UK Foreign Secretary William Hague says Syria's president heads a "doomed regime as well as a murdering regime" (Photo: BBC)

The two countries, that are permanent members of the Security Council, see any such resolution as a potential violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

They were the receiving-end of a lot of criticism.

US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton responded, “What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?”

The BBC Russian service invited comments from listeners about Russia’s stand on Syria. These are some of the comments the service received. We’ve voiced the comments.

Patrick Chappatte, International Herald Tribune

• Follow Global Cartoons on Twitter @globalcartoons
• Find Global Cartoons on Facebook

The vote was 107-to-14 with 52 abstentions. The US voted against.

The Palestinian Authority is calling the decision a symbolic victory because what they really want is full membership in the UN, recognizing Palestine as an independent state.

The World’s Matthew Bell is in Jerusalem.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: United Nations’ cultural agency, UNESCO, has voted to admit Palestine as a full member. UNESCO is the agency that protects historical heritage sites and works to improve literacy and cultural understanding. The vote was 107 to 14 with 52 abstentions. The US voted against. The Palestinian Authority is calling this decision a symbolic victory because it says what it really wants in full membership in the UN, recognizing Palestine as an independent state. The World’s Matthew Bell is in Jerusalem. What is the reaction to this UNESCO vote among Palestinians?

Matthew Bell: The Palestinians, Lisa, are certainly celebrating this vote today. It was something like 2/3 of the 173 members of UNESCO voted in favor of Palestine’s membership. That’s going to be seen as real international support for Palestinian statehood and that overall effort by the Palestinians to seek full membership at the UN. Of course, the United States has promise to veto anything that goes into the Security Council on that, but again, this is a symbolic victory. President Mahmoud Abbas today said this is a vote for the sake of peace. He said it also shows international consensus on support for the legitimate Palestinian national rights of our people.

Mullins: Is the Israeli government weighing in on this?

Bell: Absolutely. They say the reject the decision at the general assembly today. They call this a unilateral Palestinian move, and also with the United States they say the only way the Palestinians can realize their political aspirations ultimately is to sit down at the negotiating table with Israel and working out a final 2-state solution.

Mullins: Now the United States as you said, voted against. The US is now canceling funding for the UN cultural body, UNESCO. What’s the significance of that?

Bell: It’s very significant for UNESCO because the United States is its biggest funder. It supplies about $70 million, that’s more than 20% of the overall budget. And the Obama administration has no recourse. There was legislation passed in the 1990s that would require US funding to be cutoff for any UN body that recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as a full blown state.

Mullins: And how does it bode for Palestinians? I mean just taking alone the membership now in UNESCO, what does it mean for them?

Bell: Well, I think for specific things it could be very important. For example, the big example that the Palestinian leadership will bring up now is the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which they say is desperately in need of repair. This could provide funding opportunity for them to do renovations on the church. Another political aspect of it is the Palestinians say look, we have these holy sites, these world heritage sites and they are in Palestinian territory and we should be in control of them, and the world should recognize that.

Mullins: All right, reporting from Jerusalem, The World’s Matthew Bell. Thank you.

Bell: You’re welcome, Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: The human rights office of the United Nations is asking for a full investigation of Muammar Gaddafi’s death. Widely seen videos of the former Libyan dictator’s capture show him bloodied and confused but alive. Other images show him dead. What happened in between those two sets of images is what the UN wants to know about. Meanwhile, Libya’s National Transitional Council has delayed Gaddafi’s burial. His body is reportedly now being kept in a morgue in Misrata. Rupert Colville is the United Nations human rights spokesperson. Why does Gaddafi’s death need UN investigating?

RUPERT COLVILLE: Well, because as you pointed out, there are these two videos, one showing him alive, captured but alive, and another one showing him dead. The big question is how did he die? There are four or five different versions of how he died. Some of those versions suggest some kind of combat situation, and some suggest something like an ex judicial summary execution. According to the laws of war, if someone’s killed in combat, that’s acceptable in most circumstances. That’s an unfortunate product of war; it kills people. But a summary execution is never legal. It’s like torture; it’s always illegal.

MULLINS: Do you have any evidence right now that there was indeed a summary execution?

COLVILLE: No, but I think these two videos, put them together and they become very disturbing. You see a man who’s alive and captured, and then you see the same man dead. That does raise questions.

MULLINS: How do you go about finding out what happened in between?

COLVILLE: I don’t want to put too much emphasis on it because we shouldn’t forget there is thousands of other people who’ve been killed in Libya. It’s not all about Gaddafi. We’re saying it should be investigated. We need more clarity about what happened here first because it’s the law, and the law is the law. Secondly, I think it’s important that the rule of law in established in the new Libya. Libya really changed yesterday with the death of Gaddafi, but it’s facing a huge task ahead in terms of establishing a justice system, police, all the basic building blocks of a civilized society that Gaddafi did not have in palce over the previous 42 years.

MULLINS: What happens in a practical way? Is anyone from the UN…? Presumably, they’re right now talking to people who saw Gaddafi alive and can say what happened between then and when we have pictures of him dead.

COLVILLE: Well, we’ll have to see. I don’t want to prejudge how the commissioner inquiry will function. I can’t tell you exactly what they’ll do and when they’ll do it. But obviously, when you’re looking into human rights violations, it’s not like building a prosecution case. You don’t have to have as much evidence, as much detail. You’re looking at it in terms of probability. You do need usually at least two independent sources before you start determining something is likely to have happened. Depending on what they find and how strong it is, they might make some recommendations. They might recommend further follow-up. They might recommend the Libyans, themselves, set up some kind of inquiry or the Libyans, themselves, may do that anyway. There are many possibilities. It doesn’t have to be outsiders coming in dictating to the Libyans how to do it. They might themselves do it. You see some statements by the interim authorities that show they realize there is potentially a problem here.

MULLINS: Is this a war crime if there was a summary execution of Gaddafi?

COLVILLE: It’s a serious international crime. Whether if it’s a war crime or not depends on the circumstances. But it’s a serious international crime, and it’s prohibited. It’s like murder. Murder is murder, and it can’t be justified. You might hardly dislike the person you’ve murdered, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a murder.

MULLINS: Speaking to us from Geneva, Rupert Colville, the UN spokesperson for human rights. The United Nations wants to investigate the circumstances of Gaddafi’s death. Thank you, Rupert Colville.

COLVILLE: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Raji Sourani is director for the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. He lives in Gaza. Sourani says the Palestinian bid for UN membership has brought together the divided Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah.

Raji Sourani: I think the Israeli government, especially Netanyahu(sp?) government leaves no room for anybody not to be united. I think, you know, all our difference has been ruled and the possibly of reconciliation exists right now better than any time before and Palestinians, I think, right now have no difference in the the political level whatsoever between Hamas and Fatah. Both should be united and there is no reason or excuse to keep this split and the institutionalized weakness for the Palestinians.

Werman: So Mr Sourani, you’re saying you would like to see the split change for these two parties to be united…?

Sourani: I’m very optimistic for the foreseeable future.

Werman: You’re optimistic?

Sourani: Yep. Basically right now, Palestinian people, after sixty three years of the Nakba they’re talking about very basic, fundamental primitive human rights: right of life, right of movement, right of medical care, right of education and we are extremely far of achieving our right of self determination and independence.

Werman: And yet, Mr Sourani, in the past week Hamas has reiterated it’s resistance and Abbas has reiterated peaceful negotiations. It feels like a standoff, yet you’re saying it’s not a standoff.

Sourani: No, I think Palestinian people do have the right to resist, abide by international law and that’s not a shame, that’s not something we are, you know, ignoring. It’s our full right and I’m saying that, you know, as a Human Rights Activist.

Werman: Mr Sourani, you’ve said that you feel deceived by President Obama’s overtures of the Arab world and the Palestinians. Now there’s news from Congress that two hundred million dollars in development aid has been suspended for the Palestinians. Do you think the US is still a credible mediator for Middle East peace?

Sourani: Absolutely not. What we want from United States, don’t put Israel as holy body. Don’t provide legal political protection, to apply the rule of law in equal footsteps. We are entitled to freedom. We are entitled to self determination. We are entitled to state and we want to see United States supporting in one way ticket, that.

Werman: Mr Sourani, I’d like to ask you a personal question. You’ve been denied entrance to the United States for the past eleven years and you’re now here on a three month visa thanks on part to an intervention by former US President Jimmy Carter, among others. Why do you think the US has kept you out for so long and what do you think has changed?

Sourani: I think that’s the shame. For me, lawyer, director of Palestinian Center for Human Rights and I’m a recipient of the Kennedy Award. If all that, and I’m considered a suspected terrorist, who’s that?

Werman: Raji Sourani is a 1991 recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award. He lives in the Gaza Strip. Mr. Sourani, thanks very much for coming in. Nice to meet you.

Sourani: It’s quite an honor and a pleasure. Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

President Mahmoud Abbas says he is going to submit a formal request to the Security Council at the end of the week for full UN membership for the state of Palestine.

Meanwhile, Palestinian officials back home are rallying their public to support the effort.

A small crowd of Palestinians rallied today in support of their president’s efforts in New York. The crowd unveiled a giant light blue chair as a symbol of what the Palestinian leadership is after.

“Palestine’s right,” a sign on the chair declared, “full membership in the United Nations.”

Looking on, store owner Hamdi al-Tahreefi said moving beyond the long-dead peace process toward something new is a good step for the Palestinians.

“These talks, they been more than around 20 years and nothing happen on the ground,” he said. “We will let the United Nations figure out the problems.”

On one hand, the effort is likely to be a non-starter. The United States plans to use its veto in the UN Security Council. But university student Shadiya Harfush said the Palestinian president is still doing the right thing.

“I think the fact that Abbas is in the UN trying to declare a state or get full membership is in itself a very great task,” Harfush said. “It is, in itself, something that gives us pride.”

Dr. Sabri Saidam - an advisor to the Palestinian president - speaks to a reporter during a rally in Ramallah on Tuesday in support of the Palestinian bid for UN membership. (Photo: Matthew Bell)

“It is time to end occupation,” Saidam said. “The misery of the Palestinian people should not be entertained anymore.”

“Democracy and occupation don’t go hand in hand, and they ought to be ended, ended in a way that Palestinians seek their freedom and their determination alongside the state of Israel.”

But about a mile down the road from the rally, in the Al-Amari refugee camp, some Palestinians said they have mixed feelings about their president’s quest for UN membership.

Yusuf al-Hajj, a 48-year-old butcher, said Palestinians deserve a state like everyone else in the world. “We want to be neighbors with Israel,” he said. “We don’t want any violence.”

But al-Hajj said he is disappointed that President Abbas has not talked more about the rights of Palestinian refugees.

“I don’t want compensation. I want to be able to return to the village in Israel where my family lived until 1948.”

This so-called right of return is a non-starter with Israel, because allowing the descendents of Palestinian refugees to move back to Israel itself would mean the end of the Jewish majority.

Another camp resident, 22-year-old Maram Omar said she dreams about the creation of a Palestinian state. But the Palestinian campaign at the United Nations could undermine what she is really hoping for.

“I prefer the one state solution – the State of Palestine,” she said. That state would include Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and “the rest of historical Palestine.”

The sentiment helps explain why some Palestinians are reluctant to fully support what the Palestinian leadership is trying to do in New York. That is because UN membership would commit Palestinians to two states for two people.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Hussein Agha is a senior associate member of St. Anthony’s College in Oxford where he researches Israeli-Palestinian relations.  He was an advisor to the Palestinian leadership, and he says the Palestinians had little choice but to bring their bid to the UN.

Hussein Agha: They cannot sit back, do nothing, see what they think of as being their territory being taken over consistently and progressively by Israel’s building of settlements.  They cannot sit back and do nothing when the avenue of negotiation has been denied to them because they feel that the requisites for negotiations have not been put in place.  So they have to move. This is a legitimate move by them, their response to international law, so it is one of the few avenues left to them. If they’re not to do that the whole position of the leadership will become very tenuous.  It will not be leading anymore, and given the kind of climate in the region of Arab Spring, of people being not satisfied with their rulers, it will not be too long before that will reach the Palestinians and they will be involved in the kind of activities that will be much more dangerous than the current one.

Mullins: Let me ask you this, we spoke with representatives of the Israeli government and Palestinian politicians as well.  Friday, Israel’s ambassador to the US told us that Israel is committed to direct talks with Palestinians, and that this unilateral move by Palestinians at the United Nations he said is not helpful. Yesterday on this program a Palestinian member of parliament, Mustafa Barghouti, told us that it is not Palestinians who are taking unilateral action, but it’s Israel, that negotiations could have been resumed if Israel had agreed to just freeze and stop settlement activities. It’s another case where the two sides seem unable to connect.  Do you see a way forward?

Agha: We were hoping that the United States would provide a way forward, specifically the current administration; but I will not be revealing any secrets if I say that they have failed in that.  So, the issue is that the Palestinians have been negotiating for 18 years as part of the Oslo Agreement, and for 20 years as part of the Madrid Process.  And it has not proven to be helpful in getting them anywhere nearer to what they aim to achieve. And so you have this dilemma that both sides want negotiations, but you have a history of failed negotiations and you have no indications that any future negotiations will be any different.  And this is exactly why we find ourselves where we are now, is because those other ways did not really lead to anywhere.  So let’s try this for a change, at least there is something complete that might come out of it. When you find yourself with your back against the wall you pursue what is open to you and this is one avenue that is at least it is not a violent one, and this is the way it should be looked at.  If you don’t have this kind of move I think the likelihood of a systemic breakdown in the Palestinian territories and violence will increase dramatically.  So there is a positive aspect to this, which is it provides you with an alternative to violence.

Mullins: So take us to the day after the United States presumably vetoes this move on the part of the Palestinians.  What would you want to see Washington do next?

Agha: It has to go talking to both parties to get them back to negotiate, and it has to formulate the kind of framework that will give hope that the new phase of negotiation that will be embarked upon will have some chance of success.  It’s not something really that profound to identify what it is, but the United States is the only party that both local parties have decided is going to be the mediator and the sponsor of peace talks. And the United States has to engage on this in a realistic, hard headed and intelligent way that was not the case in the past two years.

Mullins: All right, we’re gonna leave it there.  Hussein Agha, of St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, speaking to us from London.  Nice to talk to you.

Agha: Thank you, ma’am.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

At a small health clinic in western Uganda, it is medication day for psychiatric drugs, an event that happens every month or so. A clerk sits near an unscreened window, counting out pills for the long line of patients.

People have walked for miles past small farms and through red clay hills to get here.

Beatrice Mudumya, 23, waits quietly. In 2009, she developed an illness she calls “mental head.” All she did was sleep.

Mudumya says her family prayed, but that didn’t help, so they took her to the hospital. Antidepressants got her going again.

Now she is back to farming and fetching water and washing clothes, but the antidepressants she is getting come from a charitable organization, and it’s their last day at this clinic until more donations come in.

Mudumya is about to become like a lot of Ugandans with mental illness – diagnosed but without treatment.

Julius Kayiira, director of Mental Health Uganda, knows of many people with mental illnesses who have never been treated. He can even show you photographs of people chained to trees, the chains eating into their flesh.

Kayiira’s organization provides social support, job training, and care to people with mental illness. He says organizations like his face an enormous funding gap, and he blames that gap, in part, on the United Nations.

“It’s so hard for us to have any project funded by any international partners because you find they don’t have [mental health] in their strategic funding areas,” he says.

In 2000, the UN set out a strategy for helping impoverished nations in a set of objectives called the Millennium Development Goals. The goals, which have been called the most politically important pact ever made for international development, include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, and reducing the incidence of infectious diseases such as HIV and malaria.

“The Millennium Development Goals have given direction to almost everybody,” says Kayiira. Yet the goals say nothing about treating mental illness.

“This is a major blow to our efforts,” he says.

Mental health advocates around the world say the same thing – that the exclusion has held back mental health as a global health issue.

“The Millennium Development Goals are one of the most important instruments for global policymaking,” says psychiatrist Vikram Patel of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “When something is not part of the MDGs, they simply fall off the net, as it were.”

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 450 million people suffer from mental disorders, and a new report by the World Economic Forum figures the annual global costs of mental and neurological illnesses at $2.5 trillion. That is three times the economic cost of heart disease.

Yet one of the chief architects of the Millennium Development Goals, Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs, has defended the omission of mental illnesses. Sachs did not make himself available for this story, but he has responded in print to critics like Vikram Patel.

“The reason that the MDGs do not explicitly address noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular or psychiatric diseases is that the MDGs focus on the gap in health status between rich and poor countries, a gap mainly accounted for by infectious diseases, malnutrition, and unsafe childbirth,” wrote Sachs. “The goals were crafted to address these large gaps rather than to solve all pressing health problems.”

But Patel counters that many people with mental illnesses like depression and schizophrenia cannot provide for themselves and are more prone to other illnesses, poverty, and premature death. Depression alone ranks as the number one cause of disability worldwide, according to one measure used by the World Health Organization.

The UN this week is holding a special two-day summit on noncommunicable diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Yet, once again, mental illness is not a focus.

Julius Kayiira, director of Mental Health Uganda, remains frustrated. He says greater recognition of mental illnesses by the world body could make a big difference.

He knows that because the UN has, at least once, focused attention to mental health. That was in a treaty on the rights of people with disabilities. Kayiira says almost immediately after that treaty was adopted, his group got two new funders.

Reporter Joanne Silberner travelled to Uganda as part of a Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism.

(Courtesy of FAMINE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK & FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRTION ANALYSIS UNIT)

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. The United Nations today, formally declared a famine in parts of Southern Somalia. The U.N. says millions of people in the conflict torn East African nation are at risk of starving to death. It also warns that famine could engulf the rest of Southern Somalia within weeks. East Africa is enduring the worst drought in decades, and the disruption caused by war is making things even more severe. Justin Kilcullen is the director of the Irish aid agency known as Trócaire. He has been to various areas of Somalia in recent weeks, he’s now in Nairobi. What have you seen, Justin, that has proved to you just how bad this drought and this famine is?

Justin Kilcullen: Well I’ve seen hundreds of people on the move, exhausted, after long walks of 20 days or more across arid land, looking to find help. Coming to reception centers, where unfortunately, there is little for them. They tell stories of tragedy along the way – of having to leave dead children on the side of the road, elderly people dying. I spoke to a young woman today, just 15, who was raped. And there are many other stories like that. And they arrive to these areas of bush land with little there – some plastic sheeting to provide some cover for them. They sleep on the ground. They are mixing with animals. Today we were in the camp, having to pick our way through the excrement of animals, watching people just sitting listlessly, and waiting for the aid to arrive. Meanwhile, in Nairobi today there was a press conference and the point was made over and over again, that only 40% of the requests from the United Nations and other aid agencies for the money that they require to deal with this crisis, only 40% is forthcoming. And unless more funds come immediately, this is going to escalate.

Mullins: Justin, why has the response been slow? Because famine doesn’t just happen overnight.

Kilcullen: Well, first of all, last October when the crops failed for the second year in a row, the development agencies began to raise this issue but it found little resonance with governments. We have had, I suppose, the crises in Haiti and Pakistan last year, two enormous disasters that focused the world’s attention on other areas other than East Africa. And then you have an underlying political problem here in question of Somalia, which is seen as a failed state, is seen as a risk to the security of Western countries. And that, you know, the Somali people have somehow been neglected because living amongst them are those who are seen to be dangerous to our security. So once again, putting it frankly, we’ve out our own welfare before that of others. And what we’re saying here in Nairobi tonight is it’s time to put people first. It’s time to stop branding Somalia as a terrorist state. There are 10 million people living in Somalia, there are not 10 million terrorists living there. A tiny number in comparison to the broad population, and yet somehow they all seem to have to suffer because of this perceived threat to our security in the West.

Mullins: You’re talking, Justin, about some of the complicating factors. One enormous complicating factor is the Islamic militant group known as Al-Shabaab, which has violently opposed any kind of foreign aid and has killed foreigners, has killed in fact humanitarian aid workers, as you well know. Have they disrupted, this group Al-Shabaab, has it disrupted your organization’s deliveries?

Kilcullen: Well you know, what you say is true, but Al-Shabaab is changing. They have said that they will open up the regions under their control to allow in reputable agencies to bring assistance. So they have seen, I suppose, the plight of their people. And any political group knows that if they’re not meeting the needs of their people then they have no legitimacy whatsoever. So the circumstances there are changing. And Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and the former U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, who led our delegation, made the point here in Nairobi tonight that in a strange way, this famine may be an opportunity to have political developments in Somalia, because it changes the game. Everybody now has to take account of this crisis and I believe that if there’s correct political engagement, in a very considered and focused way, with the different political factions in Somalia, there is an opportunity to move the political situation forward. And that would be to the benefit the of everybody, not least the people of Somalia who are so desperately in need of aid.

Mullins: That was Justin Kilcullen, who’s Director of the Irish aid group known as Trócaire, speaking to us from Nairobi, Kenya.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

“We have to have evidence that 20% or more of the population has extremely limited access to food, and very little ability to cope with those food deficits,” said Chris Hillburner, an advisor to the US Famine Early Warning Systems Network or FEWSNET.

The second piece of evidence is a high level of malnutrition. To be a famine, at least 30% of children aged FIVE and below have to be severely malnourished.

The third piece of evidence is a high death rate, said Hillburner.

“The death rate that applies to the entire population has to be above 2 per ten thousand, per day.”

That is four times the average death rate in a food secure population.

By May and June of this year, the levels of food access and malnutrition had crossed the famine threshold, says Hillburner. He says FEWSNET had warned the international community that the situation in parts of Somalia might be headed towards a famine.

But they couldn’t declare a famine, until they had the third piece of the puzzle—the overall death rate.

That information was collected by the United Nations starting early this month. The United Nations Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit for Somalia (FSNAU) has been analyzing those numbers for the past week.

“And as they started to come in, it was very clear what we were seeing,” said Grainne Moloney, chief technical advisor at FSNAU.

The death rates in two parts of Southern Somalia—Lower Shabelle and Bakool—had not only reached the famine threshold, but exceeded it.

“In Bakool, the death rate is 2.2,” said Moloney. “In Lower Shabelle, there were two surveys. One of the death rates was four. The other death rate was 6.”

That’s six deaths per ten thousand people per day. Add that up, and you get tens of thousands of people who have already died between April and June of this year.

Situation Likely to Worsen

The latest data on malnutrition reveal levels far above the famine threshold of 30%. In some parts of Southern Somalia, the malnutrition levels are as high as 40 and 50%.

“These are really shocking!” said Moloney. “These have not been seen in this part of the world in I don’t know, in 20 years.”

The last time Somalia experienced a famine was in 1992. And it is likely that this year’s famine will still grow worse.

The latest analysis by FEWSNET and FSNAU predict that within the next couple of months all of Southern Somalia will experience a famine.

“It’s absolutely certain that people will start dying at a very high rate,” said Moloney.

But if the international community can scale up aid efforts in the region, thousands of lives can still be saved, she added.

In Ramallah, Palestinian demonstrators rallied in favor of political unity between rival factions Fatah and Hamas, March 2011. (Photo: Matthew Bell)

But something is expected in September.

September is when the Palestinians are planning to go to the United Nations and ask members to recognize an independent state of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders.

Barack Obama is firmly against the move.

“I strongly believe that for the Palestinians to take the United Nations route rather than the path of sitting down and talking with the Israelis is a mistake,” Obama said during a visit to Britain this week. He said such a move, “does not serve the interests of the Palestinian people.”

“It will not achieve their stated goal of achieving a Palestinian state.”

The president did not have to say it out right. The US is threatening to veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood. From the perspective of Palestinian leaders, that is further proof of the true nature of the American-sponsored peace process.

“It’s gone on endlessly,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a veteran Palestinian politician and member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Ashrawi said the peace process has, “created a cover of impunity for Israel, where the US gives it legal cover in the UN and other places and no accountability whatsoever and the Palestinians have no protection.”

The PLO is heading in a new direction, Ashrawi added. The goal is to seek individual recognition by UN members, “so that we can have access to the International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, so that we can get some sort of intervention, trusteeship, international groups, whatever.”

“We need our boundaries recognized, we need international protection,” Ashrawi said. “It is time that the Palestinians stop being at the mercy of Israel.”

Security Council

Even with the promise -­ or threat ­- of a US veto looming in the Security Council, analysts say the Palestinian campaign for UN recognition as a state could have more than just a symbolic impact, especially if European states vote in favor, or abstain.

Overwhelming support by UN members for Palestinian statehood would highlight just how isolated the US and Israel are when it comes to questions of Palestinian rights.

There are skeptics though.

Hani al-Masri, a columnist who runs a think-tank called the Palestine Center, says a victory at the United Nations in September is likely to be a one-off event that would not fulfill the expectations of Palestinians.

“Palestinians need a new strategy,” Masri said. “They need to pull off massive uprisings in Jerusalem like Egyptians did in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. That would show the Israelis that Palestinians are serious.”

Other Palestinians worry that formal international recognition along the pre-1967 lines would turn out to be counterproductive in the long run.

Sa’ed Atshan, a PhD candidate at Harvard University who is spending the summer in his hometown of Ramallah, in the West Bank, grew up with the dream of a two-state solution, much like the one President Obama still talks about. But the 26 year-old said he has come to think differently in recent months. And he suspects he’s not alone among Palestinians of his generation.

“In Palestinian society there’s (an) old story,” Atshan said. “It’s a tale about a poor mother who tricks her starving children into going to sleep at night by putting rocks in a pot of boiling water.”

“Israel, our leadership, and the international community have been telling us, your state is coming, your state is coming,” Atshan said. “But in reality, if you look in the pot, it¹s just a bunch of rocks.”

Plan B

Atshan says it is about time for Palestinians to shift to Plan B: the one-state solution. For him, that means working toward a democratic, binational, secular state that does not favor one ethnic group over another.

Instead of recognition at the UN, the thinking goes, Palestinians should be seeking the rights as full citizens under Israeli rule.

That is an option most Israelis reject out of hand, of course, because it would mean the end of a Jewish state.

(Photo courtesy: http://www.laurajansen.com)

• Laura Jansen’s official website

Share your thoughts about our conversation with Laura Jansen in SoundCloud

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Muammar Gaddafi’s government has granted safe passage for United Nations teams but the government does not guarantee that it’s going to stop fighting. It’s not clear what this means for international efforts to help the people in Misrata. Valerie Amos is the U.N’s humanitarian chief; she’s just returned from Libya. Mrs. Amos, given assurances that U.N humanitarian workers could come and go fully to triply, the fighting though, is still raging in Misrata. So, do you believe them when they say humanitarian workers will be able to have access and egress safely?

Valerie Amos: I was looking to two main things; the principal thing I wanted of course, was association of hostilities so that people who are frightened and who are in a very volatile and insecure environment could get out and we could get supplies and I got no clear agreement on that. I was also looking for agreement, to establish a humanitarian presence in Tripoli that we could then use as the basis for moving around particularly the west of the country, to get a clear and independent view of what is going on. I specifically raised Misrata and asked the government for guarantees that will enable humanitarian workers to get to Misrata by road. What I hope people understand is, that this is a contested city, so part of it is controlled by the opposition and part of it,is controlled by the government. So we need the government to help us to get in by road. We can’t get in by sea because the ports are controlled by the opposition. The government agreed that they would give us the guarantees to enable us to get in by road. We will have to test this of course, and we are putting our plans in place now, to try and get in as quickly as possible.

Mullins: Because you are saying even with the government guarantee, if there is no cease fire, then your people aren’t necessarily safe?

Amos: Of course not, and we have a duty to be of care to our people. This is an intense conflict situation, we’ve all been horrified, I think, by some of the pictures that we have seen on our television screens, we’ve heard reports on the use of cluster munitions, which are banned, and you will know that particularly what they leave, are things that look like toys, which little children pick up and they are very, very dangerous.

Mullins: Will these humanitarian aid workers be harmed?

Amos: No, they will not be harmed. It’s very important, for our humanitarian work, that we are seen as independent, impartial, neutral, we are seen as not taking sides, we cannot be harmed.

Mullins: Will they be safe among, not just those fighting on behalf of the government, or also rebels or even Nato forces because there have been lethal mistakes that have been made already?

Amos: I was in Benghazi as well as Tripoli, to get those assurances from the opposition and of course, if we have people moving around the country, we’ll make sure that we inform Nato forces.

Mullins: Do you have any hope of being able to garner or cease fire, so this can be done with more safety and assurance?

Amos: We have to keep trying, I mean, its people that are suffering at the end of this, its families, its women, its children, its men. We have to keep trying to get a cease fire that is at the top of my agenda.

Mullins: Valerie Amos,U.N humanitarian chief, talking to us about humanitarian efforts, being made now in Libya, she’s just returned from Tripoli. Thank you very much.

Amos: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Ouattara has been calling for the U.N. to intervene to end the bloodshed in Ivory Coast. He’s accused U.N. forces of being absent from some of the worst violence there. And he wants U.N. peacekeepers to get rid of incumbent Laurent Gbagbo. Today a U.N. helicopter fired on the presidential palace in Abidjan, used by Gbagbo and his forces. And French forces opened fire on a military compound there. That’s after France said it’s forces in Ivory Coast would join the U.N. mission there. Earlier in the day we spoke with Colum Lynch who covers the U.N. for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy Magazine.

Colum Lynch: There are some 9,000 troops, U.N. peacekeepers. There’s another contingent of over 1,000 French military forces who are there in a sense to help support the U.N. mission. But they’re spread pretty thin. I saw some sort of internal reports which provided a category of attacks against the U.N. by Bagba’s forces over the last several months. You know, you see a picture of a, of a U.N. mission that is daily being challenged by a national army essentially. And so, while they have the ability, the wherewithal to do certain things, they’re largely in a kind of defensive mode.

Werman: Well you call it kind of a defensive role, or that’s what they call it. I mean in situations like this is there any advantage or purpose to these U.N. boots on the ground? It sounds like it is almost entirely preventative.

Lynch: I think, you know, you see a good comparison is when, you know, there’s an effort by the big powers to engage in an operation like Libya where they’re protecting civilians. I mean they’re using, you know, NATO air assets and, you know, they have a lot of force to bring to bear. And the U.N. peacekeeping can do quite a bit but they don’t have that kind of muscle.

Werman: What does it take for a more muscular intervention from the U.N. in any situation, generally speaking?

Lynch: Well I mean generally there are situations where, you know, traditionally the U.N. doesn’t go in to situations where there’s a non-consensual ongoing military conflict. They’ve kind of slipped into this. You know, generally what happens is that the U.N. goes in when there’s a peace agreement, when there’s a political settlement. There are cases where they used a lot of force, where they engage in offensive operation. You would see it in places like Congo, you’ll see it in Haiti. But in those cases they’re generally targeting militia groups. They’re not taking on a national army. So they’re, they’re really, they’ve kind of moved into a new situation in Ivory Coast as a result of the changing nature of the political situation there and the military confrontation.

Werman: Colum Lynch covers the U.N. for the Washington Post and Foreign Policy. Thank you Column.

Lynch: All right thanks for having me Marco, take care.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.