ACTION FOR UN RENEWAL

The campaign for the reform of the United Nations

97 Commercial Road, London E1 1RD                                                                                                  Email: vijay@vmpeace.org  

Tel: 020 7377 2111    Fax: 020 377 2999                                                                                  Website: action-for-un-renewal.org.

Spring 2008

BBC World Interviews: Vijay Mehta

On the opening of the climate change conference, Bali, Indonesia

BBC:     I gather you are writing a book called Climate Change 365 which will be published later this year. I believe 365 stands for 1 idea for each day of the year to save  the planet from global warming. So what are your ideas?

VM:     Climate change is a huge issue and it has to be dealt in a concerted way by us all. 365 ideas in the book are based on mitigation, adaptation and conservation. They are divided among individuals, NGOs, civil society, United Nations, businesses and philanthropy. All of them have to do their bit to avert the climate change crisis.

BBC:    We individuals are overwhelmed and confused and not sure what to do. So what specific ideas does your book present for us?

VM:    Some of the initiatives individuals can take are conserving water, planting trees, recycling waste, protecting forests, travelling by public transport, using hybrid cars …. The list goes on and on. By following the ideas in the book we can salvage the planet together. One of the specific idea is for individuals to form climate change 365 clubs in each and every neighbourhood, village, town and city to implement the initiatives in the book.

BBC:    What is your message to the delegates gathered at the Bali conference in Indonesia?

VM:     I have a number of things which the conference in Bali should try to achieve.

          Firstly, we need to agree to a new global climate change protocol – a new treaty, a successor to Kyoto which can be called Kyoto 2. The main part of the treaty should be a legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, up to 60-80 per cent to avoid temperature rise above 2°C.  The new climate change treaty should be based on the model of Montreal Protocol which has been the most successful environmental treaty. Once such model exist in Costa Rica where 1/3 of the country is being used as biological reserves and protected areas and has an ambitious target of attaining carbon neutral status by 2030 - a worthy example to follow. Thirdly, we need to make the most polluting countries, like the US, China, India, and Brazil who are out of the Kyoto agreement to be part of the new climate change treaty.  Fourthly, the people who will be most affected by climate change are the poor. So to avert the worse effects on the poor the new climate change treaty should have a stand-by facility of $100 billion for the next 10 years for helping the poor and vulnerable countries, failing which countries of the Pacific Islands and ones with a low-lying delta, like Bangladesh, will disappear from the planet. Another facility of $50 billion a year for the next 10 years should be deployed for revolutionary scientific and technologically based clean energy sources for averting the full blast of global warming. Lastly, I advocate that the new treaty should have a global environmental index to measure and monitor the progress of countries who fail to act on mitigation, adaptation and conservation.

BBC:    So what is your final message for saving the planet?

'Bringing Democracy to Burma -
What can the UK Government do to promote and implement the rule of law and the UN Charter?'

Rt Hon Lord Peter Archer QC
Anna Roberts (The Burma Campaign UK)
John Rowley (Gandhi Foundation)

4th December 2007
House of Lords, London
Chair: Vijay Mehta

Report by our member, James B. Thring

Vijay Mehta introduced the title; to highlight the failings of UK Foreign Policy which had weakened the authority of international law.  Some of the issues had been addressed by previous UN Reform speakers such as Carne Ross and Professor Schwartzberg. He intended to produce action points to take up with the UK Foreign Office. He also wanted to call on Burma's neighbours to help, such as China.

Anna Roberts: 'Recent Events in Burma & Campaign Response' 

She had helped set up the Burma Campaign in 1991, resulting from the Burma Democracy Movement.  The recent demonstration was the biggest in Burma since 1988.  It demanded an end to military rule.  It had grown from small protests in mid August against the Regime's raising of prices [presumably because of US sanctions].  Fuel had risen by 400% making travel impossible for the poor. Even rice was too expensive.  The protest was led by students from the '88 protest.  But crackdown was swift. Houses were raided. Some are still in prison. Then Monks came out in September, especially in Mandalay.  But they were beaten and fired on by the military.  Some Monks took Regime officials hostage in exchange for prisoner releases.  There were 100,000 on the streets until the Regime banned demo's of more than 5.  20,000 troops raided 52 Monasteries using live fire and tear gas.  200 people were killed, though the official figure was only 10.   2,000 Monks were arrested and faced torture.  Hospitals were ordered not to treat protesters. Women's groups went to Suleh and to see Ann San Suu Kyi.   The Army was building a new offensive in ethnic areas.

                The answer was peaceful struggle and dialogue.  They had asked the international community to help economically and politically by embargoing oil and gas exports.  The EU had responded weakly, banning gems and timber imports.   The US had given strongest support to the Democracy Movement, putting sanctions on banking since 1997.   The UN has no strategy for Burma.  The UNSC first discussed it in 1995 to kick-start negotiations between the Regime and Ann San Suu Kyi. But the Regime cannot be coaxed to debate.  A UN Resolution needs to force Burma towards democracy.

John Rowley 'Should we even think about introducing democracy?'

  A Trustee of the Gandhi Foundation, he had tried to bring democracy to Burma.  Tried a tv documentary.  Had

Third, we can apply economic sanctions.  This must have UN consensus.  The worse the regime the easier it is to condemn. Even China has come round since August.  The EU has more people now but that has led to weaker action. But it has at least frozen Burmese assets in Europe.  Britain has banned investment and financial services to Burma. Tourism should also be discouraged

 Fourth, the International Criminal Court [ICC] could be used.  He had campaigned for it.  It was doing a good job.  But great care is needed in preparing cases.  They must be crimes against humanity.  It is possible to get convictions without the presence of the accused.  It can effectively ban individuals from travelling [for fear of arrest].

What action can we take?

1) It is worth writing to your MP.  But praise government for what it is doing.
2) International action.  Military action is an option, not to impose outside will but to remove the Junta.
3) The UN Security Council can act but not inside a country.  This is because the 30 Years' War devastated Europe and they said it must never happen again.  So the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, gave sovereign Princes security in their own borders, within which they could not be molested.  This remains a basis of international law. Therefore Bush has no right to invade Burma, either over WMD or human rights.   If there is a threat to regional peace we have to trust in the Security Council.  Chapter VII Article 41 of the Charter allows the SC to 'use all means necessary short of armed force'.  The UN should operate an arms embargo.  If that does not work the SC may 'take action by land, sea or air to restore international peace and security'.   Any UNSC Member can use their veto.  The SC only has military powers if used for peace, not for human rights, and only when all other measures have failed.

Kosovo is an example where mass murder, torture and oppression were rampant.  There was no UN agreement on what to do.  NATO therefore intervened.  International lawyers complained about the illegality of the attack.   The UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said in his statement in 1999: "It was clear that enforcement without Security Council authorization threatens the very security sought". Kofi Annan said in 2000: "Not even security shields crimes against humanity".  Armed intervention to stop mass murder is not an option.

The Canadian Commission on Sovereignty declared: 'The Primary duty to protect human rights falls on government, then on the Security Council if that fails'.  What if the SC fails?
Who decides?  Let's hope not President Bush! If we use the rule-based approach it leads to endless debates in the Security Council and horse-trading over support. We need quicker procedures. There are thus two things we need to do:

1) Argue for abolition of the veto. 
2) Establish clear rules when intervention with SC initiative is appropriate.

If you mention Burma, Ministers' eyes light up.  If you mention UN reform they glaze over. Al Gore last Saturday said: "You can try for years, then suddenly a change in

Whatever one’s opinion of the current state of the European Union, at least it was specifically designed to be able to evolve: it has evolved and will continue to evolve over time through the political pressures of its different peoples. The creation, development and increasing power of the European Parliament is a continuing improvement in democracy in the institution. The European Project has been effective at transforming Europe from a group of states entirely at war into a powerful political and economic regional force. Certainly, it still has its deficiencies, as does any organisation, but its proof of effectiveness is that it is a powerfully attractive institution to those outside it.

 Yet an improved United Nations does not have to be modelled upon the European Union; on the contrary, we now have the technology and collective global wisdom and experience to aim, and achieve, far better for us all. There are those who dismiss the idea of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly as ‘just another talking shop’: they are not interested in remedying the UN’s “democratic deficit,” or in building greater global democracy. They are those who want to hang onto there own little outdated fiefdoms of power and influence, rather than join the global revolution to improve the way the world is run. It is striking, though, how even those who oppose the idea, invariably acknowledge that there is a sense of inevitability that such a body will be created “sometime”. So the debate is already not about ‘whether’, but about ‘when’. Why don’t we just get on with it?

 Well, some of us have been getting in with it. Over the last 3 years we have established a Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (www.UNPAcampain.org) with regular committee meetings in Switzerland. This campaign has snowballed in support over the last year, in particular. Full details of the development of the campaign are available on the website but, in summary, there are now over 1500 people from 113 countries who have signed up to the International Appeal for a UNPA, including 418 Members of Parliament (16 from the UK), 106 civil society groups and 126 Professors. The support transcends most boundaries of national, party, and ethnic groupings. Support for the idea comes from previous UN Secretaries-General, ex-Prime Ministers as well as past and current Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentarians around the world.

 The Campaign was formally launched worldwide in the spring of 2007, with almost simultaneous launches in ten countries across five continents: Europe, Africa, North America, South America and Asia. In London, the Rt Hon Clare Short hosted the launch in the Houses of Parliament, with prominent support for the Appeal from the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and from senior MEPs.

 In the autumn of 2007, a cross-party group of four senior MEPs launched their booklet promoting the cause within the European Parliament. The European Parliament as a whole had previously resolved to support the idea in June 2005. In October 2007, the Pan-African Parliament also resolved to “take the initiative” in support of a UNPA. So between the European Union and the Pan-African Parliament, the highest regional levels of the democratic representatives of “We the Peoples” have resolved to work towards the establishment of

come to Burma via an international conference on Tibet. He had written to the Regime but was denied diplomatic access.
   'Democracy' def: 'Citizens are the source of political power, for whom it should be exercised.  Citizens normally elect representatives [to exercise their power]'.

Should we promote it?   Only if it can be shown to be doing good, judged by 3 yardsticks:

1) Moral; it dignifies self-worth; enables people to shape affairs, feel valued.

2) Political; people require politicians to be self-critical, have respect for law and human rights.

3) Prudential; all political systems are subject to corruption.  Democracy checks power by conditional safeguards against corruption. Everyone has a duty to promote democracy. Oppression affects us all as responsible citizens. Right to national autonomy.  If rulers usurp human rights they may be removed.  Force may only be used in response to threats. How to sustain democracy in a climate of chaos and forced elections. ?

The EU model of international democratic institutions gives access to large markets. It reinforces against international influence and financial pressure. Tough negotiations make the process successful.

 How can the UN reform Burma? Western power is used for safety of capitalism. The UN must act now.  The BBC has two broadcasts a day on Burma.  It contains no government messages. It could widen the number of languages it transmits in.  If all finance houses stopped trading with Burma it would have an impact.  Outsiders have no understanding.  If China declines to cooperate there will be more vacancies in Guantanamo Bay.

Our government has learned lessons from Iraq as the Foreign Office has proposed a recovery plan for Burma.  The first meeting about it will be in Washington. 

Vijay Mehta thanked the speaker, quoting Churchill's sarcastic comment on democracy that it was bad but the best form of government we have.

 He introduced the next speaker as founder and President of the Fabian Society, President of the One World Trust and the World Disarmament Campaign amongst many others.

 Lord Peter Archer: We have heard of famine, persecution, ethnic cleansing and torture in Burma. What do we do about it?

 First, we can protest.  He was not uncritical of the Labour government but felt we should encourage it for what it does right whilst criticizing its failures.  DFID had given £9 million for the Burma Relief Fund. The aid was not to go via government.  It was for feeding the NGO's.

 Second, we can use diplomatic representation.  Even the most tyrannical governments want to be loved!

perception occurs."  A good example is that France and Germany no longer invade each other.  The UN has success in intervention.

The 19th Century Zeitgeist or 'spirit of the times' makes it possible to get through, if someone presses the right button.  Could we agree to press it?

Vijay: We should freeze assets as the EU has done.  We should also use the ICC.  He proposed James should write up the speeches for circulation for comments and then send a consensus to the Foreign Office, or make up a statement for speakers to forward to the FCO.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving Towards a United Nations Parliament

 Gordon Glass

One of the main objectives of ACT-UN must be to work towards improvement and effectiveness of global decision-making within the United Nations system. Much of the UN system functions laudably well, on a relative shoestring, through the unsung work of very many people who are firmly dedicated to its international principles of improving international relations, international operations and the position of those who live in sub-standard conditions. Being ongoing and positive, this development work invariably does not receive the global media coverage that it deserves.

However, it is in the field of the UN’s primary responsibility: the maintenance of international Peace and Security, that the system has become so clearly dysfunctional. It is too easy to blame the more powerful nation states who want to do things their own way in their frustration at the ineffectiveness of decision-making: there must be unanimous agreement amongst member states that the system is dysfunctional and that the Security Council is central to the problems. Almost two decades of attempts to “reform” the UN have achieved little improvement in practice: the system has demonstrated that, as is often the case with systems, it cannot change itself – and it needs pressure and assistance from outside itself.

There is only one superpower with greater authority than the United Nations, and that is the Voice of Global Public Opinion, or the power of “We the Peoples…”, in whose name the UN was established. “We the Peoples” of the world need to remind the member states of the world that they were established to be in the service of the people as a whole, not just of themselves nor of their own favoured clique of supporters. It is “We the People”, acting together, who have the power to change the United Nations – and the world. We cannot rely upon anyone else to do it for us! Unfortunately the United Nations was specifically designed in the 1940s to enable a few victorious member states to retain their power in perpetuity. This no longer works in our interconnected, interdependent and globalised world of the 21st century. “We the Peoples” urgently need our own collective voice within the UN, in the form of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. The UN is now, in our region of the world at least, the last level of governance which does not have a parliament. And it shows!

a UNPA. Together they represent the peoples of 80 member states of the United Nations – that is over 40%. It is no accident that parliamentarians working internationally support the desire for a United Nations Parliament: they see the clear need for it.

 Also last autumn, we organised a meeting of invited campaigners at the UN in Geneva which was attended by 30 people from 18 countries, including 6 parliamentarians from 4 continents. This consolidated the progress made so far and developed policies and strategies for the future.

 Also, last summer, the BBC ran an opinion poll in a number of countries around the world. This demonstrated that, in general overall, global opinion was split about 50-50% between those who supported the idea of a UNPA and those who did not. This kind of split had also been noted previously in an informal poll of NGOs by Civicus. Such a split of public opinion can been seen across other issues and in national elections.

 It seems as though the world stands at a crossroads of global public opinion between whether the world should aim for the highest and best that mankind might achieve collectively, or whether we should all defend our own petty individual selves against such a future vision and keep the world floundering aimlessly in our present limited circumstances – or worse. After all, if we don’t know where we are going, we might well end up where we don’t want to be! We can certainly design a better way to manage our world – and we can get on with it! But we need everyone’s help and support – and even donations. Please tell others, sign up to the Appeal and support the cause at www.UNPAcampaign.org.

John Linton

Still inspiring us

 John is 96 years old and the award of which he is most proud is that of honorary life member of the United Nations Association.

 John joined the UNA in 1947 and held various positions culminating in chair of Oxford UNA.

 Though he is no longer active, he is still keenly interested in everything to do with the UN, and feels very strongly that we need UN, and not US, world hegemony.

 His main interest in life has been India.  He served in the Indian Army during the Second World War.  He became head of BBC Indian language programmes.  He also worked for a time at the BBC Monitoring Service in Caversham.

 He is an MA (Oxon) and has family connections with the University going back to the 18^th Century.  Two of his great grandfathers were canons of Christchurch.

 Nowadays he is interested in Quaker matters and according to his friend Ruth Barker he began the Universalist, an international Quaker organisation.

C Langdon           

Whither Peace or war in Sri Lanka – A land under siege

 Luckshan Abeysuriya

Human rights campaigner
Author of ‘Bosnia and the Srebrenica Tragedy.’

 I recently returned from my mother country, Sri Lanka, after a short visit for the cricket. Only cricket success is a ‘god-send’ for the beleaguered peoples of Sri Lanka. It is now nearly 25 years in July 1983 where Sinhalese mobs went on the rampage – killing and setting fire to Tamil homes in Colombo.

 That was not the start, but the real escalation of the cruel and brutal ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which has its roots in 1956 when the Nationalist/chauvinistic government of Mr Solomon Bandaranaike introduced the laconic measures of Sinhala only policy which deeply disturbed the ethnic harmony of Sri Lanka, and also amendments to the constitution in 1971 to enshrine Buddhism as the principle religion.

 In addition to ethnic mistrust, the island after the colonial era suffered from endemic poverty, social and economic hardship, the political elites on the majority – Sinhalese side have been corruption, inept and in many cases exploited the masses parcelling them into narrow caste, class, and ethno-religious boxes.

 The Tamil tiger Elam movement grew from a once defensive minority organisation into a virulent and dangerous terrorist organisation perfecting mass suicide bombing, political assassinations against both their own rivals and the Sinhalese. History of Sri Lanka is full of conflicts and battles between Tamil ‘marauders from South India and Southern kings like Dutugemunu the great who liberated Sri Lanka from Tamil hegemony in 2^nd century BC which was the dawn of the great Arunudhpuna millennia.    

The mistrust and suspicious of the Tamil people, 18% against the majority of the population opposing a nationalistic majority of over 72% of the population has led since 1983 for the most horrendous violation of International Human Rights standards in the island, over 75,000 killed nearly 2 million refugees and internally displaced people, torture being endemic, disappearance and extra-judicial killings which is a blot on the once peace-loving Buddhist country.

 How has even the Buddhist clergy – nearly 78% people are Buddhist which preach Anhimsa (peace) and tolerance have become chauvinistic culprits of war and mistrust? The politicians in Sri Lanka have not worked together for ethnic harmony and used the war as an excuse of power and exploited nationalism and the Buddhist clergy to be their cats-paw. 

 Many eminent Sri Lankan politicians have been assassinated and the killing and violence continues, the war is an excuse for not developing the country (28% of the national income goes for defence) as unemployment and youth disenfranchisement is worsening the ethnic conflict. The have been several peace offers and ceasefire agreements, the last one negotiated by the now Opposition Leader Ranil

We also listened to Beethoven's Violin Sonata, "Kreutzer" the third movement, recorded in 1941, and to Spike Jones and his City Slickers "You'll always hurt the one you love."

We concluded by singing peace songs.

 Tributes were given by Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn.

Tony Benn pointed out how he and Jim were both in the same generation, they had both served in the RAF, they were both aware of the resonances of the UN declaration, we the peoples of the world uniting together against the scourge of the war.

 Benn paid tribute to Jim Addington's role in seeking to maintain the ideals of the UN.

Jeremy Corbyn described Jim as a Teacher, who we should hearken to.

He described his earlier associations with him in the 1980's and them seeking to push Britain to a non aligned foreign policy, to expose the absurdity of UK foreign policy being tied up and linked in to every pointless imperial adventure of the USA.

Many contributors referred not only to the generality of Jim's interests, but particularly to his writings in various peace organs including his regular contributions to The Morning Star, and a suggestion was made, (one I totally approve of) that his writings be collated and put together in a book.

Bruce Kent spoke of Jim as a caring person, unfailingly courteous, always interested in people.

Kate Hudson of  CND described Jim as "very decent, a fair-minded person, of great principle, of great warmth and great humour, always with a smile on his face. . He gave me wise counsel, he gave of his best on complex issues, I knew that he wd always give a fair view."

Lindsey German sent a message (being unwell and unable to attend personally) and stated the Stop the War movement at their last assembly had held one minutes silence in memory of Jim.

Jim represented the best of the Stop the War movement said Lindsey.

David Wardle of UNA said how Jim was always popping up at meetings to ask embarrassing questions and never let a good answer to one prevent him from asking another question.

He was the one the Chairman always had to watch, who, coming into the hall with a conspiratorial grin on his face had already leafleted the seats before the audience arrived, and before anyone could stop him.

Walter Wolfgang said Jim had kept his vision whole.

The message which Jim Addington has left behind for all of us, is that his perception, that the pursuit of nuclear

Photos from ‘A Celebration of Jim’s Life’
6^th November 2007

Tony Benn, Rosemary Addington, Vijay Mehta (right-left)

Bruce Kent, Linda Malvern, Vijay Mehta, Rosemary Addington (left-right)

Kingston Choral Society

Wickramasinghe of the United National Party with the LTTE, in December 2002-3 is now officially abandoned by the present Rajapakse government.

 The efforts of the Norwegians and the International Community and the work of the cease fire monitoring mission is now leaving the island, 16^th January 2008, as there is not no truce or CFA to monitor. The country is fast drifting into full scale war, where the present president and his security advisors are going for a military solution – like liberating the Tamil areas from the yet powerful Tamil Tigers who have a quasi-internal administration in those remote areas.

 Intensification of war is not the answer, a peace solution is still possible, what is lacking is trust, respect and the will for peace after thousands of years of quasi separation of the Tamil elites who want a 2 state solution which is not only viable but is full of tension and enormous practical problems.

 Human rights adherence is much to be desired in Sri Lanka, until the political elites, the clergy, security forces and the Tamil rebel forces under pin their campaigns based on respect for the UDHR and other UN human rights standards, there is little prospect of lasting peace and goodwill in this beautiful and tragic island where separation and not cohesion is amongst the principle ethnic communities.

 Cricket and cricketers are multi-ethnic and its development in the villages could be a ha-bringer of peace in the island but it is a long term aspiration, not the country is gearing for full scale senseless war.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

 A Celebration of Jim Addington’s Life

 William Spring and Vijay Mehta

 Something like 150 people crowded into The Friends Meeting House, London, opposite Euston Station, the venue for the Jim Addington Memorial meeting, which I attended last night, 6th November 2007. Jim died earlier this year in Polperro, Cornwall aged 82.

 Vijay Mehta, in his introduction to the evening, talked about the character and essence of Jim’s life, his belief in upholding the three pillars of the UN – maintenance of international peace and security, protection of human rights and nuclear disarmament. The lesson of Jim’s life is safeguarding the ideals of multilateralism, the rule of law and compliance of international treaties.

 The evening started with members of the Kingston Choral Society sang The Silver Swan by Orlando Gibbons and If Music be The Food of Love by Henry Purcell.

 Dr Brian Latchem introduced the 1st movement of his own composition "Organ Impromptu" in memory of Jim, and Laurie Bielby performed on the clarinet Stranger on the Shore and Petite Fleur.


disarmament and conflict resolution in respect of the wars going on in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, are all pieces of the same thing.

Too many in the past have had a compartmentalised view.

Now we see the issue as one. (Walter Wolfgang echoed Litvinov: "Peace is indivisible.")

There were a number of other speakers, not including me, or Dr James Thring, who sat next to me.

I had never been to a humanist memorial meeting before.

I had heard of them, and imagined them to be rather gloomy affairs, with perhaps 10 or so people sitting around a table looking glum.

But this was very jolly.

If I had said anything about Jim I wd have said how for me Jim moved, quite unobtrusively, from being a contact,  to being an acquaintance, to being a guide, and then, on the  very borders of, and unawares, having crossed over into friendship, seven years or so since we first spoke, he ceased to be. 

In the closing remarks, Rosemary and Vijay thanked all the friends and colleagues who talked about Jim’s various achievements in campaigning, his love of music, walking and climbing.

Vijay concluded by reading a poem of an 83 year old lady who kept the poem on the wall in her bedroom which was discovered by her niece.

I WELCOME THIS NEW DAY. IT IS MINE TO SHAPE AND TO MOLD.
This is a new day, mine to use, to fill, to live as I see fit. How it unfolds is up to me. The choice is mine.
I can be miserable, or I can have a great day.
I can doubt, I can have fear or I can have faith.
I can feel depressed, or I can express the joy that is inherent within me.
I can fear, or I can trust myself, others, God.
I can complain about aches and pains, or I can affirm God’s perfect life within me.
I can dwell on loss, or I can seek new interests, new joy in living.
I can criticize others, or I can accept and bless them and enjoy happy and harmonious relationships.
I can harbor old grudges, or I can forgive.

I can speak of lack, or I can affirm God’s never-failing supply.

I can give up, or I can make a fresh start.
I can go it alone, or I can depend on God.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Linda Malvern, Vijay Mehta (left-right)

Rosemary Addington