Un General Assembly on The Huffington Post

Evelyn Leopold: UN Starts World's First Arms Trade Treaty: Will It Work?

2009-10-31T01:04:41Z

At least 2,000 people a day are killed with weapons by criminal gangs, bandits, terrorists, insurgents -- and their own governments. In Africa alone $18 billion is consumed through armed conflict, about the same amount as non-military foreign aid.

In an effort to regulate the arms trade, UN members approved a resolution on Friday setting out a three-year timetable for negotiations on the world's first-ever Arms Trade Treaty. The aim is to set standards for the global $55 billion export business in guns, tanks, attack helicopters, jet fighters, missiles and other conventional weapons. The United States, the world's largest arms exporter, voted in favor.

The UN General Assembly's disarmament committee (known as the first committee) voted 153 to 1 (Zimbabwe) with 19 abstentions. Adoption by the committee, which includes all UN members, is tantamount to formal approval by the General Assembly by the end of the year. The goal is a conference in 2012 for a final accord.

Easier Said Than Done

The project is fraught with difficulties but is a major step forward after years of dithering. The purpose is to set international criteria to prevent weapons from reaching criminals, terrorists and human rights abusers and level arms trade regulations for major exporters. But diplomats acknowledge one could not stop leakage into the black market entirely.

"We need to have a standard that everyone is applying," said John Duncan, the British ambassador for multilateral arms control and a key force behind the resolution. "We now have lots of emerging suppliers operating with different rules. Because of that disunity, we are ending up with things flowing to where they shouldn't be going."

Hopefully, he said, there would be a "name and shame" list if the treaty is adopted. "It's not going to be a panacea but you raise the economic and political threshold. Currently we have nothing."

Arms sales are a major business and large manufacturers in Western nations welcome a treaty as it might help them compete against lax rivals.

The United States has the world's tightest export regulations but there was no dent in its weapons sales abroad last year, even amid a worldwide recession. U.S. firms exported arms valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, over 68 percent of all global business. (Italy was in second place with $3.7 billion, see chart below).

America was also number one in the arms bazaar to developing nations with $29.6 billion in conventional weapons agreements or more than 70 percent of the world's total, according to a U.S. government report in September. In contrast, Russian arms sales to developing countries were $3.3 billion.

Clinton Speaks

Reversing the policy of the Bush administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement on October 14 that:

[The treaty initiative] presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes.

But she had a key condition -- consensus -- which gives nearly every country a veto. In practice it means Washington could demolish the treaty if it felt the standards were too low and would put its own companies at a disadvantage. (The proposed treaty already excludes any embargo on nationals bearing arms, thereby allowing the usual seepage of US weapons to Mexican gangs.) At the same time, however, countries who want to sell to human rights abusers can also block agreement.

In Friday's debate, Mexico, for example, noted that the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament was paralyzed because of the consensus rules and that all major treaties, including the key Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had been adopted by majority vote. Ireland and Germany also had major doubts on consensus but in the end voted in favor.

Among the abstainers were Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, all arms producers, who wanted further discussion before serious negotiations could begin, indicating the process will be a tough one. But they are expected to join the talks, set to begin next July. Most nations in the Middle East abstained but nearly all countries in Africa and Latin America voted in favor.

Zimbabwe, which cast the sole negative vote on the resolution, is accused of using weapons for political oppression and has had some difficulty getting arms. In April 2008 a Chinese vessel carrying weapons destined for Zimbabwe was forced to leave the South African port of Durban with its cargo intact after dock workers refused to unload the shipment.

Active in the lobbying effort was a coalition of hundreds of non-governmental groups from around the world. "For too long, governments have let the flow of weapons get out of control, causing pain, suffering and death in some of the world's poorest regions," said Anna Macdonald of Oxfam International.

ARMS TRANSFER AGREEMENTS WITH THE WORLD, BY SUPPLIER (IN US DOLLARS)

2008-- Total $55 billion:
United States 37.8. billion
Italy 3.7 billion
Russia 3.5 billion
France 2.6 billion
Germany 1 billion
China 800 million
Britain 200 million
All other Europeans 3.2 billion
All Others 2.4 billion

Source: U.S. Government, Congressional Research Service Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 by Richard F. Grimmett , September 4, 2009 (PDF).

Evelyn Leopold: Cuban Vote at UN: "Here We Go Again"

2009-10-28T22:34:16Z

UNITED NATIONS - For the 18th consecutive year, the UN General Assembly condemned the US economic embargo against Cuba. The 187 countries voting in favor were friends and foes, democracies and dictatorships.

But this was the first vote since President Obama took office, and everyone listened for hints of change. While the administration has taken steps to improve relations with Cuba, it renewed the embargo just last month.

The speech by Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was more conciliatory than in previous years. But there was no hint the embargo would be lifted unless Cuba allowed "political and economic freedoms."

When the embargo first came to the floor of the General Assembly, many European nations abstained. But then came the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which imposed fines and other sanctions on foreign firms dealing with Cuba. In the ensuing years, the UN vote turned heavily against Washington, not only in Europe but in all of Latin America.

This year it was 187 to 3 votes with two abstentions. The United States, Israel and the Pacific island of Palau voted "no" while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia (also Pacific isles) abstained. The resolution is not binding but expresses the will of the international community. Cuba has been under a US trade and travel embargo since 1962, three years after Fidel Castro took power.

New York Philharmonic banned?

Cuba's foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said the embargo had prevented his country from obtaining needed drugs for adults and children, including those combating HIV/AIDS as well as equipment to detect cancer. The US government, he said, recently stopped the New York Philharmonic Orchestra from performing in Cuba. "The blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance," Rodriguez said. "How can artistic creation be considered a crime?"

"President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy towards Cuba," the minister said, and at minimum could grant waivers to ease the embargo. While Cuba purchases agricultural products from the United States, he said it has to pay cash in advance and could not transport the cargo in its own vessels.

In response, Ambassador Rice said, "Here we go again. I suppose old habits die hard."

"The hostile language we have just heard from the Foreign Minister of Cuba seems straight out of the Cold War era and is not conducive to constructive progress. We will not respond in kind to painfully familiar rhetoric that we have heard in years past -- rather, I am prepared to acknowledge that there is a new chapter to this old story," Rice said.

She noted that the Obama administration had promoted family visits and remittances and had expanded the amounts of humanitarian items Americans could donate. It also resumed talks on migration, moved to establish direct mail service and enhanced the ability of US telecommunications and agricultural firms to pursue agreements.

"These are important steps and can be the starting point for further changes in the relationship," Rice said.

The isolation of the United States on Cuba follows a series of US initiatives in the United Nations, with engagement on disarmament issues, such as a proposed arms trade treaty, and human rights bodies. Gone is the embarrassing US stand on women's issues whenever family planning in poor nations arises.

But on Cuba, the lobby remains strong, even though polls show a split in the Cuban-American community.

Elena Freyre, executive director of the moderate Cuban American Defense League in Miami, told CNN after the vote:

"The definition of insanity is to do something over and over again and expect a different result. We are not going to get a different result. It's not working."

Evelyn Leopold: Iran Talks: Shadows of Iraq, Legitimacy of Regime

2009-10-16T10:32:09Z

Two elephants are and were in the room during negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions: the rigged elections that brought President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and the shadow of Iraq in overestimating Tehran's weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously the Iraq and Iran situations differ. Iraq's Saddam Hussein did have chemical and biological arms, Scud missiles and designs for a nuclear arms program, most of which were neutralized by U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s. Sanctions worked at first and then served to impoverish Iraq. But most weapons were gone by the time of the 2003 US invasion, a subject of heated analysis and criticism.

How far Iran is from making a bomb is still in dispute as there are good faith differences in analyzing intelligence, even among Western allies. But that Tehran has nuclear ambitions is more than a fantasy since it kept its program a secret for 18 years and then revealed it to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency , the IAEA, only six years ago. Still, exactly what Iran -- which insists its program is for peaceful purposes -- is planning or has achieved is not fully transparent.

UN Inspection due at Qom

The IAEA will inspect Iran's newly-disclosed enrichment plant near the city of Qom on October 25. The Iranians informed the IAEA of the covert project, probably suspecting that the United States was about to blow the whistle. President Barack Obama has joined allies in talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions, as was the case with the Bush administration. At the same time he warned Iran to come clean about its nuclear program, which Western nations fear is a cover to build nuclear arms, or face further sanctions.

Any sanctions by the UN Security Council will have far more effect than if Washington and Western allies step up their own embargoes. But Russia, backed by China, has not agreed, at least until negotiations with Iran continue. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told UN diplomats last month and then announced publicly his opposition to tough measures at this time.

Most experts believe that Western intelligence agencies, especially the United States, are more rigorous and cautious in analyzing data because of the Iraq episode. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says war would only slow, not end, Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. And President Obama does not threaten war. Instead he said at the end of the Pittsburgh summit of G-20 countries last month:

When we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position to, for example, apply sanctions that have bite. That's not the preferred course of action. I would love nothing more than to see Iran choose the responsible path.

Justifying June Elections

Yet the nuclear issue and the legitimacy of the Iranian government after the June elections are being kept separate. At the UN General Assembly gathering last month, few world leaders publicly mentioned that the Iranian government survives by violence, militia and Revolutionary Guards, who not only put down demonstrators but hold some lucrative government portfolios. (The violence was criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon).

Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, went out of their way to justify the elections.

"Our nation has gone through a glorious and fully democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions," Ahmadinejad told the General Assembly. He said Iranian voters "entrusted me once more with a large majority."

Questioned at a UN news conference by this reporter on the impact of the June election on the nuclear talks, Mottaki was adamant that Ahmadinejad had won fairly despite "international propaganda."

The election in Iran last June was one of the most glorious presidential elections ever held in the Islamic Republic of Iran...Election regulations were made so that no one could change the outcome of elections... Rioters were arrested and the innocent were released.

Of course that wasn't all. Mottaki said the facility at Qom was the "only case that is under construction." Both men had been on a charm offensive with the American press, craving recognition from the Obama administration and regularly complimenting the US President for advocating change.

But Ahmadinejad could not resist repeating his anti-Semitic remarks, prompting walkouts during his General Assembly speech, by alluding to a supposed worldwide Jewish conspiracy:

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions.

Ahmadinejad says he wants to resolve the nuclear issue (the UN Security Council has forbidden Tehran to enrich uranium to a level of uranium that could be used for nuclear bombs) but only in the context of a broader understanding. Diplomats believe this would include a pledge not to call for "regime change."

Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that Iranian leaders may want prolonged talks to gain legitimacy at home and abroad.

"There is a danger that we send a message to the Iranian people that we don't care about them," he told NPR. "Many Iranians are saying, 'Don't legitimize this illegitimate government.'"

On Monday, Iranian officials meet in Vienna with delegations from the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China, the first of two October meetings. While Iran has refused to curb uranium enrichment, it agreed "in principle" to have its low-enriched uranium processed in Russia and France for use in a reactor that makes isotopes for cancer cures. (Such low-grade uranium could be enriched if it stayed in Iran.).

However, Iran's stance is till ambiguous. Will it move towards UN demands or draw out negotiations to head off sanctions?

Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Fatally Flawed UN Goldstone Report Could Come Back to Bite America For Fighting Terrorists

2009-10-13T19:02:34Z

Here we go again as the United Nation pursues its unique "verdict first--trial afterwards," treatment of the State of Israel. This week, not one but two UN agencies, the UN Security Council in New York, and over in Geneva--in its 6th 'special session' on Israel in 3 years--the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) are heeding calls led by the newly sanitized terrorist Libyan regime to consider Judge Richard Goldstone's UN "fact-finding report" about Israel's three-week military operation to end the hellish barrage of 8,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. (See www.wiesenthal.com/Goldstone).

Not surprisingly, the Israelis are outraged that the prepackaged conclusions of the 600-page hatchet job--still calls Israel the "occupying power in Gaza" (!), gives Hamas a slap on the wrist, and condemns Israel for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" inflicted on Palestinians used as human shields by Hamas fighters.

Never mind that Goldstone's commission refused to view available video evidence showing that Hamas openly boasts of using Gazan civilians as human shields (some on YouTube!), or that Judge Goldstone stood by while Hamas officials impudently lied to him about their responsibility for kidnapping Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and missile attacks on civilian centers.

Goldstone's report, in effect, equates Israel with Nazis and other tyrants of history by accusing the Jewish State of deliberately targeting civilians-- a potent but patently false accusation, easily debunked by confirming with residents in Gaza or checking open sources on the Internet, that prior to attacks aimed at terrorist installations purposely implanted by Hamas within the civilian centers, that Israel Defense Forces dropped leaflets, contacted cell phones and interrupted Palestinian TV and Radio Broadcasts.

Oh, and did I mention that Judge Goldstone now denies his was an investigation at all?

Just last week, Goldstone admitted during an interview with The Forward that his findings came not from a full-blown investigation, but from what he called 'fact finding'. Goldstone is quoted as saying, "If this was a court of law, there would be nothing proven."

Whatever his intentions--Goldstone's folly has already unintentionally damaged President Obama's Mideast game plan.

It is discouraging average Israelis from going along with the risky step of withdrawal from West Bank strategic real estate adjacent to every major population center in the Jewish state. Back in 2005, Prime Minister Sharon said it was OK to withdraw from Gaza because--if Hamas tried to make it into a launching pad for terrorist attacks--the IDF would respond decisively with the support of a sympathetic international community. But in wake of Goldstone's attack, what sane Israeli would cede the West Bank? No democratically elected leader could afford to be blamed for opening Israel to more terror even as it would suffer another round of condemnations as "an occupying power" by the next Judge Goldstone. Jerusalem has enough threats from Tehran and Hezbollah to deal with without worrying that its soldiers and leaders will face arrest and trial by the International Criminal Court if they dare respond to attacks against Tel Aviv and Haifa--not from Gaza-- but from Ramallah and Jenin.

Meanwhile, Team Obama is discovering that it's impossible to keep any anti-Israel Genie bottled up in the UN. First, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said the U.S. had "serious concerns" about many recommendations in the Goldstone Report whose mandate the State Department labeled "unbalanced and one-sided." But then, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner declared in Geneva in Judge Goldstone's presence that--despite unproven "negative inferences about the intentions of Israeli officials"--the U.S. was "seriously" ready to "engage in discussion of this Report" at a future meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. For U.S. diplomacy in Geneva, the future is now--as it only recently rejoined the serially anti-Israel UNHRC on President Obama's instructions.

And here's another consequence of the Goldstone Follies: His report demands that everyone treat any new terrorist attack organized by a non-state player as a job for the NYPD--not the Marines. The U.S. must preemptively veto any discussion of the Goldstone Report by the UN Security Council unless we are prepared for it to come back and bite America. Do we really want to risk Judge Goldstone's meddling, not only derailing the Mideast peace process, but further unraveling NATO's counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan as well as U.S. unmanned drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

What goes around comes around. This year, it may be Jerusalem that's the target of international kangaroo courts designed to strip it of the inalienable right to "the individual and collective inherent right of self-defense" guaranteed to every member state by Article 51 of the UN Charter: a minor detail to seems to have slipped Judge Goldstone's mind. Next year, it may be Washington that is forced to defend its actions in Afghanistan--not behind closed White House doors--but at an arraignment at the Hague of our Generals and political leaders for "crimes against humanity" as well as "war crimes" during anti-terrorist operations in the Af-Pak region. In this Kafkaesque court, not even President Obama's unexpected Nobel Peace Prize would provide him with a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Mr. President and Madam Secretary of State: deep six the Goldstone Report before it buries every democracy confronted by terrorists. We cannot afford to respond to the threat of the next 9/11 by agreeing to the perverse notion that international law suddenly means signing on to a suicide pact.

Historian Dr. Harold Brackman, a consultant to the Simon Wiesenthal Center co-authored this essay.

Melody Moezzi: Leave Punishing Iran to Iranians

2009-10-13T15:04:58Z

By pushing Russia to consider the option of greater sanctions on Iran in her meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be endorsing a policy that will end up biting her in the back of her pantsuit. Apart from the fact that Moscow is unlikely to support such a policy given its strong trade relations with Tehran, there's also the issue of effectiveness. If the past 30 years have taught us anything in Iran, it is that sanctions are not an effective way to change the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran's behavior, nuclear or otherwise.

The idea that Iran poses a genuine nuclear threat to the international community is highly misguided at best. For one, even if Iran had nuclear weapons, which no one has confirmed, it would have no more than a handful. According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, Israel has roughly 80 nuclear weapons and the United States, its chief ally, has over 9,000. The massive retaliation that any attack on Israel would undoubtedly produce would surely obliterate Iran -- dare I say, wipe it off the map. As a result, much like the recent mass trials of opposition leaders, journalists and protesters, any nuclear weapons that Iran might have are purely for show.

As the world recently witnessed at the UN General Assembly, contested President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks a good game. But for all his theatrics, Ahmadinejad has about as much independent power as a skilled stagehand. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei runs the show in Iran. He controls the armed forces and were anyone to push the button, it would be Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad. And while Khamenei is happy to taunt Western powers with claims of nuclear capabilities, he's not about to send a formal invitation to their military forces by bombing Israel.

Iran is not agreeing to further meetings with world leaders and the International Atomic Energy Agency solely to make friends or compromises. It is doing so on a massive PR campaign. By convincing the world that the greatest threat Iran poses is a nuclear one, the Iranian regime succeeds in promoting the false notion that its own greatest threat is not domestic turmoil, but rather foreign retaliation in response to its alleged nuclear weapons program. Still, no matter how hard the regime tries to convince the world otherwise, it's clear that Iran's strongest adversary today remains within its own borders, in the form of an increasingly frustrated, determined and defiant Iranian opposition movement.

Foreign sanctions or military attacks would thus prove counterproductive in that they would only strengthen the regime by punishing the Iranian people for the actions of their illegitimate rulers. And the Iranian people represent by far the greatest hope the world has in replacing the allegedly Islamic Republic of Iran with a truly democratic one.

Iran has been under sanctions for the past 30 years, and its behavior has not changed as a result. What has changed, however, is the social and economic condition of the Iranian people. Inflation and unemployment rates are embarrassingly high, and by all accounts, the regime could care less.

The current Iranian regime has far more to fear from its own people than it does from any foreign powers. More than any outsiders, Iranians know exactly where their government's soft spots lie, and they are fearlessly and relentlessly aiming directly at them.

The opposition's chants of "Allah-u Akbar" and particularly its ability to create its own symbolic martyrs, such as Neda Agha-Soltan and Sohrab Arabi, are proof of this fact. By appealing to Islam and the strong Shi'a emphasis on martyrdom to point out how painfully un-Islamic the allegedly "Islamic" Republic of Iran has become, the Iranian people are striking precisely where the regime is most vulnerable. Green is not only the color of the pro-democracy movement. It is also the color of Islam, and yet another example of how the "Greens" are successfully using Islam to fight a regime that falsely claims to be promoting it.

Thus, the Iranian opposition is shaking the very foundation of the current regime by pointing out its failure to defend generally agreed-upon Islamic values such as justice, equality, courtesy, compassion and non-compulsion in religion. Similarly, the opposition is also drawing attention to the government's violation of it's own Constitution, not just international law, in its brutal post-election crackdown on protesters, journalists and opposition leaders.

By attacking their government's claims to Islam and republicanism, the opposition is destabilizing this regime from within to make way for a better, legitimate government in the future. If an attack were to come from the outside, however, it could destroy both the government and the people of Iran, like a deadly round of chemotherapy that kills both the cancer and the patient in the process.

Sanctions and military attacks will not weaken the regime. Rather, they will only weaken the regime's greatest enemy to date: the millions of angry young Iranians who constitute over 70 percent of the current population and who are sick of being told what they can and can't say, do, print or wear. The Iranian people will paralyze this regime faster and more effectively than any foreign military or economic retribution ever could.

If the most famous of this year's Nobel Prize winners truly wants to see a safer, more peaceful and less militarized world, he would be wise to stop harping on Iran's possible nuclear armament and focus more on American disarmament. In this respect, Secretary Clinton could achieve far greater gains for the prospect of peace on earth by discussing the disarmament of the two greatest nuclear powers and threats on our planet while they're both in the same room. With a combined 25,000 nuclear weapons to their names, it would do the U.S. and Russia some good to commit to a little domestic clean-up of their own before pointing fingers and waging threats abroad.

Daniel Burrell: Win or Come Home In Afghanistan

2009-10-03T19:28:29Z

Speaking last week to the UN General Assembly, President Obama told world leaders that we need a "global response to global concerns." This call for greater engagement and multilateralism is the right approach for US foreign policy. It is an imperative, however, not just on issues such as Iran, where our allies have been cooperative in supporting tougher sanctions, or on nuclear non-proliferation, where Moscow and Beijing have recently showed a willingness to lead with America, but also on the more divisive issue of Afghanistan. America is trending deeper into the Afghan war without adequate resources or political support, at home or abroad. This issue is now the greatest test of the President's foreign policy leadership.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last week indicates waning domestic support for US involvement in Afghanistan, and even stronger opposition to troop level increases. Only 39% of Americans favor the war and 63% percent believe that we should hold stable or reduce our forces on the ground, not increase them.

Counteracting this deterioration in popular support will require a change in the current US approach, requiring greater NATO involvement, but also clear conviction by the President that increased troop levels, technical support, and supplies will make the conflict winnable. Without a clear path to accomplishing this, the President cannot ask that more American or European lives be placed at risk, and he should begin the process of limiting US involvement in Afghanistan.

But to the extent that Obama remains committed to the Afghan conflict as a war of "necessity, not choice," with success hinging mostly on resolving the "adequate resources" question, he must be willing to communicate a more forceful message to NATO countries -- that continued US involvement and leadership in Afghanistan will be closely tethered to a correlating European response, commitment to shared objectives, and a unified strategy.

The consequences of not re-fashioning US policy in this way seems clear, especially in light of the recent memo written by General McChrystal assessing US involvement in Afghanistan. In that memo he stated that "failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support," and that "any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

President Obama must confront this stark reality by acknowledging what his predecessor couldn't - that there are real limitations to US power and resources. But he must also take a series of steps to set parameters around further US involvement in Afghanistan, as well as to win back popular support among the American public:

First, the President must tether any further troop commitments, US or European, to a legitimate political resolution of the Afghan election. NATO's main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. But clear evidence of fraud and electoral manipulation would create resulting illegitimacy for the government that would make the mission much less tenable politically and far more likely to fail militarily as well. This is especially true in light of recent concerns raised by the US government's highest-ranking UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, about electoral inconsistencies and potential fraud.

Second, if there is a resolution to the election that is workable, the President needs to re-make the case for the Afghan war to the American public in an address that clearly defines the mission, our reasons for being there, the changing strategic focus on the ground, a military assessment, and the resources needed to win. Popular support for the conflict relies primarily on coherence in these areas and justifiably, the public is seeking answers. Over the past six months, however, the President has been quiet on Afghanistan much to the detriment of popular support. His last major address on the subject was in March, but since this time we have had substantial troop level increases, more than 21,00 in total, losses in soldiers lives, and deterioration of overall US strategy. The President needs to regain the initiative now at a time when members of Congress and significant portions of his own party are moving rapidly away from their commitment to the conflict.

Finally, Obama must convene a summit of NATO member countries to address the needs of Afghanistan and decide on a unified, multilateral objective. This must also be coupled with a formal request that more troops, supplies, and technical assistance be sent using European resources, not American ones. This request has been back-channeled in recent months by Obama and his team to European leaders and officials, but it has stopped short of being the defined policy of the US or as a predicate for our ongoing commitment in Afghanistan. This must change in light of what our generals have communicated about the state of the conflict, the risks, and relevant needs.

Internationalizing the war effort and executing a successful Afghan troop "surge" is the right policy for the President to follow. The stakes of failing in Afghanistan are simply too high to accept failure. But success will only be realistic if we send a signal to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that NATO is an immovable, inexhaustible, tireless force that is willing to stay the course for years to come if necessary.

Right now, using the playbook from Iraq, insurgent groups see weakness in the European and American commitment and believe that an overstretched US military, in particular, will not be able to defeat them over time. This is fueling the current opposition and making the strategy on the ground more difficult and complex. President Obama can only forestall a failure in Afghanistan by recognizing the need to build consensus around the mission, to spread the costs widely, and to harness overwhelming force and resources. If he cannot accomplish this or has wavering commitment to it given recent assessments of the military challenges, it is time for US forces to come home

Christopher Herbert and Victoria Kataoka Rebuffet: Weekly Foreign Affairs Roundup

2009-10-02T15:38:23Z

This Past Two Week's Top Stories in Foreign Affairs:

Wrestling with Iran and Now a Real Breakthrough
Facts: Following a meeting in Geneva with the 5+1 (UN Security Council Permanent members China, Russia, France, UK and US plus Germany), arbitrated by the EU Foreign Minister, Javier Solana, Iran agrees to allow weapons' inspectors into the country and to export a majority of its enriched uranium to Russia and France for its conversion into nuclear fuel.
Background: This is the outcome of a months' old diplomatic dance between Iran and the West. Since the beginning of the year, the US has proposed to speak directly with the Iranians (sometimes with and sometimes without preconditions) but the Iranians have demurred. Rhetoric was vitriolic between the two countries following the June election. With Israeli impatience and fear growing, the fall UN Security Council meeting was established as an informal deadline for the Iranians to move or face greater sanctions and the threat of an Israeli attack. Only at the end of August did the Iranians respond to some outstanding questions in a report to the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). In this report, they revealed a small, secret uranium enrichment site near Qum. They also finally agreed to negotiations with the 5+1 to begin in Geneva on 1 October (a date just a week after the informal deadline). The end of September saw a flurry of statements and rhetoric from Western and Iranian leaders at the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. However, while at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, US President Obama, flanked by French President Sarkozy and British PM Brown revealed the existence of the Qum site to the world and demanded immediate cooperation from the Iranians in lieu of further sanctions. The threat of energy sanctions sanctions was far more legitimate since Russian President Medvedev seemed to hint that Russia would not oppose further sanctions. Many speculate that this reversal of position is in response to the US's scrapping of a Missile Defense shield in Eastern Europe, others suggest that the announcement of the Qum site was enough of a catalyst. Iran's initial response was to verbally dismiss international concerns stating that the Qum site was part of its civilian nuclear program, but then a day later it conducted medium-range ballistic missile tests, missiles which would serve as the delivery system of any eventual nuclear device. The meeting in Geneva were in fact the first high level talks in 30 years (since the Iranian revolution) between the US and Iran and though they started off slow, they led to a veritable breakthrough.
SI Analysis: Many will argue that this is just another stall tactic from Iran. But there is strong evidence to argue that this is a real breakthrough. If Iran does not meet its engagements now, it will have a very difficult time avoiding sanctions. Iran was forced to acknowledge the existence of the site and claimed that there are no others like it (which may or may not be the case) implicitly acknowledging that it has been doing something underhanded. Further, Iran has agreed in principle to rid itself of the majority of its enriched uranium thus depriving it of an immediate capacity to develop a nuclear weapon (though this is only the uranium that the world knows about, many believe that there are many such small nuclear sites). Moreover, the time line for Iran to act is very short: Iran has two weeks to let inspectors in, a few more to make plans to export its uranium and until the end of the year to move forward with a more substantive deal. With Russia at the negotiating table, the Europeans staunchly standing by the US and China remaining predictably silent, this is substantive diplomacy resulting from a shrewd, and not naive, American policy of engagement and diplomatic strategy. What would help is if the international community would echo Iran's present position as a champion of nuclear civilian rights and a defendent of nuclear disarmament for all. It is in the interest of all parties to give Iran a meaningful way to exit its pariah status and engage with the US and the international community at large on a slew of common interests (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, radical political foreign jihadism, etc) as a real and respected regional player.

International Engagement
Facts: An ambitious calender of international meetings, started with the UN General Assembly in New York, followed by the G20 in Pittsburgh the last week of September and will close with a meeting on Climate change in Copenhagen in December. The US is in a full-court press to illustrate that it's policy is different in both style and substance from its predecessors: President Obama chaired a UN Security Council session on nuclear anti-proliferation. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired her own UN Security Council session on sexual violence. In addition to high level talks with the Iranians, the US has also engaged in talks with Cuba and Myanmar.
SI Analysis: Whether these meetings are able to bear fruit on diplomatic, security, economic and environmental fronts will be the litmus test for both the new US policy of engagement and the pertinence of many international institutions. Both yesterday's advances with Iran and the supplanting of the G8 by the G20 show that international cooperation is fundamental to resolving geopolitical challenges and that the Obama administration is leading with deference to the emergent BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in particular.

War Reports:

Afghanistan (and Pakistan)
SI Analysis: The UN entity responsible for validating the election may invalidate enough ballots to call a runoff election, though incumbent Hamid Karzai is expected to win against Abdullah Abdullah in any case. The leaking of General Stanley McChrystal's assessment report on Afghanistan has led many to reduce the Afghan question to whether or not there will be troop increases. Furthermore, the American zeitgeist is turning against the war in Afghanistan. However, this simplification simply does reflect the reality on the ground nor the task at hand for the war effort in Afghanistan. Vietnam comparisons are growing tiresome and defeatist attitudes may become self-fulfilling. Contrary to common perceptions, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently underscored the ongoing dedication and contribution of Canadian and European allies. Moreover, a variety of recent events suggest that there may be real opportunity that was absent before. Progress in new fronts in Afghanistan and Pakistan reveal new levers of action: the offensive in Helmand Province continues; Pakistani officials continue to press factions of the Taliban in the Tribal areas, fighting in Waziristan with drone attacks and making key arrests to pressure new Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud. The most significant evolution though is that the Obama administration and the Pentagon are conducting an ongoing but thorough assessment of the war and developing a strategy, something that has been sorely lacking over the past eight years. Sophisticated counterinsurgency strategy entails working on social, political, economic, cultural and security planes and previous action in Afghanistan and Pakistan was incoherent, uncoordinated and underfunded. Judgement ought to be reserved until a strategy has been articulated.

Iraq
SI Analysis: Ahead of provincial elections in January, political parties are realigning their alliances and repositioning their platforms to downplay sectarian and religious positions. Elsewhere, analysts are very concerned that terrible tension between Kurds and Arabs in Ninawa Province could devolve into violent conflict and some believe see the return of international jihadis.

Analysis in Brief:

Chinese Anniversary
SI Analysis: With great pomp and circumstance, the People's Republic of China elebrated its 60th anniversary. Awesome military parade, massive fireworks displays and prideful speeches from party leaders marked the day in what many might say is a Chinese attempt to express its military and political prowess abroad. Most analysts however say that in a flailing economy, a restive populace and mounting charges of corruption, the party leaders were mainly interested in bolstering a key currency for political stability: Chinese Patriotism.

Militant Showdown in Somalia
SI Analysis: Fighting between rival radical political Islamists groups in southern Somalia is good news for the fledgling interim government. The stark and extremist al Shabaab, the youth organization born out of the ousted Union of Islamic Courts, is jostling with the more moderate yet Islamist Hizbul Islam for who will occupy the Presidential Palace in Kismayo. Both groups have been united in their attempt to oust the Western backed interim government. The leader of al Shabaab underplays the rivalry and dismisses this fighting as a misunderstanding of an isolated event.

Violent Strife in Guinea
SI Analysis: Civilian demonstrations against Capitain Moussa Dadis Camara, the de facto leader of Guinea, turned violent when government security forces cracked down on protesters in the capital Conakry. Camara took over in a military coup at the end of 2008 and promised civilian elections in 2010, but many analysts fear that despotism is the continued likely fate for the beleaguered West African country.

Hapless Honduras
SI Analysis: The bizarre is bordering on the absurd in Honduras. Ousted President Manuel Zelaya returned to the country and took refuge in the Brasilian embassy at the end of September. Acting President Roberto Micheletti declared a state of siege, instituted a curfew, closed down a radio station, expelled diplomats, violently cracked down on protesters causing fatalities and issuing ultimatums to Brazil. Micheletti then said he would reverse most of his actions. Zelaya ouster was due to some of his constitutional reforms, including an extended Presidential term limit, that would break some of the longstanding power hegemony of key institutions in the country (including the army, the congress and the courts). Micheletti, and the army, the congress and the courts, removed Zelaya and called for new elections under which the previous constitutional rules would ostensibly protect them. Popular apathy to the entire conflict is turning quickly into exasperation as the political stalemate is starting to have economic repercussions.

Yemen's Impending Collapse
SI Analysis: The next refuge for foreign radical political Islamists is in Yemen. Yemen's popularity for these groups may follow coordinated attempts by governments to crackdown on internationalist jihadis in Pakistan, Indonesia and Somalia. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has even articulated threats to use Yemen as a base to undermine Saudi stability by targeting domestic and international Saudi interest. (These threats follow the botched assassination attempt of Saudi deputy Interior Minister in August.) Yemen could quickly become a failed state as it is fighting wars on two fronts with Shia al-Houthis in the North and Sunni foreign extremist in the South.

Lebanese Stalemate
SI Analysis: PM-elect Saad Hariri's struggle to form a government ensures due in part to opposition leader Michel Aoun's vanity and nepotism (he wants his son in law to remain telecoms minister). In other news, an informal assessment of the 2006 Summer War, Israeli officials said Hezbollah has superior intelligence, training and tactical command skills than the IDF.

Report on the Georgia War
SI Analysis: A European Union report on the conflict between Russia and Georgia in the Summer of 2008 has enough blame to go around to all: Georgia (who started it), Russia (who provoked and then exacerbated it), South Ossetia (who committed war crimes against ethnic Georgians and illegally claimed independence) and Abkhazia (who illegally seceded). The important conclusions from the report underscore that none of the underlying tensions -- mainly Georgia's courting of the West and Russia's efforts to destabilize Tblisi and bring it back into its sphere of influence -- have been resolved since the cessation in fighting, hostilities remain and future conflict is likely.

Merkel's Victory
SI Analysis: Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats are comfortably re-elected in Germany. Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the new government's junior coalition partner the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) will likely take over as foreign minister. After faltering in his first foreign interview following his electoral victory, many are dubious of his competency. However, most expect Westerwelle to continue along the lines of outgoing foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier's policies. So far, Mr. Westerwelle says he is a proponent of nuclear disarmament,has waffled on his position of Turkish membership to the EU and says that he values a partnership with Russia.

Irish Vote
SI Analysis: Irish voters take to the urns in a second effort to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the governing tenets of the European Union. Ireland is the only country out of its 27 members not to ratify the treaty, but the only country to pose the ratification to a popular vote. Most expect the ratification to pass this time, despite the abysmal economic conditions in Ireland that have rendered the present government (and proponent of ratification) deeply unpopular. A no vote would greatly threaten the legitimacy of the EU and challenge the prospects for its future as the viable governing body of Europe.

A Hope for Palestinian Statehood and Middle East Peace?
SI Analysis: Most analysts expressed disappointment that US President Obama was only able to negotiate a handshake between Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmourd Abbas on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last week. Some say the peace process is flagging, after much hope following Obama's Cairo speech. Even the Palestinians seem to be moving forward with their own agenda, threatening to establish de facto statehood by 2011? Many would say that present conditions point to certain failure of a peace process: a failed Annapolis initiative by the outgoing Bush government dashed hopes and exhausted confidence; the divided Palestinian leadership prevents a comprehensive peace plan; the Gaza conflict eliminated good will on both sides; the new Israeli leadership barely acknowledges the prospect of a two-state solution and eschews all international pressure to cease settlement building; and an overburdened Obama administration who holds little sway with a suspicious Israel. However, one should not dismiss the handshake. It actually was an accomplishment. It was the first such handshake since the Israeli invasion of Gaza at the beginning of the year, since the first-ever Fatah meeting on Palestinian soil that saw the recalibration and renewal of its leadership and continued negotiations for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah leaders and the first since Israel's elections that brought in a far-right government. There may indeed be a glimmer of hope. President Obama's willingness to personally engage in talks emphasized the US' interest in talks moving forward and unexpectedly a recent poll revealed that most Palestinians support a two-state plan adds to the momentum that there may be grounds, however fragile, for possible progress.

You can read this Roundup on the Simple Intelligence Site and on the Huffington Post World Page.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Carol Smaldino: The Tone of Our Atonement: A Meditation for Yom Kippur

2009-09-25T14:30:54Z

On a quest for more honesty, whenever we question the key assumptions of our lives, religion and the visceral ties of tradition as well as the significance of believing (or not) come into play.

For Jews -- religious and secular alike -- there is a need to consider Yom Kippur the most holy and, in a sense the most ominous, day of the Jewish calendar. This consideration is vital no matter how frightening it is for the superstitions we hold deep inside that are often immune to reason or which are, at the very least, resistant.

Spiced with the good meal before the holiday, the haunting sounds of the Kol Nidre (the original prayer of forgiveness by Spanish Jews for conversion during the Inquisition), Yom Kippur is the Day of Repentance, of affliction and of communal confession that comes with shuddering before God's power to seal the fates of all as to whether they will be written into the "Book of Life" for the next year. When it comes to sins against other people, amends or requests for forgiveness are required along with the attempt to make amends to those persons without intervention by God.

These annual rituals, replete with the flutterings of safety and fear, comfort, belonging, awe and physical hunger, keep the harshness of our simplistic and moralistic views cycling. During the insistent confessions of sins against God, there is the self-loathing for what is human. We learn hatred for imperfections and the promises that make us feel superior to those imperfections for the day or for the season.

On the whole, religion is sacred, personal and private, but how can that be when it is one of the tools for inculcating values and fear along with righteous teachings of exclusivity? And, if we promise our sins away, do we continue to despise anything not glorious? In this process we fail to get closer to understanding our enemies because we shut out the baser emotions from our world view. We leave out a more humanistic ecology that connects us all to every thing and every being -- and for me, to every part of ourselves.

One could suggest that Yom Kippur should include a time for reflection on our methods of discipline, our ways of loving and teaching the regulation of emotions by modeling rather than by threatening. However this goes against the intestinal tracts and consciences of most who observe this day "religiously." This is, after all, the time to take out our religious insurance policies, and so it is beyond chutzpah to suggest the use of reflection in a manner that might change our ways instead of maintaining the status quo.

If you think making such suggestions is easy for me, it is not. My memories are infused with the melodies and rhythms of this High Holy Day that for me were a form of emotional regulation and spiritual reliability. It is just that at age sixteen when I read the English transliteration of the Hebrew text that I realized I could no longer abide by the repetition the whole day long about sins with which I did not identify.

Again, don't get me wrong. At this point in my life, I can identify with and relate to just about every sin, barring a few which at the end of the day I recognize at least as part of human potential. But, I feel we need a gentler tone that helps us find the common ground with enemies and friends alike. If we promise away our capacity to inflict torture or to ignore torture, to enable racism and colonialism with hate or lethargy, then we remain isolated in a world that needs a broader belonging.

With the admission of dread from my own layers of indoctrination, I want to dare to pose the notion of making Yom Kippur a time for softer and longer reflections, about how to make things better, truer, safer for our insides and freer from inner terrors, freer from the perfectionism which is strangling so many of us.

How appropriate it seems that this year Yom Kippur immediately follows a historic U.N. General Assembly. In terms of evolution and the salvation of our planet, we need to broaden the field of wonder, of curiosity, to both ask and hear the questions and cravings we experience.

I will be Jewish no matter what, but perhaps even as a good Jew still as I get more connected to my heart, to others, to the earth and all that we have in common.

Translator Collapsed During Gadhafy's Long-Winded UN Speech

2009-09-25T14:17:01Z

After struggling to turn Khadafy's insane ramblings at the UN into English for 75 minutes, the Libyan dictator's personal interpreter got lost in translation.

"I just can't take it any more," Khadafy's interpreter shouted into the live microphone -- in Arabic.

U.S. Pledges Billions More For Pakistan Despite Doubts

2009-09-25T09:19:50Z

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The U.S. Senate approved legislation Thursday to triple civilian financial aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years, underscoring the country's vital role in the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against international terrorism.

Muammar Gaddafi: Whole World Is Plotting Against The Jews

2009-09-25T09:07:50Z

Given your experience in dealing what the United States offered in return for giving up your [nuclear] program, what advice would you give to a country like Iran? And what advice would you give to the United States in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions?
America has the responsibility to reward and encourage such countries who take such decisions, so that they will be able to use nuclear energy or nuclear power in peaceful means.

Nicolas Sarkozy Jogs In New York, Central Park (PHOTOS)

2009-09-24T17:29:21Z

Despite collapsing while jogging in July, French President Nicolas Sarkozy hit the pavement this week while in town for the UN General Assembly. Running with a phalanx of security, Sarkozy twice jogged through Central Park and the surrounding area.

Sarkozy also had a funny run-in with a dog, but we'll let you find out what happened on your own!

Sarah Brown: A Changing Tide of Opinion for Girls and Women

2009-09-24T16:47:50Z

It's good to be back in New York for the United National General Assembly this week. It is undoubtedly one of the most important times of the year for making progress on the world's most pressing issues.

Last year, thanks to the work of a range of women and men from all walks of life, we were successful in getting the health of girls and women onto the global agenda. The G8 discussed maternal health for the first time ever and President Jakaya Kikwete, then chair of the African Union, made a priority of maternal health. This year that commitment has been enshrined in the Africa Union's Campaign to Accelerate Reduction in Maternal Mortality in Africa led by Bience Gawanas, the AU Social Affairs Commissioner. And Bience and I are co-chairing the Leadership Group on Maternal and Newborn Mortality under the wing of the Global Leader's Network.

At the UN this time last year President Zoellick of the World Bank and my husband, Gordon Brown, launched a new taskforce to look into innovative ways of financing health to respond to the growing movement. This High Level Taskforce has done its work over the last year by consulting experts in health and financing and now has a set of recommendations around which there is real consensus forming. Even this afternoon the taskforce mobilized $5.3 billion and extended free health care to millions more pregnant women and children.

All of this represents really significant progress on a topic that has otherwise remained silent and hidden.

I believe we are at a turning point. Bience and I have just met with Nick Kristof and Sheryl DuWunn, authors of new best-seller Half the Sky that speaks up for the most vulnerable girls and women in the world, devoting a great section of the book to maternal health. So successful is the publication that it is going on Oprah -- so no one in the USA will be able to miss the message. This week girls and women is certainly the subject being discussed around New York, at home for me in the UK, around the world. And this year's UN General Assembly has given me the great privilege of being able to add my voice to this important issue which is justifiably receiving a great deal of attention.

The issue of girls and women is, I am sure, one that is here to stay. It is transformative and unlocks the key to everything else. Where the lives of girls and women are at risk or compromised, understanding that we must and can save them is the means by which we will save and care for everyone.

Saving and improving the lives of girls and women is central to tackling every issue -- whether poverty, nutrition, education, child health, economic prosperity, environment -- of, in short, saving the world. And one of the greatest gaps has been in addressing maternal health which has prevented the achievement of any real development progress for decades.

Do you know that it is still the case that well over 500,000 girls and women die every year during childbirth -- that's one a minute. And for every mother that dies, 20 -- perhaps 30 -- times that number are left permanently injured. And of those that die, the vast majority are victim to easily preventable causes.

For millions of women getting pregnant and approaching childbirth means fear and trepidation of death rather than joy and anticipation for life.

We know that if a mother dies in childbirth her newborn child will be 10 times more likely to perish in those first important few months of life -- especially girls. Her oldest female child may be forced to stay at home to care for her siblings, or worse be forced in to an early marriage to help relieve the financial burden on the family.

We know that a girl who receives an education, is more likely to marry later, more likely to have her first child later and more likely to survive childbirth -- and a mother's presence in her child's life makes all the difference -- she is willing to address whatever challenges her child faces as no one else will.

And the importance of reducing maternal deaths does not stop there:

I don't believe that we will make the progress on HIV/AIDS without addressing maternal mortality.

We will not make the progress we want on malaria without addressing maternal mortality.

We will not make progress on getting more children to school without reducing maternal mortality.

When a mother survives a lot survives with her.

This is not just a women's problem. This is everyone's problem. Solve it and you see a whole world of change.

We all want to see rising standards of health and education across the globe. We all want an end to gender violence, trafficking, and systemic abuse of girls and women the world over. We all want to save and improve the lives of children around the world. Good health care and support for special needs, access to education, an end to children living in poverty without access to many of the basic provisions of life.

We all have our various approaches, and know the different contributions that we make.

But whatever we do, it is clear that we must put girls and women at the heart of what we do. We need to invest in girls and women. And if we do -- this will have an impact at every stage of their life cycle.

It is sobering to look at the data published by the Nike Foundation's and Novo Foundation's Girl Effect project. More than a quarter of the population of Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa are girls and young women aged 10 to 24. Yet only half a cent of every international development dollar goes to those same girls and women. 99.5 per cent goes elsewhere.

The perceived economic value of a girl is zero from day one of her life in so many parts of the world and her only asset is her body -- at risk from early marriage, HIV, early pregnancy and domestic violence.

What organisations as diverse as corporate foundations like Nike's, Novo's, Exxon Mobil's and Goldman Sachs', and girl's education charity Camfed and the safe motherhood advocates, the White Ribbon Alliance and the World Food Programme have understood is that early investment in girls and women -- with education, good nutrition and economic empowerment -- yields the greatest of results with rising economic contributions of those invested-in girls and women for themselves, their families, their communities and our world.

And the costs are so low. One hundred dollars a year to educate a child, boy or girl. Perhaps a little less to feed a child, boy or girl. And from my efforts, I know for maternal health alone a package of just $1.50 per person would make real improvements in women's health in the countries where 95% of maternal and child deaths occur.

So what of this changing tide of opinion for girls and women? This growing movement -- that you can see rapidly emerging. A common understanding that girls and women are at the center of the development agenda. No longer an afterthought. No more on the sidelines. But at the core of long term sustainable development. At the core of providing a better future for everyone.

Girls and women are key to unlocking progress. And now we are at a turning point. Right now I am concerned that we are at the point where we could get it right and we musn't blow it.

Gordon wrote an article jointly with Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf recently on taking women's rights seriously -- that Arianna Huffington posted here -- in it they said, "It is in the interests of boys and men to do everything in their power to unleash the potential of girls and women and to champion their rights, because without their contribution we are the poorer. So we will not rest until boys and men are persuaded to join our cause and change their lives and our world."

It is timely for everyone to engage in building the momentum to achieve long overdue justice for the most vulnerable girls and women -- and to understand that it helps us all. The edition of Newsweek just out even claims the untapped potential of women could be the solution to the world recession.

Economic, social and cultural progress lies in every country empowering their female populations. Full participation by women in economic and political decision making is essential. And we all need to be saying that -- not just a few leaders. And we all need to work hard to make sure that happens.

It will not be enough to say that the generation before mine were the feminists, we have to be the generation that makes it happen. With no country excused.

Donald Trump Didn't Know It Was Gaddafi: Official

2009-09-24T16:46:53Z

BEDFORD, N.Y. — Libyan officials pitched a tent again on Donald Trump's suburban estate Thursday a day after it was taken down, prompting town officials to issue a criminal summons and threaten court action.

A Libyan official, Khalifa Khalifa, said the tent was legal and meant to honor Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who never came to the 213-acre Seven Springs estate to stay there.

Gaddafi UN Speech: 5 Arguments Inside His Rant

2009-09-24T14:17:20Z

Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's 96-minute speech at the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday has been called "rambling," "long" and "incoherent". He's mocked and reviled in the United States, but his speech was met with some applause at the UN. Are any of his arguments worthwhile, or were they all just hogwash?

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Russia Stand On Iran Sanctions Welcomed By Israel

2009-09-24T12:58:55Z

JERUSALEM — A senior Israeli official welcomes steps by Russia toward endorsing additional sanctions against Iran as a way of stopping its nuclear program.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev opened the door to a firm international stand against Iran.

China Opposes Iran Sanctions Sought By U.S.

2009-09-24T12:33:37Z

BEIJING China will not support increased sanctions on Iran as a way to curb its nuclear program, a government spokeswoman said Thursday

Ahmadinejad A "Disgrace To His Country," Says German FM

2009-09-24T11:01:38Z

ranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a "disgrace to his country," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday, a day after Ahmadinejad's controversial speech before the UN General Assembly.

Ahmadinejad accused Israel of "inhuman policies" in the Palestinian territories and of dominating world political and economic affairs in his speech to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

"That kind of remark is not just intolerable. This president is a disgrace to his country," said Steinmeier in Berlin.

The speech prompted many delegations to walk out of the assembly hall in protest. Israel did not attend at all.

Ahmadinejad assailed Israel for what he said was a barbaric attack on the Gaza Strip last winter and for subjecting the Palestinians to "genocide."
...

Andy Borowitz: Mental Patient Breaks Into U.N., Gives 90-Minute Speech

2009-09-24T10:31:41Z

An escaped mental patient broke into the United Nations yesterday, getting all the way to the General Assembly and delivering a ninety-minute speech.

A day after the stunning security breach, U.N. officials were still attempting to sort out how it was allowed to happen.

"We're trying not to play the blame game here," said U.N. spokesperson Carol Foyler. "The simple fact is, a legally insane man somehow got all the way to the podium, so how do we keep that from happening again?"

Theories abound as to how the mental patient made it to the U.N., with some suggesting that he may have escaped during a field trip to a county fair. More here.

U.N. Security Council Calls For Nuclear Disarmament At Historic Summit Chaired By Obama

2009-09-24T10:07:59Z

UNITED NATIONS — With President Barack Obama presiding, the U.N. Security Council on Thursday unanimously endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with "undiminished security for all."

"That can be our destiny," Obama declared after the 15-nation body adopted the historic, U.S.-initiated resolution at an unprecedented summit session. "We will leave this meeting with a renewed determination to achieve this shared goal."

Rob Shapiro: Message to World at the G-20 Summit: Don't Depend on a Strong U.S. Recovery to Bail You Out

2009-09-24T09:27:21Z

This week's U.N. General Assembly and the countless, private discussions between presidents, premiers and prime ministers will range from climate change to terrorism, but most of the leaders are more preoccupied with the outlook for their economies. In this sense, the UN meeting is an opening act for the main attraction, the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of the week. There, the leaders will focus on new regulation for global capital flows and the institutions behind them, with some good doses of finger-pointing at the United States. (Christina Kirchner of Argentina, the world's largest debt defaulter, couldn't wait: She led yesterday with America-bashing at the UN.) But the blame game is really a plea that the United States help pull the rest of the world out of its ditch.

America, with 23.5 percent of worldwide GDP -- Japan is second at 8.1 percent, followed by China with 7.3 percent -- is the only country with the economic heft to move other nations. Much of our impact comes from our annual imports of $2.5 trillion, which help keep employment up in most other large economies. If we could get our imports growing strongly again, the world's finger-pointing would turn into high-fives. But that depends on reviving American consumption and investment, and the outlook for that is mixed at best.

Washington's optimists point to recent gains in a number of important indicators -- but look closely, and they're less encouraging. Retail sales in August were up 2.7 percent over July, for example. But that's 5.3 percent below levels a year earlier, when things already were pretty grim. It's the same story with other measures. Housing starts were up 1.5 percent in August, but down 29.6 percent from a year earlier; and industrial production was up 0.8 percent, to a level still nearly 11 percent below August 2008. These are the numbers that led Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen to caution that while the recession may be technically over, hard times could be with us for another year or longer.

The bottom line for most Americans is that the steep decline in the value of their investments and homes is driving them to cut back their spending and restore some savings. Mostly, they're paring down the record credit card debt they ran up during both the first stage of the recession and an expansion before it which didn't produce income gains. This spending slowdown is unlikely to change soon. And as we have argued here for more than a year, jobs will probably continue to contract for two or three years after this recession ends, just as they did after the 1990-1991 and 2001 downturns. It's hardly a recipe for a recovery strong enough to lift U.S. incomes or the prospects of other economies.

Nor can we expect help from other countries boosting our exports. Of our five largest foreign markets, U.S. imports are still falling in three of them (Canada, China, and the UK); and American imports in all five (Mexico and Japan, plus the other three) are still running 17 percent to 27 percent below their levels a year earlier.

What if the modest pick-up we're seeing now only reflects the President's stimulus package finally kicking in? Republicans had some cynical fun a few months ago charging that the stimulus had failed, since everything was still headed down. Now, it's the Democrats' turn, as its effects increase over the next several months. The hard question is whether the economy will keep growing once the stimulus runs out. The administration's economic strategy depends on the stimulus triggering self-sustaining growth -- by creating jobs, which boost spending and then, in turn, lead to more jobs, more demand, and finally more investment. That's also the basis of their financial strategy, hoping that expanding growth will bring down foreclosures and bankruptcies, easing the pressures on banks so they can lend more.

Their economic logic is perfectly reasonable; but it may be a long shot in the world where we now find ourselves. And it certainly doesn't take account of the possibility of yet another nasty shock to the economy. The most likely candidate is an implosion of securities based on commercial real estate. Price movements in commercial estate have been running 12 to 16 months behind those in residential housing. So, they remained strong for more than a year after the housing bubble began to deflate -- and then began to fall sharply in the last six months. Now, more and more commercial developers can't keep their properties sufficiently occupied to service the loans they took out to build them. As they default, the securities and derivatives based on those loans also go bad. It could be another very nasty hit, with most of the impact falling on the regional and local banks across the country that made the loans. That's why we're already seeing a sharp rise in bank failures.

The good news is that the Fed and the Treasury have more advance notice this time, and they have a better idea of what works and what doesn't. The bad news is that at after what we've already been through, Washington couldn't borrow the money required to manage the failures of large numbers of big commercial banks, with all of the fallout, without risking the credit of the United States.

There's a good chance we'll dodge that particular bullet. But even if we do, the prospects for a strong U.S. recovery are slim, especially one strong enough to help the rest of the world. And that will be the biggest, unspoken disappointment at this week's G-20 meetings.

Cross-posted at the NDN blog.

Russia Open To Possible Iran Sanctions, Move Comes After Obama's Missile Plan

2009-09-24T08:09:41Z

NEW YORK — A unified U.S.-Russian stance on sanctions against Iran would put added pressure on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to yield some ground on his nation's nuclear program.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev opened the door Wednesday to backing potential sanctions as a reward for President Barack Obama's decision to scale back a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Hanna Ingber Win: Queen Noor: "We Are Reaching A Nuclear Tipping Point"

2009-09-23T17:51:03Z

As President Obama prepares to push the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution on nuclear non-proliferation on Thursday, Queen Noor of Jordan and a group of international political and military leaders have mobilized forces to drum up political and grassroots support for the measure.

"I personally believe that the two most urgent issues facing us today are climate change and nuclear proliferation," Queen Noor told the Huffington Post. "I have children and grandchildren and see -- as do these former leaders, defense ministers, security leaders and military commanders from around the world -- that we are reaching a nuclear tipping point. And if we don't pull back now ... we may reach the point of no return."

The Security Council summit, which will be at the heads-of-state level and the first ever presided over by an American president, is expected to address nuclear arms control and disarmament, international treaties and illegal trafficking in materials used in atomic weapons, Reuters reports. Go here for their Q&A on the summit.

Obama has made nuclear non-proliferation a key aspect of his foreign policy agenda. He gave a passionate speech in Prague last April, vowing to create a world without nuclear weapons, signed a preliminary agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in July to reduce each nation's nuclear stockpiles, and devoted a significant chunk of his speech to the UN General Assembly Wednesday to the need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

"Today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity," he said during his first United Nations address. "If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine." Read or watch his entire speech here.

Queen Noor, who will attend the UN Security Council session Thursday, told the Huffington Post that the changing face of terrorism and threats by non-state actors make the need for nuclear non-proliferation even more urgent and pressing. Nuclear terrorism, she said, is the great fear among the more than 200 scientists, military experts and political leaders who have joined up to push for nuclear non-proliferation. Their organization, called GlobalZero, launched last December and advocates for the phased, verified elimination of nuclear weapons and ultimately for an agreement among nations to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The biggest challenge to creating a world free of nuclear weapons, she said, are the insecurities of leaders and nations that led to the proliferation of weapons in the first place. Those insecurities must be tackled, she said.

Asked about the effectiveness of a UN resolution, Queen Noor said, "This would also be a historic step towards an international consensus and towards mobilizing nuclear and non-nuclear nations to work together on this."

Get the latest information on the UN General Assembly here.

Read Queen Noor's HuffPost blogs here.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Evelyn Leopold: Update: Gaddafi Hijacks UN General Assembly Podium

2009-09-23T17:43:11Z

In a world filled with long-winded political leaders bereft of content, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi excelled in a performance of his own.

Only a few blocks from Broadway, Colonel Gaddafi rambled on for more than an hour and a half, shuffling through his notes, tearing out pages of the U.N. Charter and shaking his hands in anger in a stream of consciousness in the UN General Assembly.

He chastised the United States throughout the speech for stirring up conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and trying to destabilize the Taliban, which he said were not responsible for Al Qaeda's terror bombings. Yet he professed admiration for President Obama, saying, "I would be happy if America was governed by him forever." But Gaddafi said no one "could guarantee" how the United States would be led after Obama left office.

His marathon speech followed the eloquent organized address of President Obama, who was interrupted 11 times by applause. Many leaders then left the hall to greet Obama in a side room, prompting UN General Assembly President Ali Abdussalam Treki (also a Libyan) to delay the opening of Gaddafi's speech by 10 minutes.

(On Thursday, Gaddafi, whose country is a member of the 15-nation UN Security Council, could have gone to a summit-level session on nuclear non-proliferation, chaired by Obama and where speeches were limited to five minutes. Instead he sent his UN ambassador, the only nation not to have a president or prime minister in attendence.)

Crowds Out Sarkozy

Gaddafi's extended speech forced other world leaders, such as French President Nicholas Sarkozy, to speak to a near empty hall through a gala lunch in an attempt to make up lost time.

A large part of Gaddafi's first-ever address to the General Assembly was to castigate the 15-member UN Security Council, "The Security Council did not provide us with security but with terror and sanctions," he said adding that it did nothing to stop what he described as "65 wars" since the world body was founded in 1945. "It should not be called the Security Council but the Terror Council."

While most nations believe the Security Council is unrepresentative, dominated by the World War II victors, Gaddafi wanted it reduced to an executive implementation body, peopled by such bodies as the African Union (of which he is chair) and others. Instead resolutions by the 192 member General Assembly should be binding rather than those of the Security Council. This would mean an island state with 100,000 people would carry the same weight as China or India.

Gaddafi, who is 67 years old and came to power in a coup 40 years ago, remembered all the events he despised in his youth -- the death of Dag Hammarskjold, the second UN Secretary General, killed in a plane crash in 1961 (which he thought might be a conspiracy), the British-French-Israeli attack against the Suez Canal in 1956 and the 1950-1953 Korean War, among others.

Wearing a rust-colored toga-like robe, a black hat and a jeweled black pin of Africa, Gaddafi, like other world leaders, was given a 15-minute time slot, which he pretended did not exist until someone handed him a note minutes before he ended. (Only the US president, as representative of the host country, is allowed to speak longer and Obama talked for 40 minutes.)

Jetlag

In one of his more bizarre diversions, Gaddafi said the United Nations headquarters building should be moved out of New York to a safer city in Europe or elsewhere to avoid terrorist attacks -- and because leaders arrived in the city with jetlag.

"All of you are asleep. All of you are tired, "he said. "I wake up at 4 am before dawn because in Libya it is 11 in the morning."

But Gaddafi apparently is no longer staying in a tent in Bedford, NY, on a Trump property but apparently spent Tuesday night at the Libyan U.N. mission in New York. Hundreds of family members of those killed in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, demonstrated, partly in response to recent celebrations in Libya after the only convicted bomber was freed.

Still, Cuba's Fidel Castro holds the record in the General Assembly, giving a 4 and a 1/2 hours lecture in 1960. But an older Castro in October 1995 gave a short clear speech in the Assembly that marked the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.

James Lamond: Obama's UN Speech and American Leadership on Nuclear Disarmament

2009-09-23T16:57:11Z

Today, in his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama called for a new era of global engagement based on "mutual interests and mutual respect," listing four pillars for a safer world: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people. The president's emphasis on non-proliferation and disarmament is a continuation of his efforts to restore American leadership on one of the most pressing challenges we face as a country and world.

The risk from nuclear weapons remains one of the greatest threats to American and international security and due to the nature of the threat, it is only through international agreements and engagement with the international community that the threat can be addressed. And because of America's unique position in the world, especially regarding nuclear weapons, we hold a special responsibility in leading the efforts to reduce and eliminate them. In his first major address on nonproliferation in Prague, President Obama recognized that American leadership is essential to spur this international effort. He said:

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

Today, he echoed this promise, setting forth an ambitious agenda for the United States on nonproliferation:

America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a Summit next April that reaffirms each nation's responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can't -- because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

In stark contrast, neoconservatives and conservatives in Congress have attempted to derail efforts at international engagement. Sen. Jon Kyl and neocon Richard Perle wrote an op-ed this summer, during President Obama's meeting with President Medvedev, where they said, "There is a fashionable notion that if only we and the Russians reduced our nuclear forces, other nations would reduce their existing arsenals or abandon plans to acquire nuclear weapons altogether."

Yet a recent bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations task force, chaired by William Perry and Brent Scowcroft, disagrees and advocates for exactly the type of engagement and global leadership that President Obama is providing:

The start of a new administration presents a fresh opportunity to reenergize international dialogue and cooperation on best security practices that would reduce the risk of loss of control of nuclear weapons or materials. Strategic discussions with other nuclear-armed states would also provide the United States with the necessary insight and foresight to determine how best to shape U.S. nuclear policy.

In his speech, the president outlined a number of challenges that the world faces, and as he said, so far "the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action." The proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the most dangerous and frightening of these challenges. Yet it also one the challenge that through American global leadership and international cooperation can be addressed.

Today the president took a major step in that direction.