Friday, 9 December 2011
Group Violence, Ethnic Diversity, and Citizen Participation
This paper addresses the impact of violent conflict on social capital, as measured by citizen participation in community groups defined for four activity types: governance, social service, infrastructure development and risk-sharing. Combining household panel data from Indonesia with conflict event information, the authors find an overall decrease in citizen contributions in districts affected by group violence in the early post-Suharto transition period. However, participation in communities with a high degree of ethnic polarization is less strongly affected and even stimulated for local governance and risk-sharing activities. Moreover, individual engagement appears to be dependent on the involvement of other members from the own ethnic group, which points to emphases on bonding social networks in the presence of violence. Finally, in conflict regions, the wealthier households are more likely to engage into cooperative and infrastructure improvement activities, while they are dropping from security groups. On the contrary, the poorest households get more involved in social service activities and less in infrastructure groups. The results illustrate the danger of generalizations when dealing with violence impact on community activities. http://www.microconflict.eu/
Cultural Diversity, Geographical Isolation, and the Origin of the Wealth of Nations
This research argues that variations in the interplay between cultural assimilation and cultural diffusion have played a significant role in giving rise to differential patterns of economic development across the globe. Societies that were geographically less vulnerable to cultural diffusion benefited from enhanced assimilation, lower cultural diversity, and more intense accumulation of society-specific human capital. Thus, they operated more efficiently with respect to their production-possibility frontiers and flourished in the technological paradigm that characterized the agricultural stage of development. The lack of cultural diffusion and its manifestation in cultural rigidity, however, diminished the ability of these societies to adapt to a new technological paradigm, which delayed their industrialization and, hence, their take-off to a state of sustained economic growth.
Investment Promotion Handbook for Diplomats
This handbook is aimed at diplomats on both UAH and UMBS forums who are new to promoting foreign direct investment (FDI). Most commonly, FDI takes place when companies set up and expand affiliates or acquire firms in foreign markets. Most governments promote and facilitate inward FDI as it can be a major source of capital, employment, skills, technology and revenue. As part of these efforts, countries have set up investment promotion agencies (IPAs) on both the national and subnational levels. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
Friday, 2 December 2011
US troops in Uganda, Social Learning Theory and Gaddafi’s ‘Execution’
Friends,
Sending US troops to Uganda to reportedly hunt down Kony Joseph and LRA has not generated big headlines around the world. It has been done very quietly and I’m very suspicious about it. My only worry is that there seems to be no visible political reforms in Uganda, a situation that can lead to anything. Things are no longer looking good in Uganda and this is worrying me so much. When a situation is as bad as it is right now, the government becomes paranoid and starts killing and imprisoning its own citizens openly especially those that criticise it regularly.
Americans always side with the side that will make them look good back home, and in most cases, it is the people in case of a revolution. But if there is no revolution, they will always side with the people in power or government( and in this case, it could be argued that they are in Uganda to help President Museveni but not the people of Uganda).
Like in Libya, if a government disappears, new governments pop up virtually or automatically because that is simply in the nature of social life given current conditions. Obviously, when someone has been a president for such a long time, they tend to think they are different from other human beings, but the fact is that one day Museveni will not be president of Uganda, Mbabazi will not be PM or anywhere near government, and possibly another set of tribes will be dominating the economic and political sector other than Banyankole and Baganda, simply because society always evolves automatically.
This is the reason why I don’t believe in revengeful acts, murdering someone because i don’t like them and the death penalty because, apart from the fact that it is immoral, I know societies will always change whether leaders like it or not. For instance, If it was true that killing a dictator or a murderer gives more positive results, then states with a death penalty would have lower murder rates than states without a death penalty. That is not the case.
In Libya’s case, Brother Gaddafi(RIP) was a dictator but his execution isn’t going to deter other dictators from doing what they have been doing. Dictators normally don’t change their behavior because another dictator has been killed. They will feel his death for a while and probably shade some tears in their bedrooms but they will go back to feeling like ‘Napoleon’. President Museveni will remain a ‘barking dog’ despite what has happened to Gaddafi. He is probably gonna issue a statement in a few days time calling westerners all sorts of names and scaring Ugandans, like Gadaffi(RIP) did at the start of this campaign, and he wont change an iota, trust me on this. I challenge anyone to list the dictators who have changed their behavior after another dictator has been deposed and executed?
I don’t know whether some people are familiar with Bandura’s social learning theory( SLT) but it explains a lot about people’s behavior and how they learn to behave that way. Bandura argues that an individual learns by observation, imitation, and modeling. For instance, I watched a video of Bukenya [former VP of Uganda] recently after being released from prison and I was astonished to see him still rolling eyes, like Museveni, while giving a speech in Kakiri trading centre- despite the fact that the media has been pointing out that he is imitating President Museveni and he should stop it.
Similary, dictators just learn to become dictators or monsters. Nobody is born a monster, I believe, though my lovely wife disagrees. My wife believes that some people’s bad behavior is inherited. She quoted some theories which I can’t remember now but she is convinced that some people don’t deserve to live in this world because they are monsters. I , however, disagree.
I believe every behavior is learned from somewhere. Museveni surely must have a good side of him which if we had not allowed him to accumulate too much power in 1990s, we would have benefited from that good side. Children also learn aggressive behavior by observing others, but if there is negative consequences, there may not be any imitation.That’s why parents control what they watch on TV or see elsewhere.
NTC and NATO should not have killed Gadaffi.I think they intentionally eliminated him. They did not want a Mubarak circus in Libya but that worries us a lot about the kind of government NTC are gonna run. They should have given him a chance to stand trial, but then again, Brother Gaddy brought all this on himself. We wrote articles and posted them in the media and on our Uganda Muslim Brothers & Sisters( UMBS) forum where we have got members that were in direct contact with him- including Uganda’s ambasador to Libya, but I guess he never listened. Why couldn’t he give up power? Why did he choose to fight a war he clearly wasn’t going to win? Mubaraka is still eating sausages yet he is not different from Gadaffi(RIP).
I’m still sad about Gadafi’s death and i hope Allah forgives his sins but he never helped himself. He chose to walk through a landmine, and that was not wise.Inalilahi wahina ilayihi rajihuna.
Byebyo ebyange.
Abbey Semuwemba
Sending US troops to Uganda to reportedly hunt down Kony Joseph and LRA has not generated big headlines around the world. It has been done very quietly and I’m very suspicious about it. My only worry is that there seems to be no visible political reforms in Uganda, a situation that can lead to anything. Things are no longer looking good in Uganda and this is worrying me so much. When a situation is as bad as it is right now, the government becomes paranoid and starts killing and imprisoning its own citizens openly especially those that criticise it regularly.
Americans always side with the side that will make them look good back home, and in most cases, it is the people in case of a revolution. But if there is no revolution, they will always side with the people in power or government( and in this case, it could be argued that they are in Uganda to help President Museveni but not the people of Uganda).
Like in Libya, if a government disappears, new governments pop up virtually or automatically because that is simply in the nature of social life given current conditions. Obviously, when someone has been a president for such a long time, they tend to think they are different from other human beings, but the fact is that one day Museveni will not be president of Uganda, Mbabazi will not be PM or anywhere near government, and possibly another set of tribes will be dominating the economic and political sector other than Banyankole and Baganda, simply because society always evolves automatically.
This is the reason why I don’t believe in revengeful acts, murdering someone because i don’t like them and the death penalty because, apart from the fact that it is immoral, I know societies will always change whether leaders like it or not. For instance, If it was true that killing a dictator or a murderer gives more positive results, then states with a death penalty would have lower murder rates than states without a death penalty. That is not the case.
In Libya’s case, Brother Gaddafi(RIP) was a dictator but his execution isn’t going to deter other dictators from doing what they have been doing. Dictators normally don’t change their behavior because another dictator has been killed. They will feel his death for a while and probably shade some tears in their bedrooms but they will go back to feeling like ‘Napoleon’. President Museveni will remain a ‘barking dog’ despite what has happened to Gaddafi. He is probably gonna issue a statement in a few days time calling westerners all sorts of names and scaring Ugandans, like Gadaffi(RIP) did at the start of this campaign, and he wont change an iota, trust me on this. I challenge anyone to list the dictators who have changed their behavior after another dictator has been deposed and executed?
I don’t know whether some people are familiar with Bandura’s social learning theory( SLT) but it explains a lot about people’s behavior and how they learn to behave that way. Bandura argues that an individual learns by observation, imitation, and modeling. For instance, I watched a video of Bukenya [former VP of Uganda] recently after being released from prison and I was astonished to see him still rolling eyes, like Museveni, while giving a speech in Kakiri trading centre- despite the fact that the media has been pointing out that he is imitating President Museveni and he should stop it.
Similary, dictators just learn to become dictators or monsters. Nobody is born a monster, I believe, though my lovely wife disagrees. My wife believes that some people’s bad behavior is inherited. She quoted some theories which I can’t remember now but she is convinced that some people don’t deserve to live in this world because they are monsters. I , however, disagree.
I believe every behavior is learned from somewhere. Museveni surely must have a good side of him which if we had not allowed him to accumulate too much power in 1990s, we would have benefited from that good side. Children also learn aggressive behavior by observing others, but if there is negative consequences, there may not be any imitation.That’s why parents control what they watch on TV or see elsewhere.
NTC and NATO should not have killed Gadaffi.I think they intentionally eliminated him. They did not want a Mubarak circus in Libya but that worries us a lot about the kind of government NTC are gonna run. They should have given him a chance to stand trial, but then again, Brother Gaddy brought all this on himself. We wrote articles and posted them in the media and on our Uganda Muslim Brothers & Sisters( UMBS) forum where we have got members that were in direct contact with him- including Uganda’s ambasador to Libya, but I guess he never listened. Why couldn’t he give up power? Why did he choose to fight a war he clearly wasn’t going to win? Mubaraka is still eating sausages yet he is not different from Gadaffi(RIP).
I’m still sad about Gadafi’s death and i hope Allah forgives his sins but he never helped himself. He chose to walk through a landmine, and that was not wise.Inalilahi wahina ilayihi rajihuna.
Byebyo ebyange.
Abbey Semuwemba
Mwenda and his Team selectively applied the Kotter’s Model in their Analysis of Besigye’s Performance
Dear Ugandans,
I like the owner of the Independent Newspaper, Mr.Mwenda Andrew, but as of recent, he has been either soiled in the banana or ‘bogoya’ republic or he has accidentally lost his touch. He nowadays tries so hard to impress those with power yet he used not be that kind of person. Anyway, let me try to use my little time and respond to some of the issues published by his editor, Weere, in his article entitled: ”How Museveni gained 10% and Besigye lost it” , views which Mwenda seems to have supported at Capitalfm political show immediately after the elections.
‘’Did Besigye make Ugandans want a change from Museveni desperately? There are three questions that answer this according to Kotter’s model’’ His paper, the independent, reported or asked.
Kotter’s model is mainly essential in transforming organizations rather than implementing changes or showing the urgency for change. Jick’s tactical ten step model is the one that deals with implementation while General Electric (GE)’s seven-step change acceleration process model deals with showing the urgency for change. I have attached a pictorial version of the Kotter’s model below to this message.
Clearly, anybody can manipulate it and make an argument either in favour or against the opposition in Uganda as the Independent did, but im not gonna do what Mwenda and his team did. I’m just gonna show that some of these theories are not applicable in a situation such as Uganda.
One of The major lessons from the Kotter Model is that change process goes through a series of phases, each lasting a considerable amount of time. So how does Mwenda expect Besigye to ‘win over outside stakeholders like other opposition leaders, the army, foreign diplomats and governments’ in a specific period of time in a situation , like that in Uganda, which does not allow change to take place any level. The way Uganda is now it is impossible to get rid of Musevenism evenif Museveni died today or lost power in an election.
Mwenda’s team rightly quotes Kotter’s model which explains that Creating short-term wins motivates employees during a long change effort, but he wrongly looks at the short term wins Besigye failed to have as :’’failure to dislodge the Electoral Commission(EC), opposition coalition, et.c. These should not be the short term wins to judge any political leader because all those were not in Besigye’s control. He could not have done more than he did before the elections.In any case, Besigye’s short term wins should be those wins he had in both 2001 and 2006 elections before the 2011 elections. I also think Kotler was particulary looking at managers of organisations who seem to be in control of the situations around them, which was not the case with Besigye. Nevertheless, I think Besigye’s failure to win the youths in elections was his own making, as this was in his control and we pleaded with FDC executive to persuade Besigye to come up with a song that would conteract Museveni’s ‘Mpekoni’, but all in vain. There was some bit of excitement created among Ugandans including myself- by listening to Museveni’s rap.
It seems that “change” is just poorly understood by some people, based on misinformed assumptions or some management theories, poorly executed or all of these. Besigye was expected to meet resistance at all levels of Kottler’s model by trying to bring change to the institutions he does not control. Besigye does not control or appoint the EC, so what better could he have done to get the EC disbanded? What better could he have done which he has not done before to win the army support? What better could he have done than what he did to unite the opposition and bring the Baganda to his side?
There were some people in the population who saw/see the need for change but they don’t want it out of fear and survival. For instance, some Ugandans fear that president Museveni will plunge our country into violence if anybody, other than him, wins an election. As Lewin( 1958) explained change happens if Ch = f(D x V x P) > Co. Change (Ch) takes place if the Dissatisfaction (D) with the status quo, multiplied by a Vision (V) of the future, multiplied by agreed Processes (P) that remove obstacles blocking access to the desired state is greater than the Cost (Co) of change. The way things stand change cannot come to Uganda through so called elections because the ground for free and fair elections is not there at all. There are some countries in East Africa,particulalry Kenya, that have moved a step to better elections because the institution such as the EC are fairy independent.There is nothing like a Kenyan president appointing the head of the EC as is the case in Uganda.Rigging in Kenya might have ended with the Kibaki presidency going by the way the Kenyans have set up their system now.
Therefore, when one deeply analyses all these theories, one finds that Dr.Besigye actually tried to do exactly what the models are telling managers of organizations to do. He could not have done it in any better way. Those criticizing him now have got their own intentions but could not have done better. Most of these management theories are a fallacy when it comes to practice and I normally compare them to love making between a man and woman. Theoretically, everybody has got an idea on what they are supposed to do in the process of lovemaking but practically the results tend to differ among different couples. So, it would not be wise for any of us to go on a blame game just basing on theory without looking at the reality of the situation.
Money in the campaigns
Money is a big factor in any election anywhere in the world. A candidate with money has higher chances of winning the election. The returns from such an investment are undisputable. However, president Museveni clearly used national coffers to campaign and that itself is not only illegal but it is immoral. It was a clear sign that the incumbent was not ready to hand over power and was willing to operate outside the law to achieve his aims. That’s why some of us called this election a ‘remote control’ election where the incumbent was capable of ‘organizing the event, choosing the dancers and master of ceremony’ throughout the process, with the inner knowledge that the situation was favoring him more than his opponents.
Opinion polls
An opinion poll is something that should be taken seriously in any free and fair election. I’m saying ‘free and fair’ because I don’t think this was the case with the just concluded presidential elections in Uganda. For instance, in USA, during the first two years of the Reagan administration, information from opinion polls was discussed in more than half of the senior staff meetings of the White House. Richard Wirthlin, the pollster met with Reagan more than 25 times just to discuss polls.
Actually, almost all USA presidents had their own pollsters: Roosevelt had Cantril, Kennedy had Harris, Johnson had Quayle, Ford had Teeter, Carter had Caddell, Reagan had Wirthlin, while Nixon used most of them. This is because the opinions of the population are something that leaders of the developed nations take seriously before they make any decision.
But in Uganda’s case, with or without opinion polls, president Museveni is not bothered with the opinions of the people of Uganda. For instance, removing presidential term limits was unpopular policy among Ugandans, even within his own party, but he went ahead and removed them. He has been sending our troops to fight on foreign soil regardless of how people feel.
So what is the meaning of holding opinion polls in an environment where the incumbent has got no respect for people’s opinions? So the Afrobarometer polls might have been a reflection of a society that is still caught in fear and survival rather support for president Museveni. Secondly, opinion polls tend to be manipulated by some leaders depending on what they want out of the situation, and they tend to do it differently. For instance, In the 1970s, Harris and Gallup were the giants of the polling industry. Because of their prominence, they attracted Nixon’s interest and became prime candidates for attack and manipulation by the administration. Therefore, I would not be surprised if president Museveni or his team had a hand in the Afrobarometer polls one way or the other, and may be that is why the opposition did not take them seriously and ‘’ buried their head in divisions’ as reported by Andrew Mwenda and his team. Who can blame them, anyway?
The truth is that we shall never know who genuinely won the 2001, 2006 and 2011 elections because the ground for elections was not free and fair. Yes, Uganda is not like Belgium for us to have totally free and fair elections, and this alone is enough for us to discard all arguments made by some people showing that Museveni won the 2011 elections fairer compared to the 2006 elections- just because there was less violence in them. Text-book theories, such as those put forward by Mwenda and his team, are totally inapplicable in this case. We cannot work out the percentage of rigging based on assumptions of violence and nonviolence when the ground for free and fair elections was not there in the first place.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
source: http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/mwenda-and-his-team-selectively-applied-the-kotters-model-in-their-analysis-of-besigyes-performance/
I like the owner of the Independent Newspaper, Mr.Mwenda Andrew, but as of recent, he has been either soiled in the banana or ‘bogoya’ republic or he has accidentally lost his touch. He nowadays tries so hard to impress those with power yet he used not be that kind of person. Anyway, let me try to use my little time and respond to some of the issues published by his editor, Weere, in his article entitled: ”How Museveni gained 10% and Besigye lost it” , views which Mwenda seems to have supported at Capitalfm political show immediately after the elections.
‘’Did Besigye make Ugandans want a change from Museveni desperately? There are three questions that answer this according to Kotter’s model’’ His paper, the independent, reported or asked.
Kotter’s model is mainly essential in transforming organizations rather than implementing changes or showing the urgency for change. Jick’s tactical ten step model is the one that deals with implementation while General Electric (GE)’s seven-step change acceleration process model deals with showing the urgency for change. I have attached a pictorial version of the Kotter’s model below to this message.
Clearly, anybody can manipulate it and make an argument either in favour or against the opposition in Uganda as the Independent did, but im not gonna do what Mwenda and his team did. I’m just gonna show that some of these theories are not applicable in a situation such as Uganda.
Kotter's Model
Mwenda’s team rightly quotes Kotter’s model which explains that Creating short-term wins motivates employees during a long change effort, but he wrongly looks at the short term wins Besigye failed to have as :’’failure to dislodge the Electoral Commission(EC), opposition coalition, et.c. These should not be the short term wins to judge any political leader because all those were not in Besigye’s control. He could not have done more than he did before the elections.In any case, Besigye’s short term wins should be those wins he had in both 2001 and 2006 elections before the 2011 elections. I also think Kotler was particulary looking at managers of organisations who seem to be in control of the situations around them, which was not the case with Besigye. Nevertheless, I think Besigye’s failure to win the youths in elections was his own making, as this was in his control and we pleaded with FDC executive to persuade Besigye to come up with a song that would conteract Museveni’s ‘Mpekoni’, but all in vain. There was some bit of excitement created among Ugandans including myself- by listening to Museveni’s rap.
It seems that “change” is just poorly understood by some people, based on misinformed assumptions or some management theories, poorly executed or all of these. Besigye was expected to meet resistance at all levels of Kottler’s model by trying to bring change to the institutions he does not control. Besigye does not control or appoint the EC, so what better could he have done to get the EC disbanded? What better could he have done which he has not done before to win the army support? What better could he have done than what he did to unite the opposition and bring the Baganda to his side?
There were some people in the population who saw/see the need for change but they don’t want it out of fear and survival. For instance, some Ugandans fear that president Museveni will plunge our country into violence if anybody, other than him, wins an election. As Lewin( 1958) explained change happens if Ch = f(D x V x P) > Co. Change (Ch) takes place if the Dissatisfaction (D) with the status quo, multiplied by a Vision (V) of the future, multiplied by agreed Processes (P) that remove obstacles blocking access to the desired state is greater than the Cost (Co) of change. The way things stand change cannot come to Uganda through so called elections because the ground for free and fair elections is not there at all. There are some countries in East Africa,particulalry Kenya, that have moved a step to better elections because the institution such as the EC are fairy independent.There is nothing like a Kenyan president appointing the head of the EC as is the case in Uganda.Rigging in Kenya might have ended with the Kibaki presidency going by the way the Kenyans have set up their system now.
Therefore, when one deeply analyses all these theories, one finds that Dr.Besigye actually tried to do exactly what the models are telling managers of organizations to do. He could not have done it in any better way. Those criticizing him now have got their own intentions but could not have done better. Most of these management theories are a fallacy when it comes to practice and I normally compare them to love making between a man and woman. Theoretically, everybody has got an idea on what they are supposed to do in the process of lovemaking but practically the results tend to differ among different couples. So, it would not be wise for any of us to go on a blame game just basing on theory without looking at the reality of the situation.
Money in the campaigns
Money is a big factor in any election anywhere in the world. A candidate with money has higher chances of winning the election. The returns from such an investment are undisputable. However, president Museveni clearly used national coffers to campaign and that itself is not only illegal but it is immoral. It was a clear sign that the incumbent was not ready to hand over power and was willing to operate outside the law to achieve his aims. That’s why some of us called this election a ‘remote control’ election where the incumbent was capable of ‘organizing the event, choosing the dancers and master of ceremony’ throughout the process, with the inner knowledge that the situation was favoring him more than his opponents.
Opinion polls
An opinion poll is something that should be taken seriously in any free and fair election. I’m saying ‘free and fair’ because I don’t think this was the case with the just concluded presidential elections in Uganda. For instance, in USA, during the first two years of the Reagan administration, information from opinion polls was discussed in more than half of the senior staff meetings of the White House. Richard Wirthlin, the pollster met with Reagan more than 25 times just to discuss polls.
Actually, almost all USA presidents had their own pollsters: Roosevelt had Cantril, Kennedy had Harris, Johnson had Quayle, Ford had Teeter, Carter had Caddell, Reagan had Wirthlin, while Nixon used most of them. This is because the opinions of the population are something that leaders of the developed nations take seriously before they make any decision.
But in Uganda’s case, with or without opinion polls, president Museveni is not bothered with the opinions of the people of Uganda. For instance, removing presidential term limits was unpopular policy among Ugandans, even within his own party, but he went ahead and removed them. He has been sending our troops to fight on foreign soil regardless of how people feel.
So what is the meaning of holding opinion polls in an environment where the incumbent has got no respect for people’s opinions? So the Afrobarometer polls might have been a reflection of a society that is still caught in fear and survival rather support for president Museveni. Secondly, opinion polls tend to be manipulated by some leaders depending on what they want out of the situation, and they tend to do it differently. For instance, In the 1970s, Harris and Gallup were the giants of the polling industry. Because of their prominence, they attracted Nixon’s interest and became prime candidates for attack and manipulation by the administration. Therefore, I would not be surprised if president Museveni or his team had a hand in the Afrobarometer polls one way or the other, and may be that is why the opposition did not take them seriously and ‘’ buried their head in divisions’ as reported by Andrew Mwenda and his team. Who can blame them, anyway?
The truth is that we shall never know who genuinely won the 2001, 2006 and 2011 elections because the ground for elections was not free and fair. Yes, Uganda is not like Belgium for us to have totally free and fair elections, and this alone is enough for us to discard all arguments made by some people showing that Museveni won the 2011 elections fairer compared to the 2006 elections- just because there was less violence in them. Text-book theories, such as those put forward by Mwenda and his team, are totally inapplicable in this case. We cannot work out the percentage of rigging based on assumptions of violence and nonviolence when the ground for free and fair elections was not there in the first place.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
source: http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/mwenda-and-his-team-selectively-applied-the-kotters-model-in-their-analysis-of-besigyes-performance/
ICC is good for Africa but Bad for dictators
ICC is good for Africa but Bad for dictators
International Criminal Court logo
We have got to support the existence of the ICC because Africa is the top beneficially compared to other countries due to the number of dictators on the continent. The treaty which created the ICC is not even as old as Museveni’s regime or Kony’s war in the north because it was adopted in 1998 at an international conference in Rome after intense negotiations. So why should we start discarding it before It has been tested enough.
The ICC is an important deterrent to those that are committing crimes on the continent. At least, every sitting African president knows that there is now an arm of law that can touch him before he leaves the presidency, if he commits crimes against humanity. We used to have ad-hoc war crimes tribunals (modelled on the Nuremberg trials of Nazi officials following World War II) ,like the one that tried the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague and the Kagame courts in Rwanda that tried genocide criminals, but they were not as legally and internationally pronouncing as the ICC. The ICC is the first new international judicial body since the International Court of Justice, or World Court, which was created in 1945 to adjudicate disputes between states.
The only reason why some people fear this court is because they assume that the West can use the court against developing countries and the presidents they support. This is the same fear Asian countries had before putting their signatures on the treaty. That is why most of the Asian and African countries delayed signing it. For instance, during the war in Kosovo, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians were raped and murdered. NATO intervened and conducted an 11- week aerial campaign against Yugoslavia that ended the ethnic cleansing. Surely war crimes were committed but it ended with the extradition of Slobodan Milosevic not USA’s Bill Clinton. The same has happened in Libya when NATO intervened to save the Libyans from being killed by Late Muamar Gaddafi. Gaddafi son, Seif, is among those that are likely to be paraded infront of ICC courts if the Libya’s NTC allows it.
Nevertheless, the ICC is regarded as a major step forward in most of the world though it is derided in mainly western nations. No one claims it is perfect, but there are many safeguards. The ICC is based in The Hague and those it convicts can be held in prisons in any of the signatory states. Being used by western nations to push their interests in Africa and elsewhere may be wrong but isn’t that an aspiration worth making a tiny risk for? Who does not want to feel free and safe in their country without these dictators making it hard for everyone?
People with such fears have got a point because the west dominates almost all international bodies but given a choice, i would rather see the ICC help us get rid of the dictators, and then we sort out the west lateron. Atleast, we already know that the great nations are using Africa using different international organs but this does not mean that we have to get used to having dictators on our continent.
Let us also note that Prosecutions in the ICC are only valid if national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute serious crimes. And only a nation ratifying the treaty can make a complaint against its own citizens or those of other nations for crimes committed on its soil. For instance, the International Criminal Court had no authority over events in Ethiopia or Eritrea, because neither country had ratified the treaty creating the tribunal. Israel signed it but not ratified. So ICC cannot touch Israel despite committing crimes against humanity in Palestine. Egypt, Iran and Syria signed. India, Pakistan and China neither signed nor ratified. Russia signed but not ratified. I know that Uganda signed but I’m not sure whether it ratified it. Most democratic nations and all European Union countries signed and ratified the treaty. In the USA, Former President Bill Clinton signed the pact in December 2000 but President George W. Bush renounced it in May 2001. Let us hope that Obama will do the needful and get USA back into ICC before he leaves the presidency.
To be honest, I don’t know why Bush pulled the USA out of the ICC. First, the ICC is strictly prescribed to only atrocities that are spelled out in its treaty. Second, the ICC can’t actually go and arrest people unless they are given enforcement power to do so, which requires a vote of the United Nations Security Council. The US has a veto there, so there is no threat to Americans. Third, even if a third country voluntarily arrests and extradites an American to the ICC, the Security Council can intervene on individual cases. The point is pretty clear: the ICC isn’t something that can harm USA; it only will focus on precisely defined war crimes and crimes against humanity. It isn’t the monster idiots like what some people claim it is. The US is going against the world community by not participating in a court to deal with those crimes. If USA was part of the ICC, it would have made it stronger. It is for this reason that I see no point in the ICC dragging Britain, Russia, China or any of the countries that permanently sit on the Security Council in courts of law because they can easily overpower any form of extradition.
I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I do know that the Constitution recognizes that state crimes are the jurisdiction of state courts. Of course, the rights of the Constitution continue to hold, and if we had federalism in Uganda, certain “due process” would be recognized to be the jurisdiction of Buganda or Bunyoro or Busoga courts.
It seems reasonable that the Constitution be interpreted consistently. Things of a state are the jurisdiction of the state. Things of the world could be the jurisdiction of the world. Perhaps more knowledgeable men than myself might work out the details of a treaty recognizing world courts and establishing the review process by treaty. By the way, I don’t know what court you appeal to after being found guilty in the ICC. May be the lawyers reading this can help us on this one.
However, what we must know is that the war crimes tribunal was created as a court of last resort, and its mandate is to only step in when countries are either unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves. This means that Ugandans or president Museveni cannot be prosecuted over Kony war or any crimes committed in Uganda if the mechanism to prosecute war crimes already exists within the Uganda judicial system. So I ask anti-ICC to stop misrepresenting the court’s concept or to continue arguing that it will be used for frivolous and/or politically motivated prosecutions. Once and for all, the whole concept of an International Criminal Court does not in any way contradict our African/Ugandan ideals. Every Ugandan wants to see justice done fairly but unfortunately we cannot see true justice in our own courts of law.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
SOURCE: http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/icc-is-good-for-africa/
Bank regulation and reforms: For what? Rural areas transformed?
Regulations and Reforms in Nigerian Banks to enable social banking are desirable. The problem has been banks stunted growth from arm-chair banking to social banking. The recent recapitalization and merging of banks for bigger business, risk and profit is a step in the right direction. But the problem remains if the erstwhile 89 Nigerian banks equal numbers 2 and 3South African banks or the current 24 recapitalized Nigerian banks equal number 2 South African banks. Nor is this all. More importantly, social banking which is mainly the development of rural or poor areas has not been met. Therefore, there is the need to test the hypothesis that there is no relationship between regulation or reforms and transformation of the rural areas. Regression method is utilized. The major findings include low ACGSF loans/Advances and low agricultural GDP. Therefore, it is recommended that the government should direct its budget to capture more banks loans/Advances for the real or rural sector proxied by agricultural development. http://www.ajol.info/index.
The Global Economic Burden of Non-communicable Diseases
Non-communicable diseases have been established as a clear threat not only to human health, but also to development and economic growth. Recognizing that building a solid economic argument is ever more crucial in times of financial crisis, this report brings to the global debate fundamental evidence which had previously been missing: an account of the overall costs of NCDs, including what specific impact NCDs might have on economic growth. This report includes not only the four major NCDs (the focus of the UN meeting), but also mental illness, which is a major contributor to the burden of disease worldwide. This evaluation takes place in the context of enormous global health spending, serious concerns about already strained public finances and worries about lacklustre economic growth. The report also tries to capture the thinking of the business community about the impact of NCDs on their enterprises.
Disaster risk reduction: Fundamental to saving lives and reducing poverty
This briefing has been written in response to the drought in the Horn of Africa, which is facing the worst food crisis of the 21st Century. While severe drought has undoubtedly led to the huge scale of the disaster, this crisis has been caused by people and policies, as much as by weather patterns. An adequate response to the current crisis must not only meet urgent humanitarian needs, but also address these underlying problems. Disaster Risk Reduction has as key role to play in analysing, managing and addressing the causal factors of disaster and their impact on men and women. It is proven to be effective and cost effective. Yet it is systematically underfunded by donors, and not an integral element of humanitarian and development work across the board. To prevent future crises, this has got to change. http://policy-practice.oxfam.
Africa Capacity Development Indicators 2011: Capacity Development in Fragile States
The publication, examines the visible capacity development needs of countries, as well as the underlying historical, political, economic, cultural, and societal elements that contributed to their current state of achievement. The publication also investigates the factors complicating efforts to address conflict and fragility problems of countries. This report covers 34 countries and focuses on the challenges of capacity development in fragile environments. http://elibrary.acbfpact.org/
Fundamental flaws in the European project; a warning to Eriya kategeya and EAC
The fatal defect in the eurozone project was that it was informed by a neoliberal view of leaving policy entirely to market forces. The euro is under attack from the financial markets, with Greece on the verge of default, Portuguese and Irish Eurobonds demoted to junk status and Italian and Belgian bonds under speculative attack, with Spain next in line. What is more, the real fear is that a default in one country will trigger a domino effect and bring down some of Europe's major banks. Although the Greek and Portuguese economies account for only a small percentage of Euro Area (EA) output, were default contagion to spread to Europe's larger countries, the entire euro edifice could be brought down. http://www.twnside.org.sg/
Overview of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment
China’s investments abroad are growing despite an overall decline globally in foreign direct investment (FDI) following the 2008 financial crisis. That trend in Chinese investments abroad is likely to continue, since China’s huge foreign exchange reserves are an increasing source of mobile capital and is a key part of China’s official government policy. The receipts from China’s existing global investments, combined with mounting trade surpluses, have made China the world’s largest capital-surplus economy. http://www.uscc.gov/
The report on the world social situation: The global social crisis
The Report on the World Social Situation: The Global Social Crisis, published by DESA reveals that many goverments are not paying enough attention to the social implications of their economic policies geared towards recovery from the economic crisis. There is a special emphasis on how the disconnection between social and economic policies often have dire consequences for the population in reference to health, nutrition and education, negatively affecting economic growth.
According to the report, recovery has been uneven and continues to be fragile, with a wide range of negative social impacts lingering from the economic downturn. Poverty and unemployment have for instance been linked to crime, gender-based violence, substance abuse and mental illness. The report also states that the effects of the crisis in areas including health and education, will be fully evident in the long term. The increased levels of poverty, hunger and unemployment due to the global crisis is expected to continue, affecting billions of people for years to come.
http://social.un.org/index/
According to the report, recovery has been uneven and continues to be fragile, with a wide range of negative social impacts lingering from the economic downturn. Poverty and unemployment have for instance been linked to crime, gender-based violence, substance abuse and mental illness. The report also states that the effects of the crisis in areas including health and education, will be fully evident in the long term. The increased levels of poverty, hunger and unemployment due to the global crisis is expected to continue, affecting billions of people for years to come.
http://social.un.org/index/
The Knight Open Government Survey 2011 USA
This survey assesses government agencies’ compliance with recent changes to freedom of information requirements in the United States. Responsive agencies were graded on whether or not they showed concrete steps toward addressing two key demands: (1) updating all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidance and training materials to include the principles articulated in the President’s Memorandum, and (2) assessing whether adequate resources are devoted to responding to FOIA requests promptly and cooperatively. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
The network of global corporate control
Transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers. A common intuition among scholars and in the media sees the global economy as being dominated by a handful of powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Certainly, it is intuitive that every large corporation has a pyramid of subsidiaries below and a number of shareholders above. However, economic theory does not offer models that predict how TNCs globally connect to each other.
The so-called rich club phenomenon refers to the fact that in some complex networks the nodes with the highest degree tend to be connected among each other. Being based solely on node degree, rich club indices are not suitable for ownership networks, in which indirect and weighted paths matter.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
The so-called rich club phenomenon refers to the fact that in some complex networks the nodes with the highest degree tend to be connected among each other. Being based solely on node degree, rich club indices are not suitable for ownership networks, in which indirect and weighted paths matter.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)