Posts
Kampala
The African Union yesterday condemned an attack by Somali militant group, al Shabaab, on a hotel in Mogadishu that left 32 people dead. Reports from Mogadishu said the dead included six members of the Somali parliament, five government officials and 21 civilians.
The Special Representative of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission for Somalia, Mr Boubacar Gaoussou Diarra, in reference to the Ramadhan season, bemoaned the fact that the group had attacked the hotel in defiance of one of the key pillars of the Islamic faith that they claim to profess.
“It is sad to learn that armed opposition groups do not see the wisdom of giving peace a chance in their country,” said Ambassador Diarra. “Today’s attack on innocent civilians clearly demonstrates the cowardly and barbaric mindset of those opposed to the peace process and cannot be condoned. I, on behalf of the African Union, would like to call upon all warring parties in the Somali conflict to stop such barbaric attacks on innocent civilian population.”
Amisom safe
No soldiers belonging to the African Union peacekeeping force – to which Uganda has contributed soldiers – were killed in the attack that came on the second day of heavy fighting between al Shabaab and troops of the transitional government, who are backed by the AU.
The spokesman for the AU peacekeepers, Maj. Ba-hoku Barigye, yesterday told the BBC that an 11-year-old shoe-shine boy and a woman selling tea in front of the hotel were among the dead. Reports say the al Shabaab fighters entered the hotel disguised as government soldiers, opened fire on the guard and then one of them blew himself up inside the building.
The attack is the second most daring raid on premises housing AU forces or the Somali government. Late last year, al Shabaab fighters drove a truck disguised as a UN vehicle into an AU compound and blew it up, killing the then deputy force commander, Maj. Gen. Juvenal Niyonguruza.
The latest incident comes nearly two months since al Shabaab claimed responsibility for twin bombings in Kampala that killed 76 people who were watching the 2010 World Cup final in Kabalagala and the Kyadondo Rugby Grounds.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Orphaned after playing dead
Natalie Wong
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Fifteen-year-old Tracey Wong Cheuk- yiu survived the Manila tour-bus massacre by playing dead on the floor as the crazed gunman opened up.
Last night she was recovering with minor foot injuries - but her parents and aunt were slain.
Wong told reporters from her hospital bed: "I hid under a chair. Police threw in tear gas and many people could hardly breath."
She learned later in the day that her father Wong Tze-lam, 51, and mother Yeung Yee-wa, 44, along with aunt Yeung Yee-kam, 46, were killed.
Her brother Jason Wong Ching-nat, 12, was among those released by the gunman before the carnage started.
Wong worked as an operation station officer with the MTR for more than 20 years. The company will pay his family a death gratuity equivalent to 52 months' salary.
The Wong tragedy unfolded as other heartbreaking stories emerged from the bloodshed.
Yik Siu-ling, 32, is in serious condition in Philippines General Hospital after she was shot in the lower jaw and lost two fingers.
She apparently used her hand to shield her face when struck by the bullet.
Yik's husband, Joe Chan Kwok- chu, 46, has gunshot wounds to the stomach and head. He is in stable condition.
Fu Cheuk-yan, 30, was killed, but his 40-year-old wife Tsang Yee-lai was released with her two children on Monday afternoon.
Tsang is a nurse at the Kowloon Hospital, which has promised her every help.
Lo Kam Fun, 66, and her daughter Lee Ying Chuen, 33, were both slightly injured during the siege.
Tour leader Masa Tse Ting-chunn, 31, was killed about one hour after he was handcuffed by the gunman to the exit of the coach.
Tse had alerted Hong Thai in Hong Kong of the hijacking using his cell phone. The gunman later used Tse to shield him during negotiations with police.
Tse, who is single, joined Hong Tai as a part-time tour leader five years ago.
More than 4,000 people went online to pay him tribute. A netizen named Shantal wrote: "You're the hero of Hong Kong. We're proud of you."
The Hong Kong Travel Industry (Outbound) Tour Escort and Tour Guide Union issued a statement saying: "He was a professional escort assisting tourists till the last moment in the tragic event."
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Fifteen-year-old Tracey Wong Cheuk- yiu survived the Manila tour-bus massacre by playing dead on the floor as the crazed gunman opened up.
Wong told reporters from her hospital bed: "I hid under a chair. Police threw in tear gas and many people could hardly breath."
She learned later in the day that her father Wong Tze-lam, 51, and mother Yeung Yee-wa, 44, along with aunt Yeung Yee-kam, 46, were killed.
Her brother Jason Wong Ching-nat, 12, was among those released by the gunman before the carnage started.
Wong worked as an operation station officer with the MTR for more than 20 years. The company will pay his family a death gratuity equivalent to 52 months' salary.
The Wong tragedy unfolded as other heartbreaking stories emerged from the bloodshed.
Yik Siu-ling, 32, is in serious condition in Philippines General Hospital after she was shot in the lower jaw and lost two fingers.
She apparently used her hand to shield her face when struck by the bullet.
Yik's husband, Joe Chan Kwok- chu, 46, has gunshot wounds to the stomach and head. He is in stable condition.
Fu Cheuk-yan, 30, was killed, but his 40-year-old wife Tsang Yee-lai was released with her two children on Monday afternoon.
Tsang is a nurse at the Kowloon Hospital, which has promised her every help.
Lo Kam Fun, 66, and her daughter Lee Ying Chuen, 33, were both slightly injured during the siege.
Tour leader Masa Tse Ting-chunn, 31, was killed about one hour after he was handcuffed by the gunman to the exit of the coach.
Tse had alerted Hong Thai in Hong Kong of the hijacking using his cell phone. The gunman later used Tse to shield him during negotiations with police.
Tse, who is single, joined Hong Tai as a part-time tour leader five years ago.
More than 4,000 people went online to pay him tribute. A netizen named Shantal wrote: "You're the hero of Hong Kong. We're proud of you."
The Hong Kong Travel Industry (Outbound) Tour Escort and Tour Guide Union issued a statement saying: "He was a professional escort assisting tourists till the last moment in the tragic event."
Torn apart
Natalie Wong
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Of the five members of the Leung family on the Manila death bus, only Mrs Leung - Amy Ng Yau-woon - left it alive and unhurt.
Husband Ken Leung Kam-wing, 58, and daughters Doris Leung Chung-see, 21, and Jessie Leung Song-yi, 14, lay dead.
Nineteen-year-old son Jason Leung Song-xue was carried away in a critical state with a head injury.
Mrs Leung said she only survived because her husband used his body to shield her from a hail of bullets. And even if she had escaped physical harm, she was being torn apart by grief.
When officials from the Philippine government visited her yesterday, she had nothing for them but recriminations and tears.
"You have come too late," she cried. "Why was there no assistance when we were being held hostage for several hours?
"I know the gunman initially didn't want to kill us as he was making requests to the Philippine government. Why couldn't you satisfy him? Was it because of money?"
That said, her thoughts returned to son Jason, in intensive care after undergoing brain surgery.
In Hong Kong, meanwhile, Leung family friends and colleagues were talking of the lost ones.
Ken Leung, who was managing director of Stadium Asia and who attended the same secondary school as lawmaker Fred Li Wah-ming, was being recalled by contemporaries in the University of Hong Kong industrial engineering class of 1977 as as "a straightforward, straight-talking man" who was always helpful and "gave 100 percent of himself to everything he did.
" They wrote: "By all accounts, Ken made the ultimate sacrifice, using his body to shield his loved ones from the killer's bullets.
"For his classmates, this was only to be expected of this brave man. We feel very sad, but are proud of him.
"We offer our deepest condolences to Ken's wife, Amy, and son, Jason, who is critically ill in hospital, and all the families and friends of the victims of this terrible and tragic event."
Doris had been studying in Canada and Jessie, the youngest victim of the tragedy, was a Form Two student at the Hong Kong Management Association David Li Kwok Po College.
The school has set up a memorial blog to mourn her and to send get-well wishes to her brother, who is an alumnus of the college.
Principal Nicholas Puiu described Jessie and Jason as "polite, well-spoken, well-mannered students who were a pleasure to teach."
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Of the five members of the Leung family on the Manila death bus, only Mrs Leung - Amy Ng Yau-woon - left it alive and unhurt.
Husband Ken Leung Kam-wing, 58, and daughters Doris Leung Chung-see, 21, and Jessie Leung Song-yi, 14, lay dead. Nineteen-year-old son Jason Leung Song-xue was carried away in a critical state with a head injury.
Mrs Leung said she only survived because her husband used his body to shield her from a hail of bullets. And even if she had escaped physical harm, she was being torn apart by grief.
When officials from the Philippine government visited her yesterday, she had nothing for them but recriminations and tears.
"You have come too late," she cried. "Why was there no assistance when we were being held hostage for several hours?
"I know the gunman initially didn't want to kill us as he was making requests to the Philippine government. Why couldn't you satisfy him? Was it because of money?"
That said, her thoughts returned to son Jason, in intensive care after undergoing brain surgery.
In Hong Kong, meanwhile, Leung family friends and colleagues were talking of the lost ones.
Ken Leung, who was managing director of Stadium Asia and who attended the same secondary school as lawmaker Fred Li Wah-ming, was being recalled by contemporaries in the University of Hong Kong industrial engineering class of 1977 as as "a straightforward, straight-talking man" who was always helpful and "gave 100 percent of himself to everything he did.
" They wrote: "By all accounts, Ken made the ultimate sacrifice, using his body to shield his loved ones from the killer's bullets.
"For his classmates, this was only to be expected of this brave man. We feel very sad, but are proud of him.
"We offer our deepest condolences to Ken's wife, Amy, and son, Jason, who is critically ill in hospital, and all the families and friends of the victims of this terrible and tragic event."
Doris had been studying in Canada and Jessie, the youngest victim of the tragedy, was a Form Two student at the Hong Kong Management Association David Li Kwok Po College.
The school has set up a memorial blog to mourn her and to send get-well wishes to her brother, who is an alumnus of the college.
Principal Nicholas Puiu described Jessie and Jason as "polite, well-spoken, well-mannered students who were a pleasure to teach."
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Opposition nominates four for presidential contest
Four candidates have been nominated to contest in a race that will determine who carries the flag for the coalition of five opposition political parties in next year’s presidential elections.
Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) president Kizza Besigye, Hajj Hussein Kyanjo of the Justice Forum party, Conservative Party’s James Kigongo and Social Democratic Party president Michael Mabikke were yesterday nominated amid heightened security at Kololo.
Supporters of the candidates danced and ululated as they were declared dully nominated in an exercise presided over by IPC National Electoral Affairs chairman Rubaramira Ruranga.
However, speculation about the absence of Uganda People’s Congress leader Olara Otunnu threatened to overshadow the exercise.
Otunnu fears
The UPC reportedly asked for more time to deal with internal matters—mainly related to Mr Otunnu’s pending court case in which the state accuses him of sedition.
The IPC hastily organised a meeting and agreed to give the UPC a week to finish its internal processes and present its candidate for nomination.
Dr Besigye said Otunnu will show up for nominations as soon as the opposition successfully challenges the “illegal” arrest warrant issued against him.
At Kololo, each of the four nominated candidates was allowed 10 minutes to outline their programmes. Prof. Kigongo promised to introduce a federal system of government, saying it is the best solution to dictatorship and the NRM’s decentralisation programme.
Dr Besigye told the audience, “Let us unite and move forward rather than be scattered in fear. The 2011 elections must be about the future of Uganda not about the past.”
your candidate, and if you doubt me, go and ask my wife.”
He added, “If you are a businessman, I am a candidate of your choice, if you are that person who is tired of corruption, nepotism, and corruption with impunity, I am your candidate.”
Mr Mabikke said, “SDP has made its research and it is true that the opposition is going to win the 2011 elections.”
Mr Kyanjo said, “If you are a woman who is interested in a bright future, I am your candidate, and if you doubt me, go and ask my wife.”
He added, “If you are a businessman, I am a candidate of your choice, if you are that person who is tired of corruption, nepotism, and corruption with impunity, I am your candidate.”
Mr Mabikke said, “SDP has made its research and it is true that the opposition is going to win the 2011 elections
Monday, August 16, 2010
Mao: When I become president
Written by Hussein Bogere
Sunday, 15 August 2010 18:03
With few months away to the 2011 presidential elections, HUSSEIN BOGERE asked presidential hopefuls NORBERT MAO and KIZZA BESIGYE what they would do about some of Uganda’s most outstanding problems if they won.
If tomorrow you assumed power, how would your government deal with the issue of corruption?
I believe the best way to deal with corruption is through personal example. You can set up an Anti-Corruption Court, you can appoint an Inspector General of Government, you can have an auditor general, you can even involve the intelligence community, but if you are perceived as corrupt at the top, no one is going to change their ways.
So, three things are required to tackle corruption; leading from the front through personal example, ruthless measures against well known thieves, and the society frowning upon and shunning those in possession of ill-gotten wealth. As long as we praise thieves, thieving will be considered normal. And that has undermined the reputation of politicians.
Politics is now seen as an avenue for eating, not an avenue for leadership. Personal example is the key in fighting corruption. As we say, you cannot preach water and drink wine; you must walk the talk. I have said before that the fish rots from the head. The rot in the society needs major surgery. As president, I would tackle corruption ruthlessly, as opposed to what Museveni is doing which is similar to treating a cancer using Vaseline. The cancer has got to be cut out.
There seems to be a breakdown of public infrastructure in spite of the large amounts of money pumped in, how differently could the sector be handled?
The NRM government has been trying to undermine what was done in the past simply because they don’t want to acknowledge that the UPC government ever did anything good. But the public works department saved us a lot of money. It had employees who maintained specific sections of the road by making sure that no road was neglected. We would revive the public works department.
We will also invest in the railway because it would take away the burden from the roads so that they are largely for light loads. We would also empower local governments with equipment so that most of the work is done by government employees as opposed to private contractors who charge several times more than the normal cost of the road. We would revise the procurement process so that it is tighter. We would disclose the amount the government is willing to spend to eliminate competition based on pricing.
The breakdown of the infrastructure is partly to blame for the congestion within the city, but how can it be decongested?
Actually, we believe in another capital city. I think Kampala should be a commercial city and we build a new administrative city. Nigeria has done it, Tanzania has done it, and Brazil did it decades ago. A government led by the DP would definitely consult and come up with a new political capital. As for the congestion in Kampala, there are only three things to be done.
We have got to ensure that we have bigger roads and that means enforcing building regulations. It is not too difficult to enforce building regulations. Our government would go into a joint venture to provide public transportation. For those who don’t want to use passenger service vehicles, the licence fee would go higher. That will help deal with how many taxis or boda-bodas we have, particularly for the central business district. If you are operating there, the cost of the licence will determine whether you really get involved in that kind of business.
UTODA can be a Uganda government joint venture where government can guarantee huge loans for them to bring in buses. We also need to create some parks within the city and we should have at least 15 bus terminals in the area around Kampala with clearly demarcated bus stops, and that means we must get the expertise needed to plan a public transportation system. We will also enforce the traffic court. Right now our city is a free for all.
How do you rate the health sector?
Our health is in a shambles; that is why those who can afford it go abroad. Most Ugandans know that our health system was better in the decades past than now. Those days Mulago was a world class hospital. I still believe the government can transform Mulago into a world-class hospital and we can transform other health centres into modern facilities.
There has got to be a combination of public and private health services. We would procure modern medical equipment. The reason why people go to India and other places is because in Uganda we don’t have the basic equipment. There is a long queue in Mulago for those who want examination by endoscopy. Basic diagnostic machines are not available.
Secondly, we would increase the pay for health workers, probably anything up to Shs 3 million and more. Our policy would be to stem the brain drain. They need houses, good working conditions, assurance that they need to keep their body and souls within Uganda. We would also have to invest in training specialists. Uganda needs a younger team of specialists.
New diseases and epidemics are breaking out in Uganda. We must be able to invest in that kind of specialisation, and also in research. Our government would publish a patient bill of rights. A patient needs to know that when I go to a hospital these are my rights and no one can put a discount on them. We would have strategic partnerships in the region.
Why can’t East African countries invest in a health facility where heart surgeries and other complicated surgeries can be done? We can bring those specialists from Indian and we have a hospital within the region. There is no reason why we should not have a facility in our region where people can have these advanced medical examinations and treatments that would save our people the expenses of going abroad. I also believe that the health budget is too low.
We have got to increase the health budget so that essential drugs are available, but above all, our government would invest more in preventive healthcare. We still don’t have the financial muscle to do all the things we would want to do. There are simple things that citizens have to do; drinking boiled water, sleeping under a mosquito net, using pit latrines, basic sanitation. And also, health is not about hospitals and medicines. We would make sure that our approach to public health is holistic.
If you don’t provide clean water to the people, there is no way they are going to be healthy, if they are too poor, their diet is going to be predominantly starch; then they end up with diabetes. We would revive the public health sector.
There must be vigorous enforcement of the public health laws. We would also protect our citizens from being victims of dumping. Most of the drugs that come into the country are fit for disposal. Uganda is used as a dumping ground. For a country at the level of economic growth of Uganda, prevention would make economic sense.
We need to protect our citizens from quacks; we need supervision of health workers, an army of public health inspectors to ensure that people know that they have a responsibility to the public. I think the government has left the citizens at the mercy of private clinic owners. The government must ensure that it is present in the health sector. It is not enough to claim that people are buying drugs or training a few doctors. What the citizens want is that those who mistreat citizens pay a price.
You have been known to be critical of UPE and USE introduced by the NRM government, how differently would you approach them?
By having an education system that is not equitable, we are developing two Ugandas; the Uganda of the rich and one of the poor. It was actually good for government to offer universal education and a level of access in secondary education. But access isn’t enough, we also need quality. The world is very competitive. Many of the kids who go to UPE schools are doomed to 3rd rate education.
The only ones that escape are the lucky ones that get a sponsor. The education in the university depends on grades. You cannot get good grades unless you go to the good schools. That means the poor are being marginalised. I believe that by only concentrating on access as opposed to quality, the government is just giving the poor some painkiller, not a cure.
In my view, our kids go to school so that they can learn social skills, how to take care of their bodies, to figure out solutions to problems that are going to confront them in their lives, so as to deepen their faith. In other words, we need a holistic education system. We cannot just have an education system that is exam centred. The education system should not just be about printing certificates.
We would review the education system completely. What is required is that government should upgrade the schools around the country; that teachers have houses. Our teachers should also be well paid. The low pay for teachers has turned them into laughing stocks. I believe we have got to make UPE schools suitable for anybody. Right now anybody who has got a bit of money is scared of taking his kid to a UPE school.
Another issue that is co-joined with education is employment, or the lack of it. Is this a problem in Uganda and if so, how can it be tackled?
Uganda needs to concentrate on polytechnic education. There are many people clad in neckties and suits with clipboards chasing very few jobs. The Ugandan economy creates less than 20,000 jobs every year yet more than 50,000 people graduate every year. So, we are only meeting 40% of the job needs and the figures are cumulative.
What we need now is to tap into the global economy by having information and call centres the way India is doing, so that we can give international jobs locally. Secondly, we need an education system to equip our people with skills to make something, whether chairs or candles, or table clothes; you have something to sell and that means all you need to do is get a buyer.
But if all you can do is to say that you can do anything when asked, then it is a disaster. It is important, in my view, that our universities be linked to the job market, diversify our education system, teach people trade that equips them with means to make something that they can sell, tap into global trends using technology, harness the power of the internet to create opportunities for our people. We also need to consider the need for relevance.
We need to invest in sciences. There will never be a shortage of opportunities for those who are skilled in computer, mechanical, or even civil engineering. We need to train more doctors and look after them. We need to interest our people in fields like agriculture.
People must know that you can get rich through organic farming, green houses, you can tap into international markets. In the next election, the question of employment is going to be very crucial. A problem like unemployment requires innovation, that is why we are proposing that our government would invest in sectors that are modern; science and technology, computers, call centres and tour guides.
Public infrastructure also offers opportunities for jobs every time we have highways and dams being built, school and hospital projects. All those are opportunities for jobs. We must make sure that there is a hub where Ugandans can get information on job opportunities. It is possible we can create 100,000 jobs every year.
One of the avenues the NRM has used to create jobs for its cadres is through balkanisation, will your government reverse the process?
As a general policy we don’t need new districts because that has not improved service delivery. Our challenge is to strengthen sub-counties so that they can give us access to services that districts can give. The districts have now become a lounge for job seekers. I am not an apologist of these new districts. My view would be to build stronger sub-county governments.
The discovery of oil is another issue that is proving to be contentious, how can it be handled to avoid conflict?
Uganda, as the cliché goes, is gifted by nature but, we are cursed with corrupt leaders. The question, as we go into 2011, is who would you trust with Uganda’s oil wealth? To manage oil wealth requires a government which is not tainted with corruption. If we elect NRM, then we know our oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds shared between a clique, which is in charge of government and probably some foreign interests.
The ordinary citizens may not benefit. But what would we do with the oil? I don’t know what is going to happen in Southern Sudan, but if it is independent, then it is possible for Uganda to collaborate with Southern Sudan to have one oil refinery in Uganda to refine the oil in Sudan and the one we are to extract.
So, it would require some cross-border collaboration. Secondly, we will also ensure that we get involved in some retail business because cash flow is very important. Countries like Venezuela are benefiting from having petrol stations in North and South America. I have proposed before that Uganda could consider acquiring the outlets of Shell.
Other people think that government should not be in that kind of business but I believe you can have efficiently run parastatals like National Water and Sewarage Corporation. Thirdly, this oil doesn’t belong only to those who are alive today, but also the unborn. It is our duty to create a future fund where the money from oil can be kept so that even those who will be born when there is no more oil flowing will benefit from the oil money.
It works in Norway. We would offer better stewardship for oil than any other government on account of our fight against corruption. So the challenge is of good stewardship and this means that you must know that this is a public asset, not private.
And finally, federalism and Buganda issues which have become a hot potato in our politics. Have your views changed on federalism?
Not at all, I belong to DP and since 1961 it has supported federalism. You could call it democratic federalism; there is no contradiction between being strongly republican and also being strongly decentralised. There is no overwhelming reason why our government shouldn’t support federalism.
Implementing federalism would also reduce this winner-take-all mentality. It would reduce the life and death struggle for power which we currently witness in Uganda. It would also make the sharing of national wealth equitable. Right now, local governments receive 20% of the national budget. Under federalism the figure would increase, giving the local government more say in prioritisation and allocation of public resources.
I also believe that the struggle for power would reduce because if power is at the local level, the struggle to capture Kampala would be less fierce because there would be power at these levels. DP will hold a national conference to discuss this matter and then the question will be put to a national referendum so that it is settled once and for all.
How will your government improve the wellbeing of its citizens?
First of all, we would guarantee a minimum budget of agriculture at 10%. That is not too big; it is actually what was agreed on in Maputo. In Uganda, the agriculture budget is being cut very frequently yet it employs over 70% of our people. I think that is where most of our money should go. Secondly, we would create what we call a citizens’ empowerment fund to support small and medium size enterprises.
Thirdly, we shall not be shy to lock out foreigners from retail trade. Our government would invite investors in wholesale trade, retail trade would be exclusively for citizens. I think it is important that we have a policy that protects certain sectors. We also believe that we should project our strength by negotiating on issues of trade.
We should be able to export some of our organic fruits to these foreign markets and make sure we project our strengths. Our government would strengthen our ability to bargain because much as we are weak, we are not as weak as we think. It is only that we haven’t known our strength. We can negotiate as a block, either as East Africa or Africa.
In short, our agenda for fighting poverty would be promoting exports, investing in agriculture to support small and medium enterprises, opening more retail avenues for our people, and also re-tooling our people. We will also revive cooperatives. We believe cooperatives allowed access to markets to even the people in the villages. We would also need to open a farmers’ bank. The cooperative bank was shut down so farmers need to contend with these loan sharks.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Is 'Grandpa Wen' as nice as he seems?
By Michael Bristow
BBC News, Beijing
Mr Wen has visited the scene of several recent natural disasters, including landslide-hit Zhouqu Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stood shoulder to shoulder with rescuers as they searched for survivors at the scene of a recent landslide in Gansu province.
Dressed in casual clothes and wearing an expression of concern, he spoke words of encouragement to residents trapped beneath the rubble of their collapsed homes.
"Folks, hold on - we're trying to pull you out," he shouted in the direction of where two people were thought to be still alive.
This is not the first time Mr Wen has visited a disaster or shown sympathy with ordinary people struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing society.
He has consoled the elderly, sympathised with stranded travellers and shed public tears.
It has allowed the premier to become perhaps the country's favourite politician. He is seen as a man of the people and known affectionately as Grandpa Wen.
But not everyone believes this image to be a true reflection of the premier's character.
The title of a new book by Chinese writer Yu Jie leaves little doubt about the views of its author. It is entitled China's Best Actor: Wen Jiabao.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The policies supported by the premier are very different from his behaviour in front of the media ”
End Quote
Yu Jie
Author
Mr Yu contends that Mr Wen's frequent visits to the scenes of disaster are just a show of concern; he does not support the policies that would really show he cares.
"[Chinese President] Hu Jintao's personality is steady and cold. He likes to give orders from behind the scenes. Acting is not his strong point," reads one extract from the book.
"Wen Jiabao makes up for his shortage. He likes to be down mines, visiting farmhouses, crying his heart out," it goes
Mr Yu believes the premier is acting, only showing he cares so people will maintain their trust in the government.
Contradictions
The 37-year-old writer is not alone in these views, but he is certainly in the minority in China, as a selection of online comments following the premier's visit to the landslide reveal.
"If we had more people like Grandpa Wen in China, our country would be more civilised, stronger and richer," said one bowled-over internet user.
Author Yu Jie says that he is monitored by security personnel "We have no fear when disaster happens because we have such a good premier," said another.
But Mr Yu, who has no special contacts within the higher echelons of the Chinese Communist Party, merely advises readers to consider the facts.
"The policies supported by the premier are very different from his behaviour in front of the media and the public. Sometimes they contradict each other," said the writer in an interview.
Mr Yu, whose book is out on Monday, cites the example of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008.
While visiting Sichuan, Mr Wen promised parents whose children died in their classrooms that they would be told why so many schools collapsed in the earthquake.
But the premier never followed up on that promise, said Mr Yu. Instead, independent researchers who tried to find their own answers to this question have been locked up.
It is difficult to assess the accuracy of the author's viewpoint: Chinese politicians, even Mr Wen, rarely give interviews and those they do tend to focus on policies not image.
But one man who has worked with Mr Wen, former official Bao Tong, who lost his job and was imprisoned after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, seems to think the premier's concern is genuine.
Questioned
It is less difficult to work out why Mr Yu's views are in the minority.
Through their control of the media, China's leaders are able to guard their image in a way that would be impossible without censorship.
Authors who reflect a different point of view are not able to publish books in mainland China. The offering about Mr Wen can only be released in Hong Kong, which has more liberal publishing laws.
Many authors, like political activists, are also monitored by the police.
Mr Yu said he often sees security officers outside his home, particularly at sensitive times, such as when China's annual parliamentary session is being held.
When the authorities found out he was planning to publish a book on Mr Wen - the writer revealed it to friends on the social networking site Twitter - he was hauled in for questioning.
Despite the problems, Mr Yu thinks publishing his book is worth the risk. "I think modern citizens in a modern society should have the right to criticise and be suspicious of their leaders.
"The purpose of this book is not only to criticise individuals and the communist system, but also to develop the idea of freedom of speech.
BBC News, Beijing
Mr Wen has visited the scene of several recent natural disasters, including landslide-hit Zhouqu Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stood shoulder to shoulder with rescuers as they searched for survivors at the scene of a recent landslide in Gansu province.
"Folks, hold on - we're trying to pull you out," he shouted in the direction of where two people were thought to be still alive.
This is not the first time Mr Wen has visited a disaster or shown sympathy with ordinary people struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing society.
He has consoled the elderly, sympathised with stranded travellers and shed public tears.
It has allowed the premier to become perhaps the country's favourite politician. He is seen as a man of the people and known affectionately as Grandpa Wen.
But not everyone believes this image to be a true reflection of the premier's character.
The title of a new book by Chinese writer Yu Jie leaves little doubt about the views of its author. It is entitled China's Best Actor: Wen Jiabao.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The policies supported by the premier are very different from his behaviour in front of the media ”
End Quote
Yu Jie
Author
Mr Yu contends that Mr Wen's frequent visits to the scenes of disaster are just a show of concern; he does not support the policies that would really show he cares.
"[Chinese President] Hu Jintao's personality is steady and cold. He likes to give orders from behind the scenes. Acting is not his strong point," reads one extract from the book.
"Wen Jiabao makes up for his shortage. He likes to be down mines, visiting farmhouses, crying his heart out," it goes
Mr Yu believes the premier is acting, only showing he cares so people will maintain their trust in the government.
Contradictions
The 37-year-old writer is not alone in these views, but he is certainly in the minority in China, as a selection of online comments following the premier's visit to the landslide reveal.
"If we had more people like Grandpa Wen in China, our country would be more civilised, stronger and richer," said one bowled-over internet user.
Author Yu Jie says that he is monitored by security personnel "We have no fear when disaster happens because we have such a good premier," said another.
"The policies supported by the premier are very different from his behaviour in front of the media and the public. Sometimes they contradict each other," said the writer in an interview.
Mr Yu, whose book is out on Monday, cites the example of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008.
While visiting Sichuan, Mr Wen promised parents whose children died in their classrooms that they would be told why so many schools collapsed in the earthquake.
But the premier never followed up on that promise, said Mr Yu. Instead, independent researchers who tried to find their own answers to this question have been locked up.
It is difficult to assess the accuracy of the author's viewpoint: Chinese politicians, even Mr Wen, rarely give interviews and those they do tend to focus on policies not image.
But one man who has worked with Mr Wen, former official Bao Tong, who lost his job and was imprisoned after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, seems to think the premier's concern is genuine.
Questioned
It is less difficult to work out why Mr Yu's views are in the minority.
Through their control of the media, China's leaders are able to guard their image in a way that would be impossible without censorship.
Authors who reflect a different point of view are not able to publish books in mainland China. The offering about Mr Wen can only be released in Hong Kong, which has more liberal publishing laws.
Many authors, like political activists, are also monitored by the police.
Mr Yu said he often sees security officers outside his home, particularly at sensitive times, such as when China's annual parliamentary session is being held.
When the authorities found out he was planning to publish a book on Mr Wen - the writer revealed it to friends on the social networking site Twitter - he was hauled in for questioning.
Despite the problems, Mr Yu thinks publishing his book is worth the risk. "I think modern citizens in a modern society should have the right to criticise and be suspicious of their leaders.
"The purpose of this book is not only to criticise individuals and the communist system, but also to develop the idea of freedom of speech.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The story of the African unity effort
The 2010 summit of African heads of state and government opens in Kampala today. It is the latest in many summits by African leaders that go back to the founding of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) on May 25, 1963 as TIMOTHY KALYEGIRA reviews:-
TRADE TIES: AU Commissioner for Trade Elisabeth Tankeu (l) with Vice President Gilbert Bukenya after launching the African Private Sector Forum in Kampala on Thursday.. PHOTO BY YUSUF MUZIRANSA
The drive to make something of Africa can be traced back to the 1920s and the early efforts by such leaders as the Jamaican Marcus Garvey with his demand that Africans and descendants of Africa dispersed worldwide reclaim their roots and return to their mother continent.
“Africa for the Africans!” was the rallying call. Thousands of Africans were enlisted to fight on behalf of the European colonial nations during the Second World War. They fought in trenches and the open battlefield with European soldiers. They witnessed Europeans fear, fight, win, lose, get injured, and die.
Many Africans, used to Whites in a dominant position at home in the colonies, were shocked to discover that these men too were human after all. The African fighters also felt that since they had risked their lives and shed their blood for this essentially European war, then they should be rewarded with self-rule, if not outright independence. Most independence movements in Africa, then, started or at least gained
momentum after the end of the Second World War.
Soul-searching
Many African students had also been to Europe and the United States for their university education. The racism they encountered and the aloofness of western society caused them to engage in soul-searching.
In 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) was founded in South Africa. It was the first political party in Africa. The ANC, even in those early years, was already viewing Africa as a whole and not just the situation in South Africa.
Among these vocal students in Africa were Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Kenneth Kaunda, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Namdi Azikiwe, Ahmed Ben Bella, Julius Nyerere and many others who would go on to become either the first prime ministers of their nations or first presidents and foreign ministers.
The racist policies of White-ruled South Africa, the tensions created by the post-War Cold War and the instability brought on by military coup after military coup starting in 1963 helped solidify a sense of African unity.
Many African children born in the 1960s were named after these African leaders and it is not uncommon to meet people in their 50s and 40s today named Patrick Lumumba, Ben Bella, or “Kinyata” in much of Black Africa. That demonstrated the extent to which even the ordinary people embraced the new sense of oneness on the continent.
However, no sooner had the 1960s decade started than it quickly became clear that this was going to be a disastrous beginning for Africa. There were assassinations in Togo and Nigeria of leaders, military coups in Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Comoros, Madagascar, Libya, Somalia, Lesotho, Ethiopia and several other states from the 1960s to the 1990s.
Power struggle
Even as recently as 2000s, just when there was hope that there would be no more coups in Africa, coups resumed in Mauritania, Guinea, Niger and the Comoros.
With the arrival of the new millennium in 2000, the visionaries and dreamers around the world and Africa started looking to the future. There was general talk that this coming 21st century should be Africa’s, it should see a revival or “renaissance” of the African people.
Chief among these dreamers was the mercurial and colourful Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi and the then South African President Thabo Mbeki.
Col. Gaddafi started a campaign to reinvigorate the African unity drive, making several trips across the continent and pushed for the name of the OAU to be changed to the African Union, which it became in 2001.
Looking back now, it is hard to see what it was that filled statesmen and the media in Africa and beyond with hope that there was to be an African revival.
In all the efforts toward the achievement of African unity, it was obvious that Africa’s statesmen and bureaucrats were modelling their creations along the lines of the European cooperation moves. The name “African Union” sounded much like the “European Union”.
These Africans who studied in Europe and the United States and fought in British, French and Portuguese units during the war also saw something else; the undeniable advancement, orderliness and prosperity that were western society.
There was never any question that at some stage in the future, Africa’s European colonies had to start moving toward and eventually gain full self-rule. However, a few far-sighted and realistic young and western-educated Africans also knew that the attainment of political self-rule was only the start of a much bigger struggle.This much bigger struggle was the quiet realisation that it could be possible to win political or “flag” independence but still remain in a state of dependence and subordination to European powers and exploitation, if some form of economic unity and growth were not achieved.
With the formation of the OAU came other regional efforts, among them over the years, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) , the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Kagera Basin Organisation (KBO), the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), and several other bodies.
It was not clear at the time they were founded and it remains unclear to this day what many of these regional groupings of nations stand for.
The longest-running pan-African effort on the continent has been the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament. It was first played in 1957 and has been one of the few consistent all-Africa efforts, apart from the heads of state summits.
This much bigger struggle was the quiet realisation that it could be possible to win political or “flag” independence but still remain in a state of dependence and subordination to European powers and exploitation, if some form of economic unity and growth were not achieved.
With the formation of the OAU came other regional efforts, among them over the years, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) , the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Kagera Basin Organisation (KBO), the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), and several other bodies.
It was not clear at the time they were founded and it remains unclear to this day what many of these regional groupings of nations stand for.
The longest-running pan-African effort on the continent has been the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament. It was first played in 1957 and has been one of the few consistent all-Africa efforts, apart from the heads of state summits.
More plans
The All-Africa Games - a festival of sports mapped after the Olympic and Commonwealth Games - is also staged. In recent years, there have been other major African events spreading into the entertainment fields, notably the Big Brother Africa reality television show, the M-Net Face of Africa modelling competition, the Zain Africa quiz challenge and the Kora African music awards
Most of these pan-African entertainment competitions have been held in South Africa as South Africa is the only country with the resources, glamour and facilities to host such major television extravaganzas.
As a matter of fact, one of the major ironies of recent African history has been how the pariah country, South Africa, moved from its isolation of the apartheid years to becoming not only the pride of the continent but the one country that has helped drive economic growth in the fields of mining, mobile telephony, supermarket chains and the media.
The journey from most shunned country to most glorified climaxed this month with the hosting of the football World Cup finals in South Africa. However, the African unity effort also has shown its weaker side over the decades. When famine struck Ethiopia and eastern Sudan in 1984, it was a British Pop music campaign that brought the tragedy to international prominence, not the OAU headquarters in Addis Ababa.
With civil war raging in Somalia, even after desperate calls have been made to African countries to contribute peacekeeping troops to the war-torn country, so far it has only been Burundi and Uganda that have responded and neighbouring Ethiopia intervened in any direct way.
Africans have long had an ambivalent view of each other. Many in sub-Saharan Africa often complain about the racism they face in North Africa and during the World Cup finals or the Africa Cup of Nations, there remains a distinct air of indifference by Black African countries when it comes to supporting the
HomeNewsNational National
Most of these pan-African entertainment competitions have been held in South Africa as South Africa is the only country with the resources, glamour and facilities to host such major television extravaganzas.
As a matter of fact, one of the major ironies of recent African history has been how the pariah country, South Africa, moved from its isolation of the apartheid years to becoming not only the pride of the continent but the one country that has helped drive economic growth in the fields of mining, mobile telephony, supermarket chains and the media.
The journey from most shunned country to most glorified climaxed this month with the hosting of the football World Cup finals in South Africa. However, the African unity effort also has shown its weaker side over the decades. When famine struck Ethiopia and eastern Sudan in 1984, it was a British Pop music campaign that brought the tragedy to international prominence, not the OAU headquarters in Addis Ababa.
With civil war raging in Somalia, even after desperate calls have been made to African countries to contribute peacekeeping troops to the war-torn country, so far it has only been Burundi and Uganda that have responded and neighbouring Ethiopia intervened in any direct way.
Africans have long had an ambivalent view of each other. Many in sub-Saharan Africa often complain about the racism they face in North Africa and during the World Cup finals or the Africa Cup of Nations, there remains a distinct air of indifference by Black African countries when it comes to supporting the North African teams.
African migrants and refugees regularly complain of mistreatment in North Africa as they attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea into Europe.
Most of the gruesome massacres of the 1990s civil wars in Burundi, Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Somalia have been of African against African.
There is still very little trade between African countries. Communications ventures like the SEACOM, ESSYS, and other undersea fibre optic Internet and data cables, although they carry the symbolism of African connectivity, are largely European in financing and capital.
The Sudanese businessman, Mr Mohammed Ibrahim, has instituted a prize to be awarded to African leaders who either govern well or leave power without a fight. It says a lot about the state of leadership in Africa that this prize had to be created at all or that in some years, no African leader meets the criterion that the prize demands.
In November 2008 when the US Senator, Mr Barack Obama, was elected as the first Black President of the United States, the euphoria that greeted that way was one of the greatest in recent African history.
Many Africans were convinced that this was the start of a new day for them. By mid-2010, the Obama euphoria had largely died out across Africa as Africans went about their back-breaking daily routine and struggles, having realised that apart from the token and symbolism, Mr Obama was no more a voice of hope for Africa than his predecessors in the White House.
This inability of President Obama to impact the continent of his birth should not have come as a surprise. Before Mr Obama, there had been several key African and Black first in key international positions but with little to show for it.
Kofi Annan in the 1990s and Chief Emeka Anyoku of Ghana and Nigeria became United Nations and Commonwealth Secretaries General respectively, but the bearing of these offices did not halt the 1990s civil wars and the ravages of Aids, for example.
Africa remains a weak continent. It remains the poorest continent in almost all measurements - its contribution to world trade, number of phones, TV sets, doctors per 1,000 people, Internet connectivity, number of Twitter and Facebook users, road network size, electricity consumption, literacy and other development or progress indicators.
As a percentage of any global figure, Africa consistently shows lower single-digit figures. Some of this weakness can be seen in the meetings that world power nations hold with Africa. China and France in recent years have held joint summits with dozens of African countries and a handful of African countries are regularly invited to G-8 and G-20 in what usually turns out to be more token and politically correct gesture than substantive meeting.
In the 1990s as Africa was being trumpeted as the next frontier of international investment and growth, many did not see an Asian giant rising in the form of China. That 1990s decade was largely squandered by Africa.
Today, China has become the world’s second-largest economy and has swiftly and successfully taken up the place that should have been Africa’s. Africa, for its turn, has become what many would consider a dumping ground for cheap Chinese manufactured goods.
There is also a rush by several established and rising world powers to secure Africa’s gold mines, oil and natural gas reserves that seem to be discovered very often these days.
There are few signs that African countries will be able to pool together their political, diplomatic and military resources to fight off the new designs by foreign powers on their resources.
Cause for celebration?The Africa whose leaders sit in Kampala this week will have a few immediate things to celebrate, most of it being the football World Cup and perhaps the impression in their minds that Africa is now no longer ignored as it once was in world affairs.
Much of this, though, remains unrealistic optimism. As the older generations that remember the days before or not long after independence, many have become circumspect and it is often said by them that on hindsight, the colonial era, with its sense of order and efficiency, might after all have been the golden age of Africa, the humiliation of being ruled notwithstanding.Many more Africans certainly have been tortured, killed, raped, maimed and reduced to poverty in the independence era than those that suffered these abuses during all of the colonial period combined.
The drive to make something of Africa can be traced back to the 1920s and the early efforts by such leaders as the Jamaican Marcus Garvey with his demand that Africans and descendants of Africa dispersed worldwide reclaim their roots and return to their mother continent.
“Africa for the Africans!” was the rallying call. Thousands of Africans were enlisted to fight on behalf of the European colonial nations during the Second World War. They fought in trenches and the open battlefield with European soldiers. They witnessed Europeans fear, fight, win, lose, get injured, and die.
Many Africans, used to Whites in a dominant position at home in the colonies, were shocked to discover that these men too were human after all. The African fighters also felt that since they had risked their lives and shed their blood for this essentially European war, then they should be rewarded with self-rule, if not outright independence. Most independence movements in Africa, then, started or at least gained
momentum after the end of the Second World War.
Soul-searching
Many African students had also been to Europe and the United States for their university education. The racism they encountered and the aloofness of western society caused them to engage in soul-searching.
In 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) was founded in South Africa. It was the first political party in Africa. The ANC, even in those early years, was already viewing Africa as a whole and not just the situation in South Africa.
Among these vocal students in Africa were Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Kenneth Kaunda, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Namdi Azikiwe, Ahmed Ben Bella, Julius Nyerere and many others who would go on to become either the first prime ministers of their nations or first presidents and foreign ministers.
The racist policies of White-ruled South Africa, the tensions created by the post-War Cold War and the instability brought on by military coup after military coup starting in 1963 helped solidify a sense of African unity.
Many African children born in the 1960s were named after these African leaders and it is not uncommon to meet people in their 50s and 40s today named Patrick Lumumba, Ben Bella, or “Kinyata” in much of Black Africa. That demonstrated the extent to which even the ordinary people embraced the new sense of oneness on the continent.
However, no sooner had the 1960s decade started than it quickly became clear that this was going to be a disastrous beginning for Africa. There were assassinations in Togo and Nigeria of leaders, military coups in Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Comoros, Madagascar, Libya, Somalia, Lesotho, Ethiopia and several other states from the 1960s to the 1990s.
Power struggle
Even as recently as 2000s, just when there was hope that there would be no more coups in Africa, coups resumed in Mauritania, Guinea, Niger and the Comoros.
With the arrival of the new millennium in 2000, the visionaries and dreamers around the world and Africa started looking to the future. There was general talk that this coming 21st century should be Africa’s, it should see a revival or “renaissance” of the African people.
Chief among these dreamers was the mercurial and colourful Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi and the then South African President Thabo Mbeki.
Col. Gaddafi started a campaign to reinvigorate the African unity drive, making several trips across the continent and pushed for the name of the OAU to be changed to the African Union, which it became in 2001.
Looking back now, it is hard to see what it was that filled statesmen and the media in Africa and beyond with hope that there was to be an African revival.
In all the efforts toward the achievement of African unity, it was obvious that Africa’s statesmen and bureaucrats were modelling their creations along the lines of the European cooperation moves. The name “African Union” sounded much like the “European Union”.
These Africans who studied in Europe and the United States and fought in British, French and Portuguese units during the war also saw something else; the undeniable advancement, orderliness and prosperity that were western society.
There was never any question that at some stage in the future, Africa’s European colonies had to start moving toward and eventually gain full self-rule. However, a few far-sighted and realistic young and western-educated Africans also knew that the attainment of political self-rule was only the start of a much bigger struggle.This much bigger struggle was the quiet realisation that it could be possible to win political or “flag” independence but still remain in a state of dependence and subordination to European powers and exploitation, if some form of economic unity and growth were not achieved.
With the formation of the OAU came other regional efforts, among them over the years, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) , the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Kagera Basin Organisation (KBO), the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), and several other bodies.
It was not clear at the time they were founded and it remains unclear to this day what many of these regional groupings of nations stand for.
The longest-running pan-African effort on the continent has been the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament. It was first played in 1957 and has been one of the few consistent all-Africa efforts, apart from the heads of state summits.
This much bigger struggle was the quiet realisation that it could be possible to win political or “flag” independence but still remain in a state of dependence and subordination to European powers and exploitation, if some form of economic unity and growth were not achieved.
With the formation of the OAU came other regional efforts, among them over the years, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) , the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Kagera Basin Organisation (KBO), the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), and several other bodies.
It was not clear at the time they were founded and it remains unclear to this day what many of these regional groupings of nations stand for.
The longest-running pan-African effort on the continent has been the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament. It was first played in 1957 and has been one of the few consistent all-Africa efforts, apart from the heads of state summits.
More plans
The All-Africa Games - a festival of sports mapped after the Olympic and Commonwealth Games - is also staged. In recent years, there have been other major African events spreading into the entertainment fields, notably the Big Brother Africa reality television show, the M-Net Face of Africa modelling competition, the Zain Africa quiz challenge and the Kora African music awards
Most of these pan-African entertainment competitions have been held in South Africa as South Africa is the only country with the resources, glamour and facilities to host such major television extravaganzas.
As a matter of fact, one of the major ironies of recent African history has been how the pariah country, South Africa, moved from its isolation of the apartheid years to becoming not only the pride of the continent but the one country that has helped drive economic growth in the fields of mining, mobile telephony, supermarket chains and the media.
The journey from most shunned country to most glorified climaxed this month with the hosting of the football World Cup finals in South Africa. However, the African unity effort also has shown its weaker side over the decades. When famine struck Ethiopia and eastern Sudan in 1984, it was a British Pop music campaign that brought the tragedy to international prominence, not the OAU headquarters in Addis Ababa.
With civil war raging in Somalia, even after desperate calls have been made to African countries to contribute peacekeeping troops to the war-torn country, so far it has only been Burundi and Uganda that have responded and neighbouring Ethiopia intervened in any direct way.
Africans have long had an ambivalent view of each other. Many in sub-Saharan Africa often complain about the racism they face in North Africa and during the World Cup finals or the Africa Cup of Nations, there remains a distinct air of indifference by Black African countries when it comes to supporting the
HomeNewsNational National
Most of these pan-African entertainment competitions have been held in South Africa as South Africa is the only country with the resources, glamour and facilities to host such major television extravaganzas.
As a matter of fact, one of the major ironies of recent African history has been how the pariah country, South Africa, moved from its isolation of the apartheid years to becoming not only the pride of the continent but the one country that has helped drive economic growth in the fields of mining, mobile telephony, supermarket chains and the media.
The journey from most shunned country to most glorified climaxed this month with the hosting of the football World Cup finals in South Africa. However, the African unity effort also has shown its weaker side over the decades. When famine struck Ethiopia and eastern Sudan in 1984, it was a British Pop music campaign that brought the tragedy to international prominence, not the OAU headquarters in Addis Ababa.
With civil war raging in Somalia, even after desperate calls have been made to African countries to contribute peacekeeping troops to the war-torn country, so far it has only been Burundi and Uganda that have responded and neighbouring Ethiopia intervened in any direct way.
Africans have long had an ambivalent view of each other. Many in sub-Saharan Africa often complain about the racism they face in North Africa and during the World Cup finals or the Africa Cup of Nations, there remains a distinct air of indifference by Black African countries when it comes to supporting the North African teams.
African migrants and refugees regularly complain of mistreatment in North Africa as they attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea into Europe.
Most of the gruesome massacres of the 1990s civil wars in Burundi, Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Somalia have been of African against African.
There is still very little trade between African countries. Communications ventures like the SEACOM, ESSYS, and other undersea fibre optic Internet and data cables, although they carry the symbolism of African connectivity, are largely European in financing and capital.
The Sudanese businessman, Mr Mohammed Ibrahim, has instituted a prize to be awarded to African leaders who either govern well or leave power without a fight. It says a lot about the state of leadership in Africa that this prize had to be created at all or that in some years, no African leader meets the criterion that the prize demands.
In November 2008 when the US Senator, Mr Barack Obama, was elected as the first Black President of the United States, the euphoria that greeted that way was one of the greatest in recent African history.
Many Africans were convinced that this was the start of a new day for them. By mid-2010, the Obama euphoria had largely died out across Africa as Africans went about their back-breaking daily routine and struggles, having realised that apart from the token and symbolism, Mr Obama was no more a voice of hope for Africa than his predecessors in the White House.
This inability of President Obama to impact the continent of his birth should not have come as a surprise. Before Mr Obama, there had been several key African and Black first in key international positions but with little to show for it.
Kofi Annan in the 1990s and Chief Emeka Anyoku of Ghana and Nigeria became United Nations and Commonwealth Secretaries General respectively, but the bearing of these offices did not halt the 1990s civil wars and the ravages of Aids, for example.
Africa remains a weak continent. It remains the poorest continent in almost all measurements - its contribution to world trade, number of phones, TV sets, doctors per 1,000 people, Internet connectivity, number of Twitter and Facebook users, road network size, electricity consumption, literacy and other development or progress indicators.
As a percentage of any global figure, Africa consistently shows lower single-digit figures. Some of this weakness can be seen in the meetings that world power nations hold with Africa. China and France in recent years have held joint summits with dozens of African countries and a handful of African countries are regularly invited to G-8 and G-20 in what usually turns out to be more token and politically correct gesture than substantive meeting.
In the 1990s as Africa was being trumpeted as the next frontier of international investment and growth, many did not see an Asian giant rising in the form of China. That 1990s decade was largely squandered by Africa.
Today, China has become the world’s second-largest economy and has swiftly and successfully taken up the place that should have been Africa’s. Africa, for its turn, has become what many would consider a dumping ground for cheap Chinese manufactured goods.
There is also a rush by several established and rising world powers to secure Africa’s gold mines, oil and natural gas reserves that seem to be discovered very often these days.
There are few signs that African countries will be able to pool together their political, diplomatic and military resources to fight off the new designs by foreign powers on their resources.
Cause for celebration?The Africa whose leaders sit in Kampala this week will have a few immediate things to celebrate, most of it being the football World Cup and perhaps the impression in their minds that Africa is now no longer ignored as it once was in world affairs.
Much of this, though, remains unrealistic optimism. As the older generations that remember the days before or not long after independence, many have become circumspect and it is often said by them that on hindsight, the colonial era, with its sense of order and efficiency, might after all have been the golden age of Africa, the humiliation of being ruled notwithstanding.Many more Africans certainly have been tortured, killed, raped, maimed and reduced to poverty in the independence era than those that suffered these abuses during all of the colonial period combined.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Death toll reaches 74
Kampala
The death toll following Sunday night’s bomb explosions that ripped through a city restaurant and sports club climbed to 74 yesterday, as reports trickled in that the Somali Islamist militia group, al Shabaab had claimed responsibility for the attacks.
The development came as President Museveni declared a week of national mourning for victims of the bomb blasts starting today. A statement from Presidency Minister Beatrice Wabudeya said the President had taken the decision “due to the barbaric and cowardly act”.
Reuters news agency quoted Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, al Shabaab’s spokesman, telling reporters in Mogadishu: “Al Shabaab was behind the two bomb blast in Uganda.”
A report by the Chinese news agency Xinhua said a senior member of the Somali terrorist group had said the blasts were reprisal attacks against Uganda for sending peacekeepers to Mogadishu under the auspices of the African Union. “We have reached our object,” said the senior al Shabaab militant, who reportedly declined to be named. “We have killed many Christians in the enemy capital (Kampala).”
Three explosive devices were detonated on Sunday at the Ethiopian Village Restaurant in Kabalagala and at the Kyadondo Rugby Club where hundreds of revellers were watching the World Cup final match between Spain and the Netherlands.
Suspects arrested
Security agencies yesterday made some arrests in connection with the attacks. The police declined to give details, saying the investigations were ongoing. However, a source said one of the suspects was arrested at Oasis Mall in the heart of Kampala.
Primary Health Care Minister James Kakooza told reporters at Mulago Hospital, where friends and relatives of victims of the blasts have pitched camp since Sunday, that at least 70 people had been confirmed dead. But Mr Fred Opolot, the executive director of the Uganda Media Centre, told a media briefing late last evening that a preliminary report put the death toll at 74.
Twenty-eight were Ugandans, 11 Ethiopians/Eritreans, one Irish lady and an Asian. Thirty-three people are still unidentified. “We expect the number to rise because some people were taken to private clinics,” said the minister.
Recounting events in the aftermath of the blast, Mr Kakooza reported that at least 58 people had been admitted at Mulago Hospital “with serious injuries”. “Last night [Sunday] five died on arrival,” he said, “three have since died in intensive care unit.”
The minister said three American nationals who had been admitted at the hospital were transferred yesterday to the International Hospital Kampala “for evacuation to Nairobi.” He also reported that three people were “in critical condition” on life support, while 45 were undergoing surgery after sustaining different injuries including head, chest, abdominal and soft-tissue injury.
“We have ordered the National Medical stores to immediately supply Mulago with x-ray films, canulars and any other medical equipment needed right away,” he said. “Ugandans should be calm because we shall do whatever is possible to save the lives of those still under our care.”
President Museveni visited bed-ridden victims at Mulago and found moment to inspect the bomb blast scenes. All flags on public buildings will fly at half mast today at the start of the weeklong period of national mourning.
Police spokesperson Judith Nabakooba told journalists that of the dead, 15 were killed at the Ethiopian Village and 49 at Lugogo Rugby Club, adding that 10 of the dead were either Ethiopian or Eritrean. She was speaking before the death toll rose to 74.
Ethiopia’s Ambassador to Uganda Terfa Mengesha told Daily Monitor by telephone that preliminary reports had indicated that six Ethiopian nationals had been confirmed dead. “I think the other four were Eritrean,” he said.
Ms Nabakooba said investigations had kicked off in earnest, headed by the Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force to establish who had masterminded the deadly attacks. Her comments came before reports emerged that the al Shabaab had claimed responsibility.
The reports moved to vindicate government suspicions as told by Mr
Fred Opolot, the Media Centre boss, who said the government “suspected this is an act of suicide bombers” and comments by army spokesman Felix Kulayigye who said: “At one of the scenes, investigators identified a severed head of a Somali national, which we suspect could have been a suicide bomber.”
In the recent past, Somali Islamists have threatened to attack Uganda for sending peacekeeping troops to their country to protect the transitional government of President Sheikh Ahmed Sharif.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
MPs order inquiry into illegal immigration
By Yasiin Mugerwa (email the author)
Posted Tuesday, July 6 2010 at 00:00
Members of Parliament yesterday asked the police to investigate the Internal Affairs ministry after a report showed that 323 people had been arrested over illegal immigration. The report compiled by the directorate of citizenship and immigration control office and released yesterday puts Asians of Indian and Chinese origin in lead positions followed by Kenyans.
The MPs on the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee learnt that of the 323 illegal immigrants arrested between July 2008-June 2009, 129 were legalised through unclear circumstances, seven escaped and 21 were only cautioned and released.
Shocking revelations
“In which country would you be arrested for being an illegal immigrant and cautioned, legalised and released?” PAC chairman Nandala Mafabi asked Ministry of Internal Affairs officials led by the Permanent Secretary, Dr Steven Kagoda. “In other countries, our people are kept in detention centres like animals yet here we only caution them and even legalise their stay. This is unfair to Ugandans and we want the police to investigate officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.”
Other illegal immigrants include those from Kenya and Pakistan (eight each), Somalia (three), Chad (five) Sri Lanka (one) (Burundi (one), Turkey (one), Lebanon (one), Guinea and Bangladesh (three).
The lawmakers accused Internal Affairs Ministry officials, who were appearing in the committee to respond to audit queries, of letting down Ugandans in the fight against unemployment. “It’s unfortunate that illegal immigrants have been allowed to compete with Ugandans for the few available jobs in the country,” Mr Mafabi (FDC) said.
Sharing the findings with PAC, Ms Josephine Okwany, the commissioner inspection and legal services said 62 were released after presenting valid immigration documents, 97 were deported and others escaped due to lack of a detention facility.
While Mr Tom Kazibwe (NRM) cited bribery in illegal immigrants’ escape and release, Ms Okwany said: “The Chinese jumped off the Pick-up after we arrested them and escaped. It was not our intention to let them go otherwise we have deported a number of illegal immigrants.”
Lack staff
Dr Kagoda, however, said: “Internal Affairs treats illegal immigrants seriously and we have been carrying out regular swoops but the problem is lack of facilities and staff in the department dealing with inspection at the ministry.”
The committee heard that there were only 15 officers at the inspection and legal services department overseeing issues of illegal immigrants in 110 districts. The department has only two vehicles, something that has complicated government efforts to deal with illegal immigrants.
The Committee noted that there were many people whose permits expired but were still in the country. Mr Okello Oduman (FDC) said some illegal foreigners pretend to be investors and operate small businesses in the guise of investment to the disadvantage of unemployed Ugandans.
Posted Tuesday, July 6 2010 at 00:00
Members of Parliament yesterday asked the police to investigate the Internal Affairs ministry after a report showed that 323 people had been arrested over illegal immigration. The report compiled by the directorate of citizenship and immigration control office and released yesterday puts Asians of Indian and Chinese origin in lead positions followed by Kenyans.
The MPs on the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee learnt that of the 323 illegal immigrants arrested between July 2008-June 2009, 129 were legalised through unclear circumstances, seven escaped and 21 were only cautioned and released.
Shocking revelations
“In which country would you be arrested for being an illegal immigrant and cautioned, legalised and released?” PAC chairman Nandala Mafabi asked Ministry of Internal Affairs officials led by the Permanent Secretary, Dr Steven Kagoda. “In other countries, our people are kept in detention centres like animals yet here we only caution them and even legalise their stay. This is unfair to Ugandans and we want the police to investigate officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.”
Other illegal immigrants include those from Kenya and Pakistan (eight each), Somalia (three), Chad (five) Sri Lanka (one) (Burundi (one), Turkey (one), Lebanon (one), Guinea and Bangladesh (three).
The lawmakers accused Internal Affairs Ministry officials, who were appearing in the committee to respond to audit queries, of letting down Ugandans in the fight against unemployment. “It’s unfortunate that illegal immigrants have been allowed to compete with Ugandans for the few available jobs in the country,” Mr Mafabi (FDC) said.
Sharing the findings with PAC, Ms Josephine Okwany, the commissioner inspection and legal services said 62 were released after presenting valid immigration documents, 97 were deported and others escaped due to lack of a detention facility.
While Mr Tom Kazibwe (NRM) cited bribery in illegal immigrants’ escape and release, Ms Okwany said: “The Chinese jumped off the Pick-up after we arrested them and escaped. It was not our intention to let them go otherwise we have deported a number of illegal immigrants.”
Lack staff
Dr Kagoda, however, said: “Internal Affairs treats illegal immigrants seriously and we have been carrying out regular swoops but the problem is lack of facilities and staff in the department dealing with inspection at the ministry.”
The committee heard that there were only 15 officers at the inspection and legal services department overseeing issues of illegal immigrants in 110 districts. The department has only two vehicles, something that has complicated government efforts to deal with illegal immigrants.
The Committee noted that there were many people whose permits expired but were still in the country. Mr Okello Oduman (FDC) said some illegal foreigners pretend to be investors and operate small businesses in the guise of investment to the disadvantage of unemployed Ugandans.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Chief sees democratic 'ray of hope' with Legco vote likely in the bag
There is a "ray of hope" for democracy in Hong Kong, according to the chief executive, with Legco now likely to approve a revised constitutional reform package tomorrow.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen made the comment yesterday when announcing that the Executive Council had approved in principle a Democratic Party proposal to revise the package.
The party's "one-person, two votes" proposal, which would see the public returning the five new district council functional constituency seats in the 2012 Legislative Council elections, will be added at the domestic legislation stage if the reform package is passed tomorrow.
The revision is crucial for swinging the vote in the government's favor.
Tsang, appealing to all lawmakers to back the package, said: "We believe this proposal will make our elections more democratic and will pave the way for universal suffrage."
The motions to be voted on in Legco - regarding constitutional amendments on 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council election methods - will remain unchanged.
"The political reality is that our original package falls short by a few votes to meet the 40-vote threshold for its passage in Legco," Tsang said. "But we did not give up ... I am very happy that we have made a major breakthrough."
He added: "After discussions with various political factions in Legco recently, I am very happy to see a ray of hope in progress in democracy."
Tsang said room for negotiation arose after the Democratic Party no longer insisted that all demands it raised last month had to be met.
Political groups including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Federation of Trade Unions, Economic Synergy, Liberal Party and Professional Forum have pledged to support the revised package "in the best interest of the community," Tsang said.
Under the latest proposals, candidates for the five new functional constituency seats will be nominated by elected district councillors and then elected by 3.2 million registered voters who do not have a vote in functional constituencies, on a one person, one vote basis. The existing Legco district council seat will be returned through a vote among elected district councillors.
That means every voter will have two votes in the 2012 Legco elections, one for the geographical constituencies, and the other for functional constituencies.
Secretary for Justice Wong Yan- lung said the revised method is in line with the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision in 2007.
Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman for the central government liaison office as saying the office eagerly supports the government's decision in accepting the proposal.
In Beijing, NPC Standing Committee member and former Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai said this proposal has set a precedent for the way of electing Legco district council seats.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen made the comment yesterday when announcing that the Executive Council had approved in principle a Democratic Party proposal to revise the package.
Chief Secretary Henry Tsang has a word with Donald Tsang at a press conference yesterday
The party's "one-person, two votes" proposal, which would see the public returning the five new district council functional constituency seats in the 2012 Legislative Council elections, will be added at the domestic legislation stage if the reform package is passed tomorrow.
The revision is crucial for swinging the vote in the government's favor.
Tsang, appealing to all lawmakers to back the package, said: "We believe this proposal will make our elections more democratic and will pave the way for universal suffrage."
The motions to be voted on in Legco - regarding constitutional amendments on 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council election methods - will remain unchanged.
"The political reality is that our original package falls short by a few votes to meet the 40-vote threshold for its passage in Legco," Tsang said. "But we did not give up ... I am very happy that we have made a major breakthrough."
He added: "After discussions with various political factions in Legco recently, I am very happy to see a ray of hope in progress in democracy."
Tsang said room for negotiation arose after the Democratic Party no longer insisted that all demands it raised last month had to be met.
Political groups including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Federation of Trade Unions, Economic Synergy, Liberal Party and Professional Forum have pledged to support the revised package "in the best interest of the community," Tsang said.
Under the latest proposals, candidates for the five new functional constituency seats will be nominated by elected district councillors and then elected by 3.2 million registered voters who do not have a vote in functional constituencies, on a one person, one vote basis. The existing Legco district council seat will be returned through a vote among elected district councillors.
That means every voter will have two votes in the 2012 Legco elections, one for the geographical constituencies, and the other for functional constituencies.
Secretary for Justice Wong Yan- lung said the revised method is in line with the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision in 2007.
Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman for the central government liaison office as saying the office eagerly supports the government's decision in accepting the proposal.
In Beijing, NPC Standing Committee member and former Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai said this proposal has set a precedent for the way of electing Legco district council seats.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Museveni to Mengo: I’ll cut off your head
President says Buganda caused 1966 crisis
HOIMA - President Museveni has accused the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, of attempting to divide Ugandans along ethnic lines. This is the first time the President has openly accused the Kabaka of ethnic hatred – another indication of how wide the rift between his NRM government and Buganda Kingdom is growing.
Speaking during the 16th coronation anniversary celebrations of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, in Hoima on Friday, Museveni warned that he “will cut off” the head of any kingdom that oversteps its mandate and takes sides in partisan politics.
The President, speaking two days after two top advisors of the Kabaka, Joseph Mulwamyamuli Semwogerere and Dan Mulika, joined a coalition of opposition parties seeking to unseat him in next year’s elections, said kingdoms should stick to cultural issues and avoid politics.
“I have never baptised anyone, though I know how they baptise. I am a Christian but I do not baptise—that is not my role. We left that role to the clergy; so, cultural leaders should [also] play their roles,” he said.
“If the Kabaka thinks he can disunite our people, he is just dreaming; he should wake up; we cannot allow him even for a minute,” Museveni added.
“Kingdoms should play their roles outlined in the Constitution, Buganda inclusive. If any kingdom crosses its boundaries and interferes with my roles, I will cut off its head and there will be no case to answer,” Museveni said.
Delegations of Banyala from Bugerere and Baruli from Nakasongola clapped and cheered every time the President attacked the Buganda monarch. The Banyala and Baruli have declared autonomy from Buganda Kingdom—a move opposed by Buganda, which accuses the central government of propping up separatist groups in its territory.
The leader of the Banyala (Sabanyala), Baker Kimeze, attended the function during which he was recognised as a cultural leader by Bunyoro with rituals performed on him by Bunyoro’s chief prince, Albert Kasaija Okwir.
Buganda Kingdom, the biggest and best organised in Uganda, was not represented.
1966 CRISIS
The President said the 1966 Buganda crisis was caused by the kingdom itself when the Kabaka started interfering with the role of political leaders. He warned of a similar crisis if Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom, does not stick to cultural issues.
This is the first time the President has accused Buganda of causing the crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms and forced Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the father of reigning monarch Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, into exile. Previously, the President has accused the late former president, Apollo Milton Obote, of igniting the problem by abrogating the constitution. Analysts say the 1966 crisis is partly responsible for Uganda’s troubled history.
“It was not easy to convince my colleagues [in NRM] to have these kingdoms restored. We thought that kingdoms could work with modern governments if well handled, so they play their constitutional roles,” Museveni said.
He added that the Kabaka of Buganda has crossed his boundaries and warned that he might cause gloomy days for his kingdom.
Museveni accused Buganda, his major ally in the Luwero bush war that brought him to power in 1986, of doing nothing to develop the country but only promoting ethnic hatred.
“Mengo has used all [its] time dividing and disuniting people. What has Buganda helped Uganda [to achieve]? We shall isolate them,” Museveni warned.
DONATION
The President donated Shs 200 million to Bunyoro Kingdom for the construction of a perimeter wall around the palace. He said that since the country’s revenue base had grown, he would increase funding to cultural institutions.
The government currently gives cultural leaders Shs 5 million per month. He added that he has already tabled a proposal in Cabinet, seeking to approve increased funding to cultural institutions.
But the host, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, called for the amendment of the laws governing the sharing the revenue from the newly discovered oil to enable the hosting cultural institutions get a share.
“Article 244 of the Petroleum Bill 2010 should be amended to give us, the cultural institutions, oil share.
The bill shares oil proceeds between the central and the local government, but this should be changed,” Iguru said.
Most of the two million barrels of oil so far discovered in Uganda is to be found in Bunyoro.
According to the king, the bill provides that 85% of the oil proceeds should go to the central government and 15% to local governments, yet cultural institutions that will shoulder environmental and other burdens have been left out.
SABANYALA ON BUGANDA
During the same function, Sabanyala Captain Baker Kimeze said the Banyala have their roots in Bunyoro and not Buganda.
“Our roots are in Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we are home,” Kimeze said.
“We are the prodigal sons of Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we have come home,” Kimeze added.
His declaration didn’t go unrewarded, as Bunyoro Kingdom handed him a traditional robe and the head of the Babito (royal clan) in the kingdom wrapped a barkcloth around the Sabanyala, saying it is a ritual that Bunyoro performs for all kings who have ties with Bunyoro.
Top Stories
Written by EDWARD SSEKIKA
Monday, 14 June 2010 05:49
HOIMA - President Museveni has accused the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, of attempting to divide Ugandans along ethnic lines. This is the first time the President has openly accused the Kabaka of ethnic hatred – another indication of how wide the rift between his NRM government and Buganda Kingdom is growing.
Speaking during the 16th coronation anniversary celebrations of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, in Hoima on Friday, Museveni warned that he “will cut off” the head of any kingdom that oversteps its mandate and takes sides in partisan politics.
The President, speaking two days after two top advisors of the Kabaka, Joseph Mulwamyamuli Semwogerere and Dan Mulika, joined a coalition of opposition parties seeking to unseat him in next year’s elections, said kingdoms should stick to cultural issues and avoid politics.
“I have never baptised anyone, though I know how they baptise. I am a Christian but I do not baptise—that is not my role. We left that role to the clergy; so, cultural leaders should [also] play their roles,” he said.
“If the Kabaka thinks he can disunite our people, he is just dreaming; he should wake up; we cannot allow him even for a minute,” Museveni added.
“Kingdoms should play their roles outlined in the Constitution, Buganda inclusive. If any kingdom crosses its boundaries and interferes with my roles, I will cut off its head and there will be no case to answer,” Museveni said.
Delegations of Banyala from Bugerere and Baruli from Nakasongola clapped and cheered every time the President attacked the Buganda monarch. The Banyala and Baruli have declared autonomy from Buganda Kingdom—a move opposed by Buganda, which accuses the central government of propping up separatist groups in its territory.
The leader of the Banyala (Sabanyala), Baker Kimeze, attended the function during which he was recognised as a cultural leader by Bunyoro with rituals performed on him by Bunyoro’s chief prince, Albert Kasaija Okwir.
Buganda Kingdom, the biggest and best organised in Uganda, was not represented.
1966 CRISIS
The President said the 1966 Buganda crisis was caused by the kingdom itself when the Kabaka started interfering with the role of political leaders. He warned of a similar crisis if Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom, does not stick to cultural issues.
This is the first time the President has accused Buganda of causing the crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms and forced Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the father of reigning monarch Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, into exile. Previously, the President has accused the late former president, Apollo Milton Obote, of igniting the problem by abrogating the constitution. Analysts say the 1966 crisis is partly responsible for Uganda’s troubled history.
“It was not easy to convince my colleagues [in NRM] to have these kingdoms restored. We thought that kingdoms could work with modern governments if well handled, so they play their constitutional roles,” Museveni said.
He added that the Kabaka of Buganda has crossed his boundaries and warned that he might cause gloomy days for his kingdom.
Museveni accused Buganda, his major ally in the Luwero bush war that brought him to power in 1986, of doing nothing to develop the country but only promoting ethnic hatred.
“Mengo has used all [its] time dividing and disuniting people. What has Buganda helped Uganda [to achieve]? We shall isolate them,” Museveni warned.
DONATION
The President donated Shs 200 million to Bunyoro Kingdom for the construction of a perimeter wall around the palace. He said that since the country’s revenue base had grown, he would increase funding to cultural institutions.
The government currently gives cultural leaders Shs 5 million per month. He added that he has already tabled a proposal in Cabinet, seeking to approve increased funding to cultural institutions.
But the host, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, called for the amendment of the laws governing the sharing the revenue from the newly discovered oil to enable the hosting cultural institutions get a share.
“Article 244 of the Petroleum Bill 2010 should be amended to give us, the cultural institutions, oil share.
The bill shares oil proceeds between the central and the local government, but this should be changed,” Iguru said.
Most of the two million barrels of oil so far discovered in Uganda is to be found in Bunyoro.
According to the king, the bill provides that 85% of the oil proceeds should go to the central government and 15% to local governments, yet cultural institutions that will shoulder environmental and other burdens have been left out.
SABANYALA ON BUGANDA
During the same function, Sabanyala Captain Baker Kimeze said the Banyala have their roots in Bunyoro and not Buganda.
“Our roots are in Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we are home,” Kimeze said.
“We are the prodigal sons of Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we have come home,” Kimeze added.
His declaration didn’t go unrewarded, as Bunyoro Kingdom handed him a traditional robe and the head of the Babito (royal clan) in the kingdom wrapped a barkcloth around the Sabanyala, saying it is a ritual that Bunyoro performs for all kings who have ties with Bunyoro.
Top Stories
Written by EDWARD SSEKIKA
Monday, 14 June 2010 05:49
Friday, June 4, 2010
Briefing on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda
Stephen J. Rapp
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
