Category Archives: United Nations

Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Based on news from various news services as indicated by the links

Meeting on May 2 at the United Nations, the ambassadors making up the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform clashed on the question of enlarging the Council to include more permanent members. When the UN was founded in the rubble of World War II, the five victors — Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union and the US — assumed for themselves permanent council memberships and veto powers. According to the ambassador, their “special powers are a holdover from 1945 in a world that has dramatically changed with the rise of new powers and the UN itself increasing its membership by nearly three times, from 51 to 193.”

unsc
The chamber of the United Nations Security Council
Click on photo to enlarge

The ambassador from India called for the addition of new permanent members, referring to a negotiating document which is based on a survey of UN members on council reforms. Of the 122 countries that made written submissions for the survey, 113 — or more than 90 percent — supported expanding both categories of council membership, he said. They include the 54 members of the African Union, 42 from the L.69, which is a group supporting reforms, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members, the G4 and 21 others, in addition to two permanent members, Brtain and France, he said. He spoke on behalf of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, the so-called G4 group.

Pakistan objected to the proposal by India that it should be added as a permanent member of the Council, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, the so-called G4 group.

And the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly opposed permanent membership of Japan – another member of the G4.

A 13-member group known as Uniting for Consensus (UfC), which included Pakistan and is led by Italy, reiterated its opposition to adding any permanent members, the core of its position on the reform process.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Another approach was proposed by the Ambassador from Ireland, as follows:

In relation to today’s topic of “categories of membership”, Ireland is not convinced by arguments for the creation of new permanent members of the Council. Democratic accountability is a watchword for almost every global institution. The Security Council should be no different. To create new permanent seats – which would not be subject to periodic election by the membership – would risk compounding many of the problems of the present dispensation.

At the same time, we fully recognise that there are countries which, due to their ability to contribute significantly to the maintenance of international peace and security, should be able to play a stronger role on the Council than allowed by the current arrangements. For this reason, although we are open to considering various models for expansion, we are positively disposed towards the creation of a new category of seats with an 8 year term. Ireland believes there should be 6 seats in this category, with 2 each from the African and Asia-Pacific group, and 1 each from WEOG and GRULAC.

We also believe an expansion of the current category of 2 year seats is warranted, including to ensure that smaller states can continue to serve regularly on the Council. These should increase by 5 to 15, with the African group taking 2 of the new seats, and the Eastern European group, the AsiaPacific group and GRULAC taking 1 each.

It would be for further consideration whether seats in either of these categories would be eligible for immediate re-election. The overall regional breakdown of seats under the model outlined above would result in 7 Council members from Africa, 6 members from WEOG, 6 from Asia Pacific, 4 from GRULAC, and 3 from Eastern Europe.

This would result in a Council of 26 seats, which would, in our view, be a good balance between representativeness and efficiency. As previously outlined, we continue to favour eventual abolition of the veto, and, as we would do not favour creating any new permanent members of the Council, the extension of the veto to any new member does not arise.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, United Nations,

UN chief candidates pressed on how to tackle global challenges

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Gu Zhenqiu for Xinhuanet

The first public interviews with the current nine candidates vying to be next UN secretary-general and a three-day event which is first of its kind in the 70-year history of the world body, concluded here [at the United Nations] Thursday [April 14] with 193 UN member states judging their performance and answers to the questions from the globe.

unsecgen
This combination photo shows the candidates for the next United Nations Secretary-General. Upper row from left to right: Igor Luksic, Montenegro’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Danilo Turk, former president of Slovenia, Antonio Guterres, former prime minister of Portugal and former UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Middle row from left to right: Vesna Pusic, former Croatian foreign minister, Irina Bokova, director-general of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Natalia Gherman, former minister of foreign affairs and European integration of Moldova. Bottom row from left to right: Srgjan Kerim, President of the 62th session of the United Nations General Assembly, and former minister of foreign affairs of Macedonia, Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Vuk Jeremic, President of the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, and former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia. (Xinhua/Li Muzi)
Click on photo to enlarge

The questions – which also came from members of civil society – to the five men and four women along with their answers were heard via webcast. In fact, the public hearings, also known as “informal dialogues” within the United Nations, rekindled the debate on how to make the global organization more relevant, transparent, efficient and effective in efforts to deal with grave global challenges, such as climate change and terrorism.

The questions, put forward either by a diplomat on the scene or a child through video, were intended to help choose the best person to succeed the current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose tenure is to end on Dec. 31.

The questions were challenging, illustrating high expectations of the international community to see a strong UN chief at the helm of the world’s most universal and authoritative organization.

There were questions that illustrated how different countries have different concerns based on their national interests.

For instance, African and Caribbean countries worry about a lack of access to concessional funds from industrialized nations in their development efforts, while Algeria and other states also voiced concerns at the unbalanced and inequitable composition of UN staff at headquarters in New York in terms of gender and geography.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

African and Asian countries asked questions on how the next UN head will strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations. Other countries, including Sierra Leone, wondered how the UN would execute its “zero tolerance” policy in a bid to end sexual abuse by peacekeepers in conflict-torn countries such as the Central African Republic.

A representative from Rwanda, who complained that “the conflict” raged in a regular pattern, particularly in Africa,” asked Helen Clark, one of the nine candidates and former prime minister of New Zealand, what measures she would take to reverse the trend.

Riyad Mansour, the permanent observer of Palestine to the United Nations, asked the candidates how they would end the Isareli-Palestinian conflict.

Small island countries, on the other hand, said they have been haunted by the impact of climate change. “What would you do to make sure countries take actions to stop catastrophic climate change?” a child asked via video.

Meanwhile, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, which form the Group of Four (G4), asked most of the nine candidates about how he or she would reform the UN Security Council, the most powerful body in the UN family. Each of the G4 aspire to become permanent members.

There were also questions related to gender equality, human rights, sustainable development, the UN budget, UN management and UN peacekeeping operations.

Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, told reporters that the event is just a “starting point” in the process of selecting the next UN secretary-general.

“I am surprised by the large number of countries and members of civil society coming forward to ask questions,” Lykketoft said. “It’s more than I expected.”

At this moment, there is still no public comments either by diplomats or senior UN officials on the performance of the nine candidates. People here at the United Nations are still arguing whether gender or geographical rotation should be the only criteria for the selection of the new top diplomat in the world.

But a key question remains: what impact will the open interviews have on the final decision by the UN Security Council, the 15-nation UN body which has the final say in deciding who will be the next UN chief?

Under the UN Charter, the secretary-general is chosen by the 193-member General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-member Security Council.

In practice, this has meant that the council’s five permanent members, namely Britain, China, France, the United States and Russia, have veto power over the candidates. That will not change in deciding who succeeds Ban.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, United Nations,

It’s Campaign Season for UN Secretary General…And It Is Pretty Radical

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Mark Leon Goldberg, UN Dispatch

The race to become the next UN Secretary General just got slightly more crowded yesterday [April 5] when Helen Clark, former New Zealand prime minister and the current head of the UN Development Program, tossed her hat in the ring. Clark is one of the higher profile of the eight declared candidates. She is the fourth woman in the field and the only non-European to enter the race so far.

secgen

What makes her entry into the race particularly interesting is this straightforward video of her announcing her candidacy. It is the latest manifestation of just how radically new this process is to select a UN secretary general.

For the first time ever there will be a public campaign in the race to become the next UN Secretary General.

In the 70 years of United Nations, each of the eight Secretaries General were selected behind closed doors. Those doing the selecting were the five permanent members of the Security Council: the USA, Russia, the UK, France and China. Those countries would select a man to represent the United Nations and then the General Assembly, which is made up of all UN member states, would rubber stamp the pick.

This time around is wholly different. First, to be considered for the job, each candidate must first be nominated by their country. The process for doing so is straightforward: the country sends the nominating letter to the President of the General Assembly, who posts the candidates’ nominating letters and resumes to this website.

Now, for the first time in 70 years the general public knows exactly who is in the running for UN Secretary General. This counts as radical: even that modest amount of transparency was never really in the cards before.

The declared candidates as of April 4 (minus Helen Clark) and the dates they entered the race.

Dr. Srgjan Kerim, 30 December 2015
Prof. Dr. sc. Vesna Pusic, 14 January 2016
Dr. Igor Luksic, 15 January 2016
Dr. Danilo Turk, 9 February 2016
Ms. Irina Bokova, 11 February 2016
Ms. Natalia German, 19 February 2016
Mr. Antonio Guterres, 29 Febuary 2016

Because the process is open, there is a degree of public campaigning that has never existed. Candidates will be forced to go on the record with their positions on various key global issues. Their performance as communicators, diplomats and politicians will be evaluated by the press, the public, and all UN member states.

(Article continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish of this aricle.)

Question(s) related to this article:

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

On April 12, 13, and 14 each candidate will submit to two hours of questioning from the General Assembly. The President of the General Assembly, Mogens Lykketoft of Denmark, is presiding over the affair. For two hours, each candidate will be put on the spot by member states. Not only will their answers be judged on the merits, but their effectiveness as communicators will be tested as well.

And because this has never been done before, no one really knows what kinds of questions will be asked. Will groups of countries, like the EU, band together to ask the same questions to each candidate? Will it result in high minded discussions of the future of the UN? Will individual countries use their moment at the mic to score petty domestic political points? The answer is that we have absolutely no clue. That’s what makes this moment so interesting for UN watchers–the theater is not only in the answers given, but the questions asked. Also, questions will not only come from member states, but also from the NGO community and civil society, which has been invited to participate in this vetting.

Then, later in the week, the Guardian is holding town-hall style debate in New York in which journalists and the public can pose questions to the candidates. (Questions from the public are being solicited here.) Later in the Spring, a similar event will take place in London.

The Security Council is expected to begin its deliberations in July. To be sure, as in year’s past the candidate must find favor (or at least not be vetoed) by each of the five permanent members. The Security’s Council’s selection is then passed along to the General Assembly for a final vote.

But unlike year’s past, each member of the General Assembly — and the public at large — will have had the opportunity to vet the candidates. The candidate will need to prove her or his worth well before the final selection this summer.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, United Nations,

United Nations: Experts call for efforts to save indigenous languages

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article from Xinhua News

Endangered indigenous languages are being brought back from the brink of extinction but there is still much work to be done, a group of indigenous language experts told reporters here Thursday [United Nations, January 21].


indigenous
Edward John (FLICKR)

“There are examples of us not just holding onto our languages, but using them to educate new generations, using them in our homes again,” said Amy Kalili, an expert in the Hawaiian language, who participated in a panel of indigenous language experts here this week.

The panel provided examples of indigenous languages being revitalized around the world, from Maori in New Zealand to Hawaiian in Kalili’s native Hawaii.

It is now possible to study in the Hawaiian language from infancy through to doctoral level, said Kalili, mostly due to community efforts to save the language from extinction.

Kalili said that saving indigenous languages would also benefit the global community through preserving vital indigenous knowledge.

“The wealth of knowledge that we have to offer the global community is codified in our native languages,” she said.

However, Grand Chief Edward John from the Tl’azt’en Nation in British Columbia, Canada said that sadly one Indigenous language dies every week or two weeks.

“If there’s an animal or plant or fish going extinct, people are up in arms over that, but when a language is going extinct, no one says anything,” he said.

And while technology may offer some assistance, it is not the answer in and of itself, said John.

“We now need to get the elders into these gadgets so that they can use this technology to teach the young people,” he said. “Technology in and of itself won’t be the answer, but it’s a tool.”

Tatjana Degai from Kamchatka in the far East of Russia said that despite a multicultural approach and government support for indigenous languages in Russia, some languages are still on the brink of extinction.

“Our language is surviving, in Russia which is a multicultural country (with) over 200 different languages”, she said.

“Some languages are spoken by a million people, some languages are spoken by thousands, and mostly it is indigenous languages of the people of North Siberia and the far-East which are at the brink of extinction,” she said.

There are between 6,000 and 7,000 languages globally, said John. One of the panel’s recommendations is for countries to help map out the indigenous languages within their own borders, he added.

Question for discussion
global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

UN Secretary-General’s Remarks at General Assembly Presentation of the Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

Taken from the UN website, 15 January 2016

I would like to thank your Excellency, Mr. President for organizing this very important occasion for me to brief the General Assembly about my Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, and to call for a new global partnership to confront this menace.

ban ki-moon

You have had a chance to review the plan, which is the product of many months of consultations. Let me thank you for your engagement and good ideas.

I would like to make a few brief comments, but I would also like to hear from you.

Violent extremism is a direct assault on the United Nations Charter and a grave threat to international peace and security.

We are all appalled by the barbaric crimes that terrorist groups such as Daesh, Boko Haram and others are committing against humanity.

They have brazenly kidnapped young girls, systematically denied women’s rights, destroyed cultural institutions, warped the peaceful values of religions, and brutally murdered thousands of innocents around the world.

These groups have become a magnet for foreign terrorist fighters, who are easy prey to simplistic appeals and siren songs.

The threat of violent extremism is not limited to any one religion, nationality or ethnic group.
Let us also recognize that today, the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.
Addressing this challenge goes to the heart of the United Nations. And it compels us to act in a way that solves – rather than multiplies — the problem.

Many years of experience have proven that short-sighted policies, failed leadership, heavy-handed approaches, a single-minded focus only on security measures and an utter disregard for human rights have often made things worse.

Let us never forget: Terrorist groups are not just seeking to unleash violent action, but to provoke a harsh reaction.

We all lose by responding to ruthless terror with mindless policy – policies that turn people against each another, alienate already marginalized groups, and play into the hands of the enemy.

We need cool heads and common sense. We must never be ruled by fear – or provoked by those who strive to exploit it.

Countering violent extremism should not be counter-productive.

My Plan of Action takes a practical and comprehensive approach to address the drivers of violent extremism. It focuses on violent extremism which can be conducive to terrorism.

It puts forward more than 70 recommendations for concerted action at the global, regional and national levels, based on five inter-related points:

Number one, we must put prevention first.

The international community has every right to defend against this threat using lawful means, but we must pay particular attention to addressing the causes of violent extremism if this problem is to be resolved in the long run.

There is no single pathway to violent extremism. But we know that extremism flourishes when human rights are violated, political space is shrunk, aspirations for inclusion are ignored, and too many people – especially young people – lack prospects and meaning in their lives.

As we see in Syria and Libya and elsewhere, violent extremists make unresolved and prolonged conflicts even more intractable.

We also know the critical elements for success: Good governance. The rule of law. Political participation. Quality education and decent jobs. Full respect for human rights.

The recent report of the High-level Panel on Peace Operations, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the reviews of the Peacebuilding Architecture and the Women, Peace and Security agenda – as well as Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security — have all stressed that we need to make prevention work.

(article continued on the right side of the page)

Question for this article

Islamic extremism, how should it be opposed?

Readers’ comments are invited on this question and article. See below for comments box.

(article continued from the left side of the page)

We need to make a special effort to reach out to young people and recognize their potential as peacebuilders.

Through a global partnership, we need to build on the positive vision of the future that many young people are themselves constructing. The protection and empowerment of women must also be central to our response.

Second, principled leadership and effective institutions.

Poisonous ideologies do not emerge from thin air. Oppression, corruption and injustice are greenhouses for resentment. Extremists are adept at cultivating alienation.

That is why I have been urging leaders to work harder to build inclusive institutions that are truly accountable to people. I will continue to call on leaders to listen carefully to the grievances of their people and then act to address them.

Third, preventing extremism and promoting human rights go hand-in-hand.

All too often, national counter-terrorism strategies have lacked basic elements of due process and respect for the rule of law.

Sweeping definitions of terrorism or violent extremism are often used to criminalize the legitimate actions of opposition groups, civil society organizations and human rights defenders. Governments should not use these types of sweeping definitions as a pretext to attack or silence one’s critics.

Once again, violent extremists deliberately seek to incite such over-reactions. We must not fall into the trap.

Fourth, an all-out approach.

The Plan proposes an “all of Government” approach.

We must break down the silos between the peace and security, sustainable development, human rights and humanitarian actors at the national, regional and global levels—including at the United Nations.

The Plan also recognizes that there are no “one size fits all” solutions.

That is why the Plan calls for national ownership, recommending that each Member State adopt a National Plan of Action that sets priorities, such as promoting access to justice, strengthening institutions, and investing in education programmes that foster pluralism.

We must also engage all of society – religious leaders, women leaders, youth groups leaders in the arts, music and sports, as well as the media and private sector

Fifth, UN engagement.

I intend to strengthen a UN system-wide approach to supporting Member States’ efforts to address the drivers of violent extremism.

Acting within their mandates, UN missions and country teams will support Member States when developing National Plans of Action and will review their own activities.

I am also creating a UN system-wide High-Level PVE Action Group, to spearhead the implementation of this Plan at both the Headquarters and field levels.

The Plan before you builds on your own efforts and initiatives, including General Assembly resolutions on the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and a “World against Violence and Violent Extremism”, as well as Security Council measures, including resolutions 2178 on foreign terrorist fighters and 2253 on Daesh.

Some Member States have already pledged to help transform the Plan from ideas to reality. I look forward to the International Conference on the Plan of Action that the Swiss Government has offered to co-organize with the United Nations in Geneva in April.

Above all, the Plan is an urgent call to unity and action. The General Assembly is the only forum with the legitimacy and universality to address this problem in all its complexity.

Together, let us pledge to forge a new global partnership to prevent violent extremism.

Thank you.

global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

A reality… UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

Special for CPNN by Romeral Ortiz Quintilla, member of Youth Advocacy Team of UNOY

And now it is a reality. I still remember very well how two years ago, I was on my first mission to UN Headquarters in NYC as part of the Youth Advocacy Team of the United Network of Young Peacebuilders- UNOY.

unscr-voting-big
Voting of the UN Security Council of the 2250 Resolution on Youth, Peace and Security

UNOY had put as strategic objective to advocate for the development of a global framework that would recognize and guarantee the role of youth in peacebuilding and violence prevention.

What we had as an ideal goal at that time was to see the UN Security Council Members to adopt a UN Security Council Resolution on youth, peace and security.

In 2013 this was just a dream and around that time very few were the Members States who were supportive or even sensitized on this matter. But nothing could stop us: for the last two years we have been tireless; the efforts were insatiable, the dedication was strong and the commitment was pure. We made researches, wrote reports and knocked on many doors explaining how youth is contributing to peace and justice all around the world and how young women and men had to be taken into consideration ensuring participative and inclusive mechanisms and tools in building peace.

For two years, several missions were held to the UN Headquarters participating to side-events on countering violent extremism, on young women, peace and security, on the World Programme of Action for Youth-WPAY, to UN peace related documents’ review, etc.

It was crucial to be visible and to build strong partnerships with key stakeholders and supporters of our agenda: from the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth to the Peacebuilding Support Office, Search for Common Ground, World Vision but also UN agencies such as UNDP or UNFPA to name a few.

In parallel, at local, national and regional levels young people were mobilizing to raise awareness on the topic and to initiative some lobby activities in their own communities and with their own local governments.

(article continued on the right side of the page)

Question for this article

Is there a renewed movement of solidarity by the new generation?

(article continued from the left side of the page)

And then, a key player entered in the game: Jordan. We had been told we needed a champion to support our cause. That champion happened to be the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan that took very seriously the theme and brought to the UN Security Council the first ever open debate on youth, peace and security this past April, 2015. It was then followed by the first Global Forum on youth, peace and security where more than 600 participants gathered in Amman – youth representatives, donors, UN agencies, governments, academics…- and discussed on how to increase the participation and role of youth in preventing violence, transforming violence and building peace leading. Statements and commitments were translated into the Amman Youth Declaration, precursor of the UN Security Council this past December.

Indeed, the 9th December 2015 is now a date we will not easily forget, the day when the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted unanimously the UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security led by Jordan.

UNSCR Side event2
Participation of Romeral, on behalf of UNOY as panellist in the side event to the Security Council, High-level review on Resolution 1325 on young women, peace and security.

Exactly two years ago I wrote on this page that “everything seems impossible until it is done”. This is so true. Now that it is done, we count on an historic recognition calling for the acknowledgment on the role of youth in building peace and demanding for further efforts in terms of participation, protection, prevention, partnership and reintegration, the five pillars of the resolution. The first time a Security Council Resolution is fully dedicated to youth and calls on their role in peace under a holistic perspective: positive peace as the presence of all resources needed for human being to enjoy sustainable rights, equality, freedom and justice.

Now, that it is done, we will redouble our efforts, making sure that the resolution is well known, implemented and translated into programs and efforts.

Because peace is not just our goal, it is definitively our path.

global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

Naomi Klein: We are going backwards, COP21 is the opposite of progress

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An interview with Naomi Klein in New Internationalist Magazine (abbreviated)

Naomi Klein speaks with Frank Barat about the limits of the Paris climate talks and how climate change is an accelerator that makes pre-existing problems worse. This interview was originally published in the French publication Ballast.

Naomi Klein
People’s climate march in Prague, 29 November 2015. Friends of the Earth International under a Creative Commons Licence

. . . [what] is unfolding in Paris during the climate summit is really exposing the subjectivity of what gets declared a crisis and what does not. We are here to discuss an existential crisis for humanity and it has never received crisis treatment from elites. They give loads of wonderful speeches but they do not change laws. It is exposing the double standards in a very naked way. In the name of security, they would do almost anything, but in the name of human security, of protecting life on earth, there are loads of talk but no serious regulations of polluters and even the deal themselves they want not to be legally binding. So we are actually moving backwards. The Kyoto protocol was legally binding and now we are moving towards more volunteer, meaningless, non-regulations.

Question: Why would a climate deal be our best hope for peace?

N.K: The first part of it is simply that climate change is already driving conflict. So is the quest for fossil fuels. In terms of the Middle East, our thirst from fossil fuels is a major driver for illegal wars. Do we think Iraq would have been invaded if their major export had been asparagus [as journalist Robert Fisk once asked]? Probably not. We wanted that prize in the west, Iraq’s oil. We wanted this on the world’s market. It was certainly Dick Cheney’s agenda. This destabilized the whole region, which was not particularly stable to begin with because of earlier oil wars and coups and support for dictatorships. This is also a region that is one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Large parts of the Middle East would become unliveable on the emission trajectory that we are on. Syria has experienced the worst drought of its history in the run up to the outbreak of civil war. It is one of the factors that destabilized the country. There is no possibility for peace without very strong actions on climate. What drew me to this issue was understanding that if we are going to take climate change seriously it is going to require a redistribution of wealth, of opportunities and technologies. In this book I begin quoting Angelica Navarro who is a Bolivian trade and climate negotiator, talking about how climate change called for a Marshall Plan for planet earth. For countries that have their resources systematically plundered, like Bolivia and are on the front lines of dealing with the impact of climate change, it requires kind of a writing past wrongs, the transfer of wealth and turning the world right side up that I think are pre-conditions for a more peaceful world.

Question: How do you put to the masses of people that to change course, we have to deconstruct capitalism? I think that for most people it is too difficult a change to imagine?

(Interview continued in the right side of the page)

( Click here for the French version of this article.)

Question for this article:

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Interview continued from the left side of the page)

N.K: In Canada we did this exercise of trying to use climate change and the fact that it puts us on a deadline. Not only do we have to change but we have to change now and if we do not make the most of this remaining decade, it will indeed be too late. What does this mean for healthcare, education, indigenous rights, inequality, what would it look like for refugee rights to take climate change seriously? Our team hosted a meeting of 60 movement leaders and we drafted a document called The Leap. We are really hoping that it would help break through this problem. We found in Canada that the only way to break through is to do it. To get together and act. Everybody is working on such urgent issues. If you are an anti poverty activist or a refugee rights activist, you do not have any spare time. It is only when climate change does not distract from your issue and in fact brings another layer of urgency and a really powerful tool and argument and brings you new allies as well, then people have that space to go, ‘oh yeah, ok, this is actually hopeful, this is not a distraction.’

There are a couple of things we did in Canada. One, we organized a march under the banner ‘jobs, justice, climate’. It was not a theoretical exercise but really an organizing one. How do we talk to people in trade unions about climate in a way that really resonates, how do you talk to people who are just fighting for basic services, for housing, and transit, what would it mean for the Black Lives Matter movement, what are the messages that are different? It really helped. Then we drafted and launched the LEAP manifesto. Not that it is perfect, but it is a start. To me it is shocking the extent to which the anti-austerity movement and the climate movement in Europe do not seem to talk to one another. You could have [Greek Prime Minister Alexander] Tsipras suddenly talking about climate change this week, for the first time from what I can tell since he took office.

Climate change is the best argument against austerity that you are ever going to have. If you are negotiating with Germany, a government that claims to take climate change very seriously and that has some of the most ambitious energy policies in the world, why wouldn’t you talk about climate change in every meetings and say that we cannot have austerity because we have an existential crisis, we have to act. And yet Syriza, Podemos, you almost never hear them talking about climate change. I spoke at a blockcupy rally in Frankfurt a few months ago and climate change was not mentioned. When I talked about the connections, people understood instantly, it is not abstract. If you are dealing with the endless of budget crisis and this false sense of public scarcity, of course governments are going to cut their support for renewables, of course they are going to increase fares for public transit, of course they are going to privatize the rail system as they are doing in Belgium, of course they are going to say that we have to drill for oil and gas to get ourselves out of debt.

These issues are the same stories, so why is it that it seems far off, right? I do not think it is a hard argument to make. I think that people are creatures of habit. There is a lot of fear around talking about climate change. It has been so bureaucratized. A little bit like trade used to be. When we first started talking about free trade deals there was all of this talk about having a degree in international law to understand it as it was so bureaucratic. It was designed to repel public participation. But somehow people started to educate themselves and found ways to talk about it and really understood how it impacted their lives and the things that they understood. They realised they had a right to participate in this conversation. I think that why climate change people are afraid of making mistakes about the science. You have got three levels of bureaucratic language. The scientific, the policy and the UN language. It is very difficult to understand. The UN one is a nightmare. Look at the schedule for the Cop21! It is not in any language anybody could recognize. All of that is part of the reason why even though it is obvious to connect climate to austerity somehow it is not done. . . .

Governments are fighting for those paltry targets to not be legally binding. It is the opposite of progress – we are going backward. Kyoto was legally binding. This is headed towards not being binding. The target in Copenhagen was 2 degrees, which was already too high, and here we are headed towards 3. This is basic laws of physics. It is not forward.

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, United Nations,

UN Security Council adopts resolution on Youth, Peace and Security

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

A blog by UNOY, United Network of Young Peacebuilders

On 9 December 2015 the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace & Security. The historical document is the first of its kind to recognize the positive role young people play in building sustainable peace and to lay out the need for governments and other stakeholders to support young people in this role. It represents a landmark for the participation of young people involved in transforming conflict, peacebuilding and countering violence.

unoy

With a larger global youth population than ever before, there is a demographic and democratic imperative to meaningfully involved youth in matters of peace and security, especially considering how conflicts impact on young people’s lives and futures.

At UNOY Peacebuilders we have been working intensively since 2012 to lay a path leading to this resolution. We have fostered dialogue between young peacebuilders and policy makers at the international level, bringing young peacebuilders to discuss with representatives at the UN in New York. At the same time, we have been working for the recognition of young people as actors of positive change with civil society partners including Search for Common Ground and World Vision, as well as key institutional partners through the Inter-Agency Working Group on Young People’s Participation in Peacebuilding.

The dominant policy discourse around youth has traditionally viewed young people as threats to global peace and security, or occasionally as vulnerable groups to be protected. In short, either as victims or perpetrators of violence. This is a harmful reduction of the role youth play in conflict and post-conflict settings and that’s why we have been calling for a third point of view – a point of view which sees youth as peacebuilders who deserved to have their efforts recognized and supported. It is this third point of view which is now being recognised by the UN Security Council.

(article continued on the right side of the page)

Question for this article

Is there a renewed movement of solidarity by the new generation?

(article continued from the left side of the page)

The new UN Security Council resolution outlines the duties of parties to armed conflicts to protect young people during conflict and in post-conflict contexts. Importantly, the resolution goes further and also calls on governments to promote youth participation in processes of peacebuilding and peacekeeping at all levels, including peace processes and dispute resolution mechanisms.  

The resolution calls on Member States to facilitate an enabling environment for youth to prevent violence, and to create policies which support youth socio-economic development and education for peace equipping youth with the ability to engage in political processes. It urges member states to support youth peace efforts in conflict and post-conflict settings, including through the the work of UN bodies involved in peacebuilding and development. The resolution also encourages all those involved in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration to ensure that programs are designed to consider the special needs of youth in these processes.

Finally, the resolution requests the UN General-Secretary to carry out a study on the impact of conflict on young people, as well as their contributions to peace, and to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution in one year’s time.

UN Security Council Resolution 2250 is a huge step forward in the right direction, recognising and supporting young people’s contributions to building peace. However, a UN Security Council resolution is not the end of the road. Young peacebuilders around the world, youth-led and youth-focused organizations must now focus their efforts on ensuring that the resolution gets translated into real policies at regional, national and local levels.

UNOY Peacebuilders welcomes the adoption of the declaration as a tool for young people’s empowerment and calls on every young peacebuilder to join us in the next steps.

Read the full text of UN SCR 2250 here and take part in the conversation through #Youth4Peace and #scr2250 on Twitter or following us on Facebook.

For more information, contact Matilda Flemming (matilda.flemming@unoy.org) or Sölvi Karlsson (solvi.karlsson@unoy.org).

global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY, United Nations,

ICLEI Declaration to the Ministers at COP21, Paris, France

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. .

A Declaration by ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, a network of over 1,000 cities

In these days, the world anxiously follows your national and global efforts to collectively agree on an ambitious and inclusive global Paris Climate Package as the outcome of COP21.

With the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goal 11 on sustainable cities, all countries have a mandate and an obligation to create the necessary conditions for a peaceful and healthy planet. We expect that the Habitat III Conference next year on the new Urban Agenda will further strengthen these.

iclei-2

However, it will not be possible to transform our world towards a sustainable world without a clear commitment from Parties and a pathway towards low-carbon and high-resilient societies and economies.

A failure in Paris to agree on a global framework will worsen our life scenarios. We do not see the negotiations of this agreement as one among Parties but as one with people at risk.

We worriedly take note of the fact that the Intended Nationally Determined Commitments and Contributions (INDCs), curb the global GHG emission trajectory to only 2.7-5.0 °Celsius until the end of this century, and not below 2°C, as requested by the IPCC to ensure a climate-safe future for all people.

This will gravely impact the most vulnerable citizens and populations who suffer from the impacts of climate change that they have not caused.

In overall terms, we request Parties to provide an ambitious response to address 4 basic realities:

* the legacy of a fossil-dependent era and ineffectiveness of piecemeal solutions;

* the unstoppable transformation into a development model that is based on 100% renewables and a circular economy;

* the need to develop innovative governance models in a multi-polar, multi-stakeholder, multi-level Urban World of the 21st Century;

* the need to develop a global and sufficient framework to mobilize additional financial resources for climate change mitigation, adaptation and loss-and-damage through public as well as private finance, including carbon pricing, phasing out of fossil-fuel subsidies, divestment of carbon intensive infrastructure and other assets, and revenues to be generated from regulations on international finance markets or transactions;

Acknowledging the fact that some 50% of submitted INDCs refer to local and subnational action, we urge our Ministers to be more ambitious and to:

* Emphasize the importance of taking into account human rights, gender equality, rights of indigenous peoples, and the needs of particular vulnerable groups when taking action to address climate change;

* Confirm the recognition of the crucial role of local and subnational governments as governmental stakeholders and non-state actors, as key partners in the global climate efforts;

* Develop innovative processes to enhance engagement of local and subnational governments as governmental stakeholders, building on the experiences of the ADP Workstream-2 Technical Examination Processes, and the efforts through the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA);

* Adopt long-term mitigation goals with a clear vision and target for2050, and for the end of the century, in particular goals on carbon/climate neutrality, phase-out of fossil fuels, and 100% renewables by the latest by 2050;

* Close the emission gap and accelerate the implementation of the pre-2020 mitigation commitments in particular by developed countries, so that transformation happens faster, based on the principles of differentiated responsibilities, equity, and solidarity;

* Support developing countries to achieve their mitigation INDCs, technically and financially, and adopt a finance plan that includes five year financial commitments and assessment periods to help achieve their pre-2020 and post-2020 goals;

* Agree on a global, periodic revision process, every five years, of the individual and aggregate implementation progress of the mitigation INDCs and their upscaling, with science and equity-based assessments, and with civil society participation;

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

Can cities take the lead for sustainable development?

(Article continued from left column)

* Set specific goals and targets for adaptation until 2050, including a financial target to reach at least 35 billion USD via grant-based provisions for developing countries,

* Create a robust framework that addresses loss and damage from the impacts of climate change; and

* Mobilize and ensure direct access to financing authority, legislative capacity, and other tools to maximize our climate change actions based on territorial/place-based approaches and empower each level of government, together with enhanced multilevel governance and vertical integration to make its maximum potential contribution toward climate change progress.

As the world’s leading sustainability network of over 1,000 cities, towns and metropolises, and building on our Seoul Declaration and Strategy 2015-2021 adopted in April 2015, ICLEI commits to:

1. INSPIRE – EXPAND – SCALE UP LOCAL CLIMATE ACTION

Our combined sustainability actions currently reach over 20% of the global urban population.

We commit to lead ICLEI members through our GreenClimateCities Program and other initiatives, and to mobilize more local and subnational governments so as to reach 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 of the global urban population, as well as to explore 100% renewables scenarios by 2030 and 2050.

2. INTENSIFY – DEEPEN – INTEGRATE CLIMATE ACTION TO ALL AREAS OF SUSTAINABILITY

Our ICLEI 10 Urban Agendas help our members to make their cities and regions sustainable, low-carbon, resilient, eco-mobile, biodiverse, resource-efficient and productive, healthy and happy, with a green economy and smart infrastructure.

Building on the achievements of our Low Carbon City Agenda, we commit to engage all our members in the 10 Urban Agendas and thus comply with SDG.11 by 2030 as well as mobilize more like-minded local and subnational governments.

3. CONNECT – INCLUDE – ENGAGE WITH GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

Our climate work since 1990, strengthened by the Local Government Climate Roadmap since 2007, has mobilized an unprecedented scale of political commitment and action towards a climate-friendly human development at our levels of government.

We commit to raise compliance with national, subnational, and global initiatives, including the Compact of Mayors, Compact of States and Regions, Mexico City Pact, Durban Adaptation Charter, Earth Hour City Challenge, Covenant of Mayors, working in partnership with citizens, the business sector, and other stakeholders.

We commit to support vertically integrated climate action and explore collaboration with national governments, in particular those that have included local and subnational climate action in their INDCs.

4. TRANPARENT – ACCOUNTABLE – OPEN MUNICIPAL ACTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

Our carbonn Climate Registry with publicly available commitments, emissions inventories and actions reported by more than 600 local and subnational governments, currently aggregates to 1 billion tons of GHG emission reductions until 2020.

We commit to expand the number of reporting entities to include all ICLEI members reporting in the carbonn Climate Registry, to annually aggregate these commitments and to report to the UNFCCC NAZCA.

5. RESOURCE – EMPOWER – ADVOCATE FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION

Our pilot of the Transformative Actions Program (TAP) 2015 has brought forward 125 applications to demonstrate ambitious, crosscutting, and inclusive local action plans that have the potential to contribute to keeping global warming below 2°C.

We commit to continuing the TAP on an annual basis, and present the applications to the climate finance institutions and programs. In addition, we commit to providing an interactive platform to share best TAP projects from around the world, as well as providing tools and knowledge systems necessary for local and subnational governments to design and implement transformative climate actions.

This ICLEI Declaration was adopted unanimously at the Joint Meeting of ICLEI Council and ICLEI Global Executive Committee at Paris City Hall on 6 December 2015

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, global, United Nations,

Indigenous Elders Send Stern Message to UN Paris Delegates: Preventing 2°C Is Not Nearly Enough

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Alternet

Thousands are gathered in Paris for the United Nation’s climate talks that began on November 30 and will run through December 11, 2015. Among the world leaders in Paris, including President Barack Obama, are indigenous peoples from around the world. The SPIRET Foundation released the following statement, entitled “Indigenous Elders And Medicine Peoples Council Statement United Nations Convention on Climate Change,” to the media that provides a voice to the indigenous peoples of the North America:

indigenous
Photo Credit: VectorLifestylepic/Shutterstock.com
Click on photo to enlarge

This statement reflects the wisdom of the Spiritual People of the Earth, of the four directions, working in unity to restore peace, harmony and balance for our collective future and for all living beings. This statement is written in black and white with a foreign language that is not our own and does not convey the full depth of our concerns.

The Creator created the People of the Earth out of the Land and gave us a Way of Life. This Sacred Way of Life has been passed down generation-to-generation since the beginning of the Creation of Life. The sanctity of this Way of Life has been violated and abused by people who are living without regard for the well being of Mother Earth and our collective future.

We, the Original Caretakers of Mother Earth, have no choice but to follow and uphold the Natural Law, which sustains the continuity of Life. We recognize our umbilical connection to Mother Earth and understand that she is the source of life, not a resource to be exploited. We speak on behalf of all Creation today, to communicate an urgent message that man has gone too far, placing us in the state of survival.

There is no more time for discussion on preventing “Climate Change”. That opportunity has passed. “Climate Change” is here. The Air is not the same anymore. The Water is not the same anymore. The Earth is not the same anymore. The Clouds are not the same anymore. The Rain is not the same anymore. The Trees, the Plants, the Animals, Birds, Fish, Insects and all the others are not the same anymore. All that is Sacred in Life is vanishing because of our actions. The truth is we have moved beyond climate change to survival.

The COP21 Climate Summit in Paris, France is being held to contemplate strategies to prevent more than two degrees Celsius of warming. Though this is important, it is not nearly enough. To truly heal Mother Earth and ensure our survival, we must recognize that the entire natural system is one life system rather than fragmented parts. Our concern is with the acceleration of the cumulative and compounding devastation that is being wrought by the actions of people around the world. Modern living and all that it encompasses does not respect the Sacredness of Life and has ruptured the sacred seal around the Earth. This has contributed to extreme weather patterns and the melting of the Ice – the sacred cooling system of Mother Earth.

Man-made creations of vehicles, trains, railroads, airplanes, bullets, guns, weapons, spaceships, building of high rise towers, shopping malls, pipelines, roads, slaughtering of animals for recreation, the genetic alteration and pollution of our food and water sources, introduction of invasive species, drilling and digging deep into Mother Earth, and into the mountains for oil, gas, gold, silver, minerals, precious stones, coal and uranium, and all the others. Changing whole ecosystems forever by draining wetlands, changing the course of rivers, clear cutting of forests, damming rivers and flooding lands to cool nuclear reactors and natural gas plants, damming rivers for hydroelectric power, using rivers and lakes for dumping toxic chemicals and sewage, polluting the Earth and Oceans with toxic chemicals and waste and piling up and burying garbage has contaminated and polluted our Earth. All these actions and more created Climate Change.

Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples have seen first-hand the impacts these destructive actions have had on our sacred places and the natural world. We have sent out messages to the people of this world warning that “this dark time” or “this day” would come if the people did not immediately stop their destructive activities and re-align themselves in harmony and balance with the Creator’s Natural Law. Our messages of prophecy fell on deaf ears and remained unseen by eyes blinded by money, greed and power.

Today, we lack leadership. We have misplaced our trust in governmental leaders and the leaders of industry. They failed us by trying to maintain their profits, economies and their power over the people. Their lack of action to adequately and seriously work to prevent “climate change” has brought us to the state of survival, threatening the collective future of All Life. Leaders meeting in Paris have a responsibility to create real solutions and do something right for the future of all life. We strongly urge all leaders to work and consult with us, the spiritual people of the Earth, to solve the world’s problems, without war. We, the Original Caretakers of Mother Earth, offer our spiritual insight, wisdom and vision to the global community to help guide the actions needed to overcome the current threats to all life and shift from the path of self-destruction to the path of peace, harmony and balance with All Creation.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Indigenous peoples, Are they the true guardians of nature?

(Article continued from left column)

We cannot live on the Moon or Mars so people must change their behavior. We must sacrifice and move beyond our own comforts and pleasures. We must stop the damaging activities and begin working on healing the natural environment for the future of All Life. To date, the Sacred has been excluded from all discussions and decisions.

We must heal the Sacredness within ourselves, within our families, within our communities and within our Nations. We must respect, follow and uphold the Creator’s Natural Law as a foundation for all decision-making, from this point forward. This begins with a deep respect and understanding of the human life cycle. To bring sacredness back into this cycle, human beings must bring forth life in a conscious way, honoring our sacred obligation to care for that life. With the creation of life comes a responsibility to ensure the care and survival of that life throughout the lifespan of the child. When we bring forth life haphazardly and without sacredness, with no concern for how that life will be sustained, we violate our sacred responsibility and bring imbalance to Mother Earth. We must restore our balance with Creation and respect the sacredness of our sexuality, and our ability to bring new life into this world.

We must open our hearts to Love, Care and have Respect for one another and All Creation to create peace. No one can survive without clean Air, clean Water, and a clean Earth. We cannot breathe money, we cannot eat or drink money. The people of the world must recognize that man made laws have failed us and will continue to fail us, because those laws attempt to place profit and power over our sacred obligation to All Life and our shared future. Those seeking profit and power have created a business of war and destruction that now threatens the lives of billions around the world. It is time to address this spiritual illness and begin the process of healing, together.

Aboriginal Indigenous Elders and Medicine Peoples are not scientists, but we do have a connection to the source of Truth and Life, we have our “Prophecies“ and the “Signs” of disharmony. All of these sources of knowledge tell us clearly what will happen if we do not change our behavior. All of the things that are happening today are the very same things that were spoken of in the earlier days, the very things that the Creator warned would happen, if we failed to respect and follow His Natural Law. There are scientists and experts that know the scientific reality of what is going on. They know that life will vanish if we continue in the direction we are going. These scientist and experts must speak the truth to the people and not be controlled by those that provide their paychecks.

We are all responsible and we are all capable of creating a new path forward with new sources of energy that do not harm the people or the Earth. We are obligated to all take action now to protect what is left of the Sacredness of Water and Life. We can no longer wait for solutions from governmental and corporate leaders. We must all take action and responsibility to restore a healthy relationship with each other and Mother Earth. Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind. Did you think the Creator would create unnecessary people in a time of such terrible danger? Know that you yourself are essential to this World. Believe that! Understand both the blessing and the burden of that. You yourself are desperately needed to save the soul of this World. Do you think you were put here for something less?

Water is Life

We are the People of the Earth united under the Creator’s Law, with a sacred covenant to follow and uphold and a sacred responsibility to extend Life for all future generations. We are from various Nations and we are spiritually related. We will not be divided by any terminology that defines us as “recognized” or “unrecognized”, by the Government of the United States or any other body. We are expressing deep concern for our shared future and urge everyone to awaken spiritually and take action. It is critical that we come together with good minds and prayer as a global community of all faiths, to honor the Creator and the Creator’s Gift. We must work in unity to help Mother Earth heal so that she can bring back balance and harmony for all her children.

Representatives of the Council:

Chief Arvol Looking Horse
19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred
White Buffalo Calf Pipe
Spiritual Leader The Great Sioux Nation Peoples

Bobby C. Billie
Clan Leader and Spiritual Leader
Council of the Original Miccosukee
Simanolee Nation Aboriginal

Faith Spotted Eagle
Tunkan Inajin WinBrave Heart Society
Grandmother/Headswoman & Ihanktonwan Treaty Council
Ihanktonwan Dakota from the Oceti Sakowin 7 Council Fires

Leland Grass, Dine’ Traditionalist

global, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, United Nations,