Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (centre, facing audience) greets staff and guests during his Sep. 15 visit to the newly renovated General Assembly Hall at U.N. Headquarters in New York. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 18 2014 (IPS)

When world political leaders arrive next week for the annual ritual of addressing the United Nations, they will be speaking inside a newly renovated General Assembly hall – part of a hefty 2.1-billion-dollar, seven-year refurbishing project – with an extended seating capacity for 204 member states, 11 more than the current 193.

In the next decade, the United Nations may be anticipating a rash of new member states, primarily breakaway nations triggered partly by separatist movements, seeking to join the world body.If political fantasies become realities, the unlikely lineup of new U.N. member states may include Catalonia, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Quebec, Kashmir, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Palestine, and possibly a Sunni Iraq and a Shia Iraq.

If political fantasies become realities, the unlikely lineup may include Catalonia, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Quebec, Kashmir, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Palestine, and possibly a Sunni Iraq and a Shia Iraq.

As one Middle Eastern diplomat sarcastically speculated, “I was wondering whether one of those new seats is meant for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)” (which the United States considers a terrorist group).

As in previous years, the drill next week will be the same: long-winded speeches, hundreds of bilateral meetings between world leaders (without even crossing the street) and a tight security around the U.N. perimeter.

And this year, the visiting political leaders – at last count, over 150 heads of state or heads of government – will be taking the podium at a time when the world is facing a slew of political and military crises, including in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Ian Williams, a longstanding U.N. correspondent and an associate professor at Bard College, told IPS the completion of renovations to the General Assembly hall shows some degree of foresight, with a dozen or so spare places available for new delegations.

“With the pace of Balkanisation worldwide, however, that might not be enough,” he said, with tongue firmly in cheek.

Kosovo, Kurdistan, and not to mention the various Putinistans springing up on the fringes of Russia, could soon fill those seats, said Williams, who is working with artist Christian Clark on a new edition of ‘The U.N. For Beginners’ for the 70th anniversary of the world body next year.

He pointed out there is also increasing political Balkanisation of the blocs in the United Nations.

“In days of the old Cold War, there was a certain discipline. All the East Bloc speeches were drearily similar. Now, countries pay little heed to instructions from self-appointed superpowers and are more eager,” said Williams.

Asked if the General Assembly sessions have any impact at all on world events, Samir Sanbar, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS, “With all due respect to all visiting heads of state, I am not certain the term ‘leaders’ would apply anymore.”

That may partially explain the atmosphere of widespread turmoil the world over, he added.

“So many presidential appearances yet so little positive impact,” said Sanbar, who served under five different secretaries-general.

Until recently, he pointed out, there were endless bilateral meetings between presidents and prime ministers on the sidelines of the General Assembly session. The general debates during the sessions were substantive, and they constituted a backbone for eventual U.N. resolutions.

But most of those visits are now perceived as photo opportunities, said Sanbar, editor of the online electronic newsletter, U.N. Forum.

Addressing reporters Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “At this time of turmoil, the next two weeks will highlight again the indispensable role of the United Nations in tackling global threats and seizing opportunities for common progress.”

He said the new session of the General Assembly will be “a pivotal period for our efforts to defeat poverty and adopt a new generation of sustainable development goals.

“Action on climate change is urgent. The more we delay, the more we will pay in lives and in money,” he said, on the eve of the heavily-hyped U.N. Climate Summit next week.

Ban also announced the appointment of Hollywood movie star Leonardo DiCaprio as “our newest United Nations Messenger of Peace, with a special focus on climate change issues.”

Williams told IPS the U.S. delegation then and for a long time afterwards suffered from a national diffidence about the United Nations.

He pointed out U.S. Congressional right-wingers continually harassed the United Nations with cut appropriations, while Democrats, with an eye to their more rabidly pro-Israeli lobbyists, would not cross the road to defend it.

Even the fact that there was money to repair the leaky Assembly Hall is result of the change of American attitude, he added.

But controversy at least creates noise. Now there is a deafening silence, said Williams.

“What happened to all those loons who thought U.N. peacekeepers would take over the United States with their black helicopters?” he asked. “And who remembers the U.N. land grab through World Heritage Sites, or the martyred GIs (U.S. soldiers) who refused to wear blue berets?”

Williams said one hopes they switched to new hobby horses, such as Benghazi, U.S. President Barack Obama’s birth certificate and similar distractions, rather than that the U.N. has become irrelevant.

“Because while the leaders will tut-tut from the podium about the strategic and seemingly insoluble problems – Ukraine/Russia, Syria/Iraq – the assembled leaders will still be in a position to assist the U.N. in serious issues: the flooding of the basement during Hurricane Sandy brought Climate Change home to Turtle Bay.”

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is doing his best to concentrate the minds of assembled leaders on restarting effective negotiations on a Climate Change pact, said Williams.

“He will probably get better results with that than uniting the members on Syria,” he noted.

Sanbar told IPS when former General Assembly President Razali Ismail of Malaysia cautioned in 1996 about “creeping irrelevance” of these gatherings, he was almost branded a rebel.

“Now heads of key states dash in and out, mainly competing to speak on the first two days, while others who may be have been actually visiting New York a week before do not bother to show up at all,” he added.

“Even our own substantive star, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who admirably maintained the momentum on climate change, seems to feel a need to bring in a Hollywood star for that purpose.

“It would be a Titanic if Leonardo de Caprio gets the Noble Peace Prize for that one,” said Sanbar, who thinks the secretary-general is making a case for the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous campaign on climate change.

Referring to the expansion of the General Assembly hall, Sanbar recounted that when the first expansion was planned, the architects sought to be very forward-looking to the year 1990 by designing it for 120 delegations (almost double the original members).

“On an equally sarcastic note,” he added, “you may explore a potential seat for Beyonce,” the celebrated singer, song writer and actress.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

The blue and white Saltire flag of Scotland flutters next to the Union Jack during the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Credit: Vicky Brock/cc by 2.0

By Phil Harris
ROME, Sep 16 2014 (IPS)

After a two-year referendum campaign, Scots are finally voting Thursday on whether their country will regain its independence after more than 300 years of “marriage” with England.

It is still uncertain whether those in favour will win the day, but whichever way the wind blows, things are unlikely to be the same – and not just in terms of political relations between London and Edinburgh.If an independent Scotland were actually to abolish nuclear weapons from its territory, the government of what remains of today’s United Kingdom would be forced to look elsewhere for places in which to host its sea-based nuclear warheads – and this will be no easy task.

One bone of contention between Scots and their “cousins” to the south of Hadrian’s Wall – built by the Romans to protect their conquests in what is now England and, according to Emperor Hadrian’s biographer, “to separate the Romans from the barbarians” to the north – is the presence on Scottish territory of part of the United Kingdom’s nuclear arsenal.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), which supports an independent and non-nuclear Scotland, wants Scotland to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union, but rejects nuclear weapons.

The United Kingdom currently has four Vanguard class submarines armed with nuclear-tipped Trident missiles based at Gare Loch on the west coast of Scotland, ostensibly there for the purpose of deterrence – but that was back in the days of the Cold War.

If an independent Scotland were actually to abolish nuclear weapons from its territory, the government of what remains of today’s United Kingdom would be forced to look elsewhere for places in which to host its sea-based nuclear warheads – and this will be no easy task.

The search would be on for another deep-water port or ports, and the UK government has already said that other potential locations in England are unacceptable because they are too close to populated areas – although that has not stopped it from placing some of its nuclear submarines and their deadly cargo  not far from Glasgow since 1969.

In any case, if those in favour of Scottish independence win, just the possibility that Scotland might even begin to consider the abolition of nuclear arms would oblige the UK government to give the nature of its commitment to nuclear weapons a major rethink.

The same would be true even if those in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom win because there would still be a not insignificant number of Scots against nuclear weapons.

Either scenario indicates that Scotland could come to play a significant role in discussions on nuclear disarmament although, clearly, this role would be all the more important as an independent nation participating in NATO, following in the footsteps of NATO member countries like Canada, Lithuania and Norway which do not allow nuclear weapons on their territory.

And what could come of NATO initiatives such as that taken at its summit in Wales earlier this month to create a new 4,000 strong rapid reaction force for initial deployment in the Baltics?

As Nobel Peace Laureate Maired Maguire has said, that “is a dangerous path for us all to be forced down, and could well lead to a third world war if not stopped. What is needed now are cool heads and people of wisdom and not more guns, more weapons, more war.”

An independent Scotland could raise its voice in favour of prohibiting nuclear weapons at the global level and add to the lobby against the threats posed by the irresponsible arms brandishing of NATO.

Representatives of the SNP have said that they are ready to take an active part in humanitarian initiatives on nuclear weapons and support negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit – and not just limit the proliferation of – nuclear weapons, even without the participation of states in possession of such weapons.

What justification would then remain for these states?

Meanwhile, as Scots go to vote in their independence referendum, there is another aspect of the nuclear issue that the UK government still has to come to terms with – nuclear energy.

Scotland used to be home to six nuclear power stations. Four were closed between 1990 and 2004, but two still remain – the Hunterston B power station in North Ayrshire and the Torness power station in East Lothian – both of which are run by EDF Energy, a company with its headquarters in London.

A YouGov public opinion poll in 2013 showed that Scots are twice as likely to favour wind power over nuclear or shale gas. Over six in 10 (62 percent) people in Scotland said they would support large-scale wind projects in their local area, well more than double the number who said they would be in favour of shale gas (24 percent) and almost twice as many as for nuclear facilities (32 percent).

Hydropower was the most popular energy source for large-scale projects in Scotland, with an overwhelming majority (80 percent) in favour.

So, with a strong current among Scots in favour of ‘non-nuclear’, whatever the outcome of Thursday’s referendum, London would be well-advised that the “barbarians” to its north could teach a lesson or two in a civilised approach to 21^st century coexistence.

Phil Harris is Chief, IPS World Desk (English service). He can be contacted at pharris@ips.org