With five months to go until the COP15 Climate Change Conference is due to open in Copenhagen, some are already labeling it a failure. “The chances of Copenhagen delivering a deal that meets the goals for carbon dioxide emissions set by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change is vanishingly small,” writes Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. “In private, many climate change activists will admit this. But Copenhagen is the only game in town – so they keep playing.”

Except that Copenhagen is not, in fact, the only game in town.

The COP15 Conference might be the current favorite in the wake of the G-8 failure, a star that some around the office gloomily predict has nowhere to go except down. But there’s a new fair-haired child, one without the recognition or buzz of Copenhagen but for those who do know of it represents a very real chance to effect global action on climate change. I’m speaking, of course, about the United Nations Climate Summit.

Heard of it?

For those without their ear to the ground in these things, the Summit is an object of mystery. Unlike Copenhagen’s glossy website, this elusive chimera has nothing more official than a mention on New York’s Climate Week website, itself little more than a glorified press release. A search online nets only coverage of the Summit’s initial unveiling at a press conference on June 23^rd, where United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon provided only the barest sketch of the Climate Summit, which is slated to be held on September 21^st in New York City.

But what a sketch he presented. The Summit is intended to be a gathering of the world’s political leaders in order to form lasting consensus on reducing emissions and developing a global strategy to prevent climate change. Mr. Ban called on the leaders of the world to “make their commitment and give clear instructions to [their] negotiators on climate change,” and urged that “now is the time for action” to solve the problem of rising emissions. He went on to stress that the UN can raise awareness about global warming, but that it was up to the world’s governments and leaders to take the steps necessary to combat climate change.

How true that is. One of Copenhagen’s key difficulties is that its participants are, by and large, not policy-makers of their home countries but emissaries. Time and again treaties have been hammered out and then undermined or undone because diplomats hesitated to commit to a potentially controversial decision because they themselves lacked the political clout necessary to argue their case before their home government. By bringing the leaders of the world together to continue the resolution of climate change, the Summit helps to bridge that divide between the negotiating table and the legislative hall.

In its ability to drive bargains and coordinate policy, the Summit resembles the G-8 Conference, though hopefully with better results. The G-8’s efforts at effecting a unified response to climate change were unraveled by the perceived disjoint between the developed nations and those with still developing economies. Hopefully the diverse backgrounds and needs of the countries involved in the Summit will diffuse this disjoint with the broad range of opinions necessary for global consensus. In short, it needs to be the G-8 and the GA all rolled into one.

The outcome of UN Climate Summit is crucial for setting the bar on subsequent efforts at tackling climate change. If a gathering of the world’s leaders leave New York with some kind, any kind, of agreement for reducing global emissions and promoting renewable/sustainable development, it demonstrates both to the delegates in Copenhagen and to the world as a whole that nations can look beyond their own borders and cooperate with one another on a common mission. If, however, they come away with nothing more than further disagreement and a widening of the chasm between developed and developing nations, the very foundations on which Copenhagen is built will crumble before the conference has even begun.

And so it is that the six-week countdown to the Summit is being made with crossed fingers. The inability of the G-8 nations to reach an agreement on emissions has some observers worried about the Summit’s own chances for success, but the public frustration and sharp criticism in the wake of the G-8 letdown may pressure global leaders to try harder this time to seek common ground and compromise. Whatever the eventual outcome of the Climate Summit, this less-celebrated sibling of Copenhagen (the Casey Affleck, if you will, of international conferences) might end up being the real source of international climate change policy.

So keep your eyes peeled, Mr. Rachman— your predictions may be proved right (or wrong) sooner than you think.

What do the U.S., Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Naura, Palau, and Tonga have in common?  You may be surprised at the answer.  They are the only seven countries that have not ratified CEDAW.  And what is CEDAW?  It’s the UN  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women that was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18, 1979, entered into force on September 5, 1981, and has been ratified by 189 countries.  The U.S. signed it on July 17, 1980, it was voted out of committee in 2002, but has not yet come up for a floor vote in the Senate yet.

Our Midpeninsula Chapter of UNA believes ratification is long overdue and thinks the timing is right for the Senate to ratify CEDAW before UN Day for Women’s Rights in March of 2010.  We urge all of our members to call or write Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee to bring this to a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Please read the Talking Points on CEDAW and review the articles of the convention below:

The UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Preamble: Notes that the U.N. Charter “reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women;” that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, including distinction based on sex;” also notes the many resolutions, declarations, and recommendations adopted by the General Assembly and the specialized agencies of the United Nations promoting equal rights for men and women; yet expresses concern that “extensive discrimination against women continues to exist.”

Article 1: Defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

Article 2: Instructs States Parties to condemn discrimination against women In all forms and pursue its elimination by all appropriate means, including changing national constitutions and enacting legislation.

Article 3: Mandates that States Parties take all appropriate measures in all fields to “ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them [equal rights].”

Article 4: Allows States Parties to adopt “temporary special measures” to promote equality for women.

Article 5: Requires that States Parties take all appropriate measures to modify social and cultural patterns of behavior to eliminate prejudices, practices and customs based on the inequality of, or prejudices against, either of the sexes and to ensure that family education provides a proper description of the social function of motherhood and the “common responsibility” of both men and women in child rearing and development.

Article 6: Mandates States Parties to prevent trafficking in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

Article 7: Instructs States Parties to end discrimination against women in political and

event of marriage or maternity.

Article 12: Instructs States Parties to provide women equal rights with men in all aspects of health care.

Article 13: Declares that States Parties shall eliminate discrimination against women in all aspects of economic and social life, including family benefits, financial transactions such as loans and mortgages, and recreational and sporting activities.

Artkle 14: Highlights the particular problems and contributions of rural women and instructs States Parties to ensure the provisions of the present Convention are applied to them.

Article 15: Mandates that States Parties provide women equal status with men before the law, including with respect to contracts, the administration of property, the movement of persons, and choice of residence.

Article 16: Instructs States Parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all aspects of marriage and family relations, including providing equal rights with men.

Article 20: Declares the Committee shall meet at U.N. Headquarters each year for no more than two weeks.

Artkle 21: Mandates that the Committee report annually on its activities to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, and may make “suggestions and general recommendations based on the examination of reports and information received from the States Parties.”

Article 22: Allows for relevant U.N. specialized agencies to be represented at meetings of the Committee and authorizes the Committee to invite them to “submit reports on the implementation of the Convention.”

Article 23: States that nothing in the present Convention will “affect any provisions that are more conducive to the achievement of equality between men and women” that may be contained in a State Party’s legislation or in any other international treaty.

Article 24: Requires States Parties to “adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”

Article 25: Declares that CEDAW will be open for signature, ratification and accession by all states.

Article 26: Allows for any State Party to request a revision of the Convention at any time and states that the General Assembly “shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such a request.”

Article 27: Declares that the Convention will enter into force thirty days after the twentieth ratification has been deposited and for countries ratifying thereafter, it will be thirty days before the treaty enters into force.

Article 28: Establishes procedures for reservations made by countries at the time of ratification or accession.

Article 29: Allows for disputes between States Parties to be submitted to arbitration.

Article 30: Instructs the Convention to be deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations.

By Roger Nokes

As Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman states in his op-ed “Boiling the Frog,” (New York Times, 7-13-09) “Climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades perhaps generations,” thus, motivation for policy initiatives, according to Krugman, is less apparent than for more acute problems such as terrorism. The fact that the crisis has a longer time-line means that elected policy makers, who, from the nature of their election cycles, tend to be more concerned with short-term results, will treat other issues as priorities. This unfortunate reality however only addresses the domestic political problems with proactive policies on climate change.

Add to this the global nature of the problem and the diverse interests faced by those who need to agree in order to forge a coordinated response to climate change. Take the diplomatic difficulties faced at the recent G-8 summit. Developing countries argued that it would cause them undue economic harm to meet the same emissions standards as developed countries, when the problem developed not because of their own actions, but because of those of developed countries. It was because of this difference in position that no emissions targets were agreed upon.

Can more optimism be placed upon the upcoming Copenhagen Conference? Let’s hope so. With more media focus and with greater international involvement, the consequences of failure will be higher for all. Also, governments around the world will be pressured by a variety of grassroots Non-Governmental Organizations that will essentially be saying to their elected representatives that climate change is an acute problem that must be addressed.

NGO’s have had an impact in multilateral agreements in the past. The Land Mine Treaty and the Rome Statute are the most notable and plenty of further examples exist. The question this time around is whether or not they are organized enough to change the status quo.

By Mary McKenzie, UNA-San Diego President

UNA San Diego was the target of a demonstration by members of the Iranian-American community on July 21. Approximately 150-200 peaceful protesters joined in a silent vigil outside of our office in the UN Building in beautiful Balboa Park. They carried green signs saying “Where is my Vote?,”, some splattered with red paint, symbolizing the violence and death that have met protestors in Iran. The purpose of the demonstrators was threefold. First, they believe that the election results which reinstated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were fraudulent, based on the speed with which the results were announced and based also on some questionable numbers that were released in certain areas of Iran. Second, they wanted the people of San Diego to be aware of the violence being perpetrated against the peaceful protestors in Iran. And third, they asked us—UNASD—to forward a message to the UN Secretary General asking him to annul the election results.

Because I have a friend who is a part of the Iranian-American community, we knew about the protest the night before it occurred. So I was able to rouse Board members and our office manager to come to our office on that Sunday to talk to the demonstrators and to make sure that our small gift shop was able to keep operating. The latter turned out to be a non-issue, as the participants were happy to provide access to our building. We didn’t make any speeches, but we spoke individually to the demonstrators expressing our support for the human rights of the people in Iran. We offered to forward their message to our national leadership (which we did) and overall, there was more that united us than divided us.

As a relatively new UNA chapter president, I learned a few things from this event. First, despite my best efforts to explain to the leaders of the protest, they did not understand the difference between the UN and the UNA. I offered to forward their statement to our leadership (i.e., Ambassador Tom Miller), and in the end, they gave me a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. As Ambassador Miller noted at our convention in Washington, this confusion continues to be one of our primary challenges as UNA.

Second, those chapters among us who have an office need to be prepared to confront the public on matters such as this. The Iranian-American community in this case was merely seeking to get its message out, and UNASD—with its focus on human rights and international peace—seemed a legitimate place to raise these very troubling issues.

And third, we have a long way to go in educating the public on what exactly the UN can do. We understand that Ban Ki Moon cannot annul the Iranian election results, but that is what the demonstrators wanted. We know that the Security Council can only act if there is a threat to international peace and security, and as of yet, despite the violence that continues against protestors, it has not been referred to the Security Council because of matters of national sovereignty. Although we have a more favorable atmosphere in Washington regarding the United Nations, we still have important work to do to educate the American people.

There is no question that the politics in Iran are complicated. But it is equally clear that UNA has to defend human rights, regardless of the circumstances. UNA chapters all across the country must stand firm in their defense of human rights, as the United Nations itself does. Ban Ki Moon has called for an end to violence in Iran, and yet the violence continues. Although I felt it a bit unfair that UNASD was the target of protest, we used it to promote dialogue on this very important issue. Our YPIC committee is considering focusing one of its monthly events on the issue, and I encourage all UNA chapters to do the same. UNA must listen to its constituencies and work with them, even—or especially—if they feel disappointed in what we are able to do.

UNA-USA is pleased to launch the Grassroots Blog, an initiative to complement the new Grassroots Voices section in UNA-USA’s World Bulletin. This feature will serve as a tool for UNA members and chapter leaders to voice their opinions on a wide range of issues that concern US foreign policy and the United Nations, as well as membership ideas and chapter development. The Grassroots Blog is meant to foster cross-chapter dialogue and promote Best Practice Sharing among chapter leaders.

In February 2008, the Council of Chapters and Divisions (CCD) Steering Committee along with national staff, created a Best Practices Task Force and invited UNA-USA chapter leaders across the country to reflect on various successful actions and initiatives their chapters have taken over the years. The result was an excellent report of 36 Best Practice submissions from around the country covering topics including event planning, programs, education, youth, YPIC, advocacy, communications, membership, fundraising and financial management. To view the full report, please click here.

This new initiative seeks to continue this Best Practice Sharing collaborative process and will also link to individual chapter blogs across the country. The Grassroots Blog is meant to be an open forum where UNA members can connect with each other to stimulate new ideas and promote constructive public discussions on ways the US, UNA members and the world can cooperate to address global problems.

To Participate:

If you have not yet created a login for our new website, please visit www.unausa.org/grassroots/blog/login click on "Register for Grassroots Blog" and fill out the registration form. You will then be taken to the blog page, where you can begin posting items to the blog. Since the blog is moderated, please allow time for the post to be approved.

If you have already created a login for our new website, please email Stephanie Rossi at srossi@unausa.org. She will update your record to allow you to post to the blog. Once your record is updated, you can login at www.unausa.org/grassroots/blog/login.