Algeria: after the dust has settled

Following the barbaric murder of civilian oil workers in Algeria by Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s jihadist militia, David Cameron has called for the world to come together in order to confront the growing threat from violent Islamist groups across North Africa.

These sentiments, which have been echoed by leaders all over the world are perfectly understandable; recent years have seen an ominous resurgence in armed Islamist outfits throughout the Sahel and surrounding regions, including a large number falling under the banner of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Nonetheless, any practical steps flowing from such statements must be part of a coherent response that takes account of all nuances and local circumstances, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the brutality that unfolded at the In Amenas gas field.

Talk of a “robust security response” to “hunt down” terrorists could easily backfire, as recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown only too well. That is not to say the UK and other international powers should completely refrain from efforts to defeat fanatics like Belmokhtar, but this must never be allowed to happen in a manner that alienates the people of North Africa or ultimately acts as a recruiting tool for extremists as so many ‘Western’ interventions have before.

France’s decision to put troops on the ground in Mali, ostensibly one of the reasons for Belmokhtar’s offensive, was seemingly necessary due to the speed Ansar Dine’s advance on the capital and delays in deployment of troops from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). However, a number of questions now hang over the next step, not least concerning the broader political instability in Mali and the role of secular armed Tuareg groups who have alternately supported and fought against the multitude of Islamist militias at various points over the past year. Whilst French deployment has brought welcome immediate relief therefore, it could yet turn disastrous if the wrong decisions are made on these issues.

Similarly, in Algeria the situation is far from a clear-cut case of helping the government to defeat violent jihadists. Algerian politics is still heavily influenced by the 1990s civil war that began with a military coup following the electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and subsequently developed into a multi-faceted conflict between the army and various Islamist militias at the cost of more than 150 000 lives. Endless questions remain about responsibility for many of the worst atrocities committed during the war, with the only certainty being that no side fought without recourse to massacres and torture.

This raises another issue around Cameron’s pledge to “thicken ties” with governments in affected nations: in many cases their responses to terrorism are simply unjustifiable. One only needs to look to Nigeria, where the abhorrent and bloody insurgency by jihadist militia Boko Haram has been met with callous state actions including torture, secret detention and extrajudicial killings. ‘Local solutions to local problems’ is a worthy aspiration, but when those local solutions involve severe human rights abuses, it is rarely advisable or productive to throw support behind them.

Perhaps one of the most critical factors at risk of being eclipsed amidst the focus on tackling the African jihadist threat, is the dire humanitarian situation still affecting millions of people across the Sahel. A combination of drought and food prices has resulted in rapidly escalating food insecurity, malnutrition and disease over recent years; and whilst stabilising regional conflict zones is important to tackling this, it should never be forgotten that poverty and desperation themselves create fertile ground for extremism. Aid and development initiatives to address the crisis should not be side-lined in the rush to take military action against extremists in the region.

The threat to North Africa is clear and the involvement of the international community is important; but rushed, unwelcome or ill -conceived support will be no help at all.

Technorati Tags: Algeria,hostage,oil,BP,In Amenas,North Africa,Mokhtar Belmokhtar,Al-Qaeda,Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,Ansar Dine and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa,Malian,Northern Mali,Mali,France,internvention,Cameron,Boko Haram,Nigeria,Economic Community of West African States,ECOWAS,Tuareg,rebels,David Cameron

The Security Council’s African crisis

On 1 January 2013 South Africa will relinquish control of the African seat on the UN Security Council. For human rights activists around the world it’s presence won’t be missed.

Perhaps prior to the collapse of Apartheid, the prospect of an ANC man sitting at the table and influencing international response to conflict and humanitarian situations across the globe, would have been the ultimate dream. The reality however has been both sordid and abusive.

For South Africa has consistently used its position to back oppressors; from blocking condemnation of ethnic cleansing in Burma, to undermining pressure on Bashar al-Assad as he butchers his own people. Closer to home, successive ANC administrations have supported Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the indicted War Criminal Omar al-Bashir in Sudan. And when it comes to China and its occupied territories, the decision to deny the Dalai Lama a visa on two separate occasions aptly spelt out the South African government’s unfortunate stance.

It is little wonder therefore that leaders such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have openly criticised the state’s leaders for facilitating and protecting the kind of tyranny they once suffered themselves. Unfortunately, South Africa’s replacement on the council – Rwanda, is unlikely to improve matters.

Paul Kagame’s RPF regime is widely accorded international sympathy, stemming from its role in halting the 1994 genocide, and Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo has suggested that the slaughter will allow Rwanda to bring a “unique perspective” on conflict to the council However, the RPF’s appalling record on human rights and perhaps more significantly on backing brutal rebel groups in the neighbouring DRC, is already raising serious concerns about how Rwandan influence will be used in practice.

Most pressing is a report leaked just twenty-four hours before Rwanda was elected to the seat, confirming that not only equipment and support but direct orders are being given by Kagame’s officials to Bosco Ntaganda’s notorious M23 Rebels. This group is currently destabilising swathes of the DRC through an orgy of massacres, rapes and child soldier recruitment. Now Human Rights Watch has voiced fears that Rwanda’s new position will simply allow the RPF to prevent any sanctions that it may have faced as a result of.its involvement.

The end of South Africa’s poor showing at the council is no bad thing…but the new set up is unlikely to be any better at all.

Technorati Tags: Bosco Ntaganda,M23,Rwanda,Rwanda Patriotic Front,RPF,Paul Kagame,South Africa,Tibet,Burma,Sudan,Bashar al-Assad,Omar al-Bashir,UN,United Nations,UNSC,United Nations Security Council,DRC,Democratic Republic of Congongo,Human rights

Time to stop courting Kagame

Instability and human rights abuses are nothing new in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’s volatile East. Yet familiarity will not bring any comfort to those affected by the turbulent events of recent weeks, which hit new heights on Friday as troops loyal to rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda sent hundreds of DRC soldiers fleeing into neighbouring Uganda, killing a UN peacekeeper in the process.

Ntaganda, an indicted war criminal, is infamous throughout the region and the world for the rapes, massacres and recruitment of child soldiers frequently undertaken by his men. Comparisons to Joseph Kony are by no means an exaggeration of his ruthlessness: Ntaganda is reported to have once overseen the butchering of some one hundred and fifty civilians in a single day. Those living under his control tonight have every reason to be fearful.

Over the years Ntaganda’s loyalties have shifted, yet he has always retained strong ties with Rwandan rebel leader- turned president Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). Ntaganda, also an ethnic Tutsi, served under Kagame when the RPF overthrew the genocidal Hutu government in 1994. In subsequent years he operated in the DRC, eventually integrating his force into the official army in 2009.

In recent months however, Ntaganda has broken ranks and, accompanied by a band of approximately six hundred troops known as M23, has seized control of territory outside the town of Goma, displacing thousands of people in the process. Despite the chaos and human rights abuses unfolding, Kagame’s government has covertly provided a stream of weapons, recruits and equipment to bolster Ntaganda’s position, increasing the prospect of an even more protracted and bloody conflict.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the current situation was the revelation last month that the USA was blocking the release of a UN report detailing Rwanda’s involvement. Yet such behaviour, whilst wholly unacceptable, is hardly surprising. Kagame has long exploited guilt over the international community’s utter failure to act during the Rwandan Genocide, in order to foster a healthy worldwide support base for his administration, despite its utterly abusive actions both inside Rwanda and across the Congolese border.

Now, with Ntaganda flexing his muscles further, using Rwandan troops and guns to fuel further conflict in the DRC, it is time for the USA and other Kagame-friendly states to put real pressure on the despotic President. Rwanda is expected to take a seat on the UN Security Council next year – a good starting point would be to block this at all costs, until Kagame ceases his support for one of Africa’s most brutal war criminals.

Technorati Tags: Rwanda,Uganda,Democratic Republic of Congo,DRC,Paul Kagame,Bosco Ntganda,M23,Rwanda Patriotic Front,RPF,Obama,UN,peacekeepers,security Council,human rights,Joseph Kony,rape,murder,massacres

Mali’s chaos deepens

Months on from the outbreak of deadly political turbulence in Mali, the situation in the rebel-held North of the country appears to be worsening.

As many predicted, the lose alliance between the secular Tuareg National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and Al-Qaeda linked Islamist forces, has well and truly broken down, sparking a fresh front of violence.

The MNLA had partaken in an uneasy marriage with Ansar Dine and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), in order to force government troops from Northern Mali in a rebellion the was given fresh impetus by arms and fighters flooding over the Libyan border after the fall of Gadaffi. However, whilst the MNLA’s goal is an independent state of Azawad, the Islamists seek to use territorial gains as a springboard to create an Islamic state based on Sharia law throughout the whole of the country. Scores were killed this week as the two ideologies diverged further and the MUJAO forcefully seized control of the town of Gao from the MNLA.

These clashes came on top of protests from local citizens against the rebel occupation as a whole. After a popular local councillor was killed, youths took to the streets where two were shot dead by rebel gunmen. It remains unclear exactly which group opened fire, but the killings have only fuelled resentment. Beyond this there is a particular anger in the areas where Sharia law has already been imposed – reports have emerged of women being forced to wear veils, cigarettes being banned and non-conformers being publicly flogged.

To add an extra layer of uncertainty, a number of local militias some of whom may be acting as proxies for the shaky central government, have joined together in a united front against both the MNLA and the Islamists. Meanwhile the government itself has refused to rule out further use of force by the regular army and talk of a potential ECOWAS/UN intervention continues.

Of course, the latter is driven at least in part by the domestic concerns of other ECOWAS members: refugees flooding into Niger and Burkina Faso are overwhelming the famine-struck states’ limited resources, whilst the Nigerian government is understandably worried by the prospect of Islamist-controlled territory so nearby, as it struggles to battle to Boko Haram insurgency at home. 

This combination of rival rebel groups, proxy militias, restless citizens and strong regional interests creates a toxic political blend, which is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

Technorati Tags: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad,AIQM,MNLA,Sanogo,Mali,Malian,coup,government,military,famine,Sahel,Libya,Tuareg,rebels,persecution,Gadaffi,Sharia Law,Nigeria,Bukina Faso,MUJAO,Ansar Dine and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa

Mali– coup, rebels and famine

The many factors behind the unfolding military coup in Mali underscore just how complex and unstable the country’s political situation is.

The ousted leader, President Amadou Toumani Toure is himself a former military man, known to some as “the soldier of democracy” for his role in removing dictator Moussa Traoré in 1991 and overseeing Mali’s transition to an electoral democratic system before stepping aside.

Re-entering politics at the start of the last decade, he successfully stood in the 2002 presidential election which, despite clear irregularities, was largely welcomed as legitimate. His re-election in 2007 followed a similar script, with controversy over fraud but a broad stamp of approval from international observers.  

Law dictates that this should be Toure’s last legal term and the president himself had confirmed that he would once again be bowing out at next month’s presidential election. However, escalating events rapidly threw these plans into turmoil resulting in his early removal.

At the heart of the unrest is a long-running rebellion by the traditionally nomadic Tuareg people in Mali’s North. Having suffered decades of neglect and persecution at the hands the Malian government (and indeed other governments throughout the Sahel region), various Tuareg groups have fought militarily for an independent state of Azawad. Their struggles were given a fresh impetus following the downfall of Colonel Gaddafi, when swathes of Tuareg fighters and vast hauls of weaponry flooded across the Libyan border. Though many Tuareg had fought alongside Gadaffi and were fleeing repercussions, the overall picture is far less clear-cut; some are reported to have been active in the Libyan rebellion, whilst other factions appear to have some links to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). In spite of such complexities, and whilst a number of Tuareg fighters from Libya have integrated into the Malian army, many of the freshly armed and bolstered rebel groups have come together under the banner of the new National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and in recent months launched an unprecedented push against Malian government forces.

It is here that tensions emerged between Toure’s administration and the government troops on the front line, who claim they have been abandoned without sufficient food or weaponry for the fight. These issues were lumped in with existing military grievances over the government’s failure to tackle the influence of AQIM and serious drug traffickers in the region, spurring a coup to “restore security” under the command of Captain Amadou Sanogo.

Whilst initial violence and looting that followed the coup has now subsided the outlook remains incredibly uncertain. It is not clear how much of the army is under the command of Sanogo and how much remains loyal to Toure, nor whether the latter will be willing to fight in order to regain control.

And whilst the new military administration has offered to hold talks with the MNLA then step down once the country is “secure”, there is no guarantee that either of these will come to pass. Meanwhile the MNLA is actively exploiting the instability, pushing even harder in its bid to seize territory.

There could not come a worse time for such a crisis. With an impending famine across the Sahel, Mali needs clear leadership, workable infrastructure and a safe environment for the delivery and distribution of any international relief that may be required. If Sanogo and his troops genuinely work to ensure security, then quickly  pass the reigns back to an elected leadership, full scale humanitarian disaster may yet be avoided. On the other hand, an increase in violence, refugees, internally displaced people and political instability could yet make an already bleak outlook significantly worse.

Technorati Tags: Amadou Toumani Toure,Moussa Traoré,Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,the banner of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. AIQM,MNLA,Captain Amadou Sanogo,Mali,Malian,coup,government,military,famine,Sahel,Libya,Tuareg,rebels,persecution,Gadaffi

Sahel hungers

More than a month after the UN officially declared that the famine in East Africa is over, the region is continuing to count the tragic cost.  Tens of thousands have died, millions are still in need of food or clean water, countless others remain displaced and the prospect of a further deterioration in conditions continuously looms.

Despite the phenomenal generosity of many ordinary people who dug deep to support relief efforts, it is painfully clear that the world was simply too slow in reacting to the most severe famine this century.  The governments of France, Italy and Denmark came it for particular criticism from aid agencies at the time for their poor response, but the failures go far deeper than that. 

A hard hitting report released by Oxfam and Save the Children earlier this year highlighted how international donors, aid agencies and the United Nations,as well as national governments, all failed to act upon early indications of the impending crisis and take the kind of preventative measures necessary to avert catastrophe.

The tragic lessons of this complacency must be quickly learned, for on the other side of the continent the threat of a new famine now hangs over some thirteen million people.  Drought and soaring food prices across the Sahel region (encompassing Chad, Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal, Mali and Mauritania) have left over one-in-ten people malnourished, with the situation threatening to rapidly spiral out of control.

Ominous reports are already emerging of people in Chad digging up ant hills to gather whatever small  quantitates of grain they can.  Meanwhile the situation is being exacerbated by conflict between the Malian government and Tuareg rebels, which has displaced almost 1% of Mali’s population, many into neighbouring states already struggling with the food shortages.

If West Africa is to avoid a repeat of the on-going humanitarian tragedy in the East, now must be the hour for action.  By adapting existing programmes and putting in place the infrastructure for increased overseas support, all actors- domestic and foreign- can begin to implement preventative measures before the situation reaches a critical point.  We can all play our part as well by donating towards this work.

Too many times governments have failed to save their people from starvation and the world has failed to help them.  As hunger spreads across the Sahel, the men women and children of the region can only hope that- this time -it may be different. 

  

Technorati Tags: famine,Sahel,West Africa,Chad,Burkina Faso,Niger,Senegal,Mali,Mauritania,East Africa,starvation,international aid,Oxfam,Save the Children,United Nations bomb,Tuareg,conflict diamonds

The ANC: a problem deeper than China’s influence

South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), the movement-turned-party that brought down apartheid, has been the somewhat unlikely focus of the global Tibet movement this week, following the outrageous decision to deny the Dalai Lama an entry visa to attend Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s eightieth birthday celebrations.

At a critical time for Tibet, with the fifth self-immolation protest since January, and an on-going military crackdown in response, the snub was seen as an appalling lack of support for the Tibetan people- not least by Tutu himself, who launched an unprecedented attack on the ANC, declaring it “worse than apartheid”, whilst comparing the rule of President Jacob Zuma to that of Hosnai Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi.

Yet whilst activists around the world have rightly responded with anger and lobbying, pointing to the utter hypocrisy of a party founded in its own struggle against oppression, the narrative of an inspirational movement being corrupted by China’s economic and political influence fails to tell the full story.

Of course, no one disputes that the Chinese government pressured South Africa to deny the visa, just as it has done with every state that he has attempted to visit from the USA, to Ireland, to Russia.  However this is far from a solitary blemish in the ANC’s record on foreign affairs; rather it is simply the latest indication of a problem that runs far deeper.

Take for example, the decision to vote against a resolution condemning the Burmese junta’s suppression of opposition and massacres of ethnic minorities, when South Africa first took a seat on the UN Security Council in 2007.  On Tuesday, Aung San Suu Kyi, often referred to as “Burma’s Nelson Mandela”, cited the ANC’s poor record in supporting her people , pointing out that it has regularly fallen far short of the backing given by individuals such as Mandela and Tutu.

Yet the following day, South African representatives at the UN once again failed to support a people struggling for freedom, this time in Syria.  Abstaining on a resolution that had already been watered down in the (ultimately futile) hope of avoiding Chinese and Russian vetoes, the ANC categorically balked at the opportunity to stand behind those putting their lives on the line to take on Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime.

Closer to home, the ANC has long been criticised for its appalling track-record in addressing the abuses committed by Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.  Whilst Jacob Zuma has been marginally more critical than his predecessor Theo Mbeki, who stood idly by as his old friend had opposition supporters beaten and killed during the 2008 election, he still panders up to the tyrant and has no qualms about deporting thousands of Zimbabwean refugees back to face the horrors that await them.  The ANC position on Darfur has been arguably worse still, with officials not only vetoing a resolution condemning President Omar Al-Bashir’s genocide, but actively courting the war criminal and welcoming him to Cape Town, whilst vocally condemning those seeking to bring about his downfall.

Given this background, along with the previous denial of a visa for the Dalai Lama two years ago, the recent turn of events should come as no surprise.  China’s profoundly negative influence in Africa, including South Africa, must unequivocally be addressed and opposed; but so too must the fact that the ANC itself is rotten, abusive and utterly disregarding of human rights. 

Like the Paul Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front or Mugabe’s ZANU, it once fought a just cause…but today its dominant contribution to international affairs is to deny others the very same freedoms it first set out to achieve. 

Technorati Tags: ANC,foreign policy,human rights,Demond Tutu,Dalai Lama,visa,Tibet,Burma,Aung San suu Kyi,UN,veto,Syria,Bashar al-Assad,Zimbabwe,Robert Mugabe,Jacob Zuma,Theo Mbeki,Hosni Mubarak,Muammar,Gaddafi,refugees,apartheid,Darfur,Sudan,Omar al-Bashir

Somalia–aid, famine and Islamists

Five days on from the official declaration of famine in Somalia, the cataclysmic impact of the situation is strikingly clear. Millions of people are facing starvation and tens of thousands have fled the country in a desperate bid to survive. Walking miles on empty stomachs they face bandits and rapists before reaching refugee camps already at breaking point. Every day thousands enter Kenya and Ethiopia – countries themselves in the grip of the famine and with neither the space nor the supplies to cope. The early reports of children dying upon arrival are reoccurring with appalling frequency and stories of people taking their own lives to avoid watching their families starve to death are alarmingly common.

Yet the tremendous effort by aid groups, foreign governments and the UN to tackle this crisis is hampered at every turn by two factors. Firstly is the utterly unjustifiable failure of states such as France, Italy and Denmark to step up and meet their moral obligation to provide funds for relief. All three countries have come under fire from Oxfam for shirking their share of the burden in what is literally a minute-by-minute-life-or-death situation. There is categorically not enough aid coming in, creating the ominous likelihood that the already uncontrollable humanitarian disaster will spread even further.

Economic problems such as those currently gripping the EU pale into insignificance compared to this and no government can legitimately avoid the allocation of significant resources. It is up to the international community and domestic populations to pressure reluctant governments into genuinely joining the relief effort before it is too late.

The second major problem –posing a far more complex challenge, is Al-Shabab, the brutal Islamist militia that controls of much of Southern and Central Somalia including large parts of Mogadishu. Renowned for public beheadings, flogging women, stoning rape victims and even punishing people for watching football - all in accordance with its own warped interpretation of Islam, Al-Shabab has ruthlessly abused and oppressed the Somali people since it formed as an offshoot of the Union of Islamic Courts some five years ago. Perhaps the group's most damaging act so far has been to ban foreign aid agencies from operating in the areas it controls and murdering those aid workers who try to work there.

In recent days, as the famine death toll gathered pace, Al-Shabab relented and began to let in select agencies including the Red Cross. Yet just as progress seemed to be possible, its leaders re-asserted the ban on other major organisations including the World Food Programme, forcefully preventing its workers from reaching some 2.2 million Somalis in desperate need of food and water. Rubbishing speculation that Al-Shabab is changing its overall opposition to relief efforts –its spokesmen ludicrously denied that there is a famine, a claim that would be laughable were it not likely to result in thousands if not millions of needless deaths. Additionally, the group is exacerbating the situation by threatening the security of refugee camps inside Somalia - leading to the current mass exodus into neighbouring countries, piling pressure on their own starving populations and overburdening the humanitarian support there. There are also frequent reports of Al-Shabab militants stealing what little livestock has been left alive, robbing many Somalis of their last hope.

Whilst there is a general consensus that the organisation is not as strong as it once was and is now breaking into smaller loosely linked pockets, the fact of the matter remains clear: the security situation in Somalia is not conducive to relief efforts. The patch-work nature of Al-Shabab affiliated groups, with some allowing limited aid in, some staunchly resisting it and others open to persuasion or bribes, may actually make the environment even more dangerous and uncertain, with aid agencies unsure where they can or cannot safely operate and desperate internally displaced people living in a constant fear.

In many ways this is a case of history repeating itself: the breakdown of order in Somalia during the early 1990s meant it was impossible to adequately address the famine that then gripped the country. Amid the killing of aid workers and the theft of food supplies by local warlords, the UN Security Council authorised Operation Restore Hope -a US led intervention to protect the relief effort. However, whilst the operation itself was largely a success, subsequent attempts to stabilise Somalia were disastrous: the brutal mob killing of eighteen American soldiers and the shootings hundreds of Somalis during the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, following the torture and murder of civilians by Canadian soldiers in what was dubbed Canda's National Shame led not only to a permanent reluctance for the international community become involved in Somalia's affairs, but also disastrous anxieties about intervention elsewhere in Africa - including Rwanda where genocide broke out the following year.

In 2008 - as full scale civil war raged between the Somali transitional government and the Union of Islamic Courts, US forces went as far as undertaking limited airstrikes against Islamist held towns but left combat on the ground to government troops, African Union (AU) peacekeepers and the Ethiopian army- which had entered Somalia two years earlier in an attempt to crush the insurgency. The subsequent retreat by Ethiopian forces and fracturing of the Union of Islamic Courts has left the fight largely between Al-Shabab and the rapidly faltering AU force- stumbling along at the whim of the corrupt and self-serving Ugandan and Burundian governments, with the virtually impotent Somali administration providing what little support it can.

And with lingering memories of the 1990s disaster, an extensive operation to support the rebels in Libya, a protracted withdrawal from Afghanistan and on-going commitments in Iraq, the international community has precisely no impetus to step in militarily now- even to stabilise the situation for famine relief.

Yet whilst such intervention is currently incomprehensible, so is the prospect of doing nothing. It is painfully clear that aid alone is not enough: security for workers, supplies and refugees is absolutely essential if the already tragic death toll is to be contained or even slowed. And there are numerous ways of doing this without deploying more troops and guns: aid drops to citizens in Al-Shabab controlled areas, an effective framework to channel supplies from groups they’ve banned to groups they allow and a tactical redeployment of the AU forces to protect refugee routes and camps – supported by overhead reconnaissance flights to warn of impending militant attacks, should all be implemented with urgency. 

Even then however, the prospect of deploying more troops to Somalia, under the auspices of the AU or UN, with the specific mandate of protecting aid and refugees- as a very last resort- should not necessarily be ruled out.  There would undoubtedly be fears that the horrors of the 1990s intervention would be repeated; and there would undoubtedly be howls of protests from the anti-interventionist camp who’d cry imperialism and occupation.  But if all else fails would it not be the preferable option to letting Al-Shabab literally cause the starvation of millions?

There are many options to try before that stage and so much still to be done in terms of donations and distribution…but for the people of Somalia there is very little time left.

Click to donate  

Technorati Tags: Somalia,Ethiopia,Kenya,Djibouti,East Africa,Horn of Africa,famine,drought,aid,UN,AU,United Nations,African Union,intervention,relieft,Denmark,Italy,France,UK,USA,Black Hawk Down,Uganda,Burundi,Peacekeeping,Operation Restore Hope. Al-Shabab,Union of Islamic Courts

Why Cameron SHOULD be in Africa

Whilst speculation that the phone hacking saga could be on its way to bringing down David Cameron’s government is still largely premature, no one can deny the seriousness of the events unfolding.  In less than two weeks one of the UK’s largest newspapers has ceased trading, two of the most senior police officers have resigned, numerous high profile figures including the Prime Minister’s former spin doctor have been arrested and ever more damaging stories are breaking at a truly alarming rate. 

It is little wonder that the Parliamentary recess has been delayed to allow for an emergency debate.  And it is perhaps natural that both the opposition and backbenchers on his own side have loudly criticised the fact that Cameron is currently in Africa rather than fighting the political fire at home.  Labour leader Ed Miliband somewhat gleefully declared that “tomorrow we will have some of the most important select committee hearings in modern times and the Prime Minister has decided to leave the country”, whilst a Conservative source put the boot in by exclaiming to the Evening Standard “He is in the wrong place and the wrong time. It is an error of judgment.”

However, though expected, this criticism and Cameron’s consequent decision to scrap over half of his five day African visit, is deeply unsettling.

For Africa is a continent in turmoil.  On the Horn over ten million people are caught up in the worst famine for sixty years, with UNICEF today warning that half a million children are facing imminent death and desperate agencies taking the unprecedented step of supplying aid to Islamist controlled camps – breaking conventions on both sides.  Meanwhile, as South Sudan tries to find its feet, the possibility of a new Central African conflict remains ominously real, with suggestions today that war crimes were recently committed by the Northern government in the border region of South Kordofan. 

Elsewhere Ugandan tyrant Yoweri Museveni is cracking down against protests, out of fear that the Arab Spring will head South; tension in Zimbabwe is rising ahead of impending elections; fears of retribution against ousted dictator Laurent Gbagbo’s former supporters are still plaguing the Ivory Coast and the Kimberley Process- the most significant development in ending the trade of blood diamonds- is on the rocks.

Tunisia and Egypt are still facing protracted political upheaval and discontent despite their successful revolutions, whilst in Libya Gaddafi has dug in- apparently seeking to kill as many of his own countrymen as possible before his seemingly inevitable downfall.

How could it possibly be wrong therefore, for the leader of a G8 nation, that holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has significant developmental, military and economic involvement in Africa to spend a mere five days in this vast continent – especially whilst it faces so many challenges?  How can politicians in the UK possibly justify calling on Cameron to curtail his attention to the continent at such a pivotal time?

Of course- the itinerary of his visit was far from suitable when it comes to addressing any of the serious issues in any level of detail: the focus on trade and the time wasted on pointless publicity stunts such as a meet and greet with on-tour Tottenham Hotspur players, raise issues in themselves.  However, the Prime Minister was on the ground in Africa and valuable conversations about issues such as the uprising in Libya and the state of African economies were taking place.  Politicians of all sides should have been coming together to push for five days of real, productive outreach – addressing matters such as civil liberties, water rights and regional stability as well as economic issues, rather than seizing the opportunity for political point scoring and dragging Cameron back for the next stage of the sordid scandal at home. 

Unfortunately, like the 2009 furore over MPs expenses- phone hacking has dominated the political agenda, pushing everything else to the side-lines.  Whilst there are unarguably serious issues to tackle and whilst no one is in any doubt that deplorable acts have been committed, politicians and journalists must ensure that equally if not more important developments both in the UK and abroad, do not fall by the wayside.  If this is allowed to happen, the worst damage is yet to be done.

Technorati Tags: Cameron,Africa,visit,Uganda,Libya,Egypt,Tunisia,Somalia,Ethiopia,Kenya,Djibouti,Famine,Mugabe,Museveni,Phone hacking,Ed Miliband,Parliament,trade,aid,water rights,conflict

The Kimberley Process, Marange and the shadow of China

Since coming into force in 2003 the Kimberley Process has made historic mileage in stemming the trade of blood diamonds.  Appalled by the kind of horrors that played out in Sierra Leone – where Charles Taylor’s Revolutionary United Front proxies led legions of drugged child soldiers to hack apart their fellow citizens in a quest to control lucrative diamond mines, the world reacted and put in place procedures aimed to prevent such atrocities from ever reoccurring. 

Seventy five states, the World Diamond Council and various civil society bodies committed to the universally recognised certification scheme- ensuring that traded stones were ‘conflict free’, thus removing the impetus for both violence over control of the mines and the use of forced labour or other abuses in them.  The Kimberley Process was welcomed and celebrated by those who set it up - and those whose lives were transformed by its implementation.

But now it is falling apart. 

Last month, under pressure from participating nations desperate to get their hands on Zimbabwean diamonds, the Kimberley Process’ Congolese Chairman Mathieu Yamba, declared that stones from the Marange Diamond Fields could now be certified.  The outcry that followed was predictable – after all, how can legitimising the purchase of diamonds that will fund Robert Mugabe’s regime possibly meet the Process’ aims of promoting “peace and stability” or “stabilising fragile countries”?  As if any of us need to be reminded, this is the tyrant who ran an election campaign involving at least 181 murders, denied the existence of a devastating cholera epidemic and provides his thugs with a dangerous level of impunity that threatens to generate further violence in the near future.  

Worse still, the Marange Fields themselves have consistently been the sight of heinous human rights abuses including forced labour of women and children, sexual assaults by the police units in charge and even a massacre of some eighty three Zimbabweans presumed to be ‘illegal miners’.  Whilst Mugabe and his backers including Jacob Zuma’s South African government, claim that things have improved on the ground, other states and human rights groups argue that abuses are still going on – and that, even if they were resolved, the bigger issue of diamond sales propping up Mugabe’s vile regime remains.

Debates are also continuing around whether Mr. Yamba’s seemingly unilateral decision to certify Marange Diamonds was even in keeping with Kimberley Process procedure – which has in the past worked on a basis of unanimity.  What is strikingly clear however, is that if the expected flow of diamonds out of Zimbabwe and finances into Mr. Mugabe’s accounts begins, then the agreements and procedures are no longer worth the paper that they are written on.  Dramatically, representatives of Global Witness – the inspirational human rights group at the forefront of bringing the Kimberley Process into being, walked out of the latest meeting and issued a public statement announcing their loss of confidence in it.

Throughout all of this, a silent but literally deadly hand has been played by the Chinese government, which though by no means acting alone, has been at the very forefront of facilitating exploitation of diamonds at the Marange fields, assisting in human rights abuses there and ultimately undermining the Kimberley Process.  Their input has been no small matter- involving a the construction of a secret airstrip and the deployment of Chinese troops, allowing for a constant flow of guns in and diamonds out, even before the outrageous decision to certify the diamonds was taken.  This, it is argued, naturally undercut the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process in practical terms and helped wet the appetite of those who then joined China in piling the pressure on Mr. Yamba to ‘legitimise’ the whole operation.  Disturbingly, like so in many other states including Burma and Sudan, the people of Zimbabwe are now baring the brunt of China’s neo-imperialistic workings, where finance and influence comes before liberty or rights.

The entire incident has been a tragedy, which will inevitably generate disastrous repercussions throughout Africa for years to come, unless somehow the Kimberley Process is salvaged.  To lay the entire blame for this at the door of the Chinese government would be wrong, considering Mr. Yamba’s own weakness and the support he received from others states such as South Africa, Bahrain, India and Lebanon.  However, it would be wise for Presidents and Prime Ministers sitting down with Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao and other Chinese leaders in the future, to reflect of their role in wrecking one of the most historic and positive advances that the world’s poorest continent had experienced this century.  

Technorati Tags: Kimberley Process,China,Zimbabwe,Mugabe,Mathieu Yamba,blood diamonds,neo-imperialism,Africa,RUF,Sierra Leone,Marange diamond mine,Global Wittness

The debate on international aid–why now is not the time

Somewhat strangely for a 21st century world, where people are more aware than ever of the suffering faced by their fellow human beings, criticisms of international aid are numerous, frequent and come from all sides of the political spectrum.

There are those who complain that public money should be spent “at home”, constantly questioning why developed states should be helping the developing world, when they themselves are facing fiscal belt-tightening and often hard hitting cutbacks.

Of course the people levelling such arguments conveniently disregard the fact that the UN Millennium Development Project asks rich states to dedicate just 0.7% of their GDP to fighting international poverty and that the actual average given is far lower. They also overlook cataclysmic gulf between the nature and scale of poverty in states that give aid and states that receive it. Of course domestic poverty should never be ignored or belittled, especially when it comes to critical issues such as rising home repossessions, cuts to disability allowances and malnutrition; but neither should these issues distract from the even more staggering facts that one in eight people do not have access to clean water, one billion do not have enough to eat and nearly nine million children do not live to their fifth birthday. The “charity begins at home” lobby’s perverse opposition to developed states spending even one hundredth of their GDP on such issues, risks bordering on inhumanity and racism.

Somewhat more rational – though still often fallible arguments hinge on the premise that it is the current distribution of international aid which is wrong, particularly when it comes to states such as India with its rapidly increasing GDP, nuclear weapons and space programme. Again, those making such cases generally overlook the bigger picture: that in India and other states like it, millions still face crippling poverty and starvation. They should not be neglected by developed states because of their government’s misappropriation of funds to weapons or space research, any more than those in Burma, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should be denied aid because of their governments squandering of national finance on internal oppression.

The increasingly vocal (though still distinctly minority) school of thought that aid does not work at all presents more nuanced arguments around the potential of assistance programmes to prevent market-based economic development, encourage corruption and create a culture of dependence. However, these too face severe criticism of being grounded in specific anecdotal cases rather than a thorough global overview, placing too much emphasis on the free market and running contrary to the expertise of the majority of those involved in the field.

Still- despite their flaws, all of these positions must be noted, addressed and discussed. Only through respecting and analysing all points of view can we dispel cynicism over international aid and improve the systems which, whilst essential, no one suggests are anywhere near perfect. Debate over the nature, effects and basis of international aid are certainly necessary.

But not now.

Because right now the Horn of Africa is facing its worst drought in six decades; the water sources have dried up, the refugee camps have filled up, the cattle have died, the crops have withered, eleven million people across four states are in need of urgent food and children arriving into the UN’s care are already so weak that they are dying within 24 hours. Many families are now choosing whether to eat or drink, many more have no choice, many others never will – ever again. Hundreds of thousands have crossed borders, political instability will certainly ensue- the only variable is how bad it will be and how much it will affect the aid effort.

This is not the time to debate international aid. This is the time to dig deep, donate to the charities and intergovernmental agencies on the ground and support the practical work they are doing in providing water, food and medicine to a people who are no longer on the brink of disaster – but in the midst of one.

DONATE VIA OXFAM

DONATE VIA UNICEF

Technorati Tags: aid,international development,drought,East Africa,Kenya,Somalia,Ehtiopia,Djibouti,India,Oxfam,UNICEF,UN