On September 29th, 2009, the
Associated Press reported that women and girls who escaped from the fighting in
Darfur have become victims of rape within refugee
camps, a disturbing
trend found in countries torn apart by war. Refugee camps that should
symbolized hope, freedom, and peacehave become Darfari women’s
nightmare. Getting water and firewood outside of the refugee camps in Chad is a
known risk factor for women. When confronted with reports of rape within the
Chad refugee camps, U.N. officials refused to comment. The next day, UN
officials, led by Secretary of State Clinton, signed a resolution that condemned sexual violence in war
zones.
Clinton stated, “The
United Nations hada special obligation to protect women and children,
war's most vulnerable and violated victims." Yet, officials still refuse
to acknowledge incidents in the Chad refugee camps. The
UN is not only to blame. The government spokesperson for Chad, Mahmat Hissene,
stated, "Before the refugees came, we did not have rape cases in Chad;
rape cases started when the Sudanese came. If there are cases of rape in the
camps we cannot prevent them. The government is not responsible for security in
the camps."
In
addition, through a lack of UN support, the United States is also complicit.
Therefore,
the UN is posed with a difficult situation:The Chadian government, the host of the majority of refugees in the
region, blames the victims of violence. And while it is noble the U.S. signed a
resolution that condemns sexual violence, more actual action is necessary to
provide security for women in the region. Rapeshould not be an
expected occurrence in one’s daily routine.
The U.S. should take decisive action against sexual violence in refugee camps and support UNAMID so that the peacekeeping force can fulfill its mandate and those perpetrators of violence are held accountable. It is imperative that the United States keeps its promise, and protects these women.
It seems like every time you open the paper to the world section there is Sudan; another speculation of the south Sudanese war uprising once again, and my favorite, the war in Darfur is over. Imagine my surprise when I opened the New York Times on the 6th September, it read “Sudan Court to Define Indecent Dress for Women”. In the article, journalist and ex-employee at the United Nations Mission in Sudan, Lubna Hussein was arrested in Sudan for violating the dress code. According to the article, Hussein was arrested because her clothes were in violation of Article 152 of Sudan’s penal code that states, if caught wearing clothing deemed to be “indecent,” the perpetrator faces a fine and 40 lashes.
One of the witnesses stated, “[Hussein] was wearing pants and a blouse and the pants were tight and flashy and shows from underneath it the thighs and the outline and the form of the underwear and the color of her panties that can clearly be seen which is beige in color and short shirt with sleeves up to her elbow and it is transparent and light reflecting everything inside it within such as the shape and form of the bra and that the start of her chest is showing because the blouse opening and it also has two holes on the side lengthwise from top to bottom, and there is a gap between the confluence of the shirt so that they appear able to view the navel and the underwear of the accused.”
This incident is an example of a strong-willed woman undeterred by Sudanese Government officials who consistently try to repress the freedom of expression by limiting fundamental individual rights. Women in Sudan can no longer be invisible. Any efforts to create a sustainable peace in Sudan must include women. The absence of sufficient participation by women leaders was one major flaw in the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA).
It is not exclusively Sudan where women because victims of sex crimes, or gross violations of human rights. Everyday there are undocumented cases of repression, like Hussein and yet the international community is still far from taking the necessary steps to protect women. This is not about clothing alone; this is the need for people in power, most often men, to restrict the movement of women by silencing them. Violence against women can take the form of silencing them by telling them to dress a certain way, or by physical violence such as rape, torture, abduction, or even psychological violence- making them feel ashamed of being a woman, making them outlaws to their families because they have “dishonored” them when they were raped or have become victims of human trafficking.
One positive step in stopping gender-based-violence was the August 18th announcement made by the United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). The UNAMID has set up a seven-member unit as a response to the alarming high rates of sexual and gender-based violence reported in Darfur over the last two years. This unit also seeks to encourage victims of violence to report incidents, reduce the stigmatization of sexual abuse victims and help to rehabilitate victims. This is a step in the right direction for the women of Darfur and all of Sudan, as they will investigate crimes against women such as child abuse, child abandonment, prostitution, human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual harassment. These women are the face and the future of Africa.
The U.S. government should support African efforts that address women’s empowerment and education. Secretary of State Clinton remarked in her New York Times interview on the empowerment of women in developing countries, “Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. President Obama and I and the United States will not tolerate this continuation of wanton, senseless, brutal violence perpetrated against girls and women.”
While Clinton’s statement is encouraging and may attract people to become more interested in women’s rights in Africa, the Obama administration must fulfill these commitments and reflect more than just rhetoric.
The
United States’ support for Saudi Arabian has been largely (though unjustly) forgiven
because the amount of oil coming our way from that regime is astronomical.
Human rights abuses are glossed over because we can’t imagine living without
their oil. Would this be the case if the oil being pumped were just a drop in
the barrel?
Sadly,
it seems even the smallest amount of oil for the US is the cause for the
greatest blindness towards human rights abuses. The US, eager to diversify its
sources of oil, is looking towards Africa as its next major source of oil.
Countries like Sudan and Nigeria are getting a free pass from the US
government; they are becoming major sources of potential oil for the US. But even
the smaller sources of oil in places like Equatorial Guinea are proving enough
to stifle any objection to human rights abuses that run rampant.
Equatorial
Guinea is a country smaller than Maryland, with a population of less than a
million people. President Obiang has been in power since 1979, exerting almost
complete control over the political system. He has proclaimed himself a god,
with the power to kill with impunity.
Sixty
percent of the population lives on a dollar a day. More than half of the
population has no access to clean drinking water. Twenty percent of children
die before the age of five. It is a destination country for children and women
trafficked for forced labor and sexual exploitation. Forced evictions,
disappearances and inhumane prisons are the norm. Since petroleum was
discovered there, the GDP has increased more than 5000 percent; at the same
time, infant and child mortality has increased as the money flows in.
This
oil has made the country the third largest oil producer in Sub-Saharan Africa.
American oil firms, including Exxon Mobil, have invested $10 billion in
extracting the oil. All of this money has clearly not made it to the people. In
fact, Equatorial Guinea is one of the top ten most corrupt countries in the
world. Obiang even has two mansions in Washington DC, courtesy of the oil
wealth flowing in from the US.
Clearly,
a corrupt, human rights violating, repressive government…whose president
enjoyed a meeting with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and was called
a friend of the US a few years ago. The abuses are well documented, the
mansions are a stone’s throw from the White House and the destructive cycle of
profits over humanity continues. Is the US so desperate for any last drop of
oil that will systematically ignore the humans who live about it? Where is the
change?
“Imagine your creditors tripled the interest they demanded on your loans without warning and then all of a sudden, all at once, called the loans in.” ~ 'Vulture Funds Policy Alert, TransAfrica Forum'
Yes, the topic of Africa’s debt is thankfully back in the news in a big way, with the reintroduction of the “Stop VULTURE Funds” Act (H.R. 2932) last Thursday, June 18, by Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA). Building on the aims of a similar bill introduced in August 2008, the act now before Congress seeks to outlaw the profiteering by private equity or hedge funds in the U.S. at the expense of some of the world’s poorest nations. [ Africa Action Press Release]
Activists and campaigners celebrated this important step in opposition to particular subset of funds that target distressed sovereign debt - buying up the debt of poor countries from either a government or commercial creditor. Vulture Funds' apparently clawing (no pun intended) desire to make a profit – profits reaching into the tens of millions of dollars – siphon much-needed funding away from initiatives like health care, education, combating HIV/AIDS, clean water access etc. in impoverished countries.
“A ‘vulture fund’ is a company that buys up the debt of poor countries at a big discount from the original owner with the purpose of suing the indebted country in court once it has some money (often after debt cancellation)”
“…Donegal International, got hold of $15 million from Zambia, money that was freed up by debt relief and should have been used for the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty. Zambia was not alone: A 2007 report on vulture funds by IMF staff showed that 11 out of 24 poor countries approached said they were involved in litigation worth a total of $1.8 billion with 46 creditors.”
“These companies tend to be quite secretive, and very many of them are based in tax havens. Some are owned by large (often US-based) financial institutions such as hedge funds. In other cases, there is no information on who owns them. Often companies are set up simply to pursue one debt, then shut down again.”
Jubilee USA’s Briefing Note also points out that in Niger, “lawsuit costs were 52.2 percent of health and education expenditure,” and 98.3 percent of Cameroon’s budget revenue ($51.7 million).
The Congressional Representatives supporting the bill have drawn a line in the sand, standing on the side of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), and they are certainly not the only ones lending a voice to the cries of discontent over Africa’s debt situation. These issues have also been explored in more popular realms as well, where the message may not be in technical terms or political jargon, but attempt to start dialogue over Africa’s urgent debt issues.
Enter Bamako: Abderrahmane Sissako’s 2006 film, whose foundation is the exploration of the crippling debt, poverty, and social injustice facing many African countries.
With a plot both original in its premise and powerful in the questions that it raises, Bamako immediately came to my mind because, in many ways, it calls for the changes in Africa’s debt situation that activists have been working on and which has culminated in the Vulture Funds bill.
The central storyline follows a trial in which the citizens of Mali charge that the policies of the defendants, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), have greatly hurt, rather than improved, the socio-economic and political stability of the country. Using real judges and attorneys (who wrote their own dialogue), as well as regular, Malian citizens as witnesses – invited to improvise their testimonies – the result is a film that is much more than a courtroom drama, played out in the dusty courtyard of a Bamako household. In an interview with Sight & Sound, Sissako pointed out that “Victims in Africa don’t need inventing…Just go out on the street and they’re there.” And, truly, the people and their representatives are frank in relating their grievances surrounding such ills as privatized water, education, medicine, and other social services, ultimately questioning the sincerity of such institutions’ claims to want to improve developing courtiers.
Arguably, the power of the film lies in the line it walks between reality and fiction. The possibility of seeking to hold the actions of The World Bank and IMF accountable to the Africans on the ground, who are the ones who suffer from the exploitation of illegitimate debt and poor social and economic program planning, further highlights the power imbalance at play (since deep down, a part of us knows such a trial could never happen). And, in between debates and testimonies, is the interplay and interjection of everyday life in Mali – the people around the neighborhood who pay avid attention to the trial’s broadcast on the radio, and the others who are distracted, indifferent, getting married, or working all day. The documentary style of filming only increases the feeling that you are watching a case of immediate, real-world concern, yet the undercurrent of Sissako’s film is the near-futility of attacking such a colossus of a predicament.
Unlike other movies where a trial figures prominently in the plot, there is no final verdict handed down in Bamako and the film’s conclusion becomes a sign that it is less about the decision that could come from such a trial (or even whether such institutions should be put on trial), and more about educating those who watch. Is globalization the solution to Africa’s problems? Is foreign aid to the continent actually easing poverty? And, honestly, why would the World Bank, IMF, and even other wealthy nations want to perpetuate the terrible conditions of poverty, hunger, illiteracy that plague many of Africa’s nations? (a question even asked by a lawyer for the World Bank in the film). Sissako’s work asks us to think carefully about these questions if we haven’t before, and to not only see the disconnect between the aims of these financial institutions and the reality of Malian life, but to try and find some hope in resolving these issues.
With the reintroduction of the “Stop VULTURE Funds” Act, with additional co-sponsors and even more momentum behind it, the aims of advocates and activists have now been placed into the hands of the highest government officials in the country. It couldn’t come at more needed time, with the economic downturn hitting poor countries hard and world hunger recently hitting the 1 billion mark – the vast sums of money Vulture Funds seek is badly needed by citizens of the impoverished nations they target. Could it be that we will see change step off the silver screen and into the real world? Only time will tell.
Check out Bamako – on DVD now, and Africa Action’s resource pages for more information on Africa’s Debt and Vulture Funds.
The recent hijacking of a Ukrainian arms ship
off the coast of Somalia has thrust the world's most notorious "failed state" into the spotlight of mainstream Western media. While what appears to be a major weapons shipment to South Sudan is certainly noteworthy, it's unfortunate that it takes such a dramatic, sensational incident to get Somalia in the news. At today's critical political and humanitarian moment, the people of Somalia deserve attention for more than just this "pirate ship."
Here are some other less high profile Somalia stories to take your understanding of Somalia deeper than the pirate drama:
1) October 6: Fifty-two aid agencies working in Somalia released a damning statement
urging a stronger international response to the deteriorating humanitarian crisis: "The
international community has completely failed Somali civilians. We
call on the international community to make the protection of Somali
civilians a top priority now." 37,000 people have fled Mogadishu in the past few weeks. 870,000 have been displaced so far in 2008. The city is emptier than it was during the 1994 botched international intervention.
2) May 5: Somalis protest the deaths of civilians after the U.S. launches airstrikes into Somalia, targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. Since January 2007, the U.S. has intervened with cruise missile assaults and air attacks multiple times in Somalia, with little success in eliminating key terrorist targets.
Staff and interns from Africa Action show support for our friends and allies at Jubilee USA Network and their current "Picture New Leadership on Global Poverty and Debt" campaign. They're collecting photos of activists like you holding signs like this until October 21. Send them a really creative picture, and you might be featured in an upcoming Jubilee USA newspaper advertisement asking presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama to step up the fight against international poverty and crippling debt.
In approaching the food crisis
facing Africa today, there is much support
for a “green revolution” that involves the use of new technologies and
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to substantially increase crop yields.
This approach is advocated by both biotechnology industries in the United
States and well-known philanthropists like Bill Gates, but has drawn criticism from some civil society groups and environmentalists.
As a follow up to Africa Action's new issue page on food sovereignty and the food crisis, this post examines this debate as well as the role of organic agriculture in feeding Africa.
Staff and interns from Africa Action show support for our friends and allies at Jubilee USA Network and their current "
