United Nations

Dan Drezner howls at the Maldives government's brilliant stunt of holding an underwater cabinet meeting (more photos here and here) to make the case that "if we can't save the Maldives today, you can't save the rest of the world tomorrow," and wonders if "a rational, cost-benefit analysis of how to allocate climate change resources between mitigation and adaptation" would really redound to the benefit of such small-island countries.

I doubt it -- and the world has already pretty much already decided to let these nations drown. Back in 2007, when I attended the U.N.'s high-level meeting on climate change, one of the issues on the table was what level of global warming we could all tolerate. Was it 1 degree celsius, which was already upon us? One-point-five? Two?

The island countries, which have their own caucus in the General Assembly, were calling for 1.5 degrees (and still are). I remember being shocked, however, at their level of disorganization. Given that climate change is such an existential threat to them, why did they only announce their press conference on the matter 15 minutes beforehand, and why did they only send their U.N. ambassadors, rather than the heads of state? I think I was one of three members of the press in attendance.

The Maldives' new president, Mohammed Nasheed, seems a little more media-savvy than his predecessor, the dictator Mamoon Abdul Gayoom. He has to be: The highest point in the Maldives is just under 8 feet, and the country's average elevation is somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. But that's the average -- most of the country is still lower than that, and the U.N.'s climate panel estimated in 2007 that sea levels would rise anywhere from 7.2 to 23.2 inches, which would make the Maldives extremely vulnerable to storm surges or major sea swells (it should be noted that the U.N. report emphasized that its sea-level projections were "not an upper bound"). If current trends hold, by the end of this century, the bulk of the country's 300,000 inhabitants will have to find other places to live.

But in calling for the 1.5 degree target, Nasheed seems to be fighting a battle he's already lost. In the end, a rough scientific and political consensus has settled around 2 degrees -- and even with that, very little has been done to make the emissions cuts needed, and there are certainly no binding commitments to do so. Would 2 degrees of warming doom the Maldives? I don't know. But it sure looks to me like the world's power brokers are willing to roll the dice on this one.

“It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip off that part of New York City,” said Huckabee, “and let it float into the East River, never to be seen again!” That remark got him a standing ovation, and Huckabee went on to suggest de-funding the U.N. entirely.

“It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace!” said Huckabee. “It has become the international equivalent of ACORN and it’s time to say enough!”

Huckabee continued, suggesting that the U.N. be handed over to one of the nations that attacked America. “Let’s end the diplomatic excesses that these people enjoy,” he said. “Let any country that is willing to spend the money that the United States is hosting–let them have it. Give it to the Saudis and let these diplomats suck the sand out of the Saudi desert for a few summers and see if that’s where they’d like to go, and make their ridiculous speeches.”

I actually think it wouldn't be the worst idea for the U.N. to find a new home. The security requirements for that many heads of state are pretty taxing on post-9/11 New York City, and it couldn't hurt to have the organization based in a country that doesn't arouse such strong feelings in the vast majority of the world's population. 

That said, I don't quite get what point we'd be proving by sticking the Saudis with the event  and the ACORN comparison doesn't make too much sense beyond that fact that they're both "institutions that Mike Huckabee doesn't like."

Update: U.N. Dispatch's Matthew Cordell says the security issue is bogus:

First off, the stringent security requirements and the accompanying costs are only a burden on the city one week a year.  At most other times the security perimeter of the UN rarely extends beyond its grounds.  The economic benefits, on the other hand, stream in every day, as the UN draws in droves of diplomats, press, NGO types, and business leaders to spend money in NY hotels, restaurants, cabs, shops, and on and on.  Mayor Bloomberg's office has said that the United Nations adds $2.2 billion a year to the economy of New York City and creates 18,000 jobs. On top of that, the current renovation of the UN headquarters is expected to bring in over a $1 billion to U.S. businesses.  If I were a New Yorker, I'd be up in arms about a suggestion that would lead to more money being drained from the city.

Fair enough. For the record, I don't think the United States should "kick out" the U.N. or withdraw from it or any of what Huckabee was suggesting. I do think that it couldn't hurt for at least the General Assembly to be held in a somewhat more neutral site, but I'm sorry this was seen as a "silly side-swipe" at the United Nations. 

Later this afternoon, Madagascar President Andry Rajoelina will address the General Assembly here in New York, but some don't want him here at all. Rajoelina took power in a military-backed coup in March, toppling then leader Marc Ravalomanana. The two leader signed an internationally-mediated power-sharing deal in August, but Rajoelina unilaterally disolved it this month. 

General Assembly President Ali Treki met with foreign from the Southern Afircan Development Community -- which has refused to recognize Rajoelina's government -- after the foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo wrote a letter to him protesting Rajoelina's presence at the assembly.

The U.N. maintains that the invitation was not a reflection on Rajoelina's legitimacy and that the president was invited to participate in the climate summit earlier this week. 

Today, new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama will address both the Security Council and the General Assembly. His foreign minister, Katsuyo Okada, will address the biannual meeting on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which Japan is strongly committed to enforcing. At a press conference today, the prime minister's Press Secretary Kazuo Kodama said that Japan "welcomed U.S. participation" in the CTBC conference, for the first time in a decade.

Foreign Minister Okada recently ordered an investigation into the secret agreements between Japan and the United States that allow nuclear-armed U.S. ships to visit Japan, in possible violation of the country's non-nuclear laws. I asked Kodama if, with non-proliferation on the table at this assembly, there were any talks between the U.S. and Japanese delegations over the investigation.

Kodama said that Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell had been briefed on the issue and that the investiation was still ongoing.

"The vice minister will complete this investigation by the end of November. If necessary we will communicate with state department on this issue," he said. "I don't think there's any sort of tension."

Kodama was also asked what stance Hatoyama would take on executive bonus regulation in Pittsburgh:

In Japan we don’t have any progblems with the level of bonuses. But we think it important to ensure that the existing salary or bonus system should not lead in any way to excessive risk taking. 

The Financial Times's Gideon Rachman, who I keep running into the halls here, sallies forth with a qualified defense of some of Muammar al-Qaddafi's speech:

Now clearly Gaddafi is going to get bad reviews in the morning papers here in the US. But I have to say that some of what he had to say made perfect sense. It is entirely true that the structure of the UN Security Council is anomalous and outdated (although it was perhaps a bit harsh to call it “the terror council”). Gaddafi’s analysis of why it is so hard to reform the council was also bang on the money - each time you suggest one country, you trigger a demand from the next one in the queue. (So if you suggest Germany, Italy jumps up and down.) And his proposed solution - a Security Council of regional organisations such as the EU, Asean, the African Union - sounded like an elegant way out.[...]

But that’s the thing. Many of Gaddafi’s statements, which will be scorned in the West, actually probably resonate in the developing world. His views on the Security Council are widely shared. President Lula of Brazil said something not too dissimilair.

It's true that Qaddafi's attacks on the security council, if a bit bombastic, weren't that different in substance from what a lot of the leaders here have been expressing. Even Nicolas Sarkozy said it was "unacceptable" that Africa has no seat on the council. 

I actually think on of the more unfortunate things about Qaddafi's speech is that it put an entirely reasonable idea -- security council reform -- in the context of raving luncay. U.N. reform advocates would do much better to have Lula as the face of their movement rather than Qaddafi, but the Colonel gets much bigger headlines.

I do, however, completely agree with Rachman that Qaddafi's comparison of the General Assembly to London's Hyde Park speaker's corner was clever and entirely accurate.

So it looks like FP contributor David Schenker was right: Muammar al-Qaddafi couldn't contain himself in his speech today at the U.N. General Assembly's opening session.

The Libyan strongman has been erratically working toward a rapprochement with the West, including abandoning his fledgling WMD programs, cooperating on counterterrorism, and opening up his country to oil investment. Even his execrable human-rights record has improved.

It's not exactly clear whether the elder Qaddafi himself is driving this process, or whether his son Saif al-Islam -- who hangs out with the Davos crowd and talks a good game on democracy -- is the brains behind this operation.

But as Schenker points out, Muammar is his own worst enemy. He's like that unpopular kid in your high-school math class who makes everyone laugh by saying outrageous things, but still doesn't have any friends (yeah, OK, that was me). And by comparing the Security Council to al Qaeda and suggesting that swine flu was cooked up in a laboratory, he's only reinforced that image today.

There's one reason, though, that Qaddafi's bizarre remarks today won't leave him completely isolated. Anyone have a wild guess?

Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

UNESCO is set to decide today on what has become a bitter and controversial election for its new director-general. Irina Gueorguieva Bokova, the Bulgarian ambassador to France, and Farouk Hosni, the Egyptian culture minister, are the two remaining candidates after an inconclusive fifth round of voting yesterday.

Farouk Hosni was the clear leader going into voting last week, but hasn’t been able to cinch the 30 votes from the UNESCO board to win -- probably because UNESCO nations are reluctant to elect someone who said, famously, that he would “burn Israeli books” if he found them in Egyptian libraries. If the vote ties today, it may literally come down to a draw, with the candidates’ names written down and pulled out of a bag -- a little-known UNESCO statute that’s never been put to the test in 64 years.

To read more about the background of the vote, check out Raymond Stock’s article for FP explaining why on earth someone who’s called for the burning of books would even make it as far as culture minister.

Update: In a major upset, Bukova has won becoming UNESCO's first female director general.

After having already been denied a permit to pitch his tent in Englewood, New Jersey during this week's U.N. meeting, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi has also been rebuffed in his attempt to rent an upper east side townhouse:

Agents for Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi were met with a strong-arm from a real-estate broker they approached to rent a posh townhouse on Manhattan's Upper East Side for his visit to the city this week.

The broker, with characteristic New York chutzpah, told them to take a hike back to the desert.

"They kept asking, 'What would be the price? What would be the price?' I thought about it and said, 'Why don't you send Megrahi back to Scotland, and then maybe we can work something out.' They hung up on me immediately," said Jason Haber, a broker for Prudential Douglas Elliman.

What's a claustrophobic dictator to do?