by Anita Sharma
(This op-ed first appeared at Open Democracy)
The international effort to end world poverty may not at present be the highest-profile one on a global news agenda dominated by financial turmoil and worries over the coming recession. But the public engagement with the issue is real and sustained. This was reflected in an extraordinary global mobilisation on the weekend of 17-19 October 2008. "Stand Up and Take Action" was supported in 131 countries by nearly 117 million people, who participated in diverse events - from marches to religious ceremonies - and were united by a shared demand that this generation of political leaders do their utmost in the anti-poverty endeavour.
That definitely does not sound good.
At least 50 tonnes of cocaine from Andean countries pass through West Africa every year, heading mostly to the streets of France, Spain and the United Kingdom, where they are worth some $2 billion. "This is probably the tip of the cocaine iceberg," said the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa, at a high-level conference in the Cape Verde capital, Praia. Cocaine seizures have doubled every year for the past three years, with the 2007 total amounting to 6,458 kilogrammes, and major seizures this year include a 600 kilogramme cocaine bust at the airport in Freetown, Sierra Leone, this summer, according to a report launched by UNODC at the Praia meeting.This iceberg has already caused more damage than the one that felled the Titanic, and it will take more than global warming to eliminate it. According to Mr. Costa, the cocaine problem is not only endangering West Africa's youth and stunting its economy, it is also "a threat to public health and security" overall. And unlike an iceberg, this is a fully globalized issue, and countries from the Andes to Africa to Europe all have an interest in curtailing the drug traffic. (Image from flickr user Zaptel under a Creative Commons license.)
Soon the election will happen, and America will have chosen its next President. The constant horse race polling will stop, but the speculation will not. Of course, this speculation will obviously not be about who will be the next President, but rather who will advise, represent, and generally surround that president. Of particular interest to us here at UN Dispatch, is the President's selection of a new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Of course, we have no idea who it will be, but it is interesting to think a bit about the position, and maybe that could give some insight into who might best fill the role.
What is not widely known about the position of Permanent U.S. Representative to the UN, or Perm Rep, is that it (like a few other major government posts) can be elevated to a cabinet-level position, should the Commander-in-Chief so desire. Indeed, the position has been part of the cabinet under some administrations, beginning with that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his Perm Rep, Henry C. Lodge. Other administrations, including Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, have also had UN Ambassadors as part of their cabinets, a group that includes names like Adlai Stevenson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Bill Richardson, among many others. Some administrations have also included the Perm Rep in the National Security Council, making the Perm Rep a key adviser to the President on matters of security and foreign policy.
So beyond speculation of who the U.S. Ambassador to the UN will be, speculation should also consider what the position will be. Would an Obama administration include the Perm Rep in the cabinet? Would a McCain administration include the position as part of the National Security Council? Do the answers to those questions make a major difference in who should be selected?
What do you think?
(Cross-posted to On Day One)
From the United Nations High Commission on Refugees:
Yesterday, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to drop its long-standing embargo against Cuba...for the 17th year in a row. In what an L.A. Times editorial termed one of "New York's rites of autumn," the lopsided vote -- 185 countries voted in favor, three opposed, and two abstained -- demonstrated the international consensus that U.S. policy toward the communist Caribbean island only grows more archaic by the year.
One need not agree with the GA president's rather silly statement that Cuba is "a champion of the values that the world needs for the survival of the human species" to concur that sustaining an embargo that only harms the Cuban people and does not even let Americans travel to the country makes little to no policy sense. Here's the New America Foundation's Steve Clemons on how easy it would be for the next president to improve the U.S. relationship with Cuba:
If this year's vote is any indication, the United States is not getting any more support for its outdated embargo as the years go by. One more country than last year voted for the resolution, and the Marshall Islands flipped to the "abstained" column -- leaving only Israel, Palau, and the United States sticking with this Cold War relic.
(cross-posted at On Day One)
The UN has found a creative and effective way to transport sick patients in the harsh environment of Darfur.
To date, sick people in need of transportation to the nearest clinic have had to endure an uncomfortable ride atop a camel or on the back of an open horse-drawn cart, exposed to the searing heat of the sun. But the UN refugee agency has stepped in by donating a covered wagon, with padding inside, and a donkey to pull the "ambulance." It's not the height of comfort but has been welcomed by the 750 refugees from Chad and the Central African Republic who reside in Mukjar, West DarfurThis is possibly an even better use for a donkey than the famous literacy-promoting "biblioburro." (Image from flickr user SPANA Charity under a Creative Commons license.)
Our week long panel discussion of ideas the next president can adopt to help promote human rights continues with a suggestion from On Day One user RustNeverSleeps:.
The United States should join the international criminal court. The court's four ongoing investigations in Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur and Uganda show that the court can work to prosecute war criminals. If the United States helps the ICC, the court can become even closer to its goal of deterring future war criminals.David Kaye, Eric Schwartz and Suzanne Nossel respond below the fold.
A major city in Eastern Congo is under siege. News reports describe Congolese Armed Forces retreating from the provincial capital Goma in advance of a rebel assault, lead by a renegade army general named Laurent Nkunda. Upon seeing the government forces retreat, tens of thousands of civilians have begun to flee. All that stands between Nkunda's forces and Goma are Pakistani and Indian peacekeepers, which are already engaged with Nkunda's forces on this and other fronts.
Local's are understandably upset that the peacekeeping force had not done enough to stall the rebel advance. Protests outside the UN compound turned violent earlier this week as residents of Goma hurled rocks at the compound in frustration. Unfortunately, the peacekeeping mission cannot repel this attack without reinforcement.
It needs help. Fast.
Blue-helmets, though, are not set up for rapid deployment. What may be required is outside intervention by a global power. There is precedent for this. In 2003, French special forces led Operation Artemis which rescued the city of Bunia, capital of the the nearby Ituri province. 1800 special forces, operating under the EU flag, rescued the city and repelled marauding militias. They withdrew within three months and were replaced by a beefed up UN peacekeeping force.
Something similar may be what is required to prevent mass atrocities from being visited upon Goma. The question is, who, if anyone, is willing to step up?
(Photo: "Streets of Goma" from Flickr user Amalthya)
From his influential corner, Refugees International president Ken Bacon breaks down the two presidential candidates' differing outlooks toward the UN. He also offers a compelling case of why the United States -- under either a Republican or Democratic administration -- should revamp its support for the UN, which has too often flagged in the past eight years.
Not only is the U.S. sometimes slow to pay its dues to the UN, but it is also hundreds of billions of dollars short of meetings its obligation to pay its share of UN peacekeeping operations that have been so important in helping to restore order in places like Liberia. [snip] There are many things to criticize and to change at the UN, but for all of its frustrations and foibles, it remains the best-positioned organization to craft multi-lateral solutions to trans-national problems, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, as well as difficult regional issues involving conflict, refugee flows and disaster response.Well said. You can see why the UN is so important to Ken when you check out the top three priorities that he thinks the next president needs to focus on, starting On Day One of the next administration.