Africa

The gambling sector in East Africa is in a 'total mess' following the collapse of global sport in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, says a Ugandan official.

By Nazihah Muhamad Noor and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Mar 26 2020 (IPS)

By the third week of March 2020, the number of Covid-19 deaths in Italy had overtaken the number of deaths in China. Authorities all over the world are restricting the movements of their populations as part of efforts to control the spread of Covid-19.

For the time being, more and more governments are benchmarking their responses on the very worst outbreaks in Wuhan and northern Italy. But lockdowns inevitably have adverse economic impacts, especially for businesses, particularly small ones heavily reliant on continuous turnover. Are there other ways to bring the virus under control without lockdowns?

Nazihah Muhamad Noor

South Korean lessons?
The Republic of Korea, or South Korea, is one of a handful of mainly East Asian economies that have dramatically reduced the number of Covid-19 cases as well as related deaths. On 29 February 2020, the country saw 909 newly confirmed cases.

By 25 March, the number of newly confirmed cases fell to 100. It has gone from having the second highest rate of infection globally to eighth place, behind China, Italy, United States, Spain, Germany, Iran and France, all with varying rates of testing.

For now, South Korea has checked the spread of infections. It has managed to slow the spread of Covid-19 without imposing lockdowns, even in its most infected city, Daegu. How have they responded differently to the crisis?

Korean style pandemic management
The key to South Korea’s response has been mass testing. South Korea has done the most Covid-19 tests by country, with over 300,000 tests as of 20 March 2020, or over 6,000 per million inhabitants. Germany, in second place, had done 167,000 by 15 March 2020, or 2,000 per million.

The infected who show no symptoms (i.e., the asymptomatic) or only have mild symptoms are more likely to transmit the virus to others. As such undetected cases are more likely to spread infection, mass testing has checked the spread of the virus by identifying and breaking its chains of transmission.

The median incubation period, between infection and symptoms first appearing, is about five days, during which time asymptomatic individuals may unknowingly infect others. Mass testing detects infections early, so that individuals can self-isolate and get treatment instead of infecting others.

South Korea had built up its testing capabilities following the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in 2015. It was thus prepared with test kits and facilities for rapid development, approval and deployment in case of future outbreaks.

After South Korea confirmed its first case of Covid-19 on 20 January 2020, hundreds of testing facilities, ranging from drive-through kiosks to hospitals and local clinics, quickly became available across the country.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Trace, test, treat
The tests are mainly free for those whom medical professionals suspect need to be tested, e.g., if they recently returned from China, or even ‘secondary contacts’ of a person known to be infected or to belong to an at-risk group, the tests are free of charge.

Others who do not belong to these categories, but wish to be tested, are charged 160,000 Korean won (about US$130), but reimbursed if the result is positive, with any treatment needed paid for by the government.

Another legacy of the MERS outbreak is that the government has the legal authority to collect mobile phone, credit card and other data from those who test positive for contact tracing efforts. China, too, has made use of artificial intelligence and big data to improve contact tracing and manage priority populations.

Although this has sparked debates over privacy concerns, South Korea’s pro-active testing and contact tracing methods have also been praised by the World Health Organization (WHO), which is encouraging other countries to apply lessons learned in South Korea, China and elsewhere in East Asia.

Path not taken
Although South Koreans are banned from entry into more than 80 countries around the world, its authorities have only restricted incoming travellers from China’s Hubei province, where Wuhan is, and Japan, due to bilateral political tensions.

Special procedures require visitors from China and Iran to use smartphone applications to monitor for symptoms such as fever. As Europe has become the new pandemic epicentre, all visitors from Europe are now being tested for Covid-19, with those staying long term quarantined first.

The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) continue to urge people to practice social distancing and personal hygiene. Mass gatherings are discouraged, and employers encouraged to allow employees to work remotely. But no lockdown has been imposed, and South Korea has not imposed nationwide restrictions on movements of people within its borders.

Learning the right lessons
Besides South Korea, the WHO has also praised China for its Covid-19 response, which has rapidly reduced new cases, besides helping other countries with their efforts. More and more countries are restricting freedom of movement through lockdowns, citing China’s response in Wuhan.

However, Bruce Aylward, who led the WHO fact-finding mission to China, notes, “The majority of the response in China, in 30 provinces, was about case finding, contact tracing, and suspension of public gatherings—all common measures used anywhere in the world to manage [infectious] diseases.

“The lockdowns people are referring to…was concentrated in Wuhan and two or three other cities…that got out of control in the beginning…the key learning from China is…all about the speed. The faster you can find the cases, isolate the cases, and track their close contacts, the more successful you’re going to be.”

China and South Korea are now primed to detect and respond rapidly, which may make all the difference in preventing a new wave of infections. This is not to say that lockdowns are ineffective; we will soon know whether such measures in countries like Italy will succeed.

The South Korean and Chinese experiences suggest that resources should be concentrated on rapid and early detection, isolation and contact tracing, protecting the most vulnerable, and treating the infected, regardless of means, instead of mainly relying on strict lockdown measures.

Nazihah Noor has a Masters of Public Health and a BSc in Biomedical Science (Global Health) from Imperial College London. The authors are both associated with Khazanah Research Institute, but do not implicate KRI with the views expressed here.

The post East Asian Lessons for Controlling Covid-19 appeared first on Inter Press Service.

HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal

By HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
AMMAN, Jordan, Mar 26 2020 (IPS)

Humankind has outlived multiple pandemics in the course of world history. The kingdoms and states of Central and Western Europe abolished the institution of serfdom once it had become clear that medieval rule in the aftermath of devastating pestilence would founder without ending the dependency and servitude that characterized the Dark Ages. The vulnerability of entire nations to the risk of total collapse in the absence of widespread access to the most basic healthcare in the Spanish Flu spurred governments to build the public health systems that have made the progress and development of the last hundred years possible. If the past is prologue, then continuity and survival command that we change.

We have more often than not banded together in the face of all kinds of threats. In all its ramifications, COVID-19 threatens to push our social, political and economic structures to the brink. Disease, recession and fright can rapidly overwhelm states and societies. Each coming day will bring increasing challenges that can only be met by caring for the sick, minimizing the impact of shutdowns on lives and livelihoods, securing the delivery of adequate water, food and energy supplies, and racing for a cure. Success – as in an asymmetric conflict – rests on resilience. To contain the socio-political and socio-economic fallout from the crisis, policymaking efforts should center on human dignity and welfare as the bedrock of national and international security.

The most vulnerable members of society in some parts of our world are those on the front lines of the crisis: the doctors, nurses, care-givers, pharmacists, sanitation workers, farmers, supermarket cashiers and truck drivers whose courage, sacrifice and dedication will see us through the next 12 to 18 months of expected lockdowns. In the absence of state support, what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who have already been laid off, while millions more face looming hardship as the numbers of layoffs grow? Some will continue to ignore the vulnerable and marginalized, those who have least access to humanitarian assistance, while others will continue to exploit them. The calls for social distancing have grown louder and more frequent over the last couple of days, and as we begin to separate from one other we must remember our humanitarian duty to each another.

Security, far from being individual, is collective and global. The current crisis calls for transcendent thinking between politicians on both sides of the aisle. Grey areas in politics in which zero-sum games and the perverse logic of mutually assured destruction proliferate will not protect and promote human dignity and welfare. Conservatives and reformers must now move beyond the tournaments and arm-twisting of politics. The logic of mutually assured survival cannot accept grey areas. If conflict resolution transcends political beliefs, nationality, ethnicity, gender, and religion, then human dignity and welfare is the benchmark of the humanitarian commitment to life.

Reliable brokers in the management of this crisis and other crises do exist as in the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières. Corporate social responsibility requires developing a public platform of health facts so that people-to-people conversations and consultations can be promoted through civil society, the media and educational institutions. We cannot cherry-pick energy and climate change without talking about health or education and human dignity. Migrants and refugees must be an integral part of the national response for halting the spread of the novel coronavirus. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia reports that 55 million people, in West Asia region, require some sort of humanitarian assistance and that the vulnerability of displaced women and girls is especially heightened in a pandemic. Post-conflict insecurity – whether in countries ravaged by war or across the urban centers and countrysides of advanced economies overwhelmed by disease – can only be addressed in the careful terrain mapping of humanitarian access. Yemen, Syria, Gaza and Libya are frighteningly vulnerable to the onslaught of epidemics – what will peace uncover there when the wars end?

Regional insecurity is heightened in the absence of cooperation, but the multilateral system is not at a loss in facing an existential crisis. European solidarity has been sharply damaged by the onset of widespread disease although China is performing through the swift and effective action that has come to the aid of the people and government of Italy. Multilateralism today can only be revisited with a focus on the interdisciplinary priorities of the twenty-first century that include addressing the need for a Law of Peace. We draw humanitarian concessions from the law of war in times of conflict, but have no recourse to legal instruments that can secure the dignity and welfare of all in times of peace.

The current crisis is as much a global health crisis as it is a crisis of the globalization that has come to undermine the foundations of modern society with its rampant inequality and rising injustice and which threatens the very survival of our species with climate change. The planet that we share with other organisms is fragile and prone to crises. A resolution to our predicament will take nothing short of extending the ethic of human solidarity beyond the contours of our immediate response to the outbreak of COVID-19. Real success lies not in the taming of a pathogen or in re-discovering the value of compassion, respect and generosity, but in institutionalizing these values in the days, weeks and months ahead.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

The post COVID-19 in the Time of Insecurity appeared first on Inter Press Service.

BBC Africa Eye probes secret arms shipments into Libya, and shows how foreign powers are fuelling war.

How the measures against the coronavirus in Ghana are challenging the country's religious way of life.

Two Nigerian footballers - one a Super Eagles international - have been released after being kidnapped on Sunday.

An appeals court releases Rokia Traoré but says an extradition to Belgium can go ahead.

By PRESS RELEASE
Mar 25 2020 (IPS-Partners)

A global approach is the only way to fight COVID-19, the UN says as it launches humanitarian response plan

• UN humanitarian chief warns that failing to help vulnerable countries fight the coronavirus now could place millions at risk and leave the virus free to circle back around the globe.
• UN launches US$2 billion global humanitarian response to fight COVID-19 across South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
• Governments urged to commit to fully supporting the global humanitarian response plan, while sustaining funding to existing humanitarian appeals.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres today [Wednesday, 25 March] launched a $2 billion coordinated global humanitarian response plan to fight COVID-19 in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries in a bid to protect millions of people and stop the virus from circling back around the globe.

COVID-19 has killed more than 16,000 people worldwide and there are nearly 400,000 reported cases. It has a foothold across the globe and is now reaching countries that were already facing humanitarian crisis because of conflict, natural disasters and climate change.

The response plan will be implemented by UN agencies, with international NGOs and NGO consortia playing a direct role in the response. It will:

• deliver essential laboratory equipment to test for the virus, and medical supplies to treat people;
• install handwashing stations in camps and settlements;
• launch public information campaigns on how to protect yourself and others from the virus; and
• establish airbridges and hubs across Africa, Asia and Latin America to move humanitarian workers and supplies to where they are needed most.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said:

“COVID-19 is menacing the whole of humanity – and so the whole of humanity must fight back. Individual country responses are not going to be enough.

“We must come to the aid of the ultra-vulnerable – millions upon millions of people who are least able to protect themselves. This is a matter of basic human solidarity. It is also crucial for combating the virus. This is the moment to step up for the vulnerable.”

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mark Lowcock said:

“COVID-19 has already upended life in some of the world’s wealthiest countries. It is now reaching places where people live in warzones, cannot easily access clean water and soap, and have no hope of a hospital bed if they fall critically ill.

“To leave the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries to their fate would be both cruel and unwise. If we leave coronavirus to spread freely in these places, we would be placing millions at high risk, whole regions will be tipped into chaos and the virus will have the opportunity to circle back around the globe.

“Countries battling the pandemic at home are rightly prioritizing people living in their own communities. But the hard truth is they will be failing to protect their own people if they do not act now to help the poorest countries protect themselves.

“Our priority is to help these countries prepare and continue helping the millions who rely on humanitarian assistance from the UN to survive. Properly funded, our global response effort will equip humanitarian organizations with the tools to fight the virus, save lives, and help contain the spread of COVID-19 worldwide.”

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

“The virus is now spreading in countries with weak health systems, including some which are already facing humanitarian crises. These countries need our support – out of solidarity but also to protect us all and help suppress this pandemic. At the same time, we must not fight the pandemic at the expense of the other humanitarian health emergencies.”

UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta H. Fore said:

“Children are the hidden victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns and school closures are affecting their education, mental health and access to basic health services. The risks of exploitation and abuse are higher than ever, for boys and girls alike. For children on the move or living through conflicts, the consequences will be unlike any we have ever seen. We must not let them down.”

At the virtual launch of the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan, the UN Secretary-General was joined via video link by Mr. Lowcock, Dr Tedros and Ms. Fore.

Together they called on UN Member States to commit to stemming the impact of COVID-19 in vulnerable countries and containing the virus globally by giving the strongest possible support to the plan, while also sustaining core support to existing humanitarian appeals that help the more than 100 million people who already rely on humanitarian assistance from the UN just to survive.

Member States were warned that any diversion of funding from existing humanitarian operations would create an environment in which cholera, measles and meningitis can thrive, in which even more children become malnourished, and in which extremists can take control – an environment that would be the perfect breeding ground for the coronavirus.

To kick-start the response plan, Mr. Lowcock released an additional $60 million from the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). This brings CERF’s support to humanitarian action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to $75 million. In addition, country-based pooled funds have allocated more than $3 million so far.

This new CERF allocation – one of the largest ever made – will support: WFP to ensure the continuity of supply chains and transport of aid workers and relief goods; WHO to contain the spread of the pandemic; and other agencies to provide humanitarian assistance and protection to those most affected by the pandemic, including women and girls, refugees and internally displaced people. Support will include efforts around food security, physical and mental health, water and sanitation, nutrition and protection.

Notes to editors

1. The COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan will be coordinated by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
2. It brings together requirements from the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), UN-Habitat, UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Food Programme (WFP).

For further details, please contact:
OCHA New York: Zoe Paxton, + 1 917 297 1542, paxton@un.org
OCHA Geneva: Jens Laerke, +41 79 472 9750, laerke@un.org

The post COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The militants launched a devastating attack on an island in Lake Chad, killing 92 soldiers.

Olympic marathon champion Eliud Kipchoge reflects on the postponement of Tokyo 2020, and the delay to his dream of defending his title. He also has a message for all athletes.

The possibility of infection in great apes like gorillas warrants the utmost caution, say experts.

By Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss
NEW YORK, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the planet and the governments of both wealthy and poorer nations overwhelmed by the demands of managing a response, the scheduling of this year’s critical UN Climate Summit is suddenly in doubt.

COP26 (formally, the 26th annual Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is planned for Glasgow, Scotland (UK) from 9-20 November. It will be the culmination of five years of negotiations since the historic 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

More than 100 presidents and prime ministers are expected to present their nations’ plans for carrying out the sweeping environmental, economic and energy changes necessary to keep the Earth’s warming to survivable levels.

In all, over 30,000 government delegates, intergovernmental officials and stakeholder representatives are preparing to attend.

The agenda of COP26 is deep and urgent. Besides reporting how they plan to reduce oil, coal and gas production and increase renewable energy to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C (and preferably 1.5°C), governments must agree how to calculate whether each is fulfilling its pledges, what steps to take to deal with those which haven’t, and whether the total reductions agreed to are sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate impacts (so far they’re not).

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US

At Glasgow, governments must also fulfill the  commitment of the $100 billion a year they promised to help developing countries.  Those funds are to cope with the devastating impacts of sea level rise, intense storms, extended droughts, erratic cold and heat waves that have already begun to disproportionately affect poorer nations – and to help shift those nations’ energy production to renewables.

Governments must decide what role private business and the financial sector play in contributing climate funding. And they must approve the so-called ‘Paris Rulebook’ on implementation guidelines for zero emissions and climate resilience by 2050.

Progress on all of these issues is lagging far behind schedule.

Last year’s COP25, in Madrid, was expected to agree on a formula to resolve key issues. Instead it became the longest COP conference ever, failed to resolve virtually any issue, and passing them on to an already pressured COP26.

Meanwhile, the pace of the climate crisis continues to accelerate, with another year of record temperatures, catastrophic hurricanes, and unanticipated rapidly melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. And the public demand for action to meet the urgency escalated as well, led by a resurgent environmental youth movement inspired by Greta Thunberg.

 

The argument for a November meeting

So it would seem more necessary than ever to follow through with the November COP26 schedule.

For a world already decades behind the optimal carbon-reduction calendars suggested by environmentalists in the 1990s, the risks of further delay are huge.  We may already be on the verge of irreversible feedback loops like runaway deforestation in the Amazon, unstoppable desertification in China and the Sahel, massive shifts in thermal ocean currents that moderate the winters in Europe, and decalcification that could crash the populations of the world’s sea life.

With major fossil fuel corporations digging in to avoid action, taking the pressure off governments is an opening to fatal procrastination. As the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated and Ms. Thunberg has tirelessly pointed out, the world only has eight years left in its allowable ‘carbon budget’ if it continues to emit about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year. So drastic reductions are necessary. Now.

 

The argument for postponing COP26

And yet. The world faces a sudden major pandemic that will impact all countries and affect all citizens. Millions will likely become ill and thousands will likely die. The focus of all countries is on containing the COVID 19 virus – as it should be.

Governments everywhere are enacting policies that would never have been imagined. Financial markets are crashing. The US Treasury Department has suggested a potential 20 percent unemployment rate.

Massive restrictions on public movement are being imposed and trillions of dollars in financial stimulus and subsidies are being spent. Public and private scientific expertise is being marshaled to solve medical emergencies.

The responses to the pandemic will impact the negotiations on climate. With only seven weeks to go before a key two week preparatory meeting in Bonn, virtually all flights to Europe are cancelled. It may be only be a matter of weeks before Bonn itself is postponed, or at best conducted virtually – which is a far more cumbersome process.

A second preparatory meeting, which could be expanded to take on the added work load, is planned in early October.  But it is scheduled to meet in Italy. Is it realistic that the Italian government will be sufficiently back to normal in order to host such a session by October?

In this context, it will be extraordinarily difficult for governments to assign the necessary political or economic resources to achieve a successful climate meeting this November.

​Even before the pandemic, it was already going to require exquisite timing, energy and finesse to achieve any degree of success in Glasgow. Besides the pre-negotiation failures, the willful climate obstructionism and catastrophic incompetence of the US government under Donald Trump, plus the self-imposed chaos of Boris Johnson’s Brexit in the UK, have left two of the world’s necessary climate nations nearly immobilized.

The only positive-case political scenario for a November COP would call for Democrats to sweep the US presidency and Senate on November 3 (one day before it becomes official that Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement) and barely a week before the November 9 opening at Glasgow.

Even if that were to happen, Trump would still be in office until January and his policy would prevail. (Indeed, one could visualize a defeated Trump spitefully trying to wreak havoc through obstructionist interventions by his negotiating team.)

And even if everything went well, because of the lack of prepared agreements, the most that could be hoped for from a November COP  is another seemingly ambitious and robust, but in reality a very amorphous Conference declaration on principles and promises.

 

How to postpone but increase momentum

Many respected voices currently arguing against a postponement are understandably concerned that any delay will take the pressure off governments to keep building on their commitments. It’s a valid fear.

The answer is to not take the pressure off governments. Yes, postpone the meeting, but instead of a full COP in November in Glasgow, the parties can schedule an additional special high-level Preparatory Meeting, on those same days in November, in Bonn where the UNFCCC is housed.

Such a special Preparatory-Meeting could resume negotiations working through the backlog of unfinished business from COP25 and the cancelled meetings in 2020. It would still be energized by any positive results from the US elections.

The full COP26 in Glasgow can then be rescheduled in 2021. While it might be possible to schedule it for Spring of 2021, the more realistic and likely option would be to simply move the current sequence of 2020 meetings “June in Bonn. October Rome” to the same calendar in 2021.

When COP26 does then meet in November 2021 the world will presumably have emerged from the coronavirus crisis. Economies will be re-starting, so Finance Ministries will be able to visualize budgets that address climate needs.

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US.

As for the legitimate urgency of climate action, the pandemic might actually have bought the world a little time. The extreme economic slowdown currently projected would mean lower emissions this year of CO2. The carbon clock might be slightly pushed back.

It might also turn out that the concerted international action that eventually succeeds in defeating the pandemic – and the widely respected leadership by the UN’s WHO – provides a model for global cooperation for taking the unprecedented steps necessary to defeat climate change. Governments and individuals may realize that indeed we can successfully take extensive multilateral action when a crisis calls for it.

We’re all living in unprecedented times, and nations and people are sailing through uncharted waters. While it’s by no means certain that the optimistic scenarios above can guarantee success, they’d seem to provide the greatest hope for it.

Nations are now facing two immense and urgent crises. One must and can be dealt with immediately. The second also requires extensive financial resources and exceptional political will, but needs time to produce them.

It is time to re-schedule COP26 to 2021.

 

Felix Dodds has been a policy consultant to United Nations agencies, national governments and stakeholders for 30 years. He was Chair of the UN Conference on Sustainable Societies Responsible Citizens (2011). He was the co-director of the Water and Climate Coalition at the UNFCCC (2007 to 2012) and Co-director of the University of North Carolina’s Nexus Conferences on Climate-Water-Energy-Food (2014 and 2018).

He is the author or editor of 20 books on the environment and intergovernmental negotiations. In 2019 he was a candidate for Executive Director the United Nations Environment Programme.

 

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012).

The post Is It Time to Postpone the 2020 Climate Summit? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Amnesty International expressed their concern, in light of the United Nations Secretary General’s remarks, about the situation in Yemen, South Sudan, and Syria. A ceasefire would, at least to a limited extent, give countries in conflict a little more room to put aggressive efforts into preparing for the potentially devastating impact of the virus. This dated picture shows a photo of the sprawling settlement of Yida, South Sudan border. Credit: Jared Ferrie/IPS

By Samira Sadeque
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

Conflict experts are concerned the the global ceasefire called for by the United Nations amid the coronavirus outbreak may not work and could lead to a rise in violence.

Coronavirus or COVID-19 continues spreading, having passed 400,000 cases globally and claiming more than 17,000 deaths. Countries around the world are putting in measures to ensure they can contain the disease. Many countries such as Canada, United States, and Kenya have closed their borders to non-citizens and/or non-essential travels.

On Monday, the U.N. secretary general António Guterres appealed for a global ceasefire.

“This is crucial,” he said, “to help create corridors for life-saving aid, to open precious windows for diplomacy, to bring hope to places among the most vulnerable to COVID-19.”

• Last week, the U.N. Refugee Agency and the U.N. Migration Agency, the International Organisation of Migration or IOM, announced that they are “suspending resettlement departures for refugees.” 
• This was especially of urgency as the disease continues to spread with people in transit, and would thus risk refugees in transit, according to the spokesperson’s office. 

Guterres further called attention to the fact that “the most vulnerable — women and children, people with disabilities, the marginalised and the displaced — pay the highest price” in times of armed conflict, combined with a global health crisis.

Experts have noted this concern as well. 

Joanne Mariner, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International, says they’re monitoring the gender aspect of the pandemic and how it can disproportionately affect women and girls. 

“Female-headed households, for example, often make up a sizeable proportion of refugee communities, and may be particularly hard hit,” she told IPS. “Many women, including migrant domestic workers, face the possibility of being unprotected caregivers; they also may be at higher risk of losing their jobs.”

It’s thus crucial to encourage countries from further advancing any form of oppression upon others. But what would this kind of ceasefire mean for the countries ravaged by war and conflict as they deal with threats of coronavirus?  

Professor Clionadh Raleigh, executive director of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) says there are layers to this issue. 

“The ceasefire is a great initiative and while I certainly hope it works, the data suggests otherwise,” she told IPS. “I also expect that mob violence and xenophobia will rise.”

She pointed out that there are some armed groups who are capitalising on this opportunity, such as the Islamic State hoping to profit out of it. 

“There are…other indications that some groups will try to deal with this through unorthodox means (like kidnapping doctors),” she said. 

Meanwhile, Amnesty International expressed their concern, in light of the Secretary General’s remarks, about the situation in Yemen, South Sudan, and Syria. A ceasefire would, at least to a limited extent, give countries in conflict a little more room to put aggressive efforts into preparing for the potentially devastating impact of the virus.

“Displaced persons, fleeing conflict, often live in crowded and unsanitary camps, in which social distancing is very difficult if not impossible, and which clean water may be in short supply,” Mariner of Amnesty, told IPS.

Furthermore, many of these countries caught in conflict have healthcare systems that require a lot of improvement. 

“The health care infrastructure in countries facing armed conflict is often extremely weak, particularly when, as in Syria, hospitals have been bombed and doctors killed,” says Amnesty’s Mariner.

Meanwhile, there are different types of conflict that can arise as a result of the pandemic itself, according to a report by ACLED launched last week. 

“Governments may also rely on alternative forces to impose restrictions, and in doing so, increase the use of repressive violence,” reads a part of the report, which also includes other kinds of violence or conflict such as gang violence arising out of the financial instability that the world is witnessing. 

“If income from these means is reduced, it is possible that crime and looting will increase in areas of Central and South America,” says the report. 

To halt a conflict or enforce a ceasefire can be a complicated process, so it’s only a matter of time to see if it will be enforced. However, as per the experts’ analyses, global leaders will likely need to also combat how to address the violence that is arising out of coronavirus.

Related Articles

• Could the Coronavirus Be a Biological Weapon in the Not-Too-Distant Future?
• Fighting Coronavirus: It’s Time to Invest in Universal Public Health
• Harassment of Journalists Jeopardises Keeping Public Safe amid Coronavirus Pandemic

The post What does U.N. Secretary General’s Call for Ceasefire Mean for Countries in Conflict? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The world 10,000m champion says he supports the decision to postpone the Olympics to 2021.

Credit: WHO/ F. Tanggol.

By External Source
Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

Tuberculosis (TB) and HIV pose a significant burden on South Africa’s health system. There’s a close relationship between the two. About 60% of TB patients are also HIV-positive. The novel coronavirus (Sars-CoV-2) is likely to be of particular concern for communities with high rates of TB and HIV.

Sars-CoV-2 and its resulting disease (COVID-19) haven’t been fully researched and understood yet. But speculation based on the behaviour of other viruses and chronic illnesses raises concerns that HIV and TB patients may have a higher risk of developing severe disease. Emily Wong answers some questions.

 

Are people with TB more susceptible to infection with SARS-COV-2?

From the Chinese experience, we have seen that people with chronic lung disease are more likely to have increased severity of COVID-19. On that basis, we are concerned that people with undiagnosed active TB, or people currently undergoing treatment for TB, may have increased risk of developing more severe COVID-19 disease if they become infected with SARS-COV-2

SARS-COV-2’s primary target is the lungs where it causes inflammation in the delicate tissues that usually allow oxygen to transfer into blood. In mild cases, COVID-19 can just cause a cough, but in severe cases the lungs can fill with inflammation and fluid making it very difficult for them to provide adequate oxygen to the rest of the body. In people who are otherwise healthy, most cases of COVID-19 are mild or moderate.

At this time, I’m not aware of any data that directly address whether TB makes people more susceptible to COVID-19. But from the Chinese experience, we have seen that people with chronic lung disease are more likely to have increased severity of COVID-19. On that basis, we are concerned that people with undiagnosed active TB, or people currently undergoing treatment for TB, may have increased risk of developing more severe COVID-19 disease if they become infected with SARS-COV-2.

There is also increasing recognition that post-TB chronic lung disease can be an important long-term consequence of TB. We are concerned that this could also affect COVID-19 severity. After TB, people can get bronchiectasis – chronic damage to the airways of the lung. This can predispose them to other lung infections. Another lung condition – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – can be caused by tobacco use or by the changes left in the lung after TB.

Even though there’s no data about the effect of post-TB lung disease on COVID-19 at this point, we are concerned that people who have had TB in the past – and have been left with some lung damage – may have a more difficult and severe time with COVID-19.

 

What about people infected with HIV?

There is also very little data to guide us here. But we know that in general HIV infection has profound effects on lung health and immunity. This is why HIV infection increases susceptibility to both Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (Mtb) – the bacterium that causes TB – infection and TB disease. We are therefore concerned that HIV infection may also affect SARS-COV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity.

But most experts think that people who are on antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are suppressed will probably have a better time with COVID-19 than people who aren’t. It is very important that people keep taking their HIV medications throughout any disruptions caused by the current COVID-19 epidemic.

 

What will the impact of the SARS-COV-2 epidemic be on TB and HIV services in South Africa?

This is a major concern. Even countries with better resourced national health systems have rapidly become overwhelmed as the COVID-19 epidemic hits.

South Africa has the world’s largest antiretroviral programme. Huge progress has been made. Even in KwaZulu-Natal, the epicentre of the HIV epidemic in South Africa, new HIV infection rates have been dropping. This is because of tremendous efforts to test people and to put people on antiretroviral treatment in a sustained way. Other factors have included national programmes like voluntary medical male circumcision.

The country has also started to see a decline in TB rates. We think this is related to improvements in the HIV treatment coverage. This is good news. But it’s the result of massive public health programmes that have taken a huge amount of time and effort to set up and optimise. And they’re still challenged by shortages of human and system resources.

We are very concerned about the impact that COVID-19 epidemic could have on HIV and TB services.

Thought is already going into how to try to maintain these critical HIV and TB services. In light of an impending health crisis, attention is on how to maintain sustained access to HIV and TB care. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the South African HIV Clinicians Society are trying to address this. For example, they are urging the health system to make six months of antiretrovirals available to people to save them from having to visit their clinics every month.

 

Are there extra precautions that individuals with TB and TB/HIV can take?

It’s very important that people ensure a supply of their HIV and TB medications and take them regularly.

At this point all South Africans should be heeding the call made by the President to focus on the basic hygiene interventions such as frequent hand-washing as well as implementing social distancing to the maximum extent. That means avoiding contact with groups of people outside of households, and staying home strictly.

All of these measures are extremely important, whether someone is personally at higher risk of severe infection, or for people who may not personally be at risk of more severe disease but may have a family member who’s older or HIV-positive or a neighbour who falls into any of those categories.

At this point the national recommendations apply to everyone. All South Africans need to take them very, very seriously because millions of people are immuno-supressed due to HIV or have some lung compromise due to prior TB infection.

 

Will any of the research on vaccines in South Africa be useful in the search for a COVID-19 vaccine?

The fact that South Africa has robust vaccine trial infrastructure for both TB and HIV is undoubtedly to its advantage when it comes to thinking about COVID-19 vaccine development. There are already candidate COVID-19 vaccines in human testing.

The company Moderna in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the US have started clinical trials of an mRNA vaccine candidate. Other candidates are also under development.

When these are ready for larger scale human testing, the global scientific community will almost certainly use existing vaccine trial networks to do this testing. Because of both HIV and TB research efforts to date, South Africa is very well represented.

Emily Wong, Faculty Member, Africa Health Research Institute, University of KwaZulu-Natal

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post TB, HIV and COVID-19: Urgent Questions as Three Epidemics Collide appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Credit: Religions for Peace/RfP2020

By Prof. Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

I was able to take office as the secretary general to the largest global interfaith organization – Religions for Peace – with interreligious councils (IRCs) composed of senior-most religious leaders representing their religious institutions, in 90 countries, and 6 regional IRCs, a week before we had to ask all employees to work from home, in compliance with New York State law.

As a person who feels functional with direct and open communication, where I can get a sense of the person (or persons) I am talking with, having to take leadership over an office of people I can no longer be with, feels a little like trying to run with legs tied together. It can be done, but it is tough.

And this is now the new normal, not only in the US, but everywhere in the world. For the first time in recorded human history, coming together – even within and among nuclear families – is a dangerous option, literally done at the risk of health and lives.

Thanks to more and more governmental regulations designed to ‘flatten the curve’ of a deadly and racing rate of Covid-19 infections, ‘social distancing’ is identified as the only viable option until a vaccine can be developed and given. Social distancing literally means not being in the presence of one another.

In the last decade, several functionaries around the world were learning to communicate via many electronic means, which enabled us to ‘see’ each other, while being thousands of miles apart.

Some institutions were trying to move to reducing carbon footprint from travel, by hosting more and more meetings/conferences/presentations on-line.

Prof. Azza Karam. Credit: United Nations

But this was occasionally done. And it bears mention that when this was done, the sense was invariably colored by some dissatisfaction for those of us who appreciate actually being in the same space with those whom we can see and speak with.

Most theories of communication insist that nothing can replace being together and seeing one another face-to-face – even corridor talk can often make the difference between a peace deal and a continuing war.

This hampering of our ability to be in the presence of one another on a regular basis will definitely contribute to changing the world forever.

As businesses, finance, all levels of education, civic action, religious services, governance, intergovernmental affairs – almost every profession including even many forms of health care – now moves irrevocably to almost total and complete reliance on virtual communication, our words will matter more than ever.

What we say, the words we choose and use, and how we use them, will matter even more than they already did. And they already matter plenty, as increasing norms around “email etiquette” also testify for instance.

Use of words by political and religious leaders in particular, already make a big difference to the perception of impact and capacity. Some politicians are under heavy criticism for how they are reacting to the Covid-19 crises. Few are praised.

Credit: Religions for Peace/RfP2020

These perceptions are not only based on the laws and regulations being put in place (and when or how these happen). A great deal of value is also placed on the words used.

Words have an impact on human consciousness, something scientists have long studied, and many researchers and health services are committed to. Articulation and eloquence have long defined culture.

And ‘having a way with words’ is a way of either praising special capacity – or bemoaning ‘spin’. Words, and how they are used, is a large part of what many bemoan as ‘fake news’.

So, we know that words matter. Now that we move into virtual communication for everything from trade to learning, from industry to worship, words will matter more than ever.

It is time to learn how to speak with mercy, how to raise interest and make deals with words, how to speak truth to power, heal wounds, raise alerts, voice concerns, convince and impact, even how to show deep love, all with words.

Faith – in anything, from a government and political leader, to a policy, to public advocacy, to all manner of relationships – will have to be elucidated and demonstrated through the word. Never before, have words mattered to so many at all times.

Time to pay attention, therefore, to how we use the word. Time to listen, and to learn, from some of those who come from the oldest professions of using and understanding and translating the word.

Faith leaders themselves are learning to communicate to their communities and congregations, manage worship, very differently – but still very much rooted in the word.

This is why Religions for Peace has issued a call to all faith leaders from all traditions, ages, regions, and identities, to raise their voice in prayers for and with one another, and to share narratives and stories of love in times of Covid.

For it is time for the kind words to overflow to express love and realise healing for this earth and for one another. As we gaze upon this world, we recognize we have to contribute to new beginnings for all life. And in the beginning was the word.

And regardless of where we stand or what mission we serve, the word now has to be love/mercy/compassion/dignity for all life. This is the change we must realise to survive, and in Maya Angelou’s words, to thrive.

The post “In the Beginning was the Word”: Why Covid-19 Renders Words even more Powerful appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Prof. Azza Karam is Secretary General, Religions for Peace International

The post “In the Beginning was the Word”: Why Covid-19 Renders Words even more Powerful appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Michelle Ntalami couldn't buy the products she wanted for her hair, so she set up a company to sell them.

Getting the measure of water in a southern Indian village. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS.

By Daud Khan
ROME, Mar 24 2020 (IPS)

Most developing countries have good policies, programmes and projects in place. Many of these have been prepared with assistance from development partners or international financing institutions such as the World Bank, the regional development banks, the UN agencies or bilateral aid agencies.

Most of these are of high quality and have gone through intensive review and quality control.  The major challenge is to effectively implement these policies, programmes and projects. Unfortunately this does not often happen and leads to huge lost opportunities. This is particularly the case in the poorest countries, many of which are conflict affected. 

To improve things, there are three major problems which need to be addressed: Political Will, Technical Efficiency and, what I call, Last Mile Issues. 

Little is likely to improve unless there is Political Will at the highest levels of Government to raise incomes across the board, and not just for the few who have political power; address poverty and improve food and nutrition security. 

Very often at international meetings and conferences it is often the delegates from the poorest countries that stay in the most expensive hotels, wear the most expensive clothes, and are driven to the meeting in the most expensive cars. Surely some “shaming” would be in order
 
The principal reason why this does not happen is capture of political and economic power by small groups of people, who then misappropriate funds meant for projects and programmes, or put in place policies which directly benefit them.  Very often the money thus stolen is transferred to banks in developed countries.  

Can anything be done in such a situation?  Possibly very little. But there may be a few actions by the international community that might help. 

More openness on the part of banks in developed countries about large deposits from developing countries – known for their lack of transparency – might help. 

Another could be to better link international processes, such as prosecutions at the International Criminal Court, with financial sanctions such as blocking of bank accounts of those under trial or sentenced.

Yet another, which would be effective, but politically difficult, is to “name and shame” the worst offenders in international fora such as at the United Nations. Very often at international meetings and conferences it is often the delegates from the poorest countries that stay in the most expensive hotels, wear the most expensive clothes, and are driven to the meeting in the most expensive cars. Surely some “shaming” would be in order. 

The next set of problems relate to Technical Efficiency.  Getting projects and programmes implemented requires effective and transparent management; good monitoring systems; and an accountability system that holds people responsible for reaching well-defined milestones.

These relatively simple and well understood management practices are spelt out in most project and programme documents. Usually ample financial provisions are made for these actions and for associated ICT systems.

However, in practice, getting effective implementation is very difficult.  Good implementation means constantly making decisions, frequent mid-course corrections, and, above all, taking risks which range from financial to reputational to operational.  

Most development projects and programmes are implemented by salaried public employees.  For many of them working as a project or programme manager is only one step in a long career which tends to be highly competitive – not so much in terms of rank or salary, but in terms of getting prestigious assignments. 

In such an environment reputation is critical and officers tend to be highly risk averse. Far better to miss a project milestone than break a bureaucratic rule, or take action against a non-performing but politically connected team member. 

Solutions?  Well it is difficult but there are a few. One is subcontract the entire work to a private company.  At times this works well, especially in large infrastructure projects where performance and milestones are relatively easy to define; and where foreign funding and companies are involved, which make them less subject to political interference.

In other cases it may be possible to bring in managers from the private sector but often bureaucrats tend to obstruct, or at times even actively sabotage, their work.   A relatively recent innovation is to set up “Delivery Units” – a small dedicated group of highly-skilled people assigned to help a set of projects of programmes achieve their objectives.

Their focus is on data-led decision making and they typically report directly to senior management, proposing solutions to untangle barriers. Staff for these units is usually recruited from among mid-career professionals working in the private sector on a contract basis.

These units work best when reporting to a strong senior management team which has decision making powers and is above bureaucratic infighting.  

Last, but by no means least, are the “Last Mile Issues”.  This refers to the challenge of making the connection between the lowest levels of project or programmes activities, and the individual households and communities who are the final targets of development work.

Thus a Government irrigation project may take water down to village level but then the water needs to get to individual fields. This requires famers to invest in local water conveyance and control systems, and create and manage water distribution schedules.

Similarly, a credit programme may enhance the supply of funds to the local bank branch, which may be a district or commune level. But then potential borrowers will need to be informed and, if they are unfamiliar with banking procedures, provided help to complete the necessary paperwork and chose the financing package best suited to their needs.  

There have been many attempts to address such last mile issues.  These include efforts by NGOs to build community organizations; efforts by Governments to extend the outreach of public institutions and initiatives; and, most recently, efforts by the corporate sector, as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. 

All three approaches have had their success and failures. Their impact could be improved if NGOs, governments and the corporate sector talked more to each other about learning from these successes and failures and to seek synergies. 

Government programmes would certainly benefit from the social capital built up by NGOs and the management systems of the corporate sector.  NGOs would be more accountable if a greater proportion of their funding was channelled through Government and if they conducted the audits and financial and effectives reviews that are commonplace in large companies.

Similarly, the corporate sector’s CSR efforts would be more leveraged if they were to draw on Government staff, buildings and other facilities already existing in the areas where they work and on the community organizations developed by the NGOs.  

 

Daud Khan is a retired UN staff who lives partly in Rome and partly in Pakistan. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

 

The post Improving Development Impact appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The Cameroonian jazz legend dies in Paris aged 86 after catching coronavirus.

ICPD awareness-raising campaigns in rural Tadjourah and Ali Sabieh in Djibouti, organised by the Parliamentary Group of Population and Development (PGPD). Courtesy: PGPD.

By Mantoe Phakathi
MBABANE, Mar 24 2020 (IPS)

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is still widely practised in the African country of Djibouti. Despite efforts by the government and development agencies to curb this practice, culture, tradition and religion continue to slow down progress.

According to Hassan Omar Mohamed, a Member of Parliament from the Djibouti House of Assembly, FGM is a deeply-rooted practice that has stood the test of time.

• The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) describes FGM as a practice that involves altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons.  It is internationally recognised as a human rights violation.
• Globally, it is estimated that 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone some form of FGM. UNFPA states that, although FGM is declining in the majority of countries where it is prevalent, most of these are also experiencing a high rate of population growth – meaning that the number of girls who undergo FGM will continue to grow if efforts are not significantly scaled up.

Latest data from UNFPA and UNICEF reveal that 78 percent of women and girls in Djibouti are still subjected to FGM. 

In November, United Nations member states gathered in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi to renew a promise made 25 years ago to end harmful practices against women and girls including FGM.

It is for that reason that the Government of Djibouti has intensified awareness-raising efforts, which has resulted in reduced FGM cases, although the practice continues.

“Education and training are the means which facilitate the change of behaviour,” said Omar Mohamed, adding that the change of attitude will lead to the total abandonment of the practice.

Djibouti participated at the Nairobi Summit and made resolutions following the 25th International Conference on Population Development (ICPD25) commitments in fulfilling Goal 5 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 5 calls upon countries to achieve gender equality and women empowerment by 2030.

As a result, in 2019 Djibouti created the Parliamentary Group of Population and Development (PGPD) – an eight-member formation of four men and an equal number of women MPs – to which Omar Mohamed is the president.

Its objective is to contribute to the promotion and protection of the fundamental rights of populations; promote access to education, health, family planning and to encourage the full implementation of the programme of action of the ICPD.

Besides, in February, the PGPD organised an interregional conference on the follow-up of the ICPD25 that brought together parliamentarians from African and Arab countries.

“It was an opportunity for parliamentarians to interact and cooperate with their colleagues on issues related to the engagement of the Nairobi Summit,” he said. They discussed family planning and violence against women and girls and developed a roadmap for implementing ICPD25 commitments.

Moreover, the Government of Djibouti has adopted, signed and ratified the following international instruments that contribute to the eradication of FGM.  These include:

•  The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
•  The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; and,
• The Additional Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of Women (Maputo Protocol).
• To harmonise international commitments on ICPD the Government of Djibouti developed a five-year National Strategy for the Abandonment of FGM.

“The main objective of this strategy was to promote the total abandonment of FGM by respecting physical integrity and promoting the health of women and girls,” said Omar Mohamed.

UNFPA has also supported several ICPD activities in Djibouti, including updating the Sexual and Reproductive Health Essential Package Protocol to include FGM and established a mobile anti-FGM brigade.

The government also has strengthened its domestic law to protect women and prohibit any physical violation.

Omar Mohamed noted that considering that ICPD issues are part of the SDGs which are interlinked, there is a great commitment to meet the targets by 2030.

However, socio-economic challenges that slow down progress which include massive unemployment, inequality and the rise of extremism remain a stumbling block.

“To counter all the challenges that arise, economic and institutional reforms are needed to support and respect the SDGs and the commitments made within the framework of the ICPD process,” he said.

The government has produced a national strategy to respond to the socio-economic challenges that hinder the country’s progress towards achieving the SDGs.   

Related Articles

• India and Japan’s MPs Act Quickly to Implement Sexual and Reproductive Health Plans after ICPD25
• Asian & Arab Parliamentarians to Move Forward on Reproductive Health & Gender Empowerment

The post Djibouti Intensifies Awareness-raising Efforts Against FGM appeared first on Inter Press Service.