U.N. Advisor Reflects On Int'l Politics
Email: 
Share: 
“Even in 6 degrees, it’s wonderful!” exclaimed Gillian Sorensen, former United Nations assistant secretary-general and senior advisor at the United Nations Foundation in her first visit to Ithaca yesterday.
In her speech, “Issues for the New United Nations Secretary-General: An American Perspective,” Sorensen outlined the future U.N. plans, while chastising the U.S. for its dissidence toward the U.N. and for causing international harm because of the Iraq War.
Speaking from both an American and an international perspective, Sorensen discussed the recent election of Ban Ki-Moon, the U.N.’s new secretary-general. She also highlighted several of the U.N.’s current initiatives such as the eight Millennium Development Goals, which include eradicating extreme poverty, fighting gender inequality and supplying clean drinking water to impoverished nations.
“Two billion people live in the most extreme poverty,” she said. “We have the resources; the question is, ‘Do we have the political will?’”
Sorensen said that, in order for the U.N. to achieve its Millennium Goals, the U.S. needs to pay its U.N. dues in full and the press needs to “stop its habitual bashing of the U.N.”
However, she did admit to the lack of transparency in management at the U.N., responding that the organization is currently in the process of reforming these practices.
“Despite its flaws and weaknesses, I believe the U.N. has enormous strength and potential,” she said. “It’s an exciting time of change ... We have a new ambassador from the U.S. and a new Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.”
Sorensen said that there has been some reluctance to embrace these new changes because, “The U.S. has been pushing them the hardest and countries are worried that the changes only suit the big powers.”
She explained that many nations are hesitant to work with the U.S. because of the unilateral actions undertaken by the Bush administration.
“[Former U.N. Ambassador] John Bolton moved with an aggressive and commanding approach, which is not the way to win international friends. He almost derailed the process,” she said.
Sorensen attributed, in part, the unwillingness of many nations to trust the new changes to the inability of the U.S. to match its words to its deeds.
Speaking on the Iraq War, Sorensen said, “This war is America’s to bear; it is now perceived as a war against Islam … There will be ramifications for decades to come. There’s an incredible rift between the U.S. and the rest of the world, due largely to the Iraq War.”
Although Sorensen expressed her hopes for the future of the relationship between the U.S. and the U.N., some students thought her speech was too vague.
“I think what she’s trying to do is genuine,” said Julie Mao ’08. “But I didn’t hear a lot of policy work the U.N. could do."
Sorensen’s speech was part of the Foreign Policy Distinguished Speaker Series sponsored by the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.
“I think there are really important issues not being discussed enough, one of which is the role of the U.S. in the U.N.,” said Prof. Nicolas Van de Walle, international studies.
Sorensen’s work as senior advisor at the United Nations Foundation is her latest post in a long history of work with the organization.
From 1997 until 2003, Sorensen served the U.N. as the appointed assistant secretary-general for external relations. Prior to her work as assistant secretary-general, Sorensen was the New York City commissioner for the U.N. from 1978 to 1990.
Sorensen urged college students to gain international experience and knowledge by participating in activities that expose them to foreign cultures.
She specifically mentioned the Peace Corps, a program that appeals to many Cornell graduates. Sorensen believes these programs increase global awareness.
“I’m a huge supporter of programs like the Peace Corps,” she said.
She ended her speech with a call to action for Cornell students. “You have to vote, right letters to Congress and keep informed of international issues,” she said.
Ms. Sorenstam Misses the Point!
This morning curiosity spurred me to read the Sun article, "U.N. Advisor Reflects On Int'l Politics" and it added to my understanding of why I, and such a large number of my fellow citizens are disgusted with the operation of the United Nations. The most frequent opinion I hear these days is that we ought to rebel at paying so much to house an organization on U. S. soil that is so ineffective. Ms. Sorenstam seems to have developed a strong desire and capability to sweep the U.N.'s multitude of shortcomings under the carpet while trumpeting it's successes which are far too few and frankly, overblown in light of the most significant problems the world faces today.
Individuals who take the time to research the U.N. will learn that it was formed primarily for the purpose of preventing war. In fact, the very first line of the Preamble to it's Charter reads "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind...".
It's difficult, especially in today's world, to argue that such a goal should not be primary. Yet the "Millenium Goals" which Miss Sorenstam seems to be so proud of, do not include one single reference to preventing war or one single word about terrorism. Instead they embrace goals related to poverty, education, disease, gender equity, environment and global partnership for development.
I will not argue the against importance of the such goals but, frankly the U.N.'s devotion to them while virtually "looking the other way" as terrorism florishes, war rages on in Iraq, nuclear risks are increasing and millions are being murdered in Africa shows exactly why millions of Americans are right in their lack of respect and support for the U.N. as it currently operates.
Let's pull our heads out of the clouds of "political correctness" and face reality. Eradicating poverty isn't going to have much impact upon anyone whose families and fellow citizens have been murdered or blown off the face of the earth by a terrorist attack or nuclear weapon. The U.N. is far too worried about the ice in the glasses of it's delegates while the Titanic is headed toward the iceberg.
Mr. Cochran Misses the Name!
Individuals who take the time to read today's article carefully will learn that the subject's name is Sorensen, not Sorenstam.
"It's difficult, especially
"It's difficult, especially in today's world, to argue that such a goal should not be primary. Yet the "Millenium Goals" which Miss Sorenstam seems to be so proud of, do not include one single reference to preventing war or one single word about terrorism. Instead they embrace goals related to poverty, education, disease, gender equity, environment and global partnership for development."
By embracing these goals, the UN can prevent terrorism from ever occurring. Poverty, disease, and political persecution leave the individual feeling powerless, and very angry. It is then that violent rebellions often occur, and like a vaccination, addressing and solving the problems of political and economic repression can prevent terror. Many opponents of the UN fail to understand the root cause of terrorism, and address instead the terrorist's manifestation of frustration and hopelessness. If you are really interested in fighting terrorism, you have to find out why it occurs, and eradicate those conditions -- if you choose to simply fight the terrorist, you lose, yes, even America.
Guerilla wars are just not won, and it is up to the US to address terrorism intelligently and with an innovative
approach. Bombing Iraq was never, ever the solution.
And yes, the US has been known to exploit the people and resources of those countries that now harbor terrorists. We have to take responsibility, too, for the things we have done to create the conditions that breed terrorism. Oil at any cost is not a viable, long term plan.
People with comfortable, happy lives don't usually blow up buildings in New York. Even the Saudi hijackers lived under an incredibly repressive regime, despite their extensive education.
"I will not argue the against importance of the such goals but, frankly the U.N.'s devotion to them while virtually "looking the other way" as terrorism flourishes, war rages on in Iraq, nuclear risks are increasing and millions are being murdered in Africa shows exactly why millions of Americans are right in their lack of respect and support for the U.N. as it currently operates."
And again, war rages in Iraq because George Bush put us there, illegally, and now refuses to address the situation in a professional, realistic manner. Baker-Hamilton gave the administration a perfect blueprint for managing Iraq, while also saving face, for Bush, and he turned it down flat. Why? Diplomacy isn't flashy, isn't MTV war, but it usually works. We shouldn't underestimate our diplomats, and their ability to get the job done. Bush pushed the Middle East toward a nuclear crisis. It is NOT the fault of the UN, and the US, as a world leader, must address the issue intelligently, without a bunch of F-22's,and the morons who would send them, exacerbating the situation, mindlessly.
The problems you stated were, for the most part, brought
on by an arrogant and obtuse administration, for it's own political purposes. Any other President would have already
addressed the problems in Africa, because we would not have the mess in the middle east distracting us. It is Bush's responsibility to fix HIS issues, the problems HIS administration created. Every other President has been held responsible for his actions --why not Bush? He has been given, time and time again, many solutions, good faith solutions, from many sources, to address the problems he has created. Why does he continually refuse these intelligent, workable plans, asking for them, and then discarding them, in a switch and bait manner?
Something to hide? What?
I want to thank the Sun for the wonderful article, also.
Great work.