed groups pose the greatest challenge,” said Adam. “International laws have had limited impact in deterring child soldier use by armed groups. Many groups attach little value to international standards and the need to build fighting strength overrides other considerations. This reality must be confronted and new strategies developed.” The armed groups that use children as suicide bombers are “largely ignorant of or impervious to the norms of international laws and standards,” she added. “They are resistant to pressure and persuasion and outside the reach of initiatives to end the involvement of children in armed conflict.” A U.N. report on “Children and Armed Conflict” said that the “name and shame” technique that has been proven effective in reforming governments has not worked when dealing with many armed groups. How can these groups then be persuaded that it is wrong to use child soldiers? Jo Becker, advocacy director for the Children’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch and a founder of the coalition, told IPS very often children are lured into these groups because they romanticise the mission. The best way to fight this phenomenon is by keeping children in school or with their families and giving them alternatives. Tens of thousands of children remain in the ranks of non-state armies in at least 24 different countries or territories. Constructive dialogue with these groups is almost impossible, as Adam noted. As Radhika Coomaraswamy, special representative of the U.N.secretary-general on children and armed conflict, told IPS in a previous interview, the U.N. can only have a dialogue with a group like the Taliban with the permission of the state. Currently, the government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul discourages the U.N. or any other international organisation from any contacts with the Taliban. The focus of international efforts must be on improving the overall social and economic conditions of children. Governments are part of the action and it is their responsibility to provide education. One other important strategy, is criminalizing recruitment so that there is an institutionalized, legal framework to protect the children. As long as the climate of impunity prevails, there is little hope for improvement. Programmes on disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) should focus on the release of children from the armed forces as well as reintegration of these children in society, experts say. Instead, this serious issue is being overlooked and sustained funding for the long-term support of former child soldiers is inadequate. “Tens of thousands of children — particularly girls — are effectively rendered invisible during the demobilisation and reintegration process,” said Adam. “It is not that their needs and vulnerabilities are unrecognised, it is simply a failure to apply lessons learned that is failing these children and their futures.” The Global Report covers the period from April 2004 to October 2007. It contains detailed information on military recruitment and use of child soldiers, release and reintegration initiatives and justice initiatives in 197 countries. The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers was formed almost exactly 10 years ago this month. It includes leading humanitarian and human rights organisations from around the world like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Save the Children Alliance, Defence for Children International, International Federation Terre des Hommes and the Quaker U.N. Office. © 2008 Inter Press Service

Food Crisis Rippling Out Like a “Tsunami”

Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 by Inter Press Service by Nergui Manalsuren UNITED NATIONS – “A rolling tsunami of social unrest is underway as we speak — hungry people are desperate people capable of taking desperate actions. This tsunami is rapidly enveloping the global South, and it won’t take much longer before it knocks at the door of the global North,” warned Vicente Garcia-Delgado, the U.N. representative for CIVICUS, the world alliance for citizen participation. At a forum on the world food crisis held at the United Nations Friday, civil society groups stressed that over 800 million people are now at risk of starvation, while 100 million have joined the ranks of the extremely poor in just the last few months and are now living on less than a dollar a day. The food price index of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation rose by 9 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2007. As of March this year, wheat and maize prices were 130 and 30 percent higher than a year earlier. Rice prices have more than doubled since late January. A new briefing this week by the U.N. Economic and Social Council says that the poor, especially in urban areas but also the rural landless and small farmers who are net food buyers, have been most vulnerable to food price hikes, as a very high proportion of their household income is spent on food. However, “Even within rich countries, increasingly large portions of the population are having real problems bringing food to the table and paying for other basic necessities,” Garcia-Delgado said. He stressed that the peace and security challenges presented by the hunger crisis and climate change must be understood as global challenges, calling for global solutions that address the concerns of all nations and peoples. “Governments must not fall prey to the temptation to seek unilateral solutions based on defensive or militaristic non-solutions. It would be extremely dangerous to look at the current crisis strictly from a national perspective. A knee-jerk resort to a ‘fortress America’ or a ‘fortress Europe’ type of mentality would only exacerbate the risks of social and political chaos and will not work,” Garcia-Delgado said. Asma Lateef, director of bread for the World Institute, a Christian grassroots advocacy organisation that lobbies on issues of hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world, said that rising global food prices are being driven by at least four structural changes. According to Lateef, one factor is growing demand for food and diversified diets, including meat, in many developing countries as people have begun to escape poverty and seen a rise in their incomes. Secondly, she pointed out the competition for land use and diversion of crops posed by biofuels; thirdly, weather-related crop failures possibly associated with climate change, for example, the decline in wheat production due to an extended drought in Australia; and lastly, rising oil prices, as all contributing to food inflation. Lateef called on donors, including the U.S., to strive to get the maximum benefit out of food aid resources by reducing restrictions on the procurement and shipping of food aid. She stressed that the current food aid system must be well resourced, efficient, and flexible because “the capacity of the food aid system is being severely tested as the world tries to cope with this crisis, the recent disasters in Myanmar and China and ongoing humanitarian efforts.” “Furthermore, countries need to be encouraged to relax or avoid export restrictions on food. This only exacerbates the global problem. We need to take a global approach,” she said. “Special lines of credit and guarantees should be also made available to enable net food importing countries to meet the needs of poor people and continue to purchase food on international markets, in ways that do not raise debt burdens or impose more than the minimum conditionality,” Lateef said. Alan Imai, co-director of Shumei International Institute, who shared his successful experiences working with a women farmers’ cooperative in Zambia, added that in addition to immediate action, the international community needs to consider long-term solutions that will lead to sustainable food production and economic development. He also stressed the importance of empowerment of local communities and involving them in decision-making. “The United Nations, governments and other involved organisations must consult with, trust, and listen to local farmers in order to empower them toward self sufficiency, instead of depending on a few scientists and companies, whose motives and perspective cannot be the same as those who are running out of food,” Imai said. Garcia-Delgado said that there is certainly the temptation to cry out “We told you so!” “Years of foot-dragging, unkept promises, endless negotiations, a slow response to climate change, and the refusal to harness market globalisation — these are some of the principal reasons which have brought us to the sorry predicament we find ourselves at the beginning of the 21st century,” he said.   © 2008 Inter Press Service