MONUC, the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is typically -- and accurately -- described as, at over 17,000 uniformed personnel, the largest such mission currently deployed. What is less frequently considered, however, is the sheer size of the ground that these 17,000 peacekeepers have to cover. Just take a look at a map.
DR Congo is about the size of Western Europe. With that perspective, it's easy to understand why the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on the mission, worries that it risks becoming "stretched to the limit" as it transitions almost entirely to the eastern part of the country. Indeed, at a press conference in New York yesterday, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to MONUC, Alan Doss, confirmed that 92% of the mission's forces were now deployed in eastern Congo -- a crucial repositioning that will help the mission build on January's ceasefire in the volatile region.
Even in just two of Congo's smallest provinces, though, UN peacekeepers still have to patrol an area the size of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg combined. Speaking today at the Wilson Center, Mr. Doss made the telling analogy that MONUC's task of patrolling one of these provinces, South Kivu, is equivalent to having one police officer cover all of Manhattan, plus a sizable chunk of Brooklyn.
We often don't appreciate how tall of a task UN peacekeepers in remote, expansive , violent locations face. Give that statistic to a police officer in New York City, though, and I imagine s/he'll appreciate it a whole lot more.
MONUC, the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is typically -- and accurately -- described as, at over 17,000 uniformed personnel, the largest such mission currently deployed. What is less frequently considered, however, is the sheer size of the ground that these 17,000 peacekeepers have to cover. Just take a look at a map.
DR Congo is about the size of Western Europe. With that perspective, it's easy to understand why the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on the mission, worries that it risks becoming "stretched to the limit" as it transitions almost entirely to the eastern part of the country. Indeed, at a press conference in New York yesterday, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to MONUC, Alan Doss, confirmed that 92% of the mission's forces were now deployed in eastern Congo -- a crucial repositioning that will help the mission build on January's ceasefire in the volatile region.
Even in just two of Congo's smallest provinces, though, UN peacekeepers still have to patrol an area the size of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg combined. Speaking today at the Wilson Center, Mr. Doss made the telling analogy that MONUC's task of patrolling one of these provinces, South Kivu, is equivalent to having one police officer cover all of Manhattan, plus a sizable chunk of Brooklyn.
We often don't appreciate how tall of a task UN peacekeepers in remote, expansive , violent locations face. Give that statistic to a police officer in New York City, though, and I imagine s/he'll appreciate it a whole lot more.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says it is. South Africa, this month's president of the Security Council, however, doesn't think so. From the AP's Edith Lederer:
[South Africa's] U.N. Ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, insists that Zimbabwe is not on the agenda because the matter is being dealt with by the Southern African Development Community. SADC leaders held a summit in Zambia that ended before dawn Sunday with a weak declaration that failed to criticize the absent Mugabe. The declaration called for the expeditious verification of election results in the presence of the candidates or their agents "within the rule of law," and urged "all parties to accept the results when they are announced."South Africa has traditionally been criticized for not pushing Mugabe harder on reform, so punting the issue entirely to a regional organization seems a little suspicious. Kumalo, however, seems to recognize that such a pressing concern -- the stalemate could possibly lead to the end of the Mugabe's 28-year reign -- likely can't avoid mention at such a prominent Security Council meeting, particularly when the U.S., Britain, and France, have all indicated that they intend to discuss Zimbabwe.
'Those are huge countries,' Kumalo said. 'They can raise whatever they want to raise and all I have said was that we don't expect Zimbabwe to be discussed tomorrow (Wednesday). But they can raise anything.'This is not just a power move by the "huge countries" of the West, of course. At a meeting dedicated to improving the UN's cooperation with regional African organizations, it seems only appropriate to discuss how the UN, AU, and SADC can work together to ensure that Zimbabwe's election results are determined freely, fairly, and transparently.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says it is. South Africa, this month's president of the Security Council, however, doesn't think so. From the AP's Edith Lederer:
[South Africa's] U.N. Ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, insists that Zimbabwe is not on the agenda because the matter is being dealt with by the Southern African Development Community. SADC leaders held a summit in Zambia that ended before dawn Sunday with a weak declaration that failed to criticize the absent Mugabe. The declaration called for the expeditious verification of election results in the presence of the candidates or their agents "within the rule of law," and urged "all parties to accept the results when they are announced."South Africa has traditionally been criticized for not pushing Mugabe harder on reform, so punting the issue entirely to a regional organization seems a little suspicious. Kumalo, however, seems to recognize that such a pressing concern -- the stalemate could possibly lead to the end of the Mugabe's 28-year reign -- likely can't avoid mention at such a prominent Security Council meeting, particularly when the U.S., Britain, and France, have all indicated that they intend to discuss Zimbabwe.
'Those are huge countries,' Kumalo said. 'They can raise whatever they want to raise and all I have said was that we don't expect Zimbabwe to be discussed tomorrow (Wednesday). But they can raise anything.'This is not just a power move by the "huge countries" of the West, of course. At a meeting dedicated to improving the UN's cooperation with regional African organizations, it seems only appropriate to discuss how the UN, AU, and SADC can work together to ensure that Zimbabwe's election results are determined freely, fairly, and transparently.
Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony revealed the answer my question from last week, namely by choosing not to reveal himself. Hopes for peace in northern Uganda were dashed over the weekend, as Kony opted to stay put in his remote Congolese jungle hideout, instead of venturing to the Sudanese border to sign a long-anticipated peace deal with the Ugandan government. Despite the buildup, Kony's nonappearance was ultimately unsurprising, as his commitment to the bedraggled peace process was always undermined by his powerful antipathy to the prospect of facing ICC prosecution. Nonetheless, this comes as an unfortunate blow to the people of northern Uganda, many of whom, even including Kony's victims, have even been willing to drop ICC jurisdiction in the interest of peace.
While the Ugandan delegation officially remains committed, and cautiously hopeful about, the stalled peace process, the Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, has also branded Kony as "not serious." Museveni is likely engaging in a bit of spin, taking advantage of Kony's defection to play up his own image as the one committed to peace, but there is a good deal of truth in his characterization of the rebel leader. The LRA's own top negotiator, David Matsanga, an admitted opponent of Museveni, resigned out of frustration with Kony's tactics, which he described to Voice of America.
"I have decided that I can no longer tolerate the type of tricks that are involved in the LRA by the leadership. When general Joseph Kony tells me that I want to sign this agreement on this date, and then he doesn't turn up. He doesn't even call me to tell me that he is not going to be in such and such a place, so that I can tell the world and other people not to come."An even more ominous sign coming out of the LRA camp -- and a fate that Matsanga has thus far avoided -- is the killing of nine rebel leaders in an apparent conflict over whether or not to sign the agreement. The idea of suspending ICC indictments becomes increasingly distasteful when a group -- a listed terrorist organization, mind you -- is willing to kill its own members in a debate over peace.
Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony revealed the answer my question from last week, namely by choosing not to reveal himself. Hopes for peace in northern Uganda were dashed over the weekend, as Kony opted to stay put in his remote Congolese jungle hideout, instead of venturing to the Sudanese border to sign a long-anticipated peace deal with the Ugandan government. Despite the buildup, Kony's nonappearance was ultimately unsurprising, as his commitment to the bedraggled peace process was always undermined by his powerful antipathy to the prospect of facing ICC prosecution. Nonetheless, this comes as an unfortunate blow to the people of northern Uganda, many of whom, even including Kony's victims, have even been willing to drop ICC jurisdiction in the interest of peace.
While the Ugandan delegation officially remains committed, and cautiously hopeful about, the stalled peace process, the Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, has also branded Kony as "not serious." Museveni is likely engaging in a bit of spin, taking advantage of Kony's defection to play up his own image as the one committed to peace, but there is a good deal of truth in his characterization of the rebel leader. The LRA's own top negotiator, David Matsanga, an admitted opponent of Museveni, resigned out of frustration with Kony's tactics, which he described to Voice of America.
"I have decided that I can no longer tolerate the type of tricks that are involved in the LRA by the leadership. When general Joseph Kony tells me that I want to sign this agreement on this date, and then he doesn't turn up. He doesn't even call me to tell me that he is not going to be in such and such a place, so that I can tell the world and other people not to come."An even more ominous sign coming out of the LRA camp -- and a fate that Matsanga has thus far avoided -- is the killing of nine rebel leaders in an apparent conflict over whether or not to sign the agreement. The idea of suspending ICC indictments becomes increasingly distasteful when a group -- a listed terrorist organization, mind you -- is willing to kill its own members in a debate over peace.
For all intents and purposes, many analysts have argued, the conflicts in Chad, Darfur, and the Central African Republic essentially amount to one regional war. Today, the U.S. Senate officially recognized this interconnectedness, and called on the parties involved to cease all violence, push for peace, and stop supporting rebel groups in one another's territory. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), the sponsor of the bipartisan resolution:
"The conflicts in Chad, the Central African Republic, and Sudan cannot be resolved in a vacuum because they have both domestic and regional implications. A sustainable peace requires good-faith negotiations both within and between the countries with strong monitoring by the international community," Feingold said. "I am pleased the Senate has sent such an important and timely message. The international community cannot ignore the complex cross-border problems that have resulted in great suffering."While the resolution is largely hortatory, it takes an important step in addressing the chaos spawned by the Darfur genocide holistically, rather than as an insulated humanitarian imperative. Civilians in the region have long been caught in the middle of their governments' political machinations, and ending the practice of interference by proxy will go a long way toward ensuring the security of vulnerable refugees and displaced persons. The international community has a large stake in resolving this situation, and Feingold's resolution rightly calls on countries to support peace efforts and the deployment of multilateral peacekeeping missions.
For all intents and purposes, many analysts have argued, the conflicts in Chad, Darfur, and the Central African Republic essentially amount to one regional war. Today, the U.S. Senate officially recognized this interconnectedness, and called on the parties involved to cease all violence, push for peace, and stop supporting rebel groups in one another's territory. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), the sponsor of the bipartisan resolution:
"The conflicts in Chad, the Central African Republic, and Sudan cannot be resolved in a vacuum because they have both domestic and regional implications. A sustainable peace requires good-faith negotiations both within and between the countries with strong monitoring by the international community," Feingold said. "I am pleased the Senate has sent such an important and timely message. The international community cannot ignore the complex cross-border problems that have resulted in great suffering."While the resolution is largely hortatory, it takes an important step in addressing the chaos spawned by the Darfur genocide holistically, rather than as an insulated humanitarian imperative. Civilians in the region have long been caught in the middle of their governments' political machinations, and ending the practice of interference by proxy will go a long way toward ensuring the security of vulnerable refugees and displaced persons. The international community has a large stake in resolving this situation, and Feingold's resolution rightly calls on countries to support peace efforts and the deployment of multilateral peacekeeping missions.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's first trip to Russia was largely pro forma: Ban stressed the importance of Russia's membership in and contributions to the UN, and Russian leaders -- Putin and Medvedev both -- praised the role of the UN as "the key element of the whole system of international relations." Russia's enthusiastic support, however, may prove to extend beyond words, if what Reuters reports turns out to be true:
Kommersant newspaper reported that during the meeting with Medvedev, Ban Ki-moon would be told of Moscow's willingness to increase its annual contribution to the U.N. to roughly the same as the United States -- a huge 20-fold hike in its fees. In 2006 the United States contributed $423 million and Russia $21.2 million. Other G8 member states like Japan, France and the United Kingdom paid in substantially more in 2006 than Russia.I'm not sure where exactly Russia, with a substantially smaller economy than that of the U.S., is going to get this money, but the investment would be more than welcome. Moreover, Russia's offer to pay more to the UN stands in sharp contrast to the U.S.'s frequent complaints about the size of its share, as well as to its unwritten policy of falling behind on its dues -- over $1.2 billion, at last count. The U.S. has often been as outspoken as Russia in its support for expanding UN responsibilities. To meet these commitments, as well as to maintain its influence relative to other major powers -- an often under-appreciated benefit of paying such a large portion of the UN's budget -- the U.S. would be wise to pony up and put its money where its mouth is.