It sounds wonderful. Let’s put together a peace-keeping force, under the auspices of the United Nations, and send them to trouble spots to stop armed conflicts and perhaps bring peace. Lets’ give the soldiers all the latest equipment and a distinctive blue helmet. Then they will keep warring parties apart, report on violations of peace agreements, protect the displaced and vulnerable, and facilitate the work of relief and health organisations until peace can return, or at least not war. This is one idea that has been advanced for the US to get out of the Iraq quagmire. It’s worked before. There has been a UN peace-keeping force in Cyprus since 1964 and has prevented the outbreak of a major war between Greece and Turkey. There are many other examples in the Balkans, Africa and Asia. At the beginning of 2007 there were over 100,000 people involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.
The idea is excellent. Soldiers from poorer, less controversial countries, sometimes ethnically more close to the warring factions, go into zones of conflict to impose peace. The richer, more controversial, sometimes more closely involved with one side or the other of the conflict, pay the bill. And the world is more peaceful as a result.
Some say, “yes, but it doesn’t work that way.” That’s true, sometimes matters get out of control, peacekeepers cower before formidable foes, some soldiers rape locals or commit other atrocities. Sadly, there are some bad soldiers in every army. And sometimes the warring factions just ignore the peace-keepers. But the concept has been successful in most cases, certainly more successful than making war to bring peace.
But the whole idea is under threat. The peacekeeping fund is running out of money, mostly because the US is not paying what it pledged to pay. The US will contribute about $ 1 billion to the peacekeeping fund in 2007 which is some $500.00 less than it pledged. The US is already $500.000 in arrears from previous underpayments. This means that by the end of 2007 the US will be over $ 1 billion in arrears. This causes many problems in international relations, makes the world less safe, and brings the ethical and moral behaviour of the US government further into question. Worse, it jeopardises the prospects for UN peacekeepers in the Sudan, Darfur and other current hot spots.
The US contributes substantial amounts to the United Nations, but probably not its fair share. With 28% of the world’s economy, it has unilaterally limited its contribution to 22% of the UN’s budget. And now it is not even paying that.
I can’t understand how the Bush Administration can spend over $6 billion every month on making war in Iraq but can’t find less than one week’s worth of war payments to pay for making peace, especially after it had pledged to do so.
According to former US Senator Tim Wirth, now President of the United Nations Foundation, Bangladesh, the world’s poorest country, is $80 million in debt because the US has not honoured its commitments.
So, if you want some of your tax money to go for peacekeeping as well as war making, write to your congressman and senators and tell them you want the US to pay its obligations to the UN peacekeeping fund. Or, write to your MEP and tell him/her that you want the EU to pressure the US to meet its UN peacekeeping obligations. You can also sign an online petition at http://www.priceofpeace.org/.
For more information, go to a Financial Times article on the subject - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f4bc2954-1ea7-11dc-bc22-000b5df10621.html
Grambois, France 23 June 2007
3 June 2007
Fencing In Or Fencing Out? The Proposed new US Visa Requirements
Fencing In Or Fencing Out? The Proposed new US Visa Requirements
One of my favourite poems is Robert Frost’s Mending Walls in which he observes,
“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down…..
I read in this morning’s Le Figaro, France’s bestselling newspaper, that the US is thinking about requiring Europeans to obtain visas for entering the US. According to the article, the admission of the last batch of countries into the European Union has caused the guys at Homeland Security to re-think their policy about letting “foreigners” into the US. The Senate has passed a bill authorising the Electronic Voyage Authorisation procedure (EVA) in place of the current Visa Waiver Program. Modeled on the Australian system, the EVA is an electronic version of a visa requirement. This is yet another wall separating the Americans from the rest of the world. And the question about fencing in or fencing out is relevant.
What this means is that anyone wanting to go to the US can be refused admission without ever talking to an American official, at the whim of some computer sorting system, and without recourse. Under the existing Homeland Security laws, the INS can arbitrarily refuse entry or detain a prospective entrant without cause, and not subject to any sort of review, much less giving the right of habeas corpus. This, alone, is sufficient to offend many prospective visitors. When you add the almost inhuman procedures for non-American by the INS and Department of Agriculture at ports of entry, there is a strong disincentive to visit the US. All this is done in the name of Homeland Security, but these unfriendly procedures are ineffective and simply not necessary to achieve a higher level of security.
Many European friends have complained about the treatment they received at immigration control after flying from Europe. They had the opinion that Americans were cold, unfriendly, even hostile. They were then surprised at the openness and friendliness of Americans they met on their journey, attributes that are certainly much more indicative of American culture than the gun-toting immigration officials.
But the real losers in this new regime will be the Americans themselves. Now US citizens can travel throughout the European Union without a visa. In the ugly spirit of reciprocity, many European states will re-impose visa requirements. This means the re-introduction of time-wasting procedures to get visas, and the interminable waiting at border crossings as all visa are checked. This is certainly a disincentive for Americans to visit Europe. The result is that the friendly dialogue across the Atlantic will be diminished,Americans are fencing in without a doubt.
If this new system is implemented, security itself will suffer. In the monumental effort to process visa applications and keep track of all the petty violations, US security officials will lose their focus on trying to find and stop real threats. The INS and Homeland Security officials have enough power already. Now we need to demand that they meet their responsibilities. Taking away more of our rights will not accomplish this.
Grambois, France 3 June 2007
One of my favourite poems is Robert Frost’s Mending Walls in which he observes,
“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down…..
I read in this morning’s Le Figaro, France’s bestselling newspaper, that the US is thinking about requiring Europeans to obtain visas for entering the US. According to the article, the admission of the last batch of countries into the European Union has caused the guys at Homeland Security to re-think their policy about letting “foreigners” into the US. The Senate has passed a bill authorising the Electronic Voyage Authorisation procedure (EVA) in place of the current Visa Waiver Program. Modeled on the Australian system, the EVA is an electronic version of a visa requirement. This is yet another wall separating the Americans from the rest of the world. And the question about fencing in or fencing out is relevant.
What this means is that anyone wanting to go to the US can be refused admission without ever talking to an American official, at the whim of some computer sorting system, and without recourse. Under the existing Homeland Security laws, the INS can arbitrarily refuse entry or detain a prospective entrant without cause, and not subject to any sort of review, much less giving the right of habeas corpus. This, alone, is sufficient to offend many prospective visitors. When you add the almost inhuman procedures for non-American by the INS and Department of Agriculture at ports of entry, there is a strong disincentive to visit the US. All this is done in the name of Homeland Security, but these unfriendly procedures are ineffective and simply not necessary to achieve a higher level of security.
Many European friends have complained about the treatment they received at immigration control after flying from Europe. They had the opinion that Americans were cold, unfriendly, even hostile. They were then surprised at the openness and friendliness of Americans they met on their journey, attributes that are certainly much more indicative of American culture than the gun-toting immigration officials.
But the real losers in this new regime will be the Americans themselves. Now US citizens can travel throughout the European Union without a visa. In the ugly spirit of reciprocity, many European states will re-impose visa requirements. This means the re-introduction of time-wasting procedures to get visas, and the interminable waiting at border crossings as all visa are checked. This is certainly a disincentive for Americans to visit Europe. The result is that the friendly dialogue across the Atlantic will be diminished,Americans are fencing in without a doubt.
If this new system is implemented, security itself will suffer. In the monumental effort to process visa applications and keep track of all the petty violations, US security officials will lose their focus on trying to find and stop real threats. The INS and Homeland Security officials have enough power already. Now we need to demand that they meet their responsibilities. Taking away more of our rights will not accomplish this.
Grambois, France 3 June 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)