Aung San Suu Kyi's address at the Sydney Opera House

On Wednesday this week, Sydney was previledged to have Daw Aung San Suu Kyi address an enthusiastic crowd at the Opera House.

View a replay of this great event here:

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Greens and Labor alliance ends in Australia

The Greens Leader Christine Milne announced today that her party will sever the alliance with the Labor party, because they have broken an agreement by supporting the mining industry. Milne said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government to blame for the Greens to back away from the alliance.

Since the 2010 election which ended in a hung parliament, the Labor parties have only stayed in government because of the backing of the Greens and a number of Independent members in the House of Representatives (HOR). Prior to today's announcement, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie withdrew his support for the government 13 months ago, but this did not affect the numbers in the HOR.

Along with Independent MPs, and the Greens are losing faith in the government under Julia Gillard’s leadership, and the Labor party have suffered numerous set backs in their campaign for re-election at the end of the year. Polls have shown a lack of support for the government by voters, a number of senior cabinet members have resign in the last month and the most damaging being the Craig Thomson saga which is still ongoing and if Mr. Thomson is charged he will have to resign from parliament, forcing one less vote for the government

Although many senior Labor party members have come out and said that the party does not require the support of the Greens to win the next election, this announcement, along with all the other damaging sagas over the last year or so, are unfortunately damaging the confidence of  the voting public has for the Labor party. 

I think for the best chance for the government to win the next election, they will need to hold onto the allies that they have, seeing that they required their support  last time to form government and may need them at the end of this year. Unless the Labor party change tactics and try every measure to keep the alliance with the Greens and others, the result may mean an end to their ambitions to stay in power. 

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals on Education have been unrealistic

The other day, I read an interesting news article by the BBC discussing the issue of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on education and if these goals will be achieved by 2015.

Back in 2000, international leaders pledged that all children in the world would receive a primary education by 2015, but a recent report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) state that the goal will not be achievable by 2015.

Although the report argues that the amount of children receiving a basic primary education has increased since 2000, this has only happened in some parts of the world and not all. There are large parts of Africa that have seen no major increase in children receiving primary education.

Like all ideas, enthusiasm was there at the beginning, but as time passes, the will of the people achieving a conclusion fades over time (these people been the world leaders, and even us as global citizens). 

Perhaps, the goal of achieving universal primary education in 15 years was a little ambitious, and as history has shown, grand expectations take more then 15 years to achieve. Just look at the development of most industrial nations, it took more then a couple of decades to go from poverty to industrial powerhouses.

Funding and good governance seems to be the main problem in reaching the MDG on education. As the BBC article mentions, world leaders have been preoccupied with recent economic down turn and fighting terrorism, rather then increasing funding for global education. Also, a lack of good governance in many parts of the world has undermined much of the achievements so far. The persistence of war and corruption in especially Africa has prevented further efforts to achieve the goals setout by world leaders in 2000.

I think that we can provide universal primary education in the near future, but we need to be realistic on the time frame and the challengers ahead. There is no use for governments promising large amounts of money, without securing a framework to deal with issues such as good governance, peace and security, and global cooperation.