Mark Leon Goldberg's Blog 
New Clinton-Bush Haiti PSA
Mark Leon Goldberg February 9, 2010 - 9:50 am
Presidents Bush and Clinton team up for a new public service announcement for Haiti relief efforts.
Haiti Earthquake Facts and Figures, Latest Update
Mark Leon Goldberg February 8, 2010 - 12:39 pm
The Haitian government has not issued a mortality estimate since January 28, when the government said that 112,405 had died. However, on February 3 the government said that as many as 200,000 may have been killed in the earthquake. Meanwhile, one of the major new developments of the past week has been a mass exodus from Port au Prince to rural areas. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that over 400,000 Haitians have fled Port au Prince for rural areas in the past two weeks. Food distribution is still a challenge. The World Food Program has reached 1 million Haitians, but there are still 2 million more in need. The document below, from OCHA, quantifies Haiti's existing needs in the areas of health, food, shelter and water/sanitation. Cluster Situation Map 5 February-1
Photo: Flickr (UN Photo)
UN Plaza: Talking Haiti Reconstruction With Paul Collier
Mark Leon Goldberg February 8, 2010 - 9:35 am
The author of The Bottom Billion, Wars Guns and Votes sits down with me to talk about Haiti reconstruction. Collier has something of a front line view of this effort. He was tapped by the secretary general to write a report on Haiti's recovery for the United Nations last year. In the diavlog, Paul explains the roots of Haiti's poverty and explains how best the international community can manage Haiti's recovery.
Reggie Bush Super Bowl Flashback
Mark Leon Goldberg February 5, 2010 - 5:40 pm
This is not the first time that the New Orleans Saints receiver appeared in the Super Bowl. Back in 2007, Reggie Bush cut this Super Bowl XLI ad for the World Food Program.
Next up, Kim Kardashian for UNICEF?
Did Pat Robertson Make a Pact With the Devil?
Mark Leon Goldberg February 5, 2010 - 12:27 pm
Pat Robertson, you may recall, was last seen on these pages for suggesting that Haitians brought on the earthquake themselves by making a pact with the devil. Information disclosed in a Hague courtroom yesterday, however, lends credence to the theory that it is Pat Robertson himself who is making pacts with devils.
The pact in question is with former Liberian president Charles Taylor, who is on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from his support for militias that ravaged neighboring Sierra Leone in the late 1990s and early 2000s. How bad was Taylor? Here is a sample passage from his indictment from the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone. The "AFRC/RUF" are militias that Taylor is accused of supporting in order to "obtain access to the mineral wealth of the Republic of Sierra Leone," (i.e. blood diamonds.)

So how does Pat Robertson fit into all of this? Colum Lynch reports that in court yesterday, Taylor said Robertson was awarded a Liberian gold-mining concession in 1999 and that Robertson offered to lobby the Bush administration on Taylor's behalf.
Under cross-examination, Taylor said that Robertson had volunteered to make Liberia's case before U.S. administration officials, and had spoken directly to President Bush about Taylor. He also confirmed that Robertson's company, Freedom Gold Limited, signed an agreement to exploit gold in southeastern Liberia, but that it never generated any profit.
Lynch says that Robertson admits to the gold mining concession, but claims there was no "quid pro quo" involved. Even if Taylor's claims are true, though, it should be noted that President Bush played a constructive role in Taylor's ouster. In 2003, Bush diverted a U.S. warship en route to Iraq to the port of Monrovia, Liberia. The Marines on board never disembarked, but the the show of force helped to convince Taylor to give up power.
Still, the fact that Robertson would want to make common cause with a man accused of the most heinous war crimes imaginable makes one question his moral compass, to say the least.
ICC Prosecutor on the "Shadow of the Court"
Mark Leon Goldberg February 5, 2010 - 10:18 am
International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo gave a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. last night. His remarks largely focused on how the young court has begun to shape the behavior of governments, armies, peace negotiators, victims and civic groups all around the world. The reach of the ICC beyond the confines of its own courtrooms is something he called the "shadow of the court." This shadow, he says, is growing in a number of important ways. He explained:
1) Political leaders are progressively excluding from their circle, those individuals sought by the Court. President Al Bashir became a fugitive; he cannot travel to States Parties of the Statute. He looks for political protection in the African Union and in his party, the NCP. South Africa informed President Bashir that he was invited to the inauguration ceremony of President Zuma, but that he would be arrested upon entry into the country. Uganda, Nigeria and Venezuela did the same. President Lula from Brazil and President Kirchner from Argentina refused to approach President Bashir in an Arab-South America summit. President Sarkozy has taken the unprecedented decision to cancel a French-African summit rather than run the risk of meeting with him in a corridor. Turkey has ensured that he cancels his appearance to a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Ankara. In the Guinea case, Morocco refused to keep on its territory President Dadis Camara. It did not want to harbor a possible ICC suspect. Burkina Faso’s President Blaise Compaore contacted the ICC to ascertain there was no arrest warrant before accepting to host Dadis Camara.
2) Armies, all over the world, are adjusting their operational standards, training and rules of engagement to the Rome Statute. This is the way to control violence. The law makes the difference between a soldier and a terrorist. What else can they do? Prepare plans to arrest militia leaders such as Joseph Kony. An arrest operation can be more efficient than a conventional military operation against a group such as the Lord’s Resistance Army.
3) Conflict managers and mediators also had to adjust their methods and their toolbox, respecting the legal limits. Kofi Annan’s work in Kenya is an example of how justice can promote a lasting peace. On the contrary, having ignored the arrest warrant against Ahmad Harun in the Sudan in 2007 helped neither peace negotiations nor justice. Mediators need to recognize the facts unveiled by the judicial evidence and to respect the new legal framework. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued in April 2009 the strongest guidelines ever, informing all mediators that the ICC’s course of action had to always be respected. It is not a limit for mediators; it is an opportunity, it offers the possibility to develop new, more sophisticated strategies when carrying out negotiations. There is something between bombing and appeasing massive killers. There is something between regime change and negotiating with a perpetrator of genocide.
4) Victims have been the drivers and the pushers of the Court. We are their Court. They are participating in many ways. They petition the Court, some of them accepted to become our witnesses, and their stories are evidence. All of them are contributing to the prosecution of perpetrators of massive crimes and to the legitimacy of the system.
5) And finally there are global citizens. Citizens living in The Hague or in Washington concerned about what happens in Gulu or Darfur. If citizens in peaceful countries are not interested in what is happening in conflict-torn areas out of solidarity or self interest, their political leaders will have no incentives to make efforts for the victims. Our global citizens are for instance the “Invisible children”, a group of young people from San Diego who are promoting the “Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009” in the US Congress.
The bottom line is that the court is already having a positive impact on the behavior of governments and armies around the world. On the political side, the Kenyan example shows that the court is emerging as a tool of international relations; something, as Ocampo said, that fits between "bombing and appeasing." On the justice side, the Bashir case shows that there is an ever shrinking space for immunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity. For those of us who care deeply about human rights and international justice, these are very remarkable acheivements.
World Cancer Day
Mark Leon Goldberg February 4, 2010 - 4:02 pm
The IAEA doesn't just inspect nuclear sites (check out Matt's post on the "Department of Technical Cooperation"). Today is World Cancer Day. And the IAEA, which has a little known role in promoting cancer treatment and radiation therapy in the developing world, posts this video of a cancer patient in Nigeria.
Here is how you can help the IAEA fight cancer in the developing world.
Kenyan VP In D.C. To "Raise The Red Flag" on Somalia
Mark Leon Goldberg February 4, 2010 - 3:31 pm
Steve Clemons lands a really great interview with Kenyan Vice President Kalonzo "Steven" Musyoka, who was in Washington, D.C. this week for the National Prayer Breakfast. Anyone interested in Somalia and the politics of East Africa should spend the next 8 minutes watching this video.
US Aid Reshuffling on Haiti Shows the Need for a Contingency Disaster Fund for Humanitarian Relief
Mark Leon Goldberg February 4, 2010 - 10:34 am
The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) is the lead American agency on humanitarian relief efforts like the one underway in Haiti. The problem is, it is just one office within the relatively small U.S. Agency for International Development. When an unexpected crisis like the one in Haiti hits, this small office gets stretched pretty thin. Now, in order to respond to the disaster in Haiti, OFDA has to ration its limited resources to meet needs in Haiti. Accordingly, OFDA announced an across-the-board 40% cut for all regions to which they already provide humanitarian assistance. Refugees International explains what this cut means on the ground in places where OFDA assistance is already saving lives.
In Somalia, where 3.2 million are in need of humanitarian assistance, program cuts may result in health, water and sanitation shortages and likely lead to increased mortality rates. The cuts may also destroy the extremely delicate networks that have been developed over time to ensure that humanitarian assistance can be delivered in places where there is extreme violence and insecurity. Rebuilding those networks will not be easy. Moreover, the international community suffers from “donor fatigue” in Somalia. So while hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised for Haiti relief and recovery efforts from the private sector, it will be more challenging to raise funds for Somalia’s equally compelling crisis.
In eastern DR Congo, more than one million people remain internally displaced due to ongoing violence between armed groups. U.S. funding for the humanitarian crisis has been crucial in the wider international efforts to meet the needs of the Congolese people. Funding from OFDA has been able to sustain vulnerable populations with lifesaving assistance. Increased U.S. funding towards efforts to protect victims of sexual violence in the DRC has also played a vital role in responding to and mitigating one of the main protection concerns for women and girls. And in areas where displaced people have begun to slowly return home, OFDA funds have been crucial in supporting people who are rebuilding their homes and their lives. Efforts being made to create a more stable and peaceful Congo could easily unravel as U.S. funding dries up, even if only temporarily. The gains being made here, particularly for those returning home, remain fragile and need to be strengthened and secured if they are to hold.
Refugees International recommends that the United States Congress establish a contingency fund for unanticipated emergencies. It warns that "without such a fund, it is plausible and perhaps even likely that when a new crisis dominates the headlines next year, the people of Haiti may experience similar funding cuts as they continue their recovery." I concur. It is also important to remember that we are not talking about huge sums of money, at least in budgetary terms. This is one of those cases where just a little cash could go a long way.
Image: Flickr (UNDP)








DISPATCH TWEETS











The UN is NOT Trying to Take Your Guns Away. (Unless you are a terrorist or enlist child soldiers, that is)
Mark Leon Goldberg February 9, 2010 - 12:16 pm
Comment ( 0 )
One of the most persistent stories about the UN that is circulated by people, who, shall we say, are pre-disposed to believing conspiracy theories, is that the UN is plotting to take Americans' guns away. The latest manifestation of this meme occurred last month on the blog of National Association of Gun Rights, which is circulating an online petition to demand that the Senate vote against the UN "Arms Control Treaty." The petition says, "The UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is nothing more than a massive GLOBAL gun control scheme, designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms from law-abiding citizens." The NAGR also warns that the treaty, "would almost certainly FORCE national governments to...CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course)."[CAPS from the original].
This post has been picked up by certain reaches of the blogosphere, including World Net Daily which quotes John Bolton who says, "There's no doubt that the real agenda is domestic firearms control."
Needless to say, the UN does not want to confiscate Americans' firearms. What many member states do want to do, however, is make it more difficult for guerrilla movements, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, member states proposed setting in motion a treaty process that would do just that. The Bush administration, though, opposed the treaty process. This was problematic for the cause, as it were, because the United States is among the world's largest exporter of small arms. Any treaty without the United States on board would not be very effective.
The Obama administration does not share the previous administration's view of the utility of a small arms trade treaty. This fall, Secretary Clinton made clear that the United States would support the arms trade treaty process. However, understanding that any treaty requires senate passage, the United States set one big condition on the treaty negotiation process: that it proceed by consensus. This means that unanimity is required for all votes, which, in turn, gives the United States an effective veto over the entire process. This has not seem to quell the conspiracy spinners, who apparently remain convinced that the UN is plotting to take Americans' guns away. But the fact of the matter is, this treaty process is all about restricting the international transfer of small arms to irresponsible end users, like terrorist groups, militias that use child soldiers, or governments that use the weapons to commit terrible human rights abuses.
For more information about the treaty process, check out ControlArms.org.
Image: Flickr