Author: canberra boy

With two days to go before the largest-ever gathering of international leaders at the UN Headquarters in New York, the likely outcomes are still unclear and the world’s media has hardly covered the event.

And the looming question is whether the US and Ambassador John Bolton in particular will stymy hopes for reform of the UN.

After months of discussions, a 38-page draft outcomes document was presented to the General Assembly in August.  Three weeks ago, Ambassador Bolton asked for some 750 changes, objecting to references to the International Criminal Court, action on global warming and increases in development aid.   At the same time, he insisted on greater commitment to tackling terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

The changes proposed by the US, and Bolton’s personally combative approach to negotiations, have put even major US allies like the UK and Australia offside.  As Fran highlighted at European Tribune on Saturday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made calls to foreign ministers around the world over the weekend.  This followed a personal plea to Condoleezza Rice for the US to withdraw opposition to plans for reform of the UN, during which he asked Ms Rice to rein in Bolton.  I understand that Australian diplomatic reporting from New York, normally not critical of the US given the sensibilities of our Government, has been openly disparaging of Bolton’s approach.

According to The Guardian, “Ambassadors from more than dozen key countries also met yesterday to try to break the deadlock on plans for UN reform but appeared to make little progress”.

More below fold

Officially the High Level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the UN General Assembly , the 2005 World Summit has been convened for 14-16 September to discuss UN reform and the status of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which seek to tackle a range of socio-economic issues.  The meeting is expected to be attended by some 180 heads of state or heads of government.

According to the independent website Global Issues:

The main purpose for this World Summit is to review progress since the Millennium Declaration, adopted by all Member States in 2000. This Declaration contained what became known as the Millennium Development Goals. These goals, which all 191 member states have pledged to meet, all for 2015, include:

• A halving of hunger and poverty;
• Attaining universal primary education;
• Drastic reductions in child and maternal mortality;
• Promoting gender equality;
• Improved environmental sustainability;
• A fairer global trading system; and
• Reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.

The above would form a major part of the Summit dubbed “Freedom from want.” Other issues that the Summit would be addressing include:
*    Security (Freedom from fear)
*    Human rights (Freedom to live in dignity)
*    UN reform (Strengthening the United Nations)

Most readers will understand that trying to get agreement from 191 members and several major negotiating blocs about detailed proposals on these subjects is extremely hard.  Negotiations over many months have therefore needed to strike a balance between many developing nations’ concern about strengthened human rights mechanisms and some rich countries’ objections to prescriptive aid and development targets.  The security section of the earlier draft communiqué sought to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation while encouraging nuclear disarmament by existing nuclear powers.

Two areas of proposed UN reform are particularly interesting.  One is to reform the Security Council by either expanding the number of permanent members from the present (and original) five (US, UK, China, France & Russia), or creating new ‘renewable’ seats.  A series of draft General Assembly resolutions have been presented, mostly aiming to provide better representation of geography, economic and political power and population.

The second proposal is to abolish the Human Rights Commission, which according to the UN Secretariat is “now regarded by many as largely discredited”.  In its place a new standing Geneva-based Human Rights Council would be created, elected directly by at least a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, rather than solely by nomination of regional groups.

Into all this stepped John Bolton with his 750 changes.  The Guardian noted at the time that there were differing theories about why such substantial disagreement had only emerged late in the process, but

The document reflects Mr Bolton’s belief that the assertion of US interests should almost always take precedence over the search for compromise with an international community that includes despotic and corrupt regimes.

Of particular interest is the repeated deletion of the word “disarmament” in the section on nuclear arms. The Bush administration wants global counter-proliferation strategy to focus exclusively on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. It is seeking to play down the importance of reducing the stockpiles of the established nuclear powers, as it has plans to overhaul its own arsenal and develop new weapons, such as nuclear “bunker busters”.

The removal of any mention of the Millennium development goal for rich countries to donate 0.7% of their gross national product to the developing world, marks a final break with the pledge agreed by the Clinton administration [this had been a UN target for over 30 years – cb]. US overseas development assistance is below 0.2% and near the bottom of the league.

The Washington Post said that Bolton’s major changes would:

• eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations;
• scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms;
• strengthen language on action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world’s deadliest weapons;
• strike any mention of the Millennium Development Goals and focus instead on the Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms, and required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief; and
• impose greater oversight of U.N. spending and eliminate any reference to the International Criminal Court.

One should never underestimate the ability of negotiators to reach agreement on the text of major communiqués such as this one. However, faced with a hardline approach from Washington, there is every chance that the agreed text will be anodyne.

Blair, Bush and Howard will likely proclaim the outcome a major step in the `War on Terror(ism)’, but the Millenium Development Goals may well be neglected.

Cross-posted at European Tribune.

I had thought that Colin Powell was one of the more honest and reputable members of the Bush Cabinet until he gave the dreadful WMD presentation to the UN Security Council in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.  You might recall the satellite photos of ‘mobile weapons labs’ etc etc.  As I recall the presentation followed Tony Blair’s release of the notorious ‘sexed-up’ intelligence dossier.

Now, Colin Powell has gone public with a ‘Colin Powell regrets’ interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday US time.  He says he spent five days at the CIA headquarters ahead of the speech studying intelligence reports, many of which turned out to be false, and admits the speech is “a blot” on his record.

More below fold…
This report comes from Australia’s ABC:

Former US secretary of state Colin Powell says his United Nations speech making the case for the US-led war on Iraq was “a blot” on his record.

Mr Powell has also said that he had “never seen evidence to suggest” a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States and the Saddam regime.

In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering “proof” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories.

After the invasion, US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US time), Mr Powell said “it’s a blot” on his record.

“I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now,” he said.

Mr Powell spent five days at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters ahead of the speech studying intelligence reports, many of which turned out to be false.

He said he felt “terrible” at being misinformed.

However, he did not blame CIA director George Tenet.

Mr Tenet “did not sit there for five days with me misleading me,” he said.

“He believed what he was giving to me was accurate.”

Some members of the US intelligence community “knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up,” Mr Powell said.

“These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable,” he said.

“I was enormously disappointed.”

Just goes to show the truth usually outs… But does this restore his credibility?

[Cross-posted at European Tribune.]

The UNDP’s 2005 UN Human Development Report shows that overall global living standards are improving, and points to successes such as Vietnam’s reduction of child deaths and Bangladesh’s gains in education and life expectancy.

But the report shows that 18 of the world’s poorest countries – with a population of 460 million – are doing worse in most key indicators than they were in 1990.  Twelve of the 18 are in sub-Saharan Africa where the effects of HIV/Aids and conflict are to blame.  The remaining six are former Soviet states in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, suffering falling life expectancy and economic disruption.

And the most shocking of all, the report details a string of appalling statistics which show that inequality within countries, and particularly the US, is as stark as the gaps between countries.

The Independent provides a neat summary:

Child mortality is on the rise in the United States
For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.  Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending – per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income – this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia
High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America’s cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America’s income.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala
The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.

Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover  
The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

More than a third of the uninsured say that they went without medical care last year because of cost.

Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular outpatient care, so they are more likely to be admitted to hospital for avoidable health problems.

More than 40 per cent of the uninsured do not have a regular place to receive medical treatment. More than a third say that they or someone in their family went without needed medical care, including prescription drugs, in the past year because they lacked the money to pay.

If the gap in health care between black and white Americans was eliminated it would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. Technological improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.

Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent
Child poverty is a particularly sensitive indicator for income poverty in rich countries. It is defined as living in a family with an income below 50 per cent of the national average.

The US – with Mexico – has the dubious distinction of seeing its child poverty rates increase to more than 20 per cent. In the UK – which at the end of the 1990s had one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe – the rise in child poverty, by contrast, has been reversed through increases in tax credits and benefits.

The release of this report is seen in some quarters as the UN Secretariat fighting back against the Bolton and US assault on the UN and multilateral solutions to world problems, prior to the 2005 World Summit, convened for 14-16 September.  As The Independent so delicately puts it “The Bush administration wants to replace multilateral solutions to international problems with a world order in which the US does as it likes on a bilateral basis.”

Last month John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, submitted 750 amendments to the draft declaration for next week’s summit to strengthen the UN and review progress towards its Millennium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015.   On Tuesday the US delegation, which had come under fire after pressing for the removal of poverty-reduction Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from the summit’s draft document, said it was now ready to accept the use of the term MDGs throughout the draft provided that the term could be appropriately defined.

Londonbear’s earlier diary details the implications of failing to achieve the MDGs.

[In addition to the linked Independent article, this diary is based on reporting by the BBC and Daily Times of Pakistan.]

Cross-posted at European Tribune.

The Australian Budget for 2005-06 (our fiscal year is from 1 July to 30 June)was ‘brought down’ (introduced) in the Australian Parliament last night (Tuesday 10 May) by Treasurer Peter Costello.  It is his and the Howard Government’s tenth Budget.

Traditionally, the first Budget after an election in Westminster system countries is a tough budget, where election promises are broken, taxes increased, and benefits cut.  The wisdom has always been that this is the Government’s opportunity, furthest from the next election, to take unpopular measures.

Something strange is going on in Australia.

Last night’s Budget proposed income tax cuts of A$21.7 billion over four years.

More below the fold…
As one economic journalist put it:

This is actually a ground-breaking, precedent-setting budget: a giveaway budget that comes after the election rather than before. If you didn’t know better, you could wonder whether it presaged a dash to the polls.

Trouble is, last year’s budget was the biggest-spending pre-election budget in memory, and then there were the further big-ticket promises wheeled out in the election campaign.

So what’s going on here?

Two things in my view.  First, the strength of the Australian economy means that Government coffers are overflowing with tax revenue from record corporate profits, increased world prices for Australian mineral exports, and record levels of employment. The Government has actually been embarrassed by the unexpected high level of tax revenues.  Unfortunately this may be a short-lived fiscal windfall.

The headline hype about tax cuts for all conceals what is really going on (or down!): 90% of wage earners will receive an income tax cut of A$6 per week, while those earning over A$125,000 per annum (a very small proportion of the population) will receive A$60 per week.  Those who lose most from the Budget are some sole parents and disabled people, who will suffer an A$40 per week benefit cut if they don’t satisfy new work tests: having to work at least 15 hours a week if they are able.  The Budget also cuts the ‘safety net’ support for families who have high medical bills.  All this, when the Budget promises a surplus of A$8.9 billion, or about 1% of Australia’s GDP.

This is the Liberal Party (Australia’s version of the Republicans or the UK Conservatives) delivering on their underlying rob-the-poor and pay-the-rich agenda.

But there’s a second thing happening.  These tax cuts make little sense in either political or economic terms, but they can be seen as part of an internal Liberal Party fight over the leadership.  Costello is the deputy Liberal leader, and feels that it’s time for John Howard to relinquish the Prime Ministership after 10 years at the top, something he hinted he would do upon turning 64 several years ago.  As Ross Gittins says in the article linked above, Howard and Costello have “managed to turn the Budget into an in-house popularity contest”.  Essentially, each is trying to curry favour with the backbenchers (Government Party Members of Parliament who will vote for the leader if there is a contest) by introducing electorally popular tax cuts.

So over the next few weeks and months, we’re going to hear more on the manouevering over Australia’s leadership.  Personally I’m betting that Peter Costello won’t have the courage to directly challenge John Howard’s leadership.  I think he’s trying to psych Howard into committing to a retirement date.  I can’t see any reason why the Liberals would vote to replace the leader who has given them four election victories in a row – particularly when the latest opinion poll shows that Howard is more popular than Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, but Costello is not.

What would be the significance of a leadership change?      Not much in foreign policy terms or economic policy.  But Costello is a little more liberal on social issues than Howard, and has been a strong supporter of declaring an Australian Republic.  Howard, whose personal views are rooted in the small-minded, insular suburban Australia of the 1950s, is an ardent Monarchist and a social reactionary.

I’ll keep you posted.

Every time I click on one of the regional threads, or a new diary, the new page loads and is displayed for only 3 to 5 seconds before it is replaced by a page which is blank apart from the ‘blogads’ strip down the left-hand side of the page.  My machine displays this page indefinitely, indicating that it has not completed the download.  I can click the browser’s ‘back’ button and restore the page I want perfectly.

Strikes me something may not be working.  I’ve got a broadband connection and I’m browsing with Firefox on a Windows XP OS with plenty of computing power.  I haven’t had this problem before today on this site, and i don’t have the problem with other sites.

Anybody else have similar problems?