Category Archives: US

Letters from America (I): Where the sky is the limit

I was recently visiting the US again, more than a year after my last visit and some two-and-a-half years after I moved from New York to Brussels. Twelve years working for the United Nations in New York may not qualify me for US citizenship or a green card, and I am not sure I would want either at this stage in my life, but certainly a New Yorker I feel, then, now and forever.

New York for me is the capital of the world, not only because of the United Nations, and less so because of Wall Street, but certainly also because of the immense diversity in cultures and cuisines, languages spoken, music, exhibits and other cultural activities from across the globe. You can find everything in New York and you can find New York everywhere – in the movies that the world watches, in the change of the year at Times Square, in what the New York Times publishes, in the trends that New York sets. The city is full of beautiful, ambitious and creative people. It is dynamic and intense. It is where you live your dream, if you want it hard enough: the sky is the limit here.

Brussels - Borse - 8 June 2014 - 20140608_142001Quite a contrast from Brussels, the capital of Belgium and the seat of the main European Union institutions, where I now live. “Gotham City” or “The Big Apple”, as New York is also known, rises into the skies, with its high-rise office and residential buildings. Brussels has an area of high-rise buildings, ambitiously called “Manhattan” by the way, but it is mainly a beautiful, art deco, low-rise city with some medieval structures still intact at is famous Grand Place. New York’s skies may pour down with rain and snow, lots of snow during a heavy winter, but they are deep blue and sunny the rest of the time. Brussels, in turn, tends to be milder but often overcast and with drizzle, giving you a claustrophobic feeling when you do not see the sun for weeks at a time.

New York is multicultural, with distinct neighbourhoods, restaurants and supermarkets, with its numerous national parades spreading their special flavour each time – from St. Patrick’s Day Parade to the Puerto Rican, Greek, and many others. Brussels is also becoming increasingly multicultural, mainly with Europeans from other countries and Arabs from North Africa, some sub-Saharan Africans too, and of course it has its indigenous linguistic divide between French and Dutch/Flemish speakers. As apparently is the case in the rest of Europe, rather than being a source of richness and pride these diverse cultural identities seem to be a cause of concern, with political correctness trying to ignore them and political expediency trying to accentuate them.

Plays and musicals on Broadway, performances at Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall, exhibits at the MoMA, the Metropolitan Museum and the Guggenheim, movies shot in and about the city, set trends and are points of reference worldwide. Brussels, of much smaller size than New York, has a surprisingly vibrant artistic scene that its inhabitants enjoy thanks to institutions like Bozar, Flagey and Ancienne Belgique, but has no claim on influencing people beyond its limits, not even within the EU.

New York is known as “the city that never sleeps”, with the subway (metro) running 24/7, delis and some other stores the same, shops opening long hours including on Sundays, and with attentive service offered by shopkeepers to waiters to bank tellers. Brussels thankfully has an increasing number of night stores and supermarkets that also open on Sundays, but most shops open during office hours, making it difficult for office workers to visit them. Services often seem to be offered with the rights of the person serving in mind, rather than of the client, who undoubtedly does not seem to “be king”… And I could go on and on making such comparisons between the two cities.

What am I getting at with these arguments? Is this an unqualified eulogy for New York and a scathing criticism for Brussels? A praise for America and a castigation of Europe? Not really, not least because I am aware of the many problems New York and the US model have. The infrastructure has a lot to be desired, notably the train system, which is still old and slow; no TGV or Thalys connecting New York to Washington or Boston for example, unlike the impressive connections that Brussels boasts of with Paris, London, Amsterdam, Cologne. Criminality is lower in Brussels and life is quite comfortable, more family-friendly and less stressful than New York. Working people are entitled to longer vacations and other benefits, and can count on high-quality healthcare and education at significantly lower cost. Inequalities may be rising but still in Brussels and Europe there is a large middle class that enjoys a good life. There may be racial tensions but Europe is not facing situations like in Ferguson, Missouri or in New York, with deadly attacks between black US citizens and the police.

My critical comparisons between New York and Brussels have been an attempt to distil the best of both worlds, and hopefully infuse what is missing from one to the other. For Europe, which is the focus of this publication, it would mean, among other things, less parochialism and more ambition for the future at individual and collective levels; more client orientation and more flexibility in employment conditions, while keeping an overall guaranteed social safety net that is the jewel of the “European model”; more openness to other cultures and influences, notably those from other countries of the EU but also beyond; much more openness towards and investment in new ideas, innovation and creativity; and an overall more optimistic attitude and can-do spirit.

Georgios Kostakos

Originally published as op-ed in Katoikos.eu on 29 January 2015

Irresponsible brinkmanship all around on Ukraine

Worrisome signs of the (re)emergence of a cold war between the West, mainly the US and the EU, and Russia are emerging over the issue of Ukraine. Political rhetoric is being ramped up, along with sanctions gradually introduced on the part of the West, while Crimea’s incorporation into Russia is advancing. It looks increasingly difficult to return to the status quo ante and have a reasonable discussion on how to ensure the integrity, prosperity and good governance of Ukraine in the difficult buffer zone between the EU and Russia where it finds itself.

Barring a major miscalculation from Ukraine, Russia or the West, the most probable is for a new status quo that includes:
– A Crimea that is de facto part of Russia, whether internationally recognized or not;
– A Ukraine run by a pro-Western government but facing outbreaks of violence with parts of the population feeling closer to Russia and with the extreme right making strides in the other parts;
– Frosty relations between Russia and the West, with Russia facing limited sanctions and exclusion from fora like the G7/8, and Europe potentially facing counter sanctions and experiencing energy supply problems.

This may make for a somewhat unpleasant situation but nothing the key protagonists cannot live with, except perhaps Tatars, Ukrainians and other minority populations in Crimea, and Russians in the rest of Ukraine. But the main political players, international and local, can always restate their claims against each other, excite patriotic sentiments among their respective publics and allies, win elections and exercise power, without having to resort to much more than tough words. If no unpredictable factor intervenes, that is, no provocation or public uprising that might demand from politicians to prove their toughness in practice and authorize action. Such an improbable, it must be said again, turn of events that might lead to a hot incident between Russian and Western/NATO forces could have unpredictable consequences for regional and even global peace and security.

To avoid any dramatic eventuality, and to stabilize the situation as much as possible, measures like the following could be taken:
– Swift and systematic moves to establish democratic governance and respect for minority rights in Ukraine, as part of its gradual integration into the broader European space; the EU and the West should strongly discourage right-wing or other excesses, retribution among rival political forces, etc. by setting their avoidance as precondition for any deepening of integration and financial support; organizations like the UN and the OSCE could be brought in to help with or monitor actions in that regard.
– Guarantee of minority rights, assistance with family reunions across the new de facto borders etc. in Crimea too, through similar assistance or monitoring arrangements with the involvement of organizations like the UN and the OSCE.
– Continuation of mutual engagement between Russia, the US and Europe on other issues like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and avoidance of a Cold War-type split in the UN security Council; gradual reinstatement of collaboration fora like the G8.

This would be a far-from-perfect state of affairs, but could be the most viable, because it would entail a pragmatic recognition of mutual interests and might eventually draw the West and Russia closer together. This would presuppose a degree of humility, self-discipline and self-awareness from all sides, with the Russians realizing that they cannot reconstruct their empire with threats and a gradual return to centralized authoritarianism; the US and Europe admitting their hypocrisy and finally learning from the litany of failures they have created by “spreading democracy” around the world, e.g. Iraq and Libya; Europe facing head-on the major handicap of its own divisions that still allow the pursuit of narrow nationalist gains instead of working to define and implement the common European good.

Georgios Kostakos
20 March 2014

 

Disappearance in Ukraine: Looking for the EU under the rubble

The recent dramatic developments in Ukraine have led to the disappearance of its dismissed President Yanukovych, but also to another very apparent disappearance, that of the European Union. The US officials who earlier used a four-letter word to describe Europe’s absence from the scene and inability to put its act together in Ukraine was obviously right. One cannot wait for the dysfunctional Union to act.

Brussels is unable to prove its relevance when it comes to big political issues, the people holding the highest offices in European institutions are mediocre and getting ready to go after the May elections, and the wish of the EU’s most powerful member states is obviously to hold on to their prerogatives; thus the Union appears as disunited and ineffective as ever. There is not even a semblance of EUness in what is happening in terms of Western intervention in Ukraine today. The monitors who will pronounce on the violence and the deaths are British and clearly say so to the press, announcing already their foregone conclusions. Even for monetary assistance, something the EU used to be good at in the past, it is the UK talking to the US and the IMF. The interface with the Russians is fragmented, with Hollande, Merkel and others making calls and sending messages to Putin, while the sad presence of Catherine Ashton moves around Meidan, trying to utter a common EU foreign policy, or is she another member of the UK delegation?

This is as disappointing as it can be, and “one of the same” too. What has changed from 100 years ago, the games of the big powers and the Great War? Very important that the war is not with us this time, but for how long, if such games continue?

For a European federalist like me this is particularly disheartening for many reasons:

  • It is another proof, if one was needed, that the Union is there only for the soft issues, while it breaks up in front of big politics, big interests and big money;
  • It is particularly worrying that parochial national interests and uncooperative national elites continue to play their games around Europe and beyond, competing with each other and undermining the common European project, while being unable to utter a coherent stance towards third parties like Russia or the US;
  • Coming from Greece, the current holder of the EU Presidency as it happens, and the best known example of a punch bag for internal EU discipline, I am triply worried about the weak-to-non-existent role of middle and small powers within Europe, as they should be trying hard to keep the big powers within the fold and the EU institutions up to task…

Another dark day for Europe but will it prove a better day for Ukraine, no matter who has actually intervened and how? The specter of the country’s splitting in two, and of possible civil war, is hovering over it. Will the new leadership, not without a past itself, manage to keep the country together? Will it split peacefully if it does split? Will Europe offer guarantees to Western Ukraine if the split happens? What will Russia do, vis-à-vis Eastern Ukraine and the country as a whole? What a wonderful world, and the Sochi Olympics have just successfully concluded nearby…

Georgios Kostakos

Athens, 25 February 2014

US Whistleblower Protection Programs

 

No comment — Let the official links speak for themselves…

http://www.whistleblowers.gov

http://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/contact-us/whistleblower-hotline

And two US civil society organizations that take their roles seriously:

http://www.whistleblower.org

GAP Statement on the Espionage Charge Filed Against Edward Snowden

by Government Accountability Project on June 22, 2013 ( The Whistleblogger / 2013 )

Federal prosecutors have charged National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden with multiple felonies. The charges include espionage, although several prominent lawmakers have questioned the legality of the intelligence-gathering programs revealed by Snowden, and whistleblower protections should shield him from retaliation if his disclosures expose illegal actions. Snowden is the seventh whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP), the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, which represents two of the whistleblowers charged with Espionage by this administration (NSA whistleblower Tom Drake and CIA/Torture whistleblower John Kiriakou) released the following statement regarding this latest development:

The Obama administration’s charge of espionage against Edward Snowden is not a surprise. This administration has continually sought to intimidate federal employees – particularly intelligence community workers – and suppress any attempt they might make to speak out against gross corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality.

In GAP’s view, Edward Snowden is a whistleblower. He disclosed information about a secret program that he reasonably believed to be illegal, and his actions alone brought about the long-overdue national debate about the proper balance between privacy and civil liberties, on the one hand, and national security on the other. Charging Snowden with espionage is yet another effort to retaliate against those who criticize the overreach of U.S. intelligence agencies under this administration. The charges send a clear message to potential whistleblowers: this is the treatment they can expect should they speak out about constitutional violations.

It is particularly noteworthy that Snowden spoke truthfully to the public about NSA surveillance after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper intentionally lied in his testimony before the U.S. Senate about these same activities. Clapper, however, has not even been admonished for his purposeful, deliberate deception of both the Senate and the public.

It must be emphasized that the channels internal to intelligence agencies for whistleblowers are neither effective nor confidential. Their gross inadequacy is best illustrated by what befell GAP clients and NSA whistleblowers Tom Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, all of whom suffered retaliation after they reported internally serious misconduct at the NSA. Like these three men, Snowden will face serious consequences for exposing the wrongdoing and crimes of others. At the same time, those who stretched their interpretation of laws to invade the private lives of Americans, while lying to the Congress and the public about their actions, will simply continue working.

GAP released a statement on Snowden and the NSA surveillance that can be found here. Media calls regarding this statement can be directed toward GAP President Louis Clark at 202.441.0333 orlouisc@whistleblower.org, or GAP Communications Director Dylan Blaylock at 202.236.3733 ordylanb@whistleblower.org.

Dylan Blaylock is Communications Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

 

http://www.whistleblowers.org

National Whistleblower Center Issues Statement in Support of NSA Whistleblower
Washington, D.C. June 10, 2013. The National Whistleblower Center issued the following statement in support of NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden:

Statement of Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center

“Edward Snowden should not be prosecuted. Instead, the White House must keep the promise made by President Obama, during his 2008 election campaign, when he pledged to support legislation that would fully protect all government whistleblowers, including those in sensitive national security positions.”

“Until Congress enacts a law, setting forth reasonable procedures by which civil servants can disclose national security violations to the American people, the government should not prosecute these whistleblowers. Congress and the President must do their jobs, and stop destroying the lives of civil servants who try to report misconduct”

There is significant historical precedent for the protection of whistleblowers demonstrating that such protections were strongly supported by the Founding Fathers. Mr. Kohn previously discussed this precedent in his New York TimesOp-Ed, The Whistleblowers of 1777. Mr. Kohn is also the author of The Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step by Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself  (Lyons Press, 2011).

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Mary Jane Wilmoth

(202) 342-1902
mjw@whistleblowers.org

Rule of law for all

It is really disturbing what one hears about the treatment of those still held at Guantanamo Bay prison by the US. Although the exact number is disputed, it is clear that several dozen prisoners — the US Administration says about 40, while other sources according to the International Herald Tribune claim as many as 130 — have gone on hunger strike since February protesting against their indefinite detention and the legal limbo under which they are held.

It is even more disturbing to note that 86 Guantanamo prisoners have been cleared for release for sometime now. They continue, however, to be kept imprisoned, reportedly because of budgetary limitations the US Congress has placed on the Administration, and because of the search for countries other their own to receive them. This situation has to end soon, and the end should not be through the death or force-feeding (happening apparently in Guantanamo) of these human beings, who have rights as well as responsibilities under any rule of law system.

The US is a democracy not because its constitution or its authorities claim so. It is a democracy because its government generally respects the rule of law, internally at least, and its institutions and people are vigilant to push back and ensure that if there is any deviation. The application of law cannot exclude human beings because they are foreign nationals, have been accused of terrorism or are held in no-man’s land, as is Guantanamo.

If the US wants to retain its credibility in pushing for human rights and the rule of law internationally, it has to first apply it on its own territory and wherever else it is in effective control. Selective implementation of lofty principles only strengthens perceptions of double standards, leads to cynical rejection of human rights as a self-serving Western construction, undermines the global standing of the US itself, and eventually corrupts its internal democratic functioning.

Georgios Kostakos

Sparta, 13 April 2013

 

Crime and punishment regarding Iraq

Ten years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, it is being widely acknowledged that this was an illegal war, based on fabricated intelligence and with regime change foremost in mind. Moreover, it was fought without proper planning for the post-Saddam era, and at a cost of dozens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, leaving a mess in Iraq and beyond. This much is being admitted publicly even by protagonists in this drama, like the then Deputy Prime Minister of the UK John Prescott.

The natural next step in any law-abiding society with a reasonably long statute of limitations would be to assign responsibilities, investigate and prosecute those responsible for all this loss of life and treasure. The means might differ from one country to the other, with options including parliamentary or judicial commissions of inquiry or plain public prosecutor investigations. But one would expect something along these lines to happen both in the US and the UK.

Those directly involved in the fateful decisions will of course continue to pretend that they have nothing to account for. And if the docile attitude that the press and other opinion makers adopted in 2003 continues they will get away with it. But the Emperor is naked and people have started to whisper it; it will hopefully soon become an uproar. It would be grossly unjust and corrupted otherwise. A regular citizen is prosecuted if s/he kills one person or destroys one house. But as leader one has immunity if one causes the death of thousands and plunders his/her own and another country’s assets and resources…

Of course, there can be mitigating circumstances and mistakes made in good faith. But that is for the judicial process to decide. Those who made the wrong decisions have to explain themselves, in public. And they have to accept the consequences of their actions, as they wanted to make others pay for their wrong deeds. When that happens in earnest, and only then, may the professed moral superiority of the West be proven in practice.

Georgios Kostakos

The Hague, 19 March 2013

 

The US is not the World, but… (or Why the US elections matter)

The race is down to the finishing line, and in a couple of days we will know who the next US President will be. The whole world has been watching the drama unfold on our TV screens, worthy of a Hollywood production with elements of science fiction, thanks to super-storm Sandy.

Taking into account that many of us do no have the right to vote in the US elections, it is quite an overkill the way the Presidential race is covered by non-US media. At the same time, it is not easy to remain indifferent to the dramatic debates, the massive scale of meetings and electoral expenses, the dogged determination of the candidates crisscrossing this vast country. It is these fascinating “democracy rituals” that the American Republic has developed, and the realization, even if unpleasant to some, that the US still matters the most among the countries of the world, that attract the global interest in this election that involves less than 5 per cent of the world’s population.

What is it that the US still has that gives it such predominance? With a crumbling infrastructure – see New York City after Sandy – a huge debt, declining industry, increasing inequality and unemployment, this seems to be a country in decline, an empire whose best days are past. Nevertheless, the country remains the main global trend-setter, innovator, political and military leader, as well as moral norm proponent (even if in practice it does not always respect such norms itself – see Guantanamo and CIA “renditions”). It maintains its “killer instinct”, ready to use, effectively and in an escalating way, all means, from political to economic and military, to achieve its objectives. The American dream has an irresistible allure for the majority of people, who watch Hollywood movies and American TV shows, use the latest gadgets and social networks launched by US firms, and expect the US to do something about all of the world’s problems, even if they criticize it anyway.

The new US President will have to deal with all this, build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. And it is on how they deal with the weaknesses that the differences between the two candidates seems to be most clear. President Obama seems inclined to focus on “nation-building” at home, tackling the shortcomings that have emerged within the American society, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure and mending the inequality gap that has increased significantly between the haves and the have-nots inside the US, while maintaining a respectful and rather restrained presence abroad. Governor Romney seems more inclined to export the US problems, with a more assertive presence abroad, notably military presence, which is hoped will restore America’s clear predominance and will correct domestic problems by being tough on trade, monetary issues, resource access, etc.

Whoever wins, will try their best to elevate their country and their leadership in the way they think best. Come January 2013, the world will work with either President Romney or President Obama, no matter what preference people might have had before the elections. The world needs a strong US, because leadership is hard to find, and the challenges are numerous, many of them of a global nature, like climate change, food insecurity, financial instability, resource scarcity. For the same reasons, the world needs a strong Europe, and a strong China, and India, and Brazil, and a strong Africa, and Southeast Asia and Latin America. These countries and regions also need to show leadership, and take on the glory and cost that leadership entails.

It is not about balancing or unseating the US from the global throne. The more leadership the better, as long as it is not of the confrontational type. We need leadership of the problem-solving type, addressing real issues and not just playing geopolitical games. In that sense, the world would probably vote for Obama, if it were allowed to vote in the US elections. Despite his known shortcomings, including an apparent intellectual aloofness and problems with consensus building in his own capital, he has been projecting a more benign and constructive America, which seems to be learning from its mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere and tries to avoid making new ones. This kind of America, one that also starts dealing seriously with its own problems at home, would be more of an asset to the world and leader for a new era of more balanced burden-sharing and problem-solving.

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 4 November 2012

PS: Barack Obama has just been reelected, with a convincing majority. Expectations are running high, and he seems determined to meet them. He is in a good place, with nothing to lose in his second and final term — nothing other than his good name and legacy, that is, if he does not deliver. His reaching out to his defeated opponent for ideas to get the US back on track is a good sign of bipartisanship, which is necessary if things are to be done. His talk of America being a peaceful and generous power for the world, reference to climate change and other elements of his speech bode well for the future. Amen!

GK, 7 November 2012

The inevitability of destructive climate change…

Hurricane Sandy caused immense destruction along its path through the Caribbean and eventually upon impact on the East Coast of the US. It was the second major storm originating in the tropics that hit New York City and its environs in as many years; a very unusual occurrence. First reported estimates of the material damage caused by Sandy in the US amount to some US$20 billion, while tens of human lives have also been lost. Things would have been worse had the national and local authorities not given advance warning, including evacuation orders for certain places, and had they not mobilized significant civil defences, and search and rescue resources. It pays to be developed, and even if the price per unit of damage is high, the relatively low loss of life is highly rewarding by itself.

Something that officials and usually vocal politicians seem to avoid touching, though, is the possible causes of this catastrophic natural phenomenon. One would expect it to be completely out of character for America not to look for the origins of a disaster and rather attribute it passively to a whim of nature. However, despite Sandy, and Irene and earlier Katrina, speaking of climate change, caused by humans or otherwise, seems to be a taboo in free-speech-promoting America, especially during the final stages of a Presidential election campaign. Instead of the real world and its challenges that need to be addressed, what seems to be predominant is a kind of political correctness that serves nobody, in the medium and long-term at least. And it is true, unfortunately, that evoking climate change would probably restart one of America’s cultural wars, with emotional reactions, rather than a matter-of-fact analysis of a natural phenomenon, which is what is needed.

It is not about using this disaster to force the US to go along with whatever is proposed internationally in terms of climate change action, although it would not be bad if it did play a more constructive role in that regard. It is about the US and its people facing up to a real challenge that affects them, and which happens to also affect the rest of the world, as it is of a global nature. What better – even if sad – opportunity to educate people about the need to adapt to and mitigate climate change, to their own benefit first and foremost?

In terms of adaptation, it is obvious that urban and suburban planning, flood barriers, electricity production and distribution, public transportation and other infrastructural adjustments are needed to avoid incurring similarly high costs from such events in the future. As far as mitigation is concerned, the question about reducing greenhouse gas emissions has to be put squarely on the table, as it cannot be wished away through misplaced political correctness.

Even if they do not particularly care about the poorer parts of the world, where the destruction of lives and livelihoods may be higher but is not valued as much in economic terms, developed countries, the US prominently among them, should consider the impact on their own people of doing nothing. Destruction of lives and livelihoods and large financial losses cannot be allowed to continue because of a refusal to call a problem a problem. Avoiding to look into the root causes and work on solutions will not wish away future disasters. If this irresponsible approach continues, then we are all doomed, as the destructive effects of climate change will indeed prove inevitable…

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 31 October 2012

PS: It is encouraging to see that at least the political leadership of New York City and New York State, responding to the realities of super-storm Sandy, have now put climate change clearly on the public agenda. Hopefully it will reach even higher levels, as well as the public at large, for a long-overdue discussion and decisions for action.

GK, 2 November 2012

The annual meeting of the global village (Part II)

Syria, as expected, was a top agenda item for the leaders addressing the UN General Assembly. While there was broad agreement that violence should end from all sides, there were disagreements on apportioning blame. The deployment of an Arab peace force was proposed (Tunisia), while others insisted on diplomatic efforts among Arab, regional and global powers that would prevent external military intervention (Egypt). Good governance, justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law were identified as the main elements of democracy that could eventually, with sustained effort, lead a country from poverty to prosperity, and would ensure peaceful relations between countries (EU, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, UK, US, Zambia).

In direct or indirect reference to the violent protests caused by the slanderous video about the Prophet Mohammed, several leaders addressed the apparent contradiction among the principles of freedom of speech, tolerance and respect of the religious beliefs of others. Some of them stressed the importance of tolerance and avoidance of violence as paramount (Liberia). Others pointed to the need of preventing abuses of freedom of expression, when it blatantly disrespects the religious beliefs of others and sows hatred, while at the same time stressing the peaceful nature of Islam and the need for peaceful protests (Yemen). The widening gap between rich and poor in the world was pointed out as a main cause of the ideological conflicts and violence (Iran).

On development issues, several leaders stressed the importance of implementing the outcome of the Rio+20 Conference for a more sustainable and equitable future (UN Secretary-General, UN General Assembly President, Brazil, Nauru). At the same time, it was significant to accelerate efforts to achieve the MDGs, especially in Africa (Australia South Africa). It was suggested that poverty and climate change could be addressed in tandem, so one does not have to choose between them (Mexico). Moreover, the connection was pointed out between sustainable development and peace and security (UNGA President, Cyprus). Serious concerns were expressed about the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (China, Norway), as well as about the nuclear activities of Iran and possible responses to them (Israel, Russia, US).

There was a broad recognition of the importance of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations, often accompanied by calls for UN reform, in different directions: to give emerging powers the place they deserve, especially on the Security Council (France, Germany, South Africa); towards more democracy within international fora, away from the control of a few powers (Iran); or towards full implementation of commitments made and decisions taken within the UN (Poland).

Only indicative references have been made above to the many speeches and the numerous issues brought up by world leaders at this year’s UN General Assembly. But of course this global village gathering has no decision-making purpose. It mainly allows expositions of country and leader positions on the global stage, in a ceremonial but useful way for reference and agenda setting. Of more practical relevance are side meetings of other bodies like the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, special initiatives like the Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All”. And of course very important are bilateral meetings that happen on the sidelines of the General Assembly, thanks to the simultaneous presence of so many dignitaries from around the world. Such meetings take place even between leaders (or their aides) whose countries are not on friendly terms.  This is by itself a very important function that the UN fulfills, as the meeting place of the – still quite dysfunctional – human family.

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 29 September 2012 

 

The annual meeting of the global village (Part I)

As is the custom, at around this time every year the chiefs of the human tribes and agglomerations make their way to New York, for the annual meeting of our global village. They come in their fancy clothes and their motorcades (pity the New York motorists) and they are received by their convener, the “Secular Pope” (replace “Pope” with “Grand Mufti” or “High Priest” etc, as you feel appropriate), also known as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, together with the General Assembly President.

This year the gathering is taking place in the midst of, among other dramatic events, continuing mayhem in Syria; often violent protests in the Muslim world against a US film insulting the Prophet Mohammed; wild scenarios over Iran’s nuclear fuel processing; tensions between Japan and China (and Taiwan) over a small group of disputed islands; several hot spots in Africa, like Mali, Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia; further evidence of climate change and a looming new food crisis; and ongoing global financial problems most dramatically manifested in the debt crises in the countries of Southern Europe. The human family seems to be as dysfunctional as ever…

In this blog and the next one(s) under the same title I will try to extract some elements from the many speeches that are being made at the United Nations General Assembly these days. The emphasis of my search, although not necessarily of the speeches themselves, will be on elements of substance that point to some direction (i.e. vision and leadership) and recommend policies and actions (i.e. delivery and not just talk). Let’s see what fish we will catch this year…

For this post, I am focusing on statements made at the beginning of the General Assembly’s “General Debate”/VIP segment, on 25 September 2012, by the UN Secretary-General, the President of Brazil and the President of the US. They all touched on most current issues mentioned above, from their respective angles, but I won’t repeat all that here.

It is interesting to note the large amount of time President Obama dedicated to the violence caused in response to the anti-Mohammed film, which formed the beginning, end and spine of his speech. He condemned and threatened the perpetrators of violence, specifically mentioning the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya. At the same time, he criticized the film at the centre of the protests, while explaining the sanctity and greater benefits of freedom of speech. He called on all concerned to address honestly and constructively the tensions between the West and an Arab World that is moving towards democracy. He also explained the approach adopted by his Administration around the world, especially towards the Muslim and Arab world, including the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and, in 2014, from Afghanistan, the welcoming by the US of political change in the Arab world including Egypt, the continuing efforts to resolve peacefully the situations regarding Iran and Syria, and the importance of implementing the two-state solution in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a principled, proud, determined but indirectly humble, subtly self-critical and definitely more-cooperative-than-usual US attitude. It was an attitude certainly appreciated through regular applause by the UN General Assembly, and will hopefully generate positive reciprocal action around the world. It remains to be seen whether it will also resonate with the US public in the November Presidential election.

President Rousseff also condemned the religion-based provocation and violence, and stressed the need to build on the Alliance of Civilizations project initiated by Turkey and Spain some years ago. Equal rights and the empowerment of women was again central to the speech of the Brazilian President, as was the global economic crisis and the need to follow-up on the outcome of the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development. She called on developed nations in particular to rise to their responsibilities, keeping in mind the possible adverse effects that policies they introduce may have on emerging economies, like the unbalancing of exchange rates when placing too much emphasis on monetary policy, and stressed the importance of cooperation. She also enumerated measures that Brazil is taking from its part including strict control over public spending, accompanied by a simultaneous increase in investments in infrastructure, education and social inclusion. It was a speech by a leader of a country in the ascendant, with increased confidence, vision and results to show for innovative policies, strengthening the argument for a more central role, including on the UN Security Council, for Brazil.

Secretary-General Ban asked the world’s moderate majority to end its silence and speak out against intolerance, which he saw as being at the heart of the violence caused by the US film that he criticized strongly. He urged for more leadership to be shown in tackling the global challenge of climate change, and put forward sustainability and the green economy as offering compelling opportunities for jobs, growth, innovation and long-term stability.

Georgios Kostakos

Ixelles, 25 September 2012