Four Insiders Who Could Succeed Valerie Amos as OCHA Head

imgres
Jan. 20, 2015 – It’s rare that a top United Nations post goes to someone already working for the organization as headline jobs are doled out as political favors to the permanent five members of the Security Council as well as top donors such as Germany, Sweden, Japan and Norway.

But there is precedent, not least in the case of Kofi Annan who started his career as a staffer with the World Health Organization, later becoming head of peacekeeping, until his appointment as secretary-general in 1997.

With Ban Ki-moon under pressure from aid groups not to succumb to political pressure and appoint David Cameron’s preferred candidate, Andrew Lansley, to succeed Valerie Amos as head of OCHA, he could do worse than look for potential replacements inside his own ranks.

Here are four candidates that fit the bill to succeed Amos as the world’s top humanitarian aid official.

1. David Nabarro

Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 19.56.09
Nabarro is currently managing the UN’s response to the Ebola outbreak. A native of the UK and a medical doctor, he had stints with the British National Health Service, Save the Children and the the British government’s Overseas Development Assistance program before joining WHO in 1999. His UN experience includes serving in Iraq, where he survived the Canal Hotel bombing in 2003; coordinating the health response to the 2004 Tsunami; coordinating the UN response to the Avian flu outbreak; and coordinating the UN system’s task-force on global food security. That he is British may well make him a good choice for a compromise candidate if it comes down to a political appointment versus appointment on competence.

2. Philippe Lazzarini

Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 20.13.45
Lazzarini, a Swiss native, is currently the UN’s deputy special representative and humanitarian coordinator in Somalia. He previously held senior positions with OCHA, serving in Angola and Iraq as well as Somalia and the Palestinian territories. Prior to coming to the UN, Lazzarini worked for the ICRC, with postings to Amman, Angola, Beirut, Bosnia, Gaza, Rwanda and Sudan.

3. Amina Mohammed

  Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 20.24.53
Mohammed is currently Ban Ki-moon’s special adviser on post-2015 development planning. She worked for the Nigerian government throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, serving under three presidents, including as an adviser on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In the early 2000s, she headed up the Task Force on Gender and Education for the UN Millennium Project.

4. John Ging

Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 20.43.36
Ging is currently OCHA’s head of operations. A former officer in the Irish army, he served three tours of duty as a UN peacekeeper. He later worked with the aid agency GOAL in Rwanda, DRC and Tanzania following the Rwandan genocide. He has also worked with the OSCE in Bosnia and served as head of the UN mission in Kosovo in 2005. He worked for UNRWA as head of operations in Gaza from 2006 – 2011, a period which coincided with Israel’s 2008/09 offensive.

Related Story: Replacing Valerie Amos: Political Appointment or Merit-Based

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Palestine Accession to ICC Effective April 1

150px-International_Criminal_Court_logo.svg

Jan 7, 2015, Palestine will become the 123rd member of the International Criminal Court on April 1st, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Ban, in his capacity as the UN depository of treaties, said in a statement on Tuesday that the State of Palestine had acceded to the Rome Statute, which governs the Court, and this would become effective in April. Palestine handed over the required documentation on Jan 1 and the court’s jurisdiction becomes effective 60 days the first day of the following month.

In a submission on Jan 2, Palestine granted the Court jurisdiction over crimes committed in their territory since June 2014. That would include the war in Gaza this past summer.

Screen Shot 2015-01-07 at 03.21.40

2014 Ends with Security Council Defeat of Palestinian Resolution

SC vote on Palistine
Jan 5, 2015 – The last act of the 2014 Security Council was to defeat a draft resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from territory it occupied since 1967.

Eight countries supported the text which was put to a vote on Dec. 30 – Argentina, Chad, China, Chile, France, Jordan, Luxembourg and Russia – while five abstained – Britain, Lithuania, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Korea. The United States and Australia voted against the text.

That the draft did not secure the requisite nine votes needed for adoption meant the United States was not forced to use its veto for the 43rd time in defense of Israel. But it was Samantha Power’s first no vote in the Council since assuming the post of US envoy to the UN in August 2013.

It was also Australia’s fist no vote in the Council in its two-year term which ended on Dec. 31st.

The vote exposed the lack of unity among EU countries on the Palestinian question with France and Luxembourg voting for the draft while Britain and Lithuania abstained. There was also disunity among UN regional groups, with the exception of Latin America where both Council members from the region – Argentina and Chile – supported the text.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday said he plans to re-submit the resolution. Two of the countries who ended their non-permanent term on the Security Council on Dec. 31 supported the resolution – Argentina and Luxembourg, two more abstained, Rwanda and South Korea, while Australia voted against it.

Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 15.42.17

Security Council membership in 2015

Of the five new countries joining the Council for 2015/16, Angola, Malaysia and Venezuela are almost certainties to support the draft resolution and while the positions of New Zealand and Spain are unclear, neither is thought to oppose the resolution.

Although the chances of the draft securing the nine votes needed for adoption increase with the composition of the new Council, the United States will more than likely use its veto to defeat the text.

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Photo/UN Photo

Latin America Only UN Region Not Involved in US Torture Program

Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.25.34 AM
Dec. 14, 2014 – The 53 countries involved in the CIA torture program hail from four of the five UN regional groups and eight of those countries hosted CIA torture prisons.

Overall, more than one-quarter of the UN’s 193 member states were involved in the torture program, which was detailed in a US Senate select committee report released last week.

Four countries belonging to the Eastern European group – Bosnia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania; three countries in the Asian group – Afghanistan, Iraq and Thailand; and Morocco in the African group were home to secret CIA detention facilities, or “black sites,” where torture took place, in addition to Guantanamo Bay, according to the Open Society’s Globalizing Torture report.

Forty-five other countries, as well as Hong Kong, facilitated US torture, from providing information to US authorities, to allowing CIA rendition flights stopover and refuel, as well as detaining and handing over individuals to CIA custody.

Almost half are European with thirteen of the countries named belonging to the Western European and Others Group, including permanent Security Council member the UK, as well as Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Spain, in addition to Australia and Canada, while six Eastern European countries were involved including Croatia, Georgia and Macedonia.

Twelve countries from the African group are named including South Africa, Egypt and Zimbabwe as well as twelve from the Asian group including Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Syria.

None of the 33 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean group were named in the report.

List of UN member states implicated in US torture program:

Afghanistan
Austria
Australia
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Finland
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mauritania
Morocco
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Zimbabwe

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Book Review: UN-Tied Nations: The United Nations, Peacekeeping & Global Governance


Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 10.41.00 PM
Nov. 18, 2014 – Kate Seaman’s UN-Tied Nations: The United Nations, Peacekeeping and Global Governance examines the role of peacekeeping in the development of global security governance. It is a timely book in light of Ban Ki-moon’s recent announcement of a high-level panel to review UN peacekeeping operations.

Seaman begins with a discussion of the various theories and definitions of what constitutes global governance. “The reality is that global governance is not a form of world government… [it] is a highly contested and politicized concept. It does not view the international system as a state centric one, instead it tries to incorporate the many new and varied actors that now have a role to play in global governance.” These include non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups and regional organizations.

At the center of all this is the United Nations which plays a “coordinating” role in the global governance agenda, promoting “key norms such as human rights, democratization and good governance.” The hope after the end of the Cold War was that a reinvigorated UN would live up to its charter ideals of promoting peace and human rights, even though United Nations membership is – or at least according to the UN Charter – open only to “peace-loving states.”

There was a burst of Security Council activity in the early to mid-1990s with a record number of decisions, but the organization soon became “overwhelmed” and failed to respond in Rwanda and Somalia. It became readily apparent that “traditional peacekeeping” was inadequate to cope with new challenges and “coupled with ‘the desire by UN officials and member states to pick winners and avoid failures meant that the UN was as interested in its own security as it was in human security’.”

Moreover, ambitious Security Council mandates tasked peacekeepers with a range of duties such as from early economic recovery to election monitoring, but the mandates were not matched with the resources to fulfill them and there was a disconnect between the demands placed on peacekeepers and their ability to perform these tasks.

The past decade has seen a resurgence in UN peacekeeping operations but the same problems and challenges remain: legitimacy and resources, coupled with new challenges in tackling the changing nature of conflicts with non-state actors increasingly involved.

The book examines a number of case studies and thoroughly reviews the existing literature on global governance and peacekeeping. There are useful insights from the author’s interviews with UN officials and diplomats – their anonymity allows more candidness than one is used to from diplomats and secretariat officials in their public remarks.

Perennial problems such as reform of the Council is also discussed with observations ranging from an expanded Council would only lead to an even more crippling decision making process to ensuring major troop contributing countries have a say in decisions. There’s something of a consensus, however, on that improving the Council’s working methods should be as much, if not more, of a priority than reforming the Council’s existing structure.

In concluding, Seaman writes that, “The UN has simply become another political tool of governments, used to validate their actions and policies… if the UN is ever to achieve the ideals on which it was established, member states will have to be much more willing to provide resources and to politically support the organization and the Secretariat in what they are trying to achieve.”

Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Slowdown in Ebola Cases as Funding Increases

Ebola_Virus_TEM_PHIL_1832_lores
Nov. 5, 2014 – The World Health Organization on Wednesday said that incidences of the Ebola virus appear to be on the decline in Liberia, stabilizing in Guinea but increasing in Sierra Leone, particularly in the capital Freetown.

The latest WHO situation report shows 398 new cases in Liberia in the past 21 days out of a total of 6,525 cases that have resulted in 2,697 deaths so far.  In Guinea, 256 new cases have been recorded in the past three weeks bringing the total to 1,731 cases with 1,041 deaths.

However, Sierra Leone has reported 435 cases in the past week alone. “Much of this was driven by intense transmission in the capital of Freetown, which reported 115 new confirmed cases and remains one of the worst affected cities in this outbreak.”

Sierra Leone has the second highest incidence of Ebola, after Liberia, with 4759 cases resulting in 1,070 deaths. More than a quarter of the country’s Ebola cases have been recorded in the past three weeks.

The WHO also said that the number of beds in Ebola Treatment Centers (ETCs) has increased from 284 at the beginning of August to 1,047 at the end of October with 593 in Liberia, 294 in Sierra Leone and 160 in Guinea.

“The establishment of more beds is in part held back by challenges in finding sufficient numbers of foreign medical teams to operate ETCs,” the WHO said.

The outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is separate and unrelated to the outbreak in West Africa, is almost under control. There have been no new cases in the past 24 days, WHO said, and if no other cases are reported in the next 18 days the country can be declared Ebola-free.

Meanwhile, funding to combat Ebola is increasing with more than $1 billion committed so far according to UN figures. The top five contributors are the United States, which has given $313 million; the UK, $95 million; Canada, $51 million; China, $41 million; and Sweden $34 million.

Russia is the only permanent member of the Security Council that has not yet donated funds to combat Ebola.

A list of all contributions and pledges made so far is here and includes funds given directly to the UN appeal as well as money donated bi-laterally to an affected country.

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Republicans Likely to Nix Funding for UN Climate Agencies After Midterms

Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg
Nov. 4, 2014 – The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties if Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections.

The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The bill was approved by a current Democrat-controlled sub-committee in June but has yet to be put to a full vote.

However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, also in June, states that “none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

While the sum involved is miniscule compared to the overall $48 billion budget approved by both sub-committees, it represents a combined one-third of the $7 million IPCC and $26 million UNFCC budgets.

The pulling of this funding will be a big blow to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ahead of next year’s climate talks in Paris. Ban has made climate change his signature issue and is hoping that a global pact can be agreed before he steps down in 2016.

A Republican-controlled Senate will also scupper what slim chances there already were that the US would ratify the Arms Trade Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) will also likely get nixed by a Republican-controlled Senate. The House bill denies any funding to the agency while the Senate version allocates $37.5 million to the UNFPA – the agency which promotes family planning and reproductive health. Under President George W. Bush, all funding for the agency was withheld. President Obama restored this funding after his election.

UNRWA, the agency that supports Palestinian refugees, could also see its funds cut under a Republican Senate. The US is the largest single donor to the agency.

In a further blow to the US relationship with the UN, under a Republican-controlled Senate, Rand Paul, who last year proposed an amendment calling for the US to stop providing funds to the United Nations, would take over as chair of the subcommittee responsible for oversight of the United States participation in the United Nations system.

Among the new batch of Republican senators is Joni Ernst from Iowa who has stated that the UN wants to take Iowan farmers off their land and move them into cities.

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

How Much is a UN Security Council Seat Worth and Which Countries Get Elected?

Security Council Meeting on the situation in the Central African Republic.
Oct. 15, 2014 – Five of the ten non-permanent Security Council seats are up for grabs on Thursday though only one race is contested with New Zealand, Spain and Turkey battling in the Western group to replace Australia and Luxembourg for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2015.

Angola will replace Rwanda for the available African seat, Malaysia will take over from South Korea in the Asia group while Venezuela also has no competition in the race for the Latin American seat being vacated by Argentina.

Why do countries run for a non-permanent seat knowing that the Council is essentially ruled by the Permanent Five members, not to mention the extra expenses associated with increasing diplomatic staff to attend to the UNSC’s expanding workload.

One study has shown that developing countries serving on the Council see their aid from the United States increase by 59 percent and aid from the UN increase by 8 percent, mostly coming from UNICEF, an agency long controlled by the US.

Another paper found that developing countries serving on the Council receive greater support from the World Bank and IMF and receive softer loan conditions from the IMF – but only if they side with the US. For example, as related in yet another study, on vote-buying, Yemen voted against the 1990 resolution authorizing force in Iraq and the US subsequently cut its 70 million dollars in aid entirely and Yemen was not granted an IMF arrangement for six years.

As for which countries get elected, there is a pattern of not electing countries in conflict in Asia and Africa and of favoring democratic states in the Western group. All WEOG countries are now considered democratic but during the dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal – only Spain, in 1961, was ever elected. Since transitioning to democracy, these three countries have served at least twice on the Council. It helps to get elected to the Council if a country in Asia or Latin America is a former former British colony but not so much in Africa, according to this study.

The votes of at least four non-permanent members are needed for a resolution to pass the 15-nation Council, and, as evidenced by this 2010 diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks, the US mission to the UN will be busy categorizing the five countries to be elected tomorrow as reliable or not so reliable partners.

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Why Malala Won the Nobel Prize: Remembering Her Speech to the United Nations

UN Tribune editor Denis Fitzgerald with Malala Yousafzai at Pakistan's Mission to the UN in New York, July 2013.

UN Tribune editor Denis Fitzgerald with Malala Yousafzai at a reception at Pakistan’s Mission to the UN in New York, July 2013.

Oct. 10, 2014 – Malala Yousafzai, who on Friday became the youngest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which she shared with child rights campaigner Kailash Satyarthi, gave one of the most powerful addresses ever delivered to the United Nations when she spoke before youth delegates on July 12 last year.

The occasion was a Youth General Assembly, which was planned to coincide with Malala’s 16th birthday, and her words of wisdom, humility, forgiveness and kindness will long be remembered. Below are some excerpts as well as a link to the full address.

“Dear Friends, on the 9th of October 2012, the Taliban shot me on the left side of my forehead. They shot my friends too. They thought that the bullets would silence us. But they failed. And then, out of that silence came, thousands of voices. The terrorists thought that they would change our aims and stop our ambitions but nothing changed in my life except this: Weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, power and courage was born.  I am the same Malala. My ambitions are the same. My hopes are the same. My dreams are the same.

“Dear sisters and brothers, I am not against anyone. Neither am I here to speak in terms of personal revenge against the Taliban or any other terrorists group. I am here to speak up for the right of education of every child. I want education for the sons and the daughters of all the extremists especially the Taliban.

“I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there is a gun in my hand and he stands in front of me. I would not shoot him. This is the compassion that I have learnt from Muhammad-the prophet of mercy, Jesus christ and Lord Buddha. This is the legacy of change that I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of non-violence that I have learnt from Gandhi Jee, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa. And this is the forgiveness that I have learnt from my mother and father. This is what my soul is telling me, be peaceful and love everyone.”

France Absent From Donors to UN Fund for Combatting Ebola

Ebola_Virus_TEM_PHIL_1832_lores
Oct. 8, 2014 – France has yet to contribute to the UN fund to combat the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa.

The most recent list of contributions to the fund, which is seeking $988 million, shows that the US has contributed $113 million of the $391 million so far committed, making it, by some distance, the biggest country donor.

The UK is next with $7.8 million contributed, then Australia at $7 million, followed by Kuwait, $5 million, Canada, $4.2 million, and Germany $3.2 million.

Twenty-two countries in total have contributed to the fund. Besides the six above, the others are:

Switzerland $3 million
Japan $3 million
Norway $2.2 million
China $2.2 million
Denmark $2.2 million
Italy $2.1 million
Ireland $1.2 million
Netherlands $1.2 million
Finland $1 million
South Korea $600,000
Spain $540,468
India $500,000
Luxembourg $269,054
Austria $263,505
Estonia $80,600
Andorra $20,053

Russia is the only other permanent member of the Security Council besides France to not yet contribute.

A list of all contributions and pledges to the United Nations Ebola Response Fund, as compiled by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, is here.

France is the former ruler of Guinea, which is the epicenter of the Ebola virus outbreak. The first case in the current outbreak, the biggest ever, was diagnosed there in March 2014. The country has registered 1,298 cases, resulting in 587 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. Twenty-five percent of the cases in Guinea have been diagnosed in the past three weeks.

The total number of cases for Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea has topped 8,000 resulting in 3,800 deaths.

The US, Spain, Senegal and Nigeria have also recored cases while a recent study suggests there is a 75 percent probability of the virus spreading to France in the next twenty days. The UK and Belgium are also at high risk of the virus spreading there at 50 percent and 40 percent respectively, according to the study.

The study, by researchers from Boston University, also found that a travel ban on flights from affected countries would delay international spread of Ebola by three weeks and concluded that the best intervention is on the ground assistance in the affected countries.

– Denis Fitzgerald
On Twitter @denisfitz

Image: US CDC