By Farid Omar
On Saturday, October 17th, social justice activists and concerned global citizens from around the world will observe the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Since the 1990s, the eradication of poverty and destitution in all countries, in particular developing countries, has become one of the priorities of development, considering that the promotion of eradication of poverty and destitution requires public awareness.
First observed on October 17, 1987, when over a hundred thousand people gathered at the Trocadéro in Paris, to honour the victims of extreme poverty, violence and hunger, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly through resolution 47/196 adopted on 22 December 1992, declared 17 October as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and invited all States “to devote the Day to presenting and promoting, as appropriate in the national context, concrete activities with regard to the eradication of poverty and destitution”.
The Resolution further invites intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations “to assist states, at their request, in organizing national activities for the observance of International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, paying due attention to the specific problems of the destitute”
According to the UN, October 17th presents an opportunity to acknowledge the effort and struggle of people living in poverty, a chance for them to make their concerns heard, and a moment to recognize that poor people are the first ones to fight against poverty. Participation of the poor themselves has been at the centre of the Day's celebration since its very beginning. The commemoration of October 17th also reflects the willingness of people living in poverty to use their expertise to contribute to the eradication of poverty.
With the global economic crisis, the food crisis and the impacts of climate change combining to reverse the gains made over the past few years in reducing poverty, redoubled efforts by world leaders are required if nations are to continue to move forward on achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
As the gap between the super rich and the poorest communities on the planet continues to grow, global poverty, more than ever before, is alarmingly on the rise.Throughout the world, it is mostly women and children who bear the brunt of poverty. The year 2009 coincides with the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,which will be marked on November 20th. UN figures show that each year, nearly 10 million children die from preventable causes before their fifth birthday, and that that some 1.2 million children are trafficked worldwide.
In recognition of this, the 2009 observance of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty focuses on the plight of children and families living in poverty and the need to fulfill children's rights in partnership with them and in keeping with the Convention.
When it comes to global poverty, the statistics are grim. Every 3 seconds, a child dies of extreme poverty. Over 1 billion people around the world live on less than $1 a day while in Canada, over 1 million children live in poverty. In addressing these challenges, anti-poverty groups in Canada and beyond demand a more and better aid for developing nations, trade justice, debt cancellation and an end to child poverty.
Despite rapid economic growth in the last two decades, it is estimated that a large number of Canadians still live in poverty. But a Pan-Canadian Movement to combat poverty is fast building as activists are mobilizing across the country to spearhead a united front to eliminate poverty in Canada. Dignity for All: The Campaign for a Poverty-Free Canada, was founded in 2009 by Canada Without Poverty and Citizens for Public Justice. The campaign notes that freedom from poverty is a human right and that all are entitled to social and economic security.
In combating the structural causes of poverty in Canada, the Dignity for All Campaign calls for a sustained action by the federal government including a federal plan for poverty elimination that compliments provincial and territorial plans, a federal anti-poverty Act that ensures enduring federal commitment and accountability for results and a sufficient federal investment in social security for all Canadians.
On the international front, concerted efforts by social justice and anti-poverty groups, international organizations and governments from around the world are needed to make poverty history.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Africom, Not Democracy, Will Shape Obama's Africa Policy
By Farid Omar.
President Obama's recent visit to Ghana, the first ever by a sitting African-American President to the African continent, was hailed as an opportunity by an American President willing to break ranks with past, failed US policies in Africa. After all, Obama can speak intimately to Africa's woes and crises, being the son of a Kenyan and therefore Africa's own. More importantly, Michelle Obama, America's first lady, is a direct descendant of African slaves with possible ancestral roots in the American Carolinas.
Since Africans in the continent have passionately declared him “Son of Africa” and “One of Our Own” Obama, who takes great pride in his African heritage, clearly has leverage over his predecessors. He can openly criticize Africa's “strong men” (dictators) and make tough demands for complete democratization without the danger of being labeled “arrogant,” “paternalistic “or “imperialist minded”. In the Obama era, some right-wing African pundits have even argued that the words “US interference in African affairs” may well be struck off from the US foreign policy lexicon.
But a close examination of the often disastrous US foreign policy toward Africa would reveal that the Obama Administration would not be markedly different from preceding ones. Since the dawn of Africa's post colonial era, US administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have maintained a consistent policy toward the continent
Last year, the Associated Press reported that Obama “aligns foreign policy with the GOP”. Speaking in Greensburg, Pa, during the Democratic Presidential race, Obama said: “The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan”. This is a clear rebuke to left-liberal American thinkers who believe that Obama’s progressive vision stands miles apart from the foreign policy pursued by past GOP presidents.
Die hard Obamites in the motherland should not be fooled by emergent rhetoric that Obama would relentlessly push for democracy . The people of Africa should look closely at America's long history of toppling nascent democracies in the south. From Guatemala and Iran in 1954, Africa in the 1960s, to Chile in 1973, and elsewhere, the US has toppled scores of emerging democracies and installed despotic regimes serving US strategic interests.
In Ghana, the US was implicated in the 1966 ouster of the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah. Six years earlier, the US, working in collusion with Belgium, overthrew Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo. Lumumba was later assassinated by CIA-backed forces in the restive Katanga region of Congo. The coup d etat in Congo brought into power General Mobutu Sese Seko, America’s closest ally in Central Africa and one of Africa’s most brutal dictators.
In February 2007, President Bush and defence secretary Robert Gates announced the creation of the United States Africa Command (Africom). Serving as one of six of the Defense Department's regional military headquarters, Africom was declared a fully unified command on October 1, 2008. It is tasked with the responsibility of overseeing military-to-military relationships with 53 African nations.
Through Africom, the US will retain access to military bases, train and equip African armies as well as secure unfettered access to Africa’s vital resources including oil, gas and mineral deposits.
Rather than conduct a thorough review of US security policy toward Africa, the Obama administration is keen on expanding the George Bush -initiated Africom military operations. In fact Obama has proposed significant increases in Pentagon’s funding for Africom.
The most significant thing about Africom, is not necessarily its stated military objectives, but rather, its enormous power to influence US-Africa relations. Africom's official website clearly states that the United States Africa Command, in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners, “conducts sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.”
Thus, Africom, not the quest for democracy, will primarily shape Obama’s foreign policy in the continent. Even within African-American circles, there is growing skepticism toward Obama’s Africa policy. Bruce Dixon, the Managing Editor of the Black Agenda Report, is of the view that Africom will have a destabilizing effect on the continent.
“Rather than seek allies in the vibrant civil sector of African societies, Obama's advisors are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush-created AFRICOM, which works to strengthen the least productive sector of African societies --- Africa's rapacious military machines,” says Mr. Dixon.
“The ‘train and equip’ idea is not new. In fact, it has a very bad history in Africa – a history that harkens back to the proxy wars of the Cold War and U.S. support for illegitimate or corrupt regimes.”
To be on Washington’s “good books,” all that African dictators need to do is enlist their full support for Africom. By placing themselves on the “frontline” in "the war on terror", they will not only become recipients of unconditional military and economic aid, but also earn the dubious right of cracking down on legitimate democratic forces.
If Obama genuinely wants to cart a new, progressive policy toward Africa, his administration must first apologize for past American crimes, including its policy of toppling democratically-elected African governments and assassination of its most popular leaders. Obama should also scrap Africom and instead, re-direct America’s military aid to Africa to popular sectors and revamp its crumbling social and economic infrastructure by investing in health care, HIV AIDS prevention, education, literacy campaigns, economic development, public works and agriculture. Only reparations, not foreign aid, can help redress US genocidal crimes in Africa.
President Obama's recent visit to Ghana, the first ever by a sitting African-American President to the African continent, was hailed as an opportunity by an American President willing to break ranks with past, failed US policies in Africa. After all, Obama can speak intimately to Africa's woes and crises, being the son of a Kenyan and therefore Africa's own. More importantly, Michelle Obama, America's first lady, is a direct descendant of African slaves with possible ancestral roots in the American Carolinas.
Since Africans in the continent have passionately declared him “Son of Africa” and “One of Our Own” Obama, who takes great pride in his African heritage, clearly has leverage over his predecessors. He can openly criticize Africa's “strong men” (dictators) and make tough demands for complete democratization without the danger of being labeled “arrogant,” “paternalistic “or “imperialist minded”. In the Obama era, some right-wing African pundits have even argued that the words “US interference in African affairs” may well be struck off from the US foreign policy lexicon.
But a close examination of the often disastrous US foreign policy toward Africa would reveal that the Obama Administration would not be markedly different from preceding ones. Since the dawn of Africa's post colonial era, US administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have maintained a consistent policy toward the continent
Last year, the Associated Press reported that Obama “aligns foreign policy with the GOP”. Speaking in Greensburg, Pa, during the Democratic Presidential race, Obama said: “The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan”. This is a clear rebuke to left-liberal American thinkers who believe that Obama’s progressive vision stands miles apart from the foreign policy pursued by past GOP presidents.
Die hard Obamites in the motherland should not be fooled by emergent rhetoric that Obama would relentlessly push for democracy . The people of Africa should look closely at America's long history of toppling nascent democracies in the south. From Guatemala and Iran in 1954, Africa in the 1960s, to Chile in 1973, and elsewhere, the US has toppled scores of emerging democracies and installed despotic regimes serving US strategic interests.
In Ghana, the US was implicated in the 1966 ouster of the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah. Six years earlier, the US, working in collusion with Belgium, overthrew Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo. Lumumba was later assassinated by CIA-backed forces in the restive Katanga region of Congo. The coup d etat in Congo brought into power General Mobutu Sese Seko, America’s closest ally in Central Africa and one of Africa’s most brutal dictators.
In February 2007, President Bush and defence secretary Robert Gates announced the creation of the United States Africa Command (Africom). Serving as one of six of the Defense Department's regional military headquarters, Africom was declared a fully unified command on October 1, 2008. It is tasked with the responsibility of overseeing military-to-military relationships with 53 African nations.
Through Africom, the US will retain access to military bases, train and equip African armies as well as secure unfettered access to Africa’s vital resources including oil, gas and mineral deposits.
Rather than conduct a thorough review of US security policy toward Africa, the Obama administration is keen on expanding the George Bush -initiated Africom military operations. In fact Obama has proposed significant increases in Pentagon’s funding for Africom.
The most significant thing about Africom, is not necessarily its stated military objectives, but rather, its enormous power to influence US-Africa relations. Africom's official website clearly states that the United States Africa Command, in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners, “conducts sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.”
Thus, Africom, not the quest for democracy, will primarily shape Obama’s foreign policy in the continent. Even within African-American circles, there is growing skepticism toward Obama’s Africa policy. Bruce Dixon, the Managing Editor of the Black Agenda Report, is of the view that Africom will have a destabilizing effect on the continent.
“Rather than seek allies in the vibrant civil sector of African societies, Obama's advisors are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush-created AFRICOM, which works to strengthen the least productive sector of African societies --- Africa's rapacious military machines,” says Mr. Dixon.
“The ‘train and equip’ idea is not new. In fact, it has a very bad history in Africa – a history that harkens back to the proxy wars of the Cold War and U.S. support for illegitimate or corrupt regimes.”
To be on Washington’s “good books,” all that African dictators need to do is enlist their full support for Africom. By placing themselves on the “frontline” in "the war on terror", they will not only become recipients of unconditional military and economic aid, but also earn the dubious right of cracking down on legitimate democratic forces.
If Obama genuinely wants to cart a new, progressive policy toward Africa, his administration must first apologize for past American crimes, including its policy of toppling democratically-elected African governments and assassination of its most popular leaders. Obama should also scrap Africom and instead, re-direct America’s military aid to Africa to popular sectors and revamp its crumbling social and economic infrastructure by investing in health care, HIV AIDS prevention, education, literacy campaigns, economic development, public works and agriculture. Only reparations, not foreign aid, can help redress US genocidal crimes in Africa.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
London is Profiting from Somalia Piracy
By Farid Omar
Since the collapse of central government in Somalia in 1991, pirates have reigned supreme over the Somali high seas, hijacking commercial vessels and ships carrying humanitarian supplies. In the latest incident, pirates have released the Ukrainian freighter, MV Faina, walking away with an estimated $3.2 million in ransom money.
Piracy is a lucrative business in war-torn Somalia. Last year alone, pirate gangs were paid an estimated £35million from holding 40 ships and hundreds of crew members to ransom. Some sources claim that Somali pirates may have collected as much as $150 million last year although this figure could not be independently verified. While piracy continues to be a menace, it is was the pirates who hijacked the MV Faina, loaded with 33 tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition who captured global attention. The pirates had no idea that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of deadly weaponry, heading for South Sudan via Kenya.
While the western media has often focused its attention on Somali pirates, the international community has paid a blind eye to the ravaging of Somali seas by foreign vessels that either fish illegally or dump toxic material, including nuclear waste in Somali territorial waters in flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the beleaguered East-African nation.
Sugunle Ali, a spokesman for the pirates on the just released MV Faina, once told the New York Times that in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood.
"We don´t consider ourselves sea bandits," he said. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard." In Somalia, pirates claim that they only impose heavy "fines" as opposed to claiming "ransom" when seizing ships that illegally enter Somali seas.
Col. Gaddafi, the newly-minted African Union (AU)chairman, recently told Kenya's Daily Nation that he doesn't believe that Somalia's piracy was a crime.
" It is a response to greedy western nations, who invade and exploit Somalia's water resources illegally". Said the Libyan President. " It is not piracy, it is self-defence.It is defending Somalia children's food". Col Gaddafi argued.
After the collapse of the Somali state, there were no patrols along the shoreline and Somalia´s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.
However, things later got out of hand as the vigilantes in the high seas quickly transformed themselves into pirates hijacking any vessels they could catch.
But unknown to most in the rest of the world, Somali pirates are not the only ones benefiting from this high stakes industry. Last month, the BBC reported that the hijacking of ships off the coast of Somalia has created a mini-industry for a business entity based in the UK. An investigation by Simon Cox, a BBC reporter, on how ransom is paid ,has revealed that money trails lead to one destination: London.
According to Cox, securing the release of hijacked ships and crew members is "the responsibility of a hidden mini-industry of lawyers, negotiators and security teams based nearly 7,000km away, in London, UK, the business capital of the world's maritime industry".
Simon Beale, a marine underwriter, says that all these specialist services don't come cheap in the UK. He adds that by factoring in the cost of lawyers, risk consultants, security advisers, as well as the fixed overheads, and delivering the money to the pirates , all these "can lead to doubling the ransom amount."
Cox adds that this hidden mini-industry thrives because paying a ransom is not illegal under British law unless it is paid to terrorists. It has long been established that piracy in Somalia does not constitute a politically motivated act as pirates simply hold vessels for ransom. As such, they are treated as criminal gangs in the high seas, not terrorists.
Cox notes that last year, Somali pirates pocketed an estimated $50m. "Not all of this is going to British lawyers, negotiators and security teams but a fair chunk of it will be". Says Cox. "This has led to some criticism, particularly in Spain, that London is profiting from crime".
In dealing with piracy, the best solution is for the international community to put to an end the illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters as well as reign in on the mini industry in UK that is profiting from this criminal enterprise.
More importantly, piracy can only be rooted out if the international community supports the creation of a peaceful and stable state in Somalia. This would entail the promotion of an inter-Somali dialogue that would bring together all parties in the Somali conflict in direct negotiations on the way to finding a lasting solution to the political crisis in Somalia.
Since the collapse of central government in Somalia in 1991, pirates have reigned supreme over the Somali high seas, hijacking commercial vessels and ships carrying humanitarian supplies. In the latest incident, pirates have released the Ukrainian freighter, MV Faina, walking away with an estimated $3.2 million in ransom money.
Piracy is a lucrative business in war-torn Somalia. Last year alone, pirate gangs were paid an estimated £35million from holding 40 ships and hundreds of crew members to ransom. Some sources claim that Somali pirates may have collected as much as $150 million last year although this figure could not be independently verified. While piracy continues to be a menace, it is was the pirates who hijacked the MV Faina, loaded with 33 tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition who captured global attention. The pirates had no idea that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of deadly weaponry, heading for South Sudan via Kenya.
While the western media has often focused its attention on Somali pirates, the international community has paid a blind eye to the ravaging of Somali seas by foreign vessels that either fish illegally or dump toxic material, including nuclear waste in Somali territorial waters in flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the beleaguered East-African nation.
Sugunle Ali, a spokesman for the pirates on the just released MV Faina, once told the New York Times that in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood.
"We don´t consider ourselves sea bandits," he said. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard." In Somalia, pirates claim that they only impose heavy "fines" as opposed to claiming "ransom" when seizing ships that illegally enter Somali seas.
Col. Gaddafi, the newly-minted African Union (AU)chairman, recently told Kenya's Daily Nation that he doesn't believe that Somalia's piracy was a crime.
" It is a response to greedy western nations, who invade and exploit Somalia's water resources illegally". Said the Libyan President. " It is not piracy, it is self-defence.It is defending Somalia children's food". Col Gaddafi argued.
After the collapse of the Somali state, there were no patrols along the shoreline and Somalia´s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.
However, things later got out of hand as the vigilantes in the high seas quickly transformed themselves into pirates hijacking any vessels they could catch.
But unknown to most in the rest of the world, Somali pirates are not the only ones benefiting from this high stakes industry. Last month, the BBC reported that the hijacking of ships off the coast of Somalia has created a mini-industry for a business entity based in the UK. An investigation by Simon Cox, a BBC reporter, on how ransom is paid ,has revealed that money trails lead to one destination: London.
According to Cox, securing the release of hijacked ships and crew members is "the responsibility of a hidden mini-industry of lawyers, negotiators and security teams based nearly 7,000km away, in London, UK, the business capital of the world's maritime industry".
Simon Beale, a marine underwriter, says that all these specialist services don't come cheap in the UK. He adds that by factoring in the cost of lawyers, risk consultants, security advisers, as well as the fixed overheads, and delivering the money to the pirates , all these "can lead to doubling the ransom amount."
Cox adds that this hidden mini-industry thrives because paying a ransom is not illegal under British law unless it is paid to terrorists. It has long been established that piracy in Somalia does not constitute a politically motivated act as pirates simply hold vessels for ransom. As such, they are treated as criminal gangs in the high seas, not terrorists.
Cox notes that last year, Somali pirates pocketed an estimated $50m. "Not all of this is going to British lawyers, negotiators and security teams but a fair chunk of it will be". Says Cox. "This has led to some criticism, particularly in Spain, that London is profiting from crime".
In dealing with piracy, the best solution is for the international community to put to an end the illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters as well as reign in on the mini industry in UK that is profiting from this criminal enterprise.
More importantly, piracy can only be rooted out if the international community supports the creation of a peaceful and stable state in Somalia. This would entail the promotion of an inter-Somali dialogue that would bring together all parties in the Somali conflict in direct negotiations on the way to finding a lasting solution to the political crisis in Somalia.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Zimbabwe : Coalition Deal Finalized
By Farid Omar
After months of bitter wrangles on how the most powerful cabinet posts were to be shared out in Zimbabwe's coalition government deal, Southern African leaders, who have been mediating for a durable settlement have persuaded Mr Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to join a joint administration despite their concerns over Zanu-PF's commitment to sharing power. The power-sharing deal was agreed in September 2008 but has been mired by bitter disputes.
In light of this new development, Zimbabwe's parliament has unanimously approved a constitutional amendment allowing opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to become prime minister.
Mr Mugabe is expected to sign the amendment on Friday and Mr Tsvangirai is due to be sworn in on 11 February.
Negotiators are still trying to hammer out who gets what ahead of the unity government taking over on 13 February.
Months after the ruling Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) signed a power sharing-deal; Zimbabwe still doesn’t have a new coalition cabinet in place. Under the power-sharing deal, Mugabe is supposed to remain President and Tsvangirai, the MDC leader, is to become Prime Minister.
Zanu-PF and the MDC have been unable to agree on how to divide cabinet posts. The MDC insists that it should take control of the Home Affairs Ministry which controls the police. This, the MDC claims, would help curtail the harassment of its leaders and supporters.
The MDC has often accused Mugabe of not being sincere about power-sharing, saying that despite the deal, its supporters, party officials and human rights activists are still being abducted.
But Zanu-PF has long maintained that its security operations directed at subversive elements within MDC ranks are aimed at defending Zimbabwe's sovereignty against imperialist detractors. It views the neo-liberal oriented MDC as a reactionary force working in collusion with western imperialism. Zimbabwe, President Mugabe insists, will never bow down to imperialist interests.
Further, Zanu-PF has stated that it is committed to a power-sharing deal, pointing to last month's sacking by President Mugabe of nine cabinet ministers and three deputy ministers. All the sacked ministers had lost their seats in the last March polls.
On the economic front, President Mugabe has blamed the economic sanctions imposed by western powers as the primary cause of Zimbabwe's worsening economic conditions. Zimbabwe has been hit by a hyper inflation that is spiraling out of control.
On the cholera situation, the United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has announced Robert Mugabe's agreement to allow a delegation of UN experts into the country to study the solutions which could be employed to stop the disease from spreading.
While Western governments blame the epidemic on the collapse of Zimbabwe’s health and sanitation system, the Zimbabwe government has blamed the outbreak on the British, stating that it is “a calculated terrorist attack on Zimbabwe”.
Last month, the Zimbabwe Herald quoted the information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, as blaming cholera on “serious biological chemical war... a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British.”
|
|
Monday, January 12, 2009
Israel Will Fail in Gaza
By Farid Omar
Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has urged Arab and Muslim peoples to launch "uprisings" in support of Gaza Strip. Nasrallah, addressing a rally in south Beirut in support of Gaza, also predicted that Israel would fail in defeating Hamas.He said an Israeli incursion into Gaza would be "confronted by resistance fighters and the Israelis would start sustaining casualties."
The Israeli war in Gaza, according to Nasrallah, is "not against Hamas, but against the Palestinian people."
Since the air assault on Gaza, which is now backed by a ground offensive, began over two weeks ago, 919 Gazans have lost their lives including 284 children, more than 100 women and 4260 injured. By entering Gaza, Israel’s war machine, backed in full by U.S. imperialism, is writing a new chapter of war crimes in world history.
Israel's retaliation to Hamas rocket fire, is by no means, a measured response as Zionists circles claim. It is a disproportionate use of force in one of the most densely populated areas in the world and a cowardly attack on a largely defenceless civilian population.
In 2006, the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government by a landslide because this organization was leading the resistance to oppression and occupation. Refusing to recognize this legitimate choice, both Tel Aviv and Washington targeted Hamas by waging a genocidal attack on all Palestinians. The Israelis put Gaza under siege, starving and freezing the people, cutting off food and medicine, fuel and power for the past 18 months.
Washington and Tel Aviv claim that Hamas broke the cease-fire. But there was never a real cease-fire, because the Israelis never lifted the blockade as they had agreed to do. Worse still, Israel kept provoking Hamas by going into Gaza and killing Hamas operatives and their supporters.
Israel’s blockade of Gaza strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.
With the tacit support of the United States, the criminal blockade has subjected many to unemployment and hopelessness and in the case of vulnerable children, malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment of a civilian population for simply exercising its democratic rights.
The ceasefire, lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November. In this early offensive, six Hamas operatives were reportedly killed.
Fighting back, in this case launching rockets, is the legitimate self-defense of a blockaded nation.
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said in a televised statement in Damascus that his group would consider a truce after Israel stopped its offensive against the Gaza Strip and lift the blockade on the territory.
He added that Hamas would only work with any initiative or resolution based on these demands and talk about a truce as before, noting that they would not accept a permanent truce because when "there is occupation, there is resistance."
Citing a history of Arab struggle against invaders, Meshaal questioned how long Israel would survive, saying the ferocity of the Israeli attacks finished off chances for a lasting peace between the Jewish state and the Arab world surrounding it.
There has been worldwide condemnation of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza with thousands of demonstrators across the world taking to the streets to condemn the ongoing genocide. In official circles, one of the sternest actions came from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who expelled the Israeli ambassador in protest against the air strikes and ground offensive in Gaza.
In Canada, prominent Jewish Canadians have condemned Israel's ongoing onslaught in Gaza.
Anton Kuerti, an internationally acclaimed concert pianist and human rights activist, called the Israeli attack “a war crime”.
“The servile way in which Canada is supporting the U.S. position — basically it’s all Hamas’s fault because of missiles that they throw over in desperation — I think this reluctance of Canada to use its influence makes me ashamed to be Canadian.” Kuerti said.
Osgoode Hall Law School professor Michael Mandel said Canadians are being told Hamas are the aggressors. “It is the exact opposite,” he said.
Judith Deutsch, president of Science for Peace, said the Israeli military action is a crime against the people of Gaza. “Israel has returned to openly committing war crimes,” Deutsch said.
As was the case with the 2006 Israeli war with Lebanon’s Hizballah, the Zionist regime’s military operations would fail in Gaza. Hamas, like the unshakable Hizballah fighters, are ready for a protracted war and would inflict heavy casualties on the enemy as the ground offensive continues. It is impossible to shatter the resolve of Hamas and it won’t be long before the occupying Israeli forces are caught in a deadly quagmire that would force the Zionist regime to concede to another ceasefire and eventually withdraw from Gaza.
In seeking a durable solution to the Gaza crisis, Canadians and progressive forces from around the world must push for world leaders to call for the following:
1. Call for an immediate ceasefire. Israel should be ordered to abide by the decision of the UN Security Council and immediately halt its attacks on Gaza.
2. Israel should immediately withdraw all its troops from Gaza.
3. Reinstating the six-month truce which was broken by Israel when it killed 4 Gazans on November 2nd and 6 Gazans on November 4th
4. Immediate lifting of the siege of Gaza by opening all border crossings into Gaza . UN monitors should ensure free access into and out of Gaza along with enabling Gazans full access to all the occupied Palestinian territories.
5. Demand that Israel grant international humanitarian organizations, media personnel and diplomats full and immediate access to assist the Palestinians in Gaza and report on what is happening.
6. Demand that Israel abide by international humanitarian law which prohibits collective punishment, the targeting of civilians and disproportionate military response. In addition Israel must abide by international law which affirms the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. Canada should sanction, boycott and divest from Israel if it does not comply with such laws.
As a number of Toronto members of Parliament (MPs) recently said, Peace in the Middle East and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike will only come with justice based on the rapid implementation of all United Nations resolutions pertaining to the conflict. Siding with the aggressor and condemning the victims only lengthens the time that it will take to finally achieve a genuine and durable peace.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Split in ANC: An Elitist Power Struggle.
By Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar
After a bitter power struggle within the ANC forced former President, Thabo Mbeki out of power, ANC dissidents led by former Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota have formed a breakaway party called the South African Democratic Congress (SADEC).
But the legality of this name is being challenged by another party with a similar name. The dissidents plan to challenge Jacob Zuma, the new ANC leader in general elections scheduled for next May.
In September, Lekota, a staunch ally of Mbeki, led a number of cabinet ministers who quit the ANC government. They blame Jacob Zuma supporters for ousting Mbeki from power.
While some believe that the split is good for South Africa's democracy, it is very clear that the split in the ANC, Africa's oldest and largest political party, is more about personalities than principle. It is simply a reflection of an elitist power struggle that holds no real solutions for South Africa's rampant corruption, growing inequality and high levels of poverty.
A splinter faction in the form of a new party may not constitute a viable alternative to Jacob Zuma's ANC. While it is unlikely that the Lekota faction would defeat the ANC, it could potentially deprive it of the two thirds majority needed to change the constitution.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP) that have a formal alliance with the ANC, both back Jacob Zuma. But it remains to be seen whether they would wield any considerable power in a likely future government led by Zuma.
The key to social progress in South Africa would be the evolution or coming to power of a truly leftist party that shuns neo-liberalism and undertakes fundamental social transformations that would progressively eradicate poverty, inequality and endemic state corruption.
After a bitter power struggle within the ANC forced former President, Thabo Mbeki out of power, ANC dissidents led by former Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota have formed a breakaway party called the South African Democratic Congress (SADEC).
But the legality of this name is being challenged by another party with a similar name. The dissidents plan to challenge Jacob Zuma, the new ANC leader in general elections scheduled for next May.
In September, Lekota, a staunch ally of Mbeki, led a number of cabinet ministers who quit the ANC government. They blame Jacob Zuma supporters for ousting Mbeki from power.
While some believe that the split is good for South Africa's democracy, it is very clear that the split in the ANC, Africa's oldest and largest political party, is more about personalities than principle. It is simply a reflection of an elitist power struggle that holds no real solutions for South Africa's rampant corruption, growing inequality and high levels of poverty.
A splinter faction in the form of a new party may not constitute a viable alternative to Jacob Zuma's ANC. While it is unlikely that the Lekota faction would defeat the ANC, it could potentially deprive it of the two thirds majority needed to change the constitution.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP) that have a formal alliance with the ANC, both back Jacob Zuma. But it remains to be seen whether they would wield any considerable power in a likely future government led by Zuma.
The key to social progress in South Africa would be the evolution or coming to power of a truly leftist party that shuns neo-liberalism and undertakes fundamental social transformations that would progressively eradicate poverty, inequality and endemic state corruption.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Piracy and the West's Ravaging of Somali Seas Must End
By Farid Omar
Since the collapse of central government in Somalia in 1991, following the ouster of Siad Barre, the former military dictator, pirates have reigned supreme over the Somali high seas, hijacking commercial vessels and ships carrying humanitarian supplies. This year alone, there have been over 25 cases of pirates seizing ships for ransom.
Piracy as western media claims, is fast becoming a lucrative business in war-torn Somalia. But is was the Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter, the MV Faina, loaded with 33 tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition who captured global attention. The pirates had no idea that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of deadly weaponry, heading for South Sudan via Kenya. They have demanded a $20 million ransom as condition of releasing the MV Faina and its 21 crew members.
Since the collapse of central government in Somalia in 1991, following the ouster of Siad Barre, the former military dictator, pirates have reigned supreme over the Somali high seas, hijacking commercial vessels and ships carrying humanitarian supplies. This year alone, there have been over 25 cases of pirates seizing ships for ransom.
Piracy as western media claims, is fast becoming a lucrative business in war-torn Somalia. But is was the Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter, the MV Faina, loaded with 33 tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition who captured global attention. The pirates had no idea that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of deadly weaponry, heading for South Sudan via Kenya. They have demanded a $20 million ransom as condition of releasing the MV Faina and its 21 crew members.
According to Al-Jazeera, the pirates have issued an ultimatum threatening to destroy the arms-laden cargo ship if no ransom is paid. The ship is surrounded by US warships, and a Russian frigate is heading toward the scene, raising the stakes for a possible commando-style raid on the ship.
While the western media has often focused its attention on Somali pirates, the international community has paid a blind eye to the ravaging of Somali seas by foreign vessels that either fish illegally or dump toxic material, including nuclear waste in Somali territorial waters in flagrant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Somalia.
Worse still, US, French, German and other western warships continue to “patrol” Somalia’s territorial waters under the pretext of fighting so-called “war on terror” in the Horn of African front. The build up of western warships off the Somali coastline constitutes a direct act of aggression against Somalia.
The ongoing pirates saga on the Ukrainian ship has uncovered the other side of the story following revelations in the New York Times that carried a recent piece on the stand off between the pirates and US ships that have surrounded the MV Faina.
In a telephone interview with the New York Times, Sugunle Ali, the pirates’ spokesman said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood.
“We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.” In Somalia, pirates claim that they only impose heavy "fines" as opposed to claiming "ransom" when seizing ships that illegally enter Somali seas.
In quoting Somali officials, even the New York Times notes that after the collapse of the Somali state, there were no patrols along the shoreline adding that “Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax”.
However, things later got out of hand as the vigilantes in the high seas quickly transformed themselves into pirates hijacking as the New York Times mentions, “any vessel they could catch: sailboat, oil tankers, United Nations chartered ships etc”.
No doubt, piracy of commercial ships in the high seas is a serious crime and co-ordinated international efforts are required to stamp it out. At the same time, the international community must put to an end the illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters.
Progressive forces must also demand the immediate withdrawal of western warships circling Somalia to difusse the growing tension in the region.
More importantly, piracy in Somalia can only be rooted out if the international community supports the creation of a peaceful and stable state in Somalia. This would entail the unconditional withdrawal of Ethiopian forces and promotion of an inter-Somali dialogue that would bring together all parties in the Somali conflict in direct negotiations on the way to finding a lasting solution to the political crisis in Somalia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
