Duck doings

Today, at the Duck of Minerva group IR blog, I posted "Joking Cousins" about the "joking relationships" that operate throughout Africa. Practitioners insult one another without taking offense -- a social tie that is said to promote peaceful order within various societies.

On Wednesday, June 10, I posted "Domestic terror" about the recent shooting inside the Holocaust Museum and the murder of an abortion services provider in Wichita. Do these violent attacks mean that the Department of Homeland Security was correct a few months ago when it warned about the danger of radical right-wing extremism in the US?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Facts of the day: clean water

It's hot and dry across the USA right now, but at least Americans generally have plentiful access to clean drinking water and toilets. Much of the world does not, which is why the UN's Millennium Development Goals include plans to improve access.

Consider this information, from the Earth Policy Institute:

The United Nations Millennium Development Goal for environmental sustainability calls for halving the proportion of people lacking sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015. Meeting this goal would require doubling the $15 billion a year that the world currently spends on water supply and sanitation. While this amount may seem large, it pales in comparison to the estimated $100 billion spent each year on bottled water.

As the EPI article points out, bottling water creates all sorts of negative externalities for the environment -- the bottles alone require millions of barrels of oil and several million tons of plastic, most of which is NOT recycled. In the US, about 85% of bottles end up as garbage or litter and nearly 40% of recycled bottles are exported!

Americans drink about one-sixth of the world's bottled war annually; the top two brands are Aquafina and Dasani. Those familiar bottles are filled with filtered tap water, marketed and sold by Pepsi and Coke. According to government and industry estimates, about one-fourth of all bottled water is merely tap water. Chemical tests often reveal that bottled water is not safer than water from the tap and is often less healthy.

Since bottled water frequently (perhaps typically) costs more per gallon than gasoline, figure that Americans spend somewhere around $10 to $15 billion per year on this product.

I will repeat from above. The UN MDG seeks $15 billion annually to provide clean drinking water to 1 to 1.5 billion people (mostly in Asia and Africa) and basic sanitation to nearly 2.5 billion people.

Lack of access to clean water and sanitation are major factors in various childhood diseases, like diarrhea, which kill 11 million kids under the age of 5 annually. These factors are also a large reason why malaria kills 1 million of the 300 million cases of infection every year. Women and children spend considerable amounts of time finding and carrying water -- often instead of attending school.

The world currently consumes 150+ billion liters of bottled water each year, so it would cost less than 10 cents per liter to achieve the MDG goal.



Visit this blog's homepage.

Filed as: water

Crisis Failure

Today, the Belfer Center hosted Ambassador Morton Abramowitz, a former career foreign service officer. Need his bio? Abramowitz

retired in 1997 as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and from the State Department in 1991. Ambassador Abramowitz also served recently as Acting President of the International Crisis Group - a multinational, non-governmental organization headquartered in Brussels and Washington, focusing on crisis prevention. Prior to joining the Carnegie Endowment in August 1991, he was Ambassador to Turkey. He has also served as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, United States Ambassador to the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction Negotiations in Vienna, Ambassador to Thailand...

The Ambassador spoke off-the-record about the prospects for addressing non-strategic state failure. He actually said that his remarks could be on-the-record, but made one series of comments that he felt should stay in the room.

Abramowitz was one of the founding members of the International Crisis Group, a non-governmental organization financed by George Soros in the hopes of rallying international support to prevent and resolve violent conflict. Former Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, is President and CEO. Evans won the 1995 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order, which I direct.

Today, Abramowitz was quite pessimistic about the ability of advocacy groups like ICG to convince states to intervene in humanitarian emergencies. This echoes what he wrote about Darfur with Samantha Power in the Washington Post last September:

Why has the world, with all its outpourings and Security Council deliberations, failed to tackle the Darfur problem? The main answer is straightforward enough: Major and minor powers alike are committed only to stopping killing that harms their national interests. Why take political, financial and potential military risks when there is no strategic or domestic cost to remaining on the sidelines?

...Darfur shows that dedicated advocacy can move democracies to denounce atrocities and provide generous humanitarian help. What the earnest advocacy rarely does is propel the powerful to stop the killing. For that to happen, righteous clamor must reach a high enough pitch that politicians in democratic states are persuaded to do a difficult thing: take domestic political risks in pursuit of polices that do not serve their immediate interests, that can be financially costly and that provide no clear-cut exit strategies.

He essentially repeated these lessons: "the delivery of humanitarian aid lets us off the hook." Worse,

"the existence of the U.N. Security Council hides the crux of the problem: Countries do not want to do what is necessary to prevent large-scale loss of life in messy, complex Africa. Crises such as Darfur require urgent action, and states are well aware that the Security Council cannot act urgently. It is not by accident that they throw the problem into the labyrinth of U.N. deliberations, which allows them to play the role of good international citizens, while the Security Council with its built-in vetoes from Russia and China and its built-in opposition from rotating members such as Pakistan and Algeria, prevents any serious action against sovereign nations."

Amb. Abramowitz was quite pessimistic, actually.

I don't know how his colleagues feel about this take, but the group does seem to have some job openings.

Darfur news

This week, 2 bits of news about genocide in the Sudan caught my eye.

First, from the top, down: The UN Security Council passed a French-sponsored resolution last week that recommended the International Criminal Court pursue the case. The BBC:

The UN has given a sealed list of 51 people suspected of carrying out atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region to the International Criminal Court.

Last week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution referring the situation in Darfur to the tribunal.

The list apparently includes government officials, as well as army, militia and rebel leaders.

The Sudan refuses to hand over any suspects, and it refers to the Bush administration's refusal to accept ICC jurisdiction to defend its position:

[Sudan's President Omar] al-Bashir swore "thrice in the name of Almighty Allah that I shall never hand any Sudanese national to a foreign court", he is quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

This would be the ICC's first case. It's potentially a big one since 200 to 300,000 people have died.

Second, from the bottom up: In response to student activism, Harvard has divested its investments in a Chinese oil company that does business in Sudan. This news was in the Globe, April 5:

Under mounting pressure from student activists, Harvard University announced yesterday that it will sell an estimated $4.4 million stake in PetroChina, whose parent company is closely tied to the Sudanese government, accused by the United States of waging a genocidal campaign to suppress rebels in Darfur...

"Divestment is not a step that Harvard takes lightly, but I believe there is a compelling case for action in these special circumstances, in light of the terrible situation still unfolding in Darfur and the leading role played by PetroChina's parent company in the Sudanese oil industry, which is so important to the Sudanese regime," said a statement released by Harvard's president, Lawrence H. Summers.

The article points out that Harvard is out in front on this issue, but that the University never fully divested from South Africa during the apartheid era. In 1990, however, Harvard divested from tobacco company stock.

Harvard owned $4.4 million worth of stock in the Chinese company, in its $23 billion endowment. Student groups are a bit worried about other companies that do business in the Sudan. Harvard's press release didn't mention any of them.

Given how worked up some Bush administration officials have been about the possibility that Europe might lift the arms embargo against China, Harvard's decision might not be about Darfur at all.

Global Poverty

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, penned a troubling piece for the Sunday Boston Globe. He leads with a jab aimed directly at foreign policymakers in affluent states:

GLOBAL POVERTY IS the most important foreign policy issue of our time--or, at any rate, it should be. And indeed there are signs that the sheer unrelenting grinding deprivation that keeps 1.1 billion people living on less than $1 a day is capturing the attention of many politicians for whom realpolitik has usually ruled out the interests of the poor.

As part of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, affluent states promised to help the global poor reach a wide range of goals by 2015. They meant to halve global poverty and achieve universal primary education, for example. So far, this goal looks more like a pipe dream:

As Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer and a passionate advocate for human development, declared last month at meeting of African finance ministers in South Africa, the world is lagging as much as 100 years behind schedule.

A century!

As they have previously, affluent states promised to give 0.70% of their national income in aid. In reality, the total is only about 0.25% and the US contribution is about 0.14%. The difference between the promised and actual giving is $130 billion per year.

Keep in mind that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion so far.

In 2000, George Bush promised to put $5 billion towards the Millennium Challenge Account. Despite the applause lines last week in the State of the Union address (fighting global AIDS, for example), Bush has broken this promise.

Tony Blair, in contrast, has been out front on this issue. He recently called for the moneyed west to forgive 100% of Africa's $70 billion foreign debt.

Horton argues that one problem the UN faces is Kofi Annan's weakened position. He doesn't say so, but I presume he's talking about the oil-for-food scandal.

So Annan is to blame for leaders of rich states ignoring the world's poor?

Freedom's just another word for...

Kleptocracy?

Peter Maass has a fascinating article about Equatorial Guinea in the January/February 2005 Mother Jones. The story is about the dictatorship of Teodoro Obiang and the way he and his family have siphoned off much of the state's new oil wealth (oil was discovered in 1995):

In the past few years, Equatorial Guinea, population 500,000, has become the third-largest oil exporter in sub-Saharan Africa, after Nigeria and Angola. Per capita, it is one of the richest countries on the continent; rated by how much money ends up in the pockets of people not related to the president, it remains one of the poorest.

Just another "ownership" society?

Actually, the US government and US-based transnationals have played an important role in developments in EG since 1995:

His conduct has been aided by American companies: As detailed in Senate and Treasury Department documents, Riggs Bank helped Obiang shuttle millions into offshore accounts. Oil companies, meanwhile, made payments to his regime that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now scrutinizing under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The president’s uncle, Jonathan Bush, is CEO of Riggs Bank investment arm.

Maass does a pretty good job explaining the seedy story, extensively relying upon a US Senate report:

Riggs also has a reputation for not asking too many questions. As the committee report notes, “Riggs has repeatedly been cited for having weak anti-money-laundering controls.” Indeed, the document went so far as to call the bank’s program “dysfunctional.” This certainly held true in Riggs’ treatment of Obiang’s money: “Riggs was fully aware of the corruption risks associated with the E.G. accounts,” Senate investigators reported, yet the bank “failed to exercise enhanced scrutiny of the account activity, even for transactions involving large cash deposits or international wire transfers.”

Obiang’s relationship with Riggs began in 1995, and by 2003 his regime had become the bank’s single largest customer. In all, Riggs held more than 60 accounts belonging to Obiang, his government, and his ruling circle.

Special scorn is reserved for the “investment accounts” which in 2003 were valued "between $300 million and $500 million."

Hmmm, who is that investment CEO again?

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) had a great line in the hearings on this topic (which featured oil company and Riggs execs):

Levin said in closing. “But I’ve got to tell you, I don’t see any fundamental difference between dealing with an Obiang and dealing with a Saddam Hussein.”

The Securities Exchange Commission is investigating some of the charges reported by the US Senate investigation:

As the Senate report concluded, “Riggs Bank serviced the E.G. accounts with little or no attention to the bank’s anti-money-laundering obligations, turned a blind eye to evidence suggesting the bank was handling the proceeds of foreign corruption, and allowed numerous suspicious transactions to take place without notifying law enforcement.” Riggs officials declined to comment for this story.

The committee’s rebuke did not end with Riggs. “Oil companies operating in Equatorial Guinea,” Senate investigators wrote, “may have contributed to corrupt practices in that country by making substantial payments to, or entering into business ventures with, individual E.G. officials, their family members, or entities they control, with minimal public disclosure of their actions.”

Half of those 60 bank accounts mentioned above belonged to members of the dictator's family or government (often the same).

I'm not sure how this story is going to end. After all, Margaret Thatcher's son Mark has recently admitted his involvement in an attempted coup in EG last year -- and the latest press reports suggest that coup backers were trying to gain US approval.

Keep an eye on this story.

Humanitarian intervention?

As I've often noted, the 2000 Bush campaign went to great lengths to emphasize that the US should only use force when a US "vital interest" is at stake. Bush openly repudiated the so-called Clinton Doctrine, which was essentially the "promise" (Secretary of State Madeleine Albright hedged on its universality) of US action to stop genocidal acts:

"we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it."

Now, of course, with the failure to find WMD in Iraq and the lack of "smoking gun" evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda, many Republicans are stressing the humanitarian side of the "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

This is just bunk.

Here's Vice President Cheney on "Meet the Press" just a few days before the war started:

MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”

What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

End of answer.

Russert, as Josh Marshall noted yesterday, went on to ask Cheney about the IAEA's then-fresh declaration that Iraq had no nuclear program. None.

Cheney said the CIA disagreed. Ha! This fails the laugh test. Look at CIA Director Tenet's recent speech about the evidence CIA provided pre-war:

We said Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and, probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.

Then, Cheney said that the IAEA didn't know what they were talking about:

I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree....We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.

Of course, as Kenneth Pollack points out in the January/February Atlantic, it's actually very hard to hide a significant nuclear program and US intelligence agencies became incredibly dependent upon UN and IAEA inspectors through the 1990s.

The inspectors were the source of the key US intelligence!

This is all important because the President is now saying that everyone -- the Congress, the Clinton administration, the UN Security Council -- believed Iraq had WMD.

That would leave the administration blameless for starting an unprovoked war without a "vital national interest."

But the problem, as anyone can see, is that events changed dramatically from October/November, when the Congress and Security Council acted, to March, when Bush went to war, precisely because of the return of the UN and IAEA inspectors.

By March, the "mushroom cloud" fear was gone. Only the Bush people, who distrusted the inspectors, believed otherwise. Or ignored the evidence.

I'd like to hear some prominent Democrats say this pronto.