Sex and the Sissy
PEEGY NOONAN

She was born in Russia, fled the pogroms with her family, was raised in Milwaukee, and worked the counter at her father's general store when she was 8. In early adulthood she made aliyah to Palestine, where she worked on a kibbutz, picking almonds and chasing chickens. She rose in politics, was the first woman in the first Israeli cabinet, soldiered on through war and rumors of war, became the first and so far only woman to be prime minister of Israel. And she knew what it is to be a woman in the world. "At work, you think of the children you've left at home. At home you think of the work you've left unfinished. . . . Your heart is rent." This of course was Golda Meir.

AP

Golda Meir never cried 'sexism.'

Another: She was born in a family at war with itself and the reigning power outside. As a child she carried word from her important father to his fellow revolutionaries, smuggling the papers in her school bag. War and rumors of war, arrests, eight months in jail. A rise in politics -- administering refugee camps, government minister. When war came, she refused to flee an insecure border area; her stubbornness helped rally a nation. Her rivals sometimes called her "Dumb Doll," and an American president is said to have referred to her in private as "the old witch." But the prime minister of India preferred grounding her foes to dust to complaining about gender bias. In the end, and in the way of things, she was ground up too. Proud woman, Indira Gandhi.

And there is Margaret Hilda Roberts. A childhood in the besieged Britain of World War II -- she told me once of listening to the wireless and being roused by Churchill. "Westward look, the land is bright," she quoted him; she knew every stanza of the old poem. Her father, too, was a shopkeeper, and she grew up in the apartment above the store near the tracks. She went to Oxford on scholarship, worked as a chemist, entered politics, rose, became another first and only, succeeding not only in a man's world but in a class system in which they knew how to take care of ambitious little grocer's daughters from Grantham. She was to a degree an outsider within her own party, so she remade it. She lived for ideas as her colleagues lived for comfort and complaint. The Tories those days managed loss. She wanted to stop it; she wanted gain. Just before she became prime minister, the Soviets, thinking they were deftly stigmatizing an upstart, labeled her the Iron Lady. She seized the insult and wore it like a hat. This was Thatcher, stupendous Thatcher, now the baroness.

Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you Google "Thatcher" and "You're just picking on me because I'm a woman." Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a superior philosophy.

* * *

You know where I'm going, for you know where she went. Hillary Clinton complained again this week that sexism has been a major dynamic in her unsuccessful bid for political dominance. She is quoted by the Washington Post's Lois Romano decrying the "sexist" treatment she received during the campaign, and the "incredible vitriol that has been engendered" by those who are "nothing but misogynists." The New York Times reported she told sympathetic bloggers in a conference call that she is saddened by the "mean-spiritedness and terrible insults" that have been thrown "at you, for supporting me, and at women in general."

Where to begin? One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her loss.

So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:

It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

* * *

It is probably truer that being a woman helped Mrs. Clinton. She was the front-runner anyway and had all the money, power, Beltway backers. But the fact that she was a woman helped give her supporters the special oomph to be gotten from making history. They were by definition involved in something historic. And they were on the right side, connected to the one making the breakthrough, shattering the glass. They were going to be part of breaking it into a million little pieces that could rain down softly during the balloon drop at the historic convention, each of them catching the glow of the lights. Some network reporter was going to say, "They look like pieces of the glass ceiling that has finally been shattered."

I know: Barf. But also: Fine. Politics should be fun.

Meir and Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher suffered through the political downside of their sex and made the most of the upside. Fair enough. As for this week's Clinton complaints, I imagine Mrs. Thatcher would bop her on the head with her purse. Mrs. Gandhi would say "That is no way to play it." Mrs. Meir? "They said I was the only woman in the cabinet and the only one with -- well, you know. I loved it."

The Obama Learning Curve

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to "help" the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the "wrong" answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy "has learned a hell of a lot."

Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot – and is learning still.

AP

Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush.

Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, "without preconditions," the "leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: "I would," he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was "ridiculous."

Hillary Clinton, who still had the aura of inevitability, and who was already thinking ahead to a general election, wouldn't bite. At that point, any initial misgivings the Obama campaign had about the boss's answer disappeared. Mr. Obama hadn't got much traction differentiating himself from Mrs. Clinton over Iraq, but this was a chance to get to her left, to cast her to liberal primary voters as a warmonger. Which he did, often, committing himself ever more to a policy of unfettered engagement.

Today's Obama, all-but-nominee, is pitching to a broad American audience less keen to legitimize Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who provides weapons that kill American soldiers. The senator clumsily invited this debate when he took great umbrage to President Bush's recent criticism of appeasers (which, in a wonderfully revealing moment, Democrats instantly assumed meant them). Mr. Obama has since been scrambling to neutralize his former statement.

A week ago, in Oregon, he adopted the "no-big-deal" approach, telling listeners Iran was just a "tiny" country that, unlike the Soviet Union, did not "pose a serious threat to us." But this suggested he'd missed that whole asymmetrical warfare debate – not to mention 9/11 – so by the next day, he'd switched to the "blame-Republicans" line. Iran was in fact "the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation" – but all because of President Bush's Iraq war.

This, however, revived questions of why he'd meet with said greatest-threat leader, so his advisers jumped in, this time to float the "misunderstood" balloon. Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, channeling Bill Clinton, said it all depended on what the definition of a "leader" is. "Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be." (Turns out, Mr. Obama has said he will meet with . . . Mr. Ahmadinejad.)

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, channeling Ms. Rice, explained it also depended on what the definition of a precondition is: "It's important to emphasize again when we talk about preconditions, we're just saying everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally." This is called being against preconditions before you were for them.

And so it goes, as Mr. Obama shifts and shambles, all the while telling audiences that when voting for president they should look beyond "experience" to "judgment." In this case, whatever his particular judgment on Iran is on any particular day.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats entered this race confident national security wouldn't be the drag on the party it has in the past. With an unpopular war and a rival who supports that war, they planned to wrap Mr. McCain around the unpopular Mr. Bush and be done with it. Mr. Obama is still manfully marching down this road, today spending as much time warning about a "third Bush term" as he does reassuring voters about a first Obama one.

Then again, 9/11 and five years of Iraq debate have educated voters. Mr. McCain is certainly betting they can separate the war from the urgent threat of an Iranian dictator who could possess nukes, and whose legitimization would encourage other rogues in their belligerence. This is a debate the Arizonan has been preparing for all his life and, note, Iranian diplomacy is simply the topic du jour.

Mr. McCain has every intention of running his opponent through the complete foreign-policy gamut. Explain again in what circumstances you'd use nuclear weapons? What was that about invading Pakistan? How does a policy of engaging the world include Mr. Ahmadinejad, but not our ally Colombia and its trade pact?

It explains too the strong desire among the McCain camp to get Mr. Obama on stage for debates soon. There's a feeling Mr. Obama is still climbing the foreign-policy learning curve. And they see mileage in his issuing a few more gut reactions.

'Nothing but Misogynists'

By DONALD J. BOUDREAUX

Hillary Clinton is now complaining that her candidacy has been harmed by sexism. Interviewed earlier this week by the Washington Post, Sen. Clinton said the polls show that "more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American." This gender bias, she grumbled, "rarely gets reported on."

So a woman who holds degrees from Wellesley and Yale – who has earned millions in the private sector, won two terms in the U.S. Senate, and gathered many more votes than John Edwards, Bill Richardson and several other middle-aged white guys in their respective bids for the 2008 Democratic nomination – feels cheated because she's a woman.

Seems doubtful. But hey, I'm a guy and perhaps hopelessly insensitive. So let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that her campaign has indeed suffered because of sexism.

This fact (if it be a fact) reveals a hitherto unknown, ugly truth about the Democratic Party. The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton's own phrase) "people who are nothing but misogynists." Large numbers of Democratic voters are sexists. Who knew?

But here's another revelation. If Mrs. Clinton is correct that she is more likely than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November, that implies Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats.

It must be so. If American voters of all parties are as sexist as the Democrats, Mr. Obama would have a better chance than Mrs. Clinton of defeating Mr. McCain. The same misogyny that thwarted her in the Democratic primaries would thwart her in the general election. Only if registered Republicans and independents are more open-minded than registered Democrats – only if people who lean GOP or who have no party affiliation are more willing than Democrats to overlook a candidate's sex and vote on the issues – could Mrs. Clinton be a stronger candidate.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. But if I ever become convinced that Mrs. Clinton is correct that sexism played a role in her disappointing showing in the Democratic primaries – and that she truly is her party's strongest candidate to take on John McCain – I might finally join a party: the GOP. At least it's not infested with sexists.

Mr. Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University.

John Boehner
Minority Leader in a Storm

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

"Awful. Awful." That's John Boehner's candid answer when I ask what life is like for House Republicans these days. The question the 58-year-old minority leader is pondering is how long that awfulness will last.

The GOP is in a panic after a string of special election defeats that suggest voters haven't forgiven Republicans for straying from small-government principles. Rival wings of the party are fighting over where to go next. About the only thing everyone agrees on: If the GOP doesn't redefine itself soon, it's facing a rout this fall.

Ismael Roldan

Elected two years ago because of his reputation as a reformer, Mr. Boehner and his team recently unrolled its election-year agenda, entitled "Change You Deserve." It will attempt to show voters that the GOP is again ready to lead on everything from health care to energy to taxes.

Yet Mr. Boehner knows he's pushing a big rock up a steep hill. Asked how he might "win" back a majority, he cuts me off: "Earn. Earn back the majority. . . . we have to show the American people that we learned our lesson from the '06 election. That we hear what they are saying. And that means things like getting earmarks under control . . . balancing the budget, being willing to take on the tough job of entitlement reform, or the really tough job of a health-care system that insures all Americans and allows them control over who their doctor is."

Says Mr. Boehner: "My job is to lead the 200 of us on the Republican side into being real agents of change." He adds, "Some are more open to that than others."

That might be the minority leader's greatest challenge. His predecessor, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay from Texas, rankled many with his dictatorial style. Mr. Boehner, from Ohio, has tried to rule more by consensus, pushing members to voluntarily unite. When it works, it works brilliantly, as when Mr. Boehner rallied nearly every Republican to stand against House Democratic attempts to defund the Iraq war.

Getting members to abandon the bad habits that have lost them respect among voters is harder. Mr. Boehner stands as a role model, having never requested nor received an earmark, and having fought for reform legislation like the 2006 pension overhaul. Yet his example alone hasn't moved some Republicans to shape up. Consider his unsuccessful attempt to get House GOP members to agree to a unilateral earmark moratorium.

"The team's not ready to go there," he says, consternation in his big bass voice. Why do so many Republicans refuse to swear off pork? "I'm sure with some it's maybe about elections . . . And another group believes that the Constitution says that all spending rests with Congress; they believe that directing some of the spending to their district is part of their job."

Mr. Boehner is not in that group. "I just happened to tell my constituents when I wanted to come here that if they thought my job was to come and rob the federal Treasury on their behalf they were voting for the wrong guy. I said it, I meant it. It might have been the best decision I ever made."

The recent farm bill was a $300 billion, subsidy-laden grab bag of handouts to special interests. Mr. Boehner railed against the legislation on the House floor, urging GOP members to vote against it. The bill passed by a huge margin with the help of 100 Republicans. President Bush vetoed it, and the House promptly overrode the veto. "I wouldn't describe the farm bill we're voting on as change," he told me in something of an understatement. "As I said on the floor, we can do better."

Perhaps that's why Mr. Boehner has recently switched from cajoling to trying to use the GOP's recent misfortunes to scare Republicans out of their torpor. Some in his party are already marking down the special election losses in conservative districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi to lack of money, bad candidates and a poor message. Mr. Boehner is painting the defeats as "real wake-up calls" and warning members to think hard: "Every race is different, and there are a lot of reasons why those three races were lost. But it is clear that the American people are anxious for change. . . . and Republicans have to show we can be ready to deliver it."

As for what message Republicans should adopt to prove they've changed, Mr. Boehner is not hurting for suggestions. I ask what he thinks of a 20-page memo recently delivered to the Republican leadership by Virginia Rep. Tom Davis. This analysis declared the environment for Republicans as "toxic," outlined their financial and perception problems, and suggested the House GOP proactively embrace an emergency housing package and jump on board an energy bill that includes global-warming provisions.

"I read it, I thought it was insightful," Mr. Boehner replies. "I thought it was honest. Members all ought to read it and learn from it, in terms of helping them understand that we've got to be serious about delivering change." But he adds a caveat: "We're talking about the right kind of change, not change for change's sake. We want change rooted in freedom."

And how about Mr. Davis's suggestions the party needs quickly to distance itself from President Bush and his subterranean poll numbers? The minority leader suggests that if the party chooses simply to focus on the problems of President Bush rather than its own, it won't do itself any favors. "The president is the president of the United States and will be until January 20 next year. . . . elections are about the future and not about the past, and we've got to show people that if they were to honor us with the majority, this is what we'll do. When people go to the polls in November, they are going to be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain (or maybe Hillary Clinton). Our members are on the ballot, they've got opponents. George Bush isn't on the ballot."

The first part of Mr. Boehner's "Change You Deserve" agenda started last week, with an attempt to pitch the party's free-market ideals at the needs of modern working families with "flex time" laws and better tax policies for small business owners. This week's focus was energy, with promises to boost all energy supplies here at home to help lower prices and create jobs. In subsequent weeks they will tackle health care, taxes and security. This week, however, another blast of advice arrived on Mr. Boehner's doorstep from the conservative Republican Study Committee, many members of which feel the House leadership's new agenda is too diffuse.

Mr. Boehner's view? "As I told the members, our agenda was put together by listening to our members, and as we move forward we are going to continue listening to our members. A lot of what they offered is already in our product. I'm going to announce a meeting later this week to talk about our economic package, and we're going to bring members in who want to bring more to the package."

One message Mr. Boehner is interested in adopting is that of John McCain. The minority leader clearly realizes that at a time when the public is angry with the same-old, same-old, the Arizona senator's reformist line has resonance. He's also no doubt realized it might be in Mr. McCain's interest to run against Congressional Republicans. "I want [the Republican members] to understand, it's a presidential election year, he's our nominee. He has his own Republican brand, and part of my goal, I've told them, is to work with the McCain campaign and our folks so that our agendas are identical, our themes are the same."

Mr. Boehner's hope is that his members can project enough "change" of their own to benefit from McCain voters. "We've got 29 retirements, though 22 or 23 of those are in solid Republican seats with good candidates. But we're going to have a handful of tough open seats to defend. Still, when you begin to look at the 61 Democrat districts that George Bush won in the '04 election, I'd argue John McCain will win more than 61 currently held Democrat seats. . . . The goal is, if they're going to go vote for McCain, we just need them to vote for our candidate at the same time. But it means we need to have a credible candidate on the ballot, we need to have issues."

Another part of the Boehner strategy is hammering Democrats, an approach that has at least some in his conference worried Republicans should be spending more time promoting their own "change" message. But Mr. Boehner thinks part of the approach has to be reminding voters that "all the American people have gotten from the Democrat majority in Congress are long lists of broken promises."

The minority has spent its tenure pushing votes that forced freshman Democrats in particular to choose between their more liberal leadership and their more conservative districts. Mr. Boehner is hoping those votes will play in some of the tougher House races this year.

"These are things like voting for the largest tax increase in American history. They voted for a budget last year that had a $450 billion hole in it; this year a $685 billion hole in it, and at some point they are going to have to say if they are for the 15% capital gains rate expiring, or the death tax expiration expiring, or the 15% rate on dividends expiring, or marriage penalty relief, or the $1,000 per child tax credit. Somebody is going to have to answer. That's going to be a big issue." Republicans are also angling to use what's left of this legislative calendar to pigeonhole Democrats into a few more uncomfortable spots, on Iraq war spending, or the debate over reauthorizing the wiretap law.

And Barack Obama? How does he play into this? What are his weaknesses? "Well," he says dramatically, rolling his eyes. "He has been a member of the United States Senate for three years and four months. And has done exactly one thing for exactly three years and four months: Run for president. He hasn't done anything. Who ever heard of a subcommittee chairman never having had a hearing?" (Mr. Obama chairs a Senate subcommittee on European affairs, which has not held a policy hearing since he took over as chairman in January 2007).

Will this prove enough to get Mr. Boehner out of this "awful" minority purgatory? "You know, I didn't like the cards that were dealt 16 months ago, but . . . my job is to play the hand as best I can. So it is what it is. And my job is to lead an effort for our team to earn back the majority. And I keep pushing them and pushing them and pushing them and pushing them. Because the only way we're gonna win it back is to earn it.

"Oh, we could get lucky and [voters] could get madder at the Democrats than they were at us but what kind of majority is that? I want us to earn our way back. And we're getting there. It's just a long, slow process."

Sudan

The south on the brink

Clashes in the middle of Sudan threaten the entire north-south peace accord

NOBODY seems to know how or why the fighting in Abyei, on Sudan's north-south fault line, began. But everyone knows that if it gets out of hand, the entire peace accord that has kept an edgy calm between north and south for the past three years could dissolve in a bloodbath.

In mid-May, rumours started to spread that a local militiaman in the pay of the northern government in Khartoum had been arrested by the police run by the main southern movement. A government soldier from the north was shot. Within hours, the town of Abyei was reverberating with the clatter of machinegun fire and the crashing of mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Tens of thousands of the town's residents fled into the bush. UN helicopters were sent to evacuate terrified aid workers under heavy fire. At least 50 people were killed in several days of fighting.

The mood in Abyei, an oil-rich area straddling Sudan's north-south border, had been darkening for months. The ruling parties of north and south—the National Congress Party (NCP), headquartered in Khartoum, and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), with its nerve-centre in Juba—each claim the area as theirs. There had been sporadic incidents between proxies. But the clashes that erupted on May 14th were the first sustained bout of armed conflict between the northern-based national army and former guerrillas from the south.

Abyei is at the nub of the problems that have strained relations between north and south since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)was signed in 2005, ending two decades of war in Africa's largest country. But an argument still festers over sharing oil revenue and demarcating the border between north and south. Trust between the two sides is patently lacking.

A particular row over drawing the border through the Abyei area was a big reason why, last year, the SPLM suspended its participation in various aspects of the peace deal. It complained that the government in the north was refusing to accept the findings of an international boundary commission, which put Abyei in the south. Though the SPLM later rejoined the Sudanese unity government based in Khartoum, it unilaterally sent one of its top men, Edward Lino, to run the Abyei area, which had had no proper administration for three years. But the northerners rejected him and sent several hundred heavily armed soldiers into Abyei town. “We don't want to fight,” says Mr Lino. “But we're not going to surrender just like that. They can't just come and take over our land and people.”

The mood in Abyei has long been twitchy because of historic animosity between the Misseriya nomads, some of whom are armed by northerners in the government in Khartoum, and the southern Ngok Dinka, who look to the SPLM for protection. Since time immemorial they have clashed over land and water. Such issues can usually be resolved locally but the groups have become pawns in a bigger game. If fighting between them gets bloodier, the north-south partnership in Khartoum could collapse.

In any event, the northerners, who are mainly Arabs, have been dragging their feet over the accord of 2005, not just over Abyei, but also over other border disputes. They have been slow to withdraw troops from the south, as agreed. Some observers think they want to provoke a crisis, so that a general election due next year cannot be held. The northerners are even more loth to contemplate a referendum, due in 2011, that is part of the agreement; the southerners are entitled to opt for secession and full independence. If that happened, the south would draw the benefits of Sudan's 500,000 barrels of oil a day, much of it pumped out of Abyei. Hence the tension over the border. The Abyei area alone is said to have produced oil worth $1.8 billion since the accord was signed. The south says it has seen none of the cash at all.

The SPLM's ability to negotiate and implement a border settlement is weakened by its own disunity. Some of its top men believe in a federal Sudan, with the south getting wide autonomy. Others believe passionately that the Muslim-dominated, Arab north will never co-operate with the Christian and animist south, and that independence is the only way.

Such differences are sharpened by fierce rivalries between the southern tribes. The Dinka, among them both the SPLM's leader, Salva Kiir, and his predecessor, the late John Garang, have long held the upper hand. Several of their top people, known as “the Garang boys”, are amenable, as was Mr Garang, to the idea of a federal Sudan with an autonomous south. Mr Kiir leans towards independence. The autonomy-versus-independence debate bubbles on, sometimes angrily.

The SPLM is holding its first party convention since 1994, when it was meant to heal divisions between Mr Garang and a group led by Riek Machar, now the south's vice-president, whose Nuer people are the Dinka's chief rivals. “Most of us want separation [ie, independence] but we are worried about the problems between the tribes,” says Hassan Kuku, a trader in Juba market. “We don't want more war over this.” Moreover, corruption has worsened, making everyone edgier about the future.

Meanwhile, a fear of lawlessness has returned. Though the southern guerrillas are supposed to have disarmed under the agreement, hundreds of civilians in the past week darted into their huts to grab their hidden AK-47s to join the present fray. The accord provided for joint units of northerners and southerners to act as a neutral force; but they never materialised.

The UN Mission in Sudan, known as UNMIS, is feeble. Its diplomats call for calm, but their ability to do good on the ground is impeded by the government in Khartoum, which never wanted the mission there in the first place and limits its ability even to move around freely. The 10,000-strong mission, including some 7,000 soldiers and police, has a weak mandate; its mainly Zambian units did little more than protect a nearby UN base when the hostilities in Abyei broke out.

Since then, some 50,000 civilians have fled into the bush, leaving Abyei town virtually deserted, a stark reminder that some 2m were killed and 4m displaced during the long conflict that ended in 2005. Hectic talks between politicians of north and south are going on in Khartoum.

Yet the continuing horrors of Darfur, in western Sudan, attract more of the world's attention. Many foreign government agencies and charities have switched their focus to Darfur. For the UN, tackling southern Sudan still seems a challenge too far.