More natural disaster

China's southwestern Sichuan province was hit by a major earthquake today...

One of the worst earthquakes in decades struck central China on Monday, killing nearly 9,000 people, trapping about 900 students under the rubble of their school and causing a toxic chemical leak, state media reported.

The 7.8-magnitude earthquake devastated a hilly region of small cities and towns. The official Xinhua News Agency said 8,533 people died in Sichuan province and more than 200 others were killed in three other provinces and the mega-city of Chongqing.

The death toll is likely to break 10,000.

The Chinese government has actually done a fairly good job responding to the post-earthquake humanitarian needs of its people. Conveniently trembles from the quake were felt in Beijing, so the government could not even attempt to mask the damage this earthquake has brought (a 1976 earthquake killed hundreds of thousands; the government attempted to cover it up).

America's troubling abstinence program in Africa

President Bush has been on a tour of Africa, where he maintains at least a modicum of popularity due to his aid programs there (although that aid sometimes makes things worse). Also on the American leader's agenda was dealing with China's growing influence in the region, fueled by its thirst for oil in nations such as Nigeria and Sudan.

The New York Times reported

Mr. Bush used a news conference to address the widespread suspicion that the United States planned to establish military bases in Africa as it expanded its strategic role on the continent. And for the first time, he suggested that he might consider dropping a requirement that one-third of AIDS prevention dollars be spent on abstinence programs — but only if he was convinced that the approach was not working.
...
Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration’s requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative’s prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

A president needs to be elected who won't require a certain amount of money be spend on abstinence programs. People will continue to have sex no matter what, and that means the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Contraception and overall sexual education should be one of the highest priorities for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Belief in abstinence-only programs —  confusing teachers, harming schools, and not properly educating people — is one of Bush's more dangerously irrational religious beliefs, which exists primarily to gain the support of the supposed millions of people who believe that condoms are the devil. Why do you think America has the highest teen pregnancy rate in in the developed world (see map)? In fact, "pro-life" people should like contraception, since it would lower the rate of abortions and terminations of unwanted pregnancies. America's domestic program of withholding important sexual information and instead supplying abstinence-only programs has been listed as a human rights concern by Human Rights Watch.

The US's foreign policy relating to aid for AIDS program not only needs more funding — one improvement this administration has brought about — but the abstinence requirement must be dropped. Who knows how many have contracted STDs and died because of lack of proper education of sex, and lack of options. There is nothing promiscuous about governments handing out condoms or information on contraception. Withholding those devices and that information is harmful to cause of most of us who want to stop the spread of AIDS and let a woman choose whether she wants to get pregnant.

An overlooked Chad inherits regional problems

Thousands of Darfur refugees have spilled over into Chad, adding to the instability.

"Since Friday, following the bombing in west Darfur, 12,000 people have crossed from Darfur to Chad in an area called Birak," said Helene Caux, a spokeswoman for the UNHCR.

Chad may turn out worse than neighboring Sudan, where much of this trouble originated in (see final paragraph).

Meanwhile the UN is attempting to provide aid to the tens of thousands of Chadians fleeing their capitol.

Even as there is fighting in the capitol, there are fears of a cross-border war between Sudan and Chad.

A senior UN official on Friday warned that a reported proxy war between Sudan and Chad through rebel groups on each side of their border threatened to destabilize the region and could lead to a wider conflict.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the French head of UN peacekeeping operations, made the remarks to the Security Council as Sudanese troops attacked three communities in western Darfur, killing dozens of civilians, according to a Darfur rebel chief.

This is all likely to raise Chad's rank on the Failed States Index, as divisions within the country ignite in violence, and conflict from Sudan reaches across Chad's eastern border.

In all three of these stories, the UN is involved, which is — for the most part — a good thing.

While the Darfur conflict in Sudan is roughly localized to a specific region, the fighting and instability in Chad affects the entire country, including the capitol, thus endangering a larger number of people. Not to play down the seriousness of Sudan's genocide, of course. But at the moment, since a UN force is already forming in Darfur, Chad looks to be a more pressing issue. Instability doesn't stop at the border. Khartoum isn't in flames; but Ndjamena practically is.

Semi-rare find: good news about the world!

According to the UN, global child mortality has dropped dramatically to a record low in recent years, thanks to initiatives against diseases like measles and malaria in developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa still remains the worst region for child mortality, but things are improving.

The number of children dying around the world has fallen below 10 million a year for the first time since records began in 1960.

Figures released today by Unicef showed that global deaths of children fell to an estimated 9.7 million in 2005, down from nearly 13 million in 1990.
...
The most important advances, according to Unicef, included:
· vaccination drives cutting measles deaths by 60% since 1999
· women breastfeeding rather than using dirty water
· babies sleeping under mosquito nets
· babies getting vitamin A drops which reduce the risk of measles, diarrhoea and malaria

Of the 9.7 million children who die each year, 3.1 million are from south Asia, and 4.8 million are from sub-Saharan Africa. West and central Africa have the highest rates of child mortality, with more than 150 deaths per every 1,000 children under five, which compares to six per 1,000 in North America, western Europe and Japan.
...
Dr Salama estimated that the global community would need another £2.5bn in order to achieve the UN's millennium goal.

Peru's quake disaster

Hundreds dead. An entire city wiped out.

No, this isn't Iraq, which is still experiencing bomb attacks — like the one a few days ago in the north part of the country — that kill hundreds. This is the South American nation of Peru:

The death toll along Peru’s earthquake-ravaged southern coast climbed to 510 today, a top fire department official said, with at least 17,000 people displaced and wide areas without power, telephone service or road access.

The city of Pisco was hit especially hard; its mayor estimated that 70% of the city is now wiped out. At least 300 have died in port city Pisco, which is located "about 125 miles south of Lima", the nation's capitol, says the NYT (above).

Aftershocks have continued on Peru's coast.

This summer has been crowded with natural disasters: floods in South Asia (which has affected millions; probably the worst disaster of the year, plus it was ignored by some areas of the MSM), heatwaves in Eastern Europe, and other incidents, including some in already-famished North Korea, not to mention this earthquake in Peru. These past few months have also seen carnage caused by humans: bombs in Iraq; the usual killing sprees around the globe resulting in destruction and woe for many.

Depressing as this all is, the best one can do is see if one can help: donate time or money, or at least alert others to the humanitarian plight of others. It may not be the cheeriest of subjects, but ignoring world events won't do anyone any good. One cannot just turn a blind eye to the blood being split and do nothing and expect things to fix themselves. If you can do something to help, then why not do it?

When charity hurts

I'm not referring to dependency, such as when the unemployed get dependent on welfare or the starving on the food of others, but to the allegedly counter-intuitive African food aid policies America has practiced.

CARE, one of the world's biggest charities, is walking away from about $45 million a year in federal funding, saying American food aid is not only plagued with inefficiencies, but may hurt some of the very poor people it aims to help.

Its decision, which has deeply divided the world of food aid, is focused on the practice of selling tons of American farm products in African countries that in some cases compete with the crops of struggling local farmers.

"If someone wants to help you, they shouldn't do it by destroying the very thing that they're trying to promote," said George Odo, a CARE official who grew disillusioned with the practice while supervising the sale of American wheat and vegetable oil in Nairobi.

Under the system, the U.S. government buys the goods from American agribusiness, ships them overseas on mostly American-flagged carriers and then donates the goods to the aid groups. The groups sell the products in poor countries and use the money to fund their anti-poverty programs there.

As Congress considers a new farm bill, neither the Bush administration nor representatives are looking to undo the practice, known as "monetization." In fact, some of the nonprofit groups say it has worked well and are pressing for sharp increases in the tonnage of American food shipped for sale and distribution to support development programs.
...
"What's happened to humanitarian organizations over the years is that a lot of us have become contractors on behalf of the government," said Odo of CARE. "That's sad but true. It compromised our ability to speak up when things went wrong."

If CARE is correct, what the United States is doing is helping, not hurting, the people it is giving 'charity' to. It seems that instead of focusing on the task at hand — helping the poor, namely in Africa — US politicians are trying to milk this 'monetization' deal for all it's worth: by courting the struggling and already ridiculously subsidized US farming and agriculture industry. The Democrats wouldn't dare hurt the grasslands vote, nor would the Republicans or the environmentally-inefficient and counterintuitive corn ethanol-loving Bush administration.

In fact all of Capitol Hill seems to be scrambling to court the farmers. And while they say they're helping the environment and reducing dependence on foreign oil (e.g. ethanol), or saving starving children in Africa, in reality they are making it all worse while reaping in the political benefits, whatever they may be, of having American agricultural sector on their side(s).

We already know corn ethanol is counter-intuitive (it takes more net energy to make it than it gives out), although billions have already been wasted on it and it has resulted in higher prices of corn (among other commodities); is much of the US's foreign food aid the same way? Maybe Odo's wrong, but the allegations make sense.

UNI: UN in Iraq

While Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) remains a strong negative — albeit over-hyped — actor in the country, maybe the UN will be a positive one.

A united force in Mesopotamia?
About time the Security Council took action to widen the United Nation's reach in Iraq...

With a show of 15 hands, resolution 1770 was adopted unanimously at the UN Security Council, paving the way for a wider, political role for the UN in Iraq and a bigger presence inside the war-torn country.

The number of staff will only increase from 65 to 95 - a small but very symbolic step for the world body, which withdrew most of its 600 staff from Baghdad four years ago, in the wake of a massive attack on its headquarters.

Under the new resolution, sponsored by the US and the UK, the UN will now be authorised to help the Iraqi government to promote national reconciliation and regional dialogue on issues such as border security, energy and refugees.

It will also help settle disputes over internal boundaries - all tasks in which the US is seen to have failed so far in Iraq.

The Iraqis have welcomed the resolution, but said they realise the onus was on them as well.

This is relatively good news for Iraq. Borders, energy, and refugees are some of the biggest issues facing Iraq. They're also complex and often multinational issues that need to be dealt with on an international level, not by an incompetent occupier seen as imperialistic and out to steal Iraq's oil wealth (I think that notion was disproven long ago). Iraq's borders is a matter of security; foreign extremists and terrorists are seeping in through the borders daily to worsen the situation in Iraq. Energy is a political and economic issue. Iraq has many refugees; more and more flee the country every day and they are becoming a major focus for humanitarian groups.

Terrorists crossing Iraq's borders into the country, a lack of economic progress and energy insecurity, and the instability in Iraq and bordering nations caused by refugees (which also breeds extremism) all combine to make a very volatile and dangerous Iraq. All three fuel Iraq's civil war and each has its own area: security, economy/politics, and humanitarian. There is no magic fix, but the UN will certainly be able to work those issues out better than America. In addition, nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran launching proxy wars in Iraq and supporting terrorist movements may be dealt with better by the international diplomatic community — in conjunction with involved parties — than by the US.

Some questions about this symbolic move:

Will it increase international support and legitimacy for the US-led occupation?

Will the US really do its job in protecting the UN staff; will fighters target it or let it be to help their own political image?

Is it really as important symbolically as it seems?

Will it pave the way for more diplomatic progress on war-torn Iraq?

Will there be more expansion?

Are peacekeeping operations coming soon? Whose backing would they have? Is there enough support, money, and troops for an effective peacekeeping force? (The best case for the above question would be if peoples who Iraqis feel little animosity towards took a large role in the operations. Muslim-majority states like Indonesia were apparantly open to the option a while back, but since the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially Baghdad, has worsened, and America remains defiant of its occupation, that option is shrinking.)

Will Sudan weasel out of this one?

Late last month, the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur, in Sudan. In the western region of Darfur, what some (including me) call genocide has raged on since 2003, resulting in the deaths of a minimum of 200,000 people and the rape of many more. Millions have exited Darfur, seeking refuge, and the conflict appears to have spread to neighboring Chad, destabilizing the region.

HELP!
Khartoum has remained defiant, as I've blogged about, and the current AU force there is unable to do its job because of the government's undermining tactics. Although a hybrid UN-AU force was agreed upon earlier this year Sudan's government has been doing everything possible to prevent it from helping its people — pressure from China was essential for the plan to go through.

Compromised operation
Resolution 1769 was passed unanimously. It has been called weak by some, probably because the need to placate China, which has a permanent seat on the Security Council and has ties to the Sudanese government (Sudan has what everyone wants: oil). However, it's better to have some than none and sometimes, even on humanitarian issues, concessions are needed to see the plan through. Diplomacy's all about compromise; China's vote was needed for this resolution and the people of Darfur have waited and suffered long enough.

BBC News:

The mandate for the 26,000-strong force was watered down to appease critics and it will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat.

The new UN-AU mission head welcomed the move but urged a political solution "as there needs to be a peace to keep".

The warring factions in the four-year conflict are due to meet on Friday.
...
The mission, to be known as Unamid - the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur - is expected to cost up to $2bn (£1.1bn) a year and will be world's largest peacekeeping force.
...
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the mission as "historic and unprecedented".
...
The new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and it does not have the powers to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court.

Rebels
In a recent update:

Most of Darfur's rebel groups have agreed on a common position and want "final" talks with Sudan's government within two or three months.

A political solution is needed, though, and the Darfur groups rebelling against the government know that. The rebel groups often shift positions following agreements so this is by no means a final accord.

Resolution lacking resolve (?)
This new international force will be able to actually use force and defend local citizens and the foreign workers there from state-backed rebels and even state forces themselves (a key reason humanitarian work there has been stinted). It will number around 26,000 and, as stated above, consists of United Nations and African Union peacekeepers. The first of the troops should arrive in October. Everyone but the leaders in Khartoum have been pushing for a peacekeeping force in Darfur — the civilians, the aid agencies, the rebels, foreign governments. The Darfur rebel groups seem to be content with the resolution.

Sanctions — which were suggested by the Bush administration a while back (all talk, no action) — have been taken off the table with this resolution. So what leverage does the peacekeeping force have over Khartoum? Next to none, it seems.

The fact that it is fueling the genocide aside, isn't it reprehensible that the Sudan is keeping even the most basic and essential aid from reaching its own citizens? In the end of all this, who will get off scot-free, and who will have to face justice?

The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

States, failed and failing

The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine have published the 2007 Failed States Index.

The index measures the vulnerability of failure for 177 of the states surveyed — i.e. the chance of outright collapse. As the index says,

The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.

The index uses 12 socio-economic and political indicators to score the potential for failure for each nation.

Let's see who made the top-12 cut this year...
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Côte d'Ivoire
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
11. Haiti
12. Pakistan

Most of the states are in Africa (eight), and the rest are in the Middle East (three) — hold Haiti, a turmoil-stricken Caribbean nation.

Let's now take a look at these top 12 most faltering nation-states. Sudan is number one. Because of the state-encouraged ethnic genocide and fighting in its Darfur region, among other political reasons including international pressure, Sudan is a breeding ground for state collapse and instability.

Iraq is another obvious one: the sectarian civil war and the insurgency arising from the occupation, not to mention an unbelievably week government that even the strongest military force on the planet has a hard time keeping up. Iraq practically is a failed state.

Next is Somalia, which is more worse off governmentally than Iraq. The consensus a few years ago kept in line with the common wisdom about the Horn of Africa state: it is a failed one. Islamic rebels, traditional warlords, and foreign troops (Ethiopians supported by America) are all forces pushing this country on the brink of irreversible collapse. Its people aren't doing too well either. In the cases of both Somalia and Iraq, the worst fighting and actions posing the strongest threat to stability occur in the capitals, Mogadishu (I spelled it correctly on my first try!) and Baghdad, respectively.

Zimbabwe is high up on the list because of the humanitarian and economic disaster there. The inflation rate is tin the thousands and the thuggish leader Robert Mugabe shows no signs of giving up power, but even his own party is becoming discontented.

Chad is inheriting a lot of the problems of its neighbor Sudan. It also has problems of its own similar to the other failed or failing states in the index.

Côte d'Ivoire I do not know much about. From some research on the internet I have figured out the country also known as the Ivory Coast is experiencing civil war, or the aftermath of such a war. Elections have been put off time after time because of the fighting or the prospect of fighting. It has received little coverage by American media, like many other major world issues, including those talked about in the index and this blog post. Some consider the West African nation out of civil war, but the prospect of renewed fighting is daunting.

DPRC, or rather Congo has been recently stabilized by UN peacekeeping. It finally had elections last summer after years of bloody war.

Afghanistan is similar in many ways to Iraq, though not as dire: insurgency to foreign occupation, weak government, foreign and local Islamic extremist forces, etc.

Further down the list, Haiti has been in political mayhem for years now and UN peacekeepers are trying their best to maintain some form of stability.

Pakistan is facing the threat of an overthrow by extremists or other groups, and opposition to its dictatorial president Musharraf for allying himself with and against the people, with America, and with the militants. Not to mention the surprising inflammation caused my him dismissing a senior judge who disagreed with his regime's legal and political policies.

As we see, some instability is centered on certain regions (e.g. Darfur) or cities (e.g. Baghdad; Mogadishu; Port-au-Prince), whereas some is nation-wide (e.g. Zimbabwe).

Iraq and Somalia are probably the worst on the list, although none of the aforementioned 12 are by any means stellar in their state political security. If Palestine was a state — though it is looking like two right now — it would surely be near the top of the index due to its civil war and massive amounts of homegrown terrorism.

The Economist has made a map of the top 10 countries of the Failed State Index.



For more on happy topics like this one, see Conflict Meter.

More Sudanese deception

There is yet more blood on the hands of the Sudanese government and its backers as an Amnesty International report reveals.

Amnesty International has accused Sudan of violating a UN arms embargo on Darfur and is "dismayed" at Russian and Chinese arms supplies to Khartoum.
...
Amnesty says Sudan is "continuing to divert and deploy imported attack and other military aircraft... as well as firearms and ammunition... to target civilians directly".
...
"The use of all-white aircraft and helicopters... in Darfur is in violation of applicable norms of international humanitarian law."
...
The UN report, a leaked copy of which reached the New York Times this month, said Sudan was painting aircraft white to make them look like UN planes.

It had pressured the government into seemingly caving in and allowing UN peacekeepers in, but the promise seems moot. The level on which Sudan's government has hurt its own people is almost immeasurable.

Khartoum is not the only government to blame, as Russia and China both make matters worse. China has close ties to Sudan, mainly because of oil. I don't know Russia's excuse.

If the US had not deteriorated its international standing by poor diplomatic moves in the 'war on terror' — which spawned the war in Iraq — more might be done to help the people of Darfur. Of course America has also helped another state get around international legal conditions: North Korea and its sanctions-violating weapons sales to Ethiopia, which is apparently helping fight 'terrorism' in Somalia — by making it worse.

Update:
In a very (not) surprising move, China and Russia both denied supplying Sudan with weapons.

Do we really not care about Somalia?

Do we not care about Somalia?

There has been ever more fighting in Mogadishu this past month, taking the lives of over 1,000 people. Nearly half a million have fled the capital since the beginning of this year, and the situation is looking bleak. One one end is the traditional warlords, only interested in their own power, and the Ethiopian forces fighting against the Council of Islamic Courts, fueled by ideology, along with other militants. The Islamists are weak, but some more radical Islamists, possibly even some members of al Qaeda, might be pouring in to assist their 'brothers' in the fight against foreign troops, the warlords, and the very weak secular government. Somalia is a hotbed for extremist insurgency; terrorist recruiters are just waiting to turn a group of disgruntled citizens to the radical side. The UIC was forced out earlier this year, but traces remain.

Ultimately there are the Somalian troops and police, the US-backed Ethiopian troops, what's left of the UIC and some radical supporters and their militias, warlord-led militias, and the ordinary citizens stuck in the middle. Sounds a lot like Iraq: foreign troop involvement, militias and parties interested in ideology and power, an influx of radical Islamic terrorists, and a weak government. Is Mogadishu becoming the next Baghdad?

The US government has shown some interest, but only in combating Islamic forces — which has so far only empowered (more) radical movements — in the 'war on terror'. America has even aided the menacing North Korea in breaking sanctions to do so.

Just as is the case in Iraq, Sudan, Burma, and Somalia, we pay less attention to the ordinary citizens effected most than any other involved party. In Iraq a soldier's death is greeted with much more attention than the death of 10 innocents. Somalia is once again receiving more of the tragic spotlight because of 'war on terror' battlefield ties it holds.

No surprises: Sudan government hurting Darfur more

As if they hadn’t done enough by supporting and instigating the genocide…

BBC News:

The Sudanese government is "paralysing" the aid operation in its conflict-torn western region of Darfur, the US special envoy to Sudan has said.

Andrew Natsios said there had recently been a big increase in red tape and the harassment of aid workers.

He was speaking after talks with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

The operation is the biggest of its kind in the world, with about two million people in Darfur's camps fully dependent on aid agencies for food.

"The [Sudanese] government has constructed a very onerous set of bureaucratic requirements which are essentially paralysing the relief effort," Mr Natsios said after the talks in Khartoum.

The US envoy also said Khartoum had created unacceptable delays in the transition to a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan's western region.
...
Khartoum rejects plans for it to hand over to a larger, stronger UN mission, with President Bashir calling it an attempt by the West to colonise Sudan.
...
Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population, although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide.

But the current force has failed to halt attacks on civilians which has led to some two million people living in camps.

"The greatest immediate thereat to the people on the ground is the deteriorating humanitarian space in Darfur"
Andrew Natsios
US special envoy to Sudan

A recent US State Department report listed the strife in Darfur as the worst human rights abuse of 2006.

Genocide is unacceptable. Not only is President Omar al-Bashir's government preventing crucial aid, they are at fault for people even needing the aid. Hundreds of thousands have died, though it is hard to know exactly how many, in a genocide following the one in Rwanda, which killed close to a million — roughly 800,000 or more. 'Never again', said the international community, would a genocide like Rwanda happen, with ethnic fighting and government support for a side. The promise has been broken.

Out of the foreign policy maneuvers this US administration has made, the amount that have been positive ones are restricted to what I can count using my fingers. Their outspokenness on the Darfur genocide, and their proper labeling of it as 'genocide', is one of those few positives. However, not enough action has been taken. Out of the things Bush can do to brighten up what history will judge of his presidency, creating some sort of international momentum on Darfur is one of them. It is not like there are not things the international community can do to make Khartoum change its ill ways. Sudan is an oil-producing state and has contracts with many foreign powers. If countries really want to do something about Darfur, they have to squeeze the Sudanese government. UN peacekeepers are the best and only viable option, and the same government that has created the need for peacekeepers is the one keeping them out. African Union troops are underfunded, understaffed, under-trained especially for this kind of work, you name it. Plus, they don't seem to be getting anywhere because they have to avoid the militias and military instead of protecting the people they are supposed to be protecting, which is not their fault.

Genocide, and many things relating to Africa, must be particularly un-sexy — compared to foreign troop (not civilian) death and celebrities and any sort of power rhetoric — because, as I said in this post, Darfur has been greatly under-reported, especially in American media.

technorati tags: state+department, united+states, darfur, genocide, media, news, sudan, rwanda, foreign+policy, politics, un+peacekeeping, AU, US

Plenty of woe, and some promise, in Indonesia

Indonesia never escapes the headlines, which is usually a sad thing...
It seems as if there is always some sort of disaster brewing in Indonesia. Whether it’s a shipwreck or a plane crash or a tsunami or an earthquake. In fact, three of the four aforementioned have occurred in major recent incidents.

With the fire-on-ship incident a little bit ago and the earthquake (killing 82 at the least) and plane crash (killing at least 22) just this month, just within the last couple weeks disasters have killed hundreds. Unsurprisingly, the plane crash, the lesser of the two accidents this month, has garnered much more attention than its less-deadly companion, the earthquake. Aircraft problems always get more attention — like terrorism, it is a public and media obsession.

There has also been a major mudslide and another ferry incident in December, in which hundreds were killed when the boat sank. In January, a plane carrying over 100 disappeared. Just in the past month there has also been a blast at a port and deadly protests.

Corruption, poor safety records, lax government regulation, technical troubles, and poor infrastructure have all been blamed for many of the disasters, though Mother Nature has killed the most. There was a huge earthquake last year and an even larger tsunami in late December 2004, not to mention a large risk of another major tsunami last year. Terrorism still remains an issue.

Profile: Indonesia (Wikipedia, CIA factbook, Economist [1] [2])...
Indonesia is big; it is basically a collection of islands. It is the largest Muslim-majority country and the fourth largest overall country on the planet. Indonesia is also the third largest democracy, bested only by India and the United States. Indonesia is a young democracy at that, and, like India, is democratic at the high, governmental level, but runs into troubles when one zooms to the local level.

Located in the south Pacific, north of Australia and southeast of the Indian ocean, Indonesia became an independent state in 1949, after declaring independence four years earlier. With a state so vast with most areas being former colonies of the Netherlands, there was bound to be ethnic conflict.

The government has had significant trouble holding the country together. With issues like Avian bird flu and Islamic extremism (e.g. Bali nightclub bombings), the Jakarta-based republic has remained surprisingly intact.

The country gained independence led by General Sukarno, who was Indonesia’s nationalistic leader. Following a conspiracy by the Communist Party of Indonesia to unseat Sukarno in a 1965 coup, there was a power fight between Sukarno, the current president, and a military leader named Suharto. Suharto won. Most probably in a mindset of paranoia, Suharto presided over a great purge of communists, which resulted in the deaths of somewhere between hundreds and a couple of million.

Suharto finally fell in 1998 and reforms have followed. There have been plenty of separatist movements, some — plenty — still dragging on, though notable achievements include the ones with East Timor and Aceh.

technorati tags: indonesia, news, politics, sukarno, history, profile, country, facts, suharto, bird+flu, plane+crash, natural+disasters, indonesia+disasters, earthquake, tsunami

Slaughter in Sri Lanka, even with a ceasefire

AP:

European cease-fire monitors said Friday nearly 4,000 people were killed in Sri Lanka in the past 15 months and they emphasized the importance that the government and the rebels adhere to the cease-fire.

In contrast, during the three previous years, fewer than 130 people died in the ethnic conflict, the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission said in a statement.

The government changed hands about 15 months ago following the election of President Mahinda Rajapakse over moderate leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had signed the truce deal with the rebels.

The monitoring mission was called to oversee the 2002 cease-fire. Thursday marked the fifth anniversary of the truce. Some 65,000 people were killed in the conflict before the cease-fire.

Separatist Tamil rebels began fighting in 1983 for an independent homeland for Sri Lanka's 3.1 million ethnic Tamils in the north and northeast, following decades of discrimination by the country's majority Sinhalese.

These numbers to not count the people who died from eviction and starvation; both sides cause people to have to leave their homes. The toll in human numbers is much higher than the cost of lives, but the death figures are stark nonetheless, especially considering the upward trend. Hard to believe a 'cease-fire' is in place, isn't it?

This really is a tragedy. Both sides — Tamil Tiger rebels and government officials — are acting more in the interest of themselves and their goals than than their people. Whenever one side seems ready to sit down to the negotiation table, the other stands up. Whenever peace seems near, one of the sides, often Tamil, does something to break that hope of a positive end to this conflict. One might equate it to an even more dreary version of the Basque separatist conflict Spain has been facing.

technorati tags: tamil, sri+lanka, humanitarian, news, tamil+tigers, peace

Lebanon: the next Iraq? (part 1)

Bad news about Lebanon, along with the announcement by the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, that he would continue to fight to bring down the current, corrupt US-backed government (though it is all empty rhetoric; remember Hezbollah has a large say in the government and, like Hamas, has two faces: the moderate political one and the militant, charismatic, radical one). However, the fact that Lebanon is in such trouble may just be the thing holding factions like Hezbollah together in it. In a state where around one-third of residents are Shia Muslims, the government structure supposedly set up to lower religious political tension only exacerbates it.

CFR report:

For the last two months, Lebanon’s embattled government has barely managed to stay afloat in the face of massive street protests demanding the formation of a “unity government” in which the opposition would have a stronger voice. That opposition, made up of the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah and its political allies, says a desire to avoid civil strife (al-Jazeera) is all that keeps them from toppling Lebanon’s leadership. But recent clashes among rival factions in Beirut have raised fears (Al-Ahram) of another Lebanese civil war.

An International Herald Tribune editorial says at the crux of the country’s unrest lies an “archaic and unfair political system that divides the country’s top offices among rival religious communities.” But all along the front lines of Lebanon’s power struggle, broader regional forces are testing their hands (USNews). The region’s widening Shiite-Sunni rift (Economist) has become particularly contentious in Lebanon, where the recent uprising was only diffused after the region’s major Shiite and Sunni powers—Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively—intervened (AP). Iran bears substantial responsibility for the current state of affairs in Lebanon. Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah matter-of-factly acknowledged what has long been asserted by regional analysts—that his group receives money and weapons from Iran (Haaretz) by way of Syria.

Syria, too, has much at stake in Lebanon. Near the heart of Beirut’s political power struggle is a proposed hybrid court that would try suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The subject of an ongoing UN investigation, Syria’s involvement in the assassination is widely presumed.

From a political and humanitarian/human rights perspective, this is some good news dealing with Lebanon.

Lebanon Daily Star:

Two US Senators introduced legislation this week that would protect civilians from the deadly effects of cluster munitions - a bill that Human Rights Watch (HRW) said deserved "strong support." If passed into law, "The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act," sponsored by senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, would prohibit the American military from using cluster munitions in populated areas and would ban the use and transfer of cluster munitions with submunitions that have a failure rate of 1 percent or more.

"If this bill passes, it would an important step toward controlling the deadly use of cluster bombs in the world," Nadim Houry, HRW's representative in Lebanon, told The Daily Star on Thursday.

Cluster munitions, which contain dozens or hundreds of small explosive submunitions, are typically dropped from aircraft or fired from artillery or rocket systems.

Cluster bombs pose a double danger to civilians as there is an immediate danger during attacks due to their inaccuracy and wide dispersal pattern, and a long-term danger after conflict, as many remain fail to detonate and can explode years later.

The US has a stockpile of millions of cluster munitions that contain between 720 million and 1 billion submunitions. Only around 30,000 of those submunitions have safety features that might bring the failure rate below 1 percent. The acknowledged failure rate for some of the others is more than 20 percent.

"This is the second attempt at presenting this kind of bill; the first was presented after the summer 2006 war with Israel," said Houry.

According to the United Nations, Israel released millions of cluster bombs in South Lebanon, where civilian casualties are still resulting from the weapons.

"The bill is being brought up again as there was a recent change in the Senate majority," said Houry.

During the 2006 war, The New York Times reported that Israel had requested delivery of surface-launched M26 artillery rockets for use against suspected Hezbullah positions in in Lebanon. Of course, the Israelis are not targeting civilians on purpose, while Hezbollah is.

According to the HRW, the wide dispersal pattern of submunitions from M26 rockets makes it very difficult to avoid civilian casualties when [deploying] the weapons in populated areas. "If bill passes, then Israel won't be able to get the M26 rockets, as their failure rate is higher than 1 percent," said Houry.

During and following the Lebanon (Hezbollah)-Israel conflict last summer many fretted over some of the weapons used by the Israelis — for example, some of these cluster bombs (supplied by the US) — and the civilian deaths and injuries they have caused. Both sides exercised injustice: Israel in irrational decision-making, Hezbollah in the aggressive acts that set off the conflict.

technorati tags: lebanon, hassan+hasrallah, hezbollah, news, politics, cluster+bombs, israel, 2006+lebanon-israel+conflict

A new door opened for Palestine?

Hamas, which controls the Palestinian parliament (just not the executive, which is led by rival Fatah party's Mahmoud Abbas), has offered to sacrifice itself (well their Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has) if its struggling and oppressed nation can again get international aid and the tax dollars neighbouring Israel keeps taking.


This (cutting of aid, taking of tax revenues, etc.) has all created a humanitarian crisis for Palestinians. They are being bombed and attacked [by Israel] and they have basically no cash flow — especially considering that most Palestinians work for the bleed-dry government. In addition, infrastructure is still damaged from Israeli attacks over the summer and continuing now. More on this Middle East issue soon. Much happened that was ignored because of the massive coverage of US midterm elections.

From afore-linked NYT story:

Hamas committed today to folding its eight-month government if that would restore the international assistance that was cut off after it won national elections earlier this year.

...

It was a public acknowledgment that Hamas had failed to run the Palestinian Authority on its own terms in the face of an American and Israeli-led cutoff of funds and aid, and that Mr. Haniya and his government would soon be replaced by a “unity” government of technocrats, currently being negotiated with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas refused to meet the three conditions set out by the international community: to recognize the right of Israel to exist, to forswear violence and to accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements that imply a two-state solution. In turn, Israel withheld more than $50 million a month in taxes and customs collected for the Palestinians and the United States and Europe cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority.

technorati tags: hamas, palestine, israel, palestinian+authority, haniya, news, politics, middle+east, current+affairs, in+perspective, clearthought