Misc Update

The September 26th, 2009 blog entry, 'UNSC Resolution 1887,' poured a little cold water on the overheated rhetoric re the "historic' nature of the unanimous passage of Resolution 1887 by the U.N. Security Council. The entry made several points, including that the unanimity was achieved by making the declaration sufficiently vague in key areas so that countries with differing agendas could vote for the same resolution without actually agreeing to the substance. Also that "... Although the nuclear powers agreed here to work towards "complete (nuclear) disarmament", who can doubt that this "long and arduous" journey will not be their major focus, and will most certainly be subordinated to the incomparably more important (ahem) issue of nonproliferation?..."

Issues Brief: UNSC Resolution 1887: Packaging Nonproliferation and Disarmament at the United Nations provides much more information on the "back story" - the evolution of the resolution from draft to final version, and country-by-country and issue-by-issue summaries. Its conclusion? That "... the orientation of the resolution clearly emphasizes nonproliferation goals over disarmament, in both the initial draft and the final version of the resolution. The substance of the resolution adds very little to the disarmament objectives already enunciated by the Obama administration..." and that "... Resolution 1887 demonstrates its ambivalence to the NPT review process as a vehicle for serious action. Nonetheless, the revisions made to the resolution between drafts that cater to the NNWS are indicative of the effort, albeit modest, to achieve a successful outcome at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, an endeavor with uncertain prospects for realization."

UNSC Resolution 1887

September 24th the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1887. This was immediately hailed as "historic" by President Obama, who chaired the session. The resolution "expresses the Council’s grave concern about the threat of nuclear proliferation and the need for international action to prevent it. It reaffirms that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery are threats to international peace and security and shows agreement on a broad range of actions to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the threat of nuclear terrorism" (see 'Fact Sheet on the UN Security Council Summit on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament UNSC Resolution 1887').

Reactions ranged from those lauding President Obama for achieving a signal victory, to others accusing him of having demonstrated "weakness." President Sarkozy of France managed to strongly push for the resolution, even while "sticking it" to the President. An example of a laudatory reaction, "... Obama has consolidated global support behind the vision and the plan. He has laid the legal and diplomatic basis for enforcing tougher penalties for those that cheat on nuclear treaties. He has gotten all the nuclear nations to agree to new steps to get rid of the weapons they now hold in staggering numbers. It is remarkable progress..."

This blogger agrees that the resolution was a very positive step. However, he does not see it either as an amazing achievement, nor as a particularly huge or irrevocable step towards disarmament., and would caution against letting any of the apparent euphoria related to this resolution detract from the serious work yet remaining .. But what about the unanimous agreement? Well, that was both an artefact of the how the resolution was written - with sufficient ambiguity to allow states with differing viewpoints to agree on the formulation - as well as the fact that the document did not seriously bind the permanent members to change their existing actions or positions. A few examples to consider:

Section 4 "calls upon all States that are not Parties to the NPT to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States so as to achieve its universality at an early date, and pending their accession to the Treaty, to adhere to its terms;" Seems rather cut and dried, a strong push to bring all companies under the aegis of the NPT. Or is it? As soon as the resolution passed India immediately registered its objections to this, and was promptly reassured by the U.S. Additionally, barely a week earlier many of those who voted for 1887 (and presumably agreed with the need for all non-signatories to accede to the NPT) had voted against a resolution urging Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place all their atomic sites under UN inspections... (note: the vote passed despite this...)

Section 5 "Calls upon the Parties to the NPT, pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty, to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear arms reduction and disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and calls on all other States to join in this endeavour;" Although the nuclear powers agreed here to work towards "complete (nuclear) disarmament", who can doubt that this "long and arduous" journey will not be their major focus, and will most certainly be subordinated to the incomparably more important (ahem) issue of nonproliferation?

Section 7 "Calls upon all States to refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), thereby bringing the treaty into force at an early date;" A long-standing goal of the nuclear "have nots," the "haves" here agree to achieve this "at an early date." However, there is no evidence of current moves towards achieving this goal any time soon. Both China and the United States have signed but not ratified the CTBT (U.S. - signed by President Clinton in 1996, rejected by the Senate in 1999). The language in 1887 appears to reflect President-elect Obama's commitment to taking the CTBT to the Senate for ratification "at the earliest practical date." At present, however, it is very unlikely that the Senate would ratify the CTBT, even if strongly supported by the President...

Section 9 "Recalls the statements by each of the five nuclear-weapon States, noted by resolution 984 (1995), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon State Parties to the NPT, and affirms that such security assurances strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime;" Here, the nuclear "haves" would appear to have reconfirmed an assurance that they will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. Apparently fairly cut and dried. But how do we square this with the standard "we won't take any options off the table" formulation that has been brandished against various states, including but not limited to (non-nuclear) Iraq and Iran?

Section 19 "Encourages States to consider whether a recipient State has signed and ratified an additional protocol based on the model additional protocol in making nuclear export decisions;" Note the use of "encourages." By using this "softer" term (rather than, say, "requires") Russia can both agree to the resolution and still have the latitude to proceed with supporting Iran's reactor at Bushehr... Similarly, Section 8 which covers the negotiation of a treaty to ban the production of fissile material, "requests all Member States to cooperate in guiding the Conference to an early commencement of Substantive work" (note "requests.")

Bottom line: while an important step, the achievement of unanimity for Resolution 1887 is more due to its artful composition than to President Obama somehow having convinced by force of argument Russia, China, etc. to change or moderate their positions... The progress achieved here is real, but much, much more work remains to be done!

Unanimously voting for the resolution were the permanent members (U.S. Russia, China, U.K., France), along with Japan, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mexico, Austria, Vietnam, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Turkey, and Libya, represented by:

President Barack Obama, United States of America
President Óscar Arias Sánchez, Republic of Costa Rica
President Stjepan Mesic, Republic of Croatia
President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, Russian Federation
President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, United Mexican States
President Heinz Fischer, Republic of Austria
President Nguyen Minh Triet, Socialist Republic of Viet Nam
President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Republic of Uganda
President Hu Jintao, People’s Republic of China
President Nicolas Sarkozy, France
President Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Faso
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Japan
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Republic of Turkey
Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham, Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The links:

UN Security Council adopts resolution on nuclear safeguards
White House Fact Sheet on UN Security Council Resolution 1887
Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887
India strongly reacts to UNSC resolution on NPT.
U.S.: UN resolution on NPT not directed against India
Ouch! French President Sarkozy slams ‘naive’ Obama for living in 'virtual world’ on Iran
Obama's Nuclear Victory
Building a world without nukes
IAEA urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection

Happy 60th!

Today is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... (also see below). The Secretary-General of the United Nations issued the following statement.

Still just a promise, and still a long, long way to go....

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The U.S. and Zimbabwe...

Photo credit: Benoît Muracciole, Amnesty International

Original article in green, along with inserted ed. translation:

L'information .... pourrait être la première occasion, pour Barack Obama, de tenir l'une de ses promesses de campagne. Vendredi dernier au siège de l'ONU à New-York, 149 pays se sont prononcés en faveur d'un Traité international sur le commerce des armes classiques. Deux ont voté contre: les Etats-Unis et le Zimbabwe.

The information ... could be the first occasion for Barack Obama to keep one of his campaign promises. Last Friday at the U.N. headquarters in New York, 149 countries decided in favor of the International Arms Trade Treaty. Two countries voted against: the United States and Zimbabwe.

Benoit Muracciole, représentant d'Amnesty international pour la campagne collective des ONG « Control arms », revient sur le sens de ce premier vote. Avec l'espoir que Barack Obama et Joe Biden, s'ils sont élus à la Maison-Blanche, mettent en œuvre les recommandations auxquelles ils adhéraient, le 12 janvier 2006, dans une lettre signée avec douze autres sénateurs américains. Lettre adressée à la Secrétaire d'Etat Condoleeza Rice (voir le document ci-contre). Voici le témoignage de Benoit Muracciole.

Benoit Muracciole, Amnesty International representative for the non-governmental organization’s collective campaign, “Control Arms”, considers the direction of this first vote. With the hope that Barack Obama and Joe Biden, if they are elected to the White House, will put in place the recommendations to which they agreed to in a January 12th, 2006 letter that they signed along with twelve other American senators. A letter addressed to the Secretary d' State Condoleeza Rice. Here the testimony of Benoit Muracciole.

Vendredi, onze heures du matin, aux Nations unies à New York, je découvre, en direct, le vote sur la résolution L39 "qui demande la création d'un groupe de travail ouvert pour 2009 en direction d'un traité international sur le commerce des armes…" Je prends la photo sur le tableau de vote dans la salle de conférence 2 et je me frotte les yeux.

Friday, eleven hours in the morning at the United Nations in New York, I found the vote on resolution L39 "which asks for the creation of an open working group for 2009 to develop an international treaty on the trade of small arms… " I took a photograph of the voting display in Conference Room 2 and I had to rub my eyes…

Incroyable les Etats-Unis aient voté comme le Zimbabwe contre une résolution qui représente le projet du XXIe siècle le plus ambitieux pour la protection des droits humains, du droit international humanitaire et du développement durable de millions de civils à travers le monde. Comment ont-ils osé? Ce sont pourtant les obligations existantes des Etats, leurs engagements devant la Charte des Nations unies qu'il s'agissait de réaffirmer par ce vote.

Incredibly the United States voted with Zimbabwe against a resolution which represents the most ambitious project of the 21st century for the protection of the human rights, for a humanitarian international law, and for the sustainable development for millions of civilians throughout the world. How dare they? This vote is about reaffirming the existing obligations of nation states and their agreements under charter of the United Nations.

Cela ressemble fort à un chant du cygne pour le Zimbabwe, qui peine à trouver un gouvernement conforme aux élections, et qui continue d'appuyer sur le mauvais bouton au détriment de sa population qui souffre de la violence des armes et/ou de la violence économique.

That is Zimbabwe’s swan song, (a country) which barely can put together a government in conformity with its elections, and one which continues to press on the bad button to the detriment of its population which suffers from the violence of weapons and/or economic violence.

Quant aux Etats-Unis, c'est le sauve-qui-peut. Derrière M. Bush et M. Bolton, comme après le passage d'Attila, plus rien de pousse. Seule perdure la contradiction: prétendre sauver le Darfour et accepter que les armes continuent d'arriver en direction des massacreurs, violeurs et autres tueurs de bas étages en Somalie, au Myanmar, en Colombie ou en République démocratique du Congo. Eternel paradoxe que porte ce pays qui voudrait sauver le monde sans s'en donner les moyens. Il reste un espoir avec un Obama et un Biden qui parlent de l'urgence et de la nécessité du respect des principes défendus dans cette résolution L39 pour contrôler le commerce des armes.

As for the United States, it’s save yourself. Behind Mr. Bush and Mr. Bolton, as after the passage d' Attila, nothing is left growing. Only loser the contradiction: claiming to save Darfur while accepting that weapons continue to flow to those responsible for massacres, rapes, and other low-life killings from Somalia to Myanmar, from Colombia to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The eternal paradox of this country which would like to save the world without giving it the means. There remains a hope with Obama and Biden, who speak of the urgency and of the need to respect the principles defended in this resolution (L39) to control the trade of the seweapons.

Ce n'est pas un traité punitif, mais un traité préventif
This is not a punitive treaty, but a preventative treaty

Mais ce vote de la honte ne masquera pas le raz de marée du vote pour: 149 Etats l'ont fait, en connaissance d'une cause pour laquelle nous nous battons depuis des années, pour que le respect des droits de la personne dans toute sa conception soit enfin réalité.

This shameful vote can not mask the tidal wave of the "for" vote: 149 countries said yes to a cause for which we have been fighting for years, so that finally respect for the rights of the person can become a reality.

La suite...
The rest of the article...

Landslide UN vote in favor of Arms Trade Treaty
US, Zimbabwe vote against Arms Trade Treaty
Explanation of vote on Draft Resolution L.39: Arms Trade Treaty

Registered identity

So many rumors were swirling around Senator Obama’s birth that his campaign felt obliged to post a copy of his birth certificate at the “Fight the Smears” web site, see “The truth about Barack's birth certificate.” OK, if there’s confusion about someone born in the United States, how much more might there be in other, poorer countries? It turns out that the answer is “a lot.’ In Afghanistan fewer than one percent of the population have birth certificates. The government there has now started issuing them for all babies born in Kabul, and plans to extend this to the rest of the nation by the end of 2009. UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, is assisting the Afghan government in this endeavor.

UNICEF started a similar program in Madagascar in 2004 (with 30% of children “unrecognized”) and Latin America in 2007 (with 17% of children “invisible”). Something so simple and basic, but necessary to ensure vaccinations, healthcare, education, etc.


Afghanistan Strives To Register All Newborns
Afghanistan Eyes Newborns with Birth Certificate Drive

For every child, a birth certificate (Madagascar)
Latin American region unites for millions of “invisible” children