Most of the African states are being faced with a dual set of problems and challenges, namely; domestic and global, Poverty alleviation, sustainable peace, sustainable human development and economic growth constitute the domestic set. Which are somehow interdependent. Interdependency produces a degree of integration among independent and sovereign African states. One cannot be achieved without the other, but they have to be solved in a blanket or else African states wil still wallow in the sea of poverty, civil wars and deficiency in the rule of law.
The impact of Globalization on african economies is another set of problems. Africans need to give a positive approach to global issues and challenges and the opputunities that come with it, otherwise they would be marginalized from the global economy and would be the poorer of it. Africans must mobilize the human and material resources, and build or acquire the capabilities to confront the two sets of problems and challenges.
Economic growth is the basic foundation for social and economic transformation and in acquiring the capabilities to respond to the global challenges and opportunities Africa must put all the reform machineries in place in order to play a bigger role in the globalizing world.. Africa is rich in human and material resources for the driving forward of economic growth, but there has been a cleavage in achieving the required rate of economic growth because of civil unrests, poor leadership and violent conflicts. A condusive atmosphere of peace, security and embracing the rule of law is imperative for a robust economic growth.. Neither the eruption of violent conflicts nor the existence of peaceful environment or the embracing of sustainable human development occurs by themselves. They must be the consequential actions of people.
Civil unrests and violent conflict are however the end products of poor leadership blended with bad governance. The role leaders play is thus important in creating a level playing field conducive for economic growth and the promotion of various mechanisms in order to face the global challenges and opportunities that comes with it.
In this contemporary world, a good intercourse between the donors and the recipients in terms of those who provide the required services and those that are in dire need, should be mutual, not based on reprocity.This kind of relationship is as well good for African Non governmental organizations and community Based organizations. But it has to be a partnership that is beneficial to all the partners.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
WAR AND POLITICS: THE UN, PEACE AND SECURITY
Since 1945, there has been enormous increase of African states in the UN, this have showed a marked significance in two ways, first it exposed Africa to the international politics after so many years of slavery, in another way Africa could be an actor in the international relations rather than an object. Secondly the representation of African states in the general assembly and creation of African (regional) non permanent members in the Security Council implies that African issues can now receive international recognition.
The most contentious issues were those that were caused by colonialism, apartheid, cold war, great powers interference with states sovereignty and international economy in relation to African development. These issues not only happen in Africa but also in other developing countries though they have been felt in Africa more than any other developing countries because of their persistence. It's in Africa where the relics of colonialism remained through the three decades of UN. Due to low economic growth and lack of basic services, African states have given economic issues more priority to diplomatic activities in UN and in other international fora. The UN had acted as a refuge by all African government; as a body that might help restructure their socio-economic development. The participation of African states in the UN should not be viewed not only in accordance to the UNs objectives but also through the UN’s theoretical assumptions, however affect the way in which specific objectives can be realized or proven within the structure of the UN/org.
The UN has been viewed by all African governments as a body which might significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of their countries. The role of African states in the UN cannot be viewed mainly from the point of view of the objectives sought and the mechanisms utilized in pursuant of these goals. Account must also be taken of the underlying theoretical assumptions behind the establishment of the UN. These assumptions more or less affect the extent to which particular objectives can be realized within the framework of the organization whose primary purpose was to maintain peace and security could not ignore the dimensions of power and it's role in the international relations. The organization was not to operate as a democratic institution capable of making binding decisions on the basis of majority vote; instead the decision of the most important organ of the UN, the Security Council, could require the affirmative vote of the nine members including the concurring vote of the 5 members of the Security Council. This veto provision in the charter gave recognition to the importance of power and military capability as the key factors in international politics.
Actually the veto power just shows the impact great powers have in terms of socio-economic and technological developments, in addition to their military capabilities. This does not conform to the operational code of the UN whereby all member states should participate in the decision making instead the great powers only make the decisions armed with the lethal sword of "veto".
In relation to politics, Africa’s intercourse with UN started to show signs of mistrust during the so called Congo crisis 1960-1964, which later coincided with the shift of UN’s perceived role of the organization in crisis situations. This new shift resulted to preventive diplomacy and was considered as a substitute of enforcement action or collective military action under Security Council auspices. Preventive diplomacy was considered as a strategy of crisis management which aimed at inter-policing UN military and or political personnel between disputants with a view to preventing both the escalation of conflicts and possible intervention by the superpowers. The central thrust of preventive diplomacy was to quarantine local conflict situation and to insulate them from superpower meddling.
The Security Council lacks credibility and institutional responsibility to effectively address the contemporary international security issues.
The most contentious issues were those that were caused by colonialism, apartheid, cold war, great powers interference with states sovereignty and international economy in relation to African development. These issues not only happen in Africa but also in other developing countries though they have been felt in Africa more than any other developing countries because of their persistence. It's in Africa where the relics of colonialism remained through the three decades of UN. Due to low economic growth and lack of basic services, African states have given economic issues more priority to diplomatic activities in UN and in other international fora. The UN had acted as a refuge by all African government; as a body that might help restructure their socio-economic development. The participation of African states in the UN should not be viewed not only in accordance to the UNs objectives but also through the UN’s theoretical assumptions, however affect the way in which specific objectives can be realized or proven within the structure of the UN/org.
The UN has been viewed by all African governments as a body which might significantly contribute to the socio-economic development of their countries. The role of African states in the UN cannot be viewed mainly from the point of view of the objectives sought and the mechanisms utilized in pursuant of these goals. Account must also be taken of the underlying theoretical assumptions behind the establishment of the UN. These assumptions more or less affect the extent to which particular objectives can be realized within the framework of the organization whose primary purpose was to maintain peace and security could not ignore the dimensions of power and it's role in the international relations. The organization was not to operate as a democratic institution capable of making binding decisions on the basis of majority vote; instead the decision of the most important organ of the UN, the Security Council, could require the affirmative vote of the nine members including the concurring vote of the 5 members of the Security Council. This veto provision in the charter gave recognition to the importance of power and military capability as the key factors in international politics.
Actually the veto power just shows the impact great powers have in terms of socio-economic and technological developments, in addition to their military capabilities. This does not conform to the operational code of the UN whereby all member states should participate in the decision making instead the great powers only make the decisions armed with the lethal sword of "veto".
In relation to politics, Africa’s intercourse with UN started to show signs of mistrust during the so called Congo crisis 1960-1964, which later coincided with the shift of UN’s perceived role of the organization in crisis situations. This new shift resulted to preventive diplomacy and was considered as a substitute of enforcement action or collective military action under Security Council auspices. Preventive diplomacy was considered as a strategy of crisis management which aimed at inter-policing UN military and or political personnel between disputants with a view to preventing both the escalation of conflicts and possible intervention by the superpowers. The central thrust of preventive diplomacy was to quarantine local conflict situation and to insulate them from superpower meddling.
The Security Council lacks credibility and institutional responsibility to effectively address the contemporary international security issues.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CHINA IN AFRICA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR USA
Since 1980s, Chinese leader have shown the necessity for economic development while at the same time highlighting the threat caused by emerging US supremacy. Chinese leaders who took over the national policy after Deng Xiaoping’s, however positioned their objectives opposite the American interest. Compelled by national feelings, desire to make up for the past humiliations and the push for global power, China is looking forward to substituting US as a leading power in Asia. During 1980s, China instituted diplomatic relations with most countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. From 1990s, it expanded her diplomatic relations with countries like Israel, Republic of Korea and South Africa in addition to some of former Soviet satellites. By 2002, China had diplomatic ties with 165 countries.
The national security strategy for the US, 2006 declared that ‘ Africa holds growing geo strategic importance and is a high priority for the administration’- this must be true for a continent that supplies US with 16 % of petroleum and is a prospective oil supplier, about a quarter of it’s oil imports by 2015. Therefore the rising weight of another actor in the region could as well result under a watching eye of policymakers and other actors. The question is, is China’s bilateral relations with US the cause of criticism or is it about the Chinese foreign policy on the continent?
Never the less we must say that China does not pose any direct major threat to the US national interest, however it changes the strategic approximation in various ways. First, most Chinese firms have a competitive edge over the western counterparts because most of the companies are at least partially state owned. Their managers make decisions based on a less long term objectives rather than the financial gains, incase of long term objectives, their nation gains more. Although donor countries may provide some incentives for receiving states in Africa that do business with national firms, the OECD( which China does not belong) discourages direct connection with private and semi entrepreneurs.
Second is the separation of political and the economic involvement which gives a lifeline to states that would totally collapse under the western pressure. Sudan and Zimbabwe is a case in point ( Chinese investments have continued to flow into both countries including a coal joint venture, a glass factory, smelting plants and beef production in Zimbabwe and oil extraction in Sudan.
The international community in general and especially the US considers china’s strategy on Africa as a challenge. America may see China as a competitor for resources and growing political influence in the region, whereas Beijing may be cautious on the interference with countries internal affairs.
The national security strategy for the US, 2006 declared that ‘ Africa holds growing geo strategic importance and is a high priority for the administration’- this must be true for a continent that supplies US with 16 % of petroleum and is a prospective oil supplier, about a quarter of it’s oil imports by 2015. Therefore the rising weight of another actor in the region could as well result under a watching eye of policymakers and other actors. The question is, is China’s bilateral relations with US the cause of criticism or is it about the Chinese foreign policy on the continent?
Never the less we must say that China does not pose any direct major threat to the US national interest, however it changes the strategic approximation in various ways. First, most Chinese firms have a competitive edge over the western counterparts because most of the companies are at least partially state owned. Their managers make decisions based on a less long term objectives rather than the financial gains, incase of long term objectives, their nation gains more. Although donor countries may provide some incentives for receiving states in Africa that do business with national firms, the OECD( which China does not belong) discourages direct connection with private and semi entrepreneurs.
Second is the separation of political and the economic involvement which gives a lifeline to states that would totally collapse under the western pressure. Sudan and Zimbabwe is a case in point ( Chinese investments have continued to flow into both countries including a coal joint venture, a glass factory, smelting plants and beef production in Zimbabwe and oil extraction in Sudan.
The international community in general and especially the US considers china’s strategy on Africa as a challenge. America may see China as a competitor for resources and growing political influence in the region, whereas Beijing may be cautious on the interference with countries internal affairs.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Humanitarian intervention
This article will try to clarify the legal status of humanitarian intervention under international law. Most of the ideas obtained were from the conference I attended from 19-22 march at the college of European studies, Natolin(Warsaw). Basically, the conference was sort of an introduction to the various aspects of international humanitarian law under the umbrella of International Law.
I would try to give an overview of the legal status of humanitarian intervention under International Law today.
Inspite of the long history of legal discourse on the matter, there is no consistence consensus as regards the legality of humanitarian intervention under international law. The opponents of formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention often refer to the risk of abuse of the action and, in view of the many so-called humanitarian interventions which have been carried out for reasons of self-interest, this argument can be easily understood. Yet, others argue that situations of grave and systematic human rights violations do justify an intervention for humanitarian reasons and that such situations concerns the international community as a whole. Indeed, during the second half of the 20th century the development within human rights law shows a clear tendency towards a greater international responsibility.
Still, after having studied relevant legislation, case law and legal doctrine, it is my view that legality of humanitarian intervention is restricted to situations where there is prior authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Individual states or a community of states cannot without such prior authorization justify a humanitarian intervention on legal grounds under international law today. The following pages will portray why.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is the wording of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter which is at the center of the debate with respect to the legality of humanitarian interventions.1 Does this provision allow for an intervention by the use of force for humanitarian reasons? Opinions differ immensely on this vexed question.
Still, in spite of the long history of legal discourse concerning humanitarian intervention, there is a lack of consistent consensus (opinio juris communis) under international law. Throughout history and still today there has been a reluctance in formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention out of fear of abuse of the same. On the other hand, there are situations were an intervention for humanitarian reasons may be well founded. Many argue that the United Nations Security Council should have responded earlier to the situation in Rwanda, where the lack of action resulted in genocide. Grave and systematic human rights violations are a concern not solely to the sovereign state in which they are conducted but to the international community as a whole.
In not trying to be called a pessimist though, International humanitarian law has vividly streamlined the policies and structures needed in times of war and after war especially when dealing with combatants, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, refugees and humanitarian aid. Most of the organizations(International committee of red cross) operating under the umbrella of International humanitarian law has however been useful in assisting the victims of war(both civilians and combatants). Much still has to be done in terms of formulating non discriminating policies.
I would try to give an overview of the legal status of humanitarian intervention under International Law today.
Inspite of the long history of legal discourse on the matter, there is no consistence consensus as regards the legality of humanitarian intervention under international law. The opponents of formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention often refer to the risk of abuse of the action and, in view of the many so-called humanitarian interventions which have been carried out for reasons of self-interest, this argument can be easily understood. Yet, others argue that situations of grave and systematic human rights violations do justify an intervention for humanitarian reasons and that such situations concerns the international community as a whole. Indeed, during the second half of the 20th century the development within human rights law shows a clear tendency towards a greater international responsibility.
Still, after having studied relevant legislation, case law and legal doctrine, it is my view that legality of humanitarian intervention is restricted to situations where there is prior authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Individual states or a community of states cannot without such prior authorization justify a humanitarian intervention on legal grounds under international law today. The following pages will portray why.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is the wording of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter which is at the center of the debate with respect to the legality of humanitarian interventions.1 Does this provision allow for an intervention by the use of force for humanitarian reasons? Opinions differ immensely on this vexed question.
Still, in spite of the long history of legal discourse concerning humanitarian intervention, there is a lack of consistent consensus (opinio juris communis) under international law. Throughout history and still today there has been a reluctance in formally acknowledging a right of humanitarian intervention out of fear of abuse of the same. On the other hand, there are situations were an intervention for humanitarian reasons may be well founded. Many argue that the United Nations Security Council should have responded earlier to the situation in Rwanda, where the lack of action resulted in genocide. Grave and systematic human rights violations are a concern not solely to the sovereign state in which they are conducted but to the international community as a whole.
In not trying to be called a pessimist though, International humanitarian law has vividly streamlined the policies and structures needed in times of war and after war especially when dealing with combatants, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, refugees and humanitarian aid. Most of the organizations(International committee of red cross) operating under the umbrella of International humanitarian law has however been useful in assisting the victims of war(both civilians and combatants). Much still has to be done in terms of formulating non discriminating policies.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Life...Life.....Life
What do you first do when you learn to swim? You make mistakes, do you not? And what happens? You make other mistakes, and when you have made all the mistakes you possibly can without drowning - and some of them many times over - what do you find? That you can swim? Well - life is just the same as learning to swim! Do not be afraid of making mistakes, for there is no other way of learning how to live!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
MALE FRIENDS
Beware the company she keeps for they will betray you. Few people have integrity in this world and even fewer keep it when the gain is so great. It is all we have and it sells for nothing. In desperation people will lie, steal and cheat to get what they desire. This applies greatly to relationships and your girlfriends “male friends.”
There is a big problem that is running rampant in today's relationships and it's called male friends. A lot of guy's would steal your girlfriend right out from under you without a second thought. Either through lack of integrity or desperation for love and affection would they take what is not theirs leaving you confused as to why this happened.
Some women are to blame for this. They love external validation so much so that is has become an addiction to them. They gain their self esteem from the compliments and attention from others and it is a tough habit to break. They get into relationships and receive withdrawal symptoms from not having drunk guys suck up to them every weekend. Without this attention they feel ugly, useless and miserable.
They like the security that comes from a relationship because almost everyone fears dying alone but still feel the shakes as the self esteem derived from external validation leaves their system. Single and fearing dying alone or in a relationship and watching their false self esteem dwindles away?
There lies a compromise that most take: be in a relationship but keep the male companions around for validation. All the while you can pretend like it doesn't bother you when she constantly texts her “friend” who is a little too touchy for your tastes. Or like most guy's who don't like it you can keep your mouth shut and repress your irritation.
You don't like it but feel helpless in the situation. You know something is off but feel like there is nothing you can do about it. You have made far too many rationalizations in your head for this sort of behavior. You don't want to appear needy or macho so you let it go only to find the situation getting worse as the days go bye.
Few find the strength and courage to say something to the girl which only ends up in an argument. Never argue with a women, she's better at it. The argument doesn't go as you plan and you only end up feeling guilty for something that doesn't sit right with you. The uncertainty of whether or not her having touchy feely male friends is what kills you and makes you unable to stand your ground.
She tells you hes just a friend and you believe it but something still doesn't sit right in your stomach. You feel as though it's unfair that she has friends that are a little close for comfort while you would never allow any female friends to get that way. You feel loyal to the relationship and wouldn't allow anything to threaten it but would she?
That's an important question to ask any time you feel like there is a male friend of hers that you don't quite trust. Does she care about the relationship to let go of anyone who threatens it? Or does she enjoy the high she gets from external validation more? If the answer is yes that she does want to protect the relationship then the male friend needs to go.
There is a big problem that is running rampant in today's relationships and it's called male friends. A lot of guy's would steal your girlfriend right out from under you without a second thought. Either through lack of integrity or desperation for love and affection would they take what is not theirs leaving you confused as to why this happened.
Some women are to blame for this. They love external validation so much so that is has become an addiction to them. They gain their self esteem from the compliments and attention from others and it is a tough habit to break. They get into relationships and receive withdrawal symptoms from not having drunk guys suck up to them every weekend. Without this attention they feel ugly, useless and miserable.
They like the security that comes from a relationship because almost everyone fears dying alone but still feel the shakes as the self esteem derived from external validation leaves their system. Single and fearing dying alone or in a relationship and watching their false self esteem dwindles away?
There lies a compromise that most take: be in a relationship but keep the male companions around for validation. All the while you can pretend like it doesn't bother you when she constantly texts her “friend” who is a little too touchy for your tastes. Or like most guy's who don't like it you can keep your mouth shut and repress your irritation.
You don't like it but feel helpless in the situation. You know something is off but feel like there is nothing you can do about it. You have made far too many rationalizations in your head for this sort of behavior. You don't want to appear needy or macho so you let it go only to find the situation getting worse as the days go bye.
Few find the strength and courage to say something to the girl which only ends up in an argument. Never argue with a women, she's better at it. The argument doesn't go as you plan and you only end up feeling guilty for something that doesn't sit right with you. The uncertainty of whether or not her having touchy feely male friends is what kills you and makes you unable to stand your ground.
She tells you hes just a friend and you believe it but something still doesn't sit right in your stomach. You feel as though it's unfair that she has friends that are a little close for comfort while you would never allow any female friends to get that way. You feel loyal to the relationship and wouldn't allow anything to threaten it but would she?
That's an important question to ask any time you feel like there is a male friend of hers that you don't quite trust. Does she care about the relationship to let go of anyone who threatens it? Or does she enjoy the high she gets from external validation more? If the answer is yes that she does want to protect the relationship then the male friend needs to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)