When Megan McArdle poses the question, "To fight or not to fight?" she hypothesizes that the answer largely rests on whether the United States opts to involve itself in a foreign intervention. Without American participation, she contends, "no one else is going to do it for us--the African Union cannot make peace in Darfur, none of Iraq's neighbors can help it if it erupts into civil war, and so forth."
To this Matthew Yglesias adds the much-needed caveat that the participation of other countries in foreign interventions can in fact add value in terms of both military effectiveness and political legitimacy. He also rightly cautions that this argument -- that American initiative is the only way to mount a serious intervention -- can dangerously provide cover for a more naked unilateralist streak.
I would add the important reminder that not all "fighting" is equal, and, more significantly, that not all interventions must amount to combat. War-fighting, counter-insurgency, and peacekeeping are, just to name a few, all very different phenomena that each operate according to very different rules and whose effectiveness require very different types of involvement. To McArdle's example that "the African Union cannot make peace in Darfur," then, the obvious answer is of course not. The peacekeeping force in Darfur is exactly that: a peacekeeping force. Peace does not come at the barrel of a gun -- least of all at the barrel of an American gun -- and the only ones that can make peace, unfortunately, are the parties at war themselves.
This does not mean that the U.S. and other countries have no role to play in such peacebuilding situations. Rather, these type of scenarios demand, if anything, more multilateral involvement, as international diplomatic pressure -- particularly from neighboring countries with a stake in stabilizing their region -- will go a lot farther in pressing for a peace accord than will American troops.
Emily Ross, an intern at the New York office of the United Nations Foundation, sent us the following summary of the United States presidency of the Security Council during the month of June.
Tragic news out of one of the most war-torn places on the planet:
Gunmen opened fire on people leaving a mosque in Mogadishu on Sunday night, killing one of the country's senior United Nations officials and wounding his son and another man, a witness and a family member said.Osman Ali Ahmed was the head of the UN Development Program for Somalia. His assassination -- and he appears to have been specifically targeted -- follows the abduction just last week of the top man at another key UN agency operating in the country, the UN High Commission for Refugees, as well as the emergence of an al-Qaeda video calling for attacks on the UN in Somalia. Facing the constant threat of such violence, UN personnel in Somalia must be among the bravest individuals to volunteer their services. Their work is exceedingly valuable -- and necessary, in a country in which an estimated half of the population will be in need of assistance this year -- but they cannot continue to have to operate under conditions of such rampant insecurity. As in most countries in which the UN works, most of its employees are nationals of the host country. Somalis are taking up the burden of repairing their country -- we owe it to them to help make sure they are not kidnapped and killed. UPDATE: Truer words couldn't be spoken by Ahmed's boss:
"The killing of Osman Ali Ahmed is a loss not only for the United Nations but also for the Somali people, who are the ultimate victims when humanitarian workers and aid officials are targeted in this way," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement issued by his spokesperson.And Ban's Special Representative in Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, pledged that "this killing will not deter the UN from carrying on its vital work inside the country," a welcome voice of confidence against those who seek to harm Somalis by undermining the UN's efforts in their country. In response, Somalia's prime minister has called for the "immediate" deployment of UN peacekeepers. While this carries with it the hope of greater protection, it is also not unreasonable to expect that UN peacekeepers will themselves face similar attacks. Until the parties -- pushed by the UN and international community, naturally -- are able to come to a meaningful political solution and ceasefire on the ground in Somalia, it will be difficult to ask Member States to contribute their soldiers to be shot at in Mogadishu.
In this segment of UN Plaza, Matthew Lee and I discuss the origins of American civic engagement on the Darfur conflict.
WWF has released its G8 climate report cards (PDF) in the run-up to the G8 summit in Japan, and mom and dad will not be happy when they see the U.S. score. The United States is at the bottom of the class, followed by Canada and Russia, each of which seemed to have copied off of the U.S.'s paper. Here is a summary of the teacher's comments on the U.S. grades:
The United States score the worst of all G8 countries,being the largest emitter with the highest per capita emissions and an increasing trend in total emissions. At the same time the US have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. While substantial activities emerge at the state level, little substantive federal measures are in place to curb emissions in the short term.Germany, France and the U.K. finished at the top of this class, but even they got a warning from the teacher that their grades could start slipping if they're not careful. Italy and Japan round out the middle of the bell curve. Unfortunately, the class was graded on a curve, so even though Germany, France and the U.K. have high marks in emissions per GDP, they're failing in transport and struggling in past emissions trends (1990-2006) and Kyoto targets. The U.S. is failing every subject except emissions per GDP, and even that's not a good grade. Canada, on the other hand, is failing all but CO2 per KWh of electricity, though that grade is actually pretty good. Hopefully, the G8 summit will function as a study group, and the class can get together to try and improve their grades. If they fail, I'm afraid repeating will not be an option. (Image from kolnkgin.com)
Via Monsters and Critics, Egyptian police apparently opened fire on a gang of human traffickers helping Eritrean and Sudanese refugees escape to Israel through the Sinai Peninsula. What's the significance? In recent months there has been a marked up-tick in the number of Eritreans entering Egypt illegally and seeking asylum. Egypt, in turn, has come under criticism from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees for forcibly repatriating Eritreans, despite their asylum claims. Meanwhile, UNHCR is trying to interview Eritrean asylum seekers to assess their claims for refugee status, but so far UNHCR officials have not be given access to all detention facilities housing Eritreans.
With Egypt being such hostile territory for Eritrean asylum seekers, a growing number have sought refuge in Israel. Writing in Ha'aretz Nurit Wuhrgaft tells the story of one intrepid young asylum seeker who made it all the way from Eritrea to Be'er Sheva in southern Israel.
Asha-Rose Migro is not a deputy secretary general. She is the deputy secretary general in the grammatically similar way that Dick Cheney is the Vice President. She deserves a definite article. The United Nations, in turn, deserves fair treatment from a Washington Post editorial board looking for a scapegoat in Zimbabwe.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, boldly predicted that some action will be taken, despite the predictable resistance of China and South Africa. "If there is no response," he asked, "what does that say about the council?" Answer: It would say that the United Nations is no more prepared than the African Union is to protect a suffering nation from a criminal government.I don't think it would say so at all. Rather, it would say that the country which sponsored the resolution did not make shepherding it through the Security Council enough of a diplomatic priority in its relations with other council members. Blaming the UN when a specific Security Council resolution fails to pass is just a convenient way to excuse countries from their own diplomatic failings. (Tat tip, reader KP)
The United Nations Development Program just released a potentially groundbreaking new report on how businesses may include the global poor as potential customers--and how the global poor might benefit from collaborating more closely with businesses. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor is part of UNDP's Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative and explores 50 case studies of local and international companies successfully integrating the poor into their business models to "create wealth, spur growth and spark social change." Here are a few highlights from the report:
* In Colombia, the Juan Valdez company is offering higher, more stable incomes to over 500,000 smallscale coffee growers. * In China, Tsinghua Tongfang markets computers loaded with distance education software to the rural population both for primary and middle school education and for minority language education. * In the Russia Federation, over 80 percent of Forus Bank's clients are women, most of them in retail businesses; in 2006 the bank helped create 4,250 direct and 19,950 indirect jobs. * In Senegal, healthcare organization Pésinet provided an early warning method for monitoring the health conditions of children under age five from low-income families--the infant mortality rate fell by more than 90 percent between 2002 and 2005--from 120 per 1,000 live births to 8. * In Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, the liquefied petroleum gas supplied by VidaGas improves the sterility of medical instruments used to deliver babies. * In the Philippines, Smart, whose network covers over 99 percent of the population, offers low-cost, prepaid mobile phone airtime cards and eases financial transactions through the option to send remittances using short messaging service (SMS) technology.In the full report there are many, many more examples of companies helping countries reach the millennium development goals while not sacrificing on the bottom line.
From VOA, an aspect of the repression in Myanmar that has not attracted the same level of attention as did the government's blocking of foreign aid after Cyclone Nargis:
Cheery Zahau, a member of Burma's Chin minority, says members of the Burmese army rape women in ethnic minority areas all over the country. She says in Burma's western Chin State alone, at least 38 cases of sexual violence were committed by soldiers in 2006. The youngest victim was only 12. ... "The soldiers are raping women to punish the populations who they suspect of supporting insurgency groups," she said. "And also they rape the women to disturb the faith and psychological welfare of these ethnic women. For example in 2003, a woman was raped by four soldiers on her way back home from the market. Until now she is mentally disturbed."In light of the UN Security Council's recent -- if long-overdue -- resolution officially condemning rape as a weapon of war, this testimony reveals yet another example of a conflict zone marred by rampant, targeted sexual violence against women. The situation in Myanmar following Nargis may have slipped off the radar of the mainstream press, but the same ruling military junta remains, using the same reprehensible tactics to terrorize its people. Humanitarian support is still desperately needed to aid those suffering from the cyclone's destruction, and such a systematized, state-organized campaign of rape will require a sustained effort from the UN and its Member States.