Reengaging Sudan

Regional diplomatic and humanitarian progress in the Darfur territories continues to be ineffectual and slow. Darfur’s camps are becoming increasingly overcrowded and dangerous, and the numbers of murdered and displaced persons steadily increase with each passing day. According to United Nations estimates, over 200,000 innocents have perished and close to 2.5 million have fled their homes and villages in an effort to escape the brutality.

Casualties are now being felt on all sides. Even the humanitarian service workers, who are usually protected with tight private security as part of their nongovernmental status, are not safe. Recent atrocities committed by regional rebels exacerbate this highly unstable situation. Just last week, ten African Union peacekeepers were murdered and dozens more kidnapped in a highly organized and bloody operation close to Nyala in the central region of Darfur. This attack comes on the heels of a recently introduced three-stage joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping mission slated to commence responsibilities this month, and a highly anticipated inter-state conference on how to address the conflict, which will take place in Libya at October’s end.

In Sudan, the social apparatus is dislodged, the national economy is in complete disrepair, and the political situation speaks for itself. I hate to believe that Sudan is relegated to failed state status. After all, unlike its violent counterpart, Somalia, Sudan has vital natural resources that have the potential to help the nation stand on its own two feet so long as the violence is dramatically diminished and the government embraces neoliberal, market-driven economic policies.

It will be decades before Sudan as a whole can achieve social and economic prosperity. Even in the southern regions of Juba and Rumbek, where a cease-fire between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement has been effectively implemented, the remnants of a bloody, prolonged twenty-year ethnic and civil fratricide is more apparent than ever. This is Africa’s longest running civil war to date.

Like Darfur, there is little if any functioning infrastructure, the economy is completely fractured, and disease and poverty are rampant. Underdevelopment is an understatement. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed into effect in January 2005 and monitored by the United Nations Mission in the Sudan, has done little to stem the tide of intermittent violence and economic exploitation by the Khartoum government. It is in danger of collapse, however, due to government sabotage and international neglect, the latter a cruel irony in that preoccupation to conclude the CPA negotiations led to initial reluctance to address the developing Darfur crisis in 2003-2004.

Despite its drawbacks, the CPA has been firmly enmeshed in social and political affairs within these areas. Two initiatives need to be pursued to expedite the dividends that urgently need to be provided. First, an increased United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force should be embedded in the areas deemed vulnerable to security breaches. This does not mean moving personnel from Darfur over to the south. It means withdrawing emphasis from an aid-based led mission to one steeped in peacekeeping strategy. Once the security situation is firmly addressed, the hybrid force and UNMIS must then turn to enhancing the South’s stated right of political and economic self-determination. Sharing needed resources and decision-making capabilities with the repressive central government is detrimental to the pursuance of democratization and a respectable human rights situation. As Africa’s largest country, it is unacceptable to allow the plight of the Sudanese people to fall by the wayside. Many think that finding a peaceable solution to Sudan’s conflicts is a means to an end. This notion cannot be more wrong. If the international community is to allow stagnation to perpetuate, this only invites the possibility for renewed conflicts to erupt.

The Darfur conflict has grown increasingly complex. The violence has often been characterized as government-backed Arab tribes slaughtering non-Arab tribes, and four years ago, when the heavy fighting began, that may have been the best simplification of what was happening. But recently, Arab tribes have begun fighting Arab tribes, rebels have begun fighting rebels and armed men who seem to have no allegiances are attacking whoever crosses their path.

Understanding that much of the international community has signed on to condemn the conflict, it is critical that these global actors use their leveraging capacities to become potent arbiters and power brokers. The changing character of the Darfur crisis requires this.

The talks scheduled to take place on October 27 in Tripoli, Libya will mark definitive peace talks to end this four-year massacre. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is one of the most outspoken advocates for peace in the region. He has emphasized that the Tripoli meeting is of capital importance noting, “The forthcoming political negotiation in Libya must be a conclusive one, a final phase for a final settlement. All the leaders of the movements and concerned parties must participate. This was a consensus opinion.” But, while this conference holds major symbolic importance, we must not be mistaken as to how difficult it will be to develop a cohesive peace solution between the Sudanese government and the splintered rebel factions.

The hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission set for deployment this month is a solid effort resulting from numerous stalled talks and bickering between major players in the conflict. The UNAMID operation will effectively seek to support the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement, uphold human rights and adherence to the rule of law, and ensure the protection of its personnel and civilians. Enforcing the Darfur Peace Agreement is critical. First, it was signed by Darfur’s largest rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Movement, and second, it calls for the complete, verifiable disarmament and demobilization of the Khartoum sponsored Janjaweed militia.

UNAMID has the potential to be one of the more potent peacekeeping operations undertaken in recent history. While the operation is expected to achieve its benchmarks of initial deployment by early January, it must first overcome some of its key missing capacities. Critical ground transport and aviation are lacking. If these aspects are not delivered, the mission’s ability to carry out its work will be seriously impeded.

It is important that tangible progress be made very soon. Allowing this conflict to continue when conciliation and compromise have ostensibly been met provides very little excuse for international actors to make. The United Nations can only rely on sanctions to such an extent until it realizes there lack of utility and persuasion. Peace not only in Darfur, but throughout Sudan hinges on remaining optimistic, successful establishment of the CPA, halting the violence, and including all Sudan’s voices.

Bush, The World, and Climate Change

The stubbornness of the Bush administration to take an assertive leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very disconcerting. Three monumental conferences occurred last week that have at least brought major international players to the table for negotiation, but our government’s rejection of placing firm caps on its emissions leave little room for compromise and leadership taking.

On September 24, The United Nations General Assembly convened a unique High-Level Session in which dozens of heads of states addressed the topic. On the twenty-sixth, the Clinton Global Initiative brought governments, NGOs, intellectuals, and media to focus attention on the issues of climate change from the bottom up, in effect, the kind of pressure that comes from civil society and industry that makes it possible to achieve many of the technological changes, but keeps all of us and our governments honest. The final event had the Bush administration itself host leaders from fifteen major economies for an unprecedented meeting.

For a week, all attention was focused on the most potent global emergency human civilization has ever faced. I commend President Bush for his forward-looking vision on at least realizing the bitter reality of climate change. What I cannot understand is why he would convene such an event amongst the major economies principally responsible for the vast majority of emissions if the U.S. itself is unwilling to solidify progress on the issue’s most crucial aspect: carbon caps.

The Kyoto Protocol sets environmental goals and obligations for its signatories to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Even Russia, a country that has consistently been moving towards state centralization, signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1999 (although there was some debate over its stipulations and it did not ratify the protocol until September 2004). Regardless, the refusal of President Bush and the Australians to sign the agreement back in 2001 virtually handicaps this initiative. Kyoto expires in 2012 and numerous conferences have moved many of the world’s powerful industrial economies (including the 171 signatories) to find ways to create a more pragmatic, feasible international regime. We are lucky that Kyoto is bound for expiration in the near future; the agreement was paralyzed from the start because its provisions did not require major emitters, most notably China and India, to reduce their emissions activities.

Both the United States and China are the world largest emitters, with the U.S. producing almost 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year according to the Energy Information Administration’s most recent estimate. It seems only logical that these states lead the crusade for survival. As such, they should commit to prompt, binding, enforceable greenhouse gas reductions, not make promises about aspirational goals. Anything less will fail to seriously address global warming, and all nations will suffer the consequences.

While the U.N. conference focused on how to replace its existing treaty, President Bush’s conference took a different approach. Under the U.S. plan, there would be no minimum requirements or penalties for failing to meet goals. According to Secretary of State Rice, a “pledge and review” approach should be pursued whereby any state can create its own policy and present it at international meetings. This bake sale approach lacks a whole load of shortening. It is only really appropriate for poorer nations.

In his speech at the State Department, President Bush noted, “Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.”

Unfortunately, without mandatory cuts in these greenhouse gases, no state will transparently abide by the quota if they know full well the U.S. is not concerned with the same restrictions. The lack of third-party enforcement on this issue is a highly debilitating factor. Effectively getting nations to set their own emissions limits is not the answer. Inter-state bargaining in this fashion is no longer an option. A comprehensive, enforceable alternative to Kyoto is the only way to get every industrialized nation to set binding targets.

President Bush has effectively put the U.S. at the center of the global warming debate but has done so in the most of arrogant ways: challenging the legitimacy of the U.N. just one more time. By refusing to attend the U.N. proceedings on the twenty-fourth and instead opting to focus on his gathering of leaders the following Friday, he has impeded progress on this pandemic. History shows that competing initiatives between the world’s hegemonic power and trusted international institutions lead to grave discord.

Alleviating the world of the problems associated with climate change cannot be accomplished in a unilateralist, adventurist manner. Bush has come to believe that any problem can be solved with American might. The effects of global warming are blind to race, ethnicity, creed, or socioeconomic status. This is an issue that will require every invested power from every part of our globe to come to a joined consensus. If the U.S. will not take the lead and enforce binding commitments who will? I surely doubt China will be up to the task.

The Enduring Leader

Democracy and unfettered market capitalism have transformed international politics. With the strengthening of international institutions facilitating norms in the global political system, each state, no matter its political ideology, is susceptible to domestic political pressures. Citizens of nations are asserting their right to fair governance, freedom, and survival. While democracy is still an experimental project, it proves to be the most utilitarian option this world has to offer.

Myanmar is the latest example of a nation’s people rising together to fight governmental tyranny and oppression. September’s display of protests, led by thousands of Buddhist monks, are strong signs of revolutionary tendencies to overthrow the military junta that has controlled this nation-state for over four decades.

The pro-democracy movement has been alive in Burma for quite some time. The only problem is the military’s ruthless suppression of its own people and the spread of ideas has limited the influence of democratic principles. But, if we have learned anything from the far-reaching social revolutions in both Latin America and Eastern Europe, it is that ideals not only matter, but are crucial. With strong centralized leadership able to mobilize grassroots sectors toward popular rebellion, the political apparatus can be systematically dismantled and replaced with a newfound republic that serve the interests of its citizens while maintaining social order.

In the early 1990’s it looked as if Myanmar achieved the hopes of its people. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Aung San, the revolutionary hero during Burma’s break from colonialism and imperialism with Britain, won the democratic parliamentary elections to become Prime Minister, a true watershed moment for this impoverished Southeast Asian nation. But, almost as swift as the victory for the democratic movement came the nullification of its ruling mandate and the re-institutionalization of the military coup.

A dramatic turn of events occurred this past August. A decision by the military government to sharply raise fuel prices led to rounds of street protests in the capital, Yangon. The situation turned very serious when large number’s of the countries monks, who are widely revered, joined in.

Some of the monks have chanted “Release Suu Kyi” as they have demonstrated in the streets. On Sept. 23d over 100,000 joined in processions led by monks, according to an estimate by The Associated Press. About 500 of the monks marched to the gate of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s home where she greeted them -- the first time she had been seen in public for four years. The government responded the next day by warning senior Buddhist clerics of a crackdown if the monks were not reined in.

Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, has been under house arrest for most of the time since then. Nevertheless she remains a martyr and rallying symbol for the population. It is precisely this aspect that fuels and strengthens the possibility for a successful popular uprising. Even in detention, with her words virtually silenced, she is still the symbol for consciousness, egalitarianism, and nonviolent resistance. Like Gandhi and Mandela before her, she has suffered greatly, but her calls for democracy have not gone unheard. In one of her landmark speeches entitled “Freedom from Fear”, she notes, “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

The intellectual underpinnings of her adapted philosophy of nonviolent resistance have garnered international attention and acclaim. Following her acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, she donated the $1.3 million award to developing her nation’s ability to educate and provide adequate health care services for its people. In sharp contrast to the military junta, who see the subversion of the Burmese people as necessary and sufficient for maintaining its grip on power, Suu Kyi sees the empowerment of all social groups in a participatory democratic process as integral to her nation’s survival.

The international outcry for her release in recent years has been nothing short of spectacular. Democratic leaders, intellectuals, and institutions from every part of the globe have voiced their dismay and pursued initiatives to secure her release, but to little avail. This is why the recent domestic events may be the best opportunity for Burma to secure its peaceful future.

The string of milestones in Pakistan is a testament to the power of a social revolution from the inside, and we may very well see similar events in Myanmar. In Pakistan, massive protests and civilian riots in the major cities such as Karachi have forced the military government to loosen its grip on the nation.

According to Josef Silverstein, an expert on Myanmar at Rutgers University, "She has become the only leader that the Burmese people have acknowledged since the death of her father in 1947. I would add that she has in every way possible emulated what her father stood for, which was for the right of the people to govern themselves and to have a free and democratic country."

In order for the Burmese revolution to maintain its levels of citizen mobilization and survive, it is critical to facilitate the release of Suu Kyi. To overthrow the military government, the revolutionary actors must be potent and strategically well organized. Vertical integration may prove to be a key factor. In this situation, all sectors of society work together in an attempt to co-opt the nation and eventually cause the demise of the illegitimate leadership. Suu Kyi serves as the symbolic glue, binding her deprived peoples together with an overarching purpose: to achieve freedom for themselves and posterity.

Pressure from the domestic arena can only go so far. The United States, the European Union and other nations have responded to repression in Myanmar with economic penalties that have done little to affect its leadership. Myanmar's giant neighbors, China and India, with several other Asian nations, offer it an economic lifeline. President Bush’s significant speech denouncing the military junta at the UN General Assembly last week is a significant step in the right direction. Convincing other Asian leaders on the importance to allow the Burmese people assert their right to self-determination will effectively weaken the brutal and chaotic rule of the military dictatorship.

More and more, the democratic opposition to military rule in Myanmar is personified by one isolated and determined woman. This woman will not bend and will not break.

A Domestic Solution for Iraq

These past two weeks have marked a new stage in the Iraqi war. First, the Independent Commission on Iraqi Security Forces published its report. Chaired by retired General James Jones, the panel offered a bleak view of the readiness of Iraq’s army and police in taking over security obligations. The Commission estimates that it will take at least a year before American-led forces can scale back its critical leadership role. Second, and most significant, are the testimonies given last week by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. While not surprising to everyone involved, their speeches nonetheless let all Americans know that our military presence in Iraq will be prolonged for well after President Bush leaves office. While American forces are likely to be depleted to 130,000 by next July (pre-surge levels), our military’s cemented role remains very unclear. According to Petraeus, “Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous.”

With such high anticipation for these testimonies, is it justifiable that not even the most eminent generals and civilian leaders involved in the conflict have any answers? The existence of this ambivalence is a testament to just how chaotic this conflict has become.

Despite marginal military progress being made through the targeted surge in some of the most violent regions like Diyala and Anbar provinces, there is zero success in forming a functional Iraqi government. Expedient political and military solutions are not mutually exclusive. If anything, strengthening this loose coalition of militias, led by a seemingly disorganized Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, will breathe fresh air into achieving sectarian reconciliation and political progress.

Maliki, once heralded by Bush as “the right guy for Iraq”, has been consistently disappointing in previous weeks. Recent cabinet defections and the withdrawal of the Allawi-led secular political alliance, Iraqiya, are huge blows to the Iraqi government’s credibility. Even more depressing, this internal factionalism is serving to sever any prospects for compromise. Allawi is now working to establish a civil opposition force, telling Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition that he has ''lost faith in the capability of the current government in salvaging the country and moving forward.''

Maliki’s work in Iraq should not come with a blank check. Only when he realizes his expendability will we see a reduction in ethnic factionalism amongst his country and his dislocated cabinet. Bush must start making some smart moves and fast. Deposing Maliki will inch us closer to establishing a stable political solution. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, recently wrote in a private memo, “The reality on the streets suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what’s going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient.” Regardless of Maliki’s misgivings, Bush’s open criticism of the current Iraqi regime may just be a strategic maneuver to push the White House firmly back into the center of the Iraq debate.

With Maliki’s ouster unlikely to occur, we need to focus on other options at hand. The prospect for an American military solution in the region is possible, but will only occur with Sunni reconciliation. Anbar is a good example of these benefits: tribal leaders and Sunni militia fighters have joined U.S. forces to rid their respective territories of terrorist threats.

But, this is not even close to enough, especially when considering that while Al Qaeda may be unpopular in Anbar, Americans fair just as bad. Gary Langer of ABC News Polling writes in The New York Times, “Withdrawal timetable aside, every Anbar respondent in our survey opposed the presence of American forces in Iraq — 69 percent ‘strongly’ so. Every Anbar respondent called attacks on coalition forces ‘acceptable,’ far more than anywhere else in the country. All called the United States-led invasion wrong, including 68 percent who called it ‘absolutely wrong.’ No wonder: Anbar, in western Iraq, is almost entirely populated by Sunni Arabs, long protected by Saddam Hussein and dispossessed by his overthrow.”

Unitary American involvement is not the solution. It’s time to give the Iraqis back their land, their freedom, and their ideals. This can still be accomplished with U.S. ground forces playing auxiliary roles wherever possible. Petraeus and his subordinates must start finding ways to prop up tribal leaders and make them responsive to their own peoples. Reengaging strong provincial leadership within the periphery will establish and strengthen Iraqi confidence in the democratic process.

The American military and Iraqi leaders are best served by continuing the training protocols of the ISF. Anthony Cordesman, one of the leading experts on the Iraq war and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based foreign policy think-tank, remains positive, noting that “ISF development can succeed in many areas if the US is patient, willing to put in years of further effort, and realistic in its goals and efforts.” Everyone must understand that providing stability in Iraq is contingent on effectively dealing with the strong nationalist overtones and religious underpinnings of its people. The ISF is no different. Cordesman notes that there are “truly national elements in virtually every part of the Iraqi security structure, many that act with great courage and integrity. Many, particularly in the Iraqi Army, are promising if -- and only if -- Iraq can achieve the level of political accommodation/conciliation that can hold the various sectarian and mixed areas together.”

To give the ISF the ability to command security obligations, the coalition must address two overriding factors: the sectarian power struggle within the ISF itself, and the lack of a cohesive U.S. plan for equipping the Iraqi military with the vision to pursue its work independently. First, a balance must be struck within the already pro Shiite character of the security forces. If Shiite and Kurdish power are to develop at the expense of the Sunnis, increasingly potent sectarian and ethnic power struggles can erupt. Second, the U.S. must strategically look beyond counterinsurgency operations to create forces capable of defending the country without the aid of coalition forces. One of the most pronounced flaws in current military strategy is the lack of foresight in creating an affordable and realistic plan for replacing U.S. military capabilities, intelligence, and sustainability.

The U.S. has strong ethical and moral obligations to the Iraqi people. This includes adequately getting its government and its citizens on their feet with the ability to autonomously rule as a sovereign nation-state. The failure to enact contingency plans for nation-building and stability operations following Saddam’s removal coupled with the ineffective organization of Iraqi security forces are only two badly incurred mistakes.

Looking to the future, the U.S. must first continue its efforts to push Iraq’s leaders toward political compromise and conciliation and second, force United Nations sanctioned talks that bring all of the regional powers to the negotiating table. Iraq is but a reflection of the wider Middle East dilemma we face today.

While President Bush and General Petraeus may see “bottom-up progress”, there is no illusion as to how far away we actually are from leaving Iraq with dignity.

The Last Chance

Last month, sitting at a café in Freetown, Sierra Leone, I had an interesting conversation with a former Oxford professor of African politics. While discussing the historic importance of the Sierra Leone presidential elections, the professor made a striking, desultory remark: "The symbol of America is no longer the Statue of Liberty. It is Guantanamo." At the time I didn't know what to make of the comment, choosing not to reply. Being an American and having travelled to so many places in the past few years, I make a concerted effort never to engage in talks about the Bush presidency’s foreign policy. I garnered from previous experiences that expressing your mind on this subject, at least internationally, can get you in some dangerous situations, especially at unforgiving watering holes.

Upon returning to the States, I gave his view some real thought. I tried to justify to myself that our misadventure in Iraq is not the be all and end all for America; tangible progress, military or political, could reverse this trend. My conscience told me otherwise. Still today, I question whether hubris has shattered America's global image so extensively that it is beyond repair.

A recent study published by The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) attests to this notion. The question asked whether the U.S. is having a positive or negative influence on the world. The results were quite astonishing: of the 26 countries polled, 20 believe the U.S. is having a negative effect on global affairs. The United States comes only second to North Korea in the ratings list. According to Dr. Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, “This reaction cannot simply be dismissed as something necessarily engendered by a powerful and rich country. The numbers we are seeing today are the lowest numbers that have ever been recorded.”

We cannot know what the future has in store. The increasing role of public opinion in international affairs, especially in regards to the sustainability of democracy, holds major salience in today’s evolving societies. But, our government can start right now by making concerted efforts to rectify our current ignominious global standing, paving the way for the next president to pursue amiable policies that foster international partnerships rather than destroying them. A new American leadership must speak to a higher moral value and emphasize international consensus. Effective solutions to our current global emergencies are imperative and America has the resources and the leadership potential to address them. If we reengage with our allies, our traditions, and most importantly, our own people, we can reengage with humanity and the liberal democratic ideal.

First, Washington politicians must stop with their partisan squabbling. The time for that is over. It is time to mobilize and join international actors on solving crises that threaten our very survival. Iraq must remain on the agenda, that is a given. But, it is not prudent, nor logical to believe that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a viable option. Doing so would push the country into further upheaval. With no functioning central government in Iraq, nor conciliation amongst warring Sunni factions, the prospects for peace in the Middle East would be disastrous.

In this case, we must also focus on a wider Middle East solution with special attention paid to the Iranians. They may hold a key to stabilizing Iraq. Emphasizing a quid-pro-quo approach on the nuclear dilemma while pursuing a cohesive diplomatic strategy to contain Islamic fascism in the greater region may provide favorable results. We must let Tehran know that meddling in Iraqi affairs is unacceptable.

Second, to President Bush’s credit, he has made some monumental strides in the area of foreign and humanitarian assistance, most notably in regards to Africa. Being the neoconservative that he is, it is positive to see that he has a genuine care for the plight of Africa’s people. Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times notes three areas of action. The first is Pepfar, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief that was created earlier this year. This ambitious project seeks to save over 12 million lives. The second foreign aid program is the Millennium Challenge Account, which will reward states practicing good governance with priority loans. It would be smart to emphasize World Bank initiatives on this one. Now that Robert Zoellick heads the institution, idealism can give way to strong management and efficiency. Finally, Mr. Kristof notes that “President Bush has begun to focus attention and funds on malaria, which kills more than 1 million people a year in poor countries and imposes a huge economic burden on Africa in particular.” Continued humanitarian intervention in Africa is not a choice, it’s a necessity.

Darfur is also a pressing issue. While the president was initially slow to react, recent actions directed at al-Bashir’s Khartoum government illustrate that the United States will no longer tolerate actions of genocide. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s recent visit to Sudan and other African states has yielded some powerful prospects towards the cessation of the conflict. But, we have seen similar scenarios in the past: negotiations begin and then wither before any substantive dialogue can occur.

China is a contributor to the conflict, providing much of the revenue (through oil sales) that arm the janjaweed (state-sponsored death squads). Secretary Rice must be forceful in her use of aggressive diplomacy with the Chinese government and insist it cease its trading relations with Sudan, no matter how lucrative, for the sake of global peace.

Finally, to restore American credibility and legitimacy in the world, we must actively work towards convincing other states to act tough in battling global warming and climate change. Working together with the French and the Germans in conjunction with the U.N., we can pursue alternative policies that work to reduce our global dependence on oil and emphasize the use of nuclear energy. In effect, we also diminish the strategic power autocratic regimes such as Iran, Venezuela, and to an extent Russia, have on global politics and dictating international commodity markets. With decreased oil revenues, these nations have no choice but to adhere to international norms.

This may be our last chance. President Bush has the opportunity to alter his legacy and America’s future in his waning months in office. Whether he will take advantage of this is a different story.

Land of Gun: Crisis in Somalia

Today's global sociopolitical landscape is painted in red. Violence, terror, fear, turmoil and sadness have become commonplace themes in an increasingly internationalized and interdependent world that seems to fall victim to its own selfish aspirations which benefit a few, while marginalizing huge masses of internally displaced people. The global crises of today are at a scale unparalleled in human history. Darfur has witnessed close to 400,000 people dead and 2.5 million people displaced from their homes. These inconceivable numbers only appear to increase with each passing day. Iraq is now in a brutal and chaotic civil war in which there is no conceivable end in sight. A fundamentalist religious war now embroils the greater Middle East forcing entire nation-states to struggle for their own survival. The opportunities for a global peace are few and far between.

With so many enduring global assaults on basic human rights, the popular media tends to overlook some of the most pressing concerns facing the international community today. The humanitarian and political crisis in Somalia is a prime example. The coastal East African nation has been without a proper government since 1991, when Siad Barre was ousted from presidential power and the nation was plunged into a spiral of lawlessness and clan warfare. Since that time, Somalia has experienced the secession of three of its territories (presently known as Somaliland in the northwest, Puntland and Jumbland), United States military intervention and various failed United Nations peacekeeping overtures to restore central governmental authority and provide sustainable humanitarian support.

What makes the plight of Somalia so disheartening is that as a nation, it has endured so much civil strife. As an early colony that bounced between West European giants, eventually declaring its independence just 50 years ago, the experience of total economic stagnation and political mismanagement has contributed to a deep loss of basic human necessities. Many Somalis have never even seen the minimal elements of a sustainable life that we take for granted in America. By any measure, the levels of malnutrition and education are among some of the lowest in the world. Despite recent improvements, only 22 percent of children have access to primary school education, the worst figure globally. Child malnutrition rates of 15 to 20 percent have become normal for Somalia, while 10 percent or more would be regarded as an emergency elsewhere. Basic healthcare services are generally nonexistent and the rate of infectious diseases spreading throughout the country is increasing rapidly. Water sanitation is horrendous. For reasons such as this, Somalia has become the "optimum" breeding ground for extremism.

The international community has largely forgotten about Somalia with aid dropping precipitously since a failed military intervention ended eleven years ago. No other country has experienced that kind of total abandonment by the international community. For many western politicians and international aid organizations it is seen as too difficult and too dangerous to offer substantive support. The retrospective trauma of the failed peacekeeping attempt greatly limits the number of powerful politicians willing to openly assert the necessity of saving this region.
The nation's humanitarian crisis arises in the context of extreme political turmoil. The two are invariably interconnected and in many respects each can be seen as a causal agent for the other. Somalia's modern political regression can be traced to the ousting of Siad Barre. By the mid-1990s, international troops had become enmeshed in tribal conflicts that had undone the nation. With clan-based fighting increasing to such a degree, the last of the international troops left the country. Somalia was left to deal with its own turmoil. Without a governing body, how could it? The recurring civil war that encapsulated the entire region and was felt in neighboring states such as Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya caused much of the world to relinquish hopes for peace. In many respects Somalia was written off.

Though Somalia has been mired in state chaos for the past 15 years, new eruptions of violence emerged in May 2006. Somalia is now a resurgent hot zone that deserves conscientious international attention and intervention to avert insurmountable chaos and brutality. It seems, for now, that the supremacy of the warlords and their faction-based clan tensions are being replaced through force by a new threat: Islamic militias. Led by the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), the emergence of a dominant fundamentalist Islamic bloc as the new power brokers is sparking widespread international fear. Western nations fear the state will become a breeding ground for international terrorism while Somalia's neighbors are accused of influencing the nation's internal violence to serve their own interests.

Pitted against the Islamists is Somalia's internationally recognized transitional government, which was created in October 2004. The government wields very little, if any power. After convening for the first time in February 2006, it was moved outside of the highly unstable capital, Mogadishu, and placed in the southern city of Baidoa. Interestingly, many of the Parliamentarians and cabinet officials, including the current President, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, are former warlords, many with ties to Ethiopia, one of the principal external promoters of the instability. Just this past September, the president narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by a suicide bomber in Baidoa. Yusuf blames the ICU and, more specifically, al-Qaeda. Ethiopia, a close ally of the president, condemned the attack, noting, "This act is intended to wreak havoc and bring more instability not only to Somalia and its fledgling Transitional Federal Institutions, but also to the entire region of the Horn of Africa." With the warlords pushed out of Mogadishu, tensions between the ICU and Transitional Federal Institutions are rising. The government held talks with the ICU in June, but backed out of a second round in July. The parliament voted in favor of an African Union peacekeeping force against the wishes of the ICU. The African Union approved a force of Ugandan and Sudanese peacekeepers, but experts say the arrival of these troops is unlikely.

The role of the Islamic courts is a highly significant component of the conflict. Courts imposing sharia (traditional Islamic law) have been active in Somalia since the mid-to-late 1990s. In a nation that has been largely anarchic for the last decade and a half, these courts became increasingly popular because they demonstrated their ability to provide some semblance of order. By early 2005, eleven of these tribunals had joined the ICU. Business owners began doling out funds to fund privately supported ICU militias in hopes of bringing about a moderate level of stability to relieve them of the seemingly unending conflict. With this financial and military backing, the ICU spread their area of control from central Somalia south towards the entirety of Mogadishu.

Recent reports suggest Mogadishu's residents are pleased with the ICU's rule. The warlords' militias were notorious for indiscriminate violence; women and girls were often raped and locals could not move about the city without fear of being killed. Since the ICU took control, experts say there are noticeably fewer guns on the streets, and people move freely throughout the city without fear of attack. Historically, Somalis have been resistant to more extreme forms of Islam, and some of the ICU's measures could well draw the ire of the populace. Cinemas have been banned, women have been pressured to wear veils, and people found watching the World Cup soccer tournament were reportedly beaten or fined and, in one instance, shot.

While the ICU is credited by some residents in Mogadishu as having clamped down on criminal activity in the city before the recent upsurge in violence, there are elements within the Islamist militia pushing for an Islamic state. The militias became increasingly powerful as a military force after Mogadishu's main warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism this year. The alliance said it wished to root out al-Qaeda members being sheltered by the courts. The widespread fear is that the ICU will garner enough support and resources to institute a Taliban style regime as previously seen in Afghanistan.

Despite its name, the ARPCT probably does little to combat terrorism and is more interested in maintaining the lawless status quo in which the warlords thrive. The moniker is most likely an attempt to make the group appealing to Western governments, highlighting their battle against the spread of an Islamic militia. The scheme seems to have worked. In June there were widespread reports the United States was providing financial support to the ARPCT. These reports resulted in a surge of support for the Islamic courts among residents of Mogadishu, who hold the warlords largely responsible for the rampant rapes and murders in the capital. Since their ouster at the hands of the Islamists, experts say the warlords who comprised the ARPCT have been largely marginalized.

Somalia's highly unstable political system and factionalized social structures only serve to worsen the already horrific situation the people of Somalia are forced to face and endure. This two-decade long civil war has been borne on the backs of the innocents: families that have been dislocated; children in poverty and on the verge of death and the countless individuals who begin to wonder if the hell they live in is the way the wider world really is. The people of Somalia can do nothing but stand idly by and watch any semblance of stability and happiness ripped from their very beings, leaving them powerless.

Every year, Somalia is among the lowest ranked of the 163 countries in the Human Development Index compiled by the United Nations Development Program. It currently ranks at 161. One in four Somali children will die before the age of 5; fewer than 25 percent of Somalis have access to clean water; 2.6 percent of all citizens make it past the age of sixty-five, and of the twenty-two percent of children who are enrolled in primary school, only one in eight is a girl.
By all estimates Somalia can be seen as a failed state, a fourth world region that has lost potential for social and economic development. But we cannot write off an entire civilization of people just because the barriers seem too formidable to penetrate. Many people will ask why not. Why is it in the interest of the global community, let alone our own, to save a population of people that lack the resources toward achieving social advancement? Is it not better to let these people perish than have them survive through such depravity and poverty?

The answer here lies in the resilience of the human spirit and the fact that we are all human as well. This is a question of morality and basic human dignity. Somalia is similar to many of its African brethren; while they have all experienced massive depravity, they share hope, believing that someone will come and save them. These people are not going anywhere. They will remain where they stand no matter how much turmoil they incur.

While countries like Uganda, Sudan, and Ethiopia receive billions of dollars in aid from various intergovernmental and supranational coalitions, Somalia is still largely ignored. This cannot continue. There needs to be a cohesive international contingency that brings forth various rich powers under the cloak of the United Nations. Shuttle diplomacy has proven to be inadequate. Diplomacy must now be aggressive, with deals being made and rival factions being forced to compromise. Somalia's neighbors must no longer stir the conflict, and a UN-led mission must be established to implement political stability.

It is also important to bring the Africans in themselves. In conjunction with a strong international force, they can implement change. Furthermore, humanitarian access is a vital precondition to peace. Somalis crave education for their children, greater nutritional access and increased exposure to proper healthcare before peace. Due to these perceivably unrelenting problems and increased violence between the Islamists and the warlords, over 25,000 Somalis just this year alone have fled conflict in south and central Somalia and arrived in Kenya €" including more than 5,000 in September alone. One refugee said, "I walked for 45 days. I fled because of the violence in Somalia".

The mounting problems of AIDS, drought, education, the protection of Somalia's most vulnerable groups, unbelievable malnutrition, the lack of sustainable human resources, and the implementation of basic human rights need to be addressed immediately. A call to action must be heard and met with equal passion.

For the human soul, there is only so much grief one can take. As Americans and university students, we are incredibly fortunate to live in a society that fosters and promotes individual freedoms and civic values, which, of course, many of us take for granted. We have such a strong ability to induce change in this world. For this reason, humanity cannot afford to let this region of intense culture and beautiful history be forgotten.

Unfortunately, many of us find ourselves so immersed in our daily routines that we neglect to seek enrichment and insight on these "forgotten" societies. Why? Because it does not seem to directly affect our own ways of living. The sad truth is that what goes on in these regions greatly impacts not only our future, but that of posterity. It is our inherent duty to promote constructive discourse and seek tangible solutions to this pandemic virus. If we do not, we risk losing our own cultural ideals and freedoms.

After traveling throughout the world extensively for the past two years, witnessing and experiencing some of the most marginalized regions, I can say with confidence that amidst so much turmoil these peoples have their souls intact and they will not sell them for anything. The people of Somalia deserve freedom. No longer shall this ideal stay a fleeting reality.

The United Nations: A Viable Institution to Maintain Peace

Truth, justice and democracy are words easily thrown around in a world that seems to impart black and white judgments on issues that are much more complex and not readily discernible. We live in an increasingly integrated, interconnected and interdependent global community that cannot pursue policies based on separate national interests. With increasingly viable threats emanating from North Korea, and Iran, and populist resurgence in Latin America, as well as a host of other intercontinental conflicts, diplomacy is the key word.

Ideological predilections aside, the world cannot withstand another global conflagration. International institutions like the United Nations must have a firm grounding as important forums of negotiation and substantive action. With the appointment of Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, to succeed Kofi Annan as the next U.N. Secretary General effective this January, there is the hope that effective reform will serve to radically transform this needed institution to deal effectively with the unique problems of the twenty-first century.

In the era of globalization we need the U.N. more than ever to promote democratic global governance, human rights and positive relations along intergovernmental lines, which transcend national boundaries, penetrate the cultural divide and unite societies toward the vision of global peace. The U.N. steps forward as an association of governments intent on facilitating cooperation in international law, security, economic development and social equity.

As an umbrella organization, the U.N. has the ability to bring leaders from all over the world to the table to negotiate, make compromises and create resolutions that have great potential to bring peace to nation-states mired in perpetual struggles. It must espouse internationalism in its most Wilsonian sense and reject the evidential ambitions of foreign policy realists who believe that power politics is the only way to deal with "juvenile" states that may be stable, but lack the necessary social, political and economic institutions to converge with the more industrialized and wealthy countries.

Since its creation in 1945, following the end of World War II, the U.N. has imprinted an enduring mark on the face of international relations. One of its hallmark functions (which has not been explicitly outlined in its founding Charter) is the "peace-keeping operation". This is intended to prevent the recurrence and expansion of a dispute by sending a cease-fire supervision group or peace-keeping force, mainly consisting of personnel contributed by smaller countries, with the consent of the parties to the dispute. This function has become increasingly meaningful amid the realities of today's international community. Since 1948, there have been over 60 mostly successful U.N. peacekeeping missions with 16 of them ongoing.

While U.N. peacekeeping has seen its failures, most notably in Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica in 1995, these events have served to awaken the organization to the changing nature of regional conflicts and the necessity to instill and maintain effective leadership that takes into account the precedence to promote peace over all other ambitions.

One of the most remarkable advancements of the U.N. in the past decade has been the organization's transformation to reflect the structural reform of the international community. In the post-Cold War era, there has been a marked increase in the presence of third-world or developing states and a rise of emerging economic powers. The predominance of these developing nations emphasizes the need to have proper channels of influence and communication to maneuver toward the democratic trajectory that is necessary for constructive and beneficial relations among global partners. The nature of these global partnerships changes with newly introduced crises. For this reason, the fluidity and complexity of the U.N. accelerates.

Like all organizations that have bureaucratic underpinnings, the U.N. has experienced scandals, examples of inefficiency and instances of oversight that have done more to harm the institution's reputation and political clout than to uphold it. But we must understand that unlike individual countries, the U.N. does not attempt to politicize executive arrangements; the organization does not seek to fill its ranks with "yes" men but rather a host of different global actors who all hold unique interests and worldviews. Many believe that it is precisely this characteristic that prevents the U.N. from acting in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Because the five permanent members in the Security Council have a veto but tend to disagree (usually with the U.S. on one side and China and/or Russia on the other), some think there is a lack of significant action because no nation can practice unilateralism. While this may be the case in some instances, it is not in many others. We only need to look at the developing situation regarding the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, the insistent efforts of the U.N. to take strong action in Darfur at the dismay of the Khartoum government, as well as the Israel-Lebanon crisis of this past summer to understand the need for a cohesive international response. Global conflicts such as these need strong and complete international consensus. If nation-states are to unilaterally pursue eradication of conflict, the world risks falling into a debacle much worse than the current situation in Iraq.

Despite the conspiracy theories and arguments against the effectiveness of the U.N., there is little doubt that the institution has done much to promote international peace. The Human Security Report 2005 notes that since the end of the Cold War there has been an 80 percent drop in the most deadly conflicts, an 80 percent reduction in genocide and politicide and a 40 percent drop in violent conflict. The improvements, according to the report, are attributed to "international activism," which in large part has been spearheaded by the U.N. through important policy action, missions and peacekeeping operations. To the extent that the reputation of the U.N. suffers today, it does so largely because so many of its member states are not democracies; they do not believe in and practice the U.N.'s universal principles of human rights. And because of their large numbers, they have a great deal of influence in its affairs. Democratic nations need to be the conscience of the U.N. and stand up for what they and the U.N. should believe.

One of the major contentions of today's U.N. opponents is its lack of efficacy in positioning nations toward actually implementing the resolutions they accept. This is an obstacle that can be overcome with a restructuring of the U.N.'s internal leadership and an increased desire toward pursuing reform. With the Secretary General position now changing hands, there is great potential for this to occur. Ban Ki Moon has already expressed his intentions to "streamline" the U.N. with proposed radical personnel, budgetary, and administrative changes.

The U.N. gains its legitimacy from its members. It does not hover above a host of nations but is rather a reflection of these nations in their pursuit to espouse moral imperatives and international principle. The surge in demand for U.N. services attests not only to the U.N.'s abiding relevance but also to its central place in advancing human dignity. The U.N.'s core mission in the previous century was to keep countries from fighting each other. In the new century, the defining mandate is to strengthen the inter-state system so that humanity may be better served amidst new challenges. From the Balkans to Africa, from Asia to the Middle East, we have witnessed the weakening or absence of effective governance leading to the ravaging of human rights and the abandonment of long-standing humanitarian principles. We need competent and responsible states to meet the needs of "we the peoples" for whom the U.N. was created. And the world's peoples will not be fully served unless peace, development and human rights, the three pillars of the United Nations, are advanced together with equal vigor.