Developments in Chad have International Analysts, Aid Groups and the UN on Edge.
Chad, one of Africa's poorest countries is now the site of intense diplomatic negotiations
Over the past 5 years, genocide and proxy wars have ravaged the border region between the African nations of Sudan and Chad. However, in the face of strong misgivings by the United Nations and the international community, thawing relations between the countries’ leaders may bring an end to the cross-border battles and result in the expulsion of UN peacekeeping troops. Many international analysts, aid groups and the UN are on edge.
Chad’s President Idriss Deby said last Wednesday that he would travel to Khartoum this week for talks with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, his first visit there in six years of rocky relations between the two oil-producing rivals. Mr. Deby who has been in power since 1991 and pushed through a successful referendum eliminating term limits in 2006, is widely regarded as one of Africa’s most corrupt leaders. Mr. al-Bashir, we should not forget, has been indicted for war crimes by the International Court of Justice for his role in the Darfur genocide and does not rank any higher on the corruption chart.
Chad and Sudan have repeatedly traded accusations against each other, while overtly supporting each other’s rebel groups through weapons and safe havens. Sudanese backed rebels even nearly succeeded in taking control of Chad’s capital in February 2008, before being driven back by Deby’s forces. However, a new agreement between the two counties to form a joint border patrol has resulted in the government of Chad refusing to allow the United Nations to continue its peacekeeping and humanitarian role in the country. “We have officially notified the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General of our wish to not renew MINURCAT’s mandate,” said General Oky Dagache, Chadian President Idriss Deby’s representative to the MINURCAT, as the UN mission in Chad is known.
One might deduct that this stipulation was a quid-pro quo request of Sudan’s government in the agreement as well.
view large map
The expulsion of the UN in this country would be a profound mistake at this time, but the governments of Chad and Sudan seem unconcerned about the practical ramifications. The UN force in Chad has been fulfilling a critical role in the maintenance of peace and order, the training of police forces and local judiciary, and the delivery of essential humanitarian aid assistance. After many years, the toxic mixture of armed rebel groups, drought conditions, corruption, oil profits and millions of refugees has critically impaired the people in this region to project and feed themselves.
The peacekeeping mission, established by the Security Council in 2007, is mandated to protect civilians and refugees as well as promote human rights and peace in the troubled northeastern part of the Central African Republic and eastern Chad. Right now 3,032 uniformed troops from 40 countries are stationed at four forward bases.
Sources at the UN Department of Peacekeeping say this posturing by Chad could be a ploy to extract greater concessions from the UN and reduce the scope of the mission, but others think Chad is not bluffing. Both Chad’s and Sudan’s leaders see the international presences as an infringement on their sovereignty and would like international observers out of this region so they could suppress rebel groups.
Despite Chad’s request, some western governments are maintaining a wait and see attitude. 200 Irish soldiers are still scheduled to depart on Sunday (Feb 7) for a four-month tour of duty and UN diplomats engaged in high-level discussions with Chad over the peacekeeping mission’s mandate have been reportedly instructed by the United States not to make any agreements in Chad, before returning to UNHQ in New York to debrief others. We’ll certainly look forward to upcoming developments.
Haiti and Dr. Shah’s First Test
Over the last week, the world has been watching the brutal aftermath of a 7.0 earthquake, which struck Haiti last Tuesday afternoon. For Rajiv Shah, the execution and delivery of relief efforts are to be his first test since taking over the US Agency for International Development (USAID) this past Christmas Eve. However, in the coming weeks ahead, after the initial nutritional, shelter and hygienic needs of Haiti are met – a real development plan for Haiti must be made.
Supplies being unloaded onto Haiti's airport tarmac photo/Google Earth
While this seismic tragedy was unexpected, the knowledge that Haiti was a fragile and poor nation with a struggling government was not. It has had a United Nations peacekeeping force and developmental presence in Haiti since 1993. In the first hours after the earthquake struck the county’s flimsy structure was easily apparent and swift action was taken by the US government to provide basic logistical services that the Haitian government could not. Many other governments have pledged support, but the US has essentially taken over the command and control functions of the entire relief operation, with the US Federal Aviation Administration dictating all air traffic into Port-au-Prince’s airport and the Pentagon coordinating every supply airlift and sea delivery.
One bright spot is the outpouring of civilian assistance and humanitarian aid from all parts of the world. Boosted by new donation streams such as mobile text messages and online social networking sites, these contributions have generated tens of millions of dollars with The American Red Cross alone reporting over $10 million in mobile txt donations late Friday evening. At the same time, aid workers armed with technology are using their mobile phones to pin point their locations as trouble spots on Google Maps and share this geographical information with command and distribution centers. However, while these and other factors such as Haiti’s proximity to the US are in its favor, years of abject poverty, ignored development, UN bureaucracy and weak state institutions are compounding the earthquake’s tremors.
As USAID’s Administrator, Dr. Shah is a competent professional, with previous stints at the US Department of Agriculture and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to his official USAID bio he earned his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and M.Sc. in Health Economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and also attended the London School of Economics. Not too shabby…but Haiti will be harder than any other test he has had to face.
The relief efforts will go on for some time, but when the US leaves, albeit probably not any time soon, Haiti’s people need to be able to hold up their own economy and communities again. As USAID marshals its own plan for Haiti’s recovery, job creation, exportable goods and outsourced services must be the end goal of any development scheme. Good luck Dr.
The Paralysis of Copenhagen and the Potential of Cochabamba
An Opportunity to Stop Burning Coal
Op-Ed Contributor:
Jim Gonzalez Founder and Chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project
In a bold move that could recoup the momentum that was lost at the disappointing Copenhagen Climate Conference, Bolivian President Evo Morales has challenged governments “who want to work with their people” to come to Cochabamba on April 20-22, 2010 to work on meaningful climate change reform. President Morales is inviting indigenous peoples, social movements, scientists and environmentalists from throughout the world to attend.
Here is why I will attend.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference was meant to unify the world in bold action to save the planet. Instead, inaction and indifference prevailed in a lemming march to the global warming tipping point — led in large part by the rich nations of the developed world.
Those who will suffer most as a result of climate change are often ignored in a rich world debate about cap and trade. The threat of climate change on the lifestyles of the richest countries is highlighted at the expense of the life and death struggles of the subsistence poor. In truth, the rich may be able to shift their buying power to avoid the impact of climate change, but it is the poor who will die in the wake of rising sea levels and hemispheric droughts.
The data and scientific evidence are compelling. Scientists from the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced that global carbon dioxide levels in 2008 were a staggering 40% higher than in 1990. This means that sea levels may rise as much as one meter by 2100, nearly twice as much as was projected just two years ago by the IPCC. To abate a global climate disaster by keeping global warming under two degrees Celsius, per capita carbon emissions will have to decrease by at least 80% below the 1990 per capita emissions from developed nations.
This is a tall order that can be accomplished only through facing the truth about the greatest source of global warming pollution – burning dirty coal to generate electricity.
The one statistic big utilities and corporate polluters hope the public never focuses on is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) estimate that over 40% of man-made carbon emissions in the United States are attributable to the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal) to generate electricity.
(Ironically, in the United States the coal industry cheerily advertises that over half of our electricity comes from coal; and Congress debates the infusion of billions of dollars on carbon capture and sequestration, aka “clean coal”, in an attempt to extend the life of over 600 U.S. coal fired plants.)
Amidst the disappointments of Copenhagen and the new opportunity of Cochabamba are the horrific coal burning statistics which are at the very core of the global warming crisis. These statistics — if ever honestly dealt with — would provide the single most effective solution to human caused global warming.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, from 2002 to 2007, China doubled its use of coal – 3 billion tons of coal, more than three times that of the United States. The impact of coal burning on the environment and its relationship to greenhouse gas pollution and global warming is incontrovertible. And yet, these statistics are brushed aside as the popular debate turns to speculative engineering adventures, “freakonomics” geo-engineering, carbon “capture and sequestration,” or to the creation of yet another Wall Street derivative market through the cap and trade gamble.
If we are to be truthful about the crisis we are in, and if we are to examine scientific data – and yes, statistics – with cold realism, we are led inevitably to one undeniable conclusion: we must end coal burning to generate electricity- and if we do we will halt, and possibly reverse, human caused global warming.
Although scientific evidence and data has been essential in understanding and confronting the climate crisis, too often the profit motive has trumped sound national and international policy. In this case, the facts clearly indicate that coal burning is way too profitable for Big Utility cheerleaders to be inspired to do the right thing.
Owning a coal plant – particularly an older coal plant — is, in effect, like owning a diamond, or gold mine; or an unlimited license to print money. A lot of mega-polluters are dependent on coal profits at the expense of the environment: the mountain top removal mining companies, the railroads which transport coal and the big utilities (both private and public) which burn coal.
So, in the wake of the paralysis of Copenhagen and the potential of Cochabamba, it is time to start focusing on the coal electricity monopolies that are the chief culprits of the climate crisis. Retiring coal plants in the United States and China is the most efficient and effective way to solve the global warming crisis; and to usher in the worldwide green economy. Since world leaders stumbled at Copenhagen, hopefully now the people will lead the march to save Mother Earth in Cochabamba.
Jim Gonzalez is the founder and chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project, a grass roots campaign to hold utilities and policy makers accountable to their commitments to a clean energy future. Jim Gonzalez is a former member of the elected Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, California. www.reapinfo.org
New Regulation for a $300 Trillion Market
New York – The Council on Foreign Relations hosted Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission this morning for a frank conversation on regulating the OTC derivatives markets. These transactions are currently unregulated and according to Gensler account for almost $300 Trillion in notional principle. See video report below.
US Healthcare Bill’s $871 Billion Question.
Will this risky experiment be deemed brilliant political gamesmanship or obsession bordering on folly?
By: Freedom-Kai Phillips
They say what does not kill you, makes you stronger. The Democrats are sure hoping that to be true of their recent initiative, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.3590). Amid widespread scepticism a myriad of potential roadblocks have been strategically overcome, and the Senate has come to a historical point in its pursuit of comprehensive healthcare reform. Yet, optimism aside, judgement must remain reserved until the practical costs – both economic and social – of this monumental piece of legislation are fully considered.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have inspired LBJ like comparisons for his Senate mastery, but will the healthcare bill deliver real results? (AP Photo/APTN)
With the potential societal impact being so broad, this bill will prove to be a defining moment for not just the ambitious Obama administration, but the country as a whole. However, observers will not chronicle this event with the rosy undertones offered at press conferences, or the financial models put forward on the Senate floor. Nor, should one be deceived simply by the alluring proposition of increased public access to the American healthcare infrastructure. Rather, attention must be concentrated on the ramifications stemming from the fragile alliance forged to pass the bill; and herein lays the conundrum. As the requisite super-majority needed for overcoming the Republican filibuster was assembled by Senate Democrats, a delicate balance was struck to ensure the essential support of two key Senators, Ben Nelson (D-Neb), and Joe Lieberman (Ind-Ct). However, the resulting compromised bill now conflicts with the previously passed House version on the crucial issue of a “public option.” As many pundits are in agreement that the final amalgamated version will leave healthcare covered entirely by private insurers, the $871 billion question is: will this risky experiment be deemed brilliant political gamesmanship or obsession bordering on folly? Continue Reading…
Top 5 Diplomatic and Power Moves in 2009
It was a unique and troubling year in international affairs and global diplomacy. I am fully aware and admit that this list will not be complete, conclusive or correct in everyone’s opinion. I may even be lucky to agree with you on only 1, or perhaps, 2 events. Nevertheless, the intention is to invite your own lists, and suggestions for mine.
2010, or twently-ten, is going to be a rapid and complex period in international history. Twenty-ten does have a nice ring to it.
5) Seeing nuclear power developing in Iran, the rest of the Middle East’s/Persian Gulf’s powers aim for nuclear programs as well. The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran.
4) US continues to grow UAV attacks in Pakistan, hunt and kill Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. Issue becomes a major public outrage during Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October. Reliance on robotic remote-control vehicles grew quickly in US armed forces.
3) Israel launched major offensive into Gaza. before declaring a unilateral ceasefire before the Obama inauguration. Israel said that it was discontinuing its 22-day-old assault on Hamas, saying the objective of disabling Hamas’s military capabilities had been achieved. Peace plan made no, if not backward progress in 2009.
2) Beijing and New Delhi get Nuclear Hotline. 
The leaders of India and China agreed to set one up between New Delhi and Beijing, highlighting concerns that a worsening border dispute could quickly become the first major conflict of the multipolar era.
1) Kim Jong Il says “skrew you, I’ll do whatever I want, bitches,” to the United States. In January 2009, Pyongyang refused to accept terms proposed by the US and decided to wait out the Bush administration, which foolishly took North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism. In April North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile despite widespread international opposition, testing the young Obama Presidency. When the UN Security Council tightened sanctions Kim Jong Il expelled international nuclear inspectors.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its second nuclear test, again the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to tighten sanctions.
In August 2009, former President Bill Clinton paid a dramatic 20-hour visit to North Korea, in which he won the freedom of two captured American journalists, opened a diplomatic channel to North Korea’s reclusive government and dined with the North’s ailing leader, Kim Jong-il. The North Korean government, had sentenced the Current TV journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory. Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denied that Mr. Clinton had apologized.
Finally, North Korea keeps up its arms trade business. A shipment of arms and apparently sophisticated missiles from North Korea was seized in Thailand, on a tip from American intelligence agencies, as officials try to determine whether the cargo was headed to South Asia or the Middle East.
Do you agree? What are your top 5? Tell us.
NYTimes World
-
-
Join us on Facebook
