by former Senator Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative

The gravest danger in the world today is the threat of a nuclear attack.

Whether launched by a state or a terrorist group, a nuclear explosion in a major city could kill hundreds of thousands, close borders, erode civil liberties, slash trade and travel, and change the world as we know it. No country would escape the consequences.

Preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons should be the top security priority of the 21st century. But this is not something that can be done by any one nation; it has to be done by many nations, working together.

Let me offer an example. Today, as energy needs rise and the pace of global warming increases, more and more nations are interested in using nuclear power to generate electricity.

That could be a good thing -- or it could be very dangerous. The process used to make nuclear fuel can also be used to make the key ingredient of a nuclear-weapon. If every nation that wants to use nuclear power decides to make its own nuclear fuel, the world could see -- over the next decade or so -- dozens of new nations capable of making not only nuclear fuel, but also nuclear weapons.

So how can the world accommodate more nations using nuclear power without creating more nations who can produce nuclear bombs?

There is only one answer: through intensified international cooperation. If nations that already have nuclear know-how can come together to guarantee a supply of nuclear fuel to nations who need it but can't make it, then nations who need nuclear fuel may be persuaded to elect to import it, instead of building the capacity to make it on their own.

That is why The Nuclear Threat Initiative, with Warren Buffett's backing, has pledged $50 million to help build an international fuel bank that will be available as a last-resort fuel reserve for any nation that is meeting their nonproliferation commitments that chooses to rely on international fuel markets rather than choosing to develop their own fuel supply facilities.

It is important that we build such a fuel bank, and the technical and financial means are there to make it possible. What is missing is the collective will to bring about the international cooperation that can make it happen. Cooperation is the essential challenge of 21st century security. Along with well-trained troops, top weapons systems, and effective intelligence services, one of our greatest security assets will be our ability to cooperate with other countries to achieve our common security goals. I believe we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe - and cooperation is moving forward far too slowly.

We should consider two questions: If, in the years ahead, the world experiences a nuclear catastrophe, what would we wish we had done together to prevent it? Why aren't we doing that now?

by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Ten years ago, I stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce a bill, which eventually became known as the "Helms-Biden law", to authorize the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. Securing its passage was a hard-fought, but worthwhile, initiative.

Unfortunately, we are again in arrears to the UN. For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution for its peacekeeping operations -- missions in places like Lebanon, Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo -- that advance our national interests while sharing the human, political and financial costs of peacekeeping with other nations.

The Peacekeeping arrears -- $117 million to date -- are due to an outdated cap which prohibits the U.S. from paying more than 25 per cent of the United Nations' peacekeeping budget. However, the UN is billing us at just under 27 percent (a reduction from 31 percent, negotiated by U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke in 2000, under the terms of my legislation). If we continue to let the arrears stand, these critical missions could suffer, the nations who have been contributing their troops as peacekeepers might begin to balk at future requests, and our standing to press for further UN reform will be diminished. This is why I introduced a bill to correct the cap problem and pay our arrears, S. 392, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved on June 27.

Ironically, while our arrears are rising, the importance of UN peacekeeping is rising too. If the UN didn't conduct these missions, we might have to -- at a much higher financial cost and burden on our over-stretched military. Our yearly dues to UN peacekeeping, which support missions in 18 conflict zones, are just over $1 billion -- less than the cost of a week in Iraq, and less than 0.5 percent of our entire Defense budget.

The UN 'blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. We vote time and again in the UN Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions -- and our financial support should be in harmony with our policy. We can not, in good conscience, continue to shortchange these operations.

By Antonio Guterres, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

Today, on World Refugee Day, I am joining southern Sudanese refugees as they return home from Uganda to begin rebuilding their lives after decades of conflict. Although largely unreported, with help from the UN, refugees are starting to return to southern Sudan from refugee camps in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, and the Central African Republic. Others are returning from exile in Libya and Egypt, as well as from other parts of Sudan itself.

The repatriation of these refugees is a ray of hope here in the epicenter of one of the world's great displacements, but, clearly, so much more needs to be done. Over the last few days in Sudan, I have seen firsthand the stark reality of forced displacement as well as some of its possible solutions.

The massive displacement in Darfur represents only a portion of the almost 40 million people worldwide who have been uprooted and forced to flee violence and persecution, and in the future we are likely to see even more people on the move. Many of them will be searching for economic opportunity and better lives or escaping environmental degradation and natural disasters. Others will be forced to flee failing states wracked by violence and persecution. But in most instances, people are fleeing a combination of these factors, compounding one another to provoke a perfect storm of loss and dislocation.

Hopes that globalization would naturally bring steady growth while also narrowing the gap between rich and poor have not been fulfilled. While global trade and wealth have indeed increased, the gap between the world's rich and poor is widening, driving more people to move and to fall prey to unscrupulous groups who engage in human smuggling and trafficking--a business worth billions of dollars a year.

Climate change and environmental damage lie behind increasingly frequent natural disasters with dramatic human consequences. Different models of the impact of climate change all present a worrying picture of human displacement. East Africa offers a stark example. All predictions are that desertification will expand steadily, making it difficult for people to earn a living and provoking further migration. All of this is happening in the absence of international capacity and determination to respond.

People are also fleeing war and persecution. Even when we have plenty of early warning, the international community has repeatedly failed to prevent conflicts. Instead, agencies like mine are left to deal with the human consequences. Prevention is possible, more effective, and cheaper. But it requires wisdom, political and diplomatic effort, and an investment in eliminating the root causes, including the social and economic ones.

Sudan's Darfur crisis is a good example of the complexities. The conflict has political roots, but is also fueled by increasing competition between traditional herders and farmers for scarce resources, especially water. When this is linked with political tensions, the results are explosive.

It is time to recognize that we are facing what is nothing less than a new paradigm of displacement in the 21st Century, with a plethora of push factors driving people from their homes on an unprecedented scale. There are no easy answers, but, while the international community grapples with the root causes of displacement, it must pay more attention to protecting the vulnerable and building opportunities for their futures.

UN Dispatch recently sat down with Congressman Donald Payne, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health on the Committee for Foreign Affairs, to discuss malaria, the priorities of the Subcommittee, and UN peacekeeping. The transcript follows.

UN Dispatch: As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, why have you chosen to focus on malaria?

Congressman Payne: Well, as you may know malaria kills more people than any other disease. The thing about malaria is that many times people get it; they get cured from it; but then they get it again. And tremendous numbers of children die--millions die--over the course of years. It's something that is certainly preventable. That's why we feel that preventable diseases should be the ones that we attack first. So, there is a tremendous amount of attention out that has been drawn. We are talking about nets that are treated so that the insects are killed. We are talking about having medication available. We also need to talk about sanitation and water, where many times these mosquitoes fester, and so we can start to eliminate where they are multiplying. We have a real coordinated approach to malaria. I think finally the world has decided that malaria is a disease that we need to focus on and we need to concentrate on. It is something that's preventable, and I am very pleased at the new attention that has been given to the war on malaria.

UN Dispatch: What other Global Health challenges do you hope to address through the Subcommittee in the near future, and what role do you think the UN might play in those initiatives?

Congressman Payne: Well, as you know, HIV/AIDS is certainly one of the big pandemics that's still killing so many people. We've had hearings on HIV/AIDS. We were pleased that the U.S government has actually doubled it's commitment over the next five years. It was $15 billion over the first five years and there would be reauthorization in 2009 for the next five years. And so we are looking forward to the $30 billion that the President pledged for HIV/AIDS, and, of course as we know, it's now the fund for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. So, we know that all of these diseases are sort of interrelated, and so that's one of the areas that we are certainly looking to work on. 2015 is the year that the millennium challenges will take in. We are looking to halve abject poverty by that date. We are looking to increase potable water by that date and improve on sanitation as I mentioned as we discussed malaria before. And recently the resistant strain of TB that we heard about right here in the United States is another area in which we are going to recommend higher amounts of money in order to combat. want to get higher amount of funding in order to fight against. The U.N is actually just an organization that brings them all together.

Lee: As I understand that you attended the Subcommittee on International Organizations hearing yesterday on U.N peacekeeping. What is your stand on the arrears issue?

Congressman Payne: I really believe that the United States has a responsibility to pay up the $600 million that we are in arrears plus the additional $500 million. It appears that we are about $1.2 billion back. U.N peacekeeping operations save the U.S a tremendous amount of resources, financial and in terms of manpower. Considering Haiti alone, if we had U.S. troops in Haiti rather than UN troops, the cost would be 5 or 6, 7 times as much as it is with the UN being in Haiti, as an example. And I believe that we should pay our arrears. As you know the U.S. reduced its percentages [for the UN regular budget] over the years, and we are moving to try to even reduce it more. That's not fair. Actually Japan pays 19% and U.S pays 21%. It is supposed to go by GDP. Our GDP is not just a couple of percentage points more than Japan, so Japan is paying more than its GDP dictates. So I think we have to be responsible in what our government has done, and it has been irresponsible. I hope that with changes in the political leadership of the House and the Senate, we can really start to reengage with the U.N to actually work as a partner more so than what we've done in the past six to eight years. We need the UN, and the UN needs the U.S. So we are partners together and that's our goal going forward to try to pay up our arrears and to beg better partners to the UN than we have before.

by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif. 6)

After criticizing past Presidents' foreign policy efforts as nothing more than "nation building" during his first campaign, President Bush promised the world a new American foreign policy once elected. Seven years later, we have seen the results of his approach - of his insistence on preemptive military strikes instead of diplomacy, of brash unilateral arrogance as opposed to respect for the international organizations. I am certainly not alone in recognizing the foreign policy of this Administration as nothing but a total and abject failure.

Yet President Bush's failures point to a larger problem in American foreign policy - a continued focus on accumulating, and exerting, "hard" power, be it military or economic, as the only tools of achieving our foreign policy goals. Not only is this approach outdated, but more importantly it is completely ineffective and hinders our ability to safeguard our nation's interests.

For much of the last century the U.S. has led the world, not solely with our military might, but with the power of our ideals. Just as the proliferation of "American values" coupled with the creativity and intelligence of workers led to record economic growth following World War Two, our commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance and embrace of democratic principles brought the Cold War to a peaceful end.

That's why I have proposed a plan called SMART Security - Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. This is a new paradigm for American foreign policy, one that treats war as an absolute last resort, to be pursued only after every peaceful and diplomatic solution has been exhausted. SMART recognizes that traditional military might is no longer the most effective means of guaranteeing our own national security, never mind protecting our interests abroad:

• SMART Security defends America by relying on our capacity for global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, and our commitment to peace and freedom.
• SMART is tough on terrorists by using stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships while respecting human and civil rights.
• SMART attacks the root causes of terrorism by investing in the development of impoverished nations, giving their people the hope and opportunity they need to reject a life of violence and hatred.
• SMART controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to inspections and nonproliferation.
• SMART reduces our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable energy sources.

History shows that we are at the height of our power, as a nation, when we bring all of resources to bear for peaceful resolutions and prevention, refrain from making the grave miscalculation that we can, and will, achieve our goals through military haste and by turning a blind eye to our alliances around the globe. These lessons are the basis for SMART Security, and lessons that I hope that this Administration will some day learn.

by John Prendergast and Julia Spiegel

Since the conflict in Darfur erupted in early 2003, students, religious groups, politicians and concerned citizens around the world have spoken out to try and help bring an end to the suffering in Western Sudan. Sadly, Darfur continues to burn, but many of us who have worked for decades in African crisis zones have been deeply inspired and moved by this groundswell of support and action on behalf of the people of Darfur.

Recognizing the potential for activists and concerned citizens to make a difference, and committed to the idea that these horrors are not inevitable and can be stopped, a group of us joined together to work toward creating a new paradigm for action.

The result was the ENOUGH campaign, co-founded by the International Crisis Group and the Center for American Progress, to prevent and resolve genocide and mass atrocities. Launched in March 2007, ENOUGH's mission is to mitigate and resolve these crises through the synthesis of in-depth field analysis, high-level advocacy and grassroots activism.

ENOUGH is initially focusing on the crimes against humanity in Darfur, northern Uganda and eastern Congo -- three of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Africa is the frontline for ENOUGH's attention, not only because of the grave challenges there, but because of the opportunities as well. In each of these cases, ENOUGH employs a "3P" crisis response strategy that focuses on promoting durable peace, providing civilian protection, and punishing perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Our challenge, however, goes beyond stopping genocide and other crimes against humanity today; ENOUGH is also focused on what can be done to prevent the crises of tomorrow. Bringing to bear three key elements -- analysis, advocacy, and activism -- ENOUGH will focus on the policies, tools, and investments needed now to prevent these crises in the future.

Our work is premised on the firm belief that if we create enough noise, politicians will listen. If we hold leaders accountable, they will take action. And if we put forth actionable solutions, the world won't so readily turn a blind eye.

by Susan Rice, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution

When Americans see televised images of bone-thin African or Asian kids with distended bellies, what do we think? We think of helping. For all the right reasons, our humanitarian instincts tend to take over. But when we look at UNICEF footage or a Save the Children solicitation, does it also occur to us that we are seeing a symptom of a threat that could destroy our way of life? Rarely. In fact, global poverty is far more than solely a humanitarian concern. In real ways, over the long term, it can threaten U.S. national security.

Poverty fundamentally erodes state capacity -- by fueling conflict, sapping human capital, hollowing out our impeding the development of effective state institutions, and creating especially conducive environments for corrupt governance. So why does this matter for American national security?

When states fail to meet the basic needs of their citizens -- for food, clean water, health care or education -- other groups move in to fill the void. Sometimes help comes from multilateral aid agencies or secular NGOs, but in Africa, South Asia and parts of the Middle East, many times these services are provided by foreign-funded religious NGOs, Christian missionaries or mosques -- sometimes with theological, even extremist, strings attached. Hezbollah and Hamas have been quite successful in filling these voids at a large scale -- effectively supplanting government and becoming "states within states."

Recent academic research also demonstrates that countries with low income per capita are at increased risk of civil conflict. According to the OECD, in 2002 "more that two-thirds of the poorest countries in the world [were] in conflict." These conflicts in turn can be sink holes that destabilize entire regions, as did Liberia and Congo in the 1990's, and as the crisis in Darfur is threatening to do today.

These conflict zones have been exploited by terrorists to lure foot soldiers and train new cadres -- as in Bosnia, the Philippines and Central Asia. It was in conflict ridden Sudan and Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda first established training camps, breeding approximately 20,000 militants who now operate in South and Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and the Western Hemisphere.

Today, grinding poverty is the lot of half of the world's population. Three billion human beings subsist on less than $2 per day -- $730 per year -- the equivalent of seven pairs of quality sneakers in the United States. Efforts to illuminate the complex relationship between poverty and insecurity may be unwelcome to those who want assurance that global poverty and U.S. national security are unrelated. Yet, we ignore or obscure the implications of global poverty for global security at our peril.

Until the United Nations intervened in 2003, some 250,000 people lost their lives and as many as one million people were displaced or made refugees as a result of fourteen years of conflict in the small, West African country of Liberia. UN Dispatch recently contacted Jordan Ryan, an American citizen who is one of the top administrators of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). From his office in Monrovia, Mr. Ryan discusses the history of the conflict, reconstruction efforts, and how UN peacekeepers are contributing to the political and physical rehabilitation of a broken country.

Dispatch: Can you give our readers a brief sketch of the conflict and why the United Nations sent peacekeepers to Liberia in 2003?

Jordan Ryan: The Liberian conflict lasted for fourteen years, but many feel it has its roots much deeper in the history of Liberia. During those fourteen years of civil war -- there were massive human rights violations. Perhaps as many as a quarter million people died and anywhere up to a million became displaced or refugees in neighbouring countries.

Dispatch: The population of Liberia is not all that tremendous--these numbers probably represent a significant portion of the entire population.

Ryan: The population is only about 3 million. So, with a third displaced, it was a very difficult time for the Liberian people.

The United Nations Security Council determined that the conflict in Liberia, which had spread across the borders to Sierra Leone, was a threat to international peace and security. With that determination, they authorized the presence of a United Nations Peacekeeping mission in Liberia. At its inception, it was the second largest peacekeeping mission in Africa. Today we have got close to 14,000 troops from 50 nations serving in Liberia.

Dispatch: What are the main duties of the troops today and how have their duties evolved since they were first deployed?

Ryan: The duties have always been to maintain peace, security, and law and order. Troops are stationed throughout the nation -- with contingents on border areas and in places we call "hot spots." Initially, the troops were engaged in the disarmament of combatants. Now they are much more involved in the process of maintaining or consolidtaing the peace. They provide both a security blanket, and as we like to say, they provide "time and space" for the duly elected democratic government to actually exercise democratic control. This is a very important element.

Dispatch: Many international observers consider those elections in 2005 to be a turning point for Liberia. Can you describe how UNMIL supported those national elections?

Ryan: The elections were conducted by the National Elections Commission. The United Nations provided considerable technical and logistical support to conduct the elections through UNMIL, through the Elections Division as well as through the United Nations Development Program. We provided advisory services in how to conduct the elections. We made sure that people could get to the polls, and we made sure that the elections were conducted in an open and transparent manner.

The international election observers who were here, the representatives of the Liberian political parties, and many independent observers concluded that the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf--the first democratically elected woman president in all of Africa--were conducted in a free and fair manner. This was a triumph of democracy.

Dispatch: What was the turnout like for the election?

Ryan: I wasn't here on the day of the first vote, but when I talk to colleagues that were here they tell me that even in the most rural and remote areas people turned out in droves. In many ways, the president was elected by the massive turnout of women voters who wanted a change and wanted to make sure that democracy prevailed. The turnout was high and participation was good. The government has been in place since January 2006.

Dispatch: Can you describe some of the reconstruction efforts that UNMIL has supported for the country?

Ryan: You have to understand how devastated the country was from the long war. Looting, on an unbelievable scale, had taken place across the entire county. Buildings were basically demolished. Lighting fixtures -- and even the wiring for the lights -- were stripped out of buildings. Roofs were taken off. Bathroom commodes, even bathroom tiles were chipped off and removed. That gives you the background of the reconstruction challenges facing the country.

A massive effort is required. It was only after the first six months of the new presidency that there was any city-supplied electricity in Monrovia. No other city throughout Liberia has any city-supplied electricity. Water is not available in most of the counties. More important are the lives of the people: the basic social services today are primarily provided through NGOs and the United Nations.

Dispatch: Can you be specific on what some of these services are that most touch the lives of Liberians?

Ryan: At least 80% of Liberians live on less than a dollar a day. In some counties there are no doctors. Malnutrition of children in Liberia is widespread. In rural areas, 39% of children under the age of five are stunted. Children have only a one in four chance of making it to their fifth birthday. Liberia has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. So that is the background that the Government of Liberia, with support from the United Nations and donors, are working against.

There is tremendous deprivation. But, quite frankly there is also tremendous opportunity. Liberia is a small country. And it has natural wealth in land and water, timber, diamonds and other minerals.

Dispatch: To that end, I have read that sanctions on the diamond industry have recently been lifted. What mechanisms are in place that might ensure that the wealth derived from Liberia's natural resources might go back to the people?

Ryan: Liberia has just been admitted to the Kimberly Process, which is a certification scheme for diamonds that helps make sure that resources actually flow into the coffers of Liberia as opposed to the pockets of warlords and criminals. The United Nations and other donors have played a role in supporting a more open and transparent manner of regulating the mining industry. We had to make sure that once the Security Council sanctions were lifted the government has the capacity to regulate the diamond industry, including opening new government diamond offices throughout the country.

The same is true with the sanctions on timber. Not only were there blood diamonds here, there was also what some refer to as 'blood timber.' Sanctions on Liberian timber have been lifted and the United Nations, United States and the World Bank have been working closely with the Liberian authorities to develop a regulatory framework as well as mechanisms to help with the sustainable harvest of forests. These resources must benefit the poor in this country - not just an elite.

On January 22, UN Dispatch reported that 105 Indian police officers where being deployed to Liberia as the UN's first all-female peacekeeping force. Today we sat down with a unit commander, Seema Dhundia, to check in on their progress.

Now that your unit has been in the field for a few months, how would you say the presence of a female UN peacekeeping contingent is enabling Liberia to get on the path to rebuilding?

I think that for the first time the Liberian people are seeing a fully trained contingent of female officers out on streets. Their own women are getting inspired and motivated and now they are coming forward. Seeing my girls performing their duties is inspiring young Liberian women to join the regular forces -- in this way we are sort of role models for the young Liberian ladies. They are seeing our girls and are now coming forward and joining the regular forces. Their numbers have considerably increased after our arrival here

The people are watching us here in Liberia. They are seeing the all-female contingent -- which has come all the way from India for the peacekeeping mission -- and they are getting inspired. They might start their own female force.

Have you faced any specific challenges being an all-women's unit?

There is no specific challenge as such. The situation is still volatile –the undercurrents of the conflict are still there, though the politics seem to be calm and quiet. Sometimes, though, it does get out of hand. But since the troops are prepared and they are professionally competent, we are able to cope with the pressures of any kind of situation.

Have you encountered any situations where being an all female unit has enabled you to accomplish things where a mixed gender unit would not have been able to?

No. Whether it's a mixed unit or a female unit or a male unit the point is that everybody has to be professionally competent. Even if it is a fully formed female contingent, even in that case, the female officers are supposed to be professionally competent and trained enough to tackle any kind of situation in that manner. Whether it is a mixed unit or a female unit or a male unit the point is the officers are to be properly sensitized. Irrespective of what you call it, they are to be properly trained and they have to be aware of what is going in their deployment area.

And would you say that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's presidency has it had any impact on operating as an all-female unit. Has it made things easier or more difficult?

I can't be very specific about it since she is the President. But she does provide a platform for all of us to perform. As far as our duties are concerned we are preparing the same kind of duties that the other peacekeepers are doing so there is no discrimination as such.

What are the primary goals -- if you wouldn't mind giving some background for our readers -- the primary goals of the UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia and how do those filter down into your day to day duties in as a policing unit?

The primary goals of the UN mission here are to establish peace and implement all kinds of humanitarian assistance programs. They call this a post-conflict scenario. The infrastructure of the country had to be repaired from scratch. The primary goal is to establish normalcy -- establish peace and to ensure that state infrastructure is functioning. I think that this is the main goal of the UN mission here in Liberia.

As far as our contribution is concerned, we are here to advise and mentor the Liberian national police and we are provide backup support to the police in their day to day work. We are the only people who carry weapons with us, so we provide a security cover -- a backup to the Liberian national police in their day to day job. We also are providing a great deal of on-the-spot training to the Liberian national police officers, advising them on how to react to a particular situation.

Why did you become a UN peacekeeper?

I was commandant of an all-female contingent in India. Coming all the way from India to a place called Liberia and using my expertise and skills in performing my day to day duties was a good challenge. And obviously, if there is a challenge for a police officer it has to be taken in a positive way. It definitely leads to our own development. We are gaining excellent experience from being here. We have learned many new things, including the function of the UN. And it has provided a good platform for all of us. I think that is why all of us volunteered for this mission.

Based on your experience thus far, how long do you think the UN will have a presence in Liberia?

I am not the right person or the right authority to say on this matter but I think it will take some time to bring in a little bit of normalcy. It will take some time -- how much time is difficult to judge, but obviously it will take a few years.

In June 2006, the United Nations Foundation and the Vodafone Group Foundation formed a partnership to help fund the development of digital health data systems in Africa so local health care workers can access national health databases. This includes an initiative, admimnistered through the NGO DataDyne, to fund mobile computing devices for health care workers and data officers in Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Zambia.

In the post below, Dr. Joel Selanikio writes in from a clinic in Zambia to explain why cell phones and PDAs have become a critical tool in the development of national health data systems in the developing world.

Kabwe, Zambia - May 16, 2007

In twenty years of international health work, I have become used to seeing examples of what needs to change. Here in Kabwe, at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Clinic facility, it was a pleasure to see examples of things done right. I was in Kabwe providing technical support to provincial officer Elizabeth Mwale, who has been helping us field-test our EpiSurveyor software for mobile data collection (in this case collection of facility supervision information on Palm handhelds). Over breakfast of toast and tea served on Barbi placemats in our hotel (the Kabwe Executive Lounge), we decided to stop at a facility to watch Elizabeth use the supervisory checklist, co- developed with CDC, on her Palm PDA -- and off we headed to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Clinic. The Gandhi clinic was within 30 minutes drive, and Elizabeth had not visited it in several months.

We were greeted after entering the clinic by Bridget Banda, a nurse- midwife and second-in-charge of the clinic. Nurse Banda took us through the spotless registration area, brightly-lit patient care rooms, a busy and perfectly-equipped laboratory equipped with microscopes and centrifuges for diagnosis of malaria, among other tropical diseases, and the counseling rooms where HIV-positive patients can receive both counseling and life-extending anti- retroviral treatment. Staff everywhere were neatly dressed and smiling, and happy to explain their function, and the whole clinic just had this feeling of order and harmony. What a tonic for a world- weary public health doc, accustomed to much less well-equipped centers.

Another thing I noticed, though, was the enormous amount of paperwork, in the form of logs, registries, drug records, patient histories, and more, in this small clinic. Dutifully collected on paper, that information was unlikely to make its way to any analyzable form -- meaning that the wealth of information collected by this exemplary facility was never going to reach the rest of the country's health system! What a tremendous benefit if we could replace all those paper records with easy-to-administer electronic records, accessible from the cell phones carried by each and every caregiver (and patient). Once again, I realize that in developing countries the cell phone is the computer, the internet access point, and the communicator, all rolled into one. For other clinics to learn from the experience of this one, we've got to build critical health data systems onto the cell system.

Andrew Young, who also served as a Representative in the U.S. Congress, a top aide to Martin Luther King Jr., and the Mayor of Atlanta, was appointed the U.S. Ambassador to the UN by President Carter in 1977. We sat down with Ambassador Young recently to discuss his thoughts on the UN and how his early years formed his philosophy on conflict and its resolution.

Watch the Interview

by Elizabeth McKee
Director, Nothing But Nets

Today, April 25th, is the first time the United States will officially observe National Malaria Awareness Day. The President is hosting an event at the White House to commemorate what has been celebrated by the rest of the world as Africa Malaria Day since 2001. A forgotten disease that was eradicated in the United States, malaria affects over 500 million individuals a year, killing a child in Africa every 30 seconds.

The United Nations has made this issue a priority, listing it as one of the Millennium Development Goals and stating the need to halt and reverse the incidence of malaria. Shrinking Africa's economy by $12 billion a year, malaria is one of the main causes of poverty. Ironically, one of the most cost-effective and simple approaches to combat malaria is through the use of inexpensive insecticide-treated bed nets, which can prevent malaria transmission by at least 50 percent.

The President’s Malaria Initiative has pledged $1.2 billion to the prevention and treatment of malaria. The Global Fund has committed to $2.6 billion. My grandmother in Texas donated $10 to the prevention of malaria through Nothing But Nets. We all have a role to play and Nothing But Nets makes it simple for individuals to make a difference.

Nothing But Nets is a global, grassroots campaign to prevent malaria. Inspired by Sports Illustrated’s Rick Reilly, the Campaign was created by the United Nations Foundation in 2006. The National Basketball Association’s NBA Cares, The People of the United Methodist Church and Major League Soccer have joined the campaign and helped to raise over $5 million. A $10 donation covers the cost of purchasing, distributing and educating families on the proper use of a bed net.

Today the Campaign is kicking off a multi-city tour in Miami to bring the issue of malaria to Americans everywhere. Even American Idol is getting behind this issue through tonight’s unprecedented television special, Idol Gives Back. Tonight viewers will have the opportunity to make donations throughout the show.

You too can get involved by Sending a Net and Saving a Life. $10 saves a life, maybe two, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will match it dollar for dollar. After all, if the Secretary General, Simon Cowell, and my grandmother is behind this issue, you too can join in on this special day. Visit www.NothingButNets.net and donate your own life saving dollars.

In North Korea and Iran, would-be proliferators are starting to think twice about their nuclear pursuits. In recent months, North Korea has agreed to a suspension of its nuclear program. And although the rhetoric in Tehran has continued to be unyielding, it appears that internal fissures are beginning to form in Iran's resistance to international efforts to curb its nuclear programs. After many miserable years, international non proliferation efforts seem to have received a welcome boost.

So what caused this turnabout? One common element may be the punitive sanctions imposed on these countries by a unified Security Council. This new installment of UNF Insights explains how Security Council sanctions have helped prod North Korea and Iran away from their nuclear ambitions and offers recommendations on how to strengthen international non-proliferation regimes

Hermann Scheer, a member of the German Parliament, recently published a book, Energy Autonomy, in which he delineates the consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels, the advantages of renewable energy, and political successes in his native Germany. I recently spoke to Hermann Scheer about his book, the real cost of renewable forms of energy, and the policy implications.

Listen to the Interview