Africa

July 24, 2016 (JUBA) – The leadership of the armed opposition faction of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM-IO), led by First Vice President, Riek Machar, said their party and its leadership had remained intact despite recent “illegal” attempt by outsiders to snatch and claim it.

“The leadership of the SPLM/SPLA (IO) is intact. The illegal attempt by outsiders to claim it has been aborted,” said James Gatdet Dak, Machar spokesperson.

“What happened in Juba in a hotel on July 23, 2016, organized by a dismissed member, Honourable Taban Deng Gai, was an act of terrorism, during which three senior officials of our party were held hostage in their Crown Hotel and were intimidated and forced against their will to nominate him as acting First Vice President of the Transitional Government of National Unity and Chairman and Commander-in-Chief of the SPLM/SPLM (IO), or else President Salva Kiir's security operatives would have dealt with them,” he added.

He said their party's secretary general, Dhieu Mathok Diing Wol, was severely beaten a week before in the hotel when his position was known to have been against activities of Gai, adding this has made the SPLM-IO ministers and officials remaining in Juba to fear for their lives.

Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, a supporter of Taban Deng Gai, announced on Saturday that President Kiir was going to appoint Gai on that Saturday as acting First Vice President and take oath of office on Sunday and start his official work on Monday.

Machar's spokesperson, Dak, said President Kiir has made a wise decision by not acting to also illegally appoint Taban Deng Gai as acting First Vice President to replace his recognized peace partner, Riek Machar, saying appointing Gai would have shown to the world that President Kiir meant to destroy the peace agreement and was part of the conspiracy which Gai was used to implement.

He said President Kiir should further act in accordance with the request from his first deputy to relieve Taban Deng Gai for his position as minister of Mining, saying the agreement has provided powers to the First Vice President to recommend to the President to replace any of his ministers he nominated to the transitional government.

Dak argued that as the head of state whose responsibility is to protect institutions and abide by the peace agreement, President Kiir should not be trapped into condemnation by allowing for illegal and fraudulent replacement of his first deputy, as this would destroy the peace deal.

“I believe that if President Salva Kiir respects institutions which his government has created as well as the transitional leadership of the transitional government and wants the peace agreement to be implemented without hiccups, he should relieve Honourable Taban Deng Gai as requested by the First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar,” he added.

He seriously condemned the process carried out at Crown Hotel in Juba to “fraudulently” replace Machar, saying the process only amounted to “a hotel good time party by random invitees” and not an institutional process of the SPLM/SPLA (IO).

The opposition leader's spokesman narrated that Gai was dismissed from the party by his chairman a day before forging the meeting, and therefore was no longer a member of the SPLM/SPLA (IO) as he already defected to President Kiir's faction by his own actions.

He also argued that even if Gai were to remain a member of the party, there was no quorum of the leaderships of the political bureau or the national liberation council in Juba to convene a meeting, adding that Gai got only one member willingly and forced other three senior officials out of 23 members of the political bureau.

Over 90 percent of the SPLM/SPLA (IO) leadership bodies, he said, have been dispersed by the recent fighting, and are either with Machar in the bush, or in United Nations camps in Juba, or in the other parts of the country, or in the neighbouring countries.

He further explained that the peace agreement has not also provided for a temporary replacement of the First Vice President or the Chairman and Commander-in-Chief of the SPLM/SPLA.

“The peace agreement has instead given powers to the First Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar, to delegate one of his ministers to temporarily act on his behalf in his absence if need be. It is like when the vice president acts when the president is absent. This does not need replacement, or appointment or taking oath of office in order to temporarily act. We also have our deputy chairman, General Alfred Ladu Gore, who is in Juba,” he added.

A senior official who is loyal to President Salva Kiir told Sudan Tribune on Sunday that the “smartest way” President Kiir should behave now is by not appointing Taban Deng Gai to replace Riek Machar as First Vice President so that he distanced himself from the internal power struggle within the SPLM-IO and to avoid being condemned by the international community for either being behind the conspiracy or supporting Taban Deng Gai to destroy the peace agreement.

He said the President is likely relieve Gai from his post as Minister of Mining in show of acting as the head of state who respects the agreement and decisions made by his first deputy who is mandated by the peace agreement to replace his party's ministers in the cabinet.

“President Kiir himself said he saved Machar at the palace during the fighting two weeks ago. This has clearly indicated that he wants to continue to work with him. He should continue to show this to the world by maintaining him as his first deputy, otherwise if he acts contrary to this the reading will be different,” the official said.

Machar fled the capital two weeks ago and said he relocated to outside of Juba due to fear for his safety and to avoid further clashes between his forces and those loyal to President Kiir after four days of fighting in Juba.

He said he will return to Juba immediately after a third party force is deployed in the capital to separate rival forces and provide security and protection for the leadership and the citizens exposed to danger.

(ST)

July 24, 2016 (EL-FASHER) - A child had died and six others fell sick on Friday after eating liquid substance from explosive remnants of war in Kalmando area, North Darfur state.

Ten-year-old Suleiman Fatul Saim from the Dar Al Salam IDPs camp in North Darfur poses for UNAMID photographer Albert González Farran in El Fasher on 2 April 2013 . He suffered burns to more than 90% of his body when his brother detonated a device that he found near their house in November 2006.

Commissioner of Kalmando locality Al-Hadi Ahmed Hassan told Sudan Tribune that several young children stumbled across an ERW containing yellow substance while they were playing near a former army camp, saying they ate the substance out of curiosity which led to the death of a child by the name of Mustafa Asil.

He added that six others fell sick including 7-year old Haneen Ismail, 8-year old Haytham Abdalla abdel-Rahman, 6-year old Yazid Ahmed Mohamed Adam, 6-year old Murtada Hamid Ahmed Ali and 3-year old Abu Zar Ishaq Ismail.

Hassan pointed that the children suffered from diarrhoea and vomiting after they ate the yellow substance and were rushed to Wada'a Hospital in Kalmando and from there to El-Fasher Teaching Hospital, saying Asil died on the way to the hospital.

The armed conflict between government forces and Darfur rebels which has been ongoing since 2003 has left huge numbers of Unexploded Ordinances (UXOs) across Darfur region. Children are the main victims of UXOs.

On July 8th, two children were killed and their sister was seriously wounded by a UXO in Malit locality, 60 km north of North Darfur capital, El-Fasher.

Last June, a child was killed and two others were wounded when an RPG-7 grenade detonated in Zam Zam IDPs camp, 15 km south of El Fasher.

Also, last March, two nomadic boys were killed and two others were wounded when an UXO detonated in Um Sadir village, 60 km north Kutum Locality in North Darfur state.

Several voluntary organizations are making efforts to raise awareness of the dangers of the UXOs and the neglected military equipments in Darfur.

(??)

July 24, 2016 (JUBA) - The former deputy governor of Lol, one of South Sudan's new states, Adut Sumeiyo Deng has denied links to the armed opposition faction (SPLM-IO).

Rizik Zachariah Hassan, Governor of Lol state (UN photo)

Last week, Lol state Governor, Rizik Zachariah Hassan sacked Adut and a number of senior government officials, relatives and close allies.

The Raja town mayor, James Benjamin, who later declared his defection to the armed opposition faction, was also sacked.

Governor Hassan, in his order, did not provide any explanation as to why he took these administrative decisions. Some reports claimed the decision coincided with the defection.

In an interview with Sudan Tribune on Friday, the former deputy governor denied any links to the Riek Machar-led rebel faction.

“I have read in the media that my dismissal was over defections to armed opposition. Who said this, was it the governor or someone wrote for him”, Adut explained.

The former deputy governor said she was not in any way linked to the armed opposition, and wondered why she was removed from the powerful she held for less than a year since she was appointed.

“People are asking what I have done. I tell them I don't know. It is the governor to tell you. For me, I have done four good things successfully to serve our people. When Raja town was attacked and people run away, I remained inside the town because I was with a lot of people I did not want their lives to be lost for they will be targeted if they were to run,” further said Adut.

The ex-deputy governor of Lol state, however, said she would have exposed politicians with links to the armed opposition after armed dissidents easily overrun the town.

“I don't have link with the SPLM-IO. I did not and until this moment have no links with them. If I have link with them, I would have raised their flag when the town was overran. Also, if I have link with them there would have been a proof,” said Adut, adding that security personnel could tapped her communications, if she had rebel links.

The added, “The other proof could be if I have ever contributed anything and sent to them. I have never done such. I have never collected anything and sent to them when I remained in Raja as the acting governor when the governor was in Juba for more than one month”.

(ST)

by Steve Paterno and Scott Morgan

When a Country celebrates their Independence Day it's generally considered to be a festive occasion. For the United States, John Adams envisioned a day with parades and fireworks. Recently South Sudanese celebrated their 5th Anniversary of Independence not with festivity, but with bloodshed, after gun fire rocked the city of Juba. A coup was in a making.

The power struggle was between Riek Machar against Salva Kiir. Mr. Kiir a Dinka is currently President of South Sudan. Mr. Machar is a Nuer who was forced to flee after the 2013 fighting. He has now been restored to his position as First Vice President by a Peace Accord imposed by the UN and backed up by Peacekeepers. And then, he broke again through fighting. The conflict puts an ethnicity face into it. It is tribal. A tribe against another.

So when the situation within the country imploded and the US beefed up the security at its embassy in Juba with 47 strong marine forces, a sense of paranoia set upon the country. It appears that the South Sudanese have had such a horrible relationship when it was united with Sudan and felt they were being invaded by foreign forces. That fact was actually promoted within the country with reports that the US was invading the Country and taking over. It was a miscommunication or both. US has poor communication with South Sudan government and so are South Sudanese people with the American administration.

A Press Release issued by the US Embassy sought to allay such fears of a US Occupation. Now the rhetoric has returned to a feared takeover by IGAD and the UN. Is there a remedy that could restore confidence by the people toward the GOSS? It is clear that for the sake of National Sanity that tribalism is not a prescription for South Sudan. Whomever becomes the leader should not have their power undermined by Sudan or the Troika Powers ( USA, Great Britain and Norway) either. Nor should it be the location of a potential proxy war between Khartoum, Kampala, Niorobi, Addis or any one.

The thing that South Sudan needs almost as badly as new leadership is a Marshall Plan of its own. The Country has very poor infrastructure to put it mildly. Developing a road network could actually benefit the Agriculture Sector and reduce some of the hunger Issues affecting the Country.

Another Area that needs to be addressed in order for the Country to move forward is to move away from Tribalism. Most of the fighting which is politically motivated has been conducted on this level. So this makes having a standing National Army very difficult. This leads to regional actors backing certain Political Movements and Tribes and making the situation more chaotic. So these actors such as Sudan, Uganda and Kenya could actually find themselves at war in the future over South Sudan if they are not careful.

When the word chaos is written out in Mandarin the characters for both danger and opportunity are used. That is a very apt metaphor for the current situation within South Sudan at this time. We see the danger but the opportunities for stability are well hidden.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at stevepaterno@yahoo.com

Underlining the need for the sustainable industrialization of Africa, the United Nations General Assembly today unanimously adopted a resolution proclaiming the period 2016-2025 as the Third Industrial Development Decade for Africa.

For acclaimed Indian novelist and essayist Amitav Ghosh, the future of humankind as global warming impact events spread worldwide looks grim. So grim that the 60-year-old pamphleteer has titled his new book of three climate-related essays “The Great Derangement.” The way we humans are dealing with, or not dealing with, climate change appears to be […]

Africa’s only gay radio station broadcasts from South Africa, trying to counter homophobia and break down stereotypes.

After several more schools were set alight in Kenya, pupils, parents and officials tell the BBC what they think is behind the arson.

July 23, 2016 (RAJA) – The mayor of Raja town in South Sudan's Lol state, James Benjamin, has confirmed his defection to the armed opposition faction (SPLM-IO).

Rebel fighters aligned with former vice-president Riek Machar march through a village inside rebel-controlled territory in South Sudan's Upper Nile state on 9 February 2014 (Photo: Reuters)

“Yes it is true that I have joined the opposition without any fear and am ready to fight the government demanding our right of change to the current misleading government of South Sudan,” Benjamin told Sudan Tribune on Saturday.

“We didn't want the presidential decree annexing part of Aweil, the Dinka land to Raja and the state government's policy to replacing local citizens serving in the government with others from other areas,” he added.

According to the former town mayor, a number of senior government officials have joined rebellion and many more others could join the armed opposition faction in coming days.

“I have joined the SPLM-IO with other Lol state government officials, they are six in number, many soldiers and we have many others still behind to join the possible mission,” he said.

He cited the director of police in Raja town, Karlo Augustino, Judge Sebestiano Kornelio and the medical director of Raja hospital Benson Taban as some of those who joined SPLM-IO. He said a number of military officials have also defected.

According to Benjamin, he joined the armed struggle after falling out with Rizik. He claimed the governor had plans to assassinate him, allegations Sudan Tribune could not verify.

(ST)

July 24, 2016 (JUBA) – Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, has advised his South Sudanese counterpart, President Salva Kiir, to not reject deployment of additional regional third party force in Juba, but to instead focus on negotiating the level of their mandate as they deploy in the country.

President Salva Kiir (L) shakes hands with Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni (R) after signing a peace agreement on August 26, 2015 (Photo AFP /Charles Lomodong)

Museveni said failure to comply with the African Union's endorsed deployment of the troops to Juba will complicate the matter and result to further tougher measures which can be taken against the country and its leadership, cautioning President Kiir not to fall into “traps of western countries.”

This came in a meeting on Saturday in Kampala between President Kiir and President Museveni.

President Museveni, according to a presidential source who accompanied President Kiir to Kampala, said he made the remarks during their discussions on regional peace and security, particularly the proposed deployment of additional foreign troops in South Sudan.

This week, President Kiir vowed to not allow even a “single foreign soldier” to deploy in South Sudan in his reaction to the AU's resolution to deploy a third party force to separate rival forces loyal to President Kiir and those loyal to his first deputy, Riek Machar. The government also organized demonstrations in Juba and in some states to reject the deployment of additional foreign forces with senior officials vowing to fight them should they deploy.

The force would also provide protection to the South Sudanese leadership, essential government infrastructures including the Juba airport as well as citizens at risk of violence in the capital.

There were no details of the issues the two leaders have discussed and resolved, as there was no official statement issued by the office of South Sudan president before and after the return from Uganda.

However, the high level presidential source told Sudan Tribune on Sunday that president Kiir travelled to Uganda to seek advice with president Museveni, who remains the only ally in the region.

President Museveni's influence in the region, he said, has however been overshadowed by an unanimous regional consensus to dispatch additional foreign troops to shore up the fighting and protection capacity of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) in the country.

Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda are some among the countries in the region backing up the decision of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) member countries and African Union (AU), asking countries in the region to contribute and dispatch additional troops with a stronger mandate to protect civilians at risk or exposed to an extreme violence and to act as buffer for rival armed groups in the country.

“President Kiir went to Uganda at the invitation of president Museveni over regional matters. He advised him not to accept provocations and fall into the traps of western countries. The western governments are desperately looking for an excuse to go to the country and that the president should be extra careful,” he quoted the advice President Museveni had given to President Kiir.

“He advised him to negotiate the mandate of the regional force instead of an outright rejection. So president Kiir was basically going to seek audience with president Museveni and to share ideas on the regional intervention force and how this situation could be handled,” he told Sudan Tribune.

Meanwhile, president Museveni in his Facebook page released after the meeting with president Kiir on Saturday confirmed holding talks on regional matters but did not divulge into the details of the discussions.

“I have today held talks with my South Sudan counterpart, His Excellency Salva Kiir, at State House, Entebbe. We focused on regional issues but importantly how to ensure peace and stability returns to South Sudan,” said president Museveni, according to a post on his Facebook page.

The African Union has endorsed the deployment of the forces, saying the troops deployment will take place whether President Kiir liked it or not.

Opposition party led by Riek Machar also supported the deployment of the forces, saying their leader, Machar, will immediately return to Juba from his hiding place once the troops are on the ground to ensure his safety.

Machar fled the capital on 11 July after four days of clashes between his small number of troops and forces loyal to President Salva Kiir. His officials said he is still around Juba and will return any time soon.

(ST)

Residents of La Hacienda, in the central department of La Paz in El Salvador, are holding pictures of the four American nuns murdered in 1980 by members of the National Guard, as they attend the commemorations held to mark 35 years of the crime, in December 2015, at the site where it was perpetrated. Credit: Edgardo Ayala/IPS

By Edgardo Ayala
SAN SALVADOR, Jul 23 2016 (IPS)

The ruling of the highest court to repeal the amnesty law places El Salvador in the dilemma of deciding whether the country should prosecute those who committed serious violations to human rights during the civil war.

It also evidences that, more than two decades after the end of the conflict in 1992, reconciliation is proving elusive in this Central American country with 6.3 million inhabitants.

At the heart of the matter is the pressing need to bring justice to the victims of war crimes while, on the other hand, it implies a huge as well as difficult task, since it will entail opening cases that are more than two decades old, involving evidence that has been tampered or lost, if at all available, and witnesses who have already died.“We do not want them to be jailed for a long period of time, we want perpetrators to tell us why they killed them, given that they knew they were civilians...And we want them to apologize, we want someone to be held accountable for these deaths”-- Engracia Echeverría.

Those who oppose opening such cases highlight the precarious condition of the judiciary, which has important inadequacies and is cluttered with a plethora of unsentenced cases.

“I believe Salvadorans as a whole, the population and the political forces are not in favour of this (initiating prosecution), they have turned the page”, pointed out left-wing analyst Salvador Samayoa, one of the signatory parties of the Peace Agreements that put an end to 12 years of civil war.

The 12 years of conflict left a toll of 70,000 casualties and more than 8,000 people missing.

Samayoa added that right now El Salvador has too many problems and should not waste its energy on problems pertaining to the past.

For human rights organizations, finding the truth, serving justice and providing redress prevail over the present circumstances and needs.

“Human rights violators can no longer hide behind the amnesty law, so they should be investigated once and for all”, said Miguel Montenegro, director of the El Salvador Commission of Human Rights, a non-governmental organization, told IPS.

The Supreme Court of Justice, in what is deemed to be a historical ruling, on 13 July ruled that the General Amnesty Act for the Consolidation of, passed in 1993, is unconstitutional, thus opening the door to prosecuting those accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict.

In its ruling, the Court considered that Articles 2 and 144 of said amnesty law are unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate the rights of the victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity to resort to justice and seek redress.

It further ruled that said crimes are not subject to the statute of limitations and can be tried regardless of the date on which they were perpetrated.

“We have been waiting for this for many years; without this ruling no justice could have been done”, told IPS activist Engracia Echeverría, from the Madeleine Lagadec Center for the Promotion of Defence of Human Rights.

This organization is named after the French nun who was raped and murdered by government troops in April 1989, when they attacked a hospital belonging to the guerrilla group Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN).

The activist stressed that, even though it is true that a lot of information relevant to the cases has been lost, some data can still be obtained by the investigators in the District Attorney’s General Office in charge of criminal prosecution, in case some people wish to instigate an investigation.

The law has been strongly criticized by human rights organizations within and outside the country, since its enactment in March 1993.

Its critics have claimed that it promoted impunity by protecting Army and guerrilla members who committed human rights crimes during the conflict.

However, its advocates have been both retired and active Army members, as well as right-wing politicians and businessmen in the country, since it precisely prevented justice being served to these officers –who are seen as responsible for frustrating the victory of the FMLN.

“All the crimes committed were motivated by an attack by the guerrilla”, claimed retired general Humberto Corado, former Defence Minister between 1993 and 1995.

The now repealed act was passed only five days after the Truth Commission, mandated by the United Nations to investigate human rights abuses during the civil war, had published its report with 32 specific cases, 20 of which were perpetrated by the Army and 12 by insurgents.

Among those cases were the murders of archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero in March 1980; four American nuns in December of the same year, and hundreds of peasants who were shot in several massacres, like those which took place in El Mozote in December 1981 and in Sumpul in May 1980.

Also, six Jesuit priests and a woman and her daughter were murdered in November 1989, a case already being investigated by a Spanish court.

The Truth Commission has also pointed to some FMLN commanders, holding them accountable for the death of several mayors who were targeted for being considered part of the government’s counter-insurgent strategy.

Some of those insurgents are now government officials, as is the case with director of Civil Protection Jorge Meléndez.

Before taking office in 2009, the FMLN, now turned into a political party, strongly criticized the amnesty law and advocated in favour of its repeal, on the grounds that it promoted impunity.

But, after winning the presidential elections that year with Mauricio Funes, it changed its stance and no longer favoured the repeal of the law. Since 2014, the country has been governed by former FMLN commander Salvador Sánchez Cerén.

In fact, the governing party has deemed the repeal as “reckless”, with the President stating on July 15 that Court magistrates “were not considering the effects it could have on the already fragile coexistence” and urging to take the ruling “with responsibility and maturity while taking into account the best interests of the country”.

After the law was ruled unconstitutional, the media were saturated with opinions and analyses on the subject, most of them pointing out the risk of the country being destabilized and on the verge of chaos due to the countless number of lawsuits that could pile up in the courts dealing with war cases.

“To those people who fiercely claim that magistrates have turned the country into a hell we must respond that hell is what the victims and their families have gone –and continue to go- through”, reads the release written on July 15 by the officials of the José Simeón Cañas Central American University, where the murdered Jesuits lived and worked in 1989.

Furthermore, the release states that most of the victims demand to be listened to, in order to find out the truth and be able to put a face on those they need to forgive.

In fact, at the heart of the debate lies the idea of restorative justice as a mechanism to find out the truth and heal the victims’ wounds, without necessarily implying taking perpetrators to jail.

“We do not want them to be jailed for a long period of time, we want perpetrators to tell us why they killed them, given that they knew they were civilians”, stressed Echeverría.

“And we want them to apologize, we want someone to be held accountable for these deaths”, she added.

In the case of Montenegro, himself a victim of illegal arrest and tortures in 1986, he said that it is necessary to investigate those who committed war crimes in order to find out the truth but, even more importantly, as a way for the country to find the most suitable mechanisms to forgive and provide redress”.

However, general Corado said that restorative justice was “hypocritical, its only aim being to seek revenge”.

Related Articles

• Torture Victims in El Salvador Speak Out

The remarkable story of two judoka, who will represent the team of refugee athletes in Rio three years after seeking asylum in Brazil.

Recent studies suggest that condom use is on the decline in South Africa - so how do women there get their partners to use condoms?

Ministerial Segment of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development Goals. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias.

By Lyndal Rowlands
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 22 2016 (IPS)

UN member states “are going beyond rhetoric and earnestly working to achieve real progress” towards the Sustainable Goals, the members of the Group of 77 and China said in a ministerial statement delivered here on 18 July.

The statement was delivered by Ambassador Virachai Plasai, Chair of the Group Of 77 (G77) and China during the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) which took place at UN Headquarters in New York from 18 to 20 July.

During the forum, the 134 members of the G77 and China reaffirmed the importance of not only achieving the Sustainable Development Goals but also the driving principle of leaving no one behind.

“We must identify the “how” in reaching out to those furthest behind,” said Plasai who is also Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Thailand to the UN.

“To make this real, we cannot simply reaffirm all the principles recognised in the (2030) Agenda, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, but must earnestly implement them in all our endeavours,” Plasai added.

The UN’s 193 member states unanimously adopted the 2030 Development Agenda, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, in September 2015. The goals reflect the importance of the three aspects of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental, and countries will work towards achieving them by the year 2030.

However more still needs to be done to ensure that developing countries have access to the resources they need to meet the goals, said Plasai.

“We reiterate that enhancing support to developing countries is fundamental, including through provision of development financial resources, transfer of technology, enhanced international support and targeted capacity-building, and promoting a rules-based and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system,” he said.

“To make this real, we cannot simply reaffirm all the principles recognised in the (2030) Agenda... but must earnestly implement them in all our endeavours." -- Ambassador Virachai Plasai

“We urge the international community and relevant stakeholders to make real progress in these issues, including through the G20 Summit in China which will focus on developing action plans to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.”

At a separate meeting during the High Level Political Forum the G77 and China noted some of the specific gaps that remain in financing for development.

During that meeting the G77 and China expressed concern that rich countries are failing to meet their commitments to deliver Official Development Assistance (ODA) – the official term for aid – to developing countries.

“We note with concern that efforts and genuine will to address these issues are still lagging behind as reflected in this year’s outcome document of the Financing for Development forum which failed to address (gaps in ODA),” said Chulamanee Chartsuwan, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative Of The Kingdom of Thailand to the UN, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

Speaking during the forum on July 19, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon underscored the importance of the High Level Political Forum, “as the global central platform for follow-up and review of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Ban presented the results of the first Sustainable Development Goals report released by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs on July 20. The report used “data currently available to highlight the most significant gaps and challenges” in achieving the 2030 Agenda, said Ban.

“The latest data show that about one person in eight still lives in extreme poverty,” he said.

“Nearly 800 million people suffer from hunger.”

“The births of nearly a quarter of children under 5 have not been recorded.”

“1.1 billion people are living without electricity, and water scarcity affects more than 2 billion.”

Leaving No One Behind

Ban also noted that the importance of collecting data about the groups within countries that are more likely to be “left behind”, such as peoples with disabilities or indigenous peoples.

Collecting separate data about how these groups fare is considered one way for governments to help achieve Sustainable Development Goal 10 which aims to decrease inequality within countries.

However SDG 10 also aims to address inequalities between countries, an important objective for the G77, as the main organisation bringing together developing countries at the UN the G77 wants to make sure that countries in special circumstances are not left behind.

Countries in special circumstances include “in particular African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and Small Island Developing States, as well as countries in conflict and post-conflict situations,” said Chartsuwan.

However while the world’s poorest and most fragile countries have specific challenges, many middle income countries also have challenges too, the G77 statement noted.

Climate Change Agreement Needs Implementation

Developing countries, and particularly countries with special circumstances, are among those that are most adversely affected by climate change, and therefore wish to see speedy adoption and implementation of the Paris Climate Change Agreement alongside the 2030 Agenda.

Ban told the forum that he will host a special event during the UN General Assembly at 8am on September 21 for countries to deposit their instruments of ratification.

“We have 178 countries who have signed this Paris Agreement, and 19 countries have deposited their instrument of ratification.”

“As you are well aware, we need the 55 countries to ratify, and 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions accounted.”

“These 19 countries all accounted is less than 1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.”

“So we need to do much more,” he said.

The G77 Newswire is published with the support of the G77 Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund for South-South Cooperation (PGTF) in partnership with Inter Press Service (IPS).

By Francisco S. Tatad
Jul 22 2016 (Manila Times)

Let us do this chronologically.

Days before the release on July 12 of the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, at The Hague, on the Philippine maritime dispute with China, Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay, Jr. announced he was willing to sit down with Beijing for bilateral talks on the possible joint exploration of mineral and marine resources of the disputed maritime areas in the South China (West Philippine) Sea.

Francisco S. Tatad

This was a pointed departure from the previous position of the Aquino government, which had insisted on a purely multilateral approach to the dispute, invoking international law under UNCLOS—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. President Rodrigo DU30 did not correct or rebuke Yasay for his statement, so one assumed it had his full authority.

This apparently alarmed the US government, which had openly supported Aquino’s position and chided Beijing for its refusal to agree to arbitration and to recognize the jurisdiction of the arbitral body. On the eve of the release of the ruling, which everyone expected to be favorable to the Philippines, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter telephoned Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana to talk about the impending verdict and its implications to the security of the region.

Kristie Kenney’s role
Hours before our “victory,” US State Department Counselor Kristie Kenney, a former ambassador to the Philippines, met with Yasay at the Department of Foreign Affairs “to call on the parties to respect the ruling.” This was completely ironic because the Philippine government was the only party to the arbitration, and could not have been expected to “disrespect” a ruling in its favor. If at all, the Philippines should be the one asking China to respect the ruling and the US to help persuade Beijing.

In reality, Kenney’s call was a rebuke to the newly initiated foreign secretary for his gratuitous statement on bilateral negotiations, which caught Washington totally by surprise. Nothing was reported from the Kenney-Yasay conversation, but when the ruling from The Hague came and profuse and euphoric reactions greeted it from the US, Japan, Australia and the European allies as well as from all sorts of netizens, Yasay had to welcome it in measured tones, calling for “sobriety” at the same time.

Albert del Rosario recycled
Former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, who had been quoted as saying the Philippines would be a frontline state in containing China’s rise, and had engaged Beijing in steaming rhetoric on the South China Sea issue when he was still in office, was recycled out of wherever he was enjoying his retirement for publicity purposes, to speak actively about the ruling and receive the applause of the public who had yet to see our victory at the The Hague was completely psychic.

Yasay’s next opportunity to be heard came at the 11th Asia-Europe Summit Meeting, in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, on July 15 – 16, where on behalf of DU30, who was unable to attend, he called upon China to bind itself to the process it had rejected from the very start. He was somehow overshadowed in the press by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who pressed the point against China far more strongly than he did, prompting the Chinese government to point out that Japan was not a party to the issue at hand.

ASEM unmoved, FVR mooted
In its post-conference statement, ASEM refused to be drawn into the Philippines-China controversy, limiting itself to a general statement to the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. Apparently, Yasay had some conversation with the Chinese delegation at the margins of the conference, but nothing came out of it in the press. Yasay’s performance provoked rumors of his early departure, prompting the President to issue a statement dismissing such possibility.

At the same time DU3O announced he was going to name former President Fidel V. Ramos as his special envoy to start talks with the Xi Jinping government. This was promptly welcomed by Beijing, and Ramos himself indicated genuine interest in it. But the latest word from Yasay is that there won’t be any talks with China, unless the latter agrees to discuss the PCA ruling, which it does not recognize.

Talks torpedoed?
This tends to show that some powerful actor has succeeded in torpedoing the rapprochement project, and that we should expect belligerent rhetoric and tension, which we were trying to arrest, to ratchet up. This means that the new DFA management never understood why bilateral talks were needed, in the face of a ruling that tends to create a worse crisis than the one it was seeking to ease.

To this observer the merit of bilateral talks was never in doubt. But the talks have to be without any preconditions. We just won the arbitral ruling, true; but no power on earth could compel China to recognize it. So why would China want to have talks with us that begin with a discussion of what it does not want to recognize? And what benefit do we hope to gain from it?

On the other hand, if we sit down to discuss ways and means of working together for peace and economic development without touching a gaping wound that’s still so fresh, China would most probably appreciate our generosity and try to match it to the fullest. This is the Asian way, unfamiliar to the West. Eventually, after we have been bonded by the strongest economic, social, cultural and human ties, we could perhaps begin to talk of the most difficult territorial problems between us.

A Korean tale
The story of a young Korean I had met on one of my earlier trips to Seoul seems most apt. He said he had a Japanese classmate with whom he fought on the first day they met—over the issue of Japan’s colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945. The Japanese militarists had killed his parents, and he wanted to take it out on the young Japanese. He broke his nose, although he himself did not go unscathed. Despite this incident, he took pains to befriend his perceived nemesis.

They became such good friends that whenever any of his other friends would begin to talk of what the Japanese did to Korea in the past, he would immediately change the subject, and his Japanese friend would be profuse in his thanks. One day his friend asked about his dead parents, and if he could visit their graves to pay his respects. From then on, it became so easy for them to discuss their dark past.

GMA tried joint exploration
DU30 and Yasay were not the first ones to mention the possibility of joint exploration of marine and mineral resources in the South China (West Philippine) Sea. In 2004, during the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo administration, the Philippines and China already agreed to conduct joint exploration for oil and gas in the disputed waters. In March 2005, Vietnam became the third party to the Joint Maritime Seismic Undertaking (JMSU).

This, however, fell apart because of maritime incidents between China and Vietnam, and certain controversies involving China’s big business contracts in the Philippines. There was also a move to question the constitutionality of the JMSU before the Supreme Court. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who has taken the lead in discussing the Philippine claim as against China’s so-called “nine-dash line” in various forums, maintains that any joint exploration with China as an equal partner would violate the Constitution, which permits foreigners not more than 40 percent equity in the exploitation of the country’s natural resources.

Marine Peace Park
But Carpio is willing to adopt the idea of Dr. John McManus, professor of Marine Biology and Fisheries at the University of Miami, that the disputed areas be converted into a Marine Peace Park for the benefit of all. This is not much different from a previous proposal in this column that the area be declared a common heritage of mankind, free from any kind of military weapons, particularly nuclear, or the political control of any nation, but for the benefit of all. This sounds like an idea whose time has come, although rather utopian; but I fear it would be immediately shot down by the military powers who see the South China Sea not only as the great waterway through which passes $5 trillion of the world’s annual trade but also as an irreplaceable playground for the world’s most powerful aircraft carriers, warships and submarines.

Without any means to compel China to comply with a ruling that invalidates its so-called “nine-dash line,” there is obvious need for the Philippines and China to talk and avoid inflammatory rhetoric and counterproductive political or military initiatives. As I have said a few times before, we have no need of war with China, nor can we afford it. Given our limited resources, how do we feed 1.3 billion Chinese, if they survive such a war, and should we win it?

US and China must talk
But since the real conflict is the geopolitical rivalry between the world’s lone superpower and Asia’s rising regional power, there is even more urgent need for them to sit down and discuss the terms upon which we are to build a new world order. The basic conflict is civilizational, and must be resolved as such.

As the British author and journalist Simon Winchester puts it in his book Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World’s Superpowers, the Eastern civilization on the West side of the Pacific and the Western civilization on the East side of the Pacific have finally met to turn the Pacific into the inland sea of tomorrow, where the Mediterranean was the inland sea of the ancient world, and the Atlantic the inland sea of today. America has dominated the Pacific for the past 60 years, but its declining economic and political power has rendered it insecure about China’s phenomenal economic, political and military rise.

Search for equivalence, avoiding the ‘Thucydides Trap’
America needs to see, Winchester writes, that China is not interested in replacing or challenging the US as a world power. It does not intend to colonize, enslave or dominate any country or people like the Western powers, but simply wants to “enjoy equivalence.” This mistaken fear of China, left unchecked, could lead to what has been called the “Thucydides Trap,” in which a rising power causes fear in an established power which inevitably escalates toward war. We learn this from the History of the Peloponnesian War, which happened when after Athens and Sparta defeated Persia, Sparta’s growing fear of Athens led the two former allies to destroy each other.

In a major 2015 article in The Atlantic, Prof. Graham Allison of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government asked whether the US and China are headed for war because of the Thucydides Trap. A few years before that, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on March 3, 2012, warned the US against falling into such a trap.

Chinese President Xi Jinping himself has said, “We all need to work together to avoid the ‘Thucydides Trap’—destructive tensions between an emerging power and established powers… Our aim is to foster a new model of major country relations.”

Indeed this can be avoided, not by demonizing the rising power or trying to prevent its rise, but by peaceful and constructive engagement, which begins to happen when the contending parties sit down without any preconditions to talk.

fstatad@gmail.com

This story was originally published by The Manila Times, Philippines

By Zubeida Mustafa
Jul 22 2016 (Dawn, Pakistan)

Qandeel Baloch’s horrific murder in the name of ‘honour’ is testimony to the failure of the women’s movement to overturn patriarchy in Pakistan. Against the backdrop of the spate of anti-women violence, comes a report by Dr Rubina Saigol written for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German foundation. Titled Feminism and the Women’s Movement in Pakistan: Actors, Debates and Strategies, this excellent document should provide much food for thought.

The author, an eminent sociologist, touches the heart of the issue — especially in cases like Qandeel’s — when she points out that there are “silences” (neglected subjects) that surround questions of family and sexuality, the mainstay of patriarchy and women’s subjugation. These have generally not been addressed by the women’s movement and she recommends that they should be.

But that is not all. More than these silences, the author points out, feminists have failed to devise a successful strategy to empower women and create public spaces for them. That accounts for their inability to make a profound impact.

Feminists here never tried to be inclusive.

Dr Saigol observes that today there is “a deafening disquieting quiet in the women’s movement”. She quotes a number of well-known feminists who contend that Pakistan lacks an autonomous vigorous movement, notwithstanding the vocal female protests against the oppression of women.

She substantiates her argument by pointing to the absence of a “common collective vision of a better world, agreed upon strategies to create such a world, and shared understandings of the world in which we live and work”.

One would agree with the writer who traces the history of the women’s struggle in Pakistan to show how it evolved in response to internal politics and external events along with the globalisation that began in the post-cold war age.

But to formulate a unified stance has not been possible given the many serious constraints that exist, many of which are deeply rooted in our socio-cultural values, such as a general trend towards glorification of patriarchy that is reinforced by religion, the adversarial relationship between feminists and the state, and the depoliticisation of the women’s struggle. The impression conveyed is that the feminist movement has been a victim of circumstances — be they the induction of donor-driven NGOs or extremist religious ideologues in the country.

However, the women’s ‘movement’ in Pakistan has always been bifurcated by great schisms. At no stage was a common platform created where women of all views could gather on a minimal common agenda. The fact is that feminists of all shades never tried to be inclusive. Hence no group had the numerical strength to assert a claim to supremacy. WAF had the greatest potential for leadership due to its financial and political autonomy. Yet it never brought in its fold non-professional disadvantaged women who constitute the bulk of Pakistan’s female population. It focused on them only in nuanced consciousness-raising and, to its credit, condemned strongly individual cases of abuse of underprivileged women.

This activism didn’t go very far although it pushed the women’s issue on the national agenda. Some laws were changed but never implemented. The lives of the majority of women didn’t change. Though they support large families, as Qandeel did, they have to bow before patriarchy. They have no time to be mobilised to learn about their rights which they know would never be actualised.

However, the same women are willing to respond to a call which offers them services that to an extent facilitate them in fulfilling some of their basic needs. That is why various development NGOs working in the education and (reproductive) health sectors — even the donor-funded but honest ones — have been able to achieve more than the feminists in creating awareness of women’s rights.

Many of them have taken the indirect, but more effective, route to empower women and instil in them a vision of a better future. They understand the importance of female participation to create awareness in them. The next generation of women definitely show the promise of being more skilful in negotiating their way through rough patriarchal waters.

Had the advocacy groups tried to link up with the services groups they would have reinforced each others’ work. I remember the iconic development worker, Perween Rahman, lamenting the inability of the women’s movement to mobilise huge numbers to protest against injustices inflicted on women. She recognised the fact that women’s development was possible only if their rights were given full recognition. “But we are so busy attending to the basic needs of men and women that we have no time and resources to do advocacy. If the women’s rights movement were to join hands with us, we would definitely support them as that is what we also want.”

What needs to be recognised is that human development is an integrated and holistic process. To be effective, rights activists must address all areas and classes of human development simultaneously.

www.zubeidamustafa.com

This story was originally published by Dawn, Pakistan

A selection of the best photos from across Africa this week.

The cast of Wakaa The Musical travel from Lagos to London for the first Nigerian-produced musical to hit the West End.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, along with the Multidimensional Intigrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), condemned the recent clashes in Kidal between forces of The Platform Movement and those of the Coordination of movements of Azawad (CMA), both of which are signatories to the country&#39s peace agreement.