Last spring I published some reflections to my course blog that included some reflections on a talk by Leymah Gbowee, one of three women who won the Nobel Peace Prize today.

icancstructures:

Discussion not facilitated by me broke out in The Sociology of War and Peace today, in consideration of Alex Morrison’s contribution to Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace, (Ch. 3), on conflict resolution in the international arena. It seems that this topic has been waiting to break out all…

Two things:

1. There is a famine in two regions of Southern Somalia.
2. The UN has a tumblog.

united-nations:

Major announcement: Famine has been declared today in two regions of Southern Somalia. This crisis represents the most serious food insecurity situation in the world today, in terms of both scale and severity.

Is there still time to intervene? The current humanitarian response is inadequate to meet emergency needs, but lives can still be saved with an immediate, massive, multisectoral response.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization: Food Security and Nutriton Analysis Unit - Somalia

Frequently asked questions (FAQs), including definition of “famine”

More humanitarian information from ReliefWeb

Map/Infographic

How can you help?

UNICEF

World Food Programme

UN Refugee Agency

Statehood will not threaten Israel, but hasten a negotiated peace.

(Source: addtoany.com)

icancstructures:

Discussion not facilitated by me broke out in The Sociology of War and Peace today, in consideration of Alex Morrison’s contribution to Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace, (Ch. 3), on conflict resolution in the international arena. It seems that this topic has been waiting to break out all…

I also highly recommend Phyllis Bennis’s interview on FAIR’s Counterspin.

It’s not that there are no real humanitarian concerns; Libyan civilians are paying a huge price in challenging their dictator. But powerful U.S. interests are at stake, and few of them have anything to do with protecting Libyan civilians. Certainly oil is key; not so much about access to Libyan oil (the international oil market is pretty fungible), but about which oil companies will gain privileged positions? Will it be BP and Chevron who win the lucrative contracts to develop Libya’s enormous oil fields, or will Chinese and Russian oil companies take their place? What pipelines will a new government in Libya choose, and which countries and corporations will benefit?

And it’s not only about oil. The Libyan uprising is one of many potentially revolutionary transformations across the Arab world and in parts of Africa, where long-standing U.S.-backed dictatorships are collapsing — what kind of credibility can the U.S. expect in post-Qaddafi Libya? Washington may be betting that it can win credibility with the opposition by jumping out in front with an aggressive anti-Qaddafi “military assistance” campaign, perhaps starting with a no-fly zone. But in fact Washington risks antagonizing those opposition supporters, apparently the vast majority, determined to protect the independence of their democratic revolution.

The future of Libya and much of the success of the democratic revolutions now underway across the region, stand in the balance. If the Obama administration, the Pentagon, war profiteers and the rest of the U.S. policymaking establishment continue to define U.S. “national interests” as continuing U.S. domination of oil-rich and strategically-located countries and regions, Washington faces a likely future of isolation, antagonism, rising terrorism and hatred.

The democratic revolutionary processes sweeping North Africa and the Middle East have already transformed that long-stalemated region. The peoples of the region are looking for less, not greater militarization of their countries. It is time for U.S. policy to recognize that reality. Saying no to a no-fly zone in Libya will be the best thing the Obama administration can do to begin the process of crafting a new, demilitarized 21st century policy for the U.S. in the newly democratizing Middle East.

read more

Establishing a no-fly zone is an act of war. It involves bombing. In the Persian Gulf war, this did not protect Shia in the South of Iraq. Given that our foreign and military policy shows we care not a whit for international law, cynicism indicates this has more to do with guaranteeing the flow of light, sweet crude.

What is immediately striking about the bipartisan call in Washington for a no-fly zone and air strikes designed to help rebel forces in Libya is the absence of any concern with the relevance of international law or the authority of the United Nations. None in authority take the trouble to construct some kind of legal rationalization. The ‘realists’ in command, and echoed by the mainstream media, do not feel any need to provide even a legal fig leaf before embarking on aggressive warfare.

It should be obvious that a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace is an act of war, as would be, of course, contemplated air strikes on fortifications of the Qadaffi forces. The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defense after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council. Neither of these conditions authorizing a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world. The imperial mentality is not inclined to discuss the question of legality, much less show behavioral respect for the constraints embedded in international law.

read more