Site Meter UN Dispatch | United Nations News & Commentary Global News – Forum | Page 606
Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size

All Posts

Does microfinance make up for war crimes?

Well, no. When there are 300,000 Tamils languishing in IDP camps, even a $26 million investment in microfinance loans won’t erase the human rights violations that many of these civilivans faced in Sri Lanka’s frenzied campaign against the Tamil Tigers.

But, even if Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s resettlement plan (180 days) is a little uncomfortably ambitious, microfinance seems a reasonably good idea — better, at least, than simply pretending that ethnic distinctions don’t exist, and that there are “only people who love their country and people who don’t love their country.”

Then again, on the more cynical side, it seems that Rajapaksa is pretty eager to pick up tactics favored by his Western trading partners, without dealing so much with the attendant difficulties. He’s followed George W. Bush’s maxim to root out terrorists pretty much to the letter, and his military offensive steamrolled over supposed values of freedom of the press, proportionality, and the human rights of civilians.

Is providing microfinance loans a gambit to stay in the West’s good graces? I wouldn’t be that derisive, because it does seem like a good step forward.  But I do wish that Rajapaksa was more willing to look backwards, at his own military’s conduct; it’s difficult to hold a truth and reconciliation process when he doesn’t want to “dig into the past.”

(image from flickr user aquaview under a Creative Commons license)

| 3

Congratulations, Russia and Georgia

Your wrangling over the name of the UN mission that was scheduled to be extended last month, in a fairly de rigueur process, has resulted in the departure of the 130-odd UN observers that many in Abkhazia — from government officials to everyday people — trusted as the only effective objective presence in the border region.

“We were interested in the mission continuing its work,” Abkhaz Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba said.

(The mission) opened contacts for us, making it possible for us to participate in the international (diplomatic) process; our problem would be discussed at U.N. Security Council meetings.” There are more than 200 E.U. observers in Georgia itself, but they are not allowed to enter Abkhazia. The E.U. observers only patrol the Georgian-controlled part of the conflict zone.

The U.N. cars used to patrol our village, and we would feel more secure,” said a 72-year-old woman who lives in Nabakevi in Abkhazia and declined to give her name. “The end of the mission to me means the end of the hope for peace.” [emphasis mine]

The concerns about Georgia and Russia gearing up for a another war should not be taken lightly. Last year’s confrontation was completely unnecessary, a result of foolish provocation from both sides. The short-sighted step of forcing out UN observers is a rash move down the same counterproductive line. Their departure may not be the end of peace prospects, but it certainly makes them look a lot dimmer.

| 2

New Report Tracks Global AIDS funding

UNAIDS and the Kaiser Family Foundation just issued a new report on global funding for HIV. This is an annual exercise, where they try to analyze bilateral assistance on HIV to low and middle-income countries. In 2008, HIV funding reached its highest level ever. Some highlights from the report:

*UNAIDS estimates that $22.1 billion was needed to address the epidemic in low- and middle- income countries in 2008.  Of this, $15.6 billion was available from all sources.

*Disbursements have risen significantly over the past several years: Between 2002 and 2008, disbursements increased by more than six-fold, including a 56 percent increase in the last period.

*In 2008, disbursements fell short of commitments by about a billion dollars. This doesn’t necessarily represent donor failure – sometimes disbursements just take time.

*The US accounted for 51.3% of all disbursed funds.

This is a useful report, and helps to bring accountability to a field with no single tracking body. It is not, however, without its flaws. According to its methodology notes, it doesn’t include funding to Central Asia or the former Soviet Union in general. It also doesn’t count UN agency funding for HIV if that funding comes from the general UN budget and not a donor earmark for HIV.

| 6

Grading Obama’s Africa speech II

Aside from that one quibble, I generally agree with the grades Bill Easterly and Chris Blattman accorded to Obama’s speech in Accra. I’d probably only give Obama an A-/B+ myself. 

The reason is less substance than the optics of it all.    

To be sure, a speech before Ghana’s political elite is a smart choice for a number of reasons.  It is a fine reward for the political maturity Ghana’s elite exhibited in the wake of a tightly contested election that was decided by less than 1 % of the vote.  The ruling party lost, but rather than rail against election irregularities, it gave up power.  The peaceful transition of power from one party to another is all too rare on the continent and Ghana’s political class deserves praise. However, I get a sense that in service of rewarding the Ghanaian political elite, Obama missed an opportunity to speak directly to the people. 

I happened to be in Addis a couple of weeks after the elections.  The excitement over Obama’s victory was evident nearly everywhere you looked.  A teenage kid hanging outside the main UN headquarters was even hawking bootleg DVDs of Obama’s Democratic National Convention acceptance speech. Apparently, they were selling.  I bought myself a copy of Dreams from My Father–in amharic–from a street vendor nearby. The title’s translation, an amharic speaker told me, reads “Secrets to Greateness and Change.”  

This anecdote and others I have heard strongly suggest to me that the President of the United States may be the most popular political leader in Africa.  To that end, I think the speech would have been more effective had it 1) occured in a public setting, like a public square or stadium and 2) drawn more from Obama’s signature, direct-to-the-people inspirational oratory.     That’s the reasoning behind my A-/B+. 

| 15

Assessing Ban’s Burma visit

S-G Ban is briefing the Security Council on his recent trip to Burma today. And while Britain’s Foreign Minister may have praised Ban’s trip, others were less sanguine about the outcome of his meetings with Burma’s ruling junta. Most of this criticism has focused on the fact that Ban was not able to meet with jailed “on trial” opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But Refugees International’s Sean Garcia has a different objection, which I think is more worth looking at: that Ban was too focused on his political mission.

Garcia argues that by calling on Burma’s generals to adopt political reforms — and receiving blithe promises to transition to civilian rule in exchange — he fed their insecurities about an international agenda of regime change. Putting political pressure on recalcitrant leaders-for-life is of course important — but, because of their very recalcitrance, this is also very likely to only strengthen their anti-democratic resolve. It also made Ban look worse for not securing a meeting with Daw Aung; as unfortunate as it may be, there was very little likelihood that the Burmese generals would have consented to more than a superficial meeting between the two, and there is little that Ban Ki-moon can do to ensure that the opposition leader’s trial will be anything more than grossly unfair.

Yet I am also not as optimistic as Garcia that Ban could have achieved too much more in the way of allowing humanitarian aid into the country either. The international community did succeed, eventually (and sort of), in convincing the junta to permit aid to reach the population after last year’s devastating Cyclone Nargis. But as that case demonstrated, for such a ruthless and desperate cadre of leaders, even (or especially) the humanitarian assistance is political.

This is not to say that Ban’s visit was in vain, or that his pursuit of both tracks, that of political reform and that of human rights and humanitarian aid, were dead ends. The Secretary-General’s office is one of the bully pulpit, even if his rhetoric is not of the brow-beating variety. Than Shwe and company do not need any further reasons to oppress their own people; but they know that they are pariahs, and that joining the community of nations as a respected member requires some modicum of both political and human rights.  Conveying this is the balance that the S-G needs to strike every time he opens his mouth, no less in an environment as fraught as Burma’s than in the Security Council chamber.

| 2

BBC: Sudan women ‘lashed for trousers’

Primitive and deplorable:

“I was wearing trousers and a blouse and the 10 girls who were lashed were wearing like me, there was no difference,” [Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein] told the BBC’s Arabic service.

Ms Hussein said some women pleaded guilty to “get it over with” but others, including herself, chose to speak to their lawyers and are awaiting their fates.

Under Sharia law in Khartoum, the normal punishment for “indecent” dressing is 40 lashes.

Ms Hussein is a well-known reporter who writes a weekly column called Men Talk for Sudanese papers. She also works for the United Nations Mission in Sudan.

| 7

Diplo Tweets