Category Archives: UNDP


By James Lawler, for Fox News

It’s been a big three days for FOX News in SydVEGAS. We’ve covered everything from North Korean refugee abuses to international terror-funding financial controls, even though FOX’s financial knowledge is limited to remembering his 4-digit PIN number (and FOX can’t remember both of them).

We’ve seen the Security Council eject Human Rights (literally) and become a geopolitical ashram, the Third General Assembly turn into a Battle of the Longest Speech, and the Sydney Uni New Law building become a mosh-pit for pizza. Somalia’s been colonised, the UN’s been cyberattacked, and Ban Ki-Moon has taken up the Charles Taylor-model of leadership. FOX has tweeted loud, grilled hard and drunk far more than is sobre and sensible.

After Fair and Balanced consideration, FOX can confidently say that crypto-communists out to destroy the greatest land on earth, the good old US of A, and the Christian family values it stands for. But, some of you have revealed yourselves to be true Americans (at least in spirit), and for that FOX is glad.

Thus, as the final night is on us, this correspondent recommends two paths. For the patriots tonight, drink hard. And for the leftists, they say some find God at the bottom of the bottle – so drink hard for Jesus.
God bless, and down with the liberal agenda,FOX NEWS


The SMH buys out the NYT

By Sonia Feng, for the Sydney Morning Herald


There has been a surprising turn of events within the International Press Gallery. The Sydney Morning Herald can finally confirm that Fairfax Media Limited has bought out The New York Times. Many in the unsuspecting international audience and broader viewership of The New York Times can cry a bloody river, because keep your hats on, the situation is riddled with a twofold story. A mildly entertaining saga, at that, within the world of riches.

Many will remember that merely a year ago, Fox News president and blatant justice obstructer despot, Roger Ailes, notably said in response to buying out The New York Times, in pursuit of some sort of heroic crusade to “purge the socialist rag of its un-American content and transform it into a paper for proper Americans”.

Well touché Fox News. Looks like Fairfax heard half of that message to purge it of its un-American content before Gina Rinehart got on another bandwagon of media investment.

Gina ‘eat your mines out’ Rinehart, the world’s richest woman, mining tycoon and budding media mogul has decided that monopoly over other industries can be both transnational and profitable.

In a precedential move towards media domination and public trust, Gina Rinehart has bought the NYT from Fox News. Speaking about her fellow conservative business partner slash broker, Rinehart has gone on the record to announce that she intends to “purge the un-American content [of the NYT] and transform it into a paper for proper Australians”. With a change of pace to its editorial direction, the SMH hopes that The New York Times will now be completely quote unquote “Australian”.

Press Release in the UNDP

By Tiffany Alexander, for the BBC

Debate transpired today in the UNDP over the appropriate course of action to publicly acknowledge the tragedy that has struck Cambodia and Somalia. If the public comes to the conclusion that the statement is ‘neutral’ (in it’s language? In it’s emotional impact?) then they will be satisfying Norway who felt this was ‘appropriate’ for a press release. The implication by Norway that journalism is purely empirical is possibly a view shared by Israel who refused to acknowledge the statement, the other explanation being his vendetta against Cambodia and hence a refusal to pay her people respects. This action is at least consistent with his radical impression on the committee so far. The statement is as follows:

“The international community recognizes the grave situation of the natural disasters that have recently affected Cambodia and Somalia and wish to express its sincerest condolences. In direct response to these events, the UNDP has focused upon developing an equitable humanitarian framework that enables the entire international community to react more effectively and with greater swiftness to future natural disasters and other multi-faceted humanitarian crises. In light of previous disasters and relief efforts, the UNDP seeks to streamline an efficient response for all affected nations.”

The first clause, the worst clause

By Tiffany Alexander, for the BBC


CRISIS has hit the UNDP, with storms off the coast of Somalia ‘devastating rural areas dependent on subsistence agriculture for survival’, a story broken by Al Jazeera. The Somalian government is “very upset at our people starving” and feels that the achievement of stability in the disaster zone “depends on the situation in the region”. Vague as this may be, Somalia managed specificities when addressing the current draft resolution by the UNDP on the misuse and corruption of aid. Clause one* “doesn’t leave scope for disaster relief” which are the exact sentiments of Cambodia in response to devastating floods that have recently threatened their people.

The clause in question is described by Cambodia as “quite restrictive” it “doesn’t leave space to deal with a crisis such as this”. Along with deep concern for the state, Cambodia is choosing to remain optimistic, looking forward to “working with the committee to come to a solution that benefits everyone”. The kinks of this utopian solution are still being worked out, with committee moving from heart to head quite quickly in the denial of Cambodia’s request for a moment of silence for their citizens affected by the disaster. The UNDP is nothing if not efficient. *“emphasizes that all development aid from donor countries be used only to further the current Millennium Development Goals.”

10:30am in the UNDP

By Tiffany Alexander for BBC

The importance of an unmoderated caucus is not lost on the UNDP, having just been extended for 15 minutes. Considering it’s early in session two it is with caution that we attempt to predict any clauses circulating the room at the moment.

With that in mind the UK and Israel’s negotiations have been of interest, the UK prefers to enforce existing institutions such as the IATI on the issue of donor transparency, recipient transparency is another matter. The suggestion from a mystery delegate was for a ‘UN backed peacekeeping and monitoring group’, the UK stated this was not their suggestion and Israel refused to identify whose exactly it was. The UK and Israel agree that ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘monitoring’ are to different to be lumped together in one clause, it appeared that ‘peacekeeping’ would be removed from the current draft in the interest of focusing on ‘monitoring’.

The new call is then for ‘A UN backed monitoring group’, potentially NGO’s (creating a new institution was rejected on the basis of Israel’s apathy to bureaucracy) to participate in ‘community consultation’ where individuals file reports on the impact of the development aid on their lives. The occurrence of the UK and Israel objecting to the general clause of ‘UN peacekeeping and monitoring group’ yet neglecting to identify the parent of that clause can be one of two things: loyalty to that delegate (as a signatory), or the inherent objection to press by politicians. Either way, as unmoderated caucus is extended again (at director’s discretion), it was the UK holding her laptop surrounded by discussion.

NGOs, or NG no’s?

By Tiffany Alexander for the BBC

The UNDP faced its first committee session today concerning the issue of the misuse and corruption of aid. Initially there was an impression that there was consensus in the room; this wasn’t surprising. How challenging could it have been for delegates to have already come to the conclusion themselves that the corruption of aid was bad? Throughout debate though, the polarisation of positions in the room has become clear; transparency and accountability of governments, versus the abolishment of NGOs (as a system of such transparency) in aid exchange.

The United Kingdom feels “transparency is key” and acknowledges that “both NGOs and states have a role” whilst Myanmar objected on the basis that the process of aid transfers, from donors to NGOs and then to affected states such as Myanmar, is inefficient and “undermines” the legitimacy of Myanmar’s central government by excluding them from the process.

India’s challenge to Myanmar on this issue was the question of “why”? Why do NGOS have such limited access to Myanmar? Although India did not expand on the motivation behind this inquiry, the assumption is that India was highlighting that Myanmar’s issues with NGOs might be their own doing, and given a chance co-operation between NGOs and the central government could be a credit to the state.

In response Myanmar’s justification of their restrictions on non-state actors is that “you never know who is trying to enter Myanmar under the pretence of aid”. Whether this is the official position of Myanmar, or whether the delegate is simply trying to make an impression, is questionable. Either way the truly disappointing outcome of committee today is that Oxfam left committee minutes before this discussion, only to be followed by an unidentified NGO who entered and exited moments later. Their input, especially if directed toward Myanmar’s concerns, could have been invaluable to the progress of the UNDP.