Before Russia and Georgia clashed this past August, the UN had, for over a decade, maintained a small (read: 150-odd unarmed observers) monitoring force in the tense region of Abkhazia. When fighting reached Abkhazia's Upper Kodori Gorge, where the UN personnel were stationed, the mission pulled out. Since October, they've been operating on an awkward, interim basis, whose mandate expires on February 15 and which may be primed for collapse without committed re-evaluation.
Although the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) continues patrolling on both sides of the ceasefire line between the Government and Abkhaz separatists in the country’s north-west, it is in a “precarious” position which could quickly become untenable, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes in a new report to the Security Council.
Referring to a 1994 pact between the warring sides, Mr. Ban says that “the status of the Moscow Agreement, which provided the basis for its mandate and the ceasefire regime, is, at best, no longer clear.”
Given that Russo-Georgian war not only shook the entire regional geopolitical situation, but inflamed international fears of a "new Cold War," I'd say that is an understatement.
With the disbanding last October of the Commonwealth of Independent States cadre of peacekeepers (really just a mix of Russians, Georgians, and locals), which provided UNOMIG's security, the mission is now operating in the area with Russian peacekeepers and the Abkhaz military, relying "on the goodwill of the sides." The gulf between the intense international attention lavished on the region's "hot" conflict last summer and the scant reporting on the current dangerously simmering stalemate is in large part responsible for the world's unpreparedness for the August war. Let's hope more folks are paying attention this time around.
Given the prevalence of the myth with regards to the International Criminal Court (ICC), I probably shouldn't be surprised at the silly paranoia unleashed by this Washington Times editorial. In brief, the editorial recycles the bogus claim that joining the ICC would be tantamount to relinquishing U.S. sovereignty, while adding some entirely specious claims -- interspersed with petty potshots -- that the Obama Administration has "provide[d] a wholehearted endorsement" of the Court and has "gone further than any other previous administration in empowering the ICC."
Notwithstanding the historic support that the Bush Administration demonstrated for the ICC in its final months in office -- at least by the standards set by his first term, during which he "unsigned" the treaty establishing the Court -- the new president has categorically not "endorsed" joining the ICC. In fact, while he has stressed the importance of the Court's work in Darfur -- which the Times editorial also, seemingly unwittingly, praises -- and while there may be hopeful signs that his administration is more open to negotiating the treaty than its predecessor, Obama has been careful to take exactly the cautious step that the Times advises, expressing no intention to join the Court immediately.
No, what is more disturbing than the editorial's errors in fact is the careless way with which it flaunts the rhetorical victory that ICC opponents have unfortunately achieved over the years. By promulgating fears that signing international agreements and joining international institutions will ipso facto "transgress the nation's sovereignty" and undermine its security, these voices have sealed their identity as protectors of universally esteemed concepts like sovereignty and security, while casting the ICC in the role of the villainous usurper of these values. The image this rhetoric conjures is one of "tying America into another international knot," a reluctant and painful decision that conveys no benefits and brings only headaches -- or, at the myth's most frantic, a practical invasion of the homeland.
The coup of this nefarious messaging strategy lies in the direct (and entirely fabricated) opposition that it creates between U.S. interests and those of the ICC. Rather than acknowledging and working within the common goals and benefits of the two -- bringing war criminals to justice, say -- opponents instead choose the route of fictitious fear-mongering, playing on imaginative extreme scenarios to create a world where the purpose of the ICC is not to prosecute crimes against humanity, but -- in an almost laughable bit of hubris -- to insidiously corrode America's power, freedoms, and way of life. The example chosen by the Times editorial is proof of how fanciful this caricature has become.
Some of the world's most egregarious human-rights violaters have called for indictments against a U.S. president, military leaders, corporate executives, and others under outlandish interpretations of "law."
So, because Hugo Chavez spouts anti-American rants, President Bush, General Petraeus, and Bill Gates -- and others! Get that? Maybe you! -- are going to be hauled before The Hague. Unfortunately for those who have peddled such a fantastical agenda, the ICC operates on the codes of international justice -- not the whims of bloviating dictators.
From UNHCR's YouTube Page: "UNHCR goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie and her partner Brad Pitt visited Ban Mai Nai Soi refugee camp in Mae Hong Son, Thailand, which is home to 18,111 mainly Karenni refugees from Myanmar"
It sort of goes without saying that Angelina Jolie's value as a celebrity-diplomat is her ability to draw attention to the issue she champions. That's the point. But what is sometimes less explored are the trickle-down effects of this kind of attention--effects that are acutely felt by a mid-sized global issues blog like one.
Let me show you what I mean.
By simply writing "Video: Angelina Jolie.." in the title of this post, UN Dispatch will receive a not-insignificant bump in traffic. It happens every time -- and we are grateful for it. Because you, Brangelina fan, are now primed for our own pitch on refugees.
And here it goes.
Most people would be surprised to learn that malaria is the leading cause of death for refugees around the world. Sad, but true. The thing is, malaria is quite easily preventable. One simple, cost effective way to reduce the chances of contracting malaria is by sleeping under an insecticide-treated bed net. In fact, when bed nets are properly used and widely distributed, malaria rates can drop by 90%. (Bill Gates concurs).
The United Nations Foundation, (which sponsors this blog) has an on-going campaign through Nothing But Nets to cover over 600,000 refugees with anti-malaria bed nets. Through Nothing But Nets individuals can donate $10 to send an insecticide-treated bed net to a refugee family.
Until the day that a malaria vaccine becomes widely available, bed nets are one of the best stop-gap measures to control malaria, particularly in refugee situations. So, Jolie-Pitt fans, consider this your invitation to get involved, send a net, and save a life.
Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse thinks he sees light at the end of the tunnel of the 25-year on-again, off-again civil war that the government has waged against the rebel movement of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The only problem is, there are a whole lot of civilians -- -- still stuck in that tunnel.
The ceasefire that had cooled the long-standing feud between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government started to unravel about three years ago, and conflict has fully re-erupted in the past year. The government has pushed steadily into the rebels' stronghold in the northeastern corner of the island country, reaching a small redoubt of 175 square miles known as Vanni, where journalists are forbidden and where tens of thousands of civilians are trapped, relying on UN World Food Program (WFP) aid convoys to survive.
Now security has deteriorated such that WFP has not even been able to send in a convoy -- a measure they were forced to resort to after the government expelled the UN from the area this past September -- for three weeks. WFP is warning that without an immediate halt to hostilities to allow in temporary aid, these quarter million civilians are at grave risk.
Though the situation is worse now than it has been in recent memory, the plight of Sri Lankans is unfortunately not unusual. Caught up in a rabid "identity war," civilians appear to be the ones left out -- and abused, neglected, and suffering -- in the government's fierce campaign to eliminate the LTTE. While observers herald the benefits of vanquishing the terrorist organization (though, of course, it will not be easy), the problematic aspect of this story seems, to me, to be the government's neglect of its citizens (not to mention disregard for international humanitarian law and UN neutrality). In a country as warped by war as Sri Lanka, the only ultimate way forward will be to create a peace that will win the trust and allegiance of the country's people -- and in its haste to create a post-LTTE society, the government seems to have forgotten this.
(image from flickr user openDemocracy under a Creative Commons license)
News trickled out of the usually tight-lipped TED Conference yesterday that Bill Gates let loose a swarm of mosquitoes on the audience during his talk about malaria. Here's the video. Swarming occurs at minute 5, but before and after that there is a lot of insightful commentary about malaria--including his exhortation that bed nets save lives.
The S-G offers what at first seems to be a rather common sensical, if candid, critique of the difficulties at the intersection between national politics and international climate change.
Ban Ki-moon said the situation had been compounded by the global financial downturn that was making it more difficult for the political leadership to take unpopular decisions.
"Their first priority maybe (is) to get elected first of all, whatever maybe the case," Ban told a conference on sustainable development in New Delhi.
"But they must overcome and look beyond this personal political leadership. They have to demonstrate their leadership as a global leader.
This is true; it is much easier to make politically expedient domestic decisions, particularly in times of financial struggle and/or when elections approach, than to make decisions that concern all of humanity, the entire globe, and future generations. The Bangladeshis who would lose their homes to sea rises, for example, or even the Floridians suffering from an increase in hurricanes in 2050, do not make particularly powerful constituencies in the United States in 2009.
Yet Ban's implied missive -- for leaders to ignore political reality in order to take a more daring global view -- cannot possibly be the entire solution, at least if we want to merge the realities of politicking with the scale of the need to address climate change. Rather, the key will be to play to both choruses at once -- to convince domestic audiences that they have an equal stake in halting emissions, that they will be the ones to feel the pernicious effects of global warming, and, most importantly, that addressing the economic crisis with an eye toward the environment is the only way to solve the problem. Rather than look to outdated patchwork solutions that seek a quick fix through pollution, leaders need to appeal to constituents to harness green technology, create green jobs, and promote other "green" solutions that take on both the environment and the economy, with both practicality and vision.
Israel accused the UN Relief and Works Agency of deliberately staging a situation where the IDF had to turn back aid shipments, for the benefit of photographers the UNRWA arranged to have at Kerem Shalom crossing. The UN agency deliberately sent material that had not yet been approved by the IDF for transfer into Gaza, forcing the Israelis to hold up half of the trucks at the transfer point.
By this account -- and I shudder to think that Ed might agree with me here -- Hamas' unconscionable seizure of aid supplies from UNRWA was probably actually orchestrated by UNRWA, those conniving double-crossers.
Listen. UNRWA is in Gaza to try to alleviate a dire humanitarian situation. Despite all of the flak (and sometimes more) that it gets from skeptics and outright opponents, UNRWA is working in one of the most difficult places in the world to provide one of the only avenues of life-saving supplies that Gazans can rely on. In that light, what irks me more about Ed's dastardly post is this flippant characterization of the situation in Gaza:
It also produces a question about UNRWA’s priorities. If the humanitarian situation is so poor in Gaza, why the emphasis on paper and plastic rather than food, water, and clothing? Israel notes that they want to focus on those items above ancillaries like notepads and school binders. Shouldn’t a relief agency be similarly focused?
Get that? "If the humanitarian situation is so poor in Gaza." This sets up a troubling conditional, and Ed quickly makes clear on which side he sees the balance weighted -- if UNRWA is requesting paper and plastic bags (the delivery of which was inexplicably still "under consideration" by Israel, a point that Ed conveniently elides), then Gaza must not be in a "serious" humanitarian catastrophe. Setting aside the fairly obvious, if easily overlooked, importance of such supplies, their provision by UNRWA does not of course mean that the agency is not providing essentials like food, water, and clothing. I choose not to imagine where hundreds of thousands of Gazans would find themselves without UNRWA aid -- and to what level the situation would have to deteriorate before tendentious commenters like Ed are willing to admit a humanitarian emergency.
From the UN News Center's February 5, 2003 report.
Armed with satellite images, transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations and other intelligence data, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell today presented the United Nations Security Council with what he called "solid" evidence that showed Iraq still has not complied with resolutions calling for it to disarm.
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence," Mr. Powell told the ministerial-level session of the 15-member body. Before hearing Mr. Powell's presentation, the Council members decided to grant Iraq's request to allow its representative sit at the Council table and make a statement at the end of the meeting.
I wrote yesterday about the dire situation of Muhajiriya, South Darfur, in which 196 peacekeepers were the only thing standing between Sudanese government forces and 20,000 civilians huddled around a UN base there. The town has since fallen.
Speaking to VOA, John Norris of the Enough Project thinks Khartoum's assault on Muhajiriya was a "test" to see how the new American administration will respond.
"It's clear that the Sudanese government right now is testing the fence, as it were. Obviously, President Bashir is increasingly concerned by what looks very likely like it will be an arrest warrant handed down by the International Criminal Court (ICC), probably as soon as this month. And I think that they are hoping to escalate pressure, not only on the United States, but on the international community, to strengthen their hand and make the at least theoretical case that perhaps, an arrest warrant should be deferred," he said.
Meanwhile, a Darfuri living in the United States relays to UN Dispatch stories of renewed fighting elsewhere in Darfur.
While rightfully all attention is concentrated on town of Muhajiriiyah,
other towns and villages around Muhajiriiyah (especially those on the path of [government] and Janjaweed forces) are witnessing atrocities and massive displacements of civilians:
1- Stories of looting, mass graves (family of 9 including father and mother are killed) in the village of Graidah.
2- Massive exodus from town of Labado towards Nyala, south Darfur.
3- Massive exodus from Shiriiya and villages around it towards Nyala and some headed to ElFasher (Capital of North Darfur).
4- All the above mentioned Towns and villages have seen continuous aerial bombardment since Friday.
It's clear that the Sudanese government is genuinely worried about the forthcoming ICC arrest warrant. I've been writing about Darfur since 2004. There is a tension and apprehension in what's happening there like I have not seen in a very long time. I'm pretty nervous myself.