
Dec 31, 2010


The crisis unfolding in Ivory Coast is a tragic and familiar one. A dictator without any legitimate claim to power sits tight in office in defiance of his people’s will and international opinion.
President Laurent Gbagbo remains defiant and has vowed that he would not cede power in Ivory Coast, to the widely acclaimed winner of the November 2010 elections, Alassane Ouattara. Gbagbo has been offered several concessions by the international community to ensure a quiet and graceful departure and forestall a slide to violence and war in that country.
According to the New York Times, he has been offered a position in an international organization and the opportunity to relocate to the United State or to some other location in Europe or Africa. But like the typical delusional dictator, has refused all these concessions and insists on exercising power without his peoples' mandate or international legitimacy.
Gbagbo intransigence and obstinacy reminds me of Saddam Hussein in the lead up to the Iraq War. When he had the opportunity to quietly withdraw his troops from Kuwait following his ill-fated invasion, he thumped his nose at the intentional community. His fate is one that ultimately awaits all dictators….
Gbagbo is running out of time. There is very little tolerance for sit tight dictators like him in today’s world.
Read the New York Times Report.
Ivory Coast: Laurent Gbagbo, Tyranny and Obstinacy

The World Bank has an unviable record in Africa. For several decades, it promoted an economic policy of Structural Adjustment through strict conditions attached to loans to vulnerable African states. These conditions or borrowing terms curtailed investment in public and social services, advocated liberalization of national economies and aggressive privatization that widened the gap between the very rich and the very poor.
The results, as even the World Bank itself now admits, were disastrous. Across Africa, states that swallowed the bitter pill of the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Policy suffered unprecedented mass impoverishment and economic decline leading to social unrest and in some cases, political crisis.
Now, the World Bank would want us to believe that it is a changed institution more interested now in seeking fruitful engagement with Africa than making profits for its shareholders.
In 2010, the Bank began what it described as a major review its strategy for Africa. The result is a recently released policy document tiled: “Africa's Future and the World Bank's Role in It.” In it, the Bank states with not a little irony and euphemism:
"... The World Bank is changing. The “paradigmatic instability” of the past notwithstanding, theBank is supporting development models that allow for different mixes of government and market interventions. The Bank is not prescribing solutions. Rather, the Bank is using its knowledge assistance to nourish an evidence-based debate in countries on policy issues. The Bank is listening and learning. We are promoting South-South knowledge exchange for this purpose…."
The document then goes on to lay out the Bank’s new vision for Africa. It all sounds nice and good … but given its checkered and beleaguered history in the continent, many will remain skeptical. The taste of the pudding will be in the eating.
The Bank is now asking for input from the public on its new vision…. I suspect they will get an earful…
Read “Africa's Future and the World Bank's Role in It.”
The World Bank in Africa: Can a Leopard Change its Spots?
Dec 13, 2010

Liu Xiaobo: The Price of the Nobel Peace Prize
Dec 10, 2010

New York, Dec 10 2010 12:05PM
As the United Nations system gears up to celebrate 2011 as the “International Year for People of African Descent,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered an impassioned plea today to the world community to eradicate racism once and for all.
"The international community cannot accept that whole communities are marginalized because of the colour of their skin," he told an event at UN Headquarters in New York to launch the Year. "People of African descent are among those most affected by racism. Too often, they face denial of basic rights such as access to quality health services and education. Such fundamental wrongs have a long and terrible history.
"The international community has affirmed that the transatlantic slave trade was an appalling tragedy not only because of its barbarism but also because of its magnitude, organized nature and negation of the essential humanity of the victims.
"Even today, Africans and people of African descent continue to suffer the consequences of these acts," he added, calling for their full integration into social, economic and political life and at all levels of decision-making.
The General Assembly proclaimed the Year in December 2009 in a resolution citing the need to strengthen national actions and regional and international cooperation to ensure that people of African descent fully enjoy economic, cultural, social, civil and political rights, to advance their integration into all political, economic, social and cultural aspects of society, and to promote a greater knowledge of and respect for their diverse heritage and culture.
"As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,'" Mr. Ban said. "If we are to make those words real, then we must eradicate racism once and for all. The success of the International Year requires concerted efforts across the United Nations system and at the regional and national levels, with the widest possible engagement and participation."
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre athttp://www.un.org/news
ON EVE OF YEAR FOR PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT, BAN CALLS FOR FINAL END TO RACISM
Dec 3, 2010

Religion has historically been a key source of human rights violations. From the medieval battles of the Christian Crusades to contemporary Islamic fundamentalism, religion has often been invoked in ways that cause pain and suffering to others. However, religion can also be an effective means of promoting human rights and peace in our world. Think about it! Every region I know has something positive to say about human rights. We just have chosen not to pay attention.
Hinduism: Hindu tradition teaches non-harm of the self, others and the earth and offers passive constraints on recourse to violence. Idea of Ahmisa “non injury” or the absence of a desire to harm is a central tenet of Hindu ethics.
Confucianism: One of the five Confucian virtues is “Jen” (human-heartedness) which is described by Confucius as the principle “to love all men.”
ca. 475 - 221 B.C.E. The disciples of Confucius compile The Analects - a Collection of Confucius’ discussions with his disciples. The Analects has heavily influenced the philosophy and moral values of China and other East Asian societies.
“Fan Ch’ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, “Love your fellow men. He asked about wisdom. The Master said “Know your fellow men.” Fan Ch’ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, “Raise the straight and set them over the crooked. This can make the crooked straight.”--- Confucius, “On Rightful Conduct of Rulers and Subjects” (The Analects, Book XVIII)
Even though it was patriarchal and hierarchical, classical Confucianism did hold the view that all people have the capacity to become flourishing moral persons in the community, if not exemplary sages. This view comes close to maintaining a position of moral equality even within social hierarchy, at least with respect to people’s moral potential.
§ Judaism: Judaism teaches tolerance, accountability, justice and the infinite value of human life.
“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself.” -- Leviticus 19:17-18
“Thou shalt not curse the deaf.” -- Leviticus 19:14. (Disability rights)
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.” --Leviticus 19:15.
Judaism teaches that the individual has the right not only to life, but to security from harm, to health, dignity and making a living - all specific factors involved in assessing costs in cases of damages (Bava Kama, Mishnah 2:6).
§ Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure in Christianity, preached virtues of love, compassion and justice.
Love your neighbour as yourself. -- The Bible, Mathew 22:37.
§ Islam: Prophet Muhammad, the central figure in Islam preached the virtues of tolerance, charity and equality.
“Oh mankind, we have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other, not that you may despise each other.” -- Koran, Surah 49:13.
Religion, War and Human Rights
Nov 21, 2010
I feel compelled to remind my friends, colleagues and students that Ubuntu is not just an open-source computer operating system. Even more important than the operating system is the original meaning of the term. “A person is a person through (other) persons”
“Ubuntu is to say, ‘my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.’ We belong to a family bundle.”
“A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.”
My neighbour and I have the same origins / We have the same life-experience and a common destiny / We are the obverse and reverse sides of one entity /We are unchanging equals /We are the faces which see themselves in each other / We are mutually fulfilling compliments / We are simultaneously legitimate values... /I am sovereign of my life / My neighbour is sovereign of his life; Society is a collective sovereignty /It exists to ensure that my neighbour and I realize the promise of being human.
What is Ubuntu?
Nov 17, 2010

"Social Torture" in Northern Uganda
Nov 15, 2010
Burma Releases Nobel Laureate Suu Kyi After 15 Years Of House Arrest
Nov 11, 2010

Here is one of those human rights “grey area” stories that one encounters every now and again. Apparently, some airlines will not let men sit with unaccompanied minors they do not know. While I understand the obligation of airlines to protect children placed in their care, asking a man to leave his seat for the only reason that he is a man, goes beyond the bounds of prudent action. Move the kid if you must but the implicit suggestion that all men are potential abusers and perverts clearly raises serious ethical and human rights concerns.
Making sure children flying under the care of an airline are not preyed upon is extremely important. So is making sure that a person’s individual rights are not taken away from them and made to feel like a criminal.
Recently, passenger Mirko Fischer took British Airways to court for forcing him to move seats because he was sitting next to a young child.
Fischer originally had the window seat, but switched with his pregnant wife, so she could see out the window (what a gentleman). This changed caused him to be sitting next to a young unaccompanied minor and the flight crew made him change his seat. The airline told him that they ban male passengers from sitting next to children they do not know.
The passenger did not feel this treatment was right and left him feeling, “embarrassed, humiliated and angry.” He took British Airways to court for “loss of damage and injury to his feelings.”
“This policy is branding all men as perverts for no reason,” Fischer said. “They accuse you of being some kind of child molester just because you are sitting next to someone.”
Fischer won his case and was paid $3712.00 in costs and $1288.00 in damages. He didn’t pocket the money however. He donated his payout and $3865.00 of his own money to two different child protection charities.
British Airways is currently reviewing the policy, but still states the rule is not discriminatory.
Parents put their children into care of an airline to make sure they are kept safe during their flight. But is it ok to keep all men away from children because of this? I say no.
If the flight crew has any reason to assume that a passenger is not acting appropriately, then yes, it is their duty to move the child. However, it is not ok to discriminate against a passenger just because of a fear of inappropriate behavior. Would it be ok to not sit a child next to someone of a particular race or religion because they are more likely to molest a child?
I have heard of other airlines having similar policies. The concept of these policies is to keep children safe, which is very important, but not at the expense of discriminating against other passengers.