The UN Convention on Law of the Sea was just voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 17 to 4, with Sens. Vitter, Coleman, Isakson, and DeMint opposing. Supporters were hoping for only 2 no votes. The next battle will be convincing the Democratic leadership to bring it to a vote on the Senate floor.

More disturbing news out of Darfur today. From the BBC:

An un-named UN official on Sunday saw the forced relocation of refugees at gunpoint from Otash camp to Amakassara. The UN says this "dangerous precedent" could jeopardise Darfur peace talks...

UN emergency relief coordinator Sir John Holmes said a UN official witnessed Sudanese security forces with sticks and rubber hoses coercing hundreds of refugees, including women and children, to leave Otash refugee camp on the outskirts of Nyala.

Other witnesses told the BBC they saw 10 vehicles with heavy machine guns surrounding people, while eight trucks were loaded with their belongings.

The refugees have been moved into an area where the UN says it is known that the Janjaweed militia operate.

Read more. Also, see daily updates from the Passion of the Present.

Finally, I'd like to thank blogger KM at the Coalition For Darfur, who has posted important updates on Darfur for the past three years. You have been an invaluable resource to me, and I'm sure countless others who have tried to keep up with the conflict in Darfur. Thanks for all your hard work over the years.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will attend a high-level diplomatic meeting on Iraq in Turkey this week.

The Istanbul Expanded Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Neighbouring Countries of Iraq will focus on ways to promote greater regional dialogue.

"The Secretary-General hopes the Istanbul meeting will be an important opportunity for the participants to find mutually acceptable solutions on issues of common concern," spokesperson Marie Okabe said.

More

As we've said before, the UN usually takes a beating during campaign season. The latest candidate to get in on the action is Fred Thompson, who in an 'exlusive email' to the Gun Nut blog of Field and Stream, rails against a UN plot to take guns away from law abiding Americans.

Says Thompson, "Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution."

I'm no fancy big city lawyer -- and I certainly don't play one on TV -- so I am hard-pressed to find something in this document that would violate Americans' second amendment rights. But, like I said, I'm no lawyer. Decide for yourself. Here are the offending paragraphs from the very brief August 2006 declaration of the Human Rights Council Sub-commission to which Thompson refers:

Urges States to adopt laws and policies regarding the manufacture, possession, transfer and use of small arms that comply with principles of international human rights and international humanitarian law;

Also urges States to provide training on the use of firearms by armed forces and law enforcement personnel consistent with basic principles of international human rights and humanitarian law with special attention to the promotion and protection of human rights as a primary duty of all State officials;

Further urges States to take effective measures to minimize violence carried out by armed private actors, including using due diligence to prevent small arms from getting into the hands of those who are likely to misuse them;

As you can see, these are pretty broad directives. And as you can see, no country is required to do anything. In fact, the only UN body that can require something of a member state is the Security Council, on which the United States has a veto.

Thompson next gets philosophical and channels Grotius. Really! Says Thompson, "the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, 'It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one...' and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not 'expressly set forth.'

Back in 1945, the framers of the UN Charter were not going to take any chances, so they expressly included the right to self defense. See Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms the Grotian view that self-defense is an 'inherent' right.

Thompson isn't so foolish to think that this declaration is just an attempt to secretly rebuke the work of a 17th century Dutchman. Really, there is something more sinister at work, "There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more...genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves!

Of course, there is some truth to this logic. Still, most estimates place the number of the victims of the Darfur genocide -- which occurred in the context of an armed insurgency, in which the victim population was not, in fact, disarmed -- at between 200,000 to 400,000 dead in five years of fighting. This declaration, and those like it at the UN, are attempts to address the proliferation and misuse of small arms, which kill 500,000 people each year. Most of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where the availability of small weapons like the AK-47 is no impediment to violent conflict.

The point of this declaration, and similar UN work, is to impede the transfer of small arms to recoving conflict zones like Liberia or Sierra Leone, thus removing one of the drivers of conflict. It is not intended to violate American's Second Amendment rights. Even if the UN wanted to--which it doesn't--it could not amend the Bill of Rights to alter the Second Amendment. Only a two-thirds vote of Congress and the States can do that.

After a brief hiatus, Matthew Lee and I are back on Blogging Heads. Topics discussed include: the UN Day Grinches, Darfur, the UN in Iraq, Libya on the Security Council and the dilemmas of peacekeeper accountability. Enjoy.

On October 22, the New York Times Magazine's James Traub published a report on the likelihood of an expanded UN role in Iraq for the Stanley Foundation. Traub speaks to UN Dispatch about the report, the inevitability of greater UN involvement in Iraq, and the troubling prospect that Iraq's last best hope may still fail.

In your report, you argue that it is inevitable that the UN take on a more robust political role in Iraq. How do you come to that conclusion?

It is probably inevitable that the UN's role will be expanded, but it is by no means inevitable what that role will be. It will be expanded in part because the dimensions of catastrophe there call on some of the abilities that the UN uniquely has. For example, the whole question of what will be done with the over two million refugees -- perhaps an equal number of IDPs -- is the kind of work the UN does. There is also another sense in which the expansion of the UN's role is inevitable, namely that there is a wish both on the part of the United States and of the United Nations for an expanded UN role.

The question is, what can the UN usefully contribute to Iraq?

The security situation limits the number of people that can go there. And of course, the greatest catastrophe in the history of the United Nations was the [bombing of the UN headquarters] in August 2003 which killed 29 people. So there is a deep wariness to putting more personnel in Iraq.

The real question is a political one: can the UN use its convening capacity -- its capacity as an impartial mediator -- to somehow engage in the kind of acts of political reconciliation that it has done elsewhere, but which no-one has been able to replicate in Iraq?

To that end, do you see any parallels from previous UN operations that might be applicable to Iraq?

Look at Burundi. That may seems like a silly comparison. But there you had a situation where Hutus ands Tutsis came close to using genocide as a political instrument in their struggle for power. That seemingly intractable situation has now become cured by a combination of UN intervention and the cooperation of all the relevant neighbors.

In that sense, the UN at times has been able to bind up wounds that otherwise seem incurable. Iraq of course, presents a unique situation because of the astonishing level of violence. Even beyond that (so far as most outsiders can tell) there is an unwillingness among the belligerents to concede that violence is not going to be the best way to achieve political goals. Neither the UN nor any other interlocutor can succeed in helping foster the conditions for political reconciliation unless the parties themselves are convinced that they can get what they want through some sort of negotiated process.

How then could the UN, as opposed to the US or any other country, break that impasse and convince the various factions that they have more to gain than lose through a negotiated settlement?

The first answer to your question is that that UN clearly has an advantage over the United States because it is seen as being an impartial actor. For all the anger at the UN that built up in the United States during the oil for food program, the fact is that back in 2004, Washington recognized that it could not speak to any of the players that it wanted to be a part of the interim government. That was part of what Sergio Vieira de Mello was doing when he was tragically killed in that bomb blast. This was also what Lakdhar Brahimi did in 2004 when he was able to put together the interim government of Iraq.

So the UN does have that kind of impartial convening power. The question, though, is how can the UN persuade the belligerents in Iraq that they have more to gain from compromise than killing people? I don't think the UN can do that. I think you have to begin the process and hope it attracts enough energy and attention so that the Maliki government and Sunni groups, however grudgingly, begin to come around.

For this to succeed, it would seem that the United States would have to fully support this track. What indicators have you seen that suggest the US would support a robust UN-led diplomatic endeavor?

Only desperation. Outside of that, I see none. You can parse the words that [UN Ambassador] Zalmay Khalilzad has spoken, and see in them a greater willingness to have the UN play a serious leading role in Iraq. The rub is going to come when, for example, the Sunni parties say "we're not going to even talk seriously about the kinds of concessions we are willing to make unless the Americans say they are going to leave."

Would Washington permit someone from the UN to negotiate away key strategic decisions? I find that hard to believe. But then again, what exactly does Washington mean when it says it wants the UN to play a much greater role in the process of political reconciliation? I assume that this issue has not been joined.

What 'needs to give' for Washington to cede that kind of authority to the UN?

I think the answer probably is that there needs to be a growing sense that there is no alternative. The kind of threshold question is: Does Washington support sending a serious negotiating figure to Iraq, and is it willing to give him or her the political space required?

If you look back to the Brahimi example in 2004, the US essentially allowed Brahimi to have a central role in assembling what would become the Iraqi government. So there you could say Washington granted him the political space he needed because they saw he could play a useful role. Could that provide an analogy for what could happen now? Hypothetically it does. It shows you that the key thing is granting that political space and to some extent stepping back and allowing this process to happen.

If the UN were so empowered, it may be able to break the political impasse we are seeing now. But as you say in your report, even if the UN is given this space, there is no guarantee of success -- far from it.

Right, but the problem is that every other path looks like a trajectory of sure failure. It is the melancholy destiny of the UN to be called on in the most desperate situations when everyone else has thrown up their hands or nobody else cares. Here is a case where people care desperately, but there doesn't seem to be any path to success. So, this is one of the besetting problems of the UN: it may be called on, then fail, then be blamed. But you can't say "we are not going to try because it will look bad if we fail." That's not how the UN thinks.

UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, reports that violence in Iraq has displaced more than 4.4 million people.

The agency estimates that 60,000 people are forced to leave their homes every month.

Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2.2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now. In 2006, Iraqis had become the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.

More

Via Jurist, I see that the UN's top climate change negotiator, Yvo de Boer, told reporters yesterday that the United States and Australia -- the only two western industrial nations not to ratify the Kyoto Accords -- have agreed to participate in the Bali conference to negotiate a successor climate change agreement. de Boer's announcement came after informal meetings with member states in Indonesia yesterday. From the AP:

"The United States came to this meeting with a very constructive position, saying they want to see a launch of negotiations" to be concluded by 2009, he said…"The United States and Australia indicated in this meeting they are willing to begin negotiations," de Boer told reporters Thursday. "They are willing take on commitment on the future climate change regime."

[snip]

U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky said the Indonesian talks were the "kind of discussion that needs to take place to move us forward." Dobriansky could not say if the United States would drop its long-standing opposition to forced emission reductions, but noted that a combination of mandatory measures and financial incentives was part of domestic environmental policy.

Baby steps, perhaps. But a step in the right direction nonetheless! It was unclear just a few months ago, for example, if the United States would even participate the Bali negotiations, which will take place in early December.

United Nations agencies are working together to address the problem of sexual violence in Somalia.

"After years of war, rape has become a threat to women in Somalia when they move along roads, due to the presence of militia at illegal roadblocks. They are also at risk in IDP settlements located on the outskirts of towns such as Galkayo, which are too isolated to be secure," United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said in a news release.

More

As Mark mentioned, not everyone got into the spirit of UN Day yesterday. Niles Gardiner, from the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, published this:

As overpaid and under worked United Nations bureaucrats quaff champagne and feast on canapés and shrimp in Turtle Bay to celebrate U.N. Day, it is important for the world to remember those who have been failed by the organization, or have suffered at its hands.

He goes on to blame the UN for the Rwanda genocide, the Darfur genocide, and the suffering of "millions of Iraqis...under the brutal boot of the Baathist regime while Saddam Hussein plundered the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program," among a list of other things.

The most disappointing part of Gardiner's post is its single-minded view of world events. Nobody who is serious about foreign policy actually believes in reductions like his. Obviously there are other factors that, one would hope, should speak to his hypotheses. UN troops are "peacekeepers" and are not intended to be an invasionary force or successfully operate in areas where there is no peace to keep. Rwanda and Darfur were (and are being) failed by all of humanity, not specifically the UN. Those "millions of Iraqis" he mentions, 80 percent of the population, were actually supplied critical medical supplies and food through the Oil-for-Food program, not to mention the fact that Saddam Hussein was unable to develop a WMD program during that time. These were the stated goals of the program. The majority of the resources that flowed to Hussein during this period were due to "sanctions violations outside the Programme's framework," oil smuggling to the tune of $11 billion as compared to the estimated $1.8 billion in revenues from OFF manipulation.

The world is a complex place, and the UN has repeatedly been asked to solve difficult problems nearly everywhere. The overwhelming majority of UN workers are in the field risking their lives and forgoing comfort in an effort to vaccinate children, reduce poverty, promote democracy, and keep the peace; very few, if any, are doing anything near quaffing champagne or feasting on canapés and shrimp (Gardiner's characterization is more than insulting). Many of the challenges they are working to meet don't have immediate solutions, and some of their many missions will inevitably fail (as they would were they to be taken up by any entity, including the United States). The fact that the UN is not a world government, but rather a platform for international cooperation (and thus dependent on engagement by Member States like the U.S.) should render discussions about the UN even more nuanced. Unfortunately, in Gardiner's case, nothing does.

There is only one logical explanation from an individual who claims three
masters degrees and a Ph.D; he knows better. The deception is intentional, aimed toward an ideological victory not real solutions.

As I wrote yesterday in my UN Day post, "there are certainly steps to be
taken to ensure that the UN can more efficiently fulfill its mission." Those steps -- the paths to more effective global solutions -- should be the topic of discussion, a fervent one at that; billions of peoples lives and livelihoods are depending on it. Drivel like Gardiner's is more than distracting; it's reprehensible.

Corine Hegland has written a great summary article (pdf) on UNCLOS for the National Journal. I got this from Matt, who writes "She's doing neutral reporting, so she doesn't come out and say that there's little to the opponents' case besides vague paranoia but she also make it clear that there's little to the opponents' case besides vague paranoia."

Slate also published an "Explainer" on the race to claim the Artic today.

Key quotes from Hegland's piece after the jump.

The treaty's proponents are, well, preponderant. There's the president and his Cabinet, the former chiefs of naval operations, and all the living legal advisers to the secretary of State. Also the American Petroleum Institute; the International Association of Drilling Contractors; the Navy League of the United States; the World Wildlife Fund; the Nature Conservancy; and the U.S. Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, as well as 35 other such organizations. There's a letter from 101 "prominent Americans," including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Alexander Haig, Colin Powell, and George Shultz; a handful of governors and former senators and Cabinet members; and, if that's not enough, Walter Cronkite.

...

At the end of a 45-minute interview, [Frank] Gaffney still brims with reasons to reject the treaty. It encroaches on American sovereignty. It creates a new U.N. bureaucracy, with taxation powers. The 1994 "fix" was no fix at all, because the treaty was not yet open to amendment, and besides, Reagan's objections went far beyond the seabed mining issues. It will allow other nations to sue the United States over land-based pollution. It will allow other nations to sue the U.S. military for moving through their territorial waters. Countries that hate us will be able to out-vote us in the convention bodies. World judges will rule against U.S. interests, and federal judges will enforce their rulings. The Senate is rushing to a vote, with only two hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and none at all in Armed Services, Commerce, Energy, Environment, Intelligence, and Judiciary, among others.

None of these claims are quite true, say treaty proponents, including the Pentagon and the State Department. Military activities are exempt from the treaty's dispute-resolution procedures; nobody will be suing the Navy. The land-based pollution provisions essentially call on nations to enact and enforce their own laws, which the United States already does. In the one suit involving land-based pollution, an Irish challenge to a British nuclear power plant, the Irish lost. The U.S. will be able to take all disputes to arbitration, not to judges on world tribunals. The 1994 renegotiation is valid law: Nations often make subsequent agreements based on earlier agreements. The International Seabed Authority, which implements the agreement, strives to make decisions by consensus. It has no actual taxation powers, although members are assessed dues, and it may claim up to 7 percent of revenues from some oil and gas sites; it can also conduct its own hard-mineral mining at some deep seabed locations. The Senate committees held hearings in 2004.

...
As the Arctic ice recedes, there will be a race for the oil, gas, and mineral resources buried there. Because the United States hasn't ratified the treaty, it doesn't have a seat at the table where the 155 nations that have approved it will determine the validity of Arctic claims. U.S. companies want a piece of the action; U.S. environmental groups want a hand in managing what they foresee asenvironmental chaos.

It seems that we are seeing the Darfur rebel-buy in problem become fully manifest ahead of this weekend's peace talks. Various news agencies are reporting that few of the key players plan to attend the peace talks on Saturday in Sirte, Libya. Significant no-shows, of course, would mean that the peace talks would fail before they began.

To make matters worse, the peacekeeping force being prepared for Darfur is already beset by problems. Not only is UNAMID having trouble finding donor countries willing to provide 24 helicopters, but the government of Sudan is placing onerous bureaucratic obstacles to its deployment. Khartoum, for example, refuses to let the UN deploy any troops not from Africa--never mind that African militaries lack certain capacities neccessary to get the mission off the ground.

The UN special envoy for Darfur, Jan Eliasson, (known as one of the more skilled diplomats in the UN system) is understandably frustrated. The UN will inevitably be blamed for failing in Darfur. But by itself, the UN has no real power to press intransigent rebel groups to attend the meeting. Eliasson, for example, can't threaten to sanction Khalil Ibrahim for refusing to join the talks. Neither can Jan Elliason knock on President Bashir's door and threaten further sanctions should his government, say, refuse to lease land or provide ports of entry to the peacekeeping force. The real power rests with member states. And so far, key member states are clearly not applying the kind of pressure necessary to force all parties to the table this weekend.

UPDATE: Julia Spiegel from the Enough Campaign writes in:

"I don't think the peace talks are doomed to fail if all of the rebel leaders are not at the table at the outset. It's not ideal, of course, but the international community can work intensively to bring other rebel parties and potential spoilers into the fold as the talks proceed."

"These discussions are going to take a very long time and there's potential there to bring others on board, once the process has been proven to be legitimate. But it will take serious energy and engagement."

B. Lynn Pascoe, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, raised concerns recently about the humanitarian conditions facing Palestinians.

"Economic activity and humanitarian operations will be seriously affected by the decision of Israel to further restrict access for West Bank residents - including UN staff - to East Jerusalem and the ‘seam zone’ between the Barrier and the green line," he said.

More

Obviously not getting into the spirit of United Nations Day, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad derided as "piles of paper" UN Security Council resolutions demanding Iranian halt its nuclear program.

"The so-called dossier at the Security Council is a pile of papers that have no value. They can add to those worthless papers everyday because it has no effect on the will of the Iranian nation," state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday.

Ahmidenijad has always positioned himself as the fly in the American ointment. But here, he's not just insulting the United States, but Europe, Russia, and China as well. China, in particular, has increasingly sought to use the Security Council as a locus of its foreign policy priorities so it would seem to me that they have an interest in defending the authority of the Security Council against attacks like this. To the extent that Ahmidenijad has sought to stoke divisions within the Security Council, I have to wonder if his bluster today is ultimately counterproductive.

Today, in honor of UN Day, DipNote, the "U.S. Department of State Official Blog," is soliciting responses to the question above. We believe that, although there are certainly steps to be taken to ensure that the UN can more efficiently fulfill its mission (both in terms of reform and the full payment of dues by key Member States), the answer is clear (and thoroughly and eloquently spelled out here).

Submit your answer on DipNote and write to us here at UN Dispatch.

A selection from those who have weighed in at DipNote after the jump.

Ralph in Greece writes:

I believe the UN has always done the best it can. With any organization run by people, you will have problems, but the system works. Now, please get them to pay their parking tickets!! Please!

Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007

Robert in Ohio writes:

As far as keeping some sort of dialogue open, I'll say sure. As for the "help solve economic, social, and humanitarian problems" bit... unless you count writing futile angry letters a viable solution I'll say no. And as with any org there will be corruption (Oil for Food prog, etc). So, I guess it really depends on what function you'd like to stress.

Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007

Scott in Washington, DC writes:

The U.S.-UN relationships is like a marriage. It isn't always perfect and we don't always get what we want, but life would be much more difficult without our partner. The UN today is at least as relevant - and as helpful to U.S. interests - as it has ever been.

Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007

Kashif in America writes:

Yes the U.N. may not be effective at times and might seem to serve the interests of certain nations who have veto power but without a consensus, no matter how horrible the other parties you are forming a consensus with are, it is still important to include them in the process. Without inclusion then you end up giving on aura of exclusivity and if that occurs all nations will feel themselves to be exempt from a framework of international law due to this aura of exclusivity. This is already occuring where Ameica thinks it can preempt and label countries as good and evil, what is stopping other coutries like Russia in doing the same against legitimate freedom struggles like in Chechnya by labeling these freedom fighters "evil" to justify horrible means of subjugation. Legitimate freedom struggles around the world have only to be labeled evil for dominating hegemonic powers to assert their will over these freedom fighters. Hey maybe the colonists of America were evil too and maybe Britain was right back then to call american colonists traitors; a list like this can go on forever but I think my point has been made.

Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007

by Dr. Corrado Clini, Director General of the Italian Ministry for the Environment Land and Sea and Chairman of the Global Bioenergy Partnership

Trade in biofuels and biofuels feedstocks is currently too low. European and US systems of subsidies and incentives for domestic production and of tariffs for imported feedstocks and final products are, de facto, reducing the potential biofuels production in tropical and subtropical countries, where biomass productivity is significantly higher than in temperate regions such as Europe and North America (according to some estimates up to five times higher).

Brazil beside “just” becoming the first producer of Ethanol, was able in the last 30 years to drive a flex technological revolution that contributed to its road to a complete development. Other examples of this dynamism are represented by those countries that without such internal markets are developing a biofuels industry that takes advantage of existing preferential trade agreements with US and Europe.

International trade, in fact, could provide win-win opportunities for all countries. For several importing countries, it is a necessary precondition for meeting self-imposed fuel blending targets; for exporting countries, especially small- and medium-sized developing countries, these markets are necessary to initiate their industries. Reducing and eliminating trade barriers and phasing out trade-distorting subsidies would contribute to establishing a level playing field. Investors in prospective biofuels export facilities need to be assured that markets are going to be open and that there will be scope for exports, allowing them to exploit economies of scale.

Labeling and certification of biofuels and related feedstocks may be instrumental to ensure that widespread biofuel production and use will indeed be conducive to environmental improvements. Certification and labeling remain, however, a rather complex issue. Efforts should be deployed to ensure that the development of sustainability criteria and certification systems contribute to reaching environmental objectives without creating unnecessary barriers to international trade, especially to exports from developing countries.

At the Doha Round, negotiations were launched for “the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.” However, although, according to WTO members, renewable energy products, like Ethanol, Biodiesel, and related products, could be classified as environmental goods, many disagreements have hampered any conclusive result.

New and innovative forums have to be utilized to reach consensus in order to create an open international market, necessary for the effective utilization of the potential benefits of biofuels in term of Sustainable Development, Technology Transfer, Climate Change mitigation, Energy, and Food Security.

As Jessica noted, today is UN Day. Buffalo ExPat, Marketing Buzz, Graf Wurks, Informatics World, SPA Library, Xcuse2Party, and GothicGirl, all take a moment to celebrate.

So do these children.

Today marks United Nations Day, the anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter on today's date in 1945.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today, "More people and governments understand that multilateralism is the only path in our interdependent and globalizing world,...Global problems demand global solutions – and going it alone is not a viable option."

So Happy Birthday, UN. Party on.

Confusing the Hutus and Tutsis is the least of the mistakes Ed Morrisey made in a post on the Democratic Republic of the Congo this morning. Ostensibly he uses the new Human Rights Watch report on North Kivu as shaky foundation for an attack not only on the MONUC force, which he spuriously claims "has done little but act as observers as the situation has deteriorated," but on UN peacekeeping in general, which he accuses of "successive failures."

The "Captain" clearly values his talking points over any semblance of nuanced reporting or opinion. Even the most cursory research (we can suggest UN Dispatch's new full-text RSS feed) would have revealed that UN workers in this incredibly complex conflict zone have been far more than "observers." In fact, 81 UN peacekeepers have been killed as part of the mission in the DRC. Morrisey is not only being disrespectful to those who gave their lives to the mission but is insulting those who continue to put themselves in harm's way as they try to pull the war-torn country together. Mark summarizes the situation (emphasis mine):

From 1998 to 2003 nearly 4 million people are thought to have perished in a civil war stoked by Congo's neighbors.... For 37 years Mobutu Sesse Seko ruled Congo (then called Zaire) by enriching himself and impoverishing his citizens .... To prevent spoilers from undermining the [2003 peace] agreement, the Security Council authorized a deployment of peacekeepers .... These peacekeepers face grueling tasks. The country is the size of Western Europe, with few roads to support armored personnel carriers and other heavy military equipment. There were some setbacks. In 2004, an armed group overran UN forces and took over the town of Bukavu, killing many residents and looting their possessions. In response, the Security Council reinforced MONUC with additional 6,000 troops and expanded its mandate to ensure civilian protection. A newly emboldened Monuc force in Ituri began to experiment with more assertive peacekeeping tactics. Rather than simply provide protection to civilians and humanitarian workers, peacekeepers in Ituri sought to roll back militias by in aggressive tactical raids.

By 2005, MONUC's most important task was deterring spoilers from undermining national elections planned for 2006. These elections, which took place in late July, were a logistical accomplishment of historical proportions. The United Nations registered some 25 million people throughout the country. Ballots were transported by truck, plane, helicopter and even canoe. 80% of the population voted, and after a runoff selected Joseph Kabila. For the first time in 40 years, the Congolese people had voted for in a multiparty election.

After years of war, the DRC remains a broken country. It consistently ranks near the top of Foreign Policy's failed states index. Kabila's government is unable to deliver basic services to most of its citizens and depends on foreign assistance. The largest, most expensive, and most accomplished peacekeeping mission in the world, however, continues to offer the Congolese people a blanket of protection while democracy takes root.

It should also be noted that the DRC only has 300 miles of roads despite being the size of Western Europe. Kivu alone is three times the size of Sierra Leone, where the UN had 13,000 peacekeepers.

Although we recommend it, Morrisey doesn't have to tune in to UN Dispatch to get a less dogmatic view. In 2005, James Traub wrote a thorough and balanced piece about the situation in the DRC. If he doesn't read the Times or the New Republic, he could have read Eric Shawn's column for Fox News. In fact, he could have just read the full Human Rights Watch report. Their recommendations to MONUC and the UNHCR are a small section of a slate directed also at the Congolese government, the government of Rwanda, the "Forces of Laurent Nkunda," the FDLR, and the "International Community." And the report points out the difficulties MONUC faces:

MONUC had to redefine its role after the election to take account of the newly elected government. This process was particularly complicated in eastern Congo where Nkunda's troops, officially part of the Congolese army, were engaged in military operations against the army, and where the FDLR was said to be a negative force to be eliminated, yet sometimes benefited from the tacit support of Congolese army soldiers.

and MONUC's successes:

Observations and conversations of Human Rights Watch researchers with residents of North Kivu during 2006 and 2007 showed that most residents appreciated the protection afforded civilians by MONUC. In February, for example, MONUC peacekeepers escorted some 100 civilians to safety, sandwiched between two tanks, after Nkunda's forces had attacked Katwiguru. Opinion surveys organized by international NGOs confirmed a general popular appreciation for MONUC efforts at protection.

To be sure, MONUC has been far from perfect. But it's the height of hypocrisy to pen this post and then follow it up with a cry that we pay attention to the "facts" in Iraq (and an implicit ask for patience in a complex security situation).

I needn't devote much space to Morrisey's insane assault on peacekeeping in general (in fact, I'll just rebut in parentheses: here and anecdotally here), but I would like to note that his choice to bash UNIFIL in particular is bizarre. Again, Mark is a rockstar:

[I]t is worth recalling that just one year ago a barrage of rockets rained down on northern Israel while thousands of Lebanese civilians became displaced by Israeli bombing. But through diplomacy at the UN, catastrophe was contained.

In the inaugural issue of the brand new Guardian American Allen Gerson, a former aid to the late UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, tells the heretofore unknown story of how the United States sought to justify the Iraq war before the now defunct UN Commission on Human Rights(UNCHR).

Few can challenge the neo-conservative credentials of Kirkpatrick, so it is surprising that Gerson reveals Kirkpatrick's deep discomfort with the administration's attempt to jettison the UN Charter and justify the invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive war.

Here's the story: On the eve of war, the State Department sent Kirkpatrick to UNCHR headquarters in Geneva to try and block a resolution condemning the imminent US invasion. Foggy Bottom told Kirkpatrick to make her case by "defending the merits of the US action as justifiable on the grounds that Iraq was engaged in producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and were ready to export them to terrorist groups like al-Qaida."

Kirkpatrick, though, was not prepared to advance this position. In fact, in her time at the UN she consistently argued that the right of self-defense (as defined in article 51 of the UN Charter) did not include the right to launch pre-emptive wars. Rather, Kirkpatrick sought to appeal to the rule-of-law to stave off the opposing resolution. To that end, Kirkpatrick argued that the US-led invasion could be justified because Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War. In other words, military action against Iraq could be seen as a police action to enforce the UN Charter. Incidentally, Kirkpatrick's argument won the day in Geneva and ended up undermining the a resolution condemning the United States.

The administration, obviously, chose to ignore this position and instead sold the war to the American public and allies as a war of self defense and pre-emption. Had the administration chosen to endorse Kirkpatrick's position -- that the war could be justified as an act intended to defend the UN charter -- Gerson suggests that we might have seen a different outcome than we have today.

So what is the takeaway from all this? I think Gerson nails it here:

In the changing American political climate, where a Democratic presidential victory in 2008 seems highly likely, both of the leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, have spoken, in varying degrees, of championing the rule of law. The rule of law in international affairs requires nothing less than a recommitment to America's past, as a champion of the UN Charter.

But his advice is not limited to the democrats. Gerson, after all, is a Republican and identifies himself as a conservative.

Conservatism, at its core, is about carefulness, prudence and restraint - a far cry from the banner of those who rushed to war in Iraq, and sought to legitimise it by a rationale that has had far reaching consequences beyond that of the Iraq war

In other words, reclaiming America's role as the champion of the rule of law in global affairs is not a partisan argument. It is one of principle.

David Beckham joins forces with Nothing But Nets; find out how you can get involved here.

The New York Times' James Traub (perhaps most famous for being the first-ever guest in our Delegates Lounge) just released a smart analysis of the UN in Iraq, which was commissioned by the Stanley Foundation. The PDF is here.

The UN, says Traub, will inevitably assume the responsibility for negotiating a political settlement in Iraq. It the only body capable of acting both as an impartial mediator of Iraq's internal disputes and as a neutral platform to entice the support of Iraq's neighbors. The Bush administration is certainly pushing for this expanded UN role -- and the Secretary General is receptive.

The problem, of course, is that Iraq's factions do not want the UN -- or anyone -- to arbitrate their disputes. Violence is still seen as a profitable way to secure political power, or deny it to others. Further, the United States has not made clear the extent to which it is willing to cede power to the United Nations to accomplish this task. Asks Traub, "Would the White House back a UN diplomat trying, say, to limit Kurdish control over Kirkuk? What if that diplomat needed to promise a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops in exchange for Sunni concessions?" At least for the moment, this does not seem to be the case.

Even if the UN were fully empowered by key member states, success if not ordained. Still, this is the last best option for Iraq. Explains Traub:

The prospects are so daunting, and the likelihood of success so low, that one would never contemplate this act of diplomatic legerdemain were there any meaningful alternative. But there isn’t. The American military presence is not, itself, changing the key political facts; and an American withdrawal, by itself, will not suddenly bring the parties to their sense.

From an institutional point of view, there is the danger that member states direct the UN to lead a political process, but not actually cede to the UN the requisite power to do so. (And then, when the peace process fails, blame the UN.) But, says Traub, the UN is willing to assume this risk. After all, the UN will be bogged down in Iraq long after foreign armed forces leave the country. There are already two million Iraq refugees and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced being looked after by the UN. These numbers will only augment as violence spreads.

"In honor of United Nations Day on Wednesday," the NY Times published an interconnected series of UN-based puzzles in yesterday's paper.

Don't cheat.

The Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has condemned the recent assassination of the chief executive of a popular radio station.

UNESCO chief Koïchiro Matsuura said "I am gravely concerned about worsening violence against journalists and media personnel in Somalia who are brave enough to fulfil their professional commitments in such a dangerous environment."

More

The United Nations often suffers in election years. Last year, for example, the pollster Frank Luntz advised office seakers that the UN could be made into a "wedge issue" prior to the congressional elections.

This election cycle is no different--so far. Prior to the UN Summit last month, a primary candidate demanded the US withhold funding from the United Nations unless the UN prevent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from addressing the General Assembly. Now, as Matt Yglesias and Paul Kiel have noted, the same candidate has called for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council -- never mind that the United States is not a member of the council.

Fortunately, some candidates in the race have first hand experience at the UN. And from that knowledge stems statements like this:

"[The] United Nations...is a necessary and important framework for building the international cooperation that will be necessary to confront problems like environmental degradation and poverty."

In a speech addressing 21st century global threats, [Governor Richardson] said the U.N. is vital to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and solutions to global climate change.

"As a former U.N. ambassador there -- your ambassador there -- I, more than anyone in this race, understand the shortcomings of that institution," the New Mexico governor admitted. "But I also know the incredible power in the legitimacy of international cooperation."

What's interesting here is that politicians typically do not step out of their way to defend the United Nations while running for office. But perhaps this is a sign of the times. With American foriegn policy burdened by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, politicians recognize that voters understand the United States needs the kind of international support that the United Nations can provide.

With financial backing from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Lesotho has launched a major drive against measles. The campaign aims to reach nearly a quarter of a million children under the age of five.

More

Martin Elmund from Malaria No More, who has also been covering the Gates Malaria Forum, writes today about news regarding "RTS,S, the world’s most clinically advanced malaria vaccine candidate." Elmund explains:

A joint project between GlaxoSmithKline and the Gates-funded Malaria Vaccine Initiative, RTS,S works in two ways. First, it prepares the defense mechanisms of a person to recognize and respond to the malaria parasite before it encounters the genuine article. Second, it helps t-cells attack the parasite as it emerges from the liver (the first stop in the body where it multiplies some 40,000X) and begins to infiltrate red blood cells.

In 2004, RTS,S was shown to provide greater than 50% protection against infection in children 1-to-4 years old. The new study finds that among children under one, the vaccine provides 65% protection against new infections over three months.

This is significant because children 18 months and younger bear a disproportionate burden from the disease: 30% to 50% of the severe disease and deaths occur in that age group. Until now, it was unknown whether the vaccine could help shield them from malaria.

The Times also picks up on the same story save this nugget, 'Time and again scientists have been on the brink of success only to have their hopes publicly and painfully dashed. The height of false hope, perhaps, was in 1984 when the NY Times ran the headline “Malaria Vaccine is Near.”'

According to Elmund:

Researchers were so confident they’d cracked the code that they tested the vaccine on themselves just before flying to a conference where they expected to declare victory. They came down with malaria symptoms the morning after they landed.

The Guardian has more information today about Idris Osman, the WFP official kidnapped in Somali:

About 60 soldiers forced their way into the WFP offices yesterday morning, taking Idris Osman, a Somali national, into custody at gunpoint and locking him up at the National Security Services headquarters.

No reason was given for the arrest, which prompted an immediate suspension of WFP work in the capital. But UN officials said it was linked to a new method of food distribution that began on Monday using 42 local mosques to get aid to more than 75,000 people in Mogadishu.

The WFP, which is struggling to deal with a growing hunger crisis in Somalia, had been unable to directly distribute food in the capital since June 25 due to violence and looting. "Going through the mosques guaranteed us a level of security the government cannot give," said a UN official in Nairobi, who requested anonymity.

Although Somalia is almost completely Muslim, the transitional government views mosques, particularly in Mogadishu, with suspicion.

The Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) continues to speak out on the "systematic" media killings in Iraq.

Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura said recently, "I condemn the killings of Salih Saif Aldin, Jasim and Mohhamed Nofaan, Zeyard Tariq, and Dhi Abdul-Razak al-Dibo...The apparently systematic targeting of journalists in Iraq shows how disturbing it is for the war mongers to see their crimes exposed. This in turn highlights how important free and independent reporting is for the restoration of peace and democracy in Iraq."

More