Africa

Farhang Jahanpour is a former professor and dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages at the University of Isfahan and a former Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University. He is a tutor in the Department of Continuing Education and a member of Kellogg College, University of Oxford.

By Farhang Jahanpour
OXFORD, Feb 17 2016 (IPS)

Although the implementation of Iranian nuclear deal has been welcomed by all those who had been involved in the negotiations as part of the P5+1, the deal has had many vociferous opponents.

Farhang Jahanpour

In the United States, the opposition to the Iranian deal has not stopped at verbal denunciation alone. Only one day after the January 16th announcement of the implementation of the deal, the US Treasury unveiled new sanctions on Iran on the excuse that Iran had tested Emad missiles in October, contrary to the Security Council resolutions. These sanctions are at least against the spirit of the nuclear deal as the US had pledged not to impose new sanctions on Iran. First of all, Resolution 2231 had rescinded all nuclear-related resolutions, and the nuclear deal has ensured that Iran has no nuclear weapons.

In December 2015, the US Congress passed a new law seeking to stop terrorists from traveling to the US. The law changed the rules of the visa waivers afforded to citizens of some 38 countries, including a provision that dual citizens from Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Iran or anyone who has visited any of those countries over the past five years must obtain a visa in advance, including an in-person interview, prior to visiting the US. This law would inconvenience many dual Iranian citizens and many other nationals who wish to travel to Iran on business or tourism, thus violating the provisions of the nuclear deal. Iran’s name was added to the list at the last moment as a pure act of hatred.

It is no wonder that many Iranian officials say that they do not trust the US. It is clear that such acts are not aimed at improving relations between the two countries and encouraging Iranians to have closer relations with the West.

However, Iran did not waste any time in making the best use of the nuclear deal. The unfreezing of Iranian assets, said to be worth about 100 billion dollars, will help the Iranian economy that has been suffering for years under crippling sanctions. Even before the formal Implementation Day, President Vladimir Putin travelled to Iran in November 2015, his first visit for ten years. The two sides signed many deals on economic cooperation. The Russian engineering company Tekhnopromexport will build a 1.4 GW thermal power plant in Iran and a desalination plant with a capacity of 200,000 cubic meters of water per day near the city of Bandar Abbas. Moscow will extend Tehran a government loan worth 5 billion dollars to cover the implementation of 35 priority projects in the fields of energy, construction, seaports, railway electrification, and others. A further 2 billion dollars in the form of export credits is due to be provided by Russia’s State Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs. Victor Melnikov, head of the Iran-Russia Trade Council, said that the two countries could boost bilateral trade exchanges to 10 billion dolars in coming years.

Chinese President Xi Jinping was the first foreign leader to visit Tehran following the lifting of international sanctions. During his two-day visit to Iran (22-23 January), the two sides agreed to raise the level of their bilateral trade more than tenfold, from 51.8 billion dollars in 2014 to600 billion dollars in the next 10 years. In an article on the eve of his visit to Iran, the Chinese President referred to the first Iranian delegation that had visited China more than 2,000 years ago, and he referred to the Silk Road that had connected those two ancient lands over many centuries. Presidents Rouhani and Xi oversaw the signing of 17 politico-economic agreements between the two countries worth tens of billions of dollars.

Perhaps even more important than the economic deals was Iran-China’s strategic partnership. The Chinese president confirmed his support for Iran to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran enjoys a unique geopolitical position, as a link between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, between Central Asia and the Caucasus, also linking China and India to Europe, thus acting as a hub for Eurasian integration.

During his visits to Italy and France (25-29 January), the Iranian president signed some 55 billion dollars in deals focused on the hydrocarbons, metals, transport, and automotive sectors. Unquestionably the biggest deal was Iran’s purchase of 118 Airbus planes, at a total cost of 25 billion dollars. Iran’s transport minister, Abbas Akhoundi, has remarked that Iran is in the market for some 400 medium and long-range planes, as well as 100 shorter-haul aircraft. He also said that Iran was open to deals with American aviation companies.

The wide range of deals across multiple industries highlights the overall appeal of the Iranian market to the world. Iran’s 80 million young and educated population, as well as Iran’s vast natural resources, have made it the biggest hope for the recovery of a sluggish European economy. Iran owns more than 7 per cent of the total global mineral reserves, ranking first in terms of proven gas and second in terms of oil reserves (fourth if shale oil is also taken into account). Iran also ranks first in the world in terms of zinc, 2nd in copper, 9th in iron, 10th in uranium and 11th in lead mines, as well as possessing 68 different types of minerals.

In addition to all its economic benefits, Europe also sees Iran as a major ally in the battle against ISIS. The world has moved on from the era of sanctions, which were on the point of collapse even prior to the nuclear agreement. It would be futile to try to reverse the global trend and to isolate Iran again. All that the attempts to isolate Iran would do is to push her further into the arms of the Russians and the Chinese, while most Iranians are strongly pro-Western and pro-American. There is a very large community of Iranian-Americans with a vast network of friends and relatives in Iran that could be used to bring Iran closer to the Western orbit. This asset should not be wasted.

It is time for US politicians to realize that past US policies in the Middle East have destabilized the region and have given rise to ISIS and other terrorist groups. They should turn a new leaf and make use of America’s soft power, rather than giving priority to military options and regime change.

(End)

Africa is eating more rice than other food staples, though it produces less than it needs. This is good news for the cereal’s potential to help Sub Saharan Africa out of poverty according to researchers. Rice is the second most important source of calories in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), a […]

Across eastern and southern Africa, millions of children are at risk from malnutrition, hunger, water shortages and disease, the United Nations Children&#39s Fund (UNICEF) warned today, citing two years of erratic rain and drought combined with one of the most powerful El Niño events in the past 50 years.

The man who rescues Benin's mentally ill held in shackles

Boutros Boutros-Ghali: An Appreciation

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 16 2016 (IPS)

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who passed away Tuesday at the age of 93, was the only UN Secretary-General (1992-1996) to be denied a second term in office because of a US veto in the 15-member Security Council.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali

The US, which preaches the concept of majority rule to the outside world, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali had 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council.

But the US refused to acknowledge the vibrant political support that Boutros-Ghali had garnered in the world body.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

In a statement released Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Boutros-Ghali presided over a dramatic rise in UN peacekeeping at a time when the world increasingly turned to the United Nations for solutions to its problems, in the immediate aftermath of the cold war.

“Boutros Boutros-Ghali did much to shape the Organization’s response to this new era, in particular through his landmark report “An Agenda for Peace” and the subsequent agendas for development and democratization,” said Ban.

In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros-Ghali points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.

But still the US was the only country to say “no” to a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali although he also had the overwhelming support of the remaining 184 member states of the General Assembly at that time.

The former UN chief recalls a meeting where he tells the then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher that far too many Americans had been appointed to UN jobs “at Washington’s request over the objections of other UN member states.”

“I had done so, I said, because I wanted American support to succeed in my job (as Secretary-General”), Boutros-Ghali says. But Christopher refused to respond.

When he was elected Secretary-General in January 1992, Boutros-Ghali noted that 50 percent of the staff assigned to the UN’s administration and management were Americans, although Washington paid only 25 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

When the administration of US President Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, Boutros-Ghali was signalled that two of the highest ranking UN staffers appointed on the recommendation of the outgoing (President George) Bush’s administration– Under-Secretary-General Richard Thornburgh and Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed — were to be dismissed despite the fact that they were theoretically “international civil servants” answerable only to the world body.

They were both replaced by two other Americans who had the blessings of the Clinton Administration.

Just before his election in November 1991, Boutros-Ghali remembers someone telling him that John Bolton, the US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisations, was “at odds” with the earlier Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar because he had “been insufficiently attentive to American interests.”

“I assured Bolton of my own serious regard for US policy.” “Without American support,” Boutros-Ghali told Bolton, “the United Nations would be paralysed.”

Boutros-Ghali also relates how Christopher had tried to convince him to publicly declare that he will not run for a second term as secretary-General. But Boutros-Ghali refused.

“Surely, you cannot dismiss the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a unilateral diktat of the United States. What about the rights of the other (14) Security Council members”?, he asked Christopher.

But Christopher “mumbled something inaudible and hung up, deeply displeased”.

Boutros-Ghali also says that in late 1996 US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, on instructions from the US State Department, was fixated on a single issue that had dominated her life for months: the “elimination” of Boutros-Ghali.

Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed, an American, is quoted as saying that he had heard Albright say: “I will make Boutros think I am his friend; then I will break his legs.”

After meticulously observing her, Boutros-Ghali concludes that Albright had accomplished her diplomatic mission with skill.

“She had carried out her campaign with determination, letting pass no opportunity to demolish my authority and tarnish my image, all the while showing a serene face, wearing a friendly smile, and repeating expressions of friendship and admiration,” he writes.

“I recalled what a Hindu scholar once said to me: there is no difference between diplomacy and deception.”

One of his “heated disputes” with Albright (later U.S. secretary of state) was over the appointment of a new executive director for UNICEF back in 1995. It was a dispute “that seemed to irritate Albright more than any previous issue between us”.

President Bill Clinton wanted William Foege, a former head of the U.S. Centres for Disease Control, to be appointed UNICEF chief to succeed James Grant.

“I recalled,” says Boutros-Ghali, “that President Clinton had pressed me to appoint him (Foege) when we had met in the Oval Office in May 1994.”

“I replied to her (Albright) as I had then to President Clinton: that while Dr. Foege was without doubt a distinguished person, unfortunately, I could not comply,” writes Boutros-Ghali.

He also told Clinton that he was personally and publicly committed to increasing the number of women in the top ranks of the United Nations, and UNICEF would particularly benefit from a woman’s leadership.

Since Belgium and Finland had already put forward “outstanding” women candidates – and since the United States had refused to pay its U.N. dues and was also making “disparaging” remarks about the world body – “there was no longer automatic acceptance by other nations that the director of UNICEF must inevitably be an American man or woman.”

“The U.S. should select a woman candidate,” he told Albright, “and then I will see what I can do,” since the appointment involved consultation with the 36-member UNICEF Executive Board.

“Albright rolled her eyes and made a face, repeating what had become her standard expression of frustration with me,” he wrote.

When the Clinton administration kept pressing Foege’s candidature, Boutros-Ghali says that “many countries on the UNICEF Board were angry and (told) me to tell the United States to go to hell.”

The U.S. administration eventually submitted an alternate woman candidate: Carol Bellamy, a former director of the Peace Corps.

Although Elizabeth Rehn of Finland received 15 votes to Bellamy’s 12 in a straw poll, Boutros-Ghali said he appealed to the Board president to convince the members to achieve consensus on Bellamy so that the United States could continue a monopoly it held since UNICEF was created in 1947.

And so Boutros-Ghali ensured that the post of UNICEF executive director will remain the intellectual birthright of the Americans – even to this date.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

From crowdsourcing to TV debates in Uganda's election

Fatma W. with her 7-year old son born from rape. Atieno was 17 when she was gang-raped at their home in Nairobi by three men who accused her family of hiding men from the “enemy” tribe. She stopped going to school after the rape. Fatma said her neighbors stigmatize her son because he was born from rape. Credit: © 2015 Samer Muscati / Human Rights Watch

By Agnes Odhiambo
NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb 16 2016 (IPS)

Owuor P.’s 16-year-old sister Nekesa tried and tried to get an abortion after she was gang-raped and found herself pregnant during Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007-8. “We are not sure how many raped her,” Owuor told me. “She told us that she saw three men rape her and then she lost consciousness. She was quiet most of the time after the rape.” In desperation after the birth of the child, she killed herself. The baby survived, and today Owuor is raising the child, who has a serious mental health condition, and is still grieving for his sister.

Nekesa was not able to have a safe abortion, even though she was the victim of a terrible crime. Kenyan law prohibits abortion except when the life of the woman is at risk and so Nekesa’s family, along with the hundreds of women and girls raped during the post-election violence, are forced to live with the painful consequences of unwanted pregnancies.

I interviewed 163 women and girls who suffered sexual violence during that post-election period, and found that hundreds are still suffering serious physical and mental health injuries, poverty and social exclusion. Our research also shows that the Kenyan government has not properly acknowledged this group of victims or provided them with justice or the health services they urgently need.

The violence that rocked Kenya over eight years ago killed 1,133 people and displaced another 600,000. Many people were left with lifelong disabilities from their injuries. There was widespread destruction and looting of homes and other property, and expulsion of people from their homes. The widespread sexual violence against women and girls—and to a lesser extent, men and boys—was less visible than other abuses, but was just as devastating.

Of the women and girls I interviewed, 37 became pregnant as a result of the rape. None of them were able to get a safe abortion. Some had illegal and unsafe abortions and eight years later, were still struggling with the health consequences. Others told me about their feelings of shame and guilt because of the stigma attached to abortion in Kenya.

I also spoke to women who had to give birth and who now live with ambiguous and conflicted feelings toward their children, who themselves often face stigma, rejection and verbal and physical abuse from their families. “I abused my child … I used to beat her very badly,” Adhiambo told me. Adhiambo was raped by a group of men and beaten unconscious. She told me that she has recently received counseling and her relationship with her daughter has begun to improve. Many other mothers of children born from these rapes also shared their mixed feelings of love and hate toward their children. I also met family members taking care of children whose mothers could not accept or raise them.

During the post-election violence in Kenya and in other countries where conflict-related sexual violence is common, humanitarian agencies and other groups work hard to help women get post-rape care under very difficult circumstances. But an essential element of comprehensive post-rape care, namely access to safe abortion for women who choose to end their pregnancies, often remains unattainable, leaving women and girls unable to make critical decisions about their health and their lives in the aftermath of sexual violence.

In January, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights opened a continental campaign for the decriminalization of abortion in Africa – to focus attention on unsafe abortion, which significantly threatens women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights. If governments are serious about the health needs of women and girls raped in conflict, they must include abortion in post-rape care and take steps to provide it to those who need it. The Kenyan government should review its restrictive laws on abortion to ensure that women and girls who become pregnant as a result of rape can get safe abortions.

There may also be some fresh hope for the women I interviewed, and perhaps for their children. Last year, President Uhuru Kenyatta promised to establish a reparations fund for victims. This should be established quickly and transparently and women should be involved in deciding how this money is spent. Funding should urgently be earmarked to meet the urgent healthcare needs of survivors and the needs of their children.

Not all women who become pregnant as a result of rape will choose to terminate their pregnancies, but all of them deserve to make that choice for themselves and have access to health care and support.

(End)

Battered but not beaten

Jomo Kwame Sundaram was an Assistant Secretary General working on Economic Development in the United Nations system from 2005 to 2015, and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Feb 16 2016 (IPS)

2015 proved challenging for multilateralism, especially in relation to development concerns. July’s Addis Ababa third Financing for Development (FfD) conference delivered little real progress. Nevertheless, the September Sustainable Development Goals summit redeemed hopes with an ambitious and universal Agenda 2030.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Credit: FAO

More recently, the Paris climate change Conference of Parties produced an agreement after the 2009 failure at Copenhagen. However, while most developing countries made commitments in line with climate justice criteria, most OECD economies not only fell short, typically after failing to meet their commitments made under the earlier Kyoto Protocol. Even if fully realized, the Paris deal alone is not enough to avert climate change disaster as average global temperatures will still rise over two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The mid-December 2015 World Trade Organization (WTO) biennial ministerial meeting in Nairobi was another setback as the US and its allies sought to kill the Doha Round of trade negotiations, thrusting the WTO itself into existential crisis. Ending the round inconclusively will enable them to renege on commitments made in 2001 to get developing countries back to the negotiating table after the Seattle ministerial disaster.

The US and many other OECD countries have been increasingly unwilling to make any meaningful concessions in multilateral economic negotiations over the last decade. One big game changer has been recent US-led plurilateral initiatives, following Michael Froman’s appointment as US Trade Representative.

To make his case to kill the Doha Round, Froman cited the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, concluded in October 2015. Meanwhile, the European Union has begun negotiations with the US for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Not surprisingly, most developing countries want the Round to continue, hoping to finally realize the 2001 promises to rectify the previous Uruguay Round outcomes, which have undermined food security and development prospects.

By undermining WTO multilateral trade negotiations, bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements are the very antitheses of what they purport to do, namely advance trade liberalisation. In Southeast Asia, the TPP also undermines existing commitments, e.g. to the ASEAN Free Trade Area, and thus, the economic bases for regional solidarity and cooperation.

To come into effect, the TPP must first be ratified at the national level. This seems most unlikely to happen soon in the US Congress for varied reasons. TPP criticisms have been growing among US politicians, not only from all the Democrat presidential contenders, but also some leading Republican aspirants. The TPP has more support from Republicans than Democrats, but the Republican leaders of both houses have pledged to block it for the time being.

Ironically, a Democrat President has pushed the TPP without strong support from his own party. After touting the TPP as his top foreign policy priority for 2016, it only merited half a minute in President Obama’s hour-long final State of the Union address in mid-January.

Real focus not trade

Despite being portrayed as a trade deal, the TPP is not mainly about “free trade”. The USA and many of its TPP partners are among the most open economies in the world. The main trade constraints involve non-tariff barriers, such as ballooning US agricultural subsidies for example, which the TPP does not address.

OECD countries with more competent trade negotiating capacity had delayed agreement at an earlier meeting in Honolulu in mid-2015 before the October Atlanta deal. The delay was due to squabbling over how to manage trade in particular areas, reflecting influential lobbies. Thus, in fact, the TPP will actually protect and even advance interests that run contrary to free trade.

The TPP will strengthen monopolistic intellectual property rights (IPRs), well beyond the onerous provisions of the WTO Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement, especially for big pharmaceutical, media, information technology and other companies, for example, enabling ‘big pharma’ to have longer monopolies on patented medicines, keep cheaper generics off the market, and block the development and availability of ‘similar’ new medicines.

Meanwhile, growing evidence shows that IPRs hardly promote research, but may actually impede or delay innovation. TPPA provisions will also limit competition, raise consumer prices, constrain prudential financial regulation as well as threaten public health and the common good.

Investor-state dispute settlement

The TPPA will also strengthen foreign investor rights at the expense of local businesses and the public interest. Its investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system obliges governments to compensate foreign investors for the loss of expected profits! ISDS confers foreign investors with the right to sue national governments for regulatory or policy changes that ostensibly reduce the expected profitability of their investments.

It has been and can be invoked even when rules are nondiscriminatory, or profits come from causing public harm. ISDS provisions make it hard for governments to fulfill their basic obligations – to protect their citizens’ health and safety, to safeguard the environment and to ensure economic stability. For example, if a government banned toxic chemicals, it would have to compensate suppliers for lost profits, instead of requiring them to compensate the victims!

Thus, the taxpayer will be hit twice – first, to pay for the health and environmental damage caused, and then to compensate the manufacturer for ‘lost profits’ due to the ban. This will deter governments from doing the right thing, putting the public at risk.

Foreign corporations insist that ISDS is necessary where the rule of law and credible courts are lacking, but in fact, the US is seeking the same in the TTIP with the EU, impugning the integrity of European legal and judicial systems.

TPP politically-driven

It is no secret that the main US motive for the TPP has been to undermine China: in President Obama’s words, “With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region, we do”. The broad support for the China-mooted Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank even from traditional US allies, was a major embarrassment which the White House was desperate to overcome.

In Southeast Asia, such a realignment undermines the ASEAN commitment to a ‘zone of peace, freedom and neutrality’. Considering the paltry economic benefits as well as great risks involved, joining developing country governments are mainly doing so for political reasons while praying that they themselves will not pay high political costs for its consequences.

Concluding the TPP will encourage other plurilateral and bilateral agreements. While such arrangements undermine trade multilateralism, WTO officials and others continue to maintain the pretence of complementarity and coherence. The threat to abandon the Doha Round will be used by the North to extract more concessions from the South who still insists that the Round is necessary to realize at least some of their developmental and food security aspirations.

The fading prospects for economic multilateralism – on finance at Addis and on trade in Nairobi – as well as various other recent developments – including the many, typically self-serving political realignments in the ‘war on terror’ – threaten to irreversibly transform contemporary international relations, at the expense of sustainable development and the developing countries.

(End)

Today is the last day of campaigning ahead of Uganda's election.

Children in the Internationnal Rescue Committee Kindergarden in Hamadiya. Credit: UN Photo/Fred Noy/IPS

By Amy Fallon
KAMPALA, Uganda, Feb 16 2016 (IPS)

After escaping the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region during which his father and two brothers were killed and his mother and sister displaced, Adam (named changed), began a new chapter. But it was a life “in limbo”. Over a decade later, he remains trapped in a strange country where he struggles to prove his identity; cannot find work or receive financial support.

“An egg and a stone cannot fight,” said Adam, quoting an African proverb, adding that “as a refugee or a stateless person you don’t have the power to resist the authorities.” The Darfuri is one of the many “refugees in orbit” created by the “flaws” in Israel’s “voluntary” return procedure, as NGOs have labeled them.

About 3,000 Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers have left Israel over the past two years, not to their country of origin, but under a deal shrouded in secrecy for Uganda and Rwanda. These countries cannot guarantee their rights or safety and leaves them further “wandering in search of protection”, stated the Hotline for Refugees and Migrants (HRM), which has released several reports on the issue.

A spokesperson for the Rwandan government did not reply to queries from IPS, but last week a newspaper reported the foreign affairs minister saying the country, along with “a number of other countries”, were approached by Israel “about two or one and a half years ago”, but a deal was yet to be finalised with Rwanda. There are still flights from Israel to Kigali three times a week, according to HRM.

But the government of neighbouring Uganda continues to deny that any agreement exists, despite more asylum seekers leaving the Middle East on a flight to Uganda last July, according to the Israeli-based NGO. A deal between Israel and Uganda was said to include Israeli arms, military expertise and training, a senior Israeli official said, according to a 2013 report by website Ynetnews.

Uganda’s state minister for refugees, Musa Ecweru, and foreign ministry spokesperson Sam Omara stated they were not aware of an arrangement which has left many refugees stranded in the country.

According to a source in UNHCR Uganda, “We know of seven asylum seekers that have sought asylum in Uganda, having been relocated from Israel.” They said the government had “long been categorical that there is no agreement with Israel for such relocations”. But these cases were before the Inter-Ministerial Refugee Eligibility Committee for “determination”, they added.

Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon told IPS, “We do not comment on the issue”.

Relations between Israel and Uganda are said to have strengthened, with areas of bilateral co-operation now including agriculture, health and homeland security.

Darfur has been mired in violence since 2003 when ethnic insurgents rebelled against Khartoum’s Arab- dominated government, complaining of their marginalisation.

Adam’s last memories before he fled his home as a 15-year-old student were of being beaten, his village burning, military aircraft hovering above and “everybody running”. “They didn’t know where they were going,” the 28-year-old, who has deep-set eyes and sounds distinct from the others in a café in downtown Kampala, told IPS.

After two years in Egypt, Adam went to Israel in 2008, spending time in a refugee camp, before living in the community, volunteering for NGOs as a refugees’ rights activist. In May 2014, the interior ministry refused to renew his visa. Instead, they offered Adam a grim choice: return to Darfur, or go to Holot, a detention facility also in southern Israel. “These two hells, I cannot face them’,” said Adam, adding that after surviving genocide, Holot could have meant “the end of my life”.

Adam was surprised and confused when officials told him he would be going the next day to Uganda, a country where he knew no one. He told them “if you want me to leave okay, but you have to guarantee that where I’m going there’s safety and protection.” “They didn’t reply,” he claimed.

With Israeli travel documents and $1,000, he was escorted by police onto a plane carrying three other African asylum seekers, one of them handcuffed after he tried to resist deportation, said Adam. Their papers were confiscated when they arrived at Uganda’s Entebbe airport.

“It’s human trafficking,” Adam emphasised. During his first two days in Uganda, he stayed in a Kampala hotel, allegedly paid for by Israel. But on the third day, once he’d left the lodge, the refugee was arrested and asked to show police identification. Adam couldn’t provide documentation.

“I told them what had happened but they didn’t believe me, because it’s unbelievable to meet someone who has come from Israel without documents,” he said.

He went with other deportees from Israel to request refugee status and a three-month residency permit to use as identification, a difficult process without a Ugandan entry permit. “We said we don’t have any papers. The authorities said ‘we cannot handle a case like this’, said Adam.

He was later given documents and is hoping to get a Ugandan identification card soon, but to get papers allowing him to travel or be resettled, said he would need a recommendation from someone. He wonders if he will ever get a passport.

Today, Adam lives in Kampala with Jamba (name changed), another Darfuri asylum seeker who was sent to Holot after Israeli authorities refused to renew his visa in May 2015, before deporting him to Uganda with a few others. “I don’t normally leave home because I don’t have any documents,” Jamba told IPS, adding he is jobless. He would like to study, but having no documents means the 28-year-old can’t. Through some financial support from friends in Israel, Adam is now studying in Kampala.

“But how long are they going to support you, because they’re also in limbo,” he said.

Adam and Jamba are ambivalent about going home as Israel’s “voluntary” return process doesn’t guarantee that Uganda won’t deport them back to Darfur. At least 300,000 people have died in the conflict there and more than two million displaced, according to the UN, but Khartoum estimates the number is 10,000. If they ever do return, they may be treated as an “enemy” by authorities after living in Israel, who they both partly blame for some of their uncertainty.

“You cannot just take people, dump them in Uganda and then take documents from them…without taking care of them,” said Adam. But he argued, “you need to look at the root cause of the problem and the root cause is the Sudanese government, who started attacking their own”.

According to a December 2015 report by HRM, many Eritrean deportees sent to Rwanda illegally crossed the border to Uganda by force, while some have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea trying to reach Europe, others were detained in Libya and some have been murdered by ISIS.

HRM spokesperson Anat Ovadia-Rosner said the “categorical denial” of the Ugandan government over the scheme was “very alarming and illustrates the disparity between Israel’s assurances and the reality on the ground”.

In November 2015, an Israeli court rejected a petition arguing that those who depart for a third country are at risk of threat or persecution. The Refugee Rights Legal Clinic at Tel Aviv University, HRM and other NGOs have further petitioned the court, with another hearing scheduled for March 15.

(End)

“We want Pope Francis’ message to come true…We want the rights of indigenous people to be supported, respected and strengthened,” Yuam Pravia, a representative of the Misquito native people, said in this city in southern Mexico. Pravia, a Misquito indigenous woman from Honduras, was taking part Feb. 13-14 in a gathering of native people from […]

Delegation says European Parliament concerned about freedom of speech, urges 'agreed mechanism' for 2019 polls

By The Daily Star- Bangladesh, Diplomatic Correspondent
Feb 15 2016 (IPS)

A European Parliament (EP) delegation has expressed concern over the human rights situation in Bangladesh, and called for an impartial investigation into all the cases of blogger killings.

Jean Lambert

Jean Lambert, who led a four-member EP delegation to Bangladesh, yesterday said they during a meeting with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Wednesday had raised four specific issues including human rights, murder of bloggers and rise of violent extremism at international level.

“We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in the country and raised the issue of the murder of bloggers,” said Lambert, the chair of the EP delegation on relations with the countries of South Asia, at a press conference in Dhaka.

“The life of every Bangladeshi citizen is important and we requested the full and impartial investigation of all the cases.”

She also urged the government to make an environment where bloggers and other free thinkers feel that their freedom of expression was “valued”.

European Union (EU) Ambassador in Dhaka Pierre Mayaudon was also present at the press conference yesterday afternoon before the four-member delegation concluded its three-day Bangladesh visit and left the country.

On the state of press freedom in Bangladesh, Lambert said they had “some concerns” about what was happening to some newspaper editors in the country.

“I think it is fair to say that we have some concerns about what is happening to a number of editors of the newspapers.”

Asked if her delegation had touched the issue during the meeting with the prime minister, Lambert replied in the negative.

She also said nothing related to elections had been discussed in the meeting either.

But “it is very clear that there is a need for some agreed mechanisms,” Lambert said, adding that such a mechanism was required in Bangladesh to ensure participation of “many parties” in the elections.

She also made it clear that neither the European Union nor the European Parliament will make any recommendation on the polls-time administration.

“Neither the EP nor anybody else would be coming and saying that ‘This is what you do’ … We will not make any recommendation.

“It’s something to be decided by the people of Bangladesh. It’s your decision,” Lambert added.

However, in a press statement distributed at the press conference, the EP said, “Concretely, the delegation expressed its desire for free and fair elections in 2019.”

Though the election issue was not discussed with Hasina, the delegation discussed the issue of “an independent and strong” Election Commission in meetings with different other stakeholders, according to Lambert.

She said the EP delegation welcomed Hasina’s commitment for further joint collaboration with the EU on better understanding the causes of radicalisation internationally, “bearing in mind the important role Bangladesh plays in the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation)”.

During the February 10-12 visit, the delegation met Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, Commerce Minister Tofail Ahmed, Law Minister Anisul Huq, Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali and State Minister for CHT Affairs Bir Bahadur Ushwe Sing.

It also had talks with BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia, National Human Rights Commission Chairman Prof Mizanur Rahman, officials of Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, and representatives of different business and civil society platforms.

In the meetings, the EP delegation discussed several issues, including improvement of the workers’ rights and safety in the garment sector, promotion of European investment in Bangladesh and boosting economic cooperation.

This piece was originally published in The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 15 2016 (IPS)

Poverty and education gaps have decreased significantly among indigenous communities in Latin America, but many continue to be left out of social gains, according to a new World Bank study released Monday.

The report, Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century, found immense social progress made in Latin American countries during the first decade of the millennium, dubbed the “golden decade.”

In much of the region, indigenous political participation has increased. In Bolivia, indigenous people’s representation in parliament is approximately 30 percent. More countries have also accepted indigenous traditions in electoral processes including Oaxaca, Mexico where 418 out of 570 municipalities are managed according to indigenous customs.

These developments are, in part, due to the creation of international treaties and declarations such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007.

The study also found that 70 million people were lifted out of poverty, including indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru. Access to primary education was one of the greatest and clearest achievements during the golden decade, the World Bank said. In countries such as Ecuador, Mexico and Nicaragua, the education gap between indigenous and non-indigenous children closed.

Despite progress, indigenous communities continue to be excluded from development.

“Latin America has undergone a profound social transformation that reduced poverty and expanded the middle class, but indigenous peoples benefited less than other Latin Americans,” said World Bank Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean, Jorge Familiar.

The report found that though poverty rates have decreased within the indigenous population, the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Latin Americans has either remained stagnant or widened.

In the region, indigenous persons make up 14 percent of the poor and 17 percent of the extremely poor, despite representing less than 8 percent of the population.

Being born to indigenous parents increases the probability of being raised in a poor household regardless of parents’ level of education or the size or location of the household, the report stated.

In Ecuador, the probability of a family to be poor increases by 13 percent if the household is indigenous. The probability of being extremely poor increases by 15.5 percent. Other indicators, including gender and geography, further highlight gaps in indigenous social inclusion.

For instance, in Ecuador, if the same indigenous household is headed by a woman, it is 6 percent more likely to be poor. Indigenous women also have higher levels of illiteracy and school dropout rates across the region.

Along geographical lines, in Peru, an indigenous rural household is 37 percent more likely to be poor than an urban household. But even within urban areas, indigenous families continue to live in poorer living conditions with less sanitation and more disaster-prone households than their non-indigenous urban counterparts.

In the report, the World Bank urged for the multi-faceted inclusion of indigenous communities, especially in light of the newly-adopted Sustainable Development Agenda.

“If indigenous peoples are to assume their role as key actors in the post-2015 agenda, their voices and ideas need to be considered,” said Senior Director for the World Bank’s Social, Urban, Rural & Resilience Global Practice Ede Ijjasz-Vasquez.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include commitments concerning indigenous peoples’ rights to education, land and markets.

The study recommends the effective implementation of national laws to guarantee indigenous political participation; strengthen indigenous communities’ access to education; improve data collection strategies to better implement targeted programs and; include indigenous persons in setting development targets.

“Inclusion of indigenous peoples in development policies and programs is not just about poverty reduction – it is the process of improving the ability and opportunity for them to be active stakeholders in society,” Ijjasz-Vasquez remarked. “Their inclusion is morally right and economically smart for nations,” he concluded.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, established in 2002, is set to reconvene in May 2016 to discuss indigenous peoples in relation to conflict, peace and resolution.

(End)

Fighter aircraft from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the United States attacked oil refineries in eastern Syria controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Sept. 24, 2014. | Credit: DoD graphic

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Feb 15 2016 (IPS)

When 25 million Syrians–half of them refugees abroad or at home and the other half terrorised by daily bombing, learnt that major world leaders in their meeting in Germany launched an unprecedented confrontation threatening with unleashing World War III, instead of easily agreeing on a ceasefire to alleviate their inhumane suffering, they most probably fell into an even deeper desperation. See what happened.

The biggest “official” warlords on Earth—the Russian military apparatus and the US Pentagon and its “allies”–Europe, the US-led NATO, the Saudi Arabia-led Gulf countries, and Turkey, have just walked a step closer to the edge of the Middle East abyss over the weekend during their Munich Security Conference.

On the one hand, Moscow has just warned Washington and Ryad against starting a “permanent war” if they launch a ground intervention in Syria.

Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev on 12 February told Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper that sending foreign troops into Syria could unleash “yet another war on Earth.” The warning followed recent statements from Saudi Arabia, joined later by other Gulf states and Turkey, that they were ready to send ground troops to Syria, should Washington lead the way.

“All sides must be compelled to sit at the negotiating table, instead of unleashing yet another war on Earth,” Medvedev said. “Any kinds of land operations, as a rule, lead to a permanent war. Look at what’s happened in Afghanistan and a number of other countries. I am not even going to bring up poor Libya.”

“The Americans and Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war? Do they think they can really quickly win it? It is impossible, especially in the Arab world. Everyone is fighting against everyone there,” Medvedev added.

A New World War?

“We must make everyone sit down at the negotiating table…rather than start yet another world war,” the Russian prime minister added.

Titled: “Exclusive: Russia’s Medvedev Warns of New World War” Handelsblatt ran the interview on the eve of the Munich Security Conference‘s International Syria Support Group meeting, where the cessation of hostilities in Syria became a top item on the agenda.

On the other hand, the US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter was lobbying for an ample NATO participation in the so-called war on Islamic State (IS).

The Pentagon-NATO Axis

In fact, Ashton Carter on 11 February, following a NATO meeting in Brussels, said that this military alliance is considering joining the US-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq.

“Thanks to the leadership of NATO (secretary general) Jens Stoltenberg, we are exploring the possibility of NATO joining the coalition as a member itself,” Ashton Carter said.

The alliance can bring “significant development” and “unique capabilities” which include “building partner capacity, training ground forces and providing stabilization support,” he added.

The day after, that’s on 12 February, NATO member states agreed to send AWACS surveillance aircraft to gather intelligence on IS over Iraq and Syria, replacing US jets. According to Ashton Carter, this will “increase the ability of the coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group.”

Syria’s Battlefield

Meanwhile, the military situation in Syria has been escalating, as Bashar al Assad’s army made further advances in the northern city of Aleppo.

At the same time, the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces recaptured a former military airbase in the Aleppo province, from jihadists near the Turkish-Syrian border, reportedly with the support of Russian air strikes.

NATO Warships to Aegean Sea to Combat “Migrant” Trafficking

On 11 February, NATO sent war ships to the Aegean Sea to help Turkey and Greece deal with people smugglers and stem the flow of migrants, the alliance’s top commander has announced.

Three NATO’s military vessels have been ordered to “start to move now” and head for the Aegean sea to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance operations, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg on 11 February said.

“This is about helping Greece, Turkey and the European Union with stemming the flow of migrants and refugees and coping with a very demanding situation,” Stoltenberg said, describing the situation as a “human tragedy.” Stoltenberg also said that the alliance’s forces would be monitoring the land border between Syria and Turkey for people smugglers.

Saudi Jets on Syria

Parallely, Ankara announced that Saudi Arabia will deploy military jets and personnel to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base in the south of the country. The base is already used by the US Air Force for their sorties in Syria.

The deployment is part of the US-led effort to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.

“At every coalition meeting, we have always emphasized the need for an extensive result-oriented strategy in the fight against the DAESH terrorist group,” he said, referring to IS by an Arabic-language acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Cavusoglu spoke to Turkish Yeni Şafak newspaper after addressing the Munich Security Conference. “If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation,” he added.

Furthermore, Saudi Foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, in an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung on 13 February, said “there will be no Bashar al-Assad in the future… It may take three months… it may take six months or three years, but he (al Assad) will not assume any more responsibility in Syria.”

“Don’t Go There,” Russia, Iran

Earlier, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates heralded their readiness to contribute troops for a ground operation in Syria on the condition that the US would lead the intervention.

Syria and its regional ally, Iran, warned that such a foreign force would face strong resistance. And Russian prime minister called on his Western counterparts in Munich Security Conference “not to threaten a ground operation” in Syria, stressing that Moscow is doing its utmost to pave the way for a lasting peace in the war-torn country.

Further on, Medvedev on 13 February said that the relationships between NATO and Russia have slid down toward a new Cold War, while describing NATO’s policy as “unfriendly and not transparent.”

“Almost every day we are referred to as the most terrible threat to NATO as a whole or to Europe, America and other countries specifically,” Medvedev said. “Although actual threats that exist in our small world – and I hope, you understand that – are absolutely different.”

In short, in less than one week, largest military powers have been threatening with invasions in Syria and armed interventions in Iraq, as their answer to the ongoing human tragedy.

Apparently there would be no problem with more unarmed, civilian populations being killed in all such military operations–it would probably be about a high official just saying: “sorry for this collateral damage.”

(End)

Related Articles

• … And All of a Sudden Syria!
• Syria ­- A Light to the World
• Once Auctioned, What to Do with Syrian Refugees?
• Silence, Please! A New Middle East Is in the Making
• Middle East Part II – 99.5 Years of (Imposed) Solitude
• The Over-Written, Under-Reported Middle East – Part I: Of Arabs and Muslims

Uganda holds an election this Thursday and President Yoweri Museveni's 30 years in power is at stake.

Activists in Nigeria say they will continue their campaign to secure the safety of more than 200 schoolgirls who were kidnapped by the militant Islamist group, Boko Haram.

A fall in the demand for copper is threatening to impact on the economy of mining towns in northern Zambia.