International Monetary Fund board approves funds for Georgia, warns about need for foreign investment.

U.N. peacekeepers ambushed in Cote d'Ivoire.

Russia says Iran's nuclear facilities invite is interesting -- but can't replace IAEA inspections.

China would like to "participate actively" in any new euro stabilization activity, signals willingness to buy Spanish bonds.

Will the United States veto Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements?

Hillary Clinton warns that attempts to derail U.N.-backed Lebanon tribunal will fail.

World Bank expects global GDP growth to slow slightly in 2011.

Jimmy Carter says Southern Sudan might not sign on to the International Criminal Court, so as to keep dialogue open with Bashir.

Hamdija Custovic of the Congress of North American Bosniaks is livid that I suggested Bosnia is not a worthy U.N. Security Council member:

It was therefore to our shock and dismay that a reputable magazine such as Foreign Policy would publish David Bosco’s patronizing comments which criticize the decision to elect Bosnia to the presidency over the Security Council citing that Bosnia’s membership on the council is largely "symbolic" and that "the General Assembly needs to stop carping about Council reform and start consistently electing states that can contribute to peace and security, not those barely able to govern themselves."

Mr. Bosco spent a couple of years in postwar Bosnia and should therefore understand that the best way to rebuild is through the process of inclusion not exclusion. Also, his comments are disturbing because they are elitist and arrogant. It has long been the criticism of the Security Council that it does not adequately represent the smaller countries which have a lot to offer in terms of unbiased diplomacy and leadership that is often not the case with the big powers. Bosnia and Herzegovina is fully able to govern itself but it is still vulnerable, and needs more, not less, international support to ensure that it remains on the path of peace and stability. After all, Bosnia and Herzegovina can draw from its horrible experience of war and genocide to lead the world in seeking peace and stability. The most pressing issue at the UN Security Council is that of the Ivory Coast and the threat of violence following the presidential elections. It is imperative that we have leaders who understand the implications of genocide and can do what it takes to avoid such atrocities.

I consider myself a friend of Bosnia and argued often for more assertive outside intervention during the war and for effective implementation of the Dayton peace agreement in the conflict's aftermath. I agree that the international community -- and particularly the European Union -- needs to devote more attention to the country's very fragile return to normalcy. But I don't see why any of this implies that Bosnia should have a Council seat. Yes, small states should always have a voice on the Council, but there are plenty of small states better able to contribute to Council diplomacy than Bosnia, whose government struggles to speak with one voice (and whose members sometimes have trouble speaking to each other. Update: for a recent report on Bosnia's current political problems, see here).

The argument that Bosnia's history lends it valuable perspective that it can share with the rest of the Council is an attractive one. But I remember another country making that argument: When Rwanda joined the Council in January 1994 it also claimed that its recent history of conflict made it a particularly valuable member. After all, who better to think about peacekeeping than a country hosting a mission? Instead, Rwanda's presence complicated Council diplomacy when the genocide erupted in April of that year.

Do Pakistan and the International Monetary Fund have an unhealthy relationship?

U.N. peacekeeping chief wants more troops for Cote d'Ivoire; Security Council sounds positive.

Good Euro news: New Euro-bonds sell out in an hour; plus, China still likes Spanish bonds.

Bad Euro news: Euro-zone retail sales drop unexpectedly.

A full plate: World Bank president wants the G-20 to help stabilize food prices.

Kidnapped U.N. employee in Darfur is released.

Indonesia is hosting an ASEAN ministerial retreat next week.

A report on the jostling and secret negotiations over the international tribunal for Lebanon.

Organization of American States report on Haiti elections expected soon.

A source close to the special U.N. tribunal (STL) investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri has reportedly said that the investigation phase has ended, and some observers expect indictments soon (h/t UN Dispatch).

Lebanese observers say they are worried that Hezbollah will lash out after the indictments with actions that would erase several years of relative political stability. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, however, downplayed the pending crisis.

The STL source stressed that the "only thing that is certain is that the general prosecutor has finished the investigative phase that has lasted nearly six years."

This BBC report depicts a society on the edge, and it's at least possible that the announcement of an indictment could trigger violence. Iranian government officials, meanwhile, are preemptively attacking the tribunal's legitimacy, describing it as an attempt to weaken the Lebanese resistance movement.

The peace and security implications of the tribunal's next steps are potentially huge, which begs the question of whether the Security Council will get formal advance notice of pending indictments. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court gives the Security Council the right to delay proceedings for up to twelve months, but my quick read of the Lebanon tribunal's statute didn't reveal any similar mechanism.  

Macedonia asks the IMF for a precautionary credit line; plus, the EU reassures Athens about extending loan repayment.

Reading diplomatic body language in Cancun.

After prolonged negotiations, U.N. Security Council issues statement on Ivory Coast elections. 

EU criticizes (bizarre) Czech Republic refugee screening procedures.

A Russian foreign ministry official explains why his country could join NATO.

ICC prosecutors move against Sudan rebels.

Spain supports an international tribunal for Somali pirates; so do these guys.

Sarkozy charms India, not least by offering more backing for its Security Council bid.

The BBC has a story up on the cholera outbreak in Haiti, and the link with U.N. peacekeepers.

U.N. peacekeepers were the most likely source of the cholera epidemic sweeping Haiti, according to a leaked report by a French disease expert.

Epidemiologist Renaud Piarroux conducted research in Haiti on behalf of the French and Haitian governments.

Sources who have seen his report say it found strong evidence that the cholera outbreak was caused by contamination of a river by U.N. troops from Nepal.

The U.N. said it had neither accepted nor dismissed the findings.

I believe the U.N. butchered its response here and is going to pay a price. Instead of loftily pretending the link didn't matter, it should have been all over the issue from the very beginning. Now, the organization will get blamed both for the cholera and for not being particularly interested in whether its peacekeepers caused it.

At the New Yorker's blog, China-based Evan Osnos wonders -- quite reasonably -- whether the Security Council will deign to comment on the recent nuclear revelations and violence on the Korean peninsula.

In today's Washington Post, Ben Affleck calls for continued engagement with eastern Congo. His list of very sensible policy recommendations includes keeping a high-level administration envoy and monitoring compliance with recent legislation designed to track conflict minerals.

There's one striking omission. He has nothing to say about the U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo other than a vague reference to the role of the international community in providing an appropriate environment for elections. It's a striking oversight, given that Congo still hosts one of the world's largest (and most expensive) missions and that the force has reoriented itself to deal with violence in the east. Yes, Congo's government has called for the peacekeepers to leave sooner rather than later. And, yes, the current force has often failed to protect the civilian population. But is there really nothing to say about the role peacekeepers should play?

If U.N. peacekeeping has lost Hollywood, that's not a good sign. 

Could the cholera epidemic in Haiti bring down the U.N. peacekeeping mission? Over at U.N. Dispatch, Mark Leon Goldberg looks into the issue:

Many Haitians blame a Nepalese contingent for the disease.  On November 1, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control affirmed that the strain of cholera in Haiti matches a strain found in south-east Asia, which only seemed to confirm suspicions that the U.N. was to blame. The UN has not investigated that specific claim, and neither are they likely to do so. If there were a definitive link between U.N. peacekeepers and cholera, it would be politically difficult for the Haitian government to maintain its support for U.N. peacekeepers, which the Haitian government relies on to provide some security and also to train a police force that was decimated by the earthquake. 

His broad point is doubtless correct -- the fundamental issue is not how the strain of cholera arrived but the conditions that allowed its spread and prevent effective treatment. But Mark seems to endorse not investigating a public health issue in order to maintain the political viability of the peacekeeping mission, and it's hard to imagine that's the best solution.

Update:  Mark comments:  "I'm not endorsing that the UN decline to investigate how it spread. Rather, my intention in the graf that you cite is simply to describe some of the political realities surrounding a formal investigation of the link."

G-20 wrap-up: low expectations met! Plus, IMF warns that G-20 growth estimates are on the rosy side. Meanwhile, Obama insists he played effective small ball in Seoul.

After G-20 extravaganza in Seoul, Japan offers low-key APEC summit.

Iran insists U.N. nuclear agency would pass confidential information to Americans. Not so, says IAEA spokesman.

NATO parliamentarians convene in Warsaw, strive to appear non-threatening to Moscow.

Turkey's still wrestling with NATO missile shield decision.

At United Nations, U.S. opposes resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.

Obama's new envoy to ASEAN is very experienced -- in raising money and securities litigation.

African Union and United Nations team up on Sudan negotiations.

EU investigators bust organ-trafficking ring in Kosovo.

World Bank president expands on the role for gold.

Security Council finally ready to release report on North Korean technology exports. Some excerpts here. Plus, Abbas wants Council meeting on Israeli settlements.

Don't forget Bosnia: A warning that the Balkans could disrupt EU and NATO festivities this month.

Forward or backward? ASEAN welcomes Myanmar's elections as a "significant step."

Gutsy: Spanish warship on EU mission attacked by Somali pirates.

European auto industry emitting less CO2, says the EU.

Portugal struggles to keep the "IMF scenario" at bay.

Russia ready to open transit routes for Afghanistan-bound NATO vehicles.

With NATO summit around the corner, a pessimistic look at European military spending.

Are Germany and the United States drifting apart as the G-20 approaches?

That's nice: China "understands" India's desire to join the Security Council.

The IAEA chief briefs the U.N. General Assembly on the agency's work.

The World Bank reports on remittance patterns: top sender is United States and leading receiver is India.

The EU's trade chief says Doha will be done deal by the end of 2011; plus, the EU opens competition for CO2 capture and storage projects.

The U.N. investigates sexual violence against Angolans deported to Congo.

Reset and replace: NATO has a new public face in Moscow.

Regime change? Reactions to World Bank chief Zoellick's gold talk. Plus, the search continues for an alternative to the dollar as global reserve currency.

OECD reports that ASEAN GDP has rebounded from downturn PDQ. 

"Comfort and mutual confidence": Should the G-20 try to emulate ASEAN atmospherics?

President Obama sent hearts soaring in India today when he endorsed, before a special session of India's parliament, the country's bid for permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council.

Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

"It was a powerful endorsement. It is very welcome. Very eloquently put," said the head of India's BJP party. The Indian government had clearly been hoping that Obama would take the step, and a number of prominent voices pushed the White House in that direction. John McCain called for it on the eve of Obama's visit. For its part, Pakistan opposed the move, warning that a permanent seat for India would complicate regional security.

The endorsement was a notable move for an administration that has been all but mute on the question of Security Council reform. Given the efforts Washington has expended on pushing the G-20 and revamping governance at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, administration officials have been surprisingly quiet on Council reform, confining themselves to boilerplate about the need for  an effective and legitimate Council. There's been no sign that Washington is actively pushing negotiations in New York. And in the wake of the unwelcome Iran diplomacy by Brazil and Turkey last year, the administration may be cooler to the idea of new permanent Council members than it had been initially. The Obama team will be carefully watching the Council's performance in 2011, when it will include many leading candidates as nonpermanent members, including India, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa. 

In discussing the India announcement, administration officials acknowledged the obvious: permanent membership for India (or anyone else) remains a long way off. "This is bound to be a very complicated and difficult process, given the range of issues that have to be discussed and it's bound to take a significant amount of time," said undersecretary of State William Burns. In the 1990s, the United States endorsed the candidacies of Germany and Japan, a move that did little to propel their candidacies. Before Obama's departure for India, Strobe Talbot warned correctly that "even if assurances are made that a permanent seat were available for India, it is a bit like a check that runs some risk of bouncing, or of not being cashable for some time to come."

Even if it were genuinely inclined to do so, the United States does not alone have the power to cash India's Council check. Security Council reform requires a U.N. Charter amendment, which in turn requires two-thirds backing by the U.N. General Assembly (as well as the support of all current permanent members). The obstacle for India, and all other leading candidates for permanent seats, is that the Assembly is dominated by small and mid-size countries skeptical of adding new permanent seats, at least without a major increase in rotating seats. Accordingly, Council reform has been stuck for almost two decades, with the Assembly unable to reach consensus on a plan. The four leading candidates -- India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil -- all have influential opponents (Pakistan, Italy, China, and Argentina, respectively) who are keen to muck up the works.

For all the goodwill the announcement has won Obama in India, it won't change that underlying reality. And, at the moment, Washington is not interested in expending the diplomatic capital that would be required to help turn India's Council dream into a reality.

Update: A reader writes, "Getting a permanent seat at the UNSC is a long term goal for India. We are pragmatic. We know we are not going to get it tomorrow. But, we have to start somewhere. An endorsement, even an empty one, from the world's most powerful man is welcome." 

Over at Turtle Bay, Colum Lynch has a good wrap-up of today's session at the U.N. Human Rights Council, where the United States was undergoing its turn in the Universal Periodic Review process. (For my own take on the exercise, see here).