Desmond Tutu: Millions are dying on the world’s roads. It’s time to act.
This epidemic comes with a vaccine in the form of simple life-saving measures.

Monday, 31 March 2008, Editorial, The Independent.

Meeting today at the UN General Assembly in New York, the world’s governments have an opportunity to start the fightback against one of the world’s most destructive, yet least reported, health emergencies: the epidemic of death and injury being played out on the world’s roads.

The scale of the crisis is not appreciated. In the 10 seconds it has taken you to read this far, another two people have been killed or injured by traffic. Each year, more than 1.2m lives are lost. Over 50m people are injured, many of them suffering long-term trauma and disability. And the numbers are going up.

Every road death is a human tragedy that leaves grief, shock and anger in its wake. To these costs can be added wider impacts. Lost productivity that comes with traffic injuries costs developing countries 1-2 per cent of GDP. Health systems are placed under immense stress. And for the poor, a road injury is often a one-way trip into poverty.

Following a push from groups like the Make Roads Safe campaign, the UN will vote on holding a first ever road safety summit. If the children, pedestrians and cyclists in developing countries who represent the vast majority of casualties had the vote there would be only one outcome.

Rich countries are now making real progress in cutting the human toll, putting in place more stringent traffic rules, designing safer roads, and protecting people from metal. Sadly, the casualty curve in developing countries is heading in the opposite direction. Road deaths are already comparable in scale to malaria and tuberculosis. For the 10 - 24 age group, they are the single biggest cause of mortality. The World Health Organisation projects an 80 per cent increase in death by 2020. Yet unlike malaria, road deaths do not generate global initiatives – they are absent from global agendas.

Africa has some of the world’s most dangerous roads. There are two deaths for every 10,000 cars in the US, compared to over 190 in Uganda and Ethiopia. Many victims are children and poor farmers in rural areas far from emergency services.

But this epidemic is global. Traffic is a major source of death in Latin America; South Asia has the fastest growing casualty lists. In contrast to rich countries, where car occupants account for most victims, in developing countries it is people too poor to own a car bearing the brunt. Visit a trauma ward in Nairobi, Sao Paolo, or Manila, and more than one-in-every five beds will be occupied by a road traffic patient.

What is driving this carnage? Speeding cars, badly maintained roads, and roads designed for speed, rather than lowering pedestrian risk, play a part. Add to this lethal cocktail anarchy in the form of disregard for traffic rules and you have a perfect storm.

Aid donors are part of the problem. The G8 has pledged $1.2bn for Africa’s roads. We welcome this because roads are vital to poverty reduction and the development of market opportunities. But Africa needs safe roads. International norms dictate that 10 per cent of transport infrastructure spending should be for safety. The G8 has allocated just 1 per cent.

This is an epidemic with a vaccine that comes in the form of simple life-saving measures. Well-designed roads, speed limits, the enforcement of laws on crash helmets do not require rocket science.

Some developed countries are setting new safety standards transforming road safety by putting people first. Sweden has adopted a ‘Vision Zero’ programme. The aim: to design roads geared to minimise risk.

Many developing countries are also leading by example. Rwanda, has cut road deaths since 2000. When truck drivers enter from Kenya, they now have to adjust from 60km to a 40km speed limit. In Vietnam and Thailand, education and law enforcement on helmets has dramatically cut deaths. Bogota, has invested in walkways, cross points, and regulated public transport.

An international summit could build on these positive examples. The Make Roads Safe, campaign is calling for a $300m action plan to help poor countries strengthen road safety. But we do not have to wait for an international summit to act. The stakes are rising by the day. Investing political capital and financial resources in safer roads today will prevent countless human tragedies, enhance public health, lift people out of poverty and boost economic growth tomorrow.

We desperately need a people-first transport policy for the 21st Century. The UN General Assembly has a chance to take us in that direction by voting for a road safety summit. Any other outcome would be indefensible.

Desmond Tutu is Emeritus Archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Modern Purim thoughts include the UN.

Purim is the day when Jews remember the plans made by Haman to eradicate all the Jews of the old Persian empire. He did not succeed and paid with his life - as we say - the rest is history.

Jews were ordered to remember what happened then - so they read that story - the Megillah (the parchment of Esther) - year after year - on the evening before Purim. This year it happened on Thursday, March, 20th - so last night we participated at the “Megillah Madness” - at The New York Synagogue in Manhattan - led by Rabbi Marc Schneier.
The celebration was at very high tone and at serious decibels - this to the sound and projections of the Beatles Music and the noise of the traditional “grogger” rattles. Each time the name Haman is read - and this happens 54 times during the readings - mayhem brakes lose and the costumed servers came forth to bring us delicious Haman’s Ears (”Oznei Haman” in Hebrew - staffed with marmalade or poppy seeds), or glasses of sweet whisky spiked drinks. Purim is in effect an annual of catharsis, healthy for the mind and the soul. Quite nice when all you are supposed is to remember evil, so you are better prepared when it strikes again. You see, Purim does in effect obligate today the State of Israel to the UN mandate of: “The Principle to Protect.”

On Purim, the Jewish Jockers are used to run a competition for the coveted “Haman of the Year Award” and this year’s two top candidates were two heads of UN Member States who appear daily on the UN menu: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of the Sudan. The former attacks Jews verbally every day, and has also sponsored militants that fight Jews and Israel daily, while the latter was reportedly actually engaged in genocide against less Arabized Africans of Darfur. www.SustainabiliTank.info has posted many times articles on above deeds. We even tried to understand the background of the genocide in Darfur by considering climate change aspects as an influence on what started the warfare. But whatever the reasons, it is the government of Khartoom that backed its favorites. We see here fights between intruding, more Arabized, pastoralists against lesser Arabized, and blacker, agriculturalists. Our claim was that this is genocide that was started by increased desertification in the region. The UN as an institution did not want to hear such arguments, and eventually it took Sir Nicholas Stern, and the intervention of the UK government at the UN Security Council, to vindicate last year what we were saying three years ago. Whatever the issue, it was al-Bashir’s responsibility “TO PROTECT” his citizens. Instead he puts hurdles before those from the outside that came to help.
The UN Security Council has had Darfur on its agenda for five years, and the genocide continues. But the Council spends disproportionately more time considering Israel’s actions with various UN diplomats berating Israel for defending itself vigorously.
Our “Haman of the Year Award” goes to President al-Bashir. If his enemies don’t get him, the UN has established an International Criminal Court and we wonder why was it not invoked yet in the matter of Sudan’s actions in Darfur. Our website described last week how Dr. al-Bashir let UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wait for him in Dakar, and never showed up for the meeting claiming a headache.

Happy Purim - and I would like to note further that this year Purim falls on the same day as Good Friday - or Easter Friday. This has happened only the second time since 1910.

Easter occurs on the Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, and that full moon usually coincides with the first day of Passover. That is how both religions - Judaism and Christianity have the renewal holidays aligned. This year this is not the case, and the reason is that it is leap year in the Jewish calendar, and an added month (a 13-th month) has been introduced. That brings instead the strange alignment between Easter and Purim. We would like to see in this an opportunity for healing - in the sense that we could say changes could be introduced so that Haman-type of hatred is removed from our lives - our society gets renewed like at Passover time, though this is Purim time. Would it be so terrible to ask the UN to consider this proposition of making sure that evil is remembered and actually acted against?

Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press, The Investigative Journalist at the UN, reports that The Staff Union has complained that the selection of the new UN Ombudsman announced late last week, Johnston Barkat, from the US, was based on a “beefed up” resume. They say he claimed to have been ombudsman for 2000 staffers at Pace University in New York, and that school only has some 300 staffers. All of the rest are “part-time or adjuncts,” so they say the use of the number is misleading.

Then amazing the Spokesperson on Wednesday said the letter of protest from the UN Staff Union was not received by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Matthew has on his website a copy of the letter and it was sent to the Deputy UN Secretary General, Ms. Migiro, from Tanzania, who was appointed by the UNSG to deal with the appointment of the new UN Ombudsman.

We posted on www.SustainabiliTank.info on that appointment on March 15, 2008:  http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/03…

Because of the importance of the issues - I will actually copy above posting right here:

Johnston Barkat of the United States becomes the new Ombudsman at the UN.
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 15th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

Johnston Barkat of the United States becomes the new UN Ombudsman at the level of Assistant Secretary-General, with responsibility for the UN Secretariat as well as its many funds and programmes. In that post, he functions independently of any UN organ or official and has direct access to the Secretary-General as needed.

Barkat was an ombudsman at Pace University and an instructor of conflict resolution and mediation at Columbia University’s International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution.

Will he be given indeed more powers then the previous appointees for the UN ombudsman job?

They say he will serve the Secretariat and the agencies - will he be approachable by someone who is not a UN employee?

Is it really of value that the post has now a higher standing - will this post also yield results?

—————–

Now let me say that I was amazed - in the last few days there were some 50 direct hits of readers to that particular article - and we wondered why?

————————–

There are several serious issues here:
“
(1) as Matthew asks - “DSG Migiro and SG Ban, do letters pass from one to the other?”

(2) is UN Spokesperson Michele Montas not responsible for the DSG as she is responsible for what is said by the UNSG?

(3) and this is our most important question. Here we have some doubts about the UN Staff Union and not just about the UN High Management.

The issue is, and we say this from our own experience, the Office of an Ombudsman that safeguards only the interests of paid members of the UN staff is nice to have - but that is really only half of the story - in effect this is the lesser half when one thinks about the function of an Ombudsman in a democracy. Though, following the Heritage Foundation Panel of Monday March 17, 2008 - we clearly think that this is nevertheless a very important part of the ethics of an organization like the UN - perhaps the only way to safeguard the future of “whistleblowers” - the people that bring a modicum of verity to an organization that is plagued by its claim to Sovereignty that can cover up literally cases of murder, robbery and plain honey-from-the-pot servings.

 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2008/03…

You see, in a place like Pace University, the Ombudsman does not just deal with tenure issues that a disgruntled Professor brings up against the School Management. His business comes from the business of the undergraduates who are not on the University payroll at all, and from those the UN Staff Union letter defined as “part-time or adjuncts” who are not yet gilded owners of a University Union Card. The role of an Ombudsman in a democracy is to have his door open to those folks - the real “downtrodden” in the normal functioning of the institution.

Think for a moment. At the UN, a journalist is mistreated by a mid-level UN employee, under the previous anemic ombuds-lady - she simply said: “THIS OFFICE IS FOR UN EMPLOYEES - NOT FOR JOURNALIST,” and that was it.
That UN staffer could do absolutely anything he wanted to the outsider - the journalist - with complete impunity from any court of justice - inside the UN or outside the UN.

That is why I wrote in the previous article: “Will he be given indeed more powers then the previous appointees for the UN ombudsman job? They say he will serve the Secretariat and the agencies - will he be approachable by someone who is not a UN employee? Is it really of value that the post has now a higher standing - will this post also yield results?”

Now it seems the UN Staff Union brought up an argument that may show they would not want to see him expand his domain. We believe that a person with his background will actually try to expand that domain by listening also to these outsiders. I hope that Matthew Russell Lee can also look into this angle of the Staff Union Claims:

(a) it is in his personal interest in seeing the UN opens up by becoming more hospitable to non-salaried insider folks;

(b) in the name of a better handle of what goes on at the UN - a more open internal justice system could also help decrease corruption in the UN system;

(c) the introduction of a new modicum of democracy to an institution that has a great part of its staff originates from-states that have barely heard of the democracy concept.

==============================================================================================

14 March 2008

Secretary-General
SG/A/1126
BIO/3971

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Biographical Note

SECRETARY-GENERAL APPOINTS JOHNSTON BARKAT OF UNITED STATES

AS UNITED NATIONS OMBUDSMAN

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed Johnston Barkat of the United States as the new United Nations Ombudsman, at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.  As Ombudsman, he will function independently of any United Nations organ or official, with direct access to the Secretary-General as needed.

A strengthened Ombudsman’s Office is one of the key elements of the new system of administration of justice at the United Nations, which was approved by the General Assembly last year.

Mr. Barkat will head a single, integrated and decentralized Ombudsman’s Office that will serve both the Secretariat and funds and programmes.  It will include regional branches in several other United Nations duty stations and a new Mediation Division.  As Ombudsman, Mr. Barkat and his team will facilitate informal resolution of conflict and mediation for issues involving United Nations staff around the world.  In addition to those responsibilities, the new Ombudsman will help to identify systemic problems and propose recommendations to improve policies and procedures to help the United Nations meet its goals more efficiently and effectively.

In selecting the new Ombudsman, the Secretary-General decided to draw upon the process that had been recommended by the Redesign Panel on the Administration of Justice at the United Nations.  As a result, the selection committee included a representative of the staff and two external experts, one chosen by the staff.  This procedure was subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly in December 2007.

An expert in conflict resolution, Mr. Barkat has served as an Ombudsman at Pace University and as an instructor of conflict resolution and mediation at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University.  He has worked as a mediator using alternative dispute resolution in New York State courts and has served on the board of the Westchester Mediation Center.  He has served as chair of the Ombudsman committees for both the American Bar Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution.

He is past president of the International Ombudsman Association and subsequently has served as chair of its International Committee.  Mr. Barkat was also an instructor of business management for Nyack College and the Lubin Graduate School of Business.  He is a senior fellow with the Institute for Collaborative Engagement, and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.  Mr. Barkat has also worked with the United Nations as a negotiations instructor, as a consultant on ombudsman programmes, and adviser on reforms to the Administration of Justice.

He holds a Doctor of Philosophy from Columbia University, where his research explored strategies to create negotiation ripeness in seemingly intractable conflicts, an Master of Public Administration in government from Pace University, and a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from The King’s College.

* *** *

Message from Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) Executive Director on the Occasion of World Water Day 2008.

March 19, 2008.

At a prison on the east coast of Africa, inmates are pioneering a
sanitation project that is working with nature to neutralize human wastes.

The initiative, involving the development of a wetland to purify sewage, is
expected to cost a fraction of the price of high-tech treatments, while
also triggering scores of environmental, economic and social benefits.

Apart from wastewater management, the project is to assess using the
wetland-filtered water for irrigation and fish farming, giving prisoners a
new source of protein or selling to local markets and developing
alternative livelihoods.

Part of the so-called “black wastewater” with high concentrations of human
waste will also be used for the production of biogas.

The biogas can be used as a fuel for cooking, heating and lighting, thereby
cutting electricity bills, saving the prison service money and cutting
emissions from the 4,000-strong jail, including staff and inmates, to the
atmosphere.

News of the project, financed by the Government of Norway and the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), with support from a wide range of partners
including Kenya’s Coast Development Authority and National Environment
Management Authority supported by the University of Dar es Salaam in
Tanzania and the University of Wageningen, the Free University of Amsterdam
and the NGO “Aqua-4-All” in the Netherlands, comes as the globe marks World
Water Day 2008 in the UN International Year of Sanitation.

The Day and the Year are aimed at raising awareness and galvanizing action
to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015. These include
halving the proportion of people with no access to sanitation from the
current 40 per cent of the global population or an estimated 2.6 billion
people.

Sewage pollution, a great deal of which ends up in coastal waters, is
estimated to cause four million lost “man-years” annually in terms of human
ill-health—equal to an economic loss of $16 billion a year.

In many developed countries, part of the answer over the past half century
has been found in ever more sophisticated, multi-million dollar water
treatment works.

But as the new project at the Shimo la Tewa jail in the Kenyan coastal city
of Mombasa highlights, there are other, less costly ways of addressing the
same problem with important spin-offs.

The sewerage collection and wetland purification system, plus labour and
construction costs and including upgrading of sanitary facilities inside
the prison, amount to some $110,000 or $25 per person served—something of a
bargain.

These do not include benefits likely to accrue as a result of diminished
economic costs to the wider environment—reductions of solids that can
choke coral reefs and nutrients that can increase risk of de-oxygenated
“dead zones”, alongside cuts in bacterial pollution that can contaminate
shellfish and ruin someone’s holiday in a locale where tourism income is
important to the local economy.

Meanwhile, the project is likely to have benefits for wildlife including
birds and marine organisms.

Thus, in its own modest way, it can play a part in assisting to achieve the
global target of reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010.

The scheme is among a raft of projects being undertaken under the
“Addressing Land-Based activities in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO-LaB)”
initiative which forms part of the UNEP-brokered Nairobi Convention —a
regional seas agreement.

It is hoped the lessons learnt can be applied to other parts of the world
so that the multiple challenges of sanitation and pollution can, in part,
be viewed through a nature-based lens.

The project is, among others, also working with the coastal Ndlame
communities in Port Alfred, South Africa, using ponds of natural algae to
treat wastewaters including sewage.

The algae, a freshwater or marine organism, assist in de-toxifying the
pollutants and is then harvested as a commercial fertilizer and
protein-rich animal feed.

The total project cost here is around $188,000 with economic benefits from
utilizing treated wastewater and fertilizer production offsetting the price
by $50,000 a year.

Similar creative and nature-based projects are being pioneered on Pemba
Island, Tanzania and in Dar es Salaam.

The sustainability challenges of the 21st century, including those that
relate to water and sanitation, demand more intelligent and creative
solutions than perhaps have been deployed in the past.

Working with nature rather than against it is part of that intelligent
decision-making that may prove a faster, more cost effective and more
economically attractive way of achieving local and international health and
poverty goals.

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Information Officer
UN Environment Programme, New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
  Permalink | Printer Friendly |  Email This Article
Posted in UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Kenya, Green is Possible, Futurism, South Africa, Norway, Netherlands, Nairobi, Tanzania

del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?

Discuss this article

And we were told that the Africa trip was about African AIDS and US AID. Now THE WEEK tells us how really others thought about that trip. It was about African Oil and US Military Strategy to take possession of that oil.

Had the US wanted to do something for a sustainable development of Africa - African Jobs could have been created by helping them become independent of oil in their National development programs. After all, drilling for, and producing oil for export, has the side effect that it destroys the fabric of African Society and the environment that has allowed for communities in such places as the Niger delta. The effect of oil production was the enriching of a few, and the destruction seen by the great majority of those that live in the producing regions. China’s road building, by its military engineers, to facilitate access to the oil, and in order to open the way for exports of cheap Chinese goods, is something that will be going on, and the US simply cannot induce the African Governments to do without it. Neither will AFRICOM be able to fight this economic intrusion managed by the Chinese military.

Forest Day: Shaping the Debate on Forests and Climate Change in Central Africa.
Palais de Congrès, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Thursday, 24 April 2008, 09.00 – 17.00

‘Forests are a key issue for climate change discussions’, said Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), during last December’s international climate meeting in Bali. The conference delegates also expressed an urgent need for ‘meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ (REDD).

The Central African Congo Basin, the second largest forest area in the world, will play a crucial role in the success of any climate change policy. Proposed new climate initiatives raise questions about the impact and role of these initiatives in the region.

That is why CIFOR is organizing Forest Day – to help shape the debate on forests and climate change in Central Africa. Forest Day will be held on 24 April 2008.

Speakers representing a broad range of forest stakeholders will present and discuss prominent forest issues central to the climate change debate. There will be scientists, local and international NGOs, university lecturers, policymakers, communities, experts and others interested in the subject.

Forest Day aims to provide a regional perspective on the discussions surrounding forests and climate change. By debating and analyzing the social, economic, scientific, technological and political issues, Forest Day will provide stepping stones for informed climate policies in the region.

Presentations, discussions and debates will focus on:

- Forest’s role in climate change mitigation
- REDD and mitigating climate change in Central Africa
- REDD, markets and governance
- Forests and climate change in Central Africa
- Financing mechanisms
- Estimating carbon stock
- Pilot projects and their technical, monitoring and data-related challenges
- The carbon market and the forestry sector
- REDD and rural poverty
- Interactions between REDD and other forest management approaches

Contact Information:

Janneke Romijn
Coordinator for Forest Day - Cameroon
Email:  ForestDay-Cameroon at cgiar.org
P.O. Box 2008, Messa, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Tel: (237) 2222 74 49 / (237) 2222 74 51.
Fax: (237) 2222 74 50.

 http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Regions/CAfri…

GEORGE CLOONEY’S STATEMENT
PRESS CONFERENCE 31 JANUARY 2008

Thank you, I’ll try to be brief. As you probably know by now, I was invited to be a Messenger of Peace with a special focus on peacekeeping for the United Nations. I’ve very proud to accept that role.

My first piece of business was to get acquainted with peacekeepers in action. Which meant front lines of conflict zones. I was invited to travel with assistant secretary general, loot and her staff to Darfur, Chad, and eastern Congo. It was planned in secret for obvious security reasons and worse yet they might have seen some of my films.

As you probably now know, I was supposed to come back and report what I saw to the members of the troop contributing countries. However, in a new development, that wont’ be happening, which in effect means that a few minutes ago I was officially awarded the messenger of peace and then immediately directed not to give the message. So instead I’ll give it to you… and you can give it to the members.

I’m the son of a newsman, so the job of Messenger comes with the responsibility to deal with facts. Not to tell people what they want to hear… but to tell them the truth… unfiltered.

Each conflict zone has difficulties that are unique… but there is always one unifying thread… the worst atrocities are saved for its poorest and most vulnerable.

In the Congo, we were there the day the peace agreement was signed in Goma. We were in out-posts that were shelled days before… and for now, that fighting has stopped. It’s a very tenuous agreement… It’s flawed and messy but it is also… hope. Real tangible progress and change for peace.

It’s only because of the determination of the UN peacekeepers that this hope is possible.

In Chad, the peacekeeping role is in its infancy. The fighting is spilling back and forth from Darfur. The situation has deteriorated since I was there nearly two years ago.

The border of Chad and Darfur is the front line of the conflict. It’s a dangerous place to be, and the refugee and IDP camps are right there… at most risk.

We met with President Deby who assured us that the UN and humanitarians are not only welcome but needed in this country… That doesn’t mean it will be easy to succeed there.
It means that the host country recognizes that the UN peacekeepers are coming there with no agenda, no intent on occupying or overtaking their country… simply to provide enough space for talks to begin safely… even with the support of the government this is a nearly impossible task. But it’s the belief of everyone concerned that it is also the only chance for peace.

… And then there’s Darfur. Our party was eventually allowed to come in. The Sudanese government hoped to show that they’ve been unfairly treated by the international community. That the calls of atrocities by the government are exaggerated… that it’s simply a civil war.

Let us be clear. As we traveled to north, south and west Darfur, el fashir, nyala, zalengi… there is not one man, woman or child in any camp… at any locations that doesn’t hold the government of Sudan or it’s Janjaweed supported militia, responsible for them being displaced. Not one. Millions are homeless, not from famine or disease or acts of God. But from a well armed militia intent on ridding the land of its people. That’s fact not speculation. You can have an opinion on why… you can have an opinion on what it should be called, but you can’t debate fact.

There is however another fact. The attacks have increasingly grown more complicated. A vacuum was created. A vacuum of justice, civility, local government, land rights… humanity… as in any apocalypse the ones left standing begin to fight for survival.

The rebel groups can, and have engaged in horrific acts of violence. Rebel leaders like Minnie Minawi and Abdul Wahid have followers capable of unspeakable cruelty.

There can be NO peace until all the parties sit down at a table and begin the long process of talks. Some two and a half million people want to go back to their homes, and NOT live their lives in misery.

… In order to deploy peacekeepers you need three things. Support by the host nation, support by the member states and resources.

To the host nation… specifically President Bashir… these peacekeepers are not an occupying force, there’re not there to spread democracy or infringe on religious beliefs… the Congo is proof of that. The government has accepted Resolution 1769, that means that you can’t obstruct the peacekeepers. You’ve asked for more humanitarian aid… humanitarians cannot work if they’re not protected from rebel attacks. If they’re not your rebels then you should welcome the peacekeepers efforts to suppress the violence.

The resource issue is far less complicated… most members aren’t fulfilling their duty. The United States to take an example is a billion short of its peacekeeping funding resources means helicopters, trucks, radios any number of elements to support these forces.

To the member states… all your participation and skill is needed. China was eventually instrumental in pushing 1769 through the Security Council… so it’s China that can hold the Sudanese government to the commitments it made to the UN and to China specifically. The international community looks more and more to China for leadership and with that comes great responsibility. You can be the difference to millions of people’s lives.

This body has a habit of referring to itself as a collective of individual states. But you’re much more than that. You’re the United Nations. An entity all to yourselves. When I stood in a hospital next to women who’d been raped and set on fire two days earlier, they look up to me and said “Please send the UN” not the US or China or Russia… just the UN. You’re their only hope.

It’s important to note that you have a peacekeeping force already there. Most of them were formerly the African Union troops. Some nine thousand. Most haven’t been paid since September. They’re waiting for their pay, waiting for their 17-thousand extra troops, they’re waiting for equipment.

There are some groups protecting 250-square kilometers of desert with no helicopters and no radios that work… there are your troops now… the men and women risking their lives for peace… your responsibility. So either give them the basic tools for protecting the population (and themselves) or have the decency to just bring them all home. You can’t do it half way… bring them home… and then shut off your TV… and your radio… your phones… and the internet. And go back into your offices and wait until it’s all over… It shouldn’t take too long before they’ll stop hoping for the UN to come.

But right now they’re hoping. They see these bright blue hats and they feel a new energy in the air… they feel for the first time that this is the moment that the rest of the world… all the nations… united… are stepping in to help them.

There’s only one change to get this right. They believe you when you tell them that hope is coming… they know that only the United Nations can help on this scale. They know it… and you know it.

I’m proud to be here as a messenger of peace… and the message is… the world is watching and you can’t afford to fail.

The European Union is expected to deploy troops to Chad and the Central African Republic in February after France said it would provide extra troops and equipment. Eufor Chad/CAR, is expected to be a 3,700-strong force.

The EU troops will protect refugees from Sudan’s conflict-ridden Darfur region. The conflict has given rise to some 234,000 refugees from the Darfur region, as well as around 178,000 from eastern Chad and 43,000 from Central Africa.

Ireland is to send 450 troops, and the EU force will be commanded by an Irish general, Lieutenant Pat Nash. Lt. Nash is to make a decision on Friday as to whether the contribution from other EU member states could make the mission viable.

Eufor Chad/CAR, has a UN Security Council mandate and is to be deployed across four areas, three in Chad and one in the Central African Republic, in order to protect hundreds of thousands of war refugees and those displaced by internal fighting.

Contributions are also expected from other EU member states Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden.