WHO Global Polio Eradication Initiative and Nigeria: A History of Poor Planning

The World Health Organization (WHO) began its Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) in 2003, targeting Nigeria and distributing its oral polio vaccine (OPV) with the goal of eliminating the disease by 2005. Muslim leaders in the Nigerian state of Kano expressed their concerns about the distribution of OPVs, and warned the government against cooperation because they believed the vaccines were a Western ploy to spread infertility and disease. Their fears of infertility were based in test reports that some of the final OPVs produced had traces of oestrogen and progesterone, reproductive hormones that inhibit fertility, within them. The WHO released a positions statement in January 14, 2004, denying these claims. The fear of “Western” vaccinations is not empty, however, as residents of Kano were subject to poorly tested meningitis vaccinations in 1996 that lead to the deaths of some 11 children.

In 2004, half of all new polio cases originated in Nigeria, many in the northern states, especially Kano. While the WHO was spreading the oral vaccine throughout the nation, Kano officials refused to participate in the initiative for eight months, spurning the spread of polio into twelve countries that previously had been declared polio-free (such as Sudan, where a child was diagnosed with polio in Darfur for the first time in 3 years). Under great pressure, the northern state bent, and in October of 2004 President Olusegun Obasanjo showed his support for the initiative by giving OPVs to children in Kano.

By 2006, the vaccination initiative was on the rise, but so was the polio virus. Children in Nigeria need to be immunized over and over again to ensure they do not contract the virus, and this need to repeat doses makes families very nervous; oftentimes they refuse to let their children be repeatedly immunized. There are many factors that impede the efforts to immunize children repeatedly: Only women can distribute the vaccines in certain areas and they make meager wages; workers often report a 100% success rate, even when that is far from true; because children need to immunized between eight and ten times for OPVs to be effective in the long-term, it is hard to know which children have been and have not been immunized; and, finally, widespread sewage inefficiencies increase the exposure of children, who play in filthy streets, to the polio virus.

Today, as reported October 10, 2007, Nigeria faces an outbreak of rare, vaccine-derived form of the polio virus. Some children who had received vaccinations have excreted a mutated form of the polio virus and have infected other children who, likely, were not immunized or only given OPVs a few times. There are now, and rightly so, many questions in the air surrounding the issue of oral vaccinations in Nigeria:

Were the OPVs properly tested before they were administered to children in Nigeria?

Were the OPVs tested for repeated administration, as they were anticipated to be distributed in Nigeria, before they were given to children?

Did the WHO anticipate the mutations that occurred?

How should this new strain of polio be addressed?

Where could this new strain of polio spread if not properly addressed?

How can it be contained?

Jerry Yang, Yahoo, and China

On November 6, CEO and co-founder of Yahoo!, Jerry Yang, went before congress and answered for his company's role in imprisoning a Chinese reporter, Shi Tao. Tao was imprisoned by the government of China for the contents of an email obtained with the help of Yahoo. The email discussed practices of the government in dealing with the reporting of the anniversary of Tianamen Square. Tao was sentenced to a ten year prison sentence and has already served two years in a Chinese prison.
Yahoo has also aided the Chinese government in the arrests of three men accused of anonymous postings online. Two of these three men are still serving multi-year sentences for crimes against the government. General Counsel for Yahoo, Micheal Callahan has also been accused of offering false information to Congress regarding these issues. He, along with Yang, have offered public apologies, but neither has offered any future changes to Yahoo's practices that would resolve the issues at hand.
These cases raise the issue of which laws become more powerful when dealing with American companies abroad. China does not offer the same protections of speech and expression as the United States does, and American companies become pressured into following the local laws of a nation. Only when companies like Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft agreed to follow Chinese restrictions were the companies allowed to operate in China.
By cooperating with Chinese officials, Yahoo helped violate the human rights of Shi Tao. International law didn't seem matter here, when Yahoo was looking to keep itself operating within Chinese borders. Is it right for companies to lessen the protection of human rights in order to do business? Are internet companies under any obligation to protect its users? Or is it ok for these companies to do what they have to in order to access potential markets, regardless of human rights?

State of Confusion

Over the past few days, Pakistani General Perez Musharraf has issued a state of emergency, taking sole control of the Pakistani government in order to “help combat terrorism”. His emergency rule includes dismissing members on the Supreme Court (Mr. Chaudhry has been put under house arrest), censoring privately owned television stations and administering widespread arrests of protesting lawyers. While Musharraf states emergency rule is needed to fight Islamic extremists, he seems to be arresting only lawyers and liberal political activists.

The United States is in a difficult position. Pakistan is one of our strongest allies in the war against terror, Al Queda and the Taliban. We’ve given them over 10 billion dollars since 2001, mostly for military aid. Yet, martial law is far from democracy and the United States should and has pushed for a return to democracy as soon as possible.

Should the United States withdraw their aid to Pakistan (therefore losing a key ally) to fight for democracy and the right for election, free speech and protest for all? “Extraordinarily heavy-handed measures” are being used to unjustly arrest lawyers and human rights activists each day (New York Times). The United States government says human rights are for all, but how important are they when money, power and influence come into play?

Waterboarding is all fun & games until someone gets Caught

Why would we want to confirm an Attorney General nominee that cannot seem to take a firm stance on what is legal/illegal? Have we stooped so low and do we have so few brilliant lawyers and judges in America that we have to scrap the bottom of the barrel?
Am I the only one here that doesn't get it?!

Jena 6 Sheds Light on Civil Rights in U.S.

Due to recent events dealing with the Jena 6, many have found that the Justice system in the U.S. is unfair and impartial. In this article, I found it interesting that out of every 100,000 black men in America, 3,145 are in prison. Compared to the 471 white men in prison (taken from evey 100,000). The Jena 6 case has brought the chance for people in America to have conversations about the current state of civil rights. There have been countless hearings about this event, however on 10/16, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the implications of the Jena 6 incident as well as others in the U.S. that have caused racial tension. The panel questioned U.S. attorney Donald Washington, in the hearing that as said to be very emotional. "Washington said in his testimony that the Justice Department rarely brings cases against juveniles, and when it does they are not open to the press or public." The question that is on my mind is, in a situation that involves the human rights of every individual in the U.S., why must we keep it private? There is a growing tension in the U.S. dealing with civil rights, not to mention human rights. When will we take the proper action to spear head this problem?

To Charge or Not to Charge: The Hate Crime Question

Saturday, November 3rd, Charleston, West Virginia was filled with people urging prosecutors to add a hate crime charge to a case against six white individuals who beat, tortured and assaulted a 20-year-old black woman. Megan Williams, the victim, joined in the protests. Protests are all fine and good; however, the N.A.A.C.P. and the prosecution begged Williams and others to not stage the protest seeing as it might harm the prosecution's case. The three men and three women are already being charged with assault and kidnapping. Kidnapping in West Virginia could land them with a life sentence. Hate crimes, on the other hand, only carry ten years. Why would they protest for a charge that could minimize the amount of time spent in jail?

Is there a value placed on a court case labeled "hate crime?" Do we judge the court case any differently even though the defendants are being tried for kidnapping and sexual assault instead of hate crimes? Is it about the status of a court case, or does the victim feel the need to provoke and expose hatred on a national scale?

The Noose: CNN does good

Hope you all had the opportunity to view the CNN special on "The Noose in America". It gave a history of the use of the noose, and its negative connotations. Lancaster, Pennsylvania was also featured in the special -- Penn Manor and Warwick schools. Hate is alive and well in America, and even in rural Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Hate Church Ordered to Pay $10.9 for Funeral Protest

The Westboro Baptist Church, a hate group located in Topeka, Kansas has been ordered to pay almost $11 million in damages to Albert Snyder of York, PA as the result of an ongoing lawsuit. The Westboro Baptist Church, known for its slogans "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", recieved much attention for its protests to the criminal trial of the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. Recently, the Church has been picketting the funerals of fallen soldiers in Iraq. They feel that the death of America's soldiers is God's way of punishing us for our tolerance of homosexuality. The suit was filed by Snyder to compensate for a protest that was held at his son's funeral. Snyder's son was killed in Iraq while serving for our country.
According to the article, "the jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress."
The Westboro Baptist Church defines hate groups as we learned in class. They are clearly fanatic religous zealots with no tolerance for those who are not a part of their cause. While this group is a quintessensial hate group in the purest sense of the term, should they be allowed to practice free speech, or do they deserve to be sued for expressing their (quite laughable, I must add) opinion. Is protesting a funeral an abuse of free speech? Is there even such a thing as an abuse of free speech? In addition, should $10.9 million be awarded to Mr. Snyder in this case, or was the jury being as extreme in their condemnation of the Church as the Church is in their condemnation of America? These are very touchy questions that need to be addressed. On one hand, our right to the freedom of speech is called into question. On another hand, the issues of frivolous lawsuits and overcompensation are being addressed. Personally, I feel that picketting a funeral is emotionally damaging and should be awarded compensation in a civil court. However, I think that $10.9 million may be a bit excessive in this case. Should a civil jury be allowed to make a socio-political statement in their verdict? I will leave that up to you.

Spanish Politicians condemn Franco's rule

The Spanish parliament has approved a bill that will formally condemn the 40 year dictatorship of Francisco Franco and all the executions and imprisonments that occured under Franco's rule. This bill declares General Franco's military trials and the resulting executions and imprisonments as illegitamate and requires that all statues, plaques and symbols of Franco's rule should be removed from all public buildings. The conservative opposition has decried this bill for reopening old wounds and trying to divide Spaniards. This bill, which is being called the Law of Historical Memory, has yet to pass in the Spanish senate but it is believed that the bill most likely will be passed by the senate. This bill would also call for the government to fund efforts to try locate and dig up mass graves of victims from the Spanish Civil War. It seems ridiculous that the government wants legally condemn the Franco government when there are plenty of other human rights abuses that have occured in Spanish history, including the murder of countless thousands of political opponents and religious individuals by the previous democratic Spanish Republican government that Franco overthrew. Is it right to condemn one side in a war where both sides were clearly commiting war crimes? Was the Franco Government truely illegitmate? Its one thing to condemn human rights violations of the past but why should we try to supress our history and waste government money on trying to find mass graves that are well over 70 years old, if those graves even do exist to the extent which historians claim?

Killer Coke

The Coca Cola Company has been consistently committing human rights violations around the world. In Plachimada, a small agrarian town in India, Coke built a plant promising jobs for the people in the town. Although the factory held to this agreement in part, it extracted so much of the town's ground water that there was virtually no clean, drinkable water for the people in the town to use. The factory also produced a large amount of waste product, as all manufacturing companies do; and, rather than disposing of it responsibly, Coke decided to give it to the people in the town as fertilizer. The people in the town, who did not know any better, proceeded to use this toxic waste on their crops. After many people in the town had gotten sick and many babies were born with birth defects, they figured out the origin of the illnesses. The people in Plachimada then organized a dilligent, peaceful protest until the Coke factory shut down.

And it doesn't stop there. In Colombia, Coke has been charged with hiring paramilitaries to act violently against anyone who opposes their bottling companies. There are on-going investigations of the murders of many union workers and protestors. Coke has been using similar fear tactics in many other under-developed countries around the world.

In order to "Pay It Forward," we want to Kick Coke off of F&M's campus as the exclusive vendor, following the example of the protestors in Plachimada. We want to use our power as consumers to make a difference and hold Coke accountable for its human rights and environmental transgressions. We can do our part to send a message to Coke by joining the initiative to Kick Coke off College Campuses. Several colleges in the immediate area, including Swarthmore, have already done so, and many other schools are following suit. To get more information check out our blog (linked to the post) and our display in the Atrium which will be up all week. Also, look for emails about the documentary we will be showing in the upcoming weeks.