How the Baghdad bombing changed humanitarian affairs

This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, IsraelStine and the Trumped Up Enemy of the Month. A list of all pieces in this series can be found found here.

Ten years ago today, a bombing obliterated United Nations headquarters in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, killing 22 aid workers and UN staff members. This piece on the BBC website highlights how this attack fundamentally changed the work of not only the UN, but also of humanitarian aid organizations around the world. A subsequent bombing of the facilities of the Red Cross, generally considered the most respected humanitarian organization in the world, also had a shattering effect. In the subsequent decade, aid workers have increasingly found themselves the target of combatants, not merely bystanders.

The law of unintended consequences in action

The UN has warned that skyrocketing food prices threatens millions of people in poorer countries.

Food prices have risen an unprecedented 40% in the last year and many nations may be unable to cope, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO].

The increases are partly due to droughts and floods linked to climate change, as well as rising oil prices boosting demand for bio-fuels, the FAO said.

Changing diet in fast-developing nations such as China is also considered a factor, with more land needed to raise livestock to meet increasing demand for meat.

International cereal prices have already sparked food riots in several countries, the FAO points out.

The FAO is calling for increased funding for programs designed to help small farmers in at-risk countries.

The FAO's director general said the impact of biofuels on food prices would be examined next year.

The use of land to grow plants which can be used to make alternative fuels - and the use of food crops themselves for fuel - has reduced food supplies and helped push up prices.

This is a great example of the law of unintended consequences (though by no means the most devastating).

Much time and effort has been put into developing biofuels. This has been strongly pushed by corn- and soybean-growing places like the midwestern US and sugar-growing places like Brazil. Such lobbying is done clearly to benefit midwestern American and Brazilian farmers but they cleverly latch on the environmentalism and increasing concern about the already visible effects of climate change.

But there's one big problem: production of ethanol, the most common biofuel, uses more energy than the end product creates.

So not only does ethanol production waste energy, but it jacks up food prices for those who can least afford it.

Bush threatens Iraqi leader, grovels to UN

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki caused waves recently when he took an opportunity to praise Iran. He said discussions with Iran's loudmouth president had been positive and that that, "Even in security issues there is no barrier in the way of co-operation" between the two countries.

This politically incorrect comment infuriated Iraq's American overlords. President Bush threatened that if the Iraqi prime minister dared disagree with his declaration of Iran's inherent Evilness, then the US leader would be forced to have a 'heart to heart' talk with him. If the prospect of having to listen to president's voice for an hour doesn't bring Maliki into obedience, then nothing will.

The US president might finally be realizing how disastrous the situation in Iraq is. Despite being right about Saddam's mythical weapons of mass destruction, the UN went into Iraq to help rebuild the country following the US aggression. This decision, by then secretary-general Kofi Annan (one of the few truly great world figures of our time), was extremely controversial among UN staff but gained him no favor with a US administration determined to whip up anti-UN fervor. It's a sad example of doing the right thing and pissing everyone off anyway. The UN withdrew its staff from Iraq's Eden when a car bomb killed 22 staff members at its Baghdad headquarters in 2003.

But after spending most of the last five years attacking and undermining the international body at every turn (and then blaming it for everything else), Bush is now on his hands and knees grovelling to the United Nations to return to the country. Washington got the Security Council to approve an expanded UN presence in the country.

The UN actually knows something about the difficult and complicated task of nation building, having successfully contributed to such efforts in places like Mozambique. This is a lot harder than the task of nation destroying, so perfected by the Bush administration. The neo-cons have struggled with nation building because it's not something that can be achieved with belligerent rhetoric, religious fervor and dropping random bombs.

In crawling back to the only body (however flawed) with any real international legitimacy, perhaps the White House has finally realized how discredited America is in Iraq, how that discredit is paralyzing progress and that only the UN has even a marginal hope of helping to clean up the gargantuan mess it created.

Perhaps.