Angel and Tiggs


American diplomacy… again (the UNESCO move) by TA
1 November 2011, 04:02
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
I’m sure everybody’s aware of the Palestinian admission to UNESCO and the consequent American reaction to freeze funds that should be going to the UN branch (if you’re not, do a quick search or click on the link at the end of this post). My greatest surprise was not the Palestinian admission, even by not constituting an official state, to an international branch of the UN; nor was the fact that the bid generated an enormous split between G-20 countries. Britain abstained itself and so did Italy. Russia and China voted in favour of the Palestinian cause. Germany and Canada followed the Americans.
 
What really appalled me were the commentaries from US diplomats immediately after the announcement they were cutting 22% of UNESCO’s budget.
 
Fair enough that the American system has its laws and the Palestinian move created certain conflicts of interests that will block funds for UNESCO. But all the rest is pure diplomatic baloney. “The United States … remains strongly committed to robust, multilateral engagement across the U.N. system” , said Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman with the State Department. “Smile, you’re on Candid Camera!”.

 
How long will the international community pretend that kind of speech corresponds to reality? As far as everybody knows, the US and other permanent Security Council members blocked new member sign ups. Among the contenders, India and Brazil, emerging countries. Mrs. Nuland continued her series of unfortunate and unrealistic remarks by adding that the vote was “regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East” (my bold and underline).
 
What is the true American perspective on ” lasting peace”? Has it ever been one in the past 2,000 years? Is it even just to punish a people that is looking for nothing but the right to have a voice? Diplomacy has now been officially rewritten to mean lobby, corporatism and other bad things we all know. And I won’t even start talking about Jewish groups in the background. I’m a big admirer of Israel and her people, traditions and survival history, but this personal feud went too far.
 
An American “ambassador” to the UN said the situation is “no substitute for negotiations, but it is deeply damaging to UNESCO.” And all I do is to regret another great opportunity the US had to make good. Shame on the administration. It sends out a message that it doesn’t matter how democrat or republican someone is, the repugnant feeling of a government to a few lingers. Go Occupy the UN. Or better, just put yourself aside from these matters. There will be no hope anyhow. Allen Funt would have been a great American diplomat. At least his jokes made sense.
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-palestinians-unesco-usa-funding-newsp-idUSTRE79U69E20111031
Leave a comment


Why the UN headquarters should be moved to Barcelona, Spain by TA
2 November 2008, 15:40
Filed under: Democracy, History, International Relations, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Since the day I visited the UN building in New York City, I’ve been thinking about why that organization is located there and not in Barcelona. There are obvious reasons, especially the historical context. The UN was founded in 1947 under the influence of the newly-winners Western allies. Nothing more logical than physically installing the organization in American soil, given how strengthened the country was at the early post-WWII scenario. It was a great way to avoid Russian conflict of interest. Anyway, my idea is that in a G-20, “multipolarized” world the UN building should be moved to Barcelona, Spain. My arguments are below:

  • It’s more coherent with the dominating Eurocentrist vision of the world. That vision comes from the Middle Ages, but up to these days our maps still have the “Old World” (Europe) in the middle;
  • Spain is a sort of middle point between major continents in the world like the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa. This should reduce the influence by north-western countries like UK and the US or at least increase pressure and influence by other countries;
  • Spain is a relatively neutral/moderated western country. It doesn’t tend heavily in favor or against the biggest/richest countries in the world. True, they supported Bush in Iraq, but have already withdrawn. Jose Luis Zapatero, head of the Spanish government, has a strong relationship with Latin America (Venezuela has been symbolically voted out of Latin America) and deep understanding of African issues. Besides, they were neutral (sic) in WWII and WWI;
  • UN in Europe would favour a narrower collaboration with so many other worldwide agencies/organizations such as other branches of the UN (e.g. Unicef FAO), NATO, European Union. The proximity with major hosting countries for these organizations (in particular Belgium and Switzerland) can be of great value;
  • Why did I suggest Barcelona and not any other city in Spain? Well, the Basque country region is still very instable to host the UN. Madrid sill holds a very conservative city. Also, it is the capital and official residence to the Spanish government, what could generate some sort of conflict of interest. It’s just like picturing the UN as a White House neighbour. It could be extremely biased. Besides, Barcelona has always had the reputation of being a slightly left-wing bastion, far more liberal than Madrid and very inclined to arts and tourism in general.
Leave a comment