Speakers Inspire Young Professionals at Annual Benefit
By Faye Nwafor, Benefit Committee Member UNA-SNY YP and Food Impact Writer
The DiMenna Center for Classical Music in Midtown Manhattan played host on Saturday, February 2, to a gala night of inspirational talks entitled Advancing International Unity: An Evening Honoring Inspiration, Advocacy and Change. The event, organized by the benefit committee of the United Nations Association of Southern New York Young Professionals, of which I am a member, included an opening talk by Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. The ambassador roused the audience of 200 with a poignant overview of her years of service, her notable tenure in Moscow and her longstanding role in U.S. diplomatic policy. Ambassador DiCarlo offered the young professionals in attendance a thorough appreciation of the changing political and economic landscape globally and provided insight into the true meaning of a career dedicated to service. She recounted overseas posts from decades past in which American foreign service workers were so understaffed they rolled up their sleeves to do everything from tend to laundry and make building repairs while juggling their official administrative duties. Ambassador DiCarlo shared the sense of responsibility inherent in being a representative of a country that is often sought after to solve many of the world’s challenges when she stressed, “U.S. leadership is essential for a successful United Nations.”
President and CEO of the U.S. Fund for UNICEF, Caryl M. Stern, was one of the evening’s honorees and brought her trademark humor and enthusiasm to her address. The author of the book I Believe in Zero: Learning from the World’s Children, focused the room’s attention on the talent each individual has to create change. Stern reminded us of the plight of children around the world, including Syria, and noted our collective ability to prevent the suffering of even a single child. “18,000 children died today from diseases we can prevent,” Stern reminded the audience. “It’s just not ok.”
Eli Pariser and Peter Koechley, the founders of the viral good news website Upworthy, were also honored, as was the CEO of Malaria No More, Martin Edlund and the founder of nonprofit opportunities website, Idealist.org, Ami Dar. Dar regaled the audience with details for an upcoming initiative to link people across the globe for social good in ways never done before. His impassioned plea encouraging people around the world to connect with their neighbors as a way to find partners to do good hit home when he shared the story of how he and another civic minded entrepreneur, the founder of Meetup.com, found out they lived in the same building only after attending a networking event.
The landmark Hell’s Kitchen bakery, Cupcake Cafe, provided an assortment of floral decorated buttercream cupcakes which dotted the entryway of the evening affair. Leslie Goldman, V.P. for Program and Community Engagement at U.S. Fund for UNICEF remarked how beautiful the arrangement was while fielding questions from young professionals including Selena S. Martin, Senior Manager at American Express, on partnerships and organizational engagements.The evening brought cause minded attendees up close and personal with leaders at the forefront of international social change. Funds raised through the support of organizations including Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Indulge New York, Mizu Sochu, Latham & Watkins, White & Case LLP, Kim Laudati Skincare, The Kati Roll Company, Lacoste, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Manhattan Plaza Health Club and others contributed to a truly inspirational night celebrating leadership and social responsibility.
Speaker Photos by DeRonn Kidd Photography
Photos 1- Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo addressing hall; 2- Cupcakes 3- Caryl Stern, President of US Fund for Unicef and Faye Nwafor; 4- Martin Edlund of Malaria; No More 5- Peter Koechley, CoFounder of Upworthy
UN Week 10/28/13
by John Carey
This blog entry is written by a member of our blogging community and expresses that expert’s views alone
Last week we talked about the unprecedented withdrawal of Saudi Arabia from the Security Council seat to which it had just been elected. I tried to stress how sought-after such seats are. Now there is a development that dramatizes how eager most governments are to sit on the UN’s top deliberative body.
Those countries guaranteed Security Council seats under the UN Charter are five in number, known as the Permanent Five, or Perm Five for short. The are the countries that led the way to victory in World War II over Germany and Japan, the US, the UK, Russia, China and France. But now there is another group, calling themselves “the G4,” consisting of two losers in that war, Germany and Japan, as well as two modern national power houses, India and Japan. They want to belong to the club, especially as new permanent members.
The G4 sweeten their membership campaign by also advocating a greater number of non-permanent seats than the present ten. They argued in a statement issued on October 22nd that, “it has been almost 10 years since international leaders committed themselves, in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit, to an early reform of the Security Council.” They “would like to request . . . support, allowing us to intensify efforts to translate the existing agreement into concrete outcomes by 2015, when the United Nations commemorates its seventieth anniversary.”
The Foreign Ministers of the G4 argued that, “almost 70 years after the creation of the United Nations, reform of the Security Council is long overdue. They agreed that difficulties of the Security Council in dealing with international challenges, including current ones, have further highlighted the need for United Nations Security Council reform to better reflect geographical realities of the twenty-first century and make the Council more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus to further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions. * * * They also reaffirmed their view of the importance of developing countries, in particular Africa, being represented in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of an enlarged Council.”
The four Foreign Ministers made a practical suggestion when they “expressed their commitment to continue to work in close cooperation and in a spirit of flexibility with other Member States and groups of Member States, in particular the African States, in genuine text-based negotiations.” (emphasis added). Surely anyone who has engaged in serious negotiations, whether in diplomacy or in business or other fields, knows that talking alone is not enough; words need to be put down on paper and signed onto, or else nothing has been finalized.
This was brought home to me very graphically in the early 1980s when a client was to meet with parties from a thousand miles away to work out a contract of some magnitude. The meeting was to take place at Newark airport, where our opposite numbers would be arriving. What would happen all too often in such a situation was that the executives on each side, with advice of their legal counsel, would talk back and forth and finally shake hands on what they thought was a deal. Then it would be, “leave it to the lawyers to write up what we have agreed on.”
The trouble with that scenario was that the lawyers would do their best to protect their clients with defensive wording that might cause more annoyance than it allayed. I was determined to avoid that self-defeating situation at Newark that day. I wanted to persuade my clients to call for text-based negotiations. So I loaded into my car the 26-pound Kaypro computer, the first of a number I have owned over the years, and my equally weighty printer. These I lugged into a small room adjoining the conference room.
I reminded my clients that, thus equipped, we and our opposite numbers could save a great deal of lawyers’ time and expense by simply having whatever either side proposed immediately put in writing with copies for each participant to peruse.
I am sorry to say that my computer and printer sat unused. The executives shook hands and clapped each other on the back while “leaving it to the lawyers to put the deal in writing as soon as possible.” Predictably, the lawyers found a number of issues that the executives had not thought of or agreed on. So, much time was lost and much unnecessary expense incurred. The executives had declined the opportunity to use text-based negotiations.
So let it not be, at the UN, on Security Council enlargement or any other issues of note. If we look at the Charter and consider what steps would be involved in actually enlarging the Council, we can see what the D4 are up against. Article 108 specifies that Charter amendments require a vote of 2/3 of the Members of the Assembly and ratification by 2/3 of the UN members “including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” Therein lies the rub. When are the US, UK, Russia, China and France likely to give up any of their remarkable privileges? I submit that this will happen when Hell freezes over, and not before.
A study should be made, for academic purposes if none other, to see if in the history of the world countries have given up, short of having been conquered, any privileges remotely comparable to those of the Permanent Five in the UN Security Council.-
UN Week 10/21/13 – by John Carey
This blog entry is written by a member of our blogging community and expresses that expert’s views alone.
An unprecedented event took place last week, after the election of new non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. The following were elected by the General Assembly, for prized two-year terms starting in January: Chad, Chile, Lithuania, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.
Soon after being elected, Saudi Arabia rejected the post for which it had lobbied over many months. According to the October 19-20 Wall Street Journal, the Kingdom had even sent a dozen diplomats to Columbia University to study diplomacy.
Said the Journal, “Saudi Arabia has armed rebels in Syria to defeat President Assad’s government, which in turn has been heavily supported by Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival. Saudi frustration that the U.S. won’t act militarily peaked in recent weeks when the U.S. pulled back from intervening militarily in Syria in favor of a plan to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.”
Suggestions that snubbing the Security Council was the decision by the Saudi king alone bring to mind the question how far a US president can constitutionally go in making foreign policy decisions all alone. We might recall that in the time of President George W. Bush, the US declined to run for a seat in the UN Human Rights Council. This decision must have been finally made by him alone. He could have agreed with this stance or reversed it. The Department of State can run US foreign policy, but only on behalf of the head of the Executive Branch. Congress can grant or deny funds, use the power of investigation, and grant or withhold treaty ratification, but go no further.
The Gulf Co-operation Council has backed Saudi Arabia’s rejection of its seat on the UN Security Council, praising the Gulf nation’s call for reform. In a statement released on Saturday, the GCC Secretary General, Abdul Latif bin Rashid Al Zayani, “underlined the importance of Saudi Arabia’s call for the realisation of a fundamental reform of the Security Council’s system,” reported Qatar’s state news agency, QNA.
In addition, the news agency also reported the Qatari government’s support of Saudi Arabia’s stance. “The state of Qatar agrees with the reasons outlined by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to turn down a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council,” QNA reported, quoting an official source from the Foreign Ministry.
Meanwhile, other Arab nations appealed to Saudi Arabia to reverse its unprecedented decision to reject the seat. Arab UN ambassadors made the appeal on Saturday after an emergency meeting following Friday’s surprise announcement by the Kingdom to decline the seat in a display of anger over the failure of the international community to end the war in Syria.
Saudi Arabia’s leaders should “maintain their membership in the Security Council and continue their brave role in defending our issues specifically at the rostrum of the Security Council,” said a statement released by Arab states at the UN. It added that it was crucial for Saudi Arabia to represent the Arab and Muslim world on the council “at this important and historical stage, specifically for the Middle East region.”
Many diplomats and analysts have said the Saudi protest was a message to the United States that it wanted a tougher stance on Syria and was angry that Washington had opened contacts with Iran. The Kingdom has been angered by the increasing rapport between Washington and Iran, Saudi Arabia’s old regional foe, which has taken root since President Barack Obama spoke by telephone with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
Administration of Justice in the UN
A report of October 14th, A/68/5340, from the Advisory Committee on Administration and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), noted that the case load of the Office of Staff Assistance increased 60 % from 2011 to 2012, which “could be explained by a number of factors, including a large number of de facto class action cases, better record-keeping within the Office and increased awareness among staff of the Office’s existence and role.” Id. at 3/13. I assume de facto class action cases consist of the confluence of a number of claims raising similar issues.
“The Advisory Committee affirms the importance of lessons-learned guides on the Tribunals’ jurisprudence for managers, and expects that the lessons learned will produce concrete results in managerial actions.” Id. at 4/13. The concept of “lessons learned” is in wide use at the UN, more than anywhere else that I am aware of. Perhaps in some people’s eyes, wrongly in my view, admitting that you have learned a lesson implies ignorance before the experience.
The true nature and purpose of what the UN calls the administration of justice is revealed in the following quotation: “The Advisory Committee is of the view that an interim independent assessment of the formal system of administration of justice is desirable at this juncture to evaluate the functioning of the system to date and to ensure it is meeting its objectives as a mechanism to effectively resolve labour disputes within the Organization.” Id. at 5/13. When we in the US speak of “labor disputes” we generally mean a struggle between management and organized labor, not a single worker’s problems with the boss.
Finally, “The Secretary-General states that preparation of the code of conduct for external [legal] representatives is under way and will be ready for presentation at the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly.” Id. at 6/13. Since the 68th General Assembly has only just begun, the issuance of such a code of conduct is hardly in the offing. Time will tell whether it will deal primarily with ethical conduct or with a broader range of activities on the part of outside legal counsel.
This blog entry is written by a member of our blogging community and expresses those experts’ views alone.
OBAMA PASSES THE SYRIAN BUCK
John Carey, Editor
President Truman famously said that the buck stops at the White House. President Obama has shown how to share the buck with Congress. He confounded his Congressional foes when he asked them if they wish to go to war with Syria. A military attack is war, and absent self defense it cannot today be carried on without UN Security Council approval.
It is Congress that, under our Constitution, has the power to declare war. If they declare it, the Commander-in-Chief wages it. If they now say no to war, his hands will be tied just like those of the British Prime Minister. But even if circumstances allow Obama to attack Syria under US law, there remains the question whether international law would permit it.
The possibility of a war of revenge has been mentioned, to punish Syria. Such a use of force has no support in international law. But what about the doctrine of responsibility to protect, known in UN circles as R2P and given muted support rhetorically in recent years? Read more…
This blog entry is written by a member of our blogging community and expresses those experts’ views alone.
Uniting for Youth: Interactive Dialogue on UN Youth Initiatives with Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
by Raina Kadavil, Intern with UNA-SNY and junior at White Plains High School
The chance to participate in a formal United Nations conference at fifteen is wonderful. The chance to participate in such a conference with the UN Secretary-General is rare. The chance for a fifteen-year-old to participate in a conference with the Secretary-General that aims to integrate youth voices into the global initiative for change is priceless.
On the morning of August 5th, 2013, I was fortunate to have the chance to attend the conference “Uniting for Youth: Interactive Dialogue on UN Youth Initiatives” at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. I was one of hundreds of students from all over the U.S. and all over the world. Also present by videoconference were students from schools in India, Lebanon, Brazil, Belgium, and Nigeria. All of whom had their own experiences and opinions, and their own, individual voices to be heard. Youth representatives from Amnesty International and Global Poverty Project, among many other organizations, came to the United Nations to speak out and be heard by its highest ranking official – Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.
This column was on hiatus between April 8 and July 1. Welcome back! This blog entry is written by members of our blogging community and expresses those experts’ views alone.
John Carey, Editor
In this issue: Rice’s UN Swan Song; Codex Alimentarius Commission.
On June 25th, our number one UN Ambassador, Susan Elizabeth Rice, took a look back wards while preparing to move forwards as our next US National Security Advisor. She began by reflecting “on my four and a half years here at the UN as the best job I have ever had – fun, sometimes frustrating, but always rewarding.
|“And it’s been rewarding for two reasons.“First, the people. I’ll greatly miss working with such a committed and talented group of individuals: my fellow Ambassadors, our amazing team at the U.S. Mission, the Secretary-General and his dedicated staff at the UN, the NGO community, and, of course, you guys, who work day in and day out to tell the people of the world what’s happening at the United Nations.
“The second reason, however, is because of the vital work of the United Nations that I have been so privileged to be part of since January 2009. It’s been a remarkable period for the United States, for the United Nation, and the world as we have carried out President Obama’s pledge to bring a new era of engagement to the United Nations. We’ve improved relations with allies, built and strengthened new partnerships, and exerted effective American leadership on issues that matter most to the United States. We’ve repaid past arrears and met our financial commitments. We joined the Human Rights Council believing that American engagement would improve its performance, and it has. We have worked constructively with a range of partners on a wide variety of important issues in the General Assembly. Read more…
This blog entry is written by members of our blogging community and expresses those experts’ views alone.
John and Douglas Carey, Editors
Contents of this issue: US hails arms treaty; sexual violence in conflict.
The United States told the General Assembly on April 2nd, following adoption of the arms trade treaty: “We believe that our negotiations have resulted in a treaty that provides a clear standard, in Article 6, for when a transfer of conventional arms is absolutely prohibited. This article both reflects existing international law and, in paragraph three, would extend it by establishing a specific prohibition on the transfer of conventional arms when a state party knows that the transfer will be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or the enumerated war and other crimes. Article 7 requires a state party to conduct a national assessment of the risk that a proposed export could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law, as well as acts of terrorism or transnational organized crime. Taken together, these articles provide a robust and complementary framework that will promote responsible transfer of decisions by states parties.”
Sexual violence in conflict.
I come now to a dreadful subject, one on which the UN has just published a major report, A/67/792-S/2013/149. Despite its importance, the report has not seen the light of day in any news medium that I am exposed to. Therefore UN Week is now presenting some aspects of the report, including its novel emphasis on sexual violence against men and boys.
As is often the case in UN reports to which many persons have contributed, this one speaks in the voice of the Secretary-General. That gives it added status beyond what it would enjoy if a single author or even a committee were given credit. Here is how it announces its goal.
“The report presents information on parties to conflict credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for acts of rape and other forms of sexual violence.” Id. at 1. “The term ‘sexual violence’ refers to rape, sexual slavery forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization and any other form of sexual violence or comparable gravity perpetrated against women, men or children with a direct or indirect (temporal, geographical or causal) link to a conflict. * * *
“6. The country sections of the present report highlight several emerging concerns, including the perpetration of sexual violence against men and boys, the plight of children born as a result of rape and the practice of forced marriages by armed groups. * * *
“10. Although women and girls are predominantly affected by sexual violence, men and boys too are victims of such violence. Sexual violence has been perpetrated against men and boys as a tactic or war or in the context of detention or interrogation, including in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, and the Syrian Arab Republic. The social consequences of this violence are acute. More monitoring and information regarding male victims and the types of sexual violence perpetrated against them is required to tailor prevention initiatives, sensitization campaigns, treatment protocols and services for survivors.” READ from para 11.
Details follow on Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan (Darfur), Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen.
Under a heading ‘Sexual Violence in post-conflict situations,” the following countries are referred to in detail: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liberia, Libya, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste.
Later in the report, accountability and reparations are discussed. “111. National courts remain the principal venue for holding individuals accountable for crimes of sexual violence. * * * 112. The focus of international criminal justice and mixed tribunals on combating acts of sexual violence, including rape, in the context of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, represents an important complement to national efforts. * * *
“113. The trial in the International Criminal Court of Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and leader of the Mouvement de libération du Congo, in connection with events in the Central African Republic represents a critical test case for the principle of command responsibility for sexual violence as a war crime and a crime against humanity. ** *
“114. * * * In December 2011, a hearing on sexual violence under the Khmer Rouge regime revealed that sexual violence was a daily reality for most women, that acts of sexual violence were seldom punished and implicitly endorsed by an ‘enemy policy’ promulgated by leaders at the highest levels and that survivors continue to suffer from trauma, discrimination and stigma.”
Having dealt with national and international prosecutions to penalize sexual violence, the report then turns to a newer technique, targeted sanctions. “115. The unique ability of the Security Council to impose targeted sanctions raises the stakes for perpetrators and, as such, is an important aspect of deterrence.”
The Secretary-General’s specific recommendations included the adoption by the Security Council “of targeted and graduated measures by relevant sanctions committees, and to consider means by which such measures may also be taken in relevant contexts where no sanctions committees are in place.” This technique is a new version of criminal prosecution that is not burdened with rigorous scrutiny of evidence by the accused or its legal counsel.
Annexed to the report is “a list of parties credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for patterns of rape and other forms of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict on the Security Council agenda.” The parties are listed under headings of the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali and the Syrian Arab Republic.