Norway Best Place to be a Mother, Afghanistan Worst - Report (NEWS BRIEF)

A student in Balochistan (بلوچستان) in Pakistan: access to improved education is key to boosting maternal and child health. PHOTO: M Bociurkiw/HUMNEWS(HN, May 8, 2011) - As Mother's Day is observed today in North America, a new report by Save the Children finds that Norway is the best place to be a mother and Afghanistan the worst.

The United States, meanwhile, comes in at #31 among the 43 developed countries ranked.

The findings are contained in Save the Children's 12th annual Mothers' Index, which analyzes health, education and economic conditions for women and children in 164 countries.

Other countries that ended at the top of the list are: Australia, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark. Competing with Afghanistan for worst rankings are: Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Chad, D.R Congo and Eritrea.

Explaining the last place ranking of Afghanistan, the report said: "It has the highest lifetime risk of maternal mortality and the lowest female life expectancy in the world. It also places second to last on skilled attendance at birth, under-5 mortality and gender disparity in primary education. Performance on most other indicators also places Afghanistan among the lowest-ranking countries in the world."

With one of the most advanced health systems in the world, and a wealthy economy, the relatively low rank place of the United States may come as a surprise to some people. Save the Children explained that one of the key indicators used to calculate well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality.

Says the report: "The United States rate for maternal mortality is 1 in 2,100 - the highest of any industrialized nation.  In fact only three Tier I developed countries - Albania, the Russian Federation and Moldova - performed worst than the United States on this indicator.

A woman in the U.S. is more than seven times as likely as a woman in Italy or Ireland to die from pregnancy-related causes, and her risk of maternal death is 15-fold that of a woman in Greece."

So what is the world to do to boost countries such as Afghanistan out of its lowest-ranking status? Save the Children suggests that governments and international agencies boost funding to improve education levels for women and girls, increase access to maternal and child health care and advance women's economic opportunities. Current research and new studies on mothers' and children's well-being is also crucial. Finally, the US and other industrialized countries, governments and communities "need to work together to improve education and health care for disadvantaged mothers."

(REPORT) Brazil's Social Grants System and Its Relevance for South Africa

(Bolsa Familia represented on RT.com) By Saliem Fakir

The social grant is a wager with time. Its aim is to catch the indigent - those who have no chance of ever finding a job - within a social welfare net to soften the blow of poverty.

For others, it’s a respite during hard times. It lifts the spirits of those waiting for their fortunes to change. Well planned and executed social grants should also help break inter-generational cycles of poverty.

The thought that social grants create “dependency” is largely dictated by what happens in an economy.

As the Brazilian example shows, the urge for social upliftment is far greater than the desire to be dependent. However, conditions for entry into the mainstream economy as well as general economic growth are key factors that drive rates of employment both formally and informally.

Social grants have a redistributive role. Their place in a highly unequal society like South Africa cannot be disputed. 

South Africa already has a complex web of social grants. The collective presence and weight of which is not easily discernable unless you are close to the budgeting and delivery of these programmes. What we don’t have is a basic income grant, which has long been debated but never concluded. However, the debate on the merits of an unconditional basic income grant should also not be ignored.

The impact of the Brazilian programme offers useful lessons.

(Patrius Anania is the Brazil Minister of Social Development and Hunger Alleviation)

The Brazilian programme, Bolsa Familia, is dubbed the ‘new generation of social programmes’ because of its focus on human development imperatives in return for social assistance. Bolsa Familia is also viewed as a stepping-stone to a Citizens’ Basic Income Grant, which Brazil passed into law in 2005.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former President of Brazil, introduced Bolsa Familia, a conditional cash grant for poor families in 2003. Bolsa Familia involved an integration of a number of social grant programmes that existed before under a newly constituted programme that is driven by a central system.

Bolsa Familia is the largest social grant scheme in the world. The relative cost of the scheme is about 0.4% of the Brazilian GDP. The programme is credited for lifting 20 million people out of poverty in a relatively short period of time, which has caused it to attract worldwide attention.

Bolsa Familia has spread to 16 other Latin American countries. The idea has even touched the ‘free world’.  New York City has a similar scheme to deal with urban poverty in some parts of its city districts.

The application of a Brazilian type programme in the US is ironic given that the conception of a minimum income grant was actually pioneered by US economists and initially introduced in a partial manner before conservatives killed it the late 1960s.

Bolsa Familia turns conventional economic theory on its head. It challenges the predisposition that the trickle-down approach is the best mechanism for redistribution of income instead of active state intervention.

Bolsa Familia is a cash grant in exchange for families sending their kids to school and participating in other associated development support measures such as vaccinations, nutritional monitoring, prenatal and post-natal tests.

Bolsa Familia supports close to 12 million households or 50 million people and costs the state about US$4.5 billion per year. The programme targets families with monthly per capita income below US$52.

Preference is given to mothers or pregnant women within a family unit -- about 93% of beneficiaries are females. The family unit as a whole is made accountable for ensuring that the development obligations, which the scheme requires are being met in exchange for the cash transfers.

In 2007, the scheme was partially funded through a financial transfer levy on financial transactions - Brazil’s own “Tobin Tax” - and some support from the World Bank.

However, since the state was reluctant to increase the financial transaction levy, funds had to be sourced from elsewhere. Some funds were also generated through a tax on agriculture.

The distribution of grants is managed by central government and the disbursement mechanism is via the poor gaining access to a bank account (mainly through the state bank), which has also improved access to other financial services. The process for beneficiary eligibility, registration and verification takes place at the municipal level.

In March 2009, an International Labour Organisation study showed that Bolsa Familia had a better impact than other social transfer schemes because of the manner in which it was targeted. The scheme, in addition, avoided increased vulnerability of families to economic shocks by ensuring financial stability.

The income grant, which is supplementary to existing income, has had other benefits. For one, it stimulates local economic activity, especially in a counter-cyclical way, as it supports consumptive driven production as poor people continue to spend on food and other necessities.

However, Bolsa Familia does not work in isolation. The Brazilian government is also working to support labour inclusion programmes by seeking ways to break barriers that prevent poor people from entering the mainstream labour market. Some of the support comes in the form of special vocational training.

Vocational training programmes are mainly in construction and tourism where job growth is most likely to be created rapidly.

For a similar scheme to work in South Africa a number of conditions need to be satisfied.

Firstly, the overall impact and costs of existing social grant schemes need to be assessed both for the fiscus as well as for desired outcomes. Given that our net gini-coefficient has shown little improvement, a lot of questions need to be asked about whether the current social grants system is working or not.

Secondly, a centralised system of transfer will still depend on local level administration for registration and verification of beneficiaries. This assumes an effective local government system.  

Question marks will be raised about South Africa’s local authorities and their state of readiness to support such a scheme. The scheme will also have to have an accessible disbursement system. The South African Post Office can serve as a bank for the poor given that the Post Office is also registered to operate as a public bank of late.

Thirdly, one assumption prevails only if the other holds. In this case, the link between cash transfers for development and education. The desired impact will only hold if teaching and educational facilities exist. More importantly, as the Brazilian example shows, school attendance does not assure the receipt of quality education.

Fourthly, the financing of the programme will also depend on competing demands for funds from the fiscus. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia was designed to ensure that the scheme did not crowd out funds for other programmes, but also went a step further by identifying other innovative sources of finance to support the scheme.

Finally, the effectiveness of social grant schemes will also have to be monitored, as the Brazilian programme shows that leakage can occur in cases where grants go to non-eligible beneficiaries. The rate at which this happens can compromise the entire basis of the scheme and exclude the intended target group.

The Brazilian model is flourishing and the model is being adopted widely in Latin America. There are also lots of similarities between South and Brazil. We have a lot to learn from them.

-- Saliem Fakir is an independent writer based in Cape Town.  Should you wish to republish any original SACSIS article, please attribute the author and cite The South African Civil Society Information Service (sacsis.org.za) as its source.

Congo: The Electoral Dilemma (ANALYSIS)

Democratic Republic of Congo, May 4, 2011 Photo courtesy of ICGby The International Crisis Group

(May 5, 2011) -- After four years of electoral inertia and in a stalled democratic process, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is preparing its second set of democratic elections in a hurry and on a rolling calendar. Opposition parties are trying to unite, thus far without success, and the international community is not in charge, as in effect it was the first time, in 2006.

The Congolese authorities face a dilemma: respect the constitutional deadline and organise botched elections, or ignore that deadline and slide into a situation of unconstitutional power. In both cases, the government’s legitimacy would be seriously questioned.

The only way out of this Catch-22 situation is to both speed up preparations and negotiate a contingency electoral calendar and political agreement to manage an almost certainly necessary transition period. More attention must also be paid to putting in place essential measures for transparency and inclusiveness, as well as a security system that will ultimately require important UN help. If these steps are not taken, foreign partners should disengage lest they lend undeserved credibility to a fundamentally flawed process.

Instead of signalling consolidation of democracy, the coming elections present at best a logistical problem and at worst a new cause of destabilisation for a country that has still not recovered from the long wars that marked the end of the Mobutu era and its denouement.

President Joseph Kabila’s ruling party has already launched its campaign, even before the official start of the electoral season, while the opposition is trying to find its “champion” for the presidential contest. More than logistical difficulties give reason for concern.

At the start of the year, a constitutional review removed the presidential election’s run-off round, making it a single winner-takes-all round to the incumbent’s benefit, other electoral law changes favouring the ruling party may happen soon, as the draft bill is still being discussed. Within what is a general climate of insecurity, intimidation of Kabila’s opponents has already become apparent. Despite last-minute integration of some armed groups into the Congolese army, insecurity is still rife in the Kivus, while unexplained security incidents, including an attempted coup, have occurred in the west.

Technical preparations are lagging. Neither the new electoral law, the voters list, nor the budget are ready. Set up a year late, the National Independent Electoral Commission (NIEC) is in a race against time. Registration is already controversial, funding of the electoral cycle is incomplete, and the electoral calendar published on 30 March, though it partially respects constitutional deadlines, is problematic.

The international community’s role is far more limited than in 2006, when it organised, financed and secured all aspects of the elections. However, it still provides 40 per cent of the funding, gives technical assistance and maintains about 17,000 UN troops in country. Given the risks of electoral illegitimacy, bias and violence, it should not stay in the background but instead make clear to the Congolese politicians that a postponed election would be better than a botched one.

The international community, including through the UN Security Council and an inclusive donors forum, should make clear the need for the Congolese authorities to include essential measures in the electoral system and apply the same standards as in 2006. In this respect, stepped-up political engagement is required, and new Special Envoys for the U.S., France and EU should be appointed; the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (SRSG) has an equally significant role to play.

In order not to become trapped in a biased process that could all too easily become as violent as that which Côte d’Ivoire recently experienced, technical and financial assistance should be contingent on constant and precise monitoring of the freedom to campaign, respect for political pluralism, political violence, access to state media, dialogue with the Congolese authorities and state funding for the NIEC, as well as the opportunity for civil society groups to do their own monitoring of the process.

Congolese politicians and the international community should anticipate now the very real possibility that the 5 December constitutional deadline cannot be met. Negotiating a transition agreement with the opposition, setting a new deadline for organising the elections and limiting the business of government to routine matters during the transition would not yet guarantee a free and fair election, but it would avoid having a likely unconstitutional postponement of the elections become a crisis of legitimacy.

- The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict.  Recommendations by ICG on the above topic can be found here.

The Bin Laden Capture: A Feeling of Betrayal in Pakistan (PERSPECTIVE)

By Themrise Khan

And so it ends. The world’s most feared man is dead. Or so we are told.

The news Pakistan woke up to Monday morning was something most of us never thought would happen. Osama bin Laden had already transgressed into terrorist mythology many years earlier, including being the very mortal victim of renal failure some years ago.

Now, not even all the headlines of the world can pronounce his death often enough for it to sink in. It will take some time.

 
The world is rife with jubilation, while Pakistan sits in a state of shock.

 
Why? Take the hiding place. Abbottabad? Seriously? Bin Laden’s compound was situated just 800 meters from the most prestigious (not to mention heavily guarded) military school in the country - with more than 100,000 active and retired military personnel? How on earth could it be possible? Like one friend remarked: “there goes the cave theory.”

With the release of an official statement by Pakistan’s Foreign Office, that the operation was conducted by US forces without any Pakistani involvement, the shock gradually began turning into a state of denial.  So did our government know about it beforehand or not? Did we just quietly sit back and let the US do what they do best?

But as the days tick by, denial is gradually turning into one of betrayal. Betrayal of the not just the Pakistani people by its own government and military, but by the Americans as well. It was bad enough that the world saw us as “terrorists” for the last ten years. Now they just wont be able to think of us as anything else. Especially since we apparently, didn’t have anything to do with it!

But if there was any event that had the makings of a conspiracy theory, it’s this one. And that is what is fuelling Pakistanis at the moment. And understandably so. From the location, to the action, to the conclusion (dumping a body into the ocean according to Islamic practices?), every element of this tale defies any logical analysis that has thus far been presented about bin Laden and his whereabouts.

What is unbelievable in this fairly bizarre saga, is not that an operation of such a scale actually took place without anyone knowing of it. The point of espionage and covert operations are exactly that. Neither is it hard to believe that such intelligence existed for many months and possibly both countries were aware of it. Planning an attack like this would obviously take a great deal of preparation and Pakistan could well have been trying to protect its “interests” by turning a blind eye.

What is unbelievable and a matter of great shame for us, is the fact that everyone who has thus far accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists, is now spot on. I can picture fingers wagging saying, “told you so”.

Even many die-hard critics of the government were in agreement that the al-Qaeda leader was probably not in Pakistan, or at least not anywhere habitable - or in a densely-populated urban area. Now, they too stand stunned in silence.  The implications of this fact alone, is perhaps more dangerous for Pakistan than the threat of militant reactions to bin Laden’s death.

If it is true that the US kept the operation and existence of bin Laden from the Pakistani government, its intelligence and military, then that is clear proof that either one or all three of these institutions were seen as colluding to the interests of the militants. If, on the other hand, the military and government were aware of the whereabouts of bin Laden but kept denying it, then that is clear proof that a government lied to its own people. In either case, the Pakistani people stand to inherit a huge trust deficit from their leaders.

Surprisingly so, despite threats already being slung at the Pakistani military, government and at the American establishment, the retaliation that is expected, is not so much physical violence, although that threat is very real.

More so, it is the threat of a falling out of power between the Pakistani military and its civilian establishment over how this event was orchestrated and conducted. It is the internal strife between the Pakistani military, ruling political parties and the opposition that will now be at centre-stage as the outside world celebrates.

Who in our establishment, will take responsibility for this, is the biggest question on the national agenda. And who will apologize to us for embarrassing us as a nation, beyond all doubt?

We will never know the truth of this story. We will never see a body and even if we do, we will never know if it was real. Unless bin Laden walks back from the grave and into a downtown shopping mall somewhere in Wisconsin or Karachi, he is to all intents and purposes, dead.

But in reality, this awe-inspiring notion means little to people in Pakistan. The damage to the nation was already done many years ago and continues unabated. Thousands of Pakistanis have lost their lives in terrorist acts, tens of times more than those who died on September 11. Our war is endless, with or without bin Laden. He just planted the seed, we bear the fruit.

The nightmare seems to have ended for many across the world. For Pakistan it has only just begun.

HUMNEWS contributor Themrise Khan is a freelance social development consultant based in Karachi who occasionally dares to venture into the Pakistani media.

A Measure of Anger in the Libya War (OPINION/BLOG)

The Kingdom of Libya flag placed in front of a refinery in Ras Lanuf March 8, 2011.. The flag which was used when Libya gained independence from Italy in 1951, has been used as a symbol of resistance against Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi. PHOTO CREDIT:Goran Tomasevic - شبكة برق BRQNetwork/flickr.comby Mohamed Vall 

I've always felt there's some something unusual about the Nato war in Libya. A war with cool nerves? A bureaucratic war?

A sort of boring, over calculated "humanitarian" operation just like anything UN?

The Korean War was UN-mandated but US-driven. The threat of communism engulfing Asia was enough provocation.

But in Libya: no.

And there perhaps lies the secret.

Unlike even recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Western intervention in Libya lacked three vital factors that usually drive wars: anger, fear and hatred.

In Afghanistan those three elements were at play. The September 11 attacks rocked America with fear in its own usually secure cradle. The anger and hatred generated by those attacks were enough fuel for a sustained war if not a series of wars.

In fact, Iraq was part of the aftermath of that situation. But Iraq was more about fear than anger. Behind the scenes Israel was afraid of a potentially powerful Iraq. On the forefront the US was afraid Saddam might become too militarily powerful to control.

But in the case of Libya none of those factors was at play when the intervention began. Gaddafi was at his best level of friendship with the West.

He had long stopped supporting states and groups seen by the West as terrorist. To atone for previous "sins", he dismantled his nuclear weapons program and handed it over to the US. He generously compensated the victims of Lockerbie and other similar crimes which he was accused of.

He killed al-Qaeda Islamists in hordes on his own behalf and on behalf of the US. He worked hard to curb illegal migration from Africa to Western Europe. He opened the country's oil fields once again to Western companies.

His sons sponsored Western universities and allegedly even Western political leaders and pop singers.

Freakish shenanigans

Gaddafi had thus already been "rehabilitated" and "domesticated". And his freakish shenanigans were now treated with shrugs or even with amusement. He became a sort of clown in the Western political consciousness. A clown doesn't provoke fear or anger because he’s rather entertaining.

Gaddafi clearly did all of that for the sole purpose of securing his grip on power and perhaps to guarantee a smooth succession for his son and family later. In this equation of mutual interest neither the West nor Gaddafi were motivated by the real needs and rights of the Libyan people.

Ironically but also understandably it was those needs and rights of the Libyan people that have disrupted the said equation.

Libya revolted for democracy and freedom. And the level of brutality in Gaddafi's response shocked the world. Arabs for the first time put aside their differences and called on the UN for action.

Western leaders were overwhelmed and overpowered by their own public opinion. And more significantly Gaddafi seemed at those early days of the uprising as if he were about to lose his grip on power quickly and easily.

That combination of shock at his brutality and illusion of his imminent downfall have made it look tempting for Western powers not only to just passively dump him but rather to contribute with a push.

But Gaddafi turned out to be a hard nut to crack. He resisted and played war tactics successfully. And Western leaders looked inside their own hearts for the usual fuel of anger and hatred that motivates wars but could not find enough in stock.

The man was serving them and he was not posing a threat to their security or their vital interests. They thought he would vanish in a moment and save them the trouble of feeling a bit ashamed of having abandoned a friend. They thought the rebels – the Libyan people themselves - would be able to easily achieve that task.

None of that happened.

Then came the turning point. Or is it?

Gaddafi claims a Nato air strike has killed his son. His supporters attacked, looted and burned Western embassies. It's the first real provocation by the Libyan regime towards Nato members. So far Gaddafi's troops have passively absorbed Nato air raids and instead unleashed their deadly anger on their own co citizens.

They have not killed a single Western soldier or even downed a single aircraft [one US fighter jet crashed allegedly for technical reasons]. The anti-aircraft fire that lit the sky line of Tripoli by night seemed more like fireworks than real surface to air defence.

Moreover in all his speeches, aside from a few statements made for local consumption about defying the West Gaddafi remained lean and conciliatory towards the West. He begged for negotiation and pledged to make reforms. But his calls were rejected.

Now we have the first real instance of anger on both sides.

Nothing left to lose

For Gaddafi to allow the burning of Westen embassies is a sign that he lost hope of any good resulting from his diplomatic overtures. And for the first time he’s acting as though he has nothing to lose anymore.

He feels a little bit of betrayal on the part of his former friends, because since the beginning of the air campaign they made it clear his personal life is not a target. But now that illusion of immunity is gone and Gaddafi is both afraid and infuriated I'm pretty sure.

On the part of Western nations, I have noticed anger towards Gaddafi for the first time since the war started. It's clear from the body language of the UK prime minster, David Cameron, as he reacted to the embassy attacks. The UK immediately expelled the Libyan ambassador in London.

It’s the closest the two sides got to what looks like a real mood of war.

The question is how this development is going to play out and affect the pattern of Nato action in Libya. That pattern during the last few weeks began to raise suspicions that Nato was dragging its feet, and only halfheartedly engaging itself in the war effort.

Civilians continued to be killed in droves in Musrata every day and the western region of Libya.

Gaddafi was able to badly damage the port of that city and disrupt the flow of humanitarian aid to the besieged population there. The whole operation began to stagnate and lose momentum. The country is drifting into chaos and the farther it goes in that direction the more likely Al Qaeda and perhaps even foreign intelligence services are likely to find excuses and suitable ground to step in and wreak havoc in the country just as in the case of Iraq.

Will the new measure of anger and fear change the rules of the game as they stand?

It's a tough question just like any other aspect of the war in Libya.

Anger may galvanise Nato action and perhaps refocus it around the purpose of removing Gaddafi sooner than previously intended, something that Nato and the US had clearly steered away from in the past. It might help shape more clear goals and prompt their realisation.

But on the other hand it may cause rash actions such as raids that kill innocent civilians, which will be detrimental to the cause of this war. So a happy balance should be struck between the two and that has always been the essential dilemma of this war.

by Mohamed Vall - originally published by Al-Jazeera on May 2, 2011 under Creative Commons Licensing 

Osama bin Laden Killed by US Forces (BLOG)

by Al-Jazeera Staff in Asia on May 2, 2011 

Leader of Al-Qaeda is dead following US operation in Pakistan.

(All times are local in Doha GMT+3)

Osama Bin Laden with senior al-Qaeda members Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Muhammad Atef 3:16pm - US team's mission was to kill, and not capture, Osama bin Laden - US security official tells Reuters.

3:08pm - An Indonesian Islamist group has hailed assassinated Osama bin Laden as a "martyr" who championed Islam against America. Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) spokesman Son Hadi told AFP:

If it's true Osama bin Laden is dead, then he died a martyr. He fought for Islam and he fought for the lands colonised by America. Al-Qaeda didn't die with him. Jihad will not be dampened just because he's dead because jihad is a command of the religion, not of individuals.

2:59pm - Saudi Arabia, the country of bin Laden's birth, hopes his killing will help the international fight against terrorism and stamp out the "misguided thought" behind it, the Saudi state news agency said.

"An official source expressed the hope of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that the elimination of the leader of the terrorist al Qaeda organisation would be a step toward supporting international efforts aimed at fighting terrorism," the news agency said.

2:32pm - Iran says the death of bin Laden has removed "any excuse" for the United States and its allies for deploying forces in the Middle East under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

2:17pm - The Palestinian group Hamas condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden, saying that this was a "a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood".

Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden's al-Qaeda and Hamas, but said:

We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.

1:57pm - The death of bin Laden was greeted with near-silence on Monday from Gulf Arab states, including his birthplace Saudi Arabia.

By mid-afternoon, the only official comment from the Arabian Peninsula came from Yemen, bin Laden's ancestral homeland, where an official speaking on condition of anonymity hoped the killing would "root out terrorism throughout the world".

Saudi Arabia's official news agency merely noted that the United States and Pakistan had announced bin Laden had been killed in a US military operation in Pakistan but gave no clue to Riyadh's thinking.

The foreign ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, attending a meeting of Gulf foreign ministers in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, all declined to comment on bin Laden's death.

1:50pm - NATO Secretary-General statement on Osama bin Laden

I congratulate President Barack Obama and all those who made the operation against Osama Bin Laden possible. This is a significant success for the security of NATO Allies and all the nations which have joined us in our efforts to combat the scourge of global terrorism to make the world a safer place for all of us.

NATO made clear that it considered the September 11 attacks on the United States an attack against all Allies. We remember the thousands of innocent lives lost to terrorist atrocities in so many of our nations, in Afghanistan, and around the world.

As terrorism continues to pose a direct threat to our security and international stability, international cooperation remains key and NATO is at the heart of that cooperation. NATO Allies and partners will continue their mission to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for extremism, but develops in peace and security. We will continue to stand for the values of freedom, democracy and humanity that Osama Bin Laden wanted to defeat.

1:38pm - Japan, a key US ally, welcomed the death of Osama bin Laden and said it would step up security at military bases in case of possible reprisal attacks. Prime Minister Naoto Kan said:

We welcome this significant progress in counter-terrorism measures, and I pay respect to the efforts by the officials concerned, including those in the United States and Pakistan. 

1:25pm - Libyan rebels, fighting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, broadly welcome the news of the death of al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden.

1:23pm - Afghanistan's president lauded bin Laden's death as a serious blow to terrorism and argued that the strike in Pakistan proves the real fight against terrorists is outside his country's borders. President Hamid Karzai told an assembly of district government officials in Kabul, as the hall erupted in applause:

This is a very important day. Maybe you have already heard on the television or on the radio that American forces have killed Osama bin Laden, delivering him his due punishment.

11:35am - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden will have to answer to God for having killed many people and exploiting religion to spread hate, the Vatican said.

Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, it serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men".

Osama bin Laden, as everyone knows, had the grave responsibility of having spread division and hate among people, causing the deaths of an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion for these purposes.

11:30am - Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told AFP in an interview that the US killing of Osama bin Laden, not far from the Pakistani capital, was a "great victory".

10:54am - Pakistan's foreign ministry says the death of bin Laden shows the resolve of his country and the world to battle terrorism. Pakistan's first official statement about the operation to kill bin Laden said Monday's raid was a US operation.

Bin Laden was killed an a luxury house in the town of Abbottabad not far from a Pakistani military academy, raising questions over whether Pakistani may have known of his whereabouts. The statement did not address those questions.

10:50am - Al Jazeera's Andrew Coombes took this picture outside the White House after the "Bin Laden is dead" announcement:

10:46am - After bin Laden was killed, senior administration officials said the body would be handled according to Islamic practice and tradition. That practice calls for the body to be buried within 24 hours, the official said.

Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult, the official said.

So the US decided to bury him at sea. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters, did not immediately say where that occurred. (Associated Press)

10:43am - Osama bin Laden's body was taken to Afghanistan and later buried at sea after he was slain in Pakistan. (New York Times)

10:37am - Britain has told its embassies to review their security for fear of reprisals following the killing of bin Laden, Foreign Secretary William Hague said. Hague told BBC Radio 4:

There may be parts of al-Qaeda that will try to show that they are still in business in the coming weeks as indeed some of them are.

I have already this morning asked our embassies to review their security, to make sure that vigilance is heightened and I think that will have to be our posture for some time to come.

10:22am - Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said that US soldiers should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Essam al-Erian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's governing body, told Reuters:

With Bin Laden's death, one of the reasons for which violence has been practised in the world has been removed. It is time for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and end the occupation of U.S. and Western forces around the world that have for so long harmed Muslim countries.

10:00am - The Western-backed Palestinian Authority said that the killing of Osama bin Laden by US forces was "good for the cause of peace". PA spokesman Ghassan Khatib said:

Getting rid of Bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods -- the violent methods -- that were created and encouraged by Bin Laden and others in the world. 

9:47am - Kenya's prime minister, Raila Odinga, thanks America and Pakistan for bin Laden's killing, saying that it was positive for Kenya.

Kenya's prime minister, Raila Odinga, thanks America and Pakistan for bin Laden's killing, saying that it was positive for Kenya.

9:34am - The killing of Osama bin Laden is "good news for all men in the world who think freely and are peaceful," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said.

9:20am - Said Agil Siradj, chairman of Indonesia's largest Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama, says bin Laden's death will help restore Islam's image as one of people, not violence.

But he believes terrorism will continue as long as there is injustice against Muslims.

9:00am - Al Jazeera's Tarek Bazley prepared this report:

8:46am - At least two Pakistani television stations broadcast pictures of what they called unconfirmed images of Osama bin Laden's bloodied face after the United States said he had been killed.

8:43am - The dollar rebounded from three-year lows and US crude slid more than 1 per cent on after news that Osama bin Laden was killed reduced the perception of security risks facing the United States.

8:37am - A leading US Muslim organisation welcomed  the killing of bin Laden, saying he was a threat to America and the world. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement:

We join our fellow citizens in welcoming the announcement that Osama bin Laden has been eliminated as a threat to our nation and the world through the actions of American military personnel.

As we have stated repeatedly since the 9/11 terror attacks, bin Laden never represented Muslims or Islam. In fact, in addition to the killing of thousands of Americans, he and Al-Qaeda caused the deaths of countless Muslims worldwide.

8:30am - India said the killing of Osama Bin Laden was a "victorious milestone" in the war against terrorism but urged the world to continue battling militancy, a statement from the foreign ministry said.

The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to terrorists in our own neighbourhood. The struggle must continue unabated.

8:16am - Thousands have flocked to Ground Zero to celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden, alleged mastermind of the devastating September 11 attacks on New York nearly 10 years ago.

New York's police chief Raymond Kelly called the death of bin Laden a "welcome milestone" for the families of the 3,000 victims of the 2001 strikes by Al-Qaeda.

8:13am - Abbottabad is named after a colonial officer, so the 'Abbott' is the same as the Western pronunication of the name.

'abad'= aa-baa-d. Low 'a's, as in the British pronunciation of 'class'.

8:00am - This background on the operation to kill bin Laden was given to Al Jazeera by a senior US offiicial:

On June 2, 2009 the President signs a memo to Director Panetta stating “in order to ensure that we have expanded every effort, I direct you to provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice Usama Bin Ladin…”

In the lead up to this operation, the President convened at least 9 meetings with his national security Principals. Principals met formally an additional five times themselves; and their Deputies met 7 times. This was in addition to countless briefings on the subject during the President’s intelligence briefings; and frequent consultations between the NSC, CIA, DoD and Joint Staff. The President was actively involved in reviewing all facets of the operation.

The President made the decision to undertake the operation at 8:20am on April 29th in the Diplomatic Room before he left for Alabama. In the Dip Room were Donilon, Daley, Brennan and McDonough. Donilon then prepared the formal orders and convened the Principals at 3pm to complete the planning.

May 1 -- staff worked pretty much all day today on the operation. Principals have been in the Situation Room since 1pm.

2:00pm the President met with the Principals to review final preparations.

3:32pm the President returned to the Sit Room for an additional briefing.

3:50pm the President first learns that UBL was tentatively identified.

7:01pm the President learns that there’s a “high probability” the HVT was UBL.

8:30pm the President receives further briefings.

7:00am - US president Barack Obama said Osama bin Laden, the most-wanted fugitive on the US list, was killed on Sunday in a US operation in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, about 150km north of Islamabad.Click here for more.

- Originally published on Al-Jazeera May 2, 2011 under Creative Commons Licensing 

Obama Honours Journalists Under Attack Around World (NEWS BRIEF)

US President Barack Obama. CREDIT: White House(HN, April 30, 2011) US President Barack Obama, pausing during a mostly humour-filled White House Correspondents Dinner this evening, defended the right of journalists to do their job around the world.

Speaking in front of 3,000 guests at the annual event in Washington, D.C., Obama said journalists are increasingly under threat.

Said Obama: "In the last months we have seen journalists threatened, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed - simply for doing their best to bring us the story..giving people a voice and holding people accountable.

"And through it all we have seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea that no one should be silenced and everyone deserves to know the truth."

He said reporting by journalists is "especially important in times of challenge - like the moment America and the world is facing now."

The US President paid tribute to "those that have been lost as a consequence of extraordinary reporting that they have done over recent weeks. They help too to defend our freedoms and allow democracy to flourish."

According to the figures collected by Reporters Without Borders, a non-profit organization that fights for the rights, freedom, and protection of journalists worldwide, 25 journalists were killed in 2002, 64 in 2005, 87 in 2007, and 18 since the beginning of the year.

Earlier this month, award-winning photo-journalist and documentary film-maker Tim Hetherington and a colleague were killed while reporting on the ongoing conflict in Libya.

- HUMNEWS staff

Syria Crackdown Reaches Critical Phase: Over 70 Killed on Weekend (NEWS BRIEF)

Assad, pictured here with his wife, Asma, in a government file photo, has chosen "repression over concession," says one analyst.(HN, April 30, 2011) - UPDATED MAY 1 1520GMT - In some of the worst fighting to date in the ongoing, seven-week battle between pro-democracy demonstrators and Government forces in Syria, live fire and heavy artillery is being used in an attempt to quell defiant protesters.

News agencies report that more than 70 people have been killed nationwide this weekend - including 70 in Deraa (درع), the besieged town that has become the symbol of the uprising, alone. Eyewitnesses have been quoted as saying that tanks are shelling parts of the southwestern city near the border with Jordan, and that its main mosque has been stormed by government forces.

An estimated 46 people will killed Friday and Saturday in Deraa alone. Since the conflict began, as many as 700 people have been killed.

The Shaam News Network (SNN) reports that Deraa is totally blockaded and that snipers are picking off protesters from rooftops. " Killing is random in the city from the security forces and the Fourth Battalion," SNN said.

According to one account, as many as 7,000 have been arrested since the uprising began.

On Sunday, CBC News broadcast unsourced, amateur video from two days earlier showing several people dead and injured on a road near Deraa. Shooting could be heard in the background and several motorcycles strewn on the road.

Opposition websites are showing footage said to be of a soldier who says he deserted after being ordered to fire on unarmed protesters in Damascus, the BBC reported.

Said Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of London's Guardian newspaper, in a commentary today: "Bashar al-Assad has opted for repression rather than concession."

"...For Assad, the survival of the police state founded by his father is a very personal affair which he has dressed up as a national necessity to "prevent" his country from slipping into civil war."

Farid Ghadry, the Syrian-born head of the US-based Reform Party of Syria, told The Jerusalem Post he believes that Syria is descending into a sectarian civil war, and that President Bashar al-Assad's days are numbered.

Even if Assad survives a bit longer, Ghadry wrote in an email to the newspaper from Washington, “he will be a dead man walking. It is hard to put humpty dumpty back together. I cannot ever imagine anyone visiting with him or dealing with him after what he has done.”

Assad has been president since 2000, having succeeded his authoritarian father Hafez al-Assad. OIver the weekend, Syria's neighbour, Turkey, urged Assad to end the bloody crackdown but also said western nations should avoid an intervention like the one in Libya.

Obtaining reliable information out of Syria is extremely difficult given the paucity of accredited journalists and a crackdown on freedom-of-speech and Internet communications. While Al Jazeera is one of the few accredited media organization still allowed to report, its staff have been accused by government loyalists of "lies' and "exaggeration" in its reporting.

Al Jazeera reported today that land lines, the Internet and mobile phone networks have all been cut in Daraya, a suburb of Damascus.

- HUMNEWS staff

Meddling Media: How media plays a role in shaping Sub-Saharan Africa (REPORT)

By Vanessa Yurkevich in New York

(HN, April 28, 2011) - Ndimyake Mwakalyelye was a reporter working for Voice of America (VOA) during the presidential elections in Zimbabwe two years ago.Sanjukta Roy and Michael Behrman at the Columbia panel. CREDIT: Vanessa Yurkevich

The government quickly realized people were turning to VOA for their election information and that’s when the government blocked the station’s air waves. “Someone had found a way to penetrate the system,” Mwakalyelye said, referring to the media’s role in the election. After spending what she calls “a small fortune” on the right equipment to override the block, VOA’s listenership went from hundreds of thousands of people to millions. “The jamming” by the government, she said, was “creating a need to broadcast more.”

Zimbabwe is one of nearly a dozen countries in Sub-Saharan Africa where there is no freedom of press. At a conference at Columbia University in New York Wednesday, journalists working in Africa, policy makers and researchers discussed the power and restriction of media in the region.

Mwakalyelye, who sat on a panel, said the landscape of journalism is evolving, and bloggers, citizen journalism and social media are playing larger roles in inciting change. “Its power is unbelievable but it needs to be in good hands” Mwakalyelye says. “Uganda tried to block Twitter and Facebook during the elections” she recalls. “People saw the revolution it caused in Egypt and Tunisia.”

“Freedom of the press is necessary, but not sufficient to ensure a healthy and effective media sector,” said economist Sanjukta Roy, who is currently working on the Media Map Project with Internews, which helps to support independent media and access to information.

In partnership with the World Bank Institute, the project will provide guidance to NGO’s and donors on how investments in local media might serve to advance a country’s governmental and developmental objectives.

Roy explained that in order for press freedom to thrive, the country must also be financially viable and establish an educational system with developmental goals and basic access to food. She said professional journalists and a plurality of sources are essential to a successful media.

Michael Behrman studies quantitative methods in media at Columbia University and said, “Press freedom is an important component in maintaining a long term democracy.” For example, he said. the democratic nation of Mali has one of the freest media in Africa and the government protects freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, Behrman, citing a country like Niger, which never fully capitalized on its a freedom of press during a democratic period in the 1990s, said the country has seen its press freedom deteriorate significantly.

Behrman points out that Africa has the least amount of data regarding the media, and panelists agreed there is currently no means to measure the quality of the content being produced, in part because it is difficult to separate fact from fiction, propaganda from truth.

Behrman said while the lack of data is troubling, it is exactly the reason it’s not easy to predict whether the uprisings in the Middle East could be paralleled in Sub-Saharan Africa. The best way to determine what can cause such a social media and political revolution is to study what happened in the Middle East and use it as an indicator for other regions.

“It would be good if there were such data so that you can get a glimpse and a better understanding” Behrman said. “It would be a natural experiment.”

North Korean-Style "Democracy" and the Prospects of True Democratization (ANALYSIS)

by Daniel Pinkston  

Images: CIA World Factbook(April 27, 2011) Recent events in the Middle East have led to speculation about contagion and possible effects on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea). The events in the Middle East began in Tunisia, but were unexpected and progressed mostly in unpredictable ways. The pattern and evolution of contagion showed that each case of rebellion or revolution is different in terms of elapsed time, amount of violence and political outcomes.

No polity is permanent or indestructible. The most sustainable political systems are those that adjust to domestic and international change. Those systems lacking mechanisms for reform and change inevitably face challenges that often are characterized by violence. Past waves of democratization and the recent events in the Middle East raise several questions about the nature of authoritarian regimes. What triggers instability, regime collapse or revolution? Why are some authoritarian regimes more resilient than others? Can we identify ideological, cultural and/or institutional aspects of authoritarian regimes to help understand the prospects for democratization?  Can we predict or prepare for rapid changes in authoritarian systems? And if so, what role should various international actors play in such a scenario?

PHOTO CREDIT: noboundariesorg/flickrThe North Korean Case        

In human history, the concept of democracy was not always popular. It is a recent phenomenon and was often associated with “mob rule” and “disorder.” However, by the 20^th century, democracy had become a universal ideal that is espoused at least nominally by practically all governments regardless of structure or regime type.     

North Korea is no exception. The DPRK Constitution embraces and guarantees a number of democratic rights, privileges and principles. Article 1 stipulates that the DPRK represents the interests of all citizens. Sovereignty is vested in the working people, who are represented by the Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA) and local people’s assemblies (Article 4). Citizens are guaranteed direct universal suffrage by secret ballot (Articles 6, 89 and 138) and their representatives are required to have close ties to their constituents or face no-confidence recalls (Article 7). Article 8 respects and protects human rights, and the rights of Koreans are extended when they are abroad (Article 15), while foreigners are guaranteed legitimate rights and interests while in the territory of the DPRK (Article 16). Furthermore, all institutions, enterprises, organizations and citizens are required to respect the laws that enshrine these rights (Article 18).

The DPRK Constitution guarantees democratic rights and freedoms for all citizens (Article 64) in all spheres of state and social life (Article 65).  These rights and freedoms include universal suffrage and the right to be elected to public office for all who have reached the age of 17 (Article 66); freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, demonstration, association (Article 67); of religion (Article 68) and the right to appeal and file petitions (Article 69).

Article 74 grants the freedom to engage in scientific, literary and artistic activities, and Article 75 grants the freedom of residence and travel. Women are granted equal rights and status with men (Article 77). Citizens have the right to privacy in their homes and in their personal correspondence, and they are protected from illegal searches (Article 79).

The DPRK Constitution also includes a number of clauses addressing social welfare issues. For example, citizens have the right to rest (Article 71), the right to receive free medical care and support from the state if unable to care for themselves (Article 72). Citizens have the right to education (Article 73) and maternity leave is guaranteed for the protection of mothers and children (Article 77). 

Unfortunately, the constitution also contradicts democratic principles in several ways. For example, it stipulates that chuch’e [主體] and military first [先軍] are the “guiding principles” of the DPRK (Article 3), and the state is organized and managed according to democratic centralism (Article 5). All DPRK activities must be carried out under the leadership of the Korean Workers Party (Article 11), and the state must strengthen the dictatorship of the people’s democracy (Article 12).

The state is required by the constitution to carry out mass movements vigorously (Article 14), and carry out a cultural revolution to train all the people as builders of socialism (Article 40). The state “shall eliminate the outdated society’s mode of life and establish a new socialist mode of life in full measure in all fields” (Article 42). “Eliminating outdated society” has a liberating connotation in the context of the collapse of the Chinese world order in the 19^th century or colonialism in the 20^th. However, the second diktat of Article 42 justifies the DPRK’s complete eradication of civil society and the construction of mass movements to eliminate individualism and freedoms that are nominally protected by the constitution.  

The integration of “creative writers and artists to produce many works of high ideological and artistic value and enlist a broad range of masses in literary and artistic activities” ensures artistic expression is only tolerated within channels sanctioned by the state and KWP. Literature and art must be “chuch’e-oriented, revolutionary, national in form and socialist in content” (Article 52). Rights and responsibilities are “based on the collectivist principle of ‘one for all, all for one’” (Article 63), not on the rule of law.

Collective conformity with state doctrine is extended to the military, which has a “mission to carry out the military-first revolutionary line in order to protect the nerve center of the revolution” (Article 59). The constitution requires the state to “convert the entire army into a cadre army, modernize the entire army, arm all the people, and turn the whole country into a fortress, on the basis of arming the army and the people politically and ideologically” (Article 60).

Individual property rights are severely restricted as “there shall be no limit to the property which the state can own, and all natural resources of the country, railways, air transportation, telecommunications and postal organs, as well as major factories, enterprises, ports, and banks, shall be owned solely by the state” (Article 21).

State control and regulation of resources are primary instruments of social control and regime sustainability. First, the ruling elite can reward loyalists and punish traitors or disloyal citizens by supplying or withholding resources, including food, medical care and other necessities. Second, state control of resource allocation nominally eliminates the need for markets, which can have political effects as well as an economic function. Markets can only function if they have buyers and sellers, and they are more efficient if the actors have autonomy and adequate information to make decisions. However, autonomous buyers and sellers with the capacity to transmit, receive and store information can use that capacity to take collective action. Even if collective action initially is only directed at market activities, it can later be directed towards political aims.

Haggard and Noland note that the North Korean regime is highly insecure about the market, and that so-called “reforms” have been designed to maintain economic control.[i] The economics measures announced on 1 July 2002 were trumpeted as the beginning of reform and opening, but policies were incomplete and insufficient to cure the country’s economic malaise. The state recognized and tolerated some marketization from below that began during the famine of the 1990s, but by 2005 was working to reverse the nascent marketization underway. The botched currency reform announced on 30 November 2009 is indicative of the state’s will to eradicate markets and reassert control of resources, which is necessary to sustain the current political structure.           

The normal, everyday market activities we see in liberal democracies have been criminalized in North Korea. Legal statues, prosecutors and courts are mechanisms to control society and perpetuate centralized control. According to Article 162 of the DPRK Constitution, “the duties of the court are to:  

1. Protect the sovereignty of the DPRK, the socialist system, the property of the state and social cooperative organizations, and the constitutional rights, lives, and property of the people through judicial activities.

2. Ensure that all organs, enterprises, organizations, and citizens precisely observe the laws of the state and struggle actively against class enemies and all law offenders.

The DPRK has nominally adopted some international legal standards and procedures such as habeas corpus and nullum crimen sine lege [no crime without law], but no due judicial process seems to apply to political crimes.[ii] Detention, prosecution and imprisonment accompanied by extreme violence are common. Social deviants live under the threat of terror to themselves and their extended families. The deterrent effect apparently has been very effective. But, the discretion extended to the security apparatus [國家安全保衛部; 人民保安部; 組織指導部; 호위사령부] also creates extraordinary rent-seeking opportunities. The corruption in North Korea seems to be increasing as the economy remains stagnant. Rampant corruption, which is structurally created by the legal code and security apparatus, could eventually undermine the integrity of the security institutions that are supposed to protect and preserve the state.        

Kim Jŏng-il, HUMNEWS file photoThe Personalistic Suryŏng [ 首領 ] System

Under the concept of “democratic centralism” Kim Il-sung began to establish a personalistic system fitting the term “totalitarian” or “sultanistic” in the words of Juan J. Linz.[iii] Others have described the DPRK political system as “Stalinist, corporatist, mono-organizational, neo-traditional.” Charles Armstrong correctly points out that the state has displayed all of these characteristics and the state has transformed since it was founded in 1948.[iv]    

According to state propaganda, the DPRK is dependent upon a “Great Leader” for survival and prosperity. Borrowing from imperial Japan’s kokutai [國體], North Korean propaganda refers to the suryŏng as the “brain” for the “national body.” North Koreans are indoctrinated to believe that “freedom and national independence” are only possible by submitting to and supporting the leader—even if it means sacrificing one’s own life. The ideological pillars of the state promise that in return the leader will protect North Koreans from an impure and hostile international environment.[v]

The leader is enshrined in the constitution. Kim Il-sŏng is credited with having “reinforced and developed the republic into a popular masses-centered socialist country and a socialist state of independence, self-support, and self-defense by putting forward a chuch’e-oriented revolutionary line.” He is said to have “turned the whole society into one big, single-heartedly united family.”[vi] And as a “united family,” citizens cannot opt out of this relationship and have non-negotiable responsibilities:   

Under the leadership of the Korean Workers Party, the DPRK and the Korean people will hold the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung in high esteem as the eternal president of the republic and complete the chuch’e revolutionary cause to the end by defending,  carrying forward, and developing Comrade Kim Il Sung’s idea and achievements.

The constitution’s preamble declares that “Kim Il-sŏng’s chuch’e-oriented idea of state building and his achievements in state building have been made into law.” The constitution justifies hereditary succession, which is now under way for the second time in the country’s history. The current leader, Kim Jŏng-il, is the “supreme leader [最高領導者] of the DPRK” (Article 100), and has the authority to “issue orders” (Article 104) that essentially carry the weight of supreme law immune from judicial review or challenge from any institution or citizen.   

A modern democracy must include free and fair elections, the protection of human rights and civil liberties, freedom of thought and of the press, freedom of religion and a separation of powers with an independent judiciary. The DPRK fails in every single category necessary for a functioning democracy. The DPRK probably has come closer to the totalitarian ideal than any of its predecessors that attempted to build a totalitarian system, and the DPRK has lasted longer than any of its peers.

Dictators and totalitarian leaders always face threats and challengers. The rent-seeking opportunities are extensive in personalistic systems, but even the greatest dictators are victims of the system because of the attention and resources that must be expended to remain in control. Terror is a common instrument in non-democratic regimes. The ruthlessness exercised in these systems and the consequences of losing power, which often results in death—or exile if lucky—lead to a culture of settling political differences violently.

The lack of internal checks and balances, and the very militarized societies built to maintain personalistic systems, often result in dictators using their militaries to settle international disputes. The North Korean case is exacerbated by national division and a sclerotic economy that obstructs any modernization of its conventional military forces. The result has been a long-term commitment to the development weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their related delivery systems.

The need for critical technologies and materials, and the desire for economies of scale in production have led to the establishment of procurement and proliferation networks for the most dangerous materials and weapon systems.[vii] WMD development, including two nuclear tests, has brought international sanctions that have compounded the DPRK’s economic plight. North Korea’s WMD threat cannot be ignored, but the very sanctions and other international pressure designed to compel Pyongyang to disarm have had little effect. Instead, they almost certainly reinforce hardliners in North Korea. This is not to suggest that sanctions should be lifted. To the contrary—but we must have realistic expectations about the effectiveness.

We should not be very optimistic about WMD disarmament, economic liberalization, the protection of human rights and civil liberties or democratization until there is a change in leadership and a change in the political structure/system. Without structural change—in other words, without a dismantling of the inter-locking institutional arrangement of the KWP, the military, and the security apparatus and the tight centralized control of economic resources—whoever is the suryŏng will not matter. Anyone would rule in a similar fashion in such an institutional environment or risk being toppled from within.

The current DPRK system is doomed to failure, but it could last for a considerable time. The international community could impose democracy through force, but that would require a very costly war that is politically untenable. Deterrence and containment are the primary policy instruments for dealing with Pyongyang for years or decades ahead. That means waiting for change generated from within, but the prospects are bleak.

Daniel Pinkston is the North East Asia Deputy Project Director at The International Crisis Group  - This article was first published at Strong and Prosperous 2011: Crisis Group's Blog on Korea  

[i] Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2011).  [ii] Ibid. [iii] Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000). [iv] Charles K. Armstrong, “The Nature, Origins, and Development of the North Korean State,” in Samuel S. Kim, editor, The North Korean System in the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 39-63. [v] Brian Myers, The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters (New York: Melville House, 2010). [vi] DPRK Constitution Preamble. [vii] Daniel A. Pinkston, “Up in Arms - North Korea’s Illicit Weapons Deals,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, 22 April 2010.

Forced Removals Draw Fire in Rio de Janeiro (OPINION/BLOG)

by Gabriel Elizondo

The Metro-Mangueira favela as it is now, is used as a hiding place by residents PHOTO CREDIT: Elizondo/Al JazeeraRita Bonfim Silva is trying her best to keep up her normal routine: going out of her way to offer guests coffee, bread and butter.

But her life is likely to dramatically change very soon. The one room she rents in a crumbing three-level brick house in Metro-Mangueira favela in Rio de Janeiro is set to be demolished by the city as part of a re-development project under way in blighted areas of the city in the run-up to the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics.

But for Ms Silva, it’s not easy for her to pick up and move. She is a single mother and is forced to be a full-time caregiver to her four-year-old son, Gabriel, who suffers from a form of cerebral palsy and demands constant care.

Rita Bonfim Silva holding her son, Gabriel, in the room she rents in a Rio favela PHOTO CREDIT: Elizondo/Al JazeeraMetro-Mangueira favela, where Ms Silva lives, at its peak had 500-700 families, which is small by Rio favela standards. It occupies a narrow strip of land a few blocks long by the side of railroad tracks and right at the base of the much larger and more famous Mangueira favela.

It is a 15-minute walk from Rio’s famous Maracana football stadium, but despite being so close, Ms Silva says she hasn't seen any benefit from the World Cup or Olympics coming to Brazil.

"For me and other poor people too, I have not seen anything change or get better with the World Cup," Silva said. “Nothing has helped us at all. We have not seen any improvement. No financial help. Not housing help. Not education. Not health. Nothing has gotten better for those who need it.”

Some houses in the Metro-Mangueira favela are being bulldozed piece by piece, as residents leave. The residents that have so far refused to leave, now live amongst the rubble of half collapsed brick homes that have become a hidden haven for crack addicts.

Ms Silva, numerous elderly woman and young children, and about 250 other families remain. It's as though they are being forced out with nowhere else to go, they say.

They have been given little information from the city, they say, and the rumor in the favela is that the land will be used to build a parking garage for Maracana stadium (the city denies this).

Jorge Bittar, Rio’s housing secretary, admits that the re-location process is not always smooth, and even concedes some people might be falling through the cracks. But, he says, the city is certainly not intentionally violating the housing rights of anybody.

He says the residents of Metro-Mangueira are living in "precarious" conditions and need to be relocated irregardless of any future mega sporting events.

“We are not trying to undertake a process of forced removal of anyone,” Bittar said. “We are doing relocation of families because they live in at risk areas...We always desire to do what’s in the best interest of families.”

Bittar also proudly shows off drawings and plans of how the area will be made into a public green space, with a community center and walking paths.

He said public housing is being built to accommodate families, but not all units are ready yet.

What is happening in Metro-Mangueira favela is not unique. Rio de Janeiro is going through a re-development boom, with as much as $15bn to be invested in the city in the coming years to make way for infrastructure projects ahead of the World Cup and Olympics.

At least a half dozen other poor communities in Rio de Janeiro are in the middle of forced relocations, and causing alarm with human rights activist.

Amnesty International has a high-level delegation led by secretary-general Salil Shetty visiting Brazil this week partly to take stock of this very issue. And the United Nations special rapporteur on housing, Raquel Rolnik, has been investigating what is going on in Rio de Janeiro, and her report is due out by the end of the month and expected to be a scathing condemnation of potential human rights abuses. (Rolnik is Brazilian, and a professor at the University of Sao Paulo).

“There is a lot of pressure with the World Cup and Olympics to present the city of Rio in the best light, but it’s having a negative impact on poor communities,” said Patrick Wilcken, Brazil researcher for Amnesty International.

A poster on a house in Metrô-Mangueira favela showing a bulldozer with a Rio2016 sign and a hand trying to block it, symbolic of how many people refuse to have their homes destroyed without a fight PHOTO CREDIT: Elizondo/Al Jazeera

Wilcken also said poor residents of favelas have property rights that need to be respected.

“By Brazilian law, if you have lived someone for a certain number of years you have property rights," Wilcken said.

“In Brazil, more that half the population lives in some sort of irregular settlement as a result of the chaotic way in which the country developed over the 20th century.

Some of these communities in Rio have been around 30, 40, 50 years so they do have housing rights under Brazilian law - the difference is that poor communities don’t have access to justice.”

The city is offering financial compensation, but it varies widely and most residents of Metro-Mangueira didn’t even seem to know what financial help is being offered or how to get it. Few, if any, residents can afford lawyers.

Rolnik, the UN housing rapporteur, said based on her investigation thus far, “the compensation is always absolutely insufficient for families to get adequate housing,” she told O Estado de. S. Paulo newspaper. “They are, therefore, truthfully going to be products of new favelas, new risk areas, or homeless.”

For people like Rita Bonfim Silva and the remaining residents of Metro-Mangueira, things aren’t getting any better. They say the electricity and water lines have been cut, an obvious attempt by the city, in their mind, to force them out.

Ms Silva says she is left with the clear impression that as Rio de Janeiro rushes to re-build itself bigger and better in the name of progress, some poor people like her are seen as nothing more than in the way.

by Gabriel Elizondo - originally published by Al-Jazeera on April 25, 2011 under Creative Commons Licensing 

World Malaria Day: Race to 2015 Elimination Faces Challenges (REPORT)

A Nigerian mother with her infant: the vast majority of malaria deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa are among children under 5. CREDIT: M Bociurkiw/HUMNEWS(HN, April 25, 2011) - The race to eliminate malaria - a preventable disease that claims the lives of almost one-million children every year - by the United Nations target of 2015 faces several challenges - despite tens of millions of dollars earmarked each year towards prevention efforts.

In a conference call hosted by the United Nations Foundation on the eve of World Malaria Day (today), experts agreed that despite well-meaning efforts of several fronts, recalcitrant governments and unpredictable world events could frustrate efforts to reduce malaria deaths to zero by 2015.

On average, malaria claims the life of an African child every 45 seconds. The vast majority of the deaths are among children under five years old.

The main item in the arsenal to fight the disease is insecticide-treat bed nets - which last as long as five years and costs about $10 (including associated costs such as training of health workers). If used properly, the nets protect sleeping children and also kill malaria-bearing mosquitoes.

Malaria eradication proponents claim that more than 75% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa are now covered by bed nets. "We are really making a difference," said sports columnist Rick Reilly.

But the on challenges the road to 2015 are many.

The recent civil war in Ivory Coast, for example, has delayed the distribution of millions of bed nets, said Ray Chambers, a philanthropist and humanitarian who was appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2008 as his Special Envoy to mobilize global support for action on the disease. Chambers said the nets are stuck in warehouses in Ivory Coast and if they are stolen or destroyed it could prove difficult to raise replacement funding.

"The greatest risk is that they may disappear between now and the time they get the opportunity to distribute them," said Chambers in reference to the nets in Ivory Coast. In addition, the migration of at least 75,000 people to Liberia also makes protection of people difficult.

Experts also identified Nigeria - Africa's most populous nation with 150 million people - and the Democratic Republic of Congo - as serious trouble spots in the battle against malaria. In Nigeria, nets are not distributed as efficiently as they should and crucial social mobilization efforts need to be scaled up.

Awa Marie Coll-Seck, Executive Director of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, said it is expected that the mobilization of community health workers and community-based organizations will improve the usage rates of bed nets. "In a lot of countries they never used to have nets..it needs explanation and a lot of work. They have a lot of nets coming but they have to catch up on the work to change the behaviour of the people."

Of the 67 million nets earmarked for Nigeria, about 27 million have been paid for but have yet to be distributed "because of different delays within the government process," said Chambers.

Chambers said the DRC has its own set of problems that prevent proper distribution, but that universal distribution is expected as soon as later this year.

He added, however, that an incredible set of partnerships has evolved to fight malaria. Aside from the UN Foundation, the collaboration includes Nothing But Nets, Roll Back Malaria, UNICEF, Rotary International, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Population Services International. "It's because of this incredible partnership that has ever been assembled in a fight against any type of major disease," said Chambers. "We have made the greatest and most rapid progress against any major disease in our lifetime."

'Three Cups of Tea' Challenges Pakistanis' State of Mind (PERSPECTIVE)

By Themrise Khan

(HN, April 25, 2011) - A well-known British journalist familiar with Pakistan, recently declared that “Pakistan has been playing us all for suckers”.

The declaration was in response to the UK government's planned £650 million in education aid grant for Pakistan. While this statement was made in a wider geo-political context, it seems that recently, Pakistan itself has been played for a sucker by a well-meaning American educationist.

The revelation by some quarters that Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea was based on semi-fiction, rather than fact, has sent shock waves among Pakistanis, particularly its elite. The elite, because the book hasn’t exactly been the most accessible to the actual subjects that it portrays, i.e. the impoverished families and girls of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Despite accusations that 41% of donations collected by Mortensen and his Central Asian Institute (CAI), have not gone to aid the education of young girls, many in Pakistan still support the author. Their argument is simple. So what if he lied about some things? At least he has helped those in need, which most Pakistanis can hardly admit to themselves. Or, as Mortenson’s avid supporter journalist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times said in an opinion piece on April 20, “Greg has still built more schools and transformed more children’s lives than you or I ever will”.

It is true that one cannot out rightly deny Mortenson’s contribution to girls’ education in the remote northern areas of Pakistan and regions of war-torn Afghanistan. Many of the stones he has converted into schools, do exist and educate young girls where Pakistan’s own government has not been able to do so. In a country where officially at least, only 45% of females are literate and girls’ schools are regularly targeted by militants, Pakistan’s record in education, especially girls education, has been miserable for decades. So much so, that in a desperate attempt to prop up its weak image, a state of “education emergency” was recently declared, thanks to yet another glossy report commissioned by a non-governmental Education Task Force. Students at The Citizens Foundation Secondary School – Cowasjee Campus, Mauripur, Karachi CREDIT: TCF

This sudden interest in education and the controversy surrounding Mortenson raises several issues, ironically none of which are actually related to girls’ education. Instead, they are indicative of an insecure state of mind that Pakistanis are perpetually in about who they are.

Pakistan has regularly been caught out for misrepresenting facts and embezzling resources meant for others. But we have always been quick to our own defense, citing “weak leadership” or “a lack of accountability”. An easy way of saying, we are at the mercy of others.

There have been several education programmes such as the Education Sector Reforms and debt swaps that have spent millions, perhaps billions of dollars, on building schools, increasing enrollment, developing curriculum and training teachers - the end result of which have been an even weaker education system. Rarely, have these failures been brought to task by those who have been quick to jump to Mortenson’s defense.

At the same time, there are several local philanthropic initiatives in Pakistan that have been perhaps even more successful than Mortenson’s personal attempts.

The Citizens Foundation, a non-profit set up in 1995, has built 730 schools and enrolled over 102,000 underprivileged girls and boys, throughout the country, without controversies attached to it. Several local NGOs throughout rural Pakistan, including in the northern areas, have been trying for many years, to improve community-run education, albeit with much fewer resources and publicity. Neither has any of this been acknowledged enough by those who feel that Mortenson has been unfairly accused and should be exonerated for all the good work he has done.

Herein lies the problem. Does “doing good work” mean that doing a bit of bad shouldn’t really be an issue? Does more of one override the other? Granted that Mortenson is still innocent until proven otherwise, but the issue here is not just whether he misused funds or made up stories to sell his book.

It's about the responsibility that comes with “doing good” not just by the doer, but by the recipient as well. This includes not just building schools and providing education, it is also about trying to sustain the momentum of the change. Mortensen spent years working in both countries. But never once did anyone in either of these countries choose to emulate, study or critique his model. The bestseller status of Three Cups of Tea was evidence enough for us.

So when the revelations were made public, this controversy was yet another nail in the coffin for a country that has and continues to be burned for its malpractices and used by others for a “greater good”, i.e. ridding the world of terrorists.

Reactions to the controversy have also shown how we, as a nation, love to be validated by foreigners rather than by ourselves. Pakistan and Afghanistan needed a Greg Mortenson to tell us through Three Cups of Tea, that we were essentially good people who somehow didn’t have the resources to bring about good. And so for us, he is still a hero, because he did what we couldn’t.

But we still don’t ask why we couldn’t, which is perhaps the biggest disappointment of this saga.

Mortenson’s supporters, including Kristof, are also ignoring the fact that philanthropy is not just about being selfless, it's about sticking to being selfless all the way. It's about what money can do to a person or what a person can do with it. Putting Mortenson or anyone (rival accuser Jon Krackauer perhaps?) on a pedestal, does not exonerate them from being accountable either.  Otherwise, what’s the point of constantly crying for accountability and transparency?

But we still refuse to openly question, authenticate, instead challenging only selected discrepancies in our society, letting ourselves be exploited by others.

 
It is true that the matter has yet to be investigated and can turn out to be completely false itself. But Mortensen’s supporters in Pakistan have already declared him innocent without even waiting for a verdict.

“Does it really matter?”, they ask. Yes, it does matter. This is not about Mortenson. This is about us.

HUMNEWS contributor Themrise Khan is a freelance social development consultant based in Karachi who occasionally dares to venture into the Pakistani media.

“Deployment of Solo TV News Crews to Foreign Conflict Zones Problematic” - Indeed (PERSPECTIVE)

By Maggie Padlewska

(HN, April 23, 2011) News-gathering technology is without doubt becoming more accessible, portable, and inconspicuous.

More and more journalists are trained and expected to file stories for multiple mediums (print, radio, television, and the web), once all considered independent of each other. Major networks are increasingly focused on cost-effectiveness, thus cutting back on resources and much of its “human” workforce. The obvious result: fewer people, doing more.

It is no surprise, therefore, that major networks are now toying with the idea of deploying a one-person "crew" to report from conflict zones. This was expected.

The question is: is it “too soon” or flat out “problematic”?

The risk factor involved reporting from a conflict zone is not new nor, sadly, one that is likely to diminish miraculously over time.

According to the figures collected by Reporters Without Borders, a non-profit organization that fights for the rights, freedom, and protection of journalists worldwide, 25 journalists were killed in 2002, 64 in 2005, 87 in 2007, and 18 since the beginning of the year.  

So, should deep-pocketed networks deploy “Backpack Journalists” (BPJs) or 'Multi-Media Journalists' (MMJs) to report, single-handedly from conflict zones without any safeguards in place? No. Should BPJs avoid reporting from conflict zones? Not necessarily.

MMJs have been presented with a significant and unique set of opportunities: lightweight mobility, rapid field production (laptop editing and story filing via the Internet), and most importantly, as noted by Professor Stacey Woelfel during the National Association of Broadcaster panel discussion, a dramatic decrease with respect to the “intimidation factor” for interviewees. Thus, there is much to be gained from this independent form of reporting. Padlewska on the job as a MMJ in Panama

As for reaping the benefits? The key perhaps, is therefore, to strike the proper balance. There is strength (and safety!) in numbers – true.

Now apply that to independent MMJs gathering in a conflict zone…and what do we have? The best of both worlds perhaps…

Sadly, however, while “numbers” may increase the odds of safety (such as providing video journalists and photographers with additional sets of eyes to watching each others’ backs as noted by veteran news-photographer Kevin Benz), they do not guarantee safety.

The tragic loss of photographers Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros in Libya earlier this week, is another grim and harrowing reminder of the danger and risks involved in conflict zone reporting; be it as an independent or a member of a crew.

Hence, while deploying solo MMJs to conflict zones may be tempting for major networks (highly effective and cheap), now, or later, is not the time for cutbacks that could further jeopardize the safety and security of those who, courageously and selflessly, step in harm’s way to report on the horrors of conflict without first putting much thought into the ‘real cost’ of “cost-effectiveness”.

Maggie Padlewska is an independent video journalist and founder of the One Year One World initiative; a solo journey around the globe to document and share the stories of people who lack the resources to share their views and ideas with the world (oneyearoneworld.com). She has worked as television news reporter, host, director, producer, editor and writer for both national and international networks for more than a decade. She is a fearless multilingual nomad with several degrees, a passion for storytelling, and a relentless curiosity of the world. 

Ugly Violence After Nigeria's Election (Opinion/Blog)

by Barnaby Phillips

I was having dinner with two Nigerian friends in Lagos, just days before the recent presidential elections. One friend comes from the north of the country, the other from the south.

"There’s an ugly truth to this election campaign, which no-one is talking about," said the northerner. 

“In the south, they won’t vote for Muhammadu Buhari simply because they don’t want to give power back to the north.  That’s all there is to it. We will vote along regional lines”, she explained.

The southerner protested, insisting that he had no time for regional prejudice. He had chosen to support Goodluck Jonathan, whom he insisted was “the best of a weak list”.

In Nigeria, your political perspective is still, above all, defined by which part of the country you’re from. In the south, many people believe that Jonathan’s victory derived from the cleanest and fairest election Nigeria has ever held. 

But try telling that to the angry mobs rampaging through Kano and Kaduna. Regardless of whether there was widespread fraud on election day, as alleged by the losing camp, and denied by the winners, (I’ll leave that assessment to the election observers and the courts), it’s hard to define the whole electoral process as a success when it has caused so much death and destruction.   

This is a large and complex country, and it is difficult to generalise. Across Nigeria, most people of different faiths and ethnicities live together in peace, and have done so for generations. 

Here in Lagos, for example, Yoruba families happily share Christian and Muslim identities without a hint of friction, in a way that puts parts of the Middle East and Europe to shame.

But it’s also true that anyone who travels around Nigeria, and is curious enough to garner opinions, will soon hear widespread prejudices about people from other regions. 

If I had an English pound, or even a Nigerian naira, for every time I’ve been told that “The northerners are all …[add your own unflattering adjectives]..”, or, “we can’t trust the southerners because they are all [ditto]” , I would be a very rich man. 

There is a sickening familiarity to what is now unfolding in the northern cities. When I lived here, I saw the same scenes in 1999 and 2000 in Kano, Kaduna, but also in southern cities like Sagamu and Aba. And, of course, those with longer memories, will remember the massacres of 1966. 

President Jonathan, to his credit, had the courage to draw that link himself, saying these “acts of mayhem are sad reminders” of “an unfortunate civil war [that] as a nation we are yet to come to terms with”.

These events are so sad because they help to unpick the fabric of Nigeria as a nation. 

Take the city of Kaduna, for example. Before the dreadful Sharia riots of 2000, different religions and ethnic groups shared neighbourhoods. But after all the violence and killing, those mixed neighbourhoods have unravelled, and Kaduna is now a city largely divided between respective Muslim and Christian halves.  

Another example; Nigeria has a compulsory youth service, the National Youth Service Corps. Established in the aftermath of the civil war, the NYSC is intended to foster a sense of nationhood. 

The theory is commendable; young people out of university are sent to different parts of the country to meet other Nigerians and gain useful work experience. 

But in this election campaign many young “Corpers”, enlisted to help in the voting process, have been targeted and attacked, and several have been killed. 

In practice, many Nigerians are now extremely nervous about their children serving in other parts of the country, and those with political or financial influence often do their best to ensure this does not happen.   

Friends in the north tell me that this week’s violence started with attacks against political leaders and traditional rulers, and later developed into ethnic and religious clashes. And it is the Nigerian elites, (of course not just in the north), who have a lot to answer for. 

For decades they have enriched themselves, whilst an ever-growing army of unemployed young people struggles to survive. Worse, some leaders have used ethnicity and religious identity when it suits them, cynically unleashing a monster they cannot control. 

President Jonathan can be under no illusions about the scale of the task before him. In parts of the south, particularly in the Niger Delta, he is seen as a messiah, who will suddenly deliver a rapid improvement in living standards. 

In parts of the north, he is viewed with suspicion, by a region that believes it has been robbed of power. 

Of course, Nigeria has a long-proven ability to pull back from the brink, and stumble on. 

But the events of the past few days show that the country is desperately in need of a new kind of leadership.

Over to you, Jonathan. 

by Barnaby Phillips - originally published by Al-Jazeera on April 22, 2011 under Creative Commons Licensing