Digg

Del.icio.us

"This should be from the perspective of reproductive health, which is more holistic. we have to look at root causes of the problem and the broader picture."

Tackling the specific causes of maternal complications, such as fistula incontinence, hypertensive disease and obstructed labor, can help reduce numbers. RH Reality Check has a piece up addressing the fact that nearly 13% maternal deaths that are caused by unsafe abortions. Here's a snippet:

Reducing maternal deaths is a laudable goal, and one that must be achieved if the rest of the millennium development goals are to be realized. But reductions in maternal mortality can never be fully realized unless the global community of donors, governments, and public health starts including abortion in realistic approaches to protecting women's health. If the world wants to promote development, it needs to start promoting comprehensive reproductive health care.

Read the full piece here.

Digg

Del.icio.us

"I am so excited! I'm over the moon!" South Africa's jubilant U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told reporters afterwards.

Somalis are also likely to be pleased by the news, because it indicates a firm UN commitment to help alleviate the deteriorating humanitarian and political situation in their country. The African Union also welcomes UN involvement, as its contingent of 2,600 Ugandan and Burundian troops is not sufficient to maintain security as the country slowly opens up a peace process. One reason that this force has remained so deeply undermanned is because neighboring countries are loathe to involve their troops in a regional conflagration; UN peacekeepers from all over the world will not have this problem.

Possible troop-contributing countries may be less ecstatic, however, at the prospect of ponying up additional contributions to the over 110,000 blue helmets already deployed around the world. Other commentators are also likely to question the feasibility of rounding up troops for another UN peacekeeping mission when the force in Darfur remains over 16,000 personnel short of its target size.

These are legitimate concerns, and, in calling for preparations for possible UN deployment, the Security Council is in fact anticipating the difficulty of obtaining peacekeepers. Setting out the conditions for dispatching a peacekeeping mission to Somalia -- while simultaneously pushing for more concerted pressure in broader peace negotiations -- is not mere bureaucratic red tape; it is a prudent recognition that simply throwing in troops that the international community cannot yet provide would not solve either Somalia's political or humanitarian woes. Pragmatism is necessary on deliberations of whether, when, and how UN peacekeepers -- or a coalition under a different guise, which was one of the options laid out in the Secretary-General's most recent report on Somalia -- deploy to Somalia, but to allow the weight of the difficulties of achieving such a deployment to trump the actual needs of the situation on the ground would smack of expediency and perpetrate a great disservice on Somalis.

Digg

Del.icio.us

The deepening credit crisis in affluent countries triggered by the continuing housing slump, the declining value of the United States dollar, persisting global imbalances and soaring oil and commodity prices pose major threats to economic growth around the world, according to a report released today by United Nations economists.

[snip]

Today's report, issued by the UN's Department of Social and Economic Affairs (DESA), predicts that world economic growth will fall steeply to 1.8 per cent this year and 2.1 per cent next year, down from 3.8 per cent in 2007.

The report says that much depends on developments in the US, which remains the prime driver of the global economy, and where a crashing housing market and finance and credit weaknesses set off the global downturn.

A worst-case scenario would see the "world economy come to a virtual standstill" if recent financial measures in the US fail to turn the economy around, and house prices continue to fall, blending with a severe tightening on credit.

Digg

Del.icio.us

After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world's repeated declaration that we would "never again" tolerant such inhumanity.

One minor problem here. While the U.S. has not indeed exerted sufficient pressure on Khartoum, it has used up a lot of the economic influence that it brings to the table. U.S. companies have not been able to do business in Sudan since 1998, thanks to sanctions that the Clinton administration placed on the regime for supporting terrorism. Additional targeted sanctions are still possible, and the U.S.-based divestment movement continues with full force, but the main source of funding for Sudan's genocidal apparatus is, of course, China (though India and Malaysia also have significant investments). Shutting out China, the most relevant player in Sudan, from the world's premier global institution would effectively close off the best possible avenue through which to pressure Khartoum. Working with China to end the genocide may be difficult and fraught with complications, but trying to do it without Beijing would be well-nigh impossible.

Digg

Del.icio.us

First, by and large, the R2P doctrine has been misunderstood or misrepresented in calls to "invade" Burma. R2P is often implied to boil down to a simple equation: if a government is unable or unwilling to adequately protect its citizens, then the international community has a right to forcibly intervene to protect these people. The first part of this conditional is accurate, but the second is a gross oversimplification. R2P does not prescribe invasion any more than the Constitution of the United States mandates impeachment. Military intervention is only one component of the R2P framework, and one of last resort, at that; it is only to be undertaken when a series of specific conditions are met, ensuring that intervention is justified, well-intentioned, practical, authorized by the proper authority (i.e., the UN Security Council), and will not cause more harm than good.

Wielding R2P as a Trojan horse for invasion and regime change, as Robert Kaplan seems to desire, is harmful to the integrity and future viability of the concept, as well as to the more pressing concern of alleviating the Burmese people's suffering. Scott Paul, writing at The Washington Note, explains this point well, in reference to just one commentator with a convoluted understanding of R2P.

Unfortunately, Hiatt (like some others), seems to equate this principle with an international obligation to trample over the sovereignty of Myanmar in one fell swoop. It would be a disaster if R2P were first operationalized in the form of a hastily arranged military intervention in Myanmar, both for the Burmese people, for whom such an intervention could just as easily exacerbate the crisis as bring relief, and for the promise of the R2P concept, which actually outlines out a set of diplomatic and humanitarian options that are intended to avert a military showdown and preserve national sovereignty. For R2P to really grow in importance in a positive way, military intervention must be a last resort.

Since military intervention is not the only way to use R2P, though, invoking it in an accurate and responsible manner could actually perform a significant service to the doctrine. Merely by uttering these three words, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner spurred a discussion of R2P that will hopefully help hasten its integration into commonly accepted -- and enforced -- international norms.

The debate over R2P in Burma, of course, is essentially a political one, as the issue is no longer the death and destruction caused by Nargis, but that caused by the exacerbating and obstructionist tactics of the country's ruling junta. As Gareth Evans, the author of the report establishing R2P, wisely reminds us, intervention in the case of a natural disaster is only even possible under the aegis of R2P if a government's calculated disregard for its citizens amounts to a crime against humanity. The doctrine was not intended as a shortcut for the international community to provide relief in desperate cases of natural disaster.

Nonetheless, as the outpouring of donations following the 2004 Asian tsunami taught us, individuals and governments alike often react more proactively to a single, catastrophic act of nature than to a messier -- even if far deadlier -- humanitarian morass such as that in DR Congo. Again, referencing R2P in light of the cyclone in Burma will not automatically bolster the doctrine -- we must remember that R2P was officially applied to the genocide in Darfur over a year ago, and movement to operationalize the concept has been limited -- but, as the sheer volume of the discussion of R2P that has percolated over the past few days suggests, the test case of Burma has generated a degree of salience for R2P that Darfur has not.

Granted, the paranoid opposition of Burma's government, and those of allies like China, is no less real than that of Sudan's ruling cabal and its powerful allies (once again, read: China); the junta, hidden away in the Burmese jungle, simply prefers a strategy of stifling all communication over one of combative rhetoric. Similarly, Sudan's active obstructionism is just as transparent as that of the Burmese authorities, but -- and this is just a hypothesis -- the case of a government preventing cyclone relief from reaching its citizens seems to shock the world community into an even greater sense of indignation than does the slow and methodical obstruction of aid in a low-simmering, five-year "genocide by attrition."

David Shorr at Democracy Arsenal sees the case of post-cyclone Burma not so much "as an opportunity to assert R2P, but rather as an indication of how far we still have to go." This is true, in that there is certainly a long road ahead before R2P becomes an established component of international relations. However, the extensive attention that has been paid to this humble but audacious doctrine over the past few days could signal an opportunity, as well. Thinking about R2P in a meaningful way -- not, and this is an important caveat, as a simple trigger for invasion -- in the context of a devastating natural disaster could provide an important step in furthering the understanding of what sovereignty and protection mean in the broader and perhaps less "glamorous" array of cases of governments failing to fulfill their responsibilities to their citizens.

Digg

Del.icio.us

The Darfur conflict could lapse soon into another major cycle of violence and large-scale human displacement unless the parties retreat from their recent state of confrontation, the top United Nations peacekeeping official told the Security Council today.

Briefing Council members on the work of UNAMID, the hybrid UN-African Union mission in Darfur, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Marie Guehenno said there has been "a deeply disturbing" recent deterioration in the security situation.

Last weekend's attack by rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) members on Government forces on the outskirts of the capital, Khartoum, illustrated that the conflict -- which has raged on and off since 2003 -- had the potential to move beyond the borders of the Darfur region, which lies on Sudan's western flank.

Digg

Del.icio.us

No problem with that, right? It's not like American forces are already fighting two costly wars. As for the Europeans, I foresee two problems. One, it's a big step to think that the Europeans will circumvent the Security Council. They take international law very seriously. Second, European forces are also bogged down around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon. Fact is, most European (and Commonwealth) governments are under strong domestic pressure to scale back their military commitments oversees. A new "coalition of the willing" for Burma is basically a non-starter.

Also bothersome about the piece is that he believes the fantasy that we can just airdrop food and humanitarian assistance to the affected areas. This is just not so. Without intelligence on the ground (i.e. where to drop the relief) and a ready-to-go distribution mechanism, airdrops can do more harm than good. The strong will fight off the weak and people with guns will sell the relief on the black market. The aid will not go to the people who need it most.

Yes, we do have a moral obligation to help the suffering Burmese. The way to fulfill that obligation is not to froth at the mouth for toppling another odious regime, but by working diplomatic channels to force the junta to relent their obstruction of humanitarian relief efforts. This may mean taking a harder line with China over its support of the junta. It certainly does not mean we need to ready the gears of war to invade and occupy the country. That, frankly is a distraction and counterproductive to first imperative of helping those in danger.

UPDATE: Robert Farley has a couple of thoughts on the wisdom and utility of invading Burma.

Digg

Del.icio.us

Unless more access to Myanmar is granted to allow aid to flow more quickly to victims of this month's deadly cyclone, a second catastrophe could result, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) warned today.

Despite some progress, efforts to help the 1.5 million people affected by Cyclone Nargis must be enhanced, a spokesperson for OCHA told reporters in Geneva.

Elizabeth Byrs said that, some 12 days after the cyclone struck, the UN and its partners have reached about 270,000 at-risk people, less than a third of those affected. Heavy rains have been forecast, further impeding aid efforts. Ms. Byrs called for an air and sea corridor to channel aid in large quantities as quickly as possible.

The official death toll reported by Myanmar's Government has reached almost 32,000, with over 34,000 others missing.

Digg

Del.icio.us

>>Myanmar - Aid workers in Myanamar are concerned that even the small amount of aid they have been able to get to the capital is not being delivered it to its intended destination, a duty that the military junta has reserved for itself. The British Perm Rep to the UN has received unconfirmed reports that aid is being redirected away from victims. Meanwhile, the junta is still blocking large-scale aid drops and has refused U.S. offers of assistance, as well as those of China, Bangladesh, Singapore, and Thailand. Over 11,000 U.S. troops are in Thailand conducting a military exercise. Also, on Monday Doctors Without Borders was ordered out of the Irrawaddy Delta, and less than half of the visa applications for UN relief officials have been processed.

>>Middle East - President Bush landed in Tel Aviv this morning, to begin a five-country, three-day tour of the Middle East. He has already met with President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and plans to meet with Mahmoud Abbas later in the week at Sharm el-Sheikh. The trip coincides with the 60th anniversary of Israel.

>>Colombia - Colombia extradited 14 paramilitary leaders to the U.S. yesterday, an unprecedented action at a time when Colombia is hoping for a trade deal with the U.S. The men will face drug-trafficking charges. Such extraditions are controversial in Colombia and among the human rights community as the prisoners will only serve time for breaking U.S. law not atrocities committed in Colombia. Though they may end up spending more time in jail in the U.S. and, after extradition, are less able to command their networks, which has been a major problem when they were held in Colombian prisons.

• California Gets Clarity
• The Matthew Yglesias Interview
• Boston Globe: The United Nations Can Save Burma

• Somalia - Somali gunmen kidnap Kenyan lecturer in Mogadishu
• Sudan - U.N. council condemns Darfur rebel attack on Khartoum
• Zimbabwe - Ambassador Andrew Pocock seized as he investigates violence in Zimbabwe
• Sudan - Add Darfur rebels to terror list, Sudan urges world

• Colombia - Colombia extradites 14 jailed warlords to US
• Mexico - Mexico sends troops to fight Sinaloa drug cartel
• Brazil - Brazil's Amazon minister resigns
• Haiti - Haitian protesters trade food riots for jobs

• China - Rescuers Struggle to Reach Quake Survivors
• Myanmar - Myanmar Restricting Aid Delivery
• China - Olympic Torch Relay Celebrations Scaled Back
• North Korea - North Korea Documents Make Debut, at a Distance
• Vietnam - Journalists Arrested for Corruption Reports
• China - First Beijing death linked to China virus outbreak
• North Korea - U.S. Increases Estimate Of N. Korean Plutonium
• Myanmar - New Storm Heads Toward Myanmar

• Ireland - Northern Ireland policeman survives car bomb attack
• Spain - Barcelona forced to import emergency water
• Spain - Several injured by bomb in Northern Spain police barracks
• Serbia - Nationalist Premier of Serbia Teams Up With Radical Party
• Italy - Italy PM called in rendition case

• Israel - Police suspect Olmert aided bids for government contracts, reports claim
• Iraq - Gates Urges Military to Focus on Iraq, Afghanistan
• Jordan - Jordan 'tough' on honour killer
• Lebanon - Saudis blame Iran for Lebanon 'coup'
• Iran - Iran president to offer proposals to ease nuclear row
• Iraq - U.S. Colonel Says Iran Is Assassinating Iraqi Officials
• Israel - Bush Arrives for Middle Eastern Tour

Digg

Del.icio.us

The reason the car is being released in such a limited capacity is because the car doesn't use gasoline, so in order to refuel it, you need special refueling station. In parts of Southern California, Honda has created a "home energy station" that would put your gauge back on "F" while the car is in the garage. And though it would be quite cool to always set out on the open road with your car already fueled up, these stations produce hydrogen using natural gas, which is less than ideal. For now, hydrogen refueling stations are not widespread in the United States, but given high gas prices and the fact that the car itself zero emissions and--in my opinion--pretty sporty, maybe they will be soon.

Digg

Del.icio.us

MY: Well, I think the Republican responsibility is pretty clear -- they've been running the show. Democrats, however, were deeply complicit in the biggest mistake of the era -- the invasion of Iraq -- with the bulk of the party leadership endorsing the invasion and even most party leaders who didn't sign on for Bush's folly being unwilling to renounce the big strategic concepts like preventive war and a hazily defined "war on terror" that undergirded Iraq.

UND: Following on that, you argue that one grand strategic vision that we would be wise to reconnect to is idea of liberal internationalism. For the uninitiated, can you spell out what sorts of policies underpin liberal internationalism?

MY: In the most general sense, liberal internationalism holds out an ideal of a world in which international relations is conducted through rules and institutions rather than force and coercion. Ever since the failures of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations, smart liberals have recognized that the internationalist ideal is hard to achieve, but in its wiser moments postwar American policy has always sought to bring us closer to that ideal. In that light, the European Union is very much an instantiation of liberal internationalism, as are other less-developed regional institutions.

But most of all, liberal internationalist policies seek to work through, strengthen, and uphold institutions of global or near-global reach -- things like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. In this sense, liberal internationalism is a worldview rather than a specific set of policies. But if you look at a specific area of policy like, say, non-proliferation issues, the internationalist worldview leads to the conclusion that the United States must seek to advance its non-proliferation goals through revitalizing the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- including a stepped-up commitment to meeting our own NPT obligations -- rather than through preventive war.

UND: Is this what you mean by "In With the Old?" [a chapter title in the book]. Similarly, by naming one of your chapters "After Victory" are you secretly trying to channel G. John Ickenberry?

MY: I don't think the Ikenberry-channeling is all that secret, I cite him at a couple of points in the text and, yes, the chapter title was a reference to his book -- a reference I think my publishing company didn't get or they probably would have hated it for being too obscure. I titled my last chapter "in with the old" to suggest that contrary to current fashion we don't really need dramatic "new ideas" to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In part, that's simple humility on my part. The book, structurally, required a chapter of constructive solutions rather than criticism. But it would be silly for a 26 year-old blogger/journalist to claim to have made grand new strides in the theory of international politics. But really I think the main elements of liberal internationalist theory have been in place for a while now. There's been a group of people in this country who, from "rollback" debate in the 1950s on to the "Team B" exercise in the 1980s to today have consistently derided the internationalist approach, but they keep being proven wrong. After 9/11, they were given the opportunity to really seize the political agenda in an unprecedented way and the results have been disastrous. My argument is that we should go back to what was working before.

To cycle this back around to Ikenberry, he has an idea called "strategic restraint" that's very much in opposition to the neoconservative idea that, as Charles Krauthammer puts it, we have it within our power to reshape the world if only we engage in "unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will." In fact, as we've seen in Iraq we have no such ability. What's more, these kind of demonstrations of will actually tend to push potential allies away from us by making the United States look frightening. To successfully influence events far beyond our borders in a sustainable way, we need to act through means that other regard as legitimate.

UND: One new idea on the table that you criticize in the book is creating a "concert of democracies" to supplant traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations. Supporters of this idea would contend that creating such a forum would help the United States avoid crippling debates among adversaries like Russia or China. What's so wrong with that?

MY: Well, it's all a bit confusing because oftentimes proponents of the idea deny that they want to supplant the United Nations. But basically, it's true that the U.N. Security Council voting process is cumbersome and, at times, annoying. But it's the very cumbersome nature of the process that lends it it's unique legitimacy. An endeavor that can secure the kind of broad-based support necessary to win the blessing of the [Security Council] can't be dismissed by its targets as reflecting the narrow interests of any one power or any particular ideological quirk.

A league of democracies could be a useful supplement to the international arena if its activities were kept on an appropriately modest level. But some have suggested that one function of the league might be to authorize military activities outside the Article 7 process. I'm doubtful that any of the world's major non-U.S. democracies would actually go along with this idea but if they did it would set us on a path for a new cold war style conflict with China and Russia with dire consequences for the world. John McCain appears to think this is a good idea, but the concert of democracies concept has some proponents who don't want to see a new cold war and don't want to reorganize the world around Sino-American conflict but I have a hard time understanding what it is those people think they're doing.

Digg

Del.icio.us

The United States and Britain should join with the French government and introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council demanding that the Burmese government immediately allow the entry of international relief supplies and personnel into the country and allow the UN to take charge of the relief mission. To make the case, Washington should show detailed imagery of the suffering and the extent of devastation in Burma (as it did so effectively in the cases of Bosnia and Darfur to shock a disbelieving United Nations).

The resolution should hold open the possibility of additional measures - including air drops of relief supplies - if the government did not comply at once. And the Security Council could commit to return to the matter in 24 hours, assess Burma's response, and consider additional actions.

Their broader point, though, makes sense. Taking this to the Security Council could help pressure to the junta so that they do cooperate with relief efforts. They key here is China. Should Beijing lend its support to a Security Council measure demanding the junta cooperate with UN relief agencies, we may just see the junta budge.

Digg

Del.icio.us

>>Iraq - Violence flared again in Sadr City yesterday, as U.S. troops were attacked by who are thought to be supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr. These attacks put into question the agreement reached on Saturday between the government of Iraq and Sadr to end fighting and the amount of control that Sadr has over his supporters.

>>Lebanon - Yesterday, as violence eased across Lebanon, the Lebanese Army, long seen as a neutral institution, said that it would begin to use force to stop fighting between government supporters and Hezbollah. The army remains deployed to the mountains east of Beirut and northern Lebanon as part of an agreement for them to take over militia positions and collect arms. Reportedly, some government supporters are beginning to distrust the army because it did not stop Hezbollah from seizing control of western Beirut on Friday.

• The Pop Becomes Political
• Gareth Evans on Myanmar Situation and R2P

• Nigeria - Obasanjo denies power corruption
• South Africa - South African mob kills migrants
• Sudan - Sudan briefly detains Islamist for alleged rebel links
• South Africa - Apartheid court case can go ahead in New York
• Sudan - Chad closes its border with Sudan
• Kenya - In Kenya, Violence Shakes Running Community
• Sudan - Fear after mass arrests in Sudan
• Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe MDC says regional observers enough for run-off

• Bolivia - Morales sets Bolivia recall date
• Venezuela - Venezuela takes over steel firm
• Haiti - Haiti MPs reject new PM candidate

• China - Dalai Lama Expects Talks With China to Resume
• Philippines - Philippines pardons coup leaders
• Timor - Horta wants UN to stay in E Timor
• Japan - Japan's teenage smokers face wrinkle test
• Korea - S.Korea to discuss North's nuclear list with China

• Serbia - Serbia Braces for Electoral Showdown
• Serbia - Socialists hold key to power in Serbia
• France - France to liberate retail industry

• Lebanon - Lebanese troops fail to stop violence between Hizbullah and pro-government forces
• Israel - Israel police seize Olmert papers
• Israel - Gaza Rocket Kills Another Israeli
• Lebanon - Bush offers help for Lebanon army
• Iraq - Violence flares in Baghdad's Sadr City despite truce

Digg

Del.icio.us

It's nothing new that Iron Man, the latest in Marvel's pop-icon pantheon to hit the big screen, is coming to the rescue of the United Nations. In a specially customised comic book, Ol Shellhead and his costumed cohorts will battle that most terrible of supervillains, a tarnished public image, by demonstrating the UN's positive, proactive roles. Will it work? It's debatable: over the years these earnest, message-laden stories have not always been too effective as weapons of mass persuasion.

[snip]

As for the UN, superheroes have come to its rescue before. In November 1967, The Justice League Of America featured the UN symbol on the cover of issue 57, in a very right-on plea for racial harmony called "Man, The Name is - Brother!" The UN even had their very own team of superheroes devised by Wally Wood for Tower Comics in the 60s. Called the THUNDER Agents (The Higher United Nations Defence Enforcement Reserves), they were led by Dynamo, dressed in the UN's blue and white colours. Rather than relying on Marvel's characters, the UN could have resurrected this team, but THUNDER Agents vanished after only 20 issues and only aging comic collectors remember them now.