Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Dr. Denis Mukwege

By Dr. Denis Mukwege
BUKAVU, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 3 2019 (IPS)

To be able to tackle a problem we must first recognize that it exists. When I first spoke at the United Nations Security Council in 2009, I was asked why the issue of sexual violence was even relevant to peace and security. At that time, it was not generally accepted that rape is in fact a weapon of war. Today, that statement is both widely accepted and central to the international community’s understanding of this crucial issue.

Last week, I spoke yet again at the Security Council in response to Germany’s call for a new resolution on women, peace and security. After extensive negotiations and compromise relating to sexual and reproductive health for victims of sexual violence in conflict, the resolution was passed.

Thirteen countries voted in favor. China and Russia abstained. This is now the ninth resolution in a series, which addresses sexual violence in conflict and the inclusion of women in building peace.

Although I would have greatly preferred to see inclusion of references to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and specific language on sexual and reproductive health, all of which was omitted to avoid a veto of the resolution, we should not lose sight that the adopted resolution is a significant step forward – it is a pivotal step in terms of combating rape as a weapon of war and sexual violence in conflict.

For the first time, survivors of sexual violence in conflict are at the center of this issue. The resolution stresses the need to support children born as a result of rape. Although focused primarily on the experiences of women, the resolution also highlights the need for specific measures for men and boys who are victimized by sexual violence in conflict.

Paramount to the needs of survivors, the resolution acknowledges the importance of reparations. For generations, states have failed to acknowledge and compensate the devastating harm done to survivors.

We intend to change this by coming together with Nadia’s Initiative and the Office of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict to establish the International Fund for Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I have seen how important justice is to the healing process of survivors of rape in conflict. At Panzi Hospital, where I work with my staff to rehabilitate victims of sexual violence, we have developed a comprehensive model, which includes medical, psychological, socio-economic and legal assistance.

Following the adoption of this new resolution, I hope that we can replicate this approach on a much wider scale. For too long, the international community has promised action, while failing to provide access to quality holistic care to survivors.

It is time for serious action against perpetrators. To date, there have been little to no consequences for their crimes. Ending the culture of impunity is central to ensuring that the brutal mass rapes that have happened in the DRC, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere never happen again.

Sexual violence in conflict is devastating – physically and psychologically. Yet, we somehow continue to fail thousands and thousands who have been forced to endure this horror. There can be no lasting peace without justice. This Security Council resolution must now lead to meaningful action.

The post Women, Peace and Security: Let’s Turn Words into Action appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Dr. Denis Mukwege is founder of Panzi Hospital and Foundation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 with Nadia Murad.

The post Women, Peace and Security: Let’s Turn Words into Action appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Geneva Centre
BAKU, AZERBAIJAN, May 3 2019 (IPS-Partners)

The Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement and Global Dialogue attended the first day of the Fifth World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue held in Baku under the motto “Building dialogue into action against discrimination, inequality and violent conflict.”

The first day of the Forum was marked with an inspiring inaugural address delivered by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan HE Ilham Aliyev in the presence of Eminent Dignitaries and high-level government officials.

Following the inaugural address of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, opening speeches were delivered by the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations representative Miguel Moratinos, the Assistant Director General for Social and Human Sciences of UNESCO Nada Al-Nashif, the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Yousef Al Othaimeen, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe Gabriella Battaini and the Director General of ISESCO Abdulaziz Othman Alwaijri.

The delegation of the Geneva Centre likewise attended the High-Level Ministerial Panel on “Mobilizing Intercultural Dialogue for Concrete Transformative Action” that was chaired by the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan Abulfas Garayev.

The Executive Director of the Geneva Centre Ambassador Idriss Jazairy attended the Ministerial Panel and was the only NGO representative to be invited by the Organizing Committee of the Forum to deliver a statement to the Ministers from more than 30 countries.

In his speech, Ambassador Jazairy stated that the “regions of the world go through cycles of convergence propitious for peace and through cycles of divergence which beget international tension and violence.” In this connection, he highlighted that the rise of populism in the West and violent extremism in the Arab region constitute a threat to the long-term stability of diverse and multicultural societies.

“Faiths are being misused to justify crime or hatred when their true interpretation revolves around worship of the Creator and love towards His Creatures,” Ambassador Jazairy underlined.

In light of this worrying context, the Geneva Centre’s Executive Director informed the participants that the Geneva Centre organized with the support of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, on 25 June 2018 a World Conference on religions and equal citizenship rights, held under the Patronage of HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, that adopted a Ten-Point Declaration entitled “Moving Towards Greater Spiritual Convergence Worldwide in Support of Equal Citizenship Rights.”

The said declaration, he highlighted, appeals to decision makers to unite in a common endeavour for the preservation of dignity, to contribute to the realization of human rights and to promote the effective enjoyment of equal citizenship rights.

“The Declaration gives concrete expression to the ideal of restoring the aspiration for a world living in peace and harmony and to promote equal citizenship rights which is the antidote to a poisoning of minds and hearts,” Ambassador Jazairy emphasized.

The Geneva Centre’s Executive Director mentioned that the World Conference Outcome Declaration was endorsed by the European Centre for Peace and Development – UN University for Peace in a resolution adopted on 26 October 2018 in Belgrade.

He added that the Joint Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed on 4 February 2019 by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Great Imam of Al-Azhar His Eminence Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib expresses almost identically the fundamental values and messages of the Outcome Declaration..

In light of this growing consensus on the need to harness the collective energy of faiths in the pursuit of equal citizenship rights, the Geneva Centre’s Executive Director appealed to the Ministers present to “endorse the Outcome Declaration and to translate its principles into national policies fostering peaceful, just and inclusive societies.”

The Minister of Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan thanked Ambassador Jazairy for his proposal and invited the Geneva Centre to further discuss this initiative in consultation with representatives from the Ministry of Culture during the conference.

Link to Ambassador Jazairy’s speech – UN WEB LIVE TV (2:31:48 – 2:40:22): http://webtv.un.org/»/watch/mobilizing-intercultural-dialogue-for-concrete-transformative-action-high-level-ministerial-panel-baku-2-3-may-2019/6032222052001/?term=&lan=original&page=1?term

The post Executive Director of the Geneva Centre appeals to Ministers from 30 countries to endorse the Geneva Centre World Conference Outcome Declaration on “Moving Towards Greater Spiritual Convergence Worldwide in Support of Equal Citizenship Rights” appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Photo Courtesy: Jan Sahas.

By Ashif Shaikh
DEWAS, India, May 3 2019 (IPS)

No external force can bring about real change in society. Only the community itself can.

There are 650 districts in India. However, most nonprofits work only in a few districts. Given how large our country is, there are only two types of people that can work towards creating change at scale – the communities that are facing the issues first hand, and the government.

The government has not been able to work on issues related to social justice in the last 60 years. Perhaps they think that this is not important enough, or there is no political will to do it. So, we at Jan Sahas, chose to involve the community.

We realised that if issues around social justice had to be taken to scale, and if we wanted to create deeper impact,we needed to involve the communities affected. If it didn’t become the community’s own initiative, or if they kept thinking that some civil society organisation or government agency would come and work on their issues, it would never be sustainable.

That’s why in 2001, we started a national campaign named Rashtriya Garima Abhiyan. Centred around the idea of dignity, this campaign was aimed at mobilising Dalit manual scavengers, all of whom were women. We wanted to empower them to move out of this work and enable them to scale up the programme on their own. We thought that working with manual scavengers would be a good entry point to work on ending exclusion.

Caste-based marginalised communities in our country have faced historical injustice — not just for the last five-six generations, but for the last 2,500 years

But caste-based marginalised communities in our country have faced historical injustice — not just for the last five-six generations, but for the last 2,500 years. Even if they earn money and stop doing caste-based work, the social stigma never goes away. Even if the person becomes a collector, or starts an enterprise, the discrimination continues.

 

We need three types of rehabilitation

If people have to come out of caste-based work, they need three types of rehabilitation:

1. Economic or livelihood rehabilitation

In the caste-based work of manual scavenging, the biggest issue is that the oppressor or employer provides them food, clothing and shelter. In rural India, they get two rotis every day, clothes twice a year — during Holi and Diwali, and the panchayat gives them a place to stay, So, in essence, their basic needs of roti-kapda-makaan are taken care of by the person or the institution that employs them. What this means though is that they are unable to negotiate with their employers.

If you are going to get paid in cash for work, you can negotiate. For instance, if the employer says ‘I will give you INR 20’, you can say, ‘No, I will charge INR 50’. But if your life itself is dependent on what they give you, then you can never negotiate.

Therefore, if we have to start changing the way caste is viewed and reinforced, we have to start with economic rehabilitation. If marginalised caste groups get work which pays them in cash, they can negotiate the terms for their wages, working conditions, dignity and relationships at the workplace.

However, this is only step one. The second, and more important one, is social rehabilitation.

2. Social rehabilitation

The government never thinks about this aspect. Under social rehabilitation, if someone gives up their (caste-based) work, they should be given work that factors in the social aspect as well.

For instance in 2013, we appealed to several state governments; we said that when you appoint ICDS workers and helpers — positions that do not require an educational background, offer INR 3,000-4,000 monthly salary and where the employee has to be a woman, give priority to the women from the manual scavenging community.These women could prepare the meals provided under the ICDS scheme, and all children regardless of their caste would eat that food.

This process was started in Uttar Pradesh but many powerful groups forced the state to rescind the order; today it is no longer compulsory. In Madhya Pradesh on the other hand, while there was some struggle to start with, it has now been firmly established in many districts.

The discrimination extends across several government schemes. In many villages, where the PMAY is being implemented, Dalit communities are given homes in a separate place. They call it a ‘colony’ and it is commonly understood to be land outside the village. However, all the resources such as electricity, water, anganwadis are available only inside the village.

If you want to stop caste-based practices, you cannot work with the excluded people alone. Other related stakeholders have to be held accountable. Like they say in the gender discourse — if you want to end sexual violence, you have to get the male members of the community involved.

3. Political rehabilitation

Being political is not about party politics. It is about the power of representation. If women from excluded communities want to be part of the local panchayat, they should have the space to do so. The problem is, that today, they don’t have this space.

For example, we started a campaign with rape survivors, that they should contest elections for the panchayat. As a result of this campaign, 104 women participated in panchayat elections. Almost 50 percent of them won. Many of them contested on unreserved seats. They fought and they won. The idea was for them to challenge the power structure.

In some places we had to work with their family members as well, in some with the society at large. When these excluded women gain power, then at some level, the discrimination stops.

 

A Dalit woman stands outside a dry toilet located in an upper caste villager’s home in Mainpuri, in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. Credit: Shai Venkatraman/IPS

 

It takes years to break social barriers, even among the marginalised

Jan Sahas works with manual scavengers, rape survivors and young girls who have been forced into commercial sexual exploitation. One of the biggest challenges we face is that it is very difficult to make these communities come together. Getting ‘outsiders’ to change their social behaviour requires work at a different level. But even within these disadvantaged groups, people follow discrimination and untouchability practices.

For example, in Bhaurasa, a village in Madhya Pradesh, we had women who had managed to stop doing caste-based work.  There were 17 women from the Valmiki community, and 10 from the Hela community. Valmiki is a Dalit Hindu community, while Hela is a Muslim community. It took us three years to bring them together in one place for a meeting.

For two and a half years, we conducted meetings with adults in the community to convince them. Despite that we failed to change their beliefs. But when we started working with the young — using games and activities — it took almost no time.

One of the games we played was taking one child from the Valmiki community and the other from the Hela — one a Dalit and the other a non-Dalit. We told them that the Dalit child would become non-Dalit for a day, and vice versa.

We observed a big change in behaviour. The children soon realised that what one was doing with another human being was not based on any rationale. There is no rationale for caste discrimination, and that it didn’t make sense to follow this nonsensical practice.

The activities brought about a change in the children; they then started convincing their families and the families changed because of the children’s intervention.

 

At a rally in New Delhi, Dalit women burn baskets used to collect human waste as a sign of protest against the caste-based practice of ‘manual scavenging’. Credit: Shai Venkatraman/IPS

 

Communities can solve their own problems. All they need are platforms.

Most of us in civil society who work with marginalised communities feel that ‘we are going to give them something’, ‘deliver’ something. In reality though, no one really is in a position to deliver anything to the community. What do we really know about the communities? How can we assume leadership on their behalf when we don’t know enough?

Consider the Dignity March where 25,000 rape survivors travelled over 10,000 kms and spoke openly in public forums about being raped. Jan Sahas might have coordinated the march, but the idea was not ours.

We were conducting a meeting in a village. There were four rape survivors along with their family members. One of the women said that there had been a conviction in her case, while a second women said that she was still struggling with her case and was facing many problems. The families were fighting among themselves, and demanding answers from us, saying if  one woman’s case was solved, why wasn’t there a judgement yet in the second case?

One of the rape survivors told us: “You don’t explain what the problems are; let the woman who got the conviction explain to the others what steps need to be taken and how they can bring their own case to a closure”.

When she started explaining, the idea clicked in our minds; that instead of us doing this work — going to each village and talking to all the families about how to fight their cases — what if 1,000 rape survivors came together in one place and travelled all over the country and explained how to get a conviction to other survivors.

 

Nonprofits should only play the role of facilitators

We can’t be leaders of the manual scavengers, or rape survivors, or communities who are involved caste-based commercial sexual exploitation. They are their own leaders because they know what that pain has meant in how they live their lives. We cannot even imagine how much power or courage is required to change this situation.

No one else can do it — no Chief Minister or Prime Minister can work on it as effectively as a rape survivor can work on rape, or manual scavengers can work on their own issues. We need to understand this.

The role of the government or nonprofits is limited in this. We can help create appropriate forums for them; but it is they who will come up with the strategies. During the march, we observed this very clearly: people who’ve been facing oppression and discrimination, were ready to take up the struggle; they were ready to find solutions. What they needed was a platform to talk about their issues.

The current strategies which are made by the government or other institutions, rarely involve the affected communities. But no external force can bring about real change in society. Only the community itself can.

 

Translations from Hindi to English by Anupamaa Joshi.

Ashif Shaikh is an Indian social activist, known for his role in Rashtriya Garima Abhiyan, a campaign for the eradication of manual scavenging. He is also a co-founder of Jan Sahas, a human rights organisation. Since 2000, Jan Sahas has been working to end caste- and gender-based slavery and violence through the eradication of manual scavenging, caste-based sex work, forced labour, and trafficking. He has won several awards for this work, including the Sadbhavana Award and the Times of India Social Impact Award.

This story was originally published by India Development Review (IDR)

The post Want Social Change? Give Communities More Agency appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Press freedom in Sierra Leone faces continued pressure, even under the government of President Julius Maada Bio. Credit: CC By 2.0/Alan & Flora Botting

By Lahai J. Samboma
LONDON, May 2 2019 (IPS)

Ibrahim Samura, erstwhile editor and publisher of New Age, an independent Freetown newspaper, was beaten up with “heavy-duty metal chains and sticks” during Sierra Leone’s presidential run-off election in March 2018—in front of the police and army. He died from his injuries three months later. But more than a year since the assault the perpetrators are yet to be brought to book.

The Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) has called on the government of President Julius Maada Bio for the immediate prosecution of all those who physically assaulted a newspaper editor last year.

The attack on Samura and at least two other reporters occurred in full view of security personnel, as the journalists covered the elections no more than 50 feet from the police station in the Freetown suburb of Lumley.

“The continuing delay in bringing them to justice is breeding a culture of impunity,” Ahmed Sahid Nasralla, the national secretary general of SLAJ, told IPS. “We are calling on the police and on the government to take action. The investigation has been done. It’s up to the authorities to now prosecute. We will continue to put pressure on them to do so.”

According to SLAJ, Samura’s death is directly related to the beating he received, which caused the intracerebral haemorrhage the autopsy determined caused his death. Further, medical experts say if Samura did not suffer “similar blunt force trauma about the head” from the time of that merciless beating to the time of his death, then it is “very safe” to conclude that those who beat him in March caused his demise.

The five perpetrators, so-called “high-powered hooligans”, comprise: a former deputy minister from the then ruling All Peoples Congress party (the APC), Ibrahim Washingai Mansaray;

the former Mayor of Freetown, Herbert George Williams;

the chairman of a local football club who was vying for the presidency of the national football association, Sanusi Kargbo;

Abubakarr Daramy, an APC government spokesman;

and, last but not least, Dankay Koroma, who happens to be the daughter of then President Ernest Bai Koroma.

Ten months after the journalist’s death, none of the infamous “Samura Five” have been arrested. This is despite the fact that police say the necessary warrants had been issued. Some reporters have attributed this to the fact that before his death Samura had publicly accepted an “apology” from the APC, in effect offering “pre-emptive forgiveness” to those who some see as his murderers.

But, as the publisher of Sierra Express Media, Adeyemi Paul, said: “He may have forgiven them, but a crime is a crime. The role of the police and the courts is to arrest and prosecute criminals, not to offer forgiveness.” Not unexpectedly, most journalists share this view. Amara Samura (no relation), editor of The Vision newspaper, said: “Those who beat Ibrahim Samura should be brought to justice, because that beating caused his death – apology or not.”

Fayia Amara Fayia of the Standard Times newspaper, said there were rumours Samura had accepted “compensation” from ex-President Koroma, whose daughter was one the alleged attackers. “Journalists should not enter into such arrangements with their abusers, because it will lead to impunity,” he said.

Many journalists who had hoped the election of Bio as president augured well for press freedom in Sierra Leone have been disappointed. The harassment, intimidation and beatings of journalists has continued under the rule of his Sierra Leone People’s Party (the SLPP). Barely a month after Bio assumed office, SLPP supporters assaulted Yusuf Bangura, a radio reporter for the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC). His attackers said it was “payback” for his “negative reporting” of the SLPP and Bio in the run up to the elections.

Then last September, Fayia Amara Fayia was arrested at the television studio of AYV Media during a live broadcast. His arrest was ordered by the deputy information minister, who claimed the reporter had libelled the president in one of his articles. Fayia was later released without charge. That same month several journalists were attacked and their equipment damaged by alleged SLPP thugs while covering a bye election in the northern Kambia district.

In January of this year the editor of Sierra Express media, Alusine Bangura, was beaten up at his office by men who, he says, not only identified themselves as supporters of the SLPP, but were also wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the ruling party’s emblem. He suffered serious injuries to his head and torso from the beating the group dished out to him. Three of his colleagues had been lucky to escape.

“I recognised one of the men, a hefty bloke, a popular thug for the SLPP,” Bangura told IPS. “There were about 13 of them. Had it not been for the guys in the area, who came to assist me, I might have been killed.”

According to Bangura, this was the second attack on their offices. The first one happened in April 2018, just after Bio took office. “They attack us because they say we are too critical of the government,” he continued. “They also said we criticised them when they were in opposition. But that is our duty, to keep the politicians on their toes. We are always critical of government, any government.”

These attacks against journalists going about their lawful business can be seen as evidence of a culture of impunity which the continuing failure to prosecute the alleged killers of Samura has fuelled in Sierra Leone. Many believe that if a precedent is set, where people are punished for attacking journalists, it would serve as a deterrent to these almost pedestrian assaults on journalists who are simply doing their jobs. As Bangura said, “I myself could have easily been killed in January by those thugs.”

It will be recalled that Harry Yansaneh, the acting editor of For Di People newspaper, was killed in 2005 after an SLPP MP, Fatmata Hassan, sent her children and assorted thugs to beat him up. In this case, which is eerily similar to Samura’s, the killers got-off scot-free. It can even be argued that Samura might be alive today, or that Bangura might not have sustained those serious injuries, if Yansaneh’s alleged killers had been convicted back in 2005 of even the lesser charge of manslaughter or, at worst, aggravated assault.

In a cruel twist of fate, Yansaneh had become acting editor of For Di People after substantive editor Paul Kamara was jailed for two years for allegedly libelling President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, whose SLPP government invoked draconian criminal libel legislation to convict the journalist.

Perhaps one reason why the present SLPP government is reluctant to prosecute Samura’s killers is because it will mean not only that they would have to also prosecute their own supporters who routinely beat up journalists, as we have seen, but also those who killed Yansaneh in 2005, there being no statute of limitation for murder.

But the president would do well to recall his words to members of the SLAJ when he addressed them last December. Bio had said: “I would like us to remember the heroism of someone who is not here with us tonight – Ibrahim Samura… Never again should we have a government or politicians who abdicate their duty to protect journalists and become the perpetrators of violence against journalists.”

A month after the president said this, thugs severely beat up the editor of Sierra Express Media. They then ran away—and live to assault another journalist another day.
As SLAJ calls on the government of President Bio for action against the so-called “Samura Five”, its members are also looking to the government to fulfil their manifesto promise to repeal criminal libel laws, which previous governments have used to muzzle the press and to punish outspoken journalists like Kamara.

Speaking to IPS from South Africa, Angela Quintal, Africa Programme Coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said: “President Bio must move swiftly to ensure that the law on criminal and seditious libel is finally repealed, something that he committed to when he came into power last year.”

Quintal added: “A message must also be sent that attacks on journalists will not be condoned by authorities and the only way to ensure this is to ensure that those responsible [for Samura’s death] are held accountable through prosecution. President Bio has publicly committed to upholding press freedom and this is one way to show that his sentiments are not mere rhetoric.”

Related Articles

• On World Press Freedom Day, Let us Ask: #WhereIsAzory?
• Bleak Outlook for Press Freedom in West Africa
• Media Landscape Marked by “Climate of Fear”

The post Sierra Leone’s Journalists Demand Justice for “Murdered” Colleague and Call for Law Reform appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

This is part of a series of features and op-eds to mark World Press Freedom Day on May 3.

The post Sierra Leone’s Journalists Demand Justice for “Murdered” Colleague and Call for Law Reform appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Meryl Williams, Chair, Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section of the Asian Fisheries Society

By Meryl Williams
CANBERRA, Australia, May 2 2019 (IPS)

In my years in fisheries research in Australia, few researchers were women, all fishers were assumed to be men, “girly” calendars were occasionally pinned on the office, lab or tea room wall at work and the workplace rules of engagement for women were still being worked out by trial and error. I vividly remember when my colleague, “Jessie”, the only woman technician in our research agency, was assigned to go into the field for a week to support a fish tagging project run by men scientists. The men took umbrage and went to the Union to protest this affront to their work conditions. The Union warned them that they could be sacked for discriminating against a woman. So change was at hand – or so it seemed.

Meryl Williams

Over the last four decades, I discovered that some change is very slow, while other change can be very rapid. In fisheries and aquaculture, international gender research has revealed that gender equality is progressing slowly, and may even be resisted or eroding, but many other changes in the sector have transformed fishing and aquaculture and the seafood value chain beyond recognition. Unfortunately, many sectoral changes resulting from global drivers favouring international trade, more efficient production, the Blue Economy, even sustainability, have contributed to gender equality being ignored, resisted or eroded. The resistance is abetted by cultural norms favouring men with the means to amass and control capital assets for producing and processing fish.

Where does this place the women? In our 2019 International Women’s Day OpEd [1], eight colleagues and I said that the seafood industry is women intensive but male dominated. Women workers are over-represented in low skilled, low paid, low valued positions while men dominate the power positions. From the poor quality global statistics available, women are 15% of the primary production workers but rising to 20% in activities in inland water fisheries. Women dominate in the labour intensive processing industry, perhaps reaching 85% to 90% of the total processing workforce. Sex-disaggregated statistics for aquaculture, that now produces more than half of the fish we eat directly, are poorer than those for fisheries. Women aquaculture workers represent a lower share of the workforce in larger, more capital intensive and offshore operations. The top end of the workforce in fisheries and aquaculture is the realm of men, with 99% CEOs, 90% board members and leaders of professional organizations.

International research into gender in aquaculture and fisheries has been fundamental in revealing the detail of the inequality women experience in seafood value chains. For more than 28 years, my colleagues and I in the Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section and partner organisations have examined the depth of gender inequality and its impacts on women in studies, conferences and publications [2]. We have revealed the dearth of sex-disaggregated data, lack of time series to show trends and make comparisons, started to sketch the sectoral and economy-wide settings that exacerbate inequality, and experimented with creating gender transformative change in communities.

This leaves us knowing that positive change is not going to happen quickly but also realising that we have to stimulate the climate for positive change before other forces take over. From our collective experience, therefore, we found four revolutionary tips that can energise the system for a change to gender equality.

First, women need to work together for their rights. Rights will not otherwise be simply handed over on a plate. Women will need to challenge their current status – in their jobs, businesses or company positions. They must communicate what they need, in a manner effective for their work and national cultures. Women working together must not allow themselves to be treated as second class. Nor should they emulate men in their power relations at work, for example, by keeping other women and men in their secondary places. High profile cases have shown that some powerful women in the fishing sector have exploited the workers for the same personal benefits as do men in power.

Second, gender experts have an ongoing job advocating why equality matters, and how. They have a duty to raise the level of comprehension of their fellow professionals on why gender equality is important to the industry. Most importantly, this advocacy is not done once-only but requires agitating at every opportunity. We have to become the “squeaky wheel” that needs attention.

Third, training and capacity building are sorely needed to enable a shared gender equality vision. The capacity of current professionals to create a vision of a gender equitable industry is low and has to be raised. When asked why new fisheries policies are gender-blind, fisheries officers will often say they don’t see the importance. What would gender equality look like in my part of the world and what steps would lead to it?

Fourth and finally, a progressive environment of gender equality is not a “women only” realm but one that requires and invites men’s engagement, benefiting all in the transformation. Multiple institutions should be engaged. The exercise cannot become window dressing by dominant actors, e.g., corporations invoking corporate social responsibility for public effect, while marginalising workers representation in the workplace.

Notes
[1] The OpEd, “Boosting women in seafood and ending gender inequality: A call to the seafood community – time for commitment and change is now!” was published on 10 seafood industry and specialist sites: Link. I acknowledge my co-authors of the OpEd – Marie Christine Monfort, Natalia Briceno-Lagos, Jayne Gallagher, Leonie Noble, Editrudith Lukanga, Tamara Espiñeira, Marja Bekendam and Katia Frangoudes.

[2] Conferences, publications and presentations – http://www.genderaquafish.org/events/’ “From Catch to Consumer: Why Gender Matters in Aquaculture and Fisheries” – Link

About the author: Meryl Williams has been working in international fisheries research for more than four decades, and focusing on gender in fisheries since the mid 1990s, helping develop the activities and organising the Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section of the Asian Fisheries Society. She gratefully acknowledges Dr M.V. Gupta (2005 winner of the World Food Prize) and the late Dr M.C. Nandeesha, two men who greatly influenced her interest in gender in the fisheries sector. In 2015, she was awarded the Crawford Medal for her work in international agricultural research. She is an Honorary Life member of the Asian Fisheries Society.

This first appeared as part of Crawford Fund opinion piece series.

The post 4 Revolutionary Tips to Stop Aquaculture and Fisheries Ignoring, Resisting or Eroding Gender Equality appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Meryl Williams, Chair, Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section of the Asian Fisheries Society

The post 4 Revolutionary Tips to Stop Aquaculture and Fisheries Ignoring, Resisting or Eroding Gender Equality appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Credit: Denis Onyodi - IFRC/DRK/Climate Centre

By Liu Zhenmin
UNITED NATIONS, May 2 2019 (IPS)

For most of the 7 billion people on the planet, global institutions are remote, far removed from their day to day existence. Yet, our global institutions matter.

They shape the global systems – such as international trade rules – that will enable the more than 3 billion poor people worldwide, who live on less than about 20 yuan a day, to rise out of poverty.

In 2015, the world’s leaders agreed on the transformative 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which laid out a path to shared prosperity and sustainability. But implementing the 2030 Agenda requires a fundamental shift toward sustainability in our financial systems.

The global financial architecture must enable trade and capital to flow across borders in a way that is stable and sustainable. This would help fund necessary investments, including in resilient infrastructure, and help put countries on sound financial footing. The architecture should also protect against shocks, but allow rapid responses to shocks when they do occur.

There is some progress to report. A joint assessment of financing global sustainable development, just completed by the United Nations – in collaboration with other international institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization – finds that private sector interest in sustainable finance is growing.

LIU Zhenmin

Investors gradually realize that the way corporations manage environmental and social risks can impact financial performance. Sustainable development is also increasingly incorporated in public budgets and development cooperation.

But these changes are not happening at nearly the required scale, nor with the necessary speed. For example, annual spending on education in the poorest countries alone would need to more than triple to achieve universal education aspired to under the 2030 Agenda.

The gap on infrastructure financing in developing countries remains on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars.

In today’s interconnected world, major challenges cannot be solved by countries acting alone. Rather than retreating from multilateralism, the international community must strengthen collective action.

International trade has made a significant contribution to economic growth and development. When we work together, we can achieve great things for the good of all people.

The Belt and Road Initiative is an example of how countries are working together to find new paths to prosperity. The resulting infrastructure will enhance connectivity between Asia and Europe, and expand connections with Africa and South America. It provides important opportunities for countries to deepen cooperation and deliver sustainable infrastructure.

Achieving sustainable development – particularly eradicating poverty, reducing inequality, and combatting climate change – requires a long-term perspective, with governments, the private sector, and civil society working together.

Yet most private capital markets are short-term oriented and put pressure on corporate executives to demonstrate profits on a quarterly basis. A more uncertain world begets even more short-term behaviour.

Private businesses hesitate to commit funds to long-term investment projects if economic prospects are unclear. During periods of financial insecurity, households often focus on their immediate needs.

If the Belt and Road Initiative could take a long-term perspective, it will help to build long-term, stable and sustainable financing into the multilateral system. It can be at the forefront of efforts to counter short-term behavior.

Aligning both private and public incentives with sustainable development, and better measuring the impacts of investments and policies on sustainability, will further our global efforts. Private financial markets in China, like those in many other middle-income countries, are growing in size and importance.

If markets are to become a tool that promotes sustainability, rather than short-term speculation, the policies need to be carefully designed. For example, governments can price externalities, such as the cost of environmental pollution, ensuring that the true costs of investments are recognized and considered.

Requiring more meaningful disclosure by corporations on social and environmental issues can help. According to a KPMG survey of about 5,000 companies from 49 countries conducted in 2017, 75 per cent now publish corporate responsibility reports and 60 per cent include some sustainability information in their financial filings.

Their efforts should be further encouraged so that some internationally recognized standards in sustainability reporting could be agreed in the future. Countries can also promote long-term investing by supporting efforts to build indices for stock markets that includes companies with sustainable business practices.

China also blazes the trail in green finance. The green credit guidelines, issued by the China Banking Regulatory Commission in 2012, is a pioneer example of standards that promote loans to more climate-friendly projects.

Moreover, China is a leader in green bond issuances. Lessons learned by China and others can be shared through international platforms, such as the United Nations, to find synergies and strengthen policy frameworks.

At this time when greater global cooperation is needed, the multilateral system is under stress because of a backlash against globalization in some parts of the world. Initiatives like Belt and Road can and should demonstrate the positive power of global cooperation.

It can help reshape both national and international financial systems in line with sustainable development. If we fail to do so, we will fail to deliver sustainable development for all. The very future of our planet is at stake.

The post Future of Our Planet Requires Deeper Cooperation, Long-term Thinking appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

LIU Zhenmin is Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations

The post Future of Our Planet Requires Deeper Cooperation, Long-term Thinking appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Muthoki Mumo
NAIROBI, May 2 2019 (IPS)

Speaking in parliament recently, Tanzania’s information minister, Harrison Mwakyembe, wondered why people were still concerned about the whereabouts of Azory Gwanda, a freelance journalist who went missing in November 2017 in the country’s Coast Region.

After all, he was reported saying, many other people, some of them government officials, have gone missing in the same region of Tanzania. So why should Gwanda be the “golden” one about whom people ask?

These statements were not as shocking as they should have been. They fit an unfortunate pattern of non-answers and dismissals from Tanzanian government officials when confronted with the question: Where is Azory Gwanda?

But this question is urgent, because Gwanda’s story reflects how drastically press conditions have deteriorated in Tanzania under the presidency of John Pombe Magufuli. This World Press Freedom Day, Tanzanian journalists have less to celebrate and more to fear.

Muthoki Mumo, Sub-Saharan Africa representative, Committee to Protect Journalists

One of the last people to see Gwanda, whose work appeared in the sister newspapers Mwananchi and The Citizen, was his wife Anna Pinoni. She described the suspicious circumstances in which he disappeared, saying that he came to their farm in the company of unknown men in a white landcruiser.

Gwanda asked her where she had left the keys to their home and said he was taking an emergency trip, and would be back within a day. She later found their home ransacked and on November 23, 2017, she reported him missing to police.

Despite these obviously suspicious circumstances; pleas for answers from the local Tanzanian media community and international civil society; and even a July 2018 letter from UN Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, there have been no demonstrably credible investigations  into this case. Initial promises to investigate have not been fulfilled.

When asked about Gwanda in July 2018, Home Affairs Minister Kangi Lugola told journalists that authorities “don’t interfere in the freedom of an individual that gets lost while at his home.” After backlash he later walked back his comments but suggested Gwanda may have run away.

Lugola’s predecessor at the Home Affairs ministry, Mwigulu Nchemba, had in January 2018 warned that members of the public should “shut up” about disappearances unless they had evidence to offer police.

Before his disappearance Gwanda chronicled mysterious killings and abductions in his community, including of police and local government officials. Pinoni in 2017 told Mwananchi that she thought his reporting might be linked to his disappearance.

Gwanda’s reporting asked precisely the questions that Mwakyembe, in parliament in April, claimed we all ought to be asking. His disappearance denied the public crucial information about these incidents.

The failure to investigate this case sends a grave message about how much the government values the safety of Tanzanians who now ask themselves if they will face a similar fate by asking the “wrong” questions.

Magufuli, who styled himself as an enemy of corruption and government excess when he took over in 2015, has since also proven himself an enemy of the press and of free expression.

Last year CPJ documented the case of journalist Sitta Tumma, who was arrested while reporting an opposition demonstration and held overnight. Authorities later claimed, ludicrously, that they did not know he was a journalist because he was not wearing the appropriate uniform.

Since 2017, at least five newspapers have been banned, on specious allegations, from false news, to inciting violence and sedition. Almost always such bans are targeted at outlets that challenge the official narrative of a government that seems keen to set itself as arbiter of truth.

The Citizen newspaper was this year banned for a week, after it reported the weakening of the local currency and the state of Tanzanian democracy, without deferring to official sources. Five television stations were in January 2018 fined for covering a report by a non-governmental organisation on alleged human rights abuses during 2017 by-elections.

In 2016 popular live parliamentary broadcasts were halted, ostensibly due to cost cuts. The impact is that citizens can no longer as easily observe the processes of their democracy.

The repression has been codified into law.

The Statistics Act checks the extent to which journalists, academics, and even private citizens can question official government data. The Cyber Crime Act has been used to legally harass and exert pressure on one media outlet to reveal whistleblowers. Blogging has become an unreasonably expensive affair ever since the government imposed new content regulations last year.

Azory Gwanda’s story reflects how drastically press conditions have deteriorated in Tanzania under the presidency of John Pombe Magufuli. This World Press Freedom Day, Tanzanian journalists have less to celebrate and more to fear.
Credit: Erick Kabendera/IPS

The Media Services Act of 2016 restricts the content of news on vague and imprecise grounds and also seeks to license journalists. The East Africa Court of Justice (EACJ) in March directed Tanzania’s government to amend the law. In meetings with the International Press Institute (IPI) and the Tanzania Editors’ Forum (TEF)  in April, Mwakyembe, the information minister, said the government was open to reconsidering the law— a glimmer of hope.

Local elections are planned in Tanzania later this year and presidential elections are slated for next year. If there is anything to learn from recent elections in  other countries, it is that elections tend to be periods of heightened risk and repression for journalists.

Therefore now is the time to ask after the wellbeing of not just Azory Gwanda, but all Tanzanian journalists. This is why we at the Committee to Protect Journalists recently launched a #WhereIsAzory? campaign to tell his story and call for answers.

The power of such international solidarity should not be underestimated.

I and a colleague of mine, Angela Quintal, experienced this power first hand last year when we were detained overnight in the country by government agents and interrogated about why we were there, including our interest in Azory Gwanda. The outpouring of support from within Tanzania and beyond, we believe, was instrumental in our safe release. 

*Muthoki Mumo is the Sub-Saharan Africa representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists

Related Articles

• When Being ‘Offensive’ or ‘Morally Improper’ Online Carries an Indeterminate Jail Sentence in East Africa
• Bleak Outlook for Press Freedom in West Africa

The post On World Press Freedom Day, Let us Ask: #WhereIsAzory? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

This is part of a series of features and op-eds to mark World Press Freedom Day on May 3.

The post On World Press Freedom Day, Let us Ask: #WhereIsAzory? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Geneva Centre
BAKU, AZERBAIJAN, May 2 2019 (IPS-Partners)

In relation to the participation of the Geneva Centre at the Fifth World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue, the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre Ambassador Idriss Jazairy participated in several high-level meetings in Azerbaijan.

The aim of these meetings was to enhance the Centre’s collaboration with civil society organizations and national human rights commissions in Azerbaijan in the field of interfaith dialogue and the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperative relations between societies in the Global North and the Global South.

In the meeting with the Executive Secretary of the National Commission for UNESCO, Ambassador Elnur Sultanov, Ambassador Jazairy informed the latter about the outcome of the 25 June 2018 World Conference on religions and equal citizenship rights.

Ambassador Jazairy mentioned that the World Conference was inspired by the endeavours of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan HE Ilham Aliyev to initiatie the Baku Process that aims to enhance mutual understanding and respect between individuals and groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds.

The World Conference – they said – had been a timely opportunity to promote intercultural and inter-faith dialogue among international experts, opinion makers, religious, lay and government leaders in times when religion has been considered as a source of division.

In light of this discussion, the participants highlighted the need to capitalize on the momentum of the World Conference and to examine inventive ways to carry the process forward to harness the collective energy of religions, creeds and value systems in the pursuit of equal citizenship rights.

The participants agreed that with the rise of populism in advanced societies and violent extremism in the MENA region, the promotion of religious tolerance and peaceful cooperation between world societies is needed more than ever. In this connection, Ambassador Sultanov cited the Constitution of UNESCO which says: “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

In this connection, both parties agreed to pursue joint activities to enhance inter-faith dialogue and inter-cultural understanding through the holding of conferences at the United Nations Office in Geneva and in Azerbaijan. Ambassador Sultanov and Ambassador Jazairy likewise expressed their readiness to conduct joint research studies on religious tolerance and multiculturalism in Europe.

Addressing the surge of Islamophobia in Europe

In a second meeting held in Baku, Ambassador Jazairy was welcomed by the Chairman of the State Committee on Religious Associations Mr Mubariz Gurbanli. Ambassador Jazairy used the opportunity to inform Mr Gurbanli about the endeavours of the Centre to promote and enhance the protection of human rights in the Arab region.

Both parties agreed that the rise of Islamophobia has given rise to anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments in advanced societies in the West. Mr Gurbanli highlighted that the State Committee on Religious Associations had organized several high-level inter-faith meetings, similar to that of the 25 June World Conference, in Finland, Germany and Sweden between religious leaders of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

The outcome of these meetings, Mr Gurbanli, highlighted, had enabled religious bodies of these faiths to come together so as to build understanding and harmony as well as to address issues related to Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-Semitism that prevail in societies whether in Europe or in the Middle East.

In this relation, Ambassador Jazairy used the opportunity to present the 10-point World Conference Outcome Declaration on “Moving Towards Greater Spiritual Convergence Worldwide in Support of Equal Citizenship Rights” and the latter’s follow-up actions.

The said declaration, Ambassador Jazairy, appeals to decision makers to harness the collective energy of religions, creeds and value systems in the pursuit of equal citizenship rights. The Geneva Centre’s Executive Director mentioned that there is 90% convergence between faiths and 10% specificity. In the current context, media and decision makers tend to focus on the 10% that divides societies which have given rise to a toxic narrative about the other.

To reverse this ominous trend, Ambassador Jazairy mentioned the importance of promoting equal citizenship rights so as to avoid that social segments of society fall back on sub-identities to achieve their human rights. The Geneva Centre’s Executive Director also noted that secularity includes diversity while secularism works to exclude faith-based groups.

In light of this discussion, both parties agreed to organize joint conferences on inter-faith dialogue in the future and to conduct further research on points of commonalities of religions, creeds and value systems in the pursuit of joint values. Mr Gurbanli used the occasion to invite Ambassador Jazairy to participate in a major inter-religious forum in Vienna in June this year.

Signing of MoU with the International Eurasia Press Fund

In the presence of national MPs of the Parliament of Azerbaijan, members of national human rights commissions, diplomatic community, civil society organizations and media representatives, the Geneva Centre signed an MoU with the International Eurasia Press Fund.

The MoU lays the foundation for a collaborative partnership between both organizations in the holding of joint panel debates at the United Nations Office in Geneva on issues related to global governance, the promotion of human rights of IDPs as well as the promotion of cooperative relations between people and societies.

The agreement also commits the parties to arrange and organize joint training programmes in relation to the promotion of human rights, peace and sustainable development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as well as in Azerbaijan.

During the meeting, the President of the International Eurasia Press Fund Mr Umud Mirzayev expressed his appreciation for the endeavours of the Centre to promote a value driven human rights system.

The Charge d’Affaires at the Embassy of the Swiss Confederation in Azerbaijan Ms Simone Haeberli likewise praised the endeavours of the Centre to promote inter-cultural understanding around the world and stated that she was proud that Switzerland had hosted the 25 June World Conference on religions and equal citizenship rights.

Ambassador Jazairy thanked Mr Mirzayev and Ms Haeberli for the hospitality expressed to the Centre during the signing ceremony and extended his appreciation to the MPs of the Parliament of Azerbaijan that attended the signing ceremony and expressed their support to the work of the Centre.

Italian Islamic Religious Community to cooperate with the Geneva Centre to promote inter-religious understanding

During a meeting with the Chairman of the Italian Islamic Religious Community Mr Yahya Pallavicini, and the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre, the parties expressed their commitment to pursue joint activities to promote inter-religious understanding in Europe between faith leaders and religious followers at grassroot level.

Mr Pallavicini mentioned he had taken note of the outcome of the World Conference and its Outcome Declaration and used the opportunity to invite Ambassador Jazairy to present the ten-point declaration during a public hearing at the Italian Parliament.

The Geneva Centre’s Executive Director accepted this proposal and expressed his readiness to meet with the President of the Italian Islamic Religious Community. Both parties agreed to sign a partnership agreement to formalize their cooperation in the near future.

The post Fifth World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue: Geneva Centre announces strategic partnerships with civil society organizations and national human rights commissions in Azerbaijan appeared first on Inter Press Service.

A young boy in Pakistan receives an oral polio vaccine (OPV). Over the last 30 years huge progress has been made against polio and it is now only endemic in 2 countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, with only 33 cases confirmed cases last year. Credit: Ashfaq Yusufzai/IPS

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 2019 (IPS)

Since the introduction of vaccines, diseases such as measles and polio were quickly becoming a thing of the past. However, the world’s progress on immunisation is now being threatened.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 85 percent of the world’s children received basic vaccines, including the measles and diptheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccines, which can protect them from infectious diseases that cause serious illness and even death.

In fact, measles immunisation resulted in an 80 percent drop in measles-related deaths between 2000 and 2017 worldwide.

Still, access to vaccines remain elusive for many out-of-reach communities.

In 2017, an estimated 20 million infants did not receive the DTP vaccine, 60 percent of whom live in just 10 countries, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, and Nigeria.

A rising anti-vaccination movement is also threatening to dismantle progress.

In the United States, there are now more than 700 cases of measles across 22 states making it the highest figures the country has seen since 2000.

The phenomenon has prompted some states to not only make immunisation mandatory, but also to ban unvaccinated children from public spaces.

To mark World Immunisation Week, held during the last week of April, IPS spoke to WHO’s Coordinator of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation Dr. Ann Lindstrand on the challenges of immunisation and the way forward. Excerpts of the interview follow:

World Health Organisation’s Coordinator of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation Dr. Ann Lindstrand.

Inter Press Service (IPS): How is the overall global picture regarding immunisation, and why does immunisation matter? 

AL: Immunisation matters because it is one of the most effective health interventions that we have, and it has saved millions of lives. I don’t think there is any other health intervention that works that well, with such high coverage, worldwide.

Just looking back at what we have gained from immunisation—back in 1963 when we didn’t have any vaccine for measles, there were about 2.6 million deaths every year due to measles. Now, that figure has reduced by 95 percent. The last figures we have are from 2017 with an estimated 110,000 deaths—so there has been a tremendous health gain.

Same with polio—30 years ago, we had widespread polio crippling people but now its only endemic in two countries Afghanistan and Pakistan with only 33 cases confirmed cases last year.

Now the newer vaccines like HPV [human papillomavirus] will help us reduce numbers of cervical cancers and new vaccines on the horizon like the Ebola vaccine which is used in outbreaks in Africa right now has really played a critical role in stopping the spread of the current outbreak in the DRC.

Just this month, the first ever malaria vaccine is being piloted in routine immunisation programs in three countries.

We still need to reach more. We still need to reach the last 15 percent and we need to close equity gaps to reach those furthest away.

IPS: WHO and others have pointed to the anti-vaccination movement as one of the biggest health threats in the world. How concerning is the move away from vaccinations, and what does this mean for people around the world? Is this a new challenge for WHO? 

AL: It is an area of concern, yes.

But it is not the global picture. We do not have the data to say that hesitancy has increased but we have seen that with social media and the internet, misinformation is spread more widely and easily.

That’s something we are really worried about. In some areas, there is a resurgence of disease because of unacceptably low coverage rates or that people are refusing vaccines.

We need to see this in a historic perspective. Anti-vaccine messages have been around for just as long as vaccines have been around—these things come and they go.

But it worries us and we need to be right there to tackle to spread of vaccine misinformation. It is really important to put out the right messages.

I work as a paediatrician and I have talked to a lot of parents who have had these concerns and it takes a lot of effort.

At the heart of it, it is really the health worker who is sitting there with the [parent] who have concerns or have heard something on the internet or media, and they need to be able to respond to their questions and to listen and respect the concerns of parents.

And that those health workers actually have the capacity and time to respond, both with the social ability to listen to the parents’ real concerns and also provide the scientific evidence.

There is a lot of work in training healthcare workers which is ongoing and we need to keep doing that. We need to equip healthcare workers with the right methods, words, scientific evidence to reassure parents.

The bigger picture for us to improve health is for children everywhere to get vaccinated on time and every time. We need to increase access so that vaccine services are made convenient and welcoming so people want to go there, that we are good at putting out credible information from the beginning including what are the facts, what is the evidence.

IPS: Some U.S. states are enacting mandatory immunisation laws or even barring those who have not received vaccines from certain public spaces. Do you agree with these steps, or does more need to be done? 

AL: The only disease where WHO actually recommends mandatory proof of vaccination applies to yellow fever and for international travellers in certain countries.

Beyond that, it is up to every country to make decisions based on existing disease epidemiology, their laws and regulations, and if it is the best way to go.

Many countries have achieved high immunisation coverage without mandatory immunisation.

It is a complex area—how do you sanction parents? How far do you go to enforce laws when they are in place?

That is a conversation that every country needs to have before even considering any of the mandatory vaccinations.

I think it is important to encourage countries to invest in and protect their individuals and communities from vaccine-preventable diseases and then remove barriers—have few access barriers when it comes to cost and convenience.

Make it simple and easy. Make the choice of vaccines the social norm.

IPS: In light of World Immunisation Week, what is your message for people around the world regarding the importance of immunisation?  

AL: Immunisation is a fantastic health intervention. It is a right for all children, and it is also a shared responsibility.

As we have seen with the recent outbreaks, no country and no individual can afford to be complacent about vaccines. It is important that we look at not just putting out fires or responding to outbreaks after they have happened—that’s expensive, ineffective and it costs lives.

What is more important is to have sustainable prevention, thinking and ensuring that everyone everywhere is vaccinated at the right time with the right vaccines and throughout their life course.

It also important to see that vaccines is not just for saving lives, it helps children to learn, grow, keep them in school instead of sick, avert disabilities and long-term consequences. It reduces the health care costs for a country, and protects families and communities from sliding into poverty.

There is no debate to have on the benefit or the risk between vaccines and the vaccine-preventable diseases.

We need to continue to protect people also in the future, and we really need to invest in trust in vaccines and in our healthcare system.

Related Articles

• Doctors Resist Deadly Vaccine
• Taliban Ban Has Crippling Effects on Children
• ‘Antimicrobial Resistance Knows No Boundaries’

The post Opting In: The Value of Vaccines appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

IPS correspondent Tharanga Yakupitiyage speaks to WHO’s Coordinator of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation DR. ANN LINDSTRAND on the challenges of immunisation and the way forward.

The post Opting In: The Value of Vaccines appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 2019 (IPS)

The United Nations has estimated a hefty $466 billion as remittances from migrant workers worldwide in 2017—and perhaps even higher last year.

These remittances, primarily from the US, Western Europe and Gulf nations, go largely to low and middle-income countries, “helping to lift millions of families out of poverty,” says UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

But most of these migrant workers are known to pay a heavy price, toiling mostly under conditions of slave labour: earning low wages, with no pensions or social security, and minimum health care.

As the United Nations commemorated Labour Day on May 1, the plight of migrant workers is one of the issues being pursued by the Geneva-based International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency which celebrates its centenary this year promoting social justice worldwide.

In a December 2018 report, the ILO said: “If the right policies are in place, labour migration can help countries respond to shifts in labour supply and demand, stimulate innovation and sustainable development, and transfer and update skills”.

However, a lack of international standards regarding concepts, definitions and methodologies for measuring labour migration data still needs to be addressed, it warned.

But much more daunting is the current state of the migrant labour market which has been riddled with blatant violations of all the norms of an ideal workplace.

Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam, a member of the UN Committee on Migrant Workers, told IPS rising populist nationalism world over is giving rise to rhetoric with unfounded allegations and irrational assessments of the worth of migrant workers to economies of many migrant receiving countries in the world.

Since migrant workers remain voiceless without voting or political rights in many such receiving countries, they are unable to mobilize political opinion to counter assertions against them, he said.

“And migrant workers are now being treated in some countries as commodities for import and export at will, not as humans with rights and responsibilities,” said Ambassador Kariyawasam, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.

Unless these trends are reversed soon, he warned, not only human worth as a whole will diminish, but it can also lead to unexpected social upheavals affecting economic and social well-being of some communities in both sending and receiving countries of migrant workers.

At a UN press conference April 10, ILO Director-General Guy Ryder said the ILO Centenary is a time to affirm with conviction that the mandate and standards set by the Organization remain of extraordinary importance and relevance to people everywhere.

He called for a future where labour is not a commodity, where decent work and the contribution of each person are valued, where all benefit from fair, safe and respectful workplaces free from violence and harassment, and in which wealth and prosperity benefit all.

Tara Carey, Senior Content & Media Relations Manager at Equality Now told IPS poverty and poor employment opportunities are a push factor for sex trafficking.

There are many cases in which women and girls in African countries are promised legitimate work and are then trafficked into prostitution. This happens within countries, across borders, and from Africa to places in Europe and the Middle East, she pointed out.

And recently, the police in Nigeria estimated 20,000 women and girls had been sold into sexual slavery in Mali:

“The new trend is that they told them they were taking them to Malaysia and they found themselves in Mali. They told them they would be working in five-star restaurants where they would be paid $700 per month.”

The number of migrants is estimated at over 240 million worldwide. And an increasingly large number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), are home to most migrant workers from Asia.

In a background briefing during a high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly in April, the ILO said conditions of work need to be improved for the roughly 300 million working poor – outside of migrant labour — who live on $1.90 a day.

Millions of men, women and children are victims of modern slavery. Too many still work excessively long hours and millions still die of work-related accidents every year.

“Wage growth has not kept pace with productivity growth and the share of national income going to workers has declined. Inequalities remain persistent around the world. Women continue to earn around 20 per cent less than men.”

“Even as growth has lessened inequality between countries, many of our societies are becoming more unequal. Millions of workers remain disenfranchised, deprived of fundamental rights and unable to make their voices heard”, according to the background briefing.

In its 2018 review of Human Rights in the Middle East & North Africa, the London-based Amnesty International (AI) said there were some positive developments at a legislative level in Morocco, Qatar and the UAE with respect to migrant labour and/or domestic workers.

But still migrant workers continued to face exploitation in these and other countries, including Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Saudi Arabia, in large part due to kafala (sponsorship) systems, which limited their ability to escape abusive working conditions.

In Morocco, the parliament passed a new law on domestic workers, entitling domestic workers to written contracts, maximum working hours, guaranteed days off, paid vacations and a specified minimum wage.

Despite these gains, the new law still offered less protection to domestic workers than the Moroccan Labour Code, which does not refer to domestic workers, AI said.

In Qatar, a new law partially removed the exit permit requirement, allowing the vast majority of migrant workers covered by the Labour Law to leave the country without seeking their employers’ permission.

However, the law retained some exceptions, including the ability of employers to request exit permits for up to 5% of their workforce. Exit permits were still required for employees who fell outside the remit of the Labour Law, including over 174,000 domestic workers in Qatar and all those working in government entities.

In the UAE, the authorities introduced several labour reforms likely to be of particular benefit to migrant workers, including a decision to allow some workers to work for multiple employers, tighter regulation of recruitment processes for domestic workers and a new low-cost insurance policy that protected private sector employees’ workplace benefits in the event of job loss, redundancy or an employer’s bankruptcy, according to AI.

Meanwhile, as the ILO pointed out in a report in May 2017, current sponsorship regimes in the Middle East have been criticized for creating an asymmetrical power relationship between employers and migrant workers – which can make workers vulnerable to forced labour.

Essential to the vulnerability of migrant workers in the Middle East is that their sponsor controls a number of aspects related to their internal labour market mobility – including their entry, renewal of stay, termination of employment, transfer of employment, and, in some cases, exit from the country, the report noted.

Such arrangements place a high responsibility – and often a burden – on employers. To address these concerns, alternative modalities can be pursued which place the role of regulation and protection more clearly with the government.

This report demonstrates that reform to the current sponsorship arrangements that govern temporary labour migration in the Middle East will have wide-ranging benefits – from improving working conditions and better meeting the needs of employers, to boosting the economy and labour market productivity.

Meanwhile, in its ”Century Ratification Campaign”, ILO has invited its 187 member States to ratify at least one international labour Convention in the course of 2019, with a commitment to apply a set of standards governing one aspect of decent work to all men and women, along with one political commitment supporting sustainable development for all.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

The post Are Migrant Workers Humans or Commodities? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed speaks during a press conference in Addis Ababa, in August 2018. Since Abiy's election, conditions for Ethiopia's journalists have improved, but some challenges remain. (AFP/Michael Tewelde)

By Muthoki Mumo
ADDIS ABABA, Apr 30 2019 (IPS-Partners)

(CPJ) – During a trip to Addis Ababa in January, it was impossible to miss the signs that Ethiopian media are enjoying unprecedented freedom. A flurry of new publications were on the streets. At a public forum that CPJ attended, journalists spoke about positive reforms, but also openly criticized their lack of access to the government. At a press conference, journalists from state media and the Oromia Media Network, an outlet previously banned and accused of terrorism, sat side by side.

Mesud Gebeyehu, a lawyer who heads the Consortium of Ethiopian Rights Organizations, an alliance of human rights groups, told CPJ he had been on television “many times” in the past year to speak about human rights, an issue that was previously taboo for the media.

Ethiopia, which was one of the most-censored countries in the world and one of the worst jailers of journalists in sub-Saharan Africa, has gone through dramatic reforms under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who took office last April. In 2018–for the first time in 14 years–CPJ recorded no journalists behind bars in its annual census. And the country ended its block of over 260 websites and ban on media outlets forced to work in exile.

“I was fighting for [press freedom], but I did not expect it to happen in such a short time,” said Abel Wabella, a journalist who was detained and charged with terrorism under the previous government.

In May, Ethiopia will host UNESCO’s annual World Press Freedom Day: a reflection, UNESCO said, of the country’s commitment to democratic and media reforms.

Though the Ethiopian press is much freer today than before Abiy took power, CPJ spoke to over a dozen journalists and rights defenders who said that challenges remain, including the risk of attack and arrest, especially in restive regions; attracting advertisers in a market where businesses are wary of being seen to support critical publications; accusations of sowing divisiveness; and a proposed law that could curtail their newly found freedoms.

CPJ also attempted to reach the government for comment on conditions for the press. The Prime Minister’s press secretary, Billene Seyoum, acknowledged receipt but did not respond to CPJ’s emailed questions sent on April 24.

Perhaps most fundamentally, journalists told CPJ they are anxious for the freedoms they are enjoying to be rooted in law, rather than guaranteed only by the good will of the Abiy government.

The reforms “are not legally nor institutionally guaranteed until now. They are so because the leaders on top are willing, but neither their willingness nor their hold on power is permanent,” Befekadu Hailu, a journalist and social activist who edits the Addis Maleda weekly, told CPJ.

A council established under the attorney general’s office is reviewing a raft of laws including those previously used to restrict the press, such as the anti-terror proclamation and the mass media law, according to media reports.

Most of the journalists with whom CPJ spoke with said they were happy with the reform process, which included public consultations. Befekadu said he believes those involved are “independent.” Jawar Mohammed, executive director of the Oromia Media Network, said that those involved could move faster and communicate more frequently and clearly with the public.

However, a proposed law on hate speech is splitting opinion.

The government last year said it would draft the law in response to concern about toxic rhetoric online that some say amounts to incitement to violence or has the potential to exacerbate divisions, largely along ethnic lines, according to reports. The government has previously responded to tension by cutting off access to the internet. CPJ documented two such shutdowns under Abiy’s government, during unrest in Addis Ababa in September and in the Somali region during a crisis in August.

Yared Hailemariam, the executive director of the Swiss-based Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia, told CPJ said that the media stand accused of “aggravating” tension. “It is a reflection of the political situation in the country, tension is high,” he said.

Most of those who spoke with CPJ said they felt there was a need for Ethiopian media to grow into “professionalism” and to act more “ethically” and “responsibly” within the newly opened space. But even so, some, like Befekadu, said they feared the hate speech law could have a “chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

“They want to give the government more power to regulate speech. Given the divisiveness in the country, it is understandable. But we need to be careful… we should not allow government to pass legislation which gives them reason to take down content they don’t like,” said Endalk Chala, assistant professor at Hamline University in Minnesota, who has studied Ethiopian media.

A copy of the draft law, viewed by CPJ, includes criminal penalties for hate speech and publishing “false news.” The privately owned Addis Fortune warned in an April 13 article that the draft law would not be a “golden bullet … to contain hate speech” and raised concerns that it harks back to laws Ethiopia previously used to suppress critical speech.

Eskinder Nega, who launched the weekly Ethiopis last year, months after he was freed from almost seven years in prison, said that ideas ought to be allowed to flourish, hate will be “filtered out”. Jawar said it was “dangerous” to invite government regulation of speech, suggesting instead a peer regulatory mechanism for the media.

Jawar and Eskinder are among the prominent media personalities whose work has been criticized for inflaming tensions, according to media reports.

Both strongly refuted these views. Jawar said that a strong political and advocacy position was being conflated with divisive speech. Eskinder said that while he has strong opinions, he has never advocated for violence. In a follow up email exchange on April 26, Eskinder told CPJ that the allegations of divisiveness were part of a “manufactured debate” and based on a misinterpretation of his work.

For the new papers that have mushroomed in Addis Ababa, financial concerns are urgent.

Abel can attest to that– he established the weekly Addis Zeybe in October, only for the paper to go out of print after four editions following financial pressures and distribution challenges.

Abel told CPJ that publications have a hard time attracting advertisers, whom he said can be shy of being associated with critical publications. This was a sentiment echoed by Jawar, who recently established a magazine, Gulale Post.

“Businesses are cautious. This is a popular government so they don’t want to be seen as being anti-government,” said Eskinder.

The government has also not been very open to the media, with Abiy hosting only a couple of press conferences with local journalists since he came to power, according to media reports and two of the journalists with whom CPJ spoke.

Journalists in Ethiopia also still face the risk of attack. CPJ has documented how mobs attacked a crew from the state-run Dire Dawa Mass Media Agency, in Meiso, in the Oromia region in July, in an incident that killed their driver, and how two journalists with the privately owned Mereja TV were briefly detained by police in Legetafo, in the same region, and assaulted by a mob upon their release in March. The regional government made initial promises to investigate, but Mereja TV chief executive Elias Kifle told CPJ in April that authorities had not investigated the crime.

Oromia government spokesperson Admasu Damtew did not answer CPJ’s phone calls or text messages on April 24 and April 27.

“They [have fulfilled] their obligation of respecting human rights, but the Abiy administration also has to protect people, to protect journalists, to protect human rights organizations from being attacked,” Yared, from the Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia, told CPJ.

The Economist reported last month that reform under Abiy “is not the first blossoming of free media,” pointing to how liberalization in the 1990s was followed by crackdowns in the 2000s. When CPJ asked Befekadu if he thought this current era of freedom would last he said, “I cannot say yes or no. But there is equal chance for the change to regress as it can progress. It needs collective effort of the media, civil society, and government to save it from falling into the vicious cycle.”

[Reporting from Addis Ababa and Nairobi.]

________________________________________
Muthoki Mumo is CPJ’s Sub-Saharan Africa representative. She is based in Nairobi, Kenya, and has a master’s in journalism and globalization from the University of Hamburg.

The post Under Abiy, Ethiopia’s media have more freedom but challenges remain appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Muthoki Mumo is CPJ Sub-Saharan Africa Representative

The post Under Abiy, Ethiopia’s media have more freedom but challenges remain appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Factory workers make sportswear for a U.S. brand at a maquila plant in El Salvador. Credit: Edgar Romero/IPS

By Nisha Varia
NEW YORK, Apr 30 2019 (IPS)

I have been working to protect the rights of women workers for 25 years, and whether I speak to domestic workers, election workers, farmers, or activists, their experience of sexual harassment and violence has been a common thread. The other commonality? The almost complete absence of redress in any of those cases, spanning Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the United States.

This May Day, workers around the world are continuing the fight to be free from sexual violence and harassment. From multiple allegations against MJ Akbar, a veteran journalist and senior politician in India, to pending legislation in Texas, the #MeToo and #Time’sUp movements continue to expose the ubiquity of sexual harassment and drive public debate, scrutiny of workplace protections, and legal reform.

Discriminatory social norms and major legal gaps enable sexual violence and harassment at the workplace. A 2018 World Bank report found that 59 out of 189 economies had no specific legal provisions providing protection from sexual harassment in employment.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) found that when laws do exist, they often exclude categories of workers most exposed to abuse, for example, domestic workers, and have an overly narrow definition of “workplace.”

In other cases, legislation imposes criminal penalties for the worst forms of violence, but neglects preventive measures or remedies for the wide spectrum of abuse that can make a workplace hostile.

Nisha Varia

When the #MeToo hashtag exploded in October 2017, Facebook reported more than 12 million posts, comments, and reactions in 24 hours. Since then, women and girls in countries including France, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have  come forward with personal stories.

Public attention has primarily focused on allegations against famous figures in politics and the media. But workers, activists, and donors have rallied around supporting workers out of the limelight, especially those in low-wage, women-dominated sectors where power dynamics can be especially distorted, sexual harassment may be rampant, and redress can feel—and be—out of reach.

This mobilization has spurred many businesses and governments to consider or introduce change. There is also an exciting initiative to create international legal standards on workplace violence and harassment.

In June, labor ministers and other government officials from countries around the world, national and international trade unions, and employers’ associations  will convene in Geneva to negotiate and finalize new standards on workplace harassment and violence.

Real change is within reach with the groundswell of public outrage and mobilization, media scrutiny, high-profile champions, potential alliances across diverse movements, and extensive evidence. If harnessed, these elements can translate into new international standards, ratifications, national law reform, implementation campaigns, and pressure on companies to adopt workplace policies to prevent and respond to harassment.

This tripartite process will hopefully conclude with the ILO adopting a “Convention Concerning the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work”— a legally binding international treaty that will be  a powerful norm setter for countries that ratify it and even those that don’t.

The proposed treaty, and an accompanying, non-binding recommendation, would provide clear and specific guidance on the steps governments should take to protect workers from harassment and violence. It will integrate the role of anti-discrimination laws, labor laws, occupational safety and health laws, and other civil laws in protecting workers from sexual violence and harassment.

Civil laws can ensure prevention, monitoring, and remedies, to complement criminal law provisions that impose punishment for severe forms of workplace abuse.

The ILO negotiations are also thrashing out contentious issues that governments, workers, and businesses have grappled with at national and local levels, such as how a workplace is defined, who is a worker, what protection should look like, and how far responsibilities extend.

This includes the rights of workers in the informal sector, and the scope of employers’ responsibility, for example toward job-seekers and current employees  sexually harassed on their commutes. Another discussion has been what type of protections should be extended to domestic violence victims who might be stalked at work by their abuser or need time off to pursue legal redress.

Will yet another international treaty actually make a difference?

Not overnight.

But real change is within reach with the groundswell of public outrage and mobilization, media scrutiny, high-profile champions, potential alliances across diverse movements, and  extensive evidence.

If harnessed, these elements can translate into new international standards, ratifications, national law reform, implementation campaigns, and pressure on companies to adopt workplace policies to prevent and respond to harassment.

This type of change has happened before. Advocacy by domestic workers’ groups and labor unions around the 2011 ILO Domestic Workers Convention bolstered national campaigns and has helped spur reforms in dozens of countries—even among those that have not yet ratified the convention.

This has included new labor laws on domestic work in Argentina, Chile, Qatar, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates, incremental reforms in Bahrain, India, and the United States, and collective bargaining agreements in Italy and Uruguay. While exploitation of domestic workers remains a widespread and entrenched problem, significant and groundbreaking advances have taken place in the past eight years.

This could be the year that longstanding women’s rights and labor rights activism, along with the energy of the #MeToo movement, translates into new rights for workers under international law and a major global push to enforce those rights. The ILO negotiations deserve the same attention and enthusiastic support as the brave survivors of abuse who continue to speak up all over the world.

The post Rewriting the Rules on #MeToo Globally appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Nisha Varia is the women’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.

The post Rewriting the Rules on #MeToo Globally appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Felicienne Soton is part of a women's group that produces gari (cassawa flour). She and her group in Adjegounle village have greatly benefited from Benin's national CDD project. (Photo: Arne Hoel).

By Issa Sikiti da Silva
COTONOU, Benin, Apr 30 2019 (IPS)

Théophile Houssou, a maize farmer from Cotonou, has spent sleepless nights lying awake worrying about the various disasters that could befall any farmer, often wondering, “What if it rains heavily and all my crops are washed away?” or “What if the armyworms invade my farm and eat up all the crops and I’m left with nothing?”

Maize crops in Benin, like in at least 28 other African countries, are being threatened by the Fall Armyworm (FAW), an invasive crop pest that feeds on 80 different crop species. Houssou is thankful to have missed an infestation and gives thanks to “God for the good season, but it was not easy,” he tells IPS.

Maize production in Benin reached a record 1.6 million tons during the 2017-2018 season, compared to 1.2 million tons two years ago, according to the ministry of agriculture’s figures.

In downtown Cotonou, the country’s commercial capital, five men are busy loading pineapples onto a 10-ton truck, while four more heavy vehicles wait to be loaded. The produce will be taken to several countries in the region, including Nigeria, which receives 80 percent of all Benin’s exports. Benin is Africa’s fourth-largest pineapple exporter, producing between 400,000 and 450,000 tons of pineapple annually. Exports to the European Union (EU) increased from 500 tons to 4,000 tons between 2000 and 2014, according to official figures.

Further away, the famous Dantokpa Market is flooded with agricultural products, including red tomatoes, okra, soya beans, mangoes, orange, green pepper, lemon and all sorts of spinaches and fruits. Competition is fierce and the selling price is very low, amid an excellent agricultural season.

Room for improvement
While the agricultural sector here may look lively, it boasts several fault lines.

Despite being mostly a subsistence sector, agriculture contributes about 34 percent to this West African nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Almost 80 percent of Benin’s 11.2 million people earn a living from agriculture, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) says. FAO adds that the country’s farmers face challenges such as include poor infrastructure and flooding, which can wipe out harvests and seed stocks.

In a document titled “Strategic Plan for Agricultural Sector Development (PSDSA) 2025 and National Plan for Agricultural Investments and Food Security and Nutrition (PNIASAN) 2017 -2021”, the Benin government has admitted that the agriculture sector’s revenues and productivity are low, and the labour force is only partially rewarded, making agricultural products less competitive.

“Most farmers have very little use of improved inputs and engage in mining practices that accentuate the degradation of natural resources,” the document states.

“We can do better than this,” Marthe Dossou, a small scale farmer supervising the offloading of thousands of boxes of red tomatoes from a rundown truck, tells IPS. These tomatoes will be exported to Nigeria but Dossou feels that considering the high quality of the harvest, Benin can produce more for export. “If we can be given a helping hand like more resources, including loans, new farming methods and how to master water control techniques,” she says.

Dr Tamo Manuele, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Benin country representative, tells IPS that agricultural innovation “is key to eradicating poverty, hunger and malnutrition, mainly in rural areas where most of the world’s poorest live.”
“Innovation can, first of all, increase small-scale farmers’ productivity and income, and secondly diversify farmers’ income through value chain development; and lastly create more and better opportunities for the rural poor,” he says.

“Farmers or at least actors in agricultural value chains need support for conservation and processing of agricultural commodities. With e-agriculture, farmers can better manage their production and especially be informed of market opportunities. Innovations such as warrantage system [an inventory credit system where farmers instead of selling their produce use it as collateral to get credit from a bank] and group selling can help solving this problem. NGOs and specialised experts in agriculture have to strengthen and support closely farmers,” Manuele urges.

Headquartered in Ibadan, Nigeria, the IITA has been present in Benin since 1985 and it supports national agricultural research and extension services.

“Research is one of the main links leading to innovation. Many studies have reported that communities living near the research centre are more informed, exposed to the innovations and more supervised by scientists. Therefore, their willingness to adopt innovation is very significant. So IITA-Benin is more present on fields through several on-farm-innovation testing managed by scientists,” Manuele says.

IITA launched a jatropha-based biofuel project in 2015 in Benin. This involved the development of a biofuel chain to create profitable and viable small businesses. These women make soap from the jatropha tree. Courtesy: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

Some farmers say they are aware of agricultural technologies, but complain about the lack of promotion of such innovations in the areas where they operate.
Koffi Akpovi Justin, a seasonal farmer, was introduced to the 4R method, where four scientific principles are used to ensure that the soil has the right levels of nutrients for planting.

“Everybody brags about how fertile the African land is…I used to be frustrated and almost gave up on farming because I strongly believed in the natural way of doing things. I would just labour the land, plant seeds (plenty of them) and start the painful process of watering it, and at the end I got mitigated results. But not anymore.”

But Sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s expensive fertiliser market, where small scale  farmers make up about 70 percent of the population. Fertiliser use is an expensive exercise, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where many countries are net importers of fertilisers. “If you will use it, use it carefully because not practicing the 4R method could see some of it spill all over the fields and pollute nearby water resources and groundwater. I experienced it many years ago, but now I’m wiser.”

He adds that many farmers who live in remote areas are unable to access information about agricultural innovation. “Many of them, who operate mostly in very remote places, always say ‘We know that these things exist and we would like to use it but where can we find it?’ Maybe the international organisations, like the UN and the IITA, could do more to make sure that as many farmers as possible get access to agricultural innovations to boost food production and fight hunger.”

Monique Soton is one such farmer. She lives in north-western Benin, about 500 km from Cotonou, the country’s commercial capital.

“We operate in remote areas and there our lives are concentrated only about leaving in the morning to work on the land and come back in the evening. There is no radio, no TV, no electricity. We may miss out on important information about new methods of farming or new developments going on in the sector, like if a census were to be held to determine the number of farmers who need financial support. It’s sad,” the tomato farmer tells IPS.

Another major obstacle facing small scale farmers in Benin is also the lack of market. “The only local market I use to sell my products is Dantokpa in Cotonou. Just imagine the distance from our area [about 500 km from Cotonou] to the commercial capital,” Soton says, adding that there aren’t adequate roads or vehicles to get the produce to the marketplace.
“There were many times the rundown vehicle we were using to transport our products broke down in the middle of a no man’s land at night and that’s very scary.”

Agricultural innovation
The IITA has been reaching out to various communities. In Benin it launched a jatropha-based biofuel project in 2015. This involved the development of a biofuel chain to create profitable and viable small businesses.

“Specifically, it is consolidating the profitability and sustainability of jatropha value chains through a public-private partnership approach that creates jobs for young people, women and men. The project is set up according to the value chain approach including jatropha production, jatropha oil extraction, soap making, grain milling and rural electrification, among others,” Manuele explains.

Since the start of the project some 2,050 producers, including 538 women, have benefitted.

Apart from this jatropha project, the IITA said that it has implemented several other projects that contribute to the food and nutrition security and income improvement of many rural households.

Magic solution?
While innovations in agriculture have proved successful, Dr Jeroen Huising, a soil scientist based in Nigeria, cautions that this is not the ‘magic bullet’ for Benin. “I do not believe in magic solutions and agricultural (innovation) is certainly not magic. The question about the rural poor has little to do with the agricultural innovations. There are economic factors that determine that,” he tells IPS.

“Also, if the ‘innovations’ would increase yield for the smallholder farmers, it would not solve their problems. The production has to do primarily with use of inputs and even then the prices are often too low to make a decent living.”

Soton agrees that economic factors pay a huge role in being a successful smallholder, explaining that “the lack of financial support is a serious problem.”

She says that banks do even consider small holder farmers for loans “because we don’t fulfil not even one of their requirements needed to lend us money. So, we invest our money we get from the tontines [an investment plan] and from selling some of our properties.”

“We have the land but we lack everything from seeds to fertilisers and cash to hire labourers.”

Related Articles

• DRC Farmers in “Schools Without Walls” Learn to Increase Harvest
• Using Climate-Smart Solutions to Promote Peace in South Sudan
• Improving the Lives of Millions of Mothers and Children

The post Benin’s Agriculture Has a Good Season, But it Wasn’t Easy appeared first on Inter Press Service.

National Security Advisor John Bolton (R), listens to President Donald Trump during a briefing from senior military leaders, in the Cabinet Room on April 9, 2018. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

By Daryl G. Kimball
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 30 2019 (IPS)

Smart U.S. leadership is an essential part of the nuclear risk reduction equation. Unfortunately, after more than two years into President Donald Trump’s term in office, his administration has failed to present a credible strategy to reduce the risks posed by the still enormous U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, which comprise more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Instead, Trump has threatened to accelerate and “win” an arms race with nuclear-armed Russia and China as tensions with both states have grown. Trump has shunned a proposal supported by his own Defense and State departments to engage in strategic stability talks with Moscow.

Trump also has ordered the termination of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without a viable plan B, and his national security team has dithered for more than a year on beginning talks with Russia to extend the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) before it expires in February 2021.

Now, the president is dropping hints that he wants some sort of grand, new arms control deal with Russia and China. “Between Russia and China and us, we’re all making hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is ridiculous,” Trump said on April 4 as he hosted Chinese Vice Premier Liu He in the Oval Office.

According to an April 25 report in The Washington Post, Trump formally ordered his team to reach out to Russia and China on options for new arms control agreements. The instructions on Russia apparently call for the pursuit of limits on so-called nonstrategic nuclear weapons, a category of short-range, lower-yield weapons that has never been subject to a formal arms control arrangement.

At first glance, that may sound promising. Bringing other nuclear actors and all types of nuclear weapons into the disarmament process is an important and praiseworthy objective. But this administration has no plan, strategy, or capacity to negotiate such a far-reaching deal. Even if it did, negotiations would likely take years.

China, which is estimated to possess a total of 300 nuclear warheads, has never been party to any agreement that limits the number or types of its nuclear weaponry. Beijing is highly unlikely to engage in any such talks until the United States and Russia significantly cut their far larger arsenals, estimated at 6,500 warheads each.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may be open to broader arms control talks with Trump, but he has a long list of grievances about U.S. policies and weapons systems, particularly the ever-expanding U.S. missile defense architecture. The Trump administration’s 2019 Missile Defense Review report says there can be no limits of any kind on U.S. missile defenses—a nonstarter for Russia.

These realities, combined with the well-documented antipathy of Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, to New START strongly suggest that this new grand-deal gambit does not represent a serious attempt to halt and reverse a global arms race.

It is more likely that Trump and Bolton are scheming to walk away from New START by setting conditions they know to be too difficult to achieve.

With less than two years to go before New START expires, Washington and Moscow need to begin working immediately to reach agreement to extend the treaty by five years. Despite their strained relations, it is in their mutual interest to maintain verifiable caps on their enormous strategic nuclear stockpiles.

Without New START, which limits each side to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, there will be no legally binding limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in nearly five decades.

Extending New START would provide a necessary foundation and additional time for any follow-on deal with Russia that addresses other issues of mutual concern, including nonstrategic nuclear weapons, intermediate-range weapons, and understandings on the location and capabilities of missile defense systems and advanced conventional-strike weapons that each country is developing.

A treaty extension could help put pressure on China to provide more information about its nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles. China also might be more likely to agree to freeze the overall size of its nuclear arsenal or agree to limit a certain class of weapons, such as nuclear-armed cruise missiles, so long as the United States and Russia continue to make progress to reduce their far larger and more capable arsenals.

If in the coming weeks, however, Team Trump suggests China must join New START or that Russia must agree to limits on tactical nuclear weapons as a condition for its extension, that should be recognized as a disingenuous poison pill designed to create a pretext for killing New START.

Before Trump and Bolton try to raise the stakes for nuclear arms control success, they must demonstrate they are committed to working with Russia to extend the most crucial, existing agreement: New START.

The post Trump’s Arms Control Gambit: Serious or a Poison Pill? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Daryl G. Kimball is Executive Director at Arms Control Association

The post Trump’s Arms Control Gambit: Serious or a Poison Pill? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The post “In Venezuela, Union Organising is Illegal” appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Tisaranee Gunasekara
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Apr 30 2019 (IPS)

We have been here before. This blooded precipice is familiar, this looming abyss. What is unfamiliar, what renders the Easter Sunday massacre most vile and truly nightmarish is the total absence of any knowable rationality.

There is no context to this horror, no back-story; it cannot be framed, politically or historically. Other massacres were presaged; this one fell on an unsuspecting people, a killer-bolt on a clear Sunday morning. It is the most heinous and the most incomprehensible act of violence in our violence-ridden history.

Every massacre of innocents leaves behind a heap of questions. The larger why, the philosophical, existential why might be unanswerable, but the smaller whys almost always are.

Whether it was Black July, the Anuradhapura massacre, or any of the civilian bloodletting that came afterwards, there was a discernible path to the outrage paved with a history of real or imagined wrongs.

Not so this massacre of innocents.

That the massacre is the work of an Islamic terror group is now certain, a conclusion made inescapable by the involvement of several suicide bombers. The attacks on the hotels are barbaric, but part of a comprehensible, global pattern. You want to hurt an economy dependent on tourism; you attack places where tourists congregate, from beaches and ancient ruins to hotels.

Not so the targeting of Catholic churches in Sri Lanka. That is where the utter incomprehension stems from. In Sri Lanka, there has been no history of violent animosity between Muslims and Christians/Catholics. Both communities have been targeted by Sinhala-Buddhists on multiple occasions. They were both victims of majoritarian violence, but never responded in kind.

Had the suicide bombers targeted state institutions, places of entertainment, Buddhist temples or even Hindu kovils, it would have made sense in terms of vengeance for a real or imagined wrong.

Why churches? Why only Catholic churches?

Churches have been targeted by Islamic terrorists elsewhere in the world, including Asia; the Surabaya bombings in Indonesia and the Jolo church attacks in the Philippines are cases in point. But every one of those attacks could be placed within a national politico-historical context. There is no such context here in Sri Lanka.

Attacks by a lone gunman or a lone bomber might have been comprehensible, the work of a clinically deranged man. But an operation of this complexity and magnitude, involving the willing and knowing cooperation of hundreds of people, is unfathomable.
The killers, the human bombs, are believed to be Lankan Muslim men.

For any terror organisation, suicide killers would be a valuable possession, something you don’t expend in vain. A suicide killer must be trained and groomed right up to the moment of murder, handled with meticulous care, kept on the pre-prepared path, shielded from every human emotion. Why use such valuable and not easily replaceable weapons on targeting a community that had not done you or your local co-religionists any harm?

Were the churches targets of opportunity? In Sri Lanka, churches (along with mosques and kovils) are relatively unprotected and vulnerable. But so are many other institutions and structures, both secular and religious. Was it to gain maximum publicity – bombing churches on Easter Sunday? That would have been a credible explanation had the authors rushed to claim responsibility.

** But so far, no organisation has claimed responsibility, another unusual occurrence. Generally, after a successful operation, the claim to own it is a race. Terrorists love publicity. That is how they gain new recruits and new resources.

So here we are, in a hell both familiar and unfamiliar. How not to plunge from this to a worse hell is the hardest challenge ahead, much harder than identifying, apprehending and punishing the guilty.

An Unforgivable Failure

There is one haunting truth about the Easter Sunday massacre – with a little more vigilance, it might have been prevented. A section of the security establishment seems to have known that an Islamic terror group was planning to target Catholic churches. According to reports, they even knew the names and other details of some of the attackers, possibly ten days ahead.

The speed with which the first arrests were made gives credence to these reports. Such speed by our police can be explained only by prior-knowledge. Greater the speed, greater the prior-knowledge. And the speed was great, unprecedentedly so.
That begs two critical questions.

Who knew? Why did those in the know do nothing with their knowledge?

If the known attackers had been arrested, the massacre wouldn’t have happened. And it could have been done under normal law. The Defence Secretary is lying if he claims that the information was vague and the absence of emergency regulations was a handicap.

If the churches were informed about their peril, they could have taken some precautions. That certainly didn’t require emergency regulations.

With either of those two measures, three hundred innocent lives could have been saved.

We, as a nation, need to know why those lives were wantonly sacrificed. The SLPP had predictably accused the government of not supporting the intelligence agencies, of persecuting and discouraging them. That is incorrect. The intelligence agencies are not the victims of this story. They received the information, and opted not to do anything with it. That was a severe dereliction of duty.

President Maithripala Sirisena must shoulder much of the blame. As the Minister of Defence, protecting the people was his responsibility. He failed abysmally. And he has not apologised for that failure. That doesn’t mean the UNP can exculpate itself from all responsibility, all blame.

The ‘we were not told’ excuse cannot hold water since one of the letters warning about impending terror attacks seems to have been circulating in the social media for days. If Minister Harin Fernando’s father knew about the danger, then the Minister, his cabinet and non-cabinet colleagues and his prime minister cannot plead ignorance.

The government’s failure to stop the massacre fits into a general pattern of indifference towards all forms of extremism. One week before the Easter Sunday massacre, on Palm Sunday, a Methodist church in Anuradhapura was attacked, reportedly by a Sinhala-Buddhist mob. The police refused either to apprehend the attackers or to protect the victims. The government didn’t condemn the attack, didn’t order the police to catch the culprits. All it did was to promise the church protection for Easter.

The promise reportedly came from the Prime Minister. There was not a hum from the President. Political leaders on all sides of the divide, including the minister in charge of Christian Affairs, acted blind, deaf, and mute.

Perhaps this blasé attitude of the political class percolated to the intelligence establishment. Perhaps those in the know thought that there was no need to act if the intended target was a church, or some other minority religious establishment. After all, thirteen months have passed since the anti-Muslim riots of Digana. Time enough for the main suspects to be tried in a court of law. Yet no one has been formally charged and every suspect is out on bail.

Had the government honoured its promise to end impunity and ensure justice, had it honoured the promise to combat extremism and promote moderation, the Easter Sunday massacre might have been avoided. This government did not promote extremism, like its predecessor. But it didn’t resist extremism either. It turned itself into a bystander. Three hundred innocent people paid for that cowardice, that indifference, with their lives.

The next vicious spiral

A new fault line has been created in Sri Lanka’s already seriously compromised societal fabric. A new enmity has been birthed. This is not the moment for anodyne slogans about unity and peace. The peril cannot be resisted, if its existence is unacknowledged.

Sri Lanka’s blood-soaked history provides us with ample warning of the dangers ahead.

Will the targeting of Catholics by Islamic terrorists create an endless blood feud between Lankan Catholics and Lankan Muslims? Will the wronged Catholics themselves do wrong by targeting innocent Muslims?

The fear that the Easter Sunday massacre will lead to a round of attacks on Muslim properties and religious establishments has so far not materialised. For this, the government, especially the UNP, deserves the credit. When the first attack on a mosque was reported, immediate action was taken, including the imposition of a curfew. That probably saved the country from another round of bloodletting. But the danger will not be over in a day, or even a year. Only constant vigilance can prevent another tragedy.

Terrorists of all kinds have two targets – one the purported enemy; the other, one’s own community. The authors of the Easter Sunday’s massacre of innocents would have known that they were placing their own innocent coreligionists in peril. They would have known that retaliatory attacks could happen, if not in the immediate aftermath, then someday.

And they wouldn’t have cared. That is a function of extremism. They not only hate their enemies. They don’t care about their own community. The cancer of extremism that is affecting Lankan religions must be combated, perhaps primarily from within.

The first step is to start criticising one’s own extremists. It is only by taking an unequivocal stand against extremists of our own community do we earn the moral right to criticise extremists of other communities.

Sinhalese and Tamils failed to take a stand against their own extremists; each community raged against the other’s tribalism while justifying one’s own. That failure caused both communities incalculable harm, and incalculable self-harm. Black July turned a marginal insurgency into a full scale war. The LTTE’s countless atrocities eventually contributed to its own shameful defeat.

When Sinhala-Buddhists attacked Muslims in Digana in the name of Buddhism, the absolute majority of Buddhist leaders remained mute. The Muslim leaders will hopefully set a different example, not just in the immediate aftermath, but continuously. The task would be long and hard.

Though Lankan Muslims have been the victims of both Sinhala-Buddhist and LTTE violence, the atrocities committed by Muslims elsewhere in the world have rebounded on them unjustly, enveloping them in a miasma of fear and suspicion. Easter Sunday’s massacre will worsen their plight.

There is a danger of Muslims being considered as enemies by all other communities. Extremists within the Sinhala-Buddhist fold will work towards such an outcome. One can almost hear the likes of Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara crowing. Forgotten will be the role played by anti-Muslim violence in fostering Muslim extremism.

But that too would be in accordance with the intent of the attackers. As Moroccan editor Ahmed Benchemsi opined, “…..spreading hate is the terrorists’ job. Hating you is not enough; they also need you to hate them, so the struggle goes unchallenged” (Newsweek – 20.11.2008).

Terrorists revel in hate, and they want that hate to be extended to their racial/religious community as well. They want their crime to become the crime of their entire community, falling even unto unborn children. When such hatred seeps into a national bloodstream, the terrorists achieve their final victory. That happened between Sinhalese and Tamils. It mustn’t happen between Lankan Catholics and Lankan Muslims.

Sadly, hate is easy to cultivate. It can flourish anywhere. All it needs is an inch, a second, a thought, a glance, one unguarded moment. And a destructive atom can always survive, waiting with endless patience until the next time.

So, we stand on a familiar precipice, staring at a familiar abyss. This time, the task of guiding us away from it, towards the plains of moderation and stability belongs to Muslims and Catholics. This is their moment to be what Sinhalese and Tamils were not at comparable moments in their histories.

This is their moment to place their humanity above every other consideration, in a way we, Sinhalese and Tamils, failed to. And it is for us, especially Sinhala-Buddhists, to prevent our own extremists from intervening to sow hate, to prevent healing, to peddle vengeance in the guise of justice.

As Aristotle said, “For the things we have to learn before we do them, we learn by doing them… We become just by just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts…” (Necomachean Ethics). In this moment, grand gestures are necessary; but every little act of ordinary decency and kindness counts. If our leaders, elected and self-appointed, fail to stand against extremism, fail to build an alliance of moderates, perhaps we, the people, who are outraged by Easter Sunday’s massacre of innocents can.

*This analysis was written on April 23, two days following the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka.
** Since then, there have been reports that ISIS has claimed responsibility for inspiring the attacks.

The post Massacre of the Innocents: Whereto from Here? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Tisaranee Gunasekara is a political commentator based in Colombo*

“Unmindful are the walking dead
The known way is an impasse.”
Heraclitus (The Fragments)

The post Massacre of the Innocents: Whereto from Here? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Anis Chowdhury
KUALA LUMPUR and SYDNEY, Apr 30 2019 (IPS)

The World Bank has successfully promoted its ‘Maximizing Finance for Development’ (MFD) strategy by embracing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, internationally endorsed in September 2015.

It has also secured support from the G20 of twenty biggest economies, and effectively pre-empted alternative approaches at the third UN Financing for Development summit in Addis Ababa in mid-2015.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

As the main ‘show in town’, developing countries will need to address the MFD’s implications by responding pro-actively and collectively to address the new challenges it poses.

Managing new macro-financial challenges
As the MFD agenda privileges foreign investors and portfolio inflows, multilateral development banks (MDBs) should be obliged to clearly show how developing countries will benefit.

Greater vulnerability and other adverse implications of being more closely integrated into fickle global financial markets, which detract from the ostensible advantages of such integration, are now widely acknowledged.

The IMF and other international financial institutions (IFIs) should also advise on the efficacy of various policy instruments, such as macroprudential measures, including capital controls, to ensure central bank control of domestic credit conditions.

Although portfolio flows are generally recognized as pro-cyclical, IFIs reluctantly recommend capital controls, and even then, only after governments have exhausted all other monetary and fiscal policy options.

After experiencing repeated boom-bust cycles in capital flows, many emerging markets have learnt that they must manage such flows if they are to reap some benefits of financial globalization while trying to minimize risks.

Addressing systemic risks
In fact, many concerned economists believe that monetary and fiscal policies cannot adequately address such systemic fragilities, but may inadvertently exacerbate them, e.g., raising interest rates may attract more capital inflows, instead of just stemming outflows.

After effectively eschewing capital controls for decades despite its Article VI provisions, recent IMF advice has been inherently contractionary by raising interest rates and tightening fiscal policy instead of judiciously using ‘smart’ capital controls.

Anis Chowdhury

Development-oriented governments must include those familiar with changing securities and derivatives markets, who will have to work with central banks on regulating cross-border flows and managing systemic vulnerabilities.

It is difficult for development-oriented governments to be pragmatic and agile when they are subject to the dictates of private finance, especially when these appear to be rules-based, anonymous and foreign.

Financial systems are increasingly being reorganized around securities markets dominated by transnational institutional investors who have transformed financial incentives and banking business models.

Many banks have reorganized themselves around securities and derivative markets where short-term profit opportunities are significantly higher than traditional alternatives requiring costly nurturing of long-term, ‘information-intensive’ relations.

Stopping capital outflows from developing countries
International financial liberalization has enabled further capital outflows from most developing countries, depriving them of much needed resources to develop their economies.

The economic fiction that open capital accounts would result in needed net financial flows from ‘capital-rich’ developed economies in the North to ‘capital-poor’ developing countries in the South has been disproved.

Thus, a significant share of the money flowing into global shadow banking (institutional investors, asset managers) comes from developing countries. Such capital outflows are typically due to tax arbitrage and avoidance practices by transnational corporations and wealthy individuals.

There is also considerable capital flight by those who have accumulated wealth by corrupt and other dubious means. The illicit sources of such riches encourage storing such wealth abroad.

Effective cooperation to check and return such ill-gotten gains — often syphoned out using illicit means, such as trade mispricing and other forms of money laundering — can go a long way.

Equitable international tax cooperation would increase financial resources available all round, especially to developing country governments.

Instead, the IMF and others should enable developing country authorities to effectively implement policies to more successfully mobilize domestic financial resources for investment in developing economies.

Ensuring transparent government guarantees and subsidies
The MFD approach seeks to commit fiscal resources to ‘de-risking’ securities and other financial instruments to attract foreign institutional investments.

It is thus re-orienting governments to effectively guarantee profits for private investors from financing ‘development’ projects, effectively reducing public financial resources available for development projects.

To minimize abuses and to protect the public interest, MDBs should instead ensure the transparency and accountability of the framework by making clear the likely fiscal and other, including opportunity costs of de-risking projects.

Public interest agencies, civil society organizations and the media should help governments closely monitor such costs and make the public fully aware of the costs and risks involved.

The post Coping With World Bank-Led Financialization appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Haider A. Khan
Apr 30 2019 (IPS-Partners)

Sophocles in his tragedy Antigone has the line “evil[folly] appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction”. First came the US unilateral exit from the historical Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA without the consent from our European allies with the resulting division between the US and Europe regarding policies towards Iran. US also restored sanctions against Iran but gave some time for energy-needy allies to import energy from Iran against a deadline. Some like Japan have complied grudgingly with the US orders. Others, particularly China and India have gone on importing Iranian energy.

It seems that US has just dropped the other shoe now by banning those countries still importing Iranian oil from doing so after early May. If anyone does sanctions-breaking business with Iran they will be properly punished, the Trump administration has warmed. Much has been made of the role of dollar-dominated world trading system and financial arrangements through SWIFT etc. What will be the geoeconomic and geopolitical impact? Is there a way to find out through some kind of rigorous model-based analysis?

Indeed there may be a sober reality-based way of looking at the possible economic consequences and draw out the plausible geopolitical scenarios. Recently, I used the best available data from the World Bank, the IMF and other national and international sources about the Iranian economy to do precisely this exercise.. My results pertain both to the overall effects for the Iranian economy, and specific sectors. More importantly, they also give us some rough insights into what the sanctions might mean for the EU and US firms.

In order to assess the impact using this consequentialist logic, I derived several sets of model-based counterfactual results. My work which is ongoing can be seen as a first step in analyzing the impact of US sanctions rigorously. Aggregate consequences for the Iranian, EU and US economies in terms of output and employment losses are estimated from several models for several scenarios. These are sanctions with high and low bites and an in-between scenario. Finally, a more complex economic systems model with explicit banking and financial sectors is used to analyze the financial systems scenarios.

It is clear that Iran will suffer. But so will the US and EU economies. With maximal enforcement, Iranian GDP will decline by several percentage points. EU will lose about half a percentage point and US about two-tenths of a per cent.But some of the model results already at hand should give thoughtful US and EU citizens pause. As a first approximation, my current modeling results show that the alternative financial ararngements will take about six months to kick in and will lead towards the very low loss scenario, especially for Iran.But for EU and the US financial firms, the loss will be considerably more than that inflicted on Iran by the US.

This being the case, what will the US gain geopolitically? According to political analysts, there are two groups in US high level policy making arena. Trump, it is claimed, is a transactions oriented leader and wants Iran to come to the table after suffering losses with a better deal for the US. But the details of how this could happen or what kind of deal the US could expect have not been revealed.

The second group centered around Bolton—according to the geopolitical analysts— wants to draw Iran into a military confrontation if economic sanctions by themselves do not lead to a regime change. Even in my worst case economic scenario for Iran a regime change from sanctions alone does not seem likely. So will the US or its proxies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia then engage in an actual military operation?

The very possibility is worrying. But sober calculations in light of outcomes of interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya do not seem encouraging. There is no prospect of a quick victory against Iran and any lengthy intervention will destabilize the region further. It is also not clear what the Chinese and Russian responses will be.

However, historical evidence shows that wars are not always—at least at the beginning— results of such rational long term calculations. Usually, like the beginning of World War 1 or 2, a small incident leads to a wider conflagaration. If the situation is already fraught and tensions among the big powers are sufficiently high this could happen. One then has to hope that we have not reached that level of tension and in particular the current tensions among the US, China and Russia can be defused through appropriate diplomatic steps. That is our only hope to avert an Antigone-like tragedy in the 21st century.

The post Sanctioning Iran: Will it work? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By IPS World Desk
ROME, Apr 29 2019 (IPS)

Journalists and media outlets worldwide have recently been subject to a subtle wave of vilification. Populist rhetoric and public indifference have begun to threaten the very foundation of our freedom.

Journalists provide the checks and balances fundamental to all democracies, by highlighting government failures or reporting on societal injustice.

But the tone of leadership today has shifted: denunciation of the media as “biased,” and the factual information they report as “fake news,” is forcing citizens into confusion and misinformation.

 

 

This tactic has given authorities the opening to dictate their own narrative and divert attention from corruption and other abuses.

As recently as six months ago, the National Broadcasting Council in Poland fined a leading television station half a million dollars “for promoting illegal activities.” This was after the network’s coverage of anti-government protests.

In Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party has taken matters further: they have consolidated control over private media outlets in the hands of government allies. This has effectively quashed critical reporting and media independence.

In the United States, we have seen a disturbing pattern of authorities disparaging journalists when factually challenged about their narratives. Here, their disdain for ordinary media scrutiny is self- evident – and the repercussions are only just beginning to emerge.

Accordingly, this year’s World Press Freedom Day events in Addis Ababa are of critical importance to the global community of journalists.

The theme of this year’s celebration is apt: Media for Democracy: Journalism and Elections in Times of Disinformation.”

It is focused on illuminating current challenges faced by media in elections, along with media’s potential in supporting peace and reconciliation processes. Furthermore, the UNESCO driven events will also examine the safety of journalists and how to combat disinformation.

The post VIDEO: World Press Freedom Day 2019 – Media for Democracy: Journalism and Elections in Times of Disinformation appeared first on Inter Press Service.

President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya and Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Dr. Abiy Ahmed. Credit: Courtesy Ethiopian Embassy, Kenya

By Johan Borgstam, Stefano A. Dejak, Aeneas Chuma and Siddharth Chatterjee
NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 29 2019 (IPS)

Many years of internecine conflict is being replaced by a new narrative of peace along the Kenya-Ethiopia border. Communities that once fought each other are now dreaming of a joint journey towards a better future.

Diverse communities constitute the inhabitants of the border area, a vast swathe with great potential to advance beneficial integration between the two countries. But niggling rivalries and violent conflicts have persisted for years, constraining any meaningful cross-border socio-economic activities.

The conflicts have been driven by a plethora of problems – scarcity of pasture & water, cattle rustling, politics of ethnicity and political/administrative boundary disputes. With such clashes being the dominant motif in the region, leaders from the two countries have become frustrated by adverse impacts on trade, not just along their border but on wider regional integration and development between the two countries.

Kenya and Ethiopia provide a market of about 150 million people. While Ethiopia is known for its agro- based industries such as leather and coffee, Kenya has a relatively advanced manufacturing and tourism sectors, with collaboration between the two capable of developing strong regional value chains.

It is this dormant strength and potential that led the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, in partnership with IGAD, the European Union and the United Nations, to establish an integrated cross-border initiative (Video) to foster peace and sustainable development around Marsabit County in Kenya and Borana/Dawa Zones of Ethiopia.

While the historic agreement between Ethiopia and Kenya was witnessed by the leaders of the two countries at a high-profiled event in Moyale, a recent peace conference held in Addis Ababa from 17 to 18 April 2018 was a clear sign that the serious business of facing up to the root causes of violent conflict and vulnerabilities is truly on.

The meeting was attended by representatives of national and local governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, IGAD, EU, UN in Kenya and Ethiopia, cross-border peace committees, traditional community leaders and youth & women’s groups. Heart-on-sleeve discussions dominated the two-day meeting, with the resolutions indicating a clear consensus on the respective areas of responsibility towards lasting peace.

President Kenyatta of Kenya and former Prime Minister Desalegn of Ethiopia lay the foundation for the Kenya-Ethiopia cross-border programme in the border town of Moyale on 07 Dec 2015. Credit: @UNDP Kenya

A clear point of convergence was that the challenges facing the communities know no borders, but also that they will not be resolved through solutions of the past. The need for a wider approach to the issues was brought forward, to leverage on non-traditional actors such as the private sector, civil society and academia.

The spirit of the regional conference is in line with UN Secretary General Mr Antonio Guterres’s vision for the Horn of Africa which underscores the importance of prevention, resilience building and reduction of vulnerability.

The priority now is to bring direct benefits to borderland communities. Under the leadership of the national governments and IGAD, the United Nations and the European Union will support concrete initiatives to reinforce stability and realise the economic potential of these areas. Both organizations have committed to support a prosperous, peaceful and secure region, based on mutual values such as human rights, good governance, reduced poverty and peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, that aims at leaving no one behind.

The European Union is spearheading support for cross-border areas in the Horn of Africa through a €68 million programme covering the entire length of the Kenya-Ethiopia border, incorporating south-west Somalia and also supporting the cross-border area between Western Ethiopia and East Sudan. Through providing investment in peace-building, socio-economic development and regional cooperation, the programme aims to transform borderlands into more prosperous and stable areas where communities have a sense of belonging and prospects for a better future.

The bold reforms going on in the UN will see not only the UN family delivering as one but delivering as one across borders. We are already seeing UN country teams that adapt more closely to the priorities and needs of each country, enabling the leveraging of strengths across regions and specialized agencies. This will facilitate the establishing of new architecture adapted to trans-boundary priorities and realities.

One product of that new paradigm is the recent meeting that brought together participants from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Somalia to develop plans for ending cross-border female genital mutilation (FGM).

President Uhuru Kenyatta talked about turning this region into a “Dubai” of the future. That vision is possible given the winds of goodwill blowing over the region. This is having a transformative shift towards peace for communities along the border and prosperity between the neighboring countries.

Johan Borgstam, the European Union Ambassador to Ethiopia, Stefano A. Dejak, the Ambassador of the European Union to the Republic of Kenya, Aeneas Chuma, UN Resident Coordinator a.i. in Ethiopia & Siddharth Chatterjee, the UN Resident Coordinator in Kenya.

The post Kenya and Ethiopia Cross-Border Initiative: A Move Towards Sustainable Peace appeared first on Inter Press Service.