Should Israel Grant Asylum to Sudanese Refugees?

The Israeli Supreme Court is currently facing a decision regarding the handling of 230 refugees from Sudan. The 230 Muslim and Christian Sudanese are currently in Jail in Israel for sneaking into the country illegally. In an article by Joshua Mitnick, two clear emergings opinions are presented concerning how the refugees should be treated.
One opinion is that the refugees should not be granted asylum and perhaps be expelled from the country. In the past, as Israeli Interior Minister Roni Bar-On has expressed, "...security forces often try to return the refugees to the Egyptian side of the border." Sudan and Israel are currently concidered enemies, thus many Israelis are wary of the refugees and would like to see them go.
On the other side, certain Israelis make the argument that these Sudanese refugees have escaped from what the US has called 'a genocide' and thus there is a moral obligation to grant them asylum. Israelis, of all people, should remember their support of illegal Jewish refugees during WWII. Jewish refugees sought asylum in Israel as they escaped from the violence of the Holocaust, similar to the agenda of the current Sudanese refugees. Also, Israeli Human Rights groups are petitioning the Supreme Court to allow the refugees to stay, in hopes that the pressure will cause a speedy and positive decision.
The issue of illegal immigration is contraversial by all accounts, but in the case of these 230 Sudanese refugees in Israel, I support the motion to grant them asylum. If the refugees are sent to Egypt or to a jail in Sudan, they risk exposure to the violent treatment from which they escaped. Expelling this posessionless group of Sudanese refugees is pratically granting the immigrants a death sentence. Their chance of survival is minimal. Israelis should be tolerant of the refugees just as their country was tolerant of Jewish refugees during WWII.

Uncertainty and worry in Nigeria's Presidential election

In reading this article about Nigeria's next Presidential election that will be held in April of 2007, it seems to be that they are experiencing much worry about who will be on the ticket. The current President is Olusegun Obasanjo. He has been in office since 1999. Many people want him to stay on for re-election, however he has never shown any interest in a fourth term. His vice President is Atiku Abubakar. Abubakar hgas shown great interest in running for the Presidental job and seeks the People's Democratic Party's support. But he doesn't have it. I find this to be a big problem because it can have negative effects on the party. One man with support has not shown the interest and another man with the interest does not have the support. Nigeria is Africa's most populated nation, but they are very divided ethnicaly and religiously. I beleive that this could amount into a very difficult political struggle in the next election. Religiously, the problem lies due to the fact that in the Northern part of Nigeria, it is prodominatly Muslims. Obasanjo is a southern Christian. Muslims in the north beleive that it is only fair that when his term is up, it is only fair that he allow a northerner to take office. The Muslims beleive that is in the best interest of the Nations peace and nationalism. I agree with that. The absence of Nationalism is a key factor as to why African countries are having such a difficult time modernizing like the rest of the world. Ethnic and religious differences are getting in the way. The Muslims are correct in that reguard. Ethnic problems come into play when the article speaks of the Igbo ethnic group. They control 95% of the government's revenue but there's never been an Igbo President. They too are looking to have one of their own in office. However, many people of Nigeria believe that the Igbo people do not have anyone who has the politcal stature to be in office. This has enraged the Igbos. I agree with the Igbo people having the right to be outraged by this. From reading this article it is clear to me that Nigeria is torn ethnically, and religiously and that it is leading to the nation being divided. What makes it all worse is that many people beleive that Obasanjo will simply remain in office, creating politcal chaos. This can only be done by emergency rule. In my opinion that method will only make things worse between the Muslims and Igbo people of Nigeria. Nationalism will never be reached if people are not happy with the government and that is a big reason as to why Nigera and other African countries are taking so long to modernize.

Cultural Solution for Aids?

From reading an article yesterday on the destruction aids has cost the continent of Africa and also reflecting on a previous class discussion, there is one question that always seems to strike me, where does the responsibilty lie for changing the detrimental and most times harmful cultural views that many African citizens have for dealing with the aids virus? In the article provided it even states that the health minister of South Africa "urged the use of garlic and African potatoe to fight Aids instead of effective treatment". Should the National leaders of these African states be "forced" to see that their methods are ineffective and further hurting their people, or should the world community, more specifically NGO's take the responsibilty upon themselves and try to involve the African governments as little as possible?

Corruption in Africa -- once again

Well, I can't say that it is a surprise. A recent inquiry revealed that there has been gross misuse of AIDS donations in Uganda. Specifically, the Global Fund -- the largest fund in the world to combat 3 diseases: AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria -- has already given Uganda $45 million of the $201 million earmarked for the country.
Monies were taken to pay for "personal phone bills, lavish "Christmas packages" and fancy four-wheel drive vehicles". What is so disturbing about this, however, is that Uganda was a leading country in combatting HIV/AIDS -- and President Museveni has at least rhetorically endorsed anti-corruption campaigns.Read the link above.

Never Again....Still

In a recent Washington Post article, "Still a Genocide", we learn that even though the Darfur peace accord was signed 3 weeks ago, the killing continues...
Is the Sudanese government backsliding on agreements? -- Yes -- Are the rebel factions still disagreeing over the peace agreement conditions? -- Yes-- Are innocent women and children and men still dying as a consequence? -- Yes.
So why isn't anything being done?

European countries and the UN are hesitant to even call what's going on in Darfur a "genocide". But doesn't everyone agree that innocent women and children are being slaughtered? Don't we all agree that this should stop?
So, why does it continue?
How can it still continue that nations will only get involved in mass slaughter of civilians if we can technically define it as a "genocide"? Isn't slaughter of innocents, slaughter?!

A Ugandan Activist Speaks Out

I just received this comment on my webblog from "Anne" -- I'm presuming a Ugandan activist. I thought I'd post it rather than just leave it as a comment, since it does relate to the post I just made about Nigeria and Uganda.
Kudos to you Anne!

We the people of the Commonwealth come together to sign this petition to demand that the Commonwealth be held accountable to its own committments under the Harare Declaration of 1991. Two past elections in Uganda in 2001 and 2006 have returned the incumbent after violent campaigns and rigged results as ruled by Uganda's Supreme Court and observed by local and international election observers. Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth for electoral fraud and violence, yet Uganda will be honored by hosting CHOGM 2007. We demand equal treatment of all member states regardless of the color or race of their citizenry. Act Now!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/983107725

Kudos to Nigerians and their Democracy

Perhaps there is hope for African democracy after all. Ghana, Botswana, South Africa -- leaders in democratization -- and now Nigeria -- an economic powerhouse gives hope to sustainable democracy. Why? The Nigerian senate has rejected an attempt by President Olusegun Obasanjo to run for a third fourth term next year (see The Chrisitian Science Monitor article attached).
This is a good sign for Nigeria -- but a bad one for Uganda -- which just had an election in March that allowed President Yoweri Museveni (in power since 1986) to remain in power for another term after changing the consitution to accomodate a third presidential term.
This brings us to the question of why are some African countries more successful at democratization than others? Both Nigeria and Uganda are former British colonies as is Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe in power since 1980, and Ghana. What factors account for democratic success? Foreign aid, foreign pressure, civil society, good political leadership?

Whatever Happened to Live8 and Saving Africa?

A former student and friend sent me this article. Thought it would be interesting to re-post. She didn't include the source, other than that Gerald Caplan wrote the article.
The Live 8 concerts: Hold on Africa – here we come!
Gerald Caplan (2005-06-23)
With the global music extravaganza that is Live 8 just around the corner, Gerald Caplan is nervous about the crocodile tears shed for Africa by leaders like Tony Blair. Caplan writes that the job of Bono, Bob Geldof and other Live 8 organizers is to let their fans know that Africans need no more missionaries or do-gooders. “Instead, Africans have a right to justice and equity to make up for the incalculable harm that we in the rich world have inflicted on them for such a long, long time,” writes Caplan.
Everybody must be aware by now of the Bob Geldof Live 8 spectacular coming at us next week. The media has been abuzz with burning questions about where the concert will be held and who'll be performing, with a sentence occasionally thrown in about saving poor old Africa or ending poverty. This is a serious problem.
Getting it wrong about Africa is a venerable tradition in the rich world, and music has played its role. Remember the great famine concerts of 20 years ago and the giant hit "Do They Know It's Christmas?" It's just been re-recorded, with its inane lyrics of Africa as a land "underneath a burning sun…where nothing ever grows" and "no rain nor river flows". Get it? Natural causes---bad luck—are at the root of Africa's problems.
Television does its share. Who among us haven't seen inspiring stories about young Canadians who decide to raise pennies for a well or school in Africa? These efforts are invariably motivated by the best of intentions. But I'm concerned with their unintended message. I fear they reinforce wrong-headed stereotypes of both Africa and us. To my eye, they show Africans as helpless, dependent, passive victims, and we westerners as decent, selfless, compassionate, resourceful missionaries.
Now Paul Wolfowitz's has added his explanation for Africa's plight. Moving swiftly from being a maven about Iraq to becoming an authority on Africa's 53 countries, the new head of the World Bank has just completed a whirlwind learning tour of the continent—6 days, 4 countries. The problem in Africa, he announced at the end, is simple: "corruption". Right. If only Africa's leaders were more like our own.
These views reflect a common theme: they leave the rich world blameless for Africa's multitude of problems. I greatly fear that Live 8 is inadvertently strengthening the notion that we in the rich world must be missionaries to save Africans from themselves. The truth is already being lost-- the deep, comprehensive responsibility of western nations and western financial institutions for so much of Africa's continuing underdevelopment and poverty. The real reason the rich world should be racing to deal with African poverty is the central role we have played in causing and perpetuating it. Has anyone told Paul Wolfowitz that vastly more money pours out of Africa each year back to rich countries than flows in? That's the key to Africa's development crisis, and it's almost entirely unrecognized.
The responsibility of the rich world takes many forms. It includes the indispensable support given over the decades to countless African tyrants and to white racists. It includes the demonstrably retrograde free market policies imposed on virtually every Africa government by ideological extremists at the World Bank and International monetary Fund (also known by African pediatricians as the Infant Mortality Fund) and backed by almost all western governments, including Canada. Across west Africa, it's cheaper to buy a subsidized frozen chicken imported from Holland that to buy one from a local producer. Foreign aid is always tied to buying goods and services in the rich country or to sending consultants to Africa to make more in a day than the vast majority of Africans do in a year. Rich countries drain off a huge percentage of the professionals—doctors and nurses, especially—who are trained in African universities. Western corporations plunder Africa's natural resources, pay starvation wages and almost no local taxes, bribe anyone in charge—corruption!--pollute hideously, and leave conflict and human rights abuses in their wake. Western donors demand that user fees be imposed on health services and tuition fees on schooling. They demand that public services be slashed so that health and school systems deteriorate. The US government and fundamentalist western religious groups introduce unrealistic and irrelevant moral dogmas to combat AIDS and undermine evidence-based methods of prevention
Anyone who doesn't distrust the Group of 8 leaders who'll be meeting next month hasn't been paying attention. They're the ones responsible for the economic apartheid that characterizes rich-poor country relations today. Every one of them has failed to live up to repeated pledges about aid, debt relief and agricultural subsidies, solemnly made and blithely ignored. The recent ballyhoo about debt relief for 14 African countries was wildly overblown; it was no more than a modest first step. The more leaders like Tony Blair and Paul Martin shed crocodile tears talk about their moral crusade for Africa, the more liberal imperialist rhetoric they spin, the more nervous we should be. The job of Bono and Bob Geldof and other Live 8 organizers is to let their fans know that Africans need no more missionaries or do-gooders. Instead, Africans have a right to justice and equity to make up for the incalculable harm that we in the rich world have inflicted on them for such a long, long time.

* Gerald Caplan works with various UN agencies on African development issues.

Uganda: A Test Case for African Democracy

So, President Museveni of Uganda pulled off a 59.3% victory in Uganda's recent multiparty Presidential elections. Kudos to Ugandans for having a relatively violence-free election. Kudos also to Ugandans for showing up to vote -- 59.3% turnout -- the Western democracies could be so lucky with such a high-level of voter participation.
The most important test for Uganda's democracy still remains: what will happen after the elections? Neither side should advocate violence, although it may be inevitable. Uganda, with all of its economic successes has really become a test-case for African democracy. It it cannot succeed in Uganda, where can it in Africa?

Museveni: The Answer for Uganda?

Ugandans are once again testing their resolve for democracy. It's easy for us in the West to criticize Ugandans for not seeing through Yoweri Museveni's "Big Man" politics, but when the "Big Man" implies that he will "go back to the bush" if he doesn't win, and reminds people of the chaos and violence that beset Uganda pre-Movement politics, it's no wonder that Ugandans will probably vote for "no change" in Thursday's presidential elections.
It's also no wonder that Dr. Kizza Besigye is behind in the polls. As Emily Wax's Washington Post article, "Ugandans Put "Big Man" Politics to Vote", outlines, Besigye had to try and win the hearts and minds of Ugandans while going from a maximum security prison on charges of treason and rape, to multiple court appearances.
Perhaps we should applaud the fact that Museveni just didn't have Besigye killed when he returned to Uganda -- Museveni has obviously become more sophisticated than previous Ugandans rulers in underming the opposition.
My guess is that Museveni will win tomorrow -- not because he is necessarily the best man for the job, but because he has established himself as the "big man" for the job.