The Horn of scarcity: Anatomy of an official famine

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has a very dry definition of a famine. More than a third of children must be suffering from acute malnutrition. Two adults or four children must be dying of hunger each day for every group of 10,000 people and the population must have access to well below 2,100 kilocalories of food per day. On 20 July, the UN decided two regions of southern Somalia met those criteria, the lower Shabelle and Bakool regions. A prolonged La Nina has led to one of the driest October-December rainy seasons ever, the second consecutive such poor season and very poor livestock production has also contributed to the crop failure which led to the drought which has led to the famine.

A new UN regional overview said the famine is likely to spread to the rest of the region. The region is suffering severe food insecurity due to drought and high food prices and there are significant refugees on the move from Somalia. The trigger for the move of tens of thousands is directly attributable to the drought but also the 20 year conflict in southern Somalia which has hindered access for humanitarian agencies.

Now those agencies are struggling to cope with the influx of Somali refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya. Malnutrition and mortality rates are alarmingly high in many parts of the region. The OCHA estimates 12.4 million people are in need of help in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. One quarter of Somalia’s 7.5 million are displaced with 3.7 million needing assistance. A further 4.8 million in Ethiopia and 3.7 million in Kenya also need help.

Feeding over 12 million people is not easy in war torn Horn of Africa but that is the task UN food agency WFP has set itself. Large parts of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda are suffering in a drought that is likely to continue to next year and with several conflicts in the region, the WFP they barely reached 40 per cent, leaving six million malnourished people who are slowly starving to death. Airlifts have started to Mogadishu and the south at the heart of the famine, with support also arriving in the camps in the border towns of Kenya and Ethiopia.

Dadaab in Kenya is getting 1,300 new arrivals every day while Dollo Ado in Ethiopia has taken in 54,000 this year with half the children malnourished. CARE operates three refugee camps in Dadaab which are home to almost 400,000 refugees, mostly from Somalia. Thos arriving suffering from malnutrition and medical problems are referred to supplementary and therapeutic feeding programs and stabilisation units in camp hospitals. Families are provided with two weeks' worth of food rations and other essentials including tents, kitchen sets, firewood and fuel-efficient stoves while awaiting registration and access to general food distributions.

The situation will worse before it gets better. The current food security emergency across the region is expected to persist at least for the coming three to four months with the number of people in need of urgent aid increasing by as much as a quarter. The crisis in southern Somalia is expected to continue to worsen through 2011, with the entire south slipping into famine. This deterioration is likely given the very high levels of both severe acute malnutrition and under-five mortality in combination with expected worsening pastoral conditions, a continued increase in local cereal prices, and a below-average crop harvest.

Australian foreign minister Kevin Rudd has just returned from the region and he said the international community has a double challenge. Firstly to ensure UN agencies have enough funding to deal with the crisis before it becomes a catastrophe; and secondly to give UN humanitarian agencies enough flexibility to make sure people get to the aid despite the war zone.

In the medium term, OCHA says interventions to rebuild and support livelihoods will be critical. “Securing long-term food and nutrition security in the Horn of Africa requires focussing on a range of issues affecting the region, including conflict, preservation of humanitarian space, nutrition, disaster risk reduction, health and education services, and climate change adaptation,” the OCHA said. “Building resilience in the agricultural sector will be essential to avoid recurrent food security crises in this region.”

Afghanistan: anatomy of a failed election

A new UN report prepared by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon shows just how protracted and flawed the Afghan presidential election was. His report released at the end of 2009 for the UN Security Council is couched in diplomatic language but its frustration is obvious between the lines. Entitled “The Situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security”, the document outlines a series of selfish actions in which none of the major Afghan players come out with any credit.

While there were over forty candidates for president, most analysts agreed in the end it would come down to run-off election between incumbent president Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister in the Northern Alliance regime in 1998 when they ruled barely 30 percent of the country. Attacks by the Taliban severely limited the campaigning of candidates while state-run radio and television heavily favoured Karzai. Allegations of fraud, vote buying and armed coercion were rife, even before the election.

And the Taliban were not sitting idly by. On election day 20 August, Afghanistan suffered the highest number of attacks and intimidation since the Taliban took Kabul in 1996. August 2009 would prove the deadliest month for US troops in Afghanistan since the invasion eight years earlier. The violence continued into September.

On 8 September, the foreign-dominated Electoral Complaints Commission ordered a recount of the election after reporting 720 instances of fraud. The Karzai-appointed Independent Electoral Commission which administered the ballot was unhappy with the order but after two weeks of intense negotiation they agreed on a partial recount using a methodology which would audit suspect ballots through statistical sampling. The IEC would administer the audit with oversight from the ECC. Neither Hamid Karzai nor Abdullah Abdullah were happy with the process and both were sceptical of its outcome.

The ECC announced the audit was complete on 19 October. The preliminary results showed Karzai had gotten 49.67 percent and Abdullah had 30.59. Nearly a third of Karzai’s votes had been invalidated by the audit. Because no candidate had received over 50 percent of the vote, a run off was necessary to be held on 7 November. Karzai’s supporters and campaign team immediately protested the revised result claiming it was the result of foreign interference. There was a flurry of diplomatic negotiations led by John Kerry and after 24 hours Karzai agreed to participate in the run-off. In the meantime, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission released their report on the election which spoke of a low turnout due to many attacks and much intimidation, especially of women.

On 26 October, Abdullah announced the conditions under which he would take part in the run-off. These included the sacking of the IEC chair, the removal of election officials and the suspension of three cabinet ministers. He insisted his demands needed to be met by the end of the month. Both Karzai and the IEC rejected the conditions. So on 1 November, Abdullah duly announced he would not be a candidate in the run-off saying the government had not met his demand for a fair vote.

A day later, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon arrived in Afghanistan to negotiate with both parties. On the same the day the IEC announced Karzai the president-elect as the sole candidate in the run-off. They based this decision on the Afghan Constitution which stated the run-off could only be held between the two leading candidates from the first round. The decision immediately sparked celebrations among Karzai’s supporters. Abdullah said the decision had no legal basis but did not challenge it in court.

Afghan donor and troop-contributing countries reluctantly offered Karzai their congratulations on his “victory”. But most statements, including Ban Ki-Moon’s own encouraged Karzai to form a competent Cabinet with reform-minded ministers, to improve governance and to root out corruption. Karzai was re-appointed for a second five year term on 19 November. In his inauguration speech, Karzai reached out to the Taliban as well as Abdullah.

But his re-election honeymoon was short-lived. A new report says that 2009 was the deadliest year yet for Afghan children. Meanwhile, Taliban attacks are getting closer to the capital while there are doubts the international community has the stomach to continue the fight. As the UN report concludes “We are now at a critical juncture. The situation cannot continue as is if we are to succeed in Afghanistan. Unity of effort and greater attention to key priorities are now a sine qua non. There is a need for a change of mindset in the international community as well as in the Government of Afghanistan. Without that change, the prospects of success will diminish further.”

Australian politicians and media show no interest in learning UN lessons on Indigenous affairs

Photo by

David Jackmanson CC BY 2.0

Australian politicians and media have adopted a typically hostile and defensive pose in response to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' considered statement on Indigenous issues released on Thursday. The hostility was uncalled for. James Anaya, the UNHCR special rapporteur on indigenous issues, has issued a thoughtful report which civilly applauded Australian efforts to improve human rights and conditions in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) communities while saying much more needed to be done.

Anaya, an American legal scholar, released his statement after spending 11 days in six states and territories. He met with Government authorities, representatives of indigenous communities and organisations, and other stakeholder groups. He said he was impressed and inspired by the forward-looking “strong and vibrant” nature of indigenous culture he saw despite having endured tremendous suffering due to “historical forces and entrenched racism”. He said those forces are still relevant today with Indigenous people still lagging far behind in quality of life indicators such as life expectancy, basic health, education, unemployment, incarceration, treatment of children, and access to basic services.

Anaya also praised the “close the gap” federal initiatives and said these programs needed to be improved and expanded. But he also noted some serious concerns. The biggest problem, he said, was with the Northern Territory Emergency Response with its income management regime, imposition of compulsory leases, and community-wide bans on alcohol consumption and pornography. Anaya said these measures overtly discriminated against aboriginal peoples, infringed their right of self-determination and further stigmatised marked communities.

Anaya conceded that affirmative measures were necessary but said they needed to take due regard of self-determination and to be free from racial discrimination and indignity. He said there needs to be a holistic approach to address Indigenous issues nationally. He quoted Prime Minister Rudd’s apology speech and said governments needed to form partnerships with Indigenous people "based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.”

It was only with the aid of local partnerships that issues of alcoholism, domestic violence, health and education could be addressed in culturally appropriate ways adapted to local needs. He said some government programmes fail to take into account local initiatives or duplicate local services undermining Indigenous institutions. He welcomed ATSI social justice commissioner Tom Calma’s call for the government to appoint a new ATSI representative body but said that indigenous groups must strengthen their own organisational and governance capacity.

Anaya also called for constitutional change. He said there needed to be recognition of ATSI rights in a charter of rights to be included in the Constitution. He also urged continued land rights, fixing housing needs and said the Native Title Act should be amended to include UN recommendations on racial discrimination. He said the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should frame legislation, policies, and actions that affect ATSI people. The declaration, he said, “expresses the global consensus on the rights of indigenous peoples and corresponding state obligations on the basis of universal human rights.”

But despite the reasonableness of Anaya’s suggestions, it was met mostly with hostility this weekend from media and politicians alike. The Weekend Australian’s editorial claimed he missed the point and went on to indulge in a bit of silly UN-bashing. Former Liberal indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough said Anaya was “pontificating about human rights” while former health minister Tony Abbott bizarrely called him an “armchair critic”.

The stupidity of the response was matched on the Labor side of politics. Indigenous affairs minister Jenny Macklin used the feeble excuse of protecting children to reject the main findings of the report (despite the fact that Anaya specifically justified affirmative measures in this area). Former national president Warren Mundine said the report should be binned and claimed that although racism exists in Australia, “we are actually in Australia working towards resolving those issues."

It is difficult to see how exactly those issues can be resolved when “we” cannot even treat the considered opinion of an unbiased outsider with respect. It also shows yet again an Australian inability to deal constructively with criticism. Both Labor and the Liberal have thrown out Anaya’s baby in a childish tantrum because they didn’t like the look of his bathwater. Greens’ Indigenous affairs spokesperson Rachel Siewart is one of the few to come out of the affair with any credit. She said she was not surprised by his findings. "It is good to see an independent outside voice that brings a wealth of international experience of Indigenous development airing such strong criticisms of where this ill-thought-out top-down intervention has gone wrong,” she said. “This may ultimately result in the Government listening."

We can only hope, Rachel.

Israel flexes its muscles: The West’s shameful boycott of the Durban Review Conference

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said she is “shocked and disappointed” by the US decision not to attend the anti-racism Durban Review Conference which starts today in Geneva, Switzerland. The US joins Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Netherlands, Germany and Italy in boycotting the conference. Speaking yesterday High Commissioner Navi Pillay said these countries have allowed a couple of issues to dominate, outweighing the needs of numerous groups who suffer worldwide on a daily basis. “These are truly global issues,” she said “And it is essential that they are discussed at a global level, however sensitive and difficult they may be."

Navi Pillay is right. It is shameful that these Western nations have allowed their Israeli interests to trump discussion of a wide range of important human rights issues. According to the Financial Times, the boycotters say they want to avoid a rerun of the original 2001 Durban meeting at which Israel was attacked over its racist policies towards Palestinians. Although this year’s draft communiqué was reworded to address concerns, the US was still unhappy at the final product.

The Obama administration announced its decision on Saturday. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said that although the US was “profoundly committed to ending racism and racial discrimination”, it could not sign up because the language in Friday’s communiqué text reaffirmed the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). “The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians,” said Wood. “ The [US] also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding ‘incitement,’ that run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech.”

Australia used similar arguments in announcing their boycott. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said he’d taken the decision with regret “as Australians are a people committed to eliminating racism and racial discrimination.” He claimed Australia was committed to advancing human rights and had put in place policies to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people (one of the main items for discussion at the conference). However, he said he could not support a document which reaffirmed the DDPA in its entirety. “We cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views,” said Smith. “Of additional concern are the suggestions of some delegations in the Durban process to limit the universal right to free speech.

US and Australian concerns seems over dramatised when looking at the actual text of the original 2001 DDPA (pdf). Just one out of 122 issues related to the treatment of the Palestinians. This is issue 63 which reads: “We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.”

Hardly over controversial, and sentiments shared by many across the world. The decision looks even more suspicious having looked at the agenda of the 2001 conference. It dealt with five major human rights themes: trafficking in women and children, migration and discrimination, gender and racial discrimination, racism against indigenous peoples, and protection of minority rights. In none of the press releases related to these five areas, is Israel mentioned by name.

The call for laws against incitement is more problematic, but some boycotting nations already have similar laws (eg Volksverhetzung in Germany) on their books. The relevant passage in the DDPA (Action 145) urges “States to implement legal sanctions, in accordance with relevant international human rights law, in respect of incitement to racial hatred [through the Internet]”. In any case, the action is stated as an “urge” and does not imply outright agreement. And even if the states disagree with the provision, this is surely not reason enough to boycott the entire conference? This means the only logical reason countries are pulling out is because they do not want any public discussion of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territory.

Admittedly early draft versions of the Durban 2 declaration were rabidly anti-Israel. The 3 March version found by Ha’aretz found that Israel's policy in the Palestinian territories constituted a “violation of international human rights, a crime against humanity and a contemporary form of apartheid”. However the final version I read this evening (Rev 2) contained no explicit mention of Israel at all. The commitment to avoid a just settlement in Palestine has trumped “the commitment to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” The US and Australian position on human rights commitments has been shown up as a pious platitude and the boycott is shameful politicking.

Bashir defiant with Chinese support

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir received a hero’s welcome in a carefully choreographed appearance in North Darfur yesterday. Bashir spoke in front of 10,000 people in El Fasher where he defied the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. Bashir told his audience it was an attempt to foil his government's efforts to restore peace in the region and said Sudan would not be cowed by the threat of sanctions either. His feisty words come a week after the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, sought an arrest warrant against Bashir on charges including genocide and war crimes in Darfur.

Moreno-Ocampo presented his evidence in The Hague on 14 July after a three year investigation. In 2005 the UN referred the Darfur war crimes to the Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreno-Ocampo’s conclusion is that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Bashir bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Bashir failed to defeat the armed movements in Darfur, so he went after the people. “His motives were largely political. His alibi was a ‘counterinsurgency'.” However, he continued, “his intent was genocide.”

Not everyone in the international community accepts this intent. China warned last week it was “deeply concerned” and hoped “the situation in Darfur would not be complicated by any attempted prosecution of Sudanese President”. Chinese spokesman Liu Jianchao proceeded to snow the issue by saying the international community held different views on Sudan and China was ready “to continue an exchange of views” as long as they were “within a certain framework”. Liu said China was only interested in safeguarding the peace and stability of Sudan and the Darfur region. But his glib patter made no mention of China’s real interest: Sudanese oil.

China has incorporated a strategic element into its energy deals with developing countries. In order to gain access to markets such as Sudan they provide sweeteners such as millions in economic and military aid, access to China’s growing market, and diplomatic support at the UN where China can wield its veto power in the Security Council. China has provided both cash and political cover to the Bashir regime in direct violation of international sanctions.

The Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Sudan as a “sponsor of terror” in 1997 which effectively banned investment by the West. China stepped in to fill the void to enable Sudan circumvent the US-applied economic pressure. China now imports seven percent of all its oil from Sudan. It is Sudan’s second largest export partner (after Japan) and is the largest import partner by a considerable margin (ahead of Saudi Arabia). Chinese companies own substantial parts of the $2 billion Sudanese oil industry including the Khartoum Oil Refinery and half of the 1,600km pipeline to Port Sudan.

China stood up for Sudan when it got into international trouble over its genocidal policies in Darfur. When in 2004 the US brought a resolution to the Security Council demanding oil sanctions if the Sudanese failed to rein in the militias, China threatened to use its veto. As a result, the US baulked and the UN agreed on a watered-down resolution which merely “considered further actions”. China’s ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, claimed oil interests were not a factor and argued stronger resolutions would eliminate the Sudanese government’s incentive to co-operate.

This is clearly a specious argument. China has paid for some of Sudan’s oil in weaponry and over 4000 non-uniformed Chinese military forces are reported to provide physical protection for Beijing’s investments. Two weeks ago, BBC’s Panorama program reported that the Chinese government is providing training and equipments that are used by Bashir’s forces in Darfur in contravention of an arms embargo. Earlier this year China defended its policies claiming it accounted for just 8 percent of Sudan's total arms imports and blamed the US, Russia and UK as "the biggest arms exporters to developing countries including Sudan.

Whereever the weapons come from, there is little doubt Sudan is eager to have them. Omar al-Bashir’s regime is in many ways a typical example of a state-controlling regime in Sudanese history. Sudan has many communities and tribes characterised by hierarchical traditional cultures, some of which have state power. The state is therefore a competition between different Arab groups for power. The situation in Darfur is even more complex. Removing Bashir would not remove the authoritarianism that lies at the heart of Sudanese society. The Bashir regime has survived since 1989 by appealing to Islamism and by maintaining the support of the armed forces. For Sudan to succeed it needs to move on beyond its policies of nationalist and ethnic exclusiveness and compose a national identity that makes non Arabs and non Muslims feel welcome. Without that transformation, the future for Sudan is bleak, regardless of whether Bashir is indicted or not.

Australia bids for Security Council seat

Kevin Rudd has announced Australia is bidding for one of two available seats on the UN Security Council for a two year period commencing in 2013. The Prime Minister made the announcement after a two-hour meeting with UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon in New York overnight. Rudd told reporters that to be an effective member of the UN, Australia also needed to be an effective member of the Security Council. He has also pledged to help the joint UN/AU mission in Darfur with nine military officers and $5 million in aid.

But it was the Security Council candidacy that gained the most attention. It will not be straight-forward task. Although five seats are changed each year, each region has a specific allocation and Australia is part of a "West European and others" group, which has two seats. Finland and Luxembourg are also candidates for the 2013-14 selection and more western nations could also emerge. Australia has not been a member for 24 years and is attempting to overcome the hostility generated by eleven years of anti-UN posturing by the former Howard Government.

Rudd’s intention is a signal to the rest of the world that Australia is returning to full participation in the multilateral system. Writing in The Age academic John Langmore says the importance of the non-permanent Security Council seats should also not be underestimated. He says this was dramatically demonstrated by the opposition of most members to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, opposition that denied legality and legitimacy for the invasion.

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is organised so as to function continuously, and a representative of each of its 15 members must be present at all times at UN Headquarters in New York. When a threat to peace is brought before the Council, its first action is usually to recommend the parties to reach agreement by peaceful means offering its services to investigate and mediate. If the dispute leads to violence, the Council is charged with ending it as soon as possible. It can issue ceasefire directives, send peace-keeping forces and decide on enforcement methods such as sanctions and military action.

The five permanent members of the councils are the victorious powers of World War II (US, Britain, Russia, China and France) and they joined by ten members who rotate every two years. The current non-permanent members are: Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam. Minor procedural matters require nine votes to carry a resolution. Major items also require nine votes with the significant difference that they must include all five permanent members. This is the famous veto power or “Great Power Unanimity” which was famously but unsuccessfully opposed by Australia on behalf of the small and middle powers.

Then Australian Labor government delegate H.V. Evatt lost that battle at the San Francisco Conference that drafted the UN Charter in 1945. However after three months of tireless effort from Evatt and others the Charter did become larger in scope, and contained provisions for the poor, the weak and the oppressed, provisions not intended by its original drafters. In 1948 Evatt was elected as the President of the UN General Assembly’s Third Session. During his year-long term, he oversaw the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Australia has been elected a member of the Security Council four times: in 1946 (a founder member), 1956, 1973 and 1985. Interestingly three of the four times have been under Labor governments with just one representation during Robert Menzies long reign as Prime Minister. Australia failed spectacularly in its most recent bid to join the Council. In 1996 its bid foundered due to the newly elected Howard’s government’s perceived closeness to Washington. Other factors included cuts to foreign aid and the race debate triggered by the rise of Pauline Hanson. In 2002 there was a push for Australia to challenge again in 2006 but with its sullied reputation in the Tampa and Pacific Solution affairs likely to count against it, the Howard Government did not risk the embarrassment.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has refused to confirm how much a new bid would cost. However former foreign minister Alexander Downer told the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this month he took a submission to cabinet in 2004 showing it would have cost $35 million to lobby for another two-year term beginning in 2008.

While Downer was keen to run, he was defeated by Howard and the Foreign Office because of the costly lobbying involved and the need to compromise foreign policy to woo votes. Opposition leader Brendan Nelson, speaking from his so-called “listening tour” of Australia, questioned the bid today for exactly the same two reasons. Smith was more circumspect saying the first step was just an expression of interest. "The things we have to do now and in the first instance can very much be done from within existing resources," he said.

UN Security council supports Chad’s government against rebel assault

The UN Security Council yesterday condemned rebel attempts to seize power in Chad and called on all countries in the region to co-operate to end the war. The council welcomed the AU decision to mandate Libyan leader Gaddafy and Republic of Congo leader Denis Nguesso to commence negotiations with both sides of the conflict and to initiate efforts aimed to seeking a lasting solution to the crisis. The council also pledged its support for the two international missions to Chad, the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT) and the European Union force (EUFOR TCHAD/RCA) and called upon member states to “provide support as requested'' by the government.

According to many media, including the London Daily Telegraph, the Security Council call was a coded message for France to intervene in the crisis. France is the former colonial power and already has almost two thousand troops in the country. It has been a strong backer of the current administration with weapons and military intelligence. The Telegraph quoted Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to the UN, who said that if the French decide to intervene, they have the support of the Security Council.

Last week, Chadian rebels launched a major military offensive that reached the capital N’Djaména on the weekend. Government forces countered with tanks and attack helicopters and by Sunday night the rebels were forced into a “tactical” withdrawal from the city. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called on the Chadian government to ensure that it clearly distinguish between civilians and military targets and asked that both sides not put civilians at risk. There have also been reports of arrests of opposition politicians. HRW said they were concerned that the Chadian government was using the fighting as a pretext for settling scores with the unarmed opposition.

The French foreign minister said the Chadian government was in control of the capital N'Djamena "for the time being". Thousands of people fled the city during a lull in fighting, urged by the rebels. Waves of refugees carried blankets and bed sheets on their heads and crossed a drought-stricken river to get to neighbouring Cameroon. The normal 30 minute trip to cross the Chari River into Cameroon is taking ten hours. There is no firm number on the dead so far. According to one aid worker "There are many deaths, the morgue is full and the Chadian Red Cross will not start picking up bodies from the roads until tomorrow”.

The conflict is related to the problems in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Long-term Chadian President Idriss Deby's has accused Sudan of backing the militants attacking N'Djamena, while Sudan accuses Chad of supporting rebels in Darfur. The Chadian rebels are from the Unified Military Command, an umbrella group of anti-Deby forces. The war in Chad intensified last year after the collapse of a Libyan brokered ceasefire between Chad and four rebel groups.

The conflict is delaying the deployment of the outside military force EUFOR TCHAD/RCA. This EU-led bridging operation in eastern Chad and north-eastern Central African Republic was authorized by UN Security Council resolution 1778 last year to “contribute to the protection of vulnerable civilian populations and to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance”.

The council also approved the establishment of a UN Mission in Chad and the Central African Republic (MINURCAT) and authorised the EU to deploy forces in these countries for a period of 12 months. But EUFOR has been delayed and won't start until the fighting stops in Chad. This is a ridiculous catch-22 situation; EUFOR is waiting for the situation to improve so they can implement their mandate to “protect civilians in danger”. Once again, Africa weeps while Europe dithers.

Bali climate change talks end

The 187 nation climate change talks in Bali ended on Saturday with an agreement to launch further negotiations after reluctant agreement from the US. The final text of the agreement has acknowledged that “deep cuts” in carbon emissions will be needed. The “roadmap” the parties agreed on included a 2009 summit in Copenhagen to negotiate a binding deal as well as in principle support for the 2050 target of halving worldwide emissions, supported by assistance to developing countries. The deal was concluded after the US dropped opposition to a proposal by the G77 main developing-nation bloc for rich nations to take the lead.

There were some disappointments. The EU had pressed for binding carbon emission cuts of 25 to 40 per cent by 2020. While the US signed the eventual deal, the White House released a statement saying it had “serious concerns” about some aspects. It said the problems can not be solved by developed nations only, negotiations must differentiate developing countries by size of economy and emissions, and the commitment should favour the most vulnerable and least developed countries.

This is a coded call for India and China to do more. China's emissions are on par with those of the US but on a per capita level, each American emits far more than a Chinese. But the tide turned against the US in the conference after Al Gore made a major speech saying his country was "principally responsible" for blocking progress at the climate conference. However Russia and Japan joined the US in successfully opposing numerical targets.

But the official press release (pdf) from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) painted the outcome as a strengthened climate change deal that offers a clear agenda for the key issues to be negotiated to 2009. The UNFCCC is the parent treaty of the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 and the UN believes the decisions taken at Bali will pave the way for action to adapt to the negative consequences of climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deploy “climate-friendly” technologies and finance adaptation and mitigation measures.

Australia will not commit to binding targets until the independent climate change review led by ANU Economics Professor Ross Garnaut releases its findings. The review will examine the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommend medium to long-term policies and frameworks. It has the challenging goal of ensuring future prosperity while meeting international emission targets. The review is not scheduled to complete until end of September 2008 though there will be a draft report due end of June.

This delay left Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in an awkward position at Bali. Last week he was accused of working with Canada and Japan to sabotage the EU and G77 for binding commitments. But he emerged from the conference in triumph after Australia publicly supported including the advice of the UN's peak science body (IPCC) in a crucial secondary document that will become part of the Bali road map. This advice says emissions must be stabilised in the next 15 years if the world wants to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and keep global temperatures from rising 2 degrees. Australia’s role in getting this advice into the roadmap was praised by several NGOs including the Climate Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Much remains to be done including solving the problem of how a carbon emissions market would work which protects poorer countries from deforestation. This is of particular importance to Indonesia and Brazil with their massive rainforests. Indian Science Minister Kapil Sibal also complained that the agreement was too vague on technology transfer. “They don't want to give us technology support. It says support for technology,” Sibal said. "What does support mean — support from where?"

The likelihood is that by the 2009 talks in Copenhagen there will be a new regime in Washington. The world will hope that whoever represents the world’s worst emitter will come ready to play their part. Last Thursday, the UN released fresh data that showed that the temperature rise continues unabated. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said that the last ten years to 2007 were the warmest on record citing data taken from a global network of weather stations, ships and buoys. According to Michel Jarraud, MWO’s secretary general, "It's very likely the warmest period for at least the last 1,000 or 1,300 years." Expect a lot more hot air at Copenhagen 2009.

UN offers hope to Timor-Leste

The UN has pledged to reform East Timor’s police and military after the gun battles that tore at the heart of the new country last year. General-Secretary Ban Ki-Moon made the pledge after meeting Timorese president Jose Ramos Horta in the capital Dili on Friday. Timor-Leste has made perilous progress to democracy since its separation from Indonesia in 1999 and last year saw several weeks of anarchy and gang warfare that was only ended by a strengthening of the UN force. Now Ban promised that the UN and the international community “will fully support reform of the security force and judiciary.”

This is good news designed to protect East Timor’s fragile democracy and its hard won independence from Indonesia. The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste founded in 2002 was the world’s first 21st century sovereign state and one of the poorest. In 1975 it declared its independence from a Portugal, which was convulsed in its own struggle for democracy. But after a few short weeks of civil war between feuding parties East Timor was annexed by Indonesia.

For the next 27 years its official UN status would remain that of "self-governing territory under Portuguese administration”. This was a crucial distinction: While it was a de facto Indonesian province with the explicit and implicit approval of successive American and Australian governments, it remained on the UN agenda. But the cold war imperatives that caused the US to overlook Suharto’s excesses no longer existed in the 1990s. With the world seeing film footage of Indonesian atrocities, the tide turned and by 1999 with Suharto gone, Indonesia offered a surprise independence referendum. 78.5 percent of East Timorese voted in favour of independence.

The story of the former Portuguese colony’s long road to freedom is achingly told in David Scott’s Last Flight Out of Dili. David Scott has devoted much of his life to the cause of Timor-Leste. He was one of the last Australians to set foot in the colony before Indonesia’s illegal invasion in 1975. He was there on behalf of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid charged with the mission of finding out the consequences of Fretelin’s unilateral declaration of independence from Portugal. As the Indonesian forces closed in, he stayed on to help at Dili hospital. He was eventually evacuated with the last flight out of the country avoiding the inevitable execution that awaited those few foreigners that remained.

That fate had befallen five journalists for Britain, Australia and NZ two months earlier on the border between West and East Timor. They became known by the border town in which they were slain: the Balibo Five. They were executed under the orders of Indonesian commanding officer Yosfiah Younus who would become Minister of Information in the 1998-99 government of BJ Habibie.

After the Indonesian invasion, responsibility for resistance fell to the 35,000 strong Falintil (Armed Forces for the Liberation of Timor) who fought from the mountains for next 24 years. Thousands of civilians gave clandestine support and sent reports to the outside world in the face of a media blackout. They faced a 30,000 strong Indonesian army equipped with the latest in American and British equipment. Casualties were roughly even on both sides, about 13,000 to 15,000 died on each side.

Scott accused Australia of four major betrayals in the long independence struggle. The first was in World War II. He quotes Swiss historian Henry Frei who says Japan had no intention of invading neutral Portuguese Timor. Portugal was determined to remain neutral to be a negotiating channel. However a force of 400 Australian troops landed in the province giving Japan the excuse to invade. 40,000 Timorese died in the subsequent occupation.

Scott cites the second betrayal as Gough Whitlam’s support for Timorese integration with Indonesia in 1975 before President Suharto himself was totally convinced by his generals. Throughout his political career Whitlam remained a staunch supporter of Indonesia’s right to the province. Whitlam was aware about the Balibo attack and told the Indonesians his government would not stand in the way of an invasion. His legacy was upheld by the Fraser government that replaced him after the December 1975 dismissal. Australia refused Jose Ramos Horta entry for 8 years and closed down a Darwin radio station that was the only link to Timor from the outside world. The Hawke, Keating and Howard governments that followed Fraser all supported the ‘de jure’ status of Indonesia’s occupation.

The third betrayal occurred in 1999 after the UN Security Council guaranteed the East Timorese the right to campaign and vote in the referendum without fear. This was subverted by Indonesian army elements that conducted a campaign of terror, organised militias, and tried to intimidate people into not voting for independence. Then after the vote, the embittered Indonesians unleashed a scorched earth policy of revenge that levelled East Timor's towns and villages and left hundreds dead. Not until Dili was destroyed did Australia offer troops to lead a UN intervention force.

Scott says that there was a fourth betrayal that occurred around the same time. Australia had intelligence intercepts of Indonesian army plans to terrorise the population ahead of the referendum and also knew about its plan to destroy the new nation if the referendum succeeded. But John Howard’s government refused to divulge this information to either Indonesia or the UN.

It wasn’t until Australian NGOs and unions took action, did the Government move. The level of public anger about the rape of East Timor took many by surprise and it was grassroots action that had the most effect. The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) banned the movement of all Indonesian freight. Churches and community organisations protested about the tragedy that was apparently happening “next door”. Finally an 8,000 strong multi-national InterFET (International Force for East Timor) contingent led by Australian Major-General Peter Cosgrove arrived in the country. They showed great skill negotiating Indonesian acceptance of the mission and the Indonesian withdrawal.

On 29 December 1999, the Indonesian flag was lowered for the last time in Dili. The UN became the transitional authority with a two year timetable for rebuilding and preparing East Timor for self-government. Portugal finally recognised its old colony’s independence in May 2002 as did Indonesia and Timor-Leste took its seat in the UN three months later. But the transition has been painful.

Fierce fighting between former allies broke out in May 2006 and there were renewed clashes in the run-up to the 2007 presidential election. That election was won by 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos Horta. He now says he wants Australian-led international troops to stay at least until the end of 2008 and the U.N. mission until 2011. "We will review it along the way together with the United Nations," Ramos-Horta told reporters after meeting Kevin Rudd today. "We should not repeat the mistakes of the past, a hasty withdrawal of the UN and our friends."

Climate change and the age of water wars

The UN has identified 92 countries as being in severe danger of global warming related acute water shortages that could eventually lead to resource-based conflict. Mainly in Asia, Africa and South America, these countries are home to two thirds of the world’s population and among the world’s poorest. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon told the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit in Japan yesterday that the planet faced a water crisis that could be very bad news for Asia due to massive population growth, rising water consumption, pollution and poor water management. Ban said the consequences would be grave. “Throughout the world, water resources continue to be spoiled, wasted and degraded,” he said. “Water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict.”

Ban was speaking to the results of a study by London based NGO International Alert. Their report showed that 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of water shortages due to climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilisation, affecting another 1.2 billion. The report entitled “A Climate of Conflict” (pdf) highlights four key elements of risk: political instability, economic weakness, food insecurity and large-scale migration. Climate change will have a direct affect on fresh water supply. It identified several water issues arising from these risks including falling water levels in the Ganges basin, longer droughts on the margins of Africa’s Sahel, glacial melting in the Andes and the Himalayas and rising sea levels.

The worst threats affect those countries least equipped to deal with the crisis. Most lack the resources and stability to deal with global warming. International Alert’s secretary-general, Dan Smith, said the Netherlands will be affected by rising sea levels, but will avoid war and strife because it has the resources and political structure to act effectively. “But other countries that suffer loss of land and water and be buffeted by increasingly fierce storms will have no effective government to ensure corrective measures are taken,” he said. “People will form defensive groups and battles will break out.”

The UN has declared 2008 to be the International Year of Sanitation. It states that over 40 per cent of the global population, some 2.6 billion, have no access to latrines or basic sanitation facilities. As a result millions suffer from a wide range of preventable illnesses, such as diarrhoea, which claim thousands of lives each day. Young children are worst impacted. The UN Millennium task force on Water and Sanitation believes the problem can be solved for just $10 billion annually (about 1 percent of the world’s military spending).

The task force’s 2005 report on water and sanitation (pdf) sought to answer two questions: what is involved in a global expansion of water supply and sanitation in a sustainable manner and how can water use be optimised to meet the challenge. They found that in order to achieve their water and sanitation targets by 2015, the world’s richer countries needed to increase donor aid, the middle ranking countries needed to re-allocate aid to those most deserving, create support for ownership of water supply and sanitation among the poorest, focus on community mobilisation in the areas most at need and most importantly more planning and investment in water resources management and infrastructure.

Asia’s burgeoning but disparate population presents one of the greatest challenges. In the next two decades Asia's urban population will swell by 60 percent and a large proportion of this growth will take place in cities of half a million or less. It will be more difficult to manage water resources prudently in these smaller cities because they do not have the technology, financing, expertise and political support of Asia's mega cities. The Manila-based Asian Development Bank’s study of water resources calls it a strange anomaly. “These smaller centres are receiving conspicuously less attention from national and international policy makers," it said. “Unless the present policy and focus change radically, these centres are likely to be major water and waste-water `black holes' of the future.”

Africa is the other major problem area. Potential 'water wars' are likely in areas where rivers and lakes are shared by more than one country such as the Nile, Niger, Volta and Zambezi basins. The Cuito and Okavango rivers between Angola, Botswana and Namibia’s Caprivi Strip have also suffered due to large scale agriculture, urbanisation and the effects of the Angolan civil war. Tensions also erupted between Egypt and Ethiopia when the latter country considered the construction of dams on the White Nile. Lester Brown, head of environmental research institute Worldwatch, sees the problem starkly. “There is already little water left when the Nile reaches the sea,” he says. “Water scarcity is now the single biggest threat to global food security.”

Nigeria and Cameroon: haunted by colonial borders

The border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon is likely to drag on after the border commission said it needs more than $24 billion to complete its final demarcation exercise on the 1,600 km land and maritime boundaries between the countries. The Nigerian commission representative said that the original budget of $12 billion (donated by the UK, Germany, France, the EU, the Nigerian and Cameroonian governments) is insufficient and they need “more than double that amount of money” to finish the job. The areas of dispute between the countries are the Bakassi Peninsula, the Lake Chad area and the maritime boundary.

The Cameroon - Nigeria Mixed Commission was the creation of the UN to resolve the dispute after a 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the land and maritime boundary between the two countries. At the centre of the dispute lies the Bakassi Peninsula. The peninsula is a tiny landstrip of mangrove swamp and consisting of a series of fluvial islands covering approximately 50 square kilometres. It is inhabited by some dozens of villages. Both sides claim ownership over its rich fishing waters in the Gulf of Guinea and its possible oil reserves.

The origins (pdf) of the dispute date back to colonial times. In 1884 Britain justified its takeover of the region by signing a Treaty of Protection with the Obong of Calabar. Britain promised the Obong and his people the protection of the British armed forces in return for fealty to the crown. Over the course of the 30 years Britain and Germany formalised the borders of their African possessions. By 1913 the countries had precisely marked the demarcation of the Anglo-German Boundary between Nigeria and Kamerun from Yola to the Cross River. Britain ceded the Bakassi peninsula to Germany in return for port access via the offshore border.

When World War I broke out, Britain invaded German Kamerun and the country became spoils of war in the Versailles Treaty. The country was split up into British and French mandates. Britain gained Southern Cameroon and Bakassi which it administered contiguously with Nigeria though it never formally merged the entities. After World War II, the UN ratified the 1913 borders once more. French Cameroons became independent in 1960 as did British Nigeria. The people of the Bakassi were left in legal limbo by the two new countries either side of it. While some residents wanted complete independence, the UN held a plebiscite that offered only union with Nigeria or Cameroon.

And so in 1961 anglophone Southern British Cameroon was merged with francophone Cameroon. Nigeria confirmed the result and installed a consul in Buea, former capital of British Cameroon. The situation changed after Biafra, the Eastern-most province of Nigeria, declared its independence. Nigeria regained control in 1970 after a bitter three year civil war. While Nigeria was busy fighting, Cameroon began exploring in the oil rich waters off Bakassi. The two countries established a boundary commission to establish which waters belonged to Cameroon and which belonged to Nigeria. Negotiations dragged on through the 1970s.

But despite an agreement in 1975 the border remained fluid. It was in effect a double jurisdiction for decades. Both states used force to collect taxes and relocate inhabitants to zones controlled by them. Border skirmishes were common. Reports of abductions, looting and torture were rife carried out by both Cameroonian gendarmes and the Nigerian army. After Nigerian strongman Sani Abacha sent troops to Bakassi in 1994, Cameroon took its sovereignty claim to the ICJ. The case took eight years to resolve.

In 2002 the ICJ ruled on the matter. It ruled in favour of Cameroon based on the 1913 colonial border between Britain and Germany. The two heads of state agreed to abide by the decision. Then Nigerian President Obasanjo hailed the agreement as “a great achievement in conflict prevention, which practically reflects its cost effectiveness when compared to the alternative of conflict resolution”.

But Obasanjo went home to find outrage over the decision and Nigeria has since dragged its heels. At the time UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted the “stunning” cost-effectiveness of the Mixed Commission. With the project only one third complete and a possible end cost of $36 billion, Annan’s successor Ban-Ki Moon is unlikely to share the joy.

US slaps more sanctions on Sudan over Darfur

The US has unilaterally imposed new sanctions on Sudan, despite resistance from the United Nations. The sanctions are aimed at pressuring Sudan into carrying out the UN peace plan in Darfur. President Bush ordered the sanctions in a brief speech on Tuesday. The economic sanctions target three high-ranking Sudanese individuals and 31 Sudanese companies including state-run oil companies. They have all been banned from the US financial system.

However the UN has so far declined to endorse the stronger US measures. The UN Security Council has already imposed an arms ban on rebels and government-aided militias alike and has a no-fly zone in the region. There are also travel sanctions on Sudanese officials. However Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remains cool about the latest developments. "This is a decision of the US government," he said. "And I hope the international community can work in a mutually reinforcing way to bring resolution to this matter as soon as possible."

The three individuals targeted in the American sanctions are a) Ahmad Muhammed Harun, the state minister for humanitarian affairs who planned military operations in Darfur between 2003 and 2005 b) Awad Ibn Auf, Sudan's head of military intelligence and security who acted as a liaison between the Sudanese army and the Janjaweed militia and c) Khalil Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) a rebel group that has refused to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement.

Human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and the Save Darfur Coalition have welcomed the US announcement. David Rubenstein, executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition praised President Bush’s decision to finally impose stronger targeted sanctions on the al-Bashir regime but stated these measures are “too late and too little”. David Rubenstein, the Coalition’s executive director, said the US should now act quickly to implement the measures. “President Bush must not give further months to determine whether these outlined measures work, “ he said, “the Darfuri people don’t have that much time”.

However Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir is unlikely to change his position despite the new sanctions. Al-Bashir, who has led Sudan since 1989, has consistently opposed a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur. Sudanese Presidential advisor, Ahmed Bilal Osman has said Sudan will consider any army entering Sudan as an invading army, even if it happens on the orders of the UN.

IN 2006, then UN boss Kofi Annan described Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The crisis began in 2002 when ethnic African rebels rose against the Arab central government in Khartoum. In response, the Sudanese Government unleashed militia groups to quell the rebellion. A flimsy peace accord has been in place since 2006. The UN say at least 200,000 people have been killed and another two million displaced in Sudan’s westernmost region. Sudan rejects these figures and say only there have been only 9,000 deaths. The Sudanese government supported and armed the Janjaweed militia group who have done most of the killing.

In addition to the new sanctions, the US will also press the UN Security Council to agree to new international penalties against Sudan. Although the EU is open to the idea, it is likely the other two permanent Security Council members will veto the idea. China buys two-thirds of Sudan's multi-billion dollar oil exports and both China and Russia also sell arms to Sudan. Earlier this week Liu Guijin, China's special envoy on Darfur, said Chinese investment helps stop the bloodshed while sanctions were counter-productive. "The Darfur issue and issues in eastern Sudan and southern Sudan are caused by poverty and underdevelopment,” he said. “"Only when poverty and underdevelopment are addressed will peace be there in Sudan”.

But US Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios remains optimistic the Chinese will back the sanctions plan. “(China has) done a number of things in the last few months that go far beyond what they're typically disposed to do on a diplomatic issue of this sort, “ he said. “So I think the Chinese position is actually more forthcoming that it may be apparently publicly”.

Ceasefire in Darfur

The government of Sudan has agreed a sixty day ceasefire with the troubled rebel province of Darfur. The news was announced by a US politician visiting the country. Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson said Sudan President Omar Hassan al-Bashir had agreed to the start of a peace process. Richardson and al-Bashir issued a joint statement on Wednesday saying both sides in the Darfur conflict had agreed to a 60-day cessation of hostilities.

Richardson also announced that both sides had agreed to attend a peace summit to be sponsored by the African Union (AU). While it is not yet clear when the ceasefire will commence, the joint statement represents success for Richardson’s mission. He won other concessions too from the central government such as allowing the rebels to call a conference in the field under the jurisdiction of the AU, allowing foreign journalists visit Darfur after a two-month ban and removing the requirement for exit visas for aid workers.

The next thorny issue to resolve is putting a peacekeeping force into Darfur. UN Special envoy Jan Eliasson is also in Sudan and he held talks with the president to discuss a way forward. Eliasson is trying to get commitment from the various parties for the deployment of a hybrid UN and AU peacekeeping force. He has already travelled to AU headquarters in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa and will meet Darfur rebel leaders next. He said President al-Bashir had agreed with him that the conflict could only have a political solution and not a military one. Last month al-Bashir told the UN Sudan supported the plan to eventually replace an understaffed AU mission with a joint UN-AU force of about 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers, though subsequent reports say he may have backed away from this position.

Darfur is an arid and impoverished area in the far west of Sudan. Rebels from the region's ethnic African community took up arms against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum in February 2003. The rebels accused the government of oppressing non-Arabs in favour of Arabs. In revenge for rebel attacks, the Government armed a counter-insurgency force of itinerant Arab-speaking tribes who became known as the Janjaweed. The word Janjaweed is an Arabic colloquialism which means "a man with a gun on a horse”. With the support of the Sudanese army, these men with guns on horses became a fearsome militia and launched reprisals against Darfur farmers. The US has accused Janjaweed of genocidal atrocities and over 200,000 people have died while another 2.5 million have fled their homes in the last four years.

Yesterday’s joint announcement has yet to be confirmed by the rebels themselves but Richardson said he had been to Darfur earlier and met rebel commanders who have agreed to the ceasefire. There are two main rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the smaller Justice for Equality Movement (Jem). Both groups, like the Government they are fighting, are Muslim. The SLA was established after a 1987 famine when the central Government armed an Arab alliance to oppose African farming communities. The SLA united the farmers of Fur, Zagawa and Masalit against the Government. Jem have their roots in the black Islamist community of western Sudan. Jem leaders were originally part of a government faction but lost their place at the seat of power after their sponsor Hassan al-Turabi was sacked by President Al-Bashir. Though SLA and Jem are ideologically different they have co-operated in the fight against the government and Janjaweed.

The war in Darfur has spilled over the border into Chad and the Central African Republic. Civilians fled across the border into refugee camps already crowded from earlier fighting in the area. In June 2006, the UN Security Council asked the U.N. Peacekeeping Department to explore protection of the camps, and an initial assessment mission was sent in late November. The situation in Chad was deemed too dangerous for the UN with fighting on the ground stopping the mission from visiting the border camps. The report recommended against a peacekeeping force in Chad until rebel groups stop cross-border incursions. The UN is now reassessing the report.

How Soon is Mao

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has given its imprimatur to an assistance mission to Nepal after a peace agreement between the Government and the Maoist Rebels. In a statement read out by the Security Council President for December, Qatar's Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, the Council welcomed the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement by the Nepalese government and the Communist Party, and the commitment both parties have stated to transforming the existing ceasefire into a permanent peace. All 15 fifteen member of the UNSC have supported the statement.

The ten year conflict killed 15,000 people and displaced over 100,000 others. The two sides signed a UN sponsored agreement on Tuesday outlining out how the insurgents will set aside their weapons. The technical assessment mission will contain an advance team of 35 UN monitors and 25 electoral personnel. On Wednesday, the Secretary-General's Personal Representative in Nepal Ian Martin briefed the UNSC and said that the agreement represents "the most promising opportunity for the establishment of lasting peace and far-reaching reform".

Nepal's government and rebels are still working to finalise an interim constitution as part of the peace process. The constitution will have to be in place before 73 rebels join the proposed 330-seat interim Parliament. Under the pact, tens of thousands of rebel fighters will be confined to seven main camps under UN supervision ahead of elections next year.

The UK drafted the UNSC’s statement. Britain’s ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry said “"What we've mapped out today is a way in which the UN ... should rally behind the positive developments in Nepal”. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said the unanimous Council approval shows a desire to do whatever necessary to support Nepal's fragile peace. Reports from Kathmandu on Friday indicated Government and Maoist rebel representatives have failed to meet a deadline to form an interim government. The deal had been delayed until next week. Last April, the Maoists helped lead three weeks of mass protests that forced King Gyanendra to give up absolute power.

Nepal was led for over a hundred years by the Rana Autocracy. Jung Bahadur, a strongly pro-British leader, seized control of the country in 1846. He declared himself prime minister and began the Rana line of rulers. The Rana's monopolised power by making the king a titular figure and paid obeisance to the British to avoid invasion. They ruled until a newly independent India flexed its muscles and installed a Nepal Congress Party government in 1951. In 1994, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) won the majority of seats. Man Mohan Adhikary was sworn in as prime minister. His government survived two years until it was dissolved by the parliament. Adhikary resigned his position under allegations of corruption. Also that year a radical leftist party called the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) launched a “people’s war” aimed at overthrowing the government, abolishing the monarchy, and establishing a republic. They were first confined to remote mountain regions but by the late 1990s had spread to more than half the country.

In June 2001 the Maoist insurgency intensified after an astonishing royal massacre. King Birendra, Queen Aiswarya and seven other members of the royal family were fatally shot in the royal palace in Kathmandu, in a drunken rampage by Birendra’s first-born son. Crown Prince Dipendra dispatched his family armed with a machine gun before turning the gun on himself. Dipendra initially survived his wounds but lapsed in a coma. His subsequent death officially made his uncle Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah the new regent of Nepal. An official investigation of the massacre confirmed earlier reports that Dipendra had killed his family members in a drunken rage.

The rebels capitalised on the shootings by claiming it was part of a bigger government conspiracy. They immediately took the uprising to Kathmandu and bombed the home of the Chief Justice who led the investigation into the palace massacre. It was the first time they bombed the capital and they struck at the regime's legislative heart. The new king Gyanendra immediately declared emergency rule, allowing the first large-scale deployment of the 80,000 strong royal army to fight the insurgency. Despite this, the rebels controlled much of western Nepal by 2002. In 2005 Gyanendra dismissed the government and assumed full executive powers in the name of combating the Maoists. The rebels held a three-day nationwide general strike to protest the king's decision.

Gyanendra’s unilateral declaration of power lost him all support among the political parties who threw their support behind the Maoists. By 2006, the population was in open uprising. Finally under foreign pressure, Gyanendra made a declaration to reinstate the parliament. Since it has reassembled Parliament moved quickly to strip the king of his power over the military, abolish his title as the descendent of a Hindu God, and required royalty to pay taxes.

Nepal's new cabinet declared a ceasefire in May. The cabinet also announced that the Maoist rebels were no longer to be considered a terrorist group. The government finally signed a peace deal with the Maoists in November. The 12 point letter of understanding which agreed that “autocratic monarchy is the main hurdle” in realising “democracy, peace, prosperity, social advancement" and "a free and sovereign Nepal”.

Ban Ki-Moon is new UN boss

Ban Ki-Moon from Korea has been elected UN General Secretary. He will take up the role when Kofi Annan’s second five year term expires on 1 January, 2007. The 62 year old Ban is currently South Korea’s foreign minister and speaks fluent English and French. He was appointed by acclamation on Friday by the 192-member General Assembly. He is the first Asian appointee to the role since U Thant of Burma whose term expired in 1971. In his acceptance speech to the assembly, Ban said “My tenure will be marked by ceaseless efforts to build bridges and close divides. Leadership of harmony not division, by example not instruction has served me well so far. I intend to stay the course as Secretary-General”.

Ban Ki-Moon was born in Eumseong, in the central province of North Chungcheong in 1944. He was educated in Seoul and graduated from the National University in 1970 with a degree in International Relations. He wanted a diplomatic career and passed the foreign service examination. He gained a Masters in Public Administration from the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard which is regarded as one of the best public policy schools in the US. During a nearly 40 year diplomatic career, he was posted in India, Austria, Washington and at the United Nations. His affiliation with the UN dates back to 1975 when he was appointed a staff member of the UN division of the South Korean Home Office.

While he was South Korean ambassador to Austria in 1999, he was appointed chairman of the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation. He came to international prominence after 9/11 when Korea had presidency of the UN General Assembly. The first sitting day was 12 September and it was Ban’s role as chef-de-cabinet to the president to see through the prompt adoption of the assembly's condemnation of the attacks. Ban returned home in 1996 to became national security adviser to the president in 1996 and took the office of vice minister in 2000. He was appointed Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January 2004.

Ban declared his candidacy of UN secretary general in February and ran a skilful campaign claiming he would turn the UN into an effective, accountable and transparent global organisation. He promised to reform the "culture of the organization, increase accountability and toughen ethics." He called on member states to allow the Secretariat "greater flexibility matched by greater accountability." He described the US troubled relationship with the thus: "Global challenges call for global responses. The United States cannot do it alone. The United States needs the United Nations, and vice versa." U.S. Ambassador John Bolton endorsed Ban saying, "we believe he is the right person to lead the United Nations at this decisive movement in its history, particularly as the UN struggles to fulfil the terms of the reform agenda that world leaders agreed to last fall."

The office of Secretary General is defined prosaically in the UN Charter as the organization's "chief administrative officer" (Article 97) but holds much “soft power”. Traditionally the post rotates around the world’s regions and this was Asia’s turn. Ban will be the eighth Secretary General in the UN’s 60 year history. He was one of seven candidates vying for the role and topped all four informal polls in the UN Security Council. He will head an organization that has 92,000 peacekeepers around the world and a $5 billion annual budget. The reputation of the UN has been tarnished by recent corruption scandals. The incumbent Secretary-General Annan believes Ban has the credentials for the job saying he was "a future secretary-general who is exceptionally attuned to the sensitivities of countries and constituencies in every continent" and he would be "a man with a truly global mind at the helm of the world's only universal organisation."

Ban has three months to effect a transition. Korean Prime Minister Cheong Wa Dae has not yet nominated a replacement foreign minister so Ban will need to play both roles for at least another month. Korean media have pointed out there may be a conflict of interest between the roles. They have pointed out that his criticism of North Korea failing to comply with a UN Security Council resolution is at odds with his Korean role in an administration that is clinging to its engagement policy with the North.