Site Meter UN Dispatch | United Nations News & Commentary Global News – Forum | Page 644
Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size

All Posts

Paaandemic

June 11, 2009 by Mark Leon Goldberg

About three hours ago the World Health Organization declared that the H1N1 Flu is now a global pandemic. And in so doing, the world is now at the beginning stages of the first global flu pandemic in 41 years.

What does this mean? First, if like me you live in a developed country, don’t panic. There have been about 30,000 confirmed cases of H1N1 in 74 (mostly developed) countries resulting and 141 deaths. And while each of these deaths is tragic, this is not considered all that deadly. (Regular influenza is much worse.) Also, about two thirds of those who have succumbed to H1N1 have had other underlying medical conditions. Second, the WHO does not recommend any travel restrictions. I’m still planning on attending that wedding in Puerto Vallarta in October.

Still, there are some reasons to be concerned. So far, the virus has popped in places with decent health infrastructures. It has not – and this is only a matter of time – hit the developing world.  And this, says WHO director Margaret Chan “is of gravest concern.”

We do not know how this virus will behave under conditions typically found in the developing world. To date, the vast majority of cases have been detected and investigated in comparatively well-off countries.

Let me underscore two of many reasons for this concern. First, more than 99% of maternal deaths, which are a marker of poor quality care during pregnancy and childbirth, occurs in the developing world.

Second, around 85% of the burden of chronic diseases is concentrated in low- and middle-income countries.

Although the pandemic appears to have moderate severity in comparatively well-off countries, it is prudent to anticipate a bleaker picture as the virus spreads to areas with limited resources, poor health care, and a high prevalence of underlying medical problems.

Bottom line: brace yourself, global south.

| 4

Pakistan funding shortage

by John Boonstra

This is very bad news:

Relief groups in Pakistan will be forced to stop or cut back supplies of aid to more than one million people fleeing a military offensive in the northern Swat valley unless the worst funding crisis in a decade is resolved.

Nine aid agencies said on Thursday they faced a shortfall in excess of 26 million pounds, which was needed to provide food, medicine, tents and clothes to families uprooted by Pakistan’s campaign to expel Taliban militants from Swat.

When both major international humanitarian organizations and the United Nations, which has received only $138 million (only $50 million from “rich countries”) out of a requested $543 million, are coming up so short on their funding appeals, we have a major problem on our hands. Sure, there are bureaucratic difficulties, but the humanitarian organizations themselves acknowledge the importance of a UN coordinating role (and of continued funding through both sources).  The onus of this shortcoming should fall on donor nations (yes, especially the wealthy ones).

Why such a paltry response to such a devastating humanitarian crisis? Well, the economic contraction is surely one explanation. The fact that the Taliban-induced displacement in Swat is not, unlike the earthquakes in Pakistan and China last year, the 2004 South Asia tsunami, or last year’s cyclone in Burma, a natural disaster also likely contributes, unfortunately, to people’s willingness to donate.

But the particularly confounding factor of this crisis, as others have pointed out, is that much of the displaced population — upwards of 80% — is being absorbed into neighboring Pakistanis’ homes. This is outstanding generosity, to be sure, but it neither obviates the need for humanitarian assistance nor creates a sustainable solution to the problem. And as I’ve said before, “even the most hospitable of families can only host 85 people in their home for so long.”

(image of a refugee camp in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, from Al Jazeera English under a Creative Commons license)

| 3

Speaking of John Bolton…

by John Boonstra

Responding to a Marty Peretz post mocking the UN for General Assembly elections won by some of his favorite countries, this commenter sounds a welcome note of reality to Peretz’s sarcastic jibes:

All well and good, but do you imagine that Ambassador Bolton would have prevented the elections of Libya, Sudan, Algeria, and Iran? It is surely regrettable that the UN does not do what the US would like, but why would one expect that it would? Given that most of the world is governed by regimes for which we have little regard, we can confidently expect that they will take self-serving actions (just as we do) for which we will have little regard.

The UN, in short, is composed of 192 countries. Railing against the world body for the existence of these countries is neither productive nor particularly insightful. Nice to see a TNR commenter call Peretz out on that.

, | 2

Zero Coke Zero in Venezuela

by Matthew Cordell

I had MSNBC on mute and glanced over to see a headline, “Coke Zero Banned in Venezuela.” I couldn’t resist. Yes, it’s true. As the Health Minister said,  ”The product should be withdrawn from circulation to preserve the health of Venezuelans.”

What strikes me as odd is that they banned Coke Zero, not regular Coke.  I wouldn’t say that Coke is dangerous (I don’t care to tangle with Coke’s lawyers), but I do recall it chewing through some nails in science class. Perhaps those corn syrup commercials are really effective in Venezuela. Or maybe it was just lost in translation, zero coke(aine)?

| 7

The only person who can argue for war AND diplomacy with a straight face

by John Boonstra

From the stark-raving mad department…John Bolton targets his Israel’s missiles on Iran again. In Boltonland, Iran already has dozens of nuclear weapons pointed at Israel and the United States Chicago, anything short of pre-emptive warfare is “weakness,” and the fact that Iran’s presidential elections are tomorrow — and may actually unseat neocons’ favorite whipping boy — is a reason not for nuance, but for publishing a warmongering op-ed sooner rather than later.

In fact, Bolton crookedly argues that a pre-emptive attack on Iran should actually have occurred under the Bush Administration, which at least did not engage in the kind of “apologetic” outreach that just might undo some of the ill will that a good bombing campaign could generate in the Muslim world. (His answer to the problems that a regional attack on Iran would cause? Unsurprisingly, more bombs!) What is truly unfathomable, though, is that Bolton somehow thinks that we can just attach a nice note of diplomacy alongside the missiles that should rain on Tehran.

Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs’ regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppressive regime.

Bomb first, negotiate later.

The other strikingly dense aspect of these two sentences is how utterly — but unsurprisingly — Bolton has failed to learn the lessons of Iraq. There is absolutely nothing to back up his blithe assertion that Iranians would most likely “turn against” the regime in the face of an Israeli bombing campaign. The same sort of forecast, equally unsupported by fact, was precipitously used to simply explain away any complicating reactions from Iraqis beyond their relief at the ousting of a tyrant (and one with much, much more blood on his hands than Ahmadinejad). This strategy, of course, proved disastrous in its oversimplification. Millions of Iranians have been rallying during their country’s election campaign, but an unprovoked military assault would only sow disorder and antagonism.

, | 7

Not just Palau, Bermuda Too

by Mark Leon Goldberg

Via News Unfiltered:

The Department of Justice today announced that four detainees, Chinese nationals of Uighur ethnicity who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, have been resettled in Bermuda. These detainees, who were subject to release as a result of court orders, had been cleared for release by the prior administration, which determined they would no longer treat them as enemy combatants. The detainees were again cleared for release this year after review by the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force.

[snip]

The Uighurs are a Turkic Muslim minority from the Xinjiang province of far-west China. The Uighurs currently at Guantanamo Bay left China and made their way to Afghanistan, where most eventually settled in a camp with other Uighurs opposed to the Chinese government. After the United States conducted aerial strikes in the area in October 2001, the Uighurs from that camp fled to Pakistan and were later apprehended. According to available information, these individuals did not travel to Afghanistan with the intent to take any hostile action against the United States.

| 3
...10...640641642643644645646647648...660...1,187

UN Direct

plussocialgood.org

Diplo Tweets

Charity Miles