United Nations Association of the USA

STAND UP

2006-10-10T15:54:00.000-04:00

My name is Emily Burchfield, and I am a sophomore at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Clemson is a public university with around 17,000 students. There are many different student organizations on campus, but none dealing specifically with the global poverty issue. Last year, however, this all changed!

There is an incredible divide between “the West and the rest.” People of developing nations lack access to the many opportunities of western society. For example, when I went to Ghana, I met a girl who was my age named Regina. We became very close during my stay in her country. After my return to the US, I received a letter from her in the mail stating that her father had passed away. Her family no longer had any legitimate means of income and she was forced to drop out of school to work on her family’s farm. The fact that someone as bright as Regina can’t attain an education because of bad luck and poverty pushed me to act. I started to research the poverty issue and discovered the MDG’s. The goals clearly define the problems in the developing nations of the world and lay out the steps necessary to fix these problems. They outline the UN’s approach towards the many crises in developing nations. As I read over the goals for the first time, I became very excited. Not only do the goals address global education, but seven other broad topic areas including poverty and hunger, gender empowerment, child mortality, maternal healthcare, HIV/AIDS and malaria, environmental sustainability, and global trade. I found the ONE Campaign, which fights specifically for the MDGs and decided to try and make Clemson a “University of ONE.”

What else are we doing at Clemson? During the spring 2006 semester at Clemson, we attained over a thousand signatures for the ONE Pledge and informed countless students about the importance of the “fight to make poverty history.” We also started a branch of Americans for Informed Democracy (http://www.aidemocracy.org) at Clemson to help generate awareness about the ONE Campaign, the MDG’s, and the world in general. This year, we hope to form a “ONE Committee” with representatives from across campus to continue our campaigning for ONE and the MDG’s.

Extreme poverty is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and I truly believe that our generation will make an enormous difference in this area. So many people today are not aware of the issues surrounding the UN Millennium Development Goals, the “fight to make poverty history,” and the crises taking place in developing nations. When people are informed, they are driven to action. This is why I think it is so important to inform as many students as possible.

This is also why I am participating in the “Stand Up” (http://www.millenniumcampaign.org) event on the 15th and 16th of October. This is a great way to put pressure on the US Government to stick with the Millennium Development Goals. The “Stand Up” action is a global effort which we felt Clemson should be a part of. At Clemson, during the week leading up to October 15th and 16th, the “Stand Up” dates, we are going to organize international film screenings to raise global awareness on our campus. We hope to make these screenings as fun as possible to get many students involved. At each event we will fill our on-campus movie theater with flyers, food, and fun decorations. We will hand out flyers about AIDemocracy, the ONE Campaign, and especially the “fight to make poverty history.” On the 15th, our final event will be the screening of “Silent Killer,” a movie highlighting the global hunger crisis worldwide. Before the movie starts, we will explain the “Stand Up” Campaign and the MDGs. We’ll ask those attending to stand up for one minute before the show. In addition to these events, members of Americans for Informed Democracy will sit at tables around campus handing out flyers and getting students to sign the “ONE Pledge” during the week leading up to the 15th. We will also contact student organizations having meetings throughout the day Sunday to see if they will “Stand Up” for one minute during their meetings.

We hope all of these events are successful and become Clemson traditions!

Downfalls of Diplomacy

2006-09-25T13:28:00.000-04:00

An article in The New York Times today reflects the one of the greatest struggles in international relations and the UN: how do we foster international cooperation, and especially enforce commitments, without violating national sovereignty? This is indeed a touchy subject- everyone wants to involve the UN to convict their opponents, to use force to get our side's point acrosss, but when it comes to convicting ourselves, we are much less likely to do so. I repeatedly accuse the US of this tactic, of employing the term "national sovereignty" at times of our convinience, but then willing to violate other's soveriegnty or even international rights simply because it conflicts with what we want. (See another intersting article in The New York Times) You can't have it both ways, there must be a middle ground.

The crisis in the middle east embodies all these issues. Lebanon agreed to a UN resolution to end fighting on the condition that their national sovereignty was respected. This seems like a just cause, especially as the US has used this reasoning to withhold signatures of many treaties. Yet respecting national sovereignty means the UN has little force. Currently, UN forces deployed in Lebanon are feeling a torn, as they are told to only assist in situations when the Lebanese government asks them to. Yet as of now, the Lebanese government hasn't ask them to do anything. This poses an interesting question that has plauged UN activists/advocates in many an issue: when should one step aside and mind their own business, and when is intervening absolutely necessary? Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer.

History Repeats Itself

2006-09-13T13:42:00.000-04:00

by Nicholas Tilipman

I would like to begin this blog by mentioning that Megan Levanduski’s post (the entry before this one) was particularly timely and well written. I would like to devote this entry, however, to saying a few more things about 9/11 and the United States administration.

First of all, as everyone knows, Americans gathered two days ago in remembrance of the tragedies that occurred on September 11, 2001. While most still feel a sense of urgency—that the United States should do whatever in its power to protect against the imminent terrorist threat—most have actually fallen back into the catacombs of apathy. According to The Economist, a poll published by the Wall Street Journal/NBC in July concluded that roughly 14% of Americans still think that terrorism should be the government’s top priority. About twice that number thinks that occupation in the Iraq should be America’s top focus.

Although it wasn’t reported, one can infer that a growing number of people are now disillusioned, not only by the way the US has handled the war on terror in the past five years, but also how it has handled international affairs in general. Middle East conflicts are waxing and waning, violence in Iraq is still a major cause of concern, and it appears as though people are just growing tired of hearing about it.

Can anyone really blame them, however? I get the distinct impression that this has happened before. Let’s look to history for the answer. President Woodrow Wilson, founder of the modern school of liberal thought and employer of the “rhetorical presidency,” had a similar dilemma in the early twentieth century, with regards to World War I and the idea of global interdependence. Wilson believed that America, as it has undergone a tremendous and organic evolution to its stage in world affairs, should remain at the vanguard of international relations. America, according to Wilson, should serve as a role model for the rest of the world in its quest for global interdependence, self-determination, and collective security.

How did Wilson gain support of the American public prior to World War I? Part of it was, of course, the German sinking of British boats, which he used to justify America’s involvement. Mostly, however, it was his skills as a rhetorical president. Much of Wilson’s rhetoric gave hope to the American people, but was clearly contradictory. How can one engage in a war under the premise of “peace without victory,” and then force Germany into an unconditional surrender? How can one claim to support “self-determination” and then intervene in Latin America and Russia? This of course contributed to the isolationist backlash against American interventionism in the 1920s and 30s.

The point I am making is that President Bush possesses Wilson’s skills as a rhetorical president, and has used a major tragedy to arouse support from the American public. We can clearly see the violent backlashes against his failure to recognize the world’s pluralism. Now that more and more Americans are growing disillusioned or apathetic, we see that Bush is risking making the same mistakes Wilson did. If he does, I fear America might drift back to isolationism; and we know what happens next.

Moving On....

2006-09-11T12:52:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

I would first like to point out that today is a day of rememberance of perhaps the biggest tragedy of our lifetime. Five years ago, the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. I would like to thank the heroes of that day, and give my condolences to all those involved. I must say, however, that is all I am going to say on the subject. As my friend Nicholas pointed out a few days ago, not much has changed over the summer, and I must say while the world has changed drastically since 9/11, we are still dealing with the same topics. There is still conflict in the middle east, trouble especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. And are aiports and subways are just as hectic. People don't feel much safer, despite all the promises of cooperation and international peace that came with 9/11.

Yet while the effects of 9/11 still loom, most everything is business as usual. Perhaps that is what is most remarkable about the world, and Americans. We have the ability to move on, to deal with a tragic situation, fix the problem, and then get on with our lives. Unfortunately, that often leads us back where we started. It doesn't do any good to continually fix an engine if every few months you have to call a mechanic again. Instead, you should just buy a new car. Of course, that is costly and time consuming, and most of us are attached to our cars no matter how awful they may be. I am no longer talking about 9/11, but about international relations in general. The world seems to get fixiated on one hot topic, one tragedy we want to read about everyday, and when all is said and done, a few weeks later we don't pay it any mind. Whether that is hurricanes or tsunamis, or civil wars, the truth is we all have too much going on in our own lives to stay committed to other people's problems.

This needs to change. Sudan has been a buzz word in the press for quite some time. Every one seemed very concerned that the country may turn out to be another tragedy like Rwanda. Unfortunately, years of civil war have left the country torn and little progress has been made in settling conflicts. The UN has approved peace keeping forces to enter the Sudan and provide assitance. The African Union is currently aiding Sudan in their efforts to achieve peace, but they have such limited resources and power that the UN feels intervention is necessary. Unfortunatley, Sudan begs to differ. They want the African Union, and only the African Union to help. The Sudanes government has refused offers of assistance from the UN and has said that the African Union must leave the end of this month when their mandate ends, unless the AU can find a way to continue resolving the conflic on their own. This leaves many refugees in a painful situation. If peacekeeping forces leave, the refugees will be forced ot flee again, as they fear they will come to harm in their current homes.

With all that is going on in the world, it is difficult to devote a lot of time and resources to one area. But we should all try to not move on so quickly. While it may benefit us to not dwell on the past, as we move on from one conflict to antoher we leave many others left behind. Let's not move on from Sudan.

A Peaceful Iraq?

2006-09-06T13:37:00.000-04:00

by Nicholas Tilipman

The U.S. military announced today that the arrest of Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, al-Qaida in Iraq’s second in command, actually occurred on June 19 and not a few days ago. Regardless, the New York Times referred to it as the “most significant blow to the terror network since the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

According to The Economist, the Iraqi government is using this capture, on top of the death of Zarqawi as evidence that the situation in Iraq may gradually be easing and that the authorities possess the capability to suppress the insurgency without the help of external (American) forces.

This may ring true in some areas, perhaps in Southern Iraq, but in the Sunni populated areas around Baghdad and north-western Iraq, there is fairly little evidence to suggest that the situation is stabilizing. According to the New York Times, two bombs exploded in northern Baghdad today, killing at least nine people and wounding 39 others. In northeastern Baghdad, several gunmen opened fire on pilgrims heading to Karbala, the Shiite holy city. The point is that the bombings have not ceased, nor will they any time soon.

What’s worse is that insurgent violence has shifted from being exclusively directed against American-led coalitions to being a sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Arabs. And it isn’t even the Shiites that are being persecuted by the Sunnis. Sunni Arabs have plenty to fear in the area as well. In today’s New York Times, an article was printed discussing how Sunnis in Baghdad are frequently being persecuted for having names that allude to unfavorable Iraqi leaders (Saddam Hussein). This is causing many Iraqis to go as far as to change their names (their identities) to save themselves from being persecuted.

This is only a sign of increasing, not decreasing, insurgent violence in Iraq. “To have to hide one’s name is considered deeply shameful. But with sectarian violence surging, Iraqis fear the name on an identification card, passport or other document could become an instant death sentence if seen by the wrong people.” Iraqi civilians have been stopped at checkpoints and have been executed on the spot if their name sounded suspicious. Shiite death squads often operate these checkpoints.

The capture and killing of terrorist leaders may or may not decrease the number of large-scale suicide bombings in Iraq. However, less than 5% of the insurgents in Iraq belong to al-Qaida. Rather, the insurgency was born and bred in Iraq and has evolved into an intense sectarian conflict that, despite recent optimism, will continue and be as bloody as ever.

De Ja Vu (Again)

2006-08-30T13:12:00.000-04:00

by Nicholas Tilipman

I’ll be honest here. Since the culmination of my internship with UNA-USA, I have spent the remainder of the summer securing my schedule and preparing overall for the upcoming school year. As such, I had little or no time at all to keep in touch with the news or post on this blog.

Well, there is good news to those of you who may have enjoyed my previous posts: You didn’t miss much. That’s right, since I moved back to school this past Saturday, I have come back to the habit of reading the news and staying in touch with world events, only to realize the lack of any sort of change in the current global conflict. All the headlines are precisely the same as I have left them a little less than a month ago.

Sure, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict has settled and fresh, new conflicts have begun to escalate, but nothing in particular caught my attention as being any different. Two Fox News journalists were kidnapped in Gaza (for reasons that remain uncertain, if not absurd), there is still a tremendous amount of violence erupting in Iraq, and best of all, Iran faces yet another deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

I recall that the last blog I wrote was devoted to praising the UN for taking what I thought to be some serious action against the numerous conflicts in the Middle East. The Security Council had finally set a deadline for Iran, threatening some form of punishment (though still undisclosed) if they did not cooperate. Now, it seems there are still deliberations instead of action being taken.

Furthermore, Kofi Annan has embarked on a rapid tour of the Middle East with his entourage. I am beginning to wonder whether this will be the catalyst for any type of change in the region.

Don’t get me wrong, working for UNA has exposed me to a wide array of successful UN programs. It is just getting hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel when I read the news only to find the same conflicts manifesting in different areas and to find that the only headline that remotely widens my eyes is the one entitled “Heath Ledger set to play Joker.” Let’s hope Annan’s visit to the Middle East puts me to rest.

It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

2006-08-29T10:34:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

Sports can be a great way to bring people together. Despite the competitive spirit and national pride, a sense of international cooperation and mutual respect is found in events like the Olympics or the World Cup. Every once in a while, however, a few select people ruin it for the rest of the world by bringing these events to the tabloids with rumors of scandals. At an international cricket competition in August, an umpire made a controversial call against Pakistan that sparked rumors of racism and bias from the judge and the system. The umpire accused members of the Pakistan team of tampering with the ball.

More recently, a motor sports competition in Turkish Cypriot showed reflections of much more deep seeded political conflicts. Turkish Cypriot is a Turkish controlled section of Cyprus that is only officially recognized as a state by Turkey. At the competition, the political leader of Turkish Cypriot was introduced as the President of the region as he gave the winning prize. This upset Cyprus denounced the event as exploitation of the event by the Turkish Cypriot leaders.

With preparations for the 2008 Beijing Olympics in full swing, it is up to the international community to show the dignity and respect that is normally shown in sports. I can only hope that these few incidents of conflict are isolated, and that international competitions will take their cue from the World Cup, which Secretary General of the UN Kofi Anan states as a “phenomena as universal as the United Nations” due to its promotion of diversity. While sports are a chance for pride, they are more importantly a place for sportsmanship, and a chance to unite people who would not be willing to any other way.

Manpower

2006-08-24T16:48:00.000-04:00

by Leigh Bernstein

Today the French government decided to increase the number of troops they are sending the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon from 400 troops to 2,000 troops. This swell in personnel came after France was derided for promising only 400 troops to the UNIFIL effort, when many nations expected it to be the core of the upgraded force because of its prominent role in diplomatic relations.

CNN.com reports that French President Jacques Chirac decided to up the number of troops to Lebanon after he was assured that UN peacekeeping forces would be able to defend themselves if under attack and use force to protect civilians. In addition, CNN notes that Chirac’s concern comes from heavy loses sustained by the French during past peacekeeping missions in Lebanon and Bosnia, which France felt were hampered restrictive UN rules of engagement.

This large increase in French troops helps the UN come closer to its goal of augmenting the UNIFIL effort and raising the number of UN troops to 15,000. Italy has pledged 3,000 troops and offered to lead the mission if France could not. By bolstering the number of UN forces on the Israel-Lebanon border, the UN hopes to strengthen the resiliency of the cease-fire agreement and help maintain stability in the still highly volatile region. French officials also hope that their show of commitment to the peacekeeping efforts will encourage other nations to follow in their footsteps.

In addition to patrolling the Lebanese-Israeli border, talks have begun regarding the Syrian-Lebanese border. Israel wants the UN force to patrol the Syrian border in addition to the Lebanese border to ensure that no weapons can reach Hezbollah. It will not lift air and sea blockades unless the UN helps Lebanon do so. However, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said the Syrian-Lebanese border will be closed if UN forces deploy there. This would cut Lebanon off from any land access. The Syrian government would view UN deployment on their border as a hostile move, and believe it would negate the sovereignty of Lebanon.

Manpower aside, the real test of UNIFIL forces will be whether or not they can help establish peace and security on the Israeli-Lebanese border. And by ‘help establish peace’ I mean truly assist the governments of Israel and Lebanon in taking diplomatic efforts and applying them to the field. An upgraded UN force in Lebanon will only be as useful and strong as the political agreements that put it there.

Vote or Die

2006-08-22T13:30:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

This past week the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo have taken an unfortunate turn. The results have recently come in for the race for president, the first free election in the DR Congo in over 40 years.An impressive 70% of voters turned out for this historic event. In the top two positions are Joseph Kabila with 45% of the vote and Jean-Pierre Bemba with 20% of the vote. Election rules state that if a candidate does not recieve at least 50% of the popular vote, there must be a runoff between the top two candidates. This weekend, tensions excalated between supporters of candidates, involving gun battles.

All sides are suffering from this conflict, a remenant of a long civil war that has plagued the region for years. While UN peacekeeping forces have been able to calm the area somewhat, run-off elections are not until October. From now until that time anything could happen. While the UN peacekeeping force in the DR Congo is the largest peacekeeping force, it is clearly not enough. The EU and the Catholic Church have joined in condeming the violence and providing support. Spanish EU troops that were stationed nearby have joined the UN in a peacekeeping mission. For now, everything seems to be quiet. However, only time will tell. That said, I hope the rest of the world (the entire EU, the US, etc) joins in supporting the elections in the DR Congo. The elections will not be perfectly fair or accurate, but it is a start. Look how long it took the US to fix election fraud problems, and we have been a democracy since our founding. For the sake of the Congo and democracy throughout the world, these elections must be conducted, and they must end in a peacful transition of power. Everyone needs to be concerned with this, including the US. Hopefully no other assistance will be needed, but if there is additional conflict, I hope the world steps up and doesn't let the DR Congo fall back into the cycle of war and poverty.

Lions and Tigers and Taxes, Oh My!

2006-08-18T09:08:00.000-04:00

by Leigh Bernstein

I had never heard of the concept of a UN Global Tax before today. However after some web research I’ve found it to be a pretty interesting idea. Essentially, the UN wants to tax the people of the world and use the garnered funds to support the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

As far as I can tell, there have been no official UN resolutions on the Global Tax. However, a lot of ideas about what to tax have been thrown around over the past decade. The frontrunners are international air travel, fossil fuels, arms sales, environment/ ‘polluters pay,’ and the Internet.

Proponents of a UN Global Tax, including Brazil and France, say that a Global Tax will create much needed revenue for invaluable UN initiatives, and will help cover the $50 billion cost of the MDGs, many of which are falling off course. Supporters also state that promises of aid by developed nations often go unfulfilled and that UN dues are decreasing. The Global Tax will help bolster the UN’s relief efforts and help the MDGs come to fruition. If a tax on fossil fuels was enacted, advocates believe that it would promote sustainable patters of consumption. For example, a global carbon tax will, in theory, reduce consumption of fossil fuels and boost the attractiveness of non-fossil based energy sources.

However those against the Global Tax, like the United States and Japan, say that instead of demanding more money, the UN, IMF, OECD and World Bank should get their acts together and stop wasting the money they have. The United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development stated, “If the U.N., OECD, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the rest would put their own houses in order and seriously fight corruption in the developing world, not one additional penny of development aid would be needed…If the U.N. and the other international organizations obtain the right to directly tax, you can be assured most of the world's productive people will grow relatively poorer and less free, while the international bureaucratic class will become relatively richer.” Critics worry that a Global Tax is dangerous because it postulates that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations. A representative from the Untied States called the Tax “inherently undemocratic and impossible to implement.”

In fact this June the US House of Representatives passed a bill which prohibits the Treasury from paying dues to the UN if it tries to impose or implement any kind of tax on US citizens. This July, the Senate has introduced the “Protection Against UN Taxation Act of 2006.” This bill would require the US to withhold 20 percent of its subsidy to the UN if it develops, advocates or endorses any proposal “concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States national or any income earned in the United States in order to raise revenue for the United Nations, any foreign government, or any international organization."

But maybe a Global Tax isn’t such a bad idea. Maybe it’s just the word ‘tax’ that gets us scared. Would it really kill us if literally $1 were added to the cost of an international flight? You can’t use it to buy that bottle of water to carry on anyways. Who knows if a Global Tax would even work, but I say it’d be worth all our whiles, and the whiles of those needlessly dying in the developing world, to give it a good, hard look before running for the hills.

Cultural Diffusion

2006-08-17T15:54:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

From early explores along the silk road to European sailors traveling to distant oceans, travel for business and pleasure has been a way for cultures to interact. They exchange goods, ideas, techniques, languages, you name it. And in the long run, it is usually all for the best (I am excluding the exchange of weapons and diseases in this mix). Recently, however, travel has brought on some new cultural exchanges in the form of airport security.

The United States has started a process of screening facial expressions for suspicious characters. Besides many of the obvious problems with this, (the first being that terrorist will start recruiting Academy Award winners for their activities and thereby completely avoid the problem), many consider it a violation of freedom of speech. Great opposition to this process was displayed by New York Times readers on a blog that, among many things, pointed out most travelers are agitated, anxious, and angry- some of the main facial expressions airport officials would be looking for. Many are afraid this will create a new form of racial profiling. Others tout that it is a small price to pay for safety. Either way, we will most likely be regretting this decision later down the road when the threats and the hype die down. For instance, at one point in time the Patriot Act was supported by many. Now the Act and similar security processes, like screening phone calls, are being rethought by the public. They have also been rethought by the courts, who recently decided that listening in on private phone calls is indeed an invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately, that last little bit hasn’t reached European officials yet. What has been spread through our cultural exchanges is not only terrorism, but fear and suspicion. European officials are uniting in their efforts to fight terrorism, and hoping to collaborate more in order to have more effective procedures across the board. This is a great idea. Countries should share knowledge, resources, and ideas to make the world a better, safer place. With these ideas, however, come some disturbing notions. One thing the officials are considering is banning websites that encourage people to join terrorist organizations. Now, I am not for encouraging any violence or terrorism, but provided all the website does is present ideas (good or bad), that is not in itself illegal. Then there is the question of what is terrorism, what is incitement, etc.

There are many questions that need to be answered before such a bold move is made, and for the sake of freedom we should take our time in discussing them. The US has too often jumped the gun on these issues and later has to deal with the backlash of violations of civil liberties. I hope this tactic is one that our European counterparts with not adopt. Cooperative efforts and information exchange can benefit everyone, but not if we loose are individual rights in the process. What good is it that in the process of taking down threats to freedom and democracy we give up our own rights?

Crossroads

2006-08-16T13:21:00.001-04:00

by Evan Harris

Two things have been made clear following this conflict with Israel and Hezbollah. First, Israel is extremely vulnerable to future attacks following this indecisive military operation. And second, and much more importantly, something’s cooking in the Middle East.

It’s not the smell of napalm in morning, or even the smell of the obliterated buildings. It’s the smell of conspiracy and immeasurable trouble.

Let me elaborate.

I came across a couple articles over the Internet, hoping to further enlighten me into the month-long conflict. These websites left me feeling angry and queasy. First let me say, during my tenure as a Student Alliance blogger, I’ve tried to be a neutral party. I have strong feelings about the state of Israel, but my conscious also afforded me with sympathy towards the Lebanese. And my sentiment towards Lebanon has only increased, but my disdain for Iran and Syria has shot through the proverbial roofs.

The Middle East Media Research Institute listed on its site a bevy of articles from Arab newspapers regarding allegations that Syria and Iran were directly involved in this conflict. The first blurb from Lebanese columnist Huda Al-Husseini, who wrote in the London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat read: "These two countries [Syria and Iran] want to leave their troubles behind, and both of them are holding some of the same cards, including Hamas and Hezbollah.” It went on to say the following: Syria wanted to break out of its isolation in Lebanon in order to evade the consequences of the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri. Iran wanted to avoid giving any response to the proposal regarding limiting its nuclear proliferation. When the issue of uranium enrichment was about to reach the Security Council, the abduction of the two IDF soldiers occurred. What ensued was a carefully constructed plot to divert attention away from Iran, bring the need of Syrian help to Lebanon, and propagate Israeli hatred to the region via the Lebanese assault.

Sounds pretty heavy, I know. I’m just relaying what an Arab newspaper wrote. Of course it’s all opinion. Except for the fact that the Israelis have found definitive proof that Syria and Iran gave weaponry to Hezbollah. So maybe, Mr. Husseini was right. Maybe Iran and Syria used Hezbollah as a puppet to bring their “Zionist enemy” into an unachievable victory. Their own Vietnam. A fight against guerillas, supported by a bigger enemy.

Other dispatch articles on the Middle East Media Research Institute site echoed the same sentiment. “If the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers had been carried out during an Israeli offensive in South Lebanon, or during fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, this escapade might have been justifiable. But the timing of the operation was puzzling, and clearly indicates Iranian involvement in the crisis,” wrote 'Abd Al-Rahim 'Ali in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram.

Another article implicates America using Israel like Iran may have used Hezbollah. Now I don’t agree that America pushed Israel directly nor do they manipulate Israeli- policy. But I do agree with this statement by Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim, chief editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhuriyya: “The next struggle in the Arab world will be a struggle between two axes or camps - the Iranian [axis] and the American [axis] - and Lebanon seems to be the first instance of a struggle between the two... These two axes are seeking to wage war on their own behalf, or by employing proxies so as to not dirty their own hands…”

The latter articles were from Syrian newspapers, justifying Hezbollah’s actions and not imparting any blame on itself or Iran. Who do you believe? My conscious tells me Syria and Iran did orchestrate this disaster. I also believe America wants to do something about Iran militarily, but without direct involvement. I believe the Arab neighbors need to act diplomatically in curtailing Iranian and Syrian influence in that area. I believe Israel needs seek similar diplomatic measures, but also prepare itself militarily for a defensive.

I believe the world is at its own crossroads. The Middle East is burdened with heavy influence, seeing as it is the focus of every international issue and controls energy sources the major powers in the world feed off of. Maybe its time the world develops alternatives to oil, limiting the say of these power-craving lunatics in Iran and Syria. Maybe its time the Bush administration thinks ethically and morally before its term is up, leaving on a good note, opposed to leaving the world in a bad situation. Maybe its time we tell it like it is: a prelude, to a lasting peace or to a devastating world war.

The End is Near

2006-08-14T10:56:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

A cease-fire has finally been implemented in Lebanon, halting the hostilities for an indefinite amount of time. The question is whether this struggle will truly end with the new UN proposal.

I’m going to take the optimistic route for once because everyone, including myself at times, is naturally cynical. It’s in the nature of every American, and every person, to question one’s logic. Heck, that’s what America’s founded on, having the freedom to openly criticize one’s perspectives without fear of consequence. And while I normally take the skeptical approach in all matters political, I think I’m going to jump off the "Negative Nancy" bandwagon and ride the ship of buoyancy.

The war is over!

After thousands of civilian deaths, all of which created further tension and more hatred towards Israel, a cease-fire has been employed. Now let the peace begin. Just as the cease-fire was agreed upon, leave it to our players to pound their respective targets hours before the cessation of hostilities actually occurred. But no matter. A UN proposal was agreed upon by the two main principal parts, Lebanon and Israel, and the Security Council voted for approval.

I don’t care that the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said that Hezbollah will continue to fight the IDF as long as they are on Lebanese soil. And it doesn’t matter that while Israel waits for international forces in Southern Lebanon, it will continue to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks. Remember, its defensive not offensive. And the conflict is over...

I don’t care that the UN proposal asked for 15,000 Lebanese soldiers to be deployed to Southern Lebanon, when the Lebanese army “has no modern tanks, no air force — only a handful of Vietnam-era helicopters — and its modest budget goes mostly for salaries.” But no matter— the Lebanese Army has roughly 3,000 troops intended for “dealing with fractious local elements like Palestinian or Islamic militants.”

Now that the UN proposal is to go into effect (once the international forces finally arrive in Lebanon, joining the Lebanese army), the situation can be stabilized. I mean, it doesn’t matter that no where in the proposal does it demand for the disarmament of Hezbollah, or at least relocating the fundamentalists.

Because the crisis is over! Now the world can focus on other important issues, like global warming, poverty, Iran, new terrorist threats, North Korea, energy scarcity, child fatalities and interplanetary attacks by extraterrestrials from the planet Marklar (yes, a South Park reference).

Look, sarcasm aside, I do believe the cease-fire and the UN proposal are steps forward. But there are tons of issues on the table before we can take a breather. For example, the underlying issue is reconstruction in Lebanon. The Lebanese and the Arab League will certainly demand Israel to provide financial support for all the infrastructure damage it caused. Will they do so easily? It is anybody’s guess. But I’m the optimist remember (of course, despite the sarcasm)? And the world finally cut through that bothersome bureaucracy to preserve the remaining lives. Well done.

What If My Hands Get Dry In-Flight?

2006-08-11T09:25:00.000-04:00

by Leigh Bernstein

Better leave that water at home and pack the sun block in your checked luggage. Today in London, British authorities announced that they have uncovered a scheme by terrorists to use liquid-explosives to blow up airplanes traveling between Britain and the US. 21 suspects have been apprehended in London and nearby cities, but officials believe that others may still be at large. The liquid substances—to be brought aboard in carry-on luggage—are not volatile on their own but can easily be mixed on board to create a bomb. The terrorists had not yet boarded any planes with the liquids, but officials report that plans were in their final stages.

At London’s Heathrow Airport news of the thwarted plot have caused airline authorities to ban passengers from bringing ANY carry-on luggage on flights. Passengers have been given clear plastic bags in which to place limited personal effects including passports, wallets and keys. In addition, portable music players, cell phones and other small electronic devices that could be potential detonators are for now prohibited on flights.

In the United States, the information has prompted airlines to temporarily ban passengers from bringing any liquids aboard in carry on luggage, except baby formulas and medications. Banned liquids include hair gel, lotion, toothpaste and other products of similar consistency.

The Transportation Security Administration’s website states, “These measures will be constantly evaluated and updated when circumstances warrant. [Department of Homeland Security] and its components have coordinated closely with the air carrier industry, airports, and state and local stakeholders to implement these significant, but necessary, security measures.”

It’s unclear how long these restrictions will remain in place. However, what is clear is that terrorists will find a way to bring harm to others, regardless of what they can and cannot bring onto a plane or anywhere else. With these new airplane regulations (which I’m not saying are right or wrong, that’s for another time) it’s like we are trapping the mouse without plugging the mouse hole. It might work now, but how much is it really going to help in the long-run? And from my experience with mice—and terrorists—there are always more waiting behind the wall.

No Laughing Matter

2006-08-10T12:15:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

“Iran said today that they cloned a sheep. They are going to use the wool to pull over the UN’s eyes,” joked Jay Leno on The Tonight Show.

Of course I understand this is only a jokle and nothing to get riled up about, but I have heard similar comments made in all seriousness from many people I know. I am not going to debate the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment, but I would like to clarify what we are talking about when we say “the UN”. Popular opinion seems to be against the UN because of their lack of action taken in many areas, whether it is nuclear proliferation or human rights, etc. What most people forget, however, is that the UN is not some independent entity that makes all its own decisions. Rather, the UN is an organization representing 192 countries around the globe. The UN is us. The UN is Iran. The UN is Russia. So for someone to accuse the UN of ignorance seems like an easy way for the US to promote their position. We simply remove ourselves from the equation; wash our hands of the matter, so to speak.

But the US sits in the Security Council, which is in charge of reviewing threats to international security. So either we have been played the fool or we are part of the conspiracy, if Mr. Leno’s statement is to be taken seriously. However, neither is true. Has Iran been completly honest with the UN? I feel confident in saying I highly doubt it. Has the US been completly open and honest with the UN? Again, I am going to venture to say no. But we are protecting our national soveriegnty, so it’s okay. You see, we are the good guys, and we know it, so it is alright to step away from getting UN approval when the UN is not on our side. But the Iranians are up to no good, so they cannot be given the luxury of the benefit of the doubt given to the super powers. Now I am not saying we should let Iran start creating nuclear weapons, I am just saying the US needs to realize we are just as much apart of this as any other country. We are not seperate from the UN or the rest of the world. We are all in it together and should be held by the same standards.

The double-standard issue is what is actually driving the Iraninan nuclear conflict. It is not that Iran has some hypnotic power over the UN. The problem (or benefit if you believe in international cooperation) is that as I said before, the UN is not independent. The US is the UN and they say no dice on enriched Uranium. But Russia and China are also on the Security Council with the same veto power as the US. Russia and China are also the UN. And both of those countries empathize with Iran. They feel that the US is undermining their countires own defense forces by providing too many regulations and restrictions. For isntance, the US is sanctioning a Russian arms exporter because they allegedly support Iran. What is ironic is that it the whole national soveriegnty card has been played by the US time after time, especially when it comes to the International Criminal Court. Yet when other countries do the same thing the US calls foul. What really needs to be done is all players need to come to the UN and lay their cards out on the table. Then maybe we will begin to hear some real dialogue somewhere other than late night talk shows.

Let It Flow

2006-08-09T16:09:00.000-04:00

by Josh Rosenthal

It seems that money isn’t the only thing on platinum-selling rap artist and CEO Jay-Z’s mind these days. Always one to think grandiose, Jay once uttered “Jiggy Jigga lookin’ gully in the joint / If you all ain’t talkin’ about large money / what’s the point?” Today, the rapper stepped up the plate and once again has shown us that he’s only capable thinking big by working with MTV and the UN to promulgate information about clean water shortages around the globe to America’s youth.

At a press conference with MTV president Christina Norman and Kofi Annan at UN headquarters, Jay-Z, born Shawn Carter, announced plans to create a documentary about the developing world’s water crisis. Similar to record mogul Russell Simmons, Mr. Carter is serving as an ambassador for the UN and the international humanitarian community to the Hip Hop Generation.

The documentary will be shot this fall as Jay travels the world on a concert tour. Cameras will follow the rapper as he visits poor areas affected by a lack of clean water. The documentary, titled “Diary of Jay-Z: Water for Life, is slated to air November 24 on MTV.

Unbroken Chain of Events

2006-08-07T12:23:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

I was never a fan of science or philosophy in school, nor did I ever have an aptitude in such subjects. However, I believe every answer to every question can be conceptual— meaning, there is no concrete solution to anything. But I’m going to bring up a theory that, historically, has been open to interpretation: Determinism. Determinism is the theoretical suggestion that every event, including any human thought or action, is causally determined by an “unbroken chain of prior occurrences.”

This idea is seen in the on-going Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Of course, this theory is applicable to anything associated with the Middle East— the 1982 Lebanon War, the Yom Kippur War, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and even go back to the Crusades when Christian missionaries and Europe hierarchies raided the Holy Land and slaughtered many Muslims.

But I’m not making reference to those events. The theory of determinism is pretty straightforward, right? I can’t go into work because I’m sick. I’m sick because I was out in the rain. I was out in the rain because I went to a Mets game. I was at a Mets game because my father got me tickets. And so on.

Again, determinism has many different interpretations. Some believe free will and determinism are polar opposites while others feel they are interrelated. Scottish philosopher David Hume argued “that while it is possible that one does not freely arrive at one's set of desires and beliefs (determinism), the only meaningful interpretation of freedom relates to one's ability to translate those desires and beliefs into voluntary action (free will).”

Where am I going with this? Speaking very generally, the events unfolding in Lebanon are going to create a chain of events that will further determine the future in that area. You may be saying, “That’s not determinism. That’s common sense.” Maybe it’s both. But these events have started a new path of consequence, so to speak.

Israel’s 26-day offensive in Lebanon has the Arab world up in arms. America has been ineffective in facilitating any proposal for cease-fire. The United Nations has been slothful in fashioning a proposal to end the conflict (not the whole body’s fault, a few countries were acting leisurely). In all this time, Israel has operated air strikes that have killed scores of civilians, while Hezbollah has instigated Israel with similar civilian casualties. Lebanon Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has been tearful in every address, and recently referred to the death of his people as “martyrs.” Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, said at a news conference that “they reject any proposal that does not address issues agreed upon by the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.”

Agreed upon? They probably want Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, not to disarm Hezbollah. What seems to be happening is that these preceding events have strengthened the alliance between Hezbollah and Lebanon. And now, to further accentuate this suspicion, Hezbollah is providing Lebanon with aid.

Ah yes, determinism.

Perhaps, prior to a certain juncture in the past handful of weeks, Lebanon would’ve denounced Hezbollah and sought a quick truce if Israel relented, and if the US backed a cease-fire, and if the UN produced a resolution in days, not weeks. But we see now with Lebanon rejecting the UN proposal, backed by the US and France, the future can only be determined by the unbroken chain of prior events that has transpired in the past 26 days.

Bring the Heat

2006-08-04T15:06:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

The heat wave is over. And no one is happier to see it leave than me. But its time for reflection— serious reflection. Many places around the world experienced record highs in temperatures. Heat waves are normal in the summer, no one can dispute that. But some things in our climate are changing. Hotter summers, fiercer hurricanes and lightning storms, earthquakes in Ohio, blizzards in South Africa. I don’t know about anyone else, but maybe its time we recognize global warming and its effect on our culture, climate, and future.

Scientists may say it’s a natural shuffle in the Earth’s continuing cycle; others insist it’s our self-caused global warming that is triggering climate change; and others are saying it’s the end of the world. The latter shouldn’t be taken into consideration, but the first two should. Though both are opposing viewpoints, it’s important to know all expert opinions. More importantly, we should know the stakes.

TIME senior writer Michael D. Lemonick wrote that, “So while it's true that 1944 was one of the 20 hottest years on record, the other 19 have happened since 1983. That's clearly a trend. And if the vast majority of climate experts are right, it's only the beginning.”

I am not a scientist. But common sense tells me we have caused this monster. And it’s going to get bad. Maybe not in our lifetime, maybe not our children’s, but eventually cities are going to be under water, species are going to be extinct, and hurricanes are going to become violently stronger than they are now. Just imagine The Day After Tomorrow (vastly exaggerated situations in that movie, but over time, who really knows).

Look, the point is, we’re experiencing the products of our negligence.

Representatives in office have yet to constructively address the severity of this problem. And since the United States produces roughly 25% of all greenhouse emissions, its America’s responsibility to lead the way in changing our culture to benefit Mother Earth. This is no hippie propaganda. We’re experiencing global warming. Everyone needs to take their heads out of the sand for once and finally tackle this crisis.

Need to Focus on Fatalities

2006-08-03T14:26:00.000-04:00

by Leigh Bernstein

Did you know that world-wide over 4 million newborns die each year, mostly in the developing world? Did you know that over 4 million newborns are born in the United States each year? What if every newborn born in the United States this year died within 28 days of birth? That might make you stop and wonder, what’s going on?

In Africa 1 in 16 women will die during pregnancy or childbirth, while only 1 in 3,700 will meet the same fate in North America. These women are not dying from freak accidents or rare diseases. They are dying because they give birth alone at home. They are dying because they do not have access to basic obstetric care. And they are dying because family planning practices are nearly unheard of.

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) represent an un-matched effort to meet the needs of the world’s poorest. They have the support of all 192 UN member nations and are clearly defined, ranging from universal primary education to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS. This year’s highlighted goal is goal 5: maternal health and well-being. As the year 2015 approaches, the MDGs are being looked at with an increasingly critical eye. And although gains have been made and success stories have been written, most nations are veering off the course to achieving their 2015 goals.

In order to improve maternal health cutting edge technologies are not needed, nor are expensive equipments and treatments. What are needed are expansions in low-tech interventions such as vaccines for mothers and newborns, birthing kits to promote safe delivery environments and widespread pre and post-natal care. Developed nations have the capital and resources to save millions of lives each year through these inexpensive and effective methods, but are yet to fully honor the commitment they made when the MDGs were developed.

Professor Gary Darmstadt of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University has taken this a step further and outlined how much it would cost to prevent these needless deaths. For example, in Africa the additional annual cost of implementing devices that are proven to save mothers’ and newborns’ lives is $1 billion, saving up to 740,000 lives each year. In all this comes to $1.39 per capita in extra costs. Not very much is it?

October 24th signifies the 61st birthday of the UN. As this day nears, I hope everyone can take the time to look at the issues facing the developing world, paying special attention to maternal health. The harsh reality of pregnancy and childbirth in the developing world is too often one of death that could have been prevented. The UN needs to re-commit and re-focus its programs and resources in order to stop the needless suffering that is taking place around the world.

The UN Is Not Your Whipping Boy

2006-08-03T13:13:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

Today, the New York Times reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the United Nations Security Council is close to finalizing plans for a cease fire in the middle east. While that is indeed good news, I have one problem: why is Mr. Blair announcing this and not the Security Council or the Secretary General? While the superpowers need to play key roles in negotiations and in helping stabilize conflict areas around the world, the UN needs to be playing a larger role. If all parties involved come to an agreement through a third party organization like the UN, the decisions made seem fair and legitimate to all sides. Instead, many see the UN as being controlled by a few select players.

The US and UK have held out on asking for a cease fire until long term plans could be put into place for peace in the region, specifically the disarmament of Hezbollah. Yet now they have decided that a short-term solution will have to do. Similarly, the Organization of the Islamic Conference also is asking for a cease-fire and greater UN involvement. Yet they too, just like the US and UK, have stipulations. Instead of punishing Hezbollah, they want agreement that Israel will be brought on charges for war crimes. Yet there is common ground here, all sides are concerned about civilian death and want a cease-fire. Therefore, they should make this happen. They can have more conferences later on where they hash out whose fault this should be. Both sides seem to be playing chicken with each other, saying they will not ask for a cease-fire until it is guaranteed their opponents will be brought down. This, I must say, is childish. It seems as though the UN exists for nothing, if this is the attitude of diplomats around the world. Everyone wants greater UN involvement, but they want the involvement to favor them. No one is willing to compromise or come to a consensus, which is really what the UN should be. Therefore, I am challenging the world leaders to stop acting like a bunch of teenage boys caught in a drag race and set an example for how civilized people should deal with their conflicts.

Room to Right Cuba with 'Practical Castro'

2006-08-02T15:34:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

The recent new of Cuban President Fidel Castro came as a shock to most. Even powers around the world were surprised by the communist leader’s relinquishing of power to his brother, Raul. Unless Fidel dies following surgery, the 79-year-old dictator, who has ruled Cuba since his guerilla rebellion overthrew the incumbent government in 1959, will retain his title and authority soon.

But why not look towards the future? Because lets be honest, the man will be in the ground within the next couple decades, and far sooner if these illnesses become consistent. Raul Castro, the Defense Minister and the commanding General of the Cuban armed forces, is depicted as Fidel’s hard-line, socialist enforcer. But Raul is also called "the practical Castro.”

In a recent TIME article, former CIA analyst Brian Latell saw potential change in the Cuban regime. While many onlookers speculate that he'll “actually bring a less confrontational, more reform-minded rule to the communist island,” Latell could see the new leader continuing much of the callous political rule but allowing more private enterprise and providing better economic opportunities for Cubans, like in China.

What does this mean for the rest of the world? Maybe nothing. Maybe something. Maybe a shift in power will provide a window of opportunity for world leaders to make waves on the Caribbean island in the form of human rights reform.

The International Study for Human Rights (ISHR) monitors the human rights situation in Cuba closely. According to ISHR, “the Communist regime is one of the worst violators of basic liberties in the world.” Freedom of speech and religion are not tolerated, with Christian leaders often being arrested for political opposition. Furthermore, the Castro dictatorship has arrested heaps of journalists, librarians, and human rights activists, to name a few, on account of simple dissidence. The United Nations Commission for Human Rights (UNCHR) should use the potential exchange of power, when it happens, to address these violations. All members of the UNCHR are held accountable for protecting civil liberties in their own country. And since Cuba is a member, pressuring the new Castro (again, when it happens) may right a wronged ship.

Israel's War on Crime

2006-08-02T09:51:00.000-04:00

by Samuel Robinson

As the bombings in southern Lebanon continue and the number of casualties increases daily, the consequences of Israel's actions seems to loom larger everyday. Today, Human Rights Watch has declared Israel's bombing of Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon as "indiscriminate" and ultimately their inability to distinguish between civilians and militants nothing short of a war crime. Part of the blame should surely lay with Israel, as they have denounced the idea of a permanent ceasefire and don't seem at all apprehensive when it comes to firing into civilian zones. However, Hezbollah's war tactics, which includes firing rockets from civilian areas, certainly doesn't give Israel much of a choice when it comes to differentiating between civilian and combatant.

The idea that Israel is actually concerned not only their own citizens but for the future of the Lebanese people should be considered by organizations like Human Rights Watch. The livelihood of the Lebanese people extends not only into tomorrow, but also into the coming years and Hezbollah will continue to pose a threat as long as they carry an agenda that ignores the prospects for peace. So while from a human rights standpoint it may be inexplicable to call the killings of innocent civilians "progress", Israel's "war crimes" may lead to preventing more serious instances of human rights abuses in the future.

Iran From the Middle East

2006-08-01T13:31:00.000-04:00

by Nicholas Tilipman

It is clear that conflict in the Middle East is escalating. On Sunday, Israeli bombs killed more approximately 56 Lebanese in one attack. I’ll be honest, for a while I thought the crisis had managed to take attention away from Iran and its controversial nuclear program. Apparently, I was wrong.

Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council, for the first time since Iran announced its nuclear program, demanded that it suspend nuclear enrichment. Sure, the council has deliberated for the majority of the summer on the issue, but now it is finally getting tough; it is finally getting serious (or so I think). Iran has until August 31st to respond to a European package of incentives, or else it will face “undefined punishment.” Russia and China, both of which have permanent seats and votes on the Security Council, have thus far been wavering on the subject. They have agreed to continue deliberations before they consented to political and economic sanctions.

This is a bold move by the United Nations. As an intern for UNA-USA, I have had many opportunities to attend Security Council meetings on a variety of pressing issues, including the UN Mission to Kosovo and the crisis in the Middle East. Although I think the council is indispensable, my main disappointment was that it seemed that the council deliberated too much on impending issues and held too many “private consultations” instead of implementing policy. Let’s hope that this time, the United Nations has put its foot down.

It is good that despite the differences of opinions (especially between the United States and France) on Israel’s actions, most members can agree that they must not be distracted from the situation in Iran. Although I think it is unlikely that Iran or Syria will be daunted by UN actions, I for one am glad that the UN has demonstrated that it does not get daunted by them.

Easy to Forget

2006-07-31T12:16:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

This blog is mostly based around international and UN-related news. But the UN Human Rights Committee has just reported on something domestic for those in America. And thanks to this statement by the committee, I feel obligated to comment on an awful disaster that worsened in the days following the tragedy and to endorse a documentary by a brilliant director.

The committee reported that the United States neglected the rights of "disadvantaged" poor and African-Americans citizens. The committee said Washington should be more diligent in guaranteeing that their rights are taken into consideration in rebuilding those communities.

It is really sad how absentminded Americans can be, myself included. Months after Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi and the waters receded, the focus on New Orleans and the Gulf area dissipated. Many were still aware of the work that hasn’t been done down there, but the media, who controls what Americans should care about at times, stayed away from this story. Now, that may be a hypocritical accusation, considering the majority of my posts on this blog are on Israel and Lebanon. As it is, work is not done down there. My friend, who goes to Tulane University, stayed in New Orleans to work during the summer and echoed the same sentiment of those with open eyes. Residential areas, of mostly poor and African-Americans, are in shambles. New Orleans is one of many places decimated by Katrina, but the Big Easy generated profits from tourism. How can a major city land on its feet without substantial help from the local and federal governments? I don’t have the answer. But maybe Spike Lee has insight for you.

An HBO-documentary created by Lee, When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts will premier at the New Orleans Arena on August 16 before debuting on HBO August 22-23. I believe it’s worth a look. The US has made some strides since the civil rights movement, but the division between the rich and the poor is not just seen in income, but in priorities. For a world power critical on everyone else, maybe its time they look in the mirror.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my last entry, an individual commented on the “tone” of my post and he or she ripped apart the position I took. Unfortunately for this reader, he or she completely misunderstood my thinking. I did not endorse Israel’s actions in the article; I clearly said Israel is doing what they are doing because of the Holocaust, and I gave a historical outlook on why Israel has been very responsive and mistrustful of its neighbors. Not that they should do it, but that they are doing it because of the past. I said: “Israel’s motives for a continual strike in southern Lebanon have to be looked at in a historical context.” That suggests perception, not justification.

Reading the article thoroughly is essential because many on this blog are commenting on very sensitive subjects. No matter what the stance is, it is always going to strike a nerve with someone. With that said, realize that picking the wrong language may result in misinterpretation, just as misinterpretation on something depicted clearly is a result of stupidity. But even still, I encourage similar comments on all posts.

This Blogging Thing Is Harder Than It Looks...

2006-07-27T16:12:00.000-04:00

By Leigh Bernstein

It was refreshing to get the other side of the story. The United States Government usually leans toward Israel’s side when conflicts arise and our media outlets typically follow suit. Hearing Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, the Permanent Rep. from the Syrian Arab Republic to the UN and Ambassador Riyad Mansour from the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the UN talk about the current situation in the Middle East and what the role of the UN should be opened my eyes, and gave me some more insight into this mess.

The two Ambassadors called for UN sanctions on Israel to follow the limitations set forth by Security Council resolutions and an Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands. Ambassador Ja’afari stressed that the UN needs to provide more than a framework for peacekeeping negotiations and undertake a pivotal role in the Middle East. In addition he noted that until a credible and viable solution is created the violence will not stop and the peace and stability of the entire world will be at risk.

This last comment is something to stop and think twice about. Aside from keeping updated on current events—and being the worldly people we are—why is it important for us to follow the crisis in the Middle East? It is because the entire world is tied to it. For better or worse, the United States is politically linked to Israel and other nations have similarly seemingly subjective standpoints as well. Two weeks can turn into four weeks before you know it, and my guess is that things are only going to get worse.

Writing this has been way too hard and I didn’t even say much. There are so many facets to this crisis that my brain hurts when I think about it. But I’ll leave you with this. When you break it down, doesn’t everything come back to religion? And even if the UN goes in and the Security Council puts action behind its words, how do you reason with people willing to fight to their deaths for a cause?

Today’s panel The Role of the UN in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: An Effective Mediator? Featuring Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari, the Permanent Representative from the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations and Ambassador Riyad Mansour, Ambassador from the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations was sponsored by the UNA-USA.

Deja Vu

2006-07-27T15:45:00.000-04:00

By: Megan Levanduski

As I read the international news day after day, I feel as though I must have made a mistake. Perhaps I picked up last weeks paper by mistake?. At this I know I am not crazy, as this was acknowledged today by a New York Times writer. The article was about the crises in Darfur, Sudan and in the Congo, and how Rwanda is a telling example of how the two conflicts might turn out. Despite the fact that Darfur is labeled as genocide, and the Congo is labeled as civil war, the inter-fighting that has emerged in both areas is remarkably similar. The problem is that while history repeats itself, we have yet to learn from it.

If the same conflicts are arising in one area as they are in another, be it drugs, war, human trafficking, etc., we should try to come up with solutions that address that issue, not just that country. While each region of the world has its own culture and in many ways must be dealt with as an individual, we have missed out on many opportunities to do good by having a one-track mind. For instance, why has the crisis in the Middle East gone on for over sixty years and little progress has been made? This crisis has not always been Palestinian-Israeli contained. It has involved many different countries at different points in time. So why can’t someone come up with a solution that involves all sides, so that in a few years time we aren’t back at square one, not just in the middle east, not just in the Congo, but everywhere? When is international cooperation really going to be just that? Right now road maps to peace look more like a u-turn than anything else.

You Have to Be Kidding Me

2006-07-26T15:46:00.000-04:00

by Josh Rosenthal

On Monday, Undersecretary General Radhika Coomaraswamy told the UN Security Council that approximately 250,000 children are involved in armed conflict worldwide. Before getting into anything else, I just wanted to highlight that number because it is quite concerning. Imagine a quarter of New York City’s public school students using guns on a daily basis.

Such horrific abuses of human rights are almost always found in civil wars, the majority of which in recent memory took place in Africa. Sierra Leone and Liberia are case studies for what happens when rebel groups fiending for fresh troops are allowed free reign in civilian areas. These groups abduct kids to fight in their conflicts. Along the same lines, militias that occupy localities often victimize and kidnap local civilian girls. It is hard for us to examine these conflicts though. But how does a nation or the UN go about fighting an army that is known to use children? After all, engaging with an army that employs children can subject you to myriad violations of international law. Can you kill kids for the sake of stopping an army that will forcefully recruit more children?

Historically, the UN does not intervene in civil wars unless there is a clear case for genocide. Although child abuse is not genocide, I think that destroying militant groups using children should be the duty of international forces. A large and well-equipped international force, of which the UN unfortunately rarely has access to, would be able to dominate a rebel group and dismantle its leadership with much more ease and less brutality than a poorly maintained national army. To minimize the brutality towards children, a better force, governed by international standards should be used to stop rebel groups that exploit children.

Israel's History Provides Insight into Intent

2006-07-25T13:59:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

The biggest outcry on the Israeli offensive has been proportionality. The use of force by Israel over the Lebanese has been disproportionate, as has the casualty count. Although I offer my deepest sympathies to the people of Lebanon who are now homeless and possession-less (and I truly wish Israel didn’t destroy the revitalized foundations in Beirut), Israel’s motives for a continual strike in southern Lebanon has to be looked at in a historical context.

The “thing to do” over the course of human history has been to blame the Jews. Sadly, persecution and maltreatment of Jews have been the one constant through an ever-changing world. Sentiment toward the Jewish people has never been a positive one. Most notably, Europe sought for the expulsion of Jews in the early 20th century through the persuasive language of Adolf Hitler. As much of a tyrannical monster as he was, Hitler was also a powerful speaker and an exceptional writer. He found blame for Germany’s economic struggles where culpability has fallen before, and his talents were the best medium to allocate this liability.

Eventually, six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Murdered. Starved. Tortured. And the lasting effects of the Holocaust are not just seen in the Middle East. They are seen around the world, where anti-semitism still lives. They are seen in third generation survivors, whose families were decimated psychologically.

Israel was founded following the Holocaust— it was a way for European Jews to establish a state free of executive discrimination. And leaders call out the United States for unwavering support of the Jewish state despite the crisis? The backing of Israel has been morphed over time in what we see today. In the past, specifically during World War II, the US was an isolationist-- believed that Europe's problem wasn't their own. And despite wanting to help the persecuted Jews, president Franklin Roosevelt gave in to public sentiment.

Although the majority of US citizens were opposed to assaults on Jews such as Kristallnacht (the ransacking of Jewish-owned stores, restaurants, and over 1500 synagogues), a Roper poll in the US spoke volumes on Jewish sentiment. “Only thirty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that Jews should be treated like everyone else. Fifty-three percent believed that ‘Jews are different and should be restricted.’ And ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.” In the winter of 1938-39 many Americans condemned helping “refu-jews.” And those that actually made it into the US were forced into the American army upon arrival.

I know many survivor stories, some more unbelievable than the next, and they didn’t endure one of the worst atrocities on record to see Jews blamed for more struggle in another destitute region. Israel’s disproportionate force in this current crisis is more of a statement to the world that overlooked the Jews for so long. Israel is not in the Middle East to cause strife or kick people out of their land. They are there to voice that once was will never be again.

Another Disappointment...

2006-07-25T13:44:00.000-04:00

by Nicholas Tilipman

On July 26, America’s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, paid a visit to Beirut in an attempt to sort out the escalating Middle East crisis diplomatically.

“I’m obviously right here because I’m deeply concerned about the Lebanese people,” Ms. Rice said to Nabih Berri, speaker of parliament.

Words like these provided a slight ray of hope that perhaps the United States was finally taking the right course of actions to end this “pointless war that no one may have wanted and no one can win,” as it was referred to by The Economist. After all, Ms. Rice did, prior to her visit, describe the urgency in achieving a ceasefire and stated that it was “extremely important that Israel exercise her restraint in its activities of self-defense.”

This sounds awfully similar to the criticisms of Israel’s “disproportionate” retaliation tactics posed by European nations, such as Britain. It did not sound like a comment presented by a nation which for the past week has been supporting Israel’s right to defend itself any way it can against Hezbollah. Indeed, this meant that maybe the United States was truly sincere and ready to step in to end the conflict, even if it meant convincing Israel to stop its incessant raids, which have thus far resulted in the deaths of approximately 370 Lebanese.

No deal. Unfortunately, Ms. Rice’s visit has not changed US sentiments or actions. America still seems to be backing the policy of giving Israel more time to attack Hezbollah. The United States wants to ensure that Hezbollah is significantly weakened to the point that it can no longer use Lebanon as the home-base for its “terrorist” operations.

Simply put, stakes are high—that is why neither region wants to back down. That is why Israel does not only wish to counter Hezbollah’s actions; it wants to pummel them and make sure they are completely incapable of provoking such conflicts in the future. The problem is that Israel’s actions do not seem to be getting anything done, aside from killing Lebanese civilians. There is no evidence to suggest that Hezbollah’s forces are getting any weaker, and Israel is treading a thin line before it inflames the entire region.

Now that it is clear that the United States is in absolutely no rush to help out, that slight ray of hope that Ms. Rice shined on us had faded. The US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has made it abundantly clear that America has no intention of sending in troops to mediate the conflict. It will continue to allow Israel to continue in its attempts to destroy Hezbollah, Hezbollah will never formally surrender, more Lebanese will suffer, and the crisis will continue to escalate.

The question now is whether other nations will send in international troops to aid in the peacekeeping. Well, according to today’s New York Times, “The United States has ruled out its soldiers’ participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are overcommitted, and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah […] would agree.” Therefore, sending in troops is a great idea; unfortunately, no one wants it to be their troops. This reminds me of when I was in the sixth grade and wanted to prank call some stores, but tried to convince my friends to do it for fear that I would be caught.

No one wants this conflict. What is needed is for the United States to finally step up and exercise some authority. It may not bring perpetual peace, but at least it has a firm chance of settling a conflict that no one wants to see anymore. Too bad the US is not any more audacious than I was in the sixth grade.

Smells Like Stalled Progress

2006-07-25T09:35:00.000-04:00

by Holleh Javidan

The coolest thing about being a part of UNA-USA is that we get access to UN meetings. Only open ones, of course, but the experience of being witness to the international dialogue that takes place in this fascinating arena is one that I will never forget. So when I found out today about a Security Council debate (it was open!), I definitely took the opportunity to see what exactly takes place in there. The topic of the meeting was Children in Armed Conflict. It provided an update on Resolution 1612, which was drafted one year ago by the Security Council to make progress on the problems that arise when the most vulnerable members of society are not only exposed to war, but often forced into combat and destroyed psychologically, if not sacrificed physically.

Many representatives of Security Council member states, as well as various NGOs, gave speeches on the progress that has been made since last July. The Special Representative for the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict spoke first, and explained that the first step of implementation has been taken, meaning that extensive monitoring and reporting mechanisms are now in place, but we now need to take action against repeat offenders and work to stop serious war crimes against children. Isn’t this where we always get stuck? Since the department I’m with, the American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court (AMICC), works hard to get members of the United Nations, especially the United States, to work with the ICC, I feel that the “next step” will be incredibly difficult to take, as it really means fully cooperating with international efforts to show the perpetrators of these acts that the world is willing to take actions against them.

Unless we become globally consistent in our approach to these crimes, they will continue, since there really is no incentive for them to stop. And since the effects of exposing children to war is felt by the community long into the future, as youth grow up without knowing how to do anything but make war, the ominous words of the Slovakian representative will likely ring true very soon: “The world will be judged by children. We all are.”

With or Without U(S)

2006-07-24T14:03:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

In the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, specific matters are undeniable. First, a humanitarian crisis is occurring in Lebanon. Second, the United States (more specifically, the Bush administration) has continuously showed its arrogance and ineffectiveness in making strides for peace in the region. And lastly, certain nations in the region are looking towards other powers for guidance and have established their own convictions.

Two of the aforementioned findings collided last weekend when a delegation from Saudi Arabia, including Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, met with President George W. Bush and other US officials. From previously backing Israel’s right to dismantle Hezbollah, the Saudis have had a change of heart, favoring a cessation of hostilities.

American officials had planned to ask the Saudis to press Syria to cut ties to Hezbollah, something they wanted to ask other moderate Arab allies, like Egypt and Jordan. The problem with that is the Saudis might not have much leverage with such countries. The US is incredibly wrong in this matter, and whatever influence they might have had in the Middle East is waning at an enormous rate.

“It is unbelievable that the U.S. will say to Israel you have one more week to wipe out Hezbollah — can you imagine someone saying you have one more week to kill Americans?” A Syrian official asked. “You can’t imagine the impact of this on the region.”

The Saudis are working on a proposal to end the crisis in Lebanon— which includes a ceasefire, prisoner exchange, Israeli withdrawal from Shaba farms, Lebanese armed forces deployment in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah relocation to the north.

Apparently, Sultan bin Abdul al-Aziz stated that the Saudi proposal received high praise with French President Jacques Chirac during his visit in Paris. The Saudis support Lebanon’s right to establish its sovereignty over its whole territory in accordance with the "Taif Agreement.”

It’s time for the US to jump on the bandwagon. You can’t buy friends with gifts, like the US is continuing to do. I say broker the peace and help out the people in Lebanon, first and foremost. In order to do so, you need to order a cease-fire.

Searching For Approval

2006-07-21T15:50:00.000-04:00

by Joshua Rosenthal

It is fair to say that most people at the UN know of John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN. They know he’s from America, but they can’t be sure that he represents America. Why’s that? He was never confirmed by for the job by our Congress. As you may know, President Bush appointed his controversial ally to the post while Congress was in recess last winter, effectively bypassing the legislative branch—you know, those men and women that the American people voted for.

I am going to leave my opinion of Amb. Bolton out of this, the jury’s still out anyway, but I am going to say it is ridiculous and insulting that he may be reappointed in the same manner in which he first gained the post. That is say, the US has an agent of President Bush’s in a position typically reserved for someone that is supposed to be affirmed by our entire legislator.

People at the UN, therefore, cannot view him as a legitimate representative for our state, which undermines the entire mission’s purpose. In his letter of support in the Washington Post this week, Republican Senator from Ohio George V. Voinovich, member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes: “For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time.” Just like a President who knows Congress will nix a treaty, Bolton is viewed as only a partial voice for our nation at this stage. For his part, Bolton has something to gain from congressional approval as well: a paycheck. If Bolton is appointed during the recess period again, he cannot be paid by the government, making him the lowest grossing graduate of Yale Law School I’d imagine.

A Subtle Progression

2006-07-20T14:55:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

I hope they know what they’re doing. The Congressmen and women of our country that is. The House, displaying an unusual camaraderie, voted tremendously in favor of supporting Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah. The resolution, which was passed on a 410-8 vote, also condemns any enemies of the Jewish state.

Cited in an AP news wire, House Republican leader John Boehner alluded to Israel's "unique relationship" with the United States as the reason why his contemporaries moved quickly to go on record supporting Israel in the conflict in Lebanon.

But again, they better know what they’re doing. While the rest of the world is standing in the middle for diplomacy (fancying it with little action, mind you), the US has stood on Israel’s side. Israel could be wearing one of those “I’m With Stupid” t-shirts very soon.

I’m not condemning Israel— their cause is just,; actions maybe not so. It’s the way the US has handled this situation that makes them “Stupid.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, the one the US is endorsing and supporting financially and militarily, vehemently condemned Israel. Many Shiite leaders in the Muslim world are calling out the US and Israel, simultaneously. And Iran, specifically, ready to take the reigns as the out-spoken leader in the Middle East, finally recognized the UN proposal for nuclear technology, but made something very clear; Iran may withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if sanctions are imposed on it.

Here’s better news (I’m being facetious): Iranian officials were witnessed to North Korea’s missile tests two weeks ago. So as Iran backs Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel, and now seems to operate with Pyongyang on potential nuclear weapons, the US may find it hard to avoid conflict with Iran, especially after going on record to overwhelmingly support Israel.

If I were “Stupid,” I’d ask for a cease-fire in Lebanon and diplomacy now, before trouble mounts.

The [Un]Decider

2006-07-20T12:37:00.000-04:00

by Megan Levanduski

A few days ago I predicted the G8 summit would receive little attention from the American media. Compared to our foreign counterparts, that was the case- with one exception. The New York Times, always up for a good esoteric laugh at the expense of anyone else, wrote a few articles about a conversation President Bush had with the other G8 leaders at lunch, United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Tony Blair in particular. Apparently, someone forgot to turn off a nearby microphone and the casual chatter at lunch was recorded. While Bush (surprisingly) said nothing offensive, he did once again justify remarks about his lack of eloquence, to say the least. Of particular concern was a comment made by the President stating he “felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad, make something happen.” This statement was referring to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the crisis currently arising between Lebanon and Israel.

The problem with all of this is that President Bush, and the US in general, tend to want to have it both ways. We don’t want to support the UN or any of their decisions, the new Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court. And we even complain about the budget, although the US contributes only 22% of the UN budget despite the fact that we make up 34%of the world economy. We want to get involved in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, but have no problem staying a safe distance from choosing a stand in the current conflict and many others like it around the world. The problem now is if we continue to support Israel, as we have for decades, we will loose a lot of credibility in the Middle East at a crucial time when we need cooperation. For instance, the Iraqi Prime Minister has condemned Israel. So who do we side with, Israel or Iraq, when we want to support both?

The US seems to be waiting around for others to make a decision that we can then criticize. President Bush, who has called himself the decider, whatever that may mean, only takes action or makes statements when it will benefit his cause. How can the US repeatedly undermine the UN, and then now blame slow progress on the UN? In the same conversation, Bush was also quoted as criticizing Annan for wanting a cease fire so each side can talk about their grievances. I don’t understand why calling for a compromise is a problem to President Bush. To me that is what the UN is all about, working differences out, not making sure a few select players always dominate the world agenda.

Whether I agree with someone’ policies or not, I at least respect people who stand up for what they believe in on a consistent basis. The US however, seems to want the world to follow our whimsical politics and always take our side. Since President Bush is so found of including religion in his politics, I will quote the bible for him: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is not fair to ask the world to side with us when we aren’t willing to participate in international cooperation because it conflicts with national interests (or in terms of the government, our national sovereignty). It does not make us less American or less in control to share power and learn to compromise. If we don’t want to be consistently active in world affairs, we should return to isolationism. Otherwise it is not a good idea to jump in only when we feel like it. No wonder world opinion of America is so negative.

So, President Bush (and America): if you want others to decide for you, stop calling yourself the decider.

Time To Step In, Now

2006-07-19T15:38:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, according to an AP news wire, said that Lebanon has been torn apart. "Is the value of human life in Lebanon less than that of the citizens of other countries?" he asked.

You can’t help but sympathize with their citizens. Their death totals are reaching over 300, which almost 30 times more than Israel’s. The infrastructure is being demolished, and the Israel and Hezbollah’s obstinacy is preventing a cessation of military operations.

And his country will seek multitudes of aid and compensation from Israel for the destruction to Lebanon. And rightfully so. They should ask for aid from the dawdling nations, like the United States, for doing just that— sitting and waiting.

Its been an ugly scene.

Families in Marwahin, in southern Lebanon, were told by the IDF that they had hours to leave town last Friday. Roughly 100 residents made toward the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) base to seek shelter. They were refused after officials were unable to confirm the warning by Israel.

Reported on the BBC News website, after being refused by Unifil, a pick-up truck and two cars full of children and elderly people left for Tyre in southern Lebanon. That caravan was inadvertently destroyed by Israeli forces.

However, spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that Unifil “continues to do everything possible to help civilians threatened by the current hostilities within its area of operations.” The spokesman also noted that their faculty to help “is regrettably limited, since in present circumstances, it cannot even re-supply its own personnel.”

Its time for the global community to just intervene. Stop this bureaucratic non-sense and send a team for diplomacy. Stop vetoing legislature that may benefit humanity in the future and send your Secretary of State to help in such a diplomatic process. Stop making speeches on what you plan to do, and just do it. Because the nation that glowed with pride a year ago after attaining their absolute sovereignty from Syria (which the Bush administration praised) will have nothing left but ruin.

Ain't Got No Home

2006-07-18T14:04:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

“The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget
that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned
mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a
nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has
produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now” –
Richard Cohen, July 18, 2006 article in the Washington Post.

I wanted this assertion by Cohen to disperse my ambivalence over this issue. Over the past couple days, (and despite earlier claims) my support toward Israel seemed to wane. Sure the Israelis were provoked, but I have been increasingly sympathetic of the Lebanese people.

The recent conflict involving Israel and Hezbollah seems to have created quite a stir in the Jewish world, as well. Let me tell you first hand: not all Jews support Israel and not all Jews support its policies. I’ve been afforded the “luxury” the past couple weeks of listening to pro-Israel and anti-Israel rallies outside my office window. These emotionally-driven protests alongside UNA-USA’s office building drew my attention for a couple reasons. But the most fascinating aspect was that in one rally anti-Israel boycotters were Hasidic Jews. I remember a sign one was holding up: (loosely) Read the Talmud, Exiled Jews are not Allowed to Own Their Own Country.

I can’t say I know the Talmud like I know, say, the lyrics to “Bohemian Rhapsody” (and how to impersonate the Wayne’s World scene), but it’s rather interesting to note the gulf in Jewish faith over a pious state like Israel. And as Cohen noted in his article, experts have been predicting these current escalations for years.

He made reference to the recent history of genocide in the 20th century.

“In 1905 there were pogroms in 660 different places in Russia, and more than 800 Jews were killed -- all this in a period of less than two weeks. This was the reality of life for many of Europe's Jews. Little wonder so many of them emigrated to the United States, Canada, Argentina or South Africa. Little wonder others embraced the dream of Zionism and went to Palestine, first a colony of Turkey and later of Britain. They were in effect running for their lives. Most of those who remained -- 97.5 percent of Poland's Jews, for instance -- were murdered in the Holocaust.”

Jews have been persecuted for centuries, never having a place to call home. And in what was a sympathetic move on Great Britain’s part to afford exiled Jews a recognized nation from their own colony on the eastern banks of the Mediterranean, has resulted in longer strife for those hoping for a home.

Accountability? I don’t blame Israelis for wanting a place to call home, and in the same respect, I can’t blame the Palestinian people (not its militants) for the same. If there are any parties that should jump out to help resolve this matter, sending peace-keeping troops immediately, are those European nations that made future-Israelis flee from their own motherlands decades ago. I don’t blame current institutions, but for pity’s-sake, feel somewhat liable. Some have already tried to erase blame— for example, Auschwitz concentration camp was renamed to stress that Nazis, not Poles, were responsible for the world's most notorious concentration camp.

Maybe it’s selfish on my part to want nations to take responsibility for current events and their ancestors’ errs. But Europe once expelled Jews from its own territory, violently, and now Middle Eastern Muslims are trying to do the same. Where does accountability lie if not with those that started the trend? Israelis don’t help their cause, but at this point, they’re just playing the hand they were dealt.

Waves of Aid Needed in Wake of Latest Tsunami

2006-07-17T13:57:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

Indonesia experienced another awful tsunami as a result of an earthquake Monday. The 6-foot-high tsunami crashed onto beach resorts on Java Island killing at least 86 people and leaving countless missing after bulletins failed to reach the region because no warning system was in place. The 7.7-magnitude undersea earthquake was fierce enough to send a wave toward the country, its most devastating since the 2004 Asian tsunami which resulted in 216,000 fatalities.

The coastal area was spared by the devastating tsunami in 2004, but many residents recognized the impending natural disaster when they saw the water recede, according to an AP wire report by Irwan Firdaus. "Frantic tourists and villagers shouted 'Tsunami! Tsunami!' as the more than 6-foot-high wave approached," explained the report, "some climbing trees or fleeing to higher ground to escape. Others crowded into inland mosques to pray. Regional agencies had warned that a 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck 150 miles off Indonesia's southern coast was strong enough to create a tsunami on Java. But there was no warning system for those on the southern coast."

And sadly, while the death toll might still climb and as we sit so comfortably out of harms way (harms way being the Pacific’s “Ring of Fire” in this case), we wonder, how can their unfortunate people rebuild and secure their fragile nation? Humanitarian aid, perhaps?

In a 2001 survey, the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that the American public believes foreign aid accounts for 20 percent of the federal budget (the budget totaled $2.3 trillion in 2004). The truth is the United States has been a well of broken promises, instead of a well of charitable donations— accomplishing only a small portion of what the rest of the country believes it is doing in humanitarian aid.

After the 2004 tsunami, the US pledged $350 million in humanitarian aid. But what exactly is humanitarian aid? And what exactly is our country auctioning off for economic assistance to these impoverished countries?

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has defined official development assistance (ODA) as the sum of grants and sub-market-rate loans made to developing countries to advance economic development. In 2003, the US gave $16.3 billion in net ODA, which accounts for 0.15 percent of the $11 trillion gross national income (GNI). Of that, only $14.6 billion was distributed bilaterally, directly targeting impoverished nations. But the DAC’s estimate of $16.3 billion does not directly feed to economic development.

The expenditures of the US can best be explained as a pie. The pie makes up $14.6 billion of which the US can spend bilaterally to recipient nations for development assistance. Five parties essentially want a piece of the pie (so to speak), or more literally, five operational goals are laid out by USAID in dealing with foreign aid. The first goal is to promote transformational development. Such aid aims to support long-term economic change by helping a country achieve structural transformations and allowing it to become economically independent (which would provide parts of Indonesia with the necessary warning system in the wake of a tsunami). The second goal is to support strategic states; third, to strengthen fragile states; fourth, to provide humanitarian relief; and fifth, to address global challenges.

Only the first goal directly targets economic development. The second one focuses on nations that have a geopolitical importance (such as Colombia, Iraq, Egypt) to help fight terrorism, strengthen alliances, or reduce narcotic trafficking— hence, strategic states. Though listed as aid that would emphasize development, the last four goals provide no direct relief to the needy recipients!

Ultimately, the piece of the pie only dealt out for development assistance nets $6.1 billion, only 41 percent of the money apportioned for economic development to begin with, and roughly 0.005 of the GNI. Imagine being given a pie for dinner, but only allowed to put a 41 percent sliver on your plate…

According to the DAC database, very little of that $6.1 billion piece, which the US was given to spend on bilateral assistance to developing countries, was actually used as a long-term investment in transformational development. So now imagine how many bites of that slice of pie you’re allowed to eat…

Emergency assistance or food aid accounted for $2 billion, leaving only $4.1 billion not spent on strategic countries (the geopolitical investment), emergency aid, or food aid. Grants given to countries to forgive debt amounted to $1.3 billion, which only erased the debt, leaving no new money for development. Most of the approximate amount left, $2.8 billion, went toward technical cooperation— which meant the US employed American organizations to write up reports on how poor these countries are. Of the small percentage of America’s wealth allotted for economic development for needy nations, only a flake directly refers to development assistance for poor nations, and essentially none of that piece actually produces long-term development.

The sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region in the world, is a prime example on how skewed US aid priorities are. In 2003, the US gave $4.7 billion to sub-Saharan Africa in net bilateral ODA, another archetypal, yet smaller, “pie”.

About $0.2 billion of the pie went to a handful of middle-income countries in Africa, like South Africa, ones less needing of funds than the continent’s bevy of poor nations. Of the remaining $4.5 billion, emergency aid amounted to $1.5 billion and $0.3 billion for food aid. The pie gets smaller as another $1.3 billion was designated for the debt forgiveness grants, and $1.4 billion went to technical assistance. What’s left of the pie? Crumbs. Just $118 million for direct support for programs run by African governments and communities to improve the economy. That amount of money is $80 million less than the total salaries of the 2006 New York Yankees. That amount of money leaves just 18 cents for each of the roughly 650 million people in poverty.

Without piercing through other issues, major weather disasters may become increasingly common. In regions around the world more susceptible to these weather anomalies, hordes of money from all countries must be used to provide resourceful warning and tracking systems to alleviate potential fatalities. I am not just ragging the United States— many other countries give disproportionate amounts of money for impoverished nations. But for the leading economic country in the world whose citizens may be misled by the hard figures, the US could be providing much more for nations in dire need of support.

Most of the article's references and figures were courtesy of Dr. Jeffrey Sachs and his book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time,(2005), Penguin Press Hc

Who Cares...

2006-07-17T13:50:00.000-04:00

(from July 14, 2006)
by Megan Levanduski

Iraq. North Korea. Iran. Israel. Lebanon. Sudan. Okay, anything else I missed? Oh yeah, the other 186 countries that are United Nations members. Don’t get me wrong, democracy is a good thing, nuclear proliferation is a big deal, peace in the Middle East is essential, and Sudan is tragically in need of assistance. But I have to admit I am sick of hearing about the same crises over and over again, not because they are not important, but simply because they are not the only newsworthy causes in the world.

On that note, I move to Africa. What has been happening in the Sudan is horrific, and deserves as much attention as it has been getting, and to be frank should have been getting sooner. But there are other countries in Africa besides Sudan, I am sure, though I have to admit I am as ignorant as most when it comes to the region. It took a documentary made by some rogue student filmmakers to inform me of the problems of Uganda. Thousands of children have been abducted into the Lord’s Resistance Army, led by Joseph Kony, against the Ugandan government. I saw the movie a few months ago and have been searching the papers in vain for news on Uganda. I have had to turn once again to my love, the BBC, for any information on Uganda (and not to sound like an infomercial, I would like to point out that unlike most American news sources, the BBC is FREE).

Just to put it in perspective, the latest article in the New York Times about Uganda was from July 4, and it is two sentences long. Iraq, on the other hand, turned up 45 search results in the NYT just from July 13 alone. Sudan fell in between, being mentioned every few days. I realize our soldiers are in Iraq, and therefore it deserves and receives more coverage. But it wouldn’t hurt to at least mention in a little detail other events going on in the world. American media seems to be the much more one-track minded then our European counterparts.

I have now mentioned two of the countries in Africa I know, one of which I can find some information on without looking too hard. But I know there are even more, all with their own conflicts and problems. And like most of you, I don’t have time to read about every country in the world. I have my own bills to pay, just like everyone else. But really, is it too much to ask of ourselves that we know a little more about Namibia than what we learned from People magazine courtesy of Angelina Jolie’s pregnancy?

Lastly, I would like to bring your attention to another very important event: the G8 Summit. The eight richest countries in the world met this weekend to discuss how to conquer the most important global issues, such as poverty and HIV/AIDS. Sadly, doing a search on the internet proved fruitless. Lexis Nexis turned up results only from the AP or White House Press releases. The rest of the coverage was British, Russian, or French. Now some of you may be thinking this G8 Summit sounds familiar. It should, as the conference is held every year. Last year, the Summit received an astounding amount of press due to LIVE 8, the world wide concert series started by the ONE campaign and U2 front man Bono.

But this year, sadly, there is no PSA with Brad Pitt or Madonna reminding us to get off our couch and care. Instead, the monumental conference, (hosted by the newest G8 member, Russia, for the first time), has come upon us with little publicity. And unless Angelina is due to give birth in St. Petersburg some time soon I am afraid we will know little of what went on this weekend.

Beasts of the (Middle) East

2006-07-13T10:44:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

Escalation. Provocation. Intensification. However you swing it, things are getting increasingly bad in the Middle East.

The recent acts by Hezbollah have escalated the tension in that area. Israel sees the combination of the Hezbollah raid into northern Israel and the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants as an avenue to provoke war. And the role of the UN, both as a mediator and as a host to ambassadors, is intensifying.

So who do you point the finger at?

For UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, everyone is to blame. Speaking from Rome, Annan called for the release of the captured soldiers and denounced Israel's incursion into Lebanon. "I condemn without reservations the attack in southern Lebanon, and demand that Israeli troops be released immediately." For right now, it seems like the UN is playing with both sides. And why not? Is taking a side in this matter going to help the situation? Well, the United States does.

Washington has demanded the release of two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas, and blamed Syria and Iran for the attacks. "We condemn in the strongest terms Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers," said Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. The US is aiming more blame.

“We also hold Syria and Iran, which directly support Hezbollah, responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence," Jones said.

Not like it needed the backing of its most strapping ally, but Israel is on a mission. And with the support of the US (like always), they’re pulling “a Bush” and telling the UN, if you don’t like it — get out of the way.

Israel told the UN to basically "back off" after Annan had condemned the use of military force in response to abduction of IDF soldiers. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, told reporters that Israel would "react in every way it deems necessary" to get the release of its soldiers and protect its border and its people.

As more rockets poured into Israel from both northern Gaza and southern Lebanon, Israel continued its two-front assault bombing Beirut’s airport. The back-and-forth violence escalated increasingly Thursday morning, when Hezbollah fired rockets into Israeli towns, killing civilians. The retaliation— Israel blocked ports and attacked a Lebanese army air base.

Is there an end in sight? Probably not. The UN is going to have to take a hard-line on this issue. You can’t condemn the fighting and condemn the abduction. Considering militants, not government authorized soldiers, were the provokers in this situation, Annan should loosely stand on the side of Israel. If not, two major things may occur.

First, Israel will not relent— they’re too stubborn and rightfully so. Israeli-Palestinian relations have been on-going for years, one inciting the other for further violence. Here, Hezbollah entered Israel and murdered and kidnapped IDF’s. Israel did not provoke the guerillas.

Second, countries like Lebanon and Syria and Iran will get involved (especially considering Israel bombed a Lebanese air base), escalating to a full-out war. In that case, the UN will be begging for diplomacy. And with a country like Iran potentially possessing nuclear capabilities, the outlook is grim.

Contradiction Spills Over Converging Issues

2006-07-11T15:26:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

It’s worth noting all crucial issues facing the world today are intertwined.

In my opinion, the most pressing matter we, as "Earthlings" (it sounds cliché and Trek-ie, I know), should be concerned about is global warming. And listen; I don’t care what people say about the legitimacy of global warming or whether it’s significant or whether it will effect us now or whether we should compensate economic growth for hippie tree-hugging reform. I’ll refrain from any vulgarity, but seriously: open your @$%*-in' eyes and use some @#!$-in' common sense!

There are two distinct options. Either ignore the warnings and continue to fuel the debate until a political stalemate over this issue occurs, or give up some luxuries and keep our planet a little healthier for the future. And if we do discount these prospects for greedy means, our way of life will change exponentially more than if we reformed our energy consumption. But I’m not a scientist, and I digress.

Britain exposed its energy plan for the next 50 years today. Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British government declared that nuclear power could make a “significant contribution” to the country’s needs; in line with many other nations who seek to reduce dependency on imported fuel and cut the contaminants responsible for global warming.

"A mix of energy supply remains essential and we should not be over-dependent on one source if we're going to maintain security of supply in the future," Trade Secretary Alistair Darling said to Parliament Tuesday.

Blair, who once opposed nuclear power, said that "what's changed my thinking is not just climate change, but the fact that we're going to move from being a big importer to self-sufficient in basic energy,” according to an AP wire report.

Britain has lagged behind other European nations in boosting its use of renewable energy— such as wind and solar power, not necessarily nuclear power.

So while nations look to “search” for other means of energy in the form of nuclear power, those same nations are telling others they can’t have it, particularly the ones exporting the oil. Powerful nations tell others they can’t make bombs, when they have themselves the same bombs. And now, Iran is going through talks over limited nuclear power, while Britain is now pushing for renewable energy via nuclear power?

Now I understand the difference. Iran with nuclear power can make a bomb and threaten the obvious choice, Israel. And as a personal supporter of the state of Israel, I condemn those that wish to bring unjust harm to it. But it’s just a little hypocritical.

Iran’s most lucrative export is… oil. “For the sake of the environment,” nations like the UK, US, and others are trying to cut down on… oil. Britain is looking to supplant oil dependency with… nuclear power. Those same countries are telling Iran, you can’t have… nuclear power. It’s mind boggling.

Folks, we live in a world of hypocrisy. This is like a swift punch to the nuts. We don’t want to give you money for what you have, and you can’t replace it with that source for fear of force. Now I believe alternative means for oil is issue number one, and I certainly don’t think Iran should have the power to create weapons and bombs and all things explosive (besides, weaponry is different from nuclear power). Attack the arms dealers (but that’s a sensitive subject for Bush and Haliburton, cough) not those receiving the armaments.

Do I believe Iran wants nuclear power solely for technology? Hell no. But Britain needs to clean up their message for credibility sake, because no one likes a hypocrite. And no one wants to listen to one. Especially when other nations, like China and Russia, are beginning to hold water in the international ranks (similar to the issue of North Korea). That will give the once prominent world powers an even swifter punch to the nuts, taking a back seat to what will seem to be an unusual political joy ride.

Drumming Up Darfur

2006-07-11T11:30:00.000-04:00

by Joshua Rosenthal

This Sunday’s New York Times features a piece on Darfur by famed international columnist Nicholas D. Kristof. Like anything written by a NYT columnist these days, I unfortunately can’t supply a link for you because the article is considered “premium content,” (read: you have to pay to see it). The column claims that violence in Sudan, despite the peace agreement reached in early May, is worse than ever and is even spilling over into neighboring nations. That’s right: violence from the Sudan has reached Chad and Central African Republic. Kristof claims 15,000 villagers in eastern Chad have actually fled to Darfur of all places. The journalist goes on to accuse the UN and international community of doing nothing to prevent further bloodshed.

While I respect Kristof and feel he is certainly more abreast of this situation than I am, I wish that Darfur activists would take more time to explain why the UN has moved so slowly and why states are not willing to insert troops without international backing. Claiming the body is cold-hearted, indifferent to suffering or just too bloated and bureaucratic to act tugs at your heartstrings, but does not really get us anywhere. Although someone certainly needs to act on this matter and stop the genocide, it is important to understand that the conflict is much more muddled than pieces like Kristof’s would lead you to believe. Everything he says is true, and the situation is undoubtedly atrocious, but I do believe that more nuanced views of Darfur should be more readily available.

Tribal conflict appears to be a driving force behind the peace deal’s collapse. Too often the West looks at these conflicts and just sees colors or religions: Arabs killing blacks, Muslims murdering Christians. Another article that appeared in the Old Gray Lady details tribal motivations for an unstable Darfur. Political Scientist Alan J. Kuperman argues the peace deal failed because black tribes have conflicting interests and want to keep the fighting going until they gain sovereignty over the region by Western intervention. He writes that opposing rebels, from the Fur and Zanghawa tribes, purposely eschew the peace deal and incite violence to play the victim. To be sure, Sudan has responded by criminally employing genocidal militias which have victimized scores of innocent people. Suffice it to say, that is unacceptable. Although Kuperman advocates for allowing Sudan to settle the conflict internally, you have believe that the nation has proven itself unable to deal with this situation in a non-criminal fashion. In other words, once a government uses genocide as a political tool, it forfeits its right to further handle any internal conflict. International action is needed in Darfur.

In order to get a force into Darfur and quell the violence, the world needs to make sure it is not seeing this conflict in a good-versus-evil manner. Both sides are at fault. The violence should stop, however neither side should declare victory. But what force can be employed? African Union troops have failed to prevent violence and the last time the UN send troops into Africa, they were accused of heinous crimes. The UN cannot just put soldiers in Darfur. There has to be a plan and legal footing for settling the matter. Similarly, a force that actually promotes peace must be conceived by the UN or a coalition of member states.

I cannot promote my own solution for lack of a background in these matters, but I can say that people must better understand what is going in the region before accusing the UN of any wrongdoing. While Kuperman charges that the “Save Darfur People” are making things worse by inadvertently telling the rebels to hold on and wait for Westerners to carve up Sudan, I will not accost these activists. In fact, I am happy they’re disseminating this information. I just wish a more clear picture were coming through.

World Powers Must Stop Bleeding in Middle East

2006-07-10T18:18:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

Over the recent weeks, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has remained unstable: within the infrastructure of the Palestinian government; during the military offensive; and the stances of said allies and the international community.

The scattering of exiled Palestinian political leaders throughout the Middle East typifies the dissarray within the Palesitinian Authority. One Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, said in a press conference in Damascus, Syria (of all places), that Hamas would only free the kidnapped IDF soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, if Israel released numerous Palestinian prisoners— at one point, demanding up to 1,000. He also criticized the West for keeping silent on the Israeli offensive.

View points of Palestinian officials on this current situation in Gaza have also be teetering. Before the standoff in which Israel did not oblige to the Palestinian demand for prisoner exchange, Hamas officials were sending mix signals. Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led government, hoped for the prospect of diplomacy. But Osama Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Lebanon, ruled out cooperation and threatened to abduct more Israelis. But don’t get me wrong, Israel isn’t without blame. The nation has produced lop-sided prisoner exchanges in the past and were years away from withdrawing from the West Bank. Their abstinence and aggression is both understandable and troubling.

It’s troubling to the casual American, who, in accordance to this altercation, sees the carnage in Iraq and the threat of nuclear tension with Iran as deterrents to peace. But the Middle East has had a long history of Israeli-Palestinian quarrels that resulted in death and war. Should we not forget the Six Day War? Or the Yom Kippur War? Or Black September and the Munich Massacre?

It’s interesting to note that in two of those events, the United States played a military role. And in all of those aforementioned horrors, the US played a distant ambassadorial role— always backing Israel. The US has had a long history of Israeli support, as recently as current president George W. Bush.

“...the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to
destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat
to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it
clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our
ally, Israel,” (Bush, Speech on March 20, 2006).

Though in reference to the Iranian nuclear threat, Bush is on the long list of many US presidents obligated to the safety of Israel. Ironically, Bush has also favored the formation of a Palestinian state, playing host to President Abbas, and pledging $50 million in relief (later revoking such aid with the European Union because of Hamas’ stubbornness to recognize Israel). The European Union has also been distantly irresolute. It has called for the release of Shalit and an end to the firing of Palestinian rockets from northern Gaza. Very well and good, but it has also subtly condemned Israel’s disproportionate offensive. They want Israel to abide by international laws and refrain from causing structural damage to buildings in Gaza.

Taking a neutral stance is not a problem in a very sensitive issue like this one. But the international community needs to intervene, and take a hard line. Israel is determined to continue the operation in Gaza and Palestinian militants will continue bombs and kidnappings. The result may be a repeat of history, in which America and other world powers will be hard-pressed to take a side, with the United States backing the Israelis, creating further tensions with Arab states. Both parties will not relent, and unless the Israeli and Palestinian governments seek political accords, it’s up to the global community to intervene.

North Korea's Fireworks Leave Only Smoke

2006-07-07T16:28:00.000-04:00

by Joshua Rosenthal

As you may know by now, North Korea celebrated July 4 with some fireworks of its own, launching a series of missiles into the Sea of Japan. The test, which apparently featured weapons capable of delivering a nuclear payload to the Western US, failed miserably. Before I make any suggestions as to what the international community should do to curtail future weapons testing by North Korea, it is important to analyze that state’s motivations for launching this flaming disaster.

July 7’s New York Times features an interesting examination of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il’s history with US diplomats and provides an explanation for his recent behavior. In their article What Does North Korea Want?, Professors Bruce Cumings and Meredith Jung-En Woo argue “North Korea's missile brinkmanship is not intended to scare us. Rather, in the ham-handed way that is Pyongyang's specialty, it is meant to invite Washington to make a deal.” Well clearly America cannot be frightened by this latest move, given the test’s dismal results. But, China, South Korea and Japan were once again reminded that their irascible neighbor is more than capable of immense destruction and wanton disregard for the diplomatic process. I think it is easy to agree with the authors of this piece as North Korea only garnered negative attention for this latest launch. Their ability to produce and sell missiles remains the same as it did when Madeline Albright tried to strike a deal in 2000. Thus, it seems that Mr. Kim just wants to talk…or rather have the option of being bought off.

If the international community, led by the US, could simply pay North Korea to cease this behavior, it would make undoubtedly make a fair amount of sense to just cut a check. Yet, it is unlikely any money or food aid would make its way to the ailing people of North Korea. Given the nation’s history, we’d see that that money and aid instead making its way to the nation’s military.

So it seems things are just as they were in 2000. Most members of the Security Council have gone along with the US and at least condemned North Korea’s actions, but very little else has been said.

Maybe it is time to take different approach then. The international community should flat out tell North Korea that it is not dangerous enough to be acting in the manner in which it does. No one should insult that nation or goad it into creating more effective weapons, but it would be prudent to just tell the truth and stand behind it (not to sound too callused but): North Korea has a bumbling nuclear program and yet it is threatening nations that are fully capable of deposing its government.

In more colloquial terms, as rap artist Cam’ron (who ironically heads a group labeled the Diplomats) puts it to a longtime rival “It’s not a diss, dog, we just heard you fronting (lying).” In essence, there are nations able to get rid of Mr. Kim’s government and he is making them more willing to do so with each threatening gesture. A multilateral statement of this candid nature would isolate and humble North Korea. If only P5 members China and Russia, which lend tacit support to Mr. Kim’s behavior, would get on board. Achieving a wide-ranging consensus on this issue is key as it otherwise becomes a threat instead of the broad international consensus that is needed for a nonviolent solution.

Call for Reform? Call for Collaboration!

2006-07-07T15:33:00.000-04:00

by Evan Harris

Current UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s tenure as head of the United Nations is about end, propelling the United Nations into a new era. But a growing concern in the international community has surfaced: when the new secretary-general takes office, how much power and influence will he actually have?

Waves of proposed UN reform have infiltrated the New York headquarters for years. William H. Luers (President Luers' Bio), president of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, recently wrote a special to Newsweek Foreign Editions outlining the trouble this new reform will have on Annan’s successor (UNA-USA).

Some member states (“developing” countries) want a stronger General Assembly to govern the organization, limiting the power of the Security Council and the secretary-general. Larger powers within the member states, like the United States, want a stronger secretary-general. Their grounds for such an empowering move is that “only a strong leader can make the UN more efficient and more accountable.”

So right away, the new secretary-general will be constructively different than his predecessor. The reform will come. And potentially swiftly, as the larger countries that fund the United Nations may hold back that funding. The trade-off: their way, or for the organization, the highway.

Objectively, Luers points out that many issues have steered in favor of the G77, the body of developing countries eager for a greater say and a weaker Security Council. “The G77 states fiercely (oppose the six-month cap of budgetary funds), and by the end of this week they appeared to have won almost everyone's support to lift the cap—with the notable exception of the United States,” Luers wrote.

The United States found itself virtually alone in its opposition to creating the new Human Rights Council. And more importantly, developing countries have proposed more rational ways to defeat terrorism—accepting the idea that terrorism is a lower-level concern, and sees a solution in humanitarian aid for these impoverished countries.

What it boils down to is the United States needs to offer constructive leadership at the UN. The US ignored the UN in its haste to charge into Iraq; it demands their proposed reform because they provide the pay checks; now the US is asking for a stronger secretary-general to centralize power.

Efficiency is only reached through cooperation, not political stand-off. The only way to ameliorate the UN is through collaboration of all member states. After all, we are continuously reminded that the United States is the success story in squashing egos for the betterment of the people (Remember Virginia and New Jersey plans for the legislature? Federalists and Anti-federalists?) The US wants a secretary-general with more power, without taking into consideration the negative consequences. If developing countries feel insignificant or threatened, collaboration is almost impossible, the very essence of the UN.

The United States seems to pride itself in its significance and responsibility to the global community— and if that’s the case, the US-UN relationship needs to improve in order to facilitate the transition for Annan’s successor.