The corner-stone of the UN headquarters building was laid on UN Day at a special open-air General Assembly meeting held on 24 October 1949. Credit: UN Photo

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Oct 13 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations turned 80 this year. What should have been a moment of pride and celebration at the high-level session of the UN General Assembly in September 2025 turned instead into an occasion of bitter irony.

At the UN Headquarters in New York—fittingly located in the host country that once helped found and champion the organization—the loudest fireworks came not from commemoration but condemnation.

The President of the United States, boasting that he had “ended seven wars in seven months while the UN did nothing,” derided the very purpose of the institution. He dismissed climate change as a hoax, renounced the Sustainable Development Goals, and mocked multilateralism as an obsolete bureaucracy.

Kul Chandra Gautam

An Imperfect but Indispensable Institution

The UN’s failures are glaring and often heartbreaking. As the wars in Ukraine and Gaza rage on—each aided and abetted by two Permanent Members of its Security Council—the organization looks helpless, capable only of issuing pleas and providing meager humanitarian aid.

Its impotence is evident again in Haiti’s gang warfare, Myanmar’s and Sudan’s military atrocities, Afghanistan’s gender apartheid, and North Korea’s saber-rattling, just to name a few.

It is easy to blame “the UN,” but the real culprits are its Member States—especially the five veto-wielding powers of the Security Council, who too often place narrow national interests above global security. Many others strangle the UN with grand resolutions and lofty mandates but fail to fund them.

Hiding behind sovereignty, many governments oppress their citizens, foster corruption, and neglect their global commitments. Meanwhile, the richest nations, capable of lifting millions from poverty, pour trillions of dollars into their militaries.

Still, despite its flaws and frustrations, humanity cannot afford to abandon the United Nations. The challenges of our time— poverty, climate change, pandemics, terrorism, cybercrime, and mass displacement—are “problems without passports.” No nation, however powerful, can solve them alone. Only collective action through a multilateral system can address the interconnected crises that define the 21st century.

For smaller or poorer nations, the UN is an amplifier of voice and leverage. Acting together, they can negotiate more fairly with the powerful. For big and powerful nations, the UN provides legitimacy and a framework for cooperation that unilateral action can never achieve.

The UN, for all its imperfections, remains a mirror of our world: it reflects both our aspirations and our divisions. Its hypocrisy is our hypocrisy; its failures are our failures. Resolutions without resolve and promises without action are the true reasons for its ineffectiveness.

Yet amid the cynicism, it is worth recalling that the UN and its agencies have earned 14 Nobel Peace Prizes—more than any other institution in history. That is no small testament to its contributions to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, human rights, and development.

But it cannot rest on past laurels. If the UN is to remain relevant, it must transform itself to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world.

Time for Tough Love and Real Reform

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has launched the UN@80 Initiative to sharpen the system’s impact and reaffirm its purpose. A recent system-wide Mandate Implementation Review uncovered a staggering reality: over 30% of mandates created since 1990 are still active, and 86% have no sunset clause. Many require the Secretariat and specialized agencies to carry them out “within existing resources”—an impossible task.

Hundreds of overlapping resolutions and reports clog the UN’s machinery, sustained by bureaucratic inertia and Member States’ appetite for endless paperwork. Too many meetings produce too little action.

Technology now offers a way out. Artificial intelligence can consolidate and streamline reporting, freeing up resources for real work. Likewise, the frequency of governing board meetings—three times a year for agencies like UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UN Women, and WFP—could be reduced without sacrificing accountability.

Facing financial crisis, political hostility from major donors, and a proliferation of unfunded mandates, the UN has no choice but to rationalize its structure. Some agencies will have to merge or move their operations from costly headquarters in New York and Europe to lower-cost locations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

UNICEF has already taken the lead with its “Future Focus Initiative,” with plans to cut headquarters budgets by 25% and relocate 70% of its staff to more affordable hubs such as Bangkok, Nairobi, or Istanbul. Such moves can reduce expenses, bring the organization closer to the field, and align it better with the realities of today’s world.

At the same time, the UN must take advantage of the tremendous growth in professional capacity within developing countries. Many of these nations now produce highly qualified experts who can serve effectively—and at lower cost—than expatriates from the Global North.

UNICEF pioneered this decades ago by hiring national professionals in its field offices. Expanding this practice system-wide would not only save money but also strengthen local ownership and credibility.

These are sensible, short-term measures. But they only scratch the surface. The real test of leadership lies in tackling the deep structural reforms that have eluded the UN for decades.

The Hard Reforms: Power, Accountability, and Money

1. Democratizing the UN

The UN’s mission is to promote peace, democracy, development and human rights—but its own structure remains profoundly undemocratic. The Security Council’s five permanent members hold veto power that can paralyze action even in the face of genocide or aggression.

That provision might have made sense in 1945, but it is indefensible in 2025. Yet changing it requires the consent of those same five powers. Only enlightened leadership in those countries and sustained public pressure globally can bring about reform.

Democratization must also extend to how the UN’s top leaders are chosen. The Secretary-General and heads of major agencies are still selected through opaque bargains among powerful nations. These posts are often “reserved” for certain nationalities rather than awarded on merit. The UN must move toward a transparent, merit-based system if it hopes to regain credibility.

2. Reviving the “Responsibility to Protect”

Too many regimes hide behind the shield of sovereignty to oppress their own people. The world leaders agreed at the UN Millennium Summit in 2005 that when a government fails to protect its citizens—or worse, becomes their tormentor—the international community has a Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The 2024 Pact for the Future reaffirmed that principle.

But R2P has rarely been applied because powerful nations invoke it selectively—protecting their allies and condemning their rivals. True leadership would mean upholding R2P universally, without double standards.

3. Rebalancing Priorities: Disarmament and Development

The UN was founded to prevent war. Yet worldwide military spending now exceeds $2.7 trillion a year—nearly $7.5 billion every day. NATO countries are expanding their defense budgets even as social spending shrinks and commitments to the poor are cut.

This is moral madness. Humanity needs fewer weapons and more investment in sustainable development. Redirecting even a fraction of global military spending toward the Sustainable Development Goals would do more to secure peace than all the bombs in the world.

4. Fixing the UN’s Finances

Money and power often speak louder than moral authority at the UN. The United States contributes about a quarter of the UN’s regular budget—and uses that leverage to exert disproportionate influence. Other large donors do the same.

In 1985, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme proposed a simple remedy: no single country should pay—or be allowed to pay—more than 10% of the UN’s budget. That would reduce dependence on any one donor while requiring modest increases from others. Ironically, Washington opposed it, fearing it might lose influence.

Reviving that proposal today could help depoliticize UN financing and make it more sustainable. The UN should also expand partnerships with private philanthropy, foundations, and innovative sources such as taxes on global financial transactions or the use of the global commons. Such mechanisms could liberate the organization from the recurring hostage drama of budget threats and withheld dues.

A Hopeful Horizon

History rarely moves in straight lines. Progress often comes two steps forward and one step back. Today, the post-World War II international order is fraying, and populist nationalism is resurgent. But in the long arc of human history, the movement toward global cooperation is irreversible.

We are slowly—but surely—evolving from primitive tribalism to modern nationalism and onward toward shared global solidarity. Multilateralism may be under siege, but it will rise again, reimagined and renewed, because our interdependence leaves no alternative.

I take hope from the energy and courage of Generation Z across the world—from Nepal and Bangladesh to Kenya, Indonesia, Morocco, and beyond. Young people are challenging corruption, inequality, and authoritarianism, and they see themselves increasingly as global citizens, connected through technology and united by shared aspirations rather than divided by borders or dogma.

If we can offer these young citizens opportunity and justice instead of inequality and despair, we will see the dawn of a more cooperative, humane, and equitable world. That, in turn, will breathe new life into the United Nations—still imperfect, still indispensable, and still humanity’s best hope for promoting peace and prosperity.

Kul Chandra Gautam, a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, is the author of ‘Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of United Nations’.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Carter was a man of decency and integrity who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy. Credit: Courtesy Kul Chandra Gautam
 
Former US President Jimmy Carter, a leader of impeccable integrity and decency who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy worldwide. I recall his contribution to the peace process in Nepal and his leadership in combatting deadly diseases in Africa.
 
Jimmy Carter enthusiastically supported the child survival campaign led by UNICEF. He had nominated Jim Grant to be the Executive Director of UNICEF and said that it was one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 2 2025 (IPS)

Former American President Jimmy Carter was a man of peace and principles. He presided over a tumultuous period in American history from 1977 to 1981, working hard to restore trust in government after the Watergate scandal and the divisive era of the Vietnam War. He brokered a landmark peace deal between Israel and Egypt and negotiated a historic treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to Panama.

Carter, a champion of human rights both in the US and around the world, passed away at 100 on December 29, 2024.

More than any recent American president, Carter pressed gently but firmly on autocratic regimes worldwide to respect human rights and the rule of law. When he led the country with immense moral authority, it encouraged many human rights advocates, while dictators worried about the US sanctions.

At home, Carter got many progressive legislations passed in areas of consumer protection, welfare reforms and the appointment of women and minorities in America’s judiciary. However, he had difficulties managing the US economy, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And in the 1980 Presidential election, when he lost his bid to Ronald Reagan, his active political career came to an end.

Kul Chandra Gautam

With his team, he worked tirelessly to help resolve conflicts, monitor elections and improve human health through campaigns to eliminate several neglected diseases afflicting the poorest people worldwide, particularly in Africa.

“For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development,” Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Links with UNICEF and Nepal

Carter greatly admired UNICEF Executive Director James Grant and strongly supported the UNICEF-led global child survival and development campaign. Further, the organisation was a key partner in the Carter-led global campaign to eradicate a debilitating disease called dracunculiasis or Guinea-worm disease.

My first substantive meeting with Carter took place on August 3, 1995, at an event in Washington, DC, organised jointly by the Carter Center, USAID, WHO and UNICEF to mark the 95 percent reduction in Guinea worm cases worldwide and to recommit to its total eradication. I had a long and fruitful discussion with Carter on strengthening our collaboration in the global campaign to eradicate Guinea-worm disease.

In February 2004, I joined President Carter and WHO Director-General JW Lee on a 3-day field visit to observe and advocate for Guinea-worm eradication in Ghana. I learned about Carter’s humble personality, deep commitment to many worthy causes and impressive advocacy skills.

In our informal interactions, we often talked about Nepal.

Carter’s involvement in Nepal

Carter visited Nepal twice to observe Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Elections. He advised Nepali leaders, including the Election Commission, based on his worldwide experience and credibility in observing elections and conflict resolution. Over the years, the Carter Center produced several reports on Nepal dealing with issues related to the peace process, challenges in drafting Nepal’s Constitution and other important issues of social justice and equity.

I instinctively supported Carter’s noble efforts to promote peace, democracy and development. However, like everybody else, Carter was human and fallible, and some aspects of the Carter Center’s reports on Nepal were flawed.

In particular, Carter’s hasty verdict that Nepal’s first Constituent Assembly election was free, fair and peaceful ignored the fact that there was an unusually high degree of intimidation in many rural constituencies. The non-Maoist parties’ candidates were prevented from campaigning, and voters were threatened with physical violence for weeks preceding the actual voting.

There were well-intentioned but inaccurate analyses of Nepal’s socio-political dynamics by the Carter Center, the International Crisis Group, and even the United Nations. In their effort to appear “balanced and even-handed”, they gave the undue benefit of the doubt to the progressive-sounding rhetoric of the Maoists, ignoring their violent and corrupt practices.

Carter witnessed the insincerity and duplicity of the Maoists when they initially welcomed the 2013 election for the second Constituent Assembly but then denounced it as rigged and unfair when the results showed that they had suffered a humiliating loss.

Unlike during the first CA election, Carter took the necessary time to analyse the second CA election better. He left somewhat sobered by a deeper understanding of the Maoists’ opportunistic and undemocratic nature.

A man of faith and integrity

Jimmy Carter was a deeply religious and spiritual man who often turned to his faith during his political career. But as a progressive man and defender of human rights and gender equality, he found himself at odds with his Southern Baptist Church when it opposed gender equality, citing a few selected verses from the Bible that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and must not be allowed to serve as priests.

Carter protested and took a painful decision to sever ties with his Baptist Church, saying that parts of its rigid doctrine violated the basic premises of his Christian faith. He wrote to his fellow Baptists and published an op-ed article “Losing my religion for equality”.

Carter had a philosophical and spiritual perspective on death. As he suffered from multiple bouts of cancer treatment, he remarked, “I didn’t ask God to let me live, but I just asked God to give me a proper attitude toward death. I found that I was absolutely and completely at ease with death”.

May Carter’s noble soul rest in eternal peace.

Source: Kathmandu Post, Nepal

Kul Chandra Gautam is a distinguished diplomat, development professional, and a former senior official of the United Nations. Currently, he serves on the Boards of several international and national organizations, charitable foundations and public-private partnerships. Previously, he served in senior managerial and leadership positions with the UN in several countries and continents in a career spanning over three decades. As a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, he has extensive experience in international diplomacy, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres briefs reporters on Ukraine. The latest developments in Ukraine are testing “the entire international system”, he said at a media stakeout, adding “we must pass this test.” “Our world is facing the biggest global peace and security crisis in recent years – certainly in my tenure as Secretary-General,” he added. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 22 2022 (IPS)

In an opinion piece published in PassBlue on 15 March 2022, historian Stephen Schlesinger asked, “Where is the UN’s Guterres?” as Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war on Ukraine has been dominating the world’s headline news.

Schlesinger is a good friend and close observer of the UN, and author of the award-winning book: “Act of Creation: The Founding of The United Nations”. Like Schlesinger, many of us who are strong supporters of the UN and who watch the deliberations at the world body closely, do know the answer to his rhetorical question about the whereabouts of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

He is currently between a rock and hard place faced with the blatant violation of the UN Charter by a powerful Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. Many of us consider Guterres as a highly qualified statesman and the world’s top diplomat with impeccable credentials and a sober leadership style.

Understandably, he had to be extra cautious and could not take bold initiatives during his first five-year term, as he had to tread carefully in a world dominated by an erratic and dangerous Donald Trump in the White House, a devious Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, a resurgent Xi Jinping in Beijing and several other populist demagogues and autocrats like Jair Bolsonaro, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Boris Johnson with their antipathy towards multilateralism.

Now in his second term, Guterres is freed from the fear of not being re-elected and can afford to be more courageous and visibly proactive when the stakes for the UN’s credibility and effectiveness are high, given the threat to international peace and security posed by Putin’s war of choice in Ukraine.

To his credit, Guterres did not mince words in deploring the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the UN Charter both at the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. He even warned that the prospect of nuclear war was now back within the realm of possibility. And, he pleaded with Putin to stop the war and offered his good offices to help resolve the crisis peacefully.

It is understood that Guterres has also been in close contact with leaders of China, France, Germany, India, Israel and Turkey, among others, on mediation efforts to bring an end to this horrific war. This is all commendable.

But in an era of the 24/7 news cycle and the pervasive social media, the UN Chief’s remarks from his UN perch and his quiet diplomacy with influential member-states are necessary but not sufficient. The world’s general public – and especially the people of Ukraine and Russia – don’t see the UN leader being visibly proactive outside the glasshouse of UN headquarters in New York.

Guterres has been outspoken in highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine and has taken a leadership role to mobilize international support for humanitarian assistance.

In an opinion piece entitled “War on Ukraine also an Assault on World’s Most Vulnerable People and Countries” published by the IPS News on 15 March 2022, Guterres warned about the grave consequences and negative ripple effects of the war in Ukraine on the world economy, and in particular, the developing countries.

His plea to world leaders to resist the temptation of increasing military budgets at the expense of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and climate action, are also right on the mark.

The UN’s humanitarian agencies like UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, etc. are doing a heroic job to provide life-saving assistance both inside Ukraine and in its neighboring countries deluged with millions of refugees. These UN agencies and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have honed their skills to mobilize resources and implement humanitarian assistance quite effectively over the decades.

Where the S-G’s leadership is needed most and is being tested publicly is not so much on humanitarian assistance, but in preventing and ending wars that are the root causes of the humanitarian crisis.

The global public sees and judges the S-G’s effectiveness on what it considers as his job number #1, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Guterres is no longer the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, but the world’s top diplomat and guardian of international peace and security.

There have been many wars in the 76-year history of the UN, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine stands as the gravest challenge to the post-World War II international order as one of its guardians and a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council has struck at the heart of its architecture by threatening a nuclear conflagration and a potential World War III in the ramparts of the Second World War.

The UN has played an important role in mediating peace processes, organizing humanitarian ceasefires, helping to maintain peace through peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions in many inter-country and regional wars and conflicts.

But it has so far appeared helpless when the vital interests of its most powerful veto-wielding superpowers like Russia and the US are involved.

The Big Powers – the P-5 – often see the S-G as merely the “Chief Administrative Officer” of the UN, and as such subservient to world leaders, foreign ministers and ambassadors as the “governors” of the organization in the GA and SC.

However, “We the peoples of the world” regard the S-G as a world leader and the world’s top diplomat in his/her own right. After all, according to Chapter XV of the UN Charter, the Secretariat led by the S-G is akin to the principal organs of the United Nations. And the Charter gives the S-G sufficient leeway to take initiatives.

Apropos the old debate on whether the S-G is merely a “Secretary” or a “General”, the world’s Big Powers may see him as just a “Secretary” but “we the peoples of the world” wish to see him as an unarmed, Pacifist “General” and a world leader.

In an era of shuttle diplomacy, when we see Macron, Scholz, Johnson, Erdogan, Naftali Bennet, Blinken, et. al. conferring in Moscow, Brussels, Berlin and Washington, why don’t we see Guterres there, or hear about him calling or writing to Putin, Biden, Xi Jinping and Zelensky?

If the leaders of Poland, Czech Republic and Slovenia dare to risk visiting Kyiv in the midst of shelling to show their solidarity, surely Guterres, the world’s top peacemaker and coordinator of humanitarian assistance should be seen there too.

Guterres’ invisibility seriously undermines his and the UN’s credibility at this time of the greatest international security crisis since the founding of the UN in 1945, and certainly during his tenure as S-G.

I am pretty sure that in similar circumstances some of his more courageous predecessors like Dag Hammarskjold, Kofi Annan and even the otherwise quiet U Thant and the voluble Boutros Boutros-Ghali would have been more visible and outspoken.

We are all mindful of the limitations and constraints that the UN leader faces in dealing with crises involving strong vested interests of the world’s veto-wielding superpowers. The S-G can do nothing about changing the veto-power structure agreed and understandable in a different era, but which has now become an indelible birth defect of the UN Charter.

However, in the case of the Ukraine crisis, the S-G can and ought to be bolder and visibly more proactive, taking strength from the fact that the aggressor power is completely isolated and has become a virtual pariah.

Not even a single other member-state in the Security Council supported Putin’s justification for his attack on Ukraine. And in the “Uniting for Peace” resolution at the UN General Assembly, an overwhelming majority of 141 states denounced the Russian invasion and called for immediate end to the war, with the aggressor getting the support of only four notoriously autocratic pariah regimes.

These UN resolutions, and the world’s public opinion, give valuable moral mandate for the S-G to play a proactive and visible role as the world’s premier peacemaker.

I have no doubt about Guterres’ competence and commitment. But sometimes I worry about his (lack of) courage. Even if his efforts fail, he should dare to go down in history as someone who took the utmost risk for peace, rather than someone who was too timid to the point of making the UN appear like totally impotent or irrelevant.

There is always a place for behind the scene, quiet diplomacy in international relations. But that is not good enough for the UN’s credibility in this day and age when the world’s eyes are on Ukraine and people all over the world are asking “Where is the UN?” when its very raison d’être is being rudely challenged by one of its major founding member-states.

Kul Gautam is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN; Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF; and author of “My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations”. (www.kulgautam.org).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kul Gautam, UNICEF Regional Director for Asia-Pacific meeting Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon in 1998.

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 8 2021 (IPS)

The 1 February 2021 coup d’état by Myanmar’s military (Tatmadaw), has been widely condemned by all the world’s democratic leaders, human rights activists and genuine friends of the people of Myanmar around the globe. In an unusual manner for the world’s top diplomat, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has gone so far as to urge the world community to make sure that Myanmar’s military coup fails.

Like many other world leaders, he urged the military leadership to respect the will of the people of Myanmar as expressed in the 8 November 2020 general elections that gave Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) Party a resounding 83 % of the popular vote. Guterres called the reversal of those elections “absolutely unacceptable”.

Notwithstanding the Secretary-General’s strong call, the most powerful organ of the UN, the Security Council, issued a mild statement that failed to condemn the coup because of strong objection by China, a veto-wielding member of the Council with significant economic interests in Myanmar. Reflecting the Beijing government’s views, China’s state news agency Xinhua referred to the military coup simply as a “major Cabinet reshuffle”.

Given the potential veto by China and Russia (both permanent members of the Security Council that sell huge quantities of arms to Tatmadaw), it is unlikely that the Council will muster the courage or the unanimity needed to intervene or impose stern sanctions against the military junta.

However, even an indirect condemnation of the coup and a call for restoration of democratic institutions and respect for people’s human rights sends a clear signal of solidarity of the international community to the people of Myanmar to fight for their rights.

Donald Trump’s impact

The ostensible reason for the Tatmadaw’s putsch is their objection to apparent electoral irregularities in the November 2020 elections in which the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) suffered a humiliating defeat.

Coincidentally, the Tatmadaw’s charges of massive electoral fraud in Myanmar sound very similar to those of the former US President Donald Trump’s discredited claims of similar electoral fraud in the US presidential election. Indeed, the Trump administration’s cuddling of authoritarian regimes may have given some encouragement to the Burmese junta.

The junta was certainly aware that its power grab would be condemned by the new Biden administration in the US, the European Union and other democratic governments, and human rights groups around the world. But knowing it can count on strong support of China and Russia,
and tacit approval or acquiescence of its ASEAN neighbors and India too, seems to have given it the confidence that it can afford to withstand the opprobrium by the rest of the world.

The fact that Aung San Suu Kyi’s international stature has greatly diminished in recent years was probably another factor in the military’s calculation to dare to overthrow her.

However, it is difficult to fathom what Tatmadaw’s long-term calculations and strategy are. For an army that is despised by a large majority of the people of Myanmar, because of its decades of oppression and corruption that has gravely retarded the country’s development, it already enjoys a very favorable position under the current power-sharing arrangement with Suu Kyi.

It can appoint 25 percent of the members of parliament. It controls three of the most powerful government ministries in charge of national security. It is allowed to carry out very lucrative business ventures that has made many army generals among the richest people in the country.

The current power-sharing arrangement is such that if the elected government fails, the blame would go largely to its leader Aung San Suu Kyi, but if it succeeds the Tatmadaw too could claim some credit and brag that the Myanmar model of power-sharing works!

It is, therefore, baffling to figure out why the military would give up such a sweet-heart deal in pursuit of an uncertain future knowing that the putsch would push the country into the ranks of a pariah regime once again.

The speculation is that either the Tatmadaw leadership was fearful of the NLD government clipping its current prerogatives by attempting to amend the army-imposed constitution or more likely the top General Min Aung Hlaing’s inflated personal ambitions led him to make this pre-emptive strike.

Outfoxing each other

A decade ago, Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi negotiated a power-sharing deal. After Suu Kyi’s NLD Party scored a sweeping victory in the 2015 elections, Myanmar became the democratic darling of the world. It heralded the end of Myanmar’s international isolation, the blossoming of a relatively free media, as well as an explosion of social media.

Young Burmese flocked to the Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, followed by their elders soon afterwards. Tourism started flourishing. Foreign investment, particularly from neighboring ASEAN countries, and especially, China boomed.

International media and NGOs, banned during the military regime, flocked to Myanmar. And UN agencies severely constrained by highly restricted mandate and shortage of funding because of sanctions against the military regime by Western donors got a new lease of life and expanded their operations.

But the euphoria of Myanmar’s transition away from military rule to a seemingly liberal democracy was premature and exaggerated. It was more wishful and hopeful than the ground realities justified.

In the power-sharing deal she entered with Tatmadaw in 2011, Suu Kyi tentatively accepted the 2008 Constitution drafted by the military with a view to perpetuating its dominance on all key issues of “national security” under the garb of a pro-forma electoral democracy.

With her confidence in securing overwhelming election victory, Suu Kyi’s calculation was that she will be able to outfox the Tatmadaw and amend the constitution to weaken or eliminate the military’s power, and strengthen genuine democracy.

But it appears that the Tatmadaw actually outfoxed Suu Kyi. It even got her, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, to condone the military’s ethnic cleansing and genocidal oppression of the Rohingya Muslims and to cuddle Burman Buddhist xenophobia.

To the consternation of the international community, but continuing adulation of the ethnic Burman population, it turned out that as a politician Suu Kyi and Tatmadaw shared many common Bamar ethno-nationalist sentiments and deeply held prejudices against most non-Bamar ethnic communities, particularly the Rohingya Muslims, questioning their status as equal and patriotic citizens of Myanmar.

Forming and Spurning the Kofi Annan Commission

Stung by international criticism of Tatmadaw’s brutal oppression of the Rohingyas, and as a face-saving gesture, in 2016 Suu Kyi formed an international Advisory Commission on Rakhine State headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to propose measures to ensure the social and economic well-being of both the Buddhist, the Muslim and other ethnic communities in Myanmar’s conflict-ravaged regions.

In my view, this Commission came up with the best possible recommendations and a roadmap for not only Rakhine state but to ensure a sustainable, democratic, prosperous and equitable multi-ethnic future for all of Myanmar. But Suu Kyi essentially cold-shouldered Annan’s recommendations, perhaps fearing that the military would never accept them.

Inspired and disappointed by Suu Kyi

As a senior UNICEF official in the 1990s and 2000s, I had the opportunity to meet and interact with Suu Kyi as well as several senior Burmese military leaders, including the seemingly progressive General Thein Sein when he was the powerful Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Committee (SPDC) who later became Prime Minister and the first “elected” “civilian” President of Myanmar. He was the one who negotiated the power sharing deal with Suu Kyi in 2010.

I recall Suu Kyi, being an articulate and inspiring personality. Very strong-minded and stubborn at times, she presented herself as a staunch defender of democracy and human rights in Myanmar and globally. Her advocacy of a Gandhian non-violent civil disobedience and her reputation as a Mandela-like prisoner of conscience over a prolonged period, led to her winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

But like many of her previous admirers, including her fellow Nobel Prize laureates, I became deeply disappointed by her politically-calculated alliance with the military when she defended the indefensible ethnic cleansing of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim community at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

Although Suu Kyi’s international stature as an icon of democracy and human rights has suffered irredeemably, she continues to be immensely popular domestically. If anybody can potentially tame Myanmar’s powerful Tatmadaw, it still continues to be Aung San Suu Kyi, given both her undiminished domestic popularity and her father General Aung San’s nationalist credentials and legacy.

Thus, despite all her flaws, I believe the international community has no choice but to support the restoration of democratic process in Myanmar led, in the near-term, by Suu Kyi and her NLD party.

The possible ways forward

However, in the longer term, both the people of Myanmar and the international community ought to internalize three important lessons from the Burmese conundrum of the past six decades: a) not to rely on the leadership of one individual, no matter how charismatic, b) the necessity of delegitimizing the privileged political role of Myanmar’s military, and c) looking beyond the necessary restoration of electoral democracy to a laser-like focus on tackling a range of issues that have perpetuated poverty, inequality and violent conflicts in this immensely resource-rich country that remains one of the poorest in the region.

Nobody believes the military’s promise that it will organize new elections in a year’s time and hand-over power to a newly-elected government. If free and fair elections are held, the military and its puppet party, the USDP, are likely to fare even worse than in the November 2020 general elections.

The junta maybe able to prolong its rule in the short-term by organizing sham elections and increased repression, but the durability of such a regime is questionable. We are already beginning to see the sprouting of a courageous campaign of civil disobedience in various forms, which is only likely to accelerate over time.

We can expect Tatmadaw to unleash harsh repression using all the tools and tricks in the authoritarians’ toolbox, starting with shutting down the internet and the social media. But there is no conceivable scenario under which the Tatmadaw can solve Myanmar’s entrenched problems and endear itself to a restive population.

In this day and age, harsh repression alone cannot ensure political stability. Even the military regime’s backers like China and most of the ASEAN countries that treasure political stability over democratic norms, are likely to abandon their active or tacit support of the junta, once they realize that a regime deeply despised by the populace and incapable of delivering sustainable development cannot ensure lasting stability and tranquility.

It is clear that the military has grossly misjudged the mood of the Burmese youth. Having tasted democracy and an open society during the past decade, Myanmar’s digitally savvy youth, like those of many other countries, are now so well-connected with their counterparts around the world, so well aware of their rights and their potential, so determined to pursue a prosperous future, that they will find many creative ways to outfox the military’s shenanigans.

Among the best proposals for a way forward is a solemn appeal by a wise and thoughtful religious leader, Cardinal Charles Maung Bo, Archbishop of Yangon, President of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference, and a Co-President of Religions for Peace International.

He made a strong case for “demilitarizing Myanmar”, warning even before the latest coup: “History teaches us, diplomats and peacemakers know, that there is never going to be a military solution to a political conflict. Pursuing military solutions leads only to endless war and endless misery”.

Following the coup, the Cardinal issued an urgent message addressed to the people of Myanmar; its civilian leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi; to the Myanmar military, and the international community.

The message calls for the people to stay calm, avoid violence, but pursue their goals peacefully.
The Bishop chastises the military for its empty promises and urges the junta to respect people’s rights as expressed through their elected representatives, writers, activists, and especially Myanmar’s youth. He urges Suu Kyi and the NLD leaders to continue dialogue and with Tatmadaw to overcome the new challenges created by the latest coup.

To the International community, the Bishop cautions how sanctions in the past brought few results, and to avoid measures that risk collapsing the economy and throwing millions into poverty.

I tend to agree with the Bishop that general sanctions are a blunt instrument that hurt ordinary people while the rich and the powerful find many ways to evade them. However, I believe there is room and need for tough but very specifically and narrowly targeted sanctions against the key perpetrators and enforcers of the military putsch and their business interests, while meticulously sparing the ordinary people.

The international community would be wise to follow the Burmese historian Thant Myint-U’s advice to avoid a narrow focus on political change and help ensure the protection of ordinary people’s lives and livelihoods as part of any international action to thwart the military coup.

“Myanmar needs a fresh path to democracy” he says, “Free and fair elections (and respect for the results) are essential. But also essential is the transformation of a society shaped by decades of dictatorship, international isolation, brutal armed conflict, racial and religious discrimination, extreme poverty and widening inequality”.

In a world struggling to recover from the ravages of the COVID pandemic, and many other epochal crises, the plight of the people of Myanmar may not get the full attention it deserves. But let us hope that the sentiments of global solidarity will inspire them to regain their inalienable human rights and dignity.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Peace Corps volunteers in Nepal. Credit: Peace Corps Media Library, Nepal

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 20 2020 (IPS)

I have had 5-decade long and happy association with the Peace Corps since I was a 7th grade student in the hills of Nepal. My wonderful Peace Corps teachers were instrumental in helping transform my life. And the 4000+ Peace Corps Volunteers who have served in Nepal have contributed immensely to my country’s development.

I feel sad that because of the COVID Pandemic the Peace Corps had to temporarily withdraw its Volunteers from all countries, including Nepal.

Today I join my fellow panelists* from Guatemala and Kenya to address some weighty questions about the future of the Peace Corps from our perspective as global citizens, and that of our home countries.

I deeply appreciate the soul-searching motivation for our reflection at this time of historic convulsion in the US triggered by not only the COVID crisis but also the Black Lives Matter movement, and other crises facing America and the world.

Recent events have made all of us introspect deeply about combatting systemic racism, and more broadly, promoting social justice, and ending the long legacy of racial, ethnic, religious and gender-based disparities.

We find these phenomena not just in America, but in all countries where the Peace Corps serve.
Let me try to address these issues in a historic and holistic perspective.

During the past century, the United States has been the world’s greatest super-power. There have been 3 major sources of America’s super power status in the world – its economic prosperity, its military strength and its cultural vibrancy.

America has been the richest country in the world for nearly 2 centuries. The US has only 4% of the world’s population, but 15% of the world’s GDP, and 30% of the world’s billionaires. But we also find in America grotesque inequality, and great poverty in the midst of plenty.

It is the only rich country in the world without universal health coverage. In terms of people’s health & well-being, the US is no longer a world leader.

Peace Corps worker in Nepal. Credit: www.peacecorps.gov

The fact that the US has more cases & deaths from COVID-19 than any other country in the world, is a telling example of how America’s vast wealth fails to protect its people’s health.

America’s military strength has also been unparalleled in recent history. Currently, the US spends more than $700 billion annually on defense. That is close to 40% of the word’s military spending.

But this is increasingly becoming a burden without proportionate benefits for America. The trillions of dollars America spends on its military is increasingly becoming counter-productive. Instead of winning friends, America’s military might is turning people into enemies and even terrorists.

Look at what the trillions in military spending have produced in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Arab world, and even in Latin America – a wave of anti-Americanism.

I believe it is time now to reorient the American economy, drastically reduce military spending, and redirect it to end poverty, to reduce inequality, to provide health care and quality education for all, and to protect the earth from the climate crisis.

This is where America’s third strength comes into play. America’s educational, scientific and cultural vibrancy have earned the US tremendous soft power in the world.

40 % of the world’s Nobel Prize winners have been Americans. More than 50% of the world’s Nobel laureates were trained in America. And 60 of the world’s 100 best universities are in America. The American scientific, technological and cultural innovations have enveloped the whole world.

That is what gives America a positive soft power for the good of the world. I consider the Peace Corps as one element of that benevolent American soft power.

I dare say that the less than half a billion dollars that America spends annually on the Peace Corps touches more ordinary people’s hearts, and helps nurture peace and friendship in the world than the many billions the US spends on military aid to developing countries.

I recall that was precisely the vision of President John F Kennedy when he established the Peace Corps. Kennedy envisioned the Peace Corps – as an opportunity for young Americans to better understand the challenges of living in a developing country, to impart their knowledge and skills, and to help overcome poverty and underdevelopment.

Those are precisely the building blocks for peace and prosperity. It is that spirit of solidarity and empathy that makes America, or Nepal or any other country truly Great.

To paraphrase the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, to make America Great Again: “It is better to send in the Peace Corps than the Marine Corps”.

I so wish that President Trump had been a Peace Corps volunteer. If he had the Peace Corps experience, he would have tried to make “America Great Again” by responding to the greatest challenges of our times – the COVID-19 pandemic, systemic racism, global poverty, and the climate crisis – in a completely different manner.

Let me now reflect on two questions that the NPCA asked us:

• – “How can the Peace Corps be a true partner with host countries

• in the new post-COVID world?

– And how must the Peace Corps change to be relevant for the 21st century”

Well, even before COVID-19 invaded and destabilized the world, we already had a universally agreed global agenda called the Sustainable Development Goals. Those goals, with dozens of specific and time-bound targets to be achieved by 2030, include ending extreme poverty, promoting prosperity with equity, protecting the environment and safeguarding people’s human rights.

They were endorsed by all countries of the world, including the United States, at the United Nations in 2015. The SDGs comprise a non-partisan agenda, so all of us can support them whether you are a Republican or Democrat or neither.

The Peace Corps Volunteers already promote these goals in their work as teachers, health promoters, agriculture extension workers, and a variety of other vocations.

What is needed now is to refine the skills of the Peace Corps Volunteers to ensure that their services are provided to truly empower local people and communities.

Like all other institutions are doing at this time, the Peace Corps too would benefit from an organizational soul searching to root out any trace of racism, gender discrimination or a colonial mentality that may occasionally and inadvertently influence its work and mission.

I honestly believe that the Peace Corps can help transform the multiple crises facing the US and the world into opportunity for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

I know from my own personal experience and observation that Peace Corps Volunteers can make a transformational impact on the lives of many ordinary people, and future leaders of host countries.

Our increasingly inter-connected world demands global solidarity, not charity, to solve global problems that transcend national borders like the specter of war, terrorism, racism, climate change, and pandemics like COVID-19.

I sincerely believe that the Peace Corps can be a great organization dedicated to promote such global solidarity at the people to people level.

Let us remember that solidarity, unlike charity, is a two-way street. The Peace Corps experience is just as important for the education and enlightenment of the Peace Corps Volunteers as it is for them to help their host communities.

More than any other group of Americans, I believe that Returned Peace Corps Volunteers can instill a sense of a more enlightened America as part of, not apart from, a more just, peaceful and prosperous world.

So, I hope and count on the Peace Corps to survive and thrive, and help build an enlightened post-COVID America and the world.

*In an address to the National Peace Corps Association sharing views on the future of the Peace Corps from the perspective of a host country, Nepal.

www.kulgautam.org; kulgautam@hotmail.com

Excerpt:

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Oct 11 2019 (IPS)

The United Nations is faced with a financial crisis once again. Leaders of as many as 64 countries who paraded and pontificated at the UN General Assembly and its multiple Summit meetings in September 2019 were deadbeats, who had not paid their dues in full to the UN for this year.

Many have been in arrears for multiple years. Those include not just poor and war-torn countries in crisis but many wealthy countries such as the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Oman, and Nigeria whose ambassador presides over the UN General Assembly this year.

This is not a new phenomenon. UN has been in serious financial crisis before. And once every decade or so the crisis becomes alarming as it seems to be at present.

We are told that the UN Secretariat could face a default on staff salaries and payments for goods and services by the end of November 2019 unless more Member States pay their budget dues in full.

To address the crisis, the Secretary-General has taken various steps including reduction in official travel; postponing spending on goods and services; discontinuing events outside official meeting hours, and possibly considering postponement or even cancellation of meetings and conferences mandated by the General Assembly. Previous Secretaries-General also had to resort to such measures.

Faced with similar circumstances, many bold proposals were made to resolve the crises in the past. But the fate of such proposals always ended up in resorting to short-term, stop-gap, compromise solutions.

Kul Chandra Gautam

As his predecessors have done in the past, Secretary-General António Guterres wrote a letter to all Member States on the 7th of October 2019 to apprise them of the imminent financial crisis and appealed for their help to resolve it.

What is new in the S-G’s most recent letter to Member States is an explicit acknowledgment that “this is a recurrent problem that severely hampers the Secretariat’s ability to fulfil its obligations to the people we serve”.

He went on to say that he “looks to Member States to resolve the structural issues that underlie this annual crisis without further delay”.

It is my considered view that the time has come for the Secretary-General himself to exercise bolder leadership and make some specific proposals, and not just to “look to Member States to resolve the structural issues that underlie the crisis”.

Precisely because there are structural issues and strong vested interests, Member States by themselves are unlikely to come up with solutions that require bold, innovative and even non-conventional approaches.

Only a neutral, visionary and respected leader or a group of leaders can come up with such proposals. The onus and the opportunity for coming up with such proposals now lies squarely with Secretary-General António Guterres.

Everybody says UN needs reforms. But the kind of reforms that are proposed by Member States are often timid and inadequate, and in the case of those proposed by some, e.g. the Trump administration, they are actually harmful and contrary to the multilateral ethos of the United Nations. Such proposals are unlikely to command broad-based support.

It is time for the Secretary-General himself to take the initiative and commission a high-level panel to propose a more predictable and sustainable funding of the UN.

The 75th anniversary of the UN in 2020 is a perfect occasion for the S-G to present a bold proposal for a more sustainable funding mechanism for the UN in keeping with the ambitious Sustainable Development Agenda for 2030 that the UN has championed so boldly.

What might be some elements of the proposal that the S-G can present? I made a humble proposal in 2017 when the Trump administration first proposed its sweeping cuts to the UN budget and aid for international development: http://kulgautam.org/2017/03/20/responding-to-us-budget-cuts-for-united-nations/.

This proposal was further dissected in an Inter Press Service article in December 2018 by several scholars and diplomats with deep knowledge and affinity with the UN : https://www.ipsnews.net/2018/12/time-end-cheque-book-diplomacy-un/

Here are two key elements that stand out for the S-G’s consideration: 1) resurrect, revise and reformulate the 1985 proposal by the late Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme who recommended capping the share of any member state to 10 percent of the organization’s assessed contributions, and 2) seriously explore some innovative financing arrangements such as the Tobin tax on currency or financial transactions, a carbon tax, taxes on the arms trade, and raising resources from the deep seas and other global commons, which are considered the common heritage of humankind.

It is worth remembering that the cap proposed by Palme was intended to reduce the UN’s excessive dependence on funding by the US and a fistful of big donors. The spirit of the Palme proposal was to protect the UN from being unduly influenced by and vulnerable to the whims of such donors.

Any shortfall caused by capping the US contribution to the UN can and ought to be made up by other members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the large number of middle-income emerging economies, without putting undue burden on the world’s low-income countries and LDCs.

It is worth recalling that in the larger scheme of international finance, in a world economy of $88 trillion and global military budgets of $1.8 trillion per year, the UN’s regular annual budget is only $3.3 billion, and the totality of the UN system’s budget for humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, peace-keeping operations, technical assistance and other essential normative functions, amounts to less than $50 billion per year.

This is a modest amount to respond to the huge challenges that the UN is asked and expected to help tackle.

To put it in perspective, the total UN system-wide spending annually is less than the defense budget of India or France, and less than one month’s US spending on defense.
With similar investment, bilateral aid and national budgets of much bigger proportions could hardly achieve results comparable to what the UN and international financial institutions achieve.

On the idea of exploring alternative innovative funding, it is useful to recall that financing for development landscape is changing rapidly. Many UN activities already benefit from private sector financing and philanthropic foundations. Many NGOs rely increasingly in cloud-sourcing and crowd-funding as well as different modalities of public-private partnerships.

Harnessing such possibilities and expanding its sphere of partnerships must also be part of the UN’s own sustainable funding agenda as recognized in SDG-17.

We know that the US and many other states are likely to oppose such schemes as most states want to safeguard their monopoly over taxing powers and will not be keen to give such authority to the UN or anyone else.

Many governments would also be fearful of UN mobilizing funding from non-conventional sources that they cannot control.

However, I see no reason why the UN should not judiciously explore such funding options – not to replace core funding by Member States, but to complement it.

After all, the UN is supposed to be an organization of “We the Peoples”, not just “We the Governments”. Historically, it is often the people’s movements that have helped the UN to set ambitious and futuristic agenda, such as on human rights, social justice, and climate change, often defying the resistance of some powerful as well as many power-hungry governments.

To his credit, Guterres has dared to push the agenda of addressing the climate crisis, universal health coverage – including sexual and reproductive health and rights – and several other measures despite known objections by some powerful Member States, including the US.

While actual progress has been limited, and the S-G does not have the power or the resources to force changes, the bully pulpit of the world’s top and most visible diplomat needs to be harnessed for the greater good of humanity.

Dag Hammarskjold and Kofi Annan dared to take bold leadership despite great odds, and history has judged them well.

I would urge António Guterres to come up with some bold proposals for sustainable funding of the UN on the occasion of its 75th anniversary in 2020. This could be one of his lasting legacies as the Secretary-General of the SDG-era.

https://amazon.com/author/kulgautam

Excerpt:

Pele (standing, back row right) at the UNICEF signing ceremony. Credit: UNICEF

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jun 27 2018 (IPS)

Pele’s example has inspired millions of young people to join the ‘beautiful game’ and contribute to building a peaceful and prosperous world fit for all our children.

As billions of people around the world—including millions of Nepalis—are glued to their televisions watching the 2018 World Cup, I wish to reminisce about the humanitarian dimension of a great football star who is currently not in the pitch. Pelé.

Everybody knows Pelé as probably the best football player in the world in history. But few people know about his important contribution to other great social causes. Unbeknownst to many of his fans, Pelé helped save the lives and improve the health of millions of children in Brazil.

He also helped promote such worthy global causes as ecology and environment, sports and development and peaceful resolution of conflicts as goodwill ambassador for the UN, UNESCO and UNICEF.

Pelé and breastfeeding

In the 1980s and 90s, UNICEF was involved in promoting many innovative methods of social mobilization to influence child-friendly public policies in Brazil. One example was promotion of breastfeeding to enhance child health and to reduce the high rates of infant mortality and malnutrition.

Due to the aggressive marketing of baby milk formulas by private multinational companies, breastfeeding had declined dramatically to the point that in the 1980s only eight percent of Brazilian mothers exclusively breastfed their babies during the first six months. UNICEF explored how best it could help reverse this dangerous trend.

Efforts to promote breastfeeding by the Ministry of Health and by concerned pediatricians were not producing the desired results in the face of very aggressive and deceptive advertising by the infant formula companies. In its search for who might be the most respected and credible messenger whose advice mothers would pay attention to, UNICEF came up with the most unusual yet obvious choice: Pelé—Brazil’s most popular and the world’s best football player.

It did not take much effort for UNICEF to convince Pelé to lend his name to this worthy mission of saving the lives and protecting the health of millions of Brazilian children. Decline in breastfeeding affected all segments of Brazil’s population but the worst consequences were among the poorest.

Many poor women were influenced by formula advertisers who presented bottle-feeding as the healthy and glamourous alternative to breastfeeding. Rich and beautiful women were shown as preferring bottle-feeding over breastfeeding. Even doctors and nurses in hospitals were enlisted by infant formula companies to influence new mothers to switch to bottle-feeding.

As the world’s leading child health organizations, UNICEF, WHO and the International Pediatric Association, had uncontested scientific evidence that breastfeeding was the best nutrient for infants, and that exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and continued breastfeeding for up to two years with gradual introduction of healthy weaning foods protected children from infection, malnutrition and common childhood diseases.

With rare exceptions, all mothers are capable of breastfeeding which has many lifelong advantages for infants as well as for their mothers and society as a whole.

With such arguments UNICEF convinced Pelé to be its champion for breastfeeding. It helped prepare an attractive poster that was plastered all over the country in which Pelé’s mother was shown patting her famous son on the shoulder and saying: “Of course, he is the best football player in the world. I breastfed him!”

This poster became the centre-piece of a breastfeeding promotion campaign that led to a dramatic increase in exclusive breastfeeding to almost 40 percent within a few years. The lives of thousands of Brazilian children were saved and health of millions improved as a result of this campaign.

As UNICEF’s Chief for Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1980s, and later as its global Program Director, I had the opportunity to visit Brazil many times and witness the impact of Pelé’s contribution—along with that of the Catholic church and Brazil’s vibrant media—in that country’s impressive progress in child survival and development.

Childhood in poverty

Pelé was receptive to UNICEF’s message partly because of his own personal experience of growing up as a poor child. Born in 1940 in a poor community in the state of São Paulo in southern Brazil, Pelé’s real family name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento. He grew up in poverty earning money by working in tea shops as a servant.

Taught to play football by his father, he could not afford a proper football. He often played with either a grapefruit or an improvised ball made of old socks stuffed with newspapers and tied with a string. Given this personal experience, Pelé is very sensitive to the plight of children suffering from poverty. He has been a strong supporter of UNICEF and the UN’s anti-poverty development goals.

In Brazil, Pelé’s name is also associated with anti-corruption activism. In 1995, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who had once been a UNICEF consultant on social policy, appointed Pelé to the position of Extraordinary Minister for Sport. During his tenure, Pelé proposed legislation to reduce corruption in Brazilian football, which came to be known as “Pelé law.”

‘Say yes for children’

I had the opportunity to meet and interact with Pelé in 2001 when I was leading UNICEF’s plans for organizing a Global Summit at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children. To build momentum for the Summit to come up with ambitious goals and strong commitment, UNICEF had launched a “Say Yes for Children” campaign with active support of luminaries like Nelson Mandela, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and dozens of world leaders.

One of the highlights of the campaign was a special partnership with FIFA. We invited FIFA President Sepp Blatter and several famous football stars and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors to join. The most prominent among them was Pelé, who signed the “Say Yes…” campaign as part of “UNICEF-FIFA Global Alliance for Children”.

I was happy to be part of that memorable ceremony at which I asked Pelé to sign a football jersey for my son Biplav Gautam, a sports enthusiast, who treasures that jersey as one of his proud possessions.

In another memorable event, Pelé helped UNICEF and FIFA to kick off the 2006 World Cup in Germany as part of a campaign to utilize the power of football to create self-esteem, mutual respect and fair play among children, and to spread the message of peace.

Pelé carried the World Cup trophy onto the pitch in Munich alongside supermodel and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Claudia Schiffer. Around 150 former World Cup winners also took part in the spectacular opening ceremony watched by more than a billion people around the world.

A special World Cup website created by UNICEF in Arabic, English, French and Spanish invited fans to join a virtual team of UNICEF supporters around the world captained by England star and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador David Beckham and joined by other soccer heroes like Didier Drogba (Côte d’Ivoire), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Francesco Totti (Italy) and many others.

All of these players appeared in a series of TV spots produced by MTV for UNICEF and FIFA, which were broadcast around the world and in every stadium before each match. The spots ended by asking viewers to ‘UNITE FOR CHILDREN, UNITE FOR PEACE’.

Maestro of ‘beautiful game’

During his illustrious career, Pelé won three FIFA World Cups in 1958, 1962 and 1970, and broke many international records as the greatest football player of all time. His extraordinary skills—such as his ability to strike powerful and accurate shots with both feet and the elegance with which he maneuvered the ball and out-maneuvered his competitors—are legendary. More than anyone else, Pelé is credited for popularizing football as “the beautiful game.”

Due to ill health Pelé was unable to join in the opening of the 2018 World Cup in Russia. But his example has inspired millions of young people to join the ‘beautiful game’ and contribute to building a peaceful and prosperous world fit for all our children.

The link to the original article published in The Republica, a daily newspaper in Kathmandu :
http://republica.nagariknetwork.com/news/pele-beyond-football/

Excerpt:

Internally Displaced Persons in South Sudan at the UN House/IDP compound. Credit: Oxfam

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 22 2018 (IPS)

As a member of OXFAM GB’s Council of Trustees since 2014, I have received many queries about the recent scandal concerning sexual misconduct committed by some OXFAM staff in Haiti in 2011 and elsewhere. I appreciate the concerns expressed as well as many messages of solidarity and support for OXFAM in the face of the relentless onslaught of criticism – both fair and foul.

OXGAM GB’s current Council Chair Caroline Thomson, CEO Mark Goldring and OXFAM International CEO Winnie Byanyima have given many interviews and testimonials to the media and the British Government authorities, including the Charity Commission, in the past week responding to the queries and concerns.

Although most of today’s Trustees and senior management were not there in 2010-12, I can assure you that all current Trustees and senior management of Oxfam are taking the matter extremely seriously and sincerely.

OXFAM leadership has publicly apologized for the serious lapses in its handling of the reported misconduct cases and taken many proactive steps to rectify the situation. The Deputy CEO of Oxfam GB who was International Program Director at the time of the Haiti scandal – a very decent person and competent professional – has resigned taking responsibility for lapses in her watchdog functions at the time.

Here is a summary of key actions taken by Oxfam’s leadership in response to the current crisis to bring about the necessary changes to its policy, practice and culture to stamp out exploitation, abuse and harassment from all parts of the organization, and to protect those it works with and ensure justice for survivors of abuse. These actions seek to:

• Demonstrate a meaningful commitment to transparency and accountability, including through the establishment of an independent commission to review its past and current work – the findings of which will be made public, and the recommendations will guide further action by Oxfam

• Change policies, practices and culture within Oxfam, including significantly increasing its investment in safeguarding and in gender training and support

• Work with other organizations across the humanitarian and development sector to prevent such abuses from happening again, including efforts to reform recruitment and vetting processes to prevent offenders from moving between organisations.

With the above objective OXFAM has already initiated a robust 10-point action plan:

• Appointment of an Independent High-Level Commission on Sexual Misconduct, Accountability and Culture Change
• Reiterated commitment across Oxfam to collaborate with all relevant authorities
• Re-examining past cases, and encouraging witnesses or survivors to come forward
• Increasing investment in safeguarding with immediate effect
• Strengthening internal HR and whistle-blower processes
• Re-enforcing a culture of zero tolerance towards harassment, abuse or exploitation
• Working with its peer organizations across the sector to tackle physical, sexual and emotional abuse
• Active engagement with partners and allies, especially women’s rights organizations
• Listening to the public
• Recommitting and strengthening its focus on gender justice as central to OXFAM’s mission and action

OXFAM has made these commitments to the Charity Commission, to the British Government and to its supporters and critics, including the media. It has received many expressions of support and solidarity from its partners and the general public.

According to a recent Tufts University two-year study on sexual harassment and assault by humanitarian and development aid workers carried out by Dyan Mazurana and Phoebe Donnelly (see: http://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2018/02/20/is-oxfam-the-worst-or-the-best/), the sexual abuse allegations against Oxfam staff came to light partly because Oxfam has one of the best reporting systems in the aid industry:

“Today, Oxfam is the target of universal condemnation for having, allegedly, hired staff who were sexually abusive, and then covered up these wrongdoings. But the reality is that, far from being the worst, Oxfam is today one of the best international aid agencies in terms of reporting, investigating and addressing sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse of its staff”.

“There’s a simple reason why aid agencies—like companies, or governments—that have the best reporting procedures for sexual offenses have the highest reported rates of these crimes. If a victim of a crime has no confidence that her report will be taken seriously, discussed sensitively and in confidence, and acted upon, she will simply remain quiet. That’s why (for example) Sweden and Canada have higher rates of recorded sexual violence than South Sudan or Libya”.

“Oxfam may momentarily appear the worst—but that’s partly because it has been the best in addressing the challenge of sexual exploitation and abuse”.

As mentioned earlier, and reported to the British authorities, OXFAM has taken additional steps to further strengthen its safeguard policies on sexual abuse and other misconduct. However, obviously these policies and practices are not foolproof and warrant constant vigilance.

Unfortunately, the media attention has continued to focus on the negative and sensational stories rather than putting OXFAM’s long and illustrious record of humanitarian and development work and its sincere commitment for corrective action in a balanced perspective.

I am personally convinced that OXFAM is being highly responsible, humble and sincere in its response to the current crisis. Outside the glare of sensational media, the overwhelming majority of messages that I and other Trustees have received have been those of strong solidarity and support for OXFAM and anguish about how it is being unfairly attacked in a sensational manner despite its public apology and profound corrective actions.

Here are some recent articles that I believe put the matter in more balanced perspective:

https://newint.org/blog/2018/02/15/trashing-of-oxfam

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/feb/17/oxfam-scandal-does-not-justify-demonising-entire-aid-sector

We all welcome the heightened sensitivity and increased vigilance against sexual abuse and other unethical practices in international development cooperation, as in national and local institutions.

But in the case of the UK at present, some right-wing media tabloids and officials seem to be using the scandal to undermine UK’s commitment to international development and support for NGOs, charities and the UN system in general and its commitment to allocating 0.7 percent of GNI as ODA. This is very unfortunate and insincere.

Given the recent rise of anti-immigrant, anti-charity, anti-multilateralist trends in the US, UK and several other European countries, it behooves those committed to progressive development agenda to be watchful that the legitimate concerns about unethical conduct and corruption in the development aid and charity sector are not used as an excuse for rolling back and recoiling from our commitment and activism in support of global solidarity for humanitarian and sustainable development agenda.

It is my humble opinion that OXFAM deserves solidarity and support in this hour of great distress as it is striving to further strengthen its safeguarding policies and practices that I believe can be an example for others.

Excerpt:

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 20 2017 (IPS)

It is in UN’s long-term interest to gradually reduce its dependence on US funding and undue influence, as proposed by former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme

Kul Chandra Gautam

But instead of lamenting and pleading for restitution of proposed cuts, friends of UN should welcome it as a strong incentive for seriously reducing the UN’s over dependence and vulnerability to blackmail by US and occasionally by some other donors.

Part of the response would be for the UN to take a fresh look at a very creative proposal made by former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1985 to significantly change the system of financing the UN that would be more sustainable as well as fair and practical.

Revisit the Olof Palme proposal

A great supporter of the UN and a true multilateralist, Olof Palme had the best interest of the UN at heart when he proposed that no member state should be asked or allowed to pay more than 10 to 12 percent of the UN’s core budget. A 10 per cent cap, he reasoned, would limit the UN’s political dependence on its largest contributors.

Any resulting deficit from decreasing the share of the US could easily be counter-balanced by relatively modest increases among other rich member countries. Today, many middle-income countries and even some lower middle-income countries can afford to pay more towards the UN budget than they do at present.

It is interesting to note that when the Palme proposal was floated in 1985, the US opposed it, fearing that it would lose its leverage over the UN. And other states, particularly the Europeans, balked at the proposal although the increased amounts they would have to pay would have been quite modest. One wonders how the US and other countries would react today, but I believe it is the right time now to explore such alternative.

Ideally, we should also look at some more innovative financing proposals such as the Tobin tax on currency or financial transactions, a carbon tax, taxes on the arms trade, and raising resources from the deep seas and other global commons, which are considered the common heritage of humankind.

But we know that the US and many other states are likely to oppose such schemes as most states want to safeguard their monopoly over taxing powers and will not be keen to give such authority to the UN or anyone else. This must, therefore, remain part of a longer-term agenda.

Today the financing for development landscape is changing rapidly. Many UN activities benefit from private financing and those by philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and increasingly cloud-sourcing and crowd-funding as well as different forms of public-private partnerships. Harnessing such possibilities must also be part of the new UN agenda as recognized in the context of sustainable development goals.

Current funding formula

For the past seven decades, funding for the UN’s core budget and peace-keeping operations has been based on an internationally negotiated and agreed system of assessment of each member state’s “capacity to pay”.

Based on this, the US share currently comes to 22 percent of UN’s regular budget and 28% of its peace keeping budget, or approximately $600 million plus $1.1billion respectively per year, for a total of $1.7 billion in absolute amount (not including voluntary contributions and membership fees for specialized agencies).

According to this formula Japan pays 9.7 %, China 7.9%, Germany 6.4%, France 4.9 %, UK 4.5% and Russia 3.1%. Permanent members of the UN Security Council pay a slightly higher percentage for the separate peace-keeping budget.

The poorest countries of the world pay 0.001%, whereas the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have a cap of 0.01% each. Thus, very small and poor countries like Gambia, Somalia and Vanuatu pay about $27,000; Nepal $162,000; Bangladesh $270,000 and India $20 million per year.

It should be noted that historically the US paid a much larger share of the UN’s regular budget than it does today. At the time of the founding of the UN when there were only 50 member states, and most European countries were bankrupt after the Second World War, the US paid 49 percent of the UN budget.

As Europe recovered, its share was increased and the US share was decreased to 33 per cent in 1952; 30 per cent in 1957; 25 % in 1972 and the current 22%. Combining peace-keeping operations and other voluntary contributions, the US pays an average of 25 % of the UN’s bills.

As the assessed contributions are mutually agreed and equitable treaty obligations, normally they can only be changed through multilateral negotiations. Sudden, arbitrary and unilateral cuts, like those proposed by President Trump are, therefore, tantamount to violation of the spirit of international treaty obligations.

Regrettably, money and military power often talk louder than democratic norms or treaty obligations in the realpolitik of international relations. Continuation of the undemocratic veto power by the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, a legacy of a different era, is the most glaring example of this reality.

Besides the assessed contribution for the UN’s regular budget and peace-keeping operations, the Trump budget proposals pose an even bigger threat to the “voluntary” contributions that the US makes to such UN funds and programs as the UN Population Fund, UNDP, and perhaps even UNICEF.

The threat goes beyond funding to the US backing out of some widely agreed global treaties such as the recent Paris agreement on climate change, the Conventions on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Threats beyond Trump

Though Trump’s threats and actions are intemperate and extreme, they are not unprecedented. From time to time, members of the US Congress have made threats to cut funding for various UN agencies and programs as their hobby-horse. One of the worst periods in recent memory was during 1995-2001 when Senator Jesse Helms was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Indeed, the threat of US funding cuts has been a Damocles’ sword hanging over the UN from the early days of its founding. Occasionally such threat has led to some useful reforms in the UN, including a more stringent review of its budget and operations. But more often it has led to distorting the globally agreed program priorities, and giving undue and unfair advantage to the US in appointment of high-level officials in the UN Secretariat, Specialized agencies and Funds and Programs.

To be fair, it is not only the US but several other major donors too often exert the power of their purse to influence the staffing, election outcomes and policy priorities of the UN. Sometimes even lesser powers like oil-rich Qatar and Saudi Arabia exercise what is known as “cheque-book diplomacy” to buy undue influence in UN reports and decision-making.

Like our national governments and other public as well as private institutions, the UN is not perfect. Those of us who have worked in the UN system would acknowledge that there certainly are many inefficiencies and waste in the UN system that need to be fixed. But big powers unilaterally flaunting their power of the purse to dictate their brand of reform will make the UN weaker, not stronger.

UN budget in perspective

The totality of the UN system’s budget and expenditure for humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, peace-keeping operations, technical assistance and other essential normative functions, amount to about $48 billion per year. In the larger scheme of international finance, in a world economy of $77 trillion and global military budgets of $1.7 trillion per year, this is a modest amount to respond to the huge challenges that the UN is asked and expected to help tackle. The total UN system-wide spending annually is less than the defense budget of India or France, and less than one month’s US spending on defense.

With similar investment, bilateral aid and national budgets of much bigger proportions could hardly achieve results comparable to what the UN and international financial institutions achieve.

Wiser and more enlightened American leaders recognize this. In today’s world, America cannot be a walled, fortified and prosperous island. In a world where epidemic diseases respect no boundaries, and do not need a passport or visa to travel, nor does the impact of global warming and climate change, America’s security is inter-dependent on global human security. America’s own military leaders argue that ruthlessly cutting foreign aid and throwing more money for the military cannot enhance America’s security.

But lacking humility and sagacity, Trump and his associates seem to prefer pumping more money into the military machine. Trillions of dollars that US invested in military ventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have brought little tangible benefits to the US or to world peace and security.

There is no evidence to believe that a whopping increase in the already bloated military budget, homeland security and building border walls will make America safer from terrorism or other threats to its security. Mr. Trump should listen to the wise words of fellow billionaire Bill Gates who says: “The world will not be a safer place if the US stops helping other countries meet their people’s needs”.

The UN certainly has its work cut out to reform itself constructively, and to come up with more durable and reliable funding alternatives to protect itself from the whims of future Trumps elsewhere. The visionary Olof Palme proposal can be one part of the solution along with other innovative measures that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his team must be contemplating.

Excerpt:

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, NEPAL, Oct 5 2015 (IPS)

On 1 October 2015, Somalia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), leaving the United States of America as the only remaining member state of the UN not to embrace this most universally accepted human rights treaty. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reflects the sentiments of all the world’s human rights activists in encouraging the US to join the global community by ratifying this noble treaty.

Kul Chandra Gautam

It baffles the rest of the world, and many thoughtful Americans, as to why the US has chosen to be the odd man out in not embracing this most humanitarian of all human rights treaties that seeks to protect the rights and well-being of the world’s most vulnerable children. It is all the more surprising if one considers that many distinguished American scholars and experts were actively involved in drafting the CRC, and the US government played a leadership role in negotiating and shaping it. But most American citizens remain unaware of this great human rights treaty that their country helped create, but refuses to ratify.

The US reluctance to ratify the CRC seems to be part of a broader phenomena of “American exceptionalism” which holds that while the rest of the world needs to be bound by human rights treaties and conventions, the US need not join them as the US already has a great Constitution and progressive laws that are strong and often superior to what might be contained in such international treaties.

Accordingly, the US is always reluctant and slow in ratifying any international conventions, including those that it may have played an active role in drafting, such as the Rome Statue on International Criminal Court, the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the CRC.

Many American congressmen and senators – particularly from the Republican Party – seem to feel that that such treaties might be necessary and useful for other countries, but not for the US, because they fear these might actually lower the standards contained in the US Constitution or create undesirable international obligations for the US. Such is the sense of self-righteousness among some key and influential American legislators that evidence to the contrary is conveniently ignored or dismissed.

For example, the American Bar Association has done a comparative review of the CRC and the US Constitution and relevant federal laws, and determined that these are either mutually compatible or the CRC’s standards are more in keeping with the emerging human rights norms of the modern world. The experience of all other developed countries that have ratified the Convention also indicates that it is highly relevant and beneficial for all countries – rich and advanced as well as poor and underdeveloped.

The CRC recognises every child’s right to develop physically, mentally and socially to his or her fullest potential, to be protected from abuse, discrimination, exploitation and violence; to express his or her views and to participate in decisions affecting his or her future. It reaffirms the primary role of parents and the family in raising children. It seeks to emulate key provisions on child rights and well-being under the US Constitution and laws.

Some opponents of the CRC in America argue that it would impose all kinds of terrible international obligations that maybe harmful to America and its children and families. These range from how possible UN interference might compromise the sovereignty of the US and undermine its Constitution to how the CRC might weaken American families and role of parents in bringing up their children. Others stress how it might bring about a culture of permissiveness, including abortion on demand, and unrestricted access to pornography and how it might empower children to sue their parents and disobey their guidance.

Such concerns are not unique to America. Many groups in other countries have expressed similar fears from time to time. But in 25 years of experience in over a hundred countries, rich and poor, with liberal as well as conservative governments, such concerns have proven to be unfounded, exaggerated and hypothetical.

America is a nation of extraordinary wealth. Most children in this country are beneficiaries of this affluence. They live in comfortable homes and safe neighbourhoods and have a decent standard of living, health, education and social welfare. But there is room for much improvement and some humility.

Studies by the highly respected American NGO the Children’s Defense Fund, UNICEF and others show that compared to the wealth of the US, a shocking number of children continue to lack the basics of life. Children in America lag behind most industrialised nations on key child indicators. The US is towards the bottom of the league in relative child poverty, in the gap between rich and poor, teen birth rates, low birth weight, infant mortality, child victims of gun violence, and the number of minors in jail.

For many people outside the US, it is incomprehensible how the richest nation on earth lets every sixth child live in (relative) poverty, how its laws allow a child to be killed by guns every three hours; or how so many children and families can live without basic health insurance.

Ratifying the CRC will not by itself dramatically change the situation of America’s children. But it would help establish a critical national framework to formulate clear goals and targets which the federal and state governments, private organizations and individuals can use to shape policies and programs to better meet the needs of children and their families.

Internationally, ratification of the CRC would help enhance US standing as a global leader in human rights. As a party to the Convention, the U.S. would be eligible to participate in the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC’s implementation), and work toward strengthening further progress for children in all countries.

Interestingly, while the US has failed to ratify the CRC, it has ratified two Optional Protocols to the CRC – on the sale and trafficking of children, child prostitution and pornography, as well as involvement of children in armed conflict. Also, to be fair, there have been many leaders in the US government, including at the highest level, who have been very supportive of the CRC. I want to recall a very touching episode in this regard.

In January 1995, Jim Grant, the then head of UNICEF, a charismatic leader who was highly respected and admired in the US and around the world, was hospitalised with terminal cancer. From his death-bed he wrote to President Bill Clinton, pleading with him, as an American citizen, that the US government sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child. He died a few days later.

The following month at a memorial service for Jim Grant at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, the then First Lady Hillary Clinton came with a message from the President. She said that in response to Jim Grant’s last wish, President Clinton had instructed Madeline Albright, then US Ambassador to the UN, to sign the Convention. The whole Cathedral erupted in applause at this news, breaking the tradition of an otherwise serene and somber occasion of a memorial service. The following week, Albright signed the Convention.

However, fearing that many conservative Senators would not support it, the Clinton administration did not forward the Convention for ratification to the Senate. When President George W. Bush took over, the new administration made it clear that it had no intention whatsoever to pursue ratification of the Convention.

Even President Obama, whose outlook and vision most closely match the spirit of the Convention, has done nothing tangible towards getting the treaty ratified by the US Senate. This despite the fact that there were and still are many senior officials in his administration who are highly supportive of the CRC, including former Secretary of State and current leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, her successor John Kerry, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the current US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power.

As a Presidential candidate in 2008, Obama acknowledged how embarrassing it was for the US to find itself in the company of a lawless Somalia that had not ratified the CRC. He then promised to review the CRC and other treaties to ensure that the US resumes its global leadership in human rights. Now that Somalia has ratified the CRC, the US remains a lonely leader without any followers or companions in its refusal to embrace the world’s most universally ratified human rights treaty.

Given the current composition of the US Congress and the right-wing tilt of US politics, I see no chance for the US to ratify the CRC in the foreseeable future. However, citing longer-term national interest, President Obama has occasionally shown courage and willingness to propose bold actions, such as normalizing US diplomatic relations with Cuba and the nuclear agreement with Iran, even in the face of some strong domestic opposition.

Many American child rights activists and leaders have suggested that President Obama should exercise a similarly enlightened leadership and immediately order the State Department to undertake a thorough formal review of the CRC, so that it is ready for submission to the Senate for ratification whenever the situation becomes more favourable. Last year, over 100 CEOs and leaders of prominent American child welfare organizations and faith-based groups made an impassioned joint appeal to Obama to order such a review (See: http://www.childrightscampaign.org). The President may now be a lame-duck in many respects, but it is not too late for him to leave a legacy of standing up for the rights of America’s children, and those of the world.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, NEPAL, Sep 28 2015 (IPS)

After a decade of violent insurgency, followed by another decade of chaotic transition, Nepal promulgated its new constitution on Sept. 20, 2015. Immediately afterwards, the U.N. issued a rather terse statement attributed to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that merely “acknowledged” the adoption of the constitution, without any congratulatory warmth.

Kul Chandra Gautam

Within four days, the U.N. issued a second statement recalibrating its initial reaction. In the much warmer latest statement, Ban Ki-moon “commends the Nepali people on the adoption of the new constitution” calling it “a milestone in the peace process”. In both statements, the Ban rightly stressed the importance of non-violence and respect for peaceful protests.

Here is a brief background on the new constitution of Nepal.

The constitution was adopted by an overwhelming majority, comprising over 90 percent, of a popularly elected Constituent Assembly (CA) in elections that were considered largely peaceful, free and fair by the United Nations, and by independent national and international observers.

Besides the very high voter turnout in direct elections, the CA reflects a mirror image of the country’s highly diverse population through proportional representation of many ethnic and sub-regional communities, including historically marginalized groups, such as women and Dalits.

Like all other democratic constitutions of the world, Nepal’s constitution is not perfect. It is a document of political compromise that reflects the relative strength of various political parties currently represented in the CA. But it offers plenty of room for amendments according to the changing needs of the times through two-thirds majority of parliament, as in most democratic countries.

Major strengths

The constitution enshrines many positive and progressive principles for the first time in Nepal’s history. These include republicanism, federalism, secularism and an inclusive democracy. The themes of social justice, gender equality and inclusion run through different parts of the document, including specific affirmative actions for the benefit of historically marginalized and deprived communities, especially women and Dalits.

For example, it is mandated that one-third of members in the national parliament, and 40 percent in local assemblies, must be women. In addition, the constitution provides for mixed proportional representation of people of different communities in all elective organs of the government, from the central to local levels. It mandates the appointment of officials in all branches of government from the broadest cross section of Nepali citizens.

The mandatory requirement for the President, Vice President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of national Parliament and local assemblies to be from different genders and communities, will make the leadership of the nation’s elected bodies resemble a rainbow of unity in diversity. Term limits for the President and Vice President of the republic, and Chief Ministers of State, will ensure opportunity for fresh leadership in the nation’s polity.

Allowing the use of local languages in state and local government and public institutions, will ensure citizen-friendly local governance. A dozen different constitutional commissions will be established to ensure that historically disempowered communities are truly empowered to fully exercise their constitutionally approved rights. All these provisions make Nepal’s new constitution one of the most progressive in South Asia, if not in the world.

Some weaknesses

But like all other constitutions of the world, Nepal’s new statute is not perfect, and there is plenty of room for improvement. Some of the major weaknesses to be rectified are: certain discriminatory provisions with regard to gender equality in acquiring citizenship by birth and naturalization; the need to give greater weight to population rather than to existing administrative units in determining electoral constituencies; and the necessity of a certain minimum threshold of votes for political parties to be eligible for proportional representation.

These and some other legitimate demands of various groups – including the Madhesis, Tharus and other communities – need to be accommodated through the normal process of constitutional amendments.

Celebrations and protests

There have been many celebrations welcoming the new constitution, with most people expressing a sigh of relief that the long-drawn, divisive and expensive process of drafting the constitution is finally over and Nepal now has a progressive new constitution. But a small group of parliamentarians boycotted the CA process, rejected the new constitution and have launched a protest movement in the southern plains of Nepal bordering India.

Some of these protests have turned violent inflicting deaths and injuries among both protesters and security personnel. The main complaints of the protesters concern the demarcation of federal boundaries, which they demand should be primarily identity-based. The relative weight to be given to identity versus economic viability and administrative convenience has become a highly contentious and emotionally charged issue.

Political parties emphasizing identity lost badly in the latest election, but they insist on their agenda citing earlier agreements with the government following previous street agitations. Indeed, it has become customary in Nepal for parties and activists to try to secure their demands through strikes, demonstrations, and even “revolutionary violence” when they fail to garner enough support through elections and normal parliamentary processes.

India’s role

India, Nepal’s giant neighbour surrounding the land-locked country from three sides, has a huge influence – positive as well as negative – in the politics, economy, trade and commerce of Nepal, as it does with all its neighbouring countries in South Asia.

It is quite common between neighbours of asymmetrical size that smaller countries often feel bullied and threatened by their larger neighbour, whereas the bigger country sometimes feels frustrated with the petulant behaviour of its smaller neighbours. This is precisely what is happening currently in the Indo-Nepal relationship.

India has felt inadequately consulted and listened to by Nepal in the final stages of the drafting of the constitution. Nepalis, on the other hand, feel that drafting a national constitution is their sovereign right and duty, without being unduly influenced by outside powers.

Piqued by Nepal not listening to its advice when the constitution was promulgated, India issued a statement in which it simply “noted” the adoption of “a” rather than “the” constitution. It has since imposed an undeclared blockade of Nepal, creating shortage of petroleum and other essential products.

A wave of anti-Indian protests are taking place across Nepal now, even as key trading routes between the two countries are blockaded in a seemingly coordinated manner by India and some disgruntled political groups on the Nepali side of the border.

U.N.’s contribution

It is in this context that the U.N.’s lukewarm “acknowledgment” of the adoption of the new constitution dismayed Nepalis as it followed India’s cold, if not hostile, reaction. Nepal’s other big neighbour China, and many other countries have welcomed the new constitution much more warmly, though all want to see the protesters and the government resolve all pending disputes and demands through peaceful negotiations.

Whereas bilateral relations between Nepal and India maybe influenced by geopolitical considerations, the U.N. should be guided solely by principles and norms of the U.N. Charter, various human rights and other treaties and conventions. The U.N.’s Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and, earlier, the U.N. Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) were often criticized for relying heavily on the analysis and advice of some young journalists, columnists, academics and activists championing what they considered to be “progressive agenda”.

By contrast, the views of many Nepalis with long experience and expertise working inside the U.N. system or dealing with it at senior levels, such as former ambassadors to the U.N., foreign ministers, and senior U.N. officials, including those who have successfully commanded U.N. peace-keeping missions were often politely dismissed.

Indeed, it was only after the departure of UNMIN that the long pending peace process, particularly the integration and rehabilitation of ex-Maoist combatants, was successfully completed with the wise guidance of an experienced former Nepal Army General with long experience of commanding a U.N. peacekeeping operation abroad.

The U.N. SG’s second statement welcoming Nepal’s new constitution as an important milestone of the peace process conveys a more accurate and balanced perspective. Nepalis in all walks of life look to the U.N. to play a thoughtful and constructive role in helping Nepal overcome the difficult challenges it faces now, guided by the principles of its Charter and relevant human right conventions rather than considerations of realpolitik or progressive-sounding populism.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Children in America lag behind most industrialised nations on key child indicators. Credit: Astrid Westvang/cc by 2.0

By Kul Chandra Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nov 19 2014 (IPS)

On Nov. 20, the whole world will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the world’s most universally ratified human rights treaty, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Sadly, the United States of America won’t be at the party or will simply be watching from the sidelines.

The U.S. remains the odd man – the odd country – out, accompanied only by Somalia and South Sudan in having failed to ratify this landmark instrument of international law.

UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

The absence of Somalia and South Sudan is understandable as these are among the world’s most fragile, failed or failing states. But one would expect the U.S. which claims to be a great champion of human rights in the world to be at the front and centre of this celebration, not missing in action.

One hundred ninety-four nations – including all of America’s closest allies — have ratified the CRC. It baffles non-Americans, and even many Americans, as to why the U.S. is reluctant to ratify this Convention.

This example of negative “American exceptionalism” is illogical and perverse. The Convention upholds the very same principles that underpin American democracy. It says that all children, everywhere, have the same human rights to survive and thrive, to learn and contribute.

It obligates states that embrace it to do all that is humanly possible to ensure children’s wellbeing, dignity and protection. It is supportive of parents and respectful of cultures.

Many American scholars and experts were actively involved in drafting the CRC, and the U.S. government played a leadership role in negotiating and shaping it. But most U.S. citizens remain unaware of this great human rights treaty which their country helped create.

The CRC recognises every child’s right to develop physically, mentally and socially to his or her fullest potential, to be protected from abuse, discrimination, exploitation and violence; to express his or her views and to participate in decisions affecting his or her future.The experience of other highly developed countries that have ratified the Convention indicates that CRC can be relevant and beneficial for all countries - rich and advanced as well as poor and underdeveloped.

It reaffirms the primary role of parents and the family in raising children. It seeks to emulate key provisions on child rights and well-being under the U.S. Constitution and laws.

Some opponents of the CRC in America have argued that it would impose on this country all kinds of terrible obligations that may be harmful to America and its children and families.

These range from how possible U.N. interference might compromise the sovereignty of the U.S. and undermine its Constitution; to how the CRC might weaken American families and role of parents in bringing up their children; how it might bring about a culture of permissiveness, including abortion on demand, and unrestricted access to pornography; and how it might empower children to sue their parents and disobey their guidance.

Such concerns are not unique to America. Many groups in other countries have expressed similar fears from time to time. But in 25 years of experience in over a hundred countries, rich and poor, with liberal as well as conservative governments, such concerns have proven to be unfounded, exaggerated and hypothetical.

Some Americans argue that as the U.S. has a great Constitution and laws that are already strong and often superior to what is contained in the CRC, it is unnecessary and undesirable to ratify the Convention as it might actually lower the standards of child protection rather than strengthening them.

But the experience of other highly developed countries that have ratified the Convention indicates that CRC can be relevant and beneficial for all countries – rich and advanced as well as poor and underdeveloped.

In its website, the U.S. Coalition for Ratification of CRC has listed some of the common myths and real truths regarding worries about the possible negative impact of CRC on American children and families.

America is, of course, a nation of extraordinary wealth. Most children in this country are beneficiaries of this affluence. They live in comfortable homes and safe neighbourhoods; have a decent standard of living, health, education and social welfare. But there is room for some humility.

Studies by the Children’s Defense Fund, UNICEF, and others show that compared to the wealth of the U.S., a shocking number of children continue to lack the basics of life. Children in America lag behind most industrialised nations on key child indicators.

The U.S. is towards the bottom of the league in relative child poverty, in the gap between rich and poor, teen birth rates, low birth weight, infant mortality, child victims of gun violence, and the number of minors in jail.

For many people outside the U.S., it is incomprehensible how the richest nation on earth lets every sixth child live in (relative) poverty; how its laws allow a child to be killed by guns every three hours; or how so many children and families can live without basic health insurance.

It is equally difficult to understand why a nation that can afford two billion dollars a day in military spending, and a trillion dollar bail-out package to huge Wall Street banks and corporate giants that brought its economy to its knees, cannot rescue its children from sickness, illiteracy, violent crimes and poverty.

Now, ratifying the CRC will not by itself dramatically change the situation of America’s children. But it would help establish a critical national framework to formulate clear goals and targets which the federal and state governments, private organisations, and individuals can use to shape policies and programmes to better meet the needs of children and their families.

Internationally, ratification of the CRC would help enhance U.S. standing as a global leader in human rights. As a party to the Convention, the U.S. would be eligible to participate in the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC’s implementation), and work toward strengthening further progress for children in all countries.

To many people in the world, the United States of America is not just a country, but it represents an ideal – the ideal of democracy, of the rule of law, respect for human rights, and a certain global moral leadership.

That ideal image is often shattered and the reputation of the U.S. tarnished around the world whenever the U.S. government chooses to follow an arrogant, unilateralist approach; disparaging its allies and the United Nations; withdrawing its support for the International Criminal Court, abandoning its commitments under the Geneva Conventions, even condoning torture – all in the name of national security and fighting terrorism.

Still, many friends of America see these as aberrations and continue to be inspired by the ideals of democracy and human rights on which this country was founded.

On behalf of President Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright signed the CRC in 1995, signaling the U.S. government’s intention to move toward ratification. But the George W Bush administration took no further action.

Even President Obama, whose outlook and vision most closely match the spirit of the Convention, has done nothing tangible towards getting the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate.

The global celebration of CRC@25 is a fitting opportunity for President Obama to make good on the promise he made as a presidential candidate in 2008 while speaking at Waldon University in Minnesota: “It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. It is important that the U.S. return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of human rights. I will review this and other treaties to ensure that the U.S. resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

One doesn’t have to be much of a political analyst to understand that following the recent elections to the U.S. Congress, ratification of the CRC doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in the current political climate in Washington.

But President Obama has often shown a willingness to surmount political deadlocks by taking what actions he is authorised by law to take on his own, when he deems the national interest to be at stake.

One such measure that is in the president’s power to enact would be to immediately order the State Department to undertake a thorough review of the CRC, so that it is ready for submission to the Senate for ratification as soon as the situation becomes more favourable.

Some 109 CEOs and leaders of prominent American child welfare organisations and faith-based groups have recently made an impassioned joint appeal to Obama to order such a review.

In this world where kids too often come last, the Convention serves as a reminder that they must come first. It is a moral compass, a framework of accountability against which all societies can assess their treatment of the new generations.

In many parts of the world, the 20th of November is celebrated as universal children’s day. Many faith-based organisations also celebrate it as a “World Day of Prayer and Action for Children”.

As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the CRC this year, many of us will be praying and hoping that the world’s most powerful and influential state, the United States of America, will soon join the international community in embracing the CRC as a bulwark for the defence of children’s rights and a beacon of hope for the world’s children.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

The life and times of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who died two weeks ago, evoke many strong sentiments among her supporters and detractors. I was not one of her fans. As someone with social-democratic leanings, I detested her tough conservative policies. Nicknamed the “Iron Lady“, her leadership style was harsh and uncompromising. Her socio-economic policies known as “Thatcherism”  emphasized deregulation of the economy, less government, lower taxes, privatization of state-owned companies, more freedom for business and consumers, and weakening the power and influence of trade unions.

Before she became Prime Minister, Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education and Science. In that capacity, she implemented harsh public expenditure cuts on education, including the abolition of free milk for school children. This provoked strong protests and earned her the moniker: “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”. Her cuts in higher education spending resulted in her being the first Oxford-educated post-war Prime Minister who was denied an honorary doctorate by Oxford University.

Like her contemporary, US President Ronald Reagan, Thatcher opposed many aspects of the modern welfare state and Keynesian economic policies, advocating instead an ideologically unfettered capitalism.

In international affairs, Thatcher aligned herself with Ronald Reagan’s combative distrust of Communism; opposed sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, and dismissed Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress as a “terrorist organization”. She showed strong antipathy towards European integration and opposed proposals for the European Union.

As someone who generally stood for policies that were contrary to the cult of Thatcherism, I considered myself rather anti-Thatcherite and Reaganite. But a personal experience and exposure to Thatcher in 1990 gave me a more nuanced view of the kinder and gentler human side of this Iron Lady.

Thatcher at Summit for Children

The occasion was the World Summit for Children at the United Nations on 30 September 1990. As a senior UNICEF official, I was personally involved in organizing that historic Summit. It was the largest gathering of world leaders in history until that time. Never before had the UN hosted as many as 71 Heads of State and Government, and several hundred Ministers, dignitaries and celebrities on one single occasion.

I was personally involved in the substantive preparation of the Summit, having had the privilege of being a key drafter of the ‘World Declaration and Plan of Action for the Survival, Protection and Development of Children’ that the assembled leaders eventually endorsed. But our biggest challenge turned out to be the protocol and logistical arrangements which were unprecedented and daunting.

As so many Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Emirs and their spouses had never been to the UN at the same time previously, we had to figure out how to sequence the arrival and departure formalities for them. When Heads of State and Government visit the UN, there are no guards of honour or a 21-gun salute with pomp and ceremony as during their State visits. However, a minimal courtesy required was for all leaders to be personally greeted by the Secretary-General upon their arrival at the UN.

But with 71 such leaders, it would take at least 2.5 hours even if we allowed only 2 minutes each for their motorcade to enter the UN, for dignitaries to disembark, and for the Secretary-General to greet them, before the next motorcade arrived.

Important leaders would naturally not wish to spend 2-3 hours twiddling their thumbs just waiting for the last leader to arrive before the Summit started. As all national leaders consider themselves as very busy VVIPs, Ambassadors of every country wanted their leader to be among the last one to arrive. A further complication in New York is that there are special security/protocol procedures for the US President. All traffic around the UN is completely “frozen” for about an hour before his arrival and departure at the UN, and there are no exceptions made. This meant that for a Summit scheduled to start at 10am, if the US President arrived at 9:45am, all other leaders had to be there by 8:45am, which meant that the first of the 71 leaders had to be at the UN by 6:30am and wait there till 10am for the opening of the Summit.

Understandably, we had a huge challenge to persuade any leader to be among the first to arrive. To tackle this problem we had to concoct a very creative solution. If one of the more important world leaders were persuaded to be at the UN that early, other leaders could possibly be persuaded to arrive early enough to have some personal time or “a bilateral meeting” with such a leader. But which important leader could be convinced to come that early?

Next to President George H.W. Bush, who was scheduled to fly into New York to attend the Summit that morning, the most important leader confirmed to attend was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. So we decided rather hesitantly to approach her through the British Ambassador to the UN and our contacts in London to explore if she could “do a very special favour to the children of the world” by being among the first leaders to arrive at the UN at around 6:30am in the morning on the day of the Summit! To our pleasant surprise, Mrs. Thatcher agreed, as apparently she too wished to have a few bilateral meetings with some world leaders attending the Summit, and her handlers figured out that she would actually save some time by holding those meetings right at the UN instead of at her hotel or at the UK mission to the UN.

Memorable Breakfast

Delighted by this ingenious solution, we arranged for a special early morning buffet breakfast at the North Lounge of the General Assembly building, and framed the invitation as “Breakfast with Maggie” for any Head of State or Government who was willing to arrive early at the UN. Lo and behold, suddenly, there was no shortage of leaders who were eager to arrive at the UN even in the wee hours of the morning for this “special breakfast”. Thus our protocol and logistical problems were solved, with Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar – along with UNICEF’s Jim Grant, myself, and other senior UN officials present to meet and greet the leaders at the crack of dawn!

For me, it was undoubtedly the most memorable breakfast of my life. It was fascinating to watch from the sidelines world leaders rubbing shoulders, and it was especially gratifying to witness the Iron Lady casting her charm with fellow leaders as she spoke with them in a very caring manner on the touchy-feely subject of children and their well-being.

After the grand opening session at the General Assembly Hall, the “real Summit” took place at the ECOSOC Chamber which was specially refurbished for the occasion with a large square table (called the “round-table”) to seat exactly 72 persons – the 71 world leaders plus the UN Secretary-General. All other dignitaries sat in the outer circle and in the galleries.

The proceedings of the Summit were carefully choreographed. To ensure that leaders did not give long country-specific statements, and to avoid repetition of general platitudes about children, the Summit agenda was divided into four specific themes. For the first time in the UN’s history, leaders were given a strict time limit of 5 minutes each for their remarks.

Many diplomats protested such “unreasonable” time limit for their leaders, but as the Summit was only one day and there were around 80 speakers, there was no choice but to insist on such time limit.  We were quite apprehensive that many leaders would not respect such time limit, but to our very pleasant surprise, almost all leaders stuck to the limit, and yet made very profound and pithy statements.

Iron Lady with Human Heart

One significant exception was Margaret Thatcher, who delivered her prepared statement in exactly five minutes, but then asked the Chair to grant her a few additional minutes to make some impromptu remarks on how very deeply moved and touched she had been by a special UNICEF video shown at the opening of the Summit. She exhorted to all leaders to take its message seriously and act accordingly.

Her impromptu remarks were tender and heart-felt, acknowledging the most touching statements by other leaders like Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia, Joachim Chissano of Mozambique, and other war-torn countries. She even recited a lovely English poem with very motherly feelings. Coming from the “Iron Lady” who had been so gracious as to devote nearly three hours of her precious time entertaining all the early arriving leaders in the wee hours of the morning, the extra time given to her was happily accepted by everybody!

• · Mr. Gautam from Nepal is former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of  the United Nations (contact: kulgautam@hotmail.com; www.kulgautam.org).