There's a huge UN conference happening today in the Congolese capital Kinshasa on women's rights:

Women's rights ministers from 11 countries across Africa's Great Lakes region are gathering today in Kinshasa for a United Nations-organized conference to take steps to set up a regional research and documentation centre on women's rights.

The two-day meeting in the Congolese capital, jointly organized by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Ministry of Women's Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), will also be attended by representatives of the African Union, the African Bank of Development and the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, as well as several UN agencies.

Check out UNESCO's site for more details, but the goal seems to be that the Great Lakes research center will be based on a similar UNESCO-initiated women's rights center created in 2006 in Ramallah in the occupied Palestinian territory. Sounds like a great and necessary initiative for the Great Lakes.

July has been a bad month for war criminals. On Monday, July 14, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court set in motion proceedings against Sudanese president Omar el Bashir for genocide. Exactly one week later Radovan Karadzic--wanted for genocide in the Balkans--was arrested in Belgrade.

What does one have to do with the other? To be precise: not much. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a separate institution from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (ICTY). The latter is a temporary, ad hoc tribunal focused only on the Balkans. The former is a permanent institution with a global remit. Despite these differences, though, Karadzic's arrest may offer a glimpse into how Bashir may one day face justice. It also shows why international war crimes tribunals can be such useful institutions to have around.

Karadzic -- the political mastermind behind the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia in the 1990s, including the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica -- has been on the run from the ICTY for the past thirteen years. So why, all of a sudden, is he finally behind bars? The answer flows from a combination of internal politics and international pressure. In June, the pro-west Serbian President Boris Tadic won a decisive victory against hardliners in parliamentary elections. This victory gave Tadic the political cover to finally purge hard line nationalist elements from the government and, once and for all, move against Karadzic. Karadzic's partner in war crime, General Radko Mladic, may soon follow.

Sending Karadzic to the ICTY was a personal political victory for Tadic; it showed his opposition to be truly marginalized. But the smart application of carrots and sticks by the United States and European Union also helped set the stage for Karadzic's arrest. Since the founding of the ICTY, the United States and European Union members have made Serbian cooperation with the tribunal the sine qua non of its bi-lateral relations with Serbia.

The United States is the Tribunal's principal funder and Americans are well represented among ICTY investigators, prosecutors and staff. Each year, aid to Serbia from the United States is conditioned on Serbian cooperation with the court; it is the stick that backs American efforts at political reform in the Balkans. Even more important to Belgrade than American dollars is acceptance into the European Union, whose members have held up even the prospect of future Serbian ascension until Belgrade comes clean with its bloody past. This means handing over wanted war criminals to the ICTY.

One can imagine a similar set of carrots and sticks easing Bashir from power. Bashir's hard-line National Congress Party is unpopular in much of Sudan. Elections are scheduled for 2009--and if held freely and fairly might herald a changing of the guard in Khartoum. The ICC proceedings provide the international community with critical leverage over the Sudanese government, which so far has had little incentive to go ahead with these elections. But just as the European Union and the United States wielded the ICTY to spur political progress in the Balkans, the Security Council can use the threat of indictment--and the prospect of suspending proceedings -- for political gains in Sudan. The Security Council (as is its prerogative) can suspend the ICC proceedings if it decides that doing so would be in the interest of peace and security. If the Sudanese government takes credible steps toward peace in Darfur, and follows through with elections mandated in a 2005 peace accord it signed to end a separate civil war in Sudan's south, the Council may consider lifting the indictment.

Missing from this equation, however, is American support for the ICC. Right now, the Bush administration is somewhere between actively opposed and indifferent to the Court. After spending much of its first term trying to undermine the Court in various ways the administration is starting to acquiesce to its existence. The administration withheld its veto and abstained from a 2005 Security Council resolution authorizing the ICC to investigate crimes in Darfur. And as president of the Security Council in June, the United States even convened a Council briefing by the ICC's chief prosecutor.

Still, these modest steps toward a detente with the Court are a far cry from the way in which the United States embraces the ICTY as a critical tool of American diplomacy. Indeed, upon news of Karadzic's arrest, the White House was quick to issue a statement hailing "an important demonstration of the Serbian Government's determination to honor its commitment to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal."

Until the United States views the ICC through the same lens as it views the ICTY, the Court will only have limited potential as a stick to back diplomacy toward places like Sudan. This is too bad. In Serbia, the ICTY bolstered moderates, marginalized hard liners and locked away bad guys. The ICC can do the same in Sudan. If only we'd let it.

We seem to have reached the consensus that poverty--along with other grievances such as political oppression and cultural alienation--are not reliable indicators of future terrorist activity. Given the prevalence of these conditions throughout the Muslim world, the "root causes" approach overpredicts the level of terrorist activity that we should expect to observe. As Quintan Wiktorowicz notes in Islamic Activism, "[w]hile grievances are ubiquitous, movements are not." The question remains, then, why almost seven years after 9/11, does the root causes debate still shape the counterterrorism discourse?

From a policy perspective, the approach is a seductive one: if we can identify the causes of terrorism, then we can eradicate the conditions that allow terror to take root. At one time or the other, policymakers on both sides of the aisle have found comfort in this formulation. As Peter mentions, this does not mean that global poverty reduction or similar measures shouldn't be a goal of U.S. foreign policy, but the expectation that they will reduce terrorism may be misplaced.

Writing in Tuesday's International Herald Tribune, three German scholars -- and authors of a forthcoming study on "UN Peace Operations and Organizational Learning" -- provide an accurate summary of the challenges facing UN peacekeeping and its new chief, Alain Le Roy. What makes this op-ed so compelling is its authors' careful and consistent specification that member states -- not the amorphous collections of these member states, such as the "UN" or the "Security Council" -- are responsible for both the struggles of UN peacekeeping and their potential solutions. An example of this simple, but so frequently ignored, distinction:

UN member states have neglected making crucial investments in the support infrastructure for an expanding network of large peace operations with increasingly complex tasks, from protecting civilians to rebuilding defunct institutions in post-conflict states. [emphasis mine]

Far too often, the convenient shorthand "UN" replaces this specification, and the entire body is unjustifiably branded for the failings of specific countries to follow through on their words and commitments. This is why I was disappointed to read one particular word in the op-ed's subsequent sentence:

As a result, the UN apparatus is severely overstretched, exhibiting increasingly serious pathologies ranging from sluggish deployments to shocking sexual abuse scandals.

These are not pathologies. For one, the sexual abuse scandals, while indeed "shocking" and certainly unacceptable, are the deviations of a relatively small number of peacekeepers, not the symptoms of a systemic disease in UN peacekeeping. And as specified elsewhere in the piece, slow deployment should be chalked up squarely on Member States' insufficient offers of troops and political pressure. Yet the use of the word "pathologies" suggests that these blemishes -- manifestations of Member State shortcomings -- are somehow endemic to UN peacekeeping.

This is one minor slip-up, and goes against the tone of the piece as a whole, which I strongly encourage you to read, as it also offers welcome insight into the pressing -- and dangerously increasingly ignored -- stipulation that UN peacekeepers should only be deployed where there is a peace to keep.

I agree with the other panelists that no link can be demonstrated between poverty and terrorism. This is not to say that socio-economic conditions have no relevance whatsoever. The economic success of the American Muslim community (two thirds earn over $50,000) is one of the reasons why American Muslims have become so well integrated into American society. The fact that 22% of young British Muslims are unemployed does contribute towards feelings of alienation.

I'm currently in London looking into violent extremism in the UK. The dynamics over here have direct implications for the national security of the United States. In 2006 authorities thwarted an Al Qaeda plot by British-born Muslims to bring down up to seven airliners leaving Heathrow for North America. The threat has not gone away. Britain probably has more Al Qaeda supporters than any other western country, two thousand of which now pose a security threat according to MI5.

Many British Islamist terrorists have had relatively privileged upbringings. Here are just a few examples: Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the July 7, 2005 London bombings earned a decent salary as a primary school teacher; Shehzad Tanweer, another 7/7 bomber use to cruise around in his father's Mercedes; Omar Sheikh, the British militant who orchestrated the murder of Danny Pearl attended LSE; Omar Khan Sharif, the British militant who attacked a nightclub in Tel Aviv in 2003 attended elite British schools; Abdullah Ahmed Ali, the alleged ringleader of the 'Airlines' plot, came from a solidly middle class background. One of his brothers is an IT consultant, another a property developer and a third a probation officer (!) at Britain's Home Office.

The evidence from the UK suggests that political grievances and radical-Islamist indoctrination, not socio-economic conditions, have been key to terrorist recruitment. Youngsters who are more affluent and educated are more likely to be motivated by political arguments. The British Muslims that have joined Al Qaeda have all become convinced that the United States and Britain are at war with Islam and that it is their religious duty to fight back. Here, Matt Levitt is right to point out the importance of 'organized radicalization.' In Britain a number of radical clerics, such as Abu Hamza al Masri and Omar Bakri Mohammed, operated relatively freely until recently, posing as knowledgeable Islamic scholars. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, whatever the rights and wrongs, helped make their arguments resonate more strongly.

Today's Washington Post features an article on how the upcoming trial of Radovan Karadzic presents an opportunity for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to improve its image following the somewhat tumultuous trial of Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic. However, even as the Post acknowledges the court's accomplishments -- indicting 161 people, only two of whom remain at large -- it seems unnecessarily focused on the court's (very reasonable) budget and overemphasizes the effect of Milosevic's antics:

Critics have accused it of being too expensive and ineffective, bringing too few people to justice in view of its vast resources; Milosevic gave it a reputation for unruliness and indecision that lingers today.

First, more than anything else, Milosevic furthered his own reputation for unruliness. And the reason that the court did not come to a decision was because Milosevic died in custody, a development the court could do little about.

On a deeper level, the Post here is guilty of furthering what a spokeswoman for the court's lead prosecutor called "the perception...that the only case we ever handled was Milosevic." In fact, as she explains, the court's work has actually increased since that trial, and, as the statistics cited by the Post attest, it has had an impressive record of success.

The Post's preoccupation with the Court's budget is also unwarranted. As attested by law professor and war crimes court expert Michael Scharf, the court operates remarkably efficiently, particularly when compared to similar entities in the U.S.

A major trial at the tribunal costs about $50 million, according to Scharf. A "mega-trial" in the United States, such as the Oklahoma City bombing case, can cost $70 million or more.

And bringing a notorious war criminal and mass murderer to justice is a good deal, no matter what the price.

Any serious study of the facts has found that the more relatively educated people are the more likely they are to engage in terrorism, and the more money people have, relative to their peers, the more likely they are to engage in terrorism, defined as violence against civilians by non-state actors.

And so, projects to increase levels of education and income around the world are likely, on average, to create more terrorists, which is not an argument against education or poverty alleviation, but simply one of the rare cases where social "science" can make something of an accurate prediction about future outcomes.

Senator Bill Nelson is holding a hearing today on UN Peacekeeping. UN Dispatch got a peek at of one of his props.

The blue and red lines on the second chart denote the what the United States is assessed in peacekeeping dues and the administration's budget request for peacekeeping, respectively. Clearly, the trends elucidated in these two charts are simply unsustainable in the long run; the United States cannot keep approving mission after mission at the Security Council and then underfund the entire enterprise.

Check back for updates from the hearing throughout the day. [The hearing was yesterday]

>>Iraq - While Senator Obama is wrapping up his, by all accounts, successful tour of the Middle East, the liberal blogosphere is jumping on Senator McCain's assertion that the "Surge," which is generally defined as beginning in January 2007, spawned the "Anbar Awakening," which is generally thought to have begun in summer 2006. McCain's campaign responded by saying that they occurred at the same time and that they were both spawned by U.S. troops.

>>Trade - After three days of negotiations, ministers from 35 nations meeting in Geneva are no closer to moving forward on the WTO's Doha trade negotiations. In a breakout session last night, the seven main players -- the EU, United States, Australia, China, India, Brazil and Japan -- met in a marathon 12-hour session, that several sources have described as "tense." The main point of contention is over the reduction of domestic farm subsidies in developed nations and the opening of developing nations' borders to industrial good and services. Talks will move forward, but it's unclear whether they will disintegrate before the Saturday close or push through into next week. Robin Pomeroy provides some color.

>>Sudan - President Omar al-Bashir traveled to Darfur yesterday in what some observers have called a "charm offensive." ICC lead prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo recently submitted a request to a three-judge panel to indict Sudan's leader on charges of genocide in the Darfur region.

• Eric Rosand's response
• Matthew Levitt's response
• Gregory P. Djerejian's response
• What's the Link Between Terrorism and Poverty?
• Meeting the Challenges of International Terrorism
• How the ICC Came to Sudan
• The UN's New "Next-of-Kin" Notification System

Africa

• Sudan - Sudanese Leader Mounts Charm Offensive
• Sudan - Rwanda Threatens Darfur Pullout if U.N. Removes General
• Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe rivals may reach final deal soon: report
• Senegal - Senegal 'ready' for Habre trial
• East Africa - Oxfam's east Africa appeal

Americas

• Argentina - Cabinet Chief Replaced
• U.S. - US consumer spending remains sluggish
• Venezuela - Venezuela Offers to Host Bases

East Asia

• China - Powerful aftershocks hit China quake area, 1 dead
• China - China Presses Grieving Parents to Take Hush Money
• China - China Sets Zones for Olympics Protests
• Japan - Strong quake jolts north Japan, 107 hurt
• Indonesia - Garuda pilot charged with deliberately crashing his plane
• North Korea - In First Meeting, Rice Presses North Korean on Nuclear Effort
• Philippines - Explosion on Philippine Bus
• Thailand - Thailand Assails Cambodia in Dispute Over Temple

Europe

• France - MPs scrap France's 35-hour week
• Germany - Obama in Germany on European tour
• Germany - Merkel warns of fall in economic growth
• Bosnia - Hunt begins for Karadzic helpers
• Switzerland - Swiss anger at Libyan 'reprisals'
• Serbia - Serbian officials suspect Karadzic stole false name from Bosnian war victim
• Italy - Appeals court reverses ruling that a woman in tight jeans cannot be raped

Middle East

• Israel - Israel revives plan to build new West Bank settlement
• Israel - Obama Meets With Israeli and Palestinian Leaders
• Israel - Obama makes surprise visit to Jerusalem's Western Wall
• Iraq - Turkish jets target PKK in Iraq
• Iraq - Iraqi Measure on Provincial Voting Is Vetoed
• Syria - Talking Into the Sunset

Russia and Former Republics

• Russia - Russia says opposes deadlines for Iran response

South Asia

• India - Five killed in Kashmir explosion
• India - India vows to revive economic reforms
• Pakistan - Nato warning on Pakistan fighters
• Pakistan - Plan Would Use Antiterror Aid on Pakistani Jets
• Sri Lanka - Sri Lanka jets bomb rebels, fighting kills 54 in north