Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Global engagement through the UN

By John Langmore - posted Wednesday, 21 March 2007


The authoritative Blix Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which reported in June 2006, argues correctly that “so long as any state has such weapons - especially nuclear arms - others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic.”

The Commission proposes incremental steps towards outlawing nuclear weapons, beginning with taking all nuclear weapons off high-alert status, making deep reductions in numbers of nuclear weapons, prohibiting the production of fissile material, urging all nuclear states to make no-first-use pledges, bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, and reviving the commitments of all parties to the NPT - especially the steps towards nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons states.

Australia’s role in this global survival strategy must include joining with the strongest advocates of the Blix Commission’s strategies, continuing to sustain obligations of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and rigorous scrutiny of the uses of uranium exports.

Advertisement

Sixth, most countries have adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for universal primary education, gender equality, reduction in child and maternal mortality, combating disease, ensuring environmental sustainability and support from developed countries. But the Howard Government is not making a fair contribution to meeting these.

Many impoverished developing countries are caught in a poverty trap for they do not have the capacity to generate sufficient savings and investments domestically or to attract much foreign direct investment,. Nor do they have the resources or industry to trade their way out of poverty. So they require increased aid to fund infrastructure and services essential to their economic and social development.

Australia could readily increase aid to them because our national income has been growing rapidly, there is no Commonwealth government debt, and the budget is in surplus. Australia occupies a distinctive global position because of its unique intersection of history, geography, economy, society and culture with developing countries, yet we are not being responsive to their needs. The swift public contributions to disaster relief after the 2004 tsunami demonstrated clearly that voters would support increased government aid for poverty reduction.

Seventh, Australian governments could demonstrate renewal of Australia’s traditional commitment to multilateralism through improved accountability.

Australia has always paid its dues to the UN on time and this is at least something for which we can be grateful. But in addition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs could make regular statements to parliament on Australian action at the UN, and other ministers could report on action at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, UNESCO and so on. Such statements should include a record of how Australia voted. They could provide much of the material for campaigns to inform the public about the purposes, work, achievements and difficulties of the UN system.

International discussion of issues such as these seven items was relegated to the margin or paralysed by American unilateralism. However the election of a Democratic majority to Congress has created many new possibilities.

Advertisement

For example, if Bush proposed that the US pay its dues to the UN on time, Congress would now be likely to agree and the US would be up to date with a central part of its legal obligations to the rest of the world for the first substantive time for a decade and a half.

When Ban Ki-Moon took office as Secretary-General on January 1, 2007 he offered a fresh symbol of leadership, adding to the possibility of improved collaboration between the US and the rest of the world through the UN.

Innumerable issues are waiting to be addressed. Australia’s circumstances lead naturally to rethinking our foreign policy and to advocating strengthening of the international rule of law, upgrading our contribution to nuclear disarmament, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fostering equitable development - in all these ways contributing to international peace and justice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Langmore, a former MP and Director at the UN, is now a Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne and National President of the UN Association of Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Langmore

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy