Just Peace Advocate

Africa short-changed after Tsunami

2005-02-16T15:48:00.000-05:00

Africa: Tsunami Side-Effects

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Feb 15, 2005 (050215)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

Donations to the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) operations
in Africa dropped by 21 percent in January 2005 compared to the
first month of 2004. Warning of an apparent 'tsunami effect'
rippling across Africa, WFP executive director James Morris called
for new efforts to counter donor neglect of urgent humanitarian
needs on the continent.

In dramatic contrast to the rapid response from donors to UN agency
appeals for the Indian Ocean tsunami, the shortfall in response to
appeals for African emergencies, whether related to drought or
conflict, is growing rather than diminishing. UN officials and
others have expressed the hope that the generosity of response to
the tsunami could be extended to other areas. So far, however, the
principal effect seems to have been to intensify the humanitarian
"double standard" in which Africa comes last.

For example, the WFP current emergency operation to help Sudanese
refugees return home to southern Sudan and rebuild their lives this
year is funded at just 7 percent with a massive shortfall of US$279
million. And rations for Sudanese and other refugees in Ethiopia
have been slashed by 30 percent as a result of funding shortages.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts highlighting this issue
from a February 14 World Food Program news release and from a
recent statement to the United Nations Security Council by Jan
Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

Tsunami Overshadows Aid for Africa's Hungry

World Food Program http://www.wpf.org

News Release

14 February 2005

[excerpt: for full news release, with contact information for WPF,
see http://www.wpf.org

Rome - With 22 million people in Africa desperately short of food,
the United Nations World Food Programme called today for the world
to respond to the continent's hunger with the same commitment and
compassion shown recently towards the survivors of the Indian Ocean
tsunami.

Donations to WFP's operations in Africa dropped by 21 percent in
January 2005 to US$24 million compared to US$29 million in the
first month of 2004. Globally, contributions to WFP's work in
Africa represented just eight percent of the total received by the
agency, compared with 20 percent in January 2004.

"By responding so vigorously to the tsunami, the world admirably
demonstrated how much it cares for millions of people facing
extraordinary suffering," said WFP Executive Director James Morris.

"The challenge we now face is to ensure that a 'tsunami effect'
does not ripple across Africa, drawing funds away from humanitarian
operations there and adding Sudanese, Angolan and Liberian victims
to its toll. I'm sure that donors to the tsunami disaster will not
allow their generosity to be at the expense of hungry people in
Africa, however far from the global spotlight they are," said
Morris.

The January contributions of US$24 million to WFP were for
operations to help feed 22 million people with critical needs in 22
countries. These include Lesotho and Angola in the south, the
Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa, Eritrea in the
northeast and war-ravaged Liberia and Cote D'Ivoire in the west.

...

Despite a welcome increase of $80 million in early February,
donations for Africa amount to just five percent of the US$1.9
billion needed by WFP to reach the most vulnerable and hungry
people there in 2005. Overall food needs in Africa represent two
thirds of WFP's global requirements.

This stands in stark contrast to the almost full funding pledged
towards the UN's tsunami appeal for US$977 million, launched in
January. The cost of assisting a tsunami survivor is estimated at
US$1.07 per person per day in 2005 under the joint UN appeal
compared with just US$0.16 per person for assistance in Africa.

For the 26 December tsunami, WFP appealed for food for up to two
million people and has received full funding for that at US$0.51
per person per day.

Overshadowed by news of the tsunami and the outpouring of
international assistance, the Sudanese government and Sudan
People's Liberation Movement signed an agreement on 9 January to
end Africa's longest-running civil war. Both sides to the conflict
have warned that the peace could still be lost if the international
community fails to help.

After donors have invested billions of dollars in humanitarian aid
for Sudan over the past three decades, WFP's current emergency
operation to help people return home and rebuild their lives this
year is ironically funded at just 7 percent with a massive
shortfall of US$279 million.

Rations for Sudanese and other refugees in Ethiopia have been
slashed by 30 percent as a result of funding shortages.

In addition, in five countries across southern Africa, 5.6 million
people are struggling against the triple threat of HIV/AIDS, food
insecurity and their dwindling capacity to produce food. WFP has so
far received less than 10 percent of the contributions needed to
help them survive through 2007.

WFP was forced to cut rations for more than 2.8 million people in
southern Africa in the second half of 2004 because of a shortage of
funds. Many of those beneficiaries are living with HIV/AIDS and
many are children - those who can least afford to miss meals, and
for whom malnutrition can have irreversible consequences.

As stability returns to West Africa, there is an urgent need to
restore communities and secure peace after over a decade of war.
WFP's operation in Liberia is suffering from serious shortfalls and
since June last year the agency has had to reduce rations for
hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced people. Many of
them would like to go home, but with their homes and farms
destroyed during the war, they will need food aid to tide them over
until they can produce enough food for themselves.

...

"Every child, no matter where they live, deserves the same care and
concern," said Morris. "Whether they are in Sri Lanka and
Indonesia, or Uganda and Ethiopia, children urgently need our help.
I very much hope that the scale of support following the tsunami
bodes well for those in need in Africa too."

...

********************************************************

Security Council Consultations:
Humanitarian Challenges in Africa

Statement by Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA)

27 Jan 2005

[excerpts: full statement available in Word format on OCHA website http://ochaonline.un.org>http://ochaonline.un.org] ...

Overview of Major Challenges

Despite all our efforts, the impact of the conflicts in Africa on
civilians is still as devastating as it has been for many months,
in some cases years. In December, fighting in Eastern DRC - in the
area around Kanyabayonga in North Kivu - led to the displacement of
more than 150,000 people, the evacuation of humanitarian workers,
and the suspension of supplementary feeding for about 1,300
children. MONUC's deployment of a buffer force has allowed some of
the displaced to return, but this massive displacement within a few
days again showed the appalling levels of violence that is being
directed at civilians in this part of the DRC. It seems that few
combatants were actually killed or wounded during this incident.
The cumulative effect of the conflict in DRC on the civilian
population, however, is staggering: more than 3.8 million people
killed since 1998. This amounts to the toll of more than a dozen
Tsunamis. With an estimated 1,000 people dying in DRC every day,
most due to easily preventable and treatable illnesses, a death
toll of Tsunami proportions is reached about every six months.

In Darfur, the violence also continues, still forcing tens of
thousands to flee their villages and even their IDP camps in the
last two months. Last week, almost 10,000 fled a number of villages
in northern areas of South Darfur to seek safety and assistance in
Manawashi and Mershing. In one destroyed village alone, Hamada, it
appears that more than 100 civilians were killed, the majority of
them women and children. All sides are heavily armed, despite the
arms embargo imposed by this Council last July, and the fighting
may well escalate again. The high level of insecurity, particularly
in South and West Darfur, is severely limiting our ability to reach
hundreds of thousands of people who depend on our assistance to
survive. In December, WFP managed to reach 1.5 million people, a
significant achievement, but still 500,000 less than the target for
December. In January, they have reached about 900,000 so far, only
about 50 percent of their target. The access problems are resulting
in significant shortfalls in other critical sectors as well,
affecting several hundred thousand IDPs and host communities.

What we have been witnessing in Darfur, large parts of Somalia, the
Pool region of the Republic of Congo and several other
conflict-affected parts of the continent is a deadly combination:
insecurity, limited access, and massive humanitarian needs that
keep rising as we struggle to catch up.

Apart from conflict, recurrent droughts continue to take their toll
in the Horn of Africa. In Eritrea alone, some 2.2 million people
out of a total population of 3.8 million need food assistance, and
the maternal malnutrition rate of 53 percent is among the highest
in the world. Similarly, in Somalia and Ethiopia, successive
seasons of drought have led to loss of assets, livestock and severe
food insecurity in many parts of both countries.

Last, but by no means least, there are six million people in six
countries in Southern Africa who will be unable to meet their food
needs this year, primarily as result of the "triple threat" of food
insecurity, HIV/AIDS and weakened capacity for governance. Most
destructive is the impact of HIV/AIDS. Last year alone, AIDS caused
close to one million deaths in the region. In Southern Africa,
there are now four million orphans as a result of HIV/AIDS alone,
giving rise to the sad phenomenon of "child-headed households",
left on their own, shunned by neighbors, often HIV-infected, with
no protection and little access to the basics for survival.

Varied Response by the International Community

Mr. President,

How the international community has responded to each of the
humanitarian crises in Africa varies greatly, resulting in gross
inequities that we must find new and more effective ways of
addressing. The chart we distributed shows the funding UN agencies
and NGOs received for each of the consolidated appeals in Africa
for 2004. The coverage ranges from less than 10 percent for
Zimbabwe and less than 40 percent for the Central African Republic
and Cote D'Ivoire, to around three quarters of the appeals met for
Sudan, Chad and Uganda. Without a doubt, the Security Council
helped galvanize the attention and funding we were able to generate
for the crises in Darfur and northern Uganda last year.

I would like to make two specific observations regarding these
figures. The first relates to the situations in Chad and Guinea,
two of the poorest countries in Africa, that have been hosting
large refugee populations. The international response to the needs
of the refugees by and large has been generous. But the political
and humanitarian impact on the two host countries and their
populations has been great, and severely neglected. For example,
vital projects in Guinea Forestiere aimed at economic recovery and
rehabilitation received no funding at all in 2004. Many agencies
have had similar difficulties trying to assist the host communities
in eastern Chad. This kind of imbalance is not only inequitable, it
is also a recipe for rising tension between refugees and host
communities, further instability in already fragile countries, and
potential threats to regional peace and security. We know from
bitter experience what the potential consequences are, so we need
to provide much greater assistance to those host countries and
communities, both in terms of humanitarian relief and political
engagement.

The second point relates to the funding levels for appeals in
several countries that have peacekeeping operations. It is very
troubling that in 2004 the appeals for Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire and
Liberia were all less than 50 percent funded (44, 34 and 48
percent, respectively). These countries are on the Council's agenda
and do not easily fit into the "forgotten emergency" category, and
yet their appeals have been so severely underfunded. We know that
each of these countries is in a critical phase and could easily
slide back into conflict, joining the 44 percent of post-conflict
countries that do so. The underfunding of essential humanitarian
activities greatly exacerbates this risk, particularly when we are
unable to assist in the return and reintegration of IDPs and
refugees, or in the reintegration of former combatants. In Liberia,
only about 12,000 of the 500,000 IDPs, and a few thousand of the
360,000 refugees have returned so far. These numbers are expected
to multiply in 2005 and we will have to be ready to assist those
returning and their home communities. For the rehabilitation and
reintegration of former combatants, agencies in Liberia face a
funding shortfall of almost 60 million US dollars, leaving about
47,000 combatants outside the programme. As in so many other
countries emerging from conflict, they are the most restive and
violence-prone segment of the community, and pose a serious threat
to peace.

The international community is making huge investments in Liberia
and the other countries I mentioned. As Council members know well,
the peacekeeping operation in Liberia alone has an annual budget of
$820 million. But unless we also support the essential humanitarian
and recovery activities that help people return, ex-combatants
reintegrate, and give people hope for the future, these investments
are at risk, and costs can quickly multiply. We have to start
applying the bitter lessons we have learned, and make sure that all
parts of the international community pursue a more comprehensive
approach to these recurring challenges.

A very positive example has been the response of the international
community, led by this Council, in Sierra Leone. Over the last
three years close to 60,000 ex-combatants were disarmed,
demobilized and offered reintegration opportunities. A secure
environment throughout the country allowed essential public
services to resume, rehabilitation to take place at the community
level, and more than 500,000 refugees and IDPs to return. None of
these achievements would have been possible without the Security
Council's leadership, and the sustained engagement and support of
regional partners and donors.

The same is true for the peace between North and South Sudan, which
followed the historic Security Council meeting in Nairobi and years
of intense international and regional mediation efforts. But we now
have to gear up quickly, with the early support of donors, to make
sure that we rise to the many humanitarian challenges that will
result from the peace agreement. Again, helping millions to return
and tens of thousands of combatants to reintegrate into society
will be crucial to consolidate the peace in South Sudan.

Opportunities for Peace and "Humanitarian Dividends"

Mr. President,

Let me now turn to some other encouraging developments,
particularly prospects for peace in two of the most intractable
conflicts in Africa. The humanitarian dividends that result from a
real prospect for a political settlement are almost always
immediate and substantial, and can quite literally be measured in
thousands of saved lives. Instead of running after increasing
levels of need while we have less and less access, needs start
stabilizing, levels of violence decrease, and humanitarian access
starts opening up. The recent progress made in Northern Uganda is
a case in point. Since I last briefed you about Northern Uganda in
October, the security environment has improved thanks largely to
the start of a dialogue between the Government and the Lord's
Resistance Army (LRA). The level of violence is substantially lower
that in the past two years, and the number of IDPs has fallen from
1.6 to 1.3 million people.

The ongoing efforts provide the best opportunity in more than a
decade to bring the conflict to an end. ...

The United Nations stands ready to do its part. When I met with
President Museveni in Kampala in early December, we agreed on an
overall framework of assistance, to be led by the UN, if and when
an agreement is reached with the LRA. The UN will continue to play
the lead role in providing humanitarian assistance to the affected
population in the north and planning for the possible return of
IDPs, as well as organize and support reintegration efforts for
child combatants and provide support for a reconciliation processes
among various sectors of society in northern Uganda.

Somalia is the other long-standing and almost forgotten
humanitarian emergency where we now have the best chance in many
years to make real progress. Humanitarian indicators in many parts
of Somalia are as bad as anywhere in Africa, as I could witness
first-hand during my visit in early December. Mortality rates in
some areas reach two per ten thousand per day and only one Somali
child out of five is in school. Securing access is a daily struggle
involving multiple negotiations with a variety of armed groups and
clans. Despite all these constraints, it is remarkable what aid
agencies have been able to achieve even with the limited funding
available, as the Secretary-General has been reporting to you on a
regular basis.

But I believe that the time is right for the international
community to make a major coordinated push towards peace and
stability in Somalia. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity
presented by the formation of Transitional Federal Government
(TFG), despite the daunting challenges it is facing and recent
setbacks. Again, the potential humanitarian dividends are great if
security and access are improved and even the most basic
administration and essential services are restored, after 14 years
without a central government.

I would strongly encourage the Security Council to continue and
intensify its engagement with Somalia. The Council can help
generate the kind of sustained and coordinated commitment of member
states that we need to have a chance to succeed. While the AU and
IGAD will be critical to this effort, they will need to work hand
in hand with the Council, not least to attract the maximum level of
financial and diplomatic support, particularly for the envisaged
deployment of an AU peace support mission to Somalia. ...

Mr. President,

Allow me to conclude with two comments related to the Tsunami and
the unprecedented speed and generosity of the international
community's response, including dozens of governments and private
contributions from hundreds of thousands of individuals around the
world.

First, as I have been saying since the very beginning of this
outpouring of assistance, we cannot allow any diversion of
assistance away from other humanitarian emergencies. ...

Second, the response to the Tsunami has shown all of us what is
possible when there is a will. I remember sitting in this very room
last summer asking for five helicopters to help save thousands of
lives in Darfur. In the end, we had to hire helicopters
commercially as no member states were willing to provide them.
After the Tsunami, I also appealed for helicopters and, within
days, saw the deployment of several helicopters carriers. Likewise,
never in the history of UN appeals have we been able to cover more
than 70 percent of our requirements in less than one week. It took
until well into the fall of last year to reach a similar level for
Darfur, despite the international attention that crisis received.

Some may say that these situations are not comparable, and that we
will never be able to marshal this kind of response for protracted
armed conflicts in Africa. I believe that, at the very least, we
must try our hardest, be innovative, and quickly build on what we
have witnessed over the last four weeks. We owe that to the
millions of civilians in the crises I have talked about this
morning who are just as innocent, and need our help every bit as
much as the millions affected by the Tsunami.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

Today's Slavery - Teens and Brothels - from NYTimes

2005-01-29T09:31:00.000-05:00

This is part of a whole series of articles - very informative and filled with specific cases and stories - check the NYTimes website - this follows an earlier series done a year ago when he bought freedom for two teen prostitutes and took them home to their villages. Check http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todaysheadlines/

After the Brothel

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: January 26, 2005

Inside a Cambodian Brothel
Nicholas D. Kristof examines the relationship between prostitutes and brothel owners. This feature includes audio and video.
• Series: Freeing Sex Slaves

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

OIPET, Cambodia — When I describe sex trafficking as, at its worst, a 21st-century version of slavery, I'm sure plenty of readers roll their eyes and assume that's hyperbole.

It's true that many of the girls who are trafficked around the world go voluntarily or under coercion too modest to be fairly called slavery. But then there are girls like Srey Rath.

A couple of years ago, at age 15 or 16 (she's unsure of her birth date), Srey Rath decided to go work in Thailand for two months, so that she could give her mother a present for the Cambodian new year.

But the traffickers who were supposed to get her and four female friends jobs as dishwashers smuggled them instead to Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. There, three of the girls, including Srey Rath, were locked up in a karaoke lounge that operated as a brothel and ordered to have sex with customers. Srey Rath indignantly resisted.

"So the boss got angry and hit me in the face, first with one hand and then with the other," she remembers. "The mark stayed on my face for two weeks."

That was the beginning of a hell. The girls were forced to work in the brothel 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and they were never paid or allowed outside. Nor were they allowed to insist that customers use condoms.

"They just gave us food to eat, but they didn't give us much because the customers didn't like fat girls," Srey Rath said.

The girls had been warned that if they tried to escape they could be murdered. But they were so desperate that late one night, after they had been locked up in the 10th-floor apartment where they were housed, they pried a strong board off a rack used for drying clothes. Then they balanced the board, which was just five inches wide, from their window to a ledge in the next building, a dozen feet away.

Srey Rath and four other girls inched across, 10 floors above the pavement.

"We thought that even if we died, it would be better than staying behind," Srey Rath said. "If we stayed, we would die as well." (I talked to another of the Cambodians, Srey Hay, and she confirmed the entire account.)

Once on the other side, they took the elevator down and fled to a police station. But the police weren't interested and tried to shoo them away at first - and then arrested them for illegal immigration. Srey Rath spent a year in a Malaysian prison, and when she was released, a Malaysian policeman drove her away - and sold her to a taxi driver, who sold her to a Thai policeman, who sold her to a Thai brothel.

Finally, after two more months, Srey Rath fled again and made it home this time to the embraces of her joyful family. An aid group, American Assistance for Cambodia, stepped in to help Srey Rath, outfitting her with a street cart and an assortment of belts and keychains to sell. That cost only $400, and now she's thrilled to be earning money for her family.

Over the last five years, the U.S. has begun to combat sex trafficking, with President Bush's State Department taking the lead. But there's so much more that could be done, particularly if the White House became involved. More scolding and shaming of countries with major sex trafficking problems, like Cambodia and Malaysia, would go a long way to get them to clean up their act.

It's mostly a question of priorities. No politician defends sex trafficking, but until recently no one really opposed it much either. It just wasn't on the agenda. If, say, 100 people in each Congressional district demanded that their representatives push this issue, sex trafficking would end up much higher on our foreign policy agenda - and the resulting ripple of concern around the globe would emancipate tens of thousands of girls.

You'll understand the stakes if you ever cross the border from Thailand to Cambodia at Poipet: look for a cart with a load of belts. You'll see a beaming teenage girl who will try to sell you a souvenir, and you'll realize that talk about sex "slavery" is not hyperbole - and that the shame lies not with the girls but with our own failure to respond as firmly to slavery today as our ancestors did in the 1860's.

Anti Landmine Action Plan & Africa case Study

2005-01-27T23:34:00.000-05:00

Africa: Laying Landmines to Rest?

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Dec 9, 2004 (041209)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

At the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World, held in the Kenyan
capital from November 27 to December 3 to review the Ottawa
Convention to Ban Landmines, Ethiopia became the 144th country
to ratify the treaty. In addition to the signatories, the summit
was also attended by 23 states that have not signed the treaty,
including China, Cuba, India, and Egypt. The United States
did not attend.

Instead, the State Department issued a last-minute statement
wishing the conference well and pledging U.S. support for
humanitarian demining, but reaffirming U.S. opposition to the
treaty. While committing itself to cease the use of "persistent"
landmines by the year 2010, the Bush administration still defends
the wartime use of "smart mines," designed to be deactivated after
combat is over.

Delegates and anti-mine campaigners deplored the U.S. failure to
attend, and the failure of other key nations, including China and
Russia, to sign the treaty. Nevertheless, the conference focused on
the considerable progress made since the treaty went into effect
five years ago, and on formulating a multilateral action plan to
continue with implementation.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains three articles from "Laying
Landmines to Rest?: a Web Special on Humanitarian Mine Action (with
special focus on the 2004 Nairobi Summit of a Mine Free World),"
from the UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN). The
full report, which includes both general background and country-
specific articles on Angola, Chad, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, and
Uganda, is available at
http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/hma/default.asp
Note that IRIN reports do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United Nations.

For full official reports from the Nairobi conference, see
http://www.reviewconference.org

For reports from the September 2004 regional conference of African
experts on landmines, see
http://www.reviewconference.org/regional_conferences/addis.htm

For extensive additional information, including a full 2004 report
on compliance with the land mine treaty in the five years since it
came into force, see the website of the International Campaign to
Ban Landmines (http://www.icbl.org).

For the U.S. decision not to attend the Nairobi Summit, see
http://allafrica.com/stories/200411291377.html and
http://allafrica.com/stories/200411291069.html

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

Nations Embrace Anti-Mine Action Plan

December 6, 2004

Nairobi

The summit on a mine-free world ended in the Kenyan capital,
Nairobi, on Friday with delegates adopting a declaration renewing
their commitment to rid the world of the weapons and endorsing a
comprehensive five-year plan aimed at expediting the clearance and
destruction of landmines.

"We renew our unwavering commitment to achieving the goal of a
world free of anti-personnel mines in which there will be zero new
victims," the delegates said in their Nairobi Declaration. "We will
strengthen our efforts to clear mined areas and destroy stockpiled
anti-personnel mines in accordance with our time-bound obligations.
We will assist mine victims and vigorously promote the universal
acceptance of the convention [against landmines]."

The summit was the first review conference of the 1997 UN
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, also known as the Ottawa
Convention. The convention was ratified by 144 countries and is
looking for new member states.

The plan of action commits governments to a wide range of measures
to combat mines and provide care for victims of the weapons during
the next five years. Member nations are obliged to promote the
universalisation of the convention, expedite mine destruction
efforts, meet their 10-year, mine-clearance deadlines and continue
providing care to mine victims.

"State parties will enhance the care, rehabilitation and
re-integration efforts during the period 2005-2009," according to
the plan.

"Only action will save lives and restore victim's dignity," Peter
Herby, head of the mines unit of the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC), said. "This plan must now be used by people who
care about mine victims to ensure more and better action and better
resources in the crucial five years ahead." He added, however, that
the plan was "solid".

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) vowed to keep up
the pressure to ensure the universal implementation of the mine ban
treaty. It described the five-year Nairobi action plan as "concrete
and forward-looking".

"The summit has given us renewed energy, focus and commitment for
the hard work ahead," said Jody Williams, co-laureate with the ICBL
of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. "The Nairobi Summit will be measured
by how vigorously the action plan adopted this week is carried
out."

The ICBL, however, noted that some important issues were not
addressed during the summit. They include whether anti-vehicle
mines that have sensitive fuses, such tripwires or tilt rods that
could easily be set off by a pedestrians, are banned.

It also failed to discuss the question of what activities are
allowed during joint military exercises with states that are not
party to the convention and the issue of the number of
anti-personnel mines retained for training by state parties to the
convention, according to ICBL.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said anti-vehicle mines were also
a threat to human beings.

"We cannot rest until all landmines are cleared and these
indiscriminate weapons [are] banished forever," Annan said in a
speech telecast from New York to delegates at the end of the
summit. "We must persuade more states, including some of the
world's largest, to become parties to the treaty."

Hailing what he described as a "resounding success of the
conference", the president of the Nairobi Summit, Wolfgang
Petritsch of Austria, said the convention was "an outstanding
example of multilateralism working the way it should".

Anti-landmine campaigners were encouraged by the participation of
23 states that are not party to the treaty, including China, Cuba,
Egypt, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia and Sri Lanka, according to
the ICBL.

"Even countries outside the Mine Ban Treaty are taking steps
towards it and are complying in many ways," said Stephen Goose,
head of ICBL's delegation in the Nairobi Summit. "This shows that
an international norm that rejects landmines is taking hold."

Handicap International said more resources were needed to ensure
the success of mine-action programmes.

"Without increased and sustained resources, and lacking better
prioritisation of mine action, many states will not be able to meet
the 10-year deadline for clearance provisioned by the treaty," the
aid agency said in a statement. "This would potentially translate
into the death and maiming of thousands of more mine victims."

According to the Landmine Monitor Report 2004, published by the
ICBL, there are currently 300,000 to 400,000 mine survivors. In
2003, 86 percent of the new casualties reported were civilians and
23 percent children, according to the report.

**************************************************************

Africa: Well-known and invisible killer littered throughout Africa

26 November, 2004

They threaten the peace, stability and development of the world's
poorest continent and kill or mutilate 12,000 people each year.
This was the reason that African governments agreed recently to a
landmark initiative aimed at eliminating an estimated 40 million
landmines from the continent.

At the African Union (AU) headquarters in Addis Ababa, a new
"common African position" was unveiled on 17 September 2004. It
aims to ensure that the continent becomes an anti-personnel mine
(APM) free zone, with a framework largely centred on the 1997
Ottawa Convention. The initiative also stresses inter-African
cooperation as a vital issue in successful mine clearance and calls
for more support for victims and greater transparency by
governments.

Among the innovations that were agreed on was a call by African
nations to countries which have laid landmines throughout the
continent during World War II to "devote a reasonable percentage of
their military budgets" to clearing them.

In Egypt, for example, some 17 million landmines remain buried in
the desert, a deadly legacy of World War II.

The new position was agreed ahead of the Nairobi Summit in November
2004 on a Mine-Free World that will look at the progress made in
the last seven years since the Ottawa Convention was drafted.

Under the convention, which came into force in 1999 and was signed
by 143 countries, nations that are party to the treaty must not
use, stockpile, produce or transfer APMs. Still, even though
African governments had backed the common strategy and some 48
joined the Ottawa Convention, a number of nations have not yet
ratified the treaty. These include Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Morocco
and Somalia.

Ethiopian officials told IRIN that ratification was in the pipeline
and a draft was expected before their parliament meets in the
coming months. They said delays in ratification had stemmed largely
from security concerns along their borders due to conflicts against
neighbouring countries like Eritrea in 1998 and Somalia in 1977.

However, Egypt, whose country is infested with an estimated tenth
of the world's 200 million landmines, is still reluctant to agree
to the convention.

"We do not believe in a total and free ban of landmines as long as
many actors, including the major producers, are still out of the
convention," an Egyptian diplomat told IRIN recently.

"There are three major shortcomings in the Ottawa Convention as far
as we see it," the diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "There
should be a real obligation, not moral obligation, to demine.
States should have the right to get assistance where their
countries have been mined and we also need to differentiate between
landmines for protection, for national security and those landmines
used for other purposes like terrorism. You should be given the
right to defend yourself."

Some 30 countries in Africa report being affected by landmines and
unexploded ordnance and 10, including Angola, Mozambique and Sudan,
say they suffer a high level of casualties.

Said Djinnit, head of the Peace and Security Council at the AU,
described the devastating effects of landmines on the continent and
their impact on development at the conference.

"We have seen innocent people, women and children amputated, lose
their limbs and other vital parts of their bodies - and end up
handicapped," he told delegates. "We have also seen landmines
destroy the healthy and productive part of our active population,
destroy fertile land for agriculture, destroy transport networks
and destroy important natural resources that support life."

Djinnit also told the conference, attended by diplomats, landmine
experts and other officials, that the AU had been at the forefront
of the campaign to ban landmines. Nonetheless, he said ending the
scourge of landmines on the continent had "not been pursued with
all the needed vigour and determination in Africa".

"Landmines continue to be the main impediment to post-conflict
reconstruction and development in our countries," the AU official
added. "Ridding the continent of this invisible and indiscriminate
weapon is crucial for creating conditions for peace, security,
stability and development in Africa, as well as reconciling and
healing societies from the trauma of conflict."

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) told IRIN that
the convention, seen as one of the most successful global treaties,
could also be a template for other weapons legislation. The
organisation believes a similar treaty could be designed around
small or light arms proliferation, a major factor causing
instability on the continent. The convention also contains the
potential for enforcement.

Under the Ottawa Convention, a system of verification exists,
whereby countries believed to be using AMPs, could be subjected to
international inspection. So far, said the ICRC, the verification
system has never been triggered.

The ICRC also stated that sanctions could be imposed on countries
where major concerns of non-compliance exist. While significant
progress has been made, UN landmine experts also noted caution.

Phil Lewis, of the UN's Mine Action Service and also in charge of
mine clearance for the UN peacekeepers monitoring the ceasefire
between Ethiopia and Eritrea, spelled out key concerns that need to
be addressed in adopting a common position. The geography, size and
number of landmines pose tremendous problems, Lewis said.

"Within these huge distances, the actual number of mines laid may
be few, but their effect is often disproportionate to these
numbers," he said. "The fear of entering areas affected by a few
mines remains psychologically the same."

He also noted that non-military forces have laid some mines with no
record of where they were placed. Medical facilities are also weak,
Lewis added. However, he praised the significant progress made in
mine clearance and stressed that the continent has a huge movement
of people willing to help demine.

Austria's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Wolfgang Petritsch, said
progress made in the fight against landmines meant total
eradication could be achieved.

"This is doable," Petritsch, who is president designate of the
Nairobi Summit, told IRIN. "With the achievements we have made in
the last five years, we can rid the world of landmines and make a
significant difference."

**************************************************************

Kenya: Treaty signatory and host to the 2004 Summit

November 22, 2004

Kenya, the host of the upcoming summit of parties to the Ottawa
Convention - that calls for the ban of production and use of
anti-personnel mines (APMs) - has been one of the most active
parties to the Mine Ban Treaty. Kenya completed the destruction of
its stockpile of 38,774 APMs in August 2003, four years ahead of
the 2009 deadline stipulated in the convention, according to
Michael Oyugi, head of the secretariat of the committee organising
the summit, to be held in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December
2004. Some 3,000 mines have been retained for training purposes, he
added.

The decision to hold the summit in an African country is also
significant because the continent is most affected by the hazards
of landmines, according to Oyugi. Although Kenya does not have a
landmine problem, it has - over the years - emerged as a "hub for
humanitarian activities", a factor that makes Nairobi an
appropriate choice as host of the summit, which will also address
the humanitarian dimension of landmines, Oyugi said. Most of the
240,000 refugees in Kenya come from countries affected by the
landmine problem, including Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea.
The refugees include some of those who have lost limbs to landmines
in their countries.

At Lopiding, close to the Kenyan-Sudanse border area of
Lokichoggio, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
runs one of the largest field hospitals in the world, treating
mostly those affected by war in southern Sudan. In 1992, the ICRC
set up an orthopaedic workshop at the Lopiding hospital that makes
artificial limbs for amputees, including victims of landmines, and
fitting those with disabilities with orthoses. Fighting between
Ethiopian troops and rebels of the Oromo Liberation Front has
occasionally spilled over into Kenya, and in the late 1990s there
were several reported cases of the rebels planting mines on the
Kenyan side of the border to prevent Ethiopian forces from pursuing
them. The mines were removed by the Kenyan military mines,
according to Oyugi.

The Convention on the Prohibition on the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of APMs and their Destruction, came into
force on 1 March 1999 and has been widely hailed as the most
successful global disarmament and humanitarian treaty ever, having
been ratified by 143 states. According to Oyugi, Kenya will gain
from a "raised international profile" due to the media focus on the
summit as an estimated 1,500 delegates gather to review the Mine
Ban Treaty.

The gathering is widely seen as the most significant meeting of
world leaders to address the global landmine problem since the
historic Convention signing in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997.
"There is likely to be a tourism spin off from the summit," said
Oyugi, referring to the increased exposure KenyaÆs tourism
industry, one of the countryÆs foreign exchange earners, is likely
to gain during the meeting.

Mereso Agina, the research coordinator of the Kenya Coalition
Against Landmines, hoped that the successful hosting of the mines
summit would lead to the "upgrading" of the United Nations Office
in Nairobi with a view to holding more such international meetings
in Kenya. "That would be a direct benefit to Kenya, promoting the
country as a conference destination with the expected benefits to
the hospitality industry," she said. Nairobi hosts the headquarters
of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United
Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).

The Nairobi Summit is aimed at reviewing issues critical to the
Convention, including deadlines for mine clearance and destruction
of mine stockpiles by state parties to the convention and providing
help to those maimed by landmines. "Some countries may need
assistance to meet the [mine clearing] deadline, for example Angola
- mine clearing is a tedious exercise," said Oyugi. He said the
Nairobi Summit is expected to come up with two documents. One of
them will be a programme of action on how the goals of the
convention are to be achieved, while the second one will be a
political declaration by state parties re-affirming their
commitment to the convention. "The summit is expected to
re-invigorate the convention - give it a new lease on life," Oyugi
added.

Although Kenya does not have a landmine problem, parts of the
countryÆs arid and semi-arid pastoral north and eastern areas are
contaminated with unexploded ordnance (UXO) left behind by foreign
and Kenyan armed forces carrying out training exercises. Regular
military training exercises have been carried out around ArcherÆs
Post in the Eastern Province and Dol Dol in Northeastern Province,
exposing an estimated 600,000 people to potential danger.

In July 2002, the British government agreed to pay compensation of
4.5 million pounds (about seven million euros at that time) to more
than 200 Kenyan members of the Maasai and Samburu nomadic
communities, who were injured or maimed by UXOs left on their land
by the British army. Britain's defence ministry said it accepted
"limited liability" for what happened during a 50-year period
during which, British forces conducted live-fire exercises on land
used for grazing by Maasai and Samburu livestock herders.

UXO-clearance operations have been carried out in the affected
areas by the British army in conjunction with the Kenyan military.
According to last year's report by the International Campaign to
Ban Landmines (ICBL), UXO-clearance teams working in the ArcherÆs
Post area in 2001 and 2002, found four to five pieces of ammunition
per sq km. A Kenyan army-demining unit, serving with the UN Mission
in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), has been involved in mine
clearance along the two countriesÆ border. Ethiopia and Eritrea
fought a bloody two-year border that ended with the signing of a
peace agreement in 2000.

To facilitate travel to Nairobi for registered delegates who will
attend the summit, Kenyan embassies abroad are issuing visas free
of charge, Oyugi said. Delegates from countries where Kenya does
not have embassies will obtain visas on arrival from a special
immigration counter that will be set up at the Jomo Kenyatta
International airport in Nairobi.

...

The summit's official opening ceremony will be held in the Kenyatta
International Conference Centre in central Nairobi on November 28,
presided over by Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki, a day before
delegates shift to the UN complex for the rest of the conference.
It will be attended by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

According to ICBL, most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the most
heavily mined region in the world, are parties or signatories to
the Mine Ban Treaty. There are 23 mine-affected countries in
sub-Saharan Africa, including Angola, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Mozambique and Sudan. In 2002 and 2003, new landmine casualties
were reported in 20 of the 23 mine-affected countries, according to
ICBL.

In many of the mine-affected countries in the African region,
medical facilities and rehabilitation services are in poor
condition, mostly due to a lack of financial resources. Armed
conflict, whether ongoing or in the past, has also taken a heavy
toll on the health infrastructure in several countries, meaning
that landmine survivors have had little hope for rehabilitation and
re-integration into society.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

************************************************************

Nigeria Human Rights report

2005-01-27T23:09:00.000-05:00

Nigeria: Human Rights Report Released

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Jan 26, 2005 (050126)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

The long-awaited report of the Human Rights Violations
Investigation Commission, completed in May 2002 after two years of
public hearings, has now been made public, not by the Nigerian
government but by civil society organizations. In December 2004,
given the Supreme Court ruling that the panel's original mandate
was unconstitutional, the government said it was not planning to
publish the wide-ranging report, which is popularly known as the
Oputa report after the name of the panel's chairman, retired Chief
Justice Chukwudifu A. Oputa.

The Nigerian Democratic Movement (NDM), based in Washington, in
collaboration with the Civil Society Forum in Nigeria, decided to
take the initiative to make this public domain document available
over the internet. It is now being widely distributed in Nigeria
through copies on CD-ROM as well.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the NDM press
release on the report's publication, and brief excerpts taken from
the report's overview volume.

The panel's deliberations covered not only specific human rights
abuses, but also responded to a wide variety of grievances and
issues presented by individual and group petitioners. The panel was
most controversial for the refusal to testify of three former
military rulers, Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari and
Abdulsalami Abubakar. The final report included the recommendation
that they be investigated for suspicious deaths and barred from
governing Nigeria again.

The full 7-volume report and summary recommendations are available,
in downloadable PDF files, at
http://www.nigerianmuse.com/nigeriawatch/oputa, which also contains a timeline and an extensive set of links to news articles on the Oputa Panel report. The downloadable files are also available on several other sites, including
http://cddnig.org/oputapanelreport and
http://www.dawodu.com/oputa1.htm
For additional background and links on Nigeria, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/country/nigeria.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

National Democratic Movement Releases Full Version of Oputa Panel
Report

Press Release, January 1, 2005

National Democratic Movement (NDM)
Washington, DC, USA.

A/ Release of Unofficial Oputa Panel Report

In solidarity with the Civil Society Forum (CSF) in Nigeria, the
Nigerian Democratic Movement (NDM), a Washington-based
pro-democracy organization since 1993, hereby releases unofficially
the full Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (HRVIC),
popularly called the "Oputa Panel Report".

...

C/ Un-official Nature of the Report

This report is NOT a leak, rather a determination of the Civil
Society in Nigeria to spend its own money (rather than wait for
government money), time and effort to make it available to the
world at large. The Commission did its work in the public domain;
the report has ALWAYS been available in the public domain, but
Civil Society in Nigeria had been waiting for two-and-a-half years
(since it was submitted to President Obasanjo in May 2002) to have
the Federal Government spend money to publish it. Now that it is
clear that it is unwilling, unable or incapable of spending that
money, we have decided to relieve it of that burden.

There are no hard feelings.

D/ Court Injunctions

We are aware of challenges to the legality of the Oputa Panel
before several courts in Nigeria, all of which, being so far
unresolved, stop the Federal Government from carrying out some or
all of the recommendations of the Oputa Panel report. None of the
injunctions issued from the courts has stopped its publication. We
respect the courts in the country, but are hopeful that the Federal
Government will VIGOROUSLY defend itself in those courts, so that
the time, money and effort spent in all the nation-wide sittings of
the Panel will not be in vain. Otherwise, future efforts to solicit
the participation of the Nigerian public in discourses, for example
the upcoming "National Dialogue," will always be met with
understandable skepticism.

E/ The Duty of Civil Society and Citizens of Nigeria in 2005 and
beyond

The NDM calls upon all members of organized Civil Society and all
the Citizens of Nigeria to re-dedicate ourselves in this New Year
2005 and beyond towards ensuring greater transparency,
accountability and integrity of ALL of our political and public
officials. The wide dissemination of the Oputa Panel Report in
various formats - including translation of its recommendations in
various Nigerian languages - is a good starting point, as well as
support for Electoral Reform, and the recently-announced revenue-
focused "Citizens for Public Accountability and Integrity in
Nigeria (C-PAIN)".

On its part, the NDM promises to re-engage in the dialogue which
must lead to a New Nigeria.

F/ The Press as the Fourth Estate

The NDM particularly urges the Press in Nigeria to do everything
that it can to disseminate these transparency, accountability and
integrity efforts as a public service, and with minimal cost to the
long-suffering citizens of Nigeria.

God Bless Nigeria ! God give its leaders integrity ! [Amen]

************************************************************

List of downloadable PDF files
[links available on http://nigerianmuse.com/nigeriawatch/oputa]

Summary recommendations [612 Kb]
Volume One - Chairman's Introduction, Origins of the Commission,
etc. [461 KB]
Volume Two - International Context [486 KB]
Volume Three - Research Reports [1.0 MB]
Volume Four - Case-by-Case Records of Public Hearings [1.3 MB]
Volume Five - Briefs on Petition Memos [1.2 MB]
Volume Six - Reparation, Restitution and Compensation [6.0 MB]
Volume Seven - Summary Conclusions and Recommendations [8.2 MB]
Appendix: List of Witnesses [1.4 MB]
Appendix: List of Exhibits [3.9 MB]

*************************************************************

Synoptic Overview of Report Submitted by
Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission

May, 2002

Chairman Hon Justice Chukwudifu A. Oputa CFR, Justice Emeritus,
Supreme Court of Nigeria

Excerpts from Chairman's Foreword

1.2 For much the greater part of the period covered by this Report,
Nigeria was under military rule. During this period, most of our
rulers. principal motivation and pre-occupation were not service to
country but the accumulation of wealth and personal gratification.
1.3 This personal accumulation of wealth led to the decay of our
society. Public and private morality reached its nadir; and the
casualties included human dignity, human rights and our basic
freedoms. We also experienced institutional and structural decay.

1.4 This Report has attempted to provide an over-view of the extent
of our moral, physical and institutional decay under military rule.
The proscription and circumscription of our human rights and
freedoms under military rule were symptomatic of a much serious
malaise, the departure from constitutional or limited government
and with it the absence of accountability and transparency in
public life. This was the ultimate decay involving the
personalization of the governmental process around the military
ruler.

1.5 The return to democratic civilian rule on 29 May 1999 provided
the opportunity for us to rise above this decay, to break the
silence of the past and to forge ahead, determined to lay to rest
the ghost of this dark and painful period in our national history.

1.6 But we must be prepared to confront this history, if we are to
forge ahead. We need to understand it, even if it means asking
unpleasant questions and offering blunt answers. Where did we make
the wrong turn? Who was responsible for what? What opportunities
did we miss and why? What are the major lessons to be learnt? What
do we now need to do to put the past behind us and to look to the
future with renewed hope and patriotic zeal? What are the basic
conditions for us to effect national catharsis?

1.7 This is what we have attempted to do in this Report. We have
tried to be faithful to our terms of reference and to our mandate,
both of which imposed on us the obligation .to review the past;.
and to map out or indicate pathways to enable us as a people
.redress the injustices of the past; [and] to prevent and forestall
future violations..

1.27 To forgive and to reconcile is not necessarily to deny
justice. We should not confuse or conflate justice with prosecution
and with criminal or retributive justice. Viewed in the broader
perspective of legal theory or jurisprudence as well as moral and
political philosophy, reconciliation represents not the antithesis
but the triumph of justice.

1.28 Nigeria now has a nascent and fledgling democracy, with all
its imperfections and teething problems. Managing the transition
from military to democratic civilian rule requires deft and
dexterous navigational skill to avoid land mines and treacherous
waters. To manage the transition successfully and to consolidate it
may require that we sacrifice criminal justice for the higher moral
imperative of reconciliation and to avoid the trauma, anguish and
pain criminal prosecution will give rise to.

1.38 As one of our research teams pointed out, quite correctly, our
national experience with federalism shows that the problem of
marginalization is at the bottom of minority ethnic group fears of
the curtailment or violation of substantive human rights. the right
to selfdetermination, the right to the promotion of their cultural
rights, and their citizenship rights, especially the right to
equitable participation in the cultural, economic and political
life of the country.

1.39 Under simple majoritarian, first-past-the-post competitive
democratic electoral processes, and much more so under
authoritarian regimes ethnic minorities all too easily find
themselves excluded by the structure of power and the rules of the
electoral process, making them less competitive and denying them
access to the State and its enormous patronage.

1.40 A refreshing and confidence-building fall-out from the work of
our Commission is the raising of the issue of minority rights as a
core dimension of gross human rights violations and bringing it on
the agenda of national debate. In this way, such public
consciousness may engender well-thought out remedial public
policies and constitutional guarantee of minority rights, thereby
facilitating national reconciliation.

1.49 Unfortunately, our various military rulers, like all
dictators, were unable to draw this distinction between themselves
and the State. Their intelligence outfits danced to their tune and
their agents also saw themselves as beyond and above the law. This
led to the hounding of journalists and those who criticized their
administrations and policies. Intellectuals and human rights
activists, among other critics of military rule, were arrested and
jailed, without recourse to due process, in the so-called interest
of State security.

1.50 This attitude was also reflected in the protection given to
oil companies, which supplied the much of the needed oil revenue to
various military administrations. Their interests became .State
interests,. which must be protected. This logically led to the
systematic and generalized violations and abuses, which occurred in
the Niger-Delta during the dark period of military rule in the
country, as detailed in Volumes One, Three and Five of this Report.

1.54 The non-appearance of three former Heads of State and a number
of former top government functionaries, when summoned by the
Commission, put to test the theory that in a democracy all men are
equal before the law, that the rule of law and not the rule of man
should prevail. In addition to not appearing, these former Heads of
State filed civil actions challenging the Commission.

1.55 The former Heads of State are: Generals Muhammadu Buhari,
Ibrahim B. Babangida, and Abdulsalami Abubakar. The former top
functionaries are: Colonel Halilu Akilu and Lt-Colonel A.K. Togun.

1.56 Many in Nigeria and, indeed, in the international community,
wondered why these highly placed Nigerians, who had held high
public office, refused to appear and testify in person before the
Commission.

1.57 Although the Commission had the power to issue warrants for
their arrest, it refused to do so, in the over-all interest of
national reconciliation.

Excerpts from historical introduction

6. Despite the lingering multifaceted and complex crises it has
been going through since independence in 1960, the country has
remarkably held together, always pulling away from the precipice,
except for the civil war years between 1967 and 1970. Indeed, many
would argue that perhaps the country's resilience is both its
strength and its weakness.

7. In short, as if in a stupor, the country has tottered on, all
the fears, anxieties and frustrations of nation building,
notwithstanding. Many have concluded that indeed, rather than being
seen as evidence of weakness or fragility, the sense and sentiments
of nationhood actually run deep in the veins of Nigerians.
Nigerians love their country. They want to see it united and
strong. The real problem is, at what cost and who bears the brunt?

8. The missing link appears to be the inability of the ruling elite
and the political class to establish a nexus between the yearnings,
desires, hopes and aspirations of its young and coming generation
and the design and construction of a new future for Nigeria.

9. It is arguable that the continuing frustration about the
character of the polity is not unconnected with the general feeling
among the Youth in the age brackets of 30-40 and below that earlier
generations of the political class have squandered their hopes and
future.

10. There is the feeling that the country's political leadership
has been greedy, self-serving and lacking in serious political
will, contributing in no small measure to the crises of democracy
and development, which have delayed the country's march to
nationhood.

11. When the military seized political power in January 1966, there
was a general feeling in the country that they were motivated by
altruistic intentions and objectives to save the country from
descent into political chaos and instability.

12. As time passed, the country's military rulers and the military
as an institution by and large lost their sense of direction. The
greed of the military dragged the nation further and further away
from the project of nationhood. The result is that by the end of
almost thirty years of military rule, Nigeria is far more
fragmented than it was in January 1966, when the military first
seized power.

13. The democratic struggle against military rule in the country,
whose high water mark was the return to democratic civilian rule on
29 May 1999, symbolizes and marks the return to the project of the
three Rs (Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Reconciliation), which
the military enunciated after the end of the civil war in January
1970.

Excerpts from findings

90. Clearly, the military are to be held accountable for gross
human rights violations in the country, during the period under
review. This is exemplified by cases of torture at the Intercentre,
DMI headquarters in Lagos and Jos Prison by the military. All the
other prisons in Nigeria failed so far below the standards of the
United Nations that they became torture centres.

91. Oil, one of the greatest blessings God has showered on our
nation, has turned out to be a curse. Instead of providing the
basis for national economic, political, scientific/technological
and social growth and development, cushioning its citizens from the
scourge of abject poverty, squalor and want, oil became, in the
hands of the ruling elite and the political class, an instrument
sounding the death-knell of such key principles of good governance
as democracy, federalism, transparency, accountability and national
growth. Oil was the mainstay of the economy and the junta saw any
inhibition to its flow as a breach of security. Consequently,
legitimate complaints/agitations against oil pollution by host
communities were violently suppressed. We therefore had to pay a
heavy prize in lives and human rights violations.

93. Unable to accept defeat, some politicians often turned to their
military contacts as a means to regain access to political power
and the access to the state coffers flowing from it. Given that
politics is essentially about capturing power, the business class
has often been unable to subordinate its interests to those of the
nation. The result is that wealthy and influential Nigerians have
used their resources to bankroll coup plotters. We therefore hold
that they were accomplices and therefore should be held accountable
for the resultant human rights violations. The politicians should
imbibe democratic spirit. This is because the desperation to win at
all costs propels them to use the army to resolve political
problems through coups with resultant violation of human rights.

94. If democracy is to take firm roots in Nigeria, then the various
segments of the stakeholders in the polity must realize that, no
matter the nature of their interests, such interests can only be
attained within the boundaries of a democratic and stable nation.

95. This means that politicians must learn to accept the rules of
the game. Those who win elections must realize that they have not
won a price for themselves and their party, but that they have won
a national trust. Those who lose elections must realize that it is
easier to go back to the drawing board and wait for the political
calendar to turn around than to resort to the military solution,
which has no timetable, as such.

97. Sadly enough, both Islam and Christianity have never really
been able to rise above the limitations of their intra- and inter-
denominational and sectarian cleavages. The result is that the
country is now caught up in what has come to be known as the
problem of religion in Nigeria. Religious intolerance has been the
main cause of communal clashes with attendant loss of lives and
gross human rights violations. ...

99. However, the religious bodies ought to have done much more than
they did in the struggle against human rights violations,
especially during the dark days of the late Abacha regime. On the
whole, the politicization of religion has undermined religion.

100. A new responsibility has now devolved on both the leadership
of Christianity and Islam to respond appropriately to the
challenges of nation building and to help in laying a solid
foundation for a Nigeria that promotes and respects human rights
under the rule of law.

113. Nigerians agree that corruption in public life, which was
pronounced under military rule, has reached alarmingly pandemic
proportions, and should now be a matter of very serious and
pressing public policy concern.

114. From the evidence, which the Commission received, it is clear
that the quest for political power personal enrichment was largely
the driving force for military interventions in politics. The
military tended to treat the state as a conquered territory and
proceeded to treat the proceeds of state as spoils of war to be
shared among the members of the military, the conquering forces of
occupation.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned.
************************************************************

Africa Policy outlook 2005

2005-01-27T22:53:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends,

Africa Action this morning released our new "Africa Policy Outlook 2005". This annual publication, posted below, forecasts the key issues and developments in Africa policy in the coming year, and analyzes trends in U.S. relations with Africa under the current administration. It is also available at http://www.africaaction.org/ We are also including below the press release on the Policy Outlook, which was released this morning.

Africa Action
---

Africa Action Releases "Africa Policy Outlook 2005"

Highlights need for action on Debt and Darfur Genocide

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 (Washington, DC) - Just one week after the inauguration of President Bush to a second term in office, Africa Action today released its Africa Policy Outlook 2005, also published by Foreign Policy in Focus. This annual publication forecasts the key issues and developments in Africa policy in the coming year, and analyzes trends in U.S. relations with Africa under the current administration. It is now available at http://www.africaaction.org/

Africa Action notes that, "This year’s calendar of global events and negotiations indicates an international focus on three key issues of importance to Africa - debt, aid, and trade - and some progress is likely on each in 2005. But while a new international focus on Africa is warranted, the sad reality is that 2005 risks being another year of compassionate showmanship rather than a year of sea change."

Director of Policy Analysis & Communications, Ann-Louise Colgan, said today, "Despite their promises to support Africa’s priorities, the failure of the Bush Administration and European governments to join Africans to stop another unfolding genocide in Africa, this time in Darfur, may yet be the darkest stain on their record in 2005."

The debts of impoverished countries will be on the agenda at the G-7 Finance Ministers’ meeting in London in early February, but Africa Action notes, "While some deal on debt is expected in 2005, campaigners will continue to push for 100% cancellation, and will not be satisfied with any new creditor proposals to reduce Africa’s debt burden to so-called 'sustainable' levels, or to merely reduce countries’ debt service payments."

Africa Action emphasizes that Africa’s debt crisis undermines the continent’s efforts to address poverty and HIV/AIDS, and notes that the UN estimates that African countries are still 150 years away from meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The goals, to be reviewed in September 2005, comprise a range of development benchmarks that overall seek to reduce extreme poverty by half by 2015.

Colgan added, "The massive and rapid resource mobilization for the tsunami victims stands in stark contrast to the minimal level of global attention and resources given to crises that are less visible but equally deadly in Africa, such as HIV/AIDS."

As President Bush begins his second term, Africa Action’s Executive Director Salih Booker said this morning, "In measuring the claims events of 2005, we must not be fooled by compassionate charades. The real interests of the Bush Administration in Africa are oil and geo-strategic alliances, and the measure of its commitment to African priorities must be judged this year by its actions on debt cancellation, on HIV/AIDS and on genocide in Darfur."

The "Africa Policy Outlook 2005" is available at http://www.africaaction.org/

####

Africa Policy Outlook 2005

January 26, 2005

by Ann-Louise Colgan

There are some people in the world’s wealthy countries who forecast that 2005 will be a decisive year for Africa.

In the U.S., President Bush begins his second term in office with administration officials and pundits claiming that he has done more for Africa than any previous U.S. President. Britain this year holds the rotating presidency of both the European Union and Group of 8 (G-8) wealthy nations, and Prime Minister Blair has declared that addressing Africa’s poverty will be the centerpiece of his agenda.

In 2005, a confluence of major international events will also spotlight Africa’s poverty-related challenges, and will highlight the need for the world’s richest countries to do more in support of Africa’s efforts. In July, Britain will host the G-8 summit in Scotland. In September, a United Nations (UN) Special Summit will review progress on the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to reduce by half the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. In December, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) sixth ministerial conference in Hong Kong will reveal whether the Doha round of global trade talks have secured new deals to benefit the world’s most impoverished countries.

Civil society campaigns in the U.S. and in Britain are also pushing 2005 as a special opportunity for rich country leaders to address poverty in Africa and other impoverished regions. They are optimistic about victories on debt cancellation, aid and trade this year.

It is important to note that these international meetings and campaigns are Northern-dominated and rarely include African input. Indeed, they can have the effect of drowning out African voices. Meanwhile, on the ground, African civil society campaigns, and some African governments, continue to demand real action on priority issues defined by Africans.

Then how should we measure the outcomes of these opportunities? For, while a new international focus on Africa is warranted, and while much more can and must be done to address the continent’s challenges, the sad reality is that 2005 risks being another year of "compassionate showmanship" rather than a year of sea change. The poor track record of the U.S. and other rich countries when it comes to Africa requires us to watch carefully what transpires in 2005 and to be clear on how we will measure the success of their actions this year and beyond.

As genocide continues to unfold in Darfur, Sudan, the failure of the Bush Administration and other rich country governments to stop another such crime against humanity in Africa may yet be the darkest stain on their record in 2005.

The Bush Administration: Africa’s Friend?

Over the past four years, George W. Bush has sought to portray himself as a "compassionate conservative" who cares about Africa, and in some circles he has succeeded in displacing his predecessor Bill Clinton as the U.S. President who is considered to have done most for the continent. As we face a second Bush Administration term, such high-sounding claims deserve scrutiny, as do our criteria for assessing the achievements of U.S. Africa policy.

The reality is that there has been a good deal of consistency in U.S. relations with Africa since decolonization and the Cold War. Successive U.S. Administrations have been motivated by calculations of Africa’s geo-strategic significance, with the U.S. seeking to foster military and security relationships which advance its own agenda. U.S. policies have similarly been driven by the quest for Africa’s natural resources, and have sought to promote greater trade and investment ties with key states on the continent.

In the 1990s, through successful public relations efforts, President Bill Clinton became known as a great friend to Africa. He made a much-publicized trip to the continent, the first substantive trip by a U.S. President in American history. Clinton proclaimed great concern for Africa’s challenges and a commitment to enabling Africans to reach the continent’s potential by encouraging trade, promoting debt relief, and supporting democracy throughout the continent. In fact, the symbolism of Clinton’s Africa policy in many ways succeeded in masking the real damage that was done by his Administration, which ignored the genocide in Rwanda, failed to address the growing crisis of HIV/AIDS, abandoned the democracy movement in Nigeria and reconstruction efforts in Somalia, and neglected peacekeeping efforts in West Africa and elsewhere.

George W. Bush stated clearly in 2000 that Africa was not a priority, and the past four years have confirmed that while also maintaining a good deal of continuity with the Africa policy of his predecessor. Indeed, we have witnessed a similar duplicity, with the White House promoting its own economic and military agenda but seeking at the same time to portray itself as a great friend to Africa. The White House emphasizes that President Bush met with 25 African heads of state in his first two years in office, announced new initiatives on HIV/AIDS and aid, and pledged to significantly increase U.S. funding for both. He traveled to the African continent in 2003 for a five-day five-country trip. In 2004, his Administration recognized that genocide was taking place in Darfur, Sudan and claimed to be addressing this crisis.

Again, as under the Clinton Administration, the "compassion spin" has in some ways succeeded in masking the aggressive pursuit by the Bush White House of its own economic and military-strategic interests in Africa, and the consequent marginalization of African priorities. In other words, the Bush Administration’s real interests in Africa are oil and strategic allies in the "war on terror" (see Africa Policy Outlook 2004). Its new initiatives on HIV/AIDS and foreign aid reach very few countries and remain under-funded, and the U.S. has failed to take real action to stop the genocide it has acknowledged in Darfur.

Yet while we have seen similar U.S. policies toward Africa pursued over successive Administrations, what sets the current White House apart, and harms Africa’s interests in important ways, are two key tenets of its foreign policy philosophy. The first is its rejection of the process and principle of multilateralism when it comes to addressing urgent global issues. The second is its embrace of the ideology of the religious right, and the promotion of this ideology in its policies at home and abroad. Both of these tendencies undermine Africa’s priorities, and particularly the fight against HIV/AIDS.

So while the Bush Administration will continue to tout what it’s doing for Africa, it is important to look beyond such quantitative benchmarks as the number of African leaders who visit the White House or even the number of new initiatives pledged to help impoverished countries. These measures reveal little about the substance of U.S. policy toward Africa. Instead, a more sophisticated and qualitative measure is required, which examines the nature of U.S. initiatives and the reality of their implementation.

This Year’s "Hot Topics" - Debt, Aid & Trade

This year’s calendar of global events and negotiations indicates an international focus on three key issues of importance to Africa - debt, aid, and trade - and some progress is likely on each in 2005.

On debt, activism around the world in recent years has led to a growing realization on the part of rich countries that something must be done to address the debt crisis in the world’s most impoverished countries. There has also been an increasing acknowledgment that the current debt relief framework - the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative - has failed to resolve this crisis. African countries continue to struggle under an unsustainable burden of debt, and are still required to spend some $15 billion in debt service payments to wealthy creditors each year. Most African countries must spend more on debt service payments that they can spend on health care and education combined.

Last year, 100% multilateral debt cancellation for impoverished countries was put on the table for the first time during discussions among the Group of 8 leaders in June and then among their Finance Ministers in the fall. While these meetings produced statements in support of 100% debt cancellation, an agreement was not reached on the list of eligible countries or on the mechanism through which this would be financed.

There are still some differences between the U.S. and UK in these regards. The U.S. has claimed that it supports multilateral debt cancellation for 42 countries, to be paid for by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and that it sees a move from loans to grants at the World Bank as one key to breaking the debt cycle. However, the U.S. Treasury Department refuses to recognize the illegitimate nature of these debts, and has indicated that its main concern is really "debt sustainability". This concept refers to how much debt a country can carry without inhibiting economic growth, but it fails to acknowledge that no amount of debt can be sustainable for African countries at a moment when they face the worst health crisis in human history.

The UK, on the other hand, supports a less-ambitious debt deal for about 20 impoverished countries, but does not want the World Bank to use its own resources to cover this. Instead, the UK proposes that G-7 countries take over debt service payments on behalf of eligible countries for an initial 10 years, but without canceling their debts. The UK launched this new plan in January 2004 when Finance Minister Gordon Brown signed a deal with Tanzania to take over 10% of the debt payments it owes to the World Bank and the African Development Bank for 10 years.

Despite these disagreements, there are indications that an agreement can be expected in 2005 on some form of debt relief or cancellation for some sub-set of deeply impoverished countries. This will next be discussed at the "Group of 7" Finance Ministers meeting in February, and, if there is no resolution at this point, it is expected to be on the agenda of the G-8 summit in July.

Meanwhile, civil society groups and some governments in Africa and elsewhere in the global South continue to call for outright and unconditional debt cancellation, emphasizing that these debts are illegitimate and should not have to be repaid. They urge the Bush Administration to apply the same standard it has in calling for the cancellation of Iraq’s odious debt to the odious and illegitimate debts of African countries. Just as some creditor countries have offered to freeze bilateral debt repayments for the impoverished countries worst affected by the recent tsunami, campaigners call for Africa’s debt to be written off to enable the continent to spend its own resources on its own urgent priorities. With some deal on debt expected in 2005, campaigners will be entitled to claim victory but will continue to push for 100% cancellation. They will not be satisfied with any new creditor proposals to merely reduce Africa’s debt burden to "sustainable" levels, or to simply reduce countries’ debt payments.

Even after debt cancellation, additional development assistance will still be required for African countries to be able to address the challenges of poverty and HIV/AIDS. 2005 is a benchmark year for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of international development goals that seek to improve health, education and the environment across the world, with the overarching aim of reducing by half the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. When the UN meets in September to review progress toward these goals, it will be clear that while some regions are on track, Africa remains the exception. In fact, an interim UN report has revealed that, at current pace, Africa won’t reach these goals until 2169 - and that will still only have reduced poverty there by half. The United Nations states that meeting the MDGs will require a doubling of annual development assistance from rich countries to impoverished countries throughout the world, to $135 billion in 2006, then rising to $195 billion by 2015. It describes this as "entirely affordable", particularly when the world’s military budget is $900 billion a year.

The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) proposed by President Bush in 2002 was supposed to increase U.S. foreign aid over 3 years by an additional $10 billion, so that by 2007 the U.S. would be spending 50% more ($15 billion per year) on foreign aid than previously. But the MCA is already running behind schedule, and has yet to disburse any funds. In 2004, $1 billion was appropriated for this account, and for 2005 this was only slightly increased to $1.25 billion, which is only half of what the White House requested. This amount remains far short of what the U.S. can and should provide, and is only a tiny fraction of what Africa needs. In addition, the MCA only directs aid to a handful of countries that meet specific political and economic conditions, so this initiative actually does little to support poverty reduction in the world’s most impoverished countries because most are ineligible for its funding.

The UK, for its part, has pledged to double its bilateral aid to Africa, to reach $1.9 billion by 2005. Gordon Brown has also proposed an International Finance Facility, which would allow countries to front-load aid by borrowing against future commitments, in order to support efforts to reach the MDGs. But it is clear that even with small increases in rich country aid budgets in recent years, far more resources will be needed to support African efforts to promote development.

Not only are aid flows insufficient, the patterns in which they are directed increasingly reflect geo-strategic concerns rather than efforts to reduce poverty. An Oxfam report from December 2004 warns that the "war on terror" and related geo-strategic calculations are dictating where aid money is directed in a dynamic reminiscent of the Cold War. Over the past 3 years, flows of aid from the U.S. to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan were equal to aid to the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, when up to 70% of U.S. foreign aid is tied to an obligation to use that money to buy goods and services from the U.S., this immediately undermines development efforts in African countries.

While to some the MDGs represent a useful political tool to mobilize international support for development, they have been criticized by many groups in the global south as being an over-simplified summary of the development commitments and targets that UN member states have agreed to at international conferences since the 1990s. Groups such as FEMNET (the African Women’s Development and Communications Network) have critiqued the failure of the MDGs to make the correlation between achieving these development goals and the larger structural changes needed to achieve them. The goals may represent some key benchmarks in development progress, but they are all different indicators of the same poverty, and must be addressed at the same time, and at a structural level, to ensure real and sustainable human development.

Although there will be a lot of discussion of the MDGs this year, announcements of new money from rich countries appear unlikely. This despite the acknowledgment that reaching these goals in Africa and other impoverished regions will remain impossible without vast amounts of additional resources.

In a very self-serving way, rich countries continue to argue that integrating developing countries into the global economy through trade and investment is a more effective and sustainable way of reducing poverty than is aid or debt relief, so December’s WTO meeting will be seen as significant for Africa. African governments and civil society organizations claim that developing countries lose more in blocked access to rich country markets each year than they gain in aid. In this sense, the WTO meeting in Hong Kong is seen by some as a real test of whether rich countries are willing to deliver on the promises they made at the 2001 WTO Ministerial in Doha - to move away from protectionist policies and reduce tariffs and agricultural subsidies in order to promote economic opportunities for the world’s most impoverished countries.

Despite the commitments made at Doha and subsequent trade meetings, the U.S. and rich countries have yet to take convincing steps toward fulfilling their promises to reform the global trade system to promote equity and development. While the collapse of the Cancun trade meeting in 2003 indicated a watershed moment in North-South trade negotiations, when developing countries stood together in defense of their development
priorities, it is unclear whether progress made since then means rich countries are prepared to take action this year on contentious issues, such as agricultural subsidies. As a result, some commentators predict that the outcomes of the WTO meeting in December may in fact bring very few benefits, if any, to impoverished countries - a result which would clearly make a lie of previous commitments of rich country governments in this area, and could also threaten the future of the multilateral trading system.

While multilateral trade negotiations prove difficult, the U.S. remains focused on securing bilateral and regional trade agreements that can promote greater access for U.S. corporations to African markets. It continues to pursue a free trade agreement with the five-nation Southern African Custom Union (SACU), which would guarantee preferential access for U.S. companies to this export market. Last year, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was extended and the President announced in December 2004 that 37 countries will be eligible for AGOA in 2005. Since passing in 2000, this Clinton-era policy has become the centerpiece of U.S. economic relations with Africa, offering slightly improved access to U.S. markets to select countries for select products.

The latest U.S. Africa trade profile indicates that two-way trade between the U.S. and Sub-Saharan remains highly concentrated, both in terms of partners and in terms of products. A very small number of African countries account for the lion’s share of total imports and exports. Key U.S. trading partners in Africa are the key oil producers on the continent, including Nigeria, Angola and Gabon, and the largest recipients of investment are also the major oil producers. In 2003, 70% of all U.S. imports from Africa were oil imports, and fully 80% of AGOA imports were petroleum products.

Oil is likely to remain a key motivator of U.S. Africa policy in the coming year. The amount of oil the U.S. imports from Africa will continue to increase, as will the importance of securing that oil supply through strategic military relations.

HIV/AIDS & Genocide in Africa - International Failures

It is not yet clear to what extent African priorities of defeating HIV/AIDS and promoting peace and security will feature on the agenda of rich countries in 2005. But what is already quite clear is the abject failure of these countries to respond to such priorities in Africa with the urgency they require.

The latest annual AIDS epidemic update released in December 2004 reveals that Sub-Saharan Africa is still by far the worst affected region in the world - home to up to 28 million people living with HIV/AIDS, or 64% of the global total. African women, particularly young African women, are disproportionately affected by this pandemic. It is estimated that almost 4 times as many young women as young men now live with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.

U.S. policies on HIV/AIDS in Africa remain completely inadequate in the face of a crisis of this magnitude. The so-called "President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief" (PEPFAR) began disbursing money in 2004, but focuses on only a dozen African countries. For 2005 Congress has appropriated $2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and malaria programs worldwide, which is a slight increase from the previous year but still is far less than is needed and very far from Bush’s original promise of $3 billion per year for HIV/AIDS in Africa alone.

Beyond the inadequate funding levels, the approach of U.S. policies on HIV/AIDS continues to contradict what are some of the most important ways to address this crisis in Africa. Rather than promoting access to cheaper, generic versions of essential HIV/AIDS medications, the Bush Administration places a priority on its ties with the pharmaceutical lobby, and instead approves only the use of expensive name-brand drugs. These generally cost 3 times as much as the generic versions, thereby reaching only one-third of potential beneficiaries.

In addition, the Bush Administration’s embrace of the ideology of the religious right has led it to promote an abstinence-only approach to HIV prevention strategies at home and abroad. This perspective dangerously places a premium on ideology over science and flies in the face of what is known about the most effective ways to stem the spread of this disease in Africa and elsewhere. And abstinence-only prevention programs do little to support the needs of women, when many of those contracting HIV are staying faithful to one partner, and when effective prevention clearly hinges on women’s sexual and reproductive rights.

Meanwhile, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has proven to be an effective mechanism for addressing this pandemic in some 127 countries, remains under-funded by the U.S. and other rich countries. Despite the demonstrated efficacy of the Global Fund, the U.S. still favors its own unilateral approach to addressing HIV/AIDS in Africa and globally.

HIV/AIDS remains the biggest challenge facing the African continent, but no major new actions are expected from rich country governments in this area in 2005. Britain intends to promote the more rapid pursuit of an HIV vaccine as part of its G-8 agenda, but while this is an important part of the global fight against AIDS, it does little to address the urgent needs of the nearly 3 million people who will die in Africa this year without access to essential treatment.

It is also unclear what action can be expected this year from the international community on the ongoing genocide in Darfur. It is now estimated that as many as 400,000 people have died in the past two years as a result of a government-sponsored campaign of genocide in this western region of Sudan. The U.S. government remains the only country to have rightfully declared that what is happening in Darfur constitutes genocide, but its actions in response have been wholly inadequate, even callous. When declaring a finding of genocide four months ago, Secretary of State Powell also stated that this required no further action on the part of the U.S. Similarly, other UN members have revealed their unwillingness to take action, even as the violence and related humanitarian crisis in Darfur cost an additional 1,000 lives each day.

The U.S. and other countries recently applauded the signing of a peace deal in Sudan that brought to an end the decades-long war between North and South, but they also state that the crisis in Darfur must not be ignored. Negotiations between the Khartoum government and the Darfur rebels are set to resume in Nigeria at the end of January. A UN Commission of Inquiry will report in February 2005 as to whether it believes genocide is indeed taking place. But no urgent international action is on the agenda, and the intervention that is necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur seems unlikely without greater public pressure (which is growing in the U.S.). The limited African Union force in Darfur - only 1,000 troops of a promised 4,000 strong force - remains completely inadequate and overwhelmed, and lacks the troop strength, logistical support, and, most importantly, the mandate to protect civilians. The UN and its member nations will continue to discuss sanctions and embargos in the coming months, but there is no sign of a willingness on the part of any of the most world’s powerful nations to take action to stop this crime against humanity.

Democracy & Peace

The recent signing of the historic North-South peace deal in Sudan brings to an end the longest-running war in Africa, and brings hope for the future democratization, political stability and economic prosperity of that country. Even while the ongoing crisis in Darfur casts a long shadow, 2005 will see some key steps toward the formation of a new coalition government in Sudan, and some observers hope that this may help to resolve the situation in Darfur and Sudan’s larger national political crisis. The U.S. was instrumental in promoting North-South negotiations in Sudan in recent years, though the African negotiators were the most important agents in securing the peace that was signed in January 2005.

In Zimbabwe, elections to be held in March will attract significant international attention and will have major implications for the region and for the continent. It is not yet clear whether the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) will participate in the elections, but there are already concerns about whether these elections can truly be free and in light of government-imposed limitations on campaigning and restrictions on the media, among other repressive measures. These elections are a real test for Zimbabwe’s political future and for African leaders’ willingness to hold each other accountable.

In West Africa, two key elections are expected in 2005 - in Cote D’Ivoire and in Liberia - and both are considered very important for the political stability and economic prospects of that whole sub-region. In East Africa, there are hopes that this year may see the recently-elected government of Somalia move out of exile in Kenya and to the Somali capital, Mogadishu. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the first general elections since independence in 1960 are planned for June 2005, though they may be postponed until later in the year. There are real procedural and logistical challenges to holding this election, and the eastern part of the country remains very unstable. A December 2004 report from the International Rescue Committee reveals that over the past six years, 3.8 million people have died in DRC as a result of ongoing conflict, with most deaths the result of preventable disease and hunger.

Liberia, Somalia and DRC were all key U.S. allies during the Cold War, and the turmoil they have experienced over the past decade or more is in large part the result of the previous destabilizing influence of the U.S. Each country now faces an important moment in 2005, and a new chance to achieve peace and stability, though a sustained commitment from the U.S. to supporting these aspirations is unlikely.

Conclusion

The year has begun with a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions in the Indian Ocean, and, as the world struggles to help the countries of south Asia respond to this crisis, there are fears that this may divert attention and resources from Africa’s needs in the coming year.

What is perhaps more significant is how the rapid and massive resource mobilization for the tsunami victims stands in stark contrast to the minimal level of global attention and resources given to crises that are less visible but equally deadly in Africa. In the first two weeks after the tsunami, international donors pledged more than $5 billion to tsunami relief - an amount almost equal to the total amount that the UN received for all humanitarian relief efforts globally last year. The global AIDS crisis, which costs about 3 million lives each year, received pledges of only $3.6 billion from all rich country governments for the whole of 2004.

If 2005 is to be a decisive year for Africa, the U.S. and other rich country governments must replace compassionate charades with serious action in support of Africa’s most urgent priorities. They must cancel Africa’s debts, greatly increase their funding to fight HIV/AIDS, fulfill their previous promises on trade-related reforms, and support multilateral efforts to promote peace & security in Africa, with the immediate priority of ending the genocide in Darfur.

* Ann-Louise Colgan is Director of Policy Analysis and Communications at Africa Action, the oldest Africa advocacy organization in the U.S.

--

Africa Action
1634 Eye Street NW, #810
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-546 7961 * http://www.africaaction.org

USA & torture? Analysis & recommendations

2005-01-23T09:24:00.000-05:00

Human Rights Not Hollow Words
Amnesty International Letter

Wednesday 19 January 2005

An appeal to President George W. Bush on the occasion of his re-inauguration.
Mr President,

In your inaugural address four years ago, you promised to be a leader who would "speak for greater justice". Since then, a much repeated promise of your administration has been that the USA will adhere to fundamental principles of human dignity and the rule of law, including in the context of the "war on terror". The National Security Strategy devotes an entire chapter to asserting that in its pursuit of security, the USA will "stand firmly for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity", including the rule of law. The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism concludes that "a world in which these values are embraced as standards, not exceptions, will be the best antidote to the spread of terrorism". Just last month, on Human
Rights Day, you proclaimed that respect for human rights and the rule of law line the route to peace and security. Amnesty International agrees.

Your stated opposition to torture would appear on the face of it to be similarly principled. On 26 June 2003, for example, you issued a statement that:
"Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law...The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example."

In similar vein, on 26 June 2004, to mark the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, you stated that:
"The non-negotiable demands of human dignity must be protected without reference to race, gender, creed, or nationality. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law... America stands against and will not tolerate torture. We will investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction."

Of course, a government should not be assessed on its words alone, but also on its actions. For things may not be as officially described. As you yourself pointed out in your 26 June 2003 statement on torture, "notorious human rights abusers... have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors".

Your administration has as a matter of policy for more than three years denied international human rights monitors, including Amnesty International, access to detainees held by the USA in the "war on terror", in addition to routinely denying detainees access to the courts, legal counsel and relatives. In addition, US personnel have staged deceptions in order to
subvert basic human rights protections and the rule of law. Certain detainees, for example, have been moved around or left unregistered in order that they can be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The full extent of this practice remains unknown - last September General Paul Kern told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there may
have been as many as 100 so-called "ghost detainees" in US custody in Iraq. An unknown number of detainees are believed to remain held in secret locations by the USA or with its connivance, amounting to "disappearance" in some cases. The Pentagon refuses to give precise numbers of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, raising concern that this imprecision could facilitate secret detainee transfers. In early 2004, for example, approximately seven detainees remained unaccounted for in the official announcements about transfers to and from Guantánamo.

The USA is alleged to have been involved in numerous secret transfers of detainees between itself and countries known to use torture, or to have employed extrajudicial abductions of individuals in order to subject them to executive detention and interrogation. For example, Khaled El-Masri, a German national of Lebanese origin, told Amnesty International in June 2004
that there had been US involvement in his alleged secret transfer from Macedonia to detention and ill-treatment in Kabul in early 2004. He also told the organization that he had learned of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan being hidden from the ICRC. As has been the pattern with your administration - which claims to be committed to working with non-governmental organizations to ensure worldwide respect for international human rights standards, but which routinely fails adequately to respond to such organizations in matters concerning its own alleged misconduct - Amnesty International is still awaiting a reply to the letter it sent to the US authorities five months ago raising the allegations made by Khaled
El-Masri.

Your administration's pick and choose approach to the Geneva Conventions has caused widespread international concern. Amnesty International believes that this selective disregard for international humanitarian law principles has contributed to torture and ill-treatment by US forces and to the degree of lawlessness which has marked the USA's waging of the "war on terror". It is now known that you were advised by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in January 2002 that a determination that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to those captured in the international armed conflict in Afghanistan would free up US interrogators and make their future prosecution for war crimes less likely. Since your decision, allegations of torture and ill-treatment by US forces in Afghanistan and Guantánamo - and the subsequent migration of this phenomenon to Iraq - have been persistent, and such allegations continue to emerge from both detainee and non-detainee
sources.

Having taken the decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to those held in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, you sought to dispel concern about the treatment of such detainees by saying that they would be treated "in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva". However, this assertion has always been qualified with the phrase "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity". The legal concept of military necessity cannot lawfully be used to override the prohibition on torture or ill-treatment, but there is mounting evidence that the USA has violated this principle under your leadership.

A number of detainees in Guantánamo, for example, have been kept from the ICRC on the grounds of "military necessity". One of them is believed to have been Abdallah Tabarak, who was transferred to his native Morocco last year. Since his repatriation, he has claimed that in Guantánamo he was beaten, given forcible injections, and held in a dark cell which has left him with eyesight problems. He said that he suffers from other physical ailments as a result of his confinement, as well as insomnia and nightmares. In the case of another Guantánamo detainee, Mohammed al-Kahtani, a harsh interrogation plan was developed, apparently justified by the US authorities on the grounds of "military necessity". Mohammed al-Kahtani was reportedly put on a plane, blindfolded in conditions of sensory deprivation, and made to believe that he was being flown to the Middle East. After several hours in the air, the plane returned to Guantánamo and Mohammed al-Kahtani was allegedly put in an isolation cell and subjected to harsh interrogations conducted by people he was encouraged to believe were Egyptian security agents. This interrogation technique is known as "false flag" and has been approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon's Working Group report of April 2003 promotes the technique of threatening to transfer the detainee to a third country, "where subject is likely to fear he would be tortured or killed". Released Guantánamo detainee Tarek Dergoul has alleged that his interrogators threatened him with transfer to Morocco and Egypt where he would be tortured. Fellow United Kingdom national Moazzam Begg, subjected to prolonged and cruel isolation in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, has alleged that he was threatened by US agents with transfer to Egypt and terrified by accounts of what would
happen there. He has said that fear of rendition to Egypt was widespread among prisoners held at the US air base in Bagram in Afghanistan.

For Australian detainee Mamdouh Habib, the threat of transfer to Egypt became a reality. According to a motion filed in US federal court in November 2004, he was secretly transferred from Pakistan to Egypt with US agents involved and knowing that he would face torture. He spent six months in Egyptian custody where he was allegedly subjected to electric shocks,
water torture, physical assaults, suspension from hooks, threats with dogs, and cruel prison conditions. He was subsequently transferred to Guantánamo in May 2002 and held without charge or trial there for more than two and a half years. A released detainee has alleged to Amnesty International that Mamdouh Habib was subjected to a regime of sleep deprivation in Guantánamo that left him with "blood coming from both his nose and ears".

Even in Iraq, where the Geneva Conventions have been applied, US forces have stretched the denial of ICRC visits for reasons of "imperative military necessity" way beyond "the temporary and exceptional measure" envisaged by Article 143 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Torture or ill-treatment have been the result. In January 2004, for example, US authorities invoked "military necessity" when they refused to grant the ICRC access to eight detainees held in Abu Ghraib. One of the eight, a Syrian national, was being held in a tiny dark cell without windows, toilet or bedding. Around 18 December 2003, he was abused and threatened with dogs. During a visit to the prison in mid-March 2004, the ICRC's delegates were again denied access to him, and eight other detainees, on the grounds of "military necessity". By then, the Syrian detainee had been under incommunicado interrogation for four months. An interrogation plan for him is believed to have included the
following:

"For the segregation phase of the approach, the MPs will put an empty sandbag onto the prisoner's head before moving him out... During transportation, the Fear up Harsh approach will be continued... Upon arrival at site, MP guards will take him into custody. MP working dogs will be present and barking during this phase. Detainee will be strip searched by guards with the empty sandbag over his head... Detainee will be put on the adjusted sleep schedule for 72 hours. Interrogations will be conducted continuously during this 72-hour period. The approaches which will be used during this phase will include, fear up harsh, pride and ego down, silence and loud music. Stress positions will also be used... in order to intensify the approach."

Into your administration's "war on terror" detention policy has been added a pattern of dangerous public commentary about detainees by yourself and other officials. For example, repeated assertions that the detainees in Guantánamo are "terrorists", "killers" and "bad people" - has not only undermined the presumption of innocence, but has fuelled the notion that these are people for whom the basic rules of humanity and legality do not apply. It cannot be considered responsible conduct for officials, let alone the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, to inject such labelling of detainees into this would-be unchallengeable regime of executive detentions, safeguards against torture and ill-treatment already lowered.

The struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment requires a government's one hundred per cent commitment and constant vigilance. It requires stringent adherence to safeguards and an absolute rejection of loopholes. It demands a policy of zero tolerance. Mr President, your administration has manifestly failed in this regard. At
best, it set the conditions for torture and ill-treatment by lowering safeguards and failing to respond adequately to allegations of abuse raised by Amnesty International and others from early on in the "war on terror". At worst, it has authorized interrogation techniques and detainee transfers which have flouted the country's international obligation to reject torture and ill-treatment under any circumstances and at all times.

Amnesty International takes this opportunity to list some of the detention or interrogation techniques that are alleged to have been authorized or used by the USA during the "war on terror". Some of the techniques appear to have been tailored to specific cultural or religious sensitivities of the detainees, thereby introducing a discriminatory element to the abuse. Neither gender nor age has offered protection. Children, the elderly, women and men are reported to have been among the subjects of torture or ill-treatment. The following list does not claim to be exhaustive:

Abduction
Death threats
Dietary manipulation
Dogs used to threaten and intimidate
Dousing in cold water
Electric shocks, threats of electric shocks
Excessive and cruel use of shackles and handcuffs, including "short
shackling"
Excessive or humiliating use of strip searches
Exposure to weather and temperature extremes
"False flag", ie making a detainee think his interrogators are not US agents
Forced shaving, ie of head, body or facial hair
Forcible injections
Forced physical exercise
Hooding and blindfolding
Humiliation, eg forced crawling, forced to make animal noises, etc.
Immersion in water to induce perception of drowning
Incommunicado detention
Induced perception of suffocation or asyphxiation
Isolation for prolonged periods, eg months or more than a year
Light deprivation
Loud music, noise, yelling
Photography as humiliation
Physical assault, eg beating, punching, kicking
Prolonged interrogations, eg 20 hours
Racial and religious taunts, humiliation
Religious intolerance, eg disrespect for Koran, religious rituals
Secret detention
Sensory deprivation
Sexual humiliation
Sexual assault
Sleep adjustment
Sleep deprivation
Stress positions, eg prolonged forced kneeling and standing
Stripping
Strobe lighting
Threats of reprisals against relatives
Threat of transfer to third country to inspire fear of torture or death
Threat of transfer to Guantánamo
Threats of torture or ill-treatment
Twenty-four hour lighting
Withdrawal of "comfort items"
Withholding of medication
Withholding of food and water
Withholding of toilet facilities, leading to defecation and urination in
clothing

As the Pentagon's April 2003 Working Group report states, interrogation techniques are "usually used in combination". This can be illustrated by the recently revealed observations of FBI agents in Guantánamo. One reported seeing a detainee "sitting on the floor of the interview room with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played and a strobe light
flashing". Another wrote:

"On a couple of occassions (sic), I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defacated (sic) on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more. On one occassion (sic), the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. When I asked the MPs what was going on , I was told that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On another occassion (sic), the A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night. On another occassion (sic), not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand
and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor".

Secretary Rumsfeld authorized interrogation techniques including stripping, environmental manipulation, sensory deprivation, stress positions, isolation, hooding, and the use of dogs to inspire fear. A number of detainees have alleged that they were subjected to such treatment in Guantánamo. An FBI agent also tells of having witnessed the use of a dog to
intimidate a Guantánamo detainee, who was also subjected to three months of isolation in cell with 24-hour illumination. The detainee was later witnessed to be displaying conduct "consistent with extreme psychological trauma. Secretary Rumsfeld has also admitted to authorizing the exclusion of at least one detainee in Iraq from any prison register. Amnesty
International has yet to see a satisfactory explanation of what appears to have been Secretary Rumsfeld's participation in a "disappearance", which is a crime under international law.

Mr President, Amnesty International also notes that on 17 September 2001 you reportedly signed a Memorandum of Notification granting "exceptional authorities" to the CIA in the "war on terror". Amnesty International is further concerned by reports that you authorized the CIA to set up secret detention facilities outside the USA and to use harsh interrogation
techniques. As noted further below, it appears that you have granted an exemption to the CIA and other non-military personnel from a 7 February 2002 directive stating that detainees in US custody would be treated humanely. If so, the ultimate responsibility for any resulting torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would lie squarely at your door. In addition, an FBI agent's email sent from Iraq, recently made public, refers to an Executive Order signed by you which authorizes interrogation techniques which should be considered contrary to international law and standards. Amnesty International is aware that the administration has denied the existence of such an order.

The problem with such rebuttals is that previous denials have been shown to be inaccurate. The stock response of US officials during the "war on terror" to allegations of torture or ill-treatment - namely that all detainees in US custody are treated humanely and with respect for human dignity - can now be seen either to have been a stock falsehood or else an
indication that your administration's view of what constitutes humane treatment and respect for human dignity differs markedly from wider understandings of such terminology. With this in mind, the following assertion may be instructive:

"Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment" (emphasis added).

No detainee can fall outside the prohibition on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. To suggest otherwise, as this line does, points to a serious gap in a government's understanding of international law and indicates that it views fundamental human rights as privileges that can be granted, and therefore taken away, by the state. The sentence in question was in your memorandum, dated 7 February 2002, classified as secret for 10 years, and distributed to the main office-holders in your administration.

At the 22 June 2004 press briefing at which a selection of administration documents was made public, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales referred to your 7 February 2002 memorandum as the "most important" from among them. He repeated aloud to the assembled media your central holding - that the USA would treat detainees humanely, "including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment" - without any apparent recognition of the disturbing message contained in it. Earlier this month, Judge Gonzales' responses to questions from Senators as your nominee for the post of Attorney General left a similarly troubling impression. Two examples will suffice:

Senator Patrick Leahy: "Do you think that other world leaders would have authority to authorize the torture of US citizens, if they deemed it necessary for their national security?"

Judge Gonzales: "Senator, I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by... I'm not in a position to answer that question".

Senator Richard Durbin: "Can US personnel legally engage in torture under any circumstances?... Of course that would include military as well as intelligence personnel or others who are under the auspices of our government".

Judge Gonzales: "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that and make sure I don't provide a misleading answer."

As with your 7 February 2002 memorandum, Judge Gonzales' inability to respond with an immediate and simple "no" to either of the above questions fuels concern that your administration's commitment to the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment remains less than absolute. Amnesty International urges you to withdraw the 7 February 2002 memorandum and to replace it with an unequivocal public directive against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It must contain this full-spectrum phrase and not be limited to torture alone. The directive must apply to all officials, all agencies and all circumstances, including international detainee transfers. For example, as
Amnesty International pointed out in its October 2004 report (see below), the existing memorandum only applies to the US Armed Forces - it did not include the CIA or those working with them, and omitted any reference to persons "rendered" to states that use torture for interrogation. In his just-released written responses to questions from Senators at his nomination
hearing, Judge Gonzales has reportedly confirmed that officers of the CIA and other non-military personnel are outside the bounds of your 7 February 2002 memorandum.

Your administration recently replaced the now notorious 1 August 2002 memorandum on torture from the Justice Department to the White House Counsel. This had reportedly been drafted following a request by the CIA for legal protections for its interrogators engaged in the "war on terror". Its contents were shocking, and presumably would still represent the administration's position if it had not been forced to reassess it by the furore that accompanied its leaking and subsequent official release. The 1 August 2002 memorandum drew, inter alia, the following three erroneous conclusions:
- that interrogators could cause a great deal of pain before crossing the threshold to torture. Specifically, it suggested that torture would only occur if the pain caused rose to the level "that would ordinarily be associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of bodily functions";
- that even though US law makes it a criminal offence for anyone in an official position to commit or attempt to commit torture against a detainee outside the USA, and even though the USA has ratified treaties prohibiting torture, the US President's authority as Commander-in-Chief could override these laws; even if interrogators were prosecuted for torture, there were defences available to them by which they could escape criminal liability, such as "necessity" or "self-defence".

At his nomination hearing earlier this month, the White House Counsel stated that the 1 August 2002 memorandum "represented the position of the executive branch at the time it was issued", and presumably this remained the case for the next two years.

The revised version of the 1 August 2002 memorandum, dated 30 December 2004, is undeniably an improvement on its infamous predecessor, and Amnesty International broadly welcomes it as far as it goes. It nevertheless leaves a number of questions unanswered. For example, although it says that it "supersedes the August 2002 Memorandum in its entirety", it sidesteps the question of the President's Commander-in-Chief power to authorize torture and immunize a US agent from criminal liability for torture. The new memorandum claims that an analysis of this issue is "unnecessary" as you have directed that US personnel will not engage in torture. The 30 December 2004 memorandum gives as an example of this "unequivocal directive" your June 2004 statement against torture quoted at the beginning of this letter. Yet as already pointed out, you made a similarly unequivocal statement asserting the USA's leadership of the struggle against torture in June 2003, at a time when the then still secret August 2002 memorandum presumably "represented the position of the executive branch". To coin a phrase, one is either against torture or, de facto, one is for it. One cannot have it one way in public and one way in private. Your statements against torture and ill-treatment must be unambiguous, consistent, and matched by actions.

In any event, the spirit of the August 2002 memorandum lives on. Much of it is repeated in the April 2003 final report of the Pentagon's Working Group on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism. For example, the latter states that "[i]n order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the US law
prohibiting torture]... must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority". The Working Group report is believed to remain in force, and its recommendations were adopted by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, whose memorandum of 16 April 2003 doe not rule out any interrogation method that goes beyond those promoted in the report, as long as he authorizes it personally on a case-by-case basis. Amnesty International urges you to ensure that the Working Group report is also withdrawn.

Of course, the withdrawal of the August 2002 memorandum does not delete it or its effects from history. It was in existence for some two years, during which time US forces allegedly engaged in torture or ill-treatment. In his statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2004, Dr Harold Brown, one of the members of the Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations, said that the impact of the August 2002 memorandum on the "atmosphere of permissiveness in the field" was "difficult to assess". Certainly, detainees in US custody are alleged to have been subjected to what the memorandum promoted as the "significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, fail to rise to the level of torture". These include stress positions, hooding, excessive tightening of handcuffs, subjection to noise, and sleep deprivation. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited under international law.

Reports that late last year the White House pressed Congressional leaders to drop a provision from a Senate bill restricting the use of extreme interrogation techniques by US intelligence agents is cause for concern. In a letter to members of Congress in October, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had reportedly opposed the measure on the grounds that it "provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy". On 13 January, your spokesperson, Scott McClellan, explained that the White House "did not view the provision as necessary because there are already laws on the books to address these issues." Yet, in his written responses to Senators, the White
House Counsel has reportedly said that the Congressional ban on cruel or inhumane treatment has a "limited reach" and does not apply to "aliens overseas".

Again, what is needed is an unequivocal directive, free of any ambiguity and carrying legal force, holding that no US government agent anywhere, including members of the administration, the military, the CIA, or any private contractor, may authorize, condone, or engage in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It must be made clear that there
exists no executive power that can override this, and no circumstances it which torture will be countenanced. This must then be followed up by action.

Amnesty International has suggested a framework for action for the USA in a 200-page report, USA - Human Dignity Denied - Torture and accountability in the 'war on terror'.(1) In the report, Amnesty International makes more than 60 recommendations structured around the organization's 12-Point Program for the Prevention of Torture by Agents of
the State. A compilation of these recommendations is attached to this appeal. Mr President, Amnesty International urges you to give them serious consideration.

Investigation and prosecution are two basic components that a country committed to eradicating torture must follow. It has recently been announced that the Justice Department's Inspector General will investigate allegations raised by FBI agents of the military's use of torture and ill-treatment against detainees in Guantánamo Bay and Iraq. While Amnesty International
welcomes this development, it does not believe that this and the other investigations and reviews initated and conducted will be enough. They have offered or will offer only a series of snapshots, not the overall picture. Many questions remain unanswered: For example:

None of the investigations have had the power or the independence to be able to investigate into the highest echelons of government, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House.

Alleged secret transfers of detainees between the USA and countries with poor records of torture have not formed part of the investigations.

The activities of the Central Intelligence Agency remain shrouded in secrecy.

The extent of the role of military doctors in abuses remains unclear but has already raised serious questions of professional ethics.

Numerous interrogation techniques which violate the USA's international obligations, but which have nonetheless been authorized, have not been denounced by the military reviews, let alone by the administration itself.

The United Nations Principles for the investigation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, adopted by the General Assembly in 2000, state:

"In cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate because of insufficient expertise or suspected bias, or because of the apparent existence of a pattern of abuse or for other substantial reasons, States shall ensure that investigations are undertaken through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure. Members of such a
commission shall be chosen for their recognized impartiality, competence and independence as individuals. In particular, they shall be independent of any suspected perpetrators and the institutions or agencies they may serve".

Since 19 May 2004, Amnesty International has been calling for an impartial and independent commission of inquiry to be set up by the US Congress to conduct a thorough investigation into the USA's "war on terror" detention policies and practices worldwide. Such a commission, composed of credible experts, could be appointed by Congress, but must be independent of
government. Such a commission should consist of credible independent experts, have international expert input, and have subpoena powers and access to all levels of government, all agencies, and all documents whether classified or unclassified. Amnesty International urges you to support the establishment of such a commission, and to cooperate fully with it when it
is established.

Your administration has chosen to release only selected documentation, and those documents have only been released reluctantly, either under court order or after unauthorized leaks into the public domain embarassed officials into action. The degree of public scepticism that has inevitably been generated by this secrecy and lack of transparency is one more reason
why a full independent commission of inquiry is required to get to clarify what has occurred and on whose authorization, and to show the world that the USA is serious about its human rights commitments.

Along with the rule of law, another of the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" to which you have made repeated reference is "limits on the absolute power of the state". Yet, more than six months after the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the detainees held in Guantánamo, your administration continues to argue for any review of their detentions to be kept as far from a judicial process as possible. Hundreds of detainees remain without access to lawyers. Human rights organizations are still denied access. Precisely what interrogation practices and policies remain in force in Guantánamo or elsewhere is unknown. Secret and incommunicado detentions are continuing. Yet full judicial review, as well as access to lawyers and independent human rights monitors, are basic safeguards against arbitrary detention, torture and "disappearance". The USA's continuing penchant for secrecy in the field of detentions betray a lack of genuine commitment to its international obligations on human rights and the rule of law.

Amnesty International has spoken to many relatives of detainees who themselves are in deep distress from the lack of transparency and information about their loved ones. In November 2004, for example, the sister and brother of Kuwaiti Guantánamo detainee Abdullah Al Kandari told the organization of how their parents "are not the same people they were
three years ago" because of losing their son to the black hole of Guantánamo. Earlier in the year, the brother of Yemeni detainee Jamal Mar'i related how his mother has developed high blood pressure and sinks into bouts of depression from the strain of not knowing what is happening to the son she has not seen for more than three years. In other contexts, the
suffering of the relatives of the "disappeared" has been found by the UN Human Rights Committee to amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Similar cruelty is inflicted upon the relatives of people held in indefinite virtual incommunicado detention without charge or trial. It is notable that numerous relatives of the Guantánamo detainees have referred to their loved one as having disappeared.

Khalid Al-Odah, father of Kuwaiti Guantánamo detainee Fawzi Al-Odah has appealed to you "from father to father". "It's almost three years now we have been suffering and living in misery", Khalid Al-Odah says, and pleads for you to ensure justice for his son.(2) Again, Amnesty International recalls the promise you made in your first inaugural speech to be a
president who would speak for "greater justice and compassion" and urges you at this time of your re-inauguration and beyond to consider the distress of the families of detainees held without charge or trial by the USA.

Amnesty International believes that the USA's detention and interrogation policies in the "war on terror" have flouted hard-won principles of human rights. Individual detainees and their families have suffered, the rule of law has suffered, and the reputation of your country has suffered. The USA's policy and practice have set a bad example to those governments looking for justification to employ their own repressive conduct.

Mr President, Amnesty International urges you to make the eradication of torture and ill-treatment by US agents, and the USA's full compliance with international law and standards for the treatment and trial of detainees, a hallmark of your second term in office.

Amnesty International's recommendations to the US authorities based on the organization's 12-Point Program for the Prevention of Torture by Agents of the State

Condemn Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The highest authorities of every country should demonstrate their total opposition to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. They should condemn torture and ill-treatment unreservedly whenever it occurs. They should make clear to all members of the police, military and other security forces that torture and ill-treatment will never be tolerated.

The US authorities should:

Provide a genuine, unequivocal and continuing public commitment to oppose torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under any circumstances, regardless of where it takes place, and take every possible measure to ensure that all agencies of government and US allies fully comply with this prohibition;

Review all government policies and procedures relating to detention and interrogation to ensure that they adhere strictly to international human rights and humanitarian law and standards, and publicly disown those which do not;

Make clear to all members of the military and all other government agencies, as well as US allies, that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment will not be tolerated under any circumstances;

Commit to a program of public education on the international prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, including challenging any public discourse that seeks to promote tolerance of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Ensure Access to Prisoners. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment often take place while prisoners are held incommunicado - unable to contact people outside who could help them or find out what is happening to them. The practice of incommunicado detention should be ended. Governments should ensure that all prisoners are brought before an independent judicial authority without delay after being taken into custody. Prisoners should have access to relatives,
lawyers and doctors without delay and regularly thereafter.

The US authorities should:

End the practice of incommunicado detention; Grant the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to all
detainees according to the organization's mandate;

Grant all detainees access to legal counsel, relatives, independent doctors, and to consular representatives, without delay and regularly thereafter;

In battlefield situations, ensure where possible that interrogations are observed by at least one military lawyer with full knowledge of international law and standards as they pertain to the treatment of detainees;

Grant all detainees access to the courts to be able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Presume detainees captured on the battlefield during international conflicts to be prisoners of war unless and until a competent tribunal determines otherwise;

Reject any measures that narrow or curtail the effect or scope of the Rasul v. Bush ruling on the right to judicial review of detainees held in Guantánamo or elsewhere, and facilitate detainees' access to legal counsel for the purpose of judicial review.

No Secret Detention. In some countries torture takes place in secret locations, often after the victims are made to "disappear". Governments should ensure that prisoners are held only in officially recognized places of detention and that accurate information about their arrest and whereabouts is made available immediately to relatives, lawyers and the courts. Effective judicial remedies should be available at all times to enable relatives and lawyers to find out immediately where a prisoner is held and under what authority and to ensure the prisoner's safety.

The US authorities should:

Clarify the fate and whereabouts of those detainees reported to be or to have been in US custody or under US interrogation in the custody of other countries, to whom no outside body including the International Committee of the Red Cross are known to have access, and provide assurances of their well-being. These detainees include but are not limited to those named in
the 9/11 Commission Report and in this Amnesty International report as having been in custody at some time in undisclosed locations;

End immediately the practice of secret detention wherever it is occurring, and under whichever agency. Hold detainees only in officially recognized places of detention;

Not collude with other governments in the practice of "disappearances" or secret detentions, and expose such abuses where the USA becomes aware of them;

Maintain an accurate and detailed register of all detainees at every detention facility operated by the US, in accordance with international law and standards. This register should be updated on a daily basis, and made available for inspection by, at a minimum, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the detainees' relatives and lawyers or other persons of
confidence;

Make public and regularly update the precise numbers of detainees in US custody specifying the agency under which each person is held, their identity, their nationality and arrest date, and place of detention;

Either charge and bring to trial, in full accordance with international law and standards and without recourse to the death penalty, all detainees held in US custody in undisclosed locations, or else release them;

Comply without delay with Freedom of Information Act requests, and related court orders, aimed at clarifying the fate and whereabouts of such detainees;

Make public and revoke any measures or directives that have been authorized by the President or any other official that could be interpreted as authorizing "disappearances", torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or extrajudicial executions.

Provide Safeguards During Detention and Interrogation. All prisoners should be immediately informed of their rights. These include the right to lodge complaints about their treatment and to have a judge rule without delay on the lawfulness of their detention. Judges should investigate any evidence of torture and order release if the detention is unlawful. A lawyer should be present during interrogations. Governments should ensure that conditions of detention conform to international
standards for the treatment of prisoners and take into account the needs of members of particularly vulnerable groups. The authorities responsible for detention should be separate from those in charge of interrogation. There should be regular, independent, unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection to all places of detention.

The US authorities should:

Immediately inform anyone taken into US custody of his or her rights, including the right not to be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in a court of law; their right to access to relatives and legal counsel, and their consular rights if a foreign national;

Ensure at all times a clear delineation between powers of detention and interrogation;

Keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of anyone in US custody, with a view to preventing any cases of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;

Ensure that conditions of detention strictly comply with international law and standards;

Prohibit the use of isolation, hooding, stripping, dogs, stress positions, sensory deprivation, feigned suffocation, death threats, use of cold water or weather, sleep deprivation and any other forms of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as interrogation techniques;

Bring to trial in accordance with international fair trial standards all detainees held in Guantánamo, or release them;

Ensure compliance with all aspects of international law and standards relating to child detainees;

Ensure compliance with all international law and standards relating to women detainees;

Invite all relevant human rights monitoring mechanisms, especially the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Committee against Torture, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (1980) and the Working Group on Arbitrary detention to visit all places of detention, and grant them unlimited access to these places and to detainees;

Grant access to national and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, to all places of detention and all detainees, regardless of where they are held.

Prohibit Torture in Law. Governments should adopt laws for the prohibition and prevention of torture incorporating the main elements of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) and other relevant international standards. All judicial and administrative corporal punishments should be abolished. The prohibition of torture and the essential safeguards for its prevention must not be suspended under any circumstances, including states of war or other public emergency.

The US authorities should:

Enact a federal crime of torture, as called for by the Committee against Torture, that also defines the infliction of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as a crime, wherever it occurs;

Amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to criminalize expressly the crime of torture, as well as a crime of infliction of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, wherever it occurs, in line with the Convention against Torture and other international standards;

Ensure that all legislation criminalizing torture defines torture at least as broadly as the UN Convention against Torture;

Ensure that legislation criminalizing torture and the infliction of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment covers all persons, regardless of official status or nationality, wherever this conduct occurred, and that it does not allow any exceptional circumstances whatsoever to be invoked as justification for such conduct, or allow the authorization of torture or
ill-treatment by any superior officer or public official, including the President.

Investigate All complaints and reports of torture should be promptly, impartially and effectively investigated by a body independent of the alleged perpetrators. The methods and findings of such investigations should be made public. Officials suspected of committing torture should be suspended from active duty during the investigation. Complainants, witnesses and others at risk should be protected from intimidation and reprisals.

US Congress should:

Establish an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of the USA's "war on terror" detention and interrogation policies and practices. Such a commission should consist of credible independent experts, have international expert input, and have subpoena powers and access to all levels of government, all agencies, and all documents whether classified or
unclassified.

The US authorities should:

Ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment involving US personnel, whether members of the armed forces, other government agencies, medical personnel, private contractors or interpreters, are subject to prompt, thorough, independent and impartial civilian investigation in strict conformity with international law and standards
concerning investigations of human rights violations;

Ensure that such investigations include cases in which the USA previously had custody of the detainee, but transferred him or her to the custody of another country, or to other forces within the same country, subsequent to which allegations of torture or ill-treatment were made;

Ensure that the investigative approach at a minimum complies with the UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

Ensure that the investigation of deaths in custody at a minimum comply with the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, including the provision for adequate autopsies in all such cases;

In view of evidence that certain persons held in US custody have been subjected to "disappearance", the US authorities should initiate prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into the allegations by a competent and independent state authority, as provided under Article 13 of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Prosecute Those responsible for torture must be brought to justice. This principle should apply wherever alleged torturers happen to be, whatever their nationality or position, regardless of where the crime was committed and the nationality of the victims, and no matter how much time has elapsed since the commission of the crime. Governments must exercise universal
jurisdiction over alleged torturers or extradite them, and cooperate with each other in such criminal proceedings. Trials must be fair. An order from a superior officer must never be accepted as a justification for torture.

The US authorities should:

Publicly reject all arguments, including those contained in classified or unclassified government documents, promoting impunity for anyone suspected of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including the ordering
of such acts;

Bring to trial all individuals - whether they be members of the administration, the armed forces, intelligence services and other government agencies, medical personnel, private contractors or interpreters - against whom there is evidence of having authorized, condoned or committed torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;

Any person alleged to have perpetrated an act of "disappearance" should, when the facts disclosed by an official investigation so warrant, be brought before the competent civil authorities for prosecution and trial, in accordance with Article 14 of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

Ensure that all trials for alleged perpetrators comply with international fair trial standards, and do not result in imposition of the death penalty.

No Use of Statements Extracted Under Torture. Governments should ensure that statements and other evidence obtained
through torture may not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture.

The US authorities should:

Ensure that no statement coerced as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including long-term indefinite detention without charge or trial, or any other information or evidence obtained directly or indirectly as the result of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of who was responsible for such acts, is admitted as evidence against any defendant, except the perpetrator of the human rights violation in question;

Revoke the Military Order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, and abandon trials by military commission;

Expose and reject any use of coerced evidence obtained by other governments from people held in their own or US custody;

Refrain from transferring any coerced evidence for the use of other governments.

Provide Effective Training. It should be made clear during the training of all officials involved in the custody, interrogation or medical care of prisoners that torture is a criminal act. Officials should be instructed that they have the right and duty to refuse to obey any order to torture.

The US authorities should:

Ensure that all personnel involved in detention and interrogation, including all members of the armed forces or other government agencies, private contractors, medical personnel and interpreters, receive full training, with input from international experts, on the international prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and their obligation to expose it;

Ensure that all members of the armed forces and members of other government agencies, including the CIA, private contractors, medical personnel and interpreters, receive full training in the scope and meaning of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as international human rights law and standards, with input from international experts;

Ensure that full training be similarly provided on international human rights law and standards regarding the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, including the prohibition on "disappearances", with input from international experts;

Ensure that all military and other agency personnel, as well as medical personnel and private contractors, receive cultural awareness training appropriate to whatever theatre of operation they may be deployed into.

Provide Reparation. Victims of torture and their dependants should be entitled to obtain prompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair and adequate financial compensation and appropriate medical care and rehabilitation.

The US authorities should:

Ensure that anyone who has suffered torture or ill-treatment while in US custody has access to, and the means to obtain, full reparation including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, wherever they may reside;

Ensure that all those who have been subject to unlawful arrest by the USA receive full compensation.

Ratify International Treaties. All governments should ratify without reservations international treaties containing safeguards against torture, including the UN Convention against Torture with declarations providing for individual and inter-state
complaints. Governments should comply with the recommendations of international bodies and experts on the prevention of torture.

The US authorities should:

Make a public commitment to fully adhere to international human rights and humanitarian law and standards - treaties, other instruments, and customary law - and respect the decisions and recommendations of international and regional human rights bodies;

Make a public commitment to fully adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and to respecting the advice and recommendations of the International Committee of the Red Cross;

Ratify Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions;

Withdraw all conditions attached to the USA's ratification of the UN Convention against Torture;

Provide the USA's overdue second report to the Committee against Torture, as requested by the Committee;

Withdraw all limiting conditions attached to the USA's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Provide the USA's overdue reports to the Human Rights Committee;

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture;

Ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;

Ratify the American Convention on Human Rights;

Ratify the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons without any reservations and implement it by making enforced disappearances a crime under US law over which US courts have jurisdiction wherever committed by anyone.

Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Exercise International Responsibility. Governments should use all available channels to intercede with the governments of countries where torture is reported. They should ensure that transfers of training and equipment for military, security or police use do not facilitate torture. Governments must not forcibly return a person to a country where he or she risks being tortured.

The US authorities should:

Withdraw the USA's understanding to Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture, and publicly state the USA's commitment to the principle of non-refoulement, and ensure that no legislation undermines this protection in any way;

Cease the practice of "renditions" that bypass human rights protections; ensure that all transfers of detainees between the USA and other countries fully comply with international human rights law.

Church Leaders Urge Middle East Peace Effort

2005-01-22T21:39:00.000-05:00

Middle East outlook entering 2005

2005-01-06T17:12:00.000-05:00

Churches for Middle East Peace has a major review of outlooks for peace in the Israel/Palestine arena as we enter 2005. It is titles "Hope Revives for U.S. as honest broker, as palestinean Elections Renew peace Prospects. Condoleezza Rice at the State Department is seen as a possibly helpful presence and other developments are reviewed. See their full December 2004 newsletter at their web site: Churches for middle East Peace

Help End Homelessness in Massachusetts - March 1 event

2005-01-06T17:03:00.000-05:00

Attend Panel Discussions on current Massachusetts issues related to homelessness and meet with legislators at the State house on March 1, 2005. The gathering is from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. and the slogan is "Standing Together, Stepping forward" This is sponsored by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. For more information, call 781-595-7570

Global Peace with Justice Advocacy Days 2005

2005-01-06T16:52:00.000-05:00

Over 30 church denominations and organizations sponsor the 2005 Advocacy Days for Global peace with Justice in Washington, D.C. March 11-14. There are four major speakers and eight tracks to choose from to receive major issue briefings before meeting with Senators and representatives or their key foreign policy staff. There is time for fellowship and networking, a banquet, and an ecumenical worship service. For on-line registration and updates contact Advocacy Days or e-mail Conference Coordinator, Anna Rhee at info@advocacydays.org

Values - from M.L. King, Jr.

2005-01-06T16:46:00.000-05:00

Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
Only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate;
Only love can do that.
Hate multiplies hate,
Violence multiplies violence,
And toughness multiplies toughness
In a descending spiral of destruction...
The chain reaction of evil--
Hate begetting hate,
Wars producing more wars--
Must be broken,
Or we shall be plunged into
the darkness of annihilation.
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Eradicating Poverty - how to do it - Oxfam

2005-01-06T16:31:00.000-05:00

Africa: Oxfam Poverty Report

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Dec 14, 2004 (041214)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

In one of the first reports from a global coalition to make 2005 a
year of action against poverty, Oxfam International has called on
rich countries to live up to their promises to provide resources and
opportunities to achieve the "Millennium Development Goals" adopted
unanimously by the United Nations in September 2000. Making this finance
available, Oxfam noted, is "both a moral obligation and a matter of justice."

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the summary of the
Oxfam report "Paying the Price: Why rich countries must invest now
in a war on poverty."

For earlier Bulletins on related issues, see
Africa Focus

This Bulletin also includes a brief update and references to
several other sites with related reports released this year.

Related Update and References

Easily lost in the plethora of debates about strategies to reduce
poverty is the common-sense notion that providing resources to the
poor, including direct cash transfers as well as investments in
government programs directly benefitting the poor, does actually
tend to work. Of course, the political will to pay for effective
programs - and who should pay - is key to determining how much
impact such programs actually have.

Reports this year making this point from a variety of perspectives
include:

* A report just released by South Africa's Department of Social
Development on "The Social and Economic Impact of South Africa's
Social Security System." (Social security South Africa) shows
that despite the debate about ongoing poverty in South Africa
that country's existing programs of old-age insurance, disability, and child
welfare grants have significant impact on reducing poverty,
"regardless of which methodology is used to quantify the impact
measure or identify the poverty line."

* The Chronic Poverty Report 2004-05, produced by the UK-based
Chronic Poverty Research Centre (chronic poverty) and
including detailed studies on Africa as well as other world
regions, noted that "prioritizing livelihood security" for
chronically poor persons must take priority in order to insure that
they have the minimum resources necessary for survival and taking
advantage of economic opportunities.

* The Shanghai conference of the World Bank in May 2004 on "Scaling
Up Poverty Reduction" emphasized case studies of successful
interventions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, most featuring
effective use of public investment rather than the macroeconomic
prescriptions most commonly stressed in Bank prescriptions for
African countries. See WB Case studies

* A July 2004 paper from the Center for Global Development,
"Counting Chickens when They Hatch,"
(eco aid effects) showed that many
studies of the effects of aid failed to show impact because they
incorrectly included aid for non-developmental or long-term goals.
Limiting the study to short-term development aid that could
plausibly be expected to have such impact, the study showed
significant impact in increasing growth.

***************************************************************

Paying the Price: Why rich countries must invest now in a war on
poverty

Oxfam International
December 2004

[Excerpts from report summary. A press release and the full report
are available at oxfam]

In 2005, the leaders of rich countries have the opportunity to lift
millions of people out of poverty. At the G8 Summit, at the UN
Special Session on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and at
a ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO),
trade rules, aid, and the unsustainable debt of developing
countries - issues critical to the future of the world's poorest
people - will be up for discussion. But will world leaders deliver
on their rhetoric? In 2000, rich countries made a commitment to
play their part in ensuring that the MDGs are met - but their
promises remain unfulfilled. Five years later, they should ensure
that a new round of international summitry becomes a platform for
action.

The Millennium Development Goals, chosen on the grounds that they
were realistic and achievable, are a commitment by global leaders
to halve poverty and hunger, provide education for all, improve
standards of health, halt the spread of major diseases such as
HIV/AIDS, and slow down environmental degradation by 2015.

A vital aim of these goals is that the poorest countries will have
the finance needed to achieve them. To do this, rich countries have
promised to provide a very small fraction of their wealth - just
0.7 per cent of their national income - and to improve the way in
which they give aid, to make it work best for poverty reduction,
and to end the burden of debt which means that low-income countries
must pay out $100 million every day to their creditors. For
rich-country donors, making this finance available is not simply an
act of charity: it is a both a moral obligation and a matter of
justice - born of a collective duty to guarantee the rights of all
citizens, and the responsibility of rich countries to recognise
their role in creating the debt crisis which continues to threaten
the prospects of poor countries. A failure to meet these
obligations also has consequences for rich countries themselves,
with global poverty threatening the prosperity and security of the
entire international community.

Time for action to meet the MDGs is running out, yet progress has
been unforgivably slow. Only one goal halving income poverty
has any chance of being met, but even this is due to progress in
just a handful of countries. The first target - enrolling all girls
in primary and secondary school by 2005 - is certain to be missed.
The poorest people will pay the price for this failure. If the
world fails to act to meet even these minimal goals, and current
trends are allowed to continue,

* 45 million more children will die between now and 2015

* 247 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will be living on
less than $1 a day in 2015

* 97 million more children will still be out of school in 2015

* 53 million more people in the world will lack proper sanitation
facilities.

Tackling global poverty requires more than money: poor countries'
prospects are also undermined by unfair trade rules, the violent
consequences of the arms trade, and the impacts of global warming.
Poor-country governments must also fulfil their commitments to
fight poverty. But, without finance, these countries will not be
able to take advantage of global trade and investment
opportunities, or protect their citizens' basic rights to life,
good health, and education.

The sums that rich countries invest in global poverty reduction are
shamefully small. At an average of $80 per person per year in rich
countries, the sum is equivalent to the price of a weekly cup of
coffee. What is more, the wealthier these countries have become,
the less they have given in aid. Rich countries today give half as
much, as a proportion of their income, as they did in the 1960s. In
1960-65, rich countries spent on average 0.48 per cent of their
combined national incomes on aid. By 1980-85 they were spending
just 0.34 per cent. By 2003, the average had dropped as low as 0.24
per cent.

It is no surprise that vital poverty-reduction programmes are
failing for lack of finance. Cambodia and Tanzania are among the
poorest countries in the world, yet they require at least double
the level of external financing that they currently receive if they
are to achieve their poverty-reduction targets. Global initiatives
to support poor countries to achieve universal education and combat
HIV/AIDS are starved of cash. Despite the fact that HIV infection
rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, TB, and Malaria is assured of only one quarter of the funds
that it needs for 2005. And poor countries continue to pay out more
to their creditors than they spend on essential public services.
Low-income countries paid $39 billion to service their debts in
2003, while they received only $27 billion in aid. As a result,
countries such as Zambia spend more on debt servicing than they
spend on education.

The price is small

Meeting the UN target of allocating just 0.7 per cent of national
income to aid - a target set in 1970 - would generate $120
billion, enough to meet the MDGs and other vital poverty-reduction
goals. But only five of the 22 major donors - none of them from the
seven most powerful nations (the G7) - are meeting that target. In
the last year, the UK and Spain have set themselves firm timetables
to reach the target of 0.7. But 12 donors still have no timetable
to get there ...

Rich countries can easily afford to deliver the necessary aid and
debt relief. For rich countries, spending 0.7 per cent of their
national income on aid is equal to a mere one-fifth of their
expenditure on defence and one half of their expenditure on
domestic farm subsidies. The USA (at just 0.14 per cent, the least
generous donor in terms of aid as a proportion of its national
income) is spending more than twice as much on the war in Iraq as
it would cost to increase its aid budget to 0.7 per cent, and six
times more on its military programme.

Nor is 0.7 per cent very great when compared with the priorities of
global consumers, who spend $33 billion each year on cosmetics and
perfume - significantly more than the $20 25 billion required for
Africa to meet the MDG targets.

Cancelling the debts of 32 of the poorest countries would also be
small change for the rich nations. The cost to the richest
countries would amount to $1.8 billion each year over the next ten
years or on average a mere $2.10 for each of their citizens every
year. If Italy and the USA were to pay their fair shares, it would
cost each of their citizens $1.20 per year. Meanwhile, the IMF
holds the third-largest gold reserve in the world - a reserve that
is neither needed nor used in full. Revaluation or sale of the gold
could raise more than $30 billion - more than would be needed to
cancel the remaining debts to the IMF and World Bank of all the
countries eligible for relief under the Highly Indebted Poor
Countries initiative.

Aid works

And aid works. Millions of children are in school in Tanzania,
Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia, thanks to money provided by debt
relief and aid. For the same reason, Ugandans no longer have to pay
for basic health care, a policy which resulted in an increase of 50
to 100 per cent in attendance at Ugandan health clinics and doubled
the rate of immunisations. Roads built with foreign aid mean that
Ethiopian farmers have the potential to reach local and
international markets to sell their crops more easily, while
children in rural areas can travel to schools more easily, and
people can reach hospitals more quickly which is often a critical
factor affecting maternal and infant mortality rates. ...

History also shows that aid has been vital in eradicating global
diseases. From the late 1960s, more than $100 million was targeted
to eradicate smallpox a feat achieved worldwide by 1980. And aid
has been essential in rebuilding countries shattered by war. In
Mozambique, financial support from UN agencies, bilateral donors,
and NGOs facilitated a process of national reconciliation,
peacefully repatriating nearly two million refugees, disarming
96,000 former soldiers, and clearing landmines.

Countries now considered 'developed' would not enjoy their current
standards of living if it had not been for aid. After World War II,
16 western European nations benefited from grants from the USA
worth more than $75 billion in today's terms - grants which
underpinned their economic recovery and hence created today's peace
and prosperity. US aid also financed mass education and imports of
essential goods to South Korea and Taiwan, laying the foundations
for their rapid future growth, while European Union Structural
Funds have supported growth in Spain and other southern European
countries.

But today's poorest countries - even those where it has been shown
that aid can be used productively - have yet to see the necessary
aid extended to them. Meanwhile, marginalised from the global
economy, their access to other forms of external finance is
limited. For the foreseeable future, aid will and should be the
means to offset the lack of finance available for the poorest
countries and communities. ...

and it could work even better

However, rich-country donors need to make aid work better if
poverty is to be significantly reduced. Increases in aid budgets
can and must go hand-in-hand with improvements in the way that aid
is delivered.

When aid-giving becomes politicised, poor people lose out - but
many donors' priorities are still determined by their own strategic
interests. Two top recipients of French aid - French Polynesia and
New Caledonia - and one top recipient of US aid - Israel - are
high-income countries. The 'war on terror' threatens to divert aid
away from those who need it most. Aid is again being used as a
political tool, with one-third of the increase in aid in 2002
resulting from large allocations to Afghanistan and Pakistan. ...

Too often domestic interests take precedence: almost 30 per cent of
G7 aid money is tied to an obligation to buy goods and services
from the donor country. The practice is not only self-serving, but
highly inefficient; yet it is employed widely by Italy and the USA.
Despite donors' agreements to untie aid to the poorest countries,
only six of the 22 major donor countries have almost or completely
done so.

The management burden and uncertainty of aid delivery that many
donors create weakens the effectiveness of the governments that
they aim to support. In Tanzania in 2002-03, the government
received 275 donor missions, 123 from the World Bank alone,
demanding time-consuming attention by scarce skilled personnel. An
Oxfam survey of donor practices across 11 developing countries in
2004 found as follows.

* In 52 per cent of reported cases, donors' procedures mean that
government officials spend 'too much' or 'excessive' amounts of
time in reporting to donors. The World Bank and the USA were named
as the worst donors according to this criterion.

* Developing-country governments should expect delays. Only in one
in three cases does aid arrive on time - and the European
Commission is rated the worst offender, with one-fifth of its aid
arriving more than one year late.

* Aid may be here today, but it could be gone tomorrow. In 70 per
cent of cases, donors commit aid for three years or less - even
though, in order to guarantee a complete primary education for one
generation of children, funding would be needed for six years.

The administrative problem is compounded when donors attach large
numbers of detailed conditions to their funding. Oxfam's analysis
of World Bank loan conditions, for instance, found that the Bank
requires governments of countries such as Ethiopia to carry out
approximately 80 policy changes per year. Tanzania's donors between
them dictate that the country should carry out 78 policy reforms in
one year. This practice undermines countries' ability to choose
their own reform paths, meaning that aid money is less likely to
support sustainable reforms, adapted to suit local circumstances.
Such conditions are rarely based on independent assessments of
their impact on people living in poverty. ...

Rich-country and multilateral donors have committed themselves to
change their practices. In 2003 they signed the Rome Declaration:
a clear statement of intent to reform the delivery of aid. Some are
making progress, mostly by collaborating to deliver joint funds
directly to sector ministries or government treasuries; but others
lag behind, as demonstrated by the Oxfam survey. While donors are
quick to hold governments to account for their use of aid, there is
as yet very little done to hold donors to account for their
management of aid. Initiatives such as independent monitoring or
recipient-government reviews of donor practice occur largely on an
ad hoc and voluntary basis.

Ensuring that Southern governments deliver development

Developing countries, as well as donors, have a responsibility to
meet the MDGs. And well-functioning and poverty-focused governments
can of course make the best use of aid. This means combating
corruption, building strong and accountable public sectors which
have the necessary staff to deliver vital services, and ensuring
that parliaments, civil society, and the media can monitor public
spending and act as watchdogs against corruption.

There has been substantial progress in the performance and
accountability of many poor-country governments. Democracy is
taking root in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, with elections
held in 44 out of 50 countries in the past decade, while
independent TV and radio stations are being established across the
continent. And civil-society groups are increasingly calling
governments to account: in Malawi, education groups now check
whether schools receive the textbooks and chalk promised to them in
the government budget, and they report their findings in the media
and in parliament.

But obviously in many countries there is a long way to go:
developing-country governments, for instance, must increase the
amount of money devoted to basic social services, in line with a UN
recommendation to spend at least 20 per cent on these sectors. The
practice of charging user fees for basic education and health
services should be abolished.

Donors can play their part in furthering these developments. This
includes not ignoring corruption, but tackling it by investing in
a strong and efficient public sector and removing the global
incentives tax havens and weak regulation that allow corruption
to flourish. Creating donor-led structures outside governments, or
avoiding certain countries altogether, can be counter-productive
merely serving to weaken them further. And such strategies risk
diverting money away from those in the global community who need it
most.

In 2005, Oxfam will form part of the 'Global Call for Action
Against Poverty' coalition, aiming to make poverty history. The
call unites a huge range of groups from South and North, including
national and regional civil-society networks, trade unions, faith
communities, and international organisations. It is a chance for
millions of people to tell world leaders that poverty is an
injustice that is not inevitable. 10 This report is part of Oxfam's
call to action in 2005. In it, Oxfam's key recommendations in
relation to aid and debt are as follows:

All donor members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) should adopt the following measures.

Increase finance for poverty reduction:

* Cancel 100 per cent of the debt of the poorest countries where
relief is needed to enable them to reach the MDGs: both bilateral
debt, and the debts owed to the World Bank and African Development
Bank.

* Provide at least $50 billion in aid immediately, in addition to
existing aid budgets, and set binding timetables in 2005 to ensure
that the 0.7 per cent target is met in all donor countries by 2010.

* In addition to giving 0.7 per cent of national income as aid,
support innovative mechanisms such as the International Finance
Facility (IFF) and international taxation to ensure immediate and
sustainable development financing.

Make aid work best for poverty reduction:

* Fully implement Rome Declaration commitments to improve the
delivery of aid and completely untie aid, including types of
assistance omitted from DAC recommendations, namely food aid and
Technical Assistance.

* Restrict the use of conditions to requirements for financial
accountability and broadly agreed goals on poverty reduction and
gender equity.

The World Bank and IMF should take the following actions.

* Cancel 100 per cent of the debts owed to them by the poorest
countries where relief is needed to enable them to reach the MDGs;
finance this measure by revaluing IMF gold reserves and using the
resources thus generated.

* Restrict the use of conditions to requirements for financial
accountability measures and broadly agreed goals on poverty
reduction and gender equity.

Developing-country governments should take the following measures.

* Demonstrate their commitment to poverty reduction by meeting the
UN recommendation to spend 20 per cent of public budgets on basic
social services, and transparently directing the money to benefit
poor people.

* Institutionalise, through legislation if necessary, parliamentary
and civil- society participation in the making and implementation
of policies that will benefit poor people, also guaranteeing civil
and political rights to free and fair elections, freedom of
expression, and the rule of law.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
Africa Focus

************************************************************

Moral values - faith informs progressive positions too -

2004-11-20T15:48:00.000-05:00

WITNESS FOR JUSTICE #0190

                             November 15, 2004

                              ON MORAL VALUES
                                                  By Bernice Powell Jackson
(Executive Minister for Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ)

      Some of us who consider ourselves to be liberals or progressives have
been just too quiet in the conversation about moral values. Some have
argued that those who live in the so-called "blue states," those which
voted for John Kerry, haven't even been aware of the conversation or have
been, at best, uneasy in it. Thus, they say, not only did John Kerry seem
hesitant to talk about his own faith and how it informs his life and his
decision-making process, but so, too, did Howard Dean and even John
Edwards, a Southerner.

      I happen to agree with them. We need to talk about moral values and
we must talk about how our faith informs who we are and what we say and do.
I believe that those of us who are Christians must take back Jesus and
those of us who are people of faith must take back our ability to frame our
positions on critical social issues in the context of our faith.

      The Jesus I am talking about is the one who turned over the tables of
the moneychangers right inside the temple. The Jesus I am talking about
said at the beginning of his ministry, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor." The Jesus I am
talking about said "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the
children of God."   The Jesus I am talking about said, "You have heard it
said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you
love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." The Jesus I am
talking about said, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first
to throw a stone at her." The Jesus I am talking about never said one word
about homosexuality.   The Jesus I am talking about ate with the sinners,
the outcasts and the tax collectors. He drew to himself those who were
marginalized by those in the faith: the women, the children, the lepers,
the unclean.

      This Jesus that I know and follow challenged the Roman empire in its
oppression of the poor, in its war against the Jews and he challenged the
Pharisees and scribes in the temples for their fastidious following of the
law at the expense of healing and justice for the people. This is the
Jesus we must reclaim and proclaim in this conversation about faith and
values.

      It is this Jesus and the God who requires us to do justice, love
kindness, and walk humbly with our God who informs my positions on tax cuts
for the wealthy in a nation where one in every five children lives in
poverty.   It is this God who makes me ask what is wrong with us when tens
of thousands of people die every day from starvation and the United Nations
estimates that $13 billion allocated above current spending levels would
mean that every one in the world (including Americans) would have basic
food and health care. At the same time Americans and Europeans spend $17
billion on food for their pets every year. It is this God, who created the
earth and all that is in it who informs my position on our unwillingness to
sign the Kyoto protocol or to even admit that there is global warming while
we in the U.S., who are 5% of the world's population use 25% of the world's
fuel and provide at least four or five times our share of the earth's
pollution.

      I do want to talk about moral values.   I want to talk about the
moral values of a pre-emptive strike war which we now know was based on
half-truths at best and lies at worst. I want to talk about the more than
1,000 Americans who have been killed in that war and the 10,000 who have
come back home injured and the tens of thousands who will return with
significant mental conditions. I want to talk about the tens of thousands
of Iraqi women and children, civilians all, who have been killed since
the beginning of this war.

      I do want to talk about integrity and truth and honesty and fairness.
I do want to talk about democracy and freedom and justice for all.

      Moral values is about so much more than the right of a woman to
choose and the rights of gay and lesbian Americans. It's about how we live
life together in the 21st century, understanding that as Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. said, "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends
towards justice."

Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI)

2004-11-10T23:01:00.000-05:00

Peaceful Ends through Peaceful Means:

A Christian Witness for Peace in Israel and Palestine

Peaceful Ends Through Peaceful Means

"One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

October 29, 2004

US Ecumenical Accompanier Serving in Ramallah
The 9th group of Ecumenical Accompaniers is now on the ground working with local partners throughout the Palestinian

Territories and Israel. One US Accompanier is currently serving in the World Council of Churches Ecumenical

Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) with the support of Peaceful Ends through Peaceful Means (PEPM).

Anne is assigned to Ramallah, a town north of Jerusalem, where she works with the Hope Lutheran Church and other

programs in the community and neighboring villages. She is from New York and is an active member of the Evangelical

Lutheran Church in America. She is one of an international group of 29 Accompaniers working with Palestinians and

Israelis to build a just and secure peace for Israel and Palestine. You can read first-hand stories from the Accompaniers

on the EAPPI website at http://www.eappi.org/.

This three-month group of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme, which began sending volunteers in August 2002,

will conclude in December. Anne will then join other returned US Ecumenical Accompaniers who are sharing about their

experiences in churches and communities nationwide.

Peaceful Ends through Peaceful Means serves as the coordinator for the EAPPI in the US and is a coalition related to

Church World Service. For more information about the program or returned Accompaniers in your area, or to support

US participation in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme, please visit the PEPM website: Http://www.pepm.org.

The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) was launched in August 2002.

Ecumenical Accompaniers monitor and report violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,

support acts of nonviolent resistance alongside local Christian and Muslim Palestinians and Israeli peace activists,

offer protection through nonviolent presence, engage in public policy advocacy, and stand in solidarity with the

Churches and all those struggling against the Occupation. The programme is coordinated by the World Council of Churches (WCC).

The WCC is a fellowship of 342 Churches, in more than 100 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian traditions. The

Roman Catholic Church is not a member Church but works cooperatively with the WCC. Its office is in Geneva, Switzerland.

Fair Trade coffee judged also best bean!

2004-11-10T22:33:00.000-05:00

Trade Secrets
Equal Exchange's fair-trade coffee isn't just virtuous. Because of the company's innovative and collaborative ways of dealing with growers, it gets better beans. That makes for a darn good cup o' joe -- and caffeinated growth for Equal Exchange. Do companies that thrive by twisting their suppliers' arms have something to learn?
From: Issue 88 November 2004, Page 98
By: Lucas Conley
Illustrations by: Greg Morgan
URL: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/88/trade-secrets.html

When Mike Gallagher took over Java Monkey in Decatur, Georgia, three years ago, he admits he didn't know much about coffee shops. But as the owner of a successful local pub, he was sure of two things: He knew how to run a profitable business, and he knew a mean espresso when he tasted one. His first step was to dump Java Monkey's coffee supplier, Seattle's Best, and head out in search of a better bean. After requesting samples from nearly two dozen different labels, he dismissed all but five, and invited the contenders to a showdown in Georgia. The winner? Equal Exchange, a small company whose coffee beans are all "fair trade."
At first glance, that might seem like an odd choice. After all, there's a fundamentally uneconomical -- or at least extra-economical -- aura to fair trade. In the interest of "fairness," first-world companies voluntarily pay third-world farmers more than twice the market price for a crop like coffee and then pass on much of the higher price to cafes, grocery stores, and individual customers. The extra money consumers are willing to pony up out of a sense of social conscience helps raise living standards and build clinics, schools, and roads in impoverished regions.
Or so the theory goes. But at Equal Exchange, fair trade isn't just about good intentions. Besides paying farmers more, Equal Exchange works with them to help them grow and process better beans. The result is a tastier product that commands a higher price on its merits, not just its meritoriousness. It's a refreshing exception to the hard-nosed, Wal-Martesque way many companies treat their suppliers these days: Instead of dropping vendors for the slightest infraction, or pressuring them to offer lower and lower prices, Equal Exchange forges closer, more-forgiving relationships with its farmers in the interest of providing better products. Customers love it. Farmers love it. And Equal Exchange's competitors are catching on.
Of course, coffee isn't bicycle tires or masking tape. Thanks to the $4 latte, java has become a premium product that can command a premium price, and that opens a window for fair traders such as Equal Exchange, which often matches or beats the prices of non-fair-trade rivals. And it's no longer a fringe business. Americans drank $9 billion in gourmet coffee last year -- amounting to 535 million pounds of beans -- nearly 20% of the U.S. coffee market, according to the Specialty Coffee Association of America and TransFair USA, the governing body that certifies fair-trade companies in the United States. Sales at Equal Exchange have grown at an average of 30% a year. This year, the company expects to top $15.5 million -- more than 4 million pounds of coffee, up from 25,000 in 1986. And growth like Equal Exchange's can come only from providing good coffee. "The product can carry the message but not the other way around," says sales rep Meghan Hubbs. "People may try your coffee on the basis of the social message, but they won't keep coming back if it's no good."
The goodness of Equal Exchange's coffee rests in the hands of Beth Ann Caspersen, the company's quality-control guru. In Caspersen's cupping lab, newly imported beans are put through a barrage of tests that examine everything from humidity to color, shape, and size. And, of course, there's the taste. "Coffee is a lot like wine," she says. "There's a real art and skill in handling the beans." Caspersen is quick to point out that not all fair-trade coffee is perfect: Some 10% to 15% of the coffee she samples in her lab is rejected. "We're brothers and sisters," she says, "but we're doing business here."
Those rejection rates used to be much higher, but the company has brought them down by working directly with farmers. In August, for example, six Nicaraguan farmers spent a week at the company's Canton, Massachusetts, headquarters, learning "flavor profiles" under Caspersen's tutelage. Each month, she or other Equal Exchange employees will visit some of the company's 19 farmer co-ops, often bringing along customers and cafe owners. (Each new employee is required to make a trip to a farmer co-op within his or her first 30 months at the company.) As shipments reach Canton, Caspersen writes out detailed reports in Spanish and emails them to co-op managers. "With this feedback," she says, "farmers are able to provide a better bean."
One such farmer is Arnaldo Neyra Camizan, 47, the general manager of a small 200-farmer co-op in northern Peru. In most countries, independent farmers must often settle for a 30-cent-per-pound "farm-gate price." Camizan sells his beans to Equal Exchange for $1.41 (TransFair sets the rate). With the proceeds, co-op farmers such as Camizan are not only able to improve their communities and feed their families but also can buy better seeds, fertilize their next crop, and build infrastructure such as mills, cupping labs, and optic sorters that check beans before export. Such improvements allow them to sell the beans directly to Equal Exchange at full price, rather than outsourcing to a middleman with a roaster or mill. On grocery shelves in the United States, Camizan's beans, marketed by Equal Exchange under names such as "Organic Mind, Body and Soul," fetch $8.49 a pound (less than some major labels). "Through Equal Exchange's help," says Camizan, "our members are converting from small-scale farmers to small-scale businesspeople."
Equal Exchange also offers preharvest loans so farmers don't have to trade against their crops during the season. Last year, director of purchasing Todd Caspersen lent $1 million to farmer co-ops. He says it's not charity, it's competitive thinking. With fair-trade prices set by TransFair, everyone's paying the same price. So who gets the good stuff? "Well," he shrugs, "if you happen to have a quarter-million-dollar loan out to them, you will." Equal Exchange helps its farmers ride out problems too. A few years back, for example, Beth Ann Caspersen sensed a decline in quality from one of its co-ops. Instead of dropping the co-op altogether, she sent a message by cutting the contract 20%. The co-op improved its sorting and processing, and today Equal Exchange imports more of its coffee than ever before.
Competitors have been taking note. Since 1999, Green Mountain, Starbucks, and Procter & Gamble have all dipped their toes in the fair-trade market. Green Mountain does nearly 20% fair trade, the most of the three. This spring, Dunkin' Donuts introduced 100% fair-trade espresso beans. In response to its new competitors, Equal Exchange has offered the same goodwill it extends to its farmer co-ops, promoting their efforts and urging them to do more. When P&G entered the fair-trade market, Equal Exchange challenged its new rival to match its own yearly volume. It's altruistic, but it's also self-interested. Equal Exchange figures its rivals will expand the market for fair-trade coffee.
In the end, the proof is in the cup. Back at Java Monkey, Equal Exchange's largest cafe client, Gallagher says fair trade wasn't the deciding factor in his decision to carry Equal Exchange; Decatur is far from liberal stomping grounds like Berkeley or Ann Arbor, where fair trade is a natural fit. While Gallagher says the mission behind fair trade is important to him personally -- he even joined Equal Exchange for a 12-day trip to Nicaragua a couple of years back -- to the customer, the coffee is usually all that matters. "More than half of our clientele have no idea they're drinking fair-trade coffee," says Gallagher. "For them, it's just about quality."
Lucas Conley is a Fast Company staff writer.

Copyright © 2004 Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing. All rights reserved.
Fast Company, 375 Lexington Avenue.,New York , NY 10017

Patents, intellectual Property & AIDS drugs

2004-11-10T21:45:00.000-05:00

Africa: Intellectual Property

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Nov 7, 2004 (041107)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

"Humanity stands at a crossroads - a fork in our moral code and a
test of our ability to adapt and grow. Will we evaluate, learn and
profit from ...new ideas and opportunities [to share knowledge], or will we respond to the most unimaginative pleas to suppress all of this in favor of intellectually weak, ideologically rigid, and sometimes brutally unfair and inefficient policies [on intellectual property]? - Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization

Despite continued U.S. refusal to allow the use of cost-effective
generic drugs in its international AIDS programs (see http://www.africafocus.org/docs04/acc0411.php)> Africa Focus , there is momentum
on other fronts in the international campaign to give priority to
health and development needs over narrow interpretations of patent
rights. The European Commission on October 29 proposed a new
regulation to allow generic drug manufacturers to produce patented
medicines for exports. Earlier in October, the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) adopted a proposal by developing
countries to fully integrate development priorities into its
consideration of intellectual property issues.

WIPO, though much less prominent than the powerful World Trade
Organization (WTO), is the official UN agency with responsibilities
including technical assistance to countries on intellectual
property rights, including patents, copyrights, and other related
issues. In recent years experts, non-governmental organizations,
and developing countries have lobbied actively for a more proactive
role for WIPO, noting that "humanity faces a global crisis in the
governance of knowledge, technology and culture." In response the
WIPO assembly on October 4 approved a proposal for a "development
agenda" presented by Brazil, Argentina, and other developing
countries.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin presents the unofficial Geneva
Declaration and excerpts from the developing country proposal on
this issue. These documents, as well as much additional background
information and copies of the Geneva Declaration in French,
Spanish, and other languages, are available at http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html> other languages

On the topic of access to medicines in particular, the Health
Systems Resource Centre of the British Government's Department for
International Development has just released several new papers
warning of implications of new developments in intellectual
property and trade laws. In particular, a paper on "Access to
Medicines in Under-served Markets" calls spells out the new
difficulties that will arise next year for production of new
generic drugs when tighter patent rules come into effect in India
and China. See http://www.dfidhealthrc.org/shared/know_the/publications.html> Health for
this and other related publications.

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++

Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO)

Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge,
technology and culture. The crisis is manifest in many ways.

* Without access to essential medicines, millions suffer and die;

* Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge
and technology undermines development and social cohesion;

* Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose
enormous costs on consumers and retard innovation;

* Authors, artists and inventors face mounting barriers to
follow-on innovation;

* Concentrated ownership and control of knowledge, technology,
biological resources and culture harm development, diversity and
democratic institutions;

* Technological measures designed to enforce intellectual property
rights in digital environments threaten core exceptions in
copyright laws for disabled persons, libraries, educators, authors
and consumers, and undermine privacy and freedom;

* Key mechanisms to compensate and support creative individuals and
communities are unfair to both creative persons and consumers;

* Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and
lock up the public domain.

At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in
information, medical and other essential technologies, as well as
in social movements and business models. We are witnessing highly
successful campaigns for access to drugs for AIDS, scientific
journals, genomic information and other databases, and hundreds of
innovative collaborative efforts to create public goods, including
the Internet, the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the Creative Commons,
GNU Linux and other free and open software projects, as well as
distance education tools and medical research tools. Technologies
such as Google now provide tens of millions with powerful tools to
find information. Alternative compensation systems have been
proposed to expand access and interest in cultural works, while
providing both artists and consumers with efficient and fair
systems for compensation. There is renewed interest in compensatory
liability rules, innovation prizes, or competitive intermediators,
as models for economic incentives for science and technology that
can facilitate sequential follow-on innovation and avoid monopolist
abuses. In 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared that
member countries should "promote access to medicines for all."

Humanity stands at a crossroads - a fork in our moral code and a
test of our ability to adapt and grow. Will we evaluate, learn and
profit from the best of these new ideas and opportunities, or will
we respond to the most unimaginative pleas to suppress all of this
in favor of intellectually weak, ideologically rigid, and sometimes
brutally unfair and inefficient policies? Much will depend upon the
future direction of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), a global body setting standards that regulate the
production, distribution and use of knowledge.

A 1967 Convention sought to encourage creative activity by
establishing WIPO to promote the protection of intellectual
property. The mission was expanded in 1974, when WIPO became part
of the United Nations, under an agreement that asked WIPO to take
"appropriate action to promote creative intellectual activity," and
facilitate the transfer of technology to developing countries, "in
order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development."

As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a
culture of creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often
without regard to consequences. The continuous expansion of these
privileges and their enforcement mechanisms has led to grave social
and economic costs, and has hampered and threatened other important
systems of creativity and innovation. WIPO needs to enable its
members to understand the real economic and social consequences of
excessive intellectual property protections, and the importance of
striking a balance between the public domain and competition on the
one hand, and the realm of property rights on the other. The
mantras that "more is better" or "that less is never good" are
disingenuous and dangerous -- and have greatly compromised the
standing of WIPO, especially among experts in intellectual property
policy. WIPO must change.

We do not ask that WIPO abandon efforts to promote the appropriate
protection of intellectual property, or abandon all efforts to
harmonize or improve these laws. But we insist that WIPO work from
the broader framework described in the 1974 agreement with the UN,
and take a more balanced and realistic view of the social benefits
and costs of intellectual property rights as a tool, but not the
only tool, for supporting creativily intellectual activity.

WIPO must also express a more balanced view of the relative
benefits of harmonization and diversity, and seek to impose global
conformity only when it truly benefits all of humanity. A "one size
fits all" approach that embraces the highest levels of intellectual
property protection for everyone leads to unjust and burdensome
outcomes for countries that are struggling to meet the most basic
needs of their citizens.

The WIPO General Assembly has now been asked to establish a
development agenda. The initial proposal, first put forth by the
governments of Argentina and Brazil, would profoundly refashion the
WIPO agenda toward development and new approaches to support
innovation and creativity. This is a long overdue and much needed
first step toward a new WIPO mission and work program. It is not
perfect. The WIPO Convention should formally recognize the need to
take into account the "development needs of its Member States,
particularly developing countries and least-developed countries,"
as has been proposed, but this does not go far enough. Some have
argued that the WIPO should only "promote the protection of
intellectual property," and not consider, any policies that roll
back intellectual property claims or protect and enhance the public
domain. This limiting view stifles critical thinking. Better
expressions of the mission can be found, including the requirement
in the 1974 UN/WIPO agreement that WIPO "promote creative
intellectual activity and facilitate the transfer of technology
related to industrial property." The functions of WIPO should not
only be to promote "efficient protection" and "harmonization" of
intellectual property laws, but to formally embrace the notions of
balance, appropriateness and the stimulation of both competitive
and collaborative models of creative activity within national,
regional and transnational systems of innovation.

The proposal for a development agenda has created the first real
opportunity to debate the future of WIPO. It is not only an agenda
for developing countries. It is an agenda for everyone, North and
South. It must move forward. All nations and people must join and
expand the debate on the future of WIPO.

There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of
standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and further
restrict access to knowledge. For generations WIPO has responded
primarily to the narrow concerns of powerful publishers,
pharmaceutical manufacturers, plant breeders and other commercial
interests. Recently, WIPO has become more open to civil society and
public interest groups, and this openness is welcome. But WIPO must
now address the substantive concerns of these groups, such as the
protection of consumer rights and human rights. Long-neglected
concerns of the poor, the sick, the visually impaired and others
must be given priority.

The proposed development agenda points in the right direction. By
stopping efforts to adopt new treaties on substantive patent law,
broadcasters rights and databases, WIPO will create space to
address far more urgent needs.

The proposals for the creation of standing committees and working
groups on technology transfer and development are welcome. WIPO
should also consider the creation of one or more bodies to
systematically address the control of anticompetitive practices and
the protection of consumer rights.

We support the call for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and
Technology. The Standing Committee on Patents and the Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights should solicit views from
member countries and the public on elements of such a treaty.

The WIPO technical assistance programs must be fundamentally
reformed. Developing countries must have the tools to implement the
WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, and "use, to the
full" the flexibilities in the TRIPS to "promote access to
medicines for all." WIPO must help developing countries address the
limitations and exceptions in patent and copyright laws that are
essential for fairness, development and innovation. If the WIPO
Secretariat cannot understand the concerns and represent the
interests of the poor, the entire technical assistance program
should be moved to an independent body that is accountable to
developing countries.

Enormous differences in bargaining power lead to unfair outcomes
between creative individuals and communities (both modern and
traditional) and the commercial entities that sell culture and
knowledge goods. WIPO must honor and support creative individuals
and communities by investigating the nature of relevant unfair
business practices, and promote best practice models and reforms
that protect creative individuals and communities in these
situations, consistent with norms of the relevant communities.

Delegations representing the WIPO member states and the WIPO
Secretariat have been asked to choose a future. We want a change of
direction, new priorities, and better outcomes for humanity. We
cannot wait for another generation. It is time to seize the moment
and move forward.

*************************************************************

Developing Countries' Proposal for Establishing a Development
Agenda for WIPO

See more at Third World Network

TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct04/3)

4 October 2004

A major development of potentially great significance took place at
the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO), held in Geneva on 27 September to 5 October
2004: the presentation of a proposal by several developing
countries to establish a "Development Agenda" for WIPO.

The proposal (which has the document number WO/GA/31/11, dated
August 27 2004) was originally submitted by Argentina and Brazil.
It was co-sponsored by Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Iran, Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela. On
4 October, Egypt announced it was also joining as a co-sponsor.

The proposal was discussed extensively by the Assembly in formal
and informal sessions on 30 September, 1 and 2 October and a
decision welcoming it was adopted by the WIPO General Assembly on
4 October.

______________________________

Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a
Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organization

[excerpts: for full text see http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html]> Argentina & Brazil

Submitted to the 40th Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the
Member States of WIPO and to the 31st Session of the WIPO General
Assembly

27 September -5 October 2004

...

II - the Development Dimension and Intellectual Property Protection

Technological innovation, science and creative activity in general
are rightly recognized as important sources of material progress
and welfare. However, despite the important scientific and
technological advances and promises of the 20th and early 21st
centuries in many areas, a significant "knowledge gap", as well as
a "digital divide", continue to separate the wealthy nations from
the poor.

In this context, the impact of intellectual property has been
widely debated in past years. Intellectual property protection is
intended as an instrument to promote technological innovation, as
well as the transfer and dissemination of technology. Intellectual
property protection cannot be seen as an end in itself, nor can the
harmonization of intellectual property laws leading to higher
protection standards in all countries, irrespective of their levels
of development.

The role of intellectual property and its impact on development
must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. IP protection
is a policy instrument the operation of which may, in actual
practice, produce benefits as well as costs, which may vary in
accordance with a country's level of development. Action is
therefore needed to ensure, in all countries, that the costs do not
outweigh the benefits of IP protection.

In this regard, the adoption of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health at the 4th Ministerial Conference of
the WTO represented an important milestone. It recognized that the
TRIPS Agreement, as an international instrument for the protection
of intellectual property, should operate in a manner that is
supportive of and does not run counter to the public health
objectives of all countries.

...

III - Integrating the Development Dimension into WIPO's Activities

As a member of the United Nations system, it is incumbent upon the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to be fully guided
by the broad development goals that the UN has set for itself, in
particular in the Millennium Development Goals. Development
concerns should be fully incorporated into all WIPO activities.
WIPO's role, therefore, is not to be limited to the promotion of
intellectual property protection. ...

We therefore call upon WIPO General Assembly to take immediate
action in providing for the incorporation of a "Development Agenda"
in the Organization's work program.

IV - the Development Dimension and Intellectual Property
Norm-Setting: Safeguarding Public Interest Flexibilities

WIPO is currently engaged in norm-setting activities in various
technical Committees. Some of these activities would have
developing countries and LDC 's agree to IP protection standards
that largely exceed existing obligations under the WTO's TRIPS
Agreement, while these countries are still struggling with the
costly process of implementing TRIPS itself. ...

While access to information and knowledge sharing are regarded as
essential elements in fostering innovation and creativity in the
information economy, adding new layers of intellectual property
protection to the digital environment would obstruct the free flow
of information and scuttle efforts to set up new arrangements for
promoting innovation and creativity, through initiatives such as
the Creative Commons'. The ongoing controversy surrounding the use
of technological protection measures in the digital environment is
also of great concern.

The provisions of any treaties in this field must be balanced and
clearly take on board the interests of consumers and the public at
large. It is important to safeguard the exceptions and limitations
existing in the domestic laws of Member States.

In order to tap into the development potential offered by the
digital environment, it is important to bear in mind the relevance
of open access models for the promotion of innovation and
creativity. In this regard, WIPO should consider undertaking
activities with a view to exploring the promise held by open
collaborative projects to develop public goods, as exemplified by
the Human Genome Project and Open Source Software. ...

VI - The Development Dimension and Intellectual Property
Enforcement

Intellectual property enforcement should also be approached in the
context of broader societal interests and development-related
concerns, in accordance with article 7 of TRIPS. The rights of
countries to implement their international obligations in
accordance with their own legal systems and practice, as clearly
foreseen by Article 1.1 of TRIPS, should be safeguarded. ...

VII - Promoting "Development Oriented" Technical Cooperation and
Assistance

WIPO is the main multilateral provider of technical assistance in
the field of intellectual property. By virtue of the 1995 agreement
with the WTO, it plays an important role in providing developing
countries with technical assistance to implement the TRIPS
agreement. ... must be, in particular, neutral, impartial and
demand-driven. ...

WIPO's legislative assistance should ensure that national laws on
intellectual property are tailored to meet each country's level of
development and are fully responsive to the specific needs and
problems of individual societies. It also must be directed towards
assisting developing countries to make full use of the
flexibilities in existing intellectual property agreements, in
particular to promote important public policy objectives.

VIII - A Member-driven Organization Open to Addressing the Concerns
of All Stakeholders, in Particular Civil Society

A balanced system of intellectual property protection should
service the interests of all sectors of society. ...

Currently, in WIPO, the term NGO is used to describe both public
interest NGOs and user organizations. This creates confusion and
does not seem consistent with existing UN practice, as implemented
in most of the UN specialized agencies. It is thus necessary, in
WIPO, to take appropriate measures to distinguish between user
organizations representing the interests of IP right holders and
NGOs representing the public interest.

Subsequently, WIPO should foster the active participation of public
interest non-governmental organizations in its subsidiary bodies to
ensure that in IP norm-setting a proper balance is struck between
the producers and users of technological knowledge, in a manner
that fully services the public interest.

...

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see http://www.africafocus.org> Africa Focus

************************************************************

Student Anti-War Conference

2004-11-10T21:11:00.000-05:00

National Student Anti-War Conference
Nov. 13, 14, NYC, NY - http://www.campusantiwar.net

Tell Senate to Fund AIDS Fight

2004-11-10T20:56:00.000-05:00

U.S. Drug Assistance Program at Risk!

Tell Senate to Fund the Fight Against AIDS

Dear Friends of Africa Action,

Congress is about to determine the levels of funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program; please join us, as we demand the greatest possible amount of funding for this critical domestic AIDS program that provides life giving medicines to those who cannot afford them.

The HIV/AIDS crisis is the greatest global threat in the world today—far deadlier than the threat of terrorism. More than 18 million Africans have died of HIV/AIDS, nearly 3 million in 2003 alone. In the United States there are more than 40,000 new HIV infections each year. AIDS does not discriminate by race, and is not restricted by borders, but the reality is that it is mainly killing Black people. In the United States, HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death among African-Americans between 25 and 44 years old.

Despite these facts, President Bush and U.S. policy-makers have failed to adequately address this crisis at home or abroad. When the domestic AIDS crisis was raised in a question during the second Presidential debate, both Vice-Presidential candidates were unable to provide an answer. Vice-President Cheney admitted being unaware of the impact of AIDS on Black women in the U.S. and fumbled through explanations of international efforts. Senator Edwards was equally at a loss for words. This level of ignorance about the greatest health crisis of our times is unacceptable. Inaction is immoral.

This week there is an opportunity to let the Senate know that fighting AIDS is critical. Congress returns to Washington on November 16th to finish the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill that includes funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).

The House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate both call for funding ADAP, but the House appropriates $20 million more than the Senate. Senators Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) are circulating a “Dear Colleague” sign-on letter to their colleagues in the Senate. You can download this letter at letter The letter urges members of the joint House/Senate conference committee to support the higher funding level for ADAP provided in the House version of the appropriations bill.

Please take a few minutes to urge your current Senators (not those newly elected) to sign this letter!

TAKE ACTION!

If the above link does not work, please go to:Africa Action

Amnesty Conference - Northeast in November

2004-11-10T08:52:00.000-05:00

Amnesty International Northeast Regional Conference,
Nov. 13, 14, Boston MA
Amnesty International

Iraq - first hand - November event

2004-11-10T08:48:00.000-05:00

Challenging the War: The Human Cost

First-Hand Accounts and Images of Life in a Baghdad Neighborhood,

5:30 pot-luck 7pm program, Rt. 116 & 47, Sunderland, MA - November 10

On November 10, 2004 Iraq Country Representatives for the American Friends Service Committee, Rick McDowell and Mary Trotochaud, will speak and share their images from Iraq at the First Congregational Church of Sunderland (on the corner of Routes 116 and 47) as part of the New England leg of their national speaking tour.

As part of their talk, Rick and Mary will offer a summary of the Letter to the Iraqi People (www.lettertotheiraqipeople.org). Begun in Franklin County, this grassroots initiative has resulted in the collection of well over 10,000 signatures from every state on a letter of apology to the people of Iraq. Rick and Mary's Iraqi colleagues have helped further this initiative in Iraq with heartening results. They will also detail current national AFSC efforts in support of US troop withdrawal and ending the US war in Iraq.

The evening begins with a community potluck supper at 5:30pm. The events are free and open to the public and concludes with a discussion of next steps. Donations welcome.

Co-sponsors include: the Peace and Justice Group of the First Congregational Church of Sunderland, the Harvest Aid working group, the Letter to the Iraqi People working group, Western Massachusetts AFSC and Traprock Peace Center.

Africa Debt Update

2004-10-29T22:08:00.000-04:00

From: africafocus@igc.org
Subject: Africa: Debt (Continued)
Date: October 4, 2004 8:33:40 AM EDT
To: arembe@mac.com

Africa: Debt (Continued)

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Oct 4, 2004 (041004)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

Despite an emerging consensus in favor of complete debt
cancellation for the poorest heavily indebted countries, the G-7
group of rich countries failed this weekend to reach agreement on
how to cancel the debt. Meanwhile a new UN report noted that
between 1970 and 2002, African countries received some $540 billion
in loans, paid back close to $550 billion in principal and
interest, and still held debt of $295 billion at the end of 2002.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow was quoted as saying "the details
[of debt relief] aren't important," while G-7 members promised to
continue to study the issue and report on their conclusions by the
end of the year.

While the details of the U.S. Treasury proposal are not available,
an editorial in the Washington Post for October 1 said that under
the proposal new resources from the World Bank for the affected
country would be reduced by the amount of debt cancelled. If this
report is correct, the Treasury plan would be in violation of
the generally agreed principle of "additionality," that is, that
debt relief should provide net additional resources for the
affected countries.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains the press release and selected
excerpts from the new UNCTAD report, Debt Sustainability: Oasis or Mirage?" For previous issues of AfricaFocus Bulletin on debt and related topics, visit http://www.africafocus.org/econexp.php
New UNCTAD Study Makes Case for African Debt Write-Off

UNCTAD Press Release
UNCTAD

September 30, 2004

Debt servicing at any level is incompatible with attaining the UN
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many African countries,
according to Debt Sustainability: Oasis or Mirage?, released today
by UNCTAD. The report concludes that any lasting solution to the
debt overhang hinges as much on political will as on financial
rectitude.

Squeezing the poor?

Between 1970 and 2002, Africa received some $540 billion in loans;
but despite paying back close to $550 billion in principal and
interest, it still had a debt stock of $295 billion as at the end
of 2002. And the figures are even more disconcerting for
sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which received $294 billion in
disbursements, paid out $268 billion in debt service and yet
remained straddled with a debt stock of some $210 billion. The
Report concludes that this amounts to a reverse transfer of
resources from the world s poorest continent.

The Report also contests the popular impression that Africa s debt
overhang is simply the legacy of irresponsible and corrupt African
governments. While certainly part of the story, particularly under
the cloak of cold war politics, exogenous shocks, commodity
dependence, poorly designed reform programmes and the actions of
creditors have all played a decisive part in the debt crisis.

And a more nuanced picture shows that the debt profile moved from
"sustainability" in the 1970s to "crisis" in the first half of the
1980s, with much of the debt being contracted between 1985 and 1995
under the guidance of structural adjustment programmes and close
scrutiny by the Bretton Woods institutions (BWIs).

Make or break time

The Report argues a robust economic case for a total cancellation
of Africa s debt:

* Low levels of savings and investment leading to high poverty and
adverse social conditions are among the biggest constraints on
growth in low-income African countries;

* Continuing debt servicing by African countries would nominally
constitute a reverse transfer of resources to creditors by a group
of countries that by all indications could least afford this; and

* In order to ensure that Africa will be able to reduce poverty by
half by 2015, in line with the MDGs, at the very least growth
levels will have to double to some 7%-to-8% per annum for the next
decade, the financial requirements of which are incompatible with
present and projected levels of debt servicing.

And this economic case is reinforced by a moral imperative for a
shared responsibility, particularly considering that the BWIs have
had the greatest influence on the development policies on the
continent through structural adjustment programmes and related
lending, which have not had the expected outcomes in ensuring
growth and development. Moreover, official lending was in large
part also predicated on the implementation of such programmes, and
much of the debt of countries with profligate regimes that were of
geopolitical/strategic interest is considered "odious".

Over the past two decades, examples have abounded of major bailout
operations both domestically and internationally where financial
markets were seen to be at risk. While Africa s external debt
represents a huge burden to the indebted countries, it has not yet
galvanized the political will required by its creditors to
undertake similar action.

In the absence of such political will, the Report calls for placing
a moratorium on debt servicing (without additional interest being
accrued) pending the institution of an independent panel of experts
to assess the sustainability of debt based on a realistic and
comprehensive set of criteria, including those of meeting the MDGs.
The Report recommends that such an assessment should include all
public debt. This is particularly so because the Heavily Indebted
Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative fails to take account of domestic
debt, which in recent years has become an important factor in the
total indebtedness of African countries.

However, even a full debt write-off would be only a first step
towards restoring growth and meeting the MDGs. UNCTAD estimates
that such a write-off would represent less than half those
countires resource requirements, with the gap filled by increased
official development assistance (ODA) grants as a prelude to Africa
increasing the level of domestic savings and investment required
for robust and sustainable growth.

Meeting the MDGs

It is in this context that the Report concludes that under present
conditions, the MDGs will remain elusive for the African continent.
As UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown insisted earlier
this year, "On current progress, we will fail to meet each
Millennium Development Goal in Africa not just for 10 years but for
100 years". That failure can in part be traced to the
"unaffordable" debt burden that has strangled the continent s
growth prospects for the past two decades, according to Jeffrey
Sachs, Special Economic Advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
And African leaders, including Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles
Zanawi, have begun to ask whether the HIPC Initiative has the
capacity to provide adequate debt relief to its beneficiaries.

The HIPC Initiative was launched in 1996 by the BWIs with the aim
of reducing the external public debt of the 42 poorest countries
(of which 34 are in Africa) to sustainable levels. Calls for
"deeper, broader and faster" debt relief led to the introduction of
an enhanced version in 1999, which was to make it easier for poor
countries to find a permanent exit solution to their debt crisis.

But eight years on, the Report argues, despite some initial
progress following the adoption of the enhanced Initiative, heavily
indebted poor African countries are still far from achieving
sustainable debt levels.

In a forward-looking evaluation, the Report findings include:

* Post-HIPC debt service payments are projected to increase from
about $2.4 billion in 2003 to $2.6 billion in 2005.

* Based on historical growth rates, the 23 African HIPCs that
reached their decision points by the end of 2003 have only a 40%
chance of attaining debt sustainability by 2020.

* While some completion point countries have debt ratios exceeding
sustainable levels as defined by the Initiative, a number of
equally poor debt-distressed African countries find themselves left
out of the Initiative altogether.

* Interim relief (between decision and completion points) is
inadequate and falls short of the proportion of the total debt
relief that creditors had promised to deliver during this critical
period.

* Bias in the debt sustainability analysis - and in particular,
persistently over-optimistic assumptions about economic and export
growth -- means that calculations of debt sustainability thresholds
based on debt-to-export and debt-to-revenue ratios are inadequate
indicators of the poverty-indebtedness nexus.

* There is uncertainty surrounding the funding of debt relief,
particularly for conflict and post-conflict HIPCs;

* The jury is still out on whether HIPC debt relief is additional
to ODA flows. New initiatives are needed to attain a clear and
significant level of additionality and to prevent an unfair
reallocation of future aid to HIPC debt relief.

In a nutshell, "it is becoming increasingly doubtful whether HIPC
beneficiaries can attain sustainable debt levels, based on export
and revenue criteria, after completion point, and maintain these in
the long term", observes the UNCTAD Report.

Policy space critical

For any debt relief framework to deliver tangible results, Africa
needs actively to pursue policies for prudent debt management,
economic diversification and sustained economic growth. But doing
so calls for better access to markets, much increased investment in
human and physical infrastructure and a considerable widening of
the policy space narrowed by adjustment programmes, including in
the context of poverty reduction strategies.

For more information:
UNCTAD Press Office T: +41 22 917 5828 E: press@unctad.org or
K. Kousari T: +41 22 917 5800 E: kamran.kousari@unctad.org

**********************************************************

Debt Sustainability: Oasis or Mirage?

UNCTAD/GDS/AFRICA/2004/1

[brief excerpts only; full report available at
UNCTAD full report

Introduction

In the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the
international community has set itself a target of reducing poverty
by half by the year 2015. Many observers have now come to the
conclusion that, on present trends, there is very little likelihood
that this objective can be achieved at any time close to that date
in the poorer countries, including in Africa.

In its report on Capital Flows and Growth in Africa (UNCTAD, 2000),
as in subsequent reports on economic development in Africa, UNCTAD
has argued that the current levels of GDP growth would have to be
raised to seven or eight per cent per annum and sustained if
poverty reduction targets were to be met. This would imply doubling
the current amount of aid to the continent and maintaining it at
that level at least for a decade if the continent was to break the
vicious circle of low growth and poverty. Such an action, within
the context of an appropriate mix of domestic policies and
supportive international measures, would generate sufficient
investment and savings to reduce aid dependency in the longer term
and place Africa on a sustainable growth path.

The continent's debt problems and its resource requirements are
inextricably linked to the capacity of African countries to
generate capital accumulation and growth. Among the policy measures
that UNCTAD has advanced (UNCTAD, 1998) is the need for an
independent assessment of debt sustainability in African countries
by a high-level panel of experts on finance and development,
selected jointly by debtors and creditors, with an undertaking by
creditors to implement fully and swiftly any recommendations that
might be made. While this recommendation did not find favour in the
donor community, it was contended that the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPCs) Initiative, and later its enhanced version, would
ensure a permanent exit solution to Africa's debt problems. There
now seems to be an emerging consensus, however, that many African
countries continue to suffer from a debt overhang despite the HIPC
Initiative and various actions in the context of the Paris Club.

The fact that even those countries that have reached (or are about
to reach) the so-called completion point will soon find themselves
in an unsustainable debt situation gives credence to the arguments
advanced by critics with respect to the inappropriateness of the
criteria applied in the debt sustainability analysis. And the fact
that several more debt-distressed African countries are not
eligible for HIPC debt relief reflects the lack of objectivity in
the eligibility criteria.

Debt sustainability is basically a relative concept. The questions
that beg for a response are: what level of debt is sustainable for
countries in which the vast majority of the population lives on
under $1 a day per person? Have debt sustainability criteria been
based on internationally recognized benchmarks such as those of the
MDGs, or on objectively and theoretically verifiable criteria? What
is the relationship between Africa's total external debt stocks and
the actual amount of debt serviced? Is complete debt write-off a
moral hazard or a "moral imperative"?

2. The genesis and nature of the African debt crisis

...

Africa's external debt burden increased significantly between 1970
and 1999. From just over $11 billion in 1970, Africa had
accumulated over $120 billion of external debt in the midst of the
external shocks of the early 1980s. Total external debt then
worsened significantly during the period of structural adjustment
in the 1980s and early 1990s, reaching a peak of about $340 billion
in 1995, the year immediately preceding the launch of the original
HIPC. Overall, Africa's external debt averaged $39 billion during
the 1970s, before ballooning to just over $317 billion in the late
1990s. ...

A significant factor in the debt crisis of African countries was
the two oil price shocks of 1973 1974 and 1979 1980, the latter
leading to a deterioration in the external environment that lasted
until 1982. The rise in oil prices not only had an adverse impact
on the trade balance of oil-importing countries, but also caused
fiscal crises in most of these countries, thereby undermining
domestic investment. The second shock occurred at a most
inauspicious period, as it coincided with sharp rises in real
interest rates. Within the context of the global recession of 1981
1982, which depressed demand for developing countries' exports, and
deteriorating terms of trade, the balance of payments crisis that
afflicted developing countries was exacerbated, not only for oil
importers but also for oil exporters. ,,,

Lending to low-income countries, particularly those in Africa, by
bilateral and multilateral creditors was predicated on economic
reforms being undertaken in the context of structural adjustment
programmes, and total longterm outstanding debt increased by about
200 per cent between 1980 and 1995, the year before the HIPC
Initiative was launched. The multilateral and official debt
components increased by more than 500 per cent and 300 per cent
respectively over the same period. The fact that these programmes
failed to deliver on the promise of growth and development meant
that the debt situation of many African countries continued to
deteriorate. ...

A cursory glance at Africa's debt profile shows that the continent
received some $540 billion in loans and paid back some $550 billion
in principal and interest between 1970 and 2002. Yet Africa
remained with a debt stock of $295 billion. For its part, SSA
received $294 billion in disbursements and paid $268 billion in
debt service, but remains with a debt stock of some $210 billion.
Discounting interest and interest on arrears, further payment of
outstanding debt would represent a reverse transfer of resources.

...

3. Is HIPC debt relief additional to traditional aid?

The official breakdown of the costs and benefits of the HIPC
Initiative may be highly misleading, as it does not take into
account the "true" allocation of costs and benefits. For example,
if all creditors deducted the costs of HIPC debt relief from their
traditional aid budgets for HIPCs, this would imply that the HIPCs
were paying for the debt relief in terms of reduced traditional
aid. The final costs to creditors would be zero, as would be the
net benefits to HIPCs. Hence, in determining the true costs and
benefits of the HIPC Initiative, it is necessary to make some
decisions on how to allocate the costs of bilateral and especially
of multilateral creditors to individual countries. This raises two
important issues. First, is HIPC debt relief additional? And,
second, will creditors make reallocations in their traditional aid
budgets among the recipients of traditional aid due to the
provision of HIPC debt relief?

Comparing data for the three years before the adoption of the HIPC
Initiative (1994 1996) with data for the three years after the
adoption of the HIPC Initiative (1997 1999), Gunter (2001) showed
that there has been close to zero additionality, even for HIPCs
that had reached their completion point. The World Bank's OED
Review (Gautam, 2003) concluded that, even though there has been
close to zero overall additionality, the most recent trends in aid
flows indicate some aid reallocations towards eligible HIPCs.

...

In any case, given that the real costs of debt relief can be spread
over the lifetime of the remaining loans, which for multilateral
loans is around 30 to 40 years, the annual cost of 100 per cent
debt relief, at least for those HIPCs at the decision/completion
point as at September 2003, remains relatively small in comparison
to the resource requirements for meeting the MDGs. It has often
been argued that a 100 per cent debt write-off will send the wrong
signals to debtor countries and others, set a bad precedent and
thereby create a moral hazard for the IFIs. However, there is no
greater moral hazard than the one entailed in constant
restructuring and partial debt forgiveness based on creditors'
perspectives and interests, as is the case under terms agreed with
the Paris Club. On the contrary, moral hazard will be limited by
dealing decisively with the recurring debt crisis of poor African
countries through a truly permanent exit from constant rescheduling
that establishes a basis for long-term debt sustainability for
debtors within an appropriate framework of national and
international policy measures. A complete debt write-off,
therefore, becomes a "moral imperative", as it will guarantee
resources to help meet the MDGs in Africa and assure an exit from
the debt crisis for the continent. ...

The analysis illustrates the weaknesses of the HIPC approach with
respect to finding a permanent exit solution to the debt crisis of
African HIPCs, and highlights the fact that several other equally
poor African countries have been left out of the process. On the
question of the level of debt deemed to be sustainable for
countries the majority of whose population lives on less than one
or two dollars a day per person, the answer is self-evident:
considering the seriousness with which the international community
is addressing the attainment of the MDGs, these targets should be
used as a major benchmark for debt sustainability. This in turn
implies that virtually all of the outstanding debt would need to be
written off, as the resources needed to attain these goals are
substantial.
*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
AfricaFocus archives

************************************************************

Children, Conflict & Peace in Northern Uganda

2004-10-29T21:42:00.000-04:00

Uganda: Children, War, and Peace

AfricaFocus Bulletin
Sep 30, 2004 (040930)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor's Note

Optimism about prospects for peace in northern Uganda is growing.
Recent news reports cite increased desertions from the rebel Lord's Resistance Army and some reduction in the number of displaced people. Nevertheless, making peace is no simple task. The population is traumatized by continuing violence, and HIV/AIDS
rates in the conflict areas are almost double the national average.

A new report from World Vision Uganda highlights the continuing
obstacles to peace and the enormous damage done to children and to
society at large from this 18-year war that has received very
little attention from the international community.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains the foreword, executive summary,
and key recommendations of the World Vision report, entitled
"Pawns of Politics: Children, Conflict and Peace in Northern
Uganda."

For the full text of the 59-page illustrated World Vision report
see World Vision Uganda Report

Additional links to more reports on the war in northern Uganda:
crisisweb2004
irinnews2003
africaaction2003
accord uganda 2002
accord resources 2000

Pawns of Politics: Children, Conflict and Peace in Northern Uganda

Report Authors: Rory E. Anderson, Fortunate Sewankambo, and Kathy
Vandergrift

World Vision

Foreword

The faces and stories of children in northern Uganda are etched on
our memories. The children and their suffering are unforgettable,
but the armed conflict in which they are caught is almost forgotten
by most of the world. Hopefully this report will help to change
that.

For more than a decade World Vision has worked with the communities
in northern Uganda to help them cope with the impacts of war. At
our Centre for Children of War in Gulu, children who escape from
captivity under the Lord's Resistance Army are helped to return
home and rebuild their lives, through psychosocial counselling,
healthcare, education and vocational training. In the camps for
displaced persons, food, water, and shelter only begin to address
the needs of millions of families forced from their homes.

We can give blankets to night commuters, but we also need to end
the fear that drives them to leave home. The insecurity and costs
of this war for everyone over the years is a price that is too high
to pay. With each visit and each contribution, we ask ourselves
what more we could do to help resolve this conflict and restore
peace in northern Uganda. We are convinced lasting peace is
winnable, but it needs a concerted effort from the local to the
international level. This report is a result of our desire to
contribute to finding the way forward.

It is our hope and prayer that this report will not only be read,
but also acted upon by people of goodwill and people with the power
and responsibility to end this conflict. It is a plea for a united
effort to make a difference for the children and communities in
northern Uganda and for global peace and security.

Robby Muhumuza, National Director, World Vision Uganda
Dean R. Hirsch, President, World Vision International

Executive Summary

The armed conflict in northern Uganda has been overlooked and
misunderstood for the past 18 years. It is a tragic struggle for
power involving children, who are used as pawns for military and
political purposes. They are abused; they are manipulated; and by
most, they are pitied, then ignored. In spite of good intentions
and laws against child abuse, these children have no protection for
their security and basic rights.

The misunderstanding has resulted in a tendency to simplify the
conflict to merely "getting the bad guy," while ignoring the
complexities that continue to fuel the conflict. For the past 18
years, war between the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and the
Government of Uganda (GoU) has continued because of historical
grievances, a legacy of militarised politics, external
interference, and national and international indifference.

Uganda's post-colonial history has been one of violent coups,
numerous armed rebellions, and regional and ethnic divisions. This
has created a militarised political system with a legacy of
accessing state power through violence. The LRA insurgency was
initially a political response to the current government's coup and
ensuing cattle theft by various government soldiers. When the LRA
resorted to the violent abduction of children to serve in its
ranks, political grievance turned into humanitarian crisis.

The nature and duration of the conflict have created tremendous
humanitarian, social, and economic costs for all of Uganda,
particularly for children. The protection of children has not been
a priority for governments, despite national and international laws
guaranteeing their basic rights. As a result, a situation of mass
hostage-taking has occurred, where over 20,000 children have been
violently abducted. Children are the primary targets of the LRA,
shrewdly forced to perpetuate their own misery whether they are
abducted, or live a life of "night commuting" to avoid abduction.

Another tactic sustaining the conflict is the use of spiritual
rituals by the LRA. Spiritual weapons are used to psychologically
enslave both abducted children and the targeted population with
fear. History provides an important context for understanding the
spiritualised politics and the politicised spiritual rituals
underlying the conflict. Because of this history, it is not strange
to also spiritualise military activity. The result is a cultic
manipulation of religion by the LRA in lieu of a political
platform. The religious dimension has become an excuse for lack of
action by authorities with mandates for child protection and
conflict resolution. It would be more effective to recognise the
religious element of this conflict as tactical, and respond by
supporting and encouraging inter-faith peace efforts as part of a
comprehensive counteroffensive.

The protracted nature of this conflict has created a humanitarian
crisis that is among the world's worst. Over 1.6 million people are
homeless. Eighty per cent of the northern region's population lives
in displacement camps that are squalid and cramped. For the
displaced, the inadequate response to this crisis has meant a
drastic decline in quality of life indicators. Malnutrition rates
among displaced children range from 7 -21 per cent, and anywhere
from 1,052- 15,000 people share a single water source. A further
indication of the severity of this crisis is the upswing in
HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. National prevalence rates for Uganda are
estimated at 6.2 per cent and declining, but rates in waraffected
areas are almost double that of the national average, at 11.9 per
cent.

The economic costs of the war have been enormous for the entire
country. It is morally and academically challenging to quantify the
value of a human life and the social costs of war, but attempting
to do so paints a picture of the costly damages of this prolonged
conflict. For the analyzed period, the costs of the conflict in
northern Uganda can conservatively be quantified at over US$1.3
billion, and costing more than US$100 million per year. This is
more than Uganda's total national budget for health care. Paying
for the conflict comes at the expense of other important national
programs; therefore, the LRA conflict directly impacts the
immediate well-being of all Ugandans.

Initially a Ugandan civil war, the LRA conflict spilled over the
border and became linked to the civil war in southern Sudan. As
part of the fight against terrorism, the Government of Sudan (GoS)
opened select parts of southern Sudan for Uganda to fight a
military offensive against the LRA. Intended as a resolution to the
conflict, striking at the LRA as terrorists has, in fact, worsened
the humanitarian crisis. Because the LRA ranks are estimated to be
80 per cent abducted child soldiers, the terrorists are themselves
hostages. Under attack in Sudan, the LRA resorted to new abductions
in northern Uganda, which exponentially increased displacement and
created a new phenomenon called "night commuters," children who
flee home every night and sleep in public places to avoid
abduction. Relying on a military offensive created more of a
humanitarian crisis. To date, global indifference allows the abuses
to continue; the international dimensions and human suffering,
however, make ending the conflict a responsibility for all of
humanity.

Ending the war goes beyond capturing Joseph Kony. Full resolution
of the LRA conflict will happen only when all of the following
occur: (1) When Joseph Kony surrenders, is captured, or agrees to
some sort of political settlement; (2) hidden LRA weapons caches
are found; (3) LRA commanders are resettled and reintegrated; and
(4) IDPs are able to safely leave camps and resettle. Although
neutralising Kony is a large part of ending the conflict and the
humanitarian crisis, any senior LRA commander with access to these
weapons could inherit the cause and take his place.

This is a winnable peace. Given all of the challenges, resolution
is possible if a sustained, high-level, multi-pronged approach is
used by a variety of actors. Among these, the Government of Uganda
should give priority to the protection of children and civilians
and undertake the necessary reforms to combat corruption within the
military.

The international community, including key western governments like
the U.S., the E.U. and others, will need to pressure Sudan to put
an end to LRA activities within its borders and galvanize
international institutions to better respond to this crisis. If
national and international actions are coordinated, Kony's veil of
dark spiritism is likely to evaporate, as will the reign of terror
by the LRA.

Summary of Recommendations

General Recommendations

* Peace in northern Uganda is attainable. A multidimensional
approach from the local to the international level is recommended.
Considering the human, social and economic costs of this conflict,
investment in a concerted peace initiative would benefit all of
Uganda, Africa and international security.

* The spiritual aspects of this conflict need to be addressed as
part of a comprehensive response; they can neither be ignored nor
used as an excuse for inaction by authorities with responsibility
for protecting civilians. Non-military conflict resolution
strategies should include someone with sensitivity to the spiritual
dimensions of Kony's hold on people and an ability to appeal to
spiritual alternatives to overcome fear and manipulation of
religious beliefs.

* Protection of civilians, with a special focus on children, should
be a top priority for national and international action.

* Appropriate HIV/AIDS control activities should be added to all
interventions undertaken by government, NGOs and UN agencies,
tailored for the different aspects of the conflict: e.g., emergency
response, IDPs, abducted children, "night commuters," and
post-conflict reconstruction.

Government of Uganda

* The Government of Uganda and its leader President Yoweri Museveni
should actively support and participate in international conflict
resolution and local peace initiatives, in order to put an end to
the cost of this conflict and channel diverted resources into
productive uses for the people and economy of Uganda.

* The Amnesty Act should be extended for a period longer than three
months at a time, for all except Kony, and accompanied with
consistent public information to increase awareness and allow for
effective implementation.

* Consistent messages from political leaders about conflict
resolution and the Amnesty Act would help to build community
confidence and convey important signals to persons still in LRA
captivity that they will be accepted if they escape and return
home.

* Public information campaigns about peace and amnesty in northern
Uganda need to be targeted towards young people, to ensure that
anyone who might be abducted by the LRA is well aware of his or her
options and less liable to be swayed by false indoctrination during
captivity. Information should be age-appropriate and in local
languages covering all of the affected areas.

* The Minister of State for Youth and Children Affairs, who is
responsible for the Children's Statute, should give urgent
attention to the need for child protection in northern Uganda,
working with UNICEF, the Army, and local community structures to
take the necessary steps to ensure that children at risk are
protected under the existing laws of Uganda.

* The Ugandan government should speedily implement the recently
passed IDP Policy and its provisions with high priority given to
the protection of civilians, including children.

* The Ugandan Army should clarify roles, responsibilities and
accountability of the various local defence units in military
strategies for civilian protection.

* The Government of Uganda needs to conduct a full-scale audit of
the military, and implement measures to combat the serious problems
of corruption, which is debilitating the military.

* Without waiting for the conflict to end, the Government of Uganda
and local community leaders in the North should begin a process of
national reconciliation through constructive dialogue, including
participation by youth and women.

Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)

* Leaders of the LRA should demonstrate a serious commitment to
peace by:

- clearly outlining achievable political objectives and cooperating
with mediators attempting conflict resolution;

- negotiating and implementing a ceasefire with independent,
international monitoring of all parties;

- ending the practice of abduction, with the release of all
children and adults still in captivity; and

- agreeing to human rights monitoring of all parties to ensure
everyone complies with international humanitarian laws.

* For the medium term, the LRA and its supporters should direct
their energy into non-violent political dialogue and organisations
to address root causes of the conflict and work toward the
development of political structures in Uganda that respect
diversity, treat all peoples equitably, and foster development in
the north.

* The LRA should use its spiritual influence to spread a message of
peace rather than revenge and punishment, in keeping with the core
teachings of the various religions to which the LRA has appealed
for legitimacy in the past.

Government of Sudan

* Consistent actions in support of peace are imperative from the
Government of Sudan, including active measures to end all LRA
activities within its borders.

UNICEF

* UNICEF should increase its presence and engagement in northern
Uganda, with a focus on child protection issues.

ICRC

* The ICRC should focus more attention on its unique mandate for
child protection under the provisions of the Geneva Convention,
including protection of the rights of children taken hostage by the
LRA across international borders.

United Nations

* The UN Security Council should take specific, progressive
measures to ensure implementation of Resolution 1539 in northern
Uganda and Sudan, including increased monitoring with consequences
for failure to comply with its provisions for the security of
children.

* The UN Secretary General should appoint a Special Envoy to
co-ordinate all UN efforts in the direction of peace, with a
particular focus on protection of civilians and accountability for
compliance with international law. This would include independent
human rights monitors to deter abuses by all parties and engagement
with all parties on compliance with international laws. The

International Community

* Consistent, coordinated, high-level diplomacy is needed by all
international actors, including the withdrawal of military support
that enables the conflict to continue. Doing this will force
combatants to engage in serious efforts to resolve the conflict.

* The new African Union Peace and Security Council should give high
priority to the situation in northern Uganda and provide African
leadership within international efforts for non-violent conflict
resolution.

* Local efforts like the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative
(ARLPI) and others should be supported, as part of a larger peace
initiative involving the Government of Uganda, the LRA, and the
Government of Sudan.

* Increased humanitarian assistance should be provided by
international donor agencies to meet the requirements outlined in
the 2004 UN Consolidated Appeal for northern Uganda, with
particular attention to prevent predicted food shortages, to reduce
malnutrition, to support education for IDP children, and to include
protection and peace-building components in a more co-ordinated
strategy for northern Uganda.

* International security agencies should recognise that this is
international hostage taking, and therefore apply all tools
available for freeing hostages.

Religious Community

* Interfaith efforts like the ARLPI, which has bridged the divide
among religious groups for the sake of peace, should be welcomed as
legitimate peacebuilding interventions. Specific faith-based
initiatives, including prayer, discussion and dialogue about the
religious elements of the conflict, are effective tools to break
the hold of fear and spiritual oppression on people.

* Because of the social and religious make-up of Uganda, Christian
churches have a special role in peacebuilding through prayers for
peace, positive leadership, and advocacy, in order to offset those
who use violence in the name of religion.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
Africa focus Archive

Nov. 3rd Post-Election Rally in Amherst

2004-10-29T21:21:00.000-04:00

NOVEMBER 2ND TO THE POLLS
NOVEMBER 3RD TO THE STREETS!

Rally at noon on the Amherst Common
Candlelight Vigils at dusk at central meeting places throughout the valley

Western Massachusetts - On November 3, 2004, the Western Massachusetts Community will come together on the Amherst Common, rain or shine, regardless of the election outcome, to share local, national and global thoughts about the future of our country.

The Community Gathering and Speakout will begin at 12:00pm and continue until 4:30pm, when community members are invited to return to their town commons and meeting spaces for candlelight vigils. It is being sponsored by a broad range of community and social justice organizations and is in concert with national movements such as Beyond Voting and United for Justice with Peace.

Local speakers, musicians such as Charlie King, and poets will offer a host of inspirational information and reflection. There will also be time for a community speakout where all community members are welcome to make announcements and share thoughts about next steps, which will range from legislative efforts to grassroots mobiliations. Organizers will also launch a People’s Platform which will highlight - regardless of the election outcome - the essential components of a just and democratic United States.

Platform co-author, Mount Holyoke professor Jean Grossholtz notes, “Together we can take back our country. We must keep up the momentum! Regardless of the outcome, we must take immediate measures to bring justice to our entire nation, while recognizing our need to be a better global citizen.”

Doing Good By Trading Fair

2004-10-29T21:10:00.000-04:00

source website
10:25 AM EDT on Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Providence Journal

Doing good by trading fair
BY GAIL CIAMPA
Journal Food Editor
What is Fair Trade and why should it matter to you when buying coffee, tea or chocolate?
The answer, according to local companies who have committed to selling products for which farmers around the globe are paid a fair price, has two parts.
"It's the right thing to do," said Susan Wood, CEO for Providence's Coffee Exchange. "How can you make a living on the back of someone else? How could you live with yourself?"
And even if you turn a cold heart to her moral argument, consider Wood's roaster's point of view.
"If we don't help the farmer, we're not going to have access to great coffee because farmers aren't going to be able to do their job anymore," she said. "Then we all lose."
There are also economic issues at play. Wood said there is an international coffee crisis. Farmers are getting such a small amount of money because of the huge supply of coffee. A bumper-crop year in Brazil and Colombia and the emergence of Vietnam as a coffee producer have flooded the market with coffee. Farmers who can't make a profit are plowing under their crops, especially in Central America.
So when you see that "Fair Trade Certified" label, understand it's not just food with a cause. The concept blends powerful components of sustainability (growing things that enrich, not drain or pollute the land); artisan products (hand-tended rather than mass-produced); organics (not using chemicals and pesticides); and social responsibility.
"Fair trade lets farmers stay on their land in a natural eco-system," explained Haven Bourque, marketing director for TransFair USA, an Oakland, Calif.-based independent certifier of fair trade practices for products coming into the United States. Fair trade products are generally also certified organic, as they are probably grown without pesticides using traditional methods that protect native trees and birds.
The non-profit group gives U.S. vendors access to certified products. They started certifying fair trade coffees in 1998, then added tea and chocolate and, most recently, bananas.
Last year, TransFair certified 18.7 million pounds of coffee, a growth rate of 91 percent from the previous year. In five years, the income generated for Fair Trade coffee farmers was $34 million.
But here's the best news: "Quality has caught up with cause," said Donald Machado, owner of Tiverton's Coastal Roasters, a two-year-old company.
By dealing in Fair Trade products, Machado is able to bring his social and political principles to market. Being socially conscious doesn't hurt his business, he said: "It's more the other way around."
Customers, especially Baby Boomers, seek out Fair Trade items because most are specialty coffees.
"They've been well-tended," he said. "So people don't mind paying a little more for wonderful coffees."
Coastal Roasters is a wholesale and retail coffee-roasting company with a cafe at 1791 Main Rd., Tiverton. Some 75 percent of his coffees are fair trade and organic, and 99 percent of his whole-leaf teas are so designated. He also has a fair-trade cocoa product. His goal is to integrate more Fair Trade products, bananas and sugar most likely.
Bourque likens Fair Trade to a "global farmers' market." Some local roasters can trace what farmers have done with their profits, like buying a new truck. Indeed a visit to www.coastalroasters.com, Machado's company Web site, talks about a possible trip to Central Honduras to the village of Majastre, where a 20-member co-op has benefited from Fair Trade.
It's not just independents involved, either. Starbucks has committed to a line of Fair Trade coffees, and Bourque said all the beans used in Dunkin' Donuts espresso beverages are Fair Trade certified.
Buying fair-trade products helps sustain small farms in poor countries, and the difference can be enough to provide health care for a family. These are among the issues for Gerra Harrigan, director of business development at New Harvest Roasters in Rumford.
A Brown history major, Rik Kleinfeldt, started New Harvest Roasters with the big Fair Trade idea. He noted that when you pay $11 or $12 a pound for conventional arabica coffee, only about 20 cents goes to the farmer.
With Fair Trade, farmers get a minimum of $1.26 per pound, $1.41 if it is certified organic, though most Fair Trade coffees are organic already, according to TransFair.
Business being business, American companies have to keep prices down, too. Which they do, charging a competitive $8.50 a pound for Fair Trade coffees as opposed to $7.50 for the estate line of conventionally purchased coffees.
New Harvest Coffee Roasters is partnering with three local cafes to offer Fair Trade certified coffee at a discount throughout this month: Olga's Cup and Saucer in Providence; The Coffee Depot in Warren and Nepenthe in East Greenwich.
Both Harrigan and Kleinfeldt got introduced to the Fair Trade concept working for the Coffee Exchange, roaster retailers with a retail cafe at 207 Wickenden St., Providence, and an Internet business at www.mailordercoffee.com.
The company's co-founders include Charlie Fishbein and Bill Fishbein, who started a group called Coffee Kids. It's a different approach to helping farmers in spots such as Central America.
Coffee Kids raises funds in the coffee industry to offer loans to farming families. The program helps the women of these families find secondary sources of income. A loan as small as $50 to $100 will enable her to start a small chicken- or pig-farming business or open a small store. The income gets the children out from working in the fields, helps support the family and offers role models in the community. The money is paid back to a village bank to be loaned out again.
But for most of the farmers, Fair Trade remains the only option for survival.
"We start our day with a cup of coffee," said TransFair's Bourque. "There's powerful imagery there: We are enjoying something grown in a beautiful country. Fair trade is a guarantee that the farmer who grew the coffee beans got a fair price for his top-quality product that has been grown and picked by human hands.
"People want a fair day's wage for a day's work. Fair Trade asks people to care about that even if the workers aren't in this country."

source website
Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Wake up and smell the cost of coffee
BY TOM ABATE
San Francisco Chronicle
If the price of your morning jolt of caffeine is going up, don't blame the poor guy in the tropics who grew the coffee beans.
For that double cappuccino that set you back $3.75, a mere 21 cents went for those ground-up beans. The cost of the milk was nearly double that. The bigger ingredients are labor, rent, overhead—and profit.
The cost of gourmet drinks is poised to rise after Starbucks' announcement this week that it would boost the average price per cup by 11 cents starting Oct. 6. Given the Seattle chain's market clout, industry watchers expect the increase will ripple through an estimated 11,000 other independent and smaller chain coffee shops nationwide.
Wholesale coffee prices have risen 36 percent in the last year in U.S. commodities markets. But to farmers, especially those who grow the specialty beans prized by coffee aficionados, the recent increases only begin to repair the damage of a disastrous price slump that has devastated regions such as Central America.
"We call it the coffee crisis," said Mike Ferguson, spokesman for the Specialty Coffee Association of America, which represents coffeehouses. "Coffee farmers were literally walking away from farms all over the world."
Jumping bean prices
Yet, even though the wholesale price of beans has jumped lately, coffee itself represents only a tiny fraction of what Americans pay for all those concoctions with the fancy names.
Take that double cappuccino, for instance. According to Ferguson's association, coffee makes up just 5 percent of the cost per cup.
In fact, all the ingredients—from sugar and milk, which also have experienced double-digit increases over the past year, down to the cup, heat- sleeve and lid—together make up less than 20 percent of the cost of the cappuccino, according to the association's estimates. Labor and rent account for a far larger share of the cost—about 46 percent—and other overhead and profit make up the rest.
Starbucks issued a statement saying the price increase, its first system-wide since August 2000, was "based on increased costs throughout the business."
Trickle-down price rise
Ward Barbee, publisher of Fresh Cup Magazine, a trade publication in Portland that covers the coffeehouse industry, said thousands of independent shop owners would probably follow Starbucks' lead. It's a golden opportunity for them to raise price prices to cover an array of rising costs for such things as workers' compensation and health care coverage that factor into overall labor expenses, Barbee said.
"If you as a retailer don't raise your price, you're foolish," he said.
George Vukasin Jr., coffee-buyer at Peerless Coffee & Tea, a family-owned firm in Oakland, Calif., that roasts specialty brews for restaurants and hotels, said the raw price of coffee had gone up. But he said the hike had barely brought the cost of commercial coffee, called "C" Market, to the mid-80 cent range—below the average farmer's production costs of roughly 90 cents per pound.
Vukasin said "C" Market prices had last peaked above $3 a pound in 1996 and had steadily declined to around 50 cents per pound in 2000, driven down by surging shipments from Brazil, Vietnam and Colombia.
"A 50-cent market for farmers is horrible," said Vukasin, affecting even those farmers who grow specialty rather than commercial blends, because the price of the higher-quality beans floats above the cheaper grades.
Vukasin said coffee prices had been rising slowly since that trough but started to surge recently thanks to factors ranging from lower harvests in Brazil to the soaring cost of oil, which boosted transportation costs.
The period of collapsed prices wrought havoc for the roughly 20 million small farmers who depend on coffee for their livelihood, "precipitating bank failures, public protests and dramatic falls in export revenues," according to a World Bank report issued in March.

Harvest Aid for Iraqi Fruit Growers & US Military Families

2004-10-25T23:07:00.001-04:00

October 19, 2004
Contact: Jo Comerford, 413.695.6059

Culmination of Harvest Aid Project
Helping Neighbors Near and Far

        As the Pioneer Valley's harvest season winds to a close, local farmers are harvesting more than just squash and potatoes. In November, the Harvest Aid Fund project concludes after six months of fundraising to help our neighbors both near and far who are hungry because of the war in Iraq.
        Since the summer solstice in June, local farmers and residents have joined together in an unprecedented broad-based effort to raise funds to support the USO-sponsored Food Pantry at Westover Air Force Base and farmers in Dhuluaya, Iraq whose fruit trees were destroyed a year ago by the US military.
        On November 10th, at 10am, a Press Conference will be held at Riverland Farm on Rte. 47 in Sunderland to provide an update on the Harvest Aid Fund fundraising effort and present a check for half of the amount raised to the Pioneer Valley USO Food Pantry.

Speaking at the press conference will be:
·       Sandy Wakefield, USO Food Pantry Director who will speak about how the war in Iraq has sparked a huge increase in demand on the USO Food Pantry and caused many local military families to be unable to pay their bills.
·       Rick McDowell and Mary Trotochaud, staff of the American Friends Service Committee who have been working on aid projects in Baghdad for more than a year, who will comment on the current situation in Iraq and efforts to reach the farmers in Dhuluaya.
·       Several local farmers, including Scott Reed and Ferdene Chin-Yee of Riverland Farm, John Hoffman of Wilder Brook Farm (Charlemont) and Michael Docter of the Food Bank Farm (Hadley). They will speak about the ways in which they have supported the Harvest Aid Fund and about their connection to their own land and to the farmers in Iraq.

Initiated by Ann Gibson and Mary McClintock along with Jo Comerford of the Western Mass office of the American Friends Service Committee in Florence, the Harvest Aid Fund is cosponsored by:
·       CommonWealth CSA
·       Environmental Task Force of the Hampshire Interfaith Council
·       Food Bank Farm in Hadley
·       Grace Church Episcopal Peace Fellowship
·       Natural Roots CSA Farm in Conway
·       Northeast Organic Farmers Association
·       Red Fire Farm in Granby
·       Riverland Farm in Sunderland
·       Seeds of Solidarity Farm in Orange
·       Traprock Peace Center
·       Western Massachusetts American Friends Service Committee
·       Western Massachusetts Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice
·       Wilder Brook Farm in Charlemont

Directions to Riverland Farm:
        Riverland Farm is at 197 River Rd. (Rte. 47) in Sunderland about 1 mile south of the Rte. 116/Rte 47 intersection in Sunderland center.

Background information on the Harvest Aid Fund:
        The Harvest Aid Fund is a people to people, farmer to farmer effort that grew out of a letter of apology to the farmers of Dhuluaya created by Ann Gibson and Mary McClintock of Conway this past spring. The Dhuluaya farmers lost their livelihoods last fall when US soldiers bulldozed their orange, lemon and date groves as "punishment" for the farmers not revealing the identities of resistance fighters allegedly hiding in their groves. Without their groves, they have no way to support their families. The letter was signed by 150 residents of Western Massachusetts and Ann and Mary are working with AFSC staff members to try to deliver the letter to the farmers in Dhuluaya.
        Meanwhile, many military families in the Pioneer Valley have been hurt financially while their family members serve in Iraq. Whether as National Guard troops and Reservists who leave behind better paying jobs when called up for service or because of low pay in other branches of the military, they can't make ends meet. The Pioneer Valley USO Food Pantry, an organization that serves local needy military families, has seen a three-fold increase in demand for their services in the past year.
        The Harvest Aid Fund is an attempt to share the abundance of Pioneer Valley agriculture with these two very different groups of people who have been hurt by the war in Iraq. The fundraising efforts included a general appeal for donations as well as information leaflets, collection cans, and posters about the Fund at local farmstands, farmers' markets, festivals, and community-supported agriculture (CSA) farms. Half the funds raised will go to the farmers of Dhuluaya and half will go to the Pioneer Valley USO Food Pantry.

For more information about the Harvest Aid Fund, see harvest aid

Harvest Aid for Iraqi Fruit Growers Too

2004-10-25T23:07:00.000-04:00

Darfur update & Action Request

2004-10-25T19:29:00.000-04:00

Write a Letter to the Editor on Darfur!

Don't Lose Darfur in the Election!

Dear Friends of Africa Action,

Thank you for your commitment to stop the genocide in Sudan, we write today with another urgent appeal for your support in keeping this issue alive. Your advocacy has been remarkably effective. Your support though previous actions has been critical to the progress thus far: the US declaration of genocide in Sudan and the actions in the UN to encourage the Sudanese government to disarm its militias in Darfur. There has been an increase of African Union forces, the US offered two transport military aircrafts to assist the AU, and negotiations continue in Nigeria. These first steps have fallen short of what is needed to stop the violence, protect the people, and facilitate the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid. There has been a lot of rhetoric, but not nearly enough action.

Six weeks after President Bush described the crisis in Sudan as “genocide” the Sudanese government continues to slaughter the people of Darfur. The survivors are becoming desperate for humanitarian assistance. Two million people have been displaced and now live in camps surrounded by the death squads where the death toll rises due to disease and malnutrition.

While genocidal terror persists in Sudan, all eyes turn to the US for the final week before the Presidential elections. Sudan has not been wholly absent from this campaigning season. A question on the genocide in Sudan was raised in the first Presidential debate (with a little help from Africa Action), but the rhetoric remains far from reality. While the world looks to the US elections, and the candidates scour the media to gauge public opinion, we have a unique opportunity to remind the world that evil persists when good people do nothing – we must stop the genocide in Sudan.

Please take a few minutes to send the message that Sudan is a foreign policy priority in these elections, and that the actions needed to stop the genocide in Sudan cannot wait until after November 2nd.

Please write a letter to the editor for your local newspaper to make sure that the genocide in Darfur stays in the public eye. When you see articles in your local paper about foreign policy and the elections, please send in a letter of your own drawing attention back to Darfur and putting pressure on the present administration to take decisive action now! We have provided a sample letter that you are welcome to amend. Letters should be kept to 150 words or less and should refer to the article or editorial that you are responding to in the first sentence by noting the date and title of the article. If you use the sample, please fill in the blank with the number of days since September 9th, the day that the Bush Administration acknowledged the genocide.

You can find and contact your local newspaper by zip code through the following Capwiz site, which allows you to quickly send an email directly to the editor – media by zip. You can also look in your local paper for submission guidelines and send your letter by email. If you get published, be sure to send us a copy at africaaction@igc.org so that we can celebrate your success!

Sample Letter to the Editor:

Thank you for your recent coverage of foreign policy issues in this election, (Title, date). The genocide in Sudan has received little attention since the first Presidential debate. It is now __days since the Bush Administration acknowledged the genocide, yet there has been no real effort to stop it. Sudan is a perfect example of U.S. policy towards Africa – rhetoric, not reality, attention without action.

Unless there is a rapid intervention in Darfur, a million people could die this year. The U.S. has a unique capacity to act to stop genocide. For example, the U.S. has almost 2,000 troops in nearby Djibouti, several hundred of which could be mobilized quickly to help lead a multinational force comprised mostly of African troops. The U.S. should seek UN authorization for such a Multinational Intervention. This would be an opportunity for both candidates to put their claims of “compassion” and “multilateralism” into action.

4 years statistical overview - Palestine Today

2004-10-11T21:23:00.000-04:00

**************************

Four Years of Intifada: Statistical Overview
Press Release, HDIP, 29 September 2004

SUMMARY OF PRESS CONFERENCE WITH DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTHI, DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION AND POLICY INSTITUTE (HDIP)

Monday, September 27, 2004 -- Dr Mustafa Barghouthi began today's press conference with a summary of recent trends and statistics. The Second Intifada, now entering its 5th year, has seen the world distracted by events in Iraq, enabling Israel to continue violating Palestinians' Human Rights with complete immunity. The international media remains more accessible to the Israeli side and thus allows Israel to push forward their preferred narrative.

Furthermore, these past years have witnessed a significant deterioration in international support and involvement with the peace process, many becoming disheartened and reluctant having supported the now dead Oslo Peace Process. However, the Intifada has also witnessed the emergence of a new democratic opposition movement, born within the Palestinian Territories, together with a consolidation in support for pioneering, modern Palestinian leaders.

In the years since 1948, the Palestinians have witnessed a consistent decrease in their promised State - now just 11% of historic Palestine (as according to Sharon's plan). What we are looking at now is not a future Palestinian State, but a series of bantustans.

Death and Injury

In the four years since Sharon's famous visit to the Haram Al-Sharif we have seen 4,342 Palestinians and Israelis killed. Of those 1,008 were Israeli and 3,334 Palestinian. 82% of Palestinians killed were civilians.

2-3 Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers, police or settlers per day. While this number may appear to be low, if this death rate were to be applied to the UK it would be equivalent to 35 being killed per day, and in the US this would be 157 per day.

Since the start of the Intifada on the 28th of September 2000, 621 Palestinian children below the age of 17 have been killed by the Israeli occupation forces. Of this figure 411 were shot with live ammunition and 200 were shot in the head, face or neck. 331 were from the Gaza Strip. 10,000 Palestinian children have been injured.

Dr Barghouthi insisted that there is absolutely no excuse to justify the killing of such a huge number of children. What is equally disturbing is the telling figures of injuries received to the head - Israeli forces were obviously shooting to kill. In fact the majority of Palestinians killed have suffered injuries to the head and upper body.

424 Palestinians have died in extrajudicial executions (assassinations). 186 of those were bystanders or "unintended" victims, killed as they were near the victim. 39 bystanders were children and 26 were women. With regards to extrajudicial assassinations, in Gaza while 72 Palestinians died in targeted killings, a shocking 118 bystanders were additionally killed in these attacks.

Palestinian Prisoners

Israel continues to make use of an old emergency law that dates back to the British Mandate. This law allows Israel to arrest and detain anyone for an unlimited time without charging them. There are currently 78 Palestinian children in administrative detention.

There are also currently 100 Palestinian women and 377 children in Israeli prisons. 80% of the children are routinely tortured or harassed and 31% suffer from disease.

Health

30% of Palestinian children suffer from chronic malnutrition. The number of pregnant women unable to receive any medical attention during their pregnancy is now five times higher than figures before September 2000.

Economy

More than one billion dollars worth of Palestinian infrastructure has been destroyed by Israeli forces and more than 200 million dollars of this has been donor financed. Since the start of the Intifada the Palestinian GDP has decreased by 50% and agricultural losses have amounted to more than one million dollars.

Education

Israeli forces have shelled or broken into 298 Palestinian schools. 4 young children were shot in the head in UNRWA-run schools in Gaza in 2004 alone.

Water and the Evolution of Apartheid

Since September 2000, the price of water in the Palestinian Territories has increased from $2.5 per cubic meter to $7.5 per cubic meter. And only a shocking 70 litres per person per day is consumed in the West Bank for domestic, urban AND industrial use. 200 Palestinian communities have no access to a clean water supply.

In the Gaza Strip we can no longer forecast a disaster because it has already begun. There is no water supply in Gaza that is fit for drinking.

Every Israeli citizen consumes five times more water than the Palestinians. Illegal settlers living in the West Bank consume 20 times more water than the Palestinians living there.

Movement Restrictions

There are currently 703 movement restrictions in the West Bank alone. As an example of the effects on Palestinian everyday life that this has caused, whilst a journey from Ramallah to Hebron should take around one hour, it has taken up to twelve hours for many Palestinians.

86 Palestinians have already died because of movement restrictions, and this figure includes 30 children. Had these people been allowed to travel, they would have probably survived. In addition at least 55 women have been forced to give birth at checkpoints with 20 losing their children.

The Wall

The Wall is three times as long and twice as high as the Berlin Wall. In Qalqilia 40,000 residents are imprisoned within the Wall in what can only be described as a ghetto. As well as those imprisoned inside the wall the residents of surrounding villages now placed on the western (Israeli) side of the Wall have been cut of entirely from schools, jobs, healthcare and family.

Many in fact have lost all access to the outside world is controlled by 11 Israeli manned gates which are collectively only opened for a total of 55 minutes per day. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave Qalqilia must have special permission - even patients and medical services. Qalqilia residents claim that they can no longer see the sunset.

Whilst there is talk about adjustments to the Wall's route, there are in fact no changes other than mere cosmetic alterations. What we are witnessing is not just the building of the Wall it is the destruction of a two state solution.

Disengagement in Gaza and the Road Map to Peace

Sharon only accepted the Road Map as it was approved by the Israeli Cabinet and this was with 15 reservations, the first being a refusal to freeze any settlement building. At the same time whilst Sharon talks about removing settlements in the West Bank, he is referring to 4 that exist in the north of the West Bank, that exist on land that can not be enclaved by the Wall. The other existing settlements will of course remain because they exist on land that Israel plans to appropriate through the Wall and enclaves.

Unfortunately, with regards to Sharon's Gaza Plan most of the world's media mistakenly continues to refer to it as a "withdrawal". In fact Sharon never referred to a "withdrawal". What he actually said was that they would redeploy from Gaza but the military would still enter at any time they deemed appropriate. In Rafah, the Israeli forces are destroying on average 6 houses per day in order to clear a passage separating Gaza from Egypt, which will grant them full border control. So far, 2,200 homes have been demolished in this area alone.

Periods of "Relative Calm?

During this last year of the Intifada, there has been a serious rise in mass popular support for nonviolent resistance. This is why suicide attacks against Israel have significantly depleted, not because of the Wall. However, this has certainly not encouraged Israeli forces to stop attacking Palestinians.

Between March 15 and August 31, 2004, the international media talked of a period of "relative calm" purely because there were no suicide attacks against Israel. However, the following days of March saw 45 Palestinians dead with no Israeli casualties; April saw 56 Palestinians dead compared with 3 Israelis; and May saw 116 Palestinians dead (the majority during Israel's "Operation Rainbow" in Rafah) compared with 19 Israelis.

It must be noted that of the total Israelis killed, 18 were soldiers, 10 were illegal settlers, and only 3 were civilians. This means that during a period of practical ceasefire on the part of the Palestinians, Israel continued to kill civilians at a rate of 12:1. If Sharon was at all serious about wanting a peaceful solution, genuine advantage could have been taken during this period of quiet, instead he proceeded to kill more Palestinians than at any other time since the beginning of the Intifada, other than the March/April 2002 invasions ("Operation Defensive Sheild").

Palestinian Elections and Future Democracy?

Israeli forces have closed six election registration offices in Jerusalem as well as others across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Dr Barghouthi stressed that this is totally unacceptable and if the Palestinians are to achieve reform through democratic process, then the international community must do more than condemn these recent actions, they must demand that Israel reopens the offices. Democracy he insisted is a precondition not only for reform but also for lasting peace, a peace based on justice.

Dr Barghouthi concluded the press conference by declaring that unfortunately, he was almost 100% sure he would be greeting the same audience at a press conference to mark the fifth anniversary of the Intifada. As of yet, there has been no reason for the Palestinians to stop resisting - "either we live as slaves under an occupation or we continue to struggle for freedom", and the latter he insisted is the path that will be taken.

A breakdown of the statistics for the four years of Intifada quoted in Dr Barghouthi's presentation is available on the Palestine Monitor website. All statistics are based on information available at the time of calculation. For updates, palestineanmonitor.org.

Declaration of Conscience - Western Mass

2004-09-22T23:36:00.000-04:00

DECLARATION OF CONSCIENCE
By the Western Massachusetts Coalition for Peace and Justice

“We know that dissent is not disloyal; what is unpatriotic is subservience.”
--Rev. William Sloane Coffin

We call on people of good faith everywhere to join us in speaking out against policies that bring shame on our nation. It is because we love our country that we must speak out against its failures. We remind ourselves and others that all life is sacred, that each human being is endowed with inherent dignity and worth, and that we all inhabit the same fragile planet.

It is with heavy hearts and troubled consciences that we look at recent actions by our government that have sullied the reputation of our country and have wounded and killed thousands around the globe.

We deplore:
• Our nation’s resort to pre-emptive war and its abandonment of long-standing international treaties and obligations.
• The arbitrary detention of hundreds of people without the right to a hearing or to counsel.
• The inhumane treatment, degradation and torture of Iraqi prisoners, including children, held on suspicion of resisting the American occupation.
• Our government’s abrogation of responsibility in the face of the widespread looting and anarchy that followed the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces.
• The undermining of our civil liberties when the government took such powers as secret surveillance, arrest and detention of persons without hearing for cause as well as other measures of a totalitarian nature.
• The President’s assertion that our nation is engaged in a battle of good versus evil and his assurance that right is always on our side.

Let us work within our communities and with men and women in our armed forces to unite against the use of terror without dehumanizing ourselves or others. And let us labor in whatever way we can with our elected officials to protect civil liberties, to increase security through international cooperation, and to abide by our treaty obligations and strengthen international institutions that promote law and justice. We urge every American to seek within their own religious and spiritual traditions the inspiration and teachings that speak of human interdependence and reject warfare as the principal means of settling differences.

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
--Abraham Lincoln

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sued by Citizens

2004-09-22T22:24:00.000-04:00

CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:         September 9, 2004       Contacts: Deb Katz, CAN 413-339-5781
                                                                                                                                413 834 3280                                                                                                                   Jonathan Block Esq.,802-387-3646

CAN SUES NRC IN APPELLATE COURT IN BOSTON ON SEPTEMBER 13!

On September 13 Citizens Awareness Network’s (CAN) lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be heard by the First Circuit Appellate Court in Boston. For the first time in the history of the civilian nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ended the public’s right to a hearing on safety issues. CAN is going to court to get this rule overturned and reinstate the hearing rights of reactor communities throughout the country. In February 2004 CAN petitioned the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to stop this new rule from becoming effective.
Joining CAN’s lawsuit as intervenors are Public Citizen, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and the National Whistleblowers Center. Attorneys Generals from the states of MA, NY, CA, NH, WI and CT filed Amicus Briefs in support of CAN’s lawsuit. Groups throughout the country are helping fight for the rights of all impacted communities. CAN's lawyer, Jonathan Block, was successful in his last case before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in which the NRC was ruled to be arbitrary capricious, and utterly irrational in denying CAN hearing rights in the decommissioning of Yankee Rowe.

On January 14 of this year, despite over 1,400 comments in opposition from the public, the NRC announced the abolition of public hearings. The nuclear industry lobbied hard for this rule change, which is consistent with Secretary of Energy Abraham’s plan to push for the building of dozens of new reactors by 2010.
“The future of nuclear power in America will be determined by this case,” said Harvey Schaktman, Board member of the Citizens Awareness Network. “This is a pivotal time for reactor communities and the nuclear industry. While reactors across the country are nearing their closure date, nuclear corporations are intent on up-rates (increasing their power output), re-licensing and building new reactors on old sites to revive their obsolete industry,” Schaktman continued.
“Under the old rules impacted communities could get a hearing and fight the industry’s grand schemes, but this is no longer possible!, said Deb Katz, executive director of the Network. “ Hearings are now granted at the whim of the NRC, fast-tracked and with no ability for people to get effective discovery or cross-examine witnesses,” Katz continued. Democratic safeguards have been removed and there is no longer access to justice.
The Massachusetts Attorney General stated in their brief that “The NRC seeks to restrict public and State participation in licensing matters just when licenses for these aging facilities are beginning to expire. …. the NRC’s position is unreasonable, and inconsistent with the Atomic Energy Act (“AEA”).” The Attorney General continues “ the safety of their citizens is the States’ foremost concern when nuclear plants are being licensed or relicensed.    In light of the magnitude of the potential impacts from an accident at one of these facilities, the States believe it is of the utmost importance to ensure that relicensing hearings include adjudicatory procedures designed to bring out a complete factual picture.”

CAN Public Meeting
September 15, 2004

Green Fields Market, 144 Main Street in downtown Greenfield

6-7:45 pm

Directions available at:
www.greenfieldsmarket.com

We'll meet upstairs in the meeting room (it can be chilly - dress appropriately). Pick up dinner (or dessert!) in the deli and bring it with you if you'd like. Learn what CAN is up to and how you might get involved (lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re: elimination of public hearings, promoting hardened onsite storage (HOSS) of high-level radioactive wastes (spent fuel rods) due to vulnerability of reactors to terrorist attacks, efforts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor (right over the border in Vernon), networking with other reactor communities, health studies documenting exposure risks, literature production, mailings, house parties, literature distribution, street theater/direct action, etc.)

There is much going on - broader public involvement is essential.

Deb Katz
Citizens Awareness Network
Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370
413-339-5781
email them

Human Rights & Sharia in Nigeria

2004-09-22T22:04:00.000-04:00

Political Shari'a?':
Human Rights and Islamic Law in Northern Nigeria

Summary

[Excerpts. For full text and full 111-page report, see Human Rights Northern Nigeria

Since 2000, twelve states in northern Nigeria have added criminal
law to the jurisdiction of Shari'a (Islamic law) courts. Shari'a
has been in force for many years in northern Nigeria, where the
majority of the population is Muslim, but until 2000, its scope was
limited to personal status and civil law. The manner in which
Shari'a has been applied to criminal law in Nigeria so far has
raised a number of serious human rights concerns. It has also
created much controversy in a country where religious divisions run
deep, and where the federal constitution specifies that there is no
state religion. Shari'a is seen by many Muslims as an entire system
of guidelines and rules which encompass criminal law, personal
status law, and many other aspects of religious, cultural, and
social life. There are several different schools of thought and
within each of these, different interpretations of the provisions
of Shari'a. Human Rights Watch does not advocate for or against
Shari'a per se, or any other system of religious belief or
ideology; nor do we seek to judge or interpret the principles of
any religion or faith. We are simply concerned about human rights
violations resulting from the implementation of any legal system,
in any country.

This report does not attempt to study the Shari'a system as a
whole. It concentrates on Shari'a in the sphere of criminal law as
applied in northern Nigeria and identifies specific aspects of the
legislation and practices which have led or are likely to lead to
violations of human rights. Some of these practices violate what
many Muslims consider to be Shari'a's own rules and principles, as
well as provisions within the Nigerian constitution. The report
makes recommendations to the Nigerian federal and state governments
for reforming these aspects to ensure conformity with the
international and regional human rights standards and conventions
which Nigeria has ratified.

The provisions for and imposition of sentences amounting to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, in particular the
death penalty, amputations and floggings, are among the main human
rights concerns arising in the context of Shari'a in northern
Nigeria. Since 2000, at least ten people have been sentenced to
death by Shari'a courts; dozens have been sentenced to amputation;
and floggings are a regular occurrence in many locations in the
north. Human Rights Watch is unconditionally opposed to the use of
the death penalty, in any legal system and in any country, as it
constitutes the ultimate violation of the right to life and an
extreme form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Human
Rights Watch is also unconditionally opposed to other cruel and
degrading punishments, some of which, such as amputations,
constitute torture.

Of equal concern is the lack of respect for due process which has
characterized many trials in Shari'a courts. The main failings
documented by Human Rights Watch include defendants' lack of access
to legal representation; the failure of judges to inform defendants
of their rights and grant them these rights; the courts' acceptance
of statements extracted under torture; and the inadequate training
of Shari'a court judges which has resulted in these and other
abuses. The practice of convicting defendants on the basis of
confessions alone is particularly worrying in the light of
well-documented torture by the police, other forms of pressure
exerted on defendants by police, prosecution officials and others,
and widespread corruption in the judiciary. Almost all the victims
of these abuses have been vulnerable men and women from poor
backgrounds who have little or no knowledge of their rights or of
legal procedures, or who lack the financial means to obtain legal
assistance, even when they know they are entitled to it. ... Human
Rights Watch believes that had Shari'a court judges followed due
process and had defendants had full legal representation, many of
these death sentences and amputation sentences would never have
been passed especially in view of the safeguards which exist within
Shari'a against harsh and unfair sentencing.

Human Rights Watch is also concerned at provisions within Shari'a
that discriminate against women, both in law and in practice, and
other patterns of human rights violations against women in this
context. Some of these violations do not stem directly from the
legislation itself, but from the way it has been used and from a
climate of intolerance which has accompanied the introduction of
the new legislation.

Human Rights Watch's research into the application of Shari'a in
Nigeria has revealed patterns of fundamental human rights
violations which are not peculiar to Shari'a but typify the human
rights situation in Nigeria as a whole. For example, systematic
torture by the police, prolonged detention without trial,
corruption in the judiciary, political interference in the course
of justice, and impunity for those responsible for abuses occur not
only in the context of Shari'a cases, but are at least as
widespread in cases handled by the parallel common law system.

Indeed, Human Rights Watch's concerns about the state of Nigeria's
justice system are not limited to those areas where Shari'a is in
force. In the south and other parts of the country where Shari'a is
not in application, grave human rights problems persist. Human
Rights Watch has reported extensively on those concerns in other
reports, and is continuing to monitor and raise these issues with
the Nigerian authorities. The information and views in this report
are based on several months of research by Human Rights Watch in
2003, including in five northern states (Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi,
Niger, Zamfara), and discussions in these and other parts of
Nigeria with a wide range of people, including defendants tried by
Shari'a courts, lawyers, court officials, federal and state
government officials, members of the hisbah (Shari'a enforcement
groups), human rights organizations, women's organizations, and
other members of civil society, Muslim and Christian religious
leaders, academics, and many other men and women directly or
indirectly affected by the application of Shari'a. Most of those
interviewed were northerners and Muslims, from different
backgrounds and with a range of views on the question of Shari'a
and the manner in which it is being applied. We also sought the
views of a number of non-Muslims and people from other parts of
Nigeria. In view of the high level of international attention which
has already surrounded the cases of Safiya Husseini and Amina
Lawal, two women sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, Human
Rights Watch has chosen to concentrate in this report on some of
the lesser-known cases where the violations of the rights of
defendants have been equally serious but have received less public
attention. ...

With the exception of state government officials and some
conservative Muslim leaders, the majority of people interviewed by
Human Rights Watch expressed their dissatisfaction with the manner
in which Shari'a was being applied in Nigeria. Many had initially
supported its introduction and continued to profess their
commitment to Shari'a, but explained that they were disillusioned
with the way in which it had become politicized in the hands of
state government officials. The result, in their words, was that
the Shari'a in application was not "proper Shari'a," but "political
Shari'a." They doubted the sincerity of state governors in
introducing Shari'a and complained about politicians' failure to
implement the economic and social aspects, pointing to the
continuing poverty across northern Nigeria and the absence of
visible improvements in their daily lives.

Human Rights Watch takes no position on what constitutes "proper
Shari'a," but our own research confirmed the view that Shari'a has
been manipulated for political purposes, and that this
politicization of religion has led to further human rights
violations beyond those already contained in some of the
legislation. As explained in this report, there is little doubt
that most of the governors who introduced Shari'a into their states
did so primarily for political reasons, in order to secure votes
and increase their popularity. They have been prepared to overlook
and even sanction human rights violations for the sake of their own
political ambitions. They have disregarded the more compassionate
and generous aspects of the philosophy which many Muslims believe
underlie Shari'a, both in the criminal justice sphere and in the
economic sphere.

Since around 2002, the application of Shari'a appears to have lost
steam in northern Nigeria. Shari'a legislation is still in place in
twelve states and Shari'a courts are continuing to function and
hand down sentences; but the political will to be seen to be
enforcing it in a strict manner has waned.

...

It would appear that the combination of external pressure and
domestic disillusion with the manner in which Shari'a has been
implemented has had the effect of dampening the politicians' zeal:
they have realized that their strategy of using Shari'a as a quick
way to boost their popularity is no longer politically viable,
particularly because it has made them unpopular among
constituencies upon whom they had relied for support.

Human Rights Watch believes that the time is right for the Nigerian
federal and state governments to re- evaluate the application of
Shari'a, now that it has been in operation for several years.
Whatever the political considerations some of which are described
in this report federal as well as state government officials have
a responsibility to ensure that the application of Shari'a does not
lead to human rights violations. In practice, this would mean
amending aspects of the Shari'a legislation and removing those
provisions which constitute inherent violations of fundamental
rights, including discrimination against women. But it also means
implementing less controversial measures, such as ensuring that all
defendants are fully informed of their rights, particularly the
right to legal counsel, and that judges are properly trained before
taking on criminal cases, particularly those cases involving death
sentences or corporal punishments. ...

This report also contains recommendations to the international
community. The volatile politics surrounding Shari'a have attracted
significant attention both inside and outside Nigeria. In
particular, the cases of Safiya Husseini and Amina Lawal, two women
sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, captured the public
imagination at the international level and were the subject of
massive publicity. Some of this media coverage has been
ill-informed, selective, and sensationalist. Human Rights Watch
believes that action on the part of foreign governments,
international organizations, foreign media and others can be
instrumental in leading to human rights reforms in Nigeria, if it
is based on an accurate assessment of the situation. The
disproportionate amount of international attention on Shari'a has
led to the erroneous perception that this is the only, and the
worst, human rights problem in Nigeria. Yet there are numerous
other human rights violations in Nigeria which are at least as
serious and deserve urgent attention on the part of the
international community. Thousands of people have been killed in
inter-communal conflicts or in massacres by the Nigerian army;
extrajudicial killings and torture by the police are routine across
Nigeria; and more than two thirds of the prison population have not
even been tried. Human Rights Watch urges readers of this report to
extend their concern about Shari'a to some of these other problems,
which have been documented in detail by Nigerian and international
human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch.

*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see http://www.africafocus.org>http://www.africafocus.org

Exploring Class: Workshop Oct 23

2004-09-22T22:00:00.000-04:00

Exploring Class:A One-Day Workshop
Saturday, October 23rd, 9 a.m.- 5:30 p.m.

An opportunity for intensive dialogue about a taboo topic!

·How has your class background affected your relationships with people of the same and different classes?

·How has your class background limited you from dreaming and fulfilling those dreams?

·How has your class background helped you to dream and fulfill your dreams?

·What are your stereotypes about people from your own and other class backgrounds?

·What do you need to become a better caretaker of all of your resources, time, money, attention, and love, no matter what your circumstances?

Join a diverse group to explore these questions and more!

Location: Holyoke, MA

Cost: $30-$300 sliding scale (during the workshop you will determine the amount you will pay) Bring lunch or go out; coffee, bagels and fruit will be provided. Very low-income people welcome for $10 or whatever you can afford; call us with transportation needs or child care costs, and we’ll try to help.

Registration is required. For more information please contact Class Action: (413) 585 9709 or email, info@classactionnet.org

To register fill out the form below and return with a deposit to Class Action or register on line at www.classactionnet.org. Please register early, space is limited!

Workshop Facilitators: Jenny Ladd, Ed.D. and Felice Yeskel, Ed.D.

Jenny Ladd, Co-Director of Class Action, comes from a white, academic,agnostic,upper-class family from Cambridge, Massachusetts and inherited money at 21. She has over 25 years experience in social change philanthropy, group dynamics and facilitation. She currently does philanthropic advising and wealth counseling, is on the board of the Peppercorn Foundation and was one of the Founders of Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy.

Felice Yeskel, Co-Director of Class Action, Director of the UMass Stonewall Center and Co-Founder of United for a Fair Economy comes from a working class Jewish family from New York City's lower-east side. Felice is also a founder and Co-Director of DiversityWorks, Inc. an organization of social justice educators that provides training and consulting on issues of diversity and multiculturalism. She has led hundreds of workshops across the country about economic inequality and about healing divisions among Americans of different class backgrounds, races, genders, and sexual orientations. She is the co-author of Economic Apartheid in America, published by The New Press in the fall of 2000.

Registration Deadline, October 15th
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registration for Exploring Class

Name Phone(s)

Address

Email Deposit (at least $30) $

Return registration form & deposit to Class Action, 245 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060

Peace & Non-Violence lecture Oct 13

2004-09-22T21:50:00.000-04:00

The public is invited to a free lecture "Peace and Non-Violence" by nationally known speaker and peace advocate Sister Kathleen Pruitt, CSJP on Wednesday October 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the Alumni Room of the Mary Dooley College Center, Elms College, 291 Springfield Street, Chicopee, MA. Sister Kathleen, a former President of the National Leadership Conference of Religious, was also in ministry as Vice President of the Belgium-headquartered Pax Christi International.

This event is sponsored by the Sisters of Providence of holyoke and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield. No registration is necessary. For more information, please visit sisters of providence OR also the Sisters

Access & Attitude

2004-09-22T21:30:00.000-04:00

ACCESS AND ATTITUDE

October 10th to 16th is Access Sunday and Disabilities Awareness week in which "we recognize the gift of healing in all its forms. . . . (and) celebrate the gifts of all God's people" (Grateful for Healing: a Litany for Access Sunday, available online at ).

Yes! my heart cries out. Yes!

But how soon, upon reading the litany, my "yes" becomes "alas!"

For although the theme of the litany is gratitude for healing, the healing described is not of culture and church, but the healing of disabled people! Once again, disabled people are being told we are not "whole"!

This label - (broken, in need of healing, not whole) - indeed, this libel - is the very taproot of prejudice, patronization, infantilization, ghetto-ization and in its most extreme form, demonization. (See Simone Weil on attitudes towards affliction.)

Attitude affects access. Which means we are a slow train coming in terms of access. Some of the smallest and poorest churches in Western Massachusetts have made wheelchair accessible bathrooms a priority, and many large churches are fully accessible. And yet area-wide church gatherings, training events, and celebrations continue to be held in churches and retreat centers that are not fully accessible. To receive an invitation to an installation where "Worship service is accessible. Reception not accessible" is equivalent to "white folks only" discrimination: in others words, not to be tolerated!

In terms of "access", as the title of the book by author Harold Wilke proclaims: "The Ramp Is Not Enough." Bathrooms and fellowship halls must be accessible. And, of course, and especially! - the community of fellowship.

The "Grateful for Healing" litany gives thanks for "inclusion in community". We have come to understand that in terms of church and culture we have difficulty dealing with difference - race, faith, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc. However, we have not yet come face to face with the fear and anxiety of TABs (temporarily able-bodied persons) toward disabled people, and the depth of continuing discrimination.

One in four of every church congregation is disabled. One in three of every household. Yet these are invisible because we can't get in the church, or are seen only in terms of our disability! TABs respond to disabled people with pity and guilt rather than greeting and gladness because we are perceived as being broken, and diminished, not whole. In need of healing.

It is community and church that is in need of healing. It is the Body of Christ that seeks to be made whole by inclusion of all of its members. Next to loving God with all of our heart mind and soul, this is the highest and most radical calling of the Christian community.

Let us, indeed, join voices and hearts in "living out the call for a just and compassionate church and a church that is accessible to all" but let us not distort both call and response by failing to identify the root causes of prejudice and discrimination that separate us from one another.

Rev. Julia C Aldrich, Intentional Interim Minister, Cummington, Ma.

African Bishops re Zimbabwe, Sudan

2004-09-22T21:27:00.000-04:00

Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference Media Statement
Wednesday 11 August 2004

Catholic Bishops Urge the International Community to Take Stronger
Action on Zimbabwe and Sudan

"The Catholic bishops decry the ongoing human suffering of their
brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe and Sudan, and call on Southern
African Development Co-operation Governments (SADC), the African
Union (AU), and the United Nations (UN) to take stronger action,
including the consideration of targetted sanctions, to prevent
further suffering." This statement was made at the conclusion of
the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (SACBC) plenary
session at Mariannhill today.

ZIMBABWE

"The Zimbabwean situation of starvation and malnutrition, willful
political violence and intimidation, and the immoral use of food
aid by the Zimbabwean government demands stronger and transparent
intervention by African governments through the AU", said the
bishops. "With more than three million people displaced as a result
of the crisis in Zimbabwe, a generation of exiles and refugees has
been created. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The
Government of Zimbabwe must care for its own people."

"In addition, strong measures must be taken by the international
community to ensure a meaningful and honest election in Zimbabwe in
2005, especially through sustained independent international and
regional monitoring of the pre-election process as a prerequisite
for validating the election itself."

SUDAN

The bishops continued: "In Sudan, while tens of thousands have been
killed and more than a million displaced in the Darfur region,
thousands in other parts of Sudan, such as the Malakal district,
silently face equally devastating violence at the hands of militias
actively supported by the Khartoum government. The UN investigation
team issued a report on 6 August, 2004, stating that it cannot be
doubted that the Government of Sudan is 'responsible' for what has
happened in Darfur. We ourselves have personally witnessed some of
these atrocities during visits to Sudan."

Because of this, the African Union (AU) in particular must take
action against the Government of Sudan and exclude it from all AU
organs such as its Human Rights Commission. In addition, to put
pressure on the Government of Sudan to implement the African Union
provisions on good governance and the promotion of human rights."

In conclusion, the bishops reflected: "With war on terrorism on the
increase, there is a continuing erosion of a culture of human
rights in the world today. We call on all church members and people
of good will to work together to bring an end to wars and
divisions, to promote healing and reconciliation, to challenge
political leadership to transparent and accountable governance, and
to build communities and nations where people may live in dignity
and experience a true quality of life."

The bishops reaffirmed their commitment to engaging with
Zimbabwean, Sudanese and other African church and political leaders
to ensure a lasting end to Africa's conflicts. To this end, the
Conference is establishing an international solidarity and peace
institute to support its efforts in this regard.

For further information,

Please contact Bishop Kevin Dowling (Vice-chairperson of the SACBC
Justice and Peace Department) at 014 5733403 (telephone and fax)
or 083 6550457 or at: diocrust@mweb.co.za; and Neville Gabriel
(Co-ordinating Secretary of the SACBC Justice and Peace Department
at 012 323 6458.

Religion and Politics sources

2004-07-30T23:07:00.000-04:00

Friends:

The following is a collection of articles discussing the roll of religion in progressive politics. It occurred to me that a great many of you would very interested in these discussions because that is such an extremely important issue in this year’s presidential election. So I pulled several together. Read as many or as few as you have time.

Especially note the references in many of the articles of our own Mara Vanderslice, a UCC lay woman who until leaving to work for the Dean campaign was the director of development for the Jubilee USA Network. She is now director of religious outreach for the Kerry campaign. See a nice article by her at the end which came out recently in Sojourners. If you are interested in more on this topic, you might check the following:
1. The very fine PBS program “Religion and Ethics News Weekly” (all but impossible to find in eastern Massachusetts).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/archive/index3.html#1
2. Beliefnet, which frequently carries discussions of religion and politics and almost never from a narrow perspective.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/137/story_13791.html
3. and “People of Faith For Kerry” (I’ll bet you didn’t know they existed, did you?)
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/faith/
Peace,

Stan Duncan

Religious Left Seeks Center of Political Debate
Conferees Call For Stronger Voice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29653-2004Jun9?language=printer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A02
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer

More than 350 political liberals of many faiths gathered in Washington yesterday to begin what some pollsters say is a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate.

"Progressive religious voices, which historically have fueled so much social change in this country, seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years," said John D. Podesta, a Roman Catholic who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. Podesta now heads the Center for American Progress, the Democratic think tank that organized the conference to highlight the "proud past" and "promising future" of the religious left.

Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.

Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.

"All the surveys show that if you ask about either church attendance or attitudes -- how important is religion to you in your daily life? -- you get the same thing: the more religious, the more conservative," Gallup pollster Frank Newport said in an interview. "I certainly remember the days when being religious meant fighting for civil rights and social justice, and it's not that those people aren't still out there. But religious liberals are a small minority today."

Some liberals dispute that conclusion.

"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."

Conference attendees also blamed the media, saying news reports tend to play up the simple dichotomy between the secular left and the religious right rather than citing the full range of religious views.

"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left. The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, told the audience in his keynote address that "we have got to find a way not to be embarrassed" to speak about religion with secular progressives.

And there was no lack of hand-wringing among the conferees about what the religious left has done wrong.

"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."

Historian Taylor Branch said that in the 1970s, the abortion issue split the progressive religious alliance that had formed in the civil rights movement. Since then, the left has done no better than the right in "moving beyond polemics," he said.

"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."

The Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister who publishes the interfaith quarterly CrossCurrents, said that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the mainline Protestant denominations took for granted that their values would infuse television and the public schools. Evangelicals, who felt shut out of establishment institutions, created their own schools and broadcast outlets. "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why," he said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Democrats strike back on faith issue
Group launches initiative to stress religious roots of policies as polls show party faces a 'church gap.'

June 09, 2004
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0609/p01s01-uspo.html
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - For much of the 20th century, the language of faith infused politics on the left on issues ranging from civil rights to a living wage for farm workers.

In 1968, for example, labor leader Cesar Chavez ended a three-week fast with prayer and breaking of bread. His speech to 8,000 supporters, read by a minister, ended with the rallying call: "God help us to be men!"

But since the rise of the Christian right in the 1970s, the mantle of faith-toned politics has been ceded largely to Republicans.

Now a group of Democrats is eager to revive the historic role that religion has played in their party. It is launching a multiyear project Wednesday to amplify the religious roots of "progressive" policies, ranging from the economy and environment to social issues.

A key reason: Religion is now the biggest predictor of vote, after party identification.

In a presidential election that could pivot on a few swing states, the fact that Democrats are losing the vote of regular churchgoers by a 2-to-1 margin could be decisive.

"The gap between people who go to church regularly and those that don't is twice the gender gap," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "It's huge."

To advocates, the new focus on church-pew politics represents an opportunity for peel off crucial voters without losing the party's more secular base. But big gains won't be easy, analysts say.

Protestant registered voters favor President Bush by a nine-point margin over presumptive Democratic challenger John Kerry - a gap that jumps to 18 points for those who say they attend church regularly, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. While Senator Kerry has jumped to an eight-point advantage among registered Roman Catholic voters in the same poll, it's a far cry from the 56-point lead enjoyed by John Kennedy among Catholics in 1960.

"Bush's pro-religion messages will surely help to solidify his appeal among more conservative Protestants, while trying to peel Catholic support away from Kerry," writes Jeffrey Jones, Gallup Poll managing editor.

The "church gap" worries Democratic activists, who are united as rarely before to try to take back the White House and the Congress this November.

"There is a public perception and a press perception, fueled by the religious right, that if you're a person of faith, you're a conservative," says John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, which Wednesday launches the new project on faith and progressive policy. "That is in dire need of correction, if you want progressive social change in this country."

The effort comes as the Bush campaign steps up efforts to mobilize the GOP vote in evangelical churches, where Republicans claim a big edge.

But winning back those votes is hard. At least at the top of the Democratic Party, advocates on issues such as abortion and gay rights were recruited not from the ranks of the dispossessed, but from professional classes. They cast their appeals in the language of law and individual rights, leaving faith-based appeals to opponents on right. In response, many conservative Democrats bolted the party.

It's not the first time that Democrats have tried to revive their religious roots. In 1992, President Clinton backed a constitutional amendment to return voluntary prayer to public schools - a rallying point for Reagan Republicans. New Democrats supported faith-based initiatives. "I have never believed the Constitution required our schools to be religion-free zones," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a contender on the presidential ticket in 2000 and 2004.

But such appeals have barely made a dent in the party's culture, which is increasingly secular and even hostile to faith-based appeals.

"There is a great deal of suspicion of making religious appeals of any sort inside the Democratic Party itself," says Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in Greenville, S.C., who writes on religion and politics.

One reason is that Democrats, more than Republicans, are very diverse religiously. It makes it difficult to find common ground, he says. Liberal religious leaders often don't have the politically active base that Republicans have found in evangelical congregations. "There are plenty of leaders, but not many followers," he adds.

Also, groups like Emily's List, which supports abortion-rights candidates, have become top party fundraisers. Anti-abortion Democrats complain that they are excluded from speaking at national party conventions and even party websites.

Conservative activists predict that the latest effort by Democrats, too, will fizzle. "Within the Democratic Party, there is an increasingly aggressive secular left that has driven people of faith, especially conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians, into the Republican Party. They recognize how damaging it is, but they can't fix it given who pays the bills and who is in charge: Emily's List and aggressively secular left Democrats," says conservative activist Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

But other analysts see an opening for change. "There has been a tendency to write off religious believers in the Democratic Party, because the party came to feel that its positions on abortion and gay rights and other cultural issues made it the enemy of religious people. Now, there is an understanding that that is not necessarily the case," says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.

"There wasn't sufficient recognition that if a person had qualms about abortion, it may be because they had serious religious beliefs and not because they were opposed to women's rights," he adds.

Podesta, former chief of staff for President Clinton, says that Democrats who are religious feel as if they have been silenced over the past few decades, and are "enthusiastic about regaining a sense of moral authority." New core values to be emphasized include inclusion, building community, taking care of each other and being good stewards of the earth.

"Some people think we're nuts and that relatively little good could come from bringing progressive religious voices back into the public square. I guess I would say history judges otherwise," he adds.

Such a new strategy could be especially helpful in heartland swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, where Catholic voters make up a significant proportion of the population. It could also help Democrats in Southern states such as North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as Florida.

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, nearly two-thirds who attend religious services at least once a week vote Republican. The flip side for Republicans: For those who say they seldom go to church, two-thirds vote Democratic.

"The political right and political left have agreed that religion equals the religious right. The right has done this because they want to own the issue, and some on the left have done this because they almost want to dismiss the issue," says Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners, a magazine covering faith and politics.

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

John Edwards and Religion
Religion and Ethics New Weekly
July 9, 2004 Episode no. 745
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The Democratic ticket was completed this week, when John Kerry picked North Carolina Senator John Edwards as his vice-presidential running mate. Kerry, of course, is a Roman Catholic. Like President Bush and Vice President Cheney, John Edwards is a United Methodist. Kim Lawton has more on Edwards and religion.

KIM LAWTON: Senator John Kerry says he has selected a running mate who understands the values of America.

Senator JOHN KERRY (D-MA, at Announcement): I know his strength; I know his conscience; I know his faith.

LAWTON: John Edwards was raised and baptized in a Southern Baptist church. But in a December interview with the Interfaith Alliance, Edwards said he fell away from religion during college and law school. Then, a family tragedy changed that.

Senator JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC, to Interfaith Alliance): And I lost a son in 1996, and my faith came roaring back. And it played an enormous role in my ability to get through that period, and it stayed with me and has been enormously important.

LAWTON: Edwards became a United Methodist and is a member of the Edenton Street Methodist Church in Raleigh, where he was also on the board of the faith-based Urban Ministries of Wake County. In Washington, he has attended the more liberal Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist Church.

Sen. EDWARDS: Let us pray.

LAWTON: Edwards has also co-chaired the heavily evangelical National Prayer Breakfast, where he led a prayer in 2002.

Sen. EDWARDS (at 2002 National Prayer Breakfast): We seek to be the leaders you would have us to be, and we sorely need your unsearchable wisdom. We pray each day, O Lord, that you inform our judgments with your wisdom, your humility, your benevolence.

LAWTON: Experts say Edwards brings religious balance to the Democratic ticket.

Dr. SHAUN CASEY (Professor of Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary): He's from a mainline Protestant denomination. He's Southern, and in that sense, he has perhaps a better ear for evangelical religion because he's simply a child of the South. He knows the rhythms and the cadences of Southern religion, which is something Kerry himself really doesn't possess.

LAWTON: Edwards says his faith holds great meaning for him, but observers note he doesn't give a lot of details.

Dr. CASEY: There seems to be a reticence on his part to delve too deeply into his own personal faith and the connection between his faith and his political views.

Sen. EDWARDS (to the Interfaith Alliance): I mean, over the long term, our country, our nation, will be much better off if we make it clear that we are a nation that lifts up and embraces all faiths, and we will not use faith for political purposes.

LAWTON: In his speeches, Edwards plans to emphasize values. The Kerry campaign says the vice-presidential candidate will be speaking "to the heart of America."

I'm Kim Lawton in Washington.

Democrats and Religion
Religion and Ethics New Weekly
July 23, 2004 Episode no. 747
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week747/cover.html

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Religion continues to be one important factor in how people vote. A majority of Americans say they want a president who is religious. But there is deep ambivalence about how much the president should talk about -- and be guided by -- religious beliefs. Many Republican politicians talk openly about faith, while Democrats are perceived as being less comfortable with religious language. Is there a "God gap" in American politics? Kim Lawton has our special report on Democrats and religion.

KIM LAWTON: In the heart of Texas Bush country, kids at the Central Dallas Ministries day camp are getting a civics lesson about voting. The goal is to encourage their parents and their neighbors to register to vote. It's part of a project to help low-income people get their voices heard.

The Reverend Larry James is executive director of the faith-based ministry. The voting project is nonpartisan, but James is a lifelong Democrat -- a Democrat who is frustrated with how his party is handling religion right now.

Reverend LARRY JAMES (Central Dallas Ministries): The Republican Party has carried away the issue of faith, and the popular notion is that Democrats are not people of faith.

LAWTON: Analysts say this election season Democratic leaders have struggled over how to deal with religion.

Dr. SHAUN CASEY (Professor of Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary): On the one hand, they read the polls. They understand the demographics of the country, which would lead one to say that religion is extremely important in this current election. They see the need, but on the other hand, they lack the experience, they lack the confidence, frankly, to reach out to those communities with great ease.

LAWTON: According to recent surveys, the more often voters attend religious services, the more likely they are to vote Republican. The majority of Americans say they like expressions of faith from their politicians. Forty-one percent believe there haven't been enough such expressions. This poses some big political challenges for Democrats.

MIKE MCCURRY (Public Strategies Group): Many Democrats are not accustomed to speaking of their faith and relating their faith to political action. This is something that's just not part, hasn't been part of the culture of the party. So it's a new vocabulary for many Democrats, and I think that's what we're getting used to.

Representative ROSA DELAURO (D-CT): We shouldn't shy away from that. We should say it because it reflects who we are and what we are about, and people should know that.

LAWTON: Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro is a Roman Catholic who chaired the Democratic Platform Committee. She says Democrats need to more actively communicate what motivates their policies.

Rep. DELAURO: There is a nexus between religion and politics. We do have a separation of church and state. No one is talking about going over those bounds. In my view, Republicans use politics to push religion. I don't believe we ought to emulate that. But what we ought to do is reflect our values in the work that we do. And we ought to say it. We ought to say it.

LAWTON: President Bill Clinton's former press secretary, Mike McCurry, is an active United Methodist. He's also among the few high-profile Democrats urging the party to pay more attention to religion. He admits this is not always a welcome message.

Mr. MCCURRY: I think it's met with discomfort by some party leaders. I think some people are just not comfortable wearing their religion on the sleeve. And particularly, if you are imbued with certain Yankee taciturnity, like a certain candidate we have running for president, it's not a natural thing to talk about a faith life, even though in the case of Senator Kerry, he happens to be a particularly faithful person.

LAWTON: Religion has been tricky for Kerry and his campaign, as evidenced by the highly publicized flap over whether he should receive Communion in Catholic churches because of his stand in favor of abortion rights. The candidate himself is reluctant to make connections between faith and politics, as he acknowledged in a December interview with the Interfaith Alliance.

Senator JOHN KERRY (Speaking to Interfaith Alliance): Affairs of state are affairs of state, and they ought to be based on the discussion we have day to day about how we fund education or how big the military ought to be. And affairs of faith are affairs of faith. And they're separated.

LAWTON: But many grassroots Democrats believe the two areas should be more connected. In Dallas, Larry James has dedicated his life to helping the poor. His Central Dallas Ministries has a multipronged approach that includes a massive food bank as well as medical, legal, and housing assistance. James says all the projects are directly motivated by religious beliefs.

Rev. JAMES: Isaiah is replete with passage after passage of how God's people collectively are responsible for caring for the least among them. The law of Moses, the Torah, is filled with passage after passage on how an economy is to be structured so that no one is left behind. The values, the deep, deeply rooted values of justice, fairness, equity, how an economy is supposed to work -- all those things need to be reclaimed theologically by the Democrats.

LAWTON: Democrats, James says, can emphasize these broad spiritual values without coming across as self-righteous or exclusive.

Rev. JAMES: And if I were John Kerry or John Edwards, I think I'd get with some astute theologians and I'd hammer out some of these, because I think that resonates with Christians and with Jewish folk and with Muslims as well, to say nothing of Buddhists and Hindus and others, because these values are in all the holy texts.

LAWTON: The key, according to Mike McCurry, is being authentic and not appearing to pander to or exploit religion.

Mr. MCCURRY: I'd like Democrats to not, you know, brazenly do what Republicans sometimes do, which is to lead with a faux religion. I would really like to see Democrats speak genuinely and authentically about how religion and how faith informs the positions we take on so many issues.

Rep. DELAURO: I also say that one has to take a look at deeds and not just words or photographs. Both John Kerry and John Edwards have demonstrated by their deeds that they are men of faith, that they are men of values.

LAWTON: Another aspect of the dilemma is the growing group of Americans who identify themselves as "secular." In 2000, they accounted for 20 percent of Al Gore's total vote. Many of them agree with Joanna Citron Day, a local Democratic activist who doesn't want to see any more religion injected into the campaign.

JOANNA CITRON DAY (Democratic Activist): Religion really doesn't have a place in American politics, and I think that it's not about, you know, what your religious background is. Really, it's public service to all Americans, regardless of their religion. So why should your religion as a candidate or as president play into it?

Dr. CASEY: There's a fear, frankly, that they may alienate part of their own base, the so-called "seculars" or "nonreligious" -- that if a Democratic candidate appears too explicitly religious, that may alienate part of their base.

LAWTON: But in an electorate that is so evenly divided, Casey says, both parties also need to persuade undecided religious swing voters, especially the undecided in key states.

Dr. CASEY: You see Roman Catholic voters represented in large percentages, but also very significant evangelical constituencies as well. If you're going to persuade those folks, you need to come at them with every possible persuasive lever, and religion happens to be one of those most persuasive levers among those undecided voters.

LAWTON: In recent days, the Kerry campaign appears to be trying. They've hired a point person for outreach to religious communities and established a special area on the official Web site for people of faith, complete with buttons and bumper stickers.

Many Democrats were hoping John Edwards would bring the ticket more comfort in dealing with religion. Edwards is a United Methodist who has been active in the National Prayer Breakfast. So far, on the stump he's been talking a lot about values, but not explicitly tying those values to religion.

Both Edwards and Kerry have made obligatory election-year visits to black churches, another core constituency for Democrats. During a speech to the African Methodist Episcopal denomination earlier this month, Kerry indicated that faith does indeed have a role in his political agenda.

Sen. KERRY (During Speech): We should never separate our highest beliefs and our values from our treatment of one another and our conduct of the people's business.

LAWTON: Experts say he'll have to offer still more details in order to convince religious voters.

Dr. CASEY: He needs to take the time in telling his own story about how his own faith has shaped his politics. That's going to resonate with a lot of religiously motivated voters in this country. If he chooses not to do that, then he allows the other candidate, frankly, to fill in the blanks for him, and I suspect that will not be a very pretty picture.

LAWTON: And in a race as tight as this one appears, the stakes are high. Every voter convinced could make all the difference. I'm Kim Lawton reporting.

© 2004 Educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.

Religion on the stump could add a new dimension to election
6/10/2004
Walter Shapiro
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2004-06-10-hype_x.htm

WASHINGTON — The banners for Wednesday's forum proudly proclaimed, "Faith and Progressive Policy: Proud Past, Promising Future." Organized by the Center for American Progress — a liberal group founded last year as a counterweight to conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation — the conference was squarely at the intersection of religion and Democratic politics.

That explained the buzz from the nearly 500 liberals in the audience when a 29-year-old woman named Mara Vanderslice stood up during the question period and identified herself as the director of religious outreach for the John Kerry campaign.

Vanderslice's question for the religious thinkers on stage was refreshingly direct: "What do you have to say to us?"

Even though it was hard to imagine that there were any backers of George W. Bush in the hotel meeting room, the partisan tenor of the query made the moderator, Sister Maureen Fiedler, nervous. She explained that under the tax laws, the Center for American Progress could not engage in direct political advocacy. So Fiedler cleverly rephrased the question to ask whether the panelists had any advice for "progressive candidates" from either party.

Given these restrictive ground rules, only the Rev. Jim Wallis, who edits the liberal Christian magazine Sojourners, rose to the challenge. "Democrats often make the mistake of restricting faith to the private sphere," he said. Wallis went on to parody the standard approach to religion by Democratic candidates: "I have faith, but don't worry, it won't affect me."

Wallis' answer harked back to an earlier dialogue among the panelists. Historian Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Martin Luther King, had drawn a distinction between King and John Kennedy. King, he said, used religious imagery and the rhetoric of American democracy to champion racial and economic justice. Kennedy, profoundly sensitive to charges that his Catholicism would shape his presidency, portrayed himself as a secular political leader.

Branch's comments prompted me to revisit Kennedy's 1960 campaign address in which he confronted the so-called "Catholic issue" before the conservative Houston Ministerial Association.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," he declared. "Where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. Where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference."

Judged in contemporary terms, Kennedy's words seem almost as quaint as his campaign oratory about "the missile gap." Bush is the most publicly religious president in modern times — and the Christian right, mobilized church by church, is an indispensable cog in the Republican governing coalition. Equally telling is that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the only Democratic presidents in the last 35 years, both carried a Southern evangelical tradition into the White House.

But even as Democratic-leaning groups like the Center for American Progress try to mesh faith with liberal policies, there is still a case to be made for Kennedy's view that the Oval Office should not be a bully pulpit for religion. At a time when the ruling American belief system is built around tolerance for minorities, it seems odd that there is scant sensitivity for those voters who feel uncomfortable hearing religious rhetoric in political speeches.

Kerry will, of course, be the first Catholic to be nominated for president since Kennedy. Kerry faces pressure from Catholic bishops enraged at his support for abortion rights. But judging from his statements about religion so far, Kerry is closer to the secular Kennedy tradition than to religiously infused Democrats like Clinton.

During a January debate in Iowa sponsored by National Public Radio, Kerry was asked to give an example of a political decision that he made because of religious conviction. The Massachusetts senator began by reminiscing about serving as an altar boy and briefly contemplating "going into the priesthood." Then in a candid statement by a presidential candidate, Kerry discussed how his experiences in Vietnam "made me question (my faith) for a period of time" before returning to the church.

Having completed his religious autobiography, Kerry talked about how he has "always separated" his personal faith from "public life." He went on to say, "My entire person is affected by my belief structure, by the values given to me both through my parents and through religion. But I don't make decisions in public life based on religious belief, nor do I think we should. I think there is a separation of church and state."

Even though Kerry poured a lot into that answer, a campaign debate is not an ideal forum for a nuanced discussion of religion and politics. Less than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry was conscious that Howard Dean had blundered by loudly proclaiming his newfound intention to talk about religion in the South. As a Catholic politician, Kerry understood how a question on religion could trap him in the thicket of trying to explain why he did not abide by the church's views on abortion.

But what Kerry's answer conveyed was a sense of authenticity, an attribute that has often eluded him on the campaign trail. It suggests that one of the most intriguing moments in the fall campaign may occur if Kerry and Bush are confronted with a question about religion when they face off in their first debate.

Walter Shapiro's column appears Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at wshapiro@usatoday.com

The 'God gap': A political myth
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-13-zelizer_x.htm
June 13, 2004

By Gerald L. Zelizer

Amy Potter, an evangelical Christian from Detroit, voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. She says she values Bush for giving greater legitimacy to discussing faith in public. But she is increasingly disenchanted with his stance on other issues and would consider voting for the Democratic candidate this time if he would more clearly show how his social agenda were grounded in his faith in God.

Democrats should pay better attention to religious voters such as Potter. John Kerry's campaign recently hired a director of religious outreach. That is a first step, but because of its reluctance to approach the faith electorate beyond African-American communities, the Democratic Party has much work to do.

Potter is among those voters whom scholars such as John Green of the University of Akron have identified as "freestyle evangelists" — "mostly white, living in suburbs in the South, Midwest and Northwest, attending megachurches and sending their kids to public schools." They are theologically conservative but politically independent, interested in social welfare and the environment and ripe for the plucking by a Democrat who will reveal how his faith informs his political decisions.

In past presidential elections, this vote has swung from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Moreover, says Amy Sullivan in The Washington Monthly, these "swing faithful" also could coalesce with other religious moderates disillusioned with Bush. Sullivan, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Princeton University, identifies, for instance:
• Arab-Americans whose approval of Bush has fallen sharply because of his stricter immigration policies.
• Hispanic Catholics who overwhelmingly support Democrats.
• "Liberal Catholics" whose urban roots, support of unions, pro-choice attitudes and advocacy of contraception tilt them to Democratic policy positions.
• Non-Orthodox religious Jews, who are dissatisfied with his social policies.
• "Notional Christians" — those who describe themselves as Christian but are neither evangelical nor "born again." Barna Research reports that only 34% of this faith group approve of the president's performance.

USA TODAY recently reported that in the 2000 presidential election, 87% of those who attend church once a week backed Bush. Earlier polls by Gallup and Pew reinforce an erroneous assumption that a "God gap" favors the GOP.

At a conference on religion's role in this year's election, the God-gap assumption was refuted by Green and Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Yes, it is true that those who worship weekly tend to vote Republican by a large margin. But Green and Silk note that when other gauges of religiosity are measured — such as attending church services a few times a month, belief, prayer and Bible reading — the gap narrows significantly and even reverses. "So it's a weekly worship difference," Green explains, "but not much of a God gap based on other factors."

With some justification, even Democrats have bought into the myth that they are the party of secularists and Republicans are the party of believers. Green says that because the Democratic umbrella must be broad enough to incorporate both those suspicious of organized religion and diverse religious groups, it is simpler to speak in non-religious language. In the past month, Kerry has done better, using terms such as "traditional American values," thus expressing a kind of "civil religion." But even those references are too vague for religious voters.

The Democrats' timidity regarding faith is out of sync with much of the electorate and is based on an outdated model. In fact, a Fox News poll found that 69% of Americans think religion plays too small a role in people's lives.

If Democrats continue to cater to the secular component of the party, they will misread where a good share of the electorate stands.

This election is dominated by moral and religious issues important to the swing faithful. Obtaining universal health care, for example (favored by 72% of Americans), fulfills the biblical mandate of caring for the powerless among us. Sending Americans to their death in a war fought on a false premise, even if unintentional, could be construed to violate the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder."

Because many of the swing faithful live in key electoral pockets in the Midwest, the border South and city suburbs, their vote could play a decisive role in a close election. Democrats can capture that vote, and perhaps bridge a political divide, by breaking the tethers to outdated paradigms and speaking with a bolder faith accent.

Gerald L. Zelizer, rabbi of Neve Shalom, a Conservative congregation in New Jersey, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Kerry advisers tell hopeful to 'keep cool' on religion
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040618-121914-6103r
June 18, 2004

By Julia Duin
Sen. John Kerry's advisers are telling the presidential candidate to steer clear of talking about religion after running afoul of several Catholic bishops and after the campaign's new director of religious outreach was criticized this week for espousing left-wing causes.

    The Rev. Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest who served in Congress during the 1970s, says he has advised the campaign to clamp down on religious rhetoric and "keep cool on the Communion thing" after four Catholic bishops either barred Mr. Kerry by name from taking Communion in their dioceses or said pro-choice Catholics should be denied the sacrament.

    "The mood now is to shut up about it," said Father Drinan, who teaches at Georgetown University Law Center. He said the Communion debate "is a nonissue" in the Kerry campaign and simply a tool of the Republican Party.

    Mr. Kerry's detractors "are dying for him to say something. But he won't take them on," the priest said, adding that he was part of a "kitchen Cabinet" to advise the Kerry campaign on religious matters.

    Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign also has sidelined its new religion adviser, closing journalists' access to Mara Vanderslice and ignoring her advice on how to appeal effectively to religious voters.

    "Every time something with religious language got sent up the flagpole, it got sent back down, stripped of religious language," a Kerry campaign source said of Miss Vanderslice's ideas on overcoming Mr. Kerry's secular image.

    The campaign source also said former Clinton aides Paul Begala, John Podesta and Mike McCurry have tutored campaign operatives on more aggressively using religion to appeal to voters.

    "Why the campaign is not listening to any of them, I don't know," the source said. "Conservatives are about 20 years ahead of us on this stuff."

    The campaign began to marginalize Miss Vanderslice when the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights mounted a public campaign against her, saying she spoke at a rally co-sponsored by the homosexual group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (Act-Up) and should be "working for Fidel Castro."

    Even though she was giving interviews to USA Today earlier this month, Miss Vanderslice would not be talking to the press, said campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson.

    "It is extremely unfortunate and regretful that John Kerry's political opponents would attack a person of faith in this way," Ms. Dobson said.

    Miss Vanderslice, 29, grew up Unitarian in Boulder, Colo., then attended Earlham College, a Quaker institution in Richmond, Ind.

    She joined a college socialist group, majored in peace and global studies, and graduated in 1997. After interning for a year at Sojourners, a liberal evangelical magazine in the District, she joined the Jubilee USA Network, a D.C.-based group that campaigns for Third World debt relief.

    What Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, found especially problematic was Miss Vanderslice's presence at a violent December 2000 rally in Seattle against the International Monetary Fund and a similar protest in September 2002 in the District against the IMF and the World Bank.

    In articles on the protests, the Boston Globe identified her as an organizer and the Denver Post quoted her plans to take part in civil disobedience in order to shut down the IMF meeting in the District.

    "What you get here is a profile of a woman on the far left and whose commitment to Christian organizations is connected to the most left-wing groups in the United States," Mr. Donohue said.

    "This choice either suggests an incredible naivete or a very nonchalant attitude" by the Kerry campaign, he said.

    The campaign is in "panic mode" because of the attacks, said Amy Sullivan, a specialist on religion and the Democratic Party who gave a galvanizing speech last fall at a Democratic Leadership Council forum in Atlanta called "God, Guns and Guts."

    Plans were, said Miss Sullivan, for the campaign to assemble a "people of faith" page for the Kerry Web site, at which point Miss Vanderslice was to be announced as the contact person.

    But with Miss Vanderslice not being allowed near the press, "They have no one in their communications shop who is conversant in religion," she said.

    It was Miss Sullivan's June 2003 cover story in the Washington Monthly, "Do Democrats Have a Prayer?" that inspired Miss Vanderslice to quit her Jubilee job and go to work for the Howard Dean campaign as its religious outreach coordinator in Iowa.

    "I was quickly dubbed the 'church lady,' " Miss Vanderslice wrote in the May issue of Sojourners, "as I tried to convince senior staff that, although many people of faith supported Dean's positions, his secular image would hurt him in the election."

    Miss Vanderslice was then recommended to the campaign by Maureen Shea, the Clinton administration's liaison to religious groups from 1997 to 2001.

    At first, Miss Vanderslice was given wide latitude to define Mr. Kerry's positions on spiritual issues and to hire assistants who would reach out to Muslims and black churches, the Kerry campaign source said.

    Then her "strategy memo" advising Mr. Kerry on how to shift the press's emphasis on sexual morality to social justice issues got ignored.

    Thus, when Mr. Kerry was asked about the Communion furor Tuesday, he said, "We have a separation of church and state in the United States" and that Catholicism "is not defined by one issue."

    "Maybe the Kerry campaign is learning the wrong lesson from the 1960 presidential campaign," said Steven Waldman, the founder of the religious Web site Beliefnet.com. "They figured that if [John F.] Kennedy emphasized separation of church and state, that's the way we will do it, too.

    "At the time, the question is whether Kennedy is too influenced by the church. The question now is whether Kerry is influenced too little."

Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

Presidential Candidates on Religion
An ongoing record of the Democratic presidential hopefuls' comments on religion and spirituality
Beliefnet
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/137/story_13791.html

John Edwards
Senator John Edwards is a Methodist. He has been more reserved than other candidates in talking about religion and his personal faith, though he has acknowledged that his faith played a part in helping him recover from the death of his 16-year-old son Wade, in a 1996 car accident.

On Values
"...we cannot concede values to this president, because I think we win a values debate with this president. I don't think his values are the values that I grew up with in that small town in North Carolina. And they show in everything this administration does."
--Appearance on FOX News Sunday, Dec. 28, 2003

On His Faith Journey
"...My faith has been enormous to me in my personal life and of course my personal life is a big impact on my political life. I have had an interesting faith journey over the course of my life. I was born and raised in the Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist Church and then later in life joined the Methodist church and like a lot of people, when I was in my college years, and I went to law school and became a lawyer and was raising my young family I moved away somewhat from my faith. And then I lost a son in 1996 and my faith came roaring back and it played an enormous role in my ability to get through that period. It stayed with me and has been enormously important.

On Faith's Role in Politics
"...In terms of my political life I believe there's a lot of the things that are part of my faith belief is also part of my political belief. My responsibilities to others, to help others. My work for instance, with Urban Ministries. I have been on the board of Urban Ministries for years before I went to the Senate. To provide help to the homeless in the Raleigh-Durham area in North Carolina is an example of that. So I think it's just part of my entire life."
--Interview with the Interfaith Alliance, December 3, 2003

On Prayer
"I believe that God answers prayers."
--Washington Post profile, Aug. 7, 2001

"You know the Lord is in this place. You can feel his presence."
--Campaign stop at a Sidney Park, S.C. church, Dec. 28, 2003

On Faith and the Constitution
"...for any publicly elected official, you're responsibility is to abide by and enforce the Constitution, and meet your constitutional duties. My personal faith guides and affects my personal decisions in my personal life. But as President of the United States I have a constitutional responsibility to all of the American people, which means, to all people of all faiths. So I think you have to be very, very careful to not let your own personal faith beliefs, particularly where they may differ with other faith beliefs, to influence national policy."
--Interview with the Interfaith Alliance, December 3, 2003

On Faith-Based Initiatives
"Faith is enormously important to me personally and to tens of millions of Americans. In addition, religious institutions do wonderful work and make important contributions to our society.

"In a manner consistent with the First Amendment, faith-based charities should be able to participate in delivering services. But they should also meet the same anti-discrimination standards as other charities receiving government support."
--Statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, January 7, 2004
John Kerry
Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism.

On Prayer
"We had guys on the boat from Arkansas, from South Carolina, from all over the place. But none of that mattered. We were a bunch of guys fighting under the same flag, praying to the same God."
--Speech at a VFW hall in Tacoma, November 2002, quoted in Vogue, March 2003

On Democrats & Religion
"We've got to prove we're as God-fearing and churchgoing as everybody else."
--Quoted in Vogue, March 2003

On Fighting Extremism
"We will not prevent a clash of civilizations with Islam, radical Islam unless we begin to reach out to countries and bring the real world of religion together to understand the similarities even as we look at the differences. To recognize that we all pray to the God of Abraham and Isaac and that we need to find a way to isolate the extremists....If you don't pray that's fine, and that's the country we are also incidentally."
--Speech at a Concord, Mass. campaign event, Aug. 8, 2003

On Church and State
"May I say that one of my objections to this administration is that it has crossed that delicate line that our forefathers drew in the Constitution that separates church and state. And it is vital for us to hold on to that line. But those who pray, pray to that same God. Or they pray in a way that is peaceful and at one with the universe. But they do not accept the notion that martyrdom and killing innocent people is somehow connected to legitimate religious activity."
--Speech at a Concord, New Hampshire campaign event, Aug. 8, 2003

On Not Losing Faith
"Judy, if I do nothing else in my life I will never stop trying to bring to people the conviction of how wasteful and asinine is a human expenditure of this kind. I don't mean this in an all-consuming world saving fashion. I just mean that my own effort must be entire and thorough and that it must do what it can to help make this a better world to live in. I have not lost faith--on the contrary--I have gained a conviction and desire greater than ever before--and now, a sense of inevitability--a weighty fatalism that takes worry out of the small actions of late and makes the personal much more important."
--1968 letter to ex-wife Judy Thorme, after learning of the death of his friend Dick Pershing in Vietnam, quoted in The Atlantic, November 2003

Religious Democrats?
You wouldn't know it by the candidates, but Christians form the base of the party.
Sojourners Magazine, May 2004 (Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 8). Commentary.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0405&article=040541b
by Mara Vanderslice
I remember the first time I heard Gov. Howard Dean speak, more than a year ago. Dean sharply criticized the move toward war in Iraq and wondered out loud why the other Democrats were not willing to challenge the Bush administration. At the time, the faith community had been active in opposition to the war, but while protests erupted around the world, our leaders in Washington remained painfully silent. Dean broke through that silence with what to me was a prophetic voice in a time that desperately needed politicians to be truth-tellers.

I was so inspired to see a candidate who was willing to stand up for the things I believed in that I decided to leave my job to work on the Dean campaign. As a Christian, I passionately wanted to galvanize the faith community around the candidate that had captured my heart and imagination. I headed to Iowa, where I managed to convince the Dean campaign to hire me to do outreach to religious communities. I was quickly dubbed the "church lady" as I tried to convince senior staff that, although many people of faith supported Dean’s positions, his secular image would hurt him in the election.

My appeals for intelligent language about faith were met with skepticism. I was told that Dean supporters were not religious and liked him because he didn’t talk about religion. A senior staff member who came into Iowa in the final weeks even asked me, "How in the world did you get hired?!" He just couldn’t comprehend expending resources to reach out to the religious community. "It’s not that I’m against it," he said, "it’s just I would have never thought of it. Who would have known religious people could get behind us?"

When Dean abruptly started talking about religion, his comments came across as insensitive and out of touch: He said he would only talk about religion when campaigning in the South; he called Job his favorite "New Testament" book.

I was amazed by the ignorance about religious people that I found among campaign workers, who seemed unable to comprehend Christians being Democrats. What an odd misconception, considering that an overwhelming percentage of Democrats are religious; according to George Barna, one of the most respected pollsters on religious matters, 79 percent of Democrats attend a Catholic or Protestant church. It was not the right wing Dean was alienating, but the very base of his party.

PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC nominee John Kerry need not make the same mistakes. Kerry and his wife Teresa have publicly emphasized the importance of their Catholic faith. Kerry spoke recently to a church audience quoting from James on how faith without works is dead. If Kerry continues to use religious language appropriately (and not only when speaking in the South) and embraces the millions of religious Americans that are the base of his supporters, he might just change some assumptions about the "secular" Democratic Party, and in the process, pick up a crucial constituency that could tip the balance of the election.

Ultimately, I can’t separate my Christianity from my values or my values from my politics. For me, being engaged in politics is an expression of my deepest held religious beliefs—it is about actualizing a collective commitment to protect the integrity of God’s creation, it’s about meeting the needs of the "least of these," and about our nation being a generous and trustworthy leader in the world. There are certainly positions taken by leading Democrats with which many Christians won’t agree—and many Christians are appalled by what they see as the exploitation of religion for political gain on the part of the Republican Party. The bottom line in applying our beliefs in the political arena is making an across-the-board assessment of who best represents the values we hold most dear.

The best way to overcome the misconceptions about the role of religious people in politics is to get involved. Christians should join a campaign, educate their faith community on the issues they care about, and get mobilized to register and vote. And if we do, politicians of all stripes will start to listen.

Mara Vanderslice, a Christian activist and political organizer, was the religious outreach coordinator for the Dean for America presidential campaign in Iowa.
Sojourners Magazine • 2401 15th Street NW • Washington DC 20009
Phone: (202) 328-8842 • Fax: (202) 328-8757

Disability Housing - Massachusetts - call now

2004-07-14T21:42:00.000-04:00

Urgent Housing Alert

Disability Housing Bond Bill at Risk!

The disability housing bond bill, House Bill #4748, known as An Act
Authorizing the Funding of the Production and Modification of Housing
for People with Disabilities, is at serious risk of not passing this
legislative session. Here are the facts:

The bill must be voted on and approved in the House by the end of
the legislative session, which may be as early as July 21. There
is
much competing legislation. If this bill does not pass, there'll
be
no home modification program for probably another year or more. If
this bill does not pass, there'll be no new community-based
housing
program for people with disabilities who are at risk of
institutionalization or institutions, including those with TBI,
MD,
MS, and SCI. If this bill does not pass, there'll be no Facilities
Consolidation Fund, reducing housing options for people served by
DMH and DMR, potentially increasing homelessness in our
communities
and keeping people in institutional settings. We also badly need
the
additional bonding authorization for the Housing Innovations Fund
($20million) to ensure that this very successful program for
developing service-enriched housing for extremley low income
individuals and famililes can continue to operate. Without
additional authorization, HIF will be out of money during fiscal
2005. We're all familiar with what we need to do:

Call your state representative now and thank them for their support.
Ask for passage now of House Bill #4748, explaining how the shortage of

affordable, accessible and integrated housing affects you, your
neighbors, and your consumers.

Call House Speaker Finneran (617-722-2500) and Ways and
Means Chair John Rogers (617-722-2380) and ask that the bill be brought

to the floor for a vote today.

Call Bill Henning (617) 338-6665, Lisa Sloane (413) 243-9999, or Chris
Norris (617) 742-0820 to let us know the results of your calls.

We need as many calls as possible, as soon as possible!