Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Famine in Horn of Africa - New Green Revolution may not be way forward

“Just as death from exposure is not an inherent result of a cold winter, famine is not a natural consequence of drought. Simply put, the structure of human society often determines who is affected and to what degree.” 
More than 10 million people have been hit by severe drought in the Horn of Africa. Parts of southern Somalia are hit by the worst famine in the area for 20 years, according to the United Nations. I stumbled an older article regarding the famine and it discussed how the “New Green Revolution” may not be the most effective for certain regions of the world. I first heard of the Green Revolution in my advanced genetic course where we began to access genetically modified crops. Interestingly we had a debate on the ethics (and advantages and disadvantages) of genetically modified crops. However, that same semester, an Dr. Akinqumi Adesina received a doctor of humane letter during our F&M commencement. Dr. Adesine is a scholar of African agriculture, economics and development, and a  champion of the Agricultural Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which boosts food security for the continent. We are constantly given information about how life changing the green revolution in Africa could be – and how it is the right way forward.


Though it is critical for the world to act immediately to address the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa (right now..), to ensure food delivery and distribution, we should also attempt to understand the underlying causes of the crisis in order to provide effective long-term solutions.

Some argue that the problem is that the USAID plan for agricultural development in the majority of Africa has stressed a “New Green Revolution” involving improved seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. This green revolution, though scientifically proven to be effective and be more advantages to local growers that are attempting to be most efficient, may not be the best solution. First of all – these green revolutions are financially out of reach of the world’s poor (i.e. the populations that they are trying to help) and have been unsuccessful in times of severe stress. In changing to a Green Revolution, we are removing any chances of species being able to adapt and survive in harsh conditions.



In attempting to solve general hunger problems in the horn of Africa – are we handicapping the countries “food resources” in their ability to naturally overcome harsh weather conditions? Adaptation for all organisms is critical to overall abilities, function, and survival. If we really go forward with the green revolution – we maybe taking natural abilities away from all food sources in the countries, ultimately creating a larger long term problem.  

poorest of poor farmers, who are the most likely to face food shortfalls. A more realistic approach would play down imported seeds and commercial agriculture in favor of enhanced traditional approaches to producing food for families and local markets.

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Dutch asylum system under fire


I'm not at all familiar with how the Dutch asylum system works, but a recent article published by the BBC draws attention to recent popular and political outrage against it because of the proposed deportation of an Angolan asylum-seeker. Mauro Manuel, who is now 18, came to the Netherlands when he was a young boy and has been fully integrated into Dutch society. From what I could gather from the article, the fact that he is now an adult means that he is eligible for deportation, since he is not a legal resident of the Netherlands, and powerful politicians and citizen groups alike have reacted with harsh criticism of the system and advocacy on Manuel's behalf. The Dutch parliament has even taken up measures to grant him residency status, but anti-immigrant legislators have argued that "rules are rules" and he must be deported.

I'm the first person to argue that the laws must be adhered to and that justice comes from changing the system, not subverting it, but I'm failing to understand why Manuel cannot be granted asylum - or at least some sort of comparable protection. The fact that his situation has catalyzed an national, and international, debate about his situation indicates to me that there is disagreement about what exactly Dutch asylum law says must happen. It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.

"Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan"


“My son was born seven months after my husband went missing…he has never met his father, he just looks at his pictures."
- Zahida Sharif

Ever since Pakistan joined the war on terror in 2001, citizens of Pakistan have noticed a dramatic increase in ‘enforced disappearances.’ Families of victims told Amnesty International that authorities forcibly enter their homes, and take whoever they are looking for without any explanation or reason. Victims include prominent members of society, including doctors, engineers, and journalists who speak out against the government. Students have also been prime targets as well. Families are not informed of what happens to their loved ones after the government takes them away. Sometimes bodies are not found until years later.

Disappearances occur across the country but especially in Balochistan province in the Southwest, which faces violence from ethnic and religious armed groups and state security forces.” Please click on the picture to the right to watch a short video from Amnesty International.

A judicial Commission of Enquiry on enforced disappearances has failed to resolve the crisis or to hold the security forces and intelligence agencies accountable. There is a call for the prime minister to take action against this terrible crisis. I have raised this question before, and I’ll do it once again. What can one do when the very entity that is design to protect and serve are the ones committing gruesome crimes?

Monday, October 31, 2011

Israel Using Legal Technicality to Deport Eritrean Asylum-Seekers

I just read this article from the Israeli news organization, Haaretz (in English, "The Nation"). It sounds like a terrible injustice is occurring. Israel's Interior Ministry is just assuming that Ethiopia will indeed accept and grant citizenship to Eritreans that Israel deports there, despite the fact that many legal scholars doubt this is actually occurring. Thus Israel may in fact be sending asylum-seekers to a nation where they will be imprisoned, or worse. Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for those fleeing conflict, but it sounds like its government is taking advantage of an imaginary legal loophole to deport as many Eritrean refugees as possible. 

What do you think? Should governments make it a policy to deport as many refugees as possible for any reason they can find?

By Talila Nesher, Haaretz

The Interior Ministry is deporting Eritrean asylum-seekers to Ethiopia even though it admits it cannot guarantee their safety there, a ministry document obtained by Haaretz shows.
Under UN rules, Eritreans are automatically entitled to asylum, whereas Ethiopians have no such collective asylum right. In 2003, however, Ethiopia passed a law granting citizenship to anyone whose mother or father was an Ethiopian citizen. That provision applies to many Eritreans, since Eritrea split off from Ethiopia in 1993.
140971994.jpg
An Eritrean migrant in Rehovot, Israel
The ministry's Population Authority has therefore been deporting some Eritreans to Ethiopia on the grounds that they could obtain citizenship there. Yet the document obtained by Haaretz casts doubt on whether the new law is really being applied, and consequently, on whether Eritreans will really be safe there.
The interior and foreign ministries are currently investigating this issue, but the Population Authority hasn't informed the courts of this when seeking permission to deport Eritreans to Ethiopia.
In July, the ministry's advisory committee on refugees met and discussed the 2003 law and its subsidiary legislation. But according to the minutes of this meeting, the option of Eritreans obtaining Ethiopian citizenship is currently only "theoretical," and the interior and foreign ministries are still trying "to understand whether these laws are being applied."
The minutes also quote Danny Hass, head of the Interior Ministry's research department, as saying, "this is a sensitive issue due to the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and it's hard to get answers about what happens to those refugees who return once they land at the airport."
Yet none of this is mentioned in the briefs the ministry files in court. In response to one Eritrean's petition against his deportation, for instance, the ministry wrote simply that "even if the petitioner lost his Ethiopian citizenship at some point, he can, under Article 3 of the new Ethiopian citizenship law, reacquire Ethiopian citizenship if one of his parents (in this case, the petitioner's mother ) is Ethiopian."
Yonatan Berman, outgoing legal advisor for the Hotline for Migrant Workers and one of the attorneys representing that petitioner, said, "the minutes constitute evidence that the Interior Ministry is concealing information that could have led to different conclusions about the legal possibility of deporting people."
Attorney Yuval Livnat of Tel Aviv University's refugee rights clinic termed the minutes "extremely disturbing. The Interior Ministry tells the courts over and over that Ethiopians of Eritrean origin can return to Ethiopia without fear, but in private it admits there's no certainty regarding the treatment that awaits them."
In another case, Judge Rami Amir noted two other problems with the ministry's position. First, he said, neither the Justice Ministry's international department nor any expert on Ethiopian law has confirmed that the new law means what the Interior Ministry says it does. Moreover, another article in the law states that anyone with citizenship in another country shall be viewed as if he had given up his Ethiopian citizenship, unless he waives his foreign citizenship within a year of reaching his majority. That would seem to preclude most Eritrean asylum-seekers from acquiring Ethiopian citizenship under this law.
The Interior Ministry responded that it stands by its right to deport any Eritrean who has or could acquire citizenship in any other country, including Ethiopia. The fact that an asylum seeker also has Eritrean citizenship "does not entitle him to immunity" from deportation, it said

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Birth tourists get instant U.S. citizenship for their newborns

I think that you guys will find this article interesting. It is about an uprising global industry that permits foreign women in the U.S. to give birth to their babies for money. Once the babies are born they return to their parents country of origin but at age 21 they can reap the benefits of American citizens, including bringing their family members to the U.S. There has been a lot of controversy over this issue because members of Congress and Representative Phil Gingrey say "They are gaming the system…and people should be put in jail,” a Republican from Georgia. Many people don't think it's right especially because while the mothers are here in the U.S. they shop at very high end stores.

It is a very interesting article guys, check it out!

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Living Heros are Honored

Often times, people's great accomplishments are not honored most until they are dead. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, and others did not recieve their greatest honor until they no longer could know about it.

Today, living heros were honored. NBC Nightly News Anchor, Brian Williams, hosted a Human Rights Awards Dinner. Egyptian activist, Basem Fathy, was honored for his tireless and brave work as an advocate for Egypt's political freedom. Fathy was detained many times by the Mubarak regime. However, despite the Mubarak's opposition to his political ideas, which could have resulted in his assassination, Fathy found courage to help coordinate and inspire the Egyptian people to rise up for their political freedom. Another hero, Shehrbano Taseer, was also honored for her brave work. She has faced criticism and even death threats while working to advocate for increased religious freedom in Pakistan. The article states that she was a very key player in organizing the United Nation Human Rights Council's "groundbreaking resolution that seeks to adress violence, discrimination, and incitement to religious hatred without the controversial notion of 'defamation of religions'".

I think that it is great that such amazing heros are being celebrated for their amazing accomplishments. Why are such events not held more often?

"Too Scared to Seek Treatment"

Footage in this video shows a health professional striking a wounded patient as he is being carried out of the ambulance. Amnesty International reports that the footage is consistent with many testimonies where patients suffer beatings from their doctors or government authorities in Syria.

In an interview, a former Syrian doctor claims that the state administered hospitals are required to report their wounded to the authorities. The government is concerned about taking suspected people who have been wounded to interrogation immediately rather than to give them treatment. Many fear going to the hospital as they will be captured and tortured by the military.

There is a serious dilemma here: as doctors, you either report your patients to the authorities and risk them not getting treatment and eventually tortured, or protect your patients and put yourself at risk of arrest and torture. “Those inside Syria who are injured or dying have a right to basic medical treatment. The Syrian government needs to stop discriminating based on assumed political ties of the wounded.”

It is troubling to know that you cannot speak out against the government. It is even more disturbing to know that when you do and you are injured and dying, doctors are not allowed to help you either.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Virginity Tests in Egypt

I read a short summary of this article first on the Daily Beast today and was so incredulous that I then clicked on the link to read the entire story at Global Post. This young woman, Samira Ibrahim, was violated by Egyptian military personnel as part of a "virginity check." She has filed a lawsuit against the military for the practice. The entire concept of a virginity test is a complete violation of a woman's human rights and has been condemned by Amnesty International as a form of torture. This woman is so brave for standing up to Egyptian authorities, and even more incredible, I think, is the fact that both of her parents support her case. If her case is not given a fair trial by the often corrupt courts of Egypt, Ms. Ibrahim has said that she will take it to the United Nations. I find it so admirable that she is fighting back for what she knows is right and that she is not afraid, despite the male-dominated culture and corrupt legal system.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Evelyn Apoko

Another video of Evelyn.

Evelyn Apoko and the LRA

The LRA needs to sit down! Look at her face due to the LRA. Evelyn is one of the few people to survive and I'm happy that she is speaking out because she may be able to save other children.

War against Euphoria

  Hate Hope and Human Rights  At least that's what the addicts describe it as. In 2020 alone, an estimated 9.5 million Americans, just A...