Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Sets New Course at the UN
UNITED NATIONS - After nearly a decade of an often tense and estranged relationship with the United Nations, Washington appears to be taking a much more conciliatory and multilateral approach to the world body.
![[President Barack Obama meets with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 10, 2009. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obama_ban.jpg "obama_ban.jpg")
U.S. President Barack Obama formally restored funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) Wednesday by signing a major spending bill, prompting U.N. officials to again welcome the policy shift on women's health-related rights.
In January, Obama issued an executive order lifting an eight-year ban on U.S. funding for overseas family-planning groups and clinics that perform or promote abortion or lobby for its legalisation.
"We are delighted that the United States will, once again, take a leading role in championing women's reproductive health, and rights," said UNFPA's executive director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. "This is a great day for women and girls."
During the administration of George W. Bush, the UNFPA lost its U.S. funding on charges that it was trying to promote abortion, an allegation that Obaid and other officials strongly denied.
In a recent statement, Obama said the resumption of U.S. funding would help not only to reduce poverty, but also improve the health of women and children and prevent HIV/AIDS.
UNFPA says due to the U.S. restrictions on funding its programmes, millions of women in poor countries were unable to access health care during pregnancy and that many of them died as a result.
Earlier this week, Obama signed the legislative omnibus funding bill containing a 50-million-dollar contribution to UNFPA. The funding had been in limbo since 2002 when Bush began to implement his ideologically-driven policies towards women's rights.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had a day-long meeting with Obama and other key political figures in Washington Wednesday, appeared equally pleased with the political leadership in Washington.
"The new president is enormously engaged and a visionary leader," Ban told reporters on his return to the U.N. headquarters Thursday. "I am confident that he will bring to the international arena the same ambition and appetite for bold measures that he is bringing to U.S. affairs."
Ban said he had lengthy discussions with Obama about the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, and Congo. They also discussed the global economic meltdown and its possible adverse impacts on development, as well as international efforts to fight climate change.
"On the economic crisis, President Obama and I agree that the world's poorest and most vulnerable people cannot be left behind," Ban said.
"With U.S. leadership in partnership with the U.N., we can and will reach a climate change deal that all nations can embrace," he added.
Among the world's industrialised nations, the U.S. is the only country that has yet to sign the Kyoto treaty on climate change, which was rejected by Washington under the Bush administration.
Though supportive of global initiatives, Obama has yet to declare when the U.S., which accounts for more than a quarter of the world's carbon emissions, would embrace an international treaty on climate change.
However, Ban said he and Obama agreed that 2009 "must be the year of climate change. That means reaching a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen by year's end."
Ban also said he and Obama are in agreement that "green" investments must be an essential part of any global stimulus plan. "If we are going to spend tremendous sums of money, let us be smart about it," he said.
Regarding the talks, the U.N. chief gave an impression that, despite agreements, they did differ on certain issues of war and peace. On the situation in Afghanistan, for example, Obama emphasised the need for a military build-up, whereas Ban holds a different view.
"The security [in Afghanistan] continues to deteriorate. The country is at another crossroads," he said. "I welcome the fresh thinking by the new U.S. administration. But any military surge, I emphasised to President Obama, must be accompanied by a political surge."
Ban is due to convene an international conference to be hosted by the government of Netherlands by the end of this month, which he believes would offer "an opportunity to define a common way forward."
On the question of the Middle East, however, both Ban and Obama seem to be on the same page: "[We] agreed on the need for an urgent push." He said donors at the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting on Gaza reconstruction made large pledges, "well beyond what was anticipated."
"The world has sent a clear message of solidarity to the Palestinian people," he told reporters. "We must turn this support not only into recovery for the people of Gaza, but also into a revitalised peace process in the Middle East and the Palestinians." At Thursday's news conference, Ban reiterated his gratification at U.S. pledges of support for the U.N., but, at the same time, criticised the world's largest economic and military power for failing to keep its word.
"Of course the United States is the largest financial contributor," said Ban in response to a question. "[But] with such a large sum of amount in arrears, it's very difficult for the United Nations to conduct smoothly all these peacekeeping operations and other activities."
The U.S. owes no less than 1.6 billion dollars in arrears. Long-time observers of U.N.-U.S. relations say this sum has accumulated over the years as a form of leverage for Washington to impose its will on the world body.
However, as many observers believe, the Obama administration is likely to behave in a different way. "Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] and President [Obama] have showed their commitment to resolve this issue as soon as possible," Ban said.
19 Comments so far
Show All"Deepa March 13th, 2009 2:48 pm
Deepa
johntwodogs,
I agree with you that Americans are "lucky to have Obama" as their president. But I am an Asian living in Asia. For me the US foreign policy is important, because it is the foreign policy that AFFECTS those living in other countries."
THAT's certainly not in agreement with me, for while I agree with the foreign policy part, Obama is NO good for Americans, nationally. Being lesser between two evils remains to be evil in the person's ways, etcetera. He's [not] really promising for Americans, nationally. If he was, then he'd honour the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, but he doesn't, not to any really significant degree anyway.
He's an imperialist prone person, and if he allows the resignation of Chas Freeman to stand, then he'll be [traitor]. How's that supposed to be good for Americans nationally?! It'd be rotten as [hell]!
"Kane Jeeves March 13th, 2009 3:36 pm
I didn't say he was the saviour. I don't even like that term. Almost everything he's done in a short 52 days (and this article is one example) is something that moves us in the right direction. And that paves the way for the possibility of even more progressive progress."
SO, I'LL stand corrected on the "saviour" perception "bit", but you evidently still haven't been reading much, or you're only reading from sources or providers that are [omissive] about what's really been going on since election day 2008. [Far] from "everything he's done in" in this short period of time has been good; [much] has been proving that Obama critics on the "left" have been very right all along. Some critics may have been mistaken in some respects, I certainly can't speak for more than myself and a few critics whose articles I read and saw they were right; but to be critic has been right, because there was plenty to be critical of about him and his candidature for the presidency, and only more once he selected (or allowed to be appointed) members of his presidential administration, for there are relatively many criminals, cons, imperialists, corporatists, ... in this administration.
You need to read from other sources than the ones you're apparently limiting yourself to. There's a lot of propaganda and omissiveness on the Obama-ite side and people of critical minds need to be wary of this sort of reality, for it's not new with the Obama-ites, it's happened many times before with or with regards to other political leaders and "representatives", and candidates. It's human to be biased, selective, ... and therefore omissive, as well as to outright lie, along with also being naive; yes, we can realise these unfortunately are features among humans. BUT, it's only cause for such people to wake up and seriously work on getting well informed by reading from multiple sources, without inferring msm "news" media. Even alternative media is often provided from politically, racially, religiously, ... biased people, and readers need to apply real critical thinking in order to not naively believe that what they read is right or true. Being careful and keeping open minds in order to be really critical of mind is essential; for to lie, lie through omission, deceive, ... are traits or characteristics that have long existed among humans. The "Left" is [not] uniform; there are many who are fascists, etcetera, in ways that only differ in appearance from fascists, ... of another sort.
If he accepts the resignation of Chas Freeman, then this will not be the first damn wrong or bad thing Obama will have done in the short time since election day 2008 and the shorter period of time since inauguration day 2009, January; but it'll be a very, very bad move on his part, to allow the government of the USA to even only appear to be puppet of the Israel Lobby (and their neocon political pals). To do that is to blatantly enough commit [treason] if he goes along with the resignation! It'd be rather flagrant treason!
He stil pretends that the war on Afghanistan was and is therefore justified, but it [never] was. That people supported the war because they were rendered into blind revenge or actions with the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks in the USA is understandable, it's human weakness; but to pretend that the war was ever justified is to be of awfully ignorant mind.
He presents [nothing] of promising good for Africans. The same applies for Haitians. And, ... more; etcetera.
"raulmax March 13th, 2009 9:34 pm
Raulmax
Puerto Rico has the right to be an independent nation.
...
For the past two decades and more Puerto Ricans have gone before the U.N. Committee on Decolonization also know as the Comittee of 24."
INDEED, PR has the right to be independent, free of imperialist, colonialist, ... USA, and I'm aware that the population of PR has been long trying to be freed and that the U.S. government has always hegemoniously refused, but wasn't aware of the efforts at or with the U.N. Committee on Decolonization. I only knew the population of PR has long been demanding to have their independence respected.
raulmax:
"Why does the U.S. a nation which prides itself on being a democracy still in this day and age have colonies?"
The USA itself is a colony. It's the basis upon which the USA was hegemoniously, predatorially, ... established, ruthlessly so. And ruthlessness is how it's maintained today and unfortunately forward. The governments of the U.S. and Canada, and through them the capitalist "elites", both pretend to be friends with at least some of the indigenous peoples here, but it's pretense, for genocides basically continue. They certainly do in Canada, of which the government, and through it Canadian corporations, especially those seeking to possess or minimally control natural resources that are profitable, has been condemned numerous times by the UN and for Ca's continued actions against the rights (and dignity) of the indigenous (First Nations) of Ca, and the Cdn government has constantly and despicably disregarded these (basically) calls of the UN to respect the rights of the First Nations of Ca. In Ca the problem is regularly for the sake of profiting Cdn corporations, and ruthless measures isn't something they shy away from applying.
(See www.mohawknationnews.com , f.e. People can subscribe to its e-mail newsletter or articles to keep up to date with what MNN reports on an ongoing basis, about the ongoing actions against First Nations' rights and lives. Presently, the Cdn government, or maybe also the government of the U.S., is imposing new electronic id cards on the First Nations, minimally the Mohawks anyway, for their territory is on both sides of the colonialists', imperialists' imposed political border, which doesn't really apply to the indigenous people whose territories lie on both sides of the arbitrary, man-made or -defined, and imposed political border.)
I recall having read over the past several years that some, if not many, Hawaiians also want to be freed from colonialist, imperialist control of the U.S. government, and this of course is another case that the government refuses to respect the people's choice about.
As said in my first post in this page, the so-called moves the Obama administration is making with the UN don't tell us anything particularly good about this administration, for there are issues referred to in the article that are masked with disinformation or else lack of information, such as the two Taliban and another militant group have united, for now anyway, not for negotiations, but for expelling the U.S. and its allied forces in Afghanistan and therefore also Pakistan. Articles reporting about the so-called negotiations, but not this unification of the three militant groups and the purpose of the unification are disinforming readers by being omissive in describing what's going on, only reporting what one side, the aggressors' side, says and not what the other side, the aggressed side, says. Anyway, this, and plenty of other critical issues that the Obama administration has already proven that it's not working correctly on, instead working in manners opposite from correctly and what's needed.
They evidently do not plan to relent in their imperialist, colonialist, corporatist project to gain control of Asian energy resources, certainly those of the Caspian Sea region and those of Iraq (or more of those of the Middle East) anyway.
Only blind, naive Obama-ites would not consider all of the issues that the Obama administration must correctly act about or on before being a respectable administration; one that we already know to be full of criminals, imperialists, .... Even Obama is not against imperialism. As Glen Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com recently wrote that Obama's only against "dumb imperialism". Problem: Rather all imperialism is dumb, so there's no imperialism to be supportive of when we say to be against "dumb imperialism".
"I recall having read over the past several years that some, if not many, Hawaiians also want to be freed from colonialist, imperialist control of the U.S. government, and this of course is another case that the government refuses to respect the people's choice about."
Here is the issue: how many are "some"? Is that "some" a majority?
will we continue to veto any and all resolutions against israel? you betcha. the green lights for the zionists will continue. we went from a ziocon regime, to a ziolib regime.
America is an The Anglo Saxon spawn it cannot help itself, it is predatorily in its cultural nature, big and brutish. Then their is the Zionist connection!!!
(a controlling dwarf stature sitting on the shoulders of the retarded giant, Blaster). .........dueling .in.a. thunder dome we call called planet Earth
Raulmax
Puerto Rico has the right to be an independent nation.
I wonder if the policy changes of the Obama Administration with regards to the United Nations will extend to U.S. policies in the U.N with regards to U.S. colonies.
For the past two decades and more Puerto Ricans have gone before the U.N. Committee on Decolonization also know as the Comittee of 24. Each time a favorable resolution is sent out of the committee with regards to Puerto Rico's right to self determination and independence. Yet each year the U.S. delegation arm twists nations to prevent the case of Puerto Rico from being discussed before the U.N. General Assembly. Why is the U.S. so afraid of an open discussion on its colonial policies? Why does the U.S. a nation which prides itself on being a democracy still in this day and age have colonies? I hope that the Obama administration will bring about a change in its policies at the U.N. with regards to a general discussion by this body on the colonial case of Puerto Rico and Guam.
"For the past two decades and more Puerto Ricans have gone before the U.N. Committee on Decolonization also know as the Comittee of 24"
How much is "more and more"? Do a majority of Puerto Ricans want independence?
People have been protesting and more are slowly learning the horrendous hidden history of powerful interests in this country. Lies of omission and media manipulation are sinister beyond belief. Internet freedom is incredibly valuable. The peaceful re-evolution does have a good chance, particularly with Mother Nature/Pachamama making herself heard.
PUSH!!
May the sun shine on wisdom and love in Obama's heart and mind - and in those of the opposition, lots of (green) energy!
Deepa
johntwodogs,
I agree with you that Americans are "lucky to have Obama" as their president. But I am an Asian living in Asia. For me the US foreign policy is important, because it is the foreign policy that AFFECTS those living in other countries. I donot perceive any change in the "essence" of the US foreign policy under the present US administration. There are several articles on this on CD and elsewhere on the present foreign policy towards Gaza/Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa.... The "essence" of the US foreign policy is to "corner" economically and militarily weak and vulnerable countries in order to plunder their resources and do its "dirty laundry". In this process the UN, UNSC, International Criminal Court...have become tools to further the "essence" of US foreign policy.
Just see what is happening in Pakistan. The moment elected government has taken over the country deposing the US ally DICTATOR MUSHARAF, US through CIA and ISI has started destabilizing the country. This is one example of how the US foreign policy affects people in other countries.
Thank you President Obama.
"Kane Jeeves March 13th, 2009 1:00 pm
... Remember before the election how so many head-in-the-sand progressives on CD proclaimed Obama just another tool. And how they said to ditch Obama and vote for "real" progressives like Nader or McKinney? If everyone followed their lead and divided the Dem vote so that McCain won, do you think we'd be reading this article today? Absolutely not.
So Obama may not be Kucinich or Nader, but at least we're headed in the right direction now."
Only a little bleep of news on this [one], singular issue when there are far more critical issues and you think Obama is Savior already?! Now that's what can be called an awfully biased, selective, omissive, ... p.o.v.
There's a hell of a lot more for critical issues than this one, and plenty of the others outweigh this one by quite a lot. I once read that women used to self-perform abortions ages ago by consuming some plant substance that seems to have rather never failed to work. I forget what plant this was, but read about this around three or four years ago. It'd be with no need for surgeons or even a hospital or medical clinic, no need to pay anyone; just consume whatever dose of the plant that's required and then the abortion happened ... naturally.
In any case, there are far more issues than this one and others are far more important. As for women worldwide getting pregnant, well, it's certainly not an issue nearing the weight of wars of aggression, major environmental destruction and pollution, and others that are caused because of governments being criminally irresponsible and corporations being extremely profit-hungry. And Obama has already proven that he's not going to act legally, correctly, ethically on enough of the most critical issues that the U.S. is very, very responsible for.
Women getting pregnant is rather a matter of personal choice and there is a or there are natural ways of aborting.
As for economics, the U.S. helping the poorest in third-world countries, it's a good idea, but he's contributing to increasing third-worldism in the USA too.
As for the money for Palestinians, it's really proposed in terms that are wholly hypocritical, hegemonic, ... diabolical, for it's to try to get rid of Hamas for government in Palestine and to do this is criminal because it's Israel that attacked Palestinians, not the other way around, and it's the [democratic] choice of the Palestinians to elect Hamas. The money being proposed to hypothetically help Palestinians is BRIBERY and that is a crime in itself.
As for Afghanistan, the Afghani and Pakistan Taliban, plus another Pakistani militant group that's aligned with the two Taliban groups, have said that they're not interested in negotiations; instead, they [demand] for the U.S. and its coalition allies there, so certainly NATO, all [withdraw]. There's perhaps been nothing for reports on this at CD, or maybe there has been and it's been very little, but there've been articles at www.uruknet.info about this for around a couple of weeks now, if not longer.
What about the U.S. and NATO, and the USA's AFRICOM, in Africa; like the DR Congo, Sudan, and plenty of other African countries where the U.S. and NATO apply only war-of-aggression measures even if they're rendered covert through the use of corrupt, extremely corrupt, despotic leaders or heads of some African governments that have leadership diabolically twisted enough to pander to the U.S. while screwing their own populations and those of neighbouring countries?!
Etcetera. There are plenty of extremely critical issues. Women can just get themselves some of the plant that causes abortions to happen, consume some, and abort. I'm against abortion in principle, but haven't been against women's right to choose; it's just that my preference is that when women do choose to abort, then that it be because it is really needed, instead of only wanted. Nevertheless, it's not an issue that ranks as equal to really or more, including much more, critical issues.
I didn't say he was the saviour. I don't even like that term. Almost everything he's done in a short 52 days (and this article is one example) is something that moves us in the right direction. And that paves the way for the possibility of even more progressive progress.
As for the details of this particular issue, you miss a big point. Even though the particular issue may not be on the same level as other "critical issues", Obama's reversal of such an unpopular Bush decision sends a much larger, AND VERY CRITICAL message to the world: that we are not a backwards country anymore. That's far more power than the specific issue.
Dear Deepa, the accusations have been made. Now give time for the repentance. At no time in U.S. history has such a course change been made so abruptly by one administration from the previous administration. A very good point was made by Kane Jeeves. This administration is not the perfect one, but it is probably as good as one could expect. I voted Kucinich in the Primary, and Obama in the general. One can always vote their heart in the primary, but common sense dictates in the general. Mc Cain would never have done the turn around that Obama has. Nader would have had no support in the congress, being from a "maverick" party. Also, remember that there is still substantial support for a hawklike America in the electorate, as wrongheaded as that may be. Believe me, when those who embrace peace get their way, there is a shitload of Americans who are damned near up in arms(I think shitload is an apt description)
and ready to revolt. We are damned lucky to have Obama. He's the closest thing to a Democrat we've had in office since FDR.
A little hindsight is in order here. Remember before the election how so many head-in-the-sand progressives on CD proclaimed Obama just another tool. And how they said to ditch Obama and vote for "real" progressives like Nader or McKinney? If everyone followed their lead and divided the Dem vote so that McCain won, do you think we'd be reading this article today? Absolutely not.
So Obama may not be Kucinich or Nader, but at least we're headed in the right direction now.
Absolutely right!
Deepa
""The world has sent a clear message of solidarity to the Palestinian people," he told reporters. "We must turn this support not only into recovery for the people of Gaza, but also into a revitalised peace process in the Middle East and the Palestinians.""
What Ban Ki-Moon, Gneral Secretary of the United Nations of AMERICA, does not acknowledge is that the cause for destruction of life and property in Gaza were the very countries that are now PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS THE SAVIORS OF THE PALESTINIANS. He does not have guts to criticize the amount of destruction caused by these countries not only in Gaza but also in Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Pakistan....
UN is a tool in the hands of imperial powers to promote and protect their power and control of sovereign nations and their natural resources.
"does not acknowledge is that the cause for destruction of life and property in Gaza were the very countries that are now PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS THE SAVIORS OF THE PALESTINIANS."
Yup !! The Good Lord Obama ( the second coming of Jeebus ) is a politician first. Even if he genuinely cares about the Palestinians, he probably cares about being President for 2 terms a lot more !!
Funding for birth control is great, but for any possible benefits to be seen, every single religious and state leader across the board will have to promote it. No more of this "be fruitful and multiply" garbage.
Even this article treats this merely as a "women's reproductive health" issue.
This is a GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUE.
There are already too many people on the planet, and if we don't stop reproducing there just won't be any planet left for us. The earth is already preparing to pare down our numbers by natural disaster and we are speeding her along with our willful ignorance.
Here's an interesting site on population growth in America: http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html