Ihsanoglu calls for direct relations between the OIC General Secretariat and OIC Funds

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his satisfaction over the OIC Funds’ oriented action, which has made a tangible impact, and hoped for direct relations between the Funds and the OIC General Secretariat at the level of the Islamic Conference Humanitarian Affairs Department (ICHAD) and other related departments. Ihsanoglu, in his statement at the 3rd meeting of the OIC Funds in Doha, Qatar, on 9 March 2010, urged the Funds to work under the supervision of the OIC General Secretariat’s Finance and Administration Department using the new “financial system under which the Funds will operate in line with the OIC Financial rules and regulations, hence, rendering more transparency to their operations, which will also benefit the Funds.” Taking into consideration the various constraints the Funds may have faced, he assured them of mobilizing all OIC resources to launch a “strong campaign to secure more financial resources for the Funds’ activities.” The Secretary General concluded his statement by thanking His Highness Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Thani, Chairman of the Council of Funds, and the various donors, especially the State of Qatar for the tremendous efforts and dedication to convene the meeting.

OIC Chief commends the results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations

OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the positive results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations held in Doha, Qatar, on 8 March 2010, will have a clear effect on the promotion of cooperative relations between the OIC and humanitarian organizations in the OIC Member States. This will help elaborate clear policies to address disasters and development issues in the Islamic world. Ihsanoglu made this statement at the closing session of the two-day Conference attended by over seventy relief organizations from around the Islamic world. The Secretary General emphasized that these results testify to the importance of the resolution adopted by the Third Extraordinary Islamic Summit Conference held in Makkah Al-Mukarramah at the initiative of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, which called for the promotion of cooperation and coordination relations between the General Secretariat and NGOs as a central development partner. Ihsanoglu added that over forty OIC Member States suffer today from different disasters and conflicts, especially with the aggravation of climate change and its various negative implications. He maintained that these phenomena led to the defragmentation of societies and to the deterioration of relief services and development infrastructures in many parts of the Islamic world. The Secretary General called for a new approach to address development and humanitarian assistance issues based on the coordination of efforts among governments, NGOs and the private sector. He highlighted the fact that supporting this tripartite process is a necessity at this critical stage in order to build peace and accelerate the development movement in our countries. The Secretary General concluded his address stating that work in this field will be carried out in close coordination and cooperation with all international organizations and institutions working in the field of humanitarian development, in particular UN institutions which are doing an important work in the Islamic world.

from: http://twitter.com/AfghanNews?utm_source…

—————

Militarism in Afghanistan is not enough: The U.S. Afghanistan policy needs a revision, given realities on the ground.
PUBLISHED: 01/31/2010 - http://bit.ly/99iGQm
BY UTTAM DAS

President Barack Obama’s announcement in December 2009 of the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan has received mixed reactions at home and abroad.

Military compulsion on the ground and political expediency at home are apparently in collision; frustration and anger are growing. Allies in the Afghan war such as France, Germany and Australia have reportedly opposed Obama’s announcement. However, the United Kingdom, Poland and Italy promised to send a small number of additional troops.

By June 2010, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected to be 98,000. There were 29,950 U.S. troops in the International Security Assistance Force under NATO command, which has 64,500 troops, most supplied by the NATO member countries.

Though Obama had promised “change you can believe in” following his landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, in the meantime he’s faced criticism for his decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan. The president announced that he will begin to withdraw troops in Afghanistan by July 2011 to bring an end to the decade-long war; however, the timeline has not convinced the American people, especially those on the left of the president’s own Democratic Party, who are increasingly demonstrating in front of the White House against the war.

Analysts and media in the region of South Asia are also critical of Obama’s new plan. The influential Indian daily The Hindu observes that sending additional troops to Afghanistan may provide “tactical relief to American commanders on the ground;” however, there is no guarantee that this new deployment would bring any “victory against terrorism and extremism.” For this, innovative strategies must be devised.

In a Dec. 3, 2009 editorial, The Hindu identified four deficits in America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaida: the political consideration or attention, military doctrine, Afghan capability and a commitment from Pakistan where both the Taliban and al-Qaida allegedly have bases. Flurries of questions will continue to surround the comprehensiveness of U.S. policy and military actions in Afghanistan in the Asian media.

Given the reality on the ground, Pakistan is now in a crisis of sectarian conflict and a rising religious militancy. There is also reported presence of al-Qaida members in its territory; thus, Pakistan’s stability, politics, economy and military power are under great threat, as observes the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Ittefaq.

Analysts comment that it is likely impossible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan by merely raising the number of troops. On the contrary, it may prolong the war with serious casualties on both sides.

Analysts recommend improving the conditions of the Afghan people by investing in poverty reduction, education and health. But the country has been further devastated by a war that has brought insufferable civilian casualties. Any investment in social sectors would facilitate to decrease the anger of the Afghan people toward the United States. Without this infrastructure, the poverty- and illiteracy-ridden country will not be able to get on its feet.

The U.S. policy should also engage resources to other countries in the region where al-Qaida is reportedly trying to spread its “ideology.” The presence of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, natural challenges and displacements all contribute to the people’s vulnerability, which catalyses the spread of ideological organizations like al-Qaida. Reportedly, a swath of religious schools in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh — allegedly beyond the reach of government monitors — are working as bases for the spread of the militaristic, ideological challenge to the West, especially the United States. To offset this trend, governments need to engage civic institutions, but this deserves investment.

In the latest development, a London conference on Afghanistan has drafted a recommendation to initiate dialogues between the Afghan government and the Taliban, with an aim to dislodge al-Qaida from the country. The Taliban extremist Islamic group is essentially ideologically distinct from the terrorist al-Qaida and seized power in Afghanistan in 1996.

However, the international community must monitor such dialogues to ensure they are strategic and to guard against the Taliban using it as a legitimization and recruitment tool.

These dimensions in the Afghanistan conflict make a challenging situation all the more difficult, but for now, the deployment of more troops to the region seems only to increase our dependence on military strategy. What is needed most desperately in the region, however, is stability, investment and infrastructure.

———————

Robert NaimanPolicy Director of Just Foreign Policy
Posted: February 2, 2010 - http://bit.ly/apDj4q

Eat Your Spinach: Time for Peace Talks in Afghanistan – What’s Your Reaction:

In the last week the New York Times and Inter Press Service have reported that the Obama Administration is having an internal debate on whether to supports talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, as a means of ending the war in Afghanistan. Senior officials like Vice President Biden are said to be more open to reaching out because they believe it will help shorten the war.

Wouldn’t it be remarkable if this remained merely an “internal debate” within the Obama Administration? Wouldn’t you expect that the part of public opinion that wants the war to end would try to intervene in this debate on behalf of talks in order to end the war?

As an administration official told the New York Times,

“Today, people agree that part of the solution for Afghanistan is going to include an accommodation with the Taliban, even above low- and middle-level fighters.”
And in fact, US and British officials have been saying for months that the “endgame” in Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban.

Now, suppose you tell Mom that you want to have ice cream. And Mom says, you can have ice cream when you’ve eaten your spinach. Wouldn’t you eat your spinach? If you don’t eat your spinach now, you didn’t want ice cream very badly.

So if U.S. and British officials say the endgame includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban, and you figure, extrapolating from the last five thousand years of human history, that a negotiated political settlement typically does not just drop down from the sky, but in fact is generally preceded by political negotiations, and you want to end the war as soon as possible, wouldn’t you be clamoring for political negotiations to start as soon as possible? Because the longer political negotiations are delayed, the longer the war will last. If you don’t support political negotiations now, you don’t want to end the war very badly.

If you consider peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban “distasteful,” consider this: every month that the war continues, every month that U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, is another month in which U.S. soldiers will die horrible deaths, be horribly maimed, and be horribly scarred psychologically, perhaps for life. It’s also another month in which the U.S. military is likely to “accidentally” kill Afghan government soldiers (such episodes “are not uncommon,” the New York Times notes) and kill Afghan civilians, as they have done at least twice in the last week, according to the reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I put the word “accidentally” in quotation marks, not of course because I believe that the U.S. military is killing Afghan soldiers and Afghan civilians “on purpose,” but because when you repeatedly take an action (continuing the war) that leads to a predictable result (killing Afghan government soldiers and civilians) you lose the exoneration otherwise conferred by the word “accidentally.”

Is this not also “distasteful”? Is killing innocent people not more “distasteful” than peace talks?

Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, reports that an official of the Western military coalition says there has been a debate among U.S. officials about “the terms on which the Taliban will become part of the political fabric.” The debate is not on whether the Taliban movement will be participating in the Afghan political system, Porter reports, but on whether or not the administration could accept the participation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the political future of Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban has insisted in published statements that it will not participate in peace talks that would not result in the withdrawal of foreign troops, Porter notes. That raises the question of whether the administration would be willing to discuss the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as part of a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

The Obama Administration has stated publicly that it has no long-term interest in maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, should not the U.S. be willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of a negotiated settlement? We’re leaving anyway, according to U.S. officials – what’s holding us back from agreeing, as part of a negotiation, to do what we plan to do anyway?

U.S. officials have said that the war is all about the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. When the Afghan Taliban breaks with al Qaeda the war is over, say these officials. Some say that Mullah Omar is ready to break with al Qaeda, including the Pakistani intelligence officer who trained him; while Osama bin Laden’s son Omar says Al Qaeda and the Taliban are only “allies of convenience.” Why wouldn’t we put these propositions to the test through negotiations?

If you think, for the sake of peace, the United States should be willing to agree to do on a timetable that which it claims it intends to do anyway, tell President Obama.

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com

—————–

Lesson from Somalia echoes in Afghanistan
By Adam Folken – Contributing Columnist - http://bit.ly/dv6IT3

|Published: Thursday, February 4, 2010

Last Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted a conference in London regarding NATO’s plans in Afghanistan.  In attendance were U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO operations in Afghanistan, and Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special emissary to Afghanistan and Pakistan.  According to CTV News, both officials expressed plans to advocate peace and negotiations with Taliban forces.  Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan of “reconciliation and reintegration” of potential Taliban defectors complements McChrystal and Holbrooke’s strategies.  These plans represent a growing trend in emphasizing political action over the use of force to suppress the militant insurgency plaguing Afghanistan.  This switch comes nearly nine years after the beginning of the United States’ Operation Enduring Freedom, though it is  better late than never.

The Taliban was the power in Afghanistan prior to 2001, and their ranks draw from various Pashtun clans.  The Pashtun people represent the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and have dominated Afghan politics for centuries.  It is therefore the appropriate move to include Taliban members in negotiations and going the step further in allowing their involvement in the new Afghan government. This was one of many lessons taken from U.S. involvement in the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia.

The fall of Said Barre’s regime in 1991 created a power vacuum in Somalia that resulted in vicious inter-clan fighting.  The collateral damage was devastating to the Somali people, who suffered the conflict and widespread famine.

For the U.N., what began as an international effort to deliver humanitarian aid evolved into a struggle to stabilize and democratize Somalia.  General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, with the support of members of his clan – the Habr Gidr – and other militant factions, repeatedly assaulted U.S. and U.N. forces to drive them out of Somalia.  Many U.S. and U.N. officials wanted Aidid and his supporters marginalized in the new government.  Rather than work with the local power, the U.S. wished to create a more ‘ideal’ system that had little focus on clannism.  The attempts to remove Aidid’s influence served to unite Somalis against the U.S., culminating in a humiliating retreat from Somalia.

The parallels with the situation in Afghanistan are clear.  Local power structures, such as clannism in Somalia and Afghanistan, must be considered when creating a functional government.  If powerful players are not given incentive to play the game, they won’t have to.

Further Recommended Articles:

Canada and Germany’s mission in Afghanistan (The Concordian)
Fein: ‘Graveyard of empires’ challenge for Obama (The Daily Northwestern)

The Arab Peninsula and the Horn of Africa -too narrow  straights for the West.

POLITICS: Russia, China Sustain Military Toehold in Yemen.
By Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 5 (IPS) – Russia has stolen a march over the United States in the multi-million-dollar arms market in cash-strapped Yemen, whose weapons purchases are being funded mostly by neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

The Yemeni armed forces, currently undergoing an ambitious military modernisation programme worth an estimated four billion dollars, are armed with weapons largely from Russia, China, Ukraine and the former Eastern Europe and Soviet republics.

With the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by a Nigerian student, reportedly trained by al Qaeda in Yemen, the administration of President Barack Obama has pledged to double its military and counterterrorism aid, to nearly 150 million dollars, to strengthen the besieged government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Currently, Yemen receives assistance under several U.S.-funded programmes, including Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism and De-mining, and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But the proposed military aid to Yemen – all of it gratis – along with U.S. arms supplies, is negligible compared with weapons, military training and technical expertise from non-U.S. sources.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one of the world’s best known think tanks researching arms control and disarmament, Russia accounted for nearly 59 percent of all major weapons deliveries to Yemen during 2004-2008, followed by Ukraine at 25 percent, Italy at 10 percent, Australia’s five percent, and the United States at less than one percent.

Dr. Paul Holtom, director of SIPRI’s Arms Transfers Programme, told IPS that at the beginning of this year, the Russian media reported that Yemen had signed a deal to buy an estimated one billion dollars worth of arms from Moscow (with some reports giving figures as high as 2.5 billion dollars).

These weapons, he said, included additional MiG-29 combat aircraft, helicopters, tanks and armoured vehicles.

Holtom said there were also published reports suggesting these purchases were part of a proposed four-billion-dollar military modernisation programme.

But he said he does not have an update on the degree of progress made on these arms deals.

Dan Darling, Europe & Middle East Military Markets analyst at the Connecticut-based Forecast International Inc., a leading provider of market intelligence on the military, told IPS that in terms of primary arms suppliers to Yemen, “almost everything revolves around Russia”.

The core of the Yemeni Air Force is of Russian-legacy, including MiG-21s and MiG-29s and Su-22s, he pointed out.

From 2001 through 2008, Yemen received 1.4 billion dollars worth of arms, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), with 600 million dollars in weapons from Russia.

China provided 200 million dollars worth of armaments, while about 400 million dollars in arms were from a mix of former Soviet republics and East European nations (mainly Ukraine, but also Belarus, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and others).

A resource-starved Middle Eastern nation, Yemen has negligible quantities of oil and is categorised as one of the world’s poorest nations.

The U.S. State Department has described Yemen as “desperately poor” but a “vital counterterrorism partner”.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Saudi Arabia had provided about two billion dollars in aid to Yemen last year – “an amount that dwarfs the 150 million dollars in security assistance that the United States will ask Congress to approve for the 2010 fiscal year”.

With the new terrorist threat from insurgents in Yemen, the United States is gearing itself for a virtual new battle front against al Qaeda – besides Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

Darling of Forecast International Inc told IPS: “My take is that Washington understands how crucial Yemen is to regional security and stability.”

He said Yemen’s proximity to Saudi Arabia – from which many al Qaeda operatives are believed to have crossed into Yemen – and its importance in terms of shipping lanes at the mouth of the Red Sea and in terms of combating piracy in the area make ignoring Yemen a risk the U.S. is unwilling to take.

The recent spate of fighting with rebels in the north, combined with the pressures facing President Saleh and the belief that al Qaeda may have found a sort of sanctuary in Yemen, means that the country will garner more and more attention within U.S. government circles, he added.

“The State Department realises the looming potential for disaster in Yemen, where a combination of civil strife, an exploding population, negligible oil reserves, a structurally weak economy, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and deteriorating water supplies all threaten to turn the country into the proverbial failed state,” Darling said. “How they intend to combat this possibility is beyond my purview, but I’m guessing that you will see greater degrees of development assistance and oversight as to how the money is allocated,” he added.

From the latest news coming from Washington – “Under the new airport
rules, all citizens of Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen must receive a pat
down and an extra check of their carry-on bags before boarding a plane
bound for the United States, officials said. Citizens of Cuba, Iran,
Sudan and Syria — nations considered ’state sponsors of terrorism’ —
face the same requirement.”

That means Cuba and thirteen Muslim states: Afghanistan, Algeria,
Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

These news caused a lot of comments, but we think the wrong comments.

We assume obviously that Washington is ready finally to address the
terrorism issue. Airplane terrorism, as we learned on 9/11, is not
about transport of weapons but about terrorists – to be specific since
9/11 – we speak here about Islamic terrorists. If you want to catch
terrorists you must look for terrorists. Looking for baby formula is
not the answer – but looking for those passengers whose profiles are
suspicious might be a better bet. Sure, obviously, not all Muslims are
terrorists, and profiling is terrible – even illegal, but if you want
to catch terrorists you start with the profile that most fits Islamic
terrorists, and you bet – they are Muslims of any color. Even though
they may be traveling with documents issued by non-Islamic States,
i.e. the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Switzerland, or even the
US.

So, it is not easy to define exactly what papers are carried by the
terrorists, but you can have some guidelines to increase your chance
of catching them. looking for a profile of an Asian or African Muslim.
Then, learn from the Israelis how to talk to them – you may even find
out that they are so convinced that their cause is the right one, that
they will lower their guard and just plainly disclose that what you
see is all they got.

There may be a Jamaican convert to Islam who preached terrorism in the UK
and resides now in Kenya – a case in point. Kenya does want him either and
he will be sent back to Jamaica a second time. yes, this is a problem if you
are American and Jamaica does not cooperate – but he is a Muslim and no
Anti-Defamation league is enrtitled to tell you Mr. President that he should
not be stripped and searched if he wants to travel via the US to Jamaica.
This is simple.

But what about Cuba? Fidel Castro is more atheist then Catholic, surely
no Muslim. Whatever went on in the past is history to me and I do not believe
prologue to Mr. Castro. So why mix him and his country up with 13 Islamic
States involved in Islamic Terrorism? That is unless someone in the US longs
to see him give cover to such terrorists in the future so they get new reasons
to be after him? If the Jamaica case has anything to teach us – it is that the
US is better off reinsuring its rear parts from anger caused by mistreatment
and friendship is not achieved by mulling over past grief. Specially, as several
hundred former sugar baron families living in Florida should not be allowed to
hold hostage the US when it comes to real US interests.

Mr. President, I watched Bolivia and Venezuela leaders speak in Copenhagen,
they fumed and brimmed with words – no stones or missiles. Their ALBA is,
I think, the natural ally of a US that manages to disengage from the Islamic
world of oil. So, it is the US self interest that calls for you, Mr. President, to
invite Fidel Castro to Washington for a tete-a-tete and start on a way that
eventually will give the US the wall of safety it needs when addressing the 21st
Century centers of terror – the Islamists’ terror cancer that will continue to ooze
as long as we use oil.

Please start by taking him of that list!

The thirteen on that list include the obvious Iran – Syria – Lebanon
trio of the Shii’a Islam, it includes the Afghanistan/Pakistan US
theater of operations and Iraq, as well as the other US theater Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan that misses Egypt and the Gaza strip. A
fourth historic region includes Libya and Algeria, then with Nigeria,
these are newer sources of oil for the US, and as such clear potential
sources of unhappy Islamists who complain about the changes in their
countries as fueled by oil money. In very few countries terrorism
against the US was actually started by rulers decree. Libya, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Somalia may be the exceptions, but Saudi Arabia and
Yemen may have seen rulers who deflected anger against themselves into
anger against foreigners. In the majority of cases the terrorist is a
person of convictions and the situation could have been avoided had
the US and the rest of the Western World, tried to be less squanderous
with the oil we got addicted to.

Having said the above – let us get now to the point – MR PRESIDENT -
PLEASE – TAKE CUBA OFF THAT LIST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELONG ON THAT
LIST IN 2010.

* * * *

Please look – I am posting here four reference – links to news
articles of today’s New York Times.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05t…

New Air Security Checks From 14 Nations to U.S. Draw Criticism
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

In Yemen, U.S. Faces Leader Who Puts Family First
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Behind Afghan Bombing, an Agent With Many Loyalties
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Kenya Seeks to Deport Muslim Cleric to Jamaica

————————

THE UPDATE:

We have received a comment on this post and it presents a very valid point supposedly made at the UN General Assembly by the Foreign Minister of Cuba: “I mean if they were going to include us, then they should have at least thrown in North Korea.”

Even if the e-mail we received from ajay -   akazif at gmail.com  as presented by www. eggplantpost.com in http://eggplantpost.com/2010/01/05/cuba-… were a made up story, the argument holds water nevertheless. DID THE US INCLUDE CUBA ON THAT LIST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS GOING AFTER A RAG-TAG OF ISLANIC COUNTRIES? Now, we believe that US security should be spoken here – not again US appeasement-for-oil please!

Water Wars

By Jeffrey Sachs

May 1, 2009

Many conflicts are caused or inflamed by water scarcity. The conflicts from Chad to Darfur, Sudan, to the Ogaden Desert in Ethiopia, to Somalia and its pirates, and across to Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, lie in a great arc of arid lands where water scarcity is leading to failed crops, dying livestock, extreme poverty, and desperation.

Extremist groups like the Taliban find ample recruitment possibilities in such impoverished communities. Governments lose their legitimacy when they cannot guarantee their populations’ most basic needs: safe drinking water, staple food crops, and fodder and water for the animal herds on which communities depend for their meager livelihoods.

Politicians, diplomats, and generals in conflict-ridden countries typically treat these crises as they would any other political or military challenge. They mobilize armies, organize political factions, combat warlords, or try to grapple with religious extremism.

But these responses overlook the underlying challenge of helping communities meet their urgent needs for water, food, and livelihoods. As a result, the United States and Europe often spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to send troops or bombers to quell uprisings or target “failed states,” but do not send one-tenth or even one-hundredth of that amount to address the underlying crises of water scarcity and under-development.

Water problems will not go away by themselves. On the contrary, they will worsen unless we, as a global community, respond. A series of recent studies shows how fragile the water balance is for many impoverished and unstable parts of the world. The United Nations agency UNESCO recently issued the UN World Water Development Report 2009; the World Bank issued powerful studies on India and Pakistan; and the Asia Society issued an overview of Asia’s water crises.

These reports tell a similar story. Water supplies are increasingly under stress in large parts of the world, especially in the world’s arid regions. Rapidly intensifying water scarcity reflects bulging populations, depletion of groundwater, waste and pollution, and the enormous and increasingly dire effects of manmade climate change.

The consequences are harrowing: drought and famine, loss of livelihood, the spread of water-borne diseases, forced migrations, and even open conflict. Practical solutions will include many components, including better water management, improved technologies to increase the efficiency of water use, and new investments undertaken jointly by governments, the business sector, and civic organizations.

I have seen such solutions in the Millennium Villages in rural Africa, a project in which my colleagues and I are working with poor communities, governments, and businesses to find practical solutions to the challenges of extreme rural poverty. In Senegal, for example, a world-leading pipe manufacturer, JM Eagle, donated more than 100 kilometers of piping to enable an impoverished community to join forces with the government water agency PEPAM to bring safe water to tens of thousands of people. The overall project is so cost effective, replicable, and sustainable that JM Eagle and other corporate partners will now undertake similar efforts elsewhere in Africa.

But future water stresses will be widespread, including both rich and poor countries. The United States, for example, encouraged a population boom in its arid southwestern states in recent decades, despite water scarcity that climate change is likely to intensify. Australia, too, is grappling with serious droughts in the agricultural heartland of the Murray-Darling River basin. The Mediterranean Basin, including Southern Europe and North Africa is also likely to experience serious drying as a result of climate change.

However, the precise nature of the water crisis will vary, with different pressure points in different regions. For example, Pakistan, an already arid country, will suffer under the pressures of a rapidly rising population, which has grown from 42 million in 1950 to 184 million in 2010, and may increase further to 335 million in 2050, according to the UN’s “medium” scenario. Even worse, farmers are now relying on groundwater that is being depleted by over-pumping. Moreover, the Himalayan glaciers that feed Pakistan’s rivers may melt by 2050, owing to global warming.

Solutions will have to be found at all “scales,” meaning that we will need water solutions within individual communities (as in the piped-water project in Senegal), along the length of a river (even as it crosses national boundaries), and globally, for example, to head off the worst effects of global climate change. Lasting solutions will require partnerships between government, business, and civil society, which can be hard to negotiate and manage, since these different sectors of society often have little or no experience in dealing with each other and may mistrust each other considerably.

Most governments are poorly equipped to deal with serious water challenges. Water ministries are typically staffed with engineers and generalist civil servants. Yet lasting solutions to water challenges require a broad range of expert knowledge about climate, ecology, farming, population, engineering, economics, community politics, and local cultures. Government officials also need the skill and flexibility to work with local communities, private businesses, international organizations, and potential donors.

A crucial next step is to bring together scientific, political, and business leaders from societies that share the problems of water scarcity—for example, Sudan, Pakistan, the United States, Australia, Spain, and Mexico—to brainstorm about creative approaches to overcoming them. Such a gathering would enable information-sharing, which could save lives and economies. It would also underscore a basic truth: The common challenge of sustainable development should unify a world divided by income, religion, and geography.

• Water: A Global Innovation Outlook Report (Policy Library)
• Managing Water Well (Briefings)
• Ethics Be Dammed? China’s Water Projects (Commentary)
• Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis (Policy Library)

Today is the Saturday of the Weekend of Twinning of Mosques and Synagogues in the US. The New York Synagogue and the Islamic Cultural Center of New York will have a dialogue, at the Synagogue, led by the Rabbi’s wife – Tobi Rubinstein Schneier on the topic – “Women in Judaism and Islam.” I am sure that the Islamic side will bring up the fact, that in their own way, the women are honored in the Islamic tradition like in the Mosaic tradition, but I am not sure that   the subject of the intrusion by the dealers in petroleum will come up.

Let us face the reality that it was the merchants in human flesh, that came by ship from far places, that created the market for exports of slaves from Africa, now it is the traffic of petroleum tankers that impacted the Muslim world, and those that did not want to see cultural foreign intrusion started to take it out against the sources of this intrusion. This is neither perpetuated by Africans, nor is it a rejection of the idea that money can buy power. The problem is the type of power that is envisioned. The culture envisioned is neither the idea of Western equality between men and women, nor the political equality of Western way of life and the traditional Oriental style of life. That is why we see in what goes on around the shores of the failed state of Islamic Somalia just another aspect of the Wahabbi led Saudi rejection of the non-Islamic world.

Please – do not call this Africa – the black Africans were the victims in the past and are victims today. Abyssinia is now called Ethiopia in rejection of the colonial way of looking at Africa, let us find a more accurate way when interpreting what goes on in the region of the Horn and put the blame where it belongs. The Horn belonged to Africa, now it belongs to the Jihadist Islamic movement and the pirates are not just robbers – they are driven by self justification based in Islam even if they do not sport the green flag of Islam.

Anarchy in Somalia
The lawless Horn
Nov 20th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Pirates are only part of a much bigger problem in east Africa

IT IS tempting to be jaunty about piracy. So what if a few Robin Hoods in skiffs nick the odd tanker off the Horn of Africa? Often enough, the owners pay ransom and nobody gets hurt. Everyone needs a living in these hard times. And if the worst comes to the worst, gunboats can always be dispatched to clean the problem up, just as the British and Americans did off north Africa’s Barbary coast at the turn of the 19th century.

It is tempting, but it is wrong. The Barbary pirates caused immense human and economic damage, and the current spate of piracy in the waters of east Africa is now getting out of hand too. On November 15th pirates operating hundreds of miles from the coast seized the Sirius Star, a supertanker carrying 2m barrels of Saudi oil (see article). A dozen or so other vessels are already held by pirates. One of them—surrounded by American and Russian warships—contains a cargo of 33 T-72 tanks, enough to tip the balance in a small local war.

The last thing the world needs right now is disruption of one of its busiest shipping lanes and a spike in insurance premiums. But the cause of the present surge of piracy is no less worrying than its consequences. What has made the pirates’ audacity possible is the collapse of Somalia. The existence of a vast ungoverned space in Africa’s Horn does not just provide a useful haven from which pirates can hunt their prey at sea. It also threatens to transmit shockwaves through a seam of fragile and strife-torn African states from Sudan to the Congo.

How did this happen, and how can it be resolved? The first question is the easier to answer. About 50,000 peacekeepers are currently deployed under United Nations or African Union auspices in east and central Africa in an effort to dampen down various conflicts. In Somalia in 2006, however, the Bush administration tried something different: war by proxy. It gave a green light for Ethiopia to invade Somalia. The plan was for Ethiopia to squash an Islamist movement and reinstate a Somali government that had lost control of most of its territory.

Two years on, the plan has backfired. Abdullahi Ahmed, Somalia’s increasingly notional president, admitted on November 15th that a variety of Islamist insurgents once again dominate most of the country, leaving only two cities, Mogadishu and Baidoa, in the hands of his increasingly notional government. Neither Ethiopia nor the African Union ever sent enough soldiers to impose order. Worse, the strongest of the insurgent groups, the Shabab, is even more radical than the Islamic Courts movement which the Americans and Ethiopians originally took on. It is suspected of being linked by money to the pirates (who hand over a slice of the ransom in return for protection) and by ideology to al-Qaeda.

So how to resolve the issue? It is not enough just to send more gunboats. Although an Indian warship sunk an alleged pirate vessel this week, and a bigger naval effort could help to keep the sea-lanes a little safer, a long-term solution demands much more. This includes establishing stability inside Somalia itself, depriving the pirates of a sanctuary, and preventing the jihad-tinted anarchy there from spilling over Somalia’s borders. But since there are no serious military forces available to defeat the insurgents, a proper answer will entail reshaping the country’s politics and stepping up attempts to woo the more biddable Islamists—if there are enough left and a deal with them is still possible. Maybe not so jaunty, after all.

 

Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

By BARBARA SURK, AP

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 18) – The owner of a Saudi oil supertanker hijacked by Somali pirates over the weekend said the company is working to win the release of the crew and vessel, which is carrying about $100 million in cargo.

Dubai-based Vela International Marine Ltd., a subsidiary of Saudi oil company Aramco, said in a statement Monday that company response teams have been created. The MV Sirius Star is the largest ship ever taken by Somali pirates, according to the U.S. Navy.

Dangerous Waters ? …. and How Many Boing 747 Can Feed This Ship? Then How Many Fish Can Kill This Ship?

Sirius Star: Somali pirates hijacked the oil tanker, here in an undated photo, about 450 nautical miles off the Kenyan coast Nov. 15. It is the farthest from shore Somali pirates have struck and is thought to be the largest ship ever hijacked. The aircraft-carrier-sized tanker, owned by Saudi oil company Aramco, was carrying crude oil. It can carry about 2 million barrels.

The statement gave no further details. Employees who answered the phone said no one was immediately available to comment and that Vela executives were meeting to discuss the situation. They declined to give their names.
The Navy said the brand-new MV Sirius Star, with a crew of 25, was seized far off the coast of Kenya on Saturday and the bandits were taking the ship to a Somali port known as a hub of pirate activity. It announced the hijacking on Monday when it first received the information.

The statement posted on Vela’s Web site late Monday said the ship was hijacked Sunday. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.
Attacks by Somali pirates have surged this year as bandits have become bolder, better armed and capable of operating hundreds of miles from shore.

A coalition of warships from eight nations and from NATO and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is patrolling a critical zone in the Gulf of Aden leading to and from the Suez Canal. The gulf is where most of the more than 80 attacks this year have taken place.

The Saudi tanker, however, was seized far to the south of the patrolled zone, about 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya, according to the U.S. Navy.

Maritime security experts said they have tracked a southward spread in piracy over the last several weeks into a vast area of the Indian Ocean, noting with alarm that the area would be almost impossible to patrol.
The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet said Tuesday it was monitoring the situation but did not expect to send warships to surround the vessel as it has done with a Ukrainian ship loaded with tanks and other weaponry the was seized off the Somali coast on Sept. 25 and remains in pirate hands.

“I don’t anticipate any U.S. ships on station,” said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the 5th Fleet, speaking from its headquarters in Bahrain. He would not elaborate on how the Navy was watching the hijacked tanker.
“We remain deeply concerned because this attack represents a fundamental change in pirates’ ability to hijack bigger vessels farther out at sea,” he said.
The Sirius Star is the “largest pirated vessel in the region” to date, Christensen said.
At 1,080 feet, the Sirius Star is the length of an aircraft carrier and can carry about 2 million barrels of oil.
“We are very concerned that a (ship) of this size has been hijacked. We have safety concerns, security concerns, environmental concerns,” said Noel Choong, the head of the International Maritime Bureau’s regional piracy center in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

“Of course, as long as there is no firm deterrent, pirates will continue to attack. The risk is low and returns are extremely high. You will see more and more of such attacks,” he told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Somali fishermen and witnesses on shore said the pirates apparently anchored the ship last night in Harardhere, a pirate stronghold some 265 miles by land from Eyl.

The Saudi tanker was just a few miles from shore Tuesday morning, said Abdinur Haji, a fisherman.
“As usual, I woke up at 3 a.m. and headed for the sea to fish, but I saw a very, very large ship anchored less than three miles off the shore,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
He said two small boats floated out to the ship and 18 men — presumably other pirates — climbed aboard with ropes woven into a ladder.

“I have been fishing here for three decades, but I have never seen a ship as big as this one,” he said. “There are dozens of spectators on shore trying to catch a glimpse of the large ship, which they can see with their naked eyes.”
Vela, the ship’s owner and operator, says it is one of the largest crude oil tanker companies in the world.

Including the Sirius Star, Vela owns and operates a fleet of 19 vessels classed as Very Large Crude Oil Carriers and five product tankers of various sizes. It transports supplies primarily between the Middle East, Europe and the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the company’s Web site.

The Sirius Star was sailing under a Liberian flag and its crew includes citizens of Croatia, Britain, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia. A British Foreign Office spokesman said there were at least two British nationals on board.
Associated Press Writer Mohamed Olad Hassan contributed to this report from Mogadishu, Somalia.

Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

————–

The UN sensation   of the day as per Title of UN Wire:

From:          un.wire at smartbrief.com
Subject:         Pirates seize Saudi oil supertanker; Court to hear Croatia’s genocide case against Serbia
Date:         November 18, 2008

Pirates seize Saudi supertanker
Los Angeles Times (11/18)

Piracy abates in Southeast Asia
Piratical activity has dropped along the Asian coasts where it once proliferated, falling 11% from last year and 32% from 2006. Many of those attacks off Indonesia and throughout Southeast Asia were low-level attacks against small ships or incidents of petty theft of cargo. Naval patrols along the “littoral states” of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are credited for the sharp decline. The New York Times (11/18)

From:  unnews at un.org
Subject: UN DAILY NEWS DIGEST – 23 July
Date: July 23, 2008

UN DAILY NEWS from the UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE.
23 July, 2008
=========================================================================

SOMALIA: UN ENVOY CALLS ON SECURITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ‘BOLD, DECISIVE AND
FAST ACTION’

The United Nations envoy to Somalia told the Security Council today that
there were limited choices for bringing peace to the violence-wracked Horn
of Africa country, but that the time had come to make a final decision on
the best possible option.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said that the options included converting the current
African Union peacekeeping mission to Somalia, known as AMISOM, to a UN
operation by “rehatting” the troops, creating an international
stabilization force or establishing a new UN peacekeeping force.

Mr. Ould-Abdallah also called on the Council to make a strong public
expression of support for the peace agreement signed in Djibouti in June
between the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia and the Alliance for
the Re-Liberation of Somalia.

“Given that Somalis have suffered for so long, and the current favourable
political context following the Djibouti Agreement, it is time for the
Security Council to take bold, decisive and fast action,” he said in a
statement to the council.

“An effective implementation of the Agreement should be an incentive to
bring more Somalis on board and give them a chance to contribute to the
birth of their country,” he said, noting that “in all peace processes some
individuals or groups always set out by rejecting agreements.”

Acknowledging that violence had been pervasive in Somalia for a long time,
the envoy said the Djibouti Agreement provided an opportunity to
marginalize and eventually stop such violence. He also called for a review
of the names on the Security Council sanctions list to recognize the role
of individuals who had decided to change their behaviour and support peace.

Mr. Ould-Abdallah added that the peace agreement should provide security
for humanitarian programmes in the country, in particular for naval escorts
for the UN World Food Programme (WFP), which brings 80 per cent of its food
aid to Somalia by sea. He said that it was unfortunate that these escorts
had now ceased.

On the humanitarian front, the envoy said he sympathized with Somali
nations who constitute more than 95 per cent of aid workers in south and
central Somalia.

“They risk their lives daily and all too often have been the innocent
victims of targeted killings. With international determination, as shown in
Kosovo and elsewhere, the individuals carrying out these terrible deeds
should not be given a chance to prevail,” he said.

——————
* * *

UN-AFRICAN UNION MISSION CHIEF MEETS WITH SUDANESE PRESIDENT IN DARFUR

The head of the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur
(UNAMID) met today with President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan at the mission’s
headquarters in El Fasher.

Mr. al-Bashir reiterated his country’s resolve to provide security for
UNAMID staff and convoys. “You are our guests and our partners,” he said,
“and we are ready to provide any assistance that will help you do your
work.”

The Joint Special Representative told the President that UNAMID’s
deployment was besieged by numerous challenges, but said that the mission
was strengthening its resolve to reach its full capacity as soon as
possible.

The Sudanese leader expressed his condolences to UNAMID and the families of
those peacekeepers that have lost their lives in Darfur while serving the
mission. Seven blue helmets were killed in an ambush earlier this month in
North Darfur and, just over a week later, another was shot dead in West
Darfur.

Mr. Adada pointed out that UNAMID had thousands of containers awaiting
“movement along the difficult and sometimes dangerous routes into Darfur,”
and called on the Sudanese Government to ensure that the convoys reach
their destinations safely.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sudan, Ashraf Qazi,
also travelled to Darfur and attended the meetings with the President.

UNAMID reported that the deployment of an Egyptian engineering unit had to
be postponed after the airport was closed for the President’s visit. New
dates for the deployment are yet to be confirmed.

Meanwhile, the mission announced that it is continuing to suspend the
temporary relocation of its non-essential UN personnel. Some 300 people
were moved out of Darfur before the relocation was halted last Friday.

Earlier this week, Mr. Adada met Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the
Arab League, to discuss cooperation and peace in Darfur in the wake of the
recent war crimes charges sought by the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Prosecutor against Mr. al-Bashir.

Some 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed as a result of direct
combat, disease or malnutrition since 2003. Another 2.7 million people have
been displaced because of fighting between rebels, Government forces and
allied militiamen known as the Janjaweed.
* * *

SUDAN AND UN SIGN FOUR-YEAR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PLAN

The Sudanese Government today signed an agreement with United Nations
agencies operating in the country on a four-year aid plan covering
peacebuilding, governance and the rule of law, employment, education and
health care as well as other services.

The agreement, known as the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF),
was signed by representatives of the Government of National Unity and the
Government of Southern Sudan and 18 UN agencies headed by Humanitarian and
Resident Coordinator Ameerah Haq.

Ms. Haq said the new agreement, which covers the years 2009 to 2012, “will
enable us to move beyond annual planning, and set more ambitious
development goals with the help of all our national and international
partners. With the endorsement of this planning tool, the UN will spare no
effort in helping the country achieve tangible progress toward the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).”

“The consolidation of peace and stability in the country remains the
ultimate goal of the UNDAF process,” she added.

Welcoming the new agreement, Sudan’s State Minister of International
Cooperation El Elias Nyamlell Wakoson said that it “represents an important
step in terms of moving forward jointly with a common vision of our
strategic direction in support of the peace process.”

 UN food summit hammers out plan for world’s hungry.

From Times Online, June 4, 2008 – Richard Owen in Rome.

President Lula da Silva of Brazil defended the use of biofuels, of which his country is a major producer.

Delegates to the UN summit on the world food crisis today began hammering out an emergency plan to reduce hunger and help Third World farmers despite often testy disagreement behind the scenes over the future of biofuels.

The three-day summit, convened by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which is based in Rome, ends tomorrow, when the final communique will be issued outlining both short-term and long-term solutions.

A draft declaration vows to eliminate hunger and secure “food for all, today and tomorrow”. The leaders undertake to “stimulate food production and increase investment in agriculture” while “addressing obstacles to food access and using the planet’s resources sustainably for present and future generations”.

The draft document calls for a reduction in trade barriers and food export restrictions, emergency food aid, increased crop yields and guidelines on the use of biofuels.

Related Links from Times Online   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo…
What leaders are eating at the UN food summit
Mugabe: UK trying to topple me
Quick fixes will not solve deeper food crisis

FAO officials said 850 million people already faced famine or malnutrition, and rising food and fuel prices would push that figure over the one billion mark, with the risk of further riots and instability in affected nations. Prices of staples such as rice, corn and wheat have soared.

The UN World Food Programme (WFP) said it was rolling out an additional US$1.2 billion in food assistance to help tens of millions of people in more than 60 nations hardest hit by the food crisis.

“With soaring food and fuel prices, hunger is on the march and we must act now,” Josette Sheeran, Executive Director of WFP, told the summit.

She said that WFP was “helping the world to weather the storm” by tripling the number of people who receive food in Haiti, doubling those who will receive food in Afghanistan, and delivering assistance to people in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. “We have mobilised our 10,000 employees and every dollar and Euro given to us to reach as many hungry people as we can at this critical time,” she said.

The first day of the summit was dominated by controversy over the presence of the President Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Today, however, delegates got down to the nitty-gritty of the food crisis, with the United States and Brazil – the world’s largest producer of sugar-cane ethanol – defending the diversion of crops for energy in the face of growing criticism.

The US plans to use 25 per cent of its corn crop for ethanol production by 2022, and the European Union aims to obtain 10% of its car fuel from bio-energy by 2020. The US Agriculture Secretary, Ed Schafer, insisted that “the use of sustainable biofuels can increase energy security, foster economic development especially in rural areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without weighing heavily on food prices.”

He said the US was “deeply concerned by the current crisis…..We are now projecting to spend nearly five billion dollars in 2008 and 2009 to fight global hunger”.

But Jacques Diouf, director general of the FAO, said: “Nobody understands how $11-12 billion-a-year subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff polices have had the effect of diverting 100m tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles.”

Mr Schafer responded that biofuels had contributed under 3 per cent to food price increases. However FAO officials said biofuels accounted for 59 per cent of the increase in global use of coarse grains and wheat between 2005-2007, and 56 per cent of the increase in vegetable oils. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that biofuels are responsible for up to 30 per cent of the price rises overall.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, accused critics of biofuels of hypocrisy. “It offends me to see fingers pointed at biofuels, which produce clean energy, when those fingers are soiled with oil and coal,” he said. “It is frightening to see attempts to draw a cause and effect relationship between biofuels and the rise of food prices”.

But he took a swipe at the US version of biofuel, saying that corn-based ethanol was less efficient than fuel produced with sugar cane, and could only compete “when it is shored up with subsidies and shielded behind tariffs”. Yasuo Fukuda, the Japanese Prime Minister, added: “In some cases, biofuel production is in competition with food supply…..We need to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable.”

The Rome summit will be followed by the G8 summit in Japan next month and the final stages of the stalled World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha round of talks on global trade. Pascal Lamy, the head of WTO, said a Doha deal “would reduce the trade-distorting subsidies that have stymied the developing world’s production capacity”.

Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said “Nothing is more degrading than hunger, especially when man-made”. He said the “global price tag” to overcome the food crisis would be $15 billion to $20 billion a year. Food supplies would have to rise 50 per cent by the year 2030 to meet demand.

Douglas Alexander, Britain’s International Development Secretary, said that Western farm subsidies were also responsible for food price rises. “It is unacceptable that rich countries still subsidise farming by $1 billion a day, costing poor farmers in developing countries an estimated $100 billion a year in lost income,” he said

EYE ON THE UN: For Immediate Release – May 26, 2008 – The US Memorial Day.

Contact: Anne Bayefsky
(917) 488-1558
 anne at hudsonny.org

UN Racism Conference to be held in Geneva April 20-24, 2009 – Ironically over Holocaust Remembrance Day.

May 26, 2008

The next UN racism conference – known as Durban II or the Durban Review Conference – will be held on UN premises in Geneva from April 20-24, 2009, a UN preparatory committee decided today.

Anne Bayefsky, editor of EYEontheUN.org, said “holding the meeting at a UN venue on European soil will essentially guarantee funding from the UN regular budget for the conference, and that the European Union will fully participate and not follow boycott plans of Canada, the United States and Israel.”

The European Union had been insisting on a shorter session in New York, but the African Group refused to agree on the New York venue and wanted a 5-day conference. The idea floated by some states of again holding the conference in Durban, South Africa fell through when South Africa withdrew its offer to host the event. Throughout negotiations the African group was tightly controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, with Egypt acting as their spokesperson.

Bayefsky noted “Ironically, the Durban Review Conference will take place over Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom HaShoah on April 21, 2009.

Jews all over the world will be remembering the 6 million murdered in the worst instance of racism and xenophobia in human history.

At the same time, the United Nations will be discussing whether the Jewish state, created in the wake of the Holocaust and standing as a bulwark to ensure it is never repeated, should be demonized as the worst practitioner of racism and xenophobia among nations today.”

Durban II is intended to promote the implementation of the 2001 Durban Declaration, which singled out only Israel and labeled Palestinians as victims of Israeli racism.

————-

For once South Africa showed the courage to stand up and be counted among the Nations – the rest of Africa – we must note – is nothing but a rug at the feet of the Islamic world – Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibuti, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, Marocco … all countries were black Africans suffer from the Egyptian led OIC intrusions on their continent. The UN is just a conduit for making the world pay the bill.

China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Libya … seem to have money to burn – will they burn us? The question is about the buying up of agricultural land outside their countries. Is the intent just to create new food production sites to feed their own citizens, or is this also an effort to corner commodities?

At this week’s session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, China distributed an April 2008 “Review of Sustainable Development in China (2008): Agriculture, Rural Development, Land, Drought, and Desertification.” prepared by The Office of the Leading Group for Promoting the Sustainable Development Strategy, P. R. China.

The report speaks frankly about “Obstacles and Challenges” but presents a program for the “Eleventh Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Eleventh Five -Year Plan for Development of National and Rural Economy – “the objectives set up for building a new socialist countryside.” (Chapter 4, page 25, of the report)

The report is a statement of past success, and of great plans for further increase in efficiency while reducing the number of farmers and the rural percentages in the total population. This is the story of industrialization and of modernization in the agriculture sector of the economy – historically the high majority sector in China. We know that China is an agricultural success story as they turned away from a history of hunger. I had no intention to get anywhere deeper into the subject.

But, surprise, even though we knew that China is doing well in its exports and has a $1.3 trillion reserve, having created in the process also a new, sizable, middle class that will aim at an increase of the standard of living and demand a better array of foods including much more meat, we were yet not prepared for the Friday, May 9, 2008 article of the Financial Times that brought before our eyes the actual figures: “FOOD SHORTAGES – NEW EATING HABITS FORCE REVOLUTION ON CHINA’S FARMS.” “With 21% of the world’s population, 9% of its arable land and below average and poorly distributed water resources, China is already unable to supply enough homegrown animal feed” – says the article. www.ft.com

Further – “Although analysts disagree on the timing of china’s emergence as an importer of all grains, a few doubt that Beijing will be forced to modify its longstanding policy of self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs to meet demand.”

But, the pressure for animal feed that is already felt now, nd the expectation of future shortages, send already now China to look for off-shore arable land.

Also from the Friday issue of the Financial Times, this from Jamil Anderlini, from Beijing, and Javier Blas from London: “Beijing looks at foreign fields in pushto guarantee food supplies – China Losing its ability to be self-sufficient.”

The reporters learned that a proposal drafted by the agriculture ministry would make supporting offshore land acquisition by domestic agricultural companies government policy. These acquisitions will be made by state-owned banks, manufacturers and oil companies. Some rather small projects have already been established in Africa.

It is easy to foresee how Chinese farms will evolve in various places – mainly in Africa, and Chinese farmers will be toiling on these farms. There is nothing alarming here, but it is hard to see how this will not project a return to colonialism – this time seated in China government owned enterprises – something like the old Dutch and English Trading companies? When I say it is not alarming, I mean that the intent will be to lift the produce for consumption at home and not as part of an international trade. if the locals will have any luck, they may actually be pushed to copy the Chinese production technologies and develop their own agriculture in parallel.

What is more worrisome, is a different paragraph in that article: “The move comes as oil rich, food poor countries in the Middle East and North Africa explore similar options. Libya is talking with Ukraine about growing wheat while Saudi Arabia has said it would invest in projects abroad TO ENSURE FOOD SECURITY AND CONTROL COMMODITY PRICES.” Now that is something hair-rising.

What we are now foreseeing is how the specialists in cartel building who have cornered the petroleum market, will now extend their reach into the food market. When the banana exporters tried this years ago – they were laughed off – but when the rise of food demand by China and India creates shrinking worldwide supplies, games by the money rich oil producers to start cornering food staples like corn, soy, wheat, rice or sugar, could indeed cause havoc.

Today, Monday May 12, 2008, The Financial Times writes under World News / Food: “UAE INVESTORS BUY PAKISTAN FARMLAND.”

The story from Dubai (Simeon Kerr) and Lahore (Farhan Bokhari) is about the Dubai based Abraaj Capital, one of the middle East’s largest private equity companies quietly buying farmland in Pakistan as part of plans by the UAE to increase food security and dampen inflation. Further, the government of Abu Dhabi was talking to the Islamabad officials. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also looking at Pakistan.

Abraaj already owns 800,000 acres of farm land in Pakistan and the Emirates Investment Group, and the Abu Dhabi Group are not far behind. Some in Pakistan start thinking that this might lead to increase in food prices in Pakistan. This while prices of food have already caused riots in Pakistan because of a 20% increase in March.

Besides Pakistan, a State in trouble these days, other Islamic States in trouble – Sudan and Somalia, are also offering lands for sale. Will all of this lead to what some dreamers (Jordan’s Agriculture minister) think will be sort of an Islamic/Arab self-help organization – or just another plain cartel? That is something to look after.

Further, also today, May 12, 2008, at the CSD at the UN, there was the SIDs Day. At one of the panels there was talk about the impact of the increase of the price of food commodities that is harming the Small Islands States. There was some talk about the global effects of the biofuel’s production using agricultural commodities. I felt compelled to bring up the Financial Times on-going articles in order to explain that the issue is much more complex and that it has to do rather with the fact that countries with excess money are causing this with their acquisition of land helping drive up the price of the commodity because of the creation of expectation of price increases. Also, the increase in price should be viewed as an opportunity because it will eventually bring more products to market.

UN: Attacks on Darfur villages a ‘deliberate’ strategy.

from Geneva, Switzerland, by AF, and picked up on Mail&Guardian of South Africa.
 http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?art…

20 March 2008 12:11

Attacks on four villages in West Darfur in January and February by the Sudanese armed forces amounted to a “deliberate” military strategy, the United Nations said in a report on Thursday.

The attacks resulted in at least 115 deaths, according to a report issued jointly by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN African Union Mission in Darfur.

“The scale of destruction of civilian property, including objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population, suggests that the damage was a deliberate and integral part of a military strategy,” said the report.

The UN further condemned the attacks as “violations of international humanitarian and human rights law”, saying that they failed to “distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives”.

Sudan has been locked in a serious humanitarian crisis since ethnic minority rebels in Darfur took up arms against Khartoum in 2003.

Arab militias aligned to the Sudanese government have been accused of horrendous violence against civilians in quelling the rebellion.

The United States has described the violence in Darfur as genocide.

In its latest report, the UN detailed attacks in four villages which it described as part of “a major military campaign” launched by the Sudanese government.

It describes the campaign as an attempt to regain control of the northern corridor of West Darfur, and to drive out the Justice and Equality Movement rebel group.

It said that attacks by armed Arab militia on a village called Saraf Jidad took place on three occasions in January and resulted in the displacement of almost the entire population there.

Attackers opened fire at people and torched houses. Food reserves were also deliberately burnt.

At the other three villages of Sirba, Silea and Abu Suruj, aerial bombardments on February 8 were accompanied by ground offensives by armed militia as well as the Sudanese armed forces, it said.

Extensive looting was carried out and “consistent and credible accounts of rape committed by armed uniformed men during and after the attack in Sirba” were also highlighted in the report.

The UN said it was unable to report on similar attacks in Jebel Moon and other areas which also resulted in civilian deaths, as access to Jebel Moon was denied by the Sudan government until March 1.

This is a breach of the government’s obligation to allow UN officials access under an agreement signed in February, said the UN.

The report urged the Sudanese government to cease hostilities in the area, and to refrain from “launching deliberate and indiscriminate aerial attacks against civilians”.

It also asked all parties in the Darfur conflict to respect their obligations, and to refrain from the use of civilians as “human shields”.

The international community should also strongly condemn the attacks and urge all parties to end hostilities and abide by existing ceasefire agreements, the UN said.

The UN says at least 200 000 people have died in Darfur in the past five years and more than two million people have fled their homes. – AFP

——————–

Today we watched African Delegates celebrate another step in the 17 year long battle in Somalia – there the UN also hides behind the AU, and the AU does not have even a force there. The South African Ambassador said that today was a great day for Somalia because the UN even spent time in looking at the problem – asked about an intervention – he said that is still a long way off. So, what was he happy about? Shame on all of this so called UN Security Council, and on the UNSG as well – even though it was today his report to the UNSC that caused the Ambassadors to spend their time on this failed UN Member State. Simply said – the UN does not have the guts to stand up when Islamic States are involved in misdeeds. Is this the power of the oil exporters? What else?

The Chavista Democracy – when you compare it to Pakistan, Kenya, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Serbia …   – It Is Indeed An Achievement. The man lost an election and took it standing on his feet.

Now something that is not a joke – it actually happened – and we found this hilarious.   During the intermission in the New Hampshire US Republican and US Democrat Panels of the Presidential Primaries in the US – there was time for advertisements that paid for this exercise in US democracy on ABC TV.

The main advertiser was CITGO. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the National oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Mr. Chavez and his friends. The Advertisement by CITGO and the Government of Venezuela mentioned the help they are giving to America’s poor in the Bronx, by giving them free heating oil for the cold winter. So why indeed does the US President, whose own white house is dependent on Venezuela’s oil, make such a fuss?     We laud good humor and hope next President will also have good sense. We wonder if the winners in New Hampshire are aware of that advertisement – they surely did not react to it. Very hot for the campaign.

The ECONOMIST’S – “The Americas”
Get article background
Venezuela
Chávez slows to a trot
Jan 10th 2008 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition

Socialism, but for a while only at the speed of a donkey

Illustration by Peter Schrank

SMARTING from his first-ever electoral defeat last month, Hugo Chávez has begun the year by shifting his leftist revolution into lower gear. “The main motor seized up, so we’ll have to go by donkey instead,” he said on his weekly television show, “Aló Presidente” (“Hello President”), on January 6th. The “motor” was a reform of the constitution aimed at turning Venezuela into a socialist state and giving the president the chance to stay in power indefinitely. By a narrow margin voters rejected this in a referendum on December 2nd, leaving the revolution coasting in neutral.

“I’m obliged to apply the brakes,” said the president, admitting that his mistake had been to get too far ahead of what Venezuelans were prepared to accept. With five years of his presidential term still left, he has the luxury of reconsidering the method while retaining the same goals. So he has announced a period of what he calls “the three Rs”— the “revision, rectification and relaunching” of the revolution.

He might have added another requirement: rapid results. In October the country will vote again, this time for mayors and governors. With 22 out of the 24 states currently in chavista hands, the president has a lot to lose. To avoid another reverse he needs to address the problems that, by common consent, lay behind his defeat.

The first is governmental incompetence. The revolution has failed to tackle a long list of problems, from crime to the cost of living. Mr Chávez’s response was to make a dozen ministerial changes in early January. Out went the vice-president, Jorge Rodríguez, an outspoken radical, who was in charge of the referendum campaign. His replacement, Ramón Carrizales, is a retired colonel who quietly ran the housing ministry. Unlike Mr Rodríguez, who was also overseeing the creation of Mr Chávez’s new political party, the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Mr Carrizales will focus “exclusively on government”, the president said.

Another big problem is the demoralization of Mr Chávez’s own movement. Last year the president abruptly announced that he was creating the PSUV as the “sole party” of the revolution. But three allied parties refused to join; one of them has moved into opposition. The PSUV is due to be formally launched on January 12th. But squabbling between its factions is intensifying in the run-up to the local elections. Those with ambitions to succeed Mr Chávez after the next presidential election in 2012 know that the best launch pad is to become governor of an important state. Here, too, the president has chosen to ease up. He has acknowledged what was previously anathema: the existence of legitimate internal “currents” within the movement. And he has dropped his insistence that only those prepared to join the party can be part of the revolution.

The third pressing issue is the economy. Inflation soared to 22.5% last year, almost double the government’s target. Staples such as milk, cooking oil and flour are in short supply. On January 1st the government launched a new currency, the “strong bolívar”, cutting three zeroes from its predecessor. Officials presented this as part of a plan to tame inflation. But since it has not been backed by policy changes, its main effect is just to simplify accounting.

The new finance minister, Rafael Isea, admits that the government needs to stimulate food production, which has failed to match growing demand prompted by an oil-fueled economic boom. After the referendum his predecessor promised a more “flexible” approach to price controls, which the private sector sees as the main cause of the shortages. What this means in practice has yet to be spelled out.

A big shift towards more market-friendly policies is unlikely. Mr Isea is a former army lieutenant, with a limited background in economics. The new planning minister, Haiman El Troudi, is a youngish ideologue, as committed to central planning as his predecessor, the president’s elderly economic guru, Jorge Giordani. Mr Chávez’s call for alliances with the private sector and the middle class on “Aló Presidente” was broadcast from a newly inaugurated “socialist training school”, against a backdrop featuring a portrait of Fidel Castro, Cuba’s communist president.

Indeed, Mr Chávez announced that he was launching a fresh “socialist offensive”. He promised that applying the brakes to the revolution in no way implied “surrender, moderation or conservatism”. He even announced the creation of a food production and distribution division of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela. Mr Chávez acknowledges going too fast—but not in the wrong direction.

SECRETARY-GENERAL’S PRESS CONFERENCE – Monday, January 7, 2008

UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK.

First let us give the “boiler plate statement, then the verbatim Q&A, and at the end a little further insight.

The Secretary-General: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to send my best wishes for a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year. I hope that 2008 will bring to all of you and your families best wishes, happiness and prosperity. It has been a great privilege for me to work with you during last year, my first year, and I count on continuing such a good relationship and friendship and exchange of ideas, including constructive criticism, even. Thank you very much.

By tradition, this is the season for taking stock—and for looking ahead.

We mourn the loss of 42 UN colleagues during the year 2007, including 17 killed in the Algiers terrorist bombing. Yet we enter 2008 with new determination—and new opportunities—to strengthen the UN’s role in the world.

You know that I am not one to speak easily of successes. The past year was one of immense challenges. But I think we have made certain progress. We opened a new chapter on climate change. We took on new and daunting challenges in peacekeeping, most specifically in Darfur.

We must build on this foundation. Protecting our planet and its people—our global commons—requires all our best efforts. So does the task of securing economic wellbeing, social justice, security and other global public goods. This requires sustained and coherent international action beyond what nations or markets can provide by themselves.

That is why I believe so strongly in the United Nations. Only the United Nations can take on the issues that affect us all, that shape the fate of the earth and its peoples.

These are powerful concepts: the “global commons” and “global public goods.” They are the basic building blocks of modern globalized society. If they are to have meaning, we must be mindful of the responsibilities they impose upon us.

We must address ourselves to the needs of the weak, the disadvantaged, those who have been excluded from the mainstream international community. I speak here of those who are most vulnerable to climate change. Those who suffer the most grinding poverty. Those who do not enjoy basic human rights.

And so I say, let 2008 be the year of the “bottom billion.”

That’s the phrase some economists use to describe the poorest of the world’s poor. They are the forgotten ones, the nearly one billion left behind by global economic growth. Most live in Africa or the small developing islands of Asia, eking out lives of hardship on incomes of less than $1 a day.

We must pay careful attention to these nations with special needs. We must heed the voices of the world’s poorest people, who too often go unheard.

For this reason, I shall work over the coming year to strengthen the UN’s role in development. We are at the mid-point of a great campaign to end world poverty, set forth in the Millennium Development Goals. Too many nations have fallen behind. We need fresh ideas and fresh approaches.

That is why, last year, I established the MDG Africa Steering Group. In April, world leaders will gather in Accra, Ghana, for the UNCTAD summit on trade and development. In September, we will host a high-level meeting at the beginning of the General Debate. The goal: to re-energize the world’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, with special attention to the poorest of the poor.

Last year, we used a similar forum to galvanize world action on climate change. This year, we will do the same for the bottom billion.

In the pursuit of the global good, human rights must be a core principle. It is fitting, then, that 2008 should also mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As I have said before, I say again. Economic and social advancement is an implicit human right. I will use this milestone year, therefore, to call for the universal ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

I am determined to press ahead with the special tribunal in Lebanon and to work with the international courts to promote justice and oppose impunity. We will launch a new global awareness campaign on human rights, push more aggressively to better protect women and children against violence, and strengthen the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The demands on the UN grow ever greater. If anything, the coming year promises to be even tougher than the last. Look how it has begun, with turmoil in Kenya and renewed violence in Sri Lanka. We must nurture a fragile peace process in the Middle East. We must do more to help the people of Iraq emerge from conflict and rebuild shattered lives. We must stay the course in Afghanistan, so that it does not again fall into lawless anarchy.

In Darfur, we must do our utmost to push the peace talks to a successful conclusion. We must manage the very complex deployment of UN-African Union forces. To succeed, we need the full cooperation of the government of Sudan. We also need the Member States—including the Security Council—to live up to their commitments.

The road from Bali will be difficult as well. Two years is not a long time to win a climate change deal that all nations can embrace. I intend to keep up the momentum. We need a global grassroots public awareness campaign to focus political pressure and keep global warming at the forefront of public consciousness.

We therefore move into the new year with renewed commitment to our ultimate mission—building a stronger UN for a better world. As ever, I seek results, not easy rhetoric. Our watchword must be effectiveness. I will continue my push to modernize, revitalize and streamline the UN system, upholding the highest standards of ethics, performance and accountability.

I want to stress this word. Accountability is not a technicality. It must be the fundamental operational principle of the UN—for the Secretariat, the agencies and Member States alike.

We will continue our work to stiffen procurement and management procedures. I will shortly ask all senior executives to sign management compacts with me, laying out specific and measurable benchmarks for performance. Last year we re-organized our Department of Peacekeeping Operations. This year, we will do the same with our development-related bodies and the Department of Political Affairs. I want it to become more proactive in tackling global crises, especially in the realm of preventive diplomacy.

Member States, too, must hold themselves accountable. They must put up the resources to deliver on their mandates. We must deliver on our promises—openly, effectively and promptly.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Since my first day in office, I have sought an open and active dialogue with you in the UN press corps. You were the first people I met last year on my first day, and you are the first – after my Town Hall meeting with the staff this year – that I am meeting in this new year.

I look forward to our healthy, frank exchanges. They are valuable and, often, fun. Let me start by taking your questions. And again, my best wishes to you all for a very successful, rewarding 2008.

Q & A :

Question 1 – by tradition – from the UN Correspondents Association President (UNCA): Thank you very much for your kind wishes to the United Nations Correspondents Association.

On behalf of all my colleagues here, I would like to wish you and Madame Yoo Soon-taek all the best — and, of course, a very successful second year, despite the slow activities and results of the last year. You have set a lot of high expectations for this year.

So I wonder if you can tell us: First, there is a new crisis in Africa, in Kenya, where accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing have become more and more visible now and heard all over the world. I wonder what the United Nations is doing to prevent another case of Rwanda in 1994, where the United Nations is limited to providing relief services while the killing went on?

The Secretary-General: I have been in close contact with Kenyan leaders, including President [Mwai] Kibaki and opposition leader [Raila] Odinga, and President [John] Kufuor of Ghana, in his capacity as Chairperson of the African Union, and many other international leaders to, first of all, calm down and stabilize the situation. I urged them strongly to avoid further killings of civilians. That was unacceptable, as I have stated in my two previous statements. I will continue to do that.

The United Nations has been doing our best efforts to provide the necessary humanitarian assistance to many people there who have been unfortunately displaced because of this situation in Kenya. Protecting human rights is very important and paramount for us. We are taking all necessary measures to prevent the further deterioration of the situation.

As for the specific question you raised, that will always be a high priority in my mind. We will try our best to ensure that no further casualties will happen there. And as the leaders of Africa – including President Kufuor, who is expected to have consultations with the Kenyan leadership — as well as some former presidents are also expected to visit there — I hope, through those international interventions, the Kenyan leaders will sit down together and resolve this issue in a peaceful manner.

——–

Question 2 from the UN Correspondent for The New York Times, Warren Hoge, a paper favored by the UN: Mr. Secretary-General, both you and the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping last month said that the force going in to Darfur would be at risk unless the Sudanese Government agreed to some of the troop assignments that you were requesting, and unless other countries gave you the transportation and logistics you needed. Neither of those two things has happened. You have had a formal change of command in Darfur, which basically is just changing the colour of the helmets. My question is: If this force is, as you say, at risk, how can you deploy them when they don’t have the capacity to protect civilians and don’t have the capacity to protect themselves?

The Secretary-General: That is exactly why I, as Secretary-General, and the United Nations as a whole, and the international community – Member States – must ensure a rapid deployment of the Hybrid Operation as agreed, to the level of 26,000, as soon as possible. We now have 9,000 re-hatted soldiers in Darfur. That is not sufficient. That is why we are very much concerned about this ongoing deteriorating situation in Darfur.

I had a long telephone discussion with President [Omar al-] Bashir last Saturday, and we agreed to meet again in Addis Ababa. Before that, before we meet again at Addis Ababa on the occasion of the African Union summit meeting, we will have a high-level consultation to resolve all these pending issues. There are, as you rightly said, two areas of pending issues, one to be done by the Sudanese Government. There are still many technical or administrative issues, to which the Sudanese Government must commit themselves as agreed, including a status of forces agreement and also composition of forces and other technical issues.

Then there are resources to be provided by the Member States in general, including critical assets like helicopters and heavy transport equipment. These are to be done by both sides: by the international community as a whole and the Sudanese Government. I will do my best to expedite this process. In fact, we have made a good framework to resolve these Darfur as well as Sudanese issues as a whole, including a peace process and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

All those three tracks will move hand in hand. And we are also looking at the possibility of resuming the second peace process. But that may take a little bit of time. My Special Envoy Mr. Jan Eliasson and African Union Envoy Mr. [Salim Ahmed] Salim, they are working very hard. Jan Eliasson is also going to visit Khartoum next week.

——-

Question 3 from a correspondent from Morocco: Mr. Secretary-General, there have been statements threatening war in the African continent lately. The POLISARIO has been saying that this is the last chance that they give the Moroccans in the Western Sahara; otherwise the preparation for war is afoot. Also, we have the worrying aspect of Chadian aeroplanes bombing areas of Sudan, Darfur, in chase of Chadian rebels, so they allege. And there are obvious and frank threats from the President of Chad to enter Darfur to chase the Chadian rebels. Your thoughts on both subjects, please.

The Secretary-General: On the Western Sahara issue: As you may know already, I am going to issue a statement this morning that there is going to be another consultation in Manhasset, in Greentree, between the parties concerned. I appreciate all the parties concerned to have accepted my invitation. Mr. [Peter van] Walsum is going to organize as well as facilitate this dialogue. This is a painstaking and very complex issue, and I hope that this time they will be able to make good progress on these issues.

On the situation in Darfur and, again, the Sudanese relationship, I am going to discuss with African leaders, including President [Idris] Deby of Chad. I have spoken with President Bashir. But I would really urge the leaders and countries concerned to refrain from all these exercises – refrain from using military forces. This will only aggravate the situations in Africa. I am very much concerned about all these ongoing deteriorating situations – not only here but elsewhere, including Kenya, Sudan, Chad and other areas.

I really hope that this new year, 2008, will see bright hope. We have started with gloomy prospects: the situation in Kenya and elsewhere. I really hope that, with active cooperation and dialogue among the leaders of the world, we will see some better world this year. This is my firm commitment as Secretary-General.

Question – a follow up: But the POLISARIO is saying frankly, and their statements are very clear, that this is the last chance they are giving the Moroccans. Your thoughts on that; are you having any contacts with the POLISARIO? I understand that you hope that they will reach an agreement, but it seems the obstacles are too high and, in the face of these threats, it sounds like dire straits to me.

The Secretary-General: I would not make any comment on such kinds of very definitive declaration by any one of the parties. All the issues, they have their background and very complex nature of the issues. And it needs the parties concerned to be, first of all, patient and persistent and consistent and faithful in resolving this issue through dialogue.

——–

Question 4 from Japan: We know that you are a very humble person, but if you were to rate your first year’s performance on a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you give yourself, and why?

The Secretary-General: I am the sort of person – as you said, modest. I am the sort of person who is very strict to myself, officially and personally. Even in my home and my private life, I really want to be very strict to myself. When you set a guideline or rule, I want to be bound by that. I stick to that.

The assessment of my performance as Secretary-General during the last one year will be the role and duty of you and Member States and other public and private organizations, including many NGOs. I think that I have made certain progress. As I said, I am not a person who easily speaks about success, because one year may be too long or may be too short for anyone to assess my performance. All the issues which you may have seen last year, they are all ongoing projects, including reform of the United Nations, Darfur, climate change or all these Lebanese situations. All are ongoing and very complex, so we need to continue and step up our efforts. I think I have established good tracks on the basis of which I can move ahead on these projects.

———

Question 5 from Frank Ucciardo of CBS: Mr. Secretary-General, in your opening statement you talked about pressing on with the investigation in the Hariri assassination and the Lebanon tribunal. As you know, the family of Benazir Bhutto has asked for United Nations participation in the investigation of her murder. I would like to get your thoughts about that. And do you feel that the United Nations should be the one organization or agency in the world that is the place to go for such political assassination investigations?

The Secretary-General: In other places, you mean?

Question: Yes. In other words, Benazir Bhutto’s family has asked for the participation of the United Nations to investigate her murder and her assassination, and as you know, Scotland Yard has been invited in by the Government. But do you feel that the United Nations should be the place where the buck stops and where investigations start in such political assassinations?

The Secretary-General: First of all, the United Nations has not received any formal request from the Government of Pakistan, and as you may very well be aware, Scotland Yard are now providing technical assistance in the investigation process of this very tragic assassination case. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on any request on a private, personal level. All this kind of establishing Special Tribunals should be, first of all, based upon the formal request of the Government concerned. And then that should be decided by the Security Council. That means that all Member States should decide. The assassination of Hariri case, which has been establishing this Special Tribunal, was a very special one, where the whole Security Council has made a consensus agreement on this.

——-

Question 6 from Ms. Raghida Dergham from Al-Hayat, London: Mr. Secretary-General, Happy New Year to you and your family, and thanks for welcoming constructive criticism. Actually, this is praise of what you have done in Paris, when you chaired the meeting in Paris on Lebanon. I am wondering if you are satisfied with the follow-up to that meeting you have chaired. And since you said you are pressing ahead with this tribunal on Lebanon, are you going to name the judges? You said you will accept the recommendations, but are you going to be naming the judges, and is the tribunal pretty much ready to be operational in February, as we have heard from the American ambassador? And is this tribunal now unstoppable?

The Secretary-General: We have made good progress on the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The United Nations remains committed to the search for truth and justice in this case. On 21 December, after three months of negotiations, we signed a headquarters agreement with the Dutch Government on the Special Tribunal, to be headquartered at The Hague. I have also received and adopted the recommendations of the selection panel created to help me recruit judges for the tribunal. It is a panel of international judicial experts, which includes my Legal Counsel, Mr. Nicolas Michel. I will announce the names of those selected at an appropriate time in the future. The judges will assume their functions on the date I will also determine soon.

In this regard, I would like to speak more broadly on the situation in Lebanon, if you will allow me to say a few words. I continue to be in close contact with Lebanese leaders and, more broadly, with international and regional leaders to try to find a solution to the prolonged political crisis. I am deeply disappointed by the current situation, in which the Lebanese people have not been able to elect their own President for such a long time. There has been a prolonged constitutional vacuum by not having a President yet.

Failure to reach an early agreement would represent a betrayal of the expectations of both the Lebanese people and the international community. You have seen the international donors conference, which was held in January last year in Paris, which committed almost $8 billion, and you have seen this meeting which I convened last December in Paris on the occasion of the other international meeting. I am, at the same time, encouraged by the efforts of the League of Arab States, announced yesterday.

I once again call on Lebanese leaders to think about the future of their country, transcending sectarian and individual interests. And, on the neighbouring countries, I urge them to help the Lebanese people, so that they will be able to overcome this crisis on their own will, without outside interference.

Question: A follow-up for you, Mr. Secretary-General: Have you been in touch with a particular neighbour who is thought to be interfering in Lebanon, and there is a Syrian presidency or Syrian Government: have you had any recent contacts with them? And what do you mean when you say that in due time you will announce the names of the judges? Do you mean when the tribunal becomes operational? And will that be in February, like the American ambassador said?

Secretary-General: The tribunal is making good progress, including the funding. We have been receiving necessary funding from many, many countries. Therefore, first of all, the headquarters agreement should be ratified by the Dutch parliament. We need to have sufficient funding. We are talking about $120 million for the period of three years, out of which we may need at least $40 million or $45 million, I am not aware of the exact amount, for the first year. I think necessary preparations are going on well. As soon as all these administrative and legal measures are finalized, then I will be in a position to announce the names of the judges.

Question: And Syria?

The Secretary-General: As you know very well, I have been in close contact with many leaders in the region, including President [Bashar al-]Assad of Syria. I think I have spoken with him last month, and I will continue to discuss this issue with whoever is known to have influence or interest in the future of Lebanon.

——–

Question 7 – from Nigeria or Cameroon: Thank you, Secretary-General, and happy New Year. I wanted you to give me your perspective – or the perspective of the United Nations Secretariat – regarding the Greentree accord between Nigeria and Cameroon. The Nigerian Senate keeps saying that the treaty has not been ratified, but the treaty is already being implemented. Now, did that decision, or did the information that the treaty was not ratified, did it come to the United Nations, as a surprise? Is the United Nations supposed to implement a treaty that has not been ratified by the competent authority in one of the countries that signed the treaty?

The Secretary-General: I will continue to discuss this matter and urge the leaders of Nigeria and Cameroon to abide by this Greentree agreement, which has provided a good framework for resolving all these pending issues.

Question: Let me follow up with you. Are you surprised that the Nigerian Government did not ratify the treaty before it was implemented?

The Secretary-General: That was a source of concern last year, which I have been discussing with the countries concerned.

——-

Question 8 – ?: Mr. Secretary-General, are you watching any of the US presidential debates, and who do you think is going to win, and will it make any difference to the United Nations?

The Secretary-General: I hope you will be able to tell me what are your own views. I am watching and closely following all these debates, but I have to wait until the final choice of the American people, who will be elected as the President of the United States. I will be very happy to work with anybody chosen by the American people.

——-

Question 9 – From a Francofone from Africa: If you allow me, I will ask my question in French, and you can answer in either English or French.

The Secretary-General: In French? Yes.

Question (spoke in French): You referred, in your introductory remarks, to the attack that took the lives of 18 United Nations employees, and you mentioned other recent attacks in the region, which received less media attention. There was an attack carried out against French tourists, another against Mauritanian soldiers and a further attack against Italian soldiers, and also a recent attack targeting police officers in Algiers. Do you share the view that is held by numerous individuals in the region who believe that the Sahel region is an area of arms trafficking, and therefore constitutes a base for the various terrorist groups that are threatening the region, and, beyond that, threatening neighbouring countries?

The Spokesperson: The question, for those of you who were not following in French, is about Algeria: the recent bombing in Algeria, and the prospect of –

Question: I am actually talking about the Sahel region as a zone of lawlessness and the smuggling of arms. And a lot of countries and people in the region are worried that those attacks mean that the region may be considered as ground for terrorist groups that may threaten the region. Given the recent attacks in Algiers and also the attacks in Mauritania that led to the cancellation of a major sporting event, the Dakar rally, do you share the views of those who think that this Sahel region is becoming ground for terrorist groups that may threaten the stability in the region?

The Secretary-General: Let me practice my French.

(spoke in French)

Thank you very much for putting that question to me in French. I think you are well aware of my passion for the French language. Now, if you will allow me, I am not fully prepared – but if you will allow me to continue in English. I discussed matters with President [Abdelaziz] Bouteflika when I was in Algiers last month, last year.

(spoke in English)

These are serious issues for any country in the world, including those in the Sahel area. It is not only Algeria. I told President Bouteflika that, while it was a very tragic – and I was so sad and so shocked, and they were also embarrassed very much by not having been able to protect the United Nations staff and United Nations premises – this should be a global issue, not Algeria or any countries in the Sahel area. Therefore, this needs a global, concerted effort to address, fight against international terrorism. I think the international community must do more. Regardless of what their belief may be, there cannot be any justification whatsoever when it comes to terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and therefore that bombing in Algiers really strengthened my resolve to work more. I again express my strong commitment to work for that.

Question: I think the talks start today on the Sahara issue. Don’t you think that this issue is also contributing to this instability, since there is no prospect for a solution? Do you expect a breakthrough in this round, or whether those talks will …

The Secretary-General: All sorts of grievances coming from these conflict issues may be the source of some elements of terrorism. That is why we must resolve all the conflict issues through peaceful means, through dialogue. I cannot but be general on your questions.

———

Question 10 – Benny Avni from the New York Sun: This is also about Algiers, Sir. In the wake of the bombing, the Algerian interior minister said that there were warnings against bombing of international institutions, including the United Nations. There are also all kinds of reports about internal warnings that came around. The question is, why doesn’t the United Nations, as it did with the Ahtisaari case in the aftermath of the Baghdad bombing, why doesn’t the United Nations create its own independent investigation, as opposed to just investigate by [David] Veness?

The Secretary-General: First of all, the United Nations has never received any advance warnings from whatsoever sources on this issue. Then, I have instructed the Under-Secretary-General for the DSS [Department of Safety and Security] to report to me by 11 January, this week, about his own investigation and findings of this terrorist bombing incident. On the basis of that, we are going to strengthen the measures for the safety and security of our staff and premises, and I’m going to discuss with Member States in general about how to strengthen the safety and security of staff. This is a very paramount issue, as we have seen four years ago in Baghdad. This was the second such terrorist bombing attack against the United Nations.

At the same time, the United Nations also needs to do more in communicating with the international community in general: why the United Nations is there and what the United Nations is doing. We need to make the international community appreciate more what the United Nations stands for. The United Nations is not working for any group of nations over another. The United Nations is working for the benefit and well-being of many developing countries; we are working for the promotion of human rights and peace and security. So this must be correctly understood and communicated to the world. And in that regard, I have been doing, on my own, efforts to communicate with the international community in general.

Question: Don’t you think it’s imperative for the credibility of the United Nations that there will be an independent investigation that is not being done by the person who was in charge of security, to see whether security procedures were actually followed?

The Secretary-General: I will see; I will reserve my judgement until I have a full report from DSS.

———–

Question 11 by a correspondent from the Middle East also following up on algiers: Happy New Year, Mr. Secretary-General. Just to follow up on that, on the Algiers issue, were you ever made aware during 2007, or the time since you became Secretary-General, that the head of United Nations security in Algiers, Babacar Ndiaye, had made repeated requests to his superior in Algiers – that also reached New York – that there were, in his view, likely to be attacks on Algiers, not maybe making a specific date or a specific warning, but saying that they were a target of Al-Qaida and asking for specific precautions to be taken, such as the erection of concrete barriers or the raising of the phase level? Were you ever aware of that, that it had ever reached your office? And if that’s the case, that he did make these warnings, why wouldn’t that, combined with the Ahtisaari report after the Baghdad bombing and the threat that the United Nations is under, really compel an independent investigation?

The Secretary-General: That’s a good point. That is why we are now working very hard. I have talked at length with President Bouteflika. First of all, as host Government, the Algerian Government is responsible for taking all measures to strengthen United Nations safety and security, and he assured me that he will find accommodations for UNDP and UNHCR. And this is not only to the Algerian Government; this is what I am going to discuss with Member States in general. I will keep in mind what you suggested.

Question: Well, can I get an answer to my question? Did warnings and requests for greater protection from Babacar Ndiaye, who was the head of the United Nations security in Algiers and who died in the bombing, ever reach your office, ever come to your attention?

The Secretary-General: I’m not going to tell you anything on these internal procedures. But I’m very closely looking at this matter, and I have instructed Mr. Veness to look into this issue very seriously and carefully to make an overall report for me.

———

Question 12 – someone with a Latin accent: It’s about Darfur. Last 21 December, the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly approved the budget about the hybrid force, and they were very concerned about the Lockheed-Martin contract, because it was without bids, and they asked for an investigation. And I don’t know now in what point is the process of this investigation. What are you going to do, and what do you think about this statement, this resolution of the General Assembly?

The Secretary-General: On what?

Question: On the Lockheed-Martin contract. You know, at the General Assembly, the members of the Fifth Committee said that they didn’t agree with the process used for doing this contract. And I only am wondering: what do you think about that?

The Secretary-General: I have answered this question, I think, at least two or three times already before. The situation in Darfur and all these preparations and constructions or procurement: the situation is a very difficult one there. You don’t have many vendors who are readily available to provide such service at a limited time. And that is why, in accordance with the necessary rules and regulations bestowed upon me as the Secretary-General, I have taken an exceptional decision. I am allowed to do that. And at the same time, I made it quite clear, when it comes to transparency and accountability, I will make sure that there should be a very transparent process of executing this procurement.

Question: When do you think you are going to inform the General Assembly about the process of the contract? I don’t know, because they asked, they made a request.

The Secretary-General: When they ask that question, as you do – Member States – this may happen in many national Governments too. You cannot always have all these open biddings, 100 per cent open biddings, as required. But this should not make any precedents, of course. But all the regulations – even in national Governments or other organizations, they have certain exceptional cases when you have to make such a decision. So I hope you will understand. But I’m not making to generalize this one.

——–

Question 13 from someone with a Slavic accent: Talking about strengthening the United Nations role in the world and the Security Council members to live up to their commitments, I was wondering, Sir, why it took you 10 days or a couple of weeks, to express your position towards the final status of Kosovo. And also, Sir, I remember last time, while you were in Portugal, as far as I remember, you advised them not to take any premature step by declaring their independence. I was wondering, what can you tell them this time?

The Secretary-General: I was mentioning in general, when there is a resolution, a mandate, for me to implement, there should be accountability, both for Member States and the countries concerned – and the party concerned. The Security Council has a particular responsibility: when they take necessary resolutions and decisions to deploy peacekeeping operations or any other security measures, then, in addition to my own work as Secretary-General, they should also help mobilize the necessary resources and funding. That is what I tried to mean.

Question: Would you tell us clearly, Sir, what is your position towards the issue of Kosovo? Do you still support Mr. [Martti] Ahtisaari’s plan? Do you call for new negotiations, and if so, on what basis? And is there a time schedule for these negotiations?

The Secretary-General: I will have to see and assess the situation as the situation unfolds on the Kosovo issue.

——

Question 14 – from Matthew Lee, of Inner City Press: There seems to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the Security Council on the issue of Somalia, where they’ve called repeatedly for an advance team to go in for, really, for exploring, dealing with this issue that [Ahmedou] Ould Abdallah has called more serious than Darfur, very serious. So can you tell us where things stand in terms of the Secretariat’s following up on what the Council has asked it to do in terms of Somalia?

And one follow-up on my colleague’s question about that contract: PAE. The General Assembly itself put into its resolution that it noted with concern and asked for an investigation of the process. So I know you’ve said transparency, and I believe you, but since you’ve said transparency, we haven’t had any briefing by the people that pushed for the contract, by Jane Holl Lute. We haven’t had the contract disclosed. So I think the reason that you have been asked the question three or four times is that it doesn’t seem there’s been any transparency, and the General Assembly in its resolution on UNAMID seems to agree with that. So I just wanted to make sure you understand what the question is, and that it is not an attempt to ask the same thing again and again, but to say “where is the transparency?”

The Secretary-General: On Somalia, I don’t think there is any difference between me and the Security Council. I have been continuously consulting with the members of the Security Council on these very important issues. I have suggested to Security Council members that there should be a two-track approach. One is, first of all, the Somalis themselves: they should engage in a broader political dialogue at the leaders’ level for national reconciliation. And secondly, on the security track, the international community should help AMISOM so that they can have a better capacity to address the security situation there.

As for this advance team, I have made it quite clear, even, I think, to you some time last year, that we are considering dispatching a technical assessment team some time early this year. On the basis of the report of this technical assessment team, we will discuss again with the Security Council what measures should be taken to help the situation in Somalia.

On this transparency and contract fraud: transparency is one of my top mottoes to make this Organization work as a trusted organization by the Member States. You should not have any question about my commitment, personally and officially and organizationally.

As for some reports about procurement fraud which have appeared in some of the media, I would like to make it quite clear that I do not agree with all that has been reported. It is true that there was some fraud, which was found, investigated by our own OIOS teams. The amount which has been the subject of procurement fraud was sort of an aggregate sum, not the fraud itself, so there were some exaggerations and incorrect reporting. I feel it unfortunate that the United Nations has been perceived in that way. It was not in the amount of several hundred million dollars. That several hundred million dollars was the total aggregate sum of the project fund. So I hope there should be no misunderstanding. But this issue was also discovered and investigated by our own.

At this time I think the United Nations needs some strengthened investigative capacity. We have many different mandates, different organizations and different agencies, starting from the ombudsman, OIOS, the Ethics Office; and there are all the specialized agencies and funds and programmes. In November of last year, with my consistent efforts, we were able to have a standardized ethics rule which will be applied to all the agencies, funds and programmes. That was very good progress in terms of ensuring and strengthening transparency and accountability. That effort will continue this year and in coming years.

But I hope that Member States one day will consider how we can strengthen the investigative capacity. We don’t have such investigative capacity in the United Nations. We have been relying upon this Procurement Task Force. Fortunately, that mandate has been extended for another year.

Thank you very much. Again, I wish you all the best: happy New Year to you.

————————-

So what we see here is that the Secretary General, in his presentation, says that 2007 was the Year of Climate Change, “I say, let 2008 be the year of the “bottom billion.” This because it is all about the “global commons” and “global public goods.” The intent is to make 2008 about development and to remember human rights also, because this year we celebrate 60 years to the Declaration on Human Rights. The other key word is “Accountability.” Otherwise the world is a work in progress.

In 2007 there was something talked about Darfur, Lebanon, the tribunal on the killing of Rafik Hariri, Kosovo, Somalia, Western Sahara and a few other places but the results are yet to show.

But a press conference is not really about what is presented before the journalists but what questions the journalists put before the presenter. So it is the Q & A that really counts and here we saw an interesting gradation in the questions put and the mood that the answers created.

The first question, by the president of UNCA, in our opinion was actually the worst question as it compared the killings in Kenya with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. We argued in one of our previous postings that what goes on in Kenya is a political issue, it did not start out as the African endemic post-colonial tribal conflict. Actually it was created by Kibaki’s transgressions and his isolating himself from the country with the members of his own tribe the Kikuyus. The Kenya problem can be settled in the same way as the Iraq problem could have been settled five years ago – just tell the minority that usurped the government what is their right place on the national totem-pole. If you continue backing the usurper because you think this is better for you – you neither help ending the conflict, nor stop the killings. From here to genocide the distance is like from the understanding of a situation to the creation of a false image.

Two more questions were a bit of   line: One funny question asked the UNSG to rate himself, and he nicely avoided doing so, a second question asked him what he thinks of the contest in the US presidential primaries, and he very cleverly gave the only answer that he could give – that he will work with any US President that will be elected eventually.

There were a total of 14 questions including the above three. Some of the journalists had two follow ups, some asked a double question.

There was no question whatsoever on climate change and there was no question on development. The Journalists had pinpointed questions on what their outlets tend to publish.

We counted and found that among the remaining 11 questions – four questions contained elements of the Darfur problem, two about Lebanon, two about the Algeria/Sahel/arms traffic/terrorism issues, two about Western Sahara/Polisario, two about the Nigeria/Cameroon area, and one each about Chad, Pakistan, Kosovo, and Somalia.

The first questions passed by smoothly, but as time progressed, and questions came from a vaster net of journalists, follow up questions insisted on an answer, and the UNSG is a master at evading giving an answer, and it cannot be attributed to a conflict of language, but it might rather look like good diplomatic maneuvers when indeed there is no answer – this not because the SG does not want to answer – but rather because there is no answer that will cover on the intrinsic paucity of action at the UN. But then some subjects cannot be pushed under the UN red carpets easily.

17 people were killed in Algiers and the UN had warning that something is bound to happen. yes there was probably not a specific warning with a date attached – but there was a warning nevertheless – a head of security in algiers asked for reinforced walls and it was denied from headquarters – the man was among the dead.   A sequence of two journalists tried to extricate an answer – what will the UNSG do to investigate the security of the UN personnel that is being sent in the harms way without protection. This happened clearly in Baghdad, and the journalists want to know if this was the case also in Algiers.

In above process we also saw the following exchange:

“The Spokesperson: The question, for those of you who were not following in French, is about Algeria: the recent bombing in Algeria, and the prospect of –

Question: I am actually talking about the Sahel region as a zone of lawlessness and the smuggling of arms.”

We do not intend simply to pound on Spokesperson Michelle Montes, but this shows what happens quite often in Room 226 at the UN. The Spokesperson jumps at saying what she wants to say, and does not try to answer clear questions. In effect this is a rather common trend within the UN Information system, and it works counter-productive to Mr. Ban Ki-moon’s own stand, as we pointed out many times in regard to the topic of climate change.

Darfur has produced a lot of wind at the UN, but were are the helicopters to ferry the non-existent troops? And why was there a contract given to Lockheed without others having access to compete? There is a lot of money in this, and the fame of oil-for- food was not forgotten. It took four journalists in Sequence to hammer on this point and to make the UNSG quite uncomfortable. It showed eventually on his face.

Why can he not intervene in Pakistan to find a way to investigate the Bhutto killing, is the UN so restrictive that for even such events they have to wait for the invitation of the transgressing government in order to tell the truth to the world, and to the country that was hit – this might indeed be the only way to stop internal riots and killings. What will it take to turn the UN into an element of truth?

So, what will bring 2008? You can bet on it – more States will start to unravel – this because of climate change induced environmental disasters, and a decline in the world economy. The moment people suffer they tend to act and they may tend to take the wrong actions, kill and justify later. Will the UN be allowed to reorganize so that it can intervene even without invitation?

And What Did The Morning Papers Write About the Press Conference? What I can say for now – I did not see an article on Darfur in the New York Times, neither an article on any other item from the above.

——————-

Looking at the following cut-out we see that the Kikuyu, who are only about 22% of Kenya’s population, live mainly in Nairobi, and in a rather small part of Kenya located in the Central area west of Nairobi.
The remaining parts of the Central area   are occupied by a mix of tribes with the further out West part occupied by the main opposition leader Raila Odinga’s Luo. In between we see the large region of the Rift Valley with a Kalenjin majority – and that is the tribe of Kenya’s previous strongman – President   Daniel arap Moi, whose dislogement after years of corruption, is major part of Kenya’s independence history. All that part of rural and small town Kenya, including the town of Kisumu, up to the corner of borders with Uganda and Tanzania at Lake Victoria are now basically Odinga territory. This is the area that was once occupied by Indian tea plantations that were expropriated at independence, and taken over by the Kenya Government. The area marked with the number 7 (mixed) on the map, close to the Tanzanian border, is occupied mainly by the Massai, their cattle herds, and game parks. This is usually a quiet area, but they were Freedom fighters against the British.

The North-West corner of Kenya, west in the Rift Valley, borders with South Sudan and Ethiopia, and is occupied by the same people as South Sudan, mainly Christian and animists – so there was always a chance of spillover of problems from those regions. But if one looks at the map, it is easy to see that all of the above takes only less then half of the Kenya territory. The larger part is actually Muslim – with better to do people on the coast, and basically Somali Muslims in the areas marked on the map two times with the number 4, or the Eastern and North-Eastern regions towards Somalia and the Ogaden region in Ethiopia, that is also inhabited basically by Somalis. It is just inconceivable that all of the Horn of Africa region is in turmoil, and that this North-Eastern corner of Kenya, and its rich South-Eastern Coastal Area, are spared and will not become part of the same game. In effect, when I was in Nairobi for COP 12 of the UNFCCC, December 2006, at a time of strong rains and murderous floods in the Somali part of Kenya, I was told by people from UNEP that the region there was dangerous because of the closeness to Somalia. There is no tourism in that part of Kenya. Also the Government of President Mwai Kibaki was not highly appreciated in those circles, troubles were already foreseen.

For a while Kenya was a prospering set-aside with its status of a UN Center, but once things start unraveling, it might be pulled in as next area, after Ethiopia, as a place of confrontation that may get on the fault line between Arabized Africa and Christian, more-or-less secular Africa. As a sign of the times, Israel’s El Al Airlines were not flying the last two years to Nairobi, and the only available connection in Sub-Sahara Africa was via Addis Ababa. This becomes specially interesting with Israel joining now the UN UNEP and Habitat Headquarters on the outskirts of Nairobi.

And the UN   Does What It Usually Does: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon communicates with the Member State Government and asks the President Kibaki, in diplomatic language, to be less violent to his own people. Then the whole UN affiliates’ mechanism start talking of aid to the refugees. But the reality is also that we heard from the Libyan Presidency of the Security Council that nothing more then the above will be discussed at his Council – the only UN body designed to show a tooth-rich stand.

In the meantime we learn from the new UN News Service that the situation looks like it did in Rwanda – “Rwanda, to the west of Kenya, was the scene of genocide in 1994, when ethnic Hutu extremists massacred some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Ethnic conflict between Hutus and Tutsis has also killed hundreds of thousands of people over the past four decades in Burundi, Rwanda’s southern neighbour.”
In Kenya there are no Hutu and Tutsi’s, but – yes – it could evolve to a similar   high level of human disaster ending in plain genocide. Good comment, but why did the writer say “Rwanda, to the west of Kenya?” Actually Rwanda does not border with Kenya and though there are similar inter tribal problems that date before the British or the Belgians run those places, but were exacerbated by the colonial powers – then used by the new African governments to buttress their own positions – “favor some and exploit the rest.” Rwanda is on the other shore of Lake Victoria, but has no access to the Lake. That is because the British wanted to have the whole lake under their East Asia Colonial structure – s o now it is only Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania that share lake Victoria. Rwanda is not to the West of Kenya, but actually rather to the Southwest, after crossing via Tanzania. This is just a small comment to help the UN folks with their Geography.

Further, we have been to Lake Victoria, and without enlarging on what we said in the introduction, we will just say that the British and the Belgians had different goals for their colonies. That area of the Lake Victoria region was rather intended for the production of tea and the British brought in people from India to establish the plantations. There were here also British settlers and we could find some similarities here rather with Zimbabwe (to what the UN News Service could also have referred as “West of Kenya” – all right – Southwest).
Rwanda was run by the Belgians like Congo – that is for mining purpose. This was a much harsher destructive destiny and it showed in the results.

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE
4 January, 2008 =========================================================================

250,000 KENYANS DISPLACED BY POST-ELECTORAL VIOLENCE, UN ESTIMATES

Some 250,000 Kenyans are now estimated to have been displaced by post-electoral violence, United Nations humanitarian officials reported today, as the world body’s independent human rights experts voiced deep concern at the ethnic dimension of the conflict.

Overall, between 400,000 and 500,000 people have been affected by the conflict.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke by telephone today with both President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga, and called on them to resolve their issues through dialogue. The violence, which has reportedly claimed more than 300 lives, erupted after Mr. Kibaki was declared the winner of last week’s poll. Mr. Ban also spoke with Ghanaian President John Kufuor, current chairman of the African Union.

Meanwhile, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) reported that virtually all movement of food for both western Kenya and the entire region, including Uganda, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was frozen for days due to the insecurity.

The 14 human rights experts, covering issues ranging from racism to sexual violence to freedom of belief, deplored the growing inter-ethnic conflict, citing the deaths of dozens of civilians, including children and women, after a mob set fire to a church where they had taken sanctuary.

“We are profoundly alarmed by the reports of incitement to racial hatred and the growing frictions between the different ethnic groups,” they said in a statement calling on the authorities, political, ethnic and religious leaders to put an end “to what may become the dynamics of inter-ethnic killings… in the light of historical precedents in the region.”

Rwanda, to the west of Kenya, was the scene of genocide in 1994, when ethnic Hutu extremists massacred some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Ethnic conflict between Hutus and Tutsis has also killed hundreds of thousands of people over the past four decades in Burundi, Rwanda’s southern neighbour.

In a litany of “great concern,” the experts said the massive displacement, especially in the Rift Valley, threatened the right to food, health, housing and education. They also cited reports of gang rapes and the attendant likelihood of HIV infection and reported curbs on free expression, in particular a ban on live coverage of events.

“While we recognize the prerogative and duty of the Kenyan authorities to maintain public order, we are, however, alarmed by reported instances of use of excessive force by Kenyan security forces against demonstrators and other civilians,” they added.

“We urge the incumbent Kenyan authorities to take all necessary steps and measures to bring an end to the present situation, including by addressing appropriately questions raised with regard to the latest election results. We also call upon the leaders of political parties to show restraint and control over their followers and supporters.”

WFP will shortly provide food through the Kenya Red Cross for 100,000 people displaced in the Northern Rift Valley, but it said: “The biggest problem is the difficulty for trucks carrying WFP food to reach areas in western Kenya.”

Some 200 trucks were loaded with WFP food in the Kenyan port of Mombasa from a ship that arrived over Christmas carrying 30,000 metric tons – enough to feed 1.5 million people for a month – for Uganda, southern Sudan, Somalia and the eastern DRC. The food for Somalia will be sent by sea, but the rest has to go by land, WFP said.

Some trucks left Mombasa but then were stranded due to insecurity on main roads and checkpoints set up by vigilantes in western Kenya. Fifteen trucks are stranded in or near Nairobi, 60 in Mombasa and others in Eldoret, near the site of the church massacre. Each truck carries 34 tons of food. “WFP is holding urgent talks to resolve this issue and get food to those who need it in Kenya and elsewhere,” the agency said.

Kenyan security forces recently escorted 20 WFP trucks carrying food for north-western Kenya, southern Sudan, Uganda and the DRC, but the insecurity and roadblocks are still hampering humanitarian access.

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is trying to establish so-called “safe spaces” for displaced mothers and children, provide water and sanitation to over 100,000 people, and distribute family kits to supply up to 100,000 people with blankets, plastic sheeting, cooking sets, soap and jerry cans.

America’s militarized foreign policy is a failure.
By Jeffrey D. Sachs, Commentary, Tuesday, December 4, 2007, The Daily Star of Beirut.
 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?…

Many of today’s war zones – including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan – share basic problems that lie at the root of their conflicts. They are all poor, buffeted by natural disasters – especially floods, droughts, and earthquakes – and have rapidly growing populations that are pressing on the capacity of the land to feed them. And the proportion of youth is very high, with a bulging population of young men of military age (15-24 years).

All of these problems can be solved only through long-term sustainable economic development. Yet the United States persists in responding to symptoms rather than to underlying conditions by trying to address every conflict by military means. It backs the Ethiopian Army in Somalia. It occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. It threatens to bomb Iran. It supports the military dictatorship in Pakistan.

None of these military actions addresses the problems that led to conflict in the first place. On the contrary, American policies typically inflame the situation rather than solve it.

Time and again, this military approach comes back to haunt the United States. The US embraced the shah of Iran by sending massive armaments, which fell into the hands of Iran’s revolutionary government after 1979. The US then backed Saddam Hussein in his attack on Iran, until the US ended up attacking Saddam himself. The United States backed Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, until the US ended up fighting bin Laden. Since 2001 the US has supported Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan with more than $10 billion in aid, and now faces an unstable regime that barely survives.

US foreign policy is so ineffective because it has been taken over by the military. Even postwar reconstruction in Iraq under the US-led occupation was run by the Pentagon rather than by civilian agencies. The US military budget dominates everything about foreign policy. Adding up the budgets of the Pentagon, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Department of Homeland Security, nuclear-weapons programs, and the State Department’s military assistance operations, the US will spend around $800 billion this year on security, compared with less than $20 billion for economic development.

In a stunning article on aid to Pakistan during the Bush administration, Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet demonstrated the disastrous nature of this militarized approach – even before the tottering Musharraf regime’s latest crackdown. They show that even though Pakistan faces huge problems of poverty, population, and environment, 75 percent of the $10 billion in US aid has gone to the Pakistani military, ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its contribution to the “war on terror,” and to help it buy F-16s and other weapons systems.

Another 16 percent went straight to the Pakistani budget, no questions asked. That left less than 10 percent for development and humanitarian assistance. Annual US aid for education in Pakistan has amounted to just $64 million, or $1.16 per school-aged child.

The authors note that “the strategic direction for Pakistan was set early by a narrow circle at the top of the Bush administration and has been largely focused on the war effort rather than on Pakistan’s internal situation.” They also emphasize that “US engagement with Pakistan is highly militarized and centralized, with very little reaching the vast majority of Pakistanis.” They quote President George W. Bush as saying, “When [Musharraf] looks me in the eye and says … there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be Al-Qaeda, I believe him, you know?”

This militarized approach is leading the world into a downward spiral of violence and conflict. Each new US weapons system “sold” or given to the region increases the chances of expanded war and further military coups, and to the chance that the arms will be turned on the US itself. None of it helps to address the underlying problems of poverty, child mortality, water scarcity, and lack of livelihoods in places like Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, Sudan’s Darfur region, or Somalia. These places are bulging with people facing a tightening squeeze of insufficient rainfall and degraded pasturelands. Naturally, many join radical causes.

The Bush administration fails to recognize these fundamental demographic and environmental challenges, that $800 billion of security spending won’t bring irrigation to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia, and therefore won’t bring peace. Instead of seeing real people in crisis, they see caricatures, a terrorist around every corner.

A more peaceful world will be possible only when Americans and others begin to see things through the eyes of their supposed enemies, and realize that today’s conflicts, having resulted from desperation and despair, can be solved through economic development rather than war. We will have peace when we heed the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said, a few months before his death, “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c)  www.project-syndicate.org).

—————

Professor Sachs, being the scientist he is, will not utter words like global warming induced droughts, floods, and most probably also earthquakes. He does not want to be in a corner where folks like Bjorn Lomborg or Fred Sachs will say that he has not enough proof.

He will also not say that the American interest in Middle East oil is behind the American militarism in the Islamic world – he will not want to be accused of editorializing when he provides what some may say are political views. In short – he has all the material there we speak about on our web but does yet not put his finger right into the eye of the storm.

We at www.SustainabiliTank.info have less restraints – and we would like thus to suggest a different end to his article – the simple recommendation to the US people of demanding from their government to move towards an economy that is not based on the exclusive use of oil, and while in transition does start by withdrawing from oil imports from the Middle East first. In parallel – the US shall start helping developing countries that were the first victims of human induced climate change that was caused by our past transgressions in matters of use of fossil and nuclear energy materials.

We hope someday to discuss above suggestions with Professor Sachs.

 

 http://www.alternet.org/rights/66830/?pa…

The Strange Journey of Ayaan Hirsi Ali: From Devout Muslim to Outspoken “Feminist” Critic of Islam
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 12, 2007.

American conservatives embrace Dutch firebrand’s calls for destruction of Islam.

The former “liberal” who becomes an outspoken right-winger has become an American political archetype. Ronald Reagan and David Horowiz are two prime examples of the breed.

They use the rhetorical tool of claiming to be just as caring and compassionate as their previous political incarnation, but the left’s irrationality and hatred of (you pick it) the West, America, Christianity, capitalism, etc. caused them to wake up one morning and see the light. And having transformed from lefty caterpillar into a right-leaning butterfly, they present themselves as qualified to comment on liberalism’s moral and intellectual failures.

Recently, a related version of this turncoat persona — former Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali — has emerged: a “reformed” Muslim woman who favors crushing Islam under the boot of Western militarism. Once very devout in her Muslim beliefs, Ali has gained a great deal of media attention — including horrific tales of her abuse at the hands of Muslim men — and has transformed into an outspoken critic who bases her calls for the destruction of Islam on feminist and human rights principles.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a proud Somali woman raised in a devout Muslim family. She is poised to become the most recognizable face of naked Islamophobia in America. Expect to see her as a ubiquitous guest on cable news channels and frequent contributor of op-eds reinforcing the worst stereotypes about the Muslim world. She’ll validate already disturbingly common narratives about the perfidy of Islam, and she’ll tout the vast superiority of Western thinking in stark terms that would be shocking coming from a more traditional (read: white, Christian) right-wing commentator.

It’s a criticism of Islam, coming from the left, which has the potential to unite the Islamophobic right with an increasingly vocal secular movement. It also provides cover for extremist views, bringing hateful rhetoric that’s typically been confined to the margins into the mainstream and broadening the already frighteningly large constituency that exists in the U.S. for a series of “preventive” wars in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere.

She has been called an “enlightenment fundamentalist” in Europe and is a hated apostate in much of the Muslim world. She lives under a flurry of death threats and needs round-the-clock security.

Because she’s an intelligent and articulate woman who has suffered horrific abuses in a Muslim family, her generalizations about the entire Islalmic world are imbued with an unwarranted authority. There’s a real danger that people like Hirsi Ali — the tiny percentage of the Muslim world who believe that Islam really is “the problem” will skew the debate about U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

Thank God for the Enlightenment

Hirsi Ali has become a darling of those who believe in the benevolence of Western hegemony; The Economist described her as a “cultural ideologue of the new right.” But she’s more than that; Hirsi Ali occupies a unique space in the political landscape. Her outspoken advocacy on feminist ethical issues — roundly condemning “honor killings” and female circumcision — has also made her a poster-girl for the aggressive brand of atheism typified by figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, all three of whom have held her life-story up as an example of the harms caused by religion in general, and Islam in particular. For them, she’s a living testament to the idea that rational liberal interventionists in the post-Enlightenment West have a moral duty to wage a new crusade against the Muslim world. Harris and Salman Rushdie penned an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times calling Hirsi Ali a “unique and indispensable witness to both the strength and weakness of the West: to the splendor of open society and to the boundless energy of its antagonists.”

Neely Tucker wrote in the Washington Post that “Neoconservative, middle-aged white men … tend to swoon when she walks into the room.” Hirsi Ali is indeed charming and articulate, possessed of a rare intelligence and gifted with exceptional language and political skills. But she’s also an extremist, by any measure. She goes beyond others who embrace the idea of a “Clash of Civilizations” — people like Tony Blankley and Michael Ledeen — in her insistence that all of Islam is extreme. “There is no moderate Islam,” she told Reason. There can only be peace between East and West, she said, “if Islam is defeated.” When asked if she meant radical Islam, she replied: “No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”

She calls the religion, with 1.3 billion adherents worldwide, a “death cult.”

That’s a popular claim in the post-9/11 era, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no doubt set for life. Her long journey has taken her from Africa to Europe and now, finally, to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute (she’s currently working out of Holland because the Dutch government refused to pay for her body-guards in DC). As long as the concept of a broken and dysfunctional Muslim world is used to justify Western militarism in the Middle East and Central Asia, Hirsi Ali will have a cushy sinecure somewhere within the right-wing media establishment, ready to be rolled out as exhibit A in the case against whatever country is that day’s enemy-du-jour and, perhaps more importantly, against anyone who views the Muslim world as anything other than a uniform bunch of blood-thirsty maniacs.

While Hirsi Ali is loved by some and loathed by others, what gets lost is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is as genuine in her beliefs as she is wrong on the facts. She suffered a cruel upbringing in a stringent Muslim household — she describes the horrors of undergoing female genital mutilation at age five and claims she was forced into an arranged marriage in her teens (a claim her family and former husband dispute), so the issue is not whether she is sincere, but whether the victim of an abusive childhood should be viewed as an impartial and credible analyst. It’s the equivalent of a Catholic choirboy who, having been the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of pedophile priests, is asked for an impartial view of the church. That would never happen, but Hirsi Ali will be called upon to explain the dangers of Islam to an eager West as if she’s a knowledgeable but detached observer. That’s problematic in that she’s a woman whose views are colored by an upbringing that is: A) anything but universal within Islam and B) in no way exclusive to that culture.

Who is Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a household name in Europe. Her story would seem far-fetched if it were fiction. Born in Somalia to a critic of the dictatorship of Siad Barré, her family fled when she was six — first to Saudi Arabia and then to Ethiopia before finally settling in Kenya. There she attended a Saudi-funded religious school and was, in her words, “indoctrinated” into a traditionalist form of Islam. She recalls that she wore a hijab, supported the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie and had a knee-jerk hatred of Jews. Until, that is, she started reading Nancy Drew mysteries. Fascinated by a female character who operated freely in society, Hirsi Ali would later say that the stories played a major role in changing her attitudes towards the West.

From there, things get a bit sketchy. According to Ali, she was forced into a marriage with a distant cousin and was so repelled by the idea of having to submit to him sexually that she bolted for Europe, ultimately settling in Holland. The circumstances surrounding her application for asylum would become a controversy that would later bring down the Dutch government.

After arriving in Europe it was menial work for Hirsi Ali at first. She worked her way through college in the Netherlands, ending up with a master’s in political science and a position with a think-tank linked to the center-left Dutch Labor Party. Hirsi Ali became a favorite in the European press, commenting on the nature of Islam and getting deeply involved in the Holland’s immigration debates.

Like the right-wingers who lionize her, “everything changed” for Hirsi Ali on 9/11. The following year, she renounced Islam and became an aggressively outspoken atheist. A number of controversial statements about Islam, immigrants and multiculturalism put her on the outs with her party, and she was asked to jump to the right-wing People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and run for Parliament. She won a seat, becoming the immigrant voice of a tough-on-immigration party.

In 2003, a discrimination complaint was filed against her (but not pursued) for saying that the prophet Muhammed was a pedophile. She had arrived. But it would be a film, and a brutal murder that followed its release, that would make Hirsi Ali one of the most recognizable personalities on the European political scene.

The film, written by Hirsi Ali, was Submission, an amateurish and clunky art flick whose attack on Islamic culture was overarching and anything but subtle. Like the Danish cartoons that would cause such controversy a few years later, the film, directed by Theo Van Gogh — a distant relative of Vincent — was an intentional provocation. Van Gogh was a close associate of Pym Fortuyn, a rabidly anti-immigrant right-wing politician who would later be assassinated by an animal rights fanatic, and his constant references to Muslims as “goat fuckers” had already outraged the Muslim community. In 2004, Van Gogh was riding his bicycle in Amsterdam when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born extremist of North-African descent slashed his throat and shot him eight times. A note addressed to Hirsi Ali was found on the body, and she went into hiding soon after.

She became a well-known and fiery critic of Islam, immigration policy, liberalism and the multiculturalism so integral to Dutch society. Hirsi Ali’s transformation came at an opportune time; in the post-9/11 climate, the European Right has undergone a revival, and ideas that were once relegated to the fringe of European discourse — the same ideas of cultural superiority and white supremacy that had fueled the continent’s bloody colonial period and the rise of fascism in the early 20th century — were coming to the fore once again.

Hirsi Ali was saying exactly what they wanted to hear. But the mis-matched pairing would not last; she was ousted by the VDD when it was revealed that she had lied on her application for asylum. Hirsi Ali hadn’t come from refugee camps on the Somali border as she had claimed, but from Kenya, a country that was safe and stable and whose residents weren’t eligible for asylum under Dutch law. She had lied about her age, her name and questions were raised about her motivations for leaving. Her family and husband denied that hers had been a forced marriage. Despite the fact that Hirsi Ali had come clean about all of those issues previously and they were considered to be matters of public knowledge, she was a member of a party that ran on a hard-line approach to immigration and called for sharp limits on asylum-seekers, and the contradiction became too great. She was forced to step down and her citizenship was temporarily revoked (but later restored by an act of Parliament). It was then that she headed for Washington and the American Enterprise Institute.

Entitled to her opinion, but wrong on the facts

Hirsi Ali’s arguments about Islam and the West are essentialist in nature, and like all essentialist arguments, they’re ahistorical and lacking in context. For her, Islamic radicals truly do “hate us for our freedom.” She minimizes or denies the existence of the political, cultural, economic or other factors that fuel various conflicts in the Muslim world – for her, they all arise from Islam’s demand that its followers yield themselves unquestioningly to its teachings. This, Hirsi Ali argues, separates it from other Abrahamic religions, and renders the Islamic world especially ripe for totalitarian systems of governance.

That narrative, perhaps more than anything else, is what makes her such a star in hawkish circles in Europe and the U.S.: Hirsi Ali consistently validates the inherent superiority of the West, morally and otherwise, and the perfidy of Islam, and for her, this dichotomy provides the analytic framework for much of what’s going on in the world. Of the World Trade Center attacks, she told the Washington Post, “This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam . . . [this was] not frustration, poverty, colonialism, or Israel: it was about religious belief, a one way ticket to Heaven.” She says Islam is too “backward” to be “compatible with democracy.”

On a fundamental level, these claims confuse correlation with causality. There is no doubt that many (but not all) predominantly Muslim countries have serious political and social problems, but there’s no evidence of a direct relationship between those problems and Islam. The plain fact is that much of the Islamic world is plagued by poor governance — little or no democracy, insufficient respect for human rights and the rule of law, and a failure of governments to address the needs of their citizens — and those issues are in no way limited to the Islamic world. In fact, there are no problems in the Muslim world that are not also common in countries that are dominated by Christians, Hindus or any other religion and that share similar governance problems. That’s especially true of countries with analogous political and economic circumstances. Across Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, countries that are not predominantly Muslim but which gained their independence from colonial rule in the last century and which rely on extractive industries (like many of the less functional states in the Middle East) face identical problems.

Speaking of terrorism specifically, research into what motivates suicide bombers shows that religion plays at most a minor role. The University of Chicago’s Robert Pape studied every suicide attack committed world-wide over an almost 25-year period and concluded:

The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion…

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.

Hirsi Ali also furthers the narrative of imminent threat — the plainly ridiculous idea that the West — dominant militarily, politically and economically — is fighting for its very existence. She told the Evening Standard that in the UK, because of its liberal Western governance, “We risk a reverse takeover. In 50 years, a majority Muslim society could democratically vote for Sharia law, and then what you face is that Britain will slowly start to look like Saudi Arabia. Women will be veiled, driven away from the public sphere, polygamy will be rife.” “Islam,” she says, “is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed.” The only reason Western liberals are blind to the danger, according to Hirsi Ali, is because they are too wracked by “white guilt” to see the situation clearly.

That Islamic fundamentalists threaten to expand their reach to the West — to take over — is a theme echoed throughout the eliminationist right, in books like Mark Steyn’s America Alone, Norman Podhoretz’ World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism and Tony Blankley’s The West’s Last Chance: Winning the Clash of Civilizations. It’s impossible to overstate how divorced from reality the idea is — Muslims represent 4 percent of the European population and in many countries remain a disenfranchised, poorly-integrated minority — but it persists nonetheless.

Women in Islam

The influence Hirsi Ali and like-minded “women of Islam” are likely to have on the discourse over East/ West relations is profound, and a great deal of that arises from their personal testimonial to the repression millions of women face in the Islamic world. It’s impossible to disagree with her call for the emancipation of women from subservience — sexual and otherwise.

The power of this argument for Western feminists and others on the left is undeniable. But Hirsi Ali’s focus (at least publicly) is not about the plight of women; it’s specifically on the plight of women in Islam, and here, again, the implication at least is that women don’t face identical abuses in other cultures. The research shows that to be false; domestic violence by intimates is a phenomenon that cuts across all cultures and all socio-economic strata.

The role of women in Islamic societies is complex (and a fascinating topic for serious exploration), but unfortunately Western perceptions about the issue have only a tenuous connection with reality. Anne Mayer, a Wharton University legal scholar who’s studied Western and Islamic law, wrote: “It is certainly a gross overgeneralization to say that an Islamic ethos correlates with a pattern of devaluing and mistreating women”:

Western misunderstandings about the lives of women in the Muslim Middle East are legion. Westerners are still influenced by Orientalist stereotypes — like harem-bound odalisques overseen by eunuchs who languidly await the summons of a lecherous Sheik. The assumption is made that a monolithic and exotic Islamic ethos pervades Muslim societies, shaping the attitudes of their inhabitants and setting them apart from the West.
So while we see an intense new interest in issues like “honor killings,” on the Right these days, they are often discussed as distinct from similar acts of violence in the West. As Katha Pollitt put it, “the focus on Muslim women [on the Right] is entirely cynical–a clever quadruple play to simultaneously promote Euro-American cultural chauvinism, defuse antiwar sentiment, attack Middle Eastern studies departments as hotbeds of jihad and discredit American feminists as a bunch of princessy complainers.”

The lack of seriousness in these circles is evident from the choice of issues that they ascribe to the Muslim world. Female genital mutilation, for example, is a custom practiced in sub-Saharan Africa and not in most of the Muslim world. In fact, it’s practice predates Islam. The procedure, abhorrent to Western eyes, is practiced by Muslims, Christians and animists alike. A UN study on the practice concluded that “looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association” with the practice of female genital mutilation (PDF).

There’s a similar picture with “honor killings.” In 2000, the UN estimated that there were as many as 5,000 such murders worldwide; that same year 1,232 women were murdered by intimates in the U.S., a country with about one twentieth of the world’s population. Honor killings are also committed by Christians (as reported here and here), but this fact is rarely pointed out in media accounts.

It’s worth noting that Hirsi Ali’s advocacy on the part of Muslim women appears to be far more welcome among conservative men in the West than it is by Muslim women themselves — people one would assume would represent a natural audience for her views. The Washington Post’s Neely Tucker wrote that “Muslim women of her complexion, whom she says she wants to rescue from Islamic oppression, tend to recoil” from her message. Neely quotes a report by Dutch author Ian Buruma about a screening of Submission for a group of abused Muslim women at a Dutch shelter:

When one of the women stressed her objections, Hirsi Ali dismissed her with a wave of her hand and, “So long, then.”

“It was this wave, this gentle gesture of disdain, this almost aristocratic dismissal of a noisome inferior, that upset her critics more than anything,” he writes.

In her review of Hirsi Ali’s The Caged Virgin, Fareena Alam offered her take, from the perspective of a Muslim woman:

It’s obviously what I’ve been waiting for all my life: a secular crusader – armed with Enlightenment philosophy, the stamp of the liberal establishment and the promise of sexual freedom – swooping into my harem and liberating me from my “ignorant”, “uncritical”, “dishonest” and “oppressed” Muslim existence. At least that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks I’ve been waiting for. [The book claims to] unveil the sexual terrorism she says is inherent in Islam. In reality, it is a smash-and-grab aggregation of inconsistencies, platitudes and poor scholarship.

The Right’s favorite liberal

Hirsi Ali claims that she, rather than her ostensibly more tolerant, multi-culturally-minded critics on the left, is the true liberal. She told New York Magazine, “I’m a liberal-not in the American sense, because Americans seem to refer to communists as liberals.”

The political transformation that brought her from left to right is implied in her criticism of the West. It is the West’s supposedly self-destructive tolerance of other, presumably inferior cultures that will ultimately spell its destruction unless hard-bitten anti-Muslim crusaders get their way. While she extolls the West’s liberal values, it is those same values, according to Hirsi Ali, that puts Western Civilization in danger of being taken over by the hordes of fanatical Muslims who are just waiting for their opening. She told David Cohen that the “problem with liberals is that we believe other people are as reasonable and tolerant as we are”:

How naive is the self-deception of the West to continue to talk of moderate Islam? We’re trying to appease Islam, but we are headed for a terrible confrontation between fascist Islam and Right-wing fascists who will step in when liberals fail to do so.
On this issue, she’s in perfect lock-step with the most hard-line of neoconservative thinkers. She told the New York Sun — the house organ for the Jewish far-right — that liberals “have lost the instinct to recognize that there can be such a thing as an enemy or a threat to freedom… [There is] a pacifist ideology that violence should never be used in any circumstances, and so we should talk and talk and talk.” To Reason, she added: “I completely and utterly agree with John Bolton that talking to Iran is a sheer waste of time.”

But her criticism goes beyond liberalism’s supposed vulnerability to Muslim aggression; despite claiming a continuing affinity with the left, Hirsi Ali decries the welfare state and associates it directly with the Islamic ‘menace’ facing the West. “What we see in Europe,” she says, “because of the welfare state, is government pretending to provide all sorts of services they shouldn’t be providing.” When asked why American Muslims appear to be better integrated than their European brethren, she replied: “America doesn’t really have a welfare system. Mohammed Bouyeri had all day long to plot the murder of Theo van Gogh. American Muslims have to get a job.”

Twisting the discourse

It’s important to stress that Hirsi Ali and other Muslim women who have found a niche as vocal critics of Islam in the West — people like Nonie Darwish, founder of “Arabs for Israel” — have earned the right to their opinions by hard experience, and that while they may have significant incentives to share their views to the wider public, there’s no reason to doubt that those views are heartfelt.

The problem is that while only a tiny minority of the Muslim world shares their opinions, they’ll get an airing totally out of proportion to their prevalence. Hirsi Ali and others like her create an impression that there exists a significant sub-set of the Islamic community that shares her view that Islam is to blame for complex social and political problems, and that these people are waiting, helplessly, and looking to the West for rescue.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

—————

We found this article very interesting in its analysis and we posted it in full understanding that there might be space here for further discussion.  www.SustainabiliTank.info editor)

OCTOBER 19, 2007, A report by the International Action Network on Small Arms, Saferworld, and Oxfam International, states that Armed Conflict Costs Africa $18 Billion Each Year.
Between 1990 and 2005, 23 African nations have been involved in armed conflict. The list includes Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan and Uganda.
During the past 15 years, almost $300 billion has been squandered on armed conflict in Africa, capital that could have been used to lift the continent out of extreme poverty and to prevent continued disease epidemics, a new study revealed.

The estimated $18 billion per year “is a massive waste of resources—roughly equivalent to total international aid to Africa from major donors during the same period. It is also roughly equivalent to the additional funds estimated to be necessary to address the problems of HIV and AIDS in Africa, or to address Africa’s needs in education, clean water and sanitation,” the report stated.

In effect, 38% of the world’s armed confrontations take place on African soil.

In addition, the report highlighted that “the average annual loss of 15 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) represents an enormous economic burden—this is one and a half times average African spending on health and education combined.” “This is money Africa can ill afford to lose,” Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf stated in the introduction of the report.

“The sums are appalling; the price that Africa is paying could cover the cost of solving the HIV and AIDS crisis in Africa, or provide education, water and prevention and treatment for TB and malaria. Literally thousands of hospitals, schools, and roads could have been built, positively affecting millions of people. Not only do the people of Africa suffer the physical horrors of violence, armed conflict undermines their efforts to escape poverty.”

President Johnson-Sirleaf understands the huge loss it represents for the continent, including her own country. Since 1991, Liberia has been one of the African nations that has been the target of armed combat and widespread civil strife. Although conditions for peace in the country were established in 2003 after President Charles Taylor left office, Liberia continues to experience political and economic perils, including the challenge of accommodating thousands of Liberian refugees who have returned to their homeland since the war ended.

However, it is not only robbed human lives and financial resources stolen in conflict that continue to cause the most damage to the continent, but the intangible daily mental and physical effects felt by the people themselves—and in some cases, other nations around them not directly involved in the conflict itself.

According to the report, African countries involved in conflict have, on average, “50 per cent more infant deaths, 15 percent more undernourished people, life expectancy reduced by five years, 20 percent more adult illiteracy, 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient, and 12.4 per cent less food per person.”

In the report, experts conclude that the majority of the problem lies in poor regulation of arms movement across borders—approximately “95 per cent of Africa’s most commonly used conflict weapons come from outside the continent.” These include the Kalashnikov assault rifle, more commonly known as the AK-47.

Also of primary concern is the tendency for regionalized conflicts to be magnified into international ones. According to the report, the situation in Darfur has already “drawn in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic,” and other clashes in the area have caused similar situations.

Additionally, the economies of countries in armed skirmishes become intertwined. “In 2002, when fighting in Cote d’Ivoire made access to the key Ivorian seaport of Abidjan virtually impossible, foreign trade was disrupted in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger,” the report stated. And in Somaliland and Mozambique, “informal economies that provided a basic means of survival in wartime have been partly responsible for the collapse of formal rural market networks and have been an obstacle to post-conflict resolution,” the report said.

Source: MCT

 http://www.sabcnews.com/world/north_amer…

But Congo, a UN Security Council Member, is also Chairing now the African Union, and this has not led to great emphasys on Africa at the UN todate. Will things change now for one month? { SustainabiliTank.info question }

Congo Brazzaville takes UN presidency, by Thami Dickson, August 3, 2007.

“The Republic of Congo has assumed the temporary presidency of the UN security council with a challenge that the council must come up with new ideas on how to prevent and resolve conflicts in Africa. Brazzaville has scheduled a high level Ministerial debate in the council to search for integrated approaches of conflict prevention and resolution in the continent. The council’s presidency is shared by all 15 members on a monthly basis.

Africa is home to six out of eighteen United Nations operations that are keeping peace and providing space for the resolution of conflicts in the world. Given the complexity of root causes of conflicts, Congo Ambassador to the UN and the new president of the security council Pascal Gayama, says they will convene a debate of ministers in the council on new approaches in preventing them.”

Pascal Gayama, the Congo ambassador to the UN said: “Conflict prevention is something we always talk about but we don’t know how to organise policy and methods for prevention to avoid the UN being involved in management of peace keeping missions.”
Mentioning specifics, the article mentions three: Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, and Cotr D’Iviore:

“Among other things, Congo says this month the council will be focusing on ironing out logistics of sending the hybrid force to Darfur and assisting in expediting the peace process between the rivals in Sudan.

The unstable Somalia situation will also be under its spotlight, as the mandate of the African Union peacekeeping mission there comes to an end this month.

Gayama also says they have been asked by the government of Cote d’Ivoire to assist in investigating the attempted assassination of that Guillimme Soro, country’s prime minister. Gayama says the world body’s secretariat is working on modalities of that investigation.”

On the international front, the situation in Iraq, as well as in Lebanon, will be examined with a view to renew the mandates of the support missions there. But with the security council configurations and powers skewed against non permanent members, Ambassador Gayama says they are under no illusion of the little influence this seat offers.

Congo returns to the Presidency of the council for the second time during this current term which ends in December. It first occupied a non permanent seat of the Security council in 1986.

Congo will have it easier somewhat because August is generally a lighter month in the security council as missions are preparing for the major annual political September event where almost all the heads of state of UN member states, will come to the UN headquarters.