inside the glass house

Moves to get UN to monitor ‘Third World’ style US polls
NEW YORK - The widespread controversy which tainted the US presidential elections in 2000 is now shadowing the upcoming polls in November where pre-election surveys indicate that President George W. Bush is on a statistical deadheat with Democratic party candidate Senator John Kerry.

The margin of victory or defeat may be in single digits making it imperative that the US elections are "free and fair"-- as they are expected to be elsewhere in the world.

As the race for the White House picks up steam, there are still sceptics who feel the elections could be manipulated, Third World-style -- judging by the disputed poll in November 2000.

The last presidential elections were marred by several voting irregularities, including the disenfranchisement of hundreds and thousands of minority voters -- mostly in the state of Florida. A final decision on the election, in which Bush won, was made by the US Supreme Court, not by an electoral head count.

As comedian Jay Leno jokes: "Kerry is well on his way to reach his magic number of 2,162. That's the total number of delegates he needed to win the Democratic nomination. See, for President Bush, it's different. His magic number is only 5. That's the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win."

If there were obvious voter irregularities in a developing country -- be it Sierra Leone or Sri Lanka -- the US would be quick to sit in judgement, call for fresh elections or threaten to cut off aid. But as the world's only superpower, the US gets away with murder - literally -- whether in Afghanistan or Iraq. Never mind the polls.

The possibility of rigged elections in November, however, has raised serious concerns among opposition Democratic politicians, US academics and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Carter Centre in Georgia, headed by former US President Jimmy Carter, has already expressed fears of voter manipulation.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post recently, Carter said his Centre has monitored over 50 elections worldwide, under conditions he described as "contentious, troubled or dangerous."

He says the disturbing fact is that in the US a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," the former US president says. "It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy."

In July this year, a group of US legislators, mostly from the Democratic Party, asked Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send a team of UN observers for the November elections.

"We are deeply concerned that the rights of US citizens to vote in free and fair elections are again in jeopardy," they said, pointing out that the last presidential elections in November 2000 were "tainted," with nearly six million votes left uncounted mostly for technical or logistical reasons.

But the UN says the "general policy and practice has been that the United Nations responds to requests from national governments, not from legislative bodies."

So the proposal was shot down rather unceremoniously. But last week a coalition of American NGOs took up the cause, resurrecting the issue once again."We recognise that there are various levels of monitoring activities that the United Nations can provide," says the petition signed by seven NGOs, including the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the Economic Human Rights Project, Alliance for Democracy and National Welfare Rights Union.

"We feel what is most crucial is UN-sponsored observers who can provide an international perspective based on accessing the elections through domestic NGO activities, in NGO-identified hot-spots and provide some international accountability," the petition adds.

Told of a possible rejection by the UN, a spokeswoman for the NGO coalition Grace Ross says: "NGOs go through a different body of the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). We have legal standing there."

Ross also said that "legislative leaders don't have legal standing in the UN General Assembly, or apparently anywhere in the United Nations". That's the primary reason why an NGO request stands a better chance of getting a favourable response from the United Nations than US Congressional leaders or US politicians, she added.

In August the Bush administration, however, agreed to accept a team of international observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a first in US presidential elections.

Based in Vienna, the OSCE is described as the largest regional security organisation in the world with 55 participating States from Europe, Central Asia and North America. It is active in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.

Ross says her coalition strongly supports the presence of European monitors. But in addition, however, the coalition thinks it would be also important to have the intervention of the United Nations and the oversight of the United Nations.

It's not clear that the European observers will have the same force of international law behind them given that they are guests of the US government, she added.

Perhaps most worrisome is that it is not clear whether European observers will be in a position to assist in exposing governmental abuses of the right to vote, one of which includes the very real threat by the Bush administration of postponing the election due to governmentally-verified threats of international terrorism.

Back to Columns