SORT BY 
ISSUES
WRITERS
DATE
3 posts in the last 24 hours
Suggest a post:
undispatch@gmail.com
Get help:
Report a problem
DISPATCH TWEETSAfghanistan
Ban arrives in Kabul
Mark Leon Goldberg November 2, 2009 - 11:15 am
From the UN News Center:
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Kabul today to meet with United Nations staff and Afghan officials, following a deadly attack last week that killed five of the world body’s staff and injured several others.
“I have come to Kabul to express my solidarity with the UN staff and Afghan people at this difficult time,” Mr. Ban said in remarks to the press in the Afghan capital.
Five UN staff members were killed and nine others injured in an attack on a guest house in Kabul on 28 October, for which the Taliban has claimed responsibility.
Credit: UN Photo
Exclusive: UN responds to ProPublica story about alleged corruption of UN Afghan funds
Mark Leon Goldberg October 30, 2009 - 11:41 am
T. Christian Miller and Dafna Linzer write in ProPublica that the United Nations cannot account for "tens of millions of dollars provided to the troubled Afghan election commission." They cite two audits and interviews with current and former UNAMA staff to back up these claims.
These are clearly troubling accusations. Exclusive to UN Dispatch, UN Development Program spokesperson Stephane Dujarric sent the following letter to ProPublica last night:
Your article fails to capture the scope and depth of the UN Development Programme’s assistance to the Afghan people during this electoral process.
UNDP, and the international community, has made a conscious decision to work through Afghans and Afghan institutions, including the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). It is harder to do it this way. But it is the only way that will work in the long run since we have a responsibility to help Afghans rebuild and strengthen their institutions and, more importantly, because the Afghans would not accept it any other way. This only increases our responsibility to be rigorous with donor resources: how they are used, how they are accounted for, and the impacts they have.
Thanks to the support of the men and women of UNDP’s ELECT Project, the IEC was able to distribute some 17 million ballot papers and 100,000 ballot boxes to the four corners of Afghanistan, using planes, helicopters, trucks, cars and donkeys to ensure that every Afghan man and woman could participate in the electoral process. Through the efforts of the UN in partnership with the Afghan government, close to half of the Afghan population has now been registered to vote. In September 2008, as part of our continuing support, UNDP assisted the IEC in setting up a hotline call centre, resulting in some 25,000 calls a week, many from women wanting to participate in the electoral process.
Audits are an essential part of our control mechanisms. We conduct audits as a way to identify both strengths and weaknesses in our programs in order to increase our overall performance on the ground. They are meant to be rigorous and blunt. The particular audit mentioned in the article, which covers the $263 million USAID-funded projects, was still in draft form and does not reflect the final views of UNDP management. It was commissioned by UNDP senior management as a way of tightening our control mechanisms in the unusually demanding conditions of Afghanistan.
A fair reading of the draft audit clearly shows that, overall, while there was a need to enhance supporting documentation, the expenditures incurred for USAID-funded projects were approved by authorized officials, properly accounted for, and processed in compliance with UNDP’s regulations, rules, policies and procedures. Furthermore, the UNDP controls over procurement activities for projects reviewed were generally adequate and procurement activities were undertaken in accordance with UNDP’s policies and procedures.
Even before the conclusion of the audit, we had introduced stronger procedures, including those for the payment of salaries to the Afghan staff of the IEC. Despite complaints from the Afghan officials that we were slowing up the work of the commission, we held up the payments of about a quarter of the staff because of inadequate justification [documentation]. Additionally, salary payments are now being paid directly to the bank accounts of temporary electoral staff through bank transfers. When this is not feasible for staff work in very remote areas, cash payments are only made against time sheets and verification of the IEC staff list. Furthermore, regarding the transportation issue, we are in the process of enhancing internal controls by collecting supporting documentation including weigh bills, individual vehicle log books, and the certification of field advisors at the provincial level.
One should also not lose sight of the bigger picture. Afghanistan is a country that has suffered through countless years of violence and upheaval, and it is in this context that the elections of 2004 and 2009 must be understood. UNDP is just one part of the work that the United Nations does every day in Afghanistan through its assistance mission, UNAMA, in the field of health, human rights, gender issues, reconstruction, etc…
Lastly, Afghanistan is one of the most challenging places in the world to work for any UN agency. We have just seen proof of that this week when five of our colleagues were killed in a terrorist attack targeted at a United Nations guest house. The insecurity, the lack of infrastructure, widespread corruption and the harshness of the terrain make the implementation of any project there extremely difficult. That being said, those challenges in no way absolve us of constantly doing our utmost to ensure that monies given to us by donors are properly spent and accounted for. Over the past five years, UNDP has had a portfolio of over $1.5 billion in Afghanistan and we take our responsibility for accountability to donors very seriously. When working in places like Afghanistan, we fully understand that we expose ourselves to a certain risk but our responsibility to the people we serve, and to those who fund our work, is to continually strive for the right balance between the mitigation of risks and the goals of the mission.
Deadly suicide attack against the UN in Afghanistan: UPDATE, UPDATE II
Mark Leon Goldberg October 28, 2009 - 8:17 am
More terrible news from Afghanistan. A Taliban suicide attack on a compound housing UN employees and other international staff has killed nine people, six of whom worked for the UN mission in Afghanistan. According to the BBC, "the Taliban spokesman said they had threatened to target anyone working on the Afghan run-off presidential election between incumbent Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah."
This is obviously a huge tragedy for the United Nations. It is also part of a larger trend in which the United Nations has increasingly come under attack from insurgent groups and terrorists--in Afghanistan and beyond. Since 2006, the relative number of attacks per aid worker in the field increased by 61%. In 2008, more UN aid workers were killed in the field than UN peacekeepers.
Not long ago, the blue flag was a shield for humanitarian workers. Today, it is makes them a target. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those affected by today's tragedy.
UPDATE: More details are emerging about today's attack. From Bloomberg:
At least five of the dead worked for the United Nations, UN spokesman Aleem Siddique said by telephone from Kabul, with the identity of the sixth victim still to be established. Gunmen opened fire outside the main gate to the Bakhtar Guesthouse at about 6:30 a.m. local time today and forced their way inside, killing UN workers as they “were running to escape,” Siddique said. Afghan security forces killed the three gunmen, he said. One of the UN employees who died was an American, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said in a statement. The UN isn’t announcing the nationalities of the others until their families have been notified.
UN News Center has a summary of responses from the UN, including from Ban Ki Moon and Kai Eide.
Via email, a statement from Susan Rice:
I condemn in the strongest terms the brutal and cowardly attack in Kabul today on United Nations workers and members of the Afghan National Security Forces. An American citizen was among those who lost their lives. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies go out to the families and friends of all of the victims.
The United Nations has been doing vital work for the Afghan people for more than fifty years. The United States strongly supports the leadership and staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as they work bravely each day under incredibly difficult circumstances, and we are grateful to the Afghan National Security Forces for their commitment and sacrifice.
The international community stands together in its commitment to defeat those extremists seeking to halt democratic progress in Afghanistan. The United States stands firmly with the people of Afghanistan as they prepare for the November 7 presidential runoff elections.
UPDATE II: A chilling video of the aftermath from CBS News.
And Una Vera of Change.org posts a Twitter timeline of the attack.
Photo credit: Flickr user presspix.
A chilling video from UN office on Drugs and Crime on opium and insurgency in Afghanistan
Mark Leon Goldberg October 22, 2009 - 1:14 pm
Here is a link to the full report Addiction, Crime and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium
All that hubbub for nothing
Matthew Cordell October 20, 2009 - 12:52 pm
So, in the end, the hubbub surrounding UNAMA and Galbraith was all for naught. Yesterday, after quietly doing its job for monthe before, during, and after the election, the UN-led ECC invalidated 210 polling stations and triggered a run-off, and today Karzai accepted that run-off. The election was widely labeled as flawed, votes were thrown out through a careful and legitimate process led by the United Nations, and we start again. The only other thing we saw in this fracas was quite a bit of Mr. Galbraith in the news and, in my opinion, an unneeded destabilization of the election process. It's a young country, the democracy is nascent and, at this point, deeply flawed, but, with international help, the just outcome is its way to being reached.
Full text of the Ban Ki-moon's presser below, but I wanted to highlight the following answer. I think he really nails it:
Q: Mr Galbraith had said that polling stations in regions of the countr controlled by the Taliban, where it would be difficult to police them, shouldn’t have been opened in the first round. Do you anticipate, does the United Nations support having these so-called “phantom polling stations” remain open in the second round?
SG: ...The idea suggested by Mr. Peter Galbraith was to reduce the number of polling stations just to prevent possible fraud. That was not acceptable, just to deprive the right of the Afghan people for voting was not acceptable in terms of the core values of democracy. Our principle was to open as many polling stations as possible, so that as many people could participate in their vote. That was the main difference. The question did not arise from whether there was fraud or not; we knew that there was fraud, we reported that there was fraud. Therefore, this time again, as much as security allows, as much as all logistical and all the situation on the ground allows, we will try to ensure that all the Afghan people should be able to express their own will freely without any intimidation or threat.
The full press conference:
I warmly welcome the statement today by H.E. President Hamid Karzai
concerning the presidential elections in Afghanistan. He has made it clear
that the constitutional process must be fully respected. This process is
about the future of Afghanistan and the participation of the Afghan people
in their future.
I commend President Karzai for the leadership he has displayed and for his
commitment to ensuring full respect for Afghanistan’s Constitution and its
democratic processes.
I also commend Dr. Abdullah Abdullah for his dignified approach to the
campaign as well as to the difficult post-election period.
These elections were held under extremely difficult, even dangerous
circumstances. The courage and patience demonstrated by the Afghan people
and their leaders must be recognized and applauded. They have voted in the
face of intimidation and insecurity.
This is the first time that Afghan institutions have conducted a
Presidential election. These institutions – the Independent Election
Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission – have worked closely
to ensure strict adherence to the Constitution and the Electoral Law of
Afghanistan. The United Nations has supported the work of these
institutions in their efforts to ensure that all valid votes cast in the
elections of 20 August 2009 were taken into account and that the voice of
the Afghan people was clearly heard.
The United Nations will do its utmost for the conduct of the second round
of elections scheduled for 7 November 2009 in a free, fair, transparent
and secure environment.
I wish, finally, to thank my Special Representative, Mr. Kai Eide, and the
staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for
their tireless work in support of the legitimate Afghan institutions and
in keeping the electoral process on track.
Thank you very much.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, concerning this upcoming round on 7 November,
will the UN role be the same? Will you adjust it in any way, give the
United Nations a little bit of a different role, a different approach to
this election, to ensure that it might be less fraudulent than the first
round? And what is your degree of confidence that there will be a
difference this time – that this one will be more honest?
SG: You can understand that there will be a huge challenge in conducting a
second [round of] elections on 7 November. We have only 18 days left
before 7 November. The United Nations will ensure to provide all necessary
technical assistance as we have done in the first [round of[ elections,
including working very closely with the Electoral Complaints Commission
and Independent Election Commission, and also in close coordination with
international partners, to make this election a most transparent and
credible and secure manner. We will basically do similar functions there.
But having learned lessons from the first elections [round], that there
was widespread fraud and irregularities, we will try our best, in close
coordination with the Afghan leadership and Afghan institutions, and other
major international partners, to make this election as fair and free of
fraud [as possible].
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, do you think the international forces should
deploy more troops in Afghanistan? And in which time frame?
SG: This is what the countries who have been providing troops should
decide. I understand that the United States Government is seriously
considering the augmentation of forces to Afghanistan. I would respect any
decisions by the United States Government. Military assistance would be
one of the effective means and ways to assist and help the Afghan people
in their very difficult efforts to make their country, first of all,
politically stabilized in their fight against the Taliban and against
terrorism. We should appreciate the noble sacrifices by many troop
contributing countries, including the United States. Now, as some American
Government officials have said, it would be very important for the
Afghanistan Government to show that they are reliable, they are credible
partners and they should have their own stability in a democratic process.
After all, the United Nations has been very closely working together with
all ISAF troop contributing countries, as well as other development
assistance countries. We will continue to do that.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, can you just tell me how you feel the United
Nations has come out of it, after the last two months? Do you think that
its credibility has been damaged, given that the man you dismissed turned
out to be right about the extent of fraud?
SG: The United Nations, since the beginning of this first election
[round], and right after the election, had been taking a leadership role,
in close coordination with major international partners and together with
the leadership of Afghanistan. Over the last few days, I have been
actively discussing with international leaders, as well as with the
Afghanistan leadership, including President Karzai, that all the processes
should be carried out according to the Constitution of Afghanistan and in
accordance with the electoral processes previously agreed on among the
parties concerned. This effort has been much appreciated by the
Afghanistan leadership and others in the international community. I am
very much pleased that the Afghanistan leadership and President Karzai has
agreed to respect the result of the Independent Election Commission as
well as the Electoral Complaints Commission, that has been agreed before,
and in accordance with the Constitutional process. The United Nations will
continue to play such a role. The credibility of the United Nations has
been there, will continue to be there.
Q: To prevent fraud, what will the United Nations do practically? Could
you give me more explanations?
SG: First of all, there should be security assured, so that the voters
will be able to express their will without any threat or difficulties. And
there should be necessary logistical support provided by the United
Nations and the major international players. This is what we are going to
do. We have learned very valuable but painful lessons from the first
election [round]. First of all, we will advise the Independent Election
Commission not to re-recruit those officials who might have been involved
in fraudulent electoral processes. And we will ensure to make all
administrative and technical [measures] to ensure that this election will
be carried out in a most fair and transparent manner. We must not repeat
what they have done last time.
Q: Two follow-ups from the BBC question. Sir, would you have had an easier
time organizing this had you had the entire United Nations reading
statements about the fraud when [Peter] Galbraith did his? It was so
obvious. And the run-off will probably be won be Karzai. Can you really
make sure that the same fraudulent stuffing of the ballets is not going to
be repeated?
SG: The important thing is that, even though, unfortunately, widespread
fraud has taken place, the measures which we have put in place had worked.
We detected the fraud, and we reported this fraud to the Security Council.
Right after the first election [round], in my latest report to the
Security Council, I reported to the members of the Security Council that
there was fraud and my Special Representative, Kai Eide, also reported to
the Security Council,. Now all these measures will be put in place again,
so that the mechanisms and measures will continue to work and function
properly, so that we will prevent any sort of fraudulent practices and
irregularities.
Q: How much more effective, or how much of a difference would it have
made, if the United Nations had been more effective at policing
Afghanistan and itself for internal fraud and corruption in the years
leading up to this?
SG: After all, this is an Afghan-led process. The United Nations and the
international members have provided technical and logistical support and
also advised them to ensure that these two independent electoral
commissions – one is Afghan-led and the other is United Nations-backed –
they worked closely, in harmony. That has, I think, worked out. We will
try our best, as I said, to make this election as credible and transparent
[as we can]; this is our commitment.
Q: Mr Galbraith had said that polling stations in regions of the country
controlled by the Taliban, where it would be difficult to police them,
shouldn’t have been opened in the first round. Do you anticipate, does the
United Nations support having these so-called “phantom polling stations”
remain open in the second round?
SG: These so-called “phantom polling stations” – I would like to make it
clear that the principles and priorities of the United Nations in
assisting the electoral process last time was to provide and to ensure
that all Afghanistan’s people would be able to express their will by
casting their votes. The idea suggested by Mr. Peter Galbraith was to
reduce the number of polling stations just to prevent possible fraud. That
was not acceptable, just to deprive the right of the Afghan people for
voting was not acceptable in terms of the core values of democracy. Our
principle was to open as many polling stations as possible, so that as
many people could participate in their vote. That was the main difference.
The question did not arise from whether there was fraud or not; we knew
that there was fraud, we reported that there was fraud. Therefore, this
time again, as much as security allows, as much as all logistical and all
the situation on the ground allows, we will try to ensure that all the
Afghan people should be able to express their own will freely without any
intimidation or threat. Thank you very much.
UNAMA and the Afghan elections
Mark Leon Goldberg October 14, 2009 - 11:32 am
A lot of ink has been spilled so far about the dispute in the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) between the mission's former deputy Peter W. Galbraith and his boss, Kai Eide. What has been lost in the discussion, though, is the basic point that the disagreement over how to handle fraud in the Afghan elections is an honest one between two people who both believe that they have the best interests of Afghans at heart.
Peter Galbraith is a legendary American diplomat with a proud record of accomplishment. Kai Eide is also a veteran international trouble-shooter and former head of the United Nations efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Their dispute, which lead the firing of Galbraith and a subsequent scathing op-ed from Galbraith in the Washington Post, centered on how the UNAMA should handle fraud committed during the Afghan presidential election.
Let's be clear: fraud certainly occurred. No one is disputing that, least of all the UN. They key point of dispute between Eide and Galbraith was over what to do about that fraud. Galbraith suggested a course that involved more direct UNAMA intervention. The basic UN approach to elections, however, is to give local ownership and control over the process. This was particularly the case in Afghanistan where the UN was explicitly mandated by the Security Council to support the Afghans in their elections. The problem is, these two positions became personalized around support (or lack thereof) of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. For example, to prevent fraud, Galbraith suggested shutting down a number of polling stations where the security situation prevented election monitors from visiting. However, most of these stations were in ethnic-Pashtun provinces that could be counted on to support Karzai; if the UN had taken Galbraith’s advice, it would have disenfranchised thousands of Afghan voters likely to vote for Karzai. For his part, Eide as head of the mission, had to implement the mandate given to him by the Security Council, which was to refer all allegations of fraud to the Independent Election Commission (an entirely Afghan body that Galbraith says is staked with Karzai supporters). The IEC ended up deciding to close fewer polling stations than Galbraith had suggested.
That is just one example of the kind of policy disagreement that separated Galbraith and Eide. The main dispute, though, is not over how many ballot stations to open or how to conduct a fraud audit. Rather, it is over the correct role of UNAMA in this entire election process. Galbraith wanted the UNAMA to intervene more directly in the process to maintain the purity of the elections. Eide was trying to ensure that UNAMA respected and supported the Afghan-owned electoral process. Both positions are perfectly defensible, and both include trade-offs. On the one hand, taking the Eide position can lend the impression that the system was rigged to elect Karzai. On the other hand, taking the Galbraith position would have meant undermining Afghan sovereignty, upon which the entirety of the UN's work in Afghanistan depends for legitimacy. (And it is important to note that this work involves the kind of nation building that is ultimately the only viable exit strategy for the international community.)
In the end, both diplomats were doing what they believed to be in the best interests of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, their two positions were simply contradictory. It is too bad that this disagreement led to one of them being let go.
Intrigue at UNAMA
Mark Leon Goldberg September 15, 2009 - 1:37 pm
The talented American diplomat Peter W. Galbraith, who serves as the deputy to the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan, has apparently left the country amidst a dispute with his boss, Norwegian mission chief Kai Eide.
According to numerous press reports, the dispute was over the Eide's decision to order a recount of some 10% of disputed ballots from the recent (fraud-laden) Afghan election. The recount may pull Karzai under 50% of the vote, thereby triggering a recount. Galbraith argued that a more robust recount be ordered and that a larger proportion of the ballots be either annuled or recounted. The dispute between old friends grew heated and Galbraith left Kabul for Boston. He was previously scheduled to be in New York for the UN General Assembly next week.
The big question on my mind is the extent to which Galbraith's insistence on a wider investigation of election fraud is a proxy for the Obama administration's estimation of Karzai. If so, Karzai could be in some serious trouble.
And the winner is...
Mark Leon Goldberg September 14, 2009 - 11:59 am
By Sameer Lalwani
The UN backed commission's charge of electoral fraud confirmed what most Afghans and observers already knew—that this was a messy election revealing the corruption, fecklessness, and disarray of the government. But the implications are much more strategically disturbing.
In terms of the US and NATO's counterinsurgency strategy, the best possible outcome they could have hoped for was a sweeping electoral mandate for a single candidate (presumably President Karzai) to avoid the infighting and delays in a runoff and demonstrate to the Afghan people (and the international community) that there was a unified Afghan state ready to return to the business of governance and state development.
Unfortunately, the electoral outcome was the worst of both worlds—a fractured vote mired in illegitimacy amidst allegations of vote-tampering and ballot-stuffing with President Karzai likely barely accumulating over 50% of the vote. <!--break--> Even if Karzai is able to consolidate control by bringing his challengers into his government, it will likely come at the cost of further corruption and ineffectiveness in the government ministries. For instance, the deals Karzai had to make even before the election by bringing in Dostum and Fahim, can already undermine the government's reputation and centralization efforts.
For an established government, a close election that begets a stable and non-violent transition of power demonstrates the durability of the democracy. But for a nascent and inchoate government that is effectively competing with an insurgency for the loyalty of an uncommitted people, an election that produces such disarray can be devastating. The primary component of a counterinsurgency strategy is to achieve a political solution rather than a military one, aided and abetted by a population- rather than enemy-centric strategy. But to induce a political solution, a strong, centralized state needs to be able to govern effectively to demonstrate the value of political competition within the state rather than violence outside of it. This is especially pressing as the Taliban has begun to set up parallel governance structures.
The face of a hearts and minds campaign is actually the Afghan central government with the US and NATO playing a supporting role. The election was opportunity to prove Afghan leadership to domestic and international audiences and it seems to have failed.
Some of Charles Tilly's impressive body of work suggests that many states begin as protection rackets that eventually acquires public confidence and legitimacy as they become more effective. But an ineffective government that cannot offer protection from insurgents (due to the weakness of the army) will be seen as just a racket—a predatory state—by the people and by the international community. At that point the unofficial winners of the election will be the Taliban.
John Bolton, sounding reasonable
Mark Leon Goldberg September 9, 2009 - 12:00 pm
Credit where credit is due, John Bolton sounds fairly reasonable in this interview with the Springfield, Missouri News-Leader:
Question: Should the U.S. engage in long-term nation-building in Afghanistan?
Bolton: "It's not within our power to create a stable country there. Hopefully, the people will do that for themselves. There are probably ways we can help out. But that's not the same as saying it's a strategic interest of the United States. And I say that because on the one hand, you've got people who already think we ought to withdraw from Afghanistan -- in the Democratic Party on the left side. People who think that, I think is a mistake. On the other side, you've got people who say we may be there for a long, long time, doing nation- building. I think that's a mistake, too.
It's a fair point, though I do disagree with Bolton's framing of this along a typical left-right axis. Supporters of our current engagement in Afghanistan include both the Obama administration and a coalition of neoconservatives. On the other side, left liberals like Russ Feingold are joining conservatives drawn from the realist tradition, like George Will, to question the wisdom and utility of a drawn out commitment in Afghanistan
Also, earlier in the interview, Bolton frames American strategic interests in Afghanistan in a way that I *gulp* would largely agree.
"The U.S. has an important strategic interest in Afghanistan, and that's making sure that neither the Taliban or a l-Qaida can use it as a base for terrorist operations against the United States, No. 1, and No. 2, that their combined efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan don't result in the overthrow of the Pakistani government."
</Cognitive dissonance>
China and the US sign deal on monitoring emissions http://bit.ly/4lboEF #cop15 #climate
from COP15
Leaders of Rwandan rebel militia arrested for atrocities committed in DR Congo http://is.gd/4YRAF #UN #news
from UN
Hedegaard: Half an agreement is no agreement http://bit.ly/2BNQGg #cop15 #climate
from COP15
Final Durban Thoughts
John Boonstra - April 24, 2009 - 2:06 pm
The Coup Caucus
Mark Leon Goldberg - July 7, 2009 - 11:05 am
One Laptop Per Child - The Dream is Over
Alanna Shaikh - September 9, 2009 - 8:06 am
A Congressional Coup Caucus emerges
Mark Leon Goldberg - July 7, 2009 - 2:21 pm
UN pulling staff from Afghanistan
Mark Leon Goldberg November 5, 2009 - 9:50 am
Comment ( 0 )
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) is re-locating about 600 international following last week's brazen attack on a UN compound which killed five international UN workers. From the UN News Center:
The Washington Post has more. I would just add that this move makes sense given the fact that the UN itself has become a preferred target of insurgents in the Af/Pak conflict. Beyond Afghanistam, 11 UN workers have been killed in Pakistan this year, including five people killed in a suicide attack against a World Food Program office in Pakistan last month. It has become very hard, if not impossible, for the UN to do its job in the region.