Israeli settlements in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. They are illegal under international law and many world leaders have previously spoken out against them. However, Israel continues to ignore such condemnation and this has uncovered the genuine lack of conviction behind the hollow words of such world leaders.
But today, a small yet important step has been taken. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Britain has announced a voluntary labelling scheme that will provide key distinctions on foods stocked in UK supermarkets. Products could now have labels attached that specify 'Palestinian produce' or 'Israeli settlement produce'. This gives consumers the opportunity to know the true origin of the products they purchase, contribute to the economic viability of Palestinian farmers and express solidarity with the Palestinian people.
It has been stressed that the move is not tantamount to a boycott but it remains to be seen whether such a result could occur regardless of intention.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Britain should be commended for the action it has taken on this matter. Now multiple copycat actions around the world are needed.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Maintain the Focus
Unfortunately, as world leaders meet in Copenhagen, the focus of the world's media is still distracted by the climate science scandal.
Yes, computers in the University of East Anglia (which is a well known climate research centre) were illegally hacked into and the personal correspondence of climate researchers distributed to try and discredit the science of climate change. But, the emails were cheery picked from a decade of correspondence, have yet to produce evidence of any conspiracy among climate researchers and are attributed to only a small number of scientists. This changes nothing.
So, instead of wasting any more time debating this minor debacle, it is time to re-focus attention on world leaders in Copenhagen. A good start, would be to take Avaaz's action and call Europe
Yes, computers in the University of East Anglia (which is a well known climate research centre) were illegally hacked into and the personal correspondence of climate researchers distributed to try and discredit the science of climate change. But, the emails were cheery picked from a decade of correspondence, have yet to produce evidence of any conspiracy among climate researchers and are attributed to only a small number of scientists. This changes nothing.
So, instead of wasting any more time debating this minor debacle, it is time to re-focus attention on world leaders in Copenhagen. A good start, would be to take Avaaz's action and call Europe
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Population Control
On Wednesday evening I had the pleasure of listening to Mary Robinson deliver a key note address entitled 'Copenhagen: Delivering Climate Justice'. The event was organised by Oxfam Ireland in association with TIDI.
The audience who were lucky enough to be in attendance took the rare opportunity to pose some tough questions about the science of climate change, its proposed link to future conflicts over natural resources, the need for a perpetual recession and the current thorn in the side of development education and practice - population control.
Climate change has been recently targeted by commentators who believe that the current and projected future growth in the populations of the developing world is what stands in the way of true development. Indeed, the UN Population Fund recently pointed the finger at the projected rise in the population of the developing world by 2050 as a reason for why climate change could worsen dramatically.
These commentators refuse to take concepts such as consumption into account. If they did they would have a hard time excusing countries whose population growth is considerably less than many nations in the developing world but yet have ridiculously higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. They also fail to appreciate that education leads to greater family planning within communities and that the provision of education and the creation of the appropriate structures to facilitate this is a long process that should not be replaced by some quick fix condemnation.
It is both dangerous and alarmist to link climate change or indeed poverty to population control. It is disgraceful to essentially propose enforced population control and is an affront to human rights norms. Change will happen from within. This internal change should be facilitated, not prescribed.
However, NGOs and others in the development sector better start addressing the growing obsession with the notion of population control and start putting forward a strong case to counter some of the fallacies that we are currently being forced to listen to.
The audience who were lucky enough to be in attendance took the rare opportunity to pose some tough questions about the science of climate change, its proposed link to future conflicts over natural resources, the need for a perpetual recession and the current thorn in the side of development education and practice - population control.
Climate change has been recently targeted by commentators who believe that the current and projected future growth in the populations of the developing world is what stands in the way of true development. Indeed, the UN Population Fund recently pointed the finger at the projected rise in the population of the developing world by 2050 as a reason for why climate change could worsen dramatically.
These commentators refuse to take concepts such as consumption into account. If they did they would have a hard time excusing countries whose population growth is considerably less than many nations in the developing world but yet have ridiculously higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. They also fail to appreciate that education leads to greater family planning within communities and that the provision of education and the creation of the appropriate structures to facilitate this is a long process that should not be replaced by some quick fix condemnation.
It is both dangerous and alarmist to link climate change or indeed poverty to population control. It is disgraceful to essentially propose enforced population control and is an affront to human rights norms. Change will happen from within. This internal change should be facilitated, not prescribed.
However, NGOs and others in the development sector better start addressing the growing obsession with the notion of population control and start putting forward a strong case to counter some of the fallacies that we are currently being forced to listen to.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Poor and Unemployed? Then Go to Iraq
I was reading a BBC News article this week about the prevalence of Ugandan security guards in Iraq since 2007. I couldn't help but be disturbed for a number of reasons.
Iraq is currently a war zone where roughly 100,000 cilivian deaths have occurred since the 2003 invasion (according to Iraq Body Count). The mainstream media report suicide bombings and kidnappings on a daily basis and we are all too aware of the numerous accusations of torture and murder committed by foreign troops. Iraq is in a state of occupation, civil war and general disarray. It is not the first country that would come to mind when considering career prospects.
So why have more than 10,000 Ugandans already gone to work there as security guards? Seth Katerema Mwesigye, who was interviewed by the BBC, claims that the money he made in Iraq made him wealthy by Ugandan standards and that Iraq has proved quite lucrative for many Ugandan security firms. Unfortunately, for many Ugandans facing poverty and unemployment, it is seen as an opportunity to escape. But at what cost - death, mutilation, psychological scarring? It is disgraceful that people have to risk their very lives to simply have a livelihood.
Also, I do not like the idea of foreign security guards, from any country, operating in Iraq. The word mercenary jumps to mind! Though I have no reason to believe that the thousands of Ugandans who worked in Iraq operated in any fashion other than professionally, Mr Mwesigye himself acknowledged that other security firms were now offering similar services for close to half the price. Price undercutting could lead to the lowering of standards and very soon the calibre of individual being sent to fill these posts (which surely could be filled by the local population) could seriously be in question.
It is a dangerous career path which people are turning to out of desperation and one that I fear will not benefit the already suffering Iraqi population.
Iraq is currently a war zone where roughly 100,000 cilivian deaths have occurred since the 2003 invasion (according to Iraq Body Count). The mainstream media report suicide bombings and kidnappings on a daily basis and we are all too aware of the numerous accusations of torture and murder committed by foreign troops. Iraq is in a state of occupation, civil war and general disarray. It is not the first country that would come to mind when considering career prospects.
So why have more than 10,000 Ugandans already gone to work there as security guards? Seth Katerema Mwesigye, who was interviewed by the BBC, claims that the money he made in Iraq made him wealthy by Ugandan standards and that Iraq has proved quite lucrative for many Ugandan security firms. Unfortunately, for many Ugandans facing poverty and unemployment, it is seen as an opportunity to escape. But at what cost - death, mutilation, psychological scarring? It is disgraceful that people have to risk their very lives to simply have a livelihood.
Also, I do not like the idea of foreign security guards, from any country, operating in Iraq. The word mercenary jumps to mind! Though I have no reason to believe that the thousands of Ugandans who worked in Iraq operated in any fashion other than professionally, Mr Mwesigye himself acknowledged that other security firms were now offering similar services for close to half the price. Price undercutting could lead to the lowering of standards and very soon the calibre of individual being sent to fill these posts (which surely could be filled by the local population) could seriously be in question.
It is a dangerous career path which people are turning to out of desperation and one that I fear will not benefit the already suffering Iraqi population.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Update: Cuban Embargo - 47 Years and Counting
The UN General Assembly has once again overwhelmingly condemnded the US economic embargo against Cuba.
This week, the assembly voted 187-3 in opposition to the 47 year old embargo. The only countries to side with the US were Israel (no surprises there) and the Pacific Island nation of Palau (a former United Nations Trusteeship administered by the US until 1994).
With all the positive steps that President Obama has taken to improve relations with Cuba, the question now stands as to whether he will take the ultimate step forward and end a policy that is no more than a cold war relic?
This week, the assembly voted 187-3 in opposition to the 47 year old embargo. The only countries to side with the US were Israel (no surprises there) and the Pacific Island nation of Palau (a former United Nations Trusteeship administered by the US until 1994).
With all the positive steps that President Obama has taken to improve relations with Cuba, the question now stands as to whether he will take the ultimate step forward and end a policy that is no more than a cold war relic?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Oxfam Shake Up Aid System
Oxfam has released a new report, Band Aids and Beyond: Tackling disasters in Ethiopia 25 years after the famine, which calls for a “radical shake-up” of the aid system in order to break the cycle of hunger that exists in Ethiopia.
Rather than simply waiting for disasters to strike and then responding, the report calls for the more sustainable and dignified approach of tackling the risk of those disasters, by employing Disaster Risk Management (DRM). According to the report, DRM works by:
• Identifying all potential threats to lives and livelihoods and people’s vulnerabilities to such threats,
• Building their resilience, i.e. their ability to withstand shocks without jeopardising their ways of working and living.
DRM can operate in many ways, such as by providing micro-insurance for farmers, giving communities cash in exchange for work (examples of which are documented in the report) and by establishing early warning systems to help ensure a timely response to impending food shortages and other disasters.
With regard to Ethiopia specifically, Oxfam points out that the US Government is the source of 70 per cent of humanitarian assistance but that last year, 92% of the amount spent went on in-kind food aid. Although it is without doubt required at times, food aid does not address the fundamental causes of disasters and therefore thus does not prevent them from happening again or even limit their severity. In addition, food aid supports industries within donor countries rather than local producers. A shift in approach is required.
Knee jerk reactions are never long term solutions and Oxfam’s latest report examines one potential solution. It’s well worth a read.
Rather than simply waiting for disasters to strike and then responding, the report calls for the more sustainable and dignified approach of tackling the risk of those disasters, by employing Disaster Risk Management (DRM). According to the report, DRM works by:
• Identifying all potential threats to lives and livelihoods and people’s vulnerabilities to such threats,
• Building their resilience, i.e. their ability to withstand shocks without jeopardising their ways of working and living.
DRM can operate in many ways, such as by providing micro-insurance for farmers, giving communities cash in exchange for work (examples of which are documented in the report) and by establishing early warning systems to help ensure a timely response to impending food shortages and other disasters.
With regard to Ethiopia specifically, Oxfam points out that the US Government is the source of 70 per cent of humanitarian assistance but that last year, 92% of the amount spent went on in-kind food aid. Although it is without doubt required at times, food aid does not address the fundamental causes of disasters and therefore thus does not prevent them from happening again or even limit their severity. In addition, food aid supports industries within donor countries rather than local producers. A shift in approach is required.
Knee jerk reactions are never long term solutions and Oxfam’s latest report examines one potential solution. It’s well worth a read.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Blog Action Day
Today is Blog Action Day and the chosen topic is climate change.
So I think it is important to bring attention once again to Oxfam Ireland's campaign Climate Change Destroys Lives. Let's Face It.
Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity and Oxfam is calling on world leaders to ensure that a fair and safe deal is reached at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
Please add your voice and help make the call louder, stronger and impossible to ignore.
So I think it is important to bring attention once again to Oxfam Ireland's campaign Climate Change Destroys Lives. Let's Face It.
Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity and Oxfam is calling on world leaders to ensure that a fair and safe deal is reached at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
Please add your voice and help make the call louder, stronger and impossible to ignore.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - Why?
US President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his calls to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and working to achieve world peace.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't that seem a little premature? This is a man who currently, as commander-in-chief, is engaged in 2 wars and has control over the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. In addition, his stance on Israel and the occupied territories is not the most progressive or brave.
There is no question that he is working to address the negative relationship that the US has with the rest of the world and his calls for nuclear disarmament are very welcome, but awards should be given for results, not intentions. President Obama may well be able to realise "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" but until then, he deserves admiration, not accolades.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't that seem a little premature? This is a man who currently, as commander-in-chief, is engaged in 2 wars and has control over the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. In addition, his stance on Israel and the occupied territories is not the most progressive or brave.
There is no question that he is working to address the negative relationship that the US has with the rest of the world and his calls for nuclear disarmament are very welcome, but awards should be given for results, not intentions. President Obama may well be able to realise "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" but until then, he deserves admiration, not accolades.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Ireland Needs a New Debt Policy
Poor countries still pay $100 million dollars every day in debt repayments to the richest countries in the world. This is despite the fact that a huge proportion of these debts are historical and were accumulated by dictators such as President Mobutu of Zaire, who left the people of the DRC to repay illegitimate loans of over $12 billion. To make matters worse, impoverished countries are currently facing yet another devastating debt emergency due to the impacts of climate change, the global financial crisis and the ever increasing problem of food security.
In response, Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) are campaigning to ensure that Ireland’s new debt policy, currently being formulated by the Department of Finance, supports;
1) Greatly expanded debt cancellation, free from conditions for all Southern countries that need it.
(2) Recognition by Ireland, the EU, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund of the responsibility of lenders in the creation of unjust debts.
(3) The establishment of debt audits in the global South.
(4) The establishment of an international taskforce on tackling historic, illegitimate debts.
(5) Recognition of the climate debt owed to countries of the Global South and the need for grant based support (not loans) to Southern countries to cope with climate change.
You can support the campaign by contacting your local TDs and demanding that they raise a question about the need for a new, just debt policy in the Dáil. Furthermore, encourage them to request that Minister Lenihan and Minister Power add their support to the above concerns.
In response, Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) are campaigning to ensure that Ireland’s new debt policy, currently being formulated by the Department of Finance, supports;
1) Greatly expanded debt cancellation, free from conditions for all Southern countries that need it.
(2) Recognition by Ireland, the EU, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund of the responsibility of lenders in the creation of unjust debts.
(3) The establishment of debt audits in the global South.
(4) The establishment of an international taskforce on tackling historic, illegitimate debts.
(5) Recognition of the climate debt owed to countries of the Global South and the need for grant based support (not loans) to Southern countries to cope with climate change.
You can support the campaign by contacting your local TDs and demanding that they raise a question about the need for a new, just debt policy in the Dáil. Furthermore, encourage them to request that Minister Lenihan and Minister Power add their support to the above concerns.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Time to Vote...AGAIN
Today, the Lisbon Treaty will once and for all be decided from an Irish point of view. Regardless of the importance of this vote or indeed the potential consequences whatever the outcome may be, the important issues have once again been overshadowed by the haemorrhaging of inaccurate opinions and political sales-pitches.
We were denied a proper discourse based on the facts. Both sides were guilty of misrepresentation and scare-mongering and have attempted to influence the Irish public with nothing more than veiled threats. The debate, if it can even be called that, deteriorated into a personalised tit-for-tat series of attacks.
The entire referendum, due to this state of affairs, has been an insult to any Irish person who was willing to engage in the process and base their decision on issues of substance. Regardless of outcome, the only positive I can see is that today marks the end…or does it?
We were denied a proper discourse based on the facts. Both sides were guilty of misrepresentation and scare-mongering and have attempted to influence the Irish public with nothing more than veiled threats. The debate, if it can even be called that, deteriorated into a personalised tit-for-tat series of attacks.
The entire referendum, due to this state of affairs, has been an insult to any Irish person who was willing to engage in the process and base their decision on issues of substance. Regardless of outcome, the only positive I can see is that today marks the end…or does it?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
NAMA Advocate Shows his True Colours
Former Bank of Ireland Chief Executive Michael Soden appeared on last night's Vincent Brown in an attempt to defend both the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the purchase by Brian Lenihan of €54bn worth of toxic loans.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Climate Change - Wait and See
I recently had a very polarised discussion with a climate change sceptic. The individual in question has a scientific background, stays up to date with developments in the field and believes that each and every individual should aim to live a more sustainable life.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Friday, August 7, 2009
March for Marriage
Join Amnesty in their support of LGBT Noise, who are organising a March for Marriage on Sunday 9th August at 1:30PM.
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Let Lubna Ahmad Hussein Have Her Day in Court
Sudanese journalist Lubna Ahmad Hussein and 12 other women were arrested in Khartoum on July 3rd 2009 for wearing trousers. They were arrested by the Sudanese authorities for allegedly breaching Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Act (1991) which states that;
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Update: Criminal Justice Bill Passed
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009, that was criticised both by the IHRC and the ICCL and rushed through the Dáil, has been passed by 118 votes to 23.
Whether the concerns of many commentators (including myself) are realised or not, it should be remembered that this bill was passed by a great majority. Numerous TDs complained about the timeframe imposed on them to debate the bill and yet only 23 of them felt compelled to reject it.
Fianna Fáil may well be criticised in the future for initiating such a draconian act, but that criticism should not come from the opposition parties.
Whether the concerns of many commentators (including myself) are realised or not, it should be remembered that this bill was passed by a great majority. Numerous TDs complained about the timeframe imposed on them to debate the bill and yet only 23 of them felt compelled to reject it.
Fianna Fáil may well be criticised in the future for initiating such a draconian act, but that criticism should not come from the opposition parties.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Oxfam Ireland Launches Climate Change Campaign
Yesterday, Oxfam Ireland launched its climate change campaign Climate Change Destroys Lives. Let's Face it.
Climate change is the biggest threat than mankind is facing and the most vulnerable people in the world are already feeling its devastating effects. With UN climate change negotiations due to take place in Copenhagen in 2009, now is the time to take urgent action. Watch Oxfam Ireland's new climate change video:
Join the campaign now
Climate change is the biggest threat than mankind is facing and the most vulnerable people in the world are already feeling its devastating effects. With UN climate change negotiations due to take place in Copenhagen in 2009, now is the time to take urgent action. Watch Oxfam Ireland's new climate change video:
Join the campaign now
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Organised Crime, The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 And Us
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009, which is expected to become law before the Oireachtas summer recess, is claimed to strengthen the powers of civil authorities to cope with organised crimes. Minister Dermot Ahern has called the legislation “ground breaking” and given the systemic gangland problems that exist in Ireland, there will be a large percentage of the population that will welcome it with open arms. However, organisations such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) face the unpopular task of being the voice of reason when such pieces of legislation are set to come to pass.
Mark Kelly from the ICCL has stated that provisions within the Bill such as “secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Garda, trample upon the rule of law.” The IHRC for their part have said that “in light of the human rights implications of the 2009 Bill sufficient time is not being granted for full consideration of the legislative proposal by the Houses of the Oireachtas most importantly and also by the IHRC.” (Maurice Manning). It would seem an ill-advised move therefore, for the Irish Government to rush through legislation which could have drastic consequences upon the civil liberties of the people of Ireland.
The Bill provides that organised criminal offences will be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Such crimes will equate to offences against the State (and therefore fall within the Act bearing the same name) and give rise to non-jury legal proceedings. Interestingly, the media coverage of many organised crime cases has focused on the intimidation of witnesses rather than on jury tampering and there has been no evidence produced that juries are being inappropriately influenced. Therefore, since witnesses are identified in sittings of the Special Criminal Court, intimidation will still be possible and all that will be achieved will be the removal of a tenant of a fair trial. It should also be noted that the UN Human Rights Committee has previously criticised Ireland for the ongoing existence of the Special Criminal Court.
Furthermore, the Bill also purports to make changes in relation to another long standing legal right, the right of silence. Section 72(A) will be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which includes the curious expression “any question material to the investigation”. This very general term means that inferences can be drawn if an accused exercises his/her right to silence and refuses to answer such a question. The Irish Times reported that expert Garda opinion on the operations of criminal gangs, which the Bill makes admissible in evidence, may include hearsay. This is extremely worrying given that such evidence is not based on personal experience or knowledge but rather is second hand.
Although it is a far from enviable task to draft legislation in relation to organised crime, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 needs to be re-written. It will be undoubtedly easy for members of the public to accept the Bill as it stands, given the damaging effects to Irish society that organised crime is having, but before such acceptance, people should read it for themselves and be aware of the negative implications: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf
Mark Kelly from the ICCL has stated that provisions within the Bill such as “secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Garda, trample upon the rule of law.” The IHRC for their part have said that “in light of the human rights implications of the 2009 Bill sufficient time is not being granted for full consideration of the legislative proposal by the Houses of the Oireachtas most importantly and also by the IHRC.” (Maurice Manning). It would seem an ill-advised move therefore, for the Irish Government to rush through legislation which could have drastic consequences upon the civil liberties of the people of Ireland.
The Bill provides that organised criminal offences will be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Such crimes will equate to offences against the State (and therefore fall within the Act bearing the same name) and give rise to non-jury legal proceedings. Interestingly, the media coverage of many organised crime cases has focused on the intimidation of witnesses rather than on jury tampering and there has been no evidence produced that juries are being inappropriately influenced. Therefore, since witnesses are identified in sittings of the Special Criminal Court, intimidation will still be possible and all that will be achieved will be the removal of a tenant of a fair trial. It should also be noted that the UN Human Rights Committee has previously criticised Ireland for the ongoing existence of the Special Criminal Court.
Furthermore, the Bill also purports to make changes in relation to another long standing legal right, the right of silence. Section 72(A) will be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which includes the curious expression “any question material to the investigation”. This very general term means that inferences can be drawn if an accused exercises his/her right to silence and refuses to answer such a question. The Irish Times reported that expert Garda opinion on the operations of criminal gangs, which the Bill makes admissible in evidence, may include hearsay. This is extremely worrying given that such evidence is not based on personal experience or knowledge but rather is second hand.
Although it is a far from enviable task to draft legislation in relation to organised crime, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 needs to be re-written. It will be undoubtedly easy for members of the public to accept the Bill as it stands, given the damaging effects to Irish society that organised crime is having, but before such acceptance, people should read it for themselves and be aware of the negative implications: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf
Thursday, June 25, 2009
UPDATE: Death Penalty
Yesterday’s unanimous vote by the parliament of Togo has resulted in the death penalty being abolished in the country. Although Togo has not carried out an execution since 1978, there were currently convicts on death row.
Togo has now become the 94th country in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, but there are still more than 50 countries that carry out executions for various offences.
Togo has now become the 94th country in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, but there are still more than 50 countries that carry out executions for various offences.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Military Spending - Recession Proof
Global military spending has risen by 45% in the last decade. According to the latest yearbook from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2008 saw global military expenditure reach €1464 billion. The US spent €607 billion alone according to the statistics but even this enormous figure may be an underestimation with the Guardian reporting that the White House itself claims spending on "national defence" exceeded €675 billion for the year. However, the rise in expenditure is also due to the spending increase across most of Asia.
This is despite the fact that the world is currently in the throes of a global recession and that there is still 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide. Unfortunately however, there tends often to be a large disparity between what countries are willing to allocate to secure their global and regional power status and what they spend on poverty reduction and development. For instance, South Africa is paying an average of €530 million a year until 2010/2011 under an arms deal when an estimated €425 million would pay for free water services for everyone in the country.
Interestingly and unsurprisingly, four of the top five suppliers since the end of the cold war are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Indeed, according to the SIPRI yearbook, the top 20 companies involved in military trade are American or European. With statistics like these it becomes hard not to question the legitimacy of certain countries having a permanent place on the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the UN Controller's office recently listed arrears as of 7th May 2009 showing that the US, UK and China owed €993, €121 and €33 billion respectively. So these countries wield immense power when it comes to world security, engage in massive military expenditure and yet are slow to pay money to the UN which could be used for humanitarian purposes.
Oxfam's briefing paper 'Shooting Down the MDGs' showed how arms transfers can divert funds from social spending and how the availability of and access to conventional arms and ammunition can prolong and/or intensify armed violence. This has been seen recently in Sri Lanka where the government chose a purely military solution when the balance of power was changed due to the large imports of stocks of ammunition that was possible. The success of the Millennium Development Goals are seriously threatened by military expenditure which consumes unjustifiable quantities of financial resources. For example, the leading causes of childhood deaths are easily prevented through simple improvements in basic health services but there needs to be sufficient investment. Similarly, if a fair and safe deal on climate change is to be achieved this year, substantial resources need to be set aside for adaptation and mitigation financing. To look at it another and more positive way, with the political will of certain governments and adequate financial support, the number of children of primary school age who did not attend school fell from €103 million in 1999 to €75 million in 2006 (The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals Report 2008). This is obvious progress on the Millennium Development goal to achieve universal primary education and shows real return on investment.
More needs to be done to combat the international arms trade, considered by Transparency International to be one of the three most corrupt businesses in the world. The developed world needs to stop arming both itself and the developing world and governments of poorer nations need to be supported and encouraged to re-direct their spending so that the plight of the 1.3 billion living in extreme poverty is addressed. A practical step that everyone can take is to get involved in the Control Arms Campaign at http://www.controlarms.org/en.
This is despite the fact that the world is currently in the throes of a global recession and that there is still 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide. Unfortunately however, there tends often to be a large disparity between what countries are willing to allocate to secure their global and regional power status and what they spend on poverty reduction and development. For instance, South Africa is paying an average of €530 million a year until 2010/2011 under an arms deal when an estimated €425 million would pay for free water services for everyone in the country.
Interestingly and unsurprisingly, four of the top five suppliers since the end of the cold war are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Indeed, according to the SIPRI yearbook, the top 20 companies involved in military trade are American or European. With statistics like these it becomes hard not to question the legitimacy of certain countries having a permanent place on the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the UN Controller's office recently listed arrears as of 7th May 2009 showing that the US, UK and China owed €993, €121 and €33 billion respectively. So these countries wield immense power when it comes to world security, engage in massive military expenditure and yet are slow to pay money to the UN which could be used for humanitarian purposes.
Oxfam's briefing paper 'Shooting Down the MDGs' showed how arms transfers can divert funds from social spending and how the availability of and access to conventional arms and ammunition can prolong and/or intensify armed violence. This has been seen recently in Sri Lanka where the government chose a purely military solution when the balance of power was changed due to the large imports of stocks of ammunition that was possible. The success of the Millennium Development Goals are seriously threatened by military expenditure which consumes unjustifiable quantities of financial resources. For example, the leading causes of childhood deaths are easily prevented through simple improvements in basic health services but there needs to be sufficient investment. Similarly, if a fair and safe deal on climate change is to be achieved this year, substantial resources need to be set aside for adaptation and mitigation financing. To look at it another and more positive way, with the political will of certain governments and adequate financial support, the number of children of primary school age who did not attend school fell from €103 million in 1999 to €75 million in 2006 (The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals Report 2008). This is obvious progress on the Millennium Development goal to achieve universal primary education and shows real return on investment.
More needs to be done to combat the international arms trade, considered by Transparency International to be one of the three most corrupt businesses in the world. The developed world needs to stop arming both itself and the developing world and governments of poorer nations need to be supported and encouraged to re-direct their spending so that the plight of the 1.3 billion living in extreme poverty is addressed. A practical step that everyone can take is to get involved in the Control Arms Campaign at http://www.controlarms.org/en.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Irish AIDS Day
Today, Ireland marks Irish AIDS Day.
However, some Irish people still do not recognize HIV or AIDS as hardships that many people in Ireland face on a daily basis. Even when confronted with the reality that a number of people in this country are living with HIV and AIDS, there are those that will lay the blame on foreigners living in Ireland, drug users and homosexuals. This mistaken explanation for the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in any country unfortunately stigmatizes people who are already feeling isolated and at times ostracized by society. With that in mind, it is worth noting some of the most recent findings by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC):
405 new HIV and 28 new AIDS diagnoses were reported to the HPSC in 2008.
The highest number of HIV cases that were reported was due to heterosexual transmission.
Of the 312 reported cases of HIV in Ireland with information available as to the geographical origin of the diagnosed person, it was found that 39% were born in Ireland. This is the same percentage of the overall figure as of those who were born in sub-Saharan Africa.
These figures are just a sample of the available data but were highlighted deliberately to encourage people to question any prejudices they may have about HIV and AIDS. Irish AIDS Day should serve as a reminder that many people in Ireland and around the world fight a disease every day. They should not have to fight a stigma too.
However, some Irish people still do not recognize HIV or AIDS as hardships that many people in Ireland face on a daily basis. Even when confronted with the reality that a number of people in this country are living with HIV and AIDS, there are those that will lay the blame on foreigners living in Ireland, drug users and homosexuals. This mistaken explanation for the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in any country unfortunately stigmatizes people who are already feeling isolated and at times ostracized by society. With that in mind, it is worth noting some of the most recent findings by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC):
405 new HIV and 28 new AIDS diagnoses were reported to the HPSC in 2008.
The highest number of HIV cases that were reported was due to heterosexual transmission.
Of the 312 reported cases of HIV in Ireland with information available as to the geographical origin of the diagnosed person, it was found that 39% were born in Ireland. This is the same percentage of the overall figure as of those who were born in sub-Saharan Africa.
These figures are just a sample of the available data but were highlighted deliberately to encourage people to question any prejudices they may have about HIV and AIDS. Irish AIDS Day should serve as a reminder that many people in Ireland and around the world fight a disease every day. They should not have to fight a stigma too.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Update - Shell Settles
Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay $15.5 million (€11.2 m) to settle the case of Wiwa v Shell which was due to commence this week. Shell stood accused of taking part in human rights abuses in Southern Nigeria during the 1990s.
Although, Shell maintains that the allegations were false and is pleading innocent to all civil charges, the settlement is still one of the largest ever agreed by a multinational corporation in similar circumstances. Also, there is no smoke without fire!
Other companies may now fear legal action and begin to take into account the impact that their operations have on local communities.
Although, Shell maintains that the allegations were false and is pleading innocent to all civil charges, the settlement is still one of the largest ever agreed by a multinational corporation in similar circumstances. Also, there is no smoke without fire!
Other companies may now fear legal action and begin to take into account the impact that their operations have on local communities.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Forget Responsibility: Now is the Time for Accountability
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), like all systems that promote self-regulation, results in much discussion and much more disagreement. Essentially, companies that are socially responsible will always take the environment, the rights on their employees, the affects felt by local communities and basic notions of justice into consideration when conducting their operations. Some observers believe that CSR is a hindrance with no relevance and therefore no entitlement to be part of the commercial sphere. Others believe that CSR is nothing more than window dressing which will never have any real impact unless corporations are legally bound by it. And then there are those who consider it a positive tool that can be used to balance the interests of profit and people.
However, the fact remains that corporations can simply choose not to abide by the principles of CSR and there is very little that has been done in the past to counter this. For instance, the Company Law Review Group in Ireland has been set the task to reform and consolidate all existing companies’ legislation in a single companies’ code. The result of this will be the General Scheme of the Companies Consolidation and Reform Bill and should be drafted by the end of 2009. However, to date it is practically impossible to find any reference to CSR, human rights, social responsibility or the environment in the bill; a bill that consolidates all existing legislation relating to company law. Ireland is not alone in its inability to regulate such matters and serves as a reminder of the ineptness of the law to protect such notions when companies are involved.
With that in mind, it is of huge importance that a New York court is currently preparing for a trail (Wiwa v Shell) in which the oil giant Shell stands accused of crimes against humanity over its activities in the oil-rich Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria. The outcome of this case is expected to have a bearing on the issue of corporate accountability and how far it extends. The plaintiffs involved allege that Shell was an active participant in atrocities and abuses carried out by Nigeria's military police. They also hold Shell partially responsible for torture, illegal detention, forced exile and the shooting of hundreds of protestors.
The trial is a civil action based on an obscure law that has rarely proved successful for plaintiffs in similar cases. However, there is great anticipation that the current plaintiffs will indeed be victorious which could result in the award of millions of dollars. And that is only the beginning. What does a positive result for the plaintiffs mean for corporate accountability? Could successful civil proceedings lead to criminal cases? Will Shell lose more than money?
All these questions will soon be addressed and hopefully there will be a clear answer; This is the end of the line for corporate immunity!
However, the fact remains that corporations can simply choose not to abide by the principles of CSR and there is very little that has been done in the past to counter this. For instance, the Company Law Review Group in Ireland has been set the task to reform and consolidate all existing companies’ legislation in a single companies’ code. The result of this will be the General Scheme of the Companies Consolidation and Reform Bill and should be drafted by the end of 2009. However, to date it is practically impossible to find any reference to CSR, human rights, social responsibility or the environment in the bill; a bill that consolidates all existing legislation relating to company law. Ireland is not alone in its inability to regulate such matters and serves as a reminder of the ineptness of the law to protect such notions when companies are involved.
With that in mind, it is of huge importance that a New York court is currently preparing for a trail (Wiwa v Shell) in which the oil giant Shell stands accused of crimes against humanity over its activities in the oil-rich Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria. The outcome of this case is expected to have a bearing on the issue of corporate accountability and how far it extends. The plaintiffs involved allege that Shell was an active participant in atrocities and abuses carried out by Nigeria's military police. They also hold Shell partially responsible for torture, illegal detention, forced exile and the shooting of hundreds of protestors.
The trial is a civil action based on an obscure law that has rarely proved successful for plaintiffs in similar cases. However, there is great anticipation that the current plaintiffs will indeed be victorious which could result in the award of millions of dollars. And that is only the beginning. What does a positive result for the plaintiffs mean for corporate accountability? Could successful civil proceedings lead to criminal cases? Will Shell lose more than money?
All these questions will soon be addressed and hopefully there will be a clear answer; This is the end of the line for corporate immunity!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
No Democracy Without an Independent Judiciary
There can be no effective democracy without an independent and unbiased judiciary that operates in a legal system which respects the equal rights of all. When such conditions do not exist, the courts are often used as a tool of oppression. They are employed as a means of consolidating the authority of those in power and as a weapon against any opposition, be it from political parties or civil society. Such abuse was rampant in South Africa during the apartheid era and typified by the Rivonia trail during the 1960s when the illegitimate government tried to use the courts as a mechanism to damage and silence the ANC.
Thinking of South Africa and the leadership of Nelson Mandela, one cannot fail to see the similarities in the hardships endured by Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. The current case against her could result in her facing a prison term of five years. Unsurprisingly, the opposition leader who has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest, is facing charges that if (and most likely when) found guilty will exclude her from taking part in next year’s elections. This is nothing more than opportunism by the military rule to prevent Suu Kyi from causing them insurmountable discomfort if she was free to contest the elections, which she would have been (her detention order was set to expire on May 27th 2009) had it not been for the actions of the American John Yettaw and the reaction of the government of Myanmar.
John Yettaw acted of his own volition. According to her lawyers, Suu Kyi requested that he leave immediately and only allowed him to stay temporarily due to his fatigue and inability to repeat the swim back across the lake. If Suu Kyi had brought the presence of Mr Yettaw to the attention of the authorities, they would surely have acted in the same way and used the opportunity to prolong her detention, despite their protestations. All week there have been concerns that the court and prosecution were being influenced to conclude the proceedings quickly. This fear was added to when the prosecution suddenly decided not to call their final 8 witnesses, putting immense pressure on the defence team.
Aung San Suu Kyi will not receive a fair trial. Myanmar’s human rights record displays nothing short of contempt for such notions. The international community must speak now and with a united voice calling for her release and demanding that she is not placed back under house arrest.
Thinking of South Africa and the leadership of Nelson Mandela, one cannot fail to see the similarities in the hardships endured by Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. The current case against her could result in her facing a prison term of five years. Unsurprisingly, the opposition leader who has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest, is facing charges that if (and most likely when) found guilty will exclude her from taking part in next year’s elections. This is nothing more than opportunism by the military rule to prevent Suu Kyi from causing them insurmountable discomfort if she was free to contest the elections, which she would have been (her detention order was set to expire on May 27th 2009) had it not been for the actions of the American John Yettaw and the reaction of the government of Myanmar.
John Yettaw acted of his own volition. According to her lawyers, Suu Kyi requested that he leave immediately and only allowed him to stay temporarily due to his fatigue and inability to repeat the swim back across the lake. If Suu Kyi had brought the presence of Mr Yettaw to the attention of the authorities, they would surely have acted in the same way and used the opportunity to prolong her detention, despite their protestations. All week there have been concerns that the court and prosecution were being influenced to conclude the proceedings quickly. This fear was added to when the prosecution suddenly decided not to call their final 8 witnesses, putting immense pressure on the defence team.
Aung San Suu Kyi will not receive a fair trial. Myanmar’s human rights record displays nothing short of contempt for such notions. The international community must speak now and with a united voice calling for her release and demanding that she is not placed back under house arrest.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Great YouTube Links
Check out some great videos from Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth International:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sBPTJP7z4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFz5jbUfJbk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mETr1SqXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sBPTJP7z4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFz5jbUfJbk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mETr1SqXk
Monday, May 18, 2009
2009: A Bad Year for the Protection of Civilians
Not even half way through 2009 and already it has proven to be a disastrous year for the protection of civilians in times of war. From December 27th 2008 to 18th January 2009, Trocaire estimated that the conflict in Gaza took the lives of around 412 Palestinian children, the epitome of non-combatant civilians. By the end of the brief but brutal conflict that consumed the first moments of 2009, the United Nations recorded 13 Israeli and 1,366 Palestinian deaths. On top of this, 40,000 people had been displaced and 200,000 homes were damaged. These figures are made all the more horrifying when the context is outlined.
For example, the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) reported numerous cases of people in Gaza dying as they waited in vain for ambulances. This was largely due to the fact that breaks in shelling bombardments were not adequate to allow medical assistance reach those in need. This falls considerably short of the requirements under Articles 14 and 17 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of which Israel is a signatory and even if Israel was not to recognise the Gaza Strip as foreign territory, then Article 3 still requires that within its own territory, the “wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for”. It is worth making the point that the ICRC does not make a habit of condemning or criticising countries unless it feels compelled to do so, and as such the reports it made should be taken with utmost seriousness. In addition and with regard to the destruction of 200,000 homes, such devastation could hardly be considered “absolutely necessary by military operations” as is required by Article 53.
Furthermore, Human Rights Watch reported during the conflict that Israel’s military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately. Israel was also criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, for the killing of up to 30 Palestinians in Zeitoun when it shelled a house where its own troops had instructed roughly 110 civilians to take shelter. Any claims made by the Israeli Government that white phosphorous was not employed as a weapon or that some civilian deaths were either mistakes or did not occur as reported are hard to believe considering the ban on foreign media and the restriction of humanitarian and aid organisations within the conflict zones.
This is not to say that the activities of Hamas or any armed group that took offensive acts against Israel can be condoned or that the Israeli loss of life does not constitute a tragedy but the simple fact remains that the actions that Israel took were disproportionate and amounted to collective punishment which resulted in over a thousand civilian deaths. This is indefensible.
Following the cessation of hostilities by both sides involved in the Gaza conflict, another aggressive military operation, this time in the north eastern territory of Sri Lanka, assumed the focus of the international community. The government of Sri Lanka this week is now celebrating what it claims to be the defeat of the Tamil Tigers and the end of the civil war but throughout the campaign it acted with complete disregard for the civilian population. In the final week (beginning 11th May) of the campaign alone, it is estimated that 1,000 civilians were killed due to attacks in the Sri Lanka safe zone. Children as young as 5 years old were continuously turning up at camps traumatised and hungry after being separated from their parents as they tried to flee. Indeed the government at one point itself believed there to be 50,000 civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Yet despite this awareness and knowing that its actions were either directly causing civilian deaths or resulting in reprisals by the Tamil Tigers having the same effect, the government in Colombo refused to halt its offensive or change its tactics. Once again, any claims of innocence by Sri Lanka or the remaining Tamil Tigers cannot be verified as independent journalists were denied access to the areas where the fighting took place. However it would be surprising if more details about civilian deaths did not surface in the upcoming weeks and months.
Unfortunately, the end of one conflict has ushered in the beginning of another. As I am writing this article, the latest strife in Pakistan has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians and both sides are claiming they intend to fight to the bitter end.
It looks as if 2009 is set to continue as violently as it began.
For example, the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) reported numerous cases of people in Gaza dying as they waited in vain for ambulances. This was largely due to the fact that breaks in shelling bombardments were not adequate to allow medical assistance reach those in need. This falls considerably short of the requirements under Articles 14 and 17 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of which Israel is a signatory and even if Israel was not to recognise the Gaza Strip as foreign territory, then Article 3 still requires that within its own territory, the “wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for”. It is worth making the point that the ICRC does not make a habit of condemning or criticising countries unless it feels compelled to do so, and as such the reports it made should be taken with utmost seriousness. In addition and with regard to the destruction of 200,000 homes, such devastation could hardly be considered “absolutely necessary by military operations” as is required by Article 53.
Furthermore, Human Rights Watch reported during the conflict that Israel’s military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately. Israel was also criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, for the killing of up to 30 Palestinians in Zeitoun when it shelled a house where its own troops had instructed roughly 110 civilians to take shelter. Any claims made by the Israeli Government that white phosphorous was not employed as a weapon or that some civilian deaths were either mistakes or did not occur as reported are hard to believe considering the ban on foreign media and the restriction of humanitarian and aid organisations within the conflict zones.
This is not to say that the activities of Hamas or any armed group that took offensive acts against Israel can be condoned or that the Israeli loss of life does not constitute a tragedy but the simple fact remains that the actions that Israel took were disproportionate and amounted to collective punishment which resulted in over a thousand civilian deaths. This is indefensible.
Following the cessation of hostilities by both sides involved in the Gaza conflict, another aggressive military operation, this time in the north eastern territory of Sri Lanka, assumed the focus of the international community. The government of Sri Lanka this week is now celebrating what it claims to be the defeat of the Tamil Tigers and the end of the civil war but throughout the campaign it acted with complete disregard for the civilian population. In the final week (beginning 11th May) of the campaign alone, it is estimated that 1,000 civilians were killed due to attacks in the Sri Lanka safe zone. Children as young as 5 years old were continuously turning up at camps traumatised and hungry after being separated from their parents as they tried to flee. Indeed the government at one point itself believed there to be 50,000 civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Yet despite this awareness and knowing that its actions were either directly causing civilian deaths or resulting in reprisals by the Tamil Tigers having the same effect, the government in Colombo refused to halt its offensive or change its tactics. Once again, any claims of innocence by Sri Lanka or the remaining Tamil Tigers cannot be verified as independent journalists were denied access to the areas where the fighting took place. However it would be surprising if more details about civilian deaths did not surface in the upcoming weeks and months.
Unfortunately, the end of one conflict has ushered in the beginning of another. As I am writing this article, the latest strife in Pakistan has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians and both sides are claiming they intend to fight to the bitter end.
It looks as if 2009 is set to continue as violently as it began.
Monday, May 11, 2009
OECD peer review - Not all good news
Peter Power, Ireland's Minister of State for Overseas Development, has warmly welcomed the review of Irish Aid and the Government's overseas aid programme by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC). He noted that in the review, the DAC praised Ireland for its long history of helping the world's poorest people and he thanked the Irish public for continuing to "save thousands of lives each year".
The review does indeed bestow a lot of praise upon Ireland with regard to its ability to make aid more effective, its policy cohesion and its concentration of spending. However, the review took place two weeks before the Irish Government decided to cut the overseas aid budget by a massive €100 million. Furthermore, the praise was accompanied by a warning from the DAC with regard to the €95 million cut made in February of this year, that Ireland should refrain from any further budgetary action that would undermine its commitment to meeting the United Nations ODA target of 0.7% GNI by 2012.
I hope that Minister Power and the Irish Government will in future not only accept the applause of bodies such as the DAC but also take heed of the committee's warnings rather than showing a continued willingness to cut the overseas aid budget.
The review does indeed bestow a lot of praise upon Ireland with regard to its ability to make aid more effective, its policy cohesion and its concentration of spending. However, the review took place two weeks before the Irish Government decided to cut the overseas aid budget by a massive €100 million. Furthermore, the praise was accompanied by a warning from the DAC with regard to the €95 million cut made in February of this year, that Ireland should refrain from any further budgetary action that would undermine its commitment to meeting the United Nations ODA target of 0.7% GNI by 2012.
I hope that Minister Power and the Irish Government will in future not only accept the applause of bodies such as the DAC but also take heed of the committee's warnings rather than showing a continued willingness to cut the overseas aid budget.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Is Jacob Zuma the right man for the job?
With the recent electoral victory by the ANC, South Africa is poised to have its first ever Zulu President, Jacob Zuma. However, although the election was a shining example of democracy in action, will Mr Zuma’s leadership improve the lives of those that cast their vote?
The ANC won a convincing 65.9% of the vote and although this was a lower figure than that achieved by Mr Zuma’s predecessor Thabo Mbeki, it still gives a strong mandate to the ANC to continue in Government. Understandably, there are many South African citizens who would vote for the ANC regardless of whom the leader was and would consider themselves to be one-party people. This is easy to comprehend given the historical significance and achievements of the party. However, when Mr Zuma originally decided to stand for leadership of the ANC, the party itself was split and has been damaged by that division ever since.
Jacob Zuma has an impressive personal history. He was a member of the ANC’s military wing, was imprisoned on the notorious Robben Island and spent 10 years in prison for his part in the anti-apartheid struggle. He, like many others involved in that struggle, also spent a considerable amount of time in exile. However, his rise through the ranks of the ANC’s leadership has been plagued with controversy. In the past few years alone he has faced rape charges (of which he was acquitted) and was sacked as deputy president after being implicated in a corruption scandal. Allegations of corruption have still not abated and probably will not do so during her tenure as president.
On top of this, during the rape trial he attracted condemnation from HIV/AIDS activists and many in the medical world when he claimed that he had taken a shower after having sexual intercourse in order to minimise the risk of contracting HIV. In a country where UNAIDS recently estimated that 5,700,000 people are currently living with HIV and 1,400,000 children under the age of 17 are orphans due to AIDS, it was an extremely dangerous and irresponsible statement to make. Mr Zuma has also often been criticised by Women’s Groups for some of his views and statements towards women.
Despite this, in a country where 23 million are eligible to vote, the Independent Electoral Commission expressed predictions during the election of an 80% turn out. This type of active citizenship is undoubtedly irregular and impressive but for a country that has a Human Development Index rating of outside the top 100 (of 177 countries), the hope is that Jacob Zuma truly is a man of the people rather than just a different man for different people. Hopefully his past service for the ANC rather than his recent controversial existence is what makes up the man that South Africa will soon have as their president.
The ANC won a convincing 65.9% of the vote and although this was a lower figure than that achieved by Mr Zuma’s predecessor Thabo Mbeki, it still gives a strong mandate to the ANC to continue in Government. Understandably, there are many South African citizens who would vote for the ANC regardless of whom the leader was and would consider themselves to be one-party people. This is easy to comprehend given the historical significance and achievements of the party. However, when Mr Zuma originally decided to stand for leadership of the ANC, the party itself was split and has been damaged by that division ever since.
Jacob Zuma has an impressive personal history. He was a member of the ANC’s military wing, was imprisoned on the notorious Robben Island and spent 10 years in prison for his part in the anti-apartheid struggle. He, like many others involved in that struggle, also spent a considerable amount of time in exile. However, his rise through the ranks of the ANC’s leadership has been plagued with controversy. In the past few years alone he has faced rape charges (of which he was acquitted) and was sacked as deputy president after being implicated in a corruption scandal. Allegations of corruption have still not abated and probably will not do so during her tenure as president.
On top of this, during the rape trial he attracted condemnation from HIV/AIDS activists and many in the medical world when he claimed that he had taken a shower after having sexual intercourse in order to minimise the risk of contracting HIV. In a country where UNAIDS recently estimated that 5,700,000 people are currently living with HIV and 1,400,000 children under the age of 17 are orphans due to AIDS, it was an extremely dangerous and irresponsible statement to make. Mr Zuma has also often been criticised by Women’s Groups for some of his views and statements towards women.
Despite this, in a country where 23 million are eligible to vote, the Independent Electoral Commission expressed predictions during the election of an 80% turn out. This type of active citizenship is undoubtedly irregular and impressive but for a country that has a Human Development Index rating of outside the top 100 (of 177 countries), the hope is that Jacob Zuma truly is a man of the people rather than just a different man for different people. Hopefully his past service for the ANC rather than his recent controversial existence is what makes up the man that South Africa will soon have as their president.
Friday, April 17, 2009
€100 Million Cut in Irish Overseas Aid Budget
On April 7th 2009, the Irish Government announced the imposition of a series of taxes and cuts in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the global recession in Ireland. What the Finance Minister Brian Lenihan did not mention was the €100 million cut to Irish Overseas Aid that was included in the Supplementary Budget.
This was the fourth cut in 10 months after €45 million was cut in July 2008, €15 million in October and a further €95 million in February of this year. This effectively means that since October 2008, there has been a 22% reduction in Ireland’s Overseas Aid Budget. Without doubt this shows that the Irish Government sees the aid budget as a soft target. This is despite the fact that millions of vulnerable people in developing countries are already struggling to cope with the effects of climate change, global food insecurity and the financial crisis and has occurred at the same time that rich countries have managed to find trillions to bail out the banking system.
Previously, Ireland has publicly committed to achieving the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNP on overseas aid by 2012. However, based on current figures Ireland is now only contributing 0.48% of GNP. In 2009, Ireland was the sixth largest aid donor in the world in per capita terms, and although this position will probably be maintained throughout 2009, the recent cuts have not only made such an achievement more difficult but have also damaged Ireland’s reputation as a nation committed to overseas development. Other countries currently slashing their budgets in this fashion include Italy and Latvia, but neither are considered strong players in overseas development, unlike Ireland.
Brian Lenihan claimed that the Government would continue to focus resources “on those most in need”. It is worth noting therefore that;
- The World Bank estimates that an additional 53 million people are already expected to be trapped in poverty in 2009.
- DFID (UK Department for International Development) claim that by December 2010 the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day will be about 90 million higher because of the far-reaching impacts of the financial crisis.
- WaterAid has noted that throughout 2009 more than 1 in 8 of the world’s population will be without essential access to water.
- Concern Worldwide and other NGOs have pointed out that in 2008; an additional 40 million people in developing countries joined the ranks of the hungry and malnourished, due to rising food prices.
Countless other facts and figures could be presented as justification for a reversal of the savage cut made to the Irish Overseas Aid Budget. The cut is quite simply unjust and immoral and despite what the Department of Foreign Affairs’ statement on ODA levels claims, now is a time to be critical of ourselves. Ireland has made commitments to overseas aid and now is not the time to renege on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
