Bringing it home

As regular readers know, I'm particularly susceptible to issues affecting children, and here's one that particularly hit home - check out Picture 6:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7730357.stm

The picture comes from the BBC's excellent analysis of the situation in the DRC, and highlights the appeal launched today by the Disasters Emergency Committee to help people in the Congo (http://www.dec.org.uk/).

The appliance of common sense

A piece by The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins prompted an interesting debate on the subject of the so-called “War on Drugs” (an earlier variation on the seemingly endless “War on Terror”). The particular trigger was the assertion that “In the south (of Afghanistan) the British have no strategy except to re-enact the Zulu wars at exorbitant cost in money and lives. The Helmand campaign is magnificent but mad.” Simon Jenkins was talking about the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, rather than the war on drugs, but our view, as non-experts, was that a solution to one war (on drugs) could be an, admittedly partial, solution to another (in Afghanistan). Without degrees in development economics, international politics or the history of US drug policy, we came up with two workable strategies:

1. Instead of bombing opium fields (specifically in Afghanistan), buy the opium and use it for legitimate medical purposes. The farmers would have a steady income, don’t feel punished by the government (or the West for that matter), and are not drawn into criminal activity by the “drug lords”. A recent article, also in the Guardian, lamented the shortage of opium for medical purposes at the same time that piles of it were being burnt up in Afghanistan.
2. Instead of bombing coca fields (in Central America), encourage the farmer to grow coffee, bananas, whatever, and pay a – and here’s the key part – fair price for those products. Growing coca / manufacturing cocaine will then seem less attractive, not least because growing coffee doesn’t normally come with the built in risk of being bombed by various air forces.

There we are; two people with nothing but a bit of common sense, with a plan with a clear outcome that is better than the one we currently have (an endless “war” with no clear achievable end). So, to paraphrase Simon Jenkins, how come “London's finest minds joined with those of Washington” cannot consider such a plan and make it happen?

If anyone can see a fundamental flaw in this reasoning, I’d be delighted to hear it. Sure, it won’t be easy, it won’t be done in a day, but it’s got to be better than what we have now.

Some changes to SpaceOasis

Blogging seems to be one of those things that just never stand still! Some great new functionality for SpaceOasis courtesy of those nice people at blogger.com:

• An opinion poll - this month's poll is on peacekeepers in the DRC - let us know what you think
• A bookstore - all the recommended books reviewed on SpaceOasis can be found at the SpaceOasis "astore" from amazon.co.uk
• An RSS Feed - you can now subscribe to SpaceOasis wherever you happen to be

All this sparkling new functionality can be found in one of the boxes to the right.

Let us know what you think.

And then there were two...

And update from the Control Arms website brings news of an important victory in the fight for an international Arms Trade Treaty.  This treaty aims to ensure tougher arms controls - the UN treaty aims "to control the unregulated international arms trade, which fuels conflict, poverty and serious human rights abuses around the world".

On Friday 31st October, the UN voted overwhelmingly to move forward with work on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Only two countries voted against it - the US and Zimbabwe.  It's amazing to think that America and Zimbabwe should choose to become isolated together on this issue.  Let's hope that the new President of the USA and the infant, and fragile, power-sharing government in Zimbabwe together take the opportunity for their new governments to do something right for themselves and the rest of the world, and reconsider their votes.

"Big" news, "small" news

It's been a tumultuous week, and today is the day of the American elections - what happens today will shape the history of the world for the next few years. In a sense, that's obvious - one could argue that what anyone does today could shape the history of the world - history, the present & the future belong to us all. However, given the recent history of the USA and the hopes riding on both candidates, there's arguably a feeling that we are at a crossroads. And only time will tell.

The events in the Democratic Republic of Congo (there's a title surely sorely inaccurate) have shocked everyone, and as a parent, the coverage has been heartbreaking. A number of charities are active in the area, including Save the Children, Christian Aid and Oxfam. And no doubt a host of others.

But there's a frightening view, raised by the BBC on TV and radio that we are all implicated in the war - the BBC News at Ten suggested that if people have bought a mobile phone (the components inside) or gold in the last few months, it could have come out of the conflict zone. The BBC website points out that Rwanda has been accused of being behind the current crisis, but also hosts a link to Global Witness, an organisation dedicated to "breaking the links between natural resources, conflict and corruption". This idea was put to David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary on the Today programme on 3rd November, following a UN report of corporate "profiteering" (my words), however, to my mind, he refused to be drawn on the subject, instead talking about the importance of a political and economic settlement in the region.

And, finally, in many ways, the story that broke my heart the most, that of the thirteen year old girl in Somalia, who, according to Amnesty International, as reported by the BBC, was stoned for alleged adultery.

Many stories, many ways to get involved.