Yesterday was the 7th annual International Day of Peace, and the UN Secretary-General, along with hundreds of peace lovers and cellphone users around the world, marked the occasion by sending the following text message:

"On 21 September, the International Day of Peace, I call on world leaders and peoples around the world to join forces against conflict, poverty and hunger, and for all human rights for all."

Almost 2000 texters worldwide typed out messages of peace, which were collected on this website and will be shared with world leaders when they meet for the General Assembly tomorrow.

Mobile technology is already being used to overwhelming effect in relief and humanitarian operations; while texting for peace may seem a more abstract venture, this may just represent the next frontier in harnessing the power of information sharing and electronic communications to help achieve real peace on the ground. Some of the potential of this innovative strategy can already be seen in Afghanistan, where the avid preparations for the International Day of Peace did not disappoint, as guns fell silent across the violent country yesterday. If even Taliban insurgents are taking these text messages to heart, I think we can be sure that others will, too.

Even facing increasingly dangerous levels of violence in their country, Afghans are as vocal as ever in their desire for peace. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reports on the incredible enthusiasm with which the Afghan people are preparing for the upcoming International Day of Peace.

"The aim is to give voice to those who want peace in this country," UNAMA spokesperson Adrian Edwards told a news conference in Kabul today. "And what we are seeing is that the demand for peace is overwhelming."

He said the scale of events being planned for this year's celebration of Peace Day, marked annually on 21 September, is "unprecedented" and involves citizens, educational institutions, businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as UN agencies.

"In contrast to the conflict and violence around us, the peace campaign in Afghanistan in 2008 is potentially the biggest this country has seen," Mr. Edwards stated.

Celebrating peace won't change the reality on the ground by itself, of course, but this level of popular commitment is by no means insignificant, particularly when it comes to winning the "hearts and minds" campaign that Mark alluded to earlier. And it's reports like these that remind me that the goal in Afghanistan should not be so much winning a war as winning a peace.

Visiting Washington a little over a month into his new job as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide -- whose candidacy only emerged after renowned British negotiator Paddy Ashdown's was shot down by the Afghan government -- is being received with wide open arms here in the U.S. After speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace today -- where he cited the confidence that the "highest authorities of the U.S. administration" have in him -- Eide will be meeting with the top levels of the U.S. foreign policy brass: Secretary of State Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and even President Bush.

The red carpet being rolled out for Eide is indicative of the importance that the administration has recognized in an increased role for the United Nations in Afghanistan. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad testified to this importance himself, in a New York Times op-ed last month, in which he praised the nomination of Eide and outlined the roles that the UN should be fulfilling in Afghanistan.

The expanded responsibilities that Khalilzad envisioned for the UN in Afghanistan line up closely with those identified by Eide: coordinating civilian and military efforts, ensuring that resources for aid are spent effectively and with appropriate oversight, combating corruption in the Afghan government, and strengthening the country's police and justice systems. Eide has consistently emphasized that international involvement in Afghanistan must be seen not solely through a military lens, but as a broader political project; while he expressed confidence that the U.S. has increasingly adopted this perspective, it remains crucial for the U.S. to see beyond the military situation of the country.

The U.S. will also need to back up its warm reception for Mr. Eide with concrete support for the UN mission that he leads. For the administration to saddle Eide with increasing responsibilities, yet fail to provide the necessary resources, would be both hypocritical and counterproductive. To demonstrate its commitment to the UN's role in Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress should begin by approving the $53 million in the FY 2008 supplemental funding bill designated to fund the UN's political missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and could follow by paying up on its long-standing back dues to the UN regular budget, out of which missions like the one in Afghanistan are funded.

A very newsworthy press release from the Better World Campaign:

The Better World Campaign delivered today to the U.S. Congress a letter signed by 80 organizations calling for payment of U.S. debt to the United Nations, which at the beginning of this year amounted to more than $2.8 billion to the UN's regular budget and peacekeeping accounts. The debt makes up 25 percent of the UN's annual budget, and is ten times the amount owed by any other nation.

"This letter clearly shows that the American public wants the U.S. to keep its word at the UN and stop going it alone," said Better World Campaign Executive Director Deborah Derrick. "This Congress can begin the process of repairing U.S. financial standing at the UN when it takes up the President's FY 2008 Supplemental Funding Request in the coming days," she added.

The President's FY 2008 supplemental request, expected to be taken up by the Congress the week of April 21st, includes $334 million for the UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan, and $53 million for the UN's political missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has called on the UN to take a greater role in these missions, but has not fully funded them.

For 80 organizations to sign on to a letter to Congress, the "ask" must have pretty universal appeal. Paying U.S. dues to the UN enjoys this kind of traction for very legitimate reasons: paying these dues makes sense, improves U.S. standing in the world, and is firmly in the U.S.'s interest. To emphasize these points, Better World Campaign -- the sister organization of the UN Foundation, Dispatch's sponsor -- has launched its "Don't Go It Alone" campaign, highlighting the effectiveness of working through the UN and the pressing need for the U.S. to follow up on its funding commitments.

The United Nations' Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) kicked off its 52nd session yesterday; this year's theme is financing for gender equality and the empowerment of women and the emerging issue is gender perspectives on climate change.

In the session's opening address, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke out against violence against women, noting that "at least one out of every three women is likely to be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime." Ban also announced the launch of a new campaign to battle global violence against women, which will run until 2015.

I've been lucky enough to go to past CSWs when I was working in the international women's rights arena, but (sadly) I won't be there this year. What's great, however, is that you can follow along on the CSW website and see what's happening - whether it be panels, statements or NGO events.

Another great place to find out info on CSW and its happenings is the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) (my old stomping ground), who are heavily involved in the process and give great updates.

Too often, American feminists forget about the all-important work being done on the international level by groups like WEDO and others. So please, check out all of the info on CSW and get involved!

If you want to know more about CSW and its history, click here.

It seems that CNN was also at the child soldier-turned-rapper Emmanuel Jal charity show in D.C. a couple weeks back. Remember, you heard it here first.

That night, a spotlight fell on the stage where Jal rapped. The darkened hall was full of young, successful-looking Washingtonians. It was a fascinating scene and one couldn't help but wonder: How can this audience possibly understand where he's coming from?

"My dreams are like torment
My every moment
Voices of my brain
Of friends that were slain,
Friends who died by my side of starvation
In the burning jungle and the desert plain.
But Jesus heard my cry.
I was tempted to eat the rotten flesh of my comrade."

Jal was born in southern Sudan. He thinks the year was 1980. He's not sure of the exact date. The region was engulfed in a civil war as rebels from the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) began fighting for independence and control of the country's oil.

His father became a rebel. His mother was killed. He says government soldiers raped his sister three times. Jal ended up in a United Nations refugee camp.

Read more.

Midtown Manhattan is a madhouse this week. Both the opening session of the 62nd UN General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative are in town and bring with them both an unprecedented group of world leaders and a complex security situation. As I shuttle back and forth between the two events, I am struck by the competence of the New York Police Department. I can't even imagine the intricacies involved in securing an area this large and vulnerable, but they have every appearance of having it under control. I'm confident at least.

This is an apropos moment to bring up the UN's Capital Master Plan, a plan to renovate the UN Headquarters in New York City, which has not happened since the complex was built in 1950, and bring the building up to current safety and security codes.

The existing conditions of the United Nations headquarters in New York pose serious safety and security problems, and waste a tremendous amount of resources. The headquarters were designed to accommodate 70 Member States. UN membership currently stands at 191 Member States.

The UN building no longer complies with U.S. and New York City fire and safety codes, and a considerable amount of energy is wasted as a result of archaic appliances. Problems include asbestos, electromagnetic fields, an inadequate fire alarm system, the lack of sprinklers in high rise buildings, poor or no fire separation between buildings, the possibility of high pressure steam line explosions, falling ceilings, and leaks.

As a high-profile building located in New York and a gathering point for world leaders, the UN is unfortunately a target for a terrorist attack. And it lacks basic security requirements such as shatterproof glass windows. In the event of an incident, first responders -- like NY's finest -- would be put in an unacceptable amount of danger.

I have heard at least one person on CNN in the last couple of days talking about the cost to the city of maintaining security this week. New York, as the seat of UN headquarters, plays host to the world and receives untold benefits from acting as such. Aside from the political- and prestige-related benefits, this week alone hotels throughout midtown are sold out and restaurants are packed.

The first step of being a good host is ensuring the security of your guests. The NY Police department is doing its part. It's time that the Capital Master Plan move forward.

In 1998-99, a team of architects and engineers thoroughly examined the condition of U.N. Headquarter complex. The study concluded that despite the high quality of the original construction, many building elements have deteriorated due to age, or do not meet current standards of safety and energy efficiency. The study concluded "The current condition of the headquarters' complex is unacceptable for continued use over the long term."

To address this situation, the Secretary-General presented the Capital Master Plan to renovate the UN headquarters in July 2000. Since that time, a commission has been appointed to determine a budget; complete an overall implementation schedule; select contractors through competitive-bidding; consolidate existing space; secure swing space; and design plans for financing the project. The total cost of the Capital Master Plan is $1.2 billion over period of eight years.

UN Dispatch was well represented at Yearly Kos at the end of last week. Three out of four Dispatchers made the trip out to Chicago.

Aside from getting to meet many of the bloggers that I had only known as online personas, I thought the foreign policy discussions were the most interesting part of the convention. For the most part, everyone seemed remarkably well-informed. And, even though as a convention largely dedicated to the progressive movement the discussion too often veered toward a single-minded view of the war in Iraq, international cooperation and improving the U.S. image abroad was the underlying sentiment in the forums on U.S. foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that idea was rarely carried through to a discussion on the U.S. role at the United Nations. The UN is the world's platform for international cooperation, and it is clear that strengthening U.S. engagement at the UN should be the centerpiece of our efforts to bolster both our image and our influence abroad. UN Dispatch intends to continue to foster this conversation in part so that at next year's event it attains its natural position at the center of U.S. foreign policy discussions.

I sat in on a panel discussion today at the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference centered on Europe's efforts toward building non-proliferation regimes. During his presentation, Martin Briens from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned one of those rarely reported efforts--the EU, as a standard practice, has included non-proliferation clauses in their trade agreements since 2003, basically requiring a non-proliferation commitment from trading partners. Annalisa Giannella, the EU chief diplomat's non-proliferation representative, outlined this initiative in an interview with Arms Control Today. Apparently the Europeans have 90 such agreements--which can basically be viewed as hair-trigger sanctions and make clear the EUs commitment to non-proliferation.

As part of the Carnegie Conference on Non-Proliferation, Russian Alexia Arbatov from the Carnegie Moscow Center, Neil Crompton from the British Embassy in Washington, and Bruno Tertrais from the Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique sat down with Barbara Slavin from USA Today and Glenn Gessler from the Washington Post to discuss the efforts to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear enrichment. Their main differences centered on whether UN sanctions had been effective and whether anything short of the threat of force or a serious hit to the Iranian oil economy will force Iran to stop its program. More in-depth coverage of their presentations after the jump.

Crompton, offering "London's perspective," began by stressing how critical this issue is to his government, saying that no less than the credibility of the NPT and multilateral institutions in general and the stability of the Middle East rests on solving this problem. He made the point that there are three things that we should keep in mind when setting a strategy for Iran.

• Iran desires international credibility and will go to amazing lengths to get it.
• Iran has a pluralistic government and a relatively open society with different power centers. We have an opportunity to create pressure from beneath. He listed a string of constituencies to consider, including President Ahmadinejad, the broader political spectrum (specifically Rafsanjani), the Revolutionary Guard, the clerics, parliament, the street, and the technocrats.
• Iran needs things we have, like technology and investment dollars.

The general UK assessment is that Iran acts according to political, not security, motivations, and that there have been signs in the last few months that sanctions are making a difference. According to Crompton, Security Council Resolution 1737 was a shock to Iran, who thought veto-wielding members Russia and China would protect them. And, economic pressures are beginning to kick in. President Ahmadenijad, who was elected on "bread and butter" issues, is feeling the pressure most acutely because "the street" is suffering from the rise in inflation and high unemployment. These pressures are coming from three directions--general economic mismanagement by the government, increased nervousness felt by foreign companies who are slowing investment, and the Security Council sanctions.

Arbatov, not representing the Russian government but also saying that they wouldn't him in jail for his statements, took a different line, offering the following points.

• Iranian capacity shouldn't be exaggerated or underestimated. We need to rely fully on the IAEA assessment
• Because there are various groups jockeying for power in the Iranian elite, it is futile to try to guess Iranian intentions, and those intentions are likely to change over time.
• A united front by the Perm 5 is of the utmost importance, and watered down sanctions simply illuminate our differences.
• There are three principal goals in this process: 1) restoring the IAEA safeguards, 2) stopping uranium enrichment, and 3) stopping the plutonium program. There is no way to achieve all three. Iran will continue with its program unless we directly threaten force or shut down their oil industry, neither of which we are willing to do. The Iranians see America negotiating with North Korea even though they have already tested a weapon (a point that Tertrais later seconded). Given those truths, we should focus on strengthening the IAEA safeguards.
• We need to treat the Iranian program as an arms conrol issue and realize that we will need to compromise. We need to decide what level of compliance we will accept under IAEA safeguards.
• Given the third and fourth points, the US needs to do more to come to common ground with Russia. U.S. positions on Ukraine and Georgia and the missile shield are not helpful. He also suggested, somewhat strangely in the view of this blogger, that Iran is bolstered by U.S. work to build a missile shield because they view it as a concession that our non-proliferation efforts might not work.

Tertrais offered a brief statement, saying that France is committed to UN sanctions. He suggested that President Chirac never really believed in the power of sanctions and said so publicly but that President Sarkozy does. The only question now is whether to go "broader or deeper." France seems to want to make the resolutions as broad as possible. He also suggested that Iran was motivated by "political and prestige" considerations, not its security needs.

This WSJ Op-Ed, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," has been labeled as visionary at least a half dozen times by a half dozen different speakers at the Carnegie Conference on Non-Proliferation. It's worth checking out if for no other reason than to see what those in the know in non-proliferation find authoritative.

The Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference, a big deal for proliferation wonks, started this morning in Washington, D.C., with a panel entitled, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons. On the panel, former Senator Sam Nunn, now head of the Nuclear Threat Institute, gave a pessimistic view of our future. He posits that we have to be diligent, effective, and lucky in regard to curbing nuclear proliferation. He says that we were lucky during the Cold War, but, in the future, it will be a much more difficult--with the prospect of many new nuclear powers and even more nuclear enrichers and the increased need for nuclear energy that battling climate change will create.

Nunn suggests that a multilateral approach is absolutely necessary. Given domestic and international political realities, "there are not many unilateral actions we can take." However, the U.S. must also take a "unilateral leadership position on a multilateral response." To Nunn this begins with two immediate actions.

First, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Second, ask ourselves, why is it necessary, 15 years after the end of the Cold War, for the U.S. and Russia to continue to have thousands of nuclear weapons on a hair trigger? Nunn suggests that we need to look at what we're doing to make that necessary.

Stay tuned for a report on "The Security Council's Iran Challenge." I will be at the Conference and sending back posts today and tomorrow.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues opened its two-week session today in New York, where more than 1,000 indigenous representatives will take on issues related to lands, territories and natural resources.

These matters are widely viewed as central to indigenous peoples' efforts to gain recognition for their rights. "With the increasing desire of States for more economic growth, senseless exploitation of indigenous peoples' territories and resources continues unabated," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum, which will meet from 14 to 25 May.

More

Yesterday marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorating March 21, 1960 when police in apartheid South Africa fired on peaceful demonstrators.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that while the world has made strides in fighting against racial discrimination, there is still work to be done.

"Racist practices hurt their victims, but they also limit the promise of entire societies where they are tolerated...They prevent individuals from realizing their potential and stop them from contributing fully to national progress. They perpetuate deeply embedded social and economic inequalities. Where unaddressed, they can cause social unrest and conflict, undermining stability and economic growth."

More

John Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will appear on the Daily Show tonight, Comedy Central at 11pm.

Right now, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding an open hearing on "The Future of the United Nations under Ban Ki-Moon" with Tim Wirth, former Senator and current President of the UN Foundation, John Bolton, the former U.S. Perm Rep to the UN, and George Mitchell, former Senator Majority Leader.

Watch it live.

Tomorrow the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding an open hearing, The Future of the United Nations under Ban Ki-Moon.

Details after the jump.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007
10:00 AM
Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building

The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth
President, United Nations Foundation
Former United States Senator, Colorado

The Honorable George Mitchell
Former United States Senate Majority Leader
Former Co-Chair, United States Institute for Peace Task Force on the United Nations

The Honorable John Bolton
Former United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations

A live webcast of the event will be available here.