The campaign against Clark

May 26th, 2016 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Helen Clark is a victim of her own success, Prime Minister John Key has suggested.

Clark is embroiled in controversy over her bid for the United Nations’ top job after an international publication claimed her candidacy had sparked an “internal uproar”.

In a lengthy article highly critical of Clark, Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch said Clark had left a trail of “embittered peers and subordinates” at the United Nations Development Programme, which she has headed for the last seven years.

The claims against her included that Clark “ruthlessly ended the careers of underlings in her quest to advance her candidacy and of undercutting the UN’s promotion of human rights,” Lynch wrote.

I’m sure Clark did ruthlessly end many careers at UNDP. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as many UN organisations are bloated and inefficient.

Key said on Wednesday Clark was being targeted because she was the front runner. He predicted the campaign would get dirty.

“I think it shows you that, as the front-runner, there are some people who want the job and don’t want her to get it because they are bidding to get the title themselves,” Mr Key said on the way to question time today.

“But, look, at the end of the day, the fact that her organisation led some change and she implemented that change, should come as no surprise to anybody. It just shows you the campaign might get a little bit dirty.”

Still rather surreal to have Key defending Clark, and saying the campaign against her is just dirty politics!

New Zealand sources have previously acknowledged that Clark is not universally popular at UNDP after leading a restructuring drive that saw more than 200 staffers at its New York headquarters sacked after inheriting an organisation that was top heavy with senior managers.

But they say Clark is well respected as a result of those changes, one of the factors behind her being seen as a front runner to replace UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon when he steps down later this year.

Clark remains the favourite with the bookies. She is 2/1 with Paddypower, compared to 5/1 for Irina Bokova and 4/1 for Vuk Jeremic. Kevin Rudd by the way is 20/1.

Aussies support Clark over Rudd

April 29th, 2016 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Twice as many Australians support Helen Clark to lead the United Nations than Kevin Rudd.

And even Labor voters prefer the former Kiwi prime minister to Rudd, a poll has found.

The Essential poll, released on Wednesday, indicates that Australia’s two-time former prime minister would no longer muster the widespread public support that characterised the “Kevin 07” election campaign and kept his leadership ambitions alive against Julia Gillard after being dumped by his party in 2010. …

The Essential poll found 45 per cent of 1020 people surveyed thought Clark would be a better leader for the UN, with just 21 per cent opting for Rudd.

Wow, that will hurt Rudd. His own country prefers Clark to him y a massive margin.

A good result for Team Helen.

Key to nominate Clark this week

April 5th, 2016 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Helen Clark is poised to confirm her bid for the United Nations’ top job with John Key’s blessing.

Key is expected to announce on Tuesday that New Zealand will nominate Clark for the position of United Nations Secretary General, which becomes vacant with the retirement of Ban Ki-Moon later this year.

The Government’s backing ensures a concerted diplomatic campaign will be thrown behind Clark’s bid, and Key has made it clear he will use his access to world leaders to lobby on her behalf at every opportunity.

As head of the UN development programme Clark is already the third most powerful person at the UN.  But she has increasingly been linked to the top job, in part because of her work at the UNDP, and also because of a push to install the UN’s first female boss.

But there is stiff competition, with Clark expected to join a crowded field that hosts a number of women candidates including the current director general of UNESCO, Irina Bokova.

​There has also been speculation about a rival closer to home – former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd is said to be lobbying intensely in New York as well.

​The biggest obstacle to Clark getting the job may be UN politics, with a number of countries already stating their support for the view that it is Eastern Europe’s “turn” to hold the job.

That’s more than a view. While not a written rule, it has been the unofficial rule for decades that you rotate through the regions.

But there has been talk among UN observers, including Rudd, that Clark could emerge the “compromise” candidate if the large number of Eastern European candidates cancel each other out.

Not if they cancel each other out. It is as simple as if any of them can get past a veto from the P5, especially Russia. If Russia says one of them is acceptable, then they are highly likely to become Secretary-General. If Russia vetoes them all, then Clark’s chances become much greater.

Hard to know what Putin will do. He’d anger a lot of Eastern Europe if he blocks one of them becoming SG, but hey he’s already invaded parts of various countries, so who knows.

He believed New Zealanders would be hugely proud if she succeeded.

“If Helen became the next secretary general of the UN New Zealanders would celebrate in the same way they celebrate Lorde for her singing and Lydia Ko in golf.”

Umm, not quite. It would be a proud moment for NZ for one of us to head up the UN. But someone who has been a partisan politician will never be seen in quite the same way as someone who wasn’t.

UPDATE: Key has now formally nominated Clark. The campaign website is here. As it is Key that nominated Clark, I wonder if Labour and Green MPs will allow KDS to force them to oppose the nomination!

Time getting close for a Clark decision

April 3rd, 2016 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Barry Soper writes:

Just like old times Clark appeared in front of a media scrum and with a smile said she’s got nothing to announce right now, with an upward inflection on the now.

Well maybe not now, but for the top job candidates there will be formal interaction with General Assembly members in a couple of week’s time which presumably means an announcement from her is imminent.

It really all comes down to Russia. If they signal one of the Eastern European candidates is acceptable to them, then they’ll get the job. If Russia effectively vetoes all the Eastern European candidates, then the race is wide open and Clark becomes a viable candidate.

She’s certainly got the devoted support of her successor and texting buddy John Key, who’s on record as saying he’d lobby every leader of every country he knew to help her, and given the dressing gown diplomacy he displayed at the last APEC summit, that’s most of them.

And the globe trotting, glad handing we did to secure our seat on the UN Security Council, would also have put this blip on their radar screen. The council will make the final decision and the fact that we’re on it won’t do Clark any harm, even if the former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd puts up his hand.

His CV, collapsing the Labour Party a couple of years into his dysfunctional leadership, wouldn’t do much for his candidacy over Clark who fought off a leadership attempt, united her party and led if for nine years in Government.

This got me thinking about the political impact here of a Clark candidacy. It could be quite negative for Labour.

First of all there would be the implicit comparisons – The last Labour PM was so good, she is running for the top job at the UN, while the four leaders since Clark struggle to tie their shoelaces up some days.

And you’d have several months of images of Key going around the world, campaigning for Clark, looking like a bi-partisan statesman putting the interests of NZ ahead of partisan politics.

So if I was Andrew Little, I’d be on the hot line to Putin begging him to let through one of the Eastern European candidates!

Young on Clark vs Rudd

February 22nd, 2016 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Audrey Young writes:

Key told reporters at the post-Cabinet press conference this week that he expected he and Turnbull would discuss the issue during Key’s current visit to Sydney although it was not on the formal agenda.

It is a safe bet that if Rudd declared his candidacy, Australia would publicly support him.

But it is hard to see there would be any enthusiasm for a vigorous campaign on his behalf in the way Key is promising to lead for Helen Clark, in the event she declares.

Key’s latest line this week was to say he would lobby every leader of every country he knew to help her, that New Zealand would do all it could to support her and finance her campaign.

I can’t imagine a Labour PM doing this for a former National PM.

Despite his record, Australian media regularly suggest Rudd has an outside chance of getting the job. In reality, he has no chance. Clark has an outside chance.

In comparison to Clark’s record, his is pitiful. Her record was of uniting a highly factionalised Labour Party and leading it into Government for three successive terms.

He was dumped as a sitting Prime Minister two and a half years into his term by former colleagues who called his management style chaotic and dysfunctional.

I can’t imagine any leader who has met Rudd actually voting for him!

The frontrunner of those who have declared is considered by insiders to be Irina Bokova, director-general of Unesco since 2009 – and from Eastern Europe (Bulgaria), which has never had a Secretary-General.

She was formally nominated last week and has an extensive CV with experience in politics and diplomacy.

The question is whether Bokova will get US support. UNESCO is historically see as very anti-US. The other Bulgarian candidate is a Vice-President of the EU but that may get blocked by Russia. So if they both get blocked, then the road may open up for Clark.

Clark would get supported by the UK and China as of right. Key could probably get Obama and the US on side to support her. France and Russia would be the unknowns.

Clark vs Rudd

February 2nd, 2016 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Malcolm Turnbull’s Australian cabinet may overturn a commitment given by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to back Helen Clark for Secretary General of the United Nations if she becomes a candidate, according to The Australian newspaper.

The paper revealed that Mr Abbott and Prime Minister John Key committed in letters to conduct a joint strategy to promote Ms Clark as the successor to Ban Ki-Moon whose term ends at the end of this year.

But that commitment looks set to be compromised by two factors: Mr Abbott did not consult his Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, before giving the undertaking to Mr Key.

And former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made it known he is interested in the job.

Ms Clark has not publicly expressed her interest in the job but it is an open secret she would like it and Mr Key would not have been seeking Australia’s help without her consent and private ambition for the post.

Mr Key has publicly expressed strong backing for her, should she put up her hand.

I think it is good that the NZ Government will back Clark for the job. I do wonder though whether a Labour-led Government would be so supportive of a former National PM. I suspect not.

According to The Australian, the letter Abbott wrote to Mr Key said Ms Clark would prove “a strong voice at the top of the United Nations” and that she had “the leadership, management skills and purpose to drive the United Nations forward for the benefit of the entire international community.”

If Mr Rudd sought the post, Australia would be obliged to support him.


Kevin Rudd was sacked by his own caucus and colleagues because he was impossible to work with. Why on Earth would the Australian Government think he could be Secretary-General of the UN – a job where good relationships are critical.

Markets or goals?

October 15th, 2015 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Peter Gregory writes:

The UN ratified its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) a month ago. $US2.5 trillion of foreign aid spending between 2015 and 2030 will be devoted to achieving them. UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon says they are a plan “for ending poverty in all its dimensions, irreversibly, everywhere, and leaving no one behind”. He is wrong. The SDGs are inefficient, driven by politics and misdiagnose poverty.

Unfortunately, it is poor people themselves who will suffer as a result of foreign aid programs that are less effective than they could be. 

The SDGs are supposed to build on the work of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which expired this year having run since 2000. But whereas the MDGs consisted of 8 goals with 18 targets, the SDGs consist of 17 goals with 169 targets.

The SDGs fall into the trap common amongst big multilateral foreign aid organisations of trying to fix everything, rather than working in the areas where they can have the biggest impact. In attempting to be everything for everyone, the SDGs have only succeeded in becoming a disparate wish-list for the development community.

As a result, the 169 targets are both too ambitious and too specific. For example, goal 1.1 seeks to “eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere” whilst goal 14.9 wants to “provide access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets”.

I reckon anything more than 10 targets and you have no chance of achieving them.

To overcome this problem, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg constructed a rigorous cost-benefit analysis on each of the SDG targets. He whittled the list of 169 down to just the 19 most impactful targets.

That is not a hard-nosed ‘economic rationalist’ approach to foreign aid. It is about to trying to ensure development has the greatest impact for the people who need it. Foreign aid can’t fix everything but as development economist William Easterly says, it can help some people some of the time. The fact that the SDG process is political and ideological means the kind of foreign aid the goals offer isn’t as helpful to poor people as it could be.  

So aid can help some people some of the time.

Poor people are poor because they have been prevented from participating in free markets. This is because free markets are the best drivers of economic growth, which in turn provides access to health, education and other things the SDGs are trying to achieve.

Yep. By poor we don’t mean $20,000 a year poor, but $500 a year poor.

No country has developed successfully without some measure of free markets. The evidence of this is absolutely manifest in the last few decades. 

In China, free market reforms such as allowing international trade, removing barriers to private enterprise and reducing state control of agriculture have lifted 680 million people out of poverty since 1980. Furthermore, World Bank economist Martin Ravallion believes economic growth in other developing countries has lifted 280 million people out of poverty since 2000.

The embrace of markets by China and India did far more to lift people out of poverty than the UN goals.

A recent study found that the economic liberalisation in India has partially eroded the caste system. Increased female entrepreneurship precipitated by microfinance has been shown to reduce domestic violence and gender discrimination. Swedish economists recently found that countries with greater economic freedom were more likely to have greater tolerance of gay people.

Liberal markets can lead to liberal countries.

The Lomberg study is interesting also. They found:

Freer trade from completing the World Trade Organization’s Doha agreement would return more than $2,000 of extra value for each dollar spent to retrain and compensate displaced workers. It would lift 160 million people out of extreme poverty, giving every person in the developing world an extra $1,000 in income every year by 2030. By comparison, money transfers—paying the poorest people enough to lift them out of poverty—would have huge administrative challenges and institutional deficiencies, with benefits of only $5 for every dollar spent.

Free trade is hugely more effective than aid.

Boosting the availability of preschool is an exceptional development target. Tripling access in sub-Saharan Africa would have benefits worth more than $30 for every dollar spent, because of improved future earnings and other social benefits, such as instilling an interest in learning in children when they are very young.

One of the more useful things you can do.

Key endorses Clark, not Rudd

October 2nd, 2015 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

At a meeting with Key in New York on Thursday (NZT), Clark said she would “neither confirm nor deny” she would be seeking the top job – “as was said about nuclear weapons for many years”.

But Key is offering his wholehearted backing should she decide to throw her hat in the ring, saying Clark would be the best person for the job. 

“I’m doing everything I can and will do if she becomes the genuine runner for secretary general … I genuinely think she will be a great leader of he UN and hope she gets there.”

That included having a word in the ear of other world leaders including “one or two I play golf or hang with”, Key said – a reference to US President Barack Obama, who he has joined on the golf course previously.

Key said it would be huge for New Zealand if Clark won the job and the fact they were once rivals “wouldn’t stop me having a lot of pride in her” if she succeeded.

I think it will be someone from Eastern Europe, but if the regional rotation system breaks down, then of course we should back Clark. Regardless of your views of her as PM, having a NZer achieve the top UN job would be huge.

A rival challenger could be Australia’s Kevin Rudd, whose move to the US has fuelled speculation that he intends throwing his hat in the ring.

Key said he had heard the speculation but had not spoken to Rudd about it.

Asked if he would support Rudd’s bid Key said: “If he stood and no one else did we’d back him.”

Oh that is hilarious – we’d back Rudd if no one else stands. Laughing out loud. Talk about damning with faint praise.

New UN goals very vague

September 29th, 2015 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

In 2000, the UN adopted eight Millennium Development Goals for 2000 to 2015. They were:

  • Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty
  • Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
  • Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
  • Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality
  • Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health
  • Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
  • Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
  • Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

They were reasonably specific, and in most of the eight areas there has been significant progress, namely:

  • Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty – down from 47% to 14%
  • Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education – up from 83% to 91%
  • Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women – ratio of girls to boys in education in Southern Asia up from 74 per 100 to 103.
  • Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality – down from 90 per 1,000 to 43
  • Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health – maternal mortality rate down 45%
  • Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases – new HIV infections down 40%
  • Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability – 2.1 billion people have improved sanitation
  • Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development – ODA spending up 66%

Now I don’t think much of the progress is just because the UN made them a goal. It helps having the focus, but the reduction in extreme poverty for example is due to China and India embracing a more market economy.

But it is not a bad thing for there to be specific development goals, rather than have no co-ordination or targets. So the MDGs generally have been a good thing.

But the 17 new goals to replace this seem like waffle which are so broad, they won’t actually provide any focus. The 17 new goals are:

  • 1. No Poverty
  • 2. No Hunger
  • 3. Good Health and Well-being
  • 4. Quality Education
  • 5. Gender Equality
  • 6. Clean Water and Sanitation
  • 7. Affordable and Clean Energy
  • 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
  • 9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
  • 10. Reduce Inequalities
  • 11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
  • 12. Responsible Consumption and Production
  • 13. Climate Action
  • 14. “Life Below Water”
  • 15. Life on Land
  • 16. “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions”
  • 17. Partnerships For the Goals

Take the targets for Goal 5. There is no hard measures there. Just aspirational statements about ending all forms of discrimination against all women. Well we know that isn’t going to happen in any country with sharia law.

If I do a comparison back to NZ, the health system here under Labour had almost 100 goals, targets and aims. And it was shambolic. National introduced just six to eight specific but achievable targets and the health system and staff have done a great job of achieving them. Fewer goals with specific targets is better than lots of goals.

So I think the 17 global goals will be far far less effective than the MDGs they are replacing. And that is a pity.

An intern is not a staffer

August 14th, 2015 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The young New Zealander forced to sleep in a tent in Geneva has quit his prestigious but unpaid internship at the United Nations.

The plight of David Hyde featured on the front page of a Swiss newspaper on Tuesday (Wednesday NZ Time) and on Wednesday (Thursday NZT), the 22-year-old from Christchurch told journalists outside the gates of the UN’s European headquarters he had decided to resign.

“It’s my own decision and I chose to resign because I felt that it would be too difficult to continue to focus on my work as an intern at this stage,” said Hyde, who started his internship two weeks ago, AFP reported.

A photo of him standing in a suit, UN badge around his neck, next to a small tent and rolled up foam mattress near Lake Geneva, caused outrage and an outpouring of offers of accommodation, according to the Tribune de Geneve, which broke the story.

He described the excitement at home when he was accepted to the prestigious position, but said his family was unaware of his precarious situation in the Swiss city, where rents are among the highest in the world, AFP reported.

“I just want to make it clear that no person forced me to sleep in a tent, but rather my circumstances and the conditions for this internship made it the only real possibility that I could see,” he told reporters.

Hyde acknowledged lying during his internship interview when asked whether he would be able to support himself during his stay in Geneva, AFP reported.

But he said he had previously answered that question truthfully and had found all doors closed to him.

“The UN was clear about their intern policy from the start: No wage or stipend, no transport help, no food allowance, no health assistance. I understood this, and in that regard, I have to take responsibility for taking the internship in the first place,” he said during the media scrum.

But Hyde called for the UN to change its policies.

“I do not feel that this is a fair system,” he said, urging interns worldwide to “push for the recognition of our value and the equal rights that we deserve.”

I’m not sure such a sense of entitlement is going to be of great assistance to Mr Hyde in the future.

As he said, the UN makes very clear that you do not get paid. The reason so many people want to be an intern is it gives them experience which helps you get paid jobs in the future.

If being an unpaid intern isn’t appealing to you, well then don’t apply to be one. Apply for a paid UN job.

Clark a long shot say bookies

August 1st, 2015 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

There’s been numerous articles this week pushing the idea that Helen Clark is a front runner for UN Secretary-General.

It is highly highly likely that the next Secretary-General will come from Eastern Europe, due to the unwritten policy on regional rotation.

While not absolutely reliable, prediction markets have a good accuracy record with political events. And what do two bookmakers say are the current odds for Clark?

  • Bet Breaking News has Clark at a 33/1 which is a 2.9% chance. Of the 19 potential candidates she is in 17th place
  • Sports Bet has Clark at much the same odds and in the same 17/19

So talking about Clark as a front runner is rather silly.

I think the front runner is Dalia Grybauskaitė. She is the current President of Lithuania and prior to that a European Commissioner.

She speaks English, Lithuanian, Russian, French and Polish. She won election as President as an Independent, and was a popular reforming European Commissioner.

Her biggest challenge would be getting past a Russian veto.



Iran elected to executive board of the UN’s Entity for Empowerment of Women.

April 17th, 2015 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Tim Blair reports:

The UN recently decided that Israel was the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today. And then the UN appointed the Islamic Republic of Iran to the executive board of the UN’s Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

The US pointed out:

“In Iran, women are legally barred from holding some government positions, there are no laws against domestic violence, and adultery is punishable by stoning, making it wholly inappropriate that Iran assume a leadership role on women’s rights and welfare at the U.N,” said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, in criticizing the decision to make Iran a member of the women’s rights body.

This is why I take very few pronouncements from the UN seriously.

Clark’s chances for UN top job

January 2nd, 2015 at 10:54 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

New Zealanders might not have found the campaign for a UN Security Council seat especially thrilling, but the possibility of former Prime Minister Helen Clark leading the United Nations is a common subject of speculation.

Could it happen? The answer is yes, but not easily.

Prime Minister John Key has said the country will back Clark if she puts up her hand to become the next UN Secretary General.

There is no question that she wants it, but that does not mean she will go for it.

She would not go for it without New Zealand’s full backing, and New Zealand’s backing of her depends on what Eastern Europe does. It is considered Eastern Europe’s turn to supply the next Secretary General, a view that New Zealand accepts.

Clark’s chances rest on whether Eastern Europe can come up with a consensus candidate, one acceptable to Europe, the US and Russia.

With the current crisis in relations over Ukraine, that is not a simple task.

If it can’t find a consensus candidate, Clark will almost certainly seek the post and would be a front runner.

If there was no suitable Eastern Europe candidate, then Clark would be a strong contender. But she may have annoyed some by starting her unofficial campaign too early. The Guardian notes:

The field of those seeking to be the next secretary general is widely felt to be underwhelming. Helen Clark, the head of the UN Development Programme, gave an example of how a UN official should not behave when, before the current secretary general was even halfway through his term, she began to discuss, in these pages, her interest in succeeding him. It is time for something more serious.

The lead candidate at this stage appears to be Irina Bokova, the Bulgarian Director-General of UNESCO.

We should be able to act outside the UN

November 19th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The ODT reports:

Prime Minister John Key says major companies such as Fonterra have been asked not to exploit the gap left by other countries’ trade sanctions on Russia because to do so would be a “terrible look” for New Zealand.

This raises the question why we haven’t imposed trade sanctions ourselves. It seems the answer is that we haven’t changed the law from from Labour had it, which was we can only impose sanctions if the UN agrees to them.

The problem is that Russia of course has a veto at the UN, so this means we allow our foreign policy to be subservient to their veto at the UN.

In most cases we would want to only do sanctions when the UN agrees to them. But as an independent country we should have the ability to impose them, even when there is no UN vote.

Clark wanting the UN top job

June 16th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Helen Clark walks into the conference room at her New York headquarters clutching the Smoke Free cup that travelled with her from New Zealand.

Five years in the big apple and she still hasn’t got around to getting herself a new tea cup.

Something else hasn’t changed since Clark bid farewell to New Zealand five years ago: she struggles to see a place for herself back home, though she doesn’t rule out returning eventually when the time comes to ”relax” a bit more.

That time is clearly not on her horizon any time soon, which is why there is mounting speculation about Clark’s future at the end of her second term as the United Nation’s third-ranked official, as head of the UN Development Programme.

Clark is increasingly having to bat away questions about her ambition to succeed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in two years’ time. 

She says she will neither rule it in or out – and adds that it is not appropriate for her to talk about the job now, given that Ban Ki-Moon is only midway through his second term.

”He has been a great supporter of mine, which is why I am here today.”

But she says ”there will come a time when that debate is appropriate and member states have got to work out what it is they are looking for in this day and age”.

The UN has never been headed by a woman, for instance – and that should matter, suggests Clark.

“I think the women of the world will be screaming ‘yes’. It will be a year when a woman is making a very strong bid for the US presidency. There’s a woman at the International Monetary Fund, a woman at the Federal Reserve, there’s a lot of last bastions being stormed by women, so the time will come when women say ‘what about the UN?’.”

And of course that woman could be her, by happy coincidence for Helen!

While not impossible, a Clark successful candidacy is very unlikely.  The job tends to go by regional rotation and it is Eastern Europe’s term. The Ukraine situation would make it even more intolerable for them to miss out.

Also there is an unwritten requirement the UN Secretary-General can speak French. Unless Helen has been getting lessons, I don’t think she can.

Also few Secretary-Generals come up through the UN. Most are serving or just retired foreign ministers.

Ban Ki-Moon was the South Korean Foreign Minister when elected. Kofi Annan was a UN bureaucrat, but before him Boutros Boutros-Ghali was Egyptian Foreign Minister when elected. Javier Perez de Cuellar was a career diplomat for Peru. Kurt Walhheim was the Austrian foreign minister. U Thant was a career diplomat for Burma. Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld was Deputy Foreign Minister of Sweden and Trygve Halvdan Lie was the Foreign Minister for Norway.

Labour goes crying to Helen

May 1st, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Labour have announced:

The Labour Party has complained to the United Nations over the continuing denial of democratic elections for Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors.

“The National government took away the right of Canterbury people to elect councillors on ECan and in doing so denied them their democratic rights contrary to international agreements we are party to,” Labour MP for Port Hills Ruth Dyson says.

Two important UN treaties, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, confirm that it is a human right that citizens have a say on the running of their country and take part in the conduct of public affairs.

“The National government has shown it has no concern for the democratic rights of people here because they didn’t just take away the right to elect regional council members once, they’ve done it twice and there is nothing stopping them doing it again.

“When your own government trashes the democratic rights of its people, there aren’t many places to go to seek redress, but the Human Rights committee of the UN is a place we can go to get the issue investigated, hence the letter written by my colleague and Labour’s Justice spokesperson Andrew Little.

As pathetic stints go, this one is exceptionally bad.

Labour is trying to trash the reputation of New Zealand internationally.  The Parliament of New Zealand, democratically elected, sacking an incompetent local authority. This is quite common. They are now trying to say this makes NZ a violator of human rights.

And who are the countries that Labour is running off to, asking them to decry NZ’s human rights record. Here’s some of them:

  • Algeria
  • Egypt
  • South Africa
  • Tunisia

So very pathetic.

UPDATE: I wonder if Labour complained to the UN when David Cunliffe sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board?

Rudd wants to be UN Secretary General

April 29th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The BBC’s United Nations correspondent Nick Bryant says head winds face former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd if he wants the top UN job  in 2017.

He says the UN will adhere to ”geopolitical correctness”, meaning it is an Eastern European’s turn. Speculation centres on former Slovenian president Danilo Turk and Slovak diplomat Jan Kubis. Former prime minister Helen Clark is also eyeing the job –  perhaps hoping regional ”turns” are over.

I made this point a few months ago – regional rotation is very very important in UN roles such as the Secretary-General. That’s why I think it is unlikely Helen Clark will be in the running.

I will say this though. Given a choice between Helen Clark and Kevin Rudd – I’d be supporting Helen all the way!

When’s the report on other religions?

February 6th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Vatican “systematically” adopted policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, a UN  human rights committee said Wednesday, urging the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.

In a devastating report hailed by abuse victims, the UN committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children’s rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.

The Catholic Church’s position on child molestation in its ranks has been woeful, and the criticism is not unexpected.

But I note the UN report also criticises the Catholic church for its views on issues of homosexuality, contraception and abortion.

As it so happens I disagree with the Catholic Church on those issues, but I am of course ot Catholic.

What I am wondering is when this UN Human Rights committee will denounce other religions such as Islam for its views on the role of women in society, marital rape, blaming rape victims for rape etc?

Why target the Catholic Church only?

Some recommendations from the UN Human Rights Council

February 2nd, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

New Zealand has just had its human rights records reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council. This august body includes the governments of Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Libya, Maldives, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

So what are some of the things they recommend for New Zealand:

  • Continue its reflections and work with a view to having a written Constitution (Benin)
  • Incorporate economic and social rights in its Human Rights charter (Togo)
  • Continue to address all forms of political, economic and social discrimination against the Māori and Pacific population by meeting their various demands for constitutional and legal reforms and recognition (Somalia)
  • Increase its official development aid to reach the international norm of 0.7 per cent of GDP (Tunisia)
  • Expedite the development of a new Māori language strategy (Bangladesh)
  • Implement effective measures to achieve the aim of increasing the participation of women in governance to 45 per cent in the public sector and over ten per cent in the private sector by 2014 (Australia);
  • Consider relinquishing the use of electric taser weapons by the police (Namibia)
  • Establish appropriate national strategies with the aim to identify and address structural discrimination in the justice system (Iran (Islamic Republic of))

Wonderfully helpful. They’ve written the Green Party manifesto for them!

Getting overly excited over a Guardian story

January 29th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says the Government would throw its weight behind any bid by former Prime Minister Helen Clark for the top job at the United Nations in 2016, but said it would be a tough ask for her to secure the post.

Helen Clark, who heads the United Nations Development Programme, was tipped in Britain’s Guardian newspaper as a front-runner to take over from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon when his term runs out in 2016.

The Guardian ran an interview with Helen Clark, in which she was asked if she was interested in the job.

She did not confirm it outright, but clearly hinted it was in her sights, saying: “There will be interest in whether the UN will have a first woman because they’re looking like the last bastions, as it were.”

Asked again if she would run, she said: “If there’s enough support for the style of leadership that I have, it will be interesting.”

Mr Key said he had not received any advice of her intentions, and it would be a hard job for her to get.

“It would be well and truly sought after and these things are deeply political. But she’s done a very good job as the administrator of the UNDP. We would back her, but whether or not she can actually get there, I don’t know.”

Regardless of how Clark has done at UNDP, I think it is highly unlikely she would be a viable candidate for the top job. This is for several reasons.

The first is the very strong convention that there is regional rotation based on continent.  We are seen as part of Western Europe, as we are part of that region for Security Council voting. But that doesn’t help us as most third world countries don’t want a Western European to head the UN.

Eastern Europe is the only region not to have supplied a Secretary General, and regional rotation is very important.

A further factor is that every other UN SG has not already been a UN official. The career path is usually from being a current Foreign Minister or diplomat. The exception was Kofi Annan.

Also a factor is that the host region has to unite behind a candidate for them to win. Would the EU unite behind Clark or one of their own?

In Clark’s favour is she is a woman, and many will say time for a female UN Secretary General. But history shows regional rotation is more important than gender to member states.

Another factor is the unofficial requirement to speak French, which Clark doesn’t do.

My pick is a bilingual woman from Eastern Europe is likely to be the next Secretary General.

UN official praises China’s political system

January 22nd, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Bloomberg reports:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.


In 2008 China emitted 7.03 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, which was 23.5% of the global emissions.

In 2012 China emitted 9.86 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, which was 28.6% of the global emissions.

To put it another way, global emissions increased by 5.6 billion tonnes in four years, and China contributed 61.3% of that increase. This is what the most senior UN climate change official calls “Doing it right”. She should be sacked.

China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

By this, she means the legislature is a puppet of the ruling party. So what she is really saying is she thinks a one party state system of government is better than a democracy because it is easier to implement climate change policies, even ineffective ones.

The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

So what has happened with US emissions?

2008 – 5.46 billion, 18.3% of world
2012 – 5.19 billion, 15.0% of world

So this UN official praises China for increasing it emissions, criticises the US for its reduction in emissions, and praises the Chinese political system for its effectiveness in fighting climate change.


A sick farce

November 14th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on Tuesday won three-year seats on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, the United Nations’ top rights body, despite concerns about abuses and restrictions on freedoms in all four nations.

Some aspects of the UN are very worthwhile, but the Human Rights Council is not one of them.

According to U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group that monitors the United Nations, only four of the 16 candidates for the 14 open seats were qualified to be members of the council on the basis of their human rights records. They were Britain, France, Macedonia and Mexico.

I have always liked the idea of a new UN – one open to democratic and non-repressive countries only.

Iran and Syria had been planning to run for the Human Rights Council but pulled out amid criticism of their rights records.

A small mercy.

Key calls for UN reform

September 28th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has used a speech to the United Nations to launch a scathing attack on the Security Council, warning that inaction over events like the humanitarian crisis in Syria had damaged its credibility.

In notes for a trenchant speech lasting nearly 20 minutes, Key said the UN was in urgent need of reform – a key pitch in New Zealand’s bid for a seat on the Security Council.

“Its key organs, particularly the Security Council, have become hostage to their own traditions and to the interests of the most powerful,” Key said.

“We now seem to have a practice whereby the permanent members can not only block council actions through the veto. They also appear to have privileged access to information and can stop the council from meeting if it does not suit their collective purposes.

“Such behaviour damages the reputation and credibility of the wider organisation and must be challenged.” …

Key has been in New York drumming up support for New Zealand’s Security Council seat bid.

He said New Zealand was not advocating revolution “but we are asserting the council can and must do better in the way it conducts its business.

“That is the approach New Zealand will bring to the Security Council if we are elected next October,” he said.

“From the 1950s to the 1990s we could blame the Cold War when the Security Council did not act.

That does not wash today.”

Key called this week for permanent Security Council members to be stripped of their right of veto over acts of genocide or war crimes.

I wonder if one potential reform is that you need two permanent members to veto something, not one. That would still hold some protection from the tyranny of the majority, but would mean Russia and China would no longer have s sole veto. Of course US, UK and France would also lose a sole veto but two of them together could still veto – as could Russia and China.

Of course there is little incentive for any holders of the veto to weaken its power.

NZ to vote for Palestinian statehood

November 30th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The NZ Herald reports:

New Zealand is to vote in favour of a resolution giving Palestine UN recognition as a non-member observer state, Foreign Minister Murray McCully has announced.

However Mr McCully said the UN resolution was “a poor substitute for direct negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The United Nations General Assembly is due to vote this morning on a resolution which would see the Palestinian status upgraded role from an observer entity to that of a non-member observer state.

Mr McCully said the primary reason for voting in favour of the resolution is it reflects the long-standing policy of the New Zealand Government.

“New Zealand is a long-standing supporter of the two state solution. We believe that Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side, each respecting the other’s right to peace. And we believe that they should arrive at that conclusion through direct talks.

“As I stated in my address to the UN General Assembly earlier this year, we have never regarded a UN resolution as an adequate substitute for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That is the only way of achieving a durable solution to this question.

The vote will not achieve an actual Palestinian state. That will only happen when there is a full peace settlement with Israel, which must involve land for peace (but land concessions without peace is not acceptable).

Mr McCully said officials have discussed the proposed text of the resolution with Palestinian representatives, who have “delivered a resolution that is moderate, constructive, and reflects our commitment to a two-state solution”.

“In our explanation of vote to the UN our Permanent Representative Hon Jim McLay will make clear our absolute commitment to Israel’s right to safety and security, and condemn the actions of Hamas extremists in recent weeks,” Mr McCully said.

“However, we will also assert our support for the moderate leadership of President [Mahmoud] Abbas, Prime Minister [Salam] Fayyad and others who are working to make a two-state solution a viable goal.

“The New Zealand Government is under no illusions as to the utility of a UN resolution. It will solve nothing. But in the absence of the direct talks we have called for, we will deal with the UN resolution on its merits.”

Which is code for we don’t think it will achieve anything, but we don’t want to vote against it, as we do support Palestine becoming a state.

For those interested, the only other current non-member observer state in the Holy See. Switzerland used to be one, but joined fully in 2002.

The Cook Islands and Niue are treated as non-member states but this is unofficial.

Taiwan is blocked by China from gaining membership.

Of interest West Germany was an observer only from 1952 to 1973.

Call in the UN

June 11th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Press reports:

Aggrieved Christchurch red-zone residents are taking their plight to the United Nations.

They believe the Government’s buyout offer breaches their human rights and the United Nations should intervene on their behalf.

Oh yes. Send in the Peacekeepers and the black helicopters.

Kaiapoi resident and Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network (WeCan) spokesman Brent Cairns said the idea of zoning specific areas where repairs and rebuilding were allowed was a violation of civil liberties.

Yes, it is a breach of human rights to zone land as unsafe.

The “supposedly voluntary buyout offer” was structured in such a way that it was, in effect, compulsory and bypassed existing laws that regulated the taking of land by Government.

How awful – the taxpayers are offering the full GV of properties on unsafe land. That is such a breach of human rights. Some people forget that the Government was not obliged to do anything at all – they could leave it all to EQC and the private insurers.

Cairns said the Government’s threats that services would either be removed or not repaired in red-zone areas, should property owners choose to stay on in their homes, more than 7200 families were effectively being evicted.

If only 50 out of 5,000 people stay on in a red zoned area, then the funding responsibility for maintaining infrastructure services is theirs. Just as if you build a new house out in the waps, you are likely to bear the cost of connecting up services to you.

Cairns has developed a template letter he is urging people to use to write to the United Nations Human Rights Council, asking it to investigate.

Oh yes, the good Governments of Angola, Cuba, Indonesia, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Moldova, Russia, Saudia Arabia and Uganda who all servce on the HRC will be just the ones to sort this out.