This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq and Iran*.
(*-upon the suggestion of a reader and due to the beating of the new drums of war, Iran has been included in this list.)
Since the election as president of longtime opposition leader Abdoulaye Wade, West Africa's Senegal has become a bit of a darling of the international community. A smooth, democratic transfer of power. A sauve president who knows exactly what words and phrases foreign diplomats and international donors want to hear. While things are certainly better off in Senegal than in most of its neighbors, things are not all roses in le pays de la Terenga.
I've already written written about Wade's autocratic political tendencies (more extensively in my francophone Africa blog).
Yet, the problems are not simply political. The economic problems are more pressing for most Senegalese. Global Voice reports on a Senegalese blogger who been chronicling the perils faced by his countrymen who try to migrate clandestinly to Europe.
Despite the well documented risks(some mortal) and the likelihood of being stopped by authorities before reaching the European mainland, thousands of Senegalese have reportedly braved this perilous journey this year alone.
A powerful video report on the subject posted by the site Seneweb has provoked hundreds of responses.
The quantity and passion of the responses (of which Global Voices have helpfully translated a few) demonstrate how important this issue ranks in the minds of many Senegalese.
Sadly, this phenemenon is not limited to Senegal or even to Africa.
In high school science, we learned how wind occurs. Wind is caused by air moving from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. The greater the difference in pressure, the heavier the wind will be.
Migration works the same way, but in the other direction. Peoples tend to migration from areas of low economic potential to areas with higher economic potential. The greater the difference, the heavier the migration will be.
People like to think that what happens far away has no effect on them but in a globalized world, that's no longer true, if it ever was. Europe could erect a wall around its shores but as long as people in Africa can't feed their families by staying home, they will try to get in. People are going to do whatever they need to do to survive and to feed themselves and their families, even if it means being a sans papiers.
Thus, the only way to reduce the winds of migration is to decrease the economic disparity between Europe and Africa, between the US and Central America/Mexico. For this to occur, the western countries must implement fair trade practices by reducing or eliminating huge subsidies that cripple African producers. Freer trade must be structured so as to be a means, not an end in and of itself. Western countries must also restrict the highly profitable trade in small arms; far and away the most devastating weapon of mass destruction, small arms are used to destabilize countless countries and regions. Economic growth can not take off in an atmosphere of violence and instability.
Developing countries must launch a full-scale assault on corruption and bad governance, not simply let these be charades to settle political scores. The rule of law and respect for private property must go without saying if anyone is going to start a business and create employment; contrary to popular belief, respect for private property can be integrated with traditional social structures. Developing countries must also provide incentives for capable, well-educated citizens to remain at home. Universities, health facilities, laboratories and other institutions must be properly funded and maintained.
Of course, these are just a few of many things that need to be done to address global economic inequality. But it's a start. Interdiction alone will never be enough to stem the flow of migration.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The hypocrisy of el presidente
As the descendant of Italian immigrants, I certainly have no intention of siding with the nativists on the immigration scuffle. That said, Mexico's president is hardly helping things. On one hand, Vicente Fox visited the US and urged 'decent treatment' for his countrymen in the States.
Of course, it might be better if the former Coca-Cola executive focused more on ways to improve the Mexican economy so his countrymen wouldn't have to migrate in the first place. After all, most Mexicans who leave the country do so for economic reasons not because they want sponge off Texas' generous (snicker) social safety net.
But Fox's comments there are fair enough.
Yet a look at Mexico shows that non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.
The debate in the US focuses on non-citizens who entered the country illegally.
The Associated Press notes Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."
Pres. Fox's government wants this to go even further.
Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges. Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.
And foreigners make up only a neglible percentage of people living in Mexico (0.5 percent vs 13 percent in the US).
In the US, foreign-born citizens can even serve as soldiers, governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger), senators (Mel Martinez) and even high-ranking federal cabinet officials (Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright). But a president who wants to ban foreigners from even being firefighters is lecturing Americans on fair treatment of non-natives?
I've stated my position on immigration. I'm about as far away from nativism as you can get. But Sr Fox's double standards are hardly helping.
Of course, it might be better if the former Coca-Cola executive focused more on ways to improve the Mexican economy so his countrymen wouldn't have to migrate in the first place. After all, most Mexicans who leave the country do so for economic reasons not because they want sponge off Texas' generous (snicker) social safety net.
But Fox's comments there are fair enough.
Yet a look at Mexico shows that non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.
The debate in the US focuses on non-citizens who entered the country illegally.
The Associated Press notes Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."
Pres. Fox's government wants this to go even further.
Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges. Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.
And foreigners make up only a neglible percentage of people living in Mexico (0.5 percent vs 13 percent in the US).
In the US, foreign-born citizens can even serve as soldiers, governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger), senators (Mel Martinez) and even high-ranking federal cabinet officials (Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright). But a president who wants to ban foreigners from even being firefighters is lecturing Americans on fair treatment of non-natives?
I've stated my position on immigration. I'm about as far away from nativism as you can get. But Sr Fox's double standards are hardly helping.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
The world's ten most underreported stories
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
The UN publicized its annual list of the world's most underreported stories implying that politics, murder and sex scandals still take precedence over poverty, peace-building or economic development.
Some claim that the media doesn't cover stories from the developing world because it doesn't really affect Americans. At least not directly. In the global village, this is an increasingly shaky argument. But even so, how does this argument explain the fact that every time a pretty upper middle white girl is kidnapped and a handsome upper middle white boy is accused of acting badly, these marginal local stories hog national US 'news' programs?
Privleged lacrosse players supposedly raping a stripper makes for an easy narrative. How to improve lives for some of the billions of poor people is not. Gawking draws more readers/viewers than thinking. None of this is a revelation. That's just the way it is. Sadly, I no longer expect the corporate media to lead, but to be lead. My biggest objection is that it's borderline fraud to call such voyeurism 'news.'
"We've tried over the years to show that development issues can make good stories too -- by pointing out the human interest aspects, and by helping demonstrate that such stories can be made 'readable', 'watchable' and interesting," noted Shashi Tharoor, U.N. under-secretary-general for communications and public information.
According to the UN, the ten stories the world should hear more about include post-war reconstruction in Liberia; the new challenges faced by bona fide asylum seekers; the upcoming historic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo; children caught in the ongoing conflict in Nepal; and the compounding effects of a drought threatening to undermine stability in war-devastated Somalia.
The list also singles out several other stories under-reported by the world media: the plight of millions of refugees living in limbo; the problems of relief efforts in the aftermath of the South Asian earthquake and tsunami; the alarming number of children in conflict with the law; the collaborative solutions that have prevented conflicts over scarce water resources; and renewed violence that threatens to undermine the peace process in Cote d'Ivoire.
The UN publicized its annual list of the world's most underreported stories implying that politics, murder and sex scandals still take precedence over poverty, peace-building or economic development.
Some claim that the media doesn't cover stories from the developing world because it doesn't really affect Americans. At least not directly. In the global village, this is an increasingly shaky argument. But even so, how does this argument explain the fact that every time a pretty upper middle white girl is kidnapped and a handsome upper middle white boy is accused of acting badly, these marginal local stories hog national US 'news' programs?
Privleged lacrosse players supposedly raping a stripper makes for an easy narrative. How to improve lives for some of the billions of poor people is not. Gawking draws more readers/viewers than thinking. None of this is a revelation. That's just the way it is. Sadly, I no longer expect the corporate media to lead, but to be lead. My biggest objection is that it's borderline fraud to call such voyeurism 'news.'
"We've tried over the years to show that development issues can make good stories too -- by pointing out the human interest aspects, and by helping demonstrate that such stories can be made 'readable', 'watchable' and interesting," noted Shashi Tharoor, U.N. under-secretary-general for communications and public information.
According to the UN, the ten stories the world should hear more about include post-war reconstruction in Liberia; the new challenges faced by bona fide asylum seekers; the upcoming historic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo; children caught in the ongoing conflict in Nepal; and the compounding effects of a drought threatening to undermine stability in war-devastated Somalia.
The list also singles out several other stories under-reported by the world media: the plight of millions of refugees living in limbo; the problems of relief efforts in the aftermath of the South Asian earthquake and tsunami; the alarming number of children in conflict with the law; the collaborative solutions that have prevented conflicts over scarce water resources; and renewed violence that threatens to undermine the peace process in Cote d'Ivoire.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Pres. Bush is an inspiration...
...to Outpost of Tyranny leader Robert Mugabe.
BBC Focus on Africa reports:
In Zimbabwe, the government has published a draft law that would allow it to monitor phone conversations and emails. The authorities say it's in the interest of law and order. However civil groups argue that if the proposal becomes law, the government could use it to target political opponents.
I'm sure Mugabe would echo Bush supporters and say something like, "If you're not a 'terrorist,' you have nothing to worry about."
BBC Focus on Africa reports:
In Zimbabwe, the government has published a draft law that would allow it to monitor phone conversations and emails. The authorities say it's in the interest of law and order. However civil groups argue that if the proposal becomes law, the government could use it to target political opponents.
I'm sure Mugabe would echo Bush supporters and say something like, "If you're not a 'terrorist,' you have nothing to worry about."
US ranks 44th in world press freedom
Every year, the NGO Reporters Without Borders (also known by its French acronym RSF) issues an index of world press freedom. Amazingly, the 2005 index ranked the US 44th in press freedom.
How quickly things have deteroriated under the Bush administration? The US ranked 17th in press freedom as recently as 2002.
The US ranked below El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, the 'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys,' all the 'socialist' Scandinavian nations, eight countries who were behind the Iron Curtain fewer than two decades ago and even a half dozen African states.
At least we (barely) ranked above Israel, Mozambique and Mongolia.
The RSF report cites executive and judicial attacks on journalists as well as police retaliation against journalists who do reporting that displeases them. RSF also criticized recent comments by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Bear in mind that the RSF index was compiled before revelations of widespread warrantless spying by the Justice Department [sic] on journalists.
This is just the formal government pressures on the free press. The MSF index doesn't directly take into account indirect pressures on journalistic independence caused by widespread media consolidation.
Note: Iraq was 10th bottom during Saddam's last year. They've skyrocketed up to 11th bottom in 2005 under LIBERATION. Huzzah!
How quickly things have deteroriated under the Bush administration? The US ranked 17th in press freedom as recently as 2002.
The US ranked below El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, the 'Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys,' all the 'socialist' Scandinavian nations, eight countries who were behind the Iron Curtain fewer than two decades ago and even a half dozen African states.
At least we (barely) ranked above Israel, Mozambique and Mongolia.
The RSF report cites executive and judicial attacks on journalists as well as police retaliation against journalists who do reporting that displeases them. RSF also criticized recent comments by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Bear in mind that the RSF index was compiled before revelations of widespread warrantless spying by the Justice Department [sic] on journalists.
This is just the formal government pressures on the free press. The MSF index doesn't directly take into account indirect pressures on journalistic independence caused by widespread media consolidation.
Note: Iraq was 10th bottom during Saddam's last year. They've skyrocketed up to 11th bottom in 2005 under LIBERATION. Huzzah!
Friday, May 26, 2006
Kudos to The Post-Star
The title of this entry is not intended to be ironic. It's no secret that I've been a regular of The Post-Star in recent years. But I have to give them praise for the excellent series on suicide that the daily is running this week. (The series is available online by clicking here).
The series is not preachy or finger-wagging or self-righteous. It's informative, useful and emotionally powerful, a trio that is not always easy to blend.
This is the sort of good, public service journalism about serious issues that I hope to see more of in the paper.
Update: On an unrelated note, weekly Chronicle editor Mark Frost launched its latest salvo in his regular attacks on the Post-Star. The issue was regarding the weekly's inclusion in a interview with visiting Sen. John McCain, something the daily was not invited to and was peeved about. Frost published private emails sent by journalists at the daily to a member of McCain's staff. This is at least the second time he's published such private emails sent by The Post-Star staff. I know Mark Frost personally and I like him a lot but I find this practice ethically dubious to say the least. (Even more so since the emails weren't even sent to him directly.) The correspondances did not reveal any illegal or unethical activity, only a bit of sour grapes. The only reason Frost ran the letters was as a transparent jab against a competitor he despises. I've had email correspondances with Mr. Frost and with several journalists at The Post-Star. Though I've had my differences with both papers, it would never occur to me to publish any of those emails without their consent.
The series is not preachy or finger-wagging or self-righteous. It's informative, useful and emotionally powerful, a trio that is not always easy to blend.
This is the sort of good, public service journalism about serious issues that I hope to see more of in the paper.
Update: On an unrelated note, weekly Chronicle editor Mark Frost launched its latest salvo in his regular attacks on the Post-Star. The issue was regarding the weekly's inclusion in a interview with visiting Sen. John McCain, something the daily was not invited to and was peeved about. Frost published private emails sent by journalists at the daily to a member of McCain's staff. This is at least the second time he's published such private emails sent by The Post-Star staff. I know Mark Frost personally and I like him a lot but I find this practice ethically dubious to say the least. (Even more so since the emails weren't even sent to him directly.) The correspondances did not reveal any illegal or unethical activity, only a bit of sour grapes. The only reason Frost ran the letters was as a transparent jab against a competitor he despises. I've had email correspondances with Mr. Frost and with several journalists at The Post-Star. Though I've had my differences with both papers, it would never occur to me to publish any of those emails without their consent.
The 'Support our troops' ruse (pt. 243)
I've written before about how 'Support our troops' is nothing more than an empty phrase used to silence critics of the president and the Iraq aggression. Certainly not all people who use the phrase intend it that way; my mom has a bumper sticker with that slogan on her car and she's opposed the war from the beginning. But in reality, the seemingly innocuous phrase has been hijacked by those who believe in the un-American premise that you can't criticize the Leader.
The other sad part about the phrase is that people use it without thinking. It's become a bit like the prayers said at Sunday mass. Most people just intone the words from memory without really pondering them. It's just what you do in that situation.
But putting up a lawn sign or wearing a ribbon that says 'Support our troops' doesn't really support the troops. I've often said that if you really want to support the troops, demand that they never be put in harm's way lightly or for bogus reasons... that their commander-in-chief order them to risk their lives only when it's absolutely necessary.
There are others ways too. Such as making sure soldiers are treated properly after they leave the armed forces. My brother, an ex-Marine, has sent me many articles on the dysfunction in the veterans' benefits system.
The blog of Foreign Policy magazine offers several other examples.
A lot has rightly been made of the recent vets' identify theft scandal. But there's more. As FP notes A staggering 144,000 veterans of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sought treatment from the VA system, but the VA can do little but try to care for them on the cheap, given its slashed budget. Astonishingly, 33,858 more vets asked the VA for treatment in just the first quarter of [Fiscal Year] 2006 than the VA expects all year.
The magazine also interviews Jon Soltz, director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC. Soltz offers the following assessment: The veteran who walks into the Department for Veterans Affairs (VA) today is drastically worse off than he or she was four or five years ago. They pay more for their prescription drugs. There is now a fee for them to enroll into the system. Iraq war veterans put a tremendous demand on the VA, specifically because we’ve deployed so many members of the Guard and Reserves. There’s also a problem with diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A lot of people with PTSD get diagnosed with “adjustment disorder” primarily because there’s not enough money in the VA budget to provide these heroes with the disability payments they should be given.
Of course, if we stopped wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year on an insane war of aggression with no prospect of an end, we might have money to actually help the soldiers we ordered to prosecute that war.
The other sad part about the phrase is that people use it without thinking. It's become a bit like the prayers said at Sunday mass. Most people just intone the words from memory without really pondering them. It's just what you do in that situation.
But putting up a lawn sign or wearing a ribbon that says 'Support our troops' doesn't really support the troops. I've often said that if you really want to support the troops, demand that they never be put in harm's way lightly or for bogus reasons... that their commander-in-chief order them to risk their lives only when it's absolutely necessary.
There are others ways too. Such as making sure soldiers are treated properly after they leave the armed forces. My brother, an ex-Marine, has sent me many articles on the dysfunction in the veterans' benefits system.
The blog of Foreign Policy magazine offers several other examples.
A lot has rightly been made of the recent vets' identify theft scandal. But there's more. As FP notes A staggering 144,000 veterans of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sought treatment from the VA system, but the VA can do little but try to care for them on the cheap, given its slashed budget. Astonishingly, 33,858 more vets asked the VA for treatment in just the first quarter of [Fiscal Year] 2006 than the VA expects all year.
The magazine also interviews Jon Soltz, director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC. Soltz offers the following assessment: The veteran who walks into the Department for Veterans Affairs (VA) today is drastically worse off than he or she was four or five years ago. They pay more for their prescription drugs. There is now a fee for them to enroll into the system. Iraq war veterans put a tremendous demand on the VA, specifically because we’ve deployed so many members of the Guard and Reserves. There’s also a problem with diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A lot of people with PTSD get diagnosed with “adjustment disorder” primarily because there’s not enough money in the VA budget to provide these heroes with the disability payments they should be given.
Of course, if we stopped wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year on an insane war of aggression with no prospect of an end, we might have money to actually help the soldiers we ordered to prosecute that war.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
War apologists' logic dictates withdrawal
Some supporters for the Iraq aggression assure us that things are going swimmingly. That it's only months away from becoming the Garden of Eden again. All the homicide bombings are just a figment of the 'liberal' media's imagination. Iraqis would have water and electricity and security if not for Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Michael Moore. They suggest that having a piece of paper called a constitution and elections under foreign occupation make the place a model republic that Plato would be proud of.
People like this will lie to you and say that only peaceniks and inveterate Bush-haters think the war is going poorly. It's easy to laugh hysterically at this. Sometimes it's difficult to believe there are people who can be so willfully blind.
Sure, you might tell them that only 30% of the people opposed of the Iraq aggression beforehand and 49% voted against Bush in the 2004 election yet 62% (and rising) oppose the aggression now... so obviously it's more than just the president's and the war's natural opponents who have issues with the debacle. But such facts won't cure them of their delusions.
Just for a moment, however, let's take them at their word. Let's follow their analysis to its logical conclusion.
Iraq had elections. Iraq has a government. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has nascent security forces. If these things are true and everything else is going as peachily as we are being assured, then clearly it's time for US troops to pull out. Why else would we need to stay longer?
Iraq is home to the oldest civilization in the world. It doesn't need some relatively young nation holding its hand on governance ad infinitum. They have their constitution, their government, their elections, their security forces. Let them run their own country unimpeded by Uncle Sam.
If things are going as well as the apologists tell us, then this is 'Mission Accomplished.' Why, then, do they tell us that this is 'Cut and Run'?
People like this will lie to you and say that only peaceniks and inveterate Bush-haters think the war is going poorly. It's easy to laugh hysterically at this. Sometimes it's difficult to believe there are people who can be so willfully blind.
Sure, you might tell them that only 30% of the people opposed of the Iraq aggression beforehand and 49% voted against Bush in the 2004 election yet 62% (and rising) oppose the aggression now... so obviously it's more than just the president's and the war's natural opponents who have issues with the debacle. But such facts won't cure them of their delusions.
Just for a moment, however, let's take them at their word. Let's follow their analysis to its logical conclusion.
Iraq had elections. Iraq has a government. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has nascent security forces. If these things are true and everything else is going as peachily as we are being assured, then clearly it's time for US troops to pull out. Why else would we need to stay longer?
Iraq is home to the oldest civilization in the world. It doesn't need some relatively young nation holding its hand on governance ad infinitum. They have their constitution, their government, their elections, their security forces. Let them run their own country unimpeded by Uncle Sam.
If things are going as well as the apologists tell us, then this is 'Mission Accomplished.' Why, then, do they tell us that this is 'Cut and Run'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)