In addition to their Huff Post piece on a new China-Darfur strategy, the prodigious folks over at the ENOUGH project today also released a statement on the faltering peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo's increasingly volatile eastern region. According to their analysis, the Congolese government has basically fallen flat on its political commitments to negotiate with the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP). Instead, the authors argue, Kinshasa has attempted to sideline the CNDP, while -- to compensate for its military weakness -- inappropriately relying on the UN peacekeeping mission in the country, MONUC, to mount offensives against CNDP and other armed elements.

The CNDP has not been blameless, of course, and tensions threaten to erupt into full-scale war. Trapped in the middle are the MONUC peacekeepers. While ENOUGH's report criticizes the mission for condemning rebel atrocities more often that the Congolese army's equally egregious transgressions, it also identifies the untenable bind in which Kinshasa is forcing MONUC.

[T]he Congolese government has expected MONUC to fight its war against Nkunda, and periodically blamed the UN for failing to dislodge the CNDP. Recent public protests against MONUC are a grim indication that blaming the UN resonates with frustrated and war-weary Congolese civilians. This cynical strategy by the Congolese government of failing to implement agreements while simultaneously blaming the peacekeepers for the eroding situation may well make things much worse.

If only such a "cynical strategy" were limited to DR Congo. UN blue helmets are stationed all over the world in incredibly difficult situations, at times with only skimpy Rules of Engagement and an overly constrictive mandate. Too often they are scapegoated for the failings, deceptions, and aggressions of governments, rebel groups, and, yes, the international community that deployed them. The civilians on the ground, who cannot peer into the back rooms of peace negotiations where promises are made and broken, should not be manipulated as vessels of propaganda. If parties truly have the interests of their people at heart, then they should help peacekeepers keep a peace, rather than use them to try to tear one apart.

Neil MacFarquhar of The New York Times reports that some tangible good news for Darfur may have come out of the UN General Assembly.

United Nations officials emerged with a commitment for 18 helicopters for the peacekeeping force there from Ukraine. There were so many conditions attached by Ukraine, however, including using private contractors and getting approval from the embattled Parliament, that it remained unclear whether a solution for the long quest for 24 helicopters had really been found.

Given the tumultuous state of Ukrainian politics right now, this latter requirement seems a daunting obstacle. Plus, Ukraine's last shipment of military vehicles to Sudan (if Kiev even knew that was their likely eventual destination) probably would have violated an arms embargo had it not first been seized by pirates. There's certainly no embargo on equipping a UN peacekeeping mission, though, nor is there any doubt how desperately the blue helmets in Darfur need the helicopters, so let's hope that the political hurdles are cleared and that the choppers don't run into any sort of "air pirates" en route.

China assumes the rotating presidency of the Security Council tomorrow, meaning it will have the lead role in setting the Council's agenda for the month of October. The last time China held the Council presidency was July 2007--when it helped steer the process of authorizing a peacekeeping mission to Darfur. Since then, though, many human rights activists have been dismayed by China's alliances with Zimbabwe, Burma, and Sudan--and have complained that China uses its influence at the Security Council to protect those regimes.

For much of the last three years, many in the activist community used the Beijing Olympics as leverage to secure China's cooperation on Darfur and on human rights issues more broadly. Now that the Olympics are over, the Enough Project's John Prendergast and David Sullivan argue for a new, more sustainable approach. From HuffPo:

[A] new administration in Washington and activists around the world need to focus on Beijing's investment strategy, demonstrating how its economic interests are undermined by its present foreign policy and offering China real alternatives. A more sober examination is required in order to ascertain how the Chinese government might be motivated to become a more constructive actor in support of peace and human rights. There are two points of leverage: one positive and one negative.

On the positive side, as China increasingly integrates into the global economy, Beijing must play by the rules if it wants others to do so. China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 was based on the calculation that the economic benefits of globalization outweighed the cost of abiding by international norms. But today an emboldened China skirts the rules on everything from underage gymnasts to product safety and intellectual property rights. The U.S. should remind China that defying basic human rights, environmental and labor standards will rebound negatively on its commercial interests, particularly by using multilateral mechanisms like the W.T.O. to impose a cost on China's errant practices.

On the negative side lurks the greatest threat to China's long-term growth potential. By allying itself with some of the world's worst dictators for the spoils of today's resource grab, the bill will be paid tomorrow by rebels and opposition officials who will remember who kept their enemies in power.

Along with tasty treats, the main event was the launch of Exiled, a new show on MTV that is supported by the UN Foundation and Nothing but Nets. Fans of My Super Sweet 16 will find the format familiar, but this time the, what I'll gently call "overly attended to," rich kids spend some time with local families in the developing world. Here we saw Ava, who made her entrance into her sweet 16 party on a red chaise carried by shirtless Loyola polo players, visit a Karen village in Thailand (full episode). One of her tasks was cleaning up elephant dung. I think you can see where this is going.

There is humor in the disconnect, but also real value in the messaging. After seeing how the other half lives, the MTV audience is directed to ThinkMTV, where they can engage in discussion and help out directly (like by sending a $10 bed net to Africa).

Although MTV executive Dave Sirulnick noted that these kinds of shows are doing well in the ratings, kudos to MTV for continuing to take the "risk" of airing them. And kudos to the widely successful Nothing But Nets campaign for continuing to engage new grassroots constituencies in their critical work.

The icing on the cake was a surprise appearance by Wyclef Jean to premiere a new video for "In My Name," his new effort with Will.i.am, Oxfam, GCAP, Save the Children, and Comic Relief to draw attention to the MDGs.

It's a cool concept with cool messaging (and a cool video). The idea is that in 2000 at the UN Millennium Summit, all world leaders signed a pact as representatives of their people to end extreme poverty by 2015 (embodied in the Millennium Development Campaign). "In My Name" is a grassroots effort to call in that commitment, made in the name of every citizen. They're asking for submissions of user-made videos, which will be mashed-up and shown to "leaders at the UN." Is this the easily digestible messaging that the MDGs have long-needed? It just might be.

Thanks again to Nothing But Nets for the invite (and the tasty treats).

It's somewhat of a truism that leaders of an armed coup will attempt to justify their takeover by painting it as urgently necessary for their country's welfare and overwhelmingly supported by the local population. In his turn speaking in front of the General Assembly, the UN ambassador from Mauritania, whose military toppled the country's democratically elected president in early August, made no exception to this formula:

In view of the political impasse, the armed forces and the security forces, conscious of the serious dangers to the country, intervened in order to correct the deviations and pressure national unity and the other gains of the country, and its prospects of development and progress.

This change has engaged the support of two thirds of members of parliament and about 90% of mayors and two thirds of the recognized political parties in addition to other organizations of the civil society including cultural and professional societies and unprecedented popular marches.

I don't know where the ambassador is getting his statistics, but independent news outlets have reported that the junta is "facing criticism at home and abroad," even if the putsch "garnered some support in Mauritania's political establishment." Some of the "popular marches," of course, were actually protests against the new regime. The Security Council has condemned the coup, as have the United States, France, the World Bank, and both the European Union and African Union. Also apparently opposed to the coup is al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb -- the very terrorist organization that, ironically, the junta claimed that it would be better than its predecessor at combating.

Oh, and also like many putschists before them, the Mauritanian coup leaders have assured that free elections are coming "in the near future."

Three weeks after back to back hurricanes devastated the Gonaives region of Haiti, many residents are still homeless and still living on their roofs. UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador (and blogger) Mia Farrow visited Gonaives a week after the storms slammed the city.

At CGI last week, World Food Programme Director Josette Sheeran announced that she would travel to Gonaives to see the devastation first hand. She now reports that "Haiti's misery index is rising" and that WFP needs $54 million for food, logistics and emergency telecommunications to meet urgent hunger needs.

"The US, Japan, EC, Switzerland and Canada have stepped up with almost $11 million and we can meet urgent food needs until the end of November.

Despite this show of generosity from many nations, we need more help so we can continue with the emergency operation and our other programmes here that will contribute to the longer-term solution President Préval and the people of Haiti so desperately need," she said.

Almost one month after the disaster struck destroying roads and 3,000 houses, three million cubic metres of mud still need to be removed from the city. Fifty thousand people continue to take refuge in shelters.

The debate over a somewhat important financial bailout bill has apparently not plugged the cracks through which uncommonly silly bills from time to time manage to be submitted in the U.S. Congress. In the House of Representatives, Republican legislator -- and former long-shot presidential candidate -- Tom Tancredo has introduced a bill bluntly titled the "United Nations Eviction Act". The purpose of this pressing legislation?

To direct the Attorney General to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire the property in the headquarters district and any other property in the United States ofthe United Nations, and for other purposes.

Trying to kick the UN out of New York has long been a hobby of fringe anti-UN types, but the attempt seems particularly out of place just one week after President Bush attested to the organization's importance in his final speech before the General Assembly. In the words of Republican Representative Chris Shays, speaking at an event last week honoring 60 years of UN peacekeeping, hosting the United Nations should be seen not as an undue burden, but as a real source of pride for Americans.

While it would be nice if everyone appreciated the honor of having UN headquarters of U.S. soil as much as Rep. Shays, I am fairly confident that Rep. Tancreco will have a hard time rounding up enough voices to support the eviction of 191 other countries from Manhattan.

It may have seemed almost farcical at first -- pirates, really? -- but the seriousness of the danger off Somalia's coast reached a new level over the weekend.

A Ukrainian ship seized by pirates off the coast of Somalia was carrying 33 tanks and other weapons, the Ukrainian defence minister has confirmed.

Pirates had previously seized a number of passenger and cargo ships, spurring armed intervention from the French and Security Council action authorizing Member States to aggressively combat piracy in Somalia's lawless waters. The involvement of heavy weaponry, though -- even if the pirates have no interest, or use, really, for the tanks -- have made this chapter in the saga a natural headline-grabber.

American ships are closely monitoring the pirates, who are anchored in Somali waters off one of the country's notorious pirate towns and have pledged to "defend ourselves, until the last one of us dies." The main objective is to ensure that the weapons are not offloaded and make their way into the hands of Somali insurgents. The rumor that the tanks were bound for the Government of South Sudan -- which would be in contravention of an international arms embargo but which the government of Kenya has denied, insisting that it was to be the legitimate recipient -- merely underscores the hazards of transmitting weapons in these pirate-infested waters.

The Somali government -- as well as that of the semi-autonomous Puntland region where many of the hijackings occur -- is not able to secure its control over its territory on land, let alone off its coast. It has welcomed international assistance, and a Russian ship is scheduled to join the U.S. naval presence. It will take more than that to dampen the growing boldness of the pirates, though. A good sign:

"The long-term solution is going to take international cooperation," said U.S. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, spokeswoman of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, which oversees the Somali coast.

After all, pirates aren't in anyone's interests.

UPDATE: American ships seem to have the pirates cornered, and their military cargo apparently was not destined for Kenya after all. The Secretary-General's Special Representative in Somalia, meanwhile, declares that piracy is the new "blood diamonds."

In this week's edition of UN Plaza, I interview Ambassador James Dobbins, who after September 11 was tasked to be the American envoy to the Afghan resistance. We discuss his new book, After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan

Critics of UN peacekeeping often charge that the Security Council is wont to authorize missions before it can be assured that Member States will pony up the requisite troops and equipment. By and large, this is an unfounded accusation, as the Secretary-General's recent recommendation [pdf] for the UN mission in Chad and the Central African Republic (MINURCAT) makes clear:

In order to achieve the required effect, the force should be led by high-quality commanders and provided the necessary capabilities, selected by the United Nations. In this regard, and in accordance with the Brahimi report (S/2000/809), it would be recommended that the Security Council consider leaving in draft form the resolution authorizing the deployment of the force until such time as the Secretariat has firm commitments of troops and other critical mission support elements from Member States.

The 2000 "Brahimi report" that the S-G cites was a major doctrinal moment in UN peacekeeping, as it stipulated that missions should only be undertaken where there is a peace to keep and when they will be provided with the necessary component parts. Crafted in response to the rapid (over)expansion of UN peacekeeping in the mid-90's, the Brahimi report is now facing another significant test, as UN peacekeeping is being looked to in complex conflict zones like Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia, and Darfur.

MINURCAT, though, could potentially provide a much-needed boost to effective peacekeeping planning. The expiration of its mandate -- which was renewed on Wednesday for a provisional six months -- presented a critical fork in the road for this small (724 person) mission of police and unarmed military observers. Because the EU force that has been providing protection for MINURCAT -- as well as displaced civilians on the Sudanese border -- is set to close down in March 2009, the UN needs to make provisions for its security. So the S-G made specific recommendations suggesting a "re-hatting" of the EU troops, many of whose governments (Sweden, Ireland, and probably France) have indicated that they would be amenable to contributing their personnel to the new, beefed-up UN mission.

Transitioning MINURCAT will not be easy, of course, and it is not sufficient in and of itself, but it is at least reassuring to see that the Security Council is taking steps in advance for what could become an even more dangerous vacuum.

...while you're drinking Diet Snapple.

He's in the house here at CGI as part of a "mega-commitment," which includes the Global Water Challenge. Their $25 million commitment will help fund new projects to provide safe drinking water and sanitation for the world's poorest people.

The projects were selected through a changemakers.net competition. It's a really cool idea and a great way to forge the best ideas. Over 254 proposals for funding were submitted to GWC. I talked to executive director Paul Faeth about this for a while on Wednesday, and he loves developing this sort of marketplace for ideas. In general GWC are good folks and are doing great things.

The global water crisis may be the most underreported major global crises. Nearly 900 million people lack access to safe drinking water, and $2.5 billion lack access to safe sanitation. A lack of access to safe sanitation is what caused the Black Death...in the 14th century. In addition to the day-to-day suffering of nearly a billion people, access to water has and will continue to be casus belli.

Clinton has emphasized this issue several times during CGI. We applaud these groups for making such a generous and desperately needed commitment.

Continuing our coverage of some of the speeches of world leaders at the General Assembly, yesterday the president of East Timor, where the UN has maintained a peacekeeping presence since 1999, proclaimed the dawning of a new era of peace for his country. Addressing the UN -- albeit perhaps not in the role he may have expected that he would -- President Jose Ramos-Horta applauded the progress that East Timor has made in moving beyond recent violence, and duly acknowledged the crucial support his country has received:

"However, we would not have succeeded in pulling back from the brink without the prompt and steadfast support from the international community," Mr. Ramos-Horta, co-laureate of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize, said, highlighting the assistance received from the UN and countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

He mustn't forget to recognize the influence of Jackie Chan, of course.

By Kathy Bushkin Calvin, COO of the UN Foundation

Today, at the closing session of the Clinton Global Initiative, the United Nations Foundation's Nothing But Nets campaign will announce a major commitment to send over 600,000 long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets to vulnerable refugee populations living in 27 temporary camps in East Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

This commitment will offer some critical relief to a population already ravaged by war, poverty, and famine and facing down the coming rainy season, when malaria infections skyrocket. Malaria is the largest killer of refugees, who can suffer mortality rates from the disease as high as 25 percent.

As an immediate, easy, and inexpensive way to tackle the disease, bed nets are an ideal remedy for this population in particular and are an indispensable component in the broader fight against malaria. While bed nets can't fully eradicate malaria, they go a long way toward trying to eliminate malaria deaths in the next generation.

From a broader view, the last few days have been a landmark period in the fight against malaria. This week, the UN Secretary General, standing with Bill Gates and Bono, proposed a ground-breaking comprehensive action plan for getting to the near elimination of malaria deaths by 2015.

Multi-million-dollar commitments from the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Houston-based Marathon Oil followed. Senator Obama made the same commitment at CGI on Thursday, and Senator McCain has expressed the same desire in the past.

Hopefully this wave of support signals that the world has finally begun to realize the devastating effects of the disease. Malaria, long ago eliminated in most of the developed world, still kills a million people a year globally, mostly children and pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa. That's roughly a child every 30 seconds. Moreover, malaria is devastating to African economies -- to the tune of billions of dollars each year.

The commitments made over the past few days are a big step in the right direction, but there is so much more to be done. It is estimated that over 300 million nets alone are needed.

Join Nothing But Nets in this effort by visiting www.nothingbutnets.net and giving $10 to send a net and save a life.

Here at CGI, the United Nations Foundation - Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership, along with Merck & Co, Inc, the Kessler Family Foundation and the American Red Cross, announced a $9 million commitment to vaccinate 76 million children in 25 countries.

In the photo below, representatives from groups committing a combined $9 million to the Measles Initiative.

Learn more about the Measles Initiative

At a panel discussion this morning on poverty, the Nobel Prize winning pioneer of micro-lending (and UN Foundation Board Member) Mohammed Yunis explained why he decided to take his Grameen Bank to the United States. Initially, he brought micro-lending to the United States in 1986, when then-Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton invited him to the state to help him combat rural poverty. More recently, Grameen supports the working poor right here in New York City. According to its website, Grameen supported microfinance institutions have provided over $300,000 of small loans to nearly 400 people. As with micro-lending across the world, the loans primarily go to women, and the default rate is virtually zero.

Asked why he brought his Grameen Bank to New York, Yunis replied that the city provides banking to the world, so why not to its neighbors?

It is no wonder he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here at CGI, the World Food Program and Yum! Brands announced an $80 million commitment to fight world hunger. In partnership with the World Food Program the World Bank committed for the first time to open its $1.2 billion global food crisis fund so that developing country governments can provide school meals and de-worming to more than 5 million children. Wyclef Jean, who founded the Yele Haiti NGO, and World Food Program Ambassador Against Hunger Drew Barrymore were on hand for the announcement.

From the left, Wyclef Jean, Yum! Brands CEO David C. Novack, Drew Barrymore , WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran and World Band President Robert Zoellick.

More pics below the fold.

While the speeches of many other countries' leaders before the UN General Assembly focused on important global issues like the financial crisis, terrorism, and poverty, the main topic for the President of Macedonia the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was...the name of his own country.

The reason that President Branko Crvenkoski's small Balkan state must officially go by such a cumbersome name is that Greece, its neighbor to the south, objects to using the name of its northernmost province, "Macedonia," for an independent country. Athens senses an implication of irredentism in Macedonia's use of the name, a worry that is particularly acute for the Greeks given the substantial "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian" population in the province of Macedonia.

The dispute may seem silly, but it is serious -- earlier this year, Greece torpedoed Macedonia's EU and NATO bids because an acceptable compromise over the latter's name had not yet been reached. President Crvenkoski, in his speech to the GA, acknowledged the "obvious absurdity of the issue," but pledged gamely to work "actively and constructively" in negotiations with Greece, which have been moderated since 1999 by UN Special Envoy (and American) Matthew Nimetz. Tensions over the name, however, date back to Macedonian independence in 1992, as well as even to the time of Alexander the Great, who was...well, from one of the Macedonias, anyway.

Let's hope the issue is resolved at least by the next Olympics, so that the Macedonian delegation no longer has to march between those of fellow "f" countries Finland and France.

(Image from flickr user Thomas Roche using a Creative Commons license)

As Matt mentioned earlier, across the city from where world leaders are gathering today to take stock of the Millennium Development Goals, Democratic nominee Barack Obama announced earlier that as president he would commit to ending deaths from Malaria by 2015.

This is big news.

Malaria kills 1 million people each year, the vast majority of whom are children under the age of five living in sub-Saharan Africa. The thing is, these deaths are entirely preventable. A relatively modest investment in preventative measures like bed nets and in treatments like ARV drugs can have a profound impact on the health and welfare of poor, Malaria endemic communities. First Lady Laura Bush has been an outspoken advocate on Malaria. It is very heartening to see that one of the two men who may become president has committed himself to ending this global scourge once and for all.

There will be more news on Malaria coming out of CGI today and tomorrow. In the meantime: Send a Net, Save a Life.

Just a quick run-down of the commitments that Senator Obama just made at CGI:

• Climate - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through a cap and trade system and a $50 million a year investment (over 10 years) in alternative energy. He also gave a shout-out for biofuels.
• Poverty - Embrace the MDGs by increasing our foreign assistance and focusing it on the "right priorities."
• Education - Erase the primary education gap by 2015, partially by creating a $2 billion global education fund.
• Global Health - End deaths from malaria by 2015, partially by helping to provide 730 million bed nets, training medical professionals in the developing world and giving them incentives to stay, and investing in malaria drugs.

The following appeared as an op-ed in The Guardian Online on Thursday, September 25th.

This week, over 150 world leaders are gathered at the UN for the opening of the general assembly. If recent years are any indication, news outlets will focus on the disagreements aired on Tuesday, when George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the podium.

But the real drama occurs today (Thursday), when the same global leaders that butted heads earlier in the week take stock of one of the most far-reaching and noble statements of international cooperation ever agreed upon, the millennium development goals.

These eight benchmarks, agreed upon at the World Summit in 2000, are meant to be a statement of world support for the idea that all the world's citizens have the right to basic healthcare, education and nutrition, and the mechanisms necessary to support themselves, among other things. This week's meeting roughly marks the midpoint to the 2015 target date.

So far, the glass looks half empty, but time has not yet run out. What is required now above all is a renewed commitment to global development on the part of the US, which, despite the recent economic downturn, remains the world's largest economy and dominant power.

First, the good news. Thanks to improvements in prevention programmes and the availability of anti-retroviral treatments, we are starting to see a decline in the number of people who are becoming infected and dying from HIV/Aids for the first time since the UN started collecting data. Measles is also on the decline. Deaths from measles fell from 750,000 worldwide in 2000 to under 250,000 in 2007. Investments in malaria prevention are also showing results. The distribution of life-saving insecticide-treated bed nets is now widespread in 16 out of 20 malaria-endemic countries. Finally, thanks to campaigns to forgive the debts of so-called "highly indebted poor countries", the share of developing countries' export earnings devoted to paying external debts has fallen from 12.5% in 2000 to 6.6% in 2006.

We have seen some progress. But data shows that it has been spread unevenly across the globe. The situation in sub-Saharan Africa remains particularly bleak. The global economic slowdown and rising cost of food has hit this region the hardest. The goal of reducing by half the number of people who live on a dollar a day will not be met there. To make matters worse, higher food prices threaten to push 100m more people into poverty and erode the measured progress we have made toward reducing childhood malnutrition. To compound all of these problems, international trade negotiations (the so-called Doha round) are years behind schedule and, even if they succeed, are in danger of being less development-focused than was once hoped.

Still, there is enough time for us to reach most, if not all, of these goals. The US will play a pivotal role in whether or not those goals are achieved. The first thing we need to do is increase foreign aid. Americans are a generous people, and we expect the same of our government. But most Americans would be surprised to learn, however, that only 0.17% of our gross national income goes to government-sponsored development assistance programmes. That puts the US second to last (ahead of Greece) among developed countries' official development assistance expenditures. True, our philanthropic and private sectors are much more active than in any other country. But even the wealthiest philanthropy is no substitute for what the federal government can do.

Just throwing money at the problem, however, is not the answer. We also need to reorganise our entire foreign aid apparatus, which has not undergone a significant overhaul since 1961. According to the Modernising Foreign Assistance Network, US foreign assistance is spread across as many as 24 government agencies and 50 programmes. The Treasury department, state department, department of agriculture and sub-cabinet-level agencies like USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation compete with each other for precious foreign aid dollars. On top of that, individual members of Congress often add earmarks to fund foreign aid projects of their own parochial interests instead of what's best for those in need.

We need a strategic and comprehensive view of how to spend taxpayer dollars more wisely and toward a common purpose. The Modernising Foreign Assistance Network advises that the next president fold these multiple arms of our aid apparatus into a single entity, which they recommend as a cabinet-level department of global development. Clearly, a foreign aid bureaucracy developed in 1961 needs to be updated to meet 21st-century challenges.

There are hopeful signs that both our presidential candidates get this. Barack Obama has proposed doubling America's foreign development assistance to $50bn. And, like Obama, John McCain considers eliminating extreme poverty and fighting HIV/Aids imperative to American national security interests.

These are decent first steps, but not enough. Fighting global poverty today is a wise down payment on a more stable and prosperous future. The millennium development goals tells us what needs to be done to live in a world free of extreme, endemic poverty. The next president can show us how to get there.

Hundreds of world leaders gather at the United Nations today to take stock of the Millennium Development Goals. Here's an excerpt of my op-ed today in The Guardian on the topic.

This week, over 150 world leaders are gathered at the UN for the opening of the general assembly. If recent years are any indication, news outlets will focus on the disagreements aired on Tuesday, when George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the podium.

But the real drama occurs today (Thursday), when the same global leaders that butted heads earlier in the week take stock of one of the most far-reaching and noble statements of international cooperation ever agreed upon, the millennium development goals.

Click over The Guardian to read the rest.

Drew Barrymore is on stage right now with President Clinton. She and others were representing WFP and the "Fill the Cup" campaign, launched earlier this year to raise funds and awareness about the 59 million children who go to school hungry. The symbol of the campaign is a red cup, "based on the millions of plastic cups that WFP uses to handout [sic] porridge or other food rations."

Today WFP's efforts were bolstered by commitments made by a five-year, $80 million pledge by YUM! Brands. The lion's share, $50 million will go to WFP to provide 200 million meals to school children.

WFP made some commitments itself, including to increase by a million the number of meals provided to school children each day.

Clearly, given the fact that the current economic crisis can only exacerbate the rising price of commodities, this is welcome news.

Hip-Hop star Wil.I.Am released a new video, "In My Name," which launches a new online collaboration between the artist and a number of global poverty-fighting NGOs around the Millennium Development Goals. Watch for the celebrity cameos in the video, each of whom sign their name in support of the MDGs.

Now, sign your own name. And if you submit your own video Will.i.am may include it in a create a mash-up of the best user-submitted videos.

Suzlon Green Power, one of the top five producers of wind turbines worldwide, just announced the biggest commitment (dollar-wise) of CGI. Suzlon has committed to bring 3,500 megawatts of electricity to nearly 10 million people, primarily in India and China, over five years. The projected cost of the project is $5 billion, and Suzlon will contribute $1.5 billion in equity. The increase in capacity represents roughly a third of the current capacity of GE, the current world leader.

Suzlon estimates that the these projects will cut 7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, roughly the equivalent of what 350,000 Americans consume -- nothing to sneeze at.

President Clinton just asked Neville Isdell, chairman of the Board at Coke, a question that he was mulling over in a private briefing I was lucky enough to attend on Tuesday. He asked whether the economic crisis would cause companies to cut their philanthropic activities.

Isdell believes that the business philosophy that leads to that prediction is outdated, and this is, in part, due to the benefit that employees get from working for a company that is engaged in good works. Common economic theory states that the higher a salary (plus benefits) a company offers -- to a point -- the better an applicant pool they'll get, the higher quality employees they'll have, and the more profit they'll make. If you consider the desire to work for a company that does good a tangible benefit, then aggregate salary will be higher for companies that are engaged in philanthropy, and their profits will be higher.

This, of course, presumes a broad desire among the populace to work for a conscientious company, which I believe to be true, and that the knowledge of this benefit is widespread among business leaders, which I hope to be true. It's also fails to compare the relative benefits of a company spending on good works and of it spending its money elsewhere. If profits continue to constrict, that will certainly be prove to be even greater a consideration.

How do you make sure that this benefit is properly considered? Simple. If you care that your company is engaged in good works, let them know about it.

In his latest "Backgrounder" on UN peacekeeping, Heritage Foundation hand Brett Schaefer has some relatively positive things to say about the efficacy and value of supporting the blue helmets.

Multiple Administrations have concluded that it is in America's interest to support U.N. operations as a useful, cost-effective way to influence situations that affect the U.S. national interest but do not require direct U.S. intervention. Although the U.N. peacekeeping record includes significant failures, U.N. peace operations overall have proven to be a convenient, sometimes effective multilateral means for addressing humanitarian concerns in situations where conflict or instability make civilians vulnerable to atrocities, for promoting peace efforts, and for supporting the transition to democracy and post-conflict rebuilding.

This glimpse of the big picture was welcome in a report that focuses much of its attention on criticizing the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) for its alleged "mismanagement, fraud, and corruption." The problem with Schaefer's excessive focus on the latter is not that DPKO, the UN, or any such large organization, is a pristine body void of any transgressions or bureaucratic impediments; it is simply that the existence of such problems does nothing to diminish the value of UN peacekeeping -- particularly when Schaefer himself recognizes it.

While Schaefer -- like the Republican Party platform -- does not sound the call of John Bolton-type conservatives to withhold U.S. dues to the UN as a purported incentive to reform, he does make this somewhat ominous recommendation:

The Bush Administration and Congress need to consider carefully any requests by the United Nations for additional funding for a system in which procurement problems have wasted millions of dollars and sexual abuse by peacekeepers is still occurring.

Yes, procurement and sexual abuse problems are still occurring -- even if the vast majority of the evidence that Schaefer draws from comes from over three years ago, before DPKO instituted certain key reforms that have had a strong effect in reducing instances of sexual exploitation and corruption. Violations that do occur constitute a definite, but remediable, problem. To overcome these obstacles, though, the United States will have to engage more, not less, in UN peacekeeping -- particularly when the end result, a UN peacekeeping system that both achieves U.S. interests and operates up to Schaefer's standards of accountability and management, is in everybody's interests.

The United Nations launched a YouTube page yesterday. So far, most of the content is from UN agencies, like this spot from the United Nations Population Fund called "No Women Should Die Giving Life"

A survey of the op-ed pages in major newspapers today finds a somewhat surprisingly low number tied to the traditionally convenient news peg of the UN General Assembly, where debate opened today in New York. The financial crisis seems to have pushed the UN out of the editorial limelight at The New York Times and The Washington Post, while The Wall Street Journal uses the occasion to assess the legacy of one of New York's more infamous yearly visitors. Many of the UK's top papers are mostly focused on Gordon Brown's big speech today or, again, the financial crisis, but the UN chief does find a spot in The Guardian.

Secretary-General Ban's piece runs the gamut of dangers facing the world: from the global food shortage to climate change to, you guessed it, the financial crisis. He is honest about the need to continually reform the UN to cope with these challenges, but he does not shy from lauding the UN's successes.

While praise for the UN could be expected coming from the head of the organization, support from a leader who does not use the word "we" as much as one might like comes as a bit more of a surprise. Yet, even if his reliance on the UN is "stealthy," as Stephen Schlesinger writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed (I knew there had to be at least one about the UN today), George W. Bush has undeniably come to the organization time and time again, in some of the most crucial moments of his Presidency. Most prominently, Bush turned to the UN in dealing with two of the defining issues of his eight years in office -- the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Schlesinger runs down some of the less publicized elements of Bush-UN history: the good, the bad, and the familial:

During his tenure, Bush carefully sidestepped efforts by members of his own party to oust Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He blocked congressional bills cutting further funding to the U.N. He allowed the United States to rejoin UNESCO. His daughter even interned at UNICEF, and his wife today serves as an honorary ambassador for the U.N. Literacy Decade through UNESCO.

Not all has been roses. The White House has withheld funds related to family planning programs at the U.N. Population Fund, opposed a U.N. treaty limiting small-arms trafficking, diluted measures to control global warming, tried to fire the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and derailed other U.N. initiatives.

Nonetheless, Bush has worked directly with the U.N. He has not done so because he has changed his mind about the institution, but because he realized along the way that it is necessary if he wants to gain global legitimacy for his policies. He has acted out of his own political survival needs, seldom admitting to any involvement with the organization.

Naturally, the UN benefits more from a vocally supportive leader than from one who is more reticently so. The world body is not simply a tool for conferring legitimacy when convenient. Yet Schlesinger's analysis uncovers an important incentive for working with the UN -- one that does a great deal in explaining why exactly representatives from 192 diverse countries around the world have deemed it in their interests to show up to New York this week. If a leader's very "political survival" -- the transcendent motivating factor behind most political decisions in any country, an only slightly cynical realist might quip -- depends in part on supporting the UN, then I think we might find a great many more politicians dropping by New York more often than once a year.

(image of Bush via Wikimedia Commons)