|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Asst. Sec. for International Organization Affairs Kim Holmes wrote: |
...The UN Can�t Do it All
As much as the United Nations does, it clearly cannot be expected to do everything. Not all of the areas of the world get the attention they need. Ethiopia, for example, is on the verge of a devastating famine, and yet it is not getting the attention it needs from the international community. Were it not for the huge infusions of food aid provided by the United States, Ethiopia would be in even worse shape than it already is.
The same is true for HIV/AIDS. Dealing with this pandemic is a massive project that far exceeds the UN�s capabilities. President Bush announced a $15 billion initiative to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases in Africa, the Caribbean and other areas. He has committed $1 billion of this to fight pandemic diseases through the Global Fund. And he has challenged the international community to match our contribution.
The United Nations does an awful lot to improve the lives of people around the world, but we cannot leave humanitarian crises to the UN alone. All of us have to pitch in to do our share as well.
We also need to help change the way the UN dispenses advice about economic policies and aid. We have made considerable progress in this area. The Monterrey consensus was the seminal breakthrough that changed the way the UN fosters development, good governance, and a good business climate. Public and private sector leaders agreed that while all have a role to play, developing countries themselves hold the primary responsibility for their development, and good governance is key. We have to get the process right to liberate the energies of people and mobilize all of the resources available if development is to take root and thrive.
We should not conclude, however, that the UN�s performance has been stellar on all levels. The General Assembly is not at all effective. Neither are many of the UN�s commissions and committees. There is far too much duplication, inefficiency, and even waste in the UN system. This is not just a U.S. view, but is shared by many countries in the United Nations.
The UN is not very effective at peace enforcement when real offensive military action is needed. This was true in Bosnia, where command and control issues were a critical problem, and in Rwanda, where the Security Council did not have the political and military will to take effective action.
If a Chapter VII intervention in a crisis is warranted, a substantial commitment of resources and personnel by interested parties (such as the U.K. [United Kingdom] in Sierra Leone and Australia in East Timor) is crucial. The Security Council could authorize coalitions of the willing to carry out effective military action, such as it did for Desert Storm in Iraq, for Interfet in East Timor, the French/EU [European Union] multinational force in the Congo, and the French multinational force in Cote d�Ivoire. Once the conflict has ended, the multinational forces can be transitioned into effective UN peacekeeping operations, as in East Timor.
The UN peacekeeping operations must have achievable objectives if they are to be successful. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of sending poorly armed UN peacekeepers into armed conflicts in which they can make little difference, and in which they can become, unwittingly, part of the problem. It is understandable to want to do something when people are dying in large numbers. But we must actually do something that works. As a general rule, a UN or UN-authorized stabilization force should always have a strong leader, unified command and control, as well as a strong mandate from the Security Council.
Just as UN peacekeeping works best under certain conditions, the UN�s specialized agencies and commissions only can meet their objectives when they are not overly politicized or focused on divisive ideological issues. The rule for them should be that they remain tightly focused on their technical and specialized missions, and not veer off into politicized debates.
We left UNESCO 18 years ago for two reasons: severe mismanagement and an increasingly hostile ideological agenda, exemplified by its support for a �New World Information Order� that favored state-controlled media. The President�s decision to rejoin UNESCO in October recognizes that significant reforms have occurred. UNESCO is more efficient and its policies less politicized. We will remain committed to reforming UNESCO. Many countries frankly expect us to play a leading role in this area.
The same is true for reforming the various UN entities dedicated to human rights. The Human Rights Commission has strayed dramatically from its founding principles�to defend, protect, and promote human rights. More than a third of its members today are human rights violators. And this year, its members elected Libya�a country under UN sanctions�as its chair. Largely because of its makeup, the CHR�s [UN Commission on Human Rights] 2002 session ended without resolutions on Zimbabwe and Sudan, among others. Yet it passed multiple excessive resolutions on Israel.
We need to bring our concerns about structural and organizational issues to the UN. It is true there are structural limitations built into the UN system itself. For example, the UN has never worked out the contradiction between respect for national sovereignty and belief in universal membership on the one hand, and the Charter principles of democracy and human rights on the other. But we must do what we can to overcome these contradictions. At the very least, we need to dedicate ourselves to promoting new membership on the Commission on Human Rights�members that respect the basic tenets of the Commission itself.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
And we need to dedicate ourselves to finding more efficient mechanisms for achieving financial accountability in the UN system. Unforeseen world events always will generate pressure on the UN to take on new work; but new mandates do not mean automatic increases in the UN budget or personnel. An ever-increasing UN budget is not sustainable.
The best way to sustain support for the UN budget is for the UN to prioritize its large array of programs. The rules permit such prioritization, as well as the elimination of marginal or obsolete activities. Sunset provisions that set a date in advance for terminating funding are needed for every new mandate. This step would help the UN foster a culture of accountability using performance measures, and ensure a more sustainable budget.
Many countries are considering how the UN can be reformed to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. We welcome this interest in reform. We have had a long and abiding interest in this issue. The Helms-Biden reform legislation tied the problem of paying our arrears�aggravated by our budget cycle�to UN reform. The United Nations took steps to reform, and so we have cleared nearly a billion dollars in arrears authorized under the Helms-Biden legislation. I can tell you that the Bush Administration is continuing to actively review proposals for UN reform, and hopefully we will have ideas to share with our colleagues in the near future.
Consensus in the UN
The UN can be reformed�indeed it can fulfill its mandate�only when its members willingly meet their obligations, accept their responsibilities, and adhere to the principles for which it was founded. For our part, we take this obligation seriously. The United States is deeply committed to an effective United Nations, so we support it when it adheres to its core principles, and we say so when it does not.
President Bush went to the United Nations last September and challenged it to live up to its founding principles. He challenged the Security Council to enforce its �binding� resolutions on Iraq, which Saddam Hussein had flouted consistently for two decades. And all 15 members rallied behind that call in passing Resolution 1441.
When all the members of the Security Council are united, the Council can become an effective instrument for international peace and security. When we speak with one voice, as we did in November in unanimously adopting UNSCR [UN Security Council Resolution] 1441, and in May in passing the sanctions-lift resolution, we can take effective action to promote international peace and security.
Yet, when Council members are divided�or more accurately when the Permanent Five (P-5) are divided�the Council fails as an effective tool. This rather obvious point begs the question: Why?
The answer lies less inside the Council than in the realm of international politics, particularly among the larger nations that make up the P-5. The Security Council is, after all, a mirror of international politics. And therein lie both its strength and its weakness.
The Security Council became largely ineffective during the Cold War when divisions between the East and West made it impossible to achieve consensus on major issues. The Western powers decided to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances in part because they realized they could not rely on the Security Council to protect either their security or their interests.
The gridlock broke after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Security Council members came together to vote for an unprecedented series of resolutions to try to eject Iraq from Kuwait�first by diplomatic means, then by sanctions, and when those failed through a multinational force to eject Iraq by force. Resolution 687, the �ceasefire� resolution, demarcated Iraq�s borders, set up a mechanism to resolve Gulf War claims, and set forth Iraq�s disarmament obligations. It also adopted comprehensive sanctions to prevent Saddam Hussein from reacquiring WMD [weapons of mass destruction].
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the Security Council experienced a remarkable renaissance. It was not engaged, however, in every major issue that arose concerning international peace and security. During the post-Cold War period, the Council engaged episodically in major issues of international peace and security. It has been heavily engaged at times, most particularly in Iraq, the Balkans, and Africa. Still, the international community does not view it as the exclusive forum for settling all international disputes that involve conflict and security.
Basing the Security Council�s voting scheme on consensus was intentional. The Council would not become an effective instrument for one great power to use to constrain or control another great power. The structure of the Council�with veto powers for the P-5�mitigates against trying to use it to alter the balance of power or to fundamentally challenge the vital interests of the great powers.
Given its performance on Iraq over the last six months, some have asked, �why not reform the Council�? Why not update it to overcome what some see as an anachronistic structure whereby certain countries selected during the immediate World War II era are �more equal� than others?
I do not have any magic formulas on Security Council reform. However, I do believe that whatever is done to change the Council, it must adequately reflect the real division of labor and responsibility among nations for maintaining international peace and security. Authority must be based not solely on the claim of representation, but on responsibility. And responsibility must be determined not only by respect for the universal principles of democracy and human rights, but also the capability to act to defend those principles when they are threatened.
The Question of International Law
Anytime the question of authority of the Security Council is raised, the issue arises as to its place in establishing international law. This was a particularly central issue of dispute during the recent Iraq war.
As contentious as the disagreement over Iraq was, it should not be over-emphasized. Neither the United States nor the U.K. ever asserted a right to operate outside their obligations under international law. Neither took a position that called into question the existing international legal regime related to the use of force. Each country had lawyers examine relevant resolutions and clarify the legal basis for use of force before the decision to proceed was made.
The decision to go to war with Iraq was based on international law: Existing Security Council resolutions against Iraq provided a sufficient legal basis for military action. Under the UN Charter itself, there was sufficient authority to take action against Iraq without another resolution.
Countries disagree on other international law issues as well. The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming are notable examples. Germany believes that being a party to the Rome Statute and the Kyoto Protocol will advance its interests. It accepts the obligations of being a party to each one. The United States holds the opposite view and has not become a party to either of them. Consequently, it does not accept any international legal obligations with respect to them.
The United States does not violate any international legal obligation or act against international law by remaining outside the ICC. There is no requirement, under customary international law or elsewhere, that a nation become a party to this treaty. Nothing in existing customary law says that we are bound by the provisions of the Rome Statute when we are not a party to it.
Every nation has the right to decide which treaties it will sign, and we will continue making case-by-case assessments. The fact that another country may make a different assessment of a treaty does not mean that one country is acting in favor of international law and the other against it: Both are acting consistent with international law.
For this reason, while we respect the right of countries to make their own decisions, we nonetheless wish that France, Germany, and Syria had joined the other 12 members of the Security Council in supporting the simple extension of Resolution 1422, which protects UN peacekeepers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. A clear majority of the Council understood the need to preserve the integrity of UN peacekeeping operations by extending the resolution. We hope that the action of the three who abstained does not signal a desire to reopen in the future the balanced compromise reached last year. It would be a pity � indeed, a tragic consequence for international peace and security � if non-ICC signatory states like the United States found it legally impossible to participate in UN peacekeeping.
Conclusion
For the past century, America's historical role has been to address threats to international peace, stability, and freedom and to redress the balance of power when threatened by militarism, tyrants, extremist ideologies, or terrorists. This was true in the world wars. It was true in the Cold War. It is true in the war on terrorism. And it is true in Iraq.
In each instance, the United States did not follow the paths of imperialist powers, but instead liberated countries from tyranny. We did not always succeed, but when we did�and we did more often than not�we left countries better off than before. We left behind not occupation forces, but democratic institutions and, as Secretary Powell reminded us this year, cemeteries filled with our soldiers who laid down their lives so that others could be free.
It is true that America is a singularly powerful nation. It is true that it has strong opinions and enormous influence. Of course this state of affairs makes some countries uncomfortable. But it is one thing to want the United States to listen to you and to act on your point of view. It is another to conclude that America is a threat to world order if it doesn't.
Trying to restrain American power and influence should not be an organizing principle for countries that care about peace, prosperity, and freedom. It will only sow division and waste energy and resources on matters not worthy of great nations. In the end, it will strengthen those who challenge freedom and democracy across the globe. And it will only weaken the solidarity needed among free nations to defend themselves from terror and aggression.
International cooperation in the service of freedom and democracy�this principle has guided NATO for over a half century. It has been at the heart of U.S.-German friendship for as many years. And it should be a central organizing principle of the United Nations as well. Thank you. |
Berlin
13 June 2003
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2003/21913.htm
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:15 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way how did the US threaten the UN? |
| Gopher wrote: |
I think that you also chose your title poorly. "Threaten" is not the best, most descriptive verb to characterize the U.S. relationship with the UN.
On balance, Washington has supported and not threatned the UN which, after all, we created (twice if you count the League of Nations). |
Apologise or we'll cut your funding, US envoy tells UN
| Quote: |
| AMERICA�S bitter dispute with the United Nations escalated last night when John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, threatened to withhold funding to the organisation unless it apologised for the remarks of a senior British official. |
Looks like someone is about to pick up their ball and go home....Hmmmmmph...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some perspective: this is a protest by the US against certain remarks by a British official, not the rhetoric (that same word G, see?) of some anti-American potentate.
This poor fellow merely opined that:-
| Quote: |
| � the role of the UN is a mystery in Middle America,� |
So the US demands an apology or funding will be cut?
Jesus H Christ.
Good job such a dastardly thing was said by a friend of the US. Bugger me, were its said by an enemy, they could be invaded next week.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thing is, once a nation becomes the major player in the game, they also call the shots....
So that food aid for Ethiopia, where will it come from...does the US shop around and buy for the best deal, of course not they sell of the deal to a company that will intern focus the money back into the US Market, rather then into the markets that the land they use to support the growth of the food, so the people that grow the food, reap less, though the starving people in Ethiopia get food, they get substantially less than they should from the amount of money that is invested, because after all the kick backs and back deals the money left for actual food is substantially less than if it were given directly to a non-invasive organization....welcome to the capitlization of famine relief...
Ooooooh AIDS relief, lets not put that $15 billion into buying cheap available and practical generic drugs...you can only buy the most expensive, brand name American made drugs for three times the cost, plus, you have to use the money to increase our R&D and thus enable us to market an even better packaged name brand "AIDS formulae Plus" to sell to the American public, because hey, we can't have the US public taking the same medication as those lowely Africans....ewwwwwwww.
| Quote: |
We should not conclude, however, that the UN�s performance has been stellar on all levels. The General Assembly is not at all effective. Neither are many of the UN�s commissions and committees. There is far too much duplication, inefficiency, and even waste in the UN system. This is not just a U.S. view, but is shared by many countries in the United Nations.
The UN is not very effective at peace enforcement when real offensive military action is needed. This was true in Bosnia, where command and control issues were a critical problem, and in Rwanda, where the Security Council did not have the political and military will to take effective action.
If a Chapter VII intervention in a crisis is warranted, a substantial commitment of resources and personnel by interested parties (such as the U.K. [United Kingdom] in Sierra Leone and Australia in East Timor) is crucial. The Security Council could authorize coalitions of the willing to carry out effective military action, such as it did for Desert Storm in Iraq, for Interfet in East Timor, the French/EU [European Union] multinational force in the Congo, and the French multinational force in Cote d�Ivoire. Once the conflict has ended, the multinational forces can be transitioned into effective UN peacekeeping operations, as in East Timor. |
I love how the UN member nations, particularly those with veto votes, criticize the UN about inaction, that they were responsible for scuttleing..Russia wanted this, but we vetoed it 'cause that would have done this to us, but we wanted this and China screwed us over...blah, blah, blah....why use the UN as the scapegoat...tell it like it is....we were too greedy to actually negotiate and compromise, so a million people died...nice and simple...good CNN headline "US wanted oil rights, China shipping lanes, so conflict left unresolved......10,000 die bringing total to 80,000 this year"...nice
| Quote: |
| The UN peacekeeping operations must have achievable objectives if they are to be successful. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of sending poorly armed UN peacekeepers into armed conflicts in which they can make little difference, and in which they can become, unwittingly, part of the problem. It is understandable to want to do something when people are dying in large numbers. But we must actually do something that works. As a general rule, a UN or UN-authorized stabilization force should always have a strong leader, unified command and control, as well as a strong mandate from the Security Council. |
Wow, this is nice, I mean, isn't that what every SC resolution wants, a strong mandate, well armed troops, etc., etc...that is why the US (as well as other stronger nations...true, true) usually fail to send troops, equipment, etc...particularly in the event that that Western soldier will be defending African women and children....nothing like stating the obvious and behind close doors doing the opposite...
The issue here is that the US sees itself as the world police and the saviour of democracy and freedom, yet it counters all attempts to criticize it calling it ant-American, anti-peace, counter procuctive....
| Quote: |
| Trying to restrain American power and influence should not be an organizing principle for countries that care about peace, prosperity, and freedom. It will only sow division and waste energy and resources on matters not worthy of great nations. |
I just want to leave off with a very important message from a very important document.....
Hmmmmmmmm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The U.S. ALWAYS demands; to opt out of treaties, special provisions, clauses, exemptions when dealing with the U.N. In particular it threatens, as it did in Bosnia about vetoing the mission there unless member states adopted the watered down resolution 1422. So the U.S. would never have to cooperate with a world court.
It demands and does not negotiate. Annan's response to Bolton's latest rhetoric was too diplomatic but it says something about how classy a bureaucrat he is.
| Quote: |
Well I tell you what throw all the thugs off the UN human rights commision and then the UN will get some credibilty .
By the way how did the US threaten the UN? |
Let the U.S. finally sign on to the ICC (International Criminal Court) and become a member of the international community. Then it can truly say it is doing the right thing and not being judge/jury/executioner when it comes to the world. Presently they get to participate only when they think it is good and opt out when they have to be held accountable. That's just not unfair but when it concerns the world, undemocratic and dictatorial.
Here's what Human Rights Watch says about the U.S attitude to the U.N.
which sums up my opinion,
| Quote: |
Why should the U.S. change its view on the Court?
The ICC is potentially the most important human rights institution of the last 50 years. The continued opposition of the United States, a long-time champion of international justice, will cast a long shadow over America's credibility as a champion of human rights and justice worldwide. Even if the United States continues to have doubts about the Court, it will be better off working with its allies to address its concerns, rather than isolating itself from them. |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full Text of the Speech here: UN NEEDS U.S., U.S. NEEDS UN TO FACE CHALLENGES -- HIV/AIDS, SUDAN -- THAT DEFY NATIONAL SOLUTIONS, SAYS DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL IN NEW YORK ADDRESS
| Quote: |
With that thought as my starting point, I am going to give what might be regarded as a rather un-UN speech. Some of the themes -- that the United Nations is misunderstood and does much more than its critics allow -- are probably not surprising. But my underlying message, which is a warning about the serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by US Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the UN, is not one a sitting United Nations official would normally make to an audience like this.
But I feel it is a message that urgently needs to be aired. And as someone who has spent most of his adult life in this country, only a part of it at the UN, I hope you will take it in the spirit in which it is meant: as a sincere and constructive critique of US policy towards the UN by a friend and admirer. Because the fact is that the prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the UN one way or another. |
I see no problem with this, a critique of US influence and non-participation with the UN...that is what he is supposed to be doing. It is an important and brave stance to take...without it, nothing would be accomplished, but the maintenance of the typical and antiquated attitudes.
| Quote: |
More broadly, Americans complain about the UN�s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, �guilty on all counts�.
But why?
In significant part because the US has not stuck with its project -- its professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations -- in a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today have played extraordinary leadership roles in US-UN relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, US commitment tends to ebb much more than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage.
As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries of State I have worked with �- Secretary Albright, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice -� put into UN issues. And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by �stealth� diplomacy: the UN�s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Exacerbating matters is the widely held perception, even among many US allies, that the US tends to hold on to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle ground. |
I think that this is very important...the lack of understanding that many US citizens have towards the UN because of how it is portrayed both in the media, and within the political debate of the US government...Like the speech says, the UN needs the US and the US needs the UN...it is that simple...
| Quote: |
A few weeks ago, my kids were on the Mall in Washington, demanding President Bush to do more to end the genocide in Darfur and President Bush wants to do more. I�d bet some of your kids were there as well. Perhaps you were, too. And yet what can the US do alone in the heart of Africa, in a region the size of France? A place where the Government in Khartoum is convinced the US wants to extend the hegemony it is thought to have asserted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In essence, the US is stymied before it even passes �Go�. It needs the UN as a multilateral means to address Sudan�s concerns. It needs the UN to secure a wide multicultural array of troop and humanitarian partners. It needs the UN to provide the international legitimacy that Iraq has again proved is an indispensable component to success on the ground. Yet, the UN needs its first parent, the US, every bit as much if it is to deploy credibly in one of the world�s nastiest neighbourhoods. |
This was one of my points on the other thread about Darfur, the US is in too weak a position to act unilaterally because of the actions it has taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be effective in a crisis that is of real importance...it needs the UN to be effective, because unilateralism has reached the end of its teather...it has become exhausted as a useful tool of internationalism...
I think the points made are critical for the stability of the world and its people....for those within the US as well as out.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks BigNate for the post.
Yes, a very good read and Annan is quite clear headed on the issues and what the world DOES need.
If I can find it, will post Annan's nice little article about the World Cup I read yesterday. Illuminating....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Found it!!
| Quote: |
At the UN, how we envy the World Cup
Kofi A. Annan
Published: June 9, 2006
UNITED NATIONS, New York
You may wonder what a secretary general of the United Nations is doing writing about football. But in fact, the World Cup makes us at the United Nations green with envy. As the pinnacle of the only truly global game, played in every country by every race and religion, it is one of the few phenomena as universal as the United Nations.
You could even say it's more universal. FIFA has 207 members; we have only 191.
But there are far better reasons to be envious. First, the World Cup is an event in which everybody knows where their team stands, and what it did to get there. They know who scored and how and in what minute of the game; they know who missed the open goal; they know who saved the penalty.
I wish we had more of that sort of competition in the family of nations. Countries openly vying for the best standing in the table of respect for human rights, and trying to outdo one another in child survival rates or enrolment in secondary education. States parading their performance for all the world to see. Governments being held accountable for what actions led them to that result.
Second, the World Cup is an event that everybody on the planet loves talking about, dissecting what their team did right, and what it could have done differently - not to mention the other side's team.
People sitting in caf�s anywhere from Buenos Aires to Beijing debate the finer points of games endlessly, revealing an intimate knowledge not only of their own national teams but of many of the others too, expressing themselves on the subject with as much clarity as passion. Normally tongue-tied teenagers suddenly become eloquent, confident, and dazzlingly analytical experts.
I wish we had more of that sort of conversation in the world at large. Citizens consumed by the topic of how their country could do better on the Human Development Index, or in reducing the amount of carbon emissions or the number of new HIV infections.
Third, the World Cup is an event that takes place on a level playing field, where every country has a chance to participate on equal terms. Only two commodities matter in this game: talent and teamwork.
I wish we had more levelers like that in the global arena. Free and fair exchanges without the interference of subsidies, barriers or tariffs. Every country getting a real chance to field its strengths on the world stage.
Fourth, the World Cup is an event that illustrates the benefits of cross- pollination between peoples and countries. More and more national teams now welcome coaches from other countries, who bring new ways of thinking and playing.
The same goes for the increasing number of players who, between World Cups, represent clubs away from home. They inject new qualities into their new team, grow from the experience, and are able to contribute even more to their home side when they return.
In the process, they often become heroes in their adopted countries - helping to open hearts and broaden minds.
I wish it were equally plain for all to see that human migration in general can create triple gains - for migrants, for their countries of origin and for the societies that receive them. That migrants not only build better lives for themselves and their families, but are also agents of development - economic, social and cultural - in the countries they go and work in, and in the homelands they inspire through newly won ideas and know-how when they return.
For any country, playing in the World Cup is a matter of profound national pride. For countries qualifying for the first time, such as my native Ghana, it is a badge of honor. For those who are doing so after years of adversity, such as Angola, it provides a sense of national renewal. And for those who are currently riven by conflict, like Ivory Coast, but whose World Cup team is a unique and powerful symbol of national unity, it inspires nothing less than the hope of national rebirth.
Which brings me to what is perhaps most enviable of all for us at the United Nations: The World Cup is an event in which we actually see goals being reached.
I'm not talking only about the goals that a country scores; I also mean the most important goal of all - being there, being part of the family of nations and peoples, celebrating our common humanity.
I'll try to remember that when Ghana plays Italy in Hannover on June 12. Of course, I can't promise I'll succeed.
UNITED NATIONS, New York You may wonder what a secretary general of the United Nations is doing writing about football. But in fact, the World Cup makes us at the United Nations green with envy. As the pinnacle of the only truly global game, played in every country by every race and religion, it is one of the few phenomena as universal as the United Nations.
You could even say it's more universal. FIFA has 207 members; we have only 191.
But there are far better reasons to be envious. First, the World Cup is an event in which everybody knows where their team stands, and what it did to get there. They know who scored and how and in what minute of the game; they know who missed the open goal; they know who saved the penalty.
I wish we had more of that sort of competition in the family of nations. Countries openly vying for the best standing in the table of respect for human rights, and trying to outdo one another in child survival rates or enrolment in secondary education. States parading their performance for all the world to see. Governments being held accountable for what actions led them to that result.
Second, the World Cup is an event that everybody on the planet loves talking about, dissecting what their team did right, and what it could have done differently - not to mention the other side's team.
People sitting in caf�s anywhere from Buenos Aires to Beijing debate the finer points of games endlessly, revealing an intimate knowledge not only of their own national teams but of many of the others too, expressing themselves on the subject with as much clarity as passion. Normally tongue-tied teenagers suddenly become eloquent, confident, and dazzlingly analytical experts.
I wish we had more of that sort of conversation in the world at large. Citizens consumed by the topic of how their country could do better on the Human Development Index, or in reducing the amount of carbon emissions or the number of new HIV infections.
Third, the World Cup is an event that takes place on a level playing field, where every country has a chance to participate on equal terms. Only two commodities matter in this game: talent and teamwork.
I wish we had more levelers like that in the global arena. Free and fair exchanges without the interference of subsidies, barriers or tariffs. Every country getting a real chance to field its strengths on the world stage.
Fourth, the World Cup is an event that illustrates the benefits of cross- pollination between peoples and countries. More and more national teams now welcome coaches from other countries, who bring new ways of thinking and playing.
The same goes for the increasing number of players who, between World Cups, represent clubs away from home. They inject new qualities into their new team, grow from the experience, and are able to contribute even more to their home side when they return.
In the process, they often become heroes in their adopted countries - helping to open hearts and broaden minds.
I wish it were equally plain for all to see that human migration in general can create triple gains - for migrants, for their countries of origin and for the societies that receive them. That migrants not only build better lives for themselves and their families, but are also agents of development - economic, social and cultural - in the countries they go and work in, and in the homelands they inspire through newly won ideas and know-how when they return.
For any country, playing in the World Cup is a matter of profound national pride. For countries qualifying for the first time, such as my native Ghana, it is a badge of honor. For those who are doing so after years of adversity, such as Angola, it provides a sense of national renewal. And for those who are currently riven by conflict, like Ivory Coast, but whose World Cup team is a unique and powerful symbol of national unity, it inspires nothing less than the hope of national rebirth.
Which brings me to what is perhaps most enviable of all for us at the United Nations: The World Cup is an event in which we actually see goals being reached.
I'm not talking only about the goals that a country scores; I also mean the most important goal of all - being there, being part of the family of nations and peoples, celebrating our common humanity.
I'll try to remember that when Ghana plays Italy in Hannover on June 12. Of course, I can't promise I'll succeed.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That makes it very clear.
If the US really liked football, all would be well in the world.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Kofi Annan is a bleeding idiot. But Bolten is worse.
WaPo
The conclusion:
| Quote: |
| Well, it's now time for the new Bush to acknowledge that Bolton's tactics aren't funny. The United States needs an ambassador who can work with the United Nations. Right now, it doesn't have one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
