Posted 8:25 AM by Mary
WOMEN AND THE MILLENIUM GOALS
In the year 2000, in the historic moment we call the Millennium, the UN undertook an ambitious program.All the member states agreed to a challenge to meet the basic needs of the globe.They narrowed this vision of the world's wellbeing to a reduction of poverty, hunger and disease, increased education overall, increased opportunities for women, and increased survival for children and women.

The plan was designed to be affordable, measurable, and doable, with a target date of 2015--both visionary and pragmatic. In the work of drafting these goals, it became clear that not only is there considerable overlap, but women play a very considerable role in development. Much progress depends on the status of women.

Women are over half the world's population. In many parts of the world they grow and harvest the food. They raise children, tend to the ill and aged as primary caretakers. Yet 2/3 of the world's uneducated children are girls, and 2/3 of the world's poorest people are female.

The future depends on children. The condition of children is inextricably connected to the status of women. Not surprisingly, the status of women is a reliable indicator of the wellbeing of a country. Their disempowerment reduces the ability of a country to progress. In the many parts of the world where they can not participate in public life, they are an untapped source of enterprise and creativity, and their absence shows.

Goal 3 of the Millennium goals is to promote gender equality and empower women. Goal 4 is to reduce child mortality. Goal 5 is to improve maternal health. UNICEF in its 2009 report focuses on the health of newborns and their mothers. Although many developing countries have made good progress in improving child survival rates, still millions of children die before the age of 5 from preventable causes. A child born in an undeveloped country is over 13 times more likely to die in the first five years of life than one in a developed country,

In the past decade, concerted intervention has shown improved survival of young children, but sadly this progress has definitely not been true for mothers in the undeveloped world. Having a child is among the most serious health risk for women. Every year more than half a million women die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth complications. They are 300 times more likely to die during pregnancy or in childbirth than if they lived in rich countries. What is required is prenatal care by skilled attendants, adequate nutrition and postpartum care .

Ensuring access to reproductive health and family planning services for all could help to avert up to 35% of maternal deaths. Globally, some 200 million women and men who say they would like to use family planning do not have adequate access to good quality contraception,.

Since the election of President Obama, US policy has completely changed. Access to safe and effective family planning is one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancies. He will restore US funding to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund-- an agency whose support was cut back by the previous administration because it promoted family planning over the "abstinence only" agenda. Further, Obama has lifted the "global gag rule" which refused US money to any organization that provides or even discusses abortion.

The difference in pregnancy risk between women in developing countries and the industrial world is a silent tragedy and often termed the greatest health divide in the world. It is a moral outrage that millions die when they could be saved by proven cost-effective interventions. Saving these lives is the smart thing to do. It is also an issue of human rights and justice. If you want to help see UNFPA and UNICEF

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union and representative to the UN. Dr Sylvain Ehrenfeld, International Humanist Ethical Union

Posted 8:19 AM by Mary
FROM THE UN
POPULATION AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Population matters! The numbers affect all the planning for everything that contributes to human wellbeing. Everything--food, water, poverty, environmental stress, children's education, jobs, the needs of the elderly--everything that determines the quality of life is affected.

The UN tracks population and revises its estimates every two years. The UN's projection of trends are not forecasts because they have to depend on assumptions about the"agequake", the large increase in longevity and the fertility rate, the number of children born per woman during a lifetime.

In most countries, rich and poor, people are living longer and women are having fewer children. These facts have profound effects.

The UN's estimate of the current world's population is projected to rise from 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. The catch--and it is a big one-- is that this estimate is dependent on the continuing drop in fertility by the poor.In an already large population, small differences in the fertility rate have huge consequences. If fertility stops dropping world population will reach 11 billion, a formidable increase. Currently, about half of the world's poor are very young, younger than 25. In the world's worst off countries, the percentage is 60%, a politically explosive condition when so many lack jobs and even hope for a decent life.
What we do now matters!

The age quake of people over 60 is projected as 416 million in the richer countries and 1.6 billion in the poorer countries, the biggest increase. Their needs must be met.

Immigration, a safety valve for the poor, will keep the richer countries' population steady in spite of their lower birth rate. But in the poor countries, even very small increases in the fertility rate means enormous numbers of needy youths demanding the basic necessities for a life.

The 1974 and 1984 UN conferences concentrated on numerical population goals. The language "population control" and "overpopulation" used at the time seemed as if the wealthy were trying to limit the numbers of the poor and people of color, men trying to control women. In spite of this resentment and religious resistance, the fertility rate has continued to drop since the Cairo conference of 1994.

This Cairo Conference, based on extensive research and much lobbying concluded that the key to a doable plan for stabilizing world population lay in the status of women, and in giving women the opportunity to have the children they want, and not by forcing them to have them against their will. It is not surprising that it took so long for women's rights to be considered. Issues such as abortion, contraception, family planning, sex education for teenagers, education for girls and equal civil rights for women still arouse passions worldwide.

Fertility is the key variable in the population story. Why do women and families want fewer children? The movement from countryside to cities, the very important reduction in child mortality, opportunities for women to have paid work--all of these lead to a greater emotional and physical investment in a smaller number of children.

200 million women lack access to family planning resources. This a vital concern for the world's well being and an ethical issue for humanists.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union

Posted 8:37 PM by Mary
FROM THE UN World Day of Social Justice and the Economic Crisis

Adam Smith,the guru of the freemarketers, had it right in 1759. In his first book,"The Theory of Moral Sentiments," he stated that 'prudence is a virtue for individuals', but "humanity, justice, generosity and public spirit are the qualities most useful to others." The extraordinarily timely World Day of Social Justice recently established by the UN builds on the same fundamental idea that economic success depends on the well being of people.

The followers of Adam Smith have ignored all these qualities. The market gurus who have distorted their prophet's message to claim that the market can heal all ills should have heeded what their prophet actually wrote. Adam Smith stressed the need for regulation of financial activities. Capitalism's success has increasingly come within the control of institutions that curtail its side effects and excesses, while providing the tools of a civilized society which exist outside the market system.

The global financial meltdown affecting the rich countries is even more drastically hurting the poorer countries.Each day millions of the marginally poor are falling into unemployment, food scarcity and poverty-- a global tsunami that politicians are warning could create political and social havoc both within and outside the borders of their countries. Any solution will require worldwide cooperation in a nexus of laws, business and trade. The present crisis has highlighted the inadequacy of the growth imperative and unregulated markets from the model of rational decision makers.

Many thinkers believe that this model of capitalism is bankrupt. Funny man Art Buchwald commented " An economist is a man who knows a hundred ways to make love, but doesn't know any women." Even Allen Greenspan, a free marketer, and former head of the Federal Reserve has admitted that he was wrong about deregulation. Billionaire Bill Gates, speaking at the Economic Summit at Darvos, stated that unfettered capitalism cannot solve broad social problems.

In the UN's World Day of Social Justice on Feb. 20, speakers proposed that an economic system needs to be just in order to function and to take into account the social and economic rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 22 to 27 spell out rights to water, sanitation, food, housing, education,---all outside the market driven model of economics.

Classical economics calls the negative effects of market activities "externalities" Attention to these crippling consequences are what is driving Bill gates, when he speaks of a kinder, "creative capitalism" that can create wealth through responding to these needs.Growth and prosperity should be judged by the well being of people.

In the last 20 years, in the US, family income has risen only very modestly, but income inequality has mushroomed into a gap greater than any since the twenties.In 1975 the top 1% earned 8% of all the income in the US. But by 2005, that top sliver of the population earned almost 20% of the total income in the country. The top 10% of the population collects 44% of total income and the top 20% collects a walloping 60%. Here in the US we are increasingly a top-heavy economy.

In the world's population in 1980, the median income of the richest 10% was 70 times that of the poorest 10%. But in 2000 the gap has widened to 122 times. It is no joke when we say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer,

Prior to the present financial crisis there were already warnings that the observed trends in income inequality might not be sustainable. The grossness of the inequality gap and the environmental damage from the emphasis on growth has undermined the stability of the system.Inadequate wages for workers and their families are causing them to rely more on debt.

There are numerous reasons for growth of inequality--deregulation, the decline of unions, stagnation in the minimum wage,and growing emphasis on technology. President Obama's top economic advisor Lawrence Summer has described the trend of increasing inequality as if each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution was sending a $10,000 check every year to the top 1% of earners.

Nobel Prizewinner in economics Amartya Sen, has proposed that instead of measuring only the GDP (gross domestic product) as an indicator of a country's well being ,it should be measured by a persons capabilities--'what people are actually able to do and be'. One such measure,used by the UN , is the Human Development Index(HDI) which is a composite of income,longevity and education.

By this measure the US ranks eighth to Australia's third.Australia's annual income per head is $9000 less than America's income. Nevertheless it ranks higher because Australians are better educated and live longer. The essential message of the World Day of Social Justice is that we need a global economic system which shifts from a narrow preoccupation with markets to a broader perspective on the well being of people.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union and Representative to the UN. Dr.Sylvain Ehrenfeld

Posted 3:15 PM by Mary
SIXTY YEARS OF CLAIMING RIGHTS
Sixty years ago ,in response to the horrors of World War 2, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This remarkable historic document declared "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".A first global statement. All persons should be treated with dignity simply because the person is human. It has inspired and energized human rights workers worldwide. It spurred the creation of the International Criminal Court,and inspired the creation of human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

The UDHR introduces two very important new features.First, it is universal. Some human rights ideas go back a long time as in 1740 BC when the Babylonian king Hammurabi codified his laws against unfair trials,torture and slavery. However his laws applied only to his own people. His enemies the Assyrians, fell outside his code's protection. They could be tortured and enslaved without compunction. Similarly , The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the US Bill of Rights guaranteed rights for the French, and eventually for all Americans.

The UDHR is revolutionary precisely because it is universal, and so takes precedence over every political ideology and parochial claim. It transcends national borders and spells out rights regardless of race, gender or class.

A second significant new feature is that the declaration encompasses both negative rights as well as positive rights. Negative rights are limits to what harms can be done to restrict an individual. For example freedom of speech,freedom from arbitrary detention and torture, free assembly, freedom of the press and a fair trial, as expressed in the US bill of rights. These are important civil and political rights.But-a big but -is the concept of positive rights,social and economic such as education, health care, food and housing, neccessities because they are required for the dignity of every human being.This concept articulates a serious responsibility of governments toward its population.

In the discussions leading to the formulation of UDHR,the Soviet Union objected to the civil and political rights,the US government did not support the social and economic rights.Saudi Arabia objected to equal rights of men and women in marriage, and also freedom of religion. Southern senators in the US, shared with South Africa, unhappiness with civil rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt led the commission of Human Rights in the formulation of the UDHR. Under her brilliant guidance and the difficult discussions, especially with the Soviet Union,she managed to craft an historic document. For example she convinced the US State Department to support the social and economic sections by reminding them of her husbands 1941 state of the union address stressing both freedom from fear and the freedom of want. Together they form an organic unity

It is remarkable that in 1948 while these discussions were taking place the world was experiencing major changes. The Soviet Union consolidated its hold over Eastern Europe, the Middle East war erupted when the Arab armies invaded the fledgling State of Israel. In China the totalitarian Mao was on the verge of gaining power. In spite of all this the General Assembly passed the declaration with no negative votes and only 8 abstentions, the Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

These rights were later spelled out in greater detail in two International covenants
one on Civil and Political Rights and one on Economic and Social Rights. Many countries have ratified them. Unfortunately the US has never ratified the Economic and Social covenant. Human rights are easier to endorse than to enforce.

The UDHR comes perennially under attack, as for example the justifications offered for torture in the US-a moral outrage. The most recent attack on the idea of universality comes from resurgent Islam. In Dec. 2007 the Organization of Islamic Conference, representing an important bloc of 56 Islamic states renewed their opposition to the universality of human rights focusing on the status of women and freedom of religion.

The new and potentially revolutionary feature of economic and social rights is one of the UN's major focuses in their manifold humanitarian activities in fighting poverty,hunger,disease, unclean water and poor sanitation.All these blights undermine civil and political freedoms. In Eleanor's words both types of rights go hand in hand and are required for dignity and the betterment of humanity.

The principles embodied in UDHR underlie the beliefs and concerns of humanists.They need constant and vigilant defense.

A basic pillar for ethics is empathy.The struggle for human rights is the ongoing effort to enlarge the circle of empathy.

Posted 2:25 PM by Mary
DISARMAMENT, NON - PROLIFERATION AND THE UN
Since its founding, the UN has been trying to put the Nuclear genie back into the bottle.In 1946 it was the subject of the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly.

The number of nuclear warheads has decreased since the end of the Cold War. However,the combined stockpile remains at a very high level: more than 25,000. Of these,more than 10,000 are considered operational and ready for use on short notice.

The situation is becoming increasingly dangerous.More nations are showing an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons technology.Today the gravest threat comes from the possibility of terrorists acquiring this nuclear capability. A further concern is the possibility that unstable or failed states can become nuclear.

Why do states want the bomb? One reason is prestige and the belief that it enhances their security.This deterrent effect is questionable. Even the greatest nuclear powers have actually lost wars against weak adversaries without being able to extract the slightest advantage from their colossal arsenals. Think of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam.

An important step towards the UN's goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which entered into force in 1970.It provides that the non nuclear states agree to forgo developing or obtaining nuclear weapons.Further, it is very important to note, the nuclear weapon states are commited to pursuing general and complete disarmament. The non nuclear states in return receive help in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Most states have signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Only India, Pakistan and Israel have never signed the NPT.

NPT has had a certain amount of success.For example, the apartheid government in South Africa ,on the eve to majority rule in 1993, announced it had destroyed its six secret nuclear weapons.Similarly, civilian governments in Brazil and Argentina in the 1980's stopped nuclear weapons research the military juntas had started. Also, we now know that UN inspection and dismantling programs ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program in 1991. In 2000, Libya became the most recent nation to abandon a secret program. Such progress may not last. The nuclear power states have not seriously honored their commitment under the NPT treaty to move towards disarmament.

As one UN report remarks,"non nuclear proliferation is not helped by the fact that the nuclear weapon states continue to insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security,while in the hands of others they are a threat to world peace"

Can civil society and a peoples movement help? The American Hydrogen Bomb Test on the Bikini atoll in 1954 made the world acutely aware of radioactive fallout. This was the beginning of a world wide test-ban movement started by a handful of London housewives-marches and demonstrations all over the world. The protests resulted in the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which bans any nuclear explosion in the atmosphere, in outer space or underwater.Nations voluntarily agreed to stop testing even underground. More recently North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in in 2006. A comprehensive treaty to include underground testing has not been signed by the US but has so far not tested underground.This may change , since the US stockpile is aging and some in the military want to modernize and may be tempted to resume testing.

Other disarmament victories for people power are the public campaigns to outlaw landmines and the use of anti-personnel cluster munitions.

There is some hope for a further and significant reduction in nuclear weapons.There is a window of opportunity. In January 2007,the Wall Street Journal published an article by George Shultz, Perry and Kissinger, lapsed cold warriors, outlining the need and vision towards zero nukes.US policy depending on nukes is totally outdated - a heritage of the long gone cold war and presently dangerous.In 2008 they reiterated their concerns and outlined detailed steps to be taken.They also urged signing the comprehensive test ban treaty. In October 2007 the Stanford Hoover Institute , a very conservative think tank, convened a conference with many veterans of the past six administrations.They found support from most secretaries of State and Defense as well as national security advisors for the Schultz and Kissinger vision of the importance of a world free of nuclear weapons and discussed the needed steps.

President-elect Obama has also proposed signing the comprehensive test ban treaty as well setting a goal of moving towards the elimination of nuclear weapons to lessen the threat of nuclear terrorism.
When even conservatives, liberals and many leaders in the security field agree,
there is a real window of opportunity for a change in policy.
Albert Einstein, fearing world war 3 forsaw the dangers of nuclear weapons. "I do not know what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
Phyllis Ehrenfeld,president of the National Service Conference of the AEU & representative to the UN, Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU representatve to the UN

Labels: NPT

Posted 4:59 PM by Mary
WORLD MENTAL HEALTH DAY 2008
In its commitment to human rights and the dignity of the person, the United Nations has focused on the underserved needs for mental health. The message of October 10, Mental Health Day has made it clear that mental disorders are truly universal. Mental and behavioral disorders are found in all regions, all countries and all societies, among rich and poor, in both urban and rural areas.The overall prevalence is the same among men and women. The prevalence of the severe mental disorders, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is also the same. But depression is more common among women, and substance abuse disorder is more common among men,

Rare is the family that is free from an encounter with mental disorders .One out of four people around the world , about 1.7 billion,experience some kind of passing mental illness in their lifetime. In fact, one in four families is likely to have at least one member with a behavioral or mental disorder. 12% of the world's population, about 800 million people, have a mental disorder. These numbers are staggering. Such illnesses create a particularly heavy burden on individuals, families, and communities.

The UN is concerned about the disparities in resources available for treatment and care. The mentally ill are some of the most neglected people in the world. In many communities mental illness is not considered a real medical condition but viewed as a weakness of character, or as punishment for immoral behavior. Victim blaming!

More than 75% of people suffering from mental disorders in the developing world receive no treatment or care.

The UN message states:" Health care systems around the world face enormous
challenges in delivering and protecting the human rights of people with severe disorders."

Scaling up services should be a priority. The extra cost is modest. A study conducted by WHO revealed that in low-income countries the scaling up for 3 disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and for the risk factor, hazardous alcohol use, requires an additional investment of $0.20 per person per year.

In the past, in some societies sufferers have been given high social status in the belief they could mediate with gods and the dead. In medieval Europe and elsewhere, these ill people have been burned at the stake. They have been locked into large mental institutions where they have been often beaten or abused.

Significant progress in psychopharmacology, the neuroleptic drugs and anti- depressants have helped. But even in the U.S, society has a long way to go to achieve basic human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, half of the prison population, somewhat over one million, have a mental health problem. Many, if not most, are not receiving needed services.

New approaches put forth in a recent UN report highlight the need for changing attitudes--replacing psychiatric institutions with community care and increasing investment in mental health research and care. WHO provides support to countries in developing mental health laws. It also provides assistance through technical information, regional and national training workshops. In this area the UN is guided by three principles. The first is that there should be no discrimination simply on the grounds of mental illness. Decisions should be job related. Another is that as far as possible, every patient has the right to be treated and cared for in their own community. A third is that treatment should be humane.

Many organizations are working to help. The World Federation For Mental Health (www.wfmh.org) is a good source for information and suggestions for action.
The dignity of every person is one of the credos of ethical humanism. Mental health is central to human dignity.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld President National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union and NSC Representative to the UN. Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the UN.

Posted 9:37 PM by Mary
THE US AND THE UN: AN EVOLVING STORY
Dag Hammarskjold, the UN's second Secretary-General said it bluntly."The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell." Realism tells us that the UN is a mirror of the world, which reflects divisions and disagreements as well as hopes and altruistic goals. In the new century it is becoming ever more obvious that no nation can solve--or even escape from the interconnecting complex of world problems alone No matter how wealthy or how powerful, no nation can build a safer, better world, alone.

Global challenges require global solutions. The UN is the only universal institution formed to deal with these problems. Sometimes the failures of its powerful member states are blamed on the UN. A notable example: American officials blamed the UN for not preventing the genocide in Rwanda, despite the fact that Washington, in the person of Madeleine Albright at the behest of then President Clinton, blocked the Security Council from taking action. The previous Secretary General known in the UN as the SG, has joked that the letters stood for scapegoat.

What do Americans think of the UN? From May 2000, to Feb 2002, both before and after 9/11, the UN received some its best ratings from the American people, with a majority consistently applauding its efforts. When the UN rebuffed the US request for authorization for use of military force in Iraq, American views polled in Feb.2008, had turned sharply negative, down to a "good" rating of only 27%. This low was augmented by bad publicity in the media and misrepresentation of the Oil For Food Program.

Despite significant image problems, the UN still continued to earn Americans' support as a major policy making body. 68% of Americans still wanted the UN to pay a major or leading role in world affairs.The UN is generally still viewed favourably for its humanitarian work, efforts to reduce poverty, help for refugees who are victims of natural disasters or political strife, for its mammoth food aid programs, and its impressive work in fighting the spread of disease.

Some disappointments have continued over time., particularly fhe failure to halt the genocide in Darfur, the attempt to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, and the UN's limited ability to stop human rights abuses.

However a newer poll in July 2008 shows a significant improvement in the UN's image. There is now overwhelming concern about America's standing in the world, as well as America's failure to work through international institutions. 79% of Americans think that strengthening the UN should be a priority of US foreign policy. Sizeable majorities think the US should participate in a new international climate change treaty, and the International Criminal Court.

80% of voters have abandoned the "go-it-alone philosophy and believe that working together with major allies and cooperating with international organizations is a wiser strategy for achieving US goals in international affairs. Americans now are beginning to realize that international involvement is essential both in meeting the challenging humanitarian needs and the even more difficult political arena, as well as the pressing issues of energy sources and climate change.

The UN is sometimes the only practical means of response to US needs. As an obvious example, the international framework for the global battle against terrorism was arrived at in a binding Security Council resolution after the 9/11 attack.Without this cooperation and legal authority, Washington would have been forced to negotiate and ratify separate treaties with 191 countries, taking many years for a barely possible task.

Through its specialized separate agencies, the UN has alerted the world about epidemics such as the SARS virus,and the possible pandemic of avian flu. The UN organized research on climate change has brought this issue to US national attention,. Here as elsewhere, the public understands that the US cannot go it alone.

The UN's agencies have great expertise in delivering humanitarian aid quickly in both natural disasters and man-made emergencies arising from wars. The US contribution to humanitarian assistance is helped immeasurably by working through the UN. The change in US attitudes should lead to a change in action. We urge that the new administration reflect the growing wish of the American public. As a first step, the US should honor its commitment and pay off its one billion dollar debt to the UN.

Phyllis Ehrenfeld, President of the National Service Conference of the AEU, and NSC Representative to the UN
Dr Sylvain Ehrenfeld, IHEU Representative to the UN