World News - News Statistics by .geographical media - RSS

The world needs peace

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:12:50 GMT

Friday, January 18, 2008

Events around the world in recent days present the human being as the enemy of his own progress. By and large, violence has become endemic in a host of countries.

While Iraq has since become synonymous with mayhem, US and British citizens remain the most paranoid people on this planet, such being their irrational fear of being bombed - at least for as long as Osama Bin Ladin and his like remain active. You just have to pass the US Embassy in every country in the world to feel sorry for them as they live and work behind cages like prisoners.

F urther, many more troubled countries around the world are paying the prize for a virtually non-existent phenomenon. They call it democracy, the ideal definition of a beleaguered western coinage that seeks to create utopian societies around the world.

We tend to confuse democracy with utilitarianism. The two combined have a greater inclination to number rather than what democracy claims to stand for. Oppression, corruption and a host of other vices, all levied on the so-called minority, are the hallmark of this increasingly estranged system of governance.

This is the reason behind the upsurge in unrest. Godlessness and illiteracy have also conspired to bring carnage on the people of this world. The leaders of Kenya, for instance, taking advantage of the naivete of their supporters, have transformed themselves into demigods (this, unfortunately, is typical of African political scenery).

The result is wanton disregard for life. And in Pakistan, a blend of religious fanaticism and an abhorrent folly revolving around a personality cult is turning a great nation into a mere wreck.

One wonders what kind of a leader Kenya is poised to have in any case, given the level to which both so-called big weights have demonstrated that they are capable of going.

All this is being powered by illusory feelings of democracy. Consequently, peace has become the must expensive of commodities in that country. What we see in Kenya today is reminiscent of the scenes in 1994 Rwanda, where the people made it a routine to pursue political interests on tribal lines.

Immediate neighbours became arch enemies within moments. And very soon, the country fell apart. Naturally, it would take years before it gets itself together. This is the same path Kenya, Pakistan, and a host of other troubled countries are currently on.

The international community has an obligation to ensure restoration of peace in these areas, as we are all bound to feel the pinch somehow. Both Raila and Kibaki have lost wisdom. The plight of thousands of poor, innocent Kenyans is being shaped by power hungry politicians. This is totally unacceptable.

Author: DO

Iran vs US

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:56:07 GMT

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Iran, like every other nation on this planet, is entitled to a peaceful nuclear fuel program. This, the Iranians themselves have tried, time and again, to explain to a seemingly deaf UN.

But this world body can be forgiven, because being under pressure from the world’s most paranoid nation, the United States of America, it has become a virtual fun tool. Under continuous humiliation by the US, the UN has no glory left to attract respect from other countries.

When they make pronoucements, US presidents do so with evident disregard for the world body. For instance: “You are either with us or you are against us”, a fairly recent coinage of George W Bush. Pronouncements of these nature weaken the UN, as they depict it as being under the direct control of the ‘almighty’ US Congress. And as far as we know, the UN is nothing but an amalgamation of nation states with the sovereign right to self determination.

America also has a history of fighting proxy wars. And whenever it does so, it backs itself up with excuses that portray it as the only country in the world susceptible to even the smallest of security threats. This has undoubtedly earned it the fitting title of the world’s policeman. It seeks to achieve its goals along the lines of a bullish arrogant attitude. No wonder then about the number of enemies it has gained over the years.

The feud between the US and Iran has far less to do with the safety of the world (as the former persistently claims) than its embedded, obssessed urge for world domination. It is under the strongest conviction that in order to maintain this ‘unmatched’ suppremacy, it must ensure that riotous states it often labels as ‘rogue’ or ‘failed’, do not get close to it.

And its bullying tactics, as confusing as they are strange, often make this possible. For example the animosity between the two beligerents can be traced to attempts by Islamic Socialist prime minister Muhammad Sadeque, to nationalise the Iranian oil industry in the 1950s. The British and Americans forseeing the economic threats this might have on their countries, instigated a revolt that saw the overthrow of Sadeque’s government, and the instalment of the corrupt and ineptitude Shah Regime.

The 1979 revolution saw the overthrow of the Shah and the restoration of the Islamic establishment led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Many people believe that this is the reason for the bad blood between the American-British alliance and Iranian relations.

As its animosity is mostly directed at the Arab world, at least so it seems, its actions have been repeatedly interpreted (rightly or wrongly, only God knows) as religious crusade.

This is even more fueled by the consistent habit of open involvment of the state of Israel by both sides. Americans, as well as their Israeli cousins, will hardly forget the Iranian President, Mohammed Ahmadinajad’s call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. And Mr Bush had himself categorically stated that America’s hostility to Iran was especially justifiable because Iran hated Israel.

But despite its strongly manifested authoritarian tendencies against the innocent and weak Palestine, nobody wants to mention Israel’s open-secret possession of nuclear weapons. And today, the world is being forced to believe that Iran is a dangerous nation, that Iran has opted to enrich uranium with the intention of developing nuclear weapons, even though the gulf state has sort repeatedly to clear itself of the accusation.

And unlike Iran, North Korea’s adamance has attracted quite an accommodating attitude from an America it has on countless occasions threatened to use its weapons of mass destruction against. Even the recent US intelligence report that cleared Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons could not deter the hawkish Bush administration from taking its hardline path. This leaves the world in a confused state as to what the US wants from Iran.

Author: DO

US Participation in 2007 Trade Fair to Enhance Ties with Gambia

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:18:00 GMT

Friday, December 07, 2007

The 2007 trade fair, organised by The Gambia Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI), is in progress at the Independence Stadium in Bakau. Dubbed “Tapping the Growth Potential of Small and Medium Enterprise,” the event has been attracting the attention of international businesses, including those of the United States of America.

The United States’ presence in the fair has been focussing on two major areas, namely the African Growth and Opportunity Act and enlightening people on the educational opportunities available in the US.

Speaking to this paper, the Consular Officer of the US Embassy, Ms. Wendy Kennedy, gave her impressions of the trade fair, saying that it would help promote Gambian products in the wider world. Ms. Kennedy intimated that The Gambia, as a beneficiary of AGOA, stands to gain from a lot advantage once its products enter the US market. She added that AGOA gives trade preference to countries that make progress in economic and legal areas and also human rights reforms. She explained that imports from AGOA-eligible countries enter the US duty-free. Through this medium, she said, Gambian products exported to the US, such as frozen, dried or smoked fish, will benefit.

Another area Ms. Kennedy addressed is educational opportunity in the United States. She advised those present on how to pick college placement tests and gave academic advice that could help people gain opportunities to study in different universities in the US.

Menaka M. Nayyar, Political and Economic Officer, expressed similar sentiments. She dwelt on export-import bank (ex-IM Bank), the official US export credit agency assisting in financing export sales of US goods and services. She urged both business people and other members of the public to seek out information on the three areas covered at the fair and to use them to their advantage.

Source: The Point

US Will Continue to Support The Gambia -

Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:55:13 GMT

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Outgoing Ambassador Stafford

Barely few days before leaving at the end of his diplomatic mission, Mr. Joseph Stafford, the outgoing US ambassador to The Gambia, has said that the United States will continue to support The Gambia in its drive for sustainable development. In this half-an-hour long interview held at the US Embassy office last Friday, Ambassador Stafford spoke among other things on US-Gambia bilateral relations, the American intervention in Iraq and the US detention centre of Guantanamo Bay. Please read this one-on-one interview with this distinguished US diplomat, as he takes his leave of the Gambia.

How do you feel leaving The Gambia?

I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a word to The Point before I leave The Gambia. I am going to be leaving with a sense of regret for it’s been a wonderful time. Every diplomat knows that at some point, his or her service is going to come to an end but nonetheless I will leave this wonderful country with a sense of regret.

What are some of your memorable times in this country?

Well I had many memorable times in this country. I will say that I always appreciate my dealings with Gambian officials, Civil Society representatives. Generally they are accessible; their hospitality has been really impressive. Other memorable occasions have been that I traveled to the interior of the country. Banjul itself is a nice area and I enjoyed my travels around the capital but I also enjoyed my trips to the interior of this very beautiful and hospitable country. As I say I had many memorable times which have widened my experience.

In any given job, there must be one or two challenging tasks one may face. Could you share with me some of those challenging times?

The challenge is always for a diplomat to find time, energy and efficiency to undertake all initiatives that you have in mind to do things that you want to do to advance the relationship between the United States and The Gambia or to build up the relationship where you as a diplomat is posted. So I see that as a challenge of any diplomat.

Have you made any friends in The Gambia, if yes who was your best friend?

Sure, as I said The Gambia is a hospitable country. So it’s been easier like other countries. I leave the country with a sense that am leaving friends behind whom I hope to see in the future as I look forward to visiting The Gambia in the future. I got a lot of best friends here in this great country.

Mr. Ambassador, during your tenure, what are some of the achievements you have made?

Well, I set out paramount objectives, the expansion of dialogue with The Gambia government, Civil Society and the general public and I think that my embassy and I have made some progress in that respect. We’ve been assisted in achieving that objective by what I call the reservoirs of goodwill to the United States. Many Gambians know the US well. Some Gambians have even dual citizenship besides being Gambian as well as US citizens.

That facilitated the efforts of my colleagues and I at the embassy to expand dialogue generally with all elements of Gambian society, Gambian government, private sector and so on. This is an outreach to The Gambian people at all levels has experience something we gave our priority. One thing I will mention is an internal matter at the embassy here we got a good team. I am very proud of their outstanding performance day in, day out. Our team consists of the locally employed personnel, a prime area of Gambian citizens.

Then we have what we called direct higher staff, those are people such as me that are based in Washington and are typically of diplomatic standard. So what I set for myself as a priority is to promote moral well being and performance of the embassy team. Really we’ve got a great team and I am very proud of their performance day in – day out.

And can you tell me some of the areas you feel you fell short of addressing or that were unfulfilled during your tenure?

I would like to have made progress in the areas that I have mentioned. I think any diplomat after conclusion of his or her assignment should have a sense of how well he or she has done in achieving those objectives. I think that typically as a diplomat, am satisfied with the progress made in this area. I wish I could have made more progress. So in drawing of the balance sheet, you hope you can say to yourself that you have done very well on behalf of your government, on behalf of your country and on behalf of your relationship with the country where you are posted. That is my general response to this question.

In your opinion, what are the areas you feel The Gambia government and your country, needs to improve upon in terms of bilateral relations?

I don’t like to give a performance of The Gambia government and its people. I take stock of the performance of the US embassy. I don’t think the word improve is the right word to use here but I will use the word built upon. What can we do to build upon the relationship that exists between the two countries? We have great importance to work together in the areas of development, humanitarian efforts, promoting peace and stability throughout the sub-region. My message is that we at the US embassy representing the US government, will continue to do all we can to work with The Gambia government, Civil Society to achieve successful outputs.

The Gambia was not qualified for the Millennium Challenge Account of your country. Can you share a little bit on this offer?

I think you are referring to the Millennium Challenge Account which is a program of the US government that provides for development assistance to countries that qualify for the program. My message on this issue is that the door to the Millennium Challenge Account will always remain open to The Gambia and we at the Embassy and my colleagues in Washington will always be at the disposal of The Gambia government and The Gambian people to discuss ways of The Gambia achieving eligibility for and benefiting from this program. That’s my message; it’s an important program that we want The Gambian government to benefit from and we are certainly ready to do everything we can do to facilitate that by consulting and maintaining dialogue with The Gambian government.

The US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay is criticized by many as cruel and inhuman. What is your opinion about this?

I know that there is some controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay, but let me say this: my government believes that holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay is justified. We must remember that the people that are being held there are involved in terrorist activities or otherwise supporting terrorism. We are determined to ensure proper treatment of the detainees. We reject out of hand, the allegations that the treatment there is cruel and inhuman. If there are abuses or mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay then there will be investigations, and if the allegations are verified then those responsible will be brought to account.

We have seen this before, and we will see it again if there are further violations of the rights of the detainees. I will give you a particular example where Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib where various US military personnel were sentenced to prison terms for mistreatment of detainees there. That is part of the U.S. Government policy and we will continue to adhere to it, and certainly as President Bush has indicated, we want to close Guantanamo Bay, but the issue concerns people there who as I say have been involved in one way or other in terrorist activities. This is an issue that we at the US government have paid a lot of attention to. We want to close that centre as soon as possible.

What about the US intervention in Iraq. Do you think the continuous and senseless killing is justifiable?

We and our coalition partners were compelled to intervene in Iraq in order to liberate Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein who persecuted his own people by the use of weapons of mass destruction - chemical weapons - against his own people. But he has also conducted wars against his neighbors in the region. Iraq went to war against Iran. After that he went to war against Kuwait and invaded that country. In other words, he was not only a brutal man but was also a menace to peace and stability abroad, and hence our intervention in Iraq with our coalition partners was to liberate the Iraqi people from this dangerous tyrant and to ensure that the people of Iraq enjoy a future that is democratic and prosperous. There are some extremists who are opposed to that vision and have other agendas and have resorted to violence. They try to impose their extremist vision on the future of Iraq and the result is that you’ve got violence that continues in that country, regrettably.

The Iraqi government believes with us that the continued presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq is essential in order to assist the Iraqi authorities in promoting stability and a secure environment in which democratic institutions can develop and flourish. So we have not decided to impose our will on the Iraqi people; we are not there as an occupying force but we are there at the request of the Iraqi government and the violence would be certainly worse, more widespread if the US and other coalition forces were to abandon the country. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people not only to promote peace and security in their country but also to provide resources for the country’s economic development.

Are you among those Americans who believe that it is time for the US and its coalition Partners to get out of Iraq?

No, I don’t share that view. I think it would be a great mistake for the US and other coalition forces to withdraw from that country and abandon the Iraqi government. We believe that it would be irresponsible and inappropriate. We are there at the request of the Iraqi government and we are committed to ensuring that the Iraqi government has every chance to develop the country’s economy and of course to develop its own military and security forces to ensure they are fully capable of taking over at some point from the US and other coalition forces.

Back to the home front, the issue of granting visas at the embassy to travel to your country is also highly criticized by many as unfair, especially so when one has all the requirements only to be rejected at the embassy. So what do you think is responsible for this highhandedness?

I will first of all like to say that I have full confidence in our consular officer and his staff. I am also convinced that they treat applicants fairly and give them a full opportunity to explain the purposes of their proposed travel to the United States.

The consular officer acts in accordance with the labor and regulations governing the issuance of US visas. I regret that not every one can get a visa but I believe that the process of issuing visas is fair, and I reject any idea that there is highhandedness by the consular officer.

Does the high rate of rejection of visa applicants at the embassy suggest that you and other Americans are afraid of another 9/11 ?

The short answer is that 9/11 always reminds us of the importance of protecting our country’s borders from those who would do us harm. It has always been a concern in our visa issuing process to ensure that on the one hand legitimate travelers to the US are given visas while at the same time protecting the US from those travelers who may not have legitimate purposes.

I would urge those who want to live and work in the United States to take the legitimate road by applying for the proper visa which is the immigrant visa and not the visitors’ visa. Unfortunately there are some who want to take a short cut, who does not want to go to the time and effort to apply for an immigrant visa but want to simply get a visitor visa and go to the US on a permanent basis.

Let me say that those who have legitimate reasons for obtaining a visitor visa will be welcome in the United States, we’ll support them in their efforts but we still must be vigilant as highlighted by 9/11. There are those who have reasons that are not legitimate for going to the US whether it would be to commit other acts of terrorism or whatever.

Any last word for the people of The Gambia ?

I wish President Jammeh and his government well, I wish The Gambian people well. I will assure them that as the country moves forward on the path of development and democracy, the US embassy and its government will continue to do all it can to support them in their efforts. We wish you, The Gambia every success.

Author: By Ebrima Sawaneh

Source: The Point

AFRICA: Bush seeks to double US AIDS funding

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:18:12 GMT

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

United States President George Bush's call for Congress to spend US$30 billion over five years to fight AIDS has won him an unusual level of praise from activists in Africa.

The current Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a $15 billion, five-year campaign launched by Bush in 2003, has so far supported antiretroviral treatment for 1.1 million people in 15 focus countries, all but three of them in Africa. According to a press release issued by the White House, Bush's call for Congress to double funding to $30 billion for an additional five years, would maintain two million people on treatment and allow another 500,000 people to begin therapy.

Speaking on Wednesday, Bush described PEPFAR as "the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history."

Adding that the money "will be spent wisely", he outlined a proposal to form "partnership compacts" with recipient countries where governments and civil society organisations would become responsible for making their own contributions to goals such as promoting gender equality, the rights of orphans and expanding health care services.

AIDS groups welcomed the announcement, particularly those that have faced uncertainty about the future of PEPFAR-funded programmes after 2008.

"The fact that they're not only talking about a continuation but an increase is clearly wonderful news," said Garth Japhet, executive director of Soul City, a South African nongovernmental organisation that uses television and radio programmes to communicate HIV/AIDS information and receives about 25 percent of its funding from PEPFAR. "It's certainly a programme that has made a huge difference in many people’s lives," he added.

Health Gap, a U.S-based organisation that advocates for the rights of people living with HIV, released a response to Bush's funding request, reminding him of the promise he and other leaders made at the G8 Summit in 2005, to achieve universal access to HIV treatment and prevention by 2010. Leaders from the Group of Eight industrialised nations are scheduled to meet in Germany next week, for their 2007 summit.
"The US share of the cost of keeping that promise will cost at least $50 billion over the next five years," said Paul Davis, a spokesperson for Health Gap. "$30 billion over five years would actually result in an overall decrease in the percentage of people with HIV on treatment."

PEPFAR's Deputy Coordinator, Ambassador Jimmy Kolker, responded that the rest of the world had to "step up".

"Unless others step up with increased contributions of their own, they’re right, we’ll be fighting a losing battle," he told IRIN/PlusNews. "We're already providing half of the resources going to global AIDS funding."

Health Gap and other AIDS activist groups have argued that the second phase of the PEPFAR initiative would be undermined by some of its "ideologically-motivated provisions". The requirement that a third of PEPFAR's prevention funds be spent on programmes that promote abstinence-until-marriage has come under particular fire.

"No amount of money will make up for the ideologically-driven prevention policies now promoted by PEPFAR," said Jodi Jacobson, executive director of the Centre for Health and Gender Equity. "This is not a prevention strategy, it is an exercise in unreality."

But Scott Billy, a technical advisor with the Society for Family Health, which receives PEPFAR-funding to run HIV counselling and testing services in a number of African countries, believes that PEPFAR's funding for abstinence programmes is not as restrictive as its critics suggest.

"What they’re saying is that it depends on who you’re talking to. If you're talking to a 14-year-old girl you talk about abstinence, if you're talking to a sex worker, you talk about condoms," he told IRIN/PlusNews. "With our counselling and testing programmes, there really haven’t been any restrictions on how we do things."

In seven out of PEPFAR's 15 focus countries, the abstinence spending requirement has already been waived, pointed out Kolker. The debate about whether or not that spending requirement and others would make it into the renewed plan was already ongoing, he added, "but the administration is not backing off from that, we’ve found it’s an effective use of money".

The process of getting the bill approved by Congress will be a lengthy one, said Kokler, "but the first reactions have been very positive and this programme has always had bi-partisan support, so we are optimistic."

Source: PlusNews