Niger getting into the Patriot act

Staring down the barrel of a 14-month northern rebellion that has taken the lives of at least 70-soldiers and countless other civilians, the government of Niger recently passed a new anti-terror law, Reuters reports.

The law, ratified Sunday, makes it illegal to posses or manufacture explosive devices or radioactive materials along with the acts of hostage taking and attacking transport.

"The integration of this anti-terrorism law into our judicial structure equips our authorities to fight both effectively and legally this scourge that spares no country," said Justice Minister Dagra Mamadou.

He is most likely speaking about the Tuareg-led Niger Justice Movement, MNJ, which began a rebellion in February 2007 demanding more local political autonomy and a greater share of Niger’s profits made from its extensive uranium mines, located around the northern half of the country. Niger enjoys one of the world’s largest reserves of uranium, a mineral which has seen a nearly seven-fold increase in price since 2000.

The government’s new law comes at the heels of a new report by Amnesty International asserting that Nigerien troops have participated in at least eight extra-judicial executions in Agadez region. The London-based group maintains that the troops killed the civilians between March 22 – 25 as a response to casualties the army faced in skirmishes with the MNJ.

The report also documents instances of torture and beatings by the army, forced disappearances and arrests and soldiers attacking property, burning houses and camps.

Why all the media attention on Zimbabwe and Tibet?

Do Robert Mugabe’s ongoing actions in Zimbabwe and China’s policy in Tibet put them in the axis of evil? An interesting question posed by Seumas Milne, in Comment is Free:

…[O]n the basis of the scale of violence, repression and election rigging alone, you would be hard put to explain why these conflicts have been singled out for such special attention. In the violence surrounding Zimbabwe's elections, two people are currently reported to have died; in Tibet, numbers estimated to have been killed by protesters and Chinese forces range from 22 to 140. By contrast, in Somalia, where US-backed Ethiopian and Somali troops are fighting forces loyal to the ousted government, several thousand have been killed since the beginning of the year and half the population of the capital, Mogadishu, has been forced to flee the city in what UN officials describe as Africa's worst humanitarian crisis.

When it comes to rigging elections, countries like Jordan and Egypt have been happy to oblige in recent months - in the Egyptian case, jailing hundreds of opposition activists into the bargain - and almost nobody in the west has batted an eyelid. In Saudi Arabia there are no national elections at all, let alone the opposition MPs and newspapers that exist in Zimbabwe. In Africa, Togo has been a more flagrant rigger, while in Cameroon last week the president was given the job for life. And when it comes to separatist and independence movements, the Turkish Kurds have faced far more violence and a tighter cultural clampdown than the Tibetans.

The crucial difference, of course, and the reason why these conflicts and violations don't get the deluxe media and political treatment offered to the Zimbabwean opposition or Tibetan separatists is that the governments involved are all backed by the west, compounded in the Zimbabwean case by a transparently racist agenda. But it's not just an issue of hypocrisy and double standards, egregious though they are. It's also that British and US involvement and interference have been crucial to both the Zimbabwean and Tibetan conflicts.

It’s an interesting matter, especially for Africa followers. Are things actually worse in Zimbabwe than they are in Congo Kinshasa? Why continue the diplomatic hand-ringing over Zimbabwe when other corrupt nations like Cameroon and Guinea are allowed to skate?

In a perfect world, all countries would be treated equally. Of course, that’s not true. One could make the argument people worry more about fighting in places like Zimbabwe because there is something to fight for. (Would we care if Mugabe was a former liberation fighter and present corrupt leader in Mauritania? Would we care more if we knew Mauritania had oil?)

Politics of despair?
Before we go too realpolitik on you, here’s an interesting reply to the column, in the Guardian’s letters section:

Does he believe we should calmly look the other way as a tyrannical dictator tears the heart out of a once relatively prosperous country? Should we clap politely as the Olympic torch passes through? Are we moving towards a world-view in which progressive opinion does nothing no matter how dire the situation on the basis that there is always somewhere worse and that none of us have entirely clean hands? This seems to me truly the politics of despair.

In my mind, Milne’s underlying question is this: When should countries invoke the human rights doctrines meant to protect people in nasty places? They came into use after the end of the Cold War – and more recently during the “War on Terror™.” Of course a doctrine such as this is completely subjective – the importance of human rights remains in the eye of the beholder, especially when the beholder has a foreign policy and military capabilities. But I’ve got to wonder, five years into the Iraq war, how much muscle remains in these philosophies?

Responsibility to protect (what? whom?)
Born out of the ashes of atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, members of the United Nations attempted to agree on a methodology that would decide who is ultimately responsible to protect citizens or groups in places where they have been targeted for large-scale abuses or loss of life. The doctrine, called Responsibility to Protect, (with fancy post-millennial designation of R2P) attempted to elevate the twin beliefs in human rights and intervention over the philosophy of state sovereignty.

As you could well imagine, R2P has faced some serious rhetorical obstacles. The idea of self-determination and sovereignty plays an essential role in international affairs. As do worries about the misuse of Western “intervention.” (For better or worse, R2P was used in the justification for the war on Iraq, leading Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch to claim “better late than never” is never a justification for intervention.)

There’s more. From Simon Jenkins:

I regard the way I am governed as superior to most. But I am not so arrogant or naive as to believe I can change other states by persuasion or war. The latter is an infringement of self-determination and has proved starkly counterproductive. The greatest boost to the overrated Islamist threat is from just the power projection Miliband supports.

In the non-interventionist 1990s, the thinktank Freedom House charted a steady growth in democracy worldwide. With the advent of the democracy crusaders Blair and George Bush this trend has probably gone into reverse. The cynical appeasement of China and aggressive treatment of Russia and the Muslim world has done no service to democracy. Indeed the cause has fared better in south-east Asia and Latin America, where outside pressure has been least in evidence.

However, those who hold out support for R2P claim the idea has been hijacked by politicians in large, very powerful countries. Intervention has been much more fruitful on the regional level, especially in Africa, argues Thelma Ekiyor of the West African Civil Society Institute. For example, the African Union mission in Burundi; to a lesser extent, ECOMOG’s work in Sierra Leone and Liberia. There’s also the present AU work in Darfur.

For better or worse, the rest of the world has a habit of looking the other way when it comes to Africa’s problems. It’s crisis in countries like Sudan and Somalia and perhaps Kenya or Guinea or Niger that will keep Africa’s diplomats (and perhaps soldiers) busy. With memories of colonialism and poorly planned interventions fresh, it’s probably best this way.

Let’s get real
In the end, the American in me claims debates like this are mere abstractions. The ideas of R2P and rhetoric over intervening before the next “human rights catastrophe” comes down to much more practical ideas: What exactly is happening? Where is this happening? Who are the country’s friends? How powerful are they? Do they have things we want?

No one will ever consider intervening in China over anything. The same goes for Zimbabwe, for very different reasons. China is too powerful; Zimbabwe, in the eyes of those who make the decisions, is not worth the cost. These arguments trump all others. Of course, interventions are not equal. It can take things other than “shock and awe” to change someone’s mind. Like George Bush, we can practice “quiet diplomacy” in the case of China and Tibet or Thabo Mbeki in the case of Zimbabwe. Of course, what has that gotten us?

Human rights groups in Ghana sue government over treatment of Liberian refugees

A coalition of Ghanaian human rights groups has sued the Accra government for its treatment of Liberian refugees.

Ghanaian police arrested more than 600 Liberian refugees – mostly women and children – on March 17 at the Buduburam camp after a five week sit-in strike in front of the camp. A few days later, police reentered the camp and arrested about 30 men who they claimed were causing trouble.

Nearly 40,000 Liberian refugees reside in Ghana, some who have lived there since 1990 when the country’s civil war began. Most of them live in Buduburam camp, just outside of Accra.

The protesters were demanding UNHCR, the UN refugee organization, either resettling them in a third country – like the U.S. or a European country – or increasing their repatriation allowance from $100 to $1000 if they were to return to Liberia.

From IRIN:

The Human Rights Coalition is filing a suit on behalf of one of the detained refugees, Chucider Lawrence, asking the Ghanaian government to release her and provide justification for her arrest and detention.

“We want to test the law with this case and depending on the outcome we will proceed with a general suit to compel the government to answer to the gross human rights abuses of the [all the detained] refugees,” said Amuzu.

Under Ghanaian law no one can be detained for more than 48 hours without being arraigned.

The Ghanaian government has justified its action saying the refugees have violated laws by protesting to the police without notice.

“Further deportations have not been discarded,” said Ghana deputy information minister, Frank Agyekum, however he also said the deportations have been suspended pending the outcome of diplomatic discussions with the Liberian government.

Ghana has attempted to invoke the 1951 Refugee Convention claiming that once conditions improve in person’s country of origin, it is no longer necessary that the host government supports them.

In other news, the UNHCR has asked Ghana’s government to cease forcibly deporting refugees who are registered with the organization.

"It is very unfortunate that the unacceptable actions of a few have led to this situation,” said George Okoth-Obbo, the UNHCR Director of International Protection Services. “Refugees of course have the duty to respect the laws of the country of asylum established for good public order. Any further sit-ins, demonstrations or other unlawful acts must cease unconditionally. At the same time, while fully understanding the frustration of the authorities, I would like to reiterate UNHCR's call to the Government not to make any further deportations and to work with us to address the situation through other mechanisms available within the laws of Ghana. Unfortunately, the victims in all of this are the innocent majority of Liberian refugees who call Ghana home".

After protests in Burkina Faso, a wave of arrests and worries over human rights

The final tally is in: During the violent protests last week that shook Ouagadougou, the government of Burkina Faso said 184 people had been arrested. That amount surpasses the total of 100 arrests during protests a week before in the country’s second-largest city, Bobo-Dioulasso.

One of those detained in Ouagadougou was Nana Thibaut, the leader of a small opposition party, who originally organized the one-day protests against spiraling increases in the cost-of-living, where some goods have increased by nearly 65 percent since the beginning of 2008. Nana was accused of “sedition” for having called on the destruction of property, government spokesman Philipe Sawadogo said.

Ouagadougou’s protest began as a “dead ville day,” where businesses in all sectors were to shut in an attempt to close down the city. However, by mid-morning, the strike turned violent in parts of the city, where groups of 15 to 20 people began attacking businesses that remained open, government offices, cars and other symbols of power.

Protests over price increases and subsequent government inaction in Burkina Faso began a week before on Wednesday, February 20 in Bobo-Dioulasso and Ouahiguoya, where they also turned violent. The demonstrations then spread to the south-western city of Banfora. News accounts claim that the government daily newspaper Sidwaya reported that 29 people have already been sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 36 months stemming from the protests in Bobo.

Local human rights organizations have expressed worries that human rights violations were committed against some of those arrested during the demonstrations in Ouagadougou. From Inter Press Service:

"We were told a while ago that there would have been cases of torture amongst the persons detained after the damages of the 28th of February," said Chrizogome Zougmonré, president of the Burkinabé Movement for Human and People's Rights, a non-governmental organisation based in Ouagadougou.

"We have checked and it seems there were relatively serious abuses of certain detainees," he added. Zougmonré also said that he had started proceedings for paying a visit to the detainees.

The fears come despite Transport Minister and government spokesman Philippe Sawadogo's assurances that those detained would be treated fairly. "We will respect the rules of justice, which will follow its normal course," he said Monday, during a press briefing in Ouagadougou.

For their part, opposition groups are angered that certain detainees were imprisoned before being heard by a judge.

"The constitution gives rights to people; these must be respected under all circumstances, especially on the part of the state," said Philippe Ouédraogo, leader of the African Independence Party and head of the G14, which includes other opposition parties.

"What we must fear, today, is that because there were damages, the government is furious -- that the government no longer respects people's rights," he added.

Slavery debate continues to haunt Mauritania

Slavery has been officially legal in Mauritania since 1981, and President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdellahi introduced legislation in August mandating prison time for those associated with its practice.

Crosswalk.com argues that international and national human rights organizations are raising concerns about the culture slavery in Mauritania. Others claim that slavery is so embedded in Mauritanian culture that completely bringing an end to it would be akin for Western countries to do away with racial discrimination.

"This is a deeply embedded practice in Mauritania, and it will take time to eradicate it," said [President of SOS Slaves, Mauritania's primary anti-slavery organization, Boubacar] Messaoud. But he said he was concerned about the pace of progress. "There have not been any cases in court, but there should have been."

He noted that the judiciary and police forces are complicit in the practice.

Messaoud added that human rights groups are pushing for affirmative action and non-discrimination laws, and "we are campaigning for the law to be strengthened particularly to enable NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and individuals to be able to have access and local standing to take cases on behalf of victims of slavery."

"Unfortunately, Mauritania doesn't have the resources to fully implement the legislation," [Mauritanian ambassador to the U.S., Ibrahima] Dia said. He added that [president] Abdellahi has "committed himself during his mandate [to] do all that he can to make sure that our country has made significant steps to the abolition of the [culture] of slavery."

Senegal human rights campaigner opposes legalized homosexuality

Repercussions still felt in Senegal’s after the arrest – and later release – of men allegedly involved in a same-sex union.

From Afrik.com

The chairman of the national Council of Amnesty Senegal, Samba Guissé, has called on all affiliate groups of the Senegalese chapter of Amnesty International (AI) to oppose any campaign aimed at legalising homosexuality in the country. In a statement issued here, Guissé urged the various groups to dissociate themselves from the position of the International Human Rights Federation (FIDH) calling on the Senegalese authorities to "review the criminal code with a view to to decriminalising homosexual acts".

Guissé denies FIDH’s claims that "member organisations (including Amnesty International Senegal) had requested the Senegalese authorities to review the criminal code to abolish the criminalisation of homosexuality". He said that rights activists, particularly those belonging to AI Senegal, had no right, even in defence of human rights, to ask Senegal’s core values be ignored and trampled upon.

Zenawi to West: Don’t force democracy upon Africa, but keep the checks coming

From the Guardian:

Western countries should stop trying to browbeat Kenya's warring political leaders into submission and do more in practical terms to prevent poverty, lack of opportunity, and Islamist terrorism from further destabilising the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia's prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has told the Guardian.

"The threat of western sanctions as a response to the current crisis in Kenya is very, very misguided," Meles said. "If it is presumed that the Kenyans will democratise in order to eat the peanuts of development assistance from the European Union, for example, it would be a big mistake."

Placing pressure on resources to influence the post-election process, which has degenerated into violence amid claims of government-engineered fraud, would not work and could be counter-productive, he said.

So says the man who has been in power since 1995 and whose government received $1.9 billion in bilateral and multilateral aid in 2007, the world’s fifth highest amount.

What does that money buy? Here’s what the U.S. Dept. of State reported about Ethiopia’s 2005 parliamentary elections:

After the May elections, serious human rights abuses occurred, when the opposition parties refused to accept the announced results, and in November after the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) called for civil disobedience, which resulted in widespread riots and excessive use of force by the police and military. Although there were some improvements, the government's human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas. In the period leading up to the May national elections, campaigning was open and debates were televised. The Carter Center described this period as credible and commendable. However, in the period following the elections, authorities arbitrarily detained, beat, and killed opposition members, ethnic minorities, NGO workers, and members of the press. Authorities also imposed additional restrictions on civil liberties, including freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.

For documentation of some of the Ethiopian Army’s handiwork during its invasion of Somalia, taken from testimony from Human Rights Watch:

In the Ogaden, we have documented massive crimes by the Ethiopian army, including civilians targeted intentionally; villages burned to the ground as part of a campaign of collective punishment; public executions meant to terrify onlooking villagers; rampant sexual violence used as a tool of warfare; thousands of arbitrary arrests and widespread and sometimes deadly torture and beatings in military custody; a humanitarian and trade blockade on the entire conflict area; and hundreds of thousands of people forced away from their homes and driven to hunger and malnutrition.

He's right, democracy alone will not pull a country out of poverty. Good governance, however, does help. The Mo Ibrahim Good Governance Index rates Ethiopia 27 out of 48 states. I'd call that C work. Corruption is also important in the fight against poverty and the battle against Islamist terrorists, who prey on crooked governments. But the fight against corruption is not an exceptionally bright spot for the Zenawi regime, either. Transparency International ranks Ethiopia 138 out of 179 in its Corruption Perception Index.

One way to pull a country out of poverty is to make it a little easier to do business there. Ethiopia does rank well against other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, but it remains in the bottom half of the "Ease of Doing Business" index when compared to the rest of the world.

Genocide and public opinion

Jim Hoagland, former foreign correspondent and now foreign affairs columnist for the Washington Post, wonders whether Kenya will join the ranks of other countries he once filed dispatches from in capital cities beset by destruction and war – Algiers, Tehran, Baghdad, Mogadishu, etc.

It is premature to compare Nairobi at this point to those other, more tumultuous capitals. But most of them -- as Nairobi certainly did -- originally had serious chances to succeed as workable or even important regional or international centers of governance, and they failed. Nairobi must now avoid their mistakes if it is to avoid their fate.

Hoagland makes the point that the global communications revolution may have connected people in visceral ways, but it has not been matched by “understanding of the Third World's dilemmas or a commitment to help resolve them.”

Unfortunately for aggrieved Kenyans, the nation's most serious troubles in its brief modern history arrive at a moment when international outrage is spread thin in Darfur, the Middle East, Iraq and elsewhere. The United Nations' unsuccessful struggle with Sudan to send into Darfur peacekeeping units that can protect themselves suggests that the once proudly proclaimed "duty to protect" abused citizens from their own governments is degenerating into something like the duty to scold.

Stop in the name of genocide
In a related matter, a story in the New York Times reflects on a far-reaching law adopted by the United Nations in 2005 to allow outside powers to intervene inside countries that are unwilling to stop genocide within their own borders. What some of the resolution’s original supporters claimed was a high-water mark for human rights around the globe has met certain cold realities on the ground. For one, the refusal of rich countries to deploy their well equipped militaries to hot zones like Darfur. Secondly, when troops finally do arrive, they are handcuffed by various roadblocks set up by host governments. (One aspect of this story that must be pointed out: its small sample size. This law has only been tested by the incidents surrounding the issues in Darfur.)

The resolution, nicknamed the “Right to Protect,” was something of a philosophical turning point for the United Nations, a body since its inception always upheld the rights of sovereign states. For proof, see the largely uninterrupted genocides by Hutu power groups in Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Derg in Ethiopia. For the first time, the “Right to Protect” meant that sovereignty could possibly take a back seat in favor of stopping unabated bloodshed and violence.

The role of the public
Piggybacking on a theme brought up by Hoagland: What is the public’s responsibility in stopping genocide? Donald Steinberg, director of the International Crisis Group’s New York office, was a special assistant for Africa in the Clinton administration during the Rwanda genocide. He points out that during the slaughter, the U.S. government debated whether to jamming the hate radio that whipped supporters to a froth and organized the génocidaires or reinforcing the UN mandate in the country.

“But each time some of us pushed for these steps,” he said, “others would ask, ‘Where’s the legal basis for these actions, where’s the public outcry, the ‘Hallelujah’ chorus of support? Where’s the evidence to show that these actions will end the killings?’ ”

It’s an important point. Without public outcry, few leaders will act boldly against killings where a country has limited interests. The festering bloodshed in former Zaire is a case in point. So is the 2006 Israeli bombing of Lebanon – a pretty clear account of a military targeting citizens – which went unchecked by the U.S., who simply sent ships to evacuate the thousands of Americans on vacation in the country and the Lebanese holding U.S. passports.

On one level, Darfur does seem different. A large coalition has been built to force governments to act on the bloodshed. The media certainly has provided (relatively) extensive coverage. Keeping people aware of the killings may have abated the violence, but it certainly has not stopped. Neither have the warring sides been forced to come to the table.

Has the PR campaign against Darfur tipped the balance towards rectifying the situation? It’s difficult to tell. The intransigence of the Sudanese government may come about from the greatest trump card of all: sovereignty, and the belief that the power of the nation state holds supreme. All governments understand it, and in response to external pressures stemming from the “interdependence” of globalization, desire it.

There’s something else at work here. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, whatever the political motives debated in the United States, is largely seen around the world as a unilateral imperialistic attack on a sovereign state. The story points out that 150 countries originally supported the resolution. Many of these countries hail from the third world, and they are presently shying away from the “Right to Protect” because they feel they could be the law could be enforced in their own backyard.

One could also argue that geo-politics plays a roll with Darfur. Many in the West look to China’s patronage of the Khartoum regime as a reason for the political stalemate in solving the problem. It’s more complicated than that. While Washington scolds the Sudanese concerning its government role in Darfur, the two countries enjoy a cozy relationship over the war on terror.

The debate over democracy and sovereignty remains unsettled. But there’s another matter at work here. The convictions of the person on the street. A dedicated clique attuned to the injustices in Darfur is one thing. What about the rest of us? Like Hoagland pointed out, the world at large displays a limited attention span. Issues like Darfur became significant when the public’s attention was already stretched by other issues: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine.

I tend to take a more positive viewpoint of the campaign to keep Darfur in the media. Think of the counterfactual: What would be taking place there if the public awareness campaign was never hatched? An imperfect solution, yes; but it beats doing nothing.

The Kenya subtext
The subtext, of course, to both of these articles is as unmistakable as their timing. Kenya, a former stable country, is apparently on the verge of chaos. Regardless of the U.S. press’ swing-and-miss on the history of ethnicity and tribalism in the country, ethnic violence appears to be taking place. How far must this escalate before the world’s powers draw up a list of conditions before it contemplates intervention? Better yet, when do the t-shirts and bumper stickers get printed for “Stop the Killing in Kenya”?

The post-conflict waltz: Just how free is Liberia?

The Liberian Ministry of Justice unlawfully shut down Stone FM, a community radio station located in Harbel, approximately 35 miles from Liberia’s capital.

From IFEX, International Freedom of Expression eXchange in Toronto.

The premises of the radio station were sealed by a squad of officers of the Liberian National Police led by Captain Suzanna Blackie, commander of the Margibi county police detachment.

Stone FM station manager James King told CEMESP that the uniformed police officers, some of whom were armed with pistols, stormed the radio station and ordered the reporters to leave.

He said the police action traumatised a child broadcaster who was on-air at the time.

The station was accused of broadcasting "hit messages" against the government of Liberia and authorities of the Firestone Rubber Plantation in the wake of a strike action by employees of Firestone.

The employees' spokesperson, Eripmah Caesar, allegedly used the radio station to incite his fellow workmates to stay away from work until the management of Firestone recognizes their new leadership.

Let's not bicker and argue
For all the nominally positive talk about Liberia’s future we publish here at Africa Flak, we have yet to dip into the murkier side of the country’s present reputation with human rights. It’s an important issue. Not to get too academic here, but researchers have found that all aspects of life in post-conflict states can be best described by a “certain amount of uncertainty, insecurity and volatility, a fluidity of rules, a fragility of institutions, and problems of legitimacy for the actors involved,” says the now defunct Post-Conflict Transition team at the Nordic Africa Institute. Human rights and civil rights are no different.

The media, in such situations, present a complicated issue. When institutions are fragile and leaders lack much legitimacy and the people appear to be completely fragmented, any criticism may be taken as a threat against an insecure state. The media in these cases is fueled by the power of ideas. Journalists may not be well trained or even sympathetic to general ideas of fair-mindedness, and may use their power to deceitfully push political agendas. The same goes for political actors in control of organs of the press. Finally, in countries being rebuilt from the ground up, one can imagine new governments are presented with many obstacles and dealing with media issues may fall by the wayside.

That being said, the idea of ranking countries – of whatever political persuasion – on the freedom of their media systems should be regarded as an art form and not a science. In a post-conflict country like Liberia, the question remains how should its commitment to rights be graded? Can we rank Liberia along with the diverse body of states resurfacing after conflicts or should the country be specially weighted among other more stable, and presumably politically healthier, nations?

To make up for this, the Freedom House rating systems are very straightforward, offering up only three categories, which resemble a stoplight: Free, Partly Free and Not Free. For rights across the board, Liberia receives a Partly Free rating, but in realm of press freedom, the country is Not Free.

One big problem, according to Freedom House, is that the Johnson-Sirleaf administration has yet to establish an independent body to regulate journalists and the press and create a more “progressive freedom of information legislation.” (However a bill is currently being drafted in the legislature.) “Nonetheless, access to government information, particularly budget and financial issues, remains difficult owing in large part to the persistence of a disorganized government infrastructure,” the report pointed out. Another negative is that a wide interpretation of libel remains a fear for working journalists.

However, the group pointed out that call-in radio shows are popular and frequently feature viewpoints from the opposition and the government.

Here’s more.

Independent print media have grown significantly since the removal of [Charles] Taylor, and there are now more than 30 newspapers operating in Monrovia that publish with varying degrees of regularity and provide diverse political perspectives. A handful of private printing presses opened for the first time in 2005, but owing to the lack of significant private funding, most print media still publish through the state-owned and operated printing facility in Monrovia. Most Liberians rely on radio broadcasts to receive news, and radio currently plays an important role in promoting and consolidating a culture of participation in political life. Over 33 community radio stations now operate throughout the country without government interference, in addition to 1 government-owned station, but most are still hindered by the irregular power supply. Access to foreign broadcasts and the internet is unrestricted by the government but is severely limited by the dire financial situation of most Liberians.

Africa Flak give the country something of a “free pass” in other aspects of its renewal from failed state, but we very much prescribe to the idea that any human rights violations in this period will only make matters worse down the road when institutions are stronger and the government more confident. It may be obvious to some, but just because some people learned things when Charles Taylor ran the country doesn’t make it right.

The present and future of human rights in Africa

Helen Kilbey of AllAfrica.com recently sat down with Secretary-General of Amnesty International Irene Khan. The discussion, posted here, touched upon the issues of human rights in Zimbabwe, the international growth of human rights and the international community’s renewed interest in Africa, and what it means to political institutions on the continent.

Here are a few excerpts.

Do you think Africa as a whole is improving in terms of respecting human rights?

There is a greater consciousness on the side of civil society about human rights, and people are mobilising themselves, people are organising themselves. We see fantastic women, women's groups, even in countries like Zimbabwe, where they are under so much pressure – we see them take courageous stands, speak out, stand up and push the agenda for change. This is a remarkable story of human rights. I think human rights actually has a positive future in Africa because the people of Africa are making the story of human rights their story.

So you think it comes from the bottom up?

I think human rights is about grassroots-up today. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written by governments, signed by governments, but today it's being signed by people, because it's people's endeavour that will bring about change. We've seen what governments have done, we know that if we don't keep the pressure on government, if we don't hold government's political leaders to account, things will not move. So people must grab that agenda, must claim the rights as their own.

It's sometimes argued that Western norms of constitutional rule often stand at odds to traditional African values – the traditional value of respect for one's elders is used to justify curbing people's right to freedom of expression, for example; or what the Western world sees as corruption could be seen as being, rather, an expression of the African value of giving or sharing. What is your position on these arguments?

I think that human rights are not the domain of any one civilisation. They are drawn from common values of justice, of equality, of respect for each other. The notion of human rights – including in the 1948 Universal Declaration – includes also the notion of duties; duties that lie with governments but also with other organs of society such as companies or leaders of society or even individuals. So yes, there is a duty on us to ensure that we protect the rights of others – in that sense I think that human rights also contain African values.

But this issue of cultural values is abused in many different societies in many different parts of the world to allow exploitation. No cultural value should be abused to perpetuate exploitation. Corruption, poor governance, misuse/abuse of power, is not a cultural value. It is no more a cultural value of Africa than it is of Europe or the Americas or Asia. I believe that those who use those arguments to perpetuate abuse and exploitation are using them wrongly.

I do think that African culture has a lot to contribute to the debate about human rights – how the strong must take care of the weak; how you must work together to make a difference; these are very much African values that need, in fact, to be injected more into international debates on human rights.

Reforms still MIA in Guinea

From Voice of America:

In May, [Guinea's] parliament established a commission to investigate the security forces' involvement in January and February's violence. But the members of the commission were named only last month, and they have yet to get funding or even a meeting space.

Thierno Maadjou Sow, president of Guinea's Organization for the Defense of Human Rights, says he does not believe the commission will be allowed to function.

He says some people in Guinea are untouchable.

Government officials could not be reached for comment.

The position of prime minister does not exist in Guinea's constitution. Previous reform-minded prime ministers have been fired by President Conté, and there was no prime minister for nearly a year before Mr. Kouyate was appointed. Mr. Conté has ruled in Guinea since 1984 when he seized power in a coup.

During the January and February protests, he said "It is God who gives power, and when he gives it to someone, everyone must stand behind him."

Literature Review: Egypt

What the press is saying about that country with the cool pyramids?
Literature Review is an occasional series investigating how the U.S. press covers an African country or issue.

For the foreign correspondent, Egypt represents a dilemma. Stories in the international press from there fluctuate between the two extremes of dreary and gruesome. And no wonder: Today’s Egypt is a land that seems to be teetering on the brink of civil calamity. For the foreign correspondent worth his or her salt, a dateline in Egypt must be like a right of passage. Since time immemorial these dynamic writers have duly set off and filed stories on the overcrowded slums of Cairo, the general population’s rabid hatred of the West (not to mention Israel), the corrupt, nasty government of Honsi Mubarak, the seething Islamists, journalists (and now bloggers) languishing in prison and more recently, the hotels on the Sinai Peninsula left in charred, smoking ruins. (Let me know if I missed anything.)

There is problem with this line of thought, however. If we are to believe writers, Egypt has forever seemed to be on the verge of some melt down. When wasn’t Cairo overcrowded? When didn’t at least some of the population have second-thoughts about secular government? When did people anywhere adore blatantly corrupt leaders? And that’s why many of these breathless narratives suffer from the problem of low-hanging fruit. Of course, it’s important to document all the viciousness occurring in a country. If you didn’t you’d be remiss – and be sent back home. The mathematics behind these reports, however, feels too simple: oppressive government + struggling democrats + “reform-minded” Islamists = “modern” Egypt.

Underneath these stories, I feel a little weariness creeping into the once-stolid omniscient narrator of newspaper journalism. You know, the quaint tug of the world’s most dangerous nagging question: I flew all the way here for this? I can picture reporters asking themselves: Isn’t there something deeper, more fundamental going on here? Perhaps it’s something I could find if my editor would allow me to skip the next protest and actually sit down and speak with people. (If not, maybe I could at least go snorkeling.)

Working for the clampdown
From the looks of it, maybe it is best we don’t investigate further. Politics is a tough game in Egypt. The papers have done a good job keeping us informed on the comings and goings of the political class. “The regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is in the midst of one of its largest crackdowns against public dissent in a decade,” the Christian Science Monitor reported last week. Judges handed down prison sentences to seven journalists; emergency laws allow the government to allow upwards of 1,000 “activists” from the Muslim Brotherhood to stew in jail; labor activists have been detained for inciting strikes. On top of that, groups of Bedouins, who claim the police do not properly protect them, recently turned their anger on the headquarters of the ruling party’s headquarters and defaced pictures of President Honsi Mubarak, according to the Associated Press.

Put away the fact that Egypt must have a lot of prisons. The implication of all these stories is the well documented fact that Egyptian authorities have no compunction against torture. "It's hard to explain why, except that torture becomes a habit," Aida Seif al-Dawla, a psychologist who runs a rehabilitation center for victims of violence, told the Christian Science Monitor. "But there's no question that police abuse has gone through the roof.”

The San Francisco Chronicle recounted a story about a video posted on the internet taken from a cell phone camera of a 13-year-old boy released after spending seven days in police custody for allegedly stealing tea bags. In the video, the boy was “tattooed with bruises and burn marks, and his torso a patchwork of bandages.” He died a few hours later.

Moving on from the gruesome details of the boy’s torture, the story considers whether the proliferation of cell phones with cameras will put the brakes on police brutality. "Activists that have worked to end torture have told me: 'You've done more in a few days what we were not able to do in 10 years,' " said a 32-year-old Egyptian blogger responsible for posting films of police torture videos.

One major daily considers the long-term prognosis of the Mubarak regime. For those waiting for the 79-year-old man (ranked by Parade Magazine as the world’s 18^th-worse dictator in 2007) to simply ride off into the sunset, don’t be on it. The Washington Post said the ruling coterie is grooming 41-year-old Gamal Mubarak, a former investment banker in London, to succeed his father. The reporter even tagged along to a youth conference (populated by the ruling class) where Gamal – who is known in Egypt as “Jimmy” – gave a barely passable speech. What he lacks in charisma, Jimmy may make up for in business savvy. He has already helped usher in the beginnings of reform to Egypt’s economy. (World Bank president Robert Zoellick recently pointed out that Egypt tops the list of reforming countries at a speech at the National Press Club.)

So, will sophisticated Jimmy throw off the reins once he takes power? Just like father-son leadership changes in Morocco, Jordan and Syria, the apples rarely fall far from the tree. "People always think, 'He uses the Internet and he speaks good English and therefore he won't be like his parents,'” a Middle East expert at George Washington University told the Post. “But it never seems to work out that way.”

Stranger than fiction
The reality underlying every one of these stories is the strange truth that U.S. taxpayers provide a hefty allowance to the Mubarak government. According to the State Dept., U.S. military assistance to Egypt amounts to more than $1.3 billion per year and USAID has ponied up more than $25 billion in development assistance between 1975 and 2002.

The New York Times reports that (at least one) member of the Egyptian opposition complains that Condoleezza Rice now only half-heartedly broaches the subject of human rights violations with the Egyptian government. By referring only to “advocates and analysts,” the story attempts to make the point that in previous years, the Bush administration aggressively campaigned for democracy in countries like Egypt. Apparently it worked. However, the administration now cannot be bothered.

“I think the American government does give Egypt leeway to deal with the domestic opposition so long as Egypt supports the American foreign policy in the region,” Mustapha Kamel el-Sayyid, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo, told the New York Times. That includes helping Israel and the Palestinians find common ground and opposing the spread of Iran’s influence.

In their defense, American officials claim they continue to raise these issues, yet the Egyptians often bristle at Washington’s interference in domestic affairs.

A confederate knows
Journalist maxim # 679: The problem with low-hanging fruit is that it is often better left for the kids. Or the chickens.

In a country as large, complicated and promising as Egypt, there must be a million stories to tell. Make that a billion. But readers aren’t finding those stories. Oh, newspaper editors (and newspaper ombudsman) will stammer and shout: That’s a repressive regime in Egypt! And one of our “allies,” too. The Truth must get out!

I don’t mean to get all Edward W. Said here, but American writers have always represented Egypt as a country of menacing cries, zealous Arabs mixed in with the occasional bout of proper “European” conduct. Don’t believe me; check out this passage from William Loring’s 1884 book A Confederate Soldier in Egypt:

It was my first experience among these transformed Eastern people, and the impression was vivid. Returning to see European dress and vehicles in common use, it seemed at first as though Oriental Cairo touched by the hand of Ismail had lost some of its time-honored splendor. In truth, Cairo showed in former days the glittering ostentation of the favored few, which sadly contrasted with the most squalid and repulsive poverty of the many. There was that sort of wretchedness which made Egypt a pest-house, but the improvement of the people and the forced observance of sanitary precautions in the fourteen years of the reign of Ismail had effaced many sad and sorrowful pictures. In all that time Egypt had never been visited by an epidemic ; formerly the curse was periodical. No man of feeling who knew the past failed to be gladdened by the change ; every such man kindly extended his sympathy to that ruler who had fearlessly wiped out old customs and landmarks in the interest of humanity ; whose reign commenced with heaps of mud houses, and closed with so many finely constructed buildings and other material improvements ; who transformed Egypt into a civilized country, where the stranger was welcomed, and through which he could journey with as much comfort and safety as in any other part of the world.

Today, lefty media groups complain newspapers merely present international events through the frame of the war on terror: “Friend” of U.S. worries about Islamic extremism, yet continues doing harm to its people. Righties would say – well, I honestly don’t know what they’d say. The point is, what will people in, say, 75 years declare when they come across today’s tracts? Like Loring before, we’re projecting the profound worries of our age – human and political rights, freedom from poverty, an overwhelming fear of terror – onto our stories.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Until you’ve asked yourself whether we’ve grown up enough to move off the well trodden path of misunderstanding and misrepresenting countries like Egypt. Like the Cold War before, the War on Terror will someday be short-listed to the dust bin of history. But as journalists, we seem set on rehashing the same mistakes our forefathers made. Let me be clear: We need a new lens to view this old country. Let’s retire the antiquated arithmetic of glittering ostentation + wretchedness = “modern” Egypt.

Our Nigeria Problem

There’s a voyeuristic side of me that can’t stop reading human rights reports. When I have a little downtime, I’ll scour through old tales of Serbian and Croatian crimes against humanity. Or, I’ll catch up on Charles Taylor’s use of amulets to tell his boy soldiers they’re impervious to bullets. Old narratives from Apartheid-era South Africa, anyone?

The best human rights reporting opens a window to world few people know. That’s a good thing. A talented human rights investigator will give readers plenty of illicit knowledge, dirty little secrets from the underbelly of despotic regime. To me, human rights reporting underscores my twin beliefs that most power is corrupt and there’s some really sick bastards out there.

Yet reading the press reports of Human Rights Watch’s new report on the 2007 elections in Nigeria failed to stir anything but a yawn. Politics in Nigeria are dysfunctional? It’s like someone told me, at 39, that my insurance company isn’t looking out for what is best for me.

Every report has to start somewhere, but “Criminal Politics: Violence, ‘Godfathers’ and Corruption in Nigeria” takes us down the path we’ve all heard before. “Nigeria is mired in a crisis of governance,” the report’s summary begins. “Eight years since the end of military rule, the country’s longest-ever stretch of uninterrupted civilian government, the conduct of many public officials and government institutions is so pervasively marked by violence and corruption as to more resemble criminal activity than democratic governance.”

The authors go on to list Nigeria’s problems. And I quote:

• Systemic violence openly fomented by politicians and other political elites that undermines the rights of Nigerians to freely choose their leaders and enjoy basic security;
• The corruption that both fuels and rewards Nigeria’s violent brand of politics at the expense of the general populace; and
• The impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these abuses that both denies justice to its victims and obstructs reform.

Election violence? Corruption? Impunity? Ordinary Africans will argue those words apply to nearly half the countries on the continent. Maybe more. Would anyone have batted an eye if Human Rights Watch wrote a similar report condemning the faux elections of Zimbabwe or Libya or Egypt? No. That’s the important point. The fact that Nigeria is at least an ornamental democracy is a slap in the face to this West African nation.

Let’s get something straight. In Africa, Nigeria is a codeword for a seriously unwell country. Even the most casual reader of newspapers knows a few head-shaking anecdotes from Africa’s most populous country: the wicked email scams; the violent fight against polio vaccines; the impromptu roadblocks manned by 14-year-olds with Kalashnikovs; the corrupt oil industry that’s bleeding the rest of the country like a back full of leeches.

In Africa a dysfunctional political arena doesn’t necessarily translate into any further suffering for the rank and file. I know this doesn’t jibe with the often frowning analysis from World Bank officials, democracy consultants to USAID and foreign correspondents of major metropolitan dailies. Most Africans have adapted a healthy skepticism regarding the role of politics in their countries. That’s because the state of politics in most countries is not pretty or well organized or even fair. When things seem to hit rock bottom, life often continues apace. Take this from Kwame Anthony Appiah, writing on Ghana’s political crisis of the 1970s in his book In My Father’s House:

“For a Hobbesian, I suppose, the withdrawal of the Ghanaian state, in the face of its incapacity to raise the income to carry out its tasks, should have led to disaster. Yet, despite the extent to which the government was not in control, Ghanaian life was not a brutish war of all against all. Life went on. Not only did people not “get away with murder,” even though the police would usually not have been in a position to do anything about it if they did, but people made deals, bought and sold goods, owned houses, married, raised families.”

I think Human Rights Watch understands this dilemma. (Because they’ve seen so much political dysfunction, they comprehend it very well.) What they may argue is this time, the Nigerian government stepped over the line. The 2007 Nigerian elections did not merely constitute a state retreating from the public sphere. Rather it created an atmosphere where a very sick group of people ran rampant over a nation and killed 300 people in the process. The level of political violence, corruption and impunity reached a never-before seen scale, it went so low that it shocked not only election monitors (who called it the worst they’ve ever seen) but even Nigerians. And there’s something to be said for that.

So, what was the problem? I quote again:

“Many political figures openly recruit and arm criminal gangs to unleash terror upon their opponents and ordinary members of the public.”

• In Gombe State, for example, politicians openly recruited violent cult gangs to intimidate their opponents and rig the voting on Election Day. Encouraged by the prevailing climate of impunity, these gangs unleashed a wave of violence on local communities that included murder, rape, arson and other crimes.
• In Rivers State, criminal gangs hired to rig Nigeria’s 2003 elections have since become a law unto themselves, spreading violence and insecurity throughout the restive Niger Delta. Scores of civilians have either been killed or injured during clashes involving those gangs since the 2007 elections alone.
• No one has been held to account for sponsoring these gangs.

Here’s the part that gained so much press in the U.S. (Quoting again from the report)

• In some states, powerful and violent political “godfathers” have gained control over politicians who are dependent on those sponsors to provide protection and fight their street battles. In return, the godfathers have captured government institutions to serve their own interests.
• In Oyo State, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) godfather Lamidi Adedibu recruited gangs that sowed terror on the streets of Ibadan and other cities while fighting to preserve Adedibu’s power and influence in the state.
• In Anambra State, a godfather whose political power may now be on the wane has nonetheless so far gone unpunished for his role in fomenting violence and corruption.

What may have begun as a ho-hum report finishes as a thoroughly researched, well reasoned and admittedly angry look into the state of Nigerian politics. The report contains enough grisly details for sickos like me who think he’s heard it all before. There’s also enough ammunition for those who know – and love – Africa to find a way out of this mess. But there’s also a chilling reminder: Our government looks to Nigeria for oil because politics appear to be a lot less messy near the Gulf of Guinea than the Persian Gulf. How are we not going to make the same mistake twice?

Use your illusion I & II

Ethiopia, of all places, found its way onto the front page of the New York Times today with a story about how its government is obstructing emergency food aid in the breakaway Ogaden region, "putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk of starvation, Western diplomats and humanitarian officials say."

The Ethiopian military and its proxy militias have also been siphoning off
millions of dollars in international food aid and using a United Nations polio eradication program to funnel money to their fighters, according to relief officials, former Ethiopian government administrators and a member of the Ethiopian Parliament who defected to Germany last month to protest the government’s actions.

The blockade takes aim at the heart of the Ogaden region, a vast desert on the Somali border where the government is struggling against a growing rebellion and where government soldiers have been accused by human rights groups of widespread brutality.

Humanitarian officials say the ban on aid convoys and commercial traffic, intended to squeeze the rebels and dry up their bases of support, has sent food prices skyrocketing and disrupted trade routes, preventing the nomads who live there from selling their livestock.

Hundreds of thousands of people are now sealed off in a desiccated, unforgiving
landscape that is difficult to survive in even in the best of times.

There must be some sad, old lament about the futility of getting involved with Ethiopia – most likely it’s in Italian – but I can’t find anything particularly fitting. Of course, I could resort to the old standard: It’s sometimes the best of times, but it’s often the worst of times. (Were you looking for something different? Le Plus ca change….) Anyway, turn back the clock a few short months ago when the Meles regime earned itself a free round of shots at the White House canteen (whatever it is they’re drinking around there) after invading Somalia, kicking out the nasty Islamic militia of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council and ridding the Bush administration – and Somalia – of a disturbing trouble spot, not to mention a hang out for al-Qaeda. Of course, that was before the covers were pulled back on the governing style of Prime Minister Meles, who (continuing the clichés) went from being the toast of the town to the latest and baddest African thug on the block.

First: A report from former Ethiopian judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha investigated government violence after the May 2005 general election that many felt was rigged. In all, Meshesha found that Ethiopian police killed nearly 200 protesters during the demonstrations. The BBC reported that Meshesha’s reported stated that the government had concealed the true extent of deaths at the hands of the police. “It said that 193 people had been killed, including 40 teenagers. Six policemen were also killed and some 763 people injured. They had been shot, beaten and strangled.”

This year, Mr. Meles’ government filed charges of treason and genocide charges against at least 100 people, mostly opposition politicians and party members. But you just can’t call Mr. Meles a dim-witted thug. Anytime international pressure gets too hot, he calls off the dogs by releasing a few journalists or other political prisoners. He did this most recently a few days ago with the pardon and release of 38 prisoners, 30 of whom had recently been sentenced to life in prison.

So how does he do it, mocking the chorus of international condemnation? Here’s the Economist's take. "Despite the misgivings of some congressmen, who think Mr Meles a dictator, some in the Bush administration see “Christian” Ethiopia (where half the people are in fact Muslim) as a bulwark against Islamist expansion in the Horn of Africa."

Sound a little far fetched? Well, it may explain this. According to this April 8 story in the Washington Post:

The United States did not act to prevent a recent shipment of arms from North Korea to Ethiopia, even though sketchy intelligence indicated the delivery might violate a U.N. Security Council resolution restricting North Korean arms sales, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The decision to let the shipment proceed was made by relatively
low-level staffers, with little internal debate, and it was unknown to top
policymakers involved in the campaign to punish Pyongyang for its test of a nuclear weapon last October, officials said.

The January arms delivery occurred as Ethiopia was fighting Islamic
militias in Somalia, aiding U.S. policies of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

Intelligence reports indicated that the shipment included spare parts,
including tank parts, officials said. Nevertheless, the cargo was not inspected, making it difficult to know whether it violated the U.N. resolution. The value of the shipment is also unclear.

But Meles may just be better at playing Western countries off each other. This from a February story in the Financial Times:

However, fresh from his army's swift victory over a coalition of Islamists in Somalia, whose expanding rule and jihadist rhetoric Ethiopia deemed a regional threat, Mr Meles has recovered some of his standing. The US, which provides about $600m (€464m, £306m) in aid annually and considers Ethiopia one of four top strategic partners on the continent, has endorsed Ethiopia's action, shared intelligence and, according to Mr Meles, provided "vital diplomatic support".

The UK and other western donors, having initially suspended direct
budgetary support to the government because of concern over its human rights record, are again increasing development aid. Meanwhile, Mr Meles is drawing on China's appetite for lending to the continent, attracting, he says, $500m in concessional loans, $1.5bn in investment towards telecommunications infrastructure and a further $1.5bn in short-term trade credits.

But he strongly rejects concerns in the west that China's willingness to lend without asking questions is undermining western aid conditionality.

"I think it would be wrong for people in the west to assume that they can buy good governance in Africa. Good governance can only come from inside; it cannot be imposed from outside. That was always an illusion," he argued. "What the Chinese have done is explode that illusion. It does not in any way endanger the reforms of good governance and democracy in Africa because only those that were home-grown ever had a chance of success."

If the House of Representatives has its way, the U.S. may allow the Meles government to start footing some of its own bills. According to the New York Times story:

The country receives nearly half a billion dollars in American aid each year, but this week, a House subcommittee passed a bill that would put strict conditions on some of that aid and ban Ethiopian officials linked to rights abuses from entering the United States. The House also recently passed an amendment, sponsored by J. Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican, that stripped Ethiopia of $3 million in assistance to “send a strong message that if they don’t wake up and pay attention, more money will be cut,” Mr. Forbes said.