Link Banana

The headline may be better than the video, but the video is still good for a laugh.

Every once in a while I like to see stories about high-seas piracy. I’d be a liar if I said it wasn’t because of fictions of peglegs and eyepatchs.

In any case, the Canadians have stepped up and are providing a frigate for safe passage of much needed food shipments from the World Food Program through the pirate-infested waters and to the famine-stricken country.

The Economist’s Special Report on China arrives with these contentions:

[C]oncerns about the dire consequences of China’s quest for natural resources are overblown. China does indeed treat some dictators with kid gloves, but it is hardly alone in that. Its companies do not always uphold the highest standards, but again, many Western firms are no angels either. Fifty years of European and American aid have not succeeded in bringing much prosperity to Africa and other poor but resource-rich places. A different approach from China might yield better results. At the very least it will spur other donors to seek more effective methods.

For all the hue and cry, China is still just one of many countries looking for raw materials around the world. It has won most influence in countries where Western governments were conspicuous by their absence, and where few important strategic interests are at stake. Moreover, as China is becoming more involved in places such as Congo, its policies are beginning to change. It has promised to co-operate with the World Bank in its development efforts in Africa. It no longer seems prepared to back its most objectionable allies in the face of international opprobrium. Its diplomats, for example, did eventually stop parroting their line about unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and allow United Nations peacekeepers to be deployed in Sudan.

Mark Goldberg and Ed Morrisey have a useful and interesting discussion about why so many American conservatives dislike the United Nations. Though I generally share Mr. Goldberg’s views on the UN, Mr. Morrisey makes some worthwhile points.

Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems like I’ve been hearing about this for so long that I was kind of shocked to read that it had actually happened.

To round up the women trio — a semi-intentional sequel to the semi-intentional futre of technology trio of earlier — The Economist says that though Saudi Arabia in particular (and the Arab world generally) still has far too many repressive rules governing the rights of women, things are indeed getting better.

But there are signs that things may be getting a little better for the kingdom’s women. Laws forbidding violence against women are now being drafted. Women are now allowed to stay in hotels unaccompanied. The government has given initial approval for the establishment of the first Saudi women’s rights body. And the first women’s football match was played in the eastern province earlier this month, with men excluded from the stadium entirely. There are even suggestions that an infamous ban on women drivers may be lifted later this year. Such improvements are slight, but welcome. And they reflect marginal improvements elsewhere in the Middle East.

The Economist’s Asia.view column brings a necessary reminder about the strong-as-ever military junta ruling Myanmar Burma.

The row over the timing of Mr Gambari’s visit shows the powerlessness of the UN against a regime determined not to mend its ways. It also shows that regime’s cunning: it has managed to turn a debate about the fundamental rights of its citizens into an administrative wrangle about a visa for a visiting diplomat.

As Britain’s ambassador, Mark Canning, has put it, “the name of the game” for the junta is staying off the front pages. The worldwide sympathy evoked by the “saffron revolution” made that seem a hard game to play. But these generals are past masters.