by Richard Gowan | Nov 28, 2007 | Conflict and security
I’ll spare readers further extended commentary on the grim outlook for peacekeeping (although, just to add to the fun, it’s worth checking out the new piece by Charles Grant and Tomas Valasek of CER on how Bosnia can go bad too) but it’s hard to overlook Jean-Marie Guehenno’s challenge to the Security Council yesterday. After a dour briefing on the obstacles to getting into Darfur, and holding out the opportunity of one last round of talks with Sudan to sort things out, the UN peacekeeping chief summed up:
Should the anticipated discussions fail to clear the path to the deployment of an effective force, the international community will be confronted with hard choices: do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?
The emphasis was in the original.
by David Steven | Nov 28, 2007 | Conflict and security
Head over to the BBC website for some eye-opening commentary from (mostly Muslim) readers on the British teacher who has been arrested in Sudan for allowing her class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammed.
Some are outraged by the Sudanese government’s actions. One Londoner writes:
This is unbelievable. I’m fed up of reading and hearing stupid incidents like these, which further enhance the incorrect portrayal of Islam. The teacher has quite clearly made an innocent mistake. Islam is about tolerance and forgiveness. The possible repercussions of this incident contradict this entirely. It provides more fuel for the anti-Muslim sentiment around the world.
But many are convinced the teacher deserves some punishment. A parent at the school is unsympathetic:
Lashes is a severe punishment and it is too harsh for what she did. But she has to be punished somehow. She should have learnt more about this society and taken more care about her actions. Me and other parents are not happy about the school closure. The children are going to miss so many classes and they were supposed to have exams next week. Now they have to stay at home and wait.
A Sudanese living in London believes the insult to the prophet was intended:
The teacher went to Sudan and she should have learnt the laws of that country. Here in England people think that what she did was an innocent mistake, but I don’t think that. She was very wrong to make fun of the Prophet Muhammad… The teacher should be punished because she has insulted Islam and Muslim people.
Two readers from Sudan, meanwhile, believe the authorities have not gone far enough. The children should be punished too!
The children themselves should be punished for having chosen the name of our great Prophet for a lowly bear. The teacher was misguided, whereas the children were malicious. They must be brought to answer for their blasphemy.
The children voted as well. They should lock them up too, as a lesson to anybody who insults Prophet Muhammad.
Update: Law professor and blogger, Ann Althouse also takes a hard line:
Of course, I’m opposed to whipping as a punishment, but it seems to me that if you go to a foreign country to teach people’s children, you have a responsibility to learn the deep beliefs of the culture you’ve entered and to adapt to it…
This case concerns a teacher who is trusted with the education of children. It is no answer that the children got the idea of naming the bear “Muhammad.” The teacher is obligated to guide them.
by Alex Evans | Nov 28, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security
International Alert have published an excellent new report (funded in part by CIC) entitled A Climate of Conflict: the links between climate change, peace and war. It’s a great example of the kind of integrated approach that needs to become routine for governments and international agencies, marrying areas of work until recently seen as discrete from one another. (Dan Smith, one of the authors of the report and the head of IA, has been doing this kind of integration for ages: he’s the editor of Penguin’s excellent State of the World Atlas.)
The report finds that there are 46 countries – home to 2.7 billion people – in which “the effects of climate change interacting with economic, social and political problems will create a high risk of violent conflict”. Another 56 countries, with 1.2 billion inabitants, have weak institutions of government that are likely to struggle with the additional strain posed by climate change. The lists – best viewed here on a zoomable map – make for interesting reading: the high risk list, for instance, includes not only obvious places like Sudan or Angola, but also countries including India, Peru, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bosnia and Iran.
Intriguingly – and encouragingly, when one thinks about it – the report argues that
…peacebuilding and adaptation are effectively the same kind of activity, involving the same kinds of methods of dialogue and social engagement, requiring from governments the same values of inclusivity and transparency.
The nature of resilience, in other words, looks pretty similar in the face of both climate change and armed conflict, dissimilar though they might appear at first glance:
A society that can develop adaptive strategies for climate change in this way is well equipped to avoid armed conflict. And a society that can manage conflicts and major disagreements over serious issues without a high risk of violence is well equipped to adapt successfully to the challenge of climate change. Climate change could even reconcile otherwise divided communities by posing a threat against which to unite and tasks on which to cooperate.
The report’s recommendations are definitely worth a look.
by David Steven | Nov 28, 2007 | Middle East and North Africa, North America
Classy commentary from Frank Gaffney Jr in the Washington Times:
It is fitting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chose the U.S. Naval Academy for the venue of today’s so-called Mideast peace conference. The reputation of that extraordinary institution in Annapolis has been sullied in recent years by a succession of rapes of young women.
Despite official efforts to low-ball its significance, Miss Rice’s conclave is shaping up to be a gang-rape of a nation on a scale not seen since Munich in 1938, when the British and French allowed Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to have their violent way with Czechoslovakia.
This time, the intended victim is Israel.
