Senator Bill Nelson is holding a hearing today on UN Peacekeeping. UN Dispatch got a peek at of one of his props.
The blue and red lines on the second chart denote the what the United States is assessed in peacekeeping dues and the administration's budget request for peacekeeping, respectively. Clearly, the trends elucidated in these two charts are simply unsustainable in the long run; the United States cannot keep approving mission after mission at the Security Council and then underfund the entire enterprise.
Check back for updates from the hearing throughout the day. [The hearing was yesterday]
Top Stories
>>Iraq - While Senator Obama is wrapping up his, by all accounts, successful tour of the Middle East, the liberal blogosphere is jumping on Senator McCain's assertion that the "Surge," which is generally defined as beginning in January 2007, spawned the "Anbar Awakening," which is generally thought to have begun in summer 2006. McCain's campaign responded by saying that they occurred at the same time and that they were both spawned by U.S. troops.>>Trade - After three days of negotiations, ministers from 35 nations meeting in Geneva are no closer to moving forward on the WTO's Doha trade negotiations. In a breakout session last night, the seven main players -- the EU, United States, Australia, China, India, Brazil and Japan -- met in a marathon 12-hour session, that several sources have described as "tense." The main point of contention is over the reduction of domestic farm subsidies in developed nations and the opening of developing nations' borders to industrial good and services. Talks will move forward, but it's unclear whether they will disintegrate before the Saturday close or push through into next week. Robin Pomeroy provides some color.>>Sudan - President Omar al-Bashir traveled to Darfur yesterday in what some observers have called a "charm offensive." ICC lead prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo recently submitted a request to a three-judge panel to indict Sudan's leader on charges of genocide in the Darfur region.Yesterday in UN Dispatch
I am not aware of any empirical data that shows a causal link between poverty and terrorism. If there was such a link then we would see poor people and communities more involved in committing/planning terrorist attacks than the current data shows. Poverty by itself simply does not have the direct radicalizing effect on individuals.
In fact, the majority of empirical studies on terrorism provides little indication of correlations between socioeconomic factors such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment and the incidence of terrorism. For example, the data in Alan Kruger and David Latin's global study of the origins and targets of terrorism lend little support to the notion that poverty leads to terrorism, instead suggesting that limited political rights and civil liberties tend to be the most influential in inciting people to terrorism and country-level economic factors such as poverty and high unemployment, tend to be most relevant in determining the targets of terrorism [see here (pdf)]
Poverty, in and of itself, does not lead to terrorism. But it can be part of the problem, as the case of disenfranchised Muslim communities in Europe make clear. In the words of one European official I recently interviewed on this issue, "poverty is rarely one of the key radicalizers, but unemployment can be, especially when combined with engaging in criminal activity and being exposed to a radical narrative." Radical ideologies are better able to take root when discrimination and the lack of opportunity for economic growth are put in terms of a global narrative that weave personal experiences in the suburbs north of Paris together with the plight of fellow Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine or Iraq to personalize far away conflicts and paint a global, ideological struggle. That global narrative is where foreign policy becomes one part of this larger tapestry as well, especially when presented through a radical ideological lens. To my mind the ideological component is the most critical and overlooked component here.
I certainly believe there are links between poverty and terrorism, but particularly in terms of the West's so-called Global War on Terror, I believe more important are other variables such as the ones mentioned in the prompt, e.g. perceived humiliation, grievances w/ U.S. foreign policy, radical ideology etc.
For instance, certain of the key 9/11 hijackers were reasonably middle (or lower-middle class) young adults residing in European cities. And while others on this E-mail chain far more knowledgeable than me might correct me, the 15 or so Saudi hijackers (of the 19 total) I don't recall having had hugely impoverished backgrounds, though certainly they were not enjoying the fruits of the petro-dollar gusher as are their local elites.
On Day One is a social media site sponsored by the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Campaign that asks everyday people to offer their ideas about what the next president should do, figuratively "on day one." In preparation for this discussion, we solicited On Day One users for their ideas on how the next president should take on the threat of global terrorism and many people responded by suggesting that if the United States does more to alleviate poverty in the developing world the terrorist threat could be mitigated.
But is terrorism actually linked to poverty? Is it linked to other externalities, like grievances with American foreign policy, perceived humiliation, nationalist political objectives, radical ideology --- or all of the above? Which is most dominant? Which is most underestimated in current approaches to terrorism?
For the next seven days, UN Dispatch, The Washington Note and On Day One will host an online discussion about international terrorism and offer recommendations for how the next United States president can meet these challenges. Leading this discussion is an international panel of experts on terrorism, counter-terrorism, international law, and national security. We are honored to have Steve Clemons as a moderator and co-host on The Washington Note.
Our panel of experts (full bios here) include:
Peter Bergen, New America Foundation Paul Cruickshank, NYU Center on Law and Security Greg Djerejian, The Belgravia Dispatch Stephanie Kaplan, Woodrow Wilson Center Matthew Levitt, Washington Institute on Near East Policy Alastair Millar, Center on Global Counter Terrorism Cooperation Eric Rosand, Center on Global Counter Terrorism Cooperation Yosri Fouda, Al JazeeraStay tuned for the first discussion prompt.
Serious analysts can legitimately debate whether ICC involvement in Sudan will help or hurt prospects for peace in the country. But it becomes far easier to blindly damn the ICC when you distort the rules under which the Court operates.
The ICC can acquire jurisdiction in a country in one of three ways. First, the country in question can be an "ICC country," a signatory to the 2002 Rome Statute that established the Court. Second, a host government can invite the ICC to begin proceedings in its country. In Uganda, for example, President Yoweri Museveni requsted that the ICC prosecute members of the Lord's Resistance Army, which had been terrorizing the northern part of his country for over twenty years. Third, if a country is not a party to the ICC and does not request the Court's involvement, the Security Council can vote to authorize ICC jurisdiction.
David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey, two lawyers writing in The Wall Street Journal op-ed page, acknowledge -- albeit with the minimalizing sarcasm of quotation marks -- that this last method was the one by which the ICC obtained jurisdiction in Sudan.
It [the ICC] can also follow-up on "referrals" from the U.N. Security Council. In 2005, the council made such a referral with respect to Sudan's campaign of mass murder in Darfur.Correct. This was no mere recommendation; it was a formal authorization, and, according to the ICC's charter, it provided a legitimate means for the Court to operate even in a country that had not signed the Rome Statute and that opposed ICC involvement. Yet Rivkin and Casey backtrack in their very next sentence:
Under international law norms, the ICC can prosecute citizens of signatory states. But it cannot prosecute citizens of nations, such as Sudan, that are not party to the ICC.The ICC is operating in Sudan. It has been for over three years. The only way for it to suspend its jurisdiction is for the Security Council to authorize it to do so. This leverage should be interpreted as a new opportunity to press for peace, not, as Rivkin and Casey dramatically bemoan, as a "blow" that "takes Darfur's second-best hope for peace -- a diplomatic settlement -- off of the table." The ICC's action should be seen as a "blow," but as a blow to the idea of impunity, not to peace negotiations that have not even yet gotten off the ground, let alone on the table.
Via the UN News Center, an announcement that the UN is helping to create global standards for the ways in which rescue workers can notify the next-of-kin of injured people.
Next-of-kin information for injured people will now be easier to find thanks to a new telephone code from the United Nations telecommunications agency. By adding prefixes such as "01," "02" and "03" before contacts -- for example, "01husband" -- in a person's mobile telephone directory, rescuers will be able to notify relatives or friends worldwide. "This simple addition to a person's next-of-kin or nominated contact details has the potential to greatly reduce stress for overworked emergency workers around the world," said Malcolm Johnson, Director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau. "Anything that can be done to reduce the workload of these remarkably brave people and assist in getting injured people the right care and attention is commendable." The code "ICE" -- short for "In Case of Emergency" -- has appeared in some mobile phones in English-speaking nations, but ITU members stressed the need for a global unified standard that would be effective regardless of language or script.Add this to the list of "little ways" that international cooperation can make life easier for everyone around the world.