Tag Archives: United Nations

UN: National Human Rights Institutions will play a more strategic role in education

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article from the Danish Institute for Human Rights

A new UN resolution on Human Rights Education emphasizes the strategic role of National Human Rights Institutions concerning the promotion of human rights education.

humanrights

The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed on a new resolution on Human Rights Education and Training at the Human Rights Council’s Thirty-first session this spring. The resolution reconfirms and supplements state parties’ commitment to national implementation of international standards for human rights education five years after the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training from 2011. Due to a timely and targeted effort and a fair portion of good luck, The Danish Institute for Human Rights manged – through the international coordinating committee of the human rights institutions (GANHRI) – to give NHRIs remarkable space for manoeuvring on the educational scene.

Human rights education is important in order for children, youth and adults to know their rights and duties and to respect and uphold the rights of others. Moreover, it’s important that duty bearers such as teachers, police, social workers and other civil servants who act on behalf of the state, know their duties to respect, protect and fulfil the state’s human rights obligations whether behind the desk formulating policies or acting on the ground with vulnerable citizens.
The new resolution text reads that states “Recognizes the important role of national human rights institutions in promoting effective policies on human rights education and training, and calls upon them to contribute further to the implementation of human rights education programmes”.

(Article continued in the right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

What is the state of human rights in the world today?

(Article continued from the left column)

“This is the first time we see a resolution on education which stresses the strategic role of NHRIs on promoting effective policies for human rights education and training. Focus has shifted from NHRI assisting in conducting education programmes on human rights, to assisting in the development of effective policies at the structural level. In other words, this reflects the shift in focus amongst NHRIs to work across their NHRI mandates such as coordination, giving advice and monitoring on human rights education. They will thereby have a more far reaching and sustainable impact on the education sector”, says Cecilia Decara, Senior Adviser at The Danish Institute for Human Rights who has worked on impacting the resolution together with Olga Ege, who is also a Senior Advisor at the institute.

The new paragraph also have a deep impact on the work of NHRIs, says Cecilia Decara: “It reflects that there is a need for NHRIs to work both on the structural level influencing the adoption of effective policies for human rights education, and also contribute to the implementation of programmes. It’s the conjunction of working at both levels, which qualifies the monitoring and follow up process e.g. giving advice to duty bearers.”
The new resolution will be helpful to set a further framework for our advice and network on human rights education with less experienced NHRIs, Cecilia Decara adds.

The UN Human Rights Council also decided to “convene at its thirty-third session a high-level panel discussion to mark the fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training”. This high-level panel discussion will focus on good practice and challenges of the implementation of the declaration.

(Thank you to the Global Campaign for Peace Education for calling this article to our attention)

U.N. passes landmark resolution condemning internet shutdowns

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Press release from Access Now

Today [July 1] the United Nations Human Rights Council agreed by consensus to a resolution supporting human rights online, despite efforts by hostile states to eliminate key provisions in the text. The landmark document specifically condemns internet shutdowns and renews 2012 and 2014 resolutions that declared, unequivocally, that human rights apply online just as they do offline.

internet
(click on photo to enlarge)

“The U.N. has boldly spoken against the pressing problem of internet shutdowns. This unanimous statement by the world’s highest human rights body should give governments pause before they order blocking, throttling, and other barriers to information,” said Peter Micek, Global Policy and Legal Counsel at Access Now. “Development and human rights protections are strengthened in tandem when networks remain open, secure, and stable. All stakeholders, from telcos to activists to judges, must band together to demand an end to shutdowns.”

The resolution faced opposition by a small number of influential member states who attempted to water down the text. Access Now joined a group of civil society organizations to urge Human Rights Council member states in a letter to pass the resolution by consensus, citing its importance for bridging the gender digital divide; advancing the Sustainable Development Goals; and incorporating a human rights-based approach into expanding internet connectivity. As the letter notes, the Human Rights Council had twice previously affirmed by consensus that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.”

(Article continued in right column)

Latest Discussion

Is Internet freedom a basic human right?

(Article continued from left column)

“This resolution marks a major milestone in the fight against internet shutdowns. The international community has listened to the voices of civil society — many of whom have suffered under shutdowns themselves — and laudably pushed back on this pernicious practice,” said Deji Olukotun, Senior Global Advocacy Manager at Access Now. “Shutdowns harm everyone and allow human rights crackdowns to happen in the dark, with impunity. Citizens can’t participate fully in democratic discourse during elections. The Human Rights Council’s principled stance is a crucial step in telling the world that shutdowns need to stop.”

The #KeepitOn campaign is supported by nearly 90 organizations from 41 countries around the globe who are pushing back on internet shutdowns at every level, from governments to telcos to tech companies to everyday internet users. The full list of organizations is available on the campaign website:https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton/

The U.N. resolution follows a recent shutdown in Turkey surrounding bombing attacks, one in Bahrain around protests, and another in Algeria to prevent cheating on school exams. Notably, police in Ghana have backtracked from claims that they intend to block social media during upcoming elections in November 2016, after an uproar from civil society groups, politicians, and the U.N.

Last year, Access Now recorded at least 15 internet shutdowns around the world, and has already recorded 20 shutdowns in the first half of 2016.

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

Banning Nukes: Divergence and Consensus at the UN Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpts from an article by by Xanthe Hall for the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

. . . So what did happen [at the May session of the Open-Ended Working Group – OWEG]? For the first time in many years a large number of states decided that they did not want consensus but confrontation on the issue of the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons. Tired with decades of patient discussions on micro-measures, principally for non-proliferation, and led by Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Zambia, states are now going for broke [Editor’s note: All of these countries are participants in nuclear-weapon-free zones].

oewg
ICAN protest in front of Australian embassy during the OEWG. Photo: ICAN [International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons]
Click on photo to enlarge

Despite the prospect that the nuclear-armed states are unlikely to attend, they have submitted a proposal to the OEWG to “convene a Conference in 2017, open to all States, international organizations and civil society, to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons” (ban treaty) and “to report to the United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to be convened no later than 2018 … on the progress made on the negotiation of such an instrument.”

On the final day of the OEWG resounding majority support for prohibition and the commencement of negotiations was repeatedly expressed. States are convinced that with this approach they can bring pressure to bear on the nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states to begin genuinely considering negotiating the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. . . .

The beauty of a stand-alone ban treaty is in its clarity, especially in terms of the moral imperative. It would leave no room for doubt as to the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons and would place any state that relies on nuclear weapons for their defence outside international law, if enough states were to support such a norm. Its entry into force could not be held hostage by nuclear-armed states reticence to ratify, as the CTBT has been. Given the present anger about the arrogance of the nuclear-armed states refusal to engage with the nuclear-free states which has been made explicit both through the boycott of the OEWG, but also through the ever hardening rhetoric of the nuclear umbrella states, it remains the most attractive option for states to pursue at the UN General Assembly in October. In this way, they can continue to put maximum pressure on the nuclear-armed states to take them seriously as the majority and therefore to respect their rights and security needs.

This debate has as much to do with redefining world order and democracy as it has to do with disarmament. As Mexico pointed out: there is nothing to be said against consensus when it is fair and reflects the truth. But when divergence exists and states with more power due to nuclear weapons wield a veto over the majority then there is nuclear oppression. Now the majority is rising up to liberate itself from this yoke with persuasive and well-thought out arguments for a comprehensive ban treaty. After more than twenty years of attending these often repetitive and boring diplomatic debates, I can hardly wait for the next one.

Question related to this article:

Calls for UN Security council reform at Istanbul summit

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Handan Kazanci & Ilgin Karlidag, Anadolou Agency, Turkey

World leaders in Istanbul have called for an urgent change to the United Nations Security Council, limiting the power of veto by its five permanent members, including Russia.

ArabLeague
Ahmed Ben Hali with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Click on photo to enlarge

Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hali told the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on Tuesday: “Reform of the UN Security Council is urgently needed. “The use of veto should be rationalized. There should be a departure from the approach of management of crisis … to depart from double standards in dealing with issues of peace and security and to prosecute those committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Ben Hali’s comments echoed those of summit host and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who on Monday said the UN Security Council must “urgently” change in order to fulfill its functions.

Each of the permanent members – Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States – have the power of veto, allowing them to block draft council resolutions – even when these have broad international support.

Erdogan called for the veto by the council’s five permanent members to be limited, a move which Russia – a permanent member of the UN Security Council – is against.

In 2012, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. The move sparked criticism worldwide and prevented substantial UN-backed action with regards to the Syrian civil war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declined his invitation to the Istanbul summit, the humanitarian news agency IRIN reported on May 10. In his place, Putin sent a delegation, whose head, Russian Deputy Emergencies Minister Sergey Voronov, said on Tuesday that his country opposes any limitations to the power of veto by any permanent member of the Security Council.

According to James Nixey, the head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at London-based Chatham House, Putin’s non-attendance at the summit is not surprising. “Vladimir Putin would be rather embarrassed at a world humanitarian summit considering the criticism his regime takes for its aggressive behavior abroad and its human rights record at home,” told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday. “Russia views its veto as pure power, and there is zero chance that it would endorse any move to give up wielding such power, which it has used so effectively in the past,” he added.

Criticized internationally for its role in backing the Assad regime, Russia said in a statement obtained by IRIN that it “refuses to be bound by the results of a process it says failed to include its views”.

Question for this article:

United Nations High Level Thematic Debate on Peace and Security: Closing remarks

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the webpage of the the President of the United Nations General Assembly

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. We have come to the end of what I believe has been a truly enriching discussion on the UN’s role in maintaining global peace and security. I would like to thank all those who contributed so actively to this event including our speakers, those of you visiting from capitals, our interpreters, colleagues in DGACM, civil society representatives and of course, you, the membership.

unga

Discussions these past few days demonstrate that across the membership, there is a feeling that we are at a watershed moment in terms of both the challenges we are facing in maintaining international peace and security and the way we must tackle those challenges.

Taken together, the recommendations included in the three UN reviews and other relevant processes, provide us with a very solid basis from which to move forward.

Indeed, through this debate we have identified some of the key themes and connectors between these reviews, but what we need now is sustained political engagement and actual implementation.

Shortly after this meeting, I will therefore produce a summary of the key messages from this debate which I will share with both member states, the current Secretary-General and Secretary-General candidates.

I also intend to invite the Secretary-General to brief the membership on how the UN is jointly implementing the relevant recommendations emerging from all three reviews and to consider producing a possible roadmap to that effect.

Among the key messages and my own personal reflections are the following:

First, on the need to rebuild trust.

The UN’s inability to protect civilians in conflicts; the disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peace keepers; the lack of adequate tools to respond to complex conflicts, to international terrorism or to global challenges with a clear security dimension, have undermined global confidence in the UN’s role in maintaining peace and security.

On this seventieth anniversary, therefore, we need to enhance the trust on which institutional cooperation is build.

Trust between member states, large and small and between member states and the UN, that we will adhere the commitments of the UN Charter to ensure our collective security; that we will uphold our obligations under international humanitarian law; that we will rejuvenate the ability of the United Nations to confront new and evolving threats.

(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)

Second, on prevention.

As Leymah Gbowee reminded us – if we spend peanuts on prevention and trillions on war, then we cannot expect to achieve peace.

Greater resources, analysis, research should therefore be dedicated to the UN’s diplomatic and preventive functions.

Furthermore, the search for conflict resolution whether through UN managed missions, efforts pursued with regional organizations or multi-national action authorized by the security council, must be ground in an overall political framework.

Third, on the role of women. Practically everyone agrees that women must be more involved right across the continuum of sustaining peace.

But agreement is not enough. Leadership and targeted steps to make this happen are needed now.

Similarly tools must be developed to place communities at the heart of peace operations.

Fifth, in today’s world the UN must increasingly look to build partnerships at political and operational level with regional and sub-regional organizations; with other multi-lateral partners, with civil society and with the private sector.

Sixth, we have to reduce fragmentation across the three UN pillars notably by enhancing the Peacebuilding Commission’s role and by taking the SDGs as our collective vision and guide. Greater efforts should also be made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN, including at Headquarters.

Seventh, in relation to the fight against radicalism and terrorism, consideration should be given to identifying concrete ways for the UN to effectively contribute to the international efforts to counter terrorist entities when encountered in mission environments.

Eighth, large-scale displacement may be a consequence of instability or feed into new or existing tensions. Properly responding to these flows in the longer term demands that we focus on addressing the underlying root causes.

And finally, taking office on 1 January 2017, the next Secretary-General will

need to foster support from the UN Security Council and all Member States’ to advance peace, justice and security across our world. In particular, she or he will need support to implement the practical recommendations contained in the three reviews.

_________

To conclude, let us remember that the current or the future Secretary-General can only do so much.

Ultimately, the shift we need – in mind-set, in our financing and partnership mechanisms, in our systems and operations – will only happen if it is supported and driven by governments and leaders around the world

I hope that you and your leaders will rise up to this challenge.

I thank you again for your participation and continued support.

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.