We won't be there in person, but we'll be Twittering the Vice Presidential debate tonight as we watch it on TV. Follow us! Or, refresh the page to follow the Tweets on our sidebar.
The saga of the Somali swashbucklers is all the rage in the blogosphere.
Passport's Elizabeth Dickinson -- who, coincidentally enough, wrote her undergraduate thesis on the topic -- explains the origins of these "medieval-sounding avengers."
Chris Blattman coins a great new term, calling the pirates' latest antics it a pi-jacking (pirate hijacking).
Adam Blickstein at Democracy Arsenal channels Steve Zissou and reminds us that "well, out here we call them 'pirates,' Ned."
And Robert Kaplan, writing in The Current, notes how combating piracy could end up strengthening international cooperation.
The one upside of piracy is that it creates incentives for cooperation among navies of countries who often have tense relations with each other. The U.S. and the Russians cooperate off the Gulf of Aden, and we might begin to work with the Chinese and other navies off the coast of Indonesia, too. As a transnational threat tied to anarchy, piracy brings nations together, helping to form the new coalitions of the 21st century.Kaplan is right on the mark (and it's a point I alluded to earlier), but I worry that he is being a little too sanguine about American and Russian cooperation. A Russian ship is en route to join the five American destroyers circling the pirates right now, and, according to Jeffrey Gettleman's latest dispatch, Russian and American anti-piracy tactics don't always, shall we say, see prow to prow. Recent tensions between the two countries don't make the situation any easier, and Somali officials seem to be eager to exploit these tensions. If the possibility of a nuclear stand-off weren't enough to cool Russian and American heels, then, perhaps this gang of sea bandits will do the trick. (Image from flickr user AkumAPRIME using a creative commons license)
Via Green, Inc:
The European Union has said it is prepared to raise its target for cutting greenhouse gases to 30 percent from 20 percent - but only if there are similar pledges to cut emissions from other countries in the industrialized world. In a report issued on Thursday, health and environment campaigners called on the EU to adopt the more ambitious target anyway, because it will lengthen European lives -- and save money. Representatives from the Health and Environment Alliance, Climate Action Network Europe and WWF, say the higher target could generate additional health savings of 25 million euros each year by 2020, bringing the total annual savings to 76 billion euros. The groups based the calculation on economic evaluations of how people will live longer and healthier lives by breathing cleaner air, how industry will make savings from reduced loss of working days, and how governments will benefit from reduced costs to health services. They say the evidence comes from a large number of studies published over the last 20 years that show that sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions are linked to higher rates of death and respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and the exacerbation of asthma symptoms, and cardiac problems.So there you have it: raising greenhouse gas emissions standards saves lives. For more, read the report: The Co-Benefits to Health of a Strong EU Climate Change Policy. (pdf)
Yesterday, I read that the United Kingdom was dropping its only remaining objections to the UN Convention on the Rights of Child, bringing its child immigration policy up to the standards of this fundamental human rights text. From a quick look through the FAQs section on the website of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF, the organization that spearheads efforts to implement the Convention), I made the unfortunate discovery that the UK was not the only one not to have fully adopted this treaty.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify--but has yet to do so.Somalia? The U.S. government may have its foibles, but it is at least a functioning, recognized government. Sadly, the explanation for the U.S. "delay" in ratification is even more galling.
[T]he US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.If supporting human rights for different segments of the population has to be prioritized, then these priorities are in need of serious recalibration. They are also clearly in need of a boost, as neither treaty has yet been ratified, putting the United States in a rather ignominious position on the world stage. Washington has made many legitimate criticisms of the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the body not to shy away from real human rights crises. Surely, the need to uphold the basic human rights of women and children fits under this category, and the United States could signal a more honest commitment to human rights around the world by putting these two treaties into practice. With human rights conventions and the Human Rights Council alike, engagement, not estrangement, will accomplish far more in both defending human rights and ensuring that every country plays by the rules.
Climate change is a clear and present danger to residents of small island states. Via GoGreenTube.
From today's New York Times
While I applaud "Failing the World's Poor" (editorial, Sept. 24), neither the editorial nor most of the world leaders at the United Nations who addressed the crisis in development made the connection to what we know from research and experience -- that investing in women is one of the most effective ways to advance human development. It leads to better outcomes not only for women and their families, but also for the society over all. Perhaps this is because there are only eight women heads of state among the more than 190 world leaders represented at the United Nations General Assembly. June Zeitlin Exec. Dir., Women's Environment and Development Organization New York, Sept. 24, 2008It's true. Check out this Christian Science Monitor article about a new study which argues "as women progress in developing nations, so do those countries' economies." Read the survey,Girls Count, for more detailed data.
In addition to their Huff Post piece on a new China-Darfur strategy, the prodigious folks over at the ENOUGH project today also released a statement on the faltering peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo's increasingly volatile eastern region. According to their analysis, the Congolese government has basically fallen flat on its political commitments to negotiate with the rebel National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP). Instead, the authors argue, Kinshasa has attempted to sideline the CNDP, while -- to compensate for its military weakness -- inappropriately relying on the UN peacekeeping mission in the country, MONUC, to mount offensives against CNDP and other armed elements.
The CNDP has not been blameless, of course, and tensions threaten to erupt into full-scale war. Trapped in the middle are the MONUC peacekeepers. While ENOUGH's report criticizes the mission for condemning rebel atrocities more often that the Congolese army's equally egregious transgressions, it also identifies the untenable bind in which Kinshasa is forcing MONUC.
[T]he Congolese government has expected MONUC to fight its war against Nkunda, and periodically blamed the UN for failing to dislodge the CNDP. Recent public protests against MONUC are a grim indication that blaming the UN resonates with frustrated and war-weary Congolese civilians. This cynical strategy by the Congolese government of failing to implement agreements while simultaneously blaming the peacekeepers for the eroding situation may well make things much worse.If only such a "cynical strategy" were limited to DR Congo. UN blue helmets are stationed all over the world in incredibly difficult situations, at times with only skimpy Rules of Engagement and an overly constrictive mandate. Too often they are scapegoated for the failings, deceptions, and aggressions of governments, rebel groups, and, yes, the international community that deployed them. The civilians on the ground, who cannot peer into the back rooms of peace negotiations where promises are made and broken, should not be manipulated as vessels of propaganda. If parties truly have the interests of their people at heart, then they should help peacekeepers keep a peace, rather than use them to try to tear one apart.
Neil MacFarquhar of The New York Times reports that some tangible good news for Darfur may have come out of the UN General Assembly.
United Nations officials emerged with a commitment for 18 helicopters for the peacekeeping force there from Ukraine. There were so many conditions attached by Ukraine, however, including using private contractors and getting approval from the embattled Parliament, that it remained unclear whether a solution for the long quest for 24 helicopters had really been found.Given the tumultuous state of Ukrainian politics right now, this latter requirement seems a daunting obstacle. Plus, Ukraine's last shipment of military vehicles to Sudan (if Kiev even knew that was their likely eventual destination) probably would have violated an arms embargo had it not first been seized by pirates. There's certainly no embargo on equipping a UN peacekeeping mission, though, nor is there any doubt how desperately the blue helmets in Darfur need the helicopters, so let's hope that the political hurdles are cleared and that the choppers don't run into any sort of "air pirates" en route.
China assumes the rotating presidency of the Security Council tomorrow, meaning it will have the lead role in setting the Council's agenda for the month of October. The last time China held the Council presidency was July 2007--when it helped steer the process of authorizing a peacekeeping mission to Darfur. Since then, though, many human rights activists have been dismayed by China's alliances with Zimbabwe, Burma, and Sudan--and have complained that China uses its influence at the Security Council to protect those regimes.
For much of the last three years, many in the activist community used the Beijing Olympics as leverage to secure China's cooperation on Darfur and on human rights issues more broadly. Now that the Olympics are over, the Enough Project's John Prendergast and David Sullivan argue for a new, more sustainable approach. From HuffPo:
[A] new administration in Washington and activists around the world need to focus on Beijing's investment strategy, demonstrating how its economic interests are undermined by its present foreign policy and offering China real alternatives. A more sober examination is required in order to ascertain how the Chinese government might be motivated to become a more constructive actor in support of peace and human rights. There are two points of leverage: one positive and one negative. On the positive side, as China increasingly integrates into the global economy, Beijing must play by the rules if it wants others to do so. China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 was based on the calculation that the economic benefits of globalization outweighed the cost of abiding by international norms. But today an emboldened China skirts the rules on everything from underage gymnasts to product safety and intellectual property rights. The U.S. should remind China that defying basic human rights, environmental and labor standards will rebound negatively on its commercial interests, particularly by using multilateral mechanisms like the W.T.O. to impose a cost on China's errant practices. On the negative side lurks the greatest threat to China's long-term growth potential. By allying itself with some of the world's worst dictators for the spoils of today's resource grab, the bill will be paid tomorrow by rebels and opposition officials who will remember who kept their enemies in power.Read the whole thing.