People’s Friendship University of Russia

By Somar Wijayadasa
NEW YORK, Jan 28 2020 (IPS)

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia – popularly known as RUDN (acronym from its Russian name Rossiysky Universitet Druzhby Narodov) – is a renowned, world-class educational and research institution in Moscow.

It celebrates its 60th Anniversary from 5-7 February culminating in a grand concert at the Kremlin Palace of Congress presided by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

In keeping with Russia’s socialist tradition of helping developing countries, Premier Nikita Khrushchev opened this University in 1960 – just less than half a century after the 1917 Russian revolution, and less than two decades after the World War II that ravaged the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) with a loss of over 27 million of its people.

Events of historical significance

By 1960, Russia was a thriving economy with marvels of industrialization, advances in science, technology and medicine, escapades into outer space, and basking in the glory of a Super Power.

Simultaneously, a mass decolonization was taking place liberating hundreds of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America – that desperately required qualified cadres to develop their countries. Russia stepped up to assist them – giving birth to the Peoples’ Friendship University.

Exponential growth

As a frequent visitor to the RUDN University since 1960’s, I have had the rare privilege of witnessing its radical transformation – the exponential growth of buildings, faculties, programs and Institutes, and its number of students.

In 1960, RUDN had 539 students from 59 countries in six faculties in different locations in Moscow. By 1964, it began to build a new campus to accommodate all faculties and students in one location – that has now grown into a mega-university.

When I defended my thesis in 1967, the dissertation committee consisted of seven eminent international jurists, chaired by Feodor Kozhevnikov, a former judge of the International Court of Justice. Even then – a high standard indeed.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was the first to recognize the high level of Degrees conferred by the Friendship University. With its well-recognized global rankings, Friendship University graduates with a Master’s Degree in any discipline could gain direct admission into PhD programs in Western Universities.

For example, I was admitted to the Hague Academy of International Law, and to PhD programs at the Vienna University, and the School of Law at the New York University purely on the grades of my Master’s Degree program but my workload and travel schedules at the UN disrupted my doctoral studies.

A mega-university

Today, the training of specialists at the RUDN University is carried out according to 472 programs of various levels of education, including 74 programs in foreign languages (English and Spanish) at the various faculties, institutes and academies of the University.

Among the phenomenal changes from my days in the 1960’s is that today you can follow many courses in the English medium. Regardless, all foreign students, after a year in Russia, speak fluent Russian.

RUDN has the best Russian language school in the world to teach Russian to foreigners. To date, its professors continue to teach Russian language to almost all foreign astronauts at the Cosmonaut Training Center named after Yuri Gagarin.

Another distinct improvement is the change in 1989 from a single all-inclusive 5-year Master’s Degree Program into a multi-tiered system of higher education.

Today, RUDN offers a variety of Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D degrees in 76 disciplines. It has more than 30 Master’s programs in English and Spanish languages, and has over 113 joint Master’s and double diploma programs with famous universities of the world.

RUDN University has about 480 cooperation agreements with universities in more than 90 countries.

Somar Wijayadasa in Moscow, in 2014, with Prof Aslan Abashidze, Dean of the Law Faculty of the People’s Friendship University of Russia

Rector of RUDN University

At the helm of this astounding university is its dynamic Rector, Prof. Vladimir Mikhailovich Filippov, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, and an Academician of the Russian Academy of Education. It is a great honor to have Dr. Fillippov as the Rector as he is an alumni (1973) of the Friendship University – for the last 15 years.

He was the Minister of Education of the Russian Republic (1998–2004), and has won many academic awards. Active in educational matters in Russia and abroad, he Chairs several educational Committees of UNESCO in Paris.

Moscow Campus: A city within the City of Moscow

The RUDN campus is located in the South-West of Moscow – about 20 minutes from the Kremlin and Red Square. It occupies 50 hectares (125 acres) and consists of 27 academic and hostel buildings, sport facilities and stadiums, a clinic and a diagnostic center, hundreds of scientific laboratories, a library, an International Club, a shopping center and 32 multinational cafés – all resembling a cosmopolitan city within the city of Moscow.

According to RUDN, the current “enrollment of students at the Moscow campus and at its Sochi Institute are about 33.5 thousand internal and external students, post-graduate students, residents and interns from 157 countries of the world”.

On average, about 9000 students live in the Moscow campus. The approximate distribution of students by country and region are: Asia – 2324; Latin America – 565; Africa – 1289; Middle East – 861; CIS and Baltic countries – 3510; and Western Europe – 349 students.

Referring to the vast multicultural composition of its student body, Rector Filippov says “our students not only obtain a university degree to fulfill their professional ambitions, but also gain invaluable experience in dealing with different cultures, and broaden their social and cultural horizons”.

Today, the University employs 2,800 highly qualified faculty members, including more than 600 doctors of sciences and 1,400 candidates of science, and about 150 foreign teachers. One noteworthy tradition that continues to date is the assiduous dedication of its professors who strive to ensure that all students excel in their studies, and graduate as well qualified professionals.

Let Knowledge Unite Us

In keeping with its motto “scientia unescamus”, the University unites people of different nationalities by means of knowledge. In that spirit, every year, the University admits nearly 2000 students from over 150 countries. Currently, over 150,000 of its graduates, including over 6000 doctors of science (PhD’s) work in 180 countries around the world.

Among its prominent graduates are: Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the PLO; Michel Djotodia, President of Central African Republic; Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua: Hifikepunye Pohamba, Former President of Namibia; Bharrat Jagdeo, former President of Guyana; Porfirio Lobo Sosa, former President of Honduras; Yousuf Saleh Abbas, former Prime Minister of Chad; Karim Masimov, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to name a few.

Its influential alumni include hundreds of ministers, judges, ambassadors, academicians, senior United Nations officials, and thousands of doctors and engineers and other professionals in hundreds of countries from Angola to Zimbabwe.

University graduates return to their countries – that have suffered for centuries under foreign rule and exploitation – to contribute not only for the scientific advancement of their countries but also to embark on their arduous struggle to win economic independence, develop their national economies, raise their cultural levels and identities, and achieve social progress.

That exemplifies Abraham Lincoln’s words “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next”.

A mini United Nations in Moscow

Having worked for 25 years in several organizations of the United Nations system – IAEA, FAO, UNESCO, WHO/UNAIDS – and most of my career representing these organizations at the UN Headquarters in New York, I can unhesitatingly vouch that the atmosphere in the Friendship University campus bears a resemblance to the United Nations in New York.

In 2014, my wife and I casually visited the University (as we always do when we are in Moscow) not realizing that the graduation ceremonies were in progress. The massive lobby of the main building was full of beaming graduating foreign students, their families, and Ambassadors of various countries.

That multi-national gathering – some dressed in their national costumes – and the jubilant atmosphere truly resembled a mini United Nations. As we were introduced to the gathering, many thronged around us asking questions about future employment prospects in UN Agencies.

The university has a cooperative and friendly attitude – one of respect and mutual assistance. Here everyone can make a «world tour» without leaving the campus. Traditions and customs, cuisines and garments, dancing and music – the whole world is in one Moscow street.

A beacon of hope for the world

Since 1960, RUDN has offered thousands of fully paid graduate scholarships in medicine, engineering, jurisprudence, and other sciences to provide vitally needed qualified cadres to develop those newly liberated nations. That is a magnanimous contribution – unprecedented in history.

As I pointed out earlier, over 150,000 RUDN graduates work all over the world, and in various organizations of the United Nations system. Each one of them – in their professions – prove the high standard of education they received, thereby, bringing enormous credit to Russia’s People’s Friendship University.

The golden axiom “education is the ultimate gift one can give a child” may have inspired Nelson Mandela to say “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”.

*Somar Wijayadasa, a Law graduate of the Friendship University was a Faculty Member of the University of Sri Lanka (1967-1972); worked for IAEA and FAO (1973-1985): delegate of UNESCO to the UN General Assembly (1985-1995); and was the Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations from 1995-2000.

U.N. Security Council members observe a minute of silence at the start of the meeting to establish tribunal on downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. The draft resolution failed to be adopted due to the veto by Russia. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Somar Wijayadasa
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 3 2015 (IPS)

On July 29 Russia vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution on the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 flight over eastern Ukraine last year – killing all 298 people on board.

Of the 15 UNSC members, 11 voted in support of the Malaysia-proposed draft resolution, with Angola, Venezuela and China abstaining.The toxic game of political football has, unfortunately, dragged this on for over a year without any honest attempt to find out what happened.

Vetoing the draft UNSC resolution, the representative of Russia to the U.N., Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, noted that Russia had repeatedly said that it wouldn’t support the tribunal “due to the fact the UNSC resolution 2166 [of 2014] didn’t qualify the Boeing tragedy as a threat to international peace and security.”

While all sponsors of the draft resolution and the United States had harsh words condemning Russia’s veto, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said: “There can be no reason to oppose this [draft resolution] unless you are a perpetrator yourself.”

That is a preemptive judgement to blame Russia, ignoring the basic legal tenet that one is innocent until proven guilty.

The Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down on July 17 as it was flying over a war zone, where Ukrainian armed forces and rebels were fighting using military aircraft.

The Ukrainian authorities and Western allies accuse the rebels in eastern Ukraine of downing the plane with a surface-to-air missile allegedly provided by Russia. But Moscow has rejected accusations it supplied the rebels with missile systems. The rebels too deny these accusations.

Meanwhile, Malaysia, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ukraine are conducting a criminal inquiry into the cause of the crash but they have not yet established responsibility for the tragedy.

Separately, the Dutch Safety Board is due to release their official report on the cause of the crash by the end of this year.

It is regrettable that Russia was never allowed to participate in these investigations. Moscow has repeatedly warned against putting blame on anyone before these investigations into the crash have been completed.

Despite the veto, Churkin said, “Russia stands ready to cooperate in the conduct of a full independent and objective investigation of the reasons and circumstances of the crash”.

From the outset, the draft resolution was doomed to fail for three reasons: First, since these reports are still pending, Russians maintain the position that it was premature to set up an international tribunal.

Secondly, the U.N. Security Council last year unanimously adopted a resolution on this issue. And thirdly, the new draft resolution craftily claimed that the tragic downing of the Malaysian plane is a threat to international peace and security.

On July 21, 2014, the Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution 2166 that demanded that those responsible “be held to account and that all states cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability”.

Therefore, it is surprising that a new draft resolution on the same subject surfaced this year with the contentious terminology “a threat to international peace and security”.

As Churkin clearly pointed out, “It is difficult to explain how the event, which wasn’t considered a threat to international peace and security a year ago, now suddenly becomes one.”

Churkin said that “This, in our view, indicates the fact that political purposes were more important for them than practical objectives. This of course is regrettable.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that “the idea to create such a tribunal is aimed at punishing those whom Washington considers to be guilty.”

Furthermore, Chapter VII, Articles 39 to 51 of the U.N. Charter do not provide for the establishment of international tribunals to investigate civil aviation catastrophes of this nature – whether deliberate or accidental.

In the past, there have been similar incidents with civilian aircraft, such as the explosion of the Pan American flight 103 by the Libyans in 1983; downing of Iran Air flight 655 by the U.S. in 1988; and the downing of Korean Air Lines flight 007 by Soviet Union in 1983.

These were investigated according to internationally accepted rules, and the Security Council was not involved in investigations. Therefore, the call for an international tribunal on any pretext is nothing but confrontational.

According to the established rules and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), it is the responsibility of the airline (Malaysian Airlines) as well as the country (Ukraine) in which the accident occurred to investigate as to what exactly happened.

Dutch investigators admit that the plane was shot down while flying over the conflict zone near Donetsk. It is not only an ICAO requirement but a well recognised international practice to inform ICAO and civilian airlines not to use airspace over conflict zones.

Both Ukraine and Malaysian Airlines failed to adhere to elementary rules. Ukraine warned civilian airlines not to use its airspace only after this accident occurred.

With my experience in the U.N. system for over 25 years, I am confident that the U.N. and ICAO could help establish an Independent Committee of International Aviation Experts to conduct a completely independent and transparent investigation – without undue political pressure – to find out who should be held responsible for this grave tragedy.

But the toxic game of political football has, unfortunately, dragged this on for over a year without any honest attempt to find out what happened.

All countries should bury their hatred and differences, and assist in the ongoing investigations to deliver justice to the families of the 298 innocent victims of the crash.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

The Security Council unanimously adopts resolution 2219 (2015), extending the arms embargo on Côte d’Ivoire by a year, until April 30, 2016. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Somar Wijayadasa
NEW YORK, May 1 2015 (IPS)

The United Nations was created to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, protect human rights, maintain international peace and security, and uphold international law. Its 70-year history is marked with many successes, but also disappointments. We need to look at both sides so that we can make the U.N. more effective in the future.

The U.N. has an impressive record of resolving many international conflicts. U.N. peacekeepers have, since 1945, undertaken over 60 field missions and negotiated 172 peaceful settlements that ended regional conflicts. Right now, peacekeepers are in 20 hot spots around the world trying to save lives and avert wars.The Security Council must be reformed and strengthened to enable the U.N. as a whole to confront and resolve complex challenges of our world.

The U.N. also fought for the liberation of countries that have been under colonial rule for over 450 years. Eighty nations and more than 750 million people have since been freed from colonialism.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights empowered the U.N. to act as custodian for the protection of human rights, discrimination against women, children’s rights, torture, missing persons and arbitrary detention that was occurring in many countries.

Moreover, the U.N. and its specialised agencies are engaged in enhancing all aspects of human life, including education, health, poverty reduction, the rights of women and children, and climate change.

As a result, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 12 times to the U.N., its specialised agencies, programmes and staff. This included an award in 1988 to the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces, and in 2001 to the U.N. and its secretary-general, Kofi Annan.

The U.N. defined, codified and expanded the realm of international law, governing the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. More than 560 multilateral treaties on human rights, refugees, disarmament, trade, oceans, outer space, etc. encompassing all aspects of international affairs were negotiated by the U.N.

The U.N. has made progress with its eight Millennium Development Goals, which will be followed by 17 Sustainable Development Goals to enhance social, environmental and economic progress by 2030. But it could not stop the United States from abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, ignoring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, repudiating the Biological Weapons Convention, and repealing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The U.N. is not without shortcomings. In 1970, when the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed by 190 nations, all five superpowers owned nuclear weapons. Later, despite the NPT and Partial Test Ban Treaty, several countries – North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India – developed nuclear weapons. This revealed the U.N.’s inability to enforce regulations on offending nations.

Along similar lines, the U.N.’s International Court of Justice has resolved major international disputes, but the U.N.’s veto powers have limited its effectiveness at critical times.

The International Criminal Court, established in 2002, has prosecuted several war criminals – but it has been criticised for prosecuting only African leaders while Western powers too have committed war crimes.

Dag Hammarskjold, secretary-general  from 1953-1961, said that the “U.N. was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” The U.N. has solved many violent conflicts, prevented wars, and saved millions of lives but it also faced disappointments.

In Cambodia, a peacekeeping mission (1991–95) ended violence and established a democratic government, but well after Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge (1975-79) had executed over 2.5 million people.

In Rwanda, over 800,000 were massacred in 100 days. In 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran the “safe zone” of Srebrenica and massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys. In Darfur, an estimated 300,000 Sudanese civilians were killed. In Nigeria, Boko Haram has killed over 13,000 people.

A recent report by “Body Count” revealed that “in addition to one million deaths in Iraq, an estimated 220,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan as a result of US foreign policy”.

Last year, Israel attacked homes, schools, hospitals, and U.N. shelters in Gaza killing 2,200 Palestinians. Condemning that action, Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that “Israel was deliberately defying international law in its military offensive in Gaza and that world powers should hold it accountable for possible war crimes.” The U.N. Security Council (SC) has failed as the United States vetoes any action against Israel.

The Arab Spring in the Middle East caused thousands of deaths and regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Libya is devastated with over 40,000 deaths, and the civil war in Syria has killed over 220,000 people. These wars have displaced over 50 million people. Now, ISIS has infiltrated these countries causing gruesome killings, human rights abuses, and war crimes, at an unprecedented rate.

These catastrophic events might have been prevented if the Member States of the U.N. had the ability to resolutely act in a timely manner. But the U.N. is not a world government, and it does not have a standing army of peace-keepers ready for deployment. And, it is the Member States that make decisions at the U.N.

These setbacks clearly reflect the shortcomings of the U.N. Security Council, and its veto powers that allow some members’ own interests to be placed ahead of the need to end a raging conflict.

Navi Pillay, addressing the Security Council, said that “short-term geopolitical considerations and national interest, narrowly defined, have repeatedly taken precedence over intolerable human suffering and grave breaches of – and long-term threats to – international peace and security.”

During the last 70 years, geopolitics have changed drastically that call for reform of the U.N. – to meet global needs and challenges of the 21st century.

Member States accuse the Security Council of being arrogant, secretive and undemocratic but the veto powers resist change. Meanwhile, violations of the U.N. Charter by powerful countries continue to erode the effectiveness of the United Nations.

However, as mandated by its Charter, the U.N. has prevented another World War. The U.N. has made impressive and unprecedented progress in all aspects of human development, bringing great benefits to millions of people around the world.

Our convoluted world needs the U.N. The Security Council must be reformed and strengthened to enable the U.N. as a whole to confront and resolve complex challenges of our world.

As President Obama has said, the U.N. is imperfect, but it is also indispensable.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Somar Wijayadasa
NEW YORK, Jan 28 2015 (IPS)

People’s Friendship University of Russia (PFUR), which celebrates its 55th anniversary on Feb. 5, is known worldwide as a major academic and research centre. During the last five decades, PFUR has educated 80,000 students from 145 countries.

In keeping with its socialist tradition of helping developing countries, Premier Nikita Khrushchev opened the Friendship University, in February 1960, just three years after he opened the former Soviet Union to the world with the 1957 Youth festival in Moscow which was attended by 30,000 foreign guests from 130 countries.The landmark event that influenced the opening of this University is the liberation of many Asian, African and Latin American countries from colonial rule.

On Feb. 22, 1961, the university was named after Patrice Lumumba – the Congolese independence leader and the first democratically-elected prime minister of the Republic of Congo. In 1992, following a major reorganisation of the university, the Russian government reverted to its original name – People’s Friendship University of Russia (PFUR).

1960 was ideal time for the Soviet Union not only to show the world its radical transformation of the country that was ravaged by the World War II with a loss of over 20 million of its people, but also to display its many scientific and technological advances including its Space Programme – already ahead of the United States.

But the landmark event that influenced the opening of this University is the liberation of many Asian, African and Latin American countries from colonial rule.

This mass decolonisation began after World War II when the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” was enshrined in the United Nations Charter (Chapter XI, Articles 73 and 74), and the United Nations began to fight for the liberation of these countries.

In 1945, the U.N. consisted of 51 member states and by 1965, the number had more than doubled to 117, as the newly independent nations joined the organisation.

These newly independent states, having suffered under foreign rule and exploitation for centuries, embarked on the arduous struggle to win economic independence, develop their national economies, raise their cultural levels and identities and achieve social progress.

Thus, the strategy behind opening PFUR was to educate hundreds of young people from developing countries by providing higher education in medicine, engineering and other sciences that was most needed for the development of these nations.

Among its prominent graduates are: Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the PLO; Michel Djotodia, President, Central African Republic; Hifikepunye Pohamba, President, Namibia; Bharrat Jagdeo, Former President of Guyana; Yousuf Saleh Abbas, Former Prime Minister of Chad, many ministers, judges, professors, ambassadors, doctors, and engineers who make a dedicated commitment to the development of their communities.

This magnanimous and unprecedented assistance continued while Western universities gave only a few one-year scholarships such as Rhodes or Fulbright scholarships to a selected few from developing countries. PFUR gave several hundred five-year scholarships including tuition, a stipend, hostel accommodation, plus passage to and from Moscow which was a bonanza for poor students from developing countries.

The biggest beneficiaries of Russian higher education have been graduates from African and Latin American countries. Since their literacy rates in the 1960’s were very low, graduates of PFUR went back to occupy top positions in their countries.

Today, the University is administered by its Rector, Prof Vladimir Filippov (1973 alumni of PFUR), member of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Education, who was Russia’s Minister of Education from 1998 to 2004.

In 1960, PFUR had 539 students from 59 countries. Today, it has over 29,000 graduate and post graduate students – including 6,000 international students from 145 countries.

PFUR occupies 125 acres and hosts 27 buildings, enrolls students on fee payment and on scholarship basis, and offers a variety of Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D degrees in 76 disciplines.

While education worldwide is expensive, a four-year Bachelors Degree at PFUR costs about 4,000 dollars a year which is heavily subsidised by the Russian government. Education at PFUR is indubitably a quality higher education at a comparatively affordable price.

An added bonus is the opportunity to obtain fluency in Russian and a double-degree from an affiliated university.

In 2014, a four-year course of undergraduate study in an American University ranged from 18,950 dollars a year in a state university to 42,500 dollars a year in an Ivy league university.

However, both Russian and American universities offer many need-based and merit-based financial aid – making it possible for poor students to obtain a higher education.

Details of PFUR can be found in its website. Interested students from any country should apply directly to the university.

PFUR maintains inter-university cooperation with foreign universities, and is associated with many international educational institutions and organisations such as UNESCO and UNHCR.

In 2009, when PFUR established a joint Master’s Degree Programme on Human Rights with UNHCR, its High Commissioner Navi Pillay said that, “The Friendship University is probably the only place where real multicultural atmosphere exists and human rights are fully respected. The PFUR graduates will for sure occupy the leading positions and it’ll be not only because of the education received, but also because of their life in this multicultural environment.”

According to Rector Filippov, “More than 80,000 graduates, and more than 5,500 doctoral (PhD) holders of the University work in 170 countries worldwide.” They not only obtained a university degree to fulfill their professional ambitions, Filippov said, but also gained invaluable experience in dealing with different cultures, and broaden their social and cultural horizons.

Nelson Mandela said that “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

People’s Friendship University has provided higher education to thousands of children from developing countries who otherwise would never have had the opportunity to receive a higher education – especially in a foreign country.

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.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

Independence Square in Kiev. In the aftermath of the revolution Ukraine now faces a difficult path to EU integration. Credit: Natalia Kravchuk/IPS.

By Somar Wijayadasa
NEW YORK, Sep 4 2014 (IPS)

The crisis in Ukraine is a man-made disaster created by world leaders who have been trying to pull Ukraine apart – either towards Europe or Russia.

As geo-political tensions in the world rage unabated, world powers rush to impose sanctions that cause unintended consequences.

A Washington Post editorial, ‘The Snake Oil Diplomacy: When Tensions Rise, The US Peddles Sanctions’, published as far back as July 1998, stated, “No country in the world has employed sanctions as often as the United States has… it has imposed economic sanctions more than 110 times.”

Historically, the League of Nations, United Nations, United States and the European Union have resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed.

“No country in the world has employed sanctions as often as the United States has… it has imposed economic sanctions more than 110 times.” -- Washington Post
During the 1990s, we witnessed a proliferation of sanctions imposed by the U.N. and U.S. against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Liberia, Somalia, Cambodia, Haiti – to name a few.

These sanctions brought disastrous consequences – where those in power thrived and the poor suffered.

A few countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea scoffed at U.S. sanctions as they had resources or the will power to survive. Sanctions against China and India failed to change the leadership or hinder the country’s economic drive and growth.

But in most countries, especially Cuba, Iraq and Haiti, sanctions deteriorated their economic, social and healthcare systems.

At times, sanctions were used as an ulterior motive for “regime change” which is a violation of the U.N. Charter and the basic norms of international law.

Such a devious practice has nothing to do with protecting human rights, and promoting democracy and freedom.

Now, the sanctions against Russia – over the crisis in Ukraine – have boomeranged.

By April, “Maidan” protests ousted Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovytch. U.S. missiles near Russia and NATO’s efforts to expand into former Warsaw Pact countries angered Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia was blocked out of the G8.

The U.S. and the EU imposed sanctions on Russia when Crimea joined Russia after the Crimeans held a referendum to declare independence based on the right of nations to self-determination that is stipulated in Article 1 of the U.N. Charter.

The right to “self-determination” was applied when former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were divided, and when several small states like East Timor declared independence.

People in East Ukraine – 70 percent of who are ethnic Russians – felt violated when the Ukrainian Government decided to ban the Russian language from its official status.

They too invoked their right to self-determination and held a referendum to establish their own State.

The U.S. broadened sanctions when the Malaysian plane was downed in East Ukraine. No evidence surfaced from the black boxes, satellite images or OSCE inspectors’ revelations to prove culpability – unless it was a deliberate, pre-meditated act to blame a warring faction.

Also Western leaders claim that Russia provides weapons to the rebels in Ukraine. It may be true, but again the U.S. has not provided any evidence and Putin denies the charge. It’s like Iraq’s WMDs all over again.

More U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia froze the assets of Russians in power, banned their travel to EU countries, restricted Russian banks’ sales of debt or stocks in European markets, and targeted Russia’s defense, energy and financial sectors – to name a few.

On Aug. 7, in a radical response to Western sanctions, Russia retaliated by banning imports of beef, pork, poultry, fish, cheese, dairy products, fruit and vegetables from the European Union, United States, Australia, Canada, Norway, for one year.

Russia’s agriculture minister, Nikolai Fyodorov, said, “We now have the unique chance to improve our agricultural sector and make it more competitive.” He said that Russia has already identified other non-Western countries to import banned food items, and that he is confident that Russians will use locally available food.

From what we hear, European growth has slowed down; some countries creeping back into recession; U.S. investors have withdrawn over four billion dollars from Euro stocks; European farmers and Norway’s fishermen are affected and the EU has set aside 167 million dollars to compensate farmers for their loss of revenue; and companies that transport cargo to Russia have come to a halt.

While it is difficult to predict how this tit-for-tat will ultimately affect both Russian and Western economies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the sanctions have, in fact, harmed the West more than they have hurt Russia. He said, “In politics, this is called shooting oneself in the foot.”

Also the toll on human suffering is increasing. The U.N. claims that the war in Ukraine has already killed over 2,500 and injured nearly 5,000 people.

According to UNHCR, over 730,000 Eastern Ukrainians have fled to Russia. The Ukrainian government acknowledges that over 300,000 of its citizens are displaced inside Ukraine.

The U.N. Charter and international law provide for settling conflicts between states through negotiations based on mutual respect for each other’s independence, sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of the other.

This disaster can be resolved only if power-hungry world leaders renounce their arrogance and interventionism, and help Ukraine become a prosperous but neutral buffer nation between Western Europe and Russia. If not, the partition of Ukraine will be inevitable.

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:

The U.N. flag flies at half-mast in memory of staff killed during the most recent Israeli air strikes in Gaza. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Somar Wijayadasa
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 20 2014 (IPS)

The United Nations was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.

To meet that objective, the Preamble of the U.N. Charter provides “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.Since the Second World War, these good and evil countries have waged hundreds of wars in which nearly 50 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.

The United Nations has played a major role in defining, codifying, and expanding the realm of international law – which defines the legal responsibilities of states in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within state boundaries.

Historically, violators of international law are not only the countries branded as evil and belligerent but also countries that preach democracy and human rights. That undermines the efforts of the United Nations to maintain law and order.

Since the Second World War, these good and evil countries have waged hundreds of wars in which nearly 50 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved. No part of the world has escaped the scourge of war. The countless mechanisms enshrined in the U.N. Charter to resolve conflicts by peaceful means have been rendered useless.

Let’s forget Hiroshima, Vietnam, Korea and a few other major disasters. Let’s look at what happened after the Cold War ended in 1989, and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 – leaving the United States as the only superpower.

The mass murders in Rwanda and Sudan proved that neither the United Nations nor superpowers wished to intervene. Wars in the Balkans, and fragmentation of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are now forgotten history.

The U.S. and NATO authorised bombings in Kosovo and Serbia in the 1990s. The Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen is over. International law was violated in all these instances, and these countries now are in disarray.

The United States has been criticised for turning away from internationalism by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, ignoring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, repudiating the Biological Weapons Convention, repealing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, refusing to sign the Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, and condoning the continued Israeli violence against Palestinians in occupied territories.

In 2011, following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration embarked on a strategy of unilateralism, disregarding the U.N. and international law. Worst of all is its military strategy of “pre-emptive strikes” which defies the U.N. Charter by allowing the U.S. to use illegal force against other states.

Despite U.N. opposition, the Bush administration took a series of unilateral actions. The most damaging was the war in Iraq waged on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the war in Afghanistan.

After a decade of devastation, the expectations of democracy, freedom and human rights have vanished – and there are no winners in these wars despite continuing mayhem and casualties.

U.S. President Barack Obama revealed that the two wars have cost U.S. taxpayers over one trillion dollars. A study by American researchers (including Noble Laureate Joseph Stieglitz and experts from Harvard and Brown), estimate that the costs could be in the range of three to four trillion.

A major challenge to international law today is the U.S. policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in U.S. drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians.

UCLA believes that “The U.S. policy instigated in 2006 is violating universally recognized customary international law on numerous counts: failure to discriminate between military and civilian objects, indiscriminate attacks, extrajudicial executions, attacks against places of worship.

“Ironically, the drone strikes could actually be classified as ‘international terrorism’, since they appear to have been often intended to coerce the civilian population and to influence the Pakistani government.”

Another major obstacle to peace in the Middle East and world security is the Israeli Occupation and expansion of settlements in occupied territories – acts that undermine International Law.

According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — to which both Israel and the United States are signatories — prohibits any occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Also, a landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice confirmed the illegality of the Israeli settlements.

Since 1948, the U.N. has passed scores of resolutions declaring that all Israeli settlements outside of Israel’s internationally recognised borders are illegal but they have been blatantly ignored by Israel.

Condemning the recent Israeli attacks on homes, schools, hospitals, and U.N. shelters in Gaza that killed thousands of innocent civilians – a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions – U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that “Israel was deliberately defying international law in its military offensive in Gaza and that world powers should hold it accountable for possible war crimes.”

Pillay said she was appalled at Washington consistently voting against resolutions on Israel in the Human Rights Council, General Assembly and Security Council.

Another inconspicuous violation is the application of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) approved by the U.N., in 2005, which is now subtly used for regime changes.

The U.S. and NATO invoked R2P for military intervention in Libya on the pretext of a “no-fly zone” but ended in regime change. Today Libya is fragmented and is in the hands of rebels, forcing United States to evacuate its embassy staff and other foreign personnel in Libya.

The U.S. attempted to invoke the R2P mechanism in Syria even though there was no proof that the Assad regime killed its own people with chemical weapons.

President Obama was about to wage a war against Syria when a last-minute solution was found by the Russians to avert the war by removing Assad’s chemical weapons.

But the U.S. and its allies showed no interest in invoking R2P in the case of Darfur or in Israeli aggression against Palestinians in Gaza, where over 2,000 civilians were killed.

And no one is screaming to invoke R2P in East Ukraine despite the fact that already over 2,000 Ukrainians have been killed by Ukrainian military forces.

The United Nations has not played a fair role when invoking the Responsibility to Protect.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with a mandate to consider genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. But it is unfortunate that ICC mainly focuses on criminal cases in Africa, without looking at so many breaches of the law elsewhere.

The United States is not a signatory to the ICC but it cannot escape from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.

Actions of many powerful countries prove that they are sticking to the Rule of Power instead of enhancing the Rule of Law.

For over 200 years, America has been a devout apostle of equality and freedom – defending peace, democracy, justice and human rights. It is in this sense that a few former U.S. presidents believed in peace and not war.

President Truman said, “The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world” and President Kennedy said, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

It is inconceivable that America, today, with its democratic history and unrivaled power, constantly violates international law instead of morally guiding the world towards peace, justice and prosperity.

Such actions not only erode the prestige of the United States and violate the U.N. Charter, but also undermine the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Somar Wijayadasa is a former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations.

Edited by: Kitty Stapp

The United Nations was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights. To meet that objective, the Preamble of the UN Charter provides “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.

 The United Nations has played a major role in defining, codifying, and expanding the realm of international law – which defines the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries.

Historically, violators of international law are not only the countries branded as evil and belligerent but also countries that preach democracy and human rights. That undermines the efforts of the United Nations to maintain law and order.

Since the Second World War, these good and evil countries have waged hundreds of wars in which nearly 50 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved. No part of the world has escaped the scourge of war. The countless mechanisms enshrined in the UN Charter to resolve conflicts by peaceful means have rendered useless.

Let’s forget Hiroshima, Vietnam, Korea and a few other major disasters. Let’s look at what happened after the Cold War ended in 1989, and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 – leaving the United States as the only Super Power.

The mass murders in Rwanda and Sudan proved that neither the United Nations nor superpowers wished to intervene. Wars in the Balkans, and fragmentation of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are now forgotten history.

US and NATO authorized bombings in Kosovo and Serbia in the 90’s. Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen is over. International law was violated in all these instances, and these countries now are in disarray.

United States has been criticized for turning away from internationalism by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, ignoring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, repudiating the Biological Weapons Convention, repealing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, refusing to sign the Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, and condoning the continued Israeli violence against Palestinians in occupied territories.

In 2011, following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration embarked on a strategy of unilateralism, disregarding the UN and international law. Worst of all is its military strategy of “pre-emptive strikes” which defies the UN Charter by allowing the US to use illegal force against other states.

Despite UN opposition, the Bush administration took a series of unilateral actions. The most damaging was the war in Iraq waged on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the war in Afghanistan.

After a decade of devastation, the expectations of democracy, freedom and human rights have vanished – and there are no winners in these wars despite continuing mayhem and casualties.

US President Barack Obama revealed that the two wars have cost US taxpayers over $1 trillion. A study by American researchers (including Noble Laureate Joseph Stieglitz and experts from Harvard and Brown), estimate that the costs could be in the range of $3-4 trillion.

A major challenge to international law today is the US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians.

UCLA believes that “The US policy instigated in 2006 is violating universally recognized customary international law on numerous counts: failure to discriminate between military and civilian objects, indiscriminate attacks, extrajudicial executions, attacks against places of worship.

Ironically, the drone strikes could actually be classified as “international terrorism,” since they appear to have been often intended to coerce the civilian population and to influence the Pakistani government.”

Another major obstacle to peace in the Middle East and world security is the Israeli Occupation and expansion of settlements in occupied territories – acts that undermine International Law.

According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — to which both Israel and the United States are signatories — prohibits any occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Also, a landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice confirmed the illegality of the Israeli settlements.

Since 1948, the UN has passed scores of resolutions declaring that all Israeli settlements outside of Israel’s internationally recognized borders are illegal but blatantly ignored by Israel.

Condemning the recent Israeli attacks on homes, schools, hospitals, and UN shelters in Gaza that killed thousands of innocent civilians – a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said that “Israel was deliberately defying international law in its military offensive in Gaza and that world powers should hold it accountable for possible war crimes.”

Pillay said she was appalled at Washington consistently voting against resolutions on Israel in the Human Rights Council, General Assembly and Security Council.

Another inconspicuous violation is the application of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) approved by the UN, in 2005, which is now subtly used for regime changes.

The US and NATO invoked R2P for military intervention in Libya on the pretext of a “no-fly zone” but ended in regime change. Today Libya is fragmented and is in the hands of rebels forcing United States to evacuate its embassy staff and other foreign personnel in Libya.

US attempted to invoke R2P mechanism in Syria even though there was no proof that Assad regime killed its own people with chemical weapons.

President Obama was about to wage a war against Syria when a last minute solution was found by the Russians to avert the war by removing Assad’s chemical weapons. War weary people all over the world (including Americans) are deeply divided over the use of unilateral (even lawful) military force to solve international problems.

But the US and its allies showed no interest in invoking R2P in the case of Darfur or in Israeli aggression against Palestinians in Gaza where over 2000 civilians were killed.

Also no one is screaming to invoke R2P in East Ukraine despite the fact that already over 2000 Ukrainians have been killed by Ukrainian military forces.

The United Nations has not played a fair role when invoking the Responsibility to Protect.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with a mandate to consider genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. But it is unfortunate that ICC mainly focuses on criminal cases in Africa, without looking at so many breaches of the law elsewhere.

United States is not a signatory to the ICC but it cannot escape from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.

Actions of many powerful countries prove that they are sticking to the Rule of Power instead of enhancing the Rule of Law.

For over 200 years, America has been a devout apostle of equality and freedom – defending peace, democracy, justice and human rights. It is in this sense that a few former US Presidents believed in peace and not war.

President Truman said, “The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world” and President Kennedy said, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

It is inconceivable that America, today, with its democratic history and unrivaled power constantly violates International Law instead of morally guiding the world towards peace, justice and prosperity.

Such actions, not only erode the prestige of the United States and violate the UN Charter, but also the effectiveness of the United Nations.

(Somar Wijayadasa is a former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations)

Nobel Peace Laureate, U.S. President Barack Obama’s case for a military attack on Syria to punish Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and teach a lesson to other miscreants has lost legitimacy and international support.

Without drawing comparisons with U.S. military interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, it is argued that Washington has no legal basis to intervene in Syria. It is an undeniable fact that chemical weapons have been used in Syria – killing 1,429 people. That is a despicable crime against humanity – a gross violation of International Law.

The Obama administration claims that Assad perpetrated this crime but Assad blames the rebels. There is a burden of proof on those who wish to use military force to establish beyond doubt the culpability of the Syrian regime.

According to the UN Charter, any military intervention on another country is illegal unless approved by the Security Council. And, it will not approve a military intervention in Syria as long as Russia and China raise questions about the legitimacy.

UN Security Council may authorize a military intervention, as a last resort, only after exhausting all other peaceful – diplomatic and political means. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992 prohibit the use, possession and manufacture of chemical weapons – but failed to define action on violations.

Therefore, according to Articles 39 and 42 of the UN Charter, a violation gets referred to the UN Security Council to determine the appropriate course of action. Aggrieved parties can seek the intervention of UN General Assembly which can request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion or judgment on the legality of the war, or on the determined course of action.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – approved by the UN, in 2005 – was invoked for military intervention in Libya. This can be applied if it can be proven that Assad regime killed its own people with chemical weapons.

The most sensible and appropriate action would be to refer a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). If there is strong impartial evidence to prove who committed this grave crime in Syria, the UN Security Council would vote to extradite those perpetrators before the ICC to answer for their crimes.

President Obama wants “to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons” – a noble cause, I agree, but any of the peaceful means mentioned above would bring even better results.

Apart from the UN that upholds International Law, we need to use common sense. War weary people all over the world (including Americans) are deeply divided over the use of unilateral (even lawful) military force to solve international problems.

Last week, former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the 11-member group “The Elders” suggested: “We urge all member states to await the report of the U.N. inspectors on the use of chemical weapons in Syria … before deciding on the course of action.”

Also, six Nobel Peace laureates called upon the United States and its allies to use the international legal system, primarily the International Criminal Court (ICC), to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Even America’s ally Britain backed out of war. British Prime Minister Cameron said that “there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible” for the chemical attack on Syrians.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla. speaking against a U.S. military strike on Syria said: “First, it’s not our responsibility. It’s not our responsibility to act unilaterally. Secondly, it’s not going to do any good. It’s not going to change the regime. It’s not going to end the civil war. It’s not even going to prevent a new strike and use of chemical warfare. Third, it’s expensive, and, fourth, it’s dangerous. It could easily spin out of control”. These words represent the common sense views of many U.S. legislators who oppose military action against Syria.

First, the death and destruction in Syria is due to its civil war, and there is no evidence as to who perpetrated the crime. Secondly, in the midst of crisis and chaos in the Middle East, a military intervention in Syria would escalate the Syrian conflict into something more dangerous. It could no doubt breed more anti-U.S. resentment in the region, and have serious political ramifications on the currently strained relations between the United States, Russia and China.

Syria’s civil war has already claimed 200,000 dead, two million refugees burdening neighboring countries, and over four million displaced inside Syria. Assad has failed, and he must go. It is the responsibility of the Syrians – not of the United States – to find a solution.

If the United States is really interested in ending the crisis in Syria, President Obama can muster the support of Russia, China and other countries to find a viable peaceful settlement based on an inclusive political process.

Forget the Red Line, forget American Prestige, forget the mindset to Police the whole world. Feed and educate your children, develop your failing infrastructure, provide employment, and improve the ruined economy. That is the prestige, the honor and the legacy President Obama can leave behind.

Somar Wijayadasa is the former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations.

Millions across the country, still reeling from the worst mass shooting in the country’s history that killed 20 school children, just 6 years old, and six teachers, are hoping that 2013 may turn up to be a landmark year that Washington lawmakers pass meaningful legislation to curb the culture of gun violence in America.

US President Barack Obama avoided the issue of gun control during his first term but now calls for “meaningful action” saying that “As a country, we have been through this too many times”. He established a gun vio­lence task force, led by US Vice President Joe Biden that is to provide recommendations for legislation in January.

Senator Dianne Feinstein promised to introduce in January a de facto renewal of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004. She said her bill would, among others, stop the sale of more than 100 assault weapons, ban high-capacity clips and close the “gun show loophole,” which allows people to buy weapons without background checks. Last week, on the first day of the 113^th Congress, several lawmakers introduced ten bills to expand gun regulations.

There is gun violence all over the world but far less than in the United States and many countries have tightened their gun ownership laws in the wake of mass shootings.

England banned handguns after the 1987 Hungerford massacre that killed 16 people and wounded 14 others, and the 1996 Dunblane shooting that killed 16 school children and wounded 13 others. Australia passed stricter gun laws in 1996, after 35 people were killed and 21 wounded in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Finland imposed restrictions on handgun ownership, in 2008, after 11 were killed in a college shooting. Last year, in Norway, a nation with a tight gun-control and licensing regime, a deranged man methodically gunned down 69 teenagers.

In the United States, there have been more than 30 mass shootings since the 1999 Columbine school massacre that killed 12 students and a teacher. Most notable are the 2007 slaughter of 32 people at Virginia Tech; assassina­tion attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that critically injured her and killed six others; and the Aurora movie theater shooting in July that killed 12 and injured 58.

Such massacres make headlines while thousands of other shootings go unnoticed.  According to Washington Post, there have been 13 such attacks in 2012 which have failed to provoke change. New York Mayor Bloomberg said that “Gun violence is a national epidemic, a national tragedy” and he described it is a problem unique to the US.

Every year, about 100,000 Americans are gun violence victims, according to Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In 2010, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospitals for gunshot wounds, and guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Americans invoke this right to bear arms conveniently forgetting the fact it was written 220 years ago when a well regulated militia was indeed necessary to secure the borders, and it was passed at a time of single shot rifles and not automatic guns.

I think the constitutional right is abused. Last week, a Connecticut man was charged for having a cache of 161 weapons and crates of ammunition. People do not need semiautomatic guns — that kill many people in a matter of seconds — to secure their homes, for sport or to hunt. Outlawing automatic killing weapons would not infringe the constitutional right.

Past U.S. firearm legislation such as National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 never deterred gun violence. A case in point is Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the country yet, in 2012, had more than 440 school-age children shot and 60 killed. Since the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968, over a million Americans have been killed with guns.

In 1994, following the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, Congress passed a federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and was never renewed. The Bill required background checks of anyone seeking to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer but people could easily circumvent the laws and buy guns from private sales and gun shows.

The debate is now raging as to why mass shootings keep occurring and whether gun control legislation alone could prevent these tragedies. While some call for tighter gun restrictions, others want to examine what motivates the culture of gun violence in America. Many question whether it is a result of violent movies and video games that idolize killings, or music and lyrics that glorify guns, rape and murder.

Most gunmen in mass shootings have claimed mental illness as a reason for their heinous crimes. Every unstable mind is not a danger to society but the States must ensure that the mentally ill have affordable access to treatment, and that they do not reach this destructive point in life.

Gun owners should prevent children and mentally unstable from having access to guns. Laws should be passed to limit gun ownership, and penalize gun owners who handle their weapons irresponsibly.

Opponents of gun control are 4 million members strong National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America with 300,000 members, politicians of all parties who take campaign money from the NRA, gun owners, and gun manufacturers which is big business in America.

Recently, NRA proposed to have armed guards in every school. This means more guns in the hands of people and more business to the gun industry. Mayor Bloomberg called it “a shameful evasion” of the gun crisis, and said that “they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe.”

Let’s not forget that we experience mass shootings in shopping malls, movie theaters, schools, colleges, places of worship, etc. It is not only costly to install metal detectors at the entrances of all public buildings with gun toting security guards but also would resemble mini fortresses all over the country. Make no mistake, a distorted mind will always find ways to cause mayhem.

According to published reports, some 270 million guns exist amid a U.S. population of 311 mil­lion.  Even  an absolute ban of gun ownership will not prevent mass killings – at least, not for many years – because these millions of guns can easily end up in the hands of convicted criminals or the mentally sick who are hell bent on wreaking mindless carnage.

Americans need to have a sense of what a civilized society is or ought to be. It is time for a serious, non-partisan national conversation that leads to meaningful ac­tion. Let us hope that lawmakers take courage to prevent more tragedies that truly break our hearts.

(*The writer is the former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations, New York)

Contrary to U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent foreign policy speech at the United Nations, candidates’ pronouncements during election campaigns distort US foreign policy. Some arguments defy voters’ intelligence, and incite nations who should be our allies.It is scary to hear that Russia is our biggest enemy; China must be contained; a “Red Line” be drawn on Iran’s nuclear ambitions; and Middle East be restrained – from newly gained freedoms in Egypt and Libya to Syria, Israel and Palestine. The worst is war mongering – even attempts by a foreign country to influence elections and dictate US foreign policy.

America was born, in 1776, as a symbol of equality and freedom dedicated to the higher principles of justice. For over 200 years, America has been a devout apostle of equality and freedom – defending peace, democracy, justice and human rights.

During the Berlin and Cuban missile crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev averted war realizing the devastation of wars. President Kennedy once stated, “Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history.” He also said that “mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

Russia, today, is not a Stalinist Soviet Union with dictatorial powers. The Cold War is over. Putin advocates peaceful foreign policies. He abhors external pressure and advocates a multi-polar world and a bigger role for the United Nations to enhance global security. He has often said that “we do not want confrontation: we want to engage in dialogue but a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests”. This could be the premise for United States to form better relations with Russia.

China holds almost $1.5 trillion of the $16 trillion US debt, and is the second largest US trading partner after Canada. It is a growing market that calls for continued diplomatic and business engagement. China’s determination to strengthen its economic and military power is unstoppable. Tensions over the disputed islands in China Sea make US uneasy about the potential for military confrontations.

Last month, while in Jakarta, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We will need the nations of the region to work collaboratively together to resolve disputes – without coercion, without intimidating, without threats and, certainly, without the use of force”. Sounds great.

UN also wants countries to solve those problems peacefully and not exacerbate the situation.

The Middle East is everybody’s nightmare. US supported Israel, Egypt and others for decades with billions of dollars in aid and grants every year – with enormous financial and human sacrifice. Most Arabs are ungrateful and hostile to America as we recently witnessed in Libya. Karzai has said that Afghanistan will support Pakistan in a war against the US. No money can buy peace, democracy or human rights. People need food, water, shelter, education and medicine.

The UN Security Council remains divided on Syria only because the US and NATO apparently misapplied the no-fly zone over Libya. Once bitten twice shy, and Russia has lost confidence in this mechanism. In Syria, there are two or several forces at play, and as we know Bashar Al-Assad is not the only one killing the Syrians.

It is appalling when a US presidential candidate attributes Palestinians’ forced predicament and stagnation to a lack of culture. UN has been seized with this issue for over five decades and the world knows where the problem is and who to blame.

US involvement in Middle East and South Asia has given us nothing but misery – two Arab oil embargoes; devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a horrendous 9/11; global war on terror; never-ending terrorist threats – to name a few that have cost US three trillion dollars, and lives of thousands of US soldiers.

US attacked Iraq on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I was in the UN Security Council chambers when US Secretary of State Collin Powell showed those spurious movies how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made WMD’s in the desert. US waged war without UN blessings, and we are clamoring to repeat the same mistake.

Any unilateral military action against another sovereign state is an illegitimate act of aggression that would constitute a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter which clearly states that the use of force is not legitimate unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense [after a direct attack].

Red Line or not, there is no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon, and it has not threatened military action against Israel. If Israel wants a pre-emptive attack on Iran, and it appears that they are blustering in that direction, it should do so alone without dragging America into a catastrophic war. United States has already squandered trillions of dollars in the Middle East through two wars. Another war would further destabilize the region.

During my 25 years at the United Nations, I never saw any sincere effort by Israel to live peacefully with its neighbors. In the Middle East, only Israel has nuclear weapons and, for obvious reasons, it wants to maintain status quo.

It is inconceivable that Iran – unless suicidal – would ever attack Israel. “If Iran ever makes a nuclear weapon”, as one UN diplomat confided in me, “a nuclear Iran would have a calming effect on Israel”. That reminds me how India and Pakistan painstakingly maintain peace today.

Right now, United States and peace loving nations have a unique opportunity to end this war mongering. An international conference is scheduled, this year in Helsinki, to establish a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Middle East. This is the only way to fulfill aspirations of the people in the Middle East.

Historically, since 1974, the UN General Assembly has passed many resolutions on this issue but never adhered to. In 1991, the Madrid Peace Conference established a multinational mechanism to work on making the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone but was stalled in 1995 as a result of Israeli position.

Elimination of all nuclear and WMD’s from Middle East would provide common security interests of both Iran and Israel and of the entire region, and thereby other strategic interests of all major powers. United Nations can and should make it a success.

It is possible because we have done this before. All 33 states in Latin America and the Caribbean are parties to the 1967 (Tlatelolco) Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. It has also been signed and ratified by nuclear powers US, UK, France, China, and Russia. This is the solution – today – for Middle East.

It is time for all nations to respect the UN Charter, adhere to international law, use diplomacy and peaceful means to resolve international conflicts, and work harmoniously and in partnership to establish a world order that ensures peace, justice, security and prosperity for all.

* Former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations.

Contrary to U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent foreign policy speech at the United Nations, candidates’ pronouncements during election campaigns distort US foreign policy. Some arguments defy voters’ intelligence, and incite nations who should be our allies.

It is scary to hear that Russia is our biggest enemy; China must be contained; a “Red Line” be drawn on Iran’s nuclear ambitions; and Middle East be restrained – from newly gained freedoms in Egypt and Libya to Syria, Israel and Palestine. The worst is war mongering – even attempts by a foreign country to influence elections and dictate US foreign policy.

America was born, in 1776, as a symbol of equality and freedom dedicated to the higher principles of justice. For over 200 years, America has been a devout apostle of equality and freedom – defending peace, democracy, justice and human rights.

During the Berlin and Cuban missile crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev averted war realizing the devastation of wars. President Kennedy once stated, “Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history.” He also said that “mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

Russia, today, is not a Stalinist Soviet Union with dictatorial powers. The Cold War is over. Putin advocates peaceful foreign policies. He abhors external pressure and advocates a multi-polar world and a bigger role for the United Nations to enhance global security. He has often said that “we do not want confrontation: we want to engage in dialogue but a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests”. This could be the premise for United States to form better relations with Russia.

China holds almost $1.5 trillion of the $16 trillion US debt, and is the second largest US trading partner after Canada. It is a growing market that calls for continued diplomatic and business engagement. China’s determination to strengthen its economic and military power is unstoppable. Tensions over the disputed islands in China Sea make US uneasy about the potential for military confrontations.

Last month, while in Jakarta, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We will need the nations of the region to work collaboratively together to resolve disputes – without coercion, without intimidating, without threats and, certainly, without the use of force”. Sounds great.
UN also wants countries to solve those problems peacefully and not exacerbate the situation.

The Middle East is everybody’s nightmare. US supported Israel, Egypt and others for decades with billions of dollars in aid and grants every year – with enormous financial and human sacrifice. Most Arabs are ungrateful and hostile to America as we recently witnessed in Libya. Karzai has said that Afghanistan will support Pakistan in a war against the US. No money can buy peace, democracy or human rights. People need food, water, shelter, education and medicine.

The UN Security Council remains divided on Syria only because the US and NATO apparently misapplied the no-fly zone over Libya. Once bitten twice shy, and Russia has lost confidence in this mechanism. In Syria, there are two or several forces at play, and as we know Bashar Al-Assad is not the only one killing the Syrians.
It is appalling when a US presidential candidate attributes Palestinians’ forced predicament and stagnation to a lack of culture. UN has been seized with this issue for over five decades and the world knows where the problem is and who to blame.
US involvement in Middle East and South Asia has given us nothing but misery – two Arab oil embargoes; devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a horrendous 9/11; global war on terror; never-ending terrorist threats – to name a few that have cost US three trillion dollars, and lives of thousands of US soldiers.

US attacked Iraq on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I was in the UN Security Council chambers when US Secretary of State Collin Powell showed those spurious movies how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made WMD’s in the desert. US waged war without UN blessings, and we are clamoring to repeat the same mistake.

Any unilateral military action against another sovereign state is an illegitimate act of aggression that would constitute a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter which clearly states that the use of force is not legitimate unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense [after a direct attack].

Red Line or not, there is no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon, and it has not threatened military action against Israel. If Israel wants a pre-emptive attack on Iran, and it appears that they are blustering in that direction, it should do so alone without dragging America into a catastrophic war. United States has already squandered trillions of dollars in the Middle East through two wars. Another war would further destabilize the region.

During my 25 years at the United Nations, I never saw any sincere effort by Israel to live peacefully with its neighbors. In the Middle East, only Israel has nuclear weapons and, for obvious reasons, it wants to maintain status quo.

It is inconceivable that Iran – unless suicidal – would ever attack Israel. “If Iran ever makes a nuclear weapon”, as one UN diplomat confided in me, “a nuclear Iran would have a calming effect on Israel”. That reminds me how India and Pakistan painstakingly maintain peace today.

Right now, United States and peace loving nations have a unique opportunity to end this war mongering. An international conference is scheduled, this year in Helsinki, to establish a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Middle East. This is the only way to fulfill aspirations of the people in the Middle East.

Historically, since 1974, the UN General Assembly has passed many resolutions on this issue but never adhered to. In 1991, the Madrid Peace Conference established a multinational mechanism to work on making the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone but was stalled in 1995 as a result of Israeli position.

Elimination of all nuclear and WMD’s from Middle East would provide common security interests of both Iran and Israel and of the entire region, and thereby other strategic interests of all major powers. United Nations can and should make it a success.

It is possible because we have done this before. All 33 states in Latin America and the Caribbean are parties to the 1967 (Tlatelolco) Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. It has also been signed and ratified by nuclear powers US, UK, France, China, and Russia. This is the solution – today – for Middle East.

It is time for all nations to respect the UN Charter, adhere to international law, use diplomacy and peaceful means to resolve international conflicts, and work harmoniously and in partnership to establish a world order that ensures peace, justice, security and prosperity for all.

(The writer is the Former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations)

By Somar Wijayadasa and - -
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2012 (IPS)

Another dramatic election fiasco is over. Russian voters have elected Vladimir Putin with an overwhelming 63% majority. In 2000 and 2004, he won with 53% and 71% majority, respectively. Though his victory never seemed in doubt, his election garnered more negative publicity than any other foreign election, thanks to the awesome Russian Spring.

As an avid observer of Russian politics for 50 years, I could not find a single opponent who could defeat Putin. All his opponents (Zyuganov, Prokhorov, Zhirinovsky) were neither popular nor had sufficient political experience to attract Russian voters. Putin remains genuinely popular with a large segment of the Russian population.

It seems to me that the Russians sensibly contemplated which party and candidate would be able to resolve underlying problems and uplift the working masses who have quietly suffered for decades. The dark eras of Brezhnev and Gorbachev and later “joker” Yeltsin’s regime brought outright disgrace to Russia. It was Putin who injected law and order into the society, and brought respect and credibility to Russia.

When Putin first came to power in 2000, Russia was in a deep recession following the devastating 1998 debt crisis. He developed the economy with new industries and investments; decreased poverty by boosting agricultural production and construction; and increased workers salaries and granted better pensions to poor pensioners who silently suffered for decades. To stabilize the economy, he introduced a flat tax rate, reduced corporate taxes, and established a stabilization fund to accumulate oil revenue to repay all of Russia’s debts. Later the fund was split into the Reserve Fund to protect Russia from future financial crisis, and the National Welfare Fund to enhance pension reforms.

Today Russia is not Stalinist Soviet Union with dictatorial powers. Russia went through generational change after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has created a strong, professional middle class in many parts of the vast country. It is now a pluralistic society with various civic groups, political parties, and social organizations. These people are well traveled, well educated and familiar with democracy and freedom. These new classes of Russians do not need outside influence to make decisions. Russians voted for Putin for the significant improvements he made in living standards and for reclaiming Russia’s recognition and respect as a world power.

But Putin’s external affairs are another matter. He has been publicly and increasingly critical of foreign policies of the United States and other Western countries – making them dislike him.

Putin publicly opposed plans for the US missile shield in Europe, and offered many viable alternatives. He proved that he is firm, sharp and intelligent enough to take a strong position that favors Russia. That was demonstrated during many international conflicts over Ukraine and Georgia, gas and oil deliveries to Ukraine and Europe, and currently on affairs in Syria and Iran. He is not a person who can be easily manipulated by world leaders no matter how powerful they are. However, during his Presidency, Putin maintained friendly working relations with many world leaders including President George W Bush.

Having listened to the grievances and demands of hundreds of thousands of Russians who demonstrated during the past few months, Putin may adopt policies to rectify shortcomings. But Putin would not change his foreign policy to please the United States or Western countries. Putin has always maintained that he wants to avoid another Cold War. He has often said that “we do not want confrontation: we want to engage in dialogue but a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests”. This could be the premise for United States and Western nations to form better relations with Russia – provided all parties agree to respectfully disagree.

It is time for all nations to respect the UN Charter, adhere to International Law, use diplomacy to resolve international conflicts, and work harmoniously and in partnership to establish a world order that ensures security and prosperity for all.

The writer, a former Representative at the United Nations, is a Moscow educated international lawyer, who worked in the United Nations System (IAEA, FAO, UNESCO, WHO/UNAIDS) for twenty-five years.

Excerpt:

– Faced with a total public debt of $14.46 trillion, the United States is besieged by layoffs in police, fire stations, libraries, teachers and workers in all core services and professions in all State governments, Americans urge US Government to use the $126 billion a year it spends on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for urgent domestic needs. Americans argue that there are so many better uses for the money, and say they are baffled the US government would build bridges in Baghdad and Kandahar and not in the United States.

Recently, President Barack Obama revealed that since 2001 the two wars have cost US taxpayers over $1 trillion, which is perhaps a gross underestimation. Sill, the number is staggering. Many reputable American researchers (including Noble Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and researchers at Harvard and Brown Universities, and the Institute for Public Accuracy), conservatively estimate that the costs could be in the range of $3-4 trillion. Americans are now fed up with these wars and are getting more concerned about mounting U.S. indebtedness. At the same time, US allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly winding down their military operations.

The effects of wars, the 2008 financial crisis, the economic recession, housing foreclosures, rising commodity prices– to name a few– have brought the US economy to its knees. Since 2008, over 400,000 State jobs have vanished, bringing the US unemployment rate to 9.2 per cent. The economies of European countries now termed as “PIIGS” (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece & Spain) are also in deep financial trouble. Even fast developing BRIC’s (Brazil, Russia, India & China) are not impervious to the global economic crisis. The escalating political and military problems in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and other countries add to the costs of war and human suffering.

The rising gas and food prices, the negative effects of climate change affecting crops in developing countries, and the millions of refugees triggered mostly by ongoing conflicts, come with economic consequences of their own impacting on key development factors. While almost the whole world collapses, the need for emergency food aid is likely to rise in the next decade.

Due to this unrelenting global financial crisis, it is natural that the multi billion dollars in development aid from the US and Western Europe to developing countries is in danger of being drastically curtailed.

In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National Income) as official development aid (ODA), annually. With the UN Millennium Development Goals, which include the reduction of poverty and hunger worldwide, rich donor nations pledged to spend 0.56% of GNI on poverty reduction by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015. Many credible studies prove that the intended target was never achieved.

The 1970, UNGA Resolution 2626 stated that “financial and technical assistance should be aimed exclusively at promoting the economic and social progress of developing countries and should not in any way be used by the developed countries to the detriment of the national sovereignty of recipient countries”.

It is on record that developed countries provided largest amount (about $200 billion) of funds to developing countries in 2002. However, many credible studies prove that poor recipient nations have returned more wealth to donor nations.

Referring specifically to this anomaly, former UN Secretary- General, Kofi Annan, said in October 2003 that “Funds should be moving from developed countries to developing countries, but these numbers tell us the opposite is happening…. Funds that should be promoting investment and growth in developing countries, or building schools and hospitals, or supporting other steps towards the Millennium Development Goals, are, instead, being transferred abroad.” The same is true when it comes to the United Nations. US certainly is the largest contributor to UN budget but according to UN statistics, the US has consistently held the number one spot in grabbing UN procurement contracts. In 2004, the United States took in 24 percent (316 million dollars) of all UN contracts, amounting to a total of 1.3 billion dollars.

In 2005, the percentage was 20 percent (331 million dollars) out of total UN purchases of 1.6 billion dollars. One senior U.N. official said “On a cost-benefit ratio, the United States gets as much — or even more — than what it gives to the United Nations”. This proves that the donors know how to get their money back.

Today, aid is given in the name of war on terrorism, war on drugs, and credits for foreign militaries to buy US weapons and equipment, as in the case of Israel, Egypt, Yemen and others who receive billions of dollars of aid. Foreign aid earmarked for AIDS & other health concerns, hunger prevention, education, and poverty eradication have remarkably dwindled.

Development aid has long been recognized as crucial to help poor developing nations grow out of poverty. History has proven that though billions of dollars poured into developing countries, the aid has been primarily designed to serve the strategic and economic interests of donor countries, and humanitarian and development aid never reached those who desperately needed it. In 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz stated flatly that “our foreign assistance programs are vital to the achievement of our foreign policy goals.”

Foreign aid with strings attached and foreign debt that is hard to pay back have only worsened the situation. The borrowed money will be never paid back because overpopulation, unemployment, poverty, depletion of resources, rampant corruption, income inequality and civil wars will never allow the governments to earn more than the money that is spent.

It is also an accepted fact that most of the well intended foreign aid is looted by corrupt governments and their politicians to strengthen their own families and their tyrannical rule, and not to improve living conditions of all citizens.

Foreign development aid has significantly reduced over recent years and it cannot be expected to rise even if the wars ended. Many researchers believe that in this age of globalization, with gigantic advances in science and technology, it is still possible to resurrect the economies of developing countries but only if the Governments in power make an honest effort. The bottom line: Development of the poorest countries depends on leadership qualities and dedication of those in power.

*(former Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations)