The Amateur

Computerist

Summer 2010 In the Shadow of Deep Crises Volume 19 No. 1

Father Brockmann and the

Session of the UN

General Assembly

The articles in this issue of the Amateur

Computerist help to document the role played by the

General Assembly in its 63

Session from Sept 16,

2008 to Sept 14, 2009. They have been selected to

document what was a special year in the recent

experience of the United Nations. The year began

when Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann of Nicara-

gua assumed the Presidency of the General Assembly.

The articles ask the question: In the shadow of deep

crises like the world financial and economic crisis,

and the Middle East political crisis, can the UN be a

force to help clarify and bring needed change?

As the president of this important but poorly

understood body of the United Nations, Father

Brockmann was criticized by several conservative

entities and was subjected to death threats in response

to his defense of the Palestinians when they were the

object of an Israeli attack on Gaza in Dec. 2008 and

Table of Contents

Editorial.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Farewell Speech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

UN Security Council Reform in Focus. . . . . . Page 8

Changed Model Needed to Solve Crisis. . . . Page 12

Response to Israeli Attacks on Gaza.. . . . . . Page 13

The World Has Been Watching. . . . . . . . . . Page 15

Israel Attempts to Justify Attack on Gaza.. . Page 17

Need to End Siege of Gaza. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Principles to Guide UN Framework. . . . . . . Page 20

Responsibility to Protect?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24

G192 Emerges at UN Conference.. . . . . . . . Page 27

We, the Different are Here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31

The People are the Sovereign. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 38

Jan. 2009.

But also, he was admired by those who had hope

that the United Nations could begin to challenge the

forces of privilege and power which dominate institu-

tions like the UN Security Council.

The year of Father Brockmann’s presidency was

marked particularly by the Israeli invasion of Gaza in

Dec 2008 and the economic and financial crisis that

gripped the world in much of 2009. As Father

Brockmann left the presidency in Sept 2009, he

expressed his disappointment that he had not been

able to do more to support the forces of democracy.

(See, “In the Shadow of Deep Crises”, page 3.) His

achievements however were significant.

In this issue we have attempted to give a sam-

pling of what was accomplished when a diplomat

with a vision of a more democratic world was at the

head of an important international organization.

Except for the first article, the issue is organized

chronologically. The earliest article, “UN Security

Council Reform in Focus” (page 8) concerns a prob-

lem that was passed onto the 63

Session. The re-

maining articles were written about the developments

that were part of the General Assembly during its 63

Session.

Father Brockmann’s statement below was deliv-

ered in the final session of his presidency. We have

placed it at the beginning of the issue to give some

sense of both the sweep of events of the year and of

the goal that Father Brockmann had set for the year.

It is important to recognize that a significant

achievement of the 63

Session of the General As-

sembly was the introduction of the concept of the

G192, of a democratization of the international

economic structure to challenge the G7, G8 or even

G20 as the vision for a more democratic economic

system. (See, “Change in Economic Model Needed to

Solve Crisis”, page 12, “G192 Emerges at UN Conference

on World Financial and Economic Crisis”, page 28 and

“We, the Different are Here”, page 32.)

Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

Far less understood is the role Father Brockmann

and the General Assembly played in breaking through

the barrier in the Security Council which was block-

ing the Council from passing a resolution to support

the Palestinian people during the attack by Israel on

Gaza.

Articles in the issue document the urgency Father

Brockmann felt when Israel launched its attack on

Gaza on Dec 27, 2008. (See, “the World Has Been

Watching”, page 15.) Many excuses by the U.S. Am-

bassador kept the Security Council from intervening

against the carnage.

If the Security Council is blocked from fulfilling

its Charter obligation of maintaining or restoring

“peace and security,” that does not relieve the mem-

ber nations of their responsibility. Father Brockmann

and member nations of the General Assembly realized

that this was a situation needing the “Uniting for

Peace”

procedure for calling a General Assembly

meeting.

Under Father Brockmann’s presidency, members

of the General Assembly called an emergency ses-

sion. It was set to meet if the Security Council failed

to act on Jan. 8, 2009. On Jan. 8, the Foreign Minis-

ters of the Security Council member nations finally

managed to vote on and pass Security Council Reso-

lution 1860, calling for an “immediate, durable and

fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full with-

drawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”

. The vote was

14 in favor with the United States abstaining. If the

U.S. had voted against the Resolution, the General

Assembly meeting was set to take on the responsibil-

ity to take the action which the U.S. was blocking.

Given these conditions, Condoleezza Rice abstained

but did not veto Resolution 1860.

Other achievements during Father Brockmann’s

presidency included the bringing to the General

Assembly of several experts to debate controversial

issues before the member nations. One example was

the Interactive Thematic Dialogue on the Responsibil-

ity to Protect (R2P). (See, as an example, “A More Just

World and the Responsibility to Protect”, page 24.)

The most important achievement of the year

however was the General Debate on the World

Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on

Development held in June 2009. (See, “G192 emerges

at UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic

Crisis”, page 27.) We have included from this debate

the speech by Rafael Correa, the President of Ecua-

dor. (See, “We the Different are Here”, page 32.) Presi-

dent Correa’s speech is an example of the alternative

economic perspective presented to the nation mem-

bers as part of this Debate.

Father Brockmann appeared disappointed that

more was not accomplished during the 63

Session of

the General Assembly over which he presided. But

his Presidency has left a legacy that can act as a

foundation for the United Nations to truly be an

international organization that can help to enable the

different world that is emerging.

Notes:

1. If the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the

permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility

for the maintenance of international peace and security in any

case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the

peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider

the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate

recommendations to Members for collective measures, including

in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use

of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore interna-

tional peace and security. If not in session at the time, the

General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within

twenty-four hours of the request therefore. Such emergency

special session shall be called if requested by the Security

Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of

the Members of the United Nations; (See:

http://habitat.igc.org/ufp/a-r377ae.htm).

2. See: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions09.htm and

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9567.doc.htm

[Editor’s Note: From September 2008 to September

2009, H.E. Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, M.M.

was the President of the 63

session of the United Na-

tions General Assembly. On September 14, 2009 he fin-

ished his term and made a Farewell Speech. This is a

shortened version of his remarks concerning the issues

considered by the 63

Session. His whole Farewell

Speech can be seen at:

http://www.un.org/ga/president

/63 /statements/statements.shtml]

In the Shadow of

Deep Crises

UN General Assembly 63

Session

by Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann

President of the 63rd Session of the

UN General Assembly

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Page 2

Tempus fugit, the Romans used to say, and they

were right. Time flies: it is running out for us. And

as time passes us by, so too do the opportunities for

us to do what we must to ensure a fitting future for

the coming generations….

One year ago, from this very rostrum, I shared

with you the vision of what I hoped to achieve dur-

ing my year in this high office, to which you, with

such trust and affection, had elected me. Now the

time has come to take stock.

I would like to begin by expressing my grati-

tude not only for your trust, but also for the gener-

ous cooperation afforded to me, including by many

who did not disguise their concerns about me being

a Catholic priest committed to the theology of liber-

ation and to the liberation struggle of my people,

led by the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional

in my country, Nicaragua. Fortunately, these doubts

and suspicions did not prevent a frank and fraternal

dialogue with those who would have been expected

to oppose me most strongly. Today, as I step down,

I am very happy and extremely grateful for all of

the generous cooperation that I received from all of

you without exception….

Economic and Financial Crisis: Need for

the G192

The most important months of my presidency

occurred in the shadow of the current deep

economic and financial crisis, which does not yet

appear to have bottomed out. However, as an eigh-

teenth century English philosopher once said, per-

haps the carping of our worst critics sounds less

triumphant when we observe that, while we did not

accomplish as much as we would have liked, we

nevertheless accomplished a great deal.

In accordance with Article 13 of the United

Nations Charter, the General Assembly “shall make

recommendations for the purpose of promoting in-

ternational cooperation in the economic, social, cul-

tural, educational and health fields.” However, for

approximately the past 30 years, the Organization

has been prevented from performing the role

assigned to it by the Charter on the pretext that only

the Bretton Woods institutions had expertise in

these fields.

The work of my Presidential Commission of

Experts made it clear that the General Assembly

was indeed capable of bringing together specialists

with sufficient expertise to discuss global financial,

economic, monetary and trade governance. Further-

more, the Commission produced what is undoubt-

edly the most serious and complete proposal for

how we should tackle the current global financial

and economic crisis.

The adoption on 9 July of the outcome docu-

ment of the United Nations Conference on the

World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Im-

pact on Development, held from 24 to 30 June

2009, was a historic milestone for the United Na-

tions. The G-192 was thereby established as the

most appropriate forum to address those issues that

affect the international community as a whole. [See

this issue page 28 and the Outcome Document at:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol

=A/RES/63/303

The G-8 and the G-20 will continue to be sig-

nificant minorities. However, this is more due to the

fact that they are rich and powerful than to their

demonstrated ability to do things well. We cannot

and should not forget that, after all, it is because of

the extremely grave errors committed by them, and

the Bretton Woods institutions run by them, that the

world is currently undergoing what could well turn

out to be the worst crisis in history.

Extremely valuable inputs were made to the

outcome document’s conclusions as a result of the

proposals put forward by the Commission of Ex-

perts chaired by Professor Stiglitz, the report issued

by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs

(DESA) and, of course, the statements delivered by

Heads of State and Government at the plenary

meeting of the Conference itself — for example, the

excellent statement by President Rafael Correa of

Father Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann (far left) with reporters

and staff at the UN

Page 3

Ecuador [See this issue page 30] — in addition to

the comments made at round tables and working

breakfasts.

However, we must also recognize that without

the extraordinary support and active participation of

non-governmental organizations and the South Cen-

ter, headed by Martin Khor, we would not have

made the progress that we did.

The draft outcome document, despite being

negotiated by 192 countries and contrary to the

fears expressed by some notable minorities, was not

only ready two days before the Conference, but also

comprehensively addressed a series of complex is-

sues that went beyond the debates and documents

arising from other forums.

It should also be noted that the outcome docu-

ment of our historic June Conference finally

launched the process of compliance with the recom-

mendations contained in the report of the World

Commission on the Social Dimension of Globaliza-

tion, entitled “A fair globalization.” This report

states that “Globalization is making multilateralism

both indispensable and inevitable” and that the mul-

tilateral system of the United Nations “is uniquely

equipped to spearhead the process of reform of eco-

nomic and social policies.”

The role of the United Nations in dealing with

the most urgent issues of our time was institutional-

ized with the establishment on 31 July 2009 of the

ad hoc open-ended working group of the General

Assembly to follow up on the issues contained in

the outcome document. Such issues include reform

of the Bretton Woods institutions, the same

“expert” institutions that have reduced the imple-

mentation of Article 13 of the United Nations

Charter as much as possible for the past three de-

cades.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?

Today the most urgent issue continues to be the

provision of resources to the most vulnerable coun-

tries, primarily in the form of donations, or, rather,

the provision of compensation through a global

fund, or of special drawing rights for development,

in order to finance both public goods and the Mil-

lennium Development Goals.

It is precisely because of our failure to resolve

the fundamental problems of the economic system,

and the extreme poverty and inequality on which

this system is based, that we have had to resort to

palliative measures such as the Millennium Devel-

opment Goals, or to press for the urgent implemen-

tation of the concept of the Responsibility to Pro-

tect. However necessary the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals may be, they do not address the need

for urgent and indispensable international economic

reforms.

In the absence of the political will to tackle the

serious injustices and inequalities facing the world,

it is far more convenient to have recourse to the Re-

sponsibility to Protect in dealing with the

consequences of such problems. Nevertheless, we

should be satisfied that we have been able to com-

ply with the provisions of paragraph 139 of the

2005 World Summit Outcome, which calls on the

General Assembly to continue consideration of the

Responsibility to Protect and its consequences.

Our panel on this issue was not only balanced

but was also one of the most distinguished in the

history of the United Nations, including intellectu-

als of the calibre of Noam Chomsky, Ngugi wa

Thiong!o, Jean Bricmont and former Australian

Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. The rich and com-

prehensive discussions clarified our understanding

of this concept, which continues to be an important

aspiration. [See this issue page 22] However, great

care will be needed to ensure that this concept is not

interpreted or used, as so often in the past, as a right

to intervene.

Security Council Reform: Narrow

Decision-Making Base

We are at a critical juncture on the path that we

set out upon in San Francisco 64 years ago. The

institutions established at that time, like all institu-

tions, have undergone a natural, gradual and inevi-

table process of attrition. As a consequence, the

present crisis is affecting both international eco-

nomic governance and policy.

There is broad consensus that the United Na-

tions Security Council is incapable of effectively

addressing many crucial issues related to interna-

tional peace and security and that it requires com-

prehensive reform in order to overcome the increas-

ing limitations arising from its restrictive methods

and narrow decision-making base. We have also

taken important steps in this regard, and we have

made progress with the implementation of decision

62/557 of 15 September 2008. [See this issue page 6]

Page 4

With regard to reform of the Security Council,

I believe we can say that during the sixty-third ses-

sion of the General Assembly we have turned a

dream into a reality, since we have succeeded in

moving the reform process from a study by the

open-ended working group to the level of intergov-

ernmental negotiations in informal plenary meet-

ings.

Since the start of the negotiations in February,

under the leadership of Ambassador Zahir Tanin of

Afghanistan, we have held 32 meetings to consider

specific issues. More than two thirds of Member

States participated actively in these meetings and

detailed proposals were also submitted, which

clearly demonstrates the importance that Member

States attach to this issue.

In May even more progress was made on this

basis, with the negotiations receiving further en-

couragement by a document outlining the main op-

tions and a series of negotiable issues. A robust

framework for subsequent negotiations has thereby

been established. I am convinced that there is light

at the end of the tunnel. Provided that we continue

the negotiations and show a greater degree of com-

mitment at the next session of the General Assem-

bly, this process will shortly yield concrete results.

General Assembly Reform: Democrati-

zation of the United Nations

I am grateful to Ambassador Maria Fernanda

Espinosa of Ecuador and Ambassador Morten Wet-

land of Norway for their excellent work as Co-

Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the revi-

talization of the General Assembly. Their efforts

were a focused response to my longstanding call to

prioritize the democratization of the United Na-

tions.

Only a strong General Assembly which vigor-

ously exercises its deliberative, policymaking and

decision-making roles will be capable of enhancing

multilateralism as the best option for relationships

between States. It must be borne in mind that the

most significant revitalization has been the capacity

demonstrated by the General Assembly to address

existential economic problems that it had been un-

able to tackle for almost three decades. Revitaliza-

tion is a political rather than a technical issue.

I am also grateful to the Co-Chairs of the

System-wide Coherence process, Ambassador Juan

Antonio Yáñez-Barnuevo of Spain and Ambassador

Kaire Mbuende of Namibia, for the progress

achieved under their able guidance. Indeed, harmo-

nized cooperation in line with the national plans of

developing countries should continue to be a funda-

mental objective to ensure system-wide coherence

of the United Nations through governance that is

focused on the principles of transparency, inclusive-

ness and national ownership. These principles

should, in turn, ensure that the forces of change are

mobilized to achieve both gender equality at the

global level and enhanced results at the national

level.

Further efforts must therefore be resolutely

pursued to secure an agreement between Member

States on the need for a global institutional incen-

tive to achieve gender equality. This will ensure

that the women of the world have a strong and co-

herent voice within an effective structure.

Events of International Relevance

For my part, I leave satisfied at having spared

no effort conscientiously to fulfill my obligation to

carry out the agenda of the sixty-third session and,

at the same time, to ensure that the General Assem-

bly remained attuned to events of international rele-

vance not foreseen in the agenda, such as the Israeli

aggression against Gaza, the global financial and

economic crisis, or the recent coup d’état in Hondu-

ras, a stroke of luck for the pro-coup forces of the

twenty-first century by which the international reac-

tionaries tried to impede the victorious and promis-

ing advance of the Bolivarian Alternative for the

Americas. If we had had more time, we would have

taken up as an agenda item in the General Assembly

the serious threat to peace in Latin America posed

by plans to build seven new United States military

bases in Colombia, but regrettably the sixty-third

session has run out of time. This theme will there-

fore have to wait until the next session, if the work

of the General Assembly is to be kept in tune with

events in our world.

As has happened with the Governments of

many Member States, the magnitude and gravity of

the global financial and economic crisis, the great-

est crisis since the foundation of the United

Nations, have occupied centre stage in our agenda

during this past year, and have in fact prevented us

from considering, to the extent we would have pre-

ferred, such other issues as nuclear disarmament,

Page 5

the situation in Palestine, decolonization and the

extremely dangerous and illegal concept of preven-

tive war, which has nothing to do with that of “pre-

emptive war,” despite the fact that, regrettably, we

use the same word in Spanish to refer to these two

essentially and critically different concepts.

We would also have liked to have considered

the so-called war on terror in greater depth in our

agenda. Most salient in that regard is the universally

condemned case of the five Cuban heroes, unjustly

and arbitrarily detained for exactly 11 years and two

days, and subsequently condemned to serve heavy

prison terms for having brought to light, in Miami,

terrorist schemes against the heroic and ever-sup-

portive Republic of Cuba. Despite the fact that the

information was duly provided to the authorities of

our host country, who have continuously claimed to

have no knowledge of it, the response was to jail

them. It is to be hoped that with the much-touted

change and rectification policy of the new Govern-

ment of the host country, there will be a correction

of this miscarriage of justice, which has caused so

much suffering to the five families affected and so

much damage to the image of the United States that

its new president is committed to improving.

Palestine: A Scandal that has Caused

Me Much Sorrow

My greatest frustration this year has been the

Palestine situation. The Question of Palestine con-

tinues to be the most serious and prolonged unre-

solved political and human rights issue on the agen-

da of the United Nations since its inception. The

evident lack of commitment for resolving it is a

scandal that has caused me much sorrow.

I promised a proactive Presidency, and sin-

cerely believe that I did everything I possibly could

in this regard, requesting and attempting to per-

suade those who should have been most closely in-

volved to call for the convocation of the General

Assembly to consider the Palestine situation. How-

ever, whether at the time of the three-week invasion

of Gaza that began on 27 December or now, all I

received was advice to give the process more time,

because things were always on the point of being

resolved and we should do nothing that could en-

danger the success that was always just beyond our

reach. [-ed. Father Brockmann is here and below

likely referring to the Permanent Observer Mission

of Palestine to the United Nations representing the

Palestinian Authority]

Faced with this situation, I sincerely did not

know what to do. I wanted to help Palestine, but

those who should supposedly have been most inter-

ested denied their support for reasons of “caution”

that I was incapable of understanding. I hope that

they were right and that I was wrong. Otherwise, we

face an ugly situation of constant complicity with

the aggression against the rights of the noble and

long-suffering Palestinian people.

A just resolution of the Question of Palestine

must be based on the content of international law,

and will only be attained when the unity of the Pal-

estinian people has been achieved and the interna-

tional community speaks with all its representatives

who enjoy credibility and have been democratically

elected. In addition to the withdrawal of the Israelis

from all territories illegally occupied since 1967,

international law demands that all Palestinians dis-

placed during the creation of the State of Israel,

their children and grandchildren, be permitted to

return to their homeland of Palestine.

My chief consultant on humanitarian affairs,

Dr. Kevin Cahill, was sent to Gaza from 17 to 22

February to prepare a report on the humanitarian

situation in Gaza immediately after the aggression.

Dr. Cahill’s report was issued on Wednesday 19

August, on the occasion of World Humanitarian

Day commemorating the sacrifices of United Na-

tions staff in conflict zones; it had originally been

intended for release at a Special Session on Gaza,

but that did not take place for the reasons

mentioned.

I find disgraceful the passivity and apparent

indifference of some highly influential members of

the Security Council to the fact that the blockade of

Gaza has continued uninterrupted for two years, in

flagrant violation of international law and of the

resolution of the Security Council itself, causing

immense damage and suffering to the Palestinian

population of Gaza. This situation threatens to be-

come even more serious if immediate measures are

not taken, now that winter is approaching. Now is

the time to demonstrate, with actions and not sim-

ply words, a true commitment to the concept of the

Responsibility to Protect.

Page 6

Main Lesson or Perception

It would be inappropriate for me to leave with-

out sharing with you what I feel is the main lesson

or perception I have gained during this year of

work, dedication and total commitment to the cause

of peace through the democratization of the United

Nations; the revitalization of the General Assembly;

the complete abolition of nuclear weapons by the

year 2020, the 75

anniversary of the dropping of

atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the

eradication of poverty and hunger, which this year

passed the psychological barrier of a billion people

suffering hunger throughout the world; the taking of

measures to ensure the availability of clean water

and food for all; the promotion of effective policies

for dealing with climate change; putting an end to

the crime of human trafficking, as well as to the

disgrace of the ill treatment of and discrimination

against women; guaranteeing the right to education

for children and youths, including that of girls and

boys in situations of armed combat or humanitarian

disasters caused by natural phenomena; as well as

guaranteeing universal access to health, which is an

ethical and religious imperative.

In all these endeavours, the ongoing counsel of

Brother David Andrews of the Congregation of the

Holy Cross, as well as of Maude Barlow, Mohamed

Bedjaoui, Byron Blake, Leonardo Boff, Noam

Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Michael Clark, Kevin

Cahill, Aldo Díaz Lacayo, François Houtart, Mi-

chael Kennedy, Francisco Lacayo Parajón, Carlos

Emilio López, Paul Oquist, Nuripan Sen, Joseph

Stiglitz and Oscar-René Vargas, was of great use to

this Presidency, which we intended to be a team

effort from the beginning. However, clearly, our

greatest gratitude is to God, our Lord, for having

allowed us to contribute in some small way to the

cause of world peace.

During this year, there was much talk of the

need to reform the United Nations and to do every-

thing possible to improve its image, credibility and

effectiveness. According to data from the latest poll

by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes pro-

ject, carried out in 24 nations and the Palestinian

Territories, there has been a noticeable improve-

ment in the perception of the United Nations. This

gives us happiness, but not satisfaction. Much re-

mains to be done if the United Nations is to become

worthy of the prestige, trust and credibility it needs

to carry out its mission effectively, a mission that is

so important in today’s troubled world.

It is said that the League of Nations failed be-

cause those who sponsored it lacked the power or

will needed to make it a reality. I believe that some-

thing similar can be said of the United Nations. I

am one of those who believe that the United Na-

tions has the potential as an organization to be in-

dispensable to humanity’s efforts to survive the cri-

ses converging to threaten its extinction. The main

problem, without a doubt, is that not all its founders

really believed, or believe even today, in the vision

or principles explicit and implicit in its underlying

Charter.

I believe that it is not far-fetched to note that

the whole world knows that, among many other

truths, some of our most powerful and influential

Member States definitely do not believe in the rule

of law in international relations and are of the view,

moreover, that complying with the legal norms to

which we formally commit, when signing the Char-

ter, is something that applies only to weak coun-

tries. With such a low level of commitment, it

should not be surprising that the United Nations has

been unable to achieve the main objectives for

which it was created.

Certain Member States think that they can act

according to the law of the jungle, and defend the

right of the strongest to do whatever they feel like

with total and absolute impunity, and remain ac-

countable to no one. They think nothing of railing

against multilateralism, proclaiming the virtues of

unilateralism while simultaneously pontificating

unashamedly from their privileged seats on the Se-

curity Council about the need for all Member States

conscientiously to fulfill their obligations under the

Charter, or be sanctioned (selectively of course) for

failing to do so. The sovereign equality of all Mem-

ber States and the obligation to prevent wars are, for

them, minor details that need not be taken very seri-

ously.

All of this, and many other equally serious

anomalies, is what has brought many to believe in

the urgency of the need to reform the United Na-

tions. But during this year as President of the Gen-

eral Assembly, I have come to the conclusion that

the time has already passed for reforming or mend-

ing our Organization. What we need to do is to rein-

vent it, and we need urgently to do it ad majorem

Page 7

gloriam Dei, which is to say, for the good of the

Earth and of humanity.

In the 64 years since the creation of the United

Nations, there have been many scientific advances

and development in the ethical consciousness of

mankind that allow us to clarify the main elements

of this other world, possible and indispensable for

our survival, and to proceed on that basis to the

drafting of a proposed Declaration on the Common

Good of the Earth and Humanity. Once the consen-

sus of Member States has been obtained on this

Declaration, this shared vision will have to be con-

verted into a draft for a new Charter of the United

Nations, one that is attuned to the needs and knowl-

edge of the twenty-first century….

Tempus fugit. Time is running out. In Copenha-

gen [at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change

Conference] we will have the opportunity to show

that we understand well what that means and that

we are determined to do what is needed to defend

life.

Thank you.

[Editor’s Note: One of the problems inherited by the

63rd Session is the widely felt need for Security Council

reform. Father Brockmann phrased this as the need for

democratization of the UN The following article

appeared on Sept 15, 2008 one day before the beginning

of the 63

Session. As mandated by the 62

Session, the

session initiated intergovernmental negotiations on

Security Council reform which is a small step toward the

desired reform.]

UN Security Council

Reform in Focus

Public Scrutiny and Debate Needed,

Not Closed Meetings

by Ronda Hauben

The critical need for Security Council reform is

being expressed by a number of nations at the

United Nations as the 62

session comes to an end

and the 63

session of the General Assembly gets

underway.

Describing this urgency, Hilario Davide, the

Philippine ambassador to the UN, told the Security

Council Open Debate on its Working Methods held

in late August: “Calls for changes and reforms in

the Security Council are becoming louder and

stronger. In due course, it may even become irresist-

ible.”

The Problem of Equitable Expansion

The 61

session of the General Assembly

ended a year ago with a resolution on Security

Council reform stating that intergovernmental nego-

tiations would take place in the next session and

that a transitional agreement could provide for the

flexibility needed to try out a tentative solution. The

idea of a transitional agreement was presented as a

breakthrough. Similarly, the plan to move to inter-

governmental negotiations was a means to move

past the deadlocked working group phase of discus-

sion.

No such activity took place during the 62nd

Session of the General Assembly, which ran from

Sept. 18 2007 to Sept. 15, 2008. Instead, the mem-

bers of the General Assembly once again have the

dilemma of passing the problem onto the next ses-

sion of the General Assembly, which begins on

Sept. 16.

Most of the delegations to the UN maintain that

there is a need for some change. What the change

should be, however, is a deeply contentious issue.

There have been a number of proposals over the

years. The effort to create a forum to reform the

Security Council has been going on for years. The

most recent effort dates back to 1993 when the

Open Ended Working Group was created. Since

then the problem has passed from one General As-

sembly session to the next.

There are a number of proposals for reform that

have been presented to the UN membership but

none has gained general acceptance.

Among the

more well-known proposals for reform is that of

Germany, Japan, India and Brazil (Group of Four

[G-4]), proposing four new seats for themselves and

two for African nations. In this proposal, the new

permanent seats would not hold veto power.

Several other member nations appear con-

cerned that if a nation from their region in this

group gains the additional power that possessing a

permanent Security Council seat represents, it will

shift the power balance in the region in an undesir-

able way. Such a concern is an impetus for other

proposals, such as the Uniting for Consensus Group

of nations led by Pakistan and Italy, which opposed

Page 8

the creation of new permanent seats for individual

nations, but advocated 10 new seats for two-year

renewable terms.

Another proposal on behalf of a group of 54

African nations is asking for both permanent and

nonpermanent seats to be assigned to the African

region, with the decision of which nations fill those

seats to be determined regionally. The African

group wants the permanent seats to be with veto as

long as any other nation on the Security Council has

a veto. Its proposal is for an increase in total

Council membership to 26 seats, with two of the six

new permanent seats to be for nations selected by

the African region, and two of the five new nonper-

manent seats to be for African nations as well.

The Organization of Islamic Conference has

expressed its concern that there be adequate repre-

sentation for its members.

Does the Council Act on Behalf of the

Members?

Despite the differing views on how to expand

the Security Council membership, there is an agree-

ment among many of the nations on the need for

changes in the working methods of the Council.

In statements made at the Open Debate of the

Security Council on Working Methods held on

Aug. 27, several nations point to Section 1 of Arti-

cle 24 of the United Nations Charter, which says

that the Council acts on behalf of the members.

They argue that this article obliges the Council to

involve them when determining its course of action.

The language in the charter reads, “In order to

ensure prompt and effective action by the United

Nations, its members confer on the Security Coun-

cil primary responsibility for the maintenance of

international peace and security, and agree that in

carrying out its duties under this responsibility the

Security Council acts on their behalf” (Article 24,

Section 1).

Several of the nations not on the Security

Council say they are rarely consulted or even in-

formed about the issues being determined. Yet they

are told that they must enforce the decisions made

by the Council.

Even some of the members of the Council itself

report that they do not know how the decisions by

the five permanent members of the Council (P-5)

are made in the drafting of resolutions. Also, they

observe that non-council groups or nations are part

of the process of drafting resolutions instead of the

members of the Council.

Article 32 of the charter states, “Any member

of the United Nations which is not a member of the

Security Council, or any state which is not a Mem-

ber of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute

under consideration by the Security Council, shall

be invited to participate, without vote, in the discus-

sion relating to the dispute.”

Instead, nations complain that even when they

are a subject of or involved with the matters before

the Security Council, they are excluded from the

discussion and negotiation of resolutions and are

only allowed to speak after a decision has been

agreed to and voted on by those on the Council.

Since nonpermanent members only serve for

two years at a time, they are at a disadvantage when

compared to the P-5, which have been on the

Council since it was created over 60 years ago. The

P-5 nations are familiar with the past experience of

the Council. They also have greater resources to

draw on in keeping up with the intense schedule of

diverse issues that come before the Council. In ad-

dition, the P-5 can use their veto as a means to pres-

sure for their interests or to threaten that they will

prevent any action.

Nations Urge Specific Reforms

Following are a few excerpts from many state-

ments made by UN delegates at the Aug. 27 open

debate describing what delegates view as the prob-

lems that need attention.

Dumisani Kumalo, the South African ambassa-

dor to the UN, explained: “The Security Council

has witnessed the gradual erosion of its credibility

and authority. Its representativity has been chal-

lenged increasingly, as it addresses matters that

have expanded beyond the vision that the founders

of the United Nations foresaw in 1945.

“In the past decades, permanent members of

the Security Council have sought to utilize the

Council to further their own interest.… We have

always been troubled by the fact that issues such as

Kosovo, Western Sahara, non-proliferation and

even Georgia, are regarded as of interest, at least to

some members of the Council, to the exclusion of

other issues. On the question of the Middle East,

people around the world are well aware that the

Council has remained paralyzed in trying to address

Page 9

the plight of the Palestinian people 40 years after

the illegal occupation of their land.”

Ambassador Hilario G. Davide, Jr. of the Phil-

ippines told the Council: “Due process and the rule

of law demand that Member States that are not

members of the Security Council but are the sub-

jects of the Council’s scrutiny should have the right

to appear before the Council at all stages of the pro-

ceedings concerning them to state or defend their

positions on the issues that are the subjects of or are

related to that scrutiny. At present such participa-

tion is unfairly limited by rules 37 and 38 of the

provisional rules of procedure.… This is a denial of

due process, which is a violation of the basic princi-

ple of the rule of law. Due process and the rule of

law require that a party must be heard before it is

condemned.”

Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, the Iranian ambassador

to the UN, asked: “A legitimate question therefore

arises: whether the outcome of such non-transpar-

ent, exclusive and political procedures can represent

the points of view of the entire membership. How

can one expect Member States to implement deci-

sions that are made without even minimal engage-

ment on their part, or even without their knowl-

edge?”

Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Ecuador’s ambassa-

dor, reminded the Council: “In failing to apply

these methods and thus failing to improve its work-

ing methods, the Council has overlooked the funda-

mental premise that its actions are carried out on

behalf of and in representation of all Member

States.”

Does the Council Act in Accord with the

Charter and International Law?

The UN Charter states that the member nations

are obliged to carry out the decisions of the Security

Council that are in accord with the charter. This

implies there is an obligation of the Council to draft

resolutions that are in line with the obligations of

the charter and of international law. According to

Article 25, “The members of the United Nations

agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the

Security Council in accordance with the present

Charter.” Presently, however, there is no mecha-

nism to prevent the Council from passing resolu-

tions contrary to the charter and then claiming that

member states must enforce the resolutions.

A case in point is the sanctions list the Security

Council has compiled of the names of individuals

and entities that it alleges have been involved in the

financing of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban.

This is detailed in Security Council resolution 1267

(1999) and related resolutions.

The bank accounts of these individuals and en-

tities are to be frozen and a ban instituted on their

right to travel.

Several of those whose names have

been put on this list have appealed to various courts

and sought other avenues for legal remedies, as they

claim none exists within the UN processes. A recent

decision by the European Court of Justice on Sept.

3, agreed with the arguments of two of those on the

list, Yassin Abdullah Kadi, an individual, and Al

Barakaat International Foundation, an entity.

The two separate cases were joined together by

the court. The court found that both are being de-

nied the mandatory due process procedures that are

to be followed when access to one’s property or to

the right to travel are being denied. Therefore, being

put on the sanctions list subjects them to a violation

of their human rights. The court decision refers to

the obligations of the UN charter to “encourage re-

spect for human rights” (Article 1, Section 1).

The European Court of Justice said Kadi and

Al Barakaat’s argument was well founded, that Eu-

ropean Union (EU) and European Community (EC)

regulations to enforce the Security Council sanc-

tions to freeze their funds violated their rights of

defense, “especially the right to be heard, and of the

principle of effective judicial protection” (Decision

No. 353). It ordered that the two particular regula-

tions imposing the restrictive measures on persons

and entities associated with al-Qaida and the

Taliban be annulled, but that the effects of the regu-

lations be maintained for a period not to exceed

three months so that the EU and EC could remedy

the infringements found and redraft the regulations.

In their criticism of the working methods of the

Security Council, several nations explain that they

do not want the Council to be acting arbitrarily or

outside of the framework of international law.

Expressing this idea, Marty Natalegawa, Indone-

sia’s ambassador to the UN, told the Council: “We

seek a Council that safeguards the interests of all

and whose decisions and actions are in full conso-

nance with the established principles of interna-

tional law and the Charter of the United Nations.”

Page 10

Open Processes Make Reform

Possible

The challenges facing the nations of the United

Nations in trying to bring reform to the practices

and composition of the Security Council are formi-

dable. The possible veto of any change by any of

the P-5 nations presents a difficult obstacle to over-

come. Similarly, fostering agreement among the

diverse nations as to what change is needed and

how to implement it is similarly a difficult task.

Considering the difficult nature of the problem,

the process in working for reform becomes impor-

tant. If discussion of the various proposals for

change is done in an open environment, the details

can be covered by the press and public discussion

can be encouraged. The activities of the group

working on Council reform

held during the 62nd

Session of the General Assembly, however, were

often held in closed meetings and even some of the

nations involved complained that they were kept in

the dark about what was happening.

Little progress is likely to be made in this diffi-

cult area of United Nations reform unless the whole

process is opened up to welcome public scrutiny

and discussion. Such discussion helps to clarify the

public interest and to find ways to solve problems

impeding a solution that is in line with the public

purpose.

For example, in 2003 the United States sought

to get a Security Council resolution authorizing the

invasion of Iraq. The argument was made that it

would weaken the UN if the Security Council failed

to authorize the invasion. One of the ambassadors

on the Council at the time explained how the

broadly based international coverage of Council

meetings and the broad public discussion of the is-

sues involved helped to clarify that it was in the

best interests of the UN not to authorize the inva-

sion. This international public concern helped him

to resist the pressure.

The lesson of the need for open, public pro-

cesses is a lesson that can help to guide the efforts

toward Security Council reform in the 63rd session

of the General Assembly. Democratizing the UN

has been proposed as a key issue for this session

and for the opening debate. This is a sign that there

are some nations that recognize the problem and

will make efforts to solve it.

Notes:

1. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, 2009 S/PV.5968

Resumption 1, p. 8, and longer statement distributed by am-

bassador at meeting. This statement was one of many com-

ments presented at a meeting of the Security Council to dis-

cuss its working methods on Aug. 27. This Council meeting

on the subject, held under the Belgium presidency in August,

was a rare event that several delegates urged be repeated at

least every two years.

2 . S e e a su mma r y o f so me p r op os a l s a t:

http://www.Reformtheun.org.

3. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, S/PV.5968 Provisional,

p. 15.

http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php/eupdate/3920

4. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, S/PV.5968 Resumption

1, p. 8.

5. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, S/PV.5968 Resumption

1, p. 12.

6. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, S/PV.5968 Resumption

1, p. 13.

7. For details, see Ronda Hauben, “At the Crossroads: Security

Council Sanctions Imposed without Due Process,” Telepolis,

June 29. 2009.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/28/28217/1.html

8. See Decision Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber),

Sept. 3.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=478012:cs&lang=ro&li

st=463008:cp,478012:cs,463008:cs,&pos=2&page=1&nbl=3

&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=

9. Security Council meeting, Aug. 27, S/PV.5968 Provisional,

p. 5.

10. The actual name of the working group is the Open Ended

Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation

and Increase in the Membership and Other Matters related to

the Security Council. The proposal for the Sept. 9 draft for the

final document is A/Ac.247/2008/L.1/Rev.1.

11. For a summary of some of the actions of the working

group, see “Security Council Reform Debate Heats Up as

Member States Negotiate Final Drafts,” by Jonas von

Freiesleben, Sept. 11.

http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/364

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on Septem-

ber 15, 2008 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no

=383668&rel_no=1

Page 11

Change in Economic Model

Needed to Solve Crisis

President of Bolivia Offers

Alternative to the Neoliberal Agenda

by Ronda Hauben

Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, in a talk

to the United Nations General Assembly [in

September 2008], offered an alternative viewpoint

of how member nations should deal with the eco-

nomic crisis.

He presented a critique of what he called “the

continuation of the neo-liberal agenda of the devel-

oped nations,” explaining how this approach would

only deepen the crisis rather than help to solve it.

“In order to put an end to the financial crisis,” he

said, “we have to put an end to the rules of the

World Trade Organization (WTO).”

“It is important to move forward to deep eco-

nomic change,” Morales explained. This means

changing the economic model. He called for replac-

ing the neo-liberal model.

His alternative agenda included providing aid

to the victims of the crisis. By the victims he meant

those who have lost their homes, and those who are

losing their jobs. The money should not go to those

who have caused the crisis, he told the member na-

tions of the General Assembly.

Morales also criticized the G20 summit held on

Nov. 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C. as not represen-

tative of the majority of countries in the world who

are affected by the economic crisis. Maybe it was

just 20 countries, because those countries feel they

bear responsibility for the crisis, he suggested. But

that still didn’t justify limiting the decision making

process for the world response to the crisis to 20 of

the developed nations, he reasoned.

As a model for an alternative economics, he

offered the practice of Bolivia where a new consti-

tution has been passed, and services have been in-

stituted to benefit all the people, including those in

the rural areas who were ignored by the governing

institutions in the past.

Morales noted that it was very important “to be

constantly with the people, to heed what the people

want, to listen to what the people are asking for.”

Describing how the newly passed constitution

would provide rights for the indigenous people, he

said that, for the first time, “the state is for all.”

Morales explained that he had come to thank

the General Assembly for the support given him

and his country when groups tried to destabilize the

country. While the nationalization of the oil in

Bolivia has resulted in a substantial increase in the

funds the country receives from its oil reserves, this

also led to certain groups trying various means to

cut Bolivia’s exports.

At the press conference held on Nov. 18, just

after Morales’ speech to the General Assembly, Fa-

ther Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, who is from Nic-

aragua, introduced Morales. He said President Mo-

rales is a head of state who is practicing the values

for the 21

century. Member nations had described

such values as desirable during meetings supporting

interfaith dialogue which had been held at the UN

the previous week.

In response to a question at the press confer-

ence, Morales explained that illiteracy is being

eradicated in Bolivia, and that a pension has been

instituted for those over 60 years of age.

He offered these as examples of how the re-

sources of the country are being used to improve

the lives of the people.

Also he explained that under the new political

constitution, no foreign nation is allowed to set up a

military base in Bolivia. He described how his

country is opposed to the use of the coca leaf to

produce cocaine, but that consumption of the coca

leaf is a traditional part of the culture in Bolivia and

the government supports this cultural practice.

Morales told members of the media, that

though in the past the rural people had no access to

telecommunications, after the nationalization of

telecommunications important changes have taken

place. Now even people tending sheep in the fields

have cell phones and can get calls from their rela-

tives abroad.

Electricity in the rural areas, he explained, is

becoming more affordable to people.

While Morales offered an alternative economic

model for developing nations to that of neo-

liberalism as the needed response to the economic

crisis, much of the western press focused on his ban

on the role played by the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) in Bolivia. In response, Mo-

rales described how even when he was a member of

Page 12

the Parliament, he was not allowed to pass a certain

check point that was at the time maintained by the

officials of the DEA. He also recalled when the

DEA had had helicopters monitoring social move-

ment activity.

Morales, who had been a labor leader in

Bolivia, maintains that government has a duty to

serve people and defend the sovereignty of the

country.

Note: A video of Evo Morales’ press conference is available at

the UN Web site.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2008

/pc081117pm.rm

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on Novem-

ber 25, 2008 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no

=384247&rel_no=1

Response to Israeli

Attacks on Gaza

Press Statement Issued by

Security Council After Five Hours

of Consultations

by Ronda Hauben

Reporting from the United Nations, Saturday

night Dec. 27, 2008 through Sunday morning, Dec.

28. – I arrived at the United Nations around 9:35

p.m. (EST) after learning that there were to be Se-

curity Council consultations about what is happen-

ing in Gaza. The Security Council consultations

were scheduled for 10 p.m. (EST).

The Libyan delegation, on behalf of the Arab

League, had asked for a meeting of the Security

Council to respond to the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Soon after the members arrived, some members

of the delegations told the press that the Security

Council members were working on a statement

which would urge Israel to halt its military opera-

tions in Gaza. Also, the statement was to call for

cessation of rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza.

Another element for the statement was said to

be to call for the opening of the border crossings

into Gaza and unrestricted humanitarian access to

the area.

A few others who spoke with the press infor-

mally were quick to point out that the draft effort to

fashion a statement was not something agreed to in

any way yet by the members of the Security Coun-

cil. The discussion among the members of the Secu-

rity Council was said to be about whether they

would hold a meeting this evening and if so what

the meeting would do.

A representative of one of the delegations said

that his delegation wanted either a statement that all

members of the Security Council agreed on

presented to the press this evening, or else an open

meeting where all members would speak freely.

Five hours after the meeting began, members of

the Security Council emerged from their consulta-

tions. They had indeed agreed on a statement to be

read to the press.

The statement contained several points. These

included:

1) There was serious concern about “the escalation

of the situation in Gaza.”

2) The call for “an immediate halt to all violence.”

3) The call for “all parties to stop immediately all

military activities.”

4) The call for the opening of the border crossings

“to ensure the continuous provision of humanitarian

supplies.”

The statement “stressed the need for the restoration

of calm” toward finding a political solution for the

settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Several of the parties came to speak briefly to

the press after the Security Council issued its state-

ment.

The American ambassador to the UN, Zalmay

Khalilzad, wanted it known that he attributed the

root cause of the problem to Hamas’ rocket attacks

on Israel. He limited the questions he would answer

after being confronted with questions from reporters

asking if what Israel was doing in killing over 200

Palestinians was not a disproportionate response.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin indicated

that there were different views among Security

Council members about what the root cause of the

problem was, but that the bottom line was that the

situation in Gaza had slipped, and that it was impor-

tant to stop the bloodshed. He expressed his appre-

ciation that the matter had been brought to the Se-

curity Council as a result of a decision of foreign

Page 13

ministers, and that a statement had been issued by

the Council.

When asked what the Security Council would

do to follow up on the statement, he said that the

statement had been crafted with some understand-

ing by the Israeli government that it was issued, and

he expected that the parties assumed that there were

certain responsibilities given that the Security

Council had issued a statement.

The Palestinian observer at the UN explained

that if Israel didn’t comply, the Arab nations would

come back knocking at the door of the Security

Council.

Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said that

the Security Council didn’t have to be in such a

rush to issue a statement.

The French ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert,

said that the statement made clear that the border

crossings to Gaza had to be open including having

access allowed to NGOs, diplomats, and journalists.

While the members of the Security Council

were discussing what the Security Council would

do, others at the United Nations presented their

view of the situation.

The Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, via his

spokesperson had issued a statement on Saturday,

Dec. 27. It contained a general statement about Is-

rael’s obligation to uphold humanitarian law, and

human rights law, in general condemning “exces-

sive use of force,” but condemning by name Hamas

for ongoing rocket attacks on Israel. The statement

is posted at the UN.

The President of the General Assembly, Miguel

d!Escoto Brockmann, announced he would cut short

his brief Christmas holiday to return to the UN from

Nicaragua.

His spokesperson, Enrique Yeves, told journal-

ists, “The General Assembly President is extremely

worried about the whole situation. He believes it is

time for the international community to act to pre-

vent this kind of aggression from Israel against the

civilian population of Palestine.”

“If we fail,” Yeves explained, “we will all be

guilty by omission.”

The president of the General Assembly is fol-

lowing very closely the situation in New York, said

Yeves, and he gave journalists a copy of

Brockmann’s statement.

The statement expressed in a clear and forth-

right manner that he condemned the actions by Is-

rael. The statement by the president of the General

Assembly is:

The behavior by Israel in bombarding

Gaza is simply the commission of wanton

aggression by a very powerful state against

a territory that [it] illegally occupies.

Time has come to take firm action if

the United Nations does not want to be

rightly accused of complicity by omission.

The Israeli air strikes on the Gaza

Strip represent severe and massive viola-

tions of international humanitarian law as

defined in the Geneva Conventions, both

in regard to the obligations of an Occupy-

ing Power and in the requirements of the

laws of war.

Those violations include:

Collective punishment – the entire 1.5

million people who live in the crowded

Gaza Strip are being punished for the ac-

tions of a few militants.

Targeting civilians – the air strikes

were aimed at civilian areas in one of the

most crowded stretches of land in the

world, certainly the most densely popu-

lated area of the Middle East.

Disproportionate military response –

the air strikes have not only destroyed ev-

ery police and security office of Gaza’s

elected government, but have killed and

injured hundreds of civilians; at least one

strike reportedly hit groups of students at-

tempting to find transportation home from

the university.

I remind all member states of the

United Nations that the UN continues to be

bound to an independent obligation to pro-

tect any civilian population facing massive

violations of international humanitarian

law regardless of what country may be re-

sponsible for those violations.

I call on all Member States, as well as

officials and every relevant organ of the

United Nations system, to move expedi-

tiously not only to condemn Israel’s seri-

ous violations, but to develop new

approaches to providing real protection for

the Palestinian people.

Page 14

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on Decem-

ber 28, 2008 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no

=384512&rel_no=1

The World Has

Been Watching

The UN and the Failure to Act to

Stop Attack on Gaza

by Ronda Hauben

On the evening of Jan. 3, the President of the

General Assembly, Father Miguel d! Escoto

Brockmann, arrived at the UN as the Security

Council was preparing to hold a closed door meet-

ing about the Gaza crisis.

Earlier in the day, Israel had escalated the pre-

vious eight days of bombing of Gaza by beginning a

ground invasion into the territory.

The situation in Gaza is that 1.5 million civil-

ians are trapped in a virtual prison. For 18 months

prior to the invasion, Israel has blockaded the cross-

ing points into Gaza that it controls and Egypt has

closed the one crossing point it has control over.

Responding to the question from a journalist

about what his reaction was to Israel’s actions in

Gaza and the Israeli ground attack, Brockmann said,

“I think it’s a monstrosity. There’s no other way to

name it.”

He went on to explain that “once again the

world is watching in dismay the disfunctionality of

the Security Council.” The shame of this, he said, is

that “people are dying.”

Such activity by the Security Council,

Brockmann said, is “what is responsible for the loss

of prestige and the bad image” that the

disfunctionality results in. “The Security Council,”

he explained, “is in very urgent need of profound

reform.”

Subsequent events on Jan. 3 at the Security

Council demonstrated the accuracy of Brockmann’s

description of the current state of the Security

Council.

This was the first meeting of the Security

Council in 2009. Five newly elected nations re-

placed five outgoing members. The new members

were Turkey, Mexico, Uganda, Japan and Austria.

They replaced Indonesia, Panama, South Africa,

Belgium and Italy.

A problem, however, seemed to be that the

newly elected members did not have the same un-

derstanding of the dynamics and how to deal with

them that the outgoing elected members had learned

from their two years on the council.

While several of the outgoing members had

voiced

their commitment to having open meetings

of the Security Council – especially when there was

a dispute that couldn’t be resolved – the new mem-

bers and others on the Council allowed the meeting

on Jan. 3 to be a closed meeting. The discussion and

actions of the Security Council were only available

from second hand reports.

During a similar meeting of the 2008 Security

Council on Dec. 27-28, one of the outgoing ambas-

sadors, South Africa’s Domisani Kumalo told jour-

nalists that he was insisting on an open meeting if

the Security Council did not, at least, come to an

agreed upon statement for the press.

At the first Security Council meeting in 2009,

however, it is reported that no ambassador insisted

on an open meeting. Hence there was neither an

agreed upon press statement from Council mem-

bers, nor was there an open meeting.

Describing the events of the Jan. 3 meeting, the

Egyptian Ambassador, Maged A. Abdelaziz, told

the press that, “we find regrettably that the Security

Council is downgrading its response.”

He was re-

ferring to the fact that the U.S. Ambassador

Alejandro D. Wolff would not even agree to make

the previous weekend’s press statement into a Presi-

dential statement. Nor would the U.S. agree to a

press statement like that of the previous Saturday,

calling for an immediate halt to all violence.

Significantly, Israel’s escalation of violence

against Palestinians in Gaza, represented by the Is-

raeli land invasion, was greeted with official silence

at the first meeting of 2009 of the Security Council.

The Security Council was silent on the fact that the

large number of civilian deaths and injuries and the

massive destruction of civilian targets in Gaza dem-

onstrated that Israel was committing widespread

collective punishment of civilians in Gaza.

During Brockmann’s comments to the press, he

had referred to “other possible steps” that were be-

ing considered.

Some member nations of the UN are pointing

to General Assembly Resolution 377 “Uniting for

Page 15

Peace”

as a procedure to be invoked to respond to

the problem when a permanent member of the Se-

curity Council blocks action on an urgent issue, as

the U.S. did on Jan. 3.

The Uniting for Peace resolution notes that the

blocking of urgent action by a permanent member

of the Security Council does not relieve the mem-

bers of the UN of their responsibility under the

charter. Under Article 24 of the UN charter, mem-

bers of the UN confer “on the Security Council pri-

mary responsibility for the maintenance of interna-

tional peace and security, and agree that in carrying

out its duties under this responsibility the Security

Council acts on their behalf.”

When the Security Council fails to carry out

such duties however, the General Assembly can

assume the responsibility. If the General Assembly

is in session, a meeting is to be called. If the Gen-

eral Assembly is not in session, as is currently the

case, there is a procedure to call for an Emergency

Session, which is to meet within 24 hours of the

request.

There have been press reports that member na-

tions of the UN, like members of the 57 nations of

the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), or

like members of the 117 non-aligned nations are

working to start the process to call for an

emergency meeting of the General Assembly about

the Gaza crisis if the Security Council continues to

be unable to act on the need for a cease fire and the

opening of the border crossings into Gaza.

There have been ongoing and growing demon-

strations around the world of people upset about the

lack of action by their governments to find a way to

stop Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. The persistent

failure of the UN Security Council over the past 18

months to stop the siege of Gaza has helped to set

the conditions for the current attack on the Palestin-

ians by Israel.

Angry demonstrations around the world are

evidence that this inaction is an affront, not only to

the besieged Palestinians but to people around the

world who condemn Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In

his comments to the press on Jan. 3, Brockmann

said that “what is really responsible [for the current

violent situation in Gaza –ed.] I think is the unful-

filled resolutions of the Security Council” with re-

gard to the Palestinian crisis.

“The world has been watching,” he noted.

Notes:

1. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by H.E.

Mr. Miguel d!Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd session

of the General Assembly on the situation in the Middle East,

including the Palestinian question. [Webcast: Archived Video

- 7 minutes]

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2009/so0901

03pm2.rm

See also Ronda Hauben “Security Council and Others at UN

Respond to Israeli Attacks on Gaza , Press statement issued by

Security Council after 5 hours of consultations,” OhmyNews

International, Dec. 28, 2008.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=384512&rel_no=1

2. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza

Crisis: The Silence is Deafening Says Indonesia’s Ambassador

to the UN,” OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 2008.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?arti

cle_class=16&no=381689&rel_no=1

3. Egypt Media Stakeout: Permanent Representative of Egypt,

H.E. Mr. Maged A. Abdelaziz [See especially Minutes

18:47-20:52]

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2009/so0901

03pm3.rm

4. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, states,

“No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she

has not personally committed. Collective penalties and like-

wise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohib-

ited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons

and their property are prohibited.”

5. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/377(V) A 3 Novem-

ber 1950 377 (V). Uniting for Peace.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/99818751a6a4c9c68525

60690077ef61/55c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6

6. Indonesia and Malaysia are two such nations. See for exam-

ple, Abdul Khalik and Lilian Budianto, “RI pushes for UN

emergency meeting” The Jakarta Post, Jakarta.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/02/ri-calls-israel

-halt-attack-gaza-strip.html

“President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Monday that

Indonesia would continue its political and diplomatic efforts to

push the Security Council to issue a resolution to stop Israeli

attacks and force both sides to return to peaceful dialog to

solve the conflict.”

“But if we can’t get a resolution through the Security Council

then we will use the alternative of an emergency meeting at

the General Assembly to force a cease fire to stop the hostili-

ties that have claimed many lives,” he told reporters at the

Presidential office.

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on January

6, 2009 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=384569&rel_no=1

Page 16

Israel Attempts to Justify

Its Attack on Gaza

The Obligations of Israel As an Occu-

pying Power Under the UN Charter

by Ronda Hauben

In a letter submitted to Ban Ki-moon, the

Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the

President of the Security Council for the month of

January (S/2009/6, Jan. 6, 2009), Israel informs

them that it has expanded its military operations in

the Gaza Strip. Israel claims this is its right under

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Is-

rael states that this is a “defensive military opera-

tion” and that it has begun this military operation

only “after exhausting all other means.”

The letter states “Israel is not at war with the

Palestinian people.” It states that Israel is doing its

“utmost to avoid and minimize civilian casualties

and to take the necessary precautionary measures in

accordance with Israel’s obligations under interna-

tional humanitarian law.” Also Israel claims that it

“makes – and will continue to make every effort to

allow humanitarian relief into the Gaza Strip.”

Describing the nature of Israel’s attack on the

political infrastructure of Gaza, Sarah Leah

Whitson, the Executive Director of the Middle East

and North American Division of Human Rights

Watch, in a press conference at the United Nations,

presented a different view of what Israel is doing.

She explained that under international law only

combatants who are actively engaged in fighting are

legitimate subjects of attack. (Press Conference,

Jan. 7, 2009, Note 1)

In its bombardment, Israel has targeted the po-

litical and civilian infrastructure such as police sta-

tions. It is Israel’s burden of proof to show that the

police were indeed Hamas militants. Instead,

Whitson noted, Israel targeted police stations “on a

blanket basis.”

Similarly, she pointed out, Israel targeted a

Hamas Official at the Ministry of Health, and the

Hamas media broadcasting station.

Whitson maintained that under international

law, the closure of the crossing points into Gaza,

the blockade that Israel and Egypt have participated

in imposing on the people of Gaza, is the imposition

of collective punishment on a civilian population.

The people suffering from the effects of the block-

ade are civilians, rather than the effects being re-

stricted to the combatants Israel claimed it was

fighting. Moreover, Israel, as the occupying power

over Gaza, has the primary responsibility to provide

food and medicine for the people of Gaza, but in-

stead has prevented the people from having access

to the goods and services necessary for life.

The rationale presented by Israel in its letter to

the United Nations is quite different from the facts.

The claim that its military bombardment of Gaza is

defensive in nature is contrary to its announcement

that it has attacked the political infrastructure of

Gaza, a political infrastructure that was the result of

the Palestinian people voting in January 2006 for

Hamas as its political representatives.

In an interview by UN radio with Richard Falk,

the UN Human Rights Rapporteur on the Occupied

Palestinian territories, about the crisis in Gaza (In-

terview on Gaza, Jan. 2, 2009, Note 2), Falk

maintains that the “maintenance of a blockade on a

society is treated as an act of war.” Imposing such a

blockade and then militarily attacking the people of

Gaza, as Israel has done since Dec. 27, is “a mas-

sive and severe violation of the prohibition on col-

lective punishment which is contained in Article 33

of the Geneva convention.” Falk also explains that

Israel’s failure to provide adequate food and medi-

cine for a population that is under its occupation, is

a continuing violation of Article 55 of the same in-

ternational treaty.

Falk describes how Hamas adhered to the

cease-fire agreed to in June 2008 by not launching

rocket attacks on Israel, but that Israel broke the

cease-fire agreement by failing to restore humani-

tarian supplies as they had agreed to do. (UN radio,

Interview with Richard Falk, Jan. 9, 2009, Note 3)

Israel is not defending its own territory from an in-

vasion, but attacking another political community,

one that it has a responsibility to maintain under

humanitarian law. According to Falk, Israel, by

controlling land, sea and air access to Gaza, is the

occupying power in Gaza.

It was not only that Israel failed to allow food,

fuel, and medical supplies into Gaza as it was

obliged to do under its agreement with Hamas, but

on Nov. 4, 2008, when much of the world was

distracted with the U.S. election, Israel launched an

attack on Gaza, resulting in at least six deaths. This

act of Israel broke the cease-fire. Hence Israel’s

Page 17

attack on Gaza is not defensive as its actions were

the cause of the escalation of hostilities. Then when

Hamas offered to agree to a continuation of the

cease-fire for 10 years if the blockade was lifted,

Israel ignored the offer. Falk says Israel’s action in

ignoring the offer by Hamas to negotiate how to

continue the cease-fire “is a violation of interna-

tional law which requires a government to use every

diplomatic option before they have recourse to

war.”

An article by Jimmy Carter similarly details

how Hamas did not break the cease-fire, just as it

was Hamas that offered to negotiate with Israel to

extend the cease-fire. (Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: an un-

necessary war,” 1/8/09, Mercury News, Note 4)

Carter notes that the people of Gaza “were being

starved” by Israel’s actions enforcing the blockade.

Carter describes his efforts in mid-December to ex-

tend the soon-to-expire six-month cease-fire dead-

line. The issue for Hamas was the opening of the

crossing points into Gaza to restore access to need-

ed supplies for the people of Gaza. Carter reports

that Israeli officials “informally proposed that 15

percent of normal supplies might be possible.”

Carter relates how this was “unacceptable to Hamas

and hostilities erupted.”

While Israel has presented its rationale for its

attack on Gaza to the United Nations, claiming that

it is acting in a just manner, the Security Council

has passed a binding resolution calling for a cease-

fire and withdrawal from Gaza. Israel is ignoring

the resolution, though as a member state of the

United Nations, it has an obligation to abide by the

decisions of the Security Council.

Under Article 33 of the Charter of the United

Nations, the Security Council has the authority to

call upon the parties to settle their dispute by peace-

ful means. More civilians are being killed and

wounded every day that Israel continues its military

attack and blockade of Gaza, yet Israel continues to

ignore its obligations to cease its attacks.

The crisis in Gaza is a test of the United Na-

tions and the international community. Can a means

be found to require Israel to live up to its obliga-

tions as an occupying power to the Palestinian peo-

ple in their struggle for self determination? This is a

critical challenge facing the United Nations and the

international community.

Many protests and demonstrations are taking

place around the world in support of the Palestinian

people and against the attack by Israel on Gaza.

These demonstrations are an indication that there is

public opinion and grassroots pressure for the Unit-

ed Nations and member nations to let Israel know

the need to fulfill its obligations under the UN char-

ter and international law. The struggle of the Pales-

tinian people for self-determination and against oc-

cupation, as covered under Article 73 and 74 of the

Charter of the UN, is a struggle that deserves the

support of the member nations and of people around

the world.

Notes:

1. UN Press Conference: Yazdan Al Amawi, team leader,

Care’s West Bank and Gaza program, Allyn Dhynes, commu-

nications manager, World Vision International, Sarah Leah

Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director, Human

Rights Watch, to brief on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

January 7, 2009. [Webcast: Archived Video - English: 50 min-

utes]

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009

/pc090107am1.rm

2. UN radio’s Samir Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk, the UN

Human Rights Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian territo-

ries about the situation in Gaza. January 2, 2009

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/67184.html

3. UN Radio’s Samir Imtair Aldarabi spoke to Richard Falk,

the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the

Occupied Palestinian Territories about the human rights viola-

tions in Gaza. January 9, 2009

http://downloads.unmultimedia.org/radio/en/real/2009/090109

-falk2.rm?save

4. Jimmy Carter, “Gaza: An Unnecessary War,” The Mercury

News, January 8, 2009.

http://www.mercurynews.com/livechats/ci_11408309?source=

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on January

12, 2009 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no

=384602&rel_no=1]

UN Officials Present Need

to End Israeli Siege of Gaza

to Security Council

Response Continues Failure to Act

by Ronda Hauben

“Every Gazan projects a sense of having stared

death in the face. Every Gazan has a tale of

profound grief to tell,” recounted Karen AbuZayd,

Page 18

the Commissioner General of the United Nations

Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in her presen-

tation to the Security Council on Tuesday before

they went into closed session.

She reported that there had been a systematic

destruction in Gaza to schools, universities, residen-

tial buildings, factories, shops and farms. (Karen

AbuZayd’s Statement to the Security Council, Jan.

27, 2009)

AbuZayd told the Security Council that “There

is rage against the attackers for often failing to dis-

tinguish between military targets and civilians and

there is also resentment against the international

community for having allowed first the siege and

then the war to go on for so long.”

Also speaking to the Security Council before

they went into closed session was John Holmes, the

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs

and Emergency Relief. Holmes explains how he

visited Gaza from Jan. 21 to 25.

Describing the widespread destruction to

Gaza’s economic and civil infrastructure, he re-

ported, for example, that the entire industrial and

residential area in East Jabalia had been systemati-

cally bulldozed, along with other serious damage to

medical facilities, water, sanitation and other criti-

cal infrastructure, including damage to UN facili-

ties. “I saw the UNRWA compound warehouse still

smouldering, and the OCHA office in the UNSCO

compound, where my own staff used to work, dam-

aged beyond use,” Holmes reported.

Both AbuZayd and Holmes emphasized the

impossibility of any improvement in the situation in

Gaza without the lifting by Israel of the blockade.

“All Gaza’s borders must be opened and kept open

continuously (including at Karni, Sofa, Nahal Oz,

Kerem Shalom, Erez and Rafah) to allow two way

freedom of movement for people, goods and cash,”

AbuZayd told the Security Council.

“Recovery requires the free inflow of humani-

tarian and commercial supplies,” she stressed. “Re-

construction demands open borders that enable the

importation of construction materials and the export

of products and goods from Gaza.”

“Let me emphasize again,” Holmes reiterated,

“the unacceptability of the status quo ante, with a

limited trickle of items into Gaza continuing the

effective collective punishment of the civilian popu-

lation – and the resultant counterproductive reliance

on tunnels for daily essentials, and further build up

of frustration of anger.”

He explained the critical need to open Gaza to

at least 500 truckloads of goods daily, including

commercial traffic, up from the 120 truckloads that

Israel allows on “good days,” in contrast to the fre-

quent situation when fewer than 120 truckloads are

given permission to enter Gaza, and the times when

no trucks are allowed to enter as the crossing points

are closed by Israel.

Holmes also described how many humanitarian

workers, including those from international NGOs,

“continue to be refused regular entry” to Gaza.

“We already see relief goods piling up in Egypt

for lack of ready access,” Holmes reported.

Reminding the members of the Security Council

that they themselves passed Resolution 1860 (2009)

which provides for “unimpeded provision and dis-

tribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assis-

tance,” Holmes pointed to the importance of this

critical principle.

Moreover, Holmes explained that “Israel has a

particular responsibility as the occupying power in

this context, because of its control of Gaza’s bor-

ders with Israel, to respect the relevant provisions

of international humanitarian law.” (See for example,

Articles 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter)

As soon as the reports by Holmes and AbuZayd

had been presented, the Security Council went into

a closed session.

When the closed session with Holmes and

AbuZayd was over, these two UN officials came to

speak with the press.

Karen AbuZayd and John Holmes speak to reporters after

presenting reports on need for Security Council action on

Gaza.

Page 19

No member of the Security Council, however,

was available to speak with the press. Journalists

wondered why not even the Security Council Presi-

dent was available to comment on these important

reports on the situation in Gaza and the need for the

Security Council to act on getting Israel to lift the

siege.

Had the reports about devastated Gaza as a

“giant open-air prison” fallen on deaf ears at the

Security Council?

The lack of any public response from any

member of the Security Council to these two heart

wrenching reports is but another sign of the failure

of the Security Council to demonstrate its ability to

carry out its mandate.

The failure of the Security Council to act with

regard to the siege against Gaza began over a year

ago.

The growing calls for Security Council reform

can only be further fueled by this lack of action by

the Security Council, which the Indonesian ambas-

sador described as, “The silence is deafening.”

Notes:

1. See: Security Council: The situation in the Middle East,

including the Palestinian question. [Print version of talk, Secu-

rity Council S/PV.6077], also Webcast : version of Archived

Video - English: 26 minutes.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/sc/2009/sc090127-

pm2

2. For background see, for example: Ronda Hauben, “Mara-

thon UN Meeting on Gaza Goes Nowhere: The ability of the

Security Council to function breaking down,” OhmyNews

International, March 4, 2008.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=381957&rel_no=1

Ronda Hauben, “Israel Attempts to Justify Its Attack on Gaza.

The obligations of Israel as an occupying power under the UN

Charter,” OhmyNews International, Jan. 12, 2009.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=384602&rel_no=1

3. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza

Crisis ‘The silence is deafening,’ says Indonesia’s UN Ambas-

sador,” OhmyNews International, Feb. 7, 2008.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=381689&rel_no=1

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on January

30, 2009 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=384718&rel_no=1

What Principles Guide

the UN in Creating a

Palestinian-Israeli Peace

Framework?

Davos Talks by Recep Tayyip

Erdogan and Amr Moussa on Steps

Needed to Build Peace Process

by Ronda Hauben

Part I - Analysis of Situation

The Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer un-

der the siege created by Israel and Egypt closing the

border crossings into Gaza. Who is responsible?

What can be done to get the siege lifted?

Such questions are on the minds of many peo-

ple around the world. The siege of Gaza has gone

on for many months and continues, even after the

devastation, deaths and injuries of the Palestinians

caused by the recent 22-day Israeli military assault

on Gaza.

Though these are serious questions, they rarely

get public attention and discussion. One recent ex-

ception surprisingly was a panel held at the World

Economic Forum in Davos last month. The panel

session was titled “Gaza: The Case for Middle East

Peace.” David Ignatius of the Washington Post was

the moderator. On the panel were the UN Secretary-

General, Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the

Arab League Amr Moussa, the Prime Minister of

Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the President of

Israel, Shimon Peres.

In his instructions to the panel, Ignatius asked

members to discuss, “What needs to be done to pre-

vent the Middle East peace process from slipping

back.”

After Ban Ki-moon gave a short set of com-

ments, Erdogan was called on to speak. He pro-

posed that “we need to do a proper analysis of the

current situation in order to determine what steps

need to be taken.”

He pointed to the period six months earlier

when there was a cease fire agreed to by Israel and

Hamas. The Turkish Prime Minister reminded the

audience that for six months there had been “No

problem for rocket attacks” on Israel. The Israeli

obligation for the cease fire then was “to lift the em-

bargo,” that Israel had imposed on Gaza.

Page 20

But Israel didn’t fulfill its part of the truce

agreement.

Erdogan went on to discuss what he saw as one

of the key problems to be solved if the circum-

stances of the Palestinians had any chance of being

improved.

That problem was how to heal the breach be-

tween the Palestinian factions, particularly between

Hamas and Fatah.

Erdogan pointed to the fact that Hamas had

won the parliamentary election of January 2006.

Actually Hamas won 76 of 132 seats, while Fatah

only got 43.

Erdogan explained, “We are talking about de-

mocracy. So if we would like to see democracy take

root, then we must respect first of all the people

who have received the votes of the people of the

country they are running in.”

“So we may not like them, but we have to re-

spect the process,” he emphasized.

Instead, Israel arrested several of Hamas gov-

ernment ministers and members of Parliament and

put them in prison. Erdogan described how in the

middle of December 2008, he had asked Prime

Minister Olmert, as a gesture of good will, to re-

lease these prisoners, along with the Palestinian

women and children they had in Israeli prisons.

Olmert told Erdogan that he would talk to his col-

leagues in Israel and respond the next day. No re-

sponse was forthcoming. Four days later Israel

started the war on Gaza.

Erdogan expressed his conviction that the UN

should be taking the lead in working to solve the

Palestinian crisis and that he was hopeful that the

new U.S. administration would put its weight be-

hind a solution.

“There’s got to be a new opening and Hamas

must be considered in the process,” Erdogan pro-

posed. He offered Turkey’s help in the process.

Part II – Occupation Breeds Resistance

Next the moderator asked Amr Moussa to

speak to the question of how to achieve unity

among the Palestinians, and what he felt the new

U.S. administration could do to help the situation.

Moussa said there must be a recognition that

Israel’s assault on Gaza “was not just a reaction for

some rockets being launched against Southern Is-

rael.” This situation in Gaza and in the rest of the

Palestinian territory is a problem of a foreign mili-

tary occupation, he explained.

“The siege, the blockade of Gaza,” Moussa

maintained, “is a very severe situation.” He argued

that “you cannot ask people in Gaza living in star-

vation and hunger because of the blockade... to be

calm and ask them why do you throw stones against

your occupiers?” This, Moussa said, “is against the

nature of people. You strangle them, you starve

them and then you ask them to be quiet?”

He went on to refer to Israel’s claim that the

smuggling into Gaza must be stopped. Moussa said,

“You strangle them, not a single window of oppor-

tunity, and then you talk to them about illicit

trade?”

Instead, “If you want to prevent this, you have

to open the crossing points,” Moussa explained.

“You have to give them food, you have to give

them water, to give them medicine.”

He added that the “Palestinians had believed

the call for them to practice democracy, to have an

election.”

But then he described how when, “Hamas won,

and half an hour, twenty-five minutes after the an-

nouncement of the results of the election, Hamas

was served notice that aid would be suspended and

then came the blockade.”

“It is not a question of Israel reacting to some

rockets,” Moussa emphasized, “it is much deeper

than that, it is an action of occupation, it is an action

of blockade, then a reaction of resistance, then the

reaction of destruction carried out by Israel.”

Moussa also referred to Israel’s failure to re-

spond to the Arab initiative.

In 2002, the Arab nations decided at a Summit

that they were ready, at their highest levels, to agree

to peace with Israel. They proposed to recognize

Israel and carry out any agreements signed with

Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian

State with borders similar to those before 1967. But

in the seven years that transpired after the offer of

the initiative, Israel failed to respond in any autho-

rized way to the authorized message from the Arab

summit.

Referring to Ban Ki-moon’s brief presentation

to the panel, Moussa said there are three or four

things that need to be done now. He listed these as a

cease fire, opening of the crossings, stopping illicit

traffic and the reconciliation between the Palestin-

ians.

Page 21

Moussa also said he had another point to make.

But the moderator cut him off, before he could ex-

plain.

Unfortunately, instead of providing for a simi-

lar short period for the Israeli president to make his

comments, the moderator allowed Peres to speak

for twice the time he had given to each of the two

previous speakers. When Erdogan asked for time to

respond to Peres, however, Ignatius told him there

was no time. This led Erdogan to leave the panel in

protest.

The issues raised by these two talks were a sig-

nificant statement of what is needed to deal with the

crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza.

Part III - Principles for UN Actions in

Palestinian Crisis

Had there been time for discussion in the panel

held at Davos, it would have been helpful to put this

discussion in the context of a United Nations Gen-

eral Assembly document presented in January

2008.

This document is a report by the Human Rights

Rapporteur John Dugard, discussing what he be-

lieves to be the law governing the United Nations

participation in the Palestinian situation.

Dugard refers to the problem represented by

the Quartet and the UN’s participation in it, with the

Secretary-General representing the UN.

Dugard explains how on July 20, 2004 the

General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/15.

This resolution called on Israel to comply with the

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Jus-

tice issued by the court titled the “Legal Conse-

quences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occu-

pied Palestinian Territory.”

The International Court of Justice is the judicial

organ of the United Nations. It is, according to

Dugard “now part of the law of the United Na-

tions.” In addition the General Assembly by a large

majority gave its approval to the decision. As such

the Advisory Opinion is one of the authoritative

statements of the applicable international law relat-

ing to the framework for peace in the Middle East.

While this law isn’t binding on three of the

Quartet members, the U.S., Russia, or the EU

(though the Russians and the EU members did vote

in favor of the UN resolution approving the advi-

sory opinion), the UN as a member of the Quartet is

bound by the Advisory Opinion. As a representative

of the UN, the Secretary-General, Dugard argues, is

by law obliged to uphold the principles of the Advi-

sory Opinion in his participation in the Quartet.

The Secretary-General or his representative is

by law obliged to be guided by the Opinion and to

endeavor in good faith to do his or her best to en-

sure compliance with the opinion.

In his statement about what is happening in the

Palestinian situation, Dugard points to the fact that

Palestine is an occupied territory and that Israel has

obligations regarding its treatment of the Palestin-

ians.

Dugard argues that the root cause of the vio-

lence in the Israeli-Palestinian context is the occu-

pation, not any act of Hamas or others.

He notes that the right of the Palestinian people

for self-determination is in general recognized. But

such a recognition “should not take the form of sup-

port – political, economic or military – for one

[Palestinian] faction at the expense of the other.”

A critical factor in the Palestinian situation is

the need for reconciliation between the two major

Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, Dugard

maintains. The Quartet explains Dugard, instead

“pursues a divisive policy of preferring one faction

over the other, of speaking to one faction but not to

the other; of dealing with one faction while isolat-

ing the other.”

In negotiations between the Palestinian Author-

ity and Israel, what was being done was a negotia-

tion among unequal partners. The problem with this

is that it doesn’t make it possible to have the negoti-

ations reflect a normative framework.

As the UN draft resolution A/HRC/7/17 of

Dugard’s report states: “In the opinion of the Spe-

cial Rapporteur negotiations should take place

within a normative framework, with the guiding

norms to be found in international law, particularly

international humanitarian law and human rights

law, and the Advisory Opinion of the International

Court of Justice and Security Council resolutions.”

“Negotiations on issues such as boundaries,

settlements, East Jerusalem, the return of refugees

and the isolation of Gaza should be informed by

such norms and not by political horse-trading,”

Dugard’s report advises.

The experience of the negotiations that led to a

democratic South Africa in the mid 1990's is of-

fered as an example in Dugard’s report, as it places

Page 22

the efforts toward a solution to the problem within a

framework of accepted democratic principles, and

international law (with special reference to human

rights law).

Part IV - Need for Normative Framework

What the presentations by Erdogan and Moussa

at the World Economic Forum and the UN report

document by Dugard have in common is that they

look for the underlying principles that are needed to

guide efforts to settle the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

These principles are based on the obligations

under international law, established and accepted by

most of the international community via its support

for the Advisory Opinion. The Palestinians are in a

situation where they suffer from Israeli occupation.

These principles include:

1) Recognizing the Palestinian right to resist occu-

pation.

2) Treating the Palestinian factions of Fatah and

Hamas with equality so as to encourage unity.

3) Letting Israel know that it has the obligation to

negotiate with the Palestinians in a way that is con-

ducive to recognizing and implementing the princi-

ples of international law, not in a way that treats the

Palestinians as less than equals.

4) That the UN uphold the principles of

international law.

A particular example of the need to apply these

principles is raised by Dugard’s report when it dis-

cusses the role the UN Secretary-General has play-

ed in the Quartet. The U.S., the EU, Russia and the

UN (represented by the Secretary-General) are part

of the Quartet which is supposedly providing a

framework for peace negotiations between Israel

and Palestine.

The problem Dugard observes is that the Quar-

tet does not recognize the principles of the Advisory

Decision. While this is a course of action that can

be taken by the U.S., the EU or Russia, it is not ap-

propriate for the Secretary-General acting on behalf

of the UN to discard these principles. Dugard’s re-

port proposes that the Secretary-General is “in law

obliged to be guided by the Opinion and to

endeavour in good faith to do his or her best to en-

sure compliance” with it. In this context he pro-

poses that it is necessary for the Secretary-General

to either withdraw from the Quartet or to explain

“why he is unable to do so and how he justifies re-

maining in the Quartet in the light of its refusal to

be guided by the law of the United Nations.”

Unless international law becomes the frame-

work under which the international community, in-

cluding the UN’s Secretary-General, operates to

work toward a solution to the Gaza crisis, there

seems no way to end the devastation that the Israeli

government believes it has the right to inflict on the

Palestinians.

The recent panel at Davos on the crisis in Gaza

demonstrated that there are nations like Turkey and

international representatives like the Secretary-

General of the Arab League willing to explain to the

world the principles needed to guide the efforts for

a peaceful solution. It is imperative that there be

serious discussion around the world about these

principles and also efforts to hold the UN and other

international and national entities accountable for

the implementation of these principles.

Notes:

1. A webcast of the session is online at: Gaza: The Case for

Middle East Peace:

http://wn.com/Turkish_PM_to_Israeli_President_Thou_shalt_

NOT_kill#

For a partial transcript:

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/31/transcripts-of-erdoga

n-moussa-peres-and-erdogan-again-at-davos/

2. Scott Wilson, “Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Com-

plicating Peace Efforts in Mideast,” The Washington Post, Jan.

27, 2006; Page A01.

3. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/HRC/7/17 21 Janu-

ary 2008, Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Oc-

cupied Arab Territories. Report of the Special Rapporteur on

the Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories oc-

cupied since 1967, John Dugard.

4. Advisory opinion requested by General Assembly on Dec.

8, 2003 from International Court of Justice regarding legal

consequences of construction of the wall built by Israel in the

Occupied Palestinian Territories. Issued July 9, 2004.

www.icj-cij.org

Among the advisory opinion’s principle findings were:

1) Palestinian people have the right to self determination.

2) Israel is under a legal obligation to comply with 4

Geneva

Convention in Occupied Palestinian Territories.

3) Israel is bound by international human rights conventions in

the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on February

22, 2009 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=384849&rel_no=1

Page 23

[Editor’s Note: On July 23, 2009, Father Brockmann convened

the United Nations General Assembly Interactive Thematic

Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect. The Responsibility

to Protect (R2P) is a notion agreed to by world leaders in

2005

. That agreement holds each State responsible for

shielding its own population from genocide, war crimes, eth-

nic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity, requiring

the international community to step in if a state does not meet

its obligation. The Dialogue included Noam Chomsky, a U.S.

public intellectual, Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of

Australia, Ngugi wa Thiong!o, a prominent African writer and

defender of human rights, and Jean Bricmont, a Belgian

physicist and co-author of the book Fashionable Nonsense.

This dialogue was vibrant and a significant event at the UN in

that it clarified issues rather than leaving them vague. The

following is the statement on that panel by Professor Jean

Bricmont. The entire dialogue can be seen at:

h t t p : / / w ww . u n . o r g / g a / p r e s i d e n t / 6 3 / i n t e r a c t i v e /

responsibilitytoprotect.shtml]

A More Just World and the

Responsibility to Protect

How Are the Weak Ever to be

Protected From the Strong?

by Jean Bricmont

I would like, in this talk, to challenge the intel-

lectual assumptions underlying the notion and the

rhetoric of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). In a

nutshell, my thesis will be that the main obstacle to

the implementation of a genuine R2P are precisely

the policies and the attitudes of the countries that

are most enthusiastic about this doctrine, namely

the Western countries, and in particular the U.S.

During the past decade, the world has looked

on helplessly as innocent civilians were murdered

by American bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Paki-

stan. It has been a helpless bystander of the murder-

ous Israeli onslaught on Lebanon and Gaza. Previ-

ously, we have seen millions of people perish under

American firepower in Vietnam, Cambodia and

Laos; and many others have died in American

proxy wars in Central America or Southern Africa.

In the name of those victims, shall we say: never

again! From now on, the world, the international

community, will protect you!

Our humanitarian response is yes, we want to

protect all victims. But how, and with which forces?

How are the weak ever to be protected from the

strong? The answer to this question must be sought

not just in humanitarian or in legal terms, but first

of all in political terms. The protection of the weak

always depends on limitations of the power of the

strong. The rule of law is such a limitation, so long

as it is based on the principle of equality of all be-

fore the law. Achieving that requires clear-headed

pursuit of idealistic principles accompanied by real-

istic assessment of the existing relationship of

forces.

Before discussing politically the R2P, let me

stress that what is at issue are not its diplomatic or

preventive aspects, but the military part of the

so-called “timely and decisive response,” and the

challenge that it represents for national sovereignty.

R2P is an ambiguous doctrine. On the one

hand, it is being sold to the United Nations as some-

thing essentially different from the “right of human-

itarian intervention,” a notion that was developed in

the West at the end of the 1970's, after the collapse

of the colonial empires and the defeat of the United

States in Indochina. This ideology has been relying

on the human tragedies of the newly decolonized

countries to lend a moral justification to the failed

policies of intervention and control by the Western

powers over the rest of the World.

Awareness of this fact exists in most of the

world. The “right” of humanitarian intervention has

been universally rejected by the South

, for example

at the South Summit in Havana in April 2000 or at

the meeting of the Non Aligned Movement in Kuala

Lumpur in February 2003,

shortly before the U.S.

attack on Iraq. The R2P is an attempt to fit this re-

jected right into the framework of the UN charter,

so as to make it appear acceptable, by stressing that

military actions are to be the last resort, and must be

approved by the Security Council. But, then, there

is nothing legally new under the sun, and I refer you

to the concept note of the Office of the President of

the General Assembly for a precise discussion of

the legal aspects of the problem.

On the other hand, R2P is being sold to public

opinion in the West as a new norm in international

relations, one that authorizes military interventions

on humanitarian grounds. For example, when Presi-

dent Obama, at the recent G8 meeting, stressed the

importance of national sovereignty, the inluential

French newspaper Le Monde called it a step back-

wards, since R2P has already been accepted. There

is a big difference between R2P as a legal doctrine

and its ideological reception in the Western media.

However, in a post-World War II history that

includes the Indochina wars, the invasions of Iraq

Page 24

and Afghanistan, of Panama, even of tiny Grenada,

as well as the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya and

various other countries, it is scarcely credible to

maintain that it is international law and respect for

national sovereignty that prevent the United States

from stopping genocide. If the U.S. had had the

means and the desire to intervene in Rwanda, it

would have done so and no international law would

have prevented that. And if a “new norm” is intro-

duced, within the context of the current relationship

of political and military forces, it will not save any-

one anywhere, unless the United States sees fit to

intervene, from its own perspective.

Moreover, it is beyond belief that the support-

ers of R2P speak of an obligation to reconstruct (af-

ter a military intervention). How much money ex-

actly did the United States pay as reparations for the

devastation it inflicted on Indochina or in Iraq, or

that was inflicted on Lebanon and Gaza by a power

it notoriously arms and subsidizes? Or to Nicara-

gua, to which reparations for the Contra activities

are still unpaid by the U.S., despite their condemna-

tion by the World Court of Justice? Why expect

R2P to force the powerful to pay for what they de-

stroy if they do not do so under current legal

arrangements?

If it is true that the 21

century needs a new

United Nations, it does not need one that

legitimizes such interventions by novel arguments,

but one that gives at least moral support to those

who try to construct a world less dominated by the

United States and its allies. The very starting point

of the United Nations was to save humankind from

“the scourge of war,” with reference to the two

World Wars. This was to be done precisely by strict

respect for national sovereignty, in order to prevent

Great Powers from intervening militarily against

weaker ones, regardless of the pretext. The wars

waged by the United States and NATO show that,

despite some significant accomplishments, the

United Nations has not yet fully achieved this pri-

mary goal. The United Nations needs to pursue its

efforts to achieve its founding purpose before set-

ting a new, supposedly humanitarian priority, which

may in reality be used by the Great Powers to jus-

tify their own future wars by undermining the prin-

ciple of national sovereignty.

When NATO exercised its own self-proclaimed

right to intervene in Kosovo, where diplomatic ef-

forts were far from having been exhausted, it was

praised by the Western media. When Russia exer-

cised what it regarded as its R2P in South Ossetia, it

was uniformly condemned in the same Western me-

dia. When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, or In-

dia in what is now Bangladesh, their actions were

also harshly condemned in the West.

This indicates that Western governments, me-

dia and NGOs, calling themselves the “international

community,” will judge the responsibility for a hu-

man tragedy quite differently, depending on

whether it occurs in a country where the West, for

whatever reason, is hostile to the government, or in

a friendly state. The United States in particular will

try to pressure the United Nations into endorsing its

own interpretation. The United States may not al-

ways choose to intervene, but it may nevertheless

use non-intervention to denounce the United Na-

tions as ineffective and to suggest that it should be

replaced by NATO as international arbiter.

National sovereignty is sometimes stigmatized

by promoters of humanitarian intervention, or of

R2P, as a “licence to kill.” We need to remind our-

selves of why national sovereignty should be de-

fended against such stigmatization.

First of all, national sovereignty is a partial pro-

tection of weak states against strong ones. Nobody

expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal af-

fairs of the United States to force it to reduce its

emission because of the catastrophic human

consequences that the latter may have on Bangla-

desh. The interference is always unilateral.

U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other

states is multi-faceted but constant and always vio-

lates the spirit and often the letter of the UN charter.

Despite claims to act on behalf of principles such as

freedom and democracy, U.S. intervention has re-

peatedly had disastrous consequences: not only the

millions of deaths caused by direct and indirect

wars, but also the lost opportunities, the “killing of

hope” for hundreds of millions of people who might

have benefitted from progressive social policies

initiated by people like Arbenz in Guatemala,

Goulart in Brazil, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in

the Congo, Mossadegh in Iran, the Sandinistas in

Nicaragua, or President Chavez in Venezuela, who

have been systematically subverted, overthrown or

killed with full Western support.

But that is not all. Every aggressive action led

by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment

of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles,

Page 25

not less. Bombing civilians – whether deliberately

or by so-called “collateral damage” – produces

more armed resistance, not less. Trying to over-

throw or subvert governments produces more inter-

nal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist

minorities by giving them the often false impression

that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue

in case they are repressed, leads to more violence,

hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country

with military bases produces more defense spending

by that country, not less. The possession of nuclear

weapons by Israel encourages other states of the

Middle East to acquire such weapons. The humani-

tarian disasters in Eastern Congo, as well as in So-

malia, are mainly due to foreign interventions, not

to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case,

which is a favorite example of horrors cited by ad-

vocates of the R2P, it is most unlikely that the

Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in

Cambodia without the massive “secret” U.S. bomb-

ing followed by U.S.-engineered regime change that

left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and

destabilized.

The ideology of humanitarian intervention is

part of a long history of Western attitudes toward

the rest of the World. When Western colonialists

landed on the shores of the Americas, Africa or

Eastern Asia, they were shocked by what we would

now call violations of human rights, and which they

called “barbaric mores” – human sacrifices, canni-

balism, women forced to bind their feet. Time and

again, such indignation, sincere or calculating, has

been used to justify or to cover up the crimes of the

Western powers: the slave trade, the extermination

of indigenous peoples and the systematic stealing of

land and resources. This attitude of righteous indig-

nation continues to this day and is at the root of the

claim that the West has a “right to intervene” and a

“right to protect,” while turning a blind eye to op-

pressive regimes considered “our friends,” to end-

less militarization and wars, and to massive exploi-

tation of labor and resources.

The West should learn from its past history.

What would that mean concretely? Well, first of all,

guaranteeing the strict respect for international law

on the part of Western powers, implementing the

UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the

worldwide U.S. empire of bases as well as NATO,

ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of

force, lifting unilateral sanctions, in particular the

embargo against Cuba, stopping all interference in

the internal affairs of other States, in particular all

operations of “democracy promotion,” “color” rev-

olutions, and the exploitation of the politics of mi-

norities. This necessary respect for national sover-

eignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each

nation state is the people of that state, whose right

to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over

by supposedly benevolent outsiders.

Next, we could use our overblown military

budgets (NATO countries account for 70% of world

military expenses) to implement a form of global

Keynesianism: instead of demanding “balanced

budgets” in the developing world, we should use the

resources wasted on our military to finance massive

investments in education, health care and develop-

ment. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than

the belief that a stable world will emerge from the

way our current “war on terror” is being carried out.

Defenders of R2P may argue that what I say is

besides the point or needlessly “politicizes the is-

sue,” since, according to them, it is the international

community and not the West that will intervene,

with, moreover, the approval of the Security Coun-

cil. But in reality, there is no such thing as a genu-

ine international community. NATO’s intervention

in Kosovo was not approved by Russia and Russian

intervention in South Ossetia was condemned by

the West. There would have been no Security Coun-

cil approval for either intervention. Recently, the

African Union rejected the indictment by the Inter-

national Criminal Court of the President of Sudan.

Any system of international justice or police,

whether it is R2P or the ICC, needs a relationship of

equality and a climate of trust. Today, there is no

equality and no trust, between West and East, be-

tween North and South, largely as a result of past

U.S. policies. If we want some version of R2P to

work in the future, we need first to build a relation-

ship of equality and trust and what I said before

goes to the heart of the matter. The world can be-

come more secure only if it first becomes more just.

It is important to understand that the critique

made here of R2P is not based on an “absolutist”

defense of national sovereignly, but on a reflection

on the policies of the most powerful states that

forces weaker states to use sovereignty as a shield.

The promoters of R2P present it as the begin-

ning of a new era; but in fact it is the end of an old

one. From an interventionist viewpoint, the R2P

Page 26

backtracks with respect to the old right of humani-

tarian intervention, at least in words, and that old

“right” was itself a step back from traditional colo-

nialism. The major social transformation of the 20

century has been decolonization. It continues today

in the elaboration of a genuinely democratic world,

one where the sun will have set on the U.S. empire,

just as it did on the old European ones. There are

some indications that President Obama understands

this reality and it is only to be hoped that his actions

will match his words.

I want to end with a message for the represen-

tatives, and for the populations, of the “Global

South.” The viewpoints expressed here are shared

by millions of people in the “West.” This is unfortu-

nately not reflected in our media. Millions of peo-

ple, including American citizens, reject war as a

means to settle international disputes and strongly

oppose the blind support of their country for Israeli

Apartheid. They adhere to the goals of the non-

aligned movement of international cooperation

within the strict respect for national sovereignty and

equality of all peoples. They risk being denounced

in the media of their own countries as being anti-

Western, anti-American or anti-Semitic. Yet, they

are the ones who, by opening their minds to the as-

pirations of the rest of mankind, carry on what is

genuinely of value in the Western humanist tradi-

tion.

Notes:

1. See paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit

Outcome Document online at:

http://www.who.int/hiv/universalaccess2010/worldsummit.pdf

2. The South (also known as the Global South) is part of a

distinction between the most developed nations (the North)

and the poorer less developed nations (the South). See for

example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South.

3. In their opposition to the creation of a broad right of inter-

vention on humanitarian and human rights grounds, African

and other developing countries cited possible opportunities for

infringements on sovereignty and possible pretexts for inter-

ference by former colonial powers or neighbouring states. (See

for example:

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/143peack

.htm).

4. See the Office of the President of the General Assembly,

“Concept note on responsibility to protect populations from

genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against hu-

manity” at:

http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/

protect/conceptnote.pdf

5. The “Concept Note” sited above in (4) reports that, “At the

negotiations on the World Summit Outcome Document, the

then U.S. Permanent Representative John Bolton stated accu-

rately that the commitment made in the Document was ‘not of

a legal character’.” The “Concept Note” is appended to this

issue as the last article.

G192 Emerges at UN

Conference on the World

Financial and Economic

Crisis

Reforming the World Bank and IMF is

Only Stop Gap Measure

by Ronda Hauben

Describing the need for a new financial group-

ing to challenge the G8 and G20, John Hiliary, in an

article in The Guardian (U.K.) writes, “It is not just

that they [G8 and G20] are exclusive, invitation

only forums where deals are drawn up behind

closed doors. It is the fact that both the G8 and G20

have championed the same free-market fundamen-

talism that served the interests of their corporate

backers but brought the world economy to the brink

of collapse. It is the tune that needs changing, not

just the band.”

Such a new economic grouping, which some

have called the G192, recently held its first meeting

at the United Nations in New York. The meeting,

which took place from June 25 to June 30 was offi-

cially titled “Conference on the World Financial

and Economic Crisis and its Impact on

Development.”

Referred to as the G192 because it includes all

192 member nations of the United Nations, the

meeting provided a sharp contrast to the more ex-

clusive meetings of the G8 and G20 convened by

the major economic powers. The UN meeting pro-

vided a glimpse into how a more democratic pro-

cess can lead to a better understanding of the global

financial and economic crisis now plaguing the na-

tions of the world.

A number of the talks presented at the UN

meeting did indeed represent a substantial change

from the guiding ideology that has dominated

grouping like the G8 and G20. In offering such a

change in perspective, the UN conference provided

an opportunity to consider both the problem repre-

Page 27

sented by the current global economic and financial

architecture, and the means that are being attempted

to make a change.

Dr Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister and Min-

ister of Finance of St. Vincent and the Grenadines,

who served as co-facilitator for the outcome docu-

ment approved during the conference, credited Ven-

ezuela for proposing the idea for such a conference

in November 2008. Gonsalves said:

“I also applaud

the vision of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

which first conceptualized a formal United Nations

conference on this crisis in a draft resolution tabled

last November.”

Calling the current moment, “a crisis of capital-

ist globalization, of international capitalism in cri-

sis,” Gonsalves depicted the crisis as “reflective of

the triumph of neo-liberal ideology, which sought to

roll back any interventionist role of the democratic

state.” According to the set of ideological tenets he

saw as setting off the crisis, “the organs of the State,

so the neo-liberal thesis went, were to be minimal-

ist; the international capitalist system driven by ‘the

market’ was best left to be self-regulatory, accord-

ing to the neo-liberal ideologues.”

The result of such ideological tenets which led

to little or no regulation over investment and other

financial institutions and instruments, Gonsalves

explained, is “the worst crisis in international capi-

talism since 1929-31 has come upon us.”

The crisis led to the recognition of the impor-

tant role of “the democratic State,” and in his re-

gion, Gonsalves said that the democratic national

government has been “a force for good.”

Along with “the urgent need for further reforms

of the global financial system and architecture,”

Gonsalves called for “improved regulation at all

levels and for an appropriate state role in regulatory

matters.”

Several other speakers at the conference, in-

cluding the Foreign Minister of the Dominican Re-

public, stressed the need to recognize “the regional

sphere” as the most ideal for the implementation of

the short and long-term measures that will end the

crisis, as opposed to the global and national sphere.

In his presentation to the General Assembly,

Steve William Abana, the Minister for Planning and

Coordination of the Solomon Islands, called for an

enhanced role for the UN in creating an

international mechanism to periodically assess the

global economic situation and provide broad guide-

lines for the economic and financial sectors.

He and others who spoke during the five days

of the conference called for serious reflection on the

legitimacy and effectiveness of the current eco-

nomic and political system so as to determine its

flaws and the means needed for its reform.

One of the most significant complaints con-

cerned the problematic use of the dollar as both a

national currency in the U.S. and as a source of in-

ternational reserves. “A common international cur-

rency has remained elusive,” observed Dr Dipu

Moni, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh.

This is

a problem that many, including Chinese economist

Yu Yongding, a member of the General Assembly

Experts Commission, emphasized as a significant

problem needing both short and long term atten-

tion.

The Experts Commission was established by

the President of the General Assembly to help pre-

pare for the conference.

Though this conference was to be open to all

the member nations of the UN to participate, the

U.S. did not provide visas in time for the designated

representatives of Iran or Venezuela to attend.

In place of the designated government official

of Venezuela, Ambassador Jorge Valero the Vene-

zuelan Ambassador to the UN spoke on Friday,

June 26.

Valero described the resistance to the confer-

ence on the part of some of the developed nations.

He said, “We were aware that an initiative of this

nature would be met with resistance by forces cling-

ing to the past. An attempt was made to prevent the

United Nations from discussing the economic and

financial crisis that we are suffering today, when it

is precisely this forum - the G192 - [that is] the

most legitimate and representative of the world.”

Valero said, “We must move toward the con-

struction of a new international architecture that is

not concentrated, legitimizing new relationships

that underpin the emergence of a multipolar world.

We must take off the straight jacket of uni-

polarity.” Crucial to such a program is the need “for

a more effective involvement of the State to ensure

an appropriate balance between market and public

interest.”

It was, however, the presentation of President

of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, to the General Assembly

and later in a press conference, that most eloquently

demonstrated the urgent need for the conference

Page 28

and the concept of a G192.

Correa's talk put the

conference into context and helped to illustrate how

the solution to the current crisis cannot be left to the

few powerful nations that make up the G-8 or G-20.

Correa referred in his talk to a poem by the

poet Juan Ramon Jimeniz. The poem emphasized

how the powerful dominate and treat the rest of the

people as “the different.”

“The different, the exploited and vilified, the

majority of us,” Correa said, “demand transparency

and truth at the time of revealing who was at the

origin of today's crisis, who plundered the peoples,

who benefitted from these adjustment policies, from

illegitimate debts, coup d!etats, subterfuges and in-

stitutionalized illegalities.”

Correa described how the lowering of interest

rates by the U.S. after September 11, 2001, was a

decision that in a deregulated environment encour-

aged the growth of sub-prime loans with very high

risk, resulting in a situation of increased volatility in

financial markets.

Correa elaborated, “Now precisely we the dif-

ferent are here, and we have come to the G192 to

demand democracy and to highlight the other possi-

ble world, the other urgent world that we need, the

world of peace and justice, only made possible

through the respect for the sovereignty of the people

and through equilibrium and respect among human

beings, countries, nations, continents.”

Correa placed the responsibility for the crisis

on the shoulders of what he referred to was the

Washington Consensus. His characterized the

Washington Consensus as “a paradoxical and cyni-

cal agreement signed behind the backs of peoples

and governments and limited to the conclaves of the

dominating and colonialist powers.” Correa ex-

plained that “the different” will talk “about issues

that it seems, are absent in other exclusive and ex-

cluding fora, such as the G8 or G20.”

These issues include how, “the crisis originated

in the U.S. financial markets” and how it has spread

so that “the whole world has been contaminated.”

Correa explained that the current crisis is but a

symptom of a system that privileges financial spec-

ulation over the real economy. “For years the

United States maintained huge trade and fiscal defi-

cits, with the connivance of the International Mone-

tary Fund (IMF),” he said. “Any other country

would have been forced to devalue their currency

and ‘correct’ its imbalances.” The United States,

however, Correa pointed out, was allowed to con-

tinue its irresponsible fiscal and monetary activities

while other nations would not have been allowed

the same leeway.

Such preferential treatment of the U.S. finan-

cial sector by the IMF, was a decision to “choose

complicity” with the U.S. and subsequently “led to

the unhinging of capitalism.” According to Correa,

“the effort to recapitalize the IMF without even re-

moving one chair from its Board of Directors” is a

sign of the duplicity that undermines the operation

of the IMF.

By the time the crisis became evident in 2008,

Correa explained, 9 trillion dollars was dispersed to

banks and other institutions “without any oversight

or control mechanisms and without knowing where

these funds have gone or how they have been used.”

This raises the question of what effect such action

will have on the global financial system and crisis

in the future. He proposed that the current crisis is a

much more serious crisis than those which recur

periodically “provoked by capitalism” or even when

compared with the Great Depression.

Correa argued that the reform of the Bretton

Woods institutions – the World Bank and the IMF,

were only a stopgap, temporary measure. He main-

tained that these institutions have only “served to

make ideological marketing for neo-liberalism and

the Washington Consensus.”

“If the speculative markets of the capitalist core

were directly responsible for the world crisis,” Cor-

rea reasoned, “it would be absurd and irresponsible

to let the solutions be proposed, programmed and

executed by the same system that caused it.” Yet

this is what is being presented as the means to carry

out a reform of the Bretton Woods institutions by

the G8 or G20.

Instead, the crisis, Correa and others argued,

presents the opportunity to work toward a new re-

gional and global architecture for the world finan-

cial system. As an example of the regional propos-

als, he pointed to Latin America. Correa described

the work to create a Development Bank for the

South capitalized by the countries of the region.

He argued that the gravity of the crisis requires

that it be addressed within the UN by all the gov-

ernments of the world. This conference held by the

United Nations, “must be the turning point toward

the strengthening of the role of the United Nations

Page 29

in world governance to advance toward a true de-

mocratization of international relations....”

Correa called for “models of society that put

human well being above the interests of capital.” At

the press conference he held after his speech to the

UN General Assembly, Correa elaborated on what

such a model would be.

He said that the model he

was proposing was a form of 21

century socialism

which learns from the errors of past socialist efforts

and builds on these lessons.

Though the UN conference continued for two

additional days, the Outcome Document was put to

a vote on Friday, June 26.

The document was

adopted by the conference participants by consen-

sus. After it was approved, applause filled the hall

of the UN General Assembly.

After the vote, a few nations spoke of their res-

ervations and several spoke of their hopes for stron-

ger action. Many commented that something signif-

icant had been achieved. The principle of full par-

ticipation of the 192 nations of the UN, the G192,

had been established as a basis for discussion of the

problems of the global financial and economic cri-

sis.

On Monday, June 29, and Tuesday, June 30,

those nations which had not yet spoken, presented

their talks to the General Assembly. One of those

was Sin Son-ho, the UN Ambassador from North

Korea. He said: “It is fortunate that the draft out-

come document, which is the product of the inten-

sive inter-governmental negotiations so far, con-

tains, more or less, such issues like the possible

substitution or the diversification of international

reserve currency, and the strengthening of supervi-

sion and regulation over and reform of international

financial institutions.”

Ambassador Sin said that the only way out of the

crisis “is to replace the outdated international finan-

cial and economic system with a new international

economic order that ensures the equal sovereignty

of all countries.” “It is the imperative requirement,”

he concluded, “of our times to restructure the old

international financial system and economic order

of the last century, which relies heavily on the U.S.

dollar.”

In an article published shortly before the con-

ference, Julio Escalona, an adjunct Ambassador to

the UN for the Venezuelan mission, predicted that

convening the conference would be a victory in it-

self. “For the first time,” he wrote, “an initiative

promoted by the South against the will of the North

could materialize. Then it's a matter of forcing the

centers of power to discuss topics, such as the IMF

and World Bank’s monopoly on credit, the reform

of the international financial structures and regional

currencies, the end of the dollar’s hegemony,

among other things, and making sure the discussion

continues open inside the UN, as well as the G-20

could signal the beginning of a new epoch.”

Just as Escalona predicted, the presentations by

the Ecuador’s President Correa, and others, were

examples of a sharp critique of the problems at the

core of the current crisis. These critiques demon-

strated the inadequacy of proposed reforms of the

Bretton Woods institutions, institutions created over

60 years ago. Instead the UN conference helped to

highlight the need to redesign the current financial

architecture, taking into account the experience of

the past half century. The new architecture that is

being proposed is one that is more solidly based on

a regional cooperation and consensus, and one that

will be more supportive of national sovereignty

than the Bretton Woods institutions.

How this new architecture will be formed is yet

to be determined. But the need for it has been ar-

gued and the requirements it must satisfy have been

articulated. Significantly, through this conference at

the UN, the principle of involving all 192 nations of

the UN in identifying the problems and fashioning

means to solve them has been successfully put into

practice for the first time.

Describing the importance of the UN meeting,

Father D’Escoto Brockmann, the President of the

United Nations General Assembly saw the meeting

itself and the outcome document, to as a victory. At

a press conference at the UN on July 10, he said

that the significance of the conference was, that no

longer is it possible to leave in the hands of a few,

the matters that affect the whole world.

Reminding journalists that every effort was

made prior to the conference, first not to have the

conference, then to narrow the focus, Father

Brockmann explained how despite these problems,

the G192 is now recognized as a venue to deal with

the economic and financial problems of the global

crisis. “In the end it’s happening,” he noted.

Documents Referred to in Article:

1. John Hilary, “End the G8 Charade - We Need a G192,”

Guardian Online, Comment is Free, Monday, 6 July, 2009.

Page 30

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/06/g8-g20

-g192

2. United Nations Conference on the World Financial and

Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/stt_day24.shtml

3.See Gonsalves Statement: H.E. The Honourable Ralph E.

Gonsalves, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/svg_en.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090625

am.rm?start=00:49:33&end=01:07:34

4. See Troncoso Statement: H.E. Mr. Carlos Morales

Troncoso, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Re-

public.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/dominican

_rep_en.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090624

pm.rm?start=01:13:12&end=01:24:37

5. Hear Abana Statement: H.E. Mr. Steve Abana, Minister for

National Planning and Aid Coordination of Solomon Islands.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090624

pm.rm?start=01:13:12&end=01:24:37

6. See Moni Statement: H.E. Dr. Dipu Moni, Minister for

Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh (on

behalf of the Least Developed Countries).

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/bangladesh

_en.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090624

pm.rm?start=00:48:32&end=01:01:06

7. Press Conference: Joseph Stiglitz, Chairman of the Com-

mission of Experts of the President of the General Assembly

on reforms of the international monetary and financial system,

to brief in connection with the current General Assembly Con-

ference on the Economic Crisis and its Impact on Develop-

ment.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009

/pc090625pm2.rm

8. See Presstv Articles: “U.S. prevents Venezuela minister

from attending UN confab,” Presstv. “The U.S. government

has refused to grant entry visas to Venezuelan Minister of Fi-

nance Ali Rodriguez,” Presstv. “Iran criticizes U.S. over visa

denial, U.S. denying visas Iran’s first vice president and mem-

bers of his delegation,” Presstv.

9. See Valero Statement: H.E. Ambassador Jorge Valero

Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America and Multi-

lateral Affairs and Permanent Representative of the Bolivarian

Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/venezuela_

en.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090626

pm.rm?start=01:16:00&end=01:39:32

10. See Correa Statement: H.E. Mr. Rafael Correa Delgado

President of the Republic of Ecuador.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/ecuador_en

.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090625

am.rm?start=00:03:37&end=00:47:58

11. Press Conference with HE. Mr. Rafael Correa Delgado,

President of Ecuador, and H.E. Fander Falconi, Minister for

Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, to brief in connection with the

current General Assembly Conference on the Economic Crisis

and its Impact on Development.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009

/pc090625am1.rm

12. Draft Outcome Document, A/CONF.214/3*.

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.

214/3&Lang=E

13. See Sin Son Ho Statement: H. E. Ambassador Sin Son Ho

Permanent Representative of Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea to the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/korea_dpr_

en.pdf

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2009/ga090629

pm.rm?start=01:20:56&end=01:26:35

14. Julio Escalona, “It’s the time of history. Whether we know

it or not, whether we believe it or not”, Vheadline.com.

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=80757

15. General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann

on the outcome of the UN Conference on the World Financial

and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development as well

as on the current crisis in Honduras, Press Conference, June

10, 2009. [Webcast: Archived Video - 45 minutes]

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/2009

/pc090710pm.rm

This article appeared in OhmyNews International on July 14,

2009 at:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?me

nu=c10400&no=385452&rel_no=1

[Editor’s Note: The first 21

century world financial and eco-

nomic crisis was precipitated by the purposeful lack of regula-

tion of the U.S. financial sector. This crisis brought attention

to the inadequacy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF),

the World Bank and the G8 and G20. As a world crisis, world

measures are needed to resolve it. Under Father Brockmann’s

presidency, the General Assembly addressed the question of

the crisis on June 24-26 2009 at the General Debate on the

World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on De-

velopment. In some ways this Debate was the beginning of the

emergence of a G192 economic institution. The first speaker

on June 25 was Rafael Correa, President of the Republic of

Ecuador, an economist by training. He spoke in Spanish. All

texts from the June 25 session can be seen at:

http://-

www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/CONF.214/3. The

following is a shortened version of the English translation of

President Correa’s presentation.]

We, the Different are Here

The G192 Economic Summit

by Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador

In the Atlantic Charter

, which served as a basis

for the foundation of the United Nations, Roosevelt

and Churchill affirmed that “after the final destruc-

tion of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see estab-

Page 31

lished a peace which will afford to all nations the

means of dwelling in safety within their own

boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all

the men in all the lands may live out their lives in

freedom from fear and want.”

However, several decades after the United Na-

tions came into existence, the lack of conviction,

will and political generosity have become manifest,

as have the lack of a humanistic project imbued

with equity and solidarity, and the prevailing greed

and utilitarianism of the capitalist system.

Those of us who have embraced our status as

world citizens cannot understand schemes that al-

ways end up trampling on the poorest and that con-

tradict their own claims. How are we to understand

a so-called globalization that seeks to create not

citizens of the world, but consumers of the world;

that seeks to create not a world society, but a world

market; that continually seeks greater mobility for

capital and markets, but criminalizes the mobility of

human beings? All of this, we feel, is the work of a

sort of clan of the powerful that boasts of respect

and equality, but bends international organizations

to its own ends and never treats others with fairness.

We talk not of tolerance, because it arises from

domination, but of concepts that, in all religions and

cultures, have been the source of every struggle and

every aspiration: justice and equality. However,

equality has been manhandled, used rhetorically or

reviled by power, as the poet Juan Ramón Jiménez

said in his verses: “They wanted to kill him, the

equals, because he was different.”

Now, it is we who are different here, and we

have come to the G-192 to demand democracy and

to highlight the other possible world, the other

world that we urgently need, the world of peace and

justice, made possible through respect for the sover-

eignty of peoples and through balance among hu-

man beings, countries, nations, peoples and conti-

nents.

We, the different, are here, and we have come

from all corners of the world. Here we have our Af-

rican brothers, who have overcome the shameful

oppression of apartheid, but who continue to be

cursed with inequality, disdain and indifference.

While their drums, magic and incorruptible struggle

managed to break the spells and fears, today the

whole world must heal the wounds of the African

people. As Nelson Mandela once said, “Let there be

peace for all. Let there be work, bread, water and

salt for all.”

Here we have the peoples of the East, age-old

and wise, but hidden from us because the distribu-

tion of the universe concealed them from our sight,

surely because we would have discovered much

sooner a life consecrated to peace. In other words,

as Confucius said: “Nothing can be done with the

corrupt; it is like trying to build on a swamp.”

Here we have Muslims of various origins, but

united and rooted in religion and humanism, even

as some in the Western hemisphere, with their ty-

rannical powers, have prevented us from being

brothers with our fellow men. Here age-old civiliza-

tions are represented, cultures built with talent and

on the basis of necessity and diversity. A living ex-

ample is the Palestinian people, living on shifting

sands, with its memories and its martyrs.

The different come also from Latin America,

an ignored and humiliated continent, but one that,

today more than ever, is insurgent, rebellious and

aware of its historical responsibility. From Latin

America, almost 45 years ago, on 11 December

1964, Commander Ernesto “Che” Guevara came to

this very forum to tell the world: “Yes, now history

will have to take the poor of America into account,

the exploited and spurned who have decided to be-

gin writing their history for themselves for all

time.”

The different, we who are the vast majority,

demand transparency and truth now that it is time to

reveal who was at the origin of today’s crisis, who

plundered the peoples and who benefitted from

their adjustment policies, illegitimate debts, coups

d’état, subterfuges and institutionalized illegalities,

such as the Washington Consensus, a paradoxical

and cynical agreement signed behind the backs of

peoples and Governments and limited to the con-

claves of the dominating and colonialist Powers.

Let us now talk about issues that, it seems, are

absent in other exclusive and exclusionary forums

such as the Group of Eight (G-8) or the Group of 20

(G-20), alien to those who consider themselves to

be equal, because our manifesto is based on mutual

respect, solidarity, justice, environmental

sustainability and the pre-eminence of human be-

ings over capital.

It was the constant violation of these principles

that caused the crisis which still spreads menac-

ingly, with powerful destructive effects on the

Page 32

countries of the South

. After the attacks of 11

September 2001, the United States decided to lower

interest rates to a minimum to revive consumption

and production. In a deregulated environment, that

decision exacerbated the growth of sub-prime credit

— extremely risky second-category sub-prime

loans. The sub-prime rates were high-risk rates, es-

pecially for mortgage lending.

In 2004, it was decided to raise the rates to off-

set inflationary outbreaks. That decision did not

stop the bankers, who resorted to securitizing their

assets to have greater liquidity. But when delin-

quency grew and it was revealed that the largest

banks had committed a large part of their assets to

sub-prime loans, panic spread. Mistrust reduced the

supply of money, volatility shot up and stock mar-

kets crashed.

We all know this: the crisis originated in the

United States financial markets. But it is no longer

only a financial crisis, and the whole world has

been contaminated. The South, which bore no re-

sponsibility whatsoever for the crisis, has now be-

come its main victim. For years, the United States

maintained huge trade and fiscal deficits, with the

connivance of the International Monetary Fund

(IMF). Any other country would have been forced

to devalue and “correct” its imbalances. But in this

case the double standards that prevail in the IMF

governance forced it to choose complicity, which

led to the unhinging of the capitalist system. And

now, the G-20 wants to recapitalize it just like that,

without even changing one seat on the Fund’s

Board of Governors. This is totally absurd.

The world financial debacle is just a symptom

of the crisis of a system that favoured the specula-

tive-financial economy over the real economy —

where goods and services are actually created to

meet the needs of human beings. I hope we never

forget that. My colleagues here know that, even

though I am an economist, I am a good person. Eco-

nomics is a science with real variables: basically,

productive capacity, upon which depends the avail-

ability, allocation and efficiency of the use of pro-

ductive resources. But in recent years everything

became unhinged, and it was claimed that money

simply generated more money by itself.

During the first quarter of 2009, the United

States economy fell at the rate of 6.1 per cent per

annum, and investment dropped by 38 per cent. In

2009, Japan expects a recession of 3.1 per cent and

the euro zone expects a fall of 4 per cent in gross

domestic product (GDP). As these markets demand

fewer goods produced in Latin America and the

Caribbean, this year [2009] our region may lose

between 2.3 million and 3.2 million jobs, according

to estimates by the International Labour Organiza-

tion.

Since October 2007, immense amounts of

money have been allocated to “rescue” the private

financial sector. It is estimated that in 2008 alone

such disbursements totaled some $9 trillion, without

any oversight or control mechanisms, and without

knowing for certain where those funds have gone or

how they have been used.

Something must not be working right, or at

least not working to its full extent, in this gigantic

rescue. This year, the GDP of Latin America and

the Caribbean will decrease by between 1.5 per cent

and 2 per cent. The World Trade Organization

(WTO) estimates that in 2009 international com-

mercial exchanges will go down by 9 per cent,

which suggests the largest downturn since the Sec-

ond World War. And, as always, the powerful are

placing the greatest burden on the most vulnerable:

the drastic measures taken against our migrants,

combined with the contraction of productive activi-

ties in the countries of the North, will cause a 5 per

cent reduction in remittances without any counter-

balances.

We are faced with a crisis unlike the others re-

peatedly provoked by capitalism. Some have

wanted to compare it with the Great Depression of

the 1930s, but it is much more than that: climate

change, along with the global energy crisis and the

grave risk of a worldwide food crisis, places us in

the presence of a true problem of civilization. Our

action must be commensurate with the challenges

imposed by history. The gravity of this crisis re-

quires that it be addressed within the United Na-

tions, an organization that groups all the Govern-

ments of the world and that must, for the sake of its

own credibility and validity, face up to a compre-

hensive transformation of the world economic or-

der.

To reform Bretton Woods

would be an insuffi-

cient and unjustified stopgap. For some time its in-

stitutions have served only to engage in ideological

marketing for the benefit of neo-liberalism and the

Washington Consensus. If the speculative markets

of the capitalist core were directly responsible for

Page 33

this world crisis, it would be absurd and irresponsi-

ble to let the solutions be proposed, planned and

carried out by the very system that caused it.

However, every crisis is also an opportunity,

and this one is no exception, although for my part I

prefer opportunities without crises. “Every crisis is

an opportunity” is a cliché, is it not? The orthodox

notions of macroeconomic stability and the role of

the State in the era of neo-liberalism have proven

obsolete in less than one and a half years of crisis.

We have the historical responsibility to seek the

re-emergence of our peoples and to walk on our

own feet, starting by redefining the global financial

system, freeing us from the blackmail to which we

have been subjected by rich countries.

The response to Ecuador’s proposals for a new

regional and global financial architecture by the

members of the Commission of Experts appointed

by the President of the General Assembly and

chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in eco-

nomics, is an endorsement of the relevance of the

proposal that I wish to share this morning.

We propose, simultaneously and in parallel,

and in line with the political and economic realities

of each region, to enhance the integration of spaces

of supranational monetary-financial sovereignty

which are capable of reducing the evil effects that

our economies suffer because of their links of de-

pendency with the international financial system.

This proposal began to be forged in regional

Latin-American forums such as the Quito Declara-

tion of May 2007, the European Union-Latin Amer-

ica Summit held in Lima in May 2008 and the San

Salvador Ibero-American Summit of October 2008.

We are already working in our region to create a

development bank for the South, capitalized by the

countries of the region. In fact, its role has already

been defined; we need only make it operative.

There are seven signatory countries in Latin Amer-

ica for the Bank of the South. Its objective will be

to finance development projects, particularly multi-

national ones, and to improve systemic competitive-

ness and connectivity among our countries, on the

basis of our own priorities and giving space to local

and regional currencies.

Linked to this, we must establish a common

reserve fund for Latin America. This would prevent

the deposit of more than $200 billion in reserves

from our countries in banks of the North. Imagine:

the poor are financing the rich. On one hand we are

getting down on our knees, or subjugating our-

selves, so that the international bureaucracy of the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank

will give us a few dollars, and on the other hand we

are sending more than $200 billion to the North. It

is absurd and irrational. It is paradoxical that, in the

midst of the crisis, we still allow our money to fi-

nance rich countries in exchange for a few dollars

in interest. That is one of the traps inherited from

the long and unfortunate neo-liberal night. In the

first half of the 1990s, on the basis of studies that

would make a first-year economics student blush

for shame, the World Bank imposed, throughout

Latin America, the autonomy of central banks.

These are bureaucracies that are independent of

their countries, but sufficiently dependent on inter-

national bureaucracies. We see how many central

bank chairmen and Finance Ministers end up as

Washington bureaucrats at the IMF, the World

Bank, the Inter American Development Bank, et

cetera. I stress that these bureaucracies are inde-

pendent of their countries, but quite dependent on

the international bureaucracies which, in turn, man-

age our reserves and which, for the sake of sup-

posed “prudence,” invest them in the first world.

Our savings are financing the rich. This irrational

system must change, starting by ensuring that Gov-

ernments gain control over their central banks.

If we pool our reserves in a common fund, we

will need less money to tackle regional contingen-

cies and crises, and excess funds would serve to

capitalize the Bank of the South. This fund could be

supplemented with a regional payment system,

which would be the precursor of a regional central

bank that would give us more autonomy vis-à-vis

the financial circles of the North. Let us recall that

the new regional financial architecture that we are

proposing — which is already being implemented

in Latin America — is first and foremost a develop-

ment bank, in the form of the Bank of the South,

which has already been created in name. Secondly,

it is a common reserve fund: instead of sending our

reserves to the first world, and in order to avoid the

absurdity of financing the first world, we can use

our own reserves. With this reserve pooling, we can

with less money have greater security with respect

to the balance of payments crisis and financial cri-

ses in the region.

Thirdly, this new regional financial architecture

will make us less dependent on — or totally inde-

Page 34

pendent from, as I would wish — the speculative

international financial markets. We propose here to

build a common monetary system, which could be-

gin as an electronic currency to facilitate regional

exchanges. This system of regional electronic pay-

ments can be set up immediately. It is only a matter

of coordination and political decision. In fact, we

are doing it in the framework of the Bolivarian Al-

ternative for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA),

a democratic forum which my country formally

joined just 24 hours ago. The proposal is making

significant progress in that forum, as the Regional

Single Payment Compensation System (SUCRE) is

about to begin operation. This is an electronic cur-

rency to facilitate our exchanges and thus to mini-

mize the use of extra regional currencies such as the

United States dollar. But in the medium term the

idea is to have a physical regional currency. We

firmly believe that larger monetary blocs constitute

the only way to survive this inhuman, cruel global-

ization — which as the world’s citizens, not the

world’s consumers, we do not seek, just as we do

not seek to create a planet-wide society or

planet-wide market. We believe that, sooner or

later, Latin America will have to move to monetary

union and possess a physical regional currency.

I must add also that during the negotiations for

this Conference, the Group of 77 and China ex-

pressed their appreciation for and welcomed these

two regional initiatives, which they considered con-

crete examples of financial cooperation at the re-

gional level. They will assist countries of the region

in addressing possible balance of payment problems

in an alternative way, and promoting trade among

them, moving away from the iron rule imposed by

the dollar.

The current international financial system

obliges us, against all sense of justice, to provide

cheap financing to the North and, at the same time,

to seek expensive funding in the North. This cannot

continue in the twenty-first century. What sense can

there be in using an extra-regional currency for our

trade, if in that way we only maintain our depend-

ence and, on top of that, we pay seigniorage?

Seigniorage is the fee paid to the country that issues

the currency used for exchanges. If a box of biscuits

costs a dollar in a given country, when the United

States issues $10 it is as though it is gaining 10

boxes of biscuits from that country’s production —

merely by issuing the currency. What sense is there

in paying special fees to whoever issues the cur-

rency used for world trade, when this right to

seigniorage could belong to our own countries?

However, as the crisis advances unstoppably,

helped by the passivity — or complicity — of the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,

we need more urgent measures. We cannot commit

the historical error of falling into a war of deprecia-

tion in which our production will lose value and

from which, at the end of the day, only the countries

of the North will benefit, as they will purchase our

goods at cheaper prices. We need to negotiate a re-

gional monetary agreement immediately, in order to

coordinate our monetary policies and prevent the

crisis in our region from broadening, to the benefit

of third countries.

This proposal is made in the framework of a

broader concept that challenges the dominant para-

digm. Competition among poor countries is absurd,

and we must move toward cooperation and integra-

tion. When poor countries compete with one

another, third countries — the rich countries —

benefit. We must not fall into that trap. The re-

sponse of the poor countries must be coordination,

complementarity and integration.

….

Patching up the Bretton Woods system, which

we do not control, makes no sense for the countries

of the South. This is our opportunity to consolidate

our presence and to develop greater powers of de-

liberation and decision in international forums so

that we can finally become the owners of our own

destinies. But it will be impossible to attain this ob-

jective unless we have our own international finan-

cial architecture. The structure we are promoting for

Latin America can be replicated in other regions of

the world, under other conditions and with different

priorities. We all have the conditions to do so, and

we no longer have to depend on what the countries

of the North do or fail to do. This implies, obvi-

ously, invigorating and strengthening regional inte-

gration forums such as the Union of South Ameri-

can Nations (UNASUR) or the Bolivarian Alterna-

tive for Latin America and the Caribbean.

However, at the global level, we must promote

the creation of a coordinating entity of planet-wide

proportions, based on a monetary council estab-

lished with clear criteria for representation and ac-

countability; through the issuance of special draw-

ing rights, it would endorse new foreign exchange

Page 35

commitments and regional institutional arrange-

ments. This issuance of special drawing rights,

which has been postponed for decades by the big

Powers of the North, will contribute to breaking the

monopoly in the provision of liquidity that guaran-

tees the uni-polarity of the United States dollar and

the asymmetric decisions of the International Mone-

tary Fund.

Furthermore, if by means of the necessary in-

stitutional changes we succeed in channeling these

special drawing rights through multilateral regional

bodies or entities in charge of urgent tasks, such as

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations and the United Nations Develop-

ment Programme, we will prevent the IMF from

reproducing the asymmetrical relations that have

allowed it to impose conditions on our countries,

something that will be inevitable if we allow the

recapitalization proposed by the G-20 to go forward

without a total change in the governance of that en-

tity. That would be quite different from the decency

the IMF should display — the mea culpa it should

offer — as one of those that caused the crisis.

Yesterday, when I was talking with President

Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, he told me that the

conditionalities that the Fund wanted to impose for

a $90 million loan were truly intolerable for Nicara-

gua. How can we continue to accept this: that the

international bureaucracy, through its machinery of

pressure, and with its new twentieth- and

twenty-first-century bombers — the dollars that the

international bureaucracies give us — try to tell

sovereign countries what to do and what not to do?

That is unacceptable.

It is necessary to change the governance of the

International Monetary Fund. In principle, it would

be better to eliminate it, because it has already done

too much damage. It has betrayed all the principles

for which it was created. Paradoxically, the Interna-

tional Monetary Fund and the World Bank were

created to stabilize world demand, but they have

been the main factors in the destabilization of de-

mand, through their adjustment programmes and so

forth — is that not true? — and through their pro--

cyclical policies. In principle, they should be elimi-

nated, but there is a desire to retain them because of

special interests. But there should at least be sub-

stantial changes in their governance.

In this scenario, while an alternative

governance system is decided upon, all new funds

handed to the International Monetary Fund should

be placed into a new emergency facility, agile and

without the conditionalities of traditional adjust-

ment. The administration of this facility must be

entrusted to a different governing body, such as the

one already created for the World Bank’s Global

Environmental Facility.

We must intensify our pressure to demand that

the capitalization of these agencies of the United

Nations system through special drawing rights is

used to tackle food, climate change and develop-

ment problems of the countries of the South with

more resources.

These special drawing rights must be issued

immediately. The 60 per cent corresponding to de-

veloped countries may be used to meet, at least par-

tially, the 0.7 per cent of GDP that in the 1970s they

offered to dedicate to the development of counter-

cyclical policies and to the fight against poverty. By

the way, this would also help us escape from the

liquidity restrictions imposed by financial uni-po-

larity.

The imperative of redefining the world finan-

cial order, which has been unhinged by speculation

and privilege, is also warranted from a human rights

perspective. At the global level, human beings have

fewer rights than capital does, thanks to bilateral

investment agreements and to international arbitra-

tion systems regulated, by the World Bank and the

World Trade Organization, at the International Cen-

tre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

These, the worst things that can happen to us, are

incredible and constantly challenge our capacity for

amazement. What is happening in Latin America is

genocide. It is amazing that when human rights are

undermined, one must first exhaust all of a

country’s national legal machinery before being

able to turn to the Inter American Court of Human

Rights of the Organization of American States. But

here is what happens when you are facing up to

capital: if any transnational feels itself harmed by a

Latin American country, it can immediately take us

to ICSID without filing any legal motion within our

countries. It can take us to extra-regional arbitra-

tion: a transnational can do this to a sovereign State.

And only this extra-regional arbitration body — the

World Bank’s ICSID — can judge whether or not

the law of this sovereign State has been complied

with vis-à-vis that transnational. It can even hand

down a judgement when the law is very harsh,

Page 36

when the legal punishment is disproportionate to

the error that has been committed. Imagine the

asymmetry in the current system between defense

of the “rights” of capital and defense, for example,

of human rights. Do we have a forum where we

take countries with the death penalty? United States

law employs the death penalty, the most drastic

penalty for a crime: no human being deserves to die

for any crime. There is no such forum, but for capi-

tal there is a forum which can oppose the laws of

sovereign States. That must come to an end; it is

madness.

The right to life, to health, to the education of

our peoples, to a good life — to ‘sumac kawsay’, as

the ancestral peoples of my homeland say — is

above the interest of the international speculators of

Wall Street. If this minimum principle is considered

as insubordination, so be it. Ecuador has succeeded

in cancelling its illegitimate commercial debt. With

an investment of almost $900 million, we will have

avoided paying principal plus interest of almost $9

billion by the year 2030.

The history of underdevelopment, dependency

and domination of Ecuador and of Latin America is

also the history of the foreign debt. Bonds, renegoti-

ations, conditioned policies and debt agreements

have been the modern mechanisms of domination

through forced and hereditary indebtedness, which

in Latin America was called ‘concertaje’. These

mechanisms have also been, in our time, the instru-

ments by which the financial centers of industrial-

ized capitalism have dominated our peoples. I re-

peat: they do not use gunboats or bombers; they

only use the International Monetary Fund, the

World Bank, the unregulated stock markets. Those

are the modern-day ‘encomenderos’, the true insa-

tiable traffickers of wealth at the expense of the ed-

ucation, health and food of our children — 26 per

cent of whom suffer from chronic malnutrition in a

country such as Ecuador — and at the expense of

peace, well-being and the very lives of millions of

our fellow countrymen and women born as slaves

of a foreign debt.

In my country, the Government of the citizen

revolution set out from the very outset to find a fi-

nal solution to the yoke of foreign debt. And, in line

with its promise and its proposals, and with pro-

found conviction, it succeeded in doing so. Now

Ecuador can be declared free from illegitimate ex-

ternal commercial debt. That declaration pays hom-

age to the bicentenary of our independence and

honours the memory of our heroes: Bolivar, Alfaro,

Sucre and Manuela. As we have said, for the first

time in history, a Government has established a

debt auditing commission. There have been experi-

ments with such commissions, but these have been

carried out by civil society and have been very few

in number. This is the first time that a Government

has designed a debt audit commission.

….

After the crisis of 1929, most Latin American

countries emerged with stronger and more active

public institutions that helped them to maintain sta-

ble growth rates until the 1970s. We must not repeat

the mistake made after 1982, when we were forced

— from the centre — to respond to the debt crisis

by paralysing our public institutions, with the sup-

posed aim of reaching optimal fiscal policies, poli-

cies that would be satisfactory in honoring a foreign

debt manipulated by those at that very center.

In Latin America, and in the developing world

in general, we have full creative, technical and po-

litical capacity to promote our own responses, with-

out any need for supporting or fostering them on the

basis of proposals that are alien to our regions, as

has happened before with the so-called Washington

Consensus

. I do not know why they call it a con-

sensus when they never consulted Latin America on

anything. This has been to the shame of the region

in recent decades, with the implementation of pub-

lic policies arising from that so called consensus, in

which we in Latin America never participated. We

shall not be colonized, even in intellectual terms.

We are quite capable of developing our own think-

ing and our own responses on the basis of our real-

ity, our values, our principles and our interests —

not interests alien to our regions.

Our peoples deserve no less than what the con-

stituents of rich countries are demanding. These

demands have already been expressed in drastic

changes in their public policies: financial regulation

with more controls on investment funds and greater

international coordination; regulation of interna-

tional commodities markets and subcontracting; a

new industrial policy more committed to the pro-

motion of environmentally friendlier industries; and

universal social policies, that is, coverage for all

citizens and the development of public insurance

programs.

Page 37

This Conference must be the turning point to-

ward strengthening the role of the United Nations in

world governance, in order to advance toward a true

democratization of international relations, begin-

ning with substantial changes in financial institu-

tions.

The draft outcome of this historic conference

does not meet all the expectations of our countries.

We faced great resistance to bringing this issue be-

fore the parliament of mankind: the universal and

democratic forum of the General Assembly. How-

ever, it has the merit of having marked the begin-

ning of a process of political agreement to effect

comprehensive reform of the current international

financial system, thanks to the commitment that all

countries are assuming here and now. Now we must

define the institutional path toward collaboration

and dialogue and toward monitoring what is de-

cided here.

It is in the framework and under the aegis of

this Group of 192 — different but truly equal —

that we must discuss comprehensive, equitable and

democratic solutions to this crisis, which originated,

as always, in greed and disdain. It is we, the differ-

ent, who must guide the convulsed world of today.

Time is of the essence. We have to advance toward

models of society that put human well-being above

the interests of capital, respecting the limits im-

posed by nature. This can be possible not through

market mechanisms, but only through the required

political will, collective action, cooperation, coordi-

nation, a new ethics of planetary coexistence and an

in-depth process of decolonization, including the

decolonization of thought.

It can be possible, as well, only through unwa-

vering defence of sovereignty. Our collective re-

sponse to imperial thrashing is, once again, solidar-

ity and our inexhaustible strength; it is based on the

unity of the peoples, the unity of the poor and the

unity of the different.

‘Hasta la victoria siempre!’ (Always, until vic-

tory!)

Notes:

1. Eight points of agreement between the U.S. and the U.K.

issued on August 14, 1941,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp

2. The South (also known as the Global South) is part of a

distinction between the most developed nations (the North)

and the poorer less developed nations (the South). See for ex-

ample,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South.

3. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, grew

out of an agreement signed in Bretton Woods New Hampshire,

United States in 1944 by delegates from the 44 Allied nations

4. About ALBA, see for example:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article142921.html#article142921

5. “Ecuador announced in late 2008 that it would stop servic-

ing two of its foreign bonds; six moths later, it bought most of

them back for cash at about 35 cents on the dollar, effecting

substantial debt relief.” (Quoted from:

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2010/03/debt-and-the-pe

ople-part-ii-the-hot-disquietude.html)

6. The so called Washington Consensus was a set of economic

reform goals proposed in 1989 for Latin American countries.

The reforms were orthodox neo liberal reforms. Fiscal Disci-

pline, Reordering Public Expenditure Priorities, Tax reform,

Liberalizing Interest Rates, A Competitive Exchange Rate,

Trade Liberalization, Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct

Investment. Privatization. Deregulation, Property Rights. The

countries which tried to implement them all had poor or disas-

trous results particularly in terms of growth, employment, and

poverty reduction. The Consensus has basically been aban-

doned by its original advocates and Latin American countries.

[Editor’s Note: As part of the United Nations General

Assembly Interactive Thematic Dialogue on the Respon-

sibility to Protect (R2P) on July 23, 2009, the Office of

the President of the General Assembly prepared a con-

cept note about R2P. That concept note emphasizes that

the people have inalienable rights and are the sovereign.

If R2P is exercised by an external agency, sovereignty

passes from the people of the target country to that

agency transferring the people from sovereign to wards.

The following is that concept note. It can be accessed at:

http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/protect/co

nceptnote.pdf]

The People are the Sovereign

Concept Note on

Responsibility to Protect

by Office of the President of the General Assembly

The five main documents in which responsibil-

ity to protect has been articulated are the High

Level Panel’s “Report on Threats, Challenges and

Change”; the Secretary-General’s Report “In Larger

Freedom”; the Outcome Document of the World

Summit 2005; UN Security Council Resolution

1674; Secretary-General’s Report on “Implement-

ing the Responsibility to Protect.” None of these

Page 38

documents can be considered as a source of binding

international law in terms of Article 38 of the Statue

of the International Court of Justice which lists the

classic sources of international law.

At the negotiations on the World Summit Out-

come Document, the then U.S. Permanent Repre-

sentative John Bolton stated accurately that the

commitment made in the Document was “not of a

legal character.” The Document is carefully

nuanced to convey the intentions of the member

states. Paragraph 138 when it deals with the indi-

vidual state’s responsibility to its own people is

clear in its commitment. When it comes to the inter-

national community helping states, the phrase used

is a general appeal – “should as appropriate.” Para-

graph 139 continues this nuanced approach. The

language is clear and unconditional when it speaks

of “the international community through the UN”

having the “responsibility to use appropriate diplo-

matic, humanitarian and other peaceful means in

accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Char-

ter.” The Document is very cautious when it comes

to responsibility to take action through the UN Se-

curity Council under Chapter VII. Paragraph 139

uses at least four qualifiers. Firstly, the Heads of

State merely reaffirm that they “are prepared” to

take action, implying a voluntary, rather than man-

datory engagement. Secondly, they are prepared to

do this only “on a case by case basis,” which pre-

cludes a systematic responsibility. Thirdly, even

this has to be “in cooperation with regional organi-

zations as appropriate.” Fourthly, this should be “in

accordance with the Charter” (which covers only

immediate threats to international peace and secu-

rity). Finally, the Heads of State emphasize “the

need for the General Assembly to continue consid-

eration of the responsibility to protect populations

from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and

crimes against humanity and its implications, bear-

ing in mind the principles of the Charter and inter-

national law (emphases ours). It is therefore, amply

clear, that there is no legally binding commitment

and the General Assembly is charged, in terms of its

responsibility under the Charter to develop and

elaborate a legal basis.”

It is the great anti-colonial struggles and the

anti-apartheid struggles that restored the human

rights of populations across the developing world

and therefore were the greatest application of re-

sponsibility to protect in world history. Their suc-

cess probably led to more humane governance in

Europe and thereby, at least indirectly, increased

the protection of European populations also. Colo-

nialism and interventionism used responsibility to

protect arguments. National Sovereignty in devel-

oping countries is a necessary condition for stable

access to political, social and economic rights and it

took enormous sacrifices to recover this sovereignty

and ensure these rights for their populations. As the

U.S. Declaration of Independence says, the people

have the right to get rid of their government when it

oppresses them and has thereby failed in its respon-

sibility to them. The people have inalienable rights

and are sovereign. The concept of sovereignty as

responsibility either means this and therefore means

nothing new or it means something without any

foundation in international law, namely that a for-

eign agency can exercise this responsibility. It

should not become a “jemmy in the door of national

sovereignty.” The concept of responsibility to pro-

tect is a sovereign’s obligation and, if it is exercised

by an external agency, sovereignty passes from the

people of the target country to it. The people to be

protected are transformed from bearers of rights to

wards of this agency.

The international community cannot remain

silent in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war

crimes, and crimes against humanity. But the UN

response should be predictable, sustainable and ef-

fective without undermining the UN’s credibility

based on consecrated cornerstone values enshrined

in the UN Charter. Therefore, it is the preventive

aspects of responsibility to protect that are both im-

portant and practicable but these need both precise

understanding and political will. Genuine economic

cooperation in an enabling international environ-

ment would do much to prevent situations calling

for responsibility to protect. This requires an urgent

reform of international economic governance, spe-

cifically of the Bretton Woods Institutions with

their procyclical advice, including shifting to cash

crops and eliminating subsidies. Political will is

needed for coordinated international action focused

on development in order to implement the

Monterrey Consensus, the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals and the consensus Outcome of the High

Level UN Conference on the World Financial and

Economic Crisis and its impact on development. In

the Human Rights Council and the Peace-building

Page 39

Commission we possess important instruments for

capacity building and prevention.

On the other hand the elements of a so called

timely and decisive response are far more

problematic. Articles 2.4 and 2.7 of the Charter pro-

hibit the use of force. Article 24 confers on the UN

Security Council responsibility to maintain peace

and Article 39 to determine any threat, breach of

peace or aggression and measures to restore peace.

Article 41 spells out breaking diplomatic relations,

sanctions, and embargoes. If these fail Article 42

empowers force. None of these would cover respon-

sibility to protect unless the situation is a threat to

international peace and security. The Security Coun-

cil’s powers are not directed even against violations

of international legal obligations but against an im-

mediate threat to international peace and security.

Collective security is a specialized instrument for

dealing with threats to international peace and secu-

rity and not an enforcement mechanism for interna-

tional human rights law and international humani-

tarian law. The discretion given to the Security

Council to decide a threat to international peace and

security implies a variable commitment totally dif-

ferent from the consistent alleviation of suffering

embodied in the responsibility to protect. The Secu-

rity Council has not been willing to relinquish to the

International Criminal Court its power to determine

crimes of aggression.

In case a responsibility to protect type of situa-

tion becomes a threat to international peace and se-

curity, the question of the veto will arise. The veto

ensures that any breach committed by a permanent

member or by a member state under its protection

would escape action. Member states, therefore,

need to decide whether “a mutual understanding”

among permanent members “to refrain from em-

ploying or threatening to employ the veto” in re-

sponsibility to protect situations is adequate or

whether an amendment of the Charter is necessary.

A “mutual understanding” implies no enduring obli-

gation and therefore has no legal force. The prob-

lem is that if a veto has been cast, the General As-

sembly cannot overturn it; even without it, the Gen-

eral Assembly cannot take up a matter that is on the

agenda of the Security Council. The International

Law Commissions draft Articles and the Third Re-

port on responsibility of International Organizations

states that internal rules provide no excuse for fail-

ing to discharge its obligations. If internal rules and

the Charter [Article 27 (3) on the veto] prevent ex-

ercising any future responsibility to protect then

should the veto go in such cases or should the re-

sponsibility be abdicated? The existence of the veto

and the erosion of globalization strengthen the

Westphalia paradigm as against the individual

rights centered paradigm of responsibility to pro-

tect. Neither do the Councils procedures have any

provision for due process of law nor are its deci-

sions subject to judicial review. Moreover member

states need to consider whether, as Secretary-Gen-

eral Kofi Annan used to say, the political basis for

Security Council decision making is far too narrow.

The provisions of the Genocide Convention provide

for a State to approach the appropriate organs of the

United Nations to take action to prevent and sup-

press genocide, as well as actions in preparation

thereof. It is the veto and the lack of UN Security

Council reform rather than the absence of a respon-

sibility to protect legal norm that are the real obsta-

cles to effective action (in an article on the Rwanda

genocide Under Secretary-General Ibrahim

Gambari reached a similar conclusion).

Similarly, is it enough to simply ask member

states to become parties to the Rome Statute of the

International Criminal Court? Is it not also essential

to have a definition of aggression under the Rome

Statute in order to deter adventurism before the re-

sponsibility to protect can be developed? Moreover,

the International Criminal Court remains account-

able to the Security Council in the sense that the

Council has the power to delay consideration of a

case by a year and then another year, indefinitely.

In case peremptory norms are breached, the

International Law Commission’s draft Articles on

State Responsibility specify two sets of conse-

quences: 1) a positive obligation of States “to coop-

erate to bring the serious breach to an end through

lawful means” [Article 41 (i)] and 2) not to recog-

nize as lawful a situation created by the breach and

not to render aid in maintaining that situation [Arti-

cle 41 (ii)]. The use of military force is expressly

excluded from the realm of possible counter mea-

sures. Article 50 (i) (a) categorically says that coun-

ter-measures shall not affect “the obligation to re-

frain from the threat or use of force as embodied in

the Charter of the United Nations.” It is for member

states to consider if responsibility to protect in its

non coercive dimensions adds anything to the Inter-

national Law Commission’s Articles or to the pro-

Page 40

visions of international human rights law and inter-

national humanitarian law.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that

“where human rights are protected by International

Conventions, that protection takes the form of such

arrangements for monitoring or ensuring the respect

for human rights as are provided for in the Conven-

tions themselves. The use of force could not be the

appropriate method to monitor or ensure such re-

spect.” Can any troops wage a war for human rights

without causing more harm than the violations they

set out to correct? In terms of the suffering of the

population would this also not be true of sanctions

that cause the deaths of the most vulnerable –

women and children – from malnutrition and lack

of medicines? Will not an association with the use

of force also compromise and weaken International

humanitarian law? In terms of the actual resource

situation when there are not enough troops available

even for vital peacekeeping, would there be any

capacity for rapid deployment or preventive deploy-

ment?

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI spoke of re-

sponsibility to protect in the General Assembly in

April 2008 but he emphasized that the “juridical

means” employed should be those “provided in the

UN Charter and in other international instruments.”

These do not include the use of military force. The

Pope also said that “the principles under girding the

international order” must be respected. These prin-

ciples include sovereignty and exclude the use of

force. Jesus’ emphasis on redistribution of wealth to

the poor and on nonviolence reinforces the right

perspective on responsibility to protect.

On any early warning mechanism, apart from

UN Secretariat accountability and General Assem-

bly oversight, member states would need to con-

sider whether the Secretariat should take any action

at all before the UN General Assembly has devel-

oped the concept and elaborated its legal basis.

Finally any decision taken by the General As-

sembly would need to ensure that it does not inad-

vertently or even remotely, in the words of Jurgen

Habermas, “break the civilizing bounds which the

Charter of the United Nations placed with good rea-

son upon the process of goal realization.”

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben

(1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles

can be submitted via e-mail: [email protected]

A two issue surface mail subscription costs $10.00

(U.S.). Send e-mail to [email protected] for details.

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in

a non profit publication provided credit is given, with

name of author and source of article cited.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line and

available via e-mail. To obtain a free copy of any issue

or a free e-mail subscription, send a request to:

[email protected] or [email protected]

Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available

on the World Wide Web:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

Page 41