Clinton: Obama should veto U.N. bill

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON POLITICO.COM

Hillary Clinton issued a strong warning about the bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee. | AP PhotoClose

By JONATHAN ALLEN | 10/12/11 2:34 PM EDT Updated: 10/12/11 4:34 PM EDT

Raising the specter of terrorism, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned congressional leaders on Wednesday that she would recommend a veto of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s bill redefining America’s relationship with the United Nations.

The controversial bill, due for a markup in Ros-Lehtinen’s committee on Thursday, would condition U.S. funding of the U.N. on conversion from an assessment-based dues system to one that operates on voluntary contributions from member nations.

“Withholding U.S. contributions and shifting to voluntary funding erode the concrete dividends of our leadership and undermine ongoing reform efforts at the United Nations,” Clinton wrote in letters — obtained by POLITICO — to Ros-Lehtinen and California Rep. Howard Berman, who is the top Democrat on the Committee.

It’s unlikely the bill would make it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but Clinton’s warning to the Foreign Affairs Committee was still strong.

“If implemented, the bill’s requirement to withhold 50 percent of U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations absent a shift to voluntary-only funding would undercut international collaboration in advancing core U.S. national security interests such as staunching nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, fully implementing sanctions on countries such as Iran and North Korea, preventing conflict around the globe, supporting elections in countries just undergoing transition to democracy, fighting pandemic disease, providing life-saving humanitarian relief to countries such as Haiti, and supporting peaceful transitions in places such as the new nation of South Sudan,” she wrote. “Through international cooperation, the United States reaps real security benefits that make Americans safer and more secure.”

That list hits several areas close to the hearts of various groups of Republicans, including pro-Israel lawmakers who take a hard line against Iran and religious conservatives who support international humanitarian missions.

At a time when U.S. dollars are scarce, many Republicans have become increasingly critical of American funding of an international body that is often at odds with U.S. interests. The issue has taken on a partisan tinge in Congress, and, despite several months of efforts, Ros-Lehtinen has been unable to find a Democratic cosponsor.

In an interview on Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen acknowledged that the Senate is unlikely to act on the bill and that the president would not sign it. Still, she said, it’s important to send a message to the U.N. that it must change its ways, and she has asked GOP leaders to schedule the bill for a floor vote.

“That’s our request, and my leadership knows that’s the request,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “I’m persistent.”

GOP leaders have stopped short of making a commitment to put the bill on the floor.

“Leadership is continuing to work closely with Chairman Ros-Lehtinen regarding her U.N. reform bill and timing for floor consideration,” said Laena Fallon, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

One factor that may hurt Ros-Lehtinen’s effort: Despite several provisions aimed at punishing the U.N. for its treatment of Israel, pro-Israel groups have stayed on the sidelines. The most prominent of those organizations, AIPAC, typically supports only legislation that has at least some backing in both parties.

Still, a handful of groups, including the Zionist Organization of America and the Republican Jewish Coalition, issued an action alert asking members to contact lawmakers in favor of the Ros-Lehtinen bill..

The bill would block U.S. funding of any United Nations entity that upgrades the status of the Palestinians before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, ban contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees until U.N. policies are changed, and both prohibit the U.S. from sitting on the Human Rights Council and withhold a portion of U.S. funds based on the HRC budget until a series of criteria — including the termination of a permanent investigation into Israel’s human rights record — are met.

It’s possible that Israel could face an international backlash from U.S. action to punish the U.N. as part of a bill that includes many provisions specific to Israel.

Though Ros-Lehtinen is one of Israel’s biggest supporters in Congress, she said she would move forward without the political force of the pro-Israel community.

“I’m not a member of the Knesset,” she said of the Israeli legislature.

In addition to State Department opposition to the bill, Clinton wrote in her letter that the Justice Department would also make clear its concerns in a future communication to the committee.

Calling the U.N. “indispensable” to advancing the goals of the U.S., Clinton wrote that “should this bill be presented to the president, I will recommend that he veto it.”

China's Global War on Human Rights Why Beijing is promoting a world-wide rejection of postwar international norms.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON The Wall Street Journal

DECEMBER 9, 2010

By JAMIE F. METZL

Mr. Metzl, the executive vice president of Asia Society, served in the State Department during the Clinton administration and as a United Nations human rights officer in Cambodia. [http://asiasociety.org/keyword/jamie-metzl]

On Friday in Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Many around the world will watch, but a handful of world leaders won't be in attendance. Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, won't be there.

Their absences come after a relentless pressure campaign by China's government—one which is a symptom of a broader global transformation. Though China's rapid rise has had many positive implications, it has also seen Beijing severely undermine the international human rights system.

In the shadow of World War II and the Holocaust, a series of documents codified the principles of a universal human rights system. They included the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the genocide convention, which asserted that states no longer had the unlimited right to murder their own citizens. Because prewar nationalism had helped foment such catastrophe, compromises to absolutist concepts of state sovereignty—and assertions of individual human rights—were cornerstones of this revolutionary development in international affairs.

These norms and practices developed (unevenly and with large, deadly exceptions) over the second half of the 20th century. To give just a few examples: The 1975 Helsinki Accords, signed in spite of Cold War differences, codified certain human rights protections in international law; sanctions on apartheid South Africa played a key role in that country's transformation; and states took strong action to protect the human rights of Kosovar Albanians against their sovereign state. Inadequate responses to genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda were widely seen as failures to live up to a human rights standard that was nevertheless gaining increasing legitimacy.

China's rise has changed this.

Beijing often sees absolute national sovereignty as a key to national cohesiveness.

There are many reasons for this. The country has seen its sovereignty violated repeatedly by Western powers and Japan over the past 200 years. Today it fears secessionist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet, and it also seeks to assert authority over Taiwan. It is also animated by a culture that often places collective progress over individual rights. China's concept of sovereignty stands in sharp contrast to the norms of the postwar human rights system.

Wherever human rights are massively abused today, China is the main protector of the abusing government. In Sudan, China shielded the Bashir government in the U.N. as Sudanese troops and allied militias used Chinese arms to commit genocide in Darfur. Brutal regimes in Burma and North Korea similarly could not survive without strong Chinese support, protection and weapons. China has blocked efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and to pressure Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka to adhere to international human rights norms.

Because China helps protect these regimes—and often benefits commercially, in the form of deals for natural resources—international efforts to protect human rights generally have no net effect on the abusing regime's actions. States must choose to stand up for human rights standards—with minimal prospects for success and often to their own strategic detriment—or not. That the latter option is increasingly chosen implicitly confirms that the state-enforced international human rights system is dead.

This doesn't mean that there is not a role for setting international standards, or that citizens' rights movements are dead, even in places like China. It also doesn't mean that human rights advocates should not rejoice at what China has done to bring hundreds of millions of its people out of abject poverty.

It does mean, however, that those unlucky souls around the world who find their rights massively abused by their own governments can, thanks largely to China, expect little or no help from foreign states.

Does Barack Obama dream of becoming UN Secretary General?

click here to see this story on TELEGRAPH.CO.UK

By Nile Gardiner

Watching Barack Obama’s recent speech on the end of combat operations in Iraq, I was struck by how uninspired and disinterested the president looked. Considering the United States had successfully liberated 31 million people from tyranny (which he opposed), and broken the back of al-Qaeda in Iraq through the surge (which he also opposed), I would have thought the president would have at least been a bit more animated and proud of his country’s achievements, even though he was proved spectacularly wrong. He came across in the same dull fashion when he announced the deployment of 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan in a major speech at West Point last December.

Much of the time, President Obama simply fails to inspire the American people, a key reason why his approval rating continues to fall. Since taking office, the only occasions when Barack Obama has appeared really enthusiastic when delivering speeches has been when he’s addressed foreign audiences, and especially when he’s apologised for his own country or undercut the idea of American greatness. His speeches to the Muslim world in Cairo, and his address to the French and Germans in Strasbourg spring to mind.

Perhaps the best example was his speech in September 2009 to the UN General Assembly, where he was really in his element. The speech was rapturously received by his international audience, even though it was probably his worst address as president from a US national interest point of view. In his speech, the president threw out decades of conventional wisdom in US foreign policy, rejected the idea of America as a unique force for good, and questioned traditional alliances:

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

President Obama seems increasingly uncomfortable in domestic US settings, but highly energised when speaking abroad, especially to audiences that are traditionally anti-American. Which is why, if he loses in 2012, which is now increasingly likely, he might see the position of UN Secretary General as a natural fit. Just as Tony Blair dreamed of the presidency of the European Union, Barack Obama is probably enamoured with the idea of being at the helm of a big supranational institution, and may even see it as a bigger stage than the US presidency. After all, he cares little for American exceptionalism, is happy to weaken American sovereignty, frequently humiliates his country before foreign audiences, and is a big admirer of the United Nations.

If Obama exits the White House in 2012, he will be just 51, with potentially another two to three decades of politically active public life ahead of him. In addition to writing a further chapter of his memoirs, he will undoubtedly be looking for another prestigious post, particularly on the international stage.

President Obama could in theory become Secretary General Obama, with adoring audiences at his feet at the United Nations. The adulation he no longer receives in the United States could be his for the taking at the UN. Sound improbable? Not for a leader described as the first “post-American president”, and who is a fervent believer in the power of multilateralism over the sanctity of the nation state. And in terms of recent precedent it’s worth noting that Bill Clinton was reportedly interested in the position during the height of the Oil-for-Food scandal which threatened to bring down Kofi Annan in the mid 1990’s, though Annan ultimately clung on to power.

There are however a few major obstacles in the way for Barack Obama if he chooses to go down the UN route. Would a Republican White House endorse Obama for UN chief? That would almost certainly be a bridge too far, and he would have to wait for another Democratic administration if he wanted to run for UN office. In addition, UN Secretary Generals are traditionally picked on a regional rotation basis from non-members of the Security Council, and are generally low key, lesser known compromise figures, as is the case with incumbent Ban Ki-Moon. The United Nations has never had an American at its helm, and if Washington were to propose one there is a good chance Russia, China or France would exercise their veto.

Still, that might not stop President Obama dreaming of holding the position, especially when he takes the podium this week to address the General Assembly in New York for the second time in his presidency. While Barack Obama is increasingly isolated in his own country and even within own party, he will always find a warm welcome from the UN bureaucrats at Turtle Bay.

Is Clinton's CGI the New U.N.?

by Dayo Olopade

@ Daily Beast

Just up the road from the sonorous U.N. general assembly, the former president's Global Initiative—rife with deal making power players—could one day eclipse the older institution.

The United Nations General Assembly kicks off today, bringing together leaders of 192 countries.

But just west of it, a competing summit will bring together thought-leaders from across the globe to tackle many of the same problems that are on the table at Turtle Bay. And even President Obama will make an appearance.

The Clinton Global Initiative, now in its sixth year, will feature Nobel laureates, CEOs, presidents, and a trio of first ladies—making it seem like a 21st century initiative that could ultimately eclipse the older institution. CGI is fast building a track record that has some wondering if its leaner model may be the better way to address the multitude of problems facing the global community.

All it needs is a standing army.

"Most U.N. organizations concern themselves with setting global policy," says Paul Farmer, the celebrated activist and director of Partners in Health who has been involved with CGI since its inception. "But what happens at CGI is the nitty-gritty of deal-making between philanthropists and the people who get it done."

The U.N. may have the advantages of age (it's almost 65 years old,) a charter, a 120,000-member army, a $4.2 billion budget (excluding peace-keeping operations,) a secretariat with about 40,000 employees, and stylishly appointed headquarters with to-die-for river views. But it is also littered with problems, both real and perceived.

Last year's U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen devolved into a chaotic standoff between developing countries and wealthy nations—producing a nonbinding document that many climate experts described as more than disappointing. Likewise, the U.N. shoulders some of the world's largest responsibilities for treating HIV/AIDS, but took years to embrace best practices on prevention.

This year's general assembly focuses on the Millennium Development Goals, the organization's ambitious blueprint on how to fight poverty, poor health and poor education—and has once again opened the organization to the criticism that there's too much talking, not enough doing. Even U.N. officials acknowledge that the goals are off track and behind schedule, and that the official document to be presented at the MDG summit represents a watered-down version of important commitments, with the wealthier G8 countries offering less financial assistance than antipoverty advocates would like.

Watch the Clinton Global Initiative Live

"There's a lot of worthy language in this document about promoting development in poor countries," says Emma Seery, a spokesperson for hunger relief organization Oxfam, "But embarrassingly little on what actions leaders will take to actually achieve the millennium development goals."

By contrast, the CGI requires every delegate to make a commitment to take action—leading to windfalls like Richard Branson's 2006 pledge of $3 billion for adaptation to the threat of climate change. CGI wants to bring together leaders from government, civil society and big business—from all parts of the political spectrum. And rather than formal diplomatic dialogue, the CGI conversations are driven by sometimes-odd pairings.

_breakAd_

This year, Actor Ashton Kutcher will talk Twitter with Sudanese telecom mogul Mohammed Ibrahim; World Bank Managing Director and former Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Iweala will talk entrepreneurship with former White House green jobs czar Van Jones, and a swarm of "ex-everybodies" will bring to bear lessons from inside and outside of government.

"I came in a skeptic—how does this work exactly?" says Farmer, adding that to watch Bill Clinton and his Initiative in action changed his mind. "The biggest post-earthquake project to be launched is the hospital we're launching in central Haiti," he says, "and the first donation that ever came through was from sitting in a chair next to someone at CGI."

"One of the key features of CGI is the notion that the problems facing us are too big for any piece of the economy or any single organization to take on," says Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and an energy expert who has helped to coordinate Clinton's initiative since the beginning. "There's the ability to bring together a really complex set of conversations between people who otherwise wouldn't be talking."

At CGI, the magic "happens in the hallways," says Hendricks. He points to a 2005 encounter between Brad Pitt, Steven Bing and architect Bill McDonough. Just a month after Hurricane Katrina, the three men joined a CGI panel that ended up launching Pitt's "Make it Right" initiative in New Orleans –a program that has made the city's Lower Ninth Ward one of the largest concentrations of green buildings in the country.

Similarly, a 2008 CGI conversation led Newark Mayor Corey Booker to begin a project of green urban renewal that "wouldn't have happened without CGI," says Hendricks. "Booker wouldn't have had access to this network of global thought leaders."

This year, Actor Ashton Kutcher will talk Twitter with Sudanese telecom mogul Mohammed Ibrahim; World Bank Managing Director and former Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Iweala will talk entrepreneurship with former White House green jobs czar Van Jones.

Some of the U.N.'s trouble stems from its many cooks. The 192 member states can only agree on the most obvious of policy proposals—say, primary education for all. What's more, the recession has rocked its budget, making it difficult to achieve the goals set out years before. But the more fundamental problem, in the U.S. at least, is not money but rather what can best be described as an "enthusiasm gap."

Clinton: Helping At Home and Abroad

Clinton also appeared on Meet the Press, where he discussed his Global Initiative, saying that in addition to helping end poverty worldwide, this year the foundation would also “try to spend more time on the domestic needs.” See full interview below.

When Anita Sharma, a representative for the U.N. Millennium Campaign, visited a congressman on Capitol Hill recently, the representative asked this about the MDG: "Isn't that a beer?" (He was thinking of MGD—Miller Genuine Draft.)

"The U.N. has so many agencies," says Jeffrey Sachs, a development economist who has worked closely with the U.N. on the goals, and has advocated that focused initiatives like the Global Fund be used to avoid the worst of the U.N. bureaucracy. Still, Sachs does not believe that private organizations can save the world: "To pretend it can be done by business or less is to leave people to die."

Certainly the U.N. General Assembly, "can use its legitimacy to create political momentum around big causes and, in so doing, help to lever cash from governments," says Michael Green, co-author of Philanthrocapitalism. But CGI "is much more practical and action-oriented than the U.N.," he adds. "The real opportunity is building an effective partnership between the two."

CGI also works with the U.N. at times—particularly on women's issues, where partnership with UNICEF, the UN Population Fund and UNAIDS has been fruitful. But in the end the UN is "a bunch of academic, nerdy policy people," says Farmer. "And I say that as an academic nerdy policy person."

The U.N.'s strengths remain standard-setting, and creating favorable policy environments to fight poverty and other global problems. But its waning influence may be the natural feature of globalization: "The diffusion into more accessible and actionable activities is a growing element of a much more decentralized world," says John MacArthur of the U.N.'s Millennium Promise campaign. The entire U.N. week, he says, produces "a community of communities working on pieces of the goals."

"Every September has been an extraordinary experience in terms of coming together with very out-of-the box thinkers, people who are not afraid to innovate and move forward," says Molly Melching, director of Tostan, an NGO in Senegal that works with both UNICEF and CGI. "President Clinton took what other people were saying—that businesses are bad and doing horrible things and said, 'Let's look at them as being potential do-gooders.'… That attitude has really changed social norms for big business; they feel that it's a responsibility to get involved in world affairs."

NYPOST: Haiti: Job for the UN

Help still needed after US leaves

By BENNY AVNI

Last Updated: 9:49 AM, January 22, 2010

Posted: 2:39 AM, January 22, 2010

The United Nations has elevated Bill Clinton to be its top coordinator for Haiti. It's an excellent move that should help the eventual transition back to UN leadership of world efforts there.

No one is doing more heroic work in Haiti now than the US military. But the 82nd Airborne and the Marines will soon be needed elsewhere, and Haiti is a rare case where the United Nationshas done a good job.

Critics of the UN secretary general have unfairly dubbed this crisis "Ban Ki-moon's Katrina" -- even though the shell-shocked UN, which suffered the largest loss of lives in its history, operated adequately.

Clinton: Great pick to be UN point man.

Of course the UN's efforts couldn't match those of the US military, dispatched to Haiti since last week and now 20,000 troops strong. America's military is best positioned to handle huge emergencies in chaotic field conditions.

The UN's set up for longer-term work -- and it will be needed, when US troops inevitably leave once the immediate emergency is over. Ideally, the tragedy could help pull Haiti out of the multigenerational, self-made crisis that has rendered it the hemisphere's poorest nation.

Happily, the UN's Haiti stabilization force is one of its better operations. With Brazilian troops as its backbone, the mission has met fire with fire since 2004, fighting violent armed gangs in Cite Soleil and other slums, and winning -- or at least achieving enough calm for some outsiders to consider investing in Haiti.

Which brings us back to Clinton, whom Secretary-General Ban last year named as his special envoy for Haiti.

Haiti's ambassador to Washington, Raymond Joseph, tried for years to lure US and international corporations to invest in his country. Though at first no Clinton fan, Joseph told me at the time that the ex-president's involvement prompted many skeptical investors to "get off the fence" and move in.

And so, relative calm in the streets, Clinton's star power and some good moves by the government of PresidentRene Preval created an atmosphere of hope. Haiti wasn't there yet -- but, for the first time in decades, it was moving in the right direction.

Haiti needs more outside help now. President Obama has already pledged $165 million in federal funds, while Americans have donated $40 millions privately, with more sure to come.

Americans should be wary, though, of funneling their money through the UN, which has just launched a $562 million "flash appeal" for donations to Haiti.

Consider what happened to the $13.6 billion, raised in 2005 to help Indonesia after a tsunami killed 2 million there. The Financial Times found that the multiple UN agencies that handled those funds spent a much higher share of the cash for administrative and bureaucratic costs than did aid groups like Oxfam. The UN was also much less transparent when asked to account for the money.

Money and outside help won't suffice, either. For example, earthquake experts can help Haitians devise new construction codes, so fewer buildings collapse next time -- but only Haitians can obey and enforce those codes.

America should help Haiti as much and as long as we can, but (as Obama & Co. are fond of saying) we can't solve all the world's problems alone. Where there's no direct threat, as in Haiti, we should move aside and let other good neighbors (along with our private citizens, our former presidents and the UN) shoulder most of the work.

beavni@gmail.com