The head of the UN mission in Congo (MONUC), Alan Doss, has a blunt retort to those criticizing the force's performance in the daunting task of controlling the violent powder-keg of eastern Congo.

"We cannot have a soldier behind every tree, in every field, on every road and in every market; it is impossible."

And there are a lot of trees in Congo.

The problems, of course, are lot greater than an abundance of trees. As I highlighted the other day, MONUC's mandate was crafted over-ambitiously, and this only now coming home to roost. The result is, as Refugees International Advocate Erin Weir opines from Goma, an increasing sense that the MONUC forces on the ground have been "hung out to dry."

Ruthermore, there are no shortages of culpable actors in this tragedy, either. In addition to the "alphabet soup" of armed groups in eastern Congo that Change.org helpfully outlines here, Rwanda is playing a large role in the conflict. Former RI Advocate Rick Neal commented:

Rwanda is the key in all aspects of this crisis, and yet amazingly little attention is given to its role and what it should do. When I worked in the region, no one wanted to speak out too loudly against Rwanda for fear of being called an apologist for the génocidaires, and perhaps this still applies.

The failures to respond during one hundred days of genocide 14 years ago, unfortunately, are still painfully reverberating.

The final discussion prompt in our week long salon on human rights challenges facing the next administration comes from Cato scholar and On Day One user Justin Logan, who says that the United States should swear off nation building.

Eric Schwartz and Suzanne Nossel respond.

Eric Schwartz

Justin Logan is over-learning the lesson of Iraq. Heck, if Iraq were the litmus test for the wisdom of efforts to promote post-conflict reconstruction and development -- what Justin refers to as "nation-building" -- then I'd reject such efforts as well. But Iraq is a poor example, as U.S. engagement failed to meet several prerequisites for success. First, if you want to lay the groundwork for an effective post-conflict effort at development, your engagement should be widely perceived as legitimate by stakeholders within and outside the country. Second, if you are a superpower, you probably ought to be joined by a genuine critical mass of other governments and/or international organizations, operating with meaningful roles and authority -- not only for the purposes of legitimacy, but also for the expertise that others bring to the table. Third, well before you go to war, you might want to plan smartly and carefully for the post-conflict period. And, finally, your ambitions should be realistic -- societies are not transformed over night. On each of those counts, the United States post-war intervention in Iraq was flawed, to put it mildly. Don't get me wrong: even better managed post-conflict operations are not elegant, by any means. But often, both our national security and/or our humanitarian interests demand engagement. Take Bosnia, for example. The post-conflict international engagement has hardly resulted in models of good governance throughout the Balkans, but it has helped to prevent a return to war, and to the terrible suffering that occurred after break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

Suzanne Nosse:l

Forswearing nation-building is not a realistic policy option for three basic reasons.

First, the United States has a series of often overlapping interests in stabilizing post-conflict situations. While maintaining peace among the great powers and other "traditional" challenges of statecraft will remain key elements in U.S. foreign policy, the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of 2002 and its successor of 2006 correctly highlight that a host of transnational threats - including terrorism, international crime, trafficking in drugs and persons - are equally important. These threats can destabilize regions as well as directly affect U.S. national security. They often originate in, or exploit, failed states and "ungoverned space" that can emerge after conflict. Al Qaida's use of pre-9/11 Afghanistan as a training and operational hub is the exemplar. Effective nation-building helps check such "negative externalities" from spreading. Evidence also suggests that countries receiving effective post-conflict assistance are less likely to slide back into violence than those that do not. This carries humanitarian implications (e.g., preventing genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.), as well as geostrategic ones (e.g., eliminating a vacuum that regional actors may try to exploit).

The United States also has an interest in the character of states emerging from conflict. Ideally, from Washington's perspective, such states would align with Western interests and values. In some cases, U.S. interest in a post-conflict mission may be to check another country in the region from expanding its power and influence over an unstable neighbor. In other cases, international credibility and moral obligation may be critical. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn rule" is alive and well. Where the United States plays a role in disrupting a society, it will be called upon to help put it back together again. In the face of such interests, sitting on the sidelines - or leaving the work entirely to others - carries risks to U.S. security and its stature internationally.

Second, the challenge of nation-building will not disappear from the international stage any time soon. There are many "fragile" states around the world. Consider possible contingencies in the Caribbean, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia. Reflecting this harsh reality since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has launched a new peacekeeping operation roughly every six months, while the United States has undertaken a major nation-building operation every two years.

Third, the Unites States cannot realistically rely upon others to do all the heavy lifting. It bears repeating that the United States is still and will for the foreseeable future the most powerful country in the world - economically, politically, and militarily. The likelihood that American interests in preventing state failure and its externalities will be adequately protected in the future without some U.S. involvement are small. With few exceptions - perhaps Great Britain, France, and Australia - other countries lack the resources and motivation to intervene independently in situations where we do not.

Taken together, these premises lead to the conclusion that the United States should prepare for nation-building, even if we'd prefer to avoid it.

Both the LA Times and the NY Times have fascinating articles this morning on the booming pirate economy in northern Somalia. Included are some rather jaw-dropping quotations.

How easy is it to become a pirate?

"All you need is three guys and a little boat, and the next day you're millionaires," said Abdullahi Omar Qawden, a former captain in Somalia's long-defunct navy.

What brings the pirates together?

"We are just a group of people with a common interest in making money," said Sugule Ali, a spokesman for the pirates.

How do they deal with questions of legality?

When one young thug complains that a $5,000 deduction for disobeying an order is "illegal," the old man snaps back: "Even the $15,000 you are getting is illegal! It's all stolen!"

Where does the money go?

"Believe me, a lot of our money has gone straight into the government's pockets," said Farah Ismail Eid, a pirate who was captured in nearby Berbera and sentenced to 15 years in jail.

How effective has the NATO force surrounding the hijacked Ukrainian ship been?

"The ships roam around us every two to three hours and helicopters come close to see what is going on inside the ship," said Sugule Ali, a spokesman for the pirates.

(Hint: they should go after the pirates' "mother ships.")

And how tough is it to compete with the pirates' notorious sex appeal?

"Women here don't talk to you if you are not a pirate," said Suleiman Farey, 21, a recent high-school graduate. "I'm fed up with these guys."

The international community is, too, Suleiman.

Over on Huffington Post Harold Pollack gets into the Halloween spirit.

We must be equally jazzed about bringing the world's children basic sanitation, nutrition, and who knows: maybe a few reading lessons. Seven dollars protects a kid against malaria--not to mention the itchy bites. Fifteen dollars buys a carton of high energy protein biscuits--not the crud people hawk on cable TV--the kind that supports three severely malnourished kids for a whole month. Twenty dollars vaccinates nine kids against polio. To quote PBS, Forty-five hundred thousand dollars.... well, you get the picture.

Last time around, many economists donated through this post, because they realized that UNICEF and related charities are among the most cost-effective strategies to improve the world.

To donate, click on my tacky personal donation web page

If that's too tacky for you, the UN foundation's website is cool, too:

PS: Your kids might like this fun time-wasting flash link.

Los Angeles Representative (and blogger) Xavier Beccera hosted one of The Global Debates -- an initiative of the The People Speak, a UN Foundation program designed to get youths discussing important issues -- between these two Santee High School students (and potential future members of Congress).

Check out more of The Global Debates here.

by Anita Sharma

(This op-ed first appeared at Open Democracy)

The international effort to end world poverty may not at present be the highest-profile one on a global news agenda dominated by financial turmoil and worries over the coming recession. But the public engagement with the issue is real and sustained. This was reflected in an extraordinary global mobilisation on the weekend of 17-19 October 2008. "Stand Up and Take Action" was supported in 131 countries by nearly 117 million people, who participated in diverse events - from marches to religious ceremonies - and were united by a shared demand that this generation of political leaders do their utmost in the anti-poverty endeavour.

True, the global financial crisis does threaten to erase gains made in the fight against poverty, and puts budgets and existing commitments in jeopardy. But this makes the "Stand Up..." initiative, and those like it, all the more urgent and appropriate. The implosion of key pillars of the world's credit system is the culmination of a debilitating year in which rising fuel and food prices have pushed more than a million more people into extreme poverty, and caused countless others to make life-or-death deliberations about how to spend their meagre resources. It is precisely now that the poorest people in the world need solidarity.

A cause unwon

Indeed, 2008 was supposed to be the year when world leaders reaffirmed their pledges to improve the lives of the poor; for this is the halfway point of the timetable for the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This global eight-point compact - agreed by 189 leaders at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 - aims by 2015 to reduce poverty, improve health and education, and protect the environment through partnerships between developed and developing countries.

There have been important successes in the 2000-08 period - among them the reduction of deaths from HIV/Aids by a million, the increase of school-enrolment numbers by 40 million, and the access of some 1.6 billion people to safe drinking-water. Among the confluence of factors responsible for these achievements, external aid to the poorest countries and debt cancellation have played a crucial role. This provisional but real progress can continue if the MDGs are backed by good political leadership and adequate resources (see Andrew Shepherd, "The anti-poverty relay: a progress report", 24 September 2008).

At the same time, debilitating poverty persists: more than 1.4 billion people barely survive on $1.25 a day, 50 million people die each day of preventable causes, and half the population of the developing world lacks access to decent sanitation. Even before the financial crisis hit, developed countries were cutting back on their foreign-aid commitments, with few on target to meet the agreed figure of 0.7% of gross national income.

The global financial downturn is certain to put even more strain on the poorer nations of the globe. This places even more responsibility on the global north to maintain its support for the MDGs. The financial summit on 15 November 2008 in Washington, DC will begin the discussion of how to reform the governance of the international economy. It is vital that the voices of the people who have stood up against poverty will be heard as tis project gets underway.

In the words of United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon after a meeting with five eminent economists and the head of the United Nations Development Programme on 23 October:

"While recently we have heard much in [the United States] about how problems on Wall Street are affecting innocent people on Main Street, we need to think more about those people around the world with no streets. Wall Street, Main Street, no street - the solutions devised must be for all."

A breath of hope

The performance of the United States is critical to the realisation of many of the world's anti-poverty aspirations. The George W Bush administration may be credited for increasing United States foreign assistance in 2001-08, but the US still spends less than 0.2% of its budget on development assistance. Moreover, it has been less than vocal in its support of the MDGs; and instead of coordinating efforts multilaterally, it has established parallel institutions such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

The next United States president will face a host of global challenges, including energy and food crises, climate change, and health emergencies. All of them will have to be addressed in the context of the unfolding financial crisis and the resulting economic slowdown, which will place even more pressure on funding resources (see Simon Maxwell, "Development in a downturn", 4 July 2008).

In these circumstances, the new administration must combine innovative and cost-effective solutions with a continued dedication to keep its own and its partners' promises to the world's poor. This in turn will require international-development cooperation, and here the MDGs - increasingly embraced by the private sector as well as civil society across the globe - provide an unmatched framework for action.

Both US presidential candidates have strongly indicated their support for fighting global poverty, with Barack Obama going so far as to say that if he is elected, the MDGs will become America's goals. In fact, it is a striking feature of an otherwise partisan political landscape that many leading political figures across boundaries of party recognise that it is in the US's moral, economic and security interests to encourage a world that is healthy, stable and prosperous.

These promises are being monitored in the United States by a growing global anti-poverty movement. In addition to the more than 50,000 people who participated in Stand Up events around the country on 17-19 October 2008, a survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org has found that 75% of Americans expressed willingness to pay the amount required (approximately $56 per person, per year in the US) to meet the goals of cutting world hunger and global poverty in half. This survey was taken before the financial crisis hit, but it is evidence of a genuine ethical and humanitarian commitment that can increase as much as decrease when times are hard.

A number of organisations active in the field - among them the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, the Better World Campaign, Jubilee USA, ONE, and the US Global Leadership Council - have put forth proposals to channel and build on this concern. They include smarter US development assistance, fairer trade practices and further debt-cancellation for the poorest countries.

These policies would go very far to address the endemic social, economic and indeed governance and security problems that afflict many countries around the world. The fact that United States citizens, like their counterparts overseas, are prepared to contribute to such an effort is heartening. If this level of global public sentiment can continue to fuel the work of civil-society organisations and campaigners, the new generation of international political leaders will have a strong foundation to deliver effective change.

That definitely does not sound good.

At least 50 tonnes of cocaine from Andean countries pass through West Africa every year, heading mostly to the streets of France, Spain and the United Kingdom, where they are worth some $2 billion.

"This is probably the tip of the cocaine iceberg," said the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa, at a high-level conference in the Cape Verde capital, Praia.

Cocaine seizures have doubled every year for the past three years, with the 2007 total amounting to 6,458 kilogrammes, and major seizures this year include a 600 kilogramme cocaine bust at the airport in Freetown, Sierra Leone, this summer, according to a report launched by UNODC at the Praia meeting.

This iceberg has already caused more damage than the one that felled the Titanic, and it will take more than global warming to eliminate it. According to Mr. Costa, the cocaine problem is not only endangering West Africa's youth and stunting its economy, it is also "a threat to public health and security" overall. And unlike an iceberg, this is a fully globalized issue, and countries from the Andes to Africa to Europe all have an interest in curtailing the drug traffic.

(Image from flickr user Zaptel under a Creative Commons license.)

Soon the election will happen, and America will have chosen its next President. The constant horse race polling will stop, but the speculation will not. Of course, this speculation will obviously not be about who will be the next President, but rather who will advise, represent, and generally surround that president. Of particular interest to us here at UN Dispatch, is the President's selection of a new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Of course, we have no idea who it will be, but it is interesting to think a bit about the position, and maybe that could give some insight into who might best fill the role.

What is not widely known about the position of Permanent U.S. Representative to the UN, or Perm Rep, is that it (like a few other major government posts) can be elevated to a cabinet-level position, should the Commander-in-Chief so desire. Indeed, the position has been part of the cabinet under some administrations, beginning with that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his Perm Rep, Henry C. Lodge. Other administrations, including Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, have also had UN Ambassadors as part of their cabinets, a group that includes names like Adlai Stevenson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Bill Richardson, among many others. Some administrations have also included the Perm Rep in the National Security Council, making the Perm Rep a key adviser to the President on matters of security and foreign policy.

So beyond speculation of who the U.S. Ambassador to the UN will be, speculation should also consider what the position will be. Would an Obama administration include the Perm Rep in the cabinet? Would a McCain administration include the position as part of the National Security Council? Do the answers to those questions make a major difference in who should be selected?

What do you think?

(Cross-posted to On Day One)

From the United Nations High Commission on Refugees:

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to drop its long-standing embargo against Cuba...for the 17th year in a row. In what an L.A. Times editorial termed one of "New York's rites of autumn," the lopsided vote -- 185 countries voted in favor, three opposed, and two abstained -- demonstrated the international consensus that U.S. policy toward the communist Caribbean island only grows more archaic by the year.

One need not agree with the GA president's rather silly statement that Cuba is "a champion of the values that the world needs for the survival of the human species" to concur that sustaining an embargo that only harms the Cuban people and does not even let Americans travel to the country makes little to no policy sense. Here's the New America Foundation's Steve Clemons on how easy it would be for the next president to improve the U.S. relationship with Cuba:

If this year's vote is any indication, the United States is not getting any more support for its outdated embargo as the years go by. One more country than last year voted for the resolution, and the Marshall Islands flipped to the "abstained" column -- leaving only Israel, Palau, and the United States sticking with this Cold War relic.

(cross-posted at On Day One)

The UN has found a creative and effective way to transport sick patients in the harsh environment of Darfur.

To date, sick people in need of transportation to the nearest clinic have had to endure an uncomfortable ride atop a camel or on the back of an open horse-drawn cart, exposed to the searing heat of the sun.

But the UN refugee agency has stepped in by donating a covered wagon, with padding inside, and a donkey to pull the "ambulance." It's not the height of comfort but has been welcomed by the 750 refugees from Chad and the Central African Republic who reside in Mukjar, West Darfur

This is possibly an even better use for a donkey than the famous literacy-promoting "biblioburro."

(Image from flickr user SPANA Charity under a Creative Commons license.)

Our week long panel discussion of ideas the next president can adopt to help promote human rights continues with a suggestion from On Day One user RustNeverSleeps:.

The United States should join the international criminal court. The court's four ongoing investigations in Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur and Uganda show that the court can work to prosecute war criminals. If the United States helps the ICC, the court can become even closer to its goal of deterring future war criminals.

David Kaye:

The United States can do a lot of good for international justice without joining the International Criminal Court. Indeed, it seems to me that we ought to avoid the theological debates associated with the ICC and simply begin the process of engaging with the institution in a pragmatic way, supporting its efforts without taking - at least not yet - the more fraught political route of seeking ratification of the Rome Statute. Let me mention two concrete areas where we can offer that kind of support, and comment on two other important topics in the ICC world.

First, with respect to Darfur, the Bush Administration has clearly taken the decision that supporting efforts to end the genocide and hold accountable those responsible takes precedence over the anti-Rome theology that held sway during much of the Bush Presidency. The next administration should take that a step or two further by supporting the Office of the Prosecutor with the kind of lead and background evidence that can make the difference between successful and unsuccessful investigations and prosecutions. We should do this because our objectives and the ICC's neatly align, and we should not allow flimsy arguments about legitimizing the ICC get in the way of such cooperation. Frankly, we should find opportunities to support the ICC's work in the same way in the other areas of investigation as well, such as those mentioned by RustNeverSleeps.

A second area of support we can offer goes to one of the key problems with international justice today - the lack of a mechanism to apprehend those for whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Here is an area where U.S. leadership could be applied, where the United States - working within the Security Council - could deploy the mechanisms of financial and travel sanctions against those whose arrest is sought while also working with concerned governments on apprehension strategies.

Quite apart from these areas where U.S. support could make a meaningful contribution, the United States has an interest in reengaging with key states and NGOs associated with the ICC. For one thing, the U.S. demonizing of the ICC has been a symbolic element of the critique of go-it-alone U.S. foreign policy of the Bush years; reversal of that tone and policy should help rebuild U.S. credibility where multilateral action may make a difference. To be more specific, States Parties to the Rome Statute are actively engaged in efforts to define the crime of aggression and the terms under which jurisdiction over the crime may be exercised. The United States needs to participate in those discussions, not from a position of extreme critique but from one of constructive engagement. We're more likely to have a positive impact on those negotiations from the inside, as an observer if not a formal party to Rome.

Finally, it's important to note that the ICC has faced a spate of troubles recently. The Darfur indictment has come under strong attack even from individuals strongly supportive of the historic project of international justice. The Lubanga case has gone seriously off the rails because of the Office of the Prosecutor's inability to share information with the defense or the trial chamber, a problem that has a lot to do with a failure to manage the expectations of information providers but also a strategic failure at managing the case itself. And on top of these difficulties, the International Labor Organization strongly rebuked Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo for firing an employee in a way that totally avoided due process (and cast doubt on his leadership and ethical responsibilities). At this time, the United States can have little to say on these matters because we have disengaged for so long. But for the sake of the ICC and international justice more generally, we need to be involved, not only to support where we can but to be a constructive critic so as to ensure that the institution doesn't fail.

Eric Schwartz:

The Senate would not now consent to ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and early submission would be a mistake. Our history is far different than that of our European friends and allies, which have decades of experience in establishing regional institutions with considerable decision-making authority. This is no reason for the United States to walk away from the International Criminal Court, but it is reason to engage with prudence. Even the Bush Administration recognized the value of engagement, when it did not object to referral of Sudan to the ICC. A new Presidential Administration should go even further, and be prepared to provide support and assistance to ICC investigations of gross violations of human rights, and to proceed toward a "good neighbor" approach to the Court. As we see how this important institution evolves over time -- and, in particular, as it continues to demonstrate a commitment to justice and professionalism -- a U.S. President will be in a strong position to consider, and present to the Congress, proposals for strengthening our commitment to the Court.

Suzanne Nossel:

I support the idea of engaging pragmatically with the ICC. If as a political matter such engagement is initially easier to pursue without addressing whether it will ultimately lead to joining the court, so be it. But the goal should be to make the court as effective a tool for accountability as possible and that will mean broadening its membership to include more key actors globally. The Bush Administration deserves some credit for reexamining its early hostility toward the court. In recent months, the Bush Administration has been out in front supporting efforts to enforce accountability for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for genocide and crimes against humanity for the atrocities he allegedly directed in Darfur. It has said it will block an effort afoot in the UN Security Council to suspend the indictment of al-Bashir by the ICC prosecutor. Despite arguments put forward by the Sudanese government and given some credence by the French, British, Chinese and others that the indictment will set back peace efforts in Darfur and that postponement ought to be considered, the Bush Administration has held firm on the principle that al-Bashir should be brought to justice now. This position is driven by a recognition that the US's national security interests are served when the perpetrators of war crimes are prosecuted for their abuses, and when other current and future dictators are made to recognize that they too may be held to account. This stance, coming from an Administration that "unsigned" President Clinton's signature on the Rome Treaty that created the ICC, points to the potential to build political consensus in Washington behind the principles of international accountability for war crimes. I agree with a number of David's suggestions regarding constructive ways for the next Administration to support and engage with the court, and bring about better understanding and appreciation for the court's vital work.

A major city in Eastern Congo is under siege. News reports describe Congolese Armed Forces retreating from the provincial capital Goma in advance of a rebel assault, lead by a renegade army general named Laurent Nkunda. Upon seeing the government forces retreat, tens of thousands of civilians have begun to flee. All that stands between Nkunda's forces and Goma are Pakistani and Indian peacekeepers, which are already engaged with Nkunda's forces on this and other fronts.

Local's are understandably upset that the peacekeeping force had not done enough to stall the rebel advance. Protests outside the UN compound turned violent earlier this week as residents of Goma hurled rocks at the compound in frustration. Unfortunately, the peacekeeping mission cannot repel this attack without reinforcement.

It needs help. Fast.

Blue-helmets, though, are not set up for rapid deployment. What may be required is outside intervention by a global power. There is precedent for this. In 2003, French special forces led Operation Artemis which rescued the city of Bunia, capital of the the nearby Ituri province. 1800 special forces, operating under the EU flag, rescued the city and repelled marauding militias. They withdrew within three months and were replaced by a beefed up UN peacekeeping force.

Something similar may be what is required to prevent mass atrocities from being visited upon Goma. The question is, who, if anyone, is willing to step up?

(Photo: "Streets of Goma" from Flickr user Amalthya)

From his influential corner, Refugees International president Ken Bacon breaks down the two presidential candidates' differing outlooks toward the UN. He also offers a compelling case of why the United States -- under either a Republican or Democratic administration -- should revamp its support for the UN, which has too often flagged in the past eight years.

Not only is the U.S. sometimes slow to pay its dues to the UN, but it is also hundreds of billions of dollars short of meetings its obligation to pay its share of UN peacekeeping operations that have been so important in helping to restore order in places like Liberia.

[snip]

There are many things to criticize and to change at the UN, but for all of its frustrations and foibles, it remains the best-positioned organization to craft multi-lateral solutions to trans-national problems, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, as well as difficult regional issues involving conflict, refugee flows and disaster response.

Well said.

You can see why the UN is so important to Ken when you check out the top three priorities that he thinks the next president needs to focus on, starting On Day One of the next administration.

Early this morning, suicide bombers coordinated an assault on five offices in northern Somalia. Among the offices attacked was the United Nations Development Program headquarters. There were causalities. The official UN statement is here. The New York Times' Jeffrey Gettleman is on the story.

Al Qaeda's leadership has been explicit with its disdain for the United Nations and its desire to see the UN attacked. In Somalia, al Qaeda is backing a hard line militant group in its struggle against the weak Somali government and urging that group to resist United Nations mediation efforts. Today's attack is added to the sad list of terrorist attacks on the UN, including the bombing of UNDP offices in Algiers in December 2007 which killed 11 and the suicide bombing of the UN compound in Iraq in 2003, killing Sergio Vieiro de Mello and 23 others.

Terrorists target the United Nations because they are so threatened by it. In places like Somalia, the United Nations is the only viable path toward peace and reconciliation, good governance, rule of law, and economic development. These are clearly the conditions under which al Qeada could not thrive, so they and their affiliates attack UN humanitarian workers so as to intimidate the UN out of the country. How should the world respond? It seems that the first thing we need to do is make the protection of humanitarian workers a higher priority. On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq bombing Samantha Power said it best. "We cannot return to a pre-8/19 world any more than we can return to a pre-9/11 one. Neither the blue flag nor the red cross is enough to protect humanitarians in an age of terror. But five years after August 19 we owe it to those who died -- and to those whom humanitarians have saved -- to do far more to protect the protectors."

Bad news on multiple fronts out of the Democratic Republic of Congo:

Hundreds of furious protesters hurled rocks at a United Nations compound in eastern Congo on Monday in frustration that peacekeepers have not halted the rebel advance that is sweeping the countryside.

If it wasn't clear before -- and since rebel leader Laurent Nkunda started launching attacks in August, it has been -- then the demise of January's ceasefire (widely misreported as a "peace agreement") is now fully transparent. The eruption of violence has exposed the difficulties -- and contradictions -- faced by the UN peacekeeping mission there (MONUC), which Refugees International articulated in a press release today.

Deployed with the challenging mandate to protect civilians and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, MONUC has also been charged with the supervision and enforcement of the buffer zones between the Congolese national army (the FARDC) and the rebel group CNDP led by self-proclaimed 'General' Laurent Nkunda. Contradicting this role as neutral intermediary is MONUC's responsibility for working alongside the FARDC in operations against the FDLR, the rebel movement led by the remnants of the Rwanda genocidaires who fled into DRC in 1994. These conflicting roles, coupled with a lack of military and civilian resources, and a shameful lack of political support, have placed MONUC in an impossible situation.

The alphabet soup of armed elements is testament enough to the tensions in the region, but the real problems hamstringing MONUC have been the international community's insufficient investment -- in both resources and negotiations -- and the excessive expectations laid on a peacekeeping mission that was given a nearly impossible mandate. Out of this, along with all sides' continued interest in a military solution, some frustrated and suffering eastern Congolese have begun to scapegoat blue helmets.

And if the situation weren't bad enough, the rebels have also taken the "unprecedented" step of seizing a national park full of critically endangered gorillas.

In case you missed it, Sunday's New York Times Travel section featured the announcement of the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, a partnership between tourism industries launched by, among others, the UN Foundation. Participating businesses will now have to meet at least these standards, ensuring that the economic, social, and cultural weight of tourism is brought to bear for important environmental and anti-poverty initiatives. Check out the criteria here.

by Adele Waugaman

Abundance and scarcity -- this dichotomy is increasingly framing the most important global challenges of the day, particularly in the midst of the ongoing global financial crisis. So, it was with great interest that I attended the Pop!Tech conference last week bringing technology to bear on that theme.

Pop!Tech was packed with mobile innovators with cool projects. For instance, Erik Hersman is working on Ushahidi.com, a project using "crowd-sourced" data to populate maps of violent outbreaks in volatile environments. Ushahidi was recently used in Kenya during the post-election violence. And Ken Banks presented FrontlineSMS, which provides free software that can be downloaded from the web to harness the power of text messaging to power work of NGOs and humanitarian groups. Already FrontlineSMS has been used by UNDP in Aceh as part of the post-tsunami reconstruction efforts and in Malawi to power a healthcare network, among other projects.
.

Given my work with the United Nations Foundation & Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership and our focus on using mobile technology to increase access to health information in the developing world, the Pop!Tech Accelerator Initiative using mobile phones to address South Africa's HIV/AIDS epidemic also caught my attention.

A compelling case of the often harsh juxtaposition between abundance and scarcity can be found in South Africa--a country of 48 million people, of which some 1,000 die each day from HIV/AIDS related complications. The magnitude of the HIV/AIDS crisis is amplified by the relative scarcity of trained nurses. And their jobs are made more difficult by the fact that currently only 5% of South Africans get tested, and, of those, many come to health clinics only once the disease has progressed to advanced stages.

Enter Project Masiuleke. "Project M," as it's called, is designed to increase the number of South Africans who get tested and receive the country's free antiretroviral (AVR) treatment, all through the touch of a button--in this case, on a mobile phone. 90% of South Africans today have access to a cell phone.

Using text messaging, Project M alerts South Africans to available services, like free testing and counseling services. Project M aims to keeps its constituents engaged through a series of steps from awareness-raising to home testing, counseling, and treatment reminders for those who report they've tested positive.

In South Africa and across the developing world, the rapid expansion of mobile phone usage means that in facing resource constraints like access to healthcare, innovative uses of mobile technology can play a significant role in bridging that gap. At Pop!Tech, it was clear that the innovators are ready to do so. The next step is multi-sector and multi-national cooperation to help further drive and expand mobile innovation for social change.

Today's discussion about climate change and refugees is a good opportunity for me to plug a new initiative of Nothing But Nets to cover over 600,000 refugees in protective, anti-Malaria bed nets. The most vulnerable populations in the world are hit hardest by Malaria--it is the number one killer of refugees. But Malaria is also a preventable disease. A simple, insecticide treated bed net is a cheap and effective way of curbing Malaria. It can mean the difference between life and death.

The new Nothing But Nets initiative seeks to send enough bed nets to protect some 630,000 refugees living in 27 camps in Uganda, Eastern Sudan, Tanzania and Kenya. One bed net can cover a family of four for about four years--and costs only $10. So, as they say, send a net, save a life.

Everyday this week a distinguished group of panelists will respond to an idea submitted to On Day One, a website that asks users for their ideas on what the next president can do, on day one. Our theme this week is human rights and On Day One user Nick Robson wants the next president to focus on climate refugees.

Rising sea level caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will have a huge impact in Small Islands Developing States and coastal dwellers globally. It could be argued that for the majority of these people, certainly those in the less developed world who have not contributed significantly to GHG output, have a right to continue to live in their ancestral home. Their forced evacuation caused by sea level rise could be said to be a abuse of their human rights. How can we help them?

Michael Bear Kleinman:

First, to get the discussion started, I'm surprisingly wary of describing the impacts of climate change -- people forced to flee their homes due to rising sea levels -- as a human rights issue. It's certainly a catastrophe, but does every catastrophe imply a human rights violation? When we can point to direct individual or even governmental intention in the deprivation of "the right to life, liberty and security of person," as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then the answer seems clearly yes. Hence the recent charges ICC charges against Omar Bashir, for his role in stoking and fueling the conflict in Darfur. On the other hand, I wouldn't describe natural disasters such as the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami, or the Pakistan earthquake of the same year, as a human rights violation. They're not caused by individuals or governments, though their prior and subsequent actions can certainly make the situation far worse. The "climate refugees" described by Nick seem to fall somewhere in-between. I don't think anyone is arguing at this point about causation, at least insofar as a) climate change is impacting weather patterns, including rising sea levels, b) climate change is at least partially caused by human action, and c) some countries produce far more greenhouse gases than others. Yet greenhouse gases weren't produced with the intention of causing small island developing states to take an Atlantis-like swoon.

If the displacement caused by climate change qualifies as a human rights abuse, then what about American and European trade policies and tariffs, which also have a massive -- and often highly disruptive -- impact on developing nations? Anyhow, will leave it to those far more versed in human rights to set me straight. As to answer Nick's actual question, about what we can do to help, one answer is for western donor nations and humanitarian agencies to focus more attention and funding on disaster risk reduction. As defined by the British Department for International Development (DfID), "Disaster risk reduction entails measures to curb disaster losses by addressing hazards and people's vulnerabilities to them." In other words, it's focused on preventive action, as opposed to simply responding after a disaster. (To read more, see the short DfID briefing paper on DDR.) In fact, October 8th was the International Day for Disaster Reduction. This is incredibly important in countries like Bangladesh, where rising waters threaten millions, not to mention the impact of increasingly severe storms, such as Cyclone Sidr from last year. (For an excellent description of these issues, see Nicki Bennett's posts from Bangladesh following Cyclone Sidr.

Eric Schwartz:

We can help them, it seems to me, in a number of critically important ways --

First, most obviously, we need to establish U.S. leadership in international negotiations on climate change -- but it's not going to happen until we demonstrate to the world that we are prepared to adopt binding national commitments on greenhouse gas reduction. Unfortunately, that's hardly enough, because climate change is happening fast, with broad reaching impacts no matter what actions on mitigation we take.

So, beyond mitigation, we have to take several measures --

First, by matching rhetorical endorsement of the Hyogo Framework for Action with a real commitment not only to a huge expansion of resources for disaster prevention, both through new international institutions -- such as the new World Bank facility established for disaster prevention -- and through bilateral donor support. The Hyogo Framework, adopted by governments around the world at a conference in Japan shortly after the Asian tsunami, is a great document -- but words on paper don't mean much if they're not backed up by real resources.

Second, even with the best efforts at prevention, increased vulnerability to storm surges and other natural hazards means that we must be prepared to ramp up disaster assistance funding, and to work much more closely and cooperatively with the international partners, including UN Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance, the World Food Program, UNHCR and others. Unilateral action, or even coalitions of the willing, are bad models for effective disaster response -- as we saw in the case of the Asian tsunami, when the Bush Administration quickly reversed its initial decision to work with just a few countries in coordinating humanitarian action and quickly turned to UN agencies.

And third, in the worst of cases, if small island states are at risk of becoming uninhabitable, we must be prepared, and we will be obliged, to support the broadest range of assistance designed to ease whatever transitions these societies must ultimately have to endure.

Emily Holland:

Responding to Michael Kleinman's posting, in which he encourages humanitarian agencies to focus more attention and funding on disaster risk reduction, I spoke with Sue Dwyer, Vice President of International Programs at the International Rescue Committee. According to Dwyer, humanitarian action in response to climate change requires a two pronged response: 1) mitigation -- reducing green house gas emission, and 2) adaptation -- minimizing the effects of global warming through Disaster Risk Reduction methodologies (DRR).

Here at the IRC, we're working to minimize our carbon footprint while at the same time helping communities to increase their adaptive capacities. This means assisting communities in identifying hazards they face due to climate change, determining the probability an incident will occur, and gauging the impact an incident will have on that community. We then help communities assess the social, economic and other human factors that make them vulnerable, how equipped they are to deal with threats, and their ability to reduce the risk they face. Depending on these assessments, the IRC helps communities develop response plans.

A simple formula Dwyer provides to understand the IRC's approach: risks = hazards x vulnerabilities minus capacities. Continues Dwyer, many disaster prone countries such as Bangladesh have already demonstrated great success in decreasing risk associated with climate change disasters through this process. We need to expand DRR work more globally.

Early last month, back to back to back hurricanes devastated Haiti--the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. As always happens when a natural disaster strikes a developing country, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs issues an flash appeal to which member states pledge funds for humanitarian relief and reconstruction. The problem, though, is that member states sometimes pledge funds, but are slow to actually deliver. Alternatively, member states simply do not respond to the appeal at all. This latter seem be happening in Haiti. So far, only 40% of the $107 million appeal has been pledged. According to the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes, this is not going to cut it.

"Even that 40 per cent is nowhere near enough of what we're going to need for the next six months or so for people in Gonaives, and Gonaives is not the only place affected by any stretch of the imagination," Mr. Holmes said on his return from a two-day visit to Haiti, which was hammered by four successive storms in as many weeks from mid-August to mid-September...

Gonaives, the hardest-hit city, is still a "dramatic and grim site" even six weeks after the last hurricane hit, said Mr. Holmes. Some 30,000 people are still taking refuge in city shelters, which are very often ill-equipped schools, and some of those who have gone back to their homes are camping on roofs and in courtyards.

There is a large new lake just outside Gonaives, which did not exist before and now covers the bridge and roads leading to the city, and living conditions have been made even more difficult by huge amounts of mud and stagnant water.

"If urgent action is not taken on the disaster risk reduction front, then we're simply going to see more tragedies in the future," warned Mr. Holmes.

(Photo of Gonaives after Hurricane Hanna. From Flickr. Photo credit to Logan Abassi (MINUSTAH) )

With one week to go before elections here in the United States UN Dispatch, On Day One, Chasing the Flame and Humanitarian Relief are joining forces to talk human rights. Everyday this week a distinguished group of panelists will respond to an On Day One user generated prompt about a human rights idea the next president can adopt, figuratively, on day one. Our panelists include:

* Suzanne Nossel, Human Rights Watch

* Eric Schwartz, Connect U.S. Fund

* Michael Bear Kleinman, Humanitarian Relief

* David Kaye, UCLA Law and Chasing the Flame

* Emily Holland, International Rescue Committee and Chasing the Flame

Our first prompt comes from On Day One user David Tuckman, who says the United States should support the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Eric Schwartz, Suzanne Nossel, and David Kaye respond below the fold.

Eric Schwartz:
The Human Rights Council -- and its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission -- cannot be Human Rights Watch; nor can it be Human Rights First or even Amnesty International. If you want a pristine human rights institution that does not suffer from politicization, then you want something other than an intergovernmental human rights organization. And while we can try to ensure that the Human Rights Council is composed primarily of governments that respect human rights, it is probably inevitable that the Council will include governments that do not particularly welcome international scrutiny. But that's hardly a reason to walk away from the exercise. The international laws on human rights -- and their affiliated institutions -- help to legitimate standards internationally and provide a key tool for worldwide advocacy. That is precisely why dictators and despots spend so much time and energy trying to thwart and distort the human rights mission.