Singer-Songwriter and AIDS activist Annie Lennox discusses the stigma surrounding children with HIV.

"HORN OF AFRICA AT A CRITICAL STAGE," proclaims the very prominent headline on the homepage of United Nations World Food Program. The urgency is not without reason, as a statement released by Oxfam today underscores.

Facing a "perfect storm" of drought and rising food prices, the number of people in Ethiopia in need of emergency assistance has jumped from 4.6 million to 6.4 million in less than four months. This would be bad enough, but there are 7.2 million additional Ethiopians who receive only some small support from their government.

From Oxfam's statement: "Today's figures, terrible as they are, show only half the picture. Over 13.5 million Ethiopians are in need of aid in order to survive. The number of those suffering severe hunger and destitution has spiraled. More can and must be done now to save lives and avert disaster," said Oxfam's country director, Waleed Rauf.

Namely, donor countries can step in and provide the $260 million needed for aid efforts in the country. WFP has only received a third of the funds it needs to deliver food, and, without further support, it will likely have to scale back operations to even more dangerous levels.

Watch this video for more.

UPDATE: Aid agencies say that the number of people in need is even worse.

You may recall that in the Vice-Presidential debate, Governor Palin came down hard against the Government of Sudan and even recommended a no-fly-zone over Darfur. Since then, the intrepid ABC news investigative team discovered that "Palin owns up to $15,000 in Legg Mason International Equities, which the McCain-Palin campaign specified is the Legg Mason International Equity Fund. That Fund owns shares in two companies the Genocide Intervention Network labels 'highest offenders' because, in that organization's judgment, they empower the government of Sudan at the expense of the country's marginalized populations."

Upon learning of the Legg-Mason-Sudan connection, a McCain-Palin spokesperson said that the Governor will divest from the fund. This sets a great example. Thanks, Gov.

The UN Security Council yesterday extended the mandate of the small, unarmed UN observer mission in the Abkhazia region of Georgia, where violence between Russia and Georgia in early August has created an unclear situation for the future of the province. This ambiguity is the reason that the Security Council's reauthorization of UNOMIG, as the mission is known, is for a provisional four months, instead of the customary twelve. And while the 134 UN military observers can continue to play a small role, it is as yet uncertain who will be doing the actual peacekeeping.

Mr. Ban noted that it seemed unlikely that the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peacekeeping force in the Abkhazia region would have any role in the separation of forces between the two sides, and it was still unclear what arrangement, if any, would fulfil this function.

"Under these circumstances, it is too early at this stage to define the role that UNOMIG may play in the future," he told the Council. "But as long as international involvement in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict is seen as helping to prevent future conflict, UNOMIG may be called upon to make a contribution. In this respect, I have received formal indications from the Georgian and Abkhaz sides that they support the continuation of the Mission."

Since the outbreak of conflict in Abkhazia some 15 years ago, the principal peacekeepers have been Russian and Georgian troops. Why, one might legitimately wonder, was a more robust United Nations peacekeeping presence not established early on in this tense stand-off? I wrote this piece about a month and a half ago to answer that question -- and to point out why a little bit of foresight, along with more consistent support for UN peacekeeping, can go a long way in preventing fragile scenarios like the one in Georgia today.

(The following was originally written in August 2008.)

Commentators looking to explain the recent Russo-Georgian conflict by analyzing American foreign policy have found no dearth of candidate provocations. America's support for Georgian membership in NATO, its recognition of Kosovo's independence, and its open planning to install missile defense programs in Eastern Europe all likely contributed to Russia's willingness to exert its influence in the region by force. By and large, however, these speculations have focused on the proximate causes of the past few months. The most significant American contribution to instability in Georgia, however, may actually have occurred some 15 years ago--and its story provides more resounding lessons for U.S.-UN policy than it does for U.S.-Russia relations.

For a very tense decade and a half, peacekeepers in Georgia have consisted not of international personnel, but of Russian, Georgian, and, in one of the conflict regions, Ossetian, troops. Any casual observer would recognize this scenario as a sure recipe for disaster--why, in a dispute involving Russia and Georgia, have Russian and Georgian peacekeepers been entrusted to maintain a neutral presence? More specifically, why have the only UN peacekeepers in the region been a relatively bare contingent of 150 monitors and police, limited to just one of the conflict areas? The answer, in short, points the finger squarely at the United States--and punctuates the danger of developing a foreign policy with little concern of how it may play out in the future.

Flash back to the early 1990's. As the Soviet Union comes apart, various territories on the periphery shed their garb of "Soviet Socialist Republics" and become independent countries. The old U.S.S.R. had included a dizzying mix of nationalities, but so too do some of these new states. The Republic of Georgia was one such pocket of heterogeneity, and even before its declaration of independence in 1991, partisans of two dissatisfied sub-regions--the now familiar Abkhazia and South Ossetia--begin to clamor for their own autonomy. Fighting breaks out, and the conflict risks igniting a larger conflagration.

To stem the violence, Russia, not without interests of its own in the region, leans on Georgia to sign peace agreements with both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The ceasefire with the former falters, and, after a period of difficult negotiations, the UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) is deployed to Abkhazia, but with only 136 unarmed military observers and limited to a monitoring role. Peacekeepers in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are drawn not from the UN, but from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the body created out of the U.S.S.R.'s dissolution. In practice, this means that Georgians, Ossetians, and Russians, with very little neutral oversight, will be supervising their own peace accord. It is not insignificant that the recent war began not in Abkhazia, where there was at least some neutral UN presence, but in South Ossetia, where there was none. Moreover, because the agreements designated its troops as "peacekeepers," Russia, employing logic used, ironically, by NATO forces in Kosovo in 1999, has interpreted this as a license to attack not just sites in the disputed regions, but also in Georgia proper, ostensibly to hamper Georgia's war-fighting abilities.

According to the well-respected Security Council Report, Russia, in the Security Council's discussions in 1993-1994, had been willing to accede to a more expansive UN peacekeeping presence in Abkhazia, but had faced opposition from the United States. Why would the U.S. object to sending neutral UN peacekeepers to prevent greater violence and instability in a former Soviet republic? For one, while the U.S. vigorously championed the independence of, say, the new Baltic states, its support for that of the Caucasian republics was, due mostly to a quirk in the history of their boundaries, significantly more muted. Instead, the U.S. at the time regarded their situation as more of a domestic Soviet concern. This is only the beginning of the story, however, as it was a misguided and myopic policy toward the United Nations that most accounted for the United States' reluctance to deploy a larger peacekeeping force to Georgia.

One justification given for opposing UN deployment was financial. In 1993, UN peacekeeping had reached a peak cost of $3 billion, covering 14 missions across the world, and the U.S. was facing a particularly tight budget period in the early 90's. At the same time, the fallout from one particularly dramatic series of events greatly impacted U.S. policy toward UN peacekeeping overall. In October, amidst the debates over UNOMIG's mandate and redeployment, 18 U.S. Army Rangers, operating in support of--but, importantly, not under the orders of--a UN mission in Somalia, were killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident. The United States soon pulled its troops out of Somalia, and, though the UN was in no way responsible, the lessons rashly assumed from this disaster eventually crystallized into an unfortunate cooling of American support for UN peacekeeping missions.

While no one can really say whether a stronger contingent of neutral UN peacekeepers would have been able to mitigate the war in the Caucasus, it seems clear that relying on troops from countries at war with one another to maintain peace was clearly not the most prescient solution. It is not too late, however, to take away the right lessons from what happened 15 years ago. Opposing UN peacekeeping for expedient political concerns may at times seem appealing in the short-term, but, as their 60-year history makes clear, UN "blue helmets" are an essential tool in maintaining global peace and security over the long-term--one that, when considering the alternatives, is always a bargain.

Word is, the president will take North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terror as early as today. The Washington Post reports that this move comes on the heels of threats by North Korea to re-start its nuclear facility at Yongbyon, where International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were barred from entering earlier in the week.

Meanwhile, the Secretary General released a new report on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

Although their veracity could not be independently confirmed, reports from a range of sources continue to cite a high number of public executions. There is allegedly a crackdown on petty economic criminals, whose number has increased owing to the current serious food shortages and difficult living conditions, which have also led to an increase in the number of kkotjebi (homeless children). When forcibly repatriated, nationals who had left the country without State permission continue to face interrogation, mistreatment and sometimes torture, followed by imprisonment and forced labour. Punishment for the family members of defectors has reportedly been used as a deterrent to prevent defection. There have been continued accounts of prisoners being subjected to forced labour, ideological rehabilitation and sometimes torture, many of whom allegedly suffer from malnutrition and chronic diseases. Female prisoners are allegedly subjected to sexual assault and forced abortion. The trafficking of women for the purposes of prostitution and forced marriage also continues to be reported. (emphasis mine)

UPDATE: "No decision has been taken yet," says a State Department spokesperson on the question of removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terror. Consultations with the Russian Foreign Minister are pending.

Former Finnish President and career peacemaker Martti Ahtisaari.

Ahtisaari is perhaps best known in UN circles for the "Ahtisaari Plan" for a stable, self determining Kosovo. But he has had a long career as a peace negotiator and conflict manager. From the Washington Post

The Nobel committee cited the "significant part" he played in resolving the Aceh crisis, a success which came on the heels of a tsunami that had devastated the province and other parts of Indonesia.

That was only a recent success in a long career of mediation that included efforts in Kosovo, Namibia and more recently in Northern Ireland, where he helped inspection weapon's caches as part of efforts to disarm the Irish Republican Army. The [conflict management nonprofit he founded] also has been active trying to improve security for United Nations personnel in Iraq.

"Throughout his entire adult life, Ahtisaari has worked endlessly to solve several long-lasting conflicts," said Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee. "He's an outstanding international mediator. His efforts and achievements have demonstrated the important role of mediation in solving international conflicts."

Ahtisaari, in a radio interview quoted by the Associated Press, said he felt his work in Namibia was "absolutely the most important" negotiation he helped manage. Then a South African-occupied territory, Namibia was the scene of a decades-long conflict between South African troops and the South West Africa People's Organization, a liberation movement that drew support from neighboring Angola.

(picture from Flickr)