Our trip to the United Nations was a chance for our group to both see one of the major international centers of the world and even leave the country! I was previously unaware that a passport is required to enter the UN center as it is technically a neutral international territory, not part of Austria. We were fortunate enough to visit the center right as they are approaching their 30th anniversary, which will be celebrated on August 23, 2009. The UN is actually located in the greater Vienna International Centre and is an incredible architectural spectacle. The courtyard of the center has the traditional array of flags from the member countries plus the flag of the Vatican City for a total of 193. The main buildings have a semicircular shape in order to ensure that each and every window gets direct sunlight at some point during the day surround the courtyard. The courtyard and center as a whole are endowed with gifts from the member countries and the one I found most interesting was the Peace Bell from Japan. The bell sits untouched in the courtyard the entire year except for two days out of the year, August 6th and 9th. The ringing of the bell and accompanying ceremony serve as a memorial and a reminder of the deaths caused by nuclear weapons. This was a fitting memorial to see as we entered the building as we were preparing to hear a speaker from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Before entering into the greater conference area for our lecture from the IAEA representative, we received a brief and general guided tour of the facility. We learned of the many different international agencies located at the Vienna center such as the IAEA, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and International Money Laundering Information Network, International Narcotics Control Board, etc. These agencies, among various others, have their headquarters at Vienna and there are even more agencies with presence at the center. During the guided tour I noticed that all of the general signs in and around the building are in both English and French. I was very happy because I could finally read signs here for once and then realized why these two languages would be the standard in the building. French was the language of diplomacy for centuries while they were one of the most powerful countries in the world and while its hard to say if there is a real language of diplomacy, today English is definitely widely known and the only language that is shared between the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. This suspicion was confirmed when our guide informed us that all staff at the UN must be fluent in one of these languages in order to be considered for employment. I was thrilled to be able to sit in one of the major conference rooms. While there I noticed that there were more translator booths than simply English and French. Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, and German are also translated for the delegates at the Vienna center. I wasn’t surprised to see Arabic and Mandarin since they both are completely unrelated to French or English and are spoken widely. Spanish is an obvious choice because it’s not only spoken in Europe, but also large portions of Latin America. I’m assuming that German is translated at this particular site because it is not only spoken in Austria, but large portions of Central and Eastern Europe. I was amazed and almost overwhelmed by how much work goes into translation of any proceeding that would happen in that room between the many members of the United Nations. I think the work that goes into the translation of the various languages mirrors the work that goes into making international policy between so many different nations with different background and desires.
The lecture from the IAEA gave me a new understanding of how their agency works to monitor nuclear activity all over the world. The agency was formed as a response to former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech in 1953 that culminated with the formation of the IAEA in 1957. The Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, that was essentially an agreement to not give nuclear weapons to countries that did not already possess the technology, had huge implications for the responsibilities of the IAEA. The only nuclear countries that did not sign the treaty or do not abide by it are India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. This treaty entrusted the IAEA to evaluate and approve of the insertion of nuclear capabilities into new countries that desire the technology. Further, the stated responsibilities of the agency are to develop safeguards, monitor safety and security, and ultimately develop new nuclear science and technology. These responsibilities inspired significant questions of how this agency could actually achieve such goals within the general diplomatic framework of the UN. While the IAEA is not a specific agency of the UN they do work hand in hand with them and make reports to them on nuclear activity.
My first major question was: the IAEA is charged with monitoring nuclear activity and whether or not a country is suited to attain nuclear technology; does this mean they are proponents of nuclear expansion? The lecturer responded that when a country asks to be certified as nuclear capable, they are not always given the technology. The decision is based on many factors revolving around their readiness and capability to sustain nuclear technology in a safe and effective manner. On the one hand, this is a logical stance for the agency to take as the expansion of nuclear technology as an alternative power source is extremely productive and “clean”, but on the other hand, it is costly, possibly dangerous, and produces larges amount of nuclear waste. Regardless of which side is more relatively beneficial, it is clearly a disputed topic, which makes the UN’s lack of a hard-line stance on the technology seem to be the best choice.
My second major question revolved mainly around the evolution and future of the agency which manifested into a two part question: how has the role and operation of the IAEA evolved since the end of the Cold War and can you speculate on what will happen to the agency when the Non-Proliferation Treaty is reorganized in 2010? These issues sparked my interest because throughout the lecture it seemed to me that while the agency does great work in reporting on nuclear activity, they seem relatively powerless to gain access to areas that they are initially denied. I thought that they would have lost some of their inspection power with the end of the Cold War (since they were created in the thick of it), but the lecturer responded that they still have essentially the same responsibilities, but obviously in new and different areas. The seeming lack of inspection power of the IAEA made me think that upon next year’s reorganization the agency might find themselves as a part of a greater security or inspection agency, but the lecturer could not speculate. Unfortunately most of our questions were not answered to the degree that we desired, but I think that was a result of the role of our lecturers. These were representatives of their respective agencies and were charged with representing their accompanying views, not their personal ones. While we desired more of an “inside scoop” these people were simply not supposed to be conveying their own personal idea since they might not necessarily coincide with those of the agency.
The second lecture from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime was informative, yet somewhat disappointing. We learned that our lecturer was a last minute addition and was really only knowledgeable on her own work in drug education while I know most of our group was interested in the human trafficking aspect of the UNODC. Unlike the IAEA, the UNODC is a direct part of the UN and has 21 field offices with one liaison office in New York. The office was formed in 1961 and works to give information to you on prevention of alcohol, drug, and solvent abuse. They operate primarily in low-income countries and function through both training and going directly to school groups. Once again many of our questions could not be accepted on topics such as the legalization of marijuana and America’s “War on Drugs” because she could only reiterate the position of the office as a whole. My first major question to the UNODC lecturer was: what have you found is a more effective method of reaching people, training teachers and other officials with authority over youth or sending people from the UN directly to schools? I was unsure which would be more effective since the factor of familiarity would come into play with local officials, but perhaps better perceived authority with official UN members. The lecturer responded that it really varies by location in that different kids respond to different things both by the composition of their group and external influences. Yet again I could not get a definitive answer. My second question was: how does the office, if at all, deal with the drug influx and trafficking outside of solely educating children? I thought that the office would logically try and stop the source rather than simply dealing with the problem, but at the same time it is a huge operation that would probably be consumed by a more specialized agency. My thoughts were confirmed in that she was first not that knowledgeable of it because it was outside of her department, but also that they deal with the source in conjunction with organized crime. From her lecture it seems that the UNODC takes a coordinated approach at stopping drug use both from talking to youth and stopping it at the trafficking source, but unfortunately our lecturer was not particularly knowledgeable of the office as a whole.
Hearing the lectures from the two representatives made me thankful for Father Clemens insights. Outside of his fun and interesting personality, his tour was really something special and particularly informative. He chose to go outside his “representation of the abbey” and give us special insight in answering the questions we had about the true processes and interworking of the abbey. In so many tours, especially at the UN, our guides have been constantly bridled by the need to adhere to the policies of their employers. While this is perfectly fine and legal, it makes us appreciate the extra insight of Father Clemens. I think it speaks a lot to the purpose of going to various places and taking a variety of tours. We can read about basic function and operations of different places on the internet or in a guide, but we go to different sites to learn what actually goes on at these places.
No comments:
Post a Comment