Africa

The Ugandan weightlifter who went missing from a pre-Olympic training camp in Japan has been found.

Spanish officers inspecting the remains of a garrison on Monte Arruit, July 1921. Annual, Morocco. Credit: Public Domain.

By Joaquín Roy
MIAMI, Jul 20 2021 (IPS)

It would seem that those responsible for the recent immigration crisis in Ceuta and Melilla have coordinated their strategy to commemorate the centenary of one of the most serious defeats that Spain has suffered in its foreign relations. One hundred years ago, the Spanish armies suffered one of the most painful losses in its history.

From July 21 to August 9, 1921, the military detachments that had tried to consolidate the colonial presence in the territory of the Riff, north of the northern area of ​​the so-called Protectorate located on the Mediterranean slope of the present Kingdom of Morocco, were bloody massacred in the so-called Annual Disaster.

This episode has been imprinted in the memory of not only of the military, but also in the national conscience.

In succinct terms, what happened in North Africa in the second decade of the 20th century was a consequence of a more spectacular disaster suffered by the Spanish empire at the end of the previous century.

Joaquín Roy

As a resounding burial of the Spanish empire, which had lost almost all American territories in the 19th century, in 1898 the United States ended the Spanish presence in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, by imposing the surrender and cession of those territories after the incident of the sinking of the battleship Maine in the bay of Havana.

Embarrassed by the defeat, the Spanish military passed the blame for the awesome disaster onto the politicians. The final traumatic event originated various consequences in Spain, among which are a period of introspection and meditation on the national essence, presided over by the “Generation of ’98”, and the emergence of a regenerationism led by various sectors of public influence.

While the monarchy in the regency period could hardly stand out in remedying the state of national prostration, the military was preparing to seek the construction of a substitute empire.

In continuation of the previous incursions in North Africa, the coalition of conservative forces with military sectors, in search of alternative companies to the loss of the imperial territories, believed to find a replacement empire in North Africa.

The recruitment of military contingents based on forced replacement troops produced the serious incidents of protest at the ports of embarkation. The opposition that originated the so-called Tragic Week of Barcelona in 1909 stood out then, with the result of a fierce repression. The government survived. Spain was destined to invent another empire.

The distribution of the immense African territories among the European powers resulted in the award to Spain of the northern part that comprised the Riff, with a rugged geography populated by a human contingent that has hardly been identified with the precarious unity of Morocco.

The administration of the so-called Protectorate would be a difficult mission to fulfill until its disappearance. The withdrawal order had its holocaust in the place called Annual, where the Spanish detachment of eleven thousand five hundred soldiers was massacred and the survivors were put to the knife. These bloody events were novelistically relived by important writers such as Ramón J. Sender.

In this scenario, the Spanish Legion was founded, following the model of the French. Led by Millán Astray, one of its most prominent leaders was Commander Francisco Franco, who rose through the ranks on merits of war and later became the youngest general in the European armies.

The positions of the Spanish military in North Africa were desired both by the commanders and by the troops themselves who were involved in corruption.

Almost miraculously saved the city of Melilla, the Spanish presence received a considerable effort with the joint operation of the Spanish and French forces in the so-called landing of Al Hoceima (exaggeratedly considered as a precedent of the Normandy operation), a coastal area that still presents the survival of the Spanish “presidios”.

As a result of that remarkable joint operation, the Riff’s leader Abd el-Krim surrendered and was subsequently released. He survived his many adversaries and died in Cairo in 1963. He is considered one of the “inventors” of guerrilla strategy.

The monarchy of Alfonso XIII survived when he handed over power to General Primo de Rivera, but after his fall from grace, the institution soon disappeared when in the municipal elections of 1931 the conservative parties lost electoral favor in the big cities.

The King abdicated and the Second Republic was declared. In 1936 Franco rebelled. The troops led by the coup general left from Morocco at the beginning of the Civil War.

Ceuta and Melilla are remains of that neocolonial stage, recently converted into “autonomous cities” within the Spanish territorial administration. Despite the abandonment of the territory of the Sahara, as a result of the Green March of 1975 when the Franco regime died, Spain insists on the evaluation of the UN opinion subject to a referendum that Morocco has refused to carry out, claiming sovereignty over its inhabitants, a thesis that clashes with that of Algeria, where the Sahrawis take refuge.

Although Morocco’s tactic seems focused on the occupation of Ceuta and Melilla, in reality the priority is the control of the entire Sahara and domination of the southern slope of the Strait of Gibraltar. This strategic detail is a priority for the United States, which has generally supported Moroccan interests, as has France, a power that in turn supports Algeria’s theses.

 

Joaquín Roy is Jean Monnet Professor and Director of the European Union Center at the University of Miami

People in Yangon queue for oxygen cylinders to treat COVID patients as a third wave of the pandemic sweeps through Myanmar. Credit: Sai T

By Sara Perria
ROME, Jul 20 2021 (IPS)

The third wave of Covid-19 is sweeping through Myanmar, from the high narrow buildings of the commercial capital Yangon to bamboo houses in rural areas.

Ma Ni, not her real name, caught the virus in Yangon, infected by her husband and son. But no members of the family show up in the official numbers because they preferred to buy a home test instead of going to a hospital or a quarantine centre.

“It’s been seven days with COVID now,” 34-year-old Ma Ni says. “My husband needs oxygen, but we cannot get it … I hope God will save us.”

Ma Ni’s family is not alone. According to the military’s Ministry of Health, Myanmar recorded 3,461 new cases of COVID-19 and 82 deaths on July 11 alone.

In total, since the pandemic first struck, Myanmar has reported almost 4,000 deaths. Videos circulating on social networks show a dramatic increase in the number of bodies taken to Yangon’s crematorium.

The numbers, although certainly under-reported, are far lower than they were in Europe, the US or India, but they are growing. Moreover, the impact of COVID-19 has been compounded by the aftermath of the military coup on February 1 that ousted elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi and triggered nationwide protests, resulting in more than 900 deaths and thousands of prisoners, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, an NGO based in Thailand.

As a result, hundreds of panicking citizens are shying away from testing and quarantine facilities perceived as mismanaged by the unpopular military.

“I’d rather die than go to a military hospital,” Ko Moe, again not a real name, tells IPS. “I don’t trust them, and given my work as a volunteer ambulance driver, they might arrest me for helping the protestors.”

The military is trying to stop private initiatives, even shooting to disperse a crowd queuing to refill oxygen tanks. It is also forbidding producers to distribute oxygen to ineligible citizens, saying people are hoarding it unnecessarily.

Myanmar people think otherwise. Deep inside the country, in the city of Taunggyi, Shan State, a doctor interviewed by IPS says people are organising themselves autonomously to cope with the emergency because the health system has collapsed.

“As for now, things look still normal here but … many donors and well-wishers have set up a committee to install oxygen plants by themselves to help the people in the city and the small villages around Taunggyi,” she tells IPS.

Grievances are expressed all over social networks and emotional appeals for help from the international community or obituaries of loved ones who succumbed to the virus.

But it’s also the flu season, which many, feeling abandoned by the State or unable to afford private facilities, mistake for COVID.

“The situation is pretty chaotic. There have been many outbreaks of COVID but also of seasonal flu, in major cities and rural regions,” another doctor working for a private hospital in Yangon tells IPS on condition of anonymity. “People are frustrated for not getting efficient medical care from the authorities, while general hospitals cannot operate on a full scale since the majority of civil service doctors have joined the disobedience movement and there are only a few doctors and nurses left,” he says.

Indeed, only a small percentage of citizens have been vaccinated against the virus. The ongoing protests that started in February have crammed prisons with political prisoners, turning the repression into an epicentre of the outbreak.

Following a recent trip to Russia, junta leader General Min Aung Hlaing announced the purchase of 5 million doses of the Sputnik vaccine. However, it may be too little, too late to avoid an unprecedented health crisis in a country of over 54 million people only partly controlled by the military.

The international community is also accused of not helping, having been already stigmatised for failing to do anything to support Burmese citizens during the coup, beyond statements of condemnation.

The UN special rapporteur for Myanmar Tom Andrews told the Human Rights Commission on July 13 that the junta lacks the “capabilities and the legitimacy to bring this crisis under control”. And the lack of trust in the military makes this crisis “particularly lethal”, he said.

Activists from the opposition ‘Milk Tea Alliance Burma’ expressed the sentiment of the public in a Tweet: “Last year, the pandemic was contained successfully in Myanmar because of collective efforts of everyone. DASSK (Aung San Suu Kyi) was influencing the public well, holding campaigns to make cloth masks, the public followed the instructions well, they masked up and stayed at home without complaining.”

With the population mistrustful of the military and pro-democracy protests continuing, albeit on a much smaller scale, rules are often overlooked.

A Google app tracing people’s movements shows that the situation is back to the pre-coup situation in terms of traffic and crowds in the streets. Many shops may appear to be closed from the outside but are working at normal capacity behind. Masks are usually left at home.

The military has a history of resistance to international aid despite being unequipped to deal with an emergency, as happened in the disastrous aftermath of cyclone Nargis in 2008. The junta is unlikely to change its isolationist stance now, and international help may well be limited, according to a diplomat in Yangon, interviewed by IPS.

“COVID is not going to change anything for the junta, it’s taking people’s minds off the revolution, so it’s not such a bad thing for the military,” he says, asking not to be named for security reasons.

 

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

The writer is a Research Analyst at Stimson Center

By Cristina Petcu
WASHINGTON DC, Jul 20 2021 (IPS)

The forthcoming UN Secretary-General’s “Our Common Agenda” report, to be released before this year’s UN General Assembly High-Level Week, is expected to offer ambitious recommendations to accelerate the realization of the UN75 Declaration as the world comes to grips with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Promote Peace & Prevent Conflicts. Credit: United Nations

While the report’s ideas are still undisclosed, three notions are likely to represent conceptual building blocks: a “new social contract,” a “new global deal,” and “networked and inclusive multilateralism” have each permeated current high-level discussions at the United Nations, especially in speeches of UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

While these three concepts are not mentioned explicitly in the UN75 Declaration, they are implicit in the framing of the declaration’s twelve commitments. Building on perspectives from past and present scholars, world leaders, policymakers, and practitioners, these powerful notions are each unpacked in Stimson Center’s recent report, “Beyond UN75: A Roadmap for Inclusive, Networked, and Effective Global Governance.”

Critics, including the United Nations, argue that the present state of the social contract is outdated and incapable of meeting the needs and challenges of the twenty-first century. The UN Secretary-General himself emphasized that a new social contract is “an opportunity to build back a more equal and sustainable world” from COVID-19.

A new, modernized social contract could, indeed, help advance a more just post-COVID-19 recovery and economic policies that consider the realization of human rights as an end in itself—rather than as one more channel to achieve high economic growth levels under outdated metrics.

It could include a global political commitment to securing social protection floors and universal access to educational systems, among other initiatives that seek to respond to the major economic, technological, and societal shifts now underway.

Similarly, an equitable, resilient, and sustainable social contract should rebuild people’s trust in governance institutions. Trust is a prerequisite that offers legitimacy to those governing, and it permits the existence of a contract in the first place.

With the “new social contract” being the vision and long-term goal for weaving a new normative fiber binding states and peoples together, the world also needs a more operational “new global deal.”

The UN Secretary-General suggested that a new global deal would entail a redistribution of power, wealth, and opportunities, and global political and economic systems that deliver critical global public goods: public health, climate action, sustainable development, and peace.

This echoes long-standing discussions about representativeness in the current system of global governance, considering, for example, the distribution of special drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund, which gives the United States a blocking minority share, or the setup of the Security Council with its five permanent, veto-wielding powers and ten non-permanent members.

Resource redistribution and redirection also need to be seen in light of calls for a “green recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic and of the need to recalibrate the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Advancing a new social contract and new global deal further require a more networked and inclusive multilateralism. This would entail a paradigm shift from the state-centric international world order to one where myriad actors, beyond nation-states (especially traditional major powers), can collaboratively share and implement solutions to complex problems.

Delivering the future we want will not come from “polarized member states or politicized UN secretariats.” It will result from collaborations between international civil servants, Member States, and progressive networks of non-state actors—including scholars, academics, media, businesses, philanthropies, and other stakeholders.

In this spirit, the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations must update their rules of engagement with non-state actors, to facilitate networked and inclusive multilateralism. There is no dearth of institutional innovation ideas that can help build inclusive multilateralism.

For instance, the Call for Inclusive Global Governance, released in April 2021 and endorsed by over 150 civil society organizations worldwide, provides three recommendations for promoting greater inclusion and participation of civil society at the UN: first, the creation of a formal instrument—a World Citizens’ Initiative—to enable individual citizens to influence the UN’s work; second, a UN Parliamentary Assembly to allow for the inclusion of elected representatives in agenda-setting and decision-making at the UN; and third, the appointment of a UN Civil Society Envoy to support greater civil society engagement at the UN.

Networked and inclusive multilateralism, going beyond classic intergovernmentalism, provides a platform and framework to carry out a new global deal (operational plan) in the service of establishing a new social contract (vision).

What is needed now is enlightened leadership, combined with a well-designed strategy for reform for channeling these ideas in support of a more interlinked and participatory global governance system.

Guided by these three powerful concepts, the Secretary-General’s “Our Common Agenda” can generate political momentum for a potential 2023 World Summit on Inclusive Global Governance for truly innovating the United Nations system to keep pace with present and future challenges and opportunities.

The 75th anniversary of the United Nations was believed to be a moment for laying the foundations for a new kind of multilateralism. Although adoption of the UN75 Declaration represents an important milestone, its vision is yet to be matched by a commensurate global plan for action.

Bouncing back now from the COVID-19 presents an opportunity to also rebuild a global system that can help all nations and peoples effectively overcome current global inequalities, injustices, and insecurity. It is incumbent on all of us to make 2021 a turning point for multilateralism.

 

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

Excerpt:

The writer is a Research Analyst at Stimson Center

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Jul 20 2021 (IPS)

Despite facing the world’s worst pandemic of the last century, rich countries in the World Trade Organization (WTO) have blocked efforts to enable more affordable access to the means to fight the pandemic.

Everyone knows access for all to the means for testing, treatment and prevention – including diagnostic tests, therapeutic medicines, personal protective equipment and vaccines – is crucial.

Anis Chowdhury

European deceit
In October 2020, South Africa and India requested the WTO to temporarily suspend relevant provisions of its Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). By May 2021, the proposal had 62 co-sponsors and support from more than two-thirds of WTO member States.

Despite overwhelming support from low- and middle-income countries, Western governments, Big Pharma and other industry officials dismiss this waiver request as not only unnecessary, but also undermining future technological innovation.

Although most European Parliament members support the waiver proposal, it is actively opposed by European governments and the European Commission (EC), the European Union (EU) executive.

It is also resisted by Brazil and other rich countries, such as the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, Canada and Japan. However, the Biden administration now supports a temporary waiver for vaccines, but is silent on the other items urgently needed.

Misleadingly, European leaders insist that the temporary waiver request is unnecessary, but IP rights (IPRs) are essential for innovation. “IPR regimes have, at best, second-order effects upon the rates of innovation”. In fact, “when patent rights have been too broad or strong, they have actually discouraged innovation”.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

They misleadingly claim access can be achieved by existing provisions for voluntary licensing (VL), technology transfer, COVAX bulk purchasing and existing TRIPS flexibilities, especially compulsory licensing (CL). But these purported solutions are known to be grossly inadequate.

COVAX is struggling due to poor funding, supply shortages and inadequate donations. Hence, many poor countries have not even applied. With IPRs strengthened internationally since 1995, TNCs find technology transfer agreements less profitable.

Big Pharma law
Strict international enforcement of patent protection is recent. Pfizer’s then chairman, Edmund Pratt successfully pushed IP onto the agenda of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which created the WTO and TRIPS in 1995.

Fearing stronger IP rights would enhance corporate power and reduce affordable access to life-saving medicines, many developing countries resisted TRIPS. But rich countries pushed TRIPS through, using carrots and sticks to divide developing countries.

TRIPS includes CL, first introduced in the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. A government can thus allow a third party to make or use a patented product or process without the patent owner’s consent. But this can only be for domestic use, subject to other conditions, e.g., paying “the right holder … adequate remuneration”.

Despite great efforts, rich country governments failed to increase members’ TRIPS obligations at the 1997 Singapore WTO ministerial. Nevertheless, US President Clinton tried again at the 1999 Seattle ministerial, triggering an African walkout.

After 9/11, some concessions were made before the 2001 Doha ministerial, including a new ‘Development Round’ of WTO talks. Two decades later, no conclusion is in sight as rich countries see little chance of getting what they want.

With the HIV/AIDS crisis, campaigning against TRIPS was boosted by President Mandela’s leadership. The Doha Ministerial Declaration included ‘public health exceptions’ to TRIPS. Now, there is no need to first negotiate VLs during health emergencies. Also, countries without manufacturing capacity can use CLs to import cheaper versions.

European deceptions
By insisting that existing TRIPS flexibilities are sufficient, European leaders deny all actual problems in practice. Ignoring decades of experience, they used to insist VL provisions are enough to expand output and share expertise.

In reality, VLs are often shrouded in secrecy, with patent holders choosing beneficiaries and even distributors. Thus, the AstraZeneca VL to the Serum Institute of India limits what it can produce, and prevents it from meeting Indian and other needs.

They concede when “voluntary cooperation fails, compulsory licences… are a legitimate tool in the context of a pandemic”. But CLs are only relevant for patents, not new vaccines which have not been patented, and deny other IP barriers.

EC arguments protect Big Pharma, but effectively reject the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) initiative. C-TAP seeks to enable equitable access to technologies for approved COVID-19 vaccines and therapies. But industry and government officials dismiss technology sharing as unnecessary, and worse, dangerous for future innovation.

Inflexible ‘flexibilities’
For a long time, Big Pharma and their governments, including the EC, pressured developing countries not to use the very CLs they now tout as the solution. The US Trade Representative routinely threatened sanctions against countries using CLs for medicines, only recognising others’ right to use them this year.

CLs are very difficult to actually use, especially by countries with limited negotiating capacities or relevant manufacturing capabilities. Existing provisions require complicated country-by-country, company-by-company and patent-by-patent negotiations, also raising massive coordination problems.

The CL provision may be enough for some, but certainly not all needed equipment, tests and medicines. Many products need several CLs, implying “a harrowing number of CL must be coordinated and granted in multiple countries”.

Also, CL does not require sharing industrial secrets, confidential information, industrial design and other relevant knowledge necessary for viable production. These can be critical, e.g., for mRNA vaccines using new technologies.

Those countries unable to produce themselves have to find others willing to issue CLs to produce cheap generics for export. Yet more hurdles are contained in the fine print of TRIPS and the 2001 ‘flexibilities’.

Bogus claims
In fact, sharing such confidential information not only spurs competition, but also enhances innovation. Thus, Shantha Biotechnics in India developed a low-cost hepatitis B vaccine, the basis for UNICEF’s lauded global vaccination drive.

Contrary to industry and political leaders’ claims that circumscribing patents would kill pharmaceutical innovation, “a host of new drugs and improved HIV treatments” followed “the agreement on Public Health exception to TRIPS”. These new and improved treatments effectively ended that deadly pandemic.

After inventing the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk was asked, “Who owns this patent?”. He famously replied, “Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

 

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

• Rich Country Hypocrisy Exposed by Vaccine Inequities
• End Vaccine Apartheid Before Millions More Die
• IP, Vaccine Imperialism Cause Death and Suffering, Delay Recovery
• Intellectual Property Cause of Death, Genocide
• Intellectual Property Monopolies Block Vaccine Access
• Politics, Profits Undermine Public Interest in Covid-19 Vaccine Race
• West First Policies Expose Myths

The pilot survived by ejecting himself and hiding with local residents, says Nigeria's Air Force.

Ken Macharia feared for his safety in Kenya, where homosexuality is illegal.

Israeli tech firm NSO denies media reports that its software has been sold to authoritarian regimes.

Zambia's Copper Queens are aiming to continue defying the odds as they represent Africa in women's football at the Tokyo Olympics.

By Rosi Orozco
MEXICO CITY, Jul 19 2021 (IPS)

In June, the Department of Homeland Security made a critical announcement. For the first time in U.S. history, more than 15 national and local agencies and civilian organizations conducted a simultaneous major binational operation to find missing children inside and outside the United States.

Rosi Orozco

They called it “Operation Lost Souls”. Its objective was to find girls and boys who were missing and possibly deceived or kidnapped by sexual exploitation gangs.

The secret operation lasted a week. And the result announced by Special Agent Erik Breitzke surprised even the organizers: 24 minors were recovered and, among them, three were located in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

The report of the operation does not explain the condition in which the minors were found. Still, it is not difficult to infer why they were in Ciudad Juarez: the United Nations, the International Police, and the Mexican Congress have warned that this border city is a well-known destination for sex tourism.

In 1993, that Mexican city became infamous worldwide due to a phenomenon known as “Las muertas de Juarez,” where hundreds of femicides were discovered under the suspicion that the victims had been recruited for sexual slavery.

More than 28 years later, Ciudad Juarez is still a city known for its tolerance of prostitution, its glittering brothels with hidden girls, and its streets run by pimps and mafias that are tied to the porn industry. It is a pedophile’s paradise.

There is an explanation for that: in Ciudad Juárez, as in many others cities worldwide, the fight against human trafficking has the wrong approach — the police often harass those who are prostituted, not the clients. But there is a growing global movement calling for doing the opposite.

That movement is also trending in Mexico and is inspired by the French law enacted on April 13, 2016, which prohibits any sexual act that has been agreed upon in exchange for money.

It’s a simple but substantial change: to protect human rights, the law should not go against people trapped in prostitution but against clients. In other words, the authorities must attack the most powerful link in the chain, not the most vulnerable.

To this end, it is necessary to stop the criminalization of those trapped in prostitution and, instead, create incentives for their exit from the sex trade.

For example, designing self-employment programs, granting tax benefits for those who wish to leave prostitution, including them in a protected witness program with benefits, issuing temporary residence permits for foreigners who could not get a job because of their immigration status, among other measures.

To reach the goal of lowering sexual trafficking and exploitation, the law needs to strongly target the demand that perpetuates these crimes. The penalties for “client exploiters” need to be strengthened.

To prosecute them more effectively, mexican activists are asking their government to imitate what the French police does by removing the burden of proof of the solicitation from the victim’s shoulders.

The French law has been a successful model, according to the Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution (CAP International): it has curbed the investment of traffickers, discouraged clients, provided dignified outlets for the most vulnerable, and swept away the dangers of the tolerated clandestinely.

This model has also proved that pimps are less likely to “invest” in a country with such hard measures against them. Because they see themselves as genuine businessmen, these progressive laws such as the Swedish and French laws that have strong penalties for sex buyers are simply not good for business.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), in the General recommendation No. 38 (2020) on human trafficking, encourages this new movement and calls on countries around the world to enforce it, especially in a pandemic context.

“The need to address the demand that fosters sexual exploitation is significant in the context of digital technology, which exposes potential victims to an increased risk of being trafficked,” alerts the General recommendation.

This global movement walks hand in hand with others that have shaken the world, such as #MeToo or the worldwide protests against inequality.

It’s the voice of millions around the world, Mexicans included: never again a city where sex buyers are seen as mere clients and traffickers are treated as businessmen.

To raise awareness among Mexican lawmakers, we will implement from July 26 to August 6 the worldwide campaign #10Days and #VsTrafficking hand in hand with several international organizations that will encourage new activists to stand against exploitative clients and put an end to the suffering of every lost soul in the world.

We are millions convinced of a revolutionary idea: abolishing prostitution does not limit sexual freedom, instead it motivates the sexual freedom that is needed in the world. The one that does not depend on money.

The author is a human rights activist who opened the first shelter for girls and teenagers rescued from sexual commercial exploitation in Mexico. She has published five books on preventing human trafficking; she is the elected Representative of GSN Global Sustainability Network in Latin America.

 

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

North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Credit: UNICEF/Olivia Acland

By Tanvi Bhatkal and Lyla Mehta
BRIGHTON, UK, Jul 19 2021 (IPS)

The UK government’s decision to reduce its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5% — a cut of around £4 billion this year — was confirmed last week by a majority of 35 votes in a House of Commons vote.

The cuts that came into effect from April this year have been especially devastating for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), a sector where the UK has been very prominent globally. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK helped 62.5 million people gain access to safe water and sanitation between 2015 and 2020.

A leaked memo of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) highlighted that cuts this year alone to bilateral aid for WASH could be as high as 80% – from £150 million in 2019 to £30 million in 2021. This sudden reduction will both undermine past progress, plunge millions into water insecurity and lead to unnecessary death, especially of children.

Providing clean drinking water is considered one of the most cost-effective ways of improving health and productivity across the global South. Inadequate access to WASH is responsible for 10% of the global disease burden, contributing to 1.6 million preventable deaths annually.

Having piped water frees up time for households, increasing opportunities for income generation, education, childcare and building social capital – especially for girls and women.

According to WaterAid, achieving universal basic water services would free up 77 million working days for women annually. Safe sanitation could prevent 6 billion cases of diarrhoea and 12 billion cases of helminths between 2021-2040, improving child health and nutrition.

For decades, OECD countries including the UK have been committed to improving access to drinking water and sanitation and, in 2010, the UN General Assembly officially recognized the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.

Despite this, 2 billion people globally lack access to safe water, and 3.6 billion – nearly half of humanity – lack access to safe sanitation. In fact, the WHO and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring Programme recently announced that achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of universal coverage by 2030 will require quadrupling current rates of progress.

Water, along with pollutants and contaminating agents, flows into a canal in Maputo, Mozambique. Credit: John Hogg / World Bank

It is never a good time to renege on global commitments and cut support for water and sanitation services – but the timing couldn’t be worse than during a global pandemic.

The leaked FCDO memo recognises WASH as a priority area of UK Aid for the British public, especially in the time of Covid-19 and with the UK hosting the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-26). Yet, this is when the UK government decided to turn off the tap.

One example of a UK ODA-funded research project is Towards Brown Gold, which studies the sanitation challenge in off-grid small towns across Ethiopia, Ghana, India and Nepal – and examines how shit can be reimagined as a resource or “brown gold”.

This year the project is receiving one third of its original budget, with uncertainty of future budget restoration. This cut has been devastating to our partners, who have unstintingly worked to formulate collaborative plans and employ staff during the severe wave of Covid-19 in South Asia and civil war in Ethiopia.

These cuts have upset ongoing work and developing partnerships with local governments and communities to contribute to improved sanitation services for the most marginalised groups. Similar cuts have occurred across hundreds of projects on water, sanitation, public health, and even critical Covid-19 research.

The government argues that the cut of £4 billion in ODA is needed as the UK’s public finances have struggled during the pandemic. Yet, while curtailing ODA , the government spent £37 billion on Test and Trace – which was considerably more expensive than similar programmes in other countries and yet failed to deliver on its basic promise.

The government has also increased defense spending by £16 billion, a quarter of which could have protected its ODA commitments. This makes it clear that the cuts are not financial, but rather ideological. While the pandemic has highlighted the need for mutual solidarity, they undermine the idea of working together to enhance global public goods.

The significant cut to UK aid is undoubtedly having devastating effects, with prolonged uncertainty for lifesaving programmes, humanitarian efforts and crucial development progress.

With concerns that the strict economic criteria needed for a return to 0.7% risks making the ODA cuts permanent, it remains imperative for the development community and for citizens to continue to urge the government to prioritise funding for essential WASH services across the global South.

The cut to UK aid is a political choice, not an economic necessity: in the midst of a pandemic the cuts to the UK’s ODA budget negatively affect the world’s poorest, the UK’s reputation, and the effectiveness of research institutions in the UK and partners across the world.

No one is safe until we are all safe. How can the UK afford to renege on its global responsibility at such a time?

Tanvi Bhatkal is a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lyla Mehta, Professorial Fellow, both at the Institute of Development Studies, UK

 

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

UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta H. Fore meets with students at the Roberto Suazo Córdoba School, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Credit: UNICEF/Bindra

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 19 2021 (IPS)

With Henrietta Fore’s decision last week to step down as UNICEF Executive Director, her successor is most likely to be another American since that post has been held– uninterruptedly — by US nationals for almost 74 years, an unprecedented all-time record for a high-ranking job in the UN system.

The seven U.S. nationals who have headed the UN children’s agency since its inception in 1947 include Maurice Pate, Henry Labouisse, James Grant, Carol Bellamy, Ann Veneman, Anthony Lake and Henrietta Fore. Pate held the job for 18 years, from 1947 to 1965, and Labouisse for 14 years, from 1965 to 1979.

No other agency has had a national stranglehold on such a senior position in the 76-year history of the United Nations.

As for individuals monopolizing office, Dr Arpad Bogsch, another US national, held the post of director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva for 24 long years (1973-1997).

But more recently, however, the professional life span of senior officials in the UN secretariat is mostly five years, with a possible extension for an additional five years.

Since money talks, the US has continued to stake its claims for the UNICEF job, primarily as its largest single financial contributor.

But that claim also applies to several UN agencies, which depend on voluntary contributions, and where some of the high-ranking positions are largely held by donors or big powers, mostly from Western Europe, or China and Russia.

James Paul, former Executive Director at the New York-based Global Policy Forum (1993-2012) and a prominent figure in the NGO advocacy community at the United Nations, told IPS much is at stake in the appointment of the head of a major agency in the UN system.

Powerful governments battle over prestige and the shaping of policy, he said, pointing out, that “interest is intense now, as the appointment of a new head of UNICEF comes up”.

“Observers inevitably wonder: what country gets the post, what is the region of the appointee, what ethnic or national group does this person represent, what is the person’s gender identify, and finally, last but not least, what is the policy inclination and administrative record of the person selected?” said Paul, author of “Of Foxes and Chickens”—Oligarchy and Global Power in the UN Security Council (2017).

He said some candidates may be serious people with years of experience while others may be personal friends of a powerful head of government.

How will the selection process work and how much pressure will be put on those with a say over the appointment process: the UN Secretary General and Executive Boards or committees? he asked.

In the early years of the UN, he said, there was a tendency to appoint male candidates who were US nationals. The US government often acted very bluntly about getting its way and it threatened many times to withhold funding or punish UN officials if its candidate was not selected.

Two well-known cases of US hegemony are UNICEF, the UN Children’s Fund, and UNDP, the UN Development Programme.

UNICEF is notorious because its Executive Director has been a US national continuously since the organization’s founding 74 years ago, said Paul. Now that the current head is stepping down, the question inevitably arises – will Washington once again be able to get its way?

Admittedly, it did make one concession over the years. Under pressure in 1995 to accept a very accomplished Scandinavian woman, the US agreed to drop its male candidate. Washington then proposed a woman and turned up the heat.

Carol Bellamy, the US candidate, was eventually appointed. The present head, Henrietta Fore, is also a woman but she too carries a US passport, said Paul.

Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996), who had a love-hate relationship with the US, tried to break the US monopoly back in 1995. But he failed.

In his book “UN-Vanquished–a US-UN saga,” (1999), Boutros-Ghali says he was thwarted by then US President Bill Clinton and US ambassador Madeline Albright.

Clinton wanted William Foege, a former head of the US Centres for Disease Control, to be appointed UNICEF chief to succeed James Grant, also an American.

Since Belgium and Finland had already put forward “outstanding” women candidates — and since the US had refused to pay its UN dues and was also making ”disparaging” remarks about the world body — “there was no longer automatic acceptance by other nations that the director of UNICEF must inevitably be an American man or woman,” said Boutros-Ghali.

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

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

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

The US eventually submitted an alternate woman candidate: Carol Bellamy, a former director of Peace Corps.

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

And thereby hangs a tale.

According to the latest published figures, total contributions to UNICEF in 2020 were over US$7 billion. The public sector contributed the largest share: US$5.45 billion from government, inter-governmental and inter-organizational partners, as well as Global Programme Partnerships.

The top three resource partners in 2020 (by contributions received) were the Governments of the United States of America (US$801 million), Germany (US$744 million) and the European Union (US$514 million).

As UNICEF’s largest donor, the US was considered “an indispensable partner”.

“Our partnership with the US Government is broad and diverse, spanning humanitarian and development programmes across key areas of UNICEF’s work, including health; education; early child development; water, sanitation and hygiene; nutrition; child protection; gender equality; HIV and AIDS; immunization; and research programmes,” according to UNICEF.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN assistant secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS the argument over the post of UNICEF Executive Director was the first clash between Boutros-Ghali and Ambassador Albright who otherwise was very friendly, as both were “former professors”.

As Boutros-Ghali once quipped: “I may be America’s yes man (as he was described in the Arab press when he was elected secretary-general) but certainly not, yes sir “.

Initially, American UNICEF Executive Directors like Henry Labouisse and James Grant proved their value not merely by bringing U.S. funds but by their proven accomplishments, said Sanbar.

Guterres, an experienced politician, will most likely explore options: perhaps await proposals from the Biden Administration while keeping open possible interest by members of the Security Council like Norway–and others, which could offer a substantive contribution, as long as its candidate is a woman, said Sanbar who had served under five different secretaries-general during his longstanding UN career.

Paul pointed out that UNDP provides an interesting basis for comparison. It had a US head (the title is Administrator) for thirty-two years consecutively, from its founding in 1967.

In 1999, when the moment for a new appointment arose, the UN membership stepped up pressure for a more diverse pool of candidates.

At last, the magic spell of US dominance broke, as Mark Malloch Brown of the UK got the nod. And since 1999, there hasn’t been a single US national in that post of UNDP Administrator.

That was a sign that Washington’s grip on the UN was slipping and that its global influence was waning – slowly perhaps but unmistakably.

A capable woman from New Zealand, Helen Clark, was one of the new breed, along with a Turk, Kemal Dervis, and a German, Achim Steiner, who currently holds the post.

But not all US nominees have turned out badly, said Paul.

James Grant, was a widely-respected head of UNICEF, and Gus Speth won plaudits as head of UNDP. But symbolism is important in a multi-lateral organization with a world-wide membership and a very diverse constituency.

“No matter how competent the US candidate might be, and no matter how independent-minded, color-coded and engendered, it is time for UNICEF to get a non-US Executive Director. The world of 1947 has long gone. US hegemony is not what it was.”

“A bit of fresh air at UNICEF is long overdue,” declared Paul.

Thalif Deen is the author of a newly-released book on the United Nations titled “No Comment -– and Don’t Quote Me on That.” Peppered with scores of anecdotes-– from the serious to the hilarious-– the book is available on Amazon worldwide. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

 

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

That a country like El Salvador, poor and with many social needs, would embark on an effort to attract so-called bitcoin mining, which demands a huge amount of energy and does not generate large numbers of jobs, is an extravagance that many find hard to digest. “In El Salvador financial resources are not abundant, they […]

Almost every part of Nigeria is facing a security crisis - from kidnapping to extremist insurgencies.

Esraa Abdel Fattah earned the moniker "Facebook Girl" for her role in the 2011 revolution.

People were urged to honour the anti-apartheid hero's legacy by rebuilding after riots left 212 dead.

Two South Africa footballers become the first competitors to test positive for coronavirus in the Tokyo Olympic athletes' village.

People rushed to the scene of the crash to siphon petrol when the explosion occurred.

Abir Moussi uses a megaphone in parliament and gets death threats but many say her voice is crucial.

After a lifetime in captivity, Joshi is going to live in the jungle in Congo-Brazzaville.