Jul 21, 2011

Somali famine 'one of the most urgent humanitarian crises in the world'

7/21/2011 09:26:00 PM , ,

Jul 20, 2011

It is now official. The United Nations has formally declared the crisis unfolding in the horn of Africa a Famine and a “humanitarian tragedy of unimaginable proportions.” Famine is defined as an acute starvation affecting greater than 30 percent of the population. In the case of Somalia, nearly half of the population is severely malnourished and under threat of starvation. The most vulnerable of these are women and children. Here are some troubling facts:
  • The draught in the horn of Africa is the worst in 60 years. Experts believe that changing global weather patterns have made draught more common in this region.
  • The UN estimates that 10 million people in the region are at the verge of starvation. That is about the population of Denmark and Sweden put together.
  • Insecurity and political instability have worsened the draught making an already chaotic region even more chaotic. Somalia has had no effective government since 1991 - over two decades. Rival warlords and al-Shabab, the Taliban style Islamist movement which controls most of the country, have denied humanitarian agencies access to the worst affected areas in the interior of the country.
  • Masses of refugees are fleeing to Northern Kenya and Eastern Ethiopia which are also draught affected regions. The UNHCR estimates that about 1,500 people are arriving at overcrowded refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia.
What can we do?
  • Donate: Humanitarian agencies such as the UNHCR, UNICEF and OXFAM all say that the donor response to this crisis has been particularly poor. The global economy is in recession and there is donor fatigue, particularly when it comes to humanitarian crises in Africa. But we cannot afford to turn our backs on the mass of women and children who face certain starvation in a world of plenty. Below are links to the websites of humanitarian organisations where you can make your donations. Please Act.
  • Push local and international leaders to find a long term political solution in Somalia. Unless a political solution is found that will bring peace and stability to the country, it will continue to have a destabilizing effect on the region. The menace of Somali pirates in the high seas and the threat it poses to international commerce is a reminder of the international repercussions of the chaos in Somalia. The international community must do more to support the current United Nations and African Union backed transitional government of Somalia. Write to your local political representatives in your country to push your governments to support international initiatives aimed at finding a lasting solution in Somalia. It is in our hands.

Spare a thought and a Dime for the Starving in Somalia

7/20/2011 10:12:00 PM , ,

Jul 10, 2011


Readers of this blog will know that I am a big fan of the musical Group “Playing for Change.” Playing for Change is an initiative that digitally brings together musicians from all over the word to create beautiful and empowering music aimed at bringing positive change to the world. Their videos have become a YouTube sensation.

Playing for Change just released its second album “PFC 2.” All the tracks are delightful. As I did with the first album, I am posting below my favorite tack in the new album. It is titled “Gimme Shelter,” an adaptation of the classic Rolling Stones track of the same title. I think of it as a theme song for peace and justice in our world. Enjoy!

Oh, a storm is threat'ning
My very life today
If I don't get some shelter
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away

Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'
Our very street today
Burns like a red coal carpet
Mad bull lost its way

War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away

The floods is threat'ning
My very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter
Or I'm gonna fade away

War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away

I tell you love, sister, it's just a kiss away
It's just a kiss away

PFC2: A Theme Song for Peace and Justice

7/10/2011 06:10:00 PM , ,
It was delightful to watch on TV, the celebrations that greeted the declaration of South Sudan as an independent nation – the world’s newest nation. Given the history of this troubled region and human suffering that has come with decades of civil conflict in which over a million people have died, the independence of South Sudan is a welcome development for the region. South Sudan becomes the 193rd country recognized by the UN and the 54th country in Africa.

The promise of a new society and the vision of peace and stability are palpable. The leaders of the country have worked to put in place the rudiments of a new nations – a new national flag; new national anthem, new currency and new political structures.

The people of South Sudan, many of whom have spent decades as refugees in neighboring countries, are returning home in droves in the hope that their new nation will provide them with the security and opportunities for decent livelihood that has long eluded them. I share in their hope and aspirations.

But it may not quite yet be complete “Uhuru” (Freedom). Amidst the hope, aspirations and celebrations are significant huddles that still confront the new nation. While some of these challenges are the unusual difficulties associated with forging news nations, some are unique obstacles. Here are what I consider the top four challenges confronting the new nation.

1. Managing citizen expectations and aspirations: We must not expect miracles. Given its history, progress in the new nation will likely be slow and painstaking. Years of war and neglect have ensured that the physical, social and institutional infrastructure in South Sudan are grossly inadequate. The new country joins the community of nations as one of the least developed in the world. Yet, for millions of South Sudanese, there are great hopes and expectations. These must be prudently managed. The leaders of South Sudan must strive to avoid the mistake of many post-colonial African leaders who promised their countrymen the sun, the moon and the stars after independence. The aspiration bar was set so unrealistically high that it was impossible to attain.

2. Managing the Oil Wealth: The new country is rich in oil which must also be prudently managed. First, the new government of President Salva Kiir Mayardit must work with Sudan (where most of the oil infrastructure are located) to come up with a revenue sharing agreement that is satisfactory to both sides. Next, oil revenue must be managed to serve the needs of the people rather than remain in the hands of a narrow oligarchy as is the case in some other oil-rich African countries.

3. Managing civil tensions and maintaining the Peace: The fragile peace that has allowed for the independence of South Sudan must be proactively maintained. Peace must be pursued both between South Sudan and her neighbors and within South Sudan. Recent reports of fighting in border areas between the north and south are troubling. There is real possibility of renewed conflict and for this reason the UN Security Council’s decision to keep in place the peacekeeping force for South Sudan is a wise one.

4. Negotiate Citizenship: A new law passed by the National Assembly in Khartoum has withdrawn Sudanese citizenship from all southerners. South Sudan is likely for reciprocate. This is bound to create more problems than it solves. Many South Sudanese have lived their whole lives in the north and vice versa. There must be a way to allow people on either side to feel a sense of national belonging, whatever side of the border that they choose to make their home. Citizenship must not become an instrument of ethnic exclusion and alienation.

An African proverb states: “A person is never blinded by a thrown stone that he can see coming.” Here is hoping that the people of Sothern Sudan and the international community see these “stones” and work toward avoiding them.

Independent South Sudan: Between Promise and Fear

7/10/2011 05:46:00 PM , ,

May 24, 2011

Below is an insightful article that appeared in The Irish Times on the occasion of President Obama's visit to Ireland. The author is obviously addressing contentious questions of race and Irish self-identity. But I think it bears broader relevance to the politics of race not only in Ireland and the United States but elsewhere in the world.

It is a reminder that even with the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States we really still cannot talk about a post-racial era. Much has changed; but much still remains to be done to create a world where men and women are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Obama not just another excuse for blarney
Fintan O'Toole
The Irish Times - Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Claiming Obama as our own could be an exercise in self- aggrandisement – or it could help construct a new Irish identity

JAMES AUGUSTINE Healy, bishop of Portland, Maine from 1875 to 1900, was one of the great wave of Irish prelates who built the Catholic Church in America. He was typical of the Irish clerics whose phenomenal energies turned the church into the institution that integrated the Famine Irish into American society. He was one of the bishops who concelebrated the High Mass at the inauguration of the great temple of Irish America, St Patrick’s in New York.

I’m looking at a picture of Healy as I write. His head is erect, his eyes have the proud, steady gaze of a prince of the church. His skin looks a little dark, but if you didn’t know anything about him, you’d assume that’s just because the print is poor. A 19th century Irish Catholic bishop could not possibly be black.

But Healy was – as black, that is, as Barack Obama. He had been born in Macon, Georgia, in 1830, the son of an Irish-born planter Michael Healy and a slave woman, Mary Eliza Smith. This was not the usual story of a slave owner exploiting his chattel – Michael and Mary Eliza saw themselves as a married couple. But James Augustine Healy inherited his mother’s legal status – he was born a slave. He escaped his fate only because his father sent him north to be educated.

Healy’s story is fascinating for many reasons, but especially because it involves two disappearances. He survived and thrived by making no reference to his African ancestry and presenting himself merely as Irish. There were some murmurs about his “indelicate blood”, but he relied on the obvious fact that an Irishman could not be black. But then he disappeared again – out of Irish-American history, a victim of the reverse assumption – that a black man could not be Irish. Only with the Civil Rights movement in the early 1960s was Healy rediscovered – as a black hero. You’ll find him, for example, in a popular book called African-American Heroes and Heroines . You won’t find him in most standard histories of Irish America.

And yet there are lots of people who look a bit like Barack Obama but are as much Irish-American as the obvious Micks he surrounds himself with, the Daleys and Donilons and Bidens. You find them in micro-histories of neighbourhoods rather than in the big narratives.

In the Lower East Side of Manhattan either side of the Famine, for example, Irish and blacks lived, worked and played cheek by jowl. You can catch glimpses in the records of the marriages and children that resulted: William Moore, a black labourer and his Irish wife Winifred, with their 12-year-old son and two-year-old daughter. John Baker, a black carter, and his Irish wife Julia. John DePoyster, a black labourer, and his spouse Bridget, sharing a house with John Francis, a black man from Virginia, and his wife Susan from Ireland. But all of the kids of these unions became “black” and their descendants became “African-American”. Irish America, as it came to be imagined, had no place for them.

Which brings us to yesterday’s Obama jamboree and the word that everyone preferred not to mention – race.

Did Obama come here because he desperately wanted to see Moneygall? No he didn’t. He came here because most white men don’t vote for him, because he’s the target of insidious racism and because being a little bit Irish helps to shore up his political defences. What’s all the “birther” madness but a badly coded suggestion that a black man can’t be truly “American”? What was that odious creep Donald Trump getting at when he wondered aloud how Obama got into Harvard?

There’s a toxic sludge of racism buried just beneath the surface of American political correctness. A day’s coverage of his Irishness was Obama’s clever, cool, non-confrontational way of messing with the racists’ heads.

This is perfectly fine with me – if it helps Obama undermine the bigoted headbangers, we should trace his ancestry back to Cúchulain and Queen Medb. But it does pose the question of what’s in it for us, beyond another visit from a political celebrity. It can be about one of two things – the usual slice of Paddywhackery or something that might make a bit of difference to the way we construct Irish identity in the future.

Claiming Obama can be just another exercise in pathetic Irish self-aggrandisement – another American president to add to “our” collection. This is nonsense – Obama’s chosen ethnic identity is that of an African-American. There’s something crass about any attempt to muscle in on that. But there is another way to claim Obama or rather to acknowledge what it means that he has some Irish heritage – to learn that “Irish” is not a racial category.

So who was the visit for? For Obama, of course, and I hope it did him some good. But more than that I hope it’s for the kids I saw the other morning, the sweat gleaming on their beautiful dark skin, one hand holding their daddy’s, the other balancing the hurleys they had over their shoulders.

Obama and the Politics of Race: Between Irish-American and African-American

5/24/2011 11:29:00 AM , ,

May 14, 2011


In my recent travels across Africa, I have struck by the increasing number of people who are becoming skeptical, even cynical of the International Criminal Court. The initial euphoria which heralded the establishment of the Court a decade ago seems to be fizzling. This trend is worrisome for two reasons.

First, skepticism of the ICC is not coming from the usual suspects; sit-tights dictators or warlords, but from those who have been supportive – civil society actors, academics and professionals. Secondly, skepticism is coming in spite of the relatively impressive record in the ICC in pursuing and prosecuting cases of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity in Africa.

So, what accounts for the new skepticism? Simply, it is the growing perception of imbalance. An old adage states that it is not enough that justice is done; it must also be seen to have been done. The credibility problem that the ICC increasingly faces in Africa is not its failure to do justice in individual cases but the perceptions that overall, it has failed to do justice equally.

As one African professor asked recently at a human rights conference, “How come almost all the offenders indicted or convicted by the ICC have been Africans?” He reeled out the names: Thomas Lubanga, Jean Pierre Bemba, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Chui, Charles Taylor and Omar El Bashir. “Does it mean that there are no gross human rights violators anywhere else in the world? It might as well be called the International African Criminal Court.”

Many saw this crisis of legitimacy coming. Under Article 17(a) of the Rome Statute which set up the ICC, a case is admissible only where the state which has jurisdiction over it is either unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out investigation or prosecution. Where a state with jurisdiction has investigated or prosecuted a case, it is inadmissible before the ICC.

Now, which states are more likely to be “unable” to investigate a case? Weak and fragile post-conflict states in the developing world, of course. Besides, who determines whether a “willing and able” state has indeed properly investigated and prosecuted a case? This inevitably means that for the foreseeable future, the only offenders you will see in the dock at the ICC will likely be from the weak states of the global South. It creates a credibility problem.

When the African Union unanimously opposed the ICC’s indictment of President Omar El-Bashir of Sudan over the killings in Darfur, it sent a powerful message. Recently, a top judge from the ICC’s Appeals Division, Daniel David Nsereko Ntanda on a speaking tour with civil society groups in Uganda stressed: "the ICC is not targeting African states, nor is it a Western imposition on the African continent and its people as perceived by some people…” More needs to be done. The ICC may already be swimming against a rising tide of public opinion in Africa.

What should be done? Radical as this may sound, the Statue of Rome needs to be revisited. Admissibility of cases before the ICC should not simply rest on the presumed inability or unwillingness of states with jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute a case.

Even where a state evidently has the capacity and willingness to investigate and prosecute, the ICC should have the prerogative to launch further “confirmatory” proceedings to ensure that domestic investigations and prosecutions meet international criminal justice standards. This will serve to create a sense of balance which is crucial to resolving the crisis of legitimacy which confronts the ICC in Africa and other parts the developing world.

An International (African) Criminal Court?

5/14/2011 02:32:00 PM , , ,

Apr 12, 2011

Obama talks about the “Audacity of Hope” but I just discovered something else – the “Tenacity of Hope.” I was listening to a BBC news report of how communities in Japan are rebuilding after the devastating earthquakes and Tsunami in that country. They interviewed a 70 year old rural farmer who was working with his grandson to clear the rubble of what used to be their home. “How do you get the strength and motivation to carry on amidst all this devastation?” the BBC journalist asked the man. “Doesn’t the task of rebuilding all that has been lost overwhelm you?” His reply was an eloquent testament to the “tenacity of hope.”

“Our city…” he said (and I am paraphrasing here) “…has been destroyed several times in history by tsunamis and earthquakes. It is the nature of our land. But each time it was always rebuilt …better than before. There is a spirit of resilient rebuilding that our parents passed on to us. It is our duty to pass that spirit of rebuilding on to the next generation. It is crucial to our country’s survival. This is why I must work here with my grandson to clear the rubble… to pass on that spirit of rebuilding…”

The Japanese have always struck me as a resilient and determined people. Any student of history or indeed anyone who has read the intriguing novel Black Rain knows about the devastation the country endured after the dropping ofthe atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War. Yet, barely five decades later, it had emerged from the rubbles to become one of the strongest industrial economies in the world. This time too, I am sure the country will rebuild and flourish. Our hearts go out in solidarity to the Japanese people as they rebuild. There is a much the rest of us can learn from that nation’s spirit of resilience and tenacity.

Rebuilding Japan: The Tenacity of Hope

4/12/2011 03:00:00 AM ,

Apr 4, 2011

THE WORSE THING IS NOT TO DIE

BUT TO BE ALIVE AND NOT KNOW WHY...

Quote of the Week

4/04/2011 03:02:00 PM
Here is an insightful commentary from the Students’ newspaper of USC, on the hypocrisy and double-standards that is becoming all too evident in the West’s approach to humanitarian intervention. As one of my colleagues put it recently, “History shows that the West is not intervening because Gadhafi is a brutal dictator, but because he is not our brutal dictator.”

Like the writer below, I support the humanitarian intervention in Libya. But why not in the Ivory Coast? Could it possibly be because Libya has oil and Ivory Cost has not? Ivory Coast is the world largest producer of cocoa, without which there will be no chocolates to satiate our sweet tooth. In a consumerist and fossil-fuel addicted word, oil is a much more precious resources. We can survive without chocolates for a which, but without oil...?

Apparently responding to this growing question, President Obama offered the following response in his March 28 speech on the Libyan Crisis

"It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves…"

Obama may be right but he must also realize that the optics simply do not look good. American strategic interest cannot be the sole justification for humanitarian interventions. At some point these begin to look more and more like calculated strategic interventions and less like humanitarian Interventions. There should be a place for humanitarianism without strings attached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Detz | April 3, 2011
Associate News Editor

A bunch of Neon Tommy staffers sat around the office television last week watching President Barack Obama’s address to the nation about the U.S. role in Libya. Some of us were left wanting more as he outlined the mission and patted himself and the international community on the back for stepping in quickly to protect civilians.
One of my colleagues wanted the president to say “responsibility to protect.” We both knew he wouldn’t. If he had, it would mean a precedent had been set. The international community would now have to intervene wherever governments were knowingly and purposefully killing civilians. Places like Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) for example.

To be clear, I believe in the humanitarian intervention in Libya; I don’t believe in arming the rebels – that’s a whole different mission than protecting civilians. But why Libya? Why not Cote d’Ivoire?

It is unclear how many civilians have been killed since violence broke out in late November. The Red Cross reports between 800 and 1,000 civilians were killed in one town last week alone. The United Nations estimates more than 100,000 people have fled the country and up to 1 million people have been displaced internally.

The violence began after incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo lost his re-election bid to Alassane Ouattara. Gbagbo claims victory even though U.N. monitors declared the election fair and Ouattara the winner months ago.

The international community has known of the civilian casualties since the beginning. In a December 16, 2010 statement the Security Council said they were “deeply concerned about the violence, in particular against civilians in Côte d’Ivoire…. The members of the Security Council warn all stakeholders that they will be held accountable for attacks against civilians and will be brought to justice, in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law.”

These words ring hollow. Where is the sense of urgency to protect civilians in Cote d’Ivoire like we saw in Libya?

Sure, there is a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Cote d’Ivoire (it’s been there since 2004), but anyone who has studied peacekeeping mandates knows how limiting they actually are (remember Rwanda in 1994). The U.S. State Department called on the U.N. peacekeeping mission to “aggressively enforce its mandate to protect civilians” Sunday. An interesting choice of words considering a peacekeeping mission is usually anything but aggressive. U.N. peacekeepers have strict rules of engagement. In fact, if you read the Cote d'Ivoire mandate, protecting civilians in imminent danger is listed after protecting U.N. personnel, installations and equipment. That’s right, protecting equipment is more important than protecting civilians.

So again I ask, why Libya and not Cote d’Ivoire? The answer may be geography. Libya is only a few hundred miles from Italy and many refugees tried to flee to the European nation. Italy has some sway in the international community. The bulk of the refugees leaving Cote d’Ivoire are crossing into Liberia, which is not exactly a world power.

In his speech, President Obama reminded the world it took 10 weeks to establish a humanitarian intervention in the Balkans in the late 1990s and only three weeks to set up the no-fly zone in Libya. Well Mr. President, it has been at least 18 weeks since violence targeting civilians broke out in Cote d’Ivoire, how much longer are you and the international community going to make the Ivorians wait?

Humanitarian Intervention or Strategic Intervention?

4/04/2011 11:45:00 AM , ,

Mar 1, 2011

How will the ongoing conflicts shape the future of Libya and what will it mean for the country's neighbours, their allies, and the West?

Here are my views as published in The Mark

More than any of the other uprisings sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, the one unfolding in Libya holds the gravest consequences for the region.

Libya is in the grasp of a more virulent autocracy – even by Middle Eastern standards. Moammar Gadhafi has made it clear that Libya is not Tunisia or Egypt, and that he will fight to the last man to maintain power. Given his antecedents, this comes as no surprise. Gadhafi would rather bring his country down with him than leave quietly. To make matters worse, no country in the region or the West has the kind of influence over Gadhafi that the U.S. had over Mubarak’s Egypt, or that the Europeans had over Ben Ali’s Tunisia. In dealing with Gadhafi, the international community’s options are much more limited. The unfortunate result is that – as is already becoming apparent – the Libyan uprising will be nothing like the relatively peaceful regime changes we have seen elsewhere.

The situation in Libya is also more precarious because of the damage that it threatens to unleash beyond the country’s shores. Already, EU leaders have begun scrambling to prepare for what the Italian foreign minister has described as “an exodus of biblical proportions.” There are also concerns about the implications for the global economy – particularly regarding the price of oil, which has seen a major spike since the crisis began.

But an even more disturbing concern – which has received very little attention in the media – is the impact that the Libyan crisis could have on the rest of Africa. During his 40 years in power, Gadhafi has thrown his influence and money across the continent to prop up or bring down governments. He has done this more than any other African leader. His fingerprints can be found on armed conflict from Chad to Sudan to the Central African Republic. He has also cultivated a loyal band of mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa that he now uses to terrorize his own people.

But apparently his influence reaches even farther than this. The African Union’s response to the crisis has been feeble and belated. The union’s Peace and Security Council made a statement condemning the Libyan government’s crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, but this statement was much weaker than the reaction from the EU and even from the Arab League, which took the additional step of suspending Libya.

If Gadhafi remains intransigent and the crisis in Libya spirals into war, the fallout will not only be the upsurge in the price of oil and the masses of people fleeing towards the shores of Europe; it will also be the political instability and conflict that is likely to engulf fragile African states in which Gadhafi has been pulling the strings for so long.

The Crisis in Libya Could Spell Disaster for the Rest of Africa

3/01/2011 07:38:00 PM , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

 
GIAZILO © 2015 Templateism.com