L>
GPF List-Serve
September 27 - October 1, 1999
Greetings from Global Policy Forum,
"The United Nations has developed a profound appreciation for the role of the private sector," said Secretary General Kofi Annan in a letter we recently obtained, addressed to the newly-formed Business Humanitarian Forum. The SG went on to laud the private sector's "expertise, its innovative spirit, its unparalleled ability to create jobs and wealth." But some NGOs have been less than enthusiastic about this new Geneva-based enterprise, headed jointly by Sadako Ogata, the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees and John Imle, President of UNOCAL, a giant petroleum company based in Los Angeles.
The critics see the Forum as a further step in the privatization of the United Nations, bringing it under increasing pressure to conform to conservative policy positions. Critics also see the Forum as a cheap way for corporations to gain a positive public image and overcome the taint of scandals in human rights, labor relations, corruption and the like.
The board of the Forum includes both UNICEF--an advocate for children's rights--and Nestle, a company that continues to violate a UN code of conduct on infant formula designed to protect children. An international coalition of groups, headed by Corporate Watch, is calling for UNHCR and UNICEF to resign from this dubious collaboration (see the link posted below).
Among the Corporate participants in the Forum are: Lyonnaise des Eaux, Merck and Co., PSG International, Rio Tinto, Irridium, and United Technologies. United, based in Hartford (USA), is a major military contractor that builds, among other things, high-performance jet engines for military aircraft. Another member of the forum is the President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an influential conservative think-tank based in Washington DC. The hawkish Center scarcely seems a responsible UN partner on matters of humanitarian assistance.
At GPF, we will follow closely the Forum initiative, which reveals the desperate condition UN leaders face as rich governments cut their contributions to UN humanitarian funds. In recent African emergencies like the Angola civil war, the UN has raised only a small fraction of projected needs for food and basic necessities. So tens of thousands are perishing of hunger. Small wonder that UN officials have turned to private and corporate sources, in a frantic fundraising effort. If we oppose the UN's privatization, then we must also redouble our work to insure government funding, both of regular assessments and of voluntary aid and humanitarian programs.
The Secretary General, in his recent report to the General Assembly has emphasized the UN's financial problem and noted ruefully how it undermines the organization's credibility. In the field of peacekeeping, he points out, "human and financial resources allotted for new operations have not kept pace with increased demands and are at times barely adequate." It is "crucial that this situation be addressed with energy and resolve if the United Nations is to avoid a cycle in which expectations exceed capacity, brining inevitable disappointment and a decline in confidence in the potential of the Organization." He is speaking primarily about the United States, of course, but his concern applies to most rich countries, which have ignored the humanitarian crises, while stepping up a cynical rhetoric of "concern."
An article from the Washington Post in our offerings this week provides an excellent example of the UN's dilemma. The Post writer cites the East Timor crisis as yet another example of UN "failure." A "new debate" is said to be emerging in Washington over whether the UN is fit to address global emergencies (and by implication whether another organ, such as NATO, is better-suited for the purpose).
During the week on Capitol Hill, the US Congress carried on its traditional autumn maneuvers over payment of the UN's dues and arrears. This year, the well-bankrolled Ted Turner forces are at work, through the Better World Campaign, to promote the Helms-Biden accord as a basis for Congressional action. As we have often mentioned, Helms-Biden is a poisonous and unacceptable bill, that would pay only part of the US arrears and make payment conditional on dozens of restrictions that the UN cannot possibly meet. The United Nations Association-USA, to its credit, has again stated its clear opposition to the accord, in spite of the sweet smell of Turner's millions.
As governments from Bonn to Washington shrink from global responsibilities, we see shadowy new actors emerging, such as "offshore" havens for money laundering, corruption, and corporate irresponsibility. An article posted this week describes the Isle of Man and its role in a vast scam to steal money from Russia. Lcated between England and Ireland, the tiny Isle of Man is part of Europe but mysteriously outside the sovereign control of any European nation or financial authority. Obviously, it could not exist without the connivance of authorities in London, who chose to turn a blind eye to this Crown territory and its radically deregulated financial environment.
Around UN headquarters, foreign ministers have returned home and security has eased. At GPF, we are in a particularly good mood as this fall season gets under way because usage of our web site is breaking new records. We are headed towards eighty thousand weekly hits and a yearly total that will comfortably pass the two million mark, doubling the record of a year ago. For many weeks, we have been the "Featured Site" of the Institute of Global Communication, the progressive internet service provider and we are glad to learn that government delegations at the UN are increasingly turning to the site as a source for their own policy work.
