•  By Eric Reeves

The location of Heglig/Panthou in relation to the North/South border at the
time of Sudan’s independence (January 1, 1956) continues to be misrepresented by not only the Arab League and African Union, but now
(implicitly) by the UN Security Council, which has introduced the threat of
sanctions against Khartoum and Juba if the African Union vision of how
peace is to be achieved is not followed.  Let us recall first the view of the African Union, which on April 14, 2012 “noted with alarm, the *occupation
of the Heglig *by the forces of (South Sudan) ….” (all emphases added)

The U.S State Department followed suit, “strongly condemn[ing] the *military
offensive, incursion to Southern Kordofan state*, Sudan, by the SPLA today
[April 12, 2012].”  Not to be outdone, the European Union, through EU
foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton asserted that “*the move by the South
Sudanese armed forces to occupy Heglig is completely unacceptable*.”
Associated Press reports that in Cairo (April 27) the Arab League *condemned* South Sudan’s ‘military aggression’ *against an oil-rich border region claimed by Sudan while also* supporting Sudan’s right to defend itself*.”

I offered an extensive correction to these peremptory and misguided claims,
implicit and explicit, on April 14, 2012<http://www.sudanreeves.org/2012/04/14/where-is-heglig/>.  What
is added here are two additional notes:

[1]  The *Small Arms Survey* in its April 27 report on Heglig http://www.smallarmssurveysudan.org/facts-figures-heglig.php>
reminds us of crucial historical facts:

“Heglig, which is known as Thou (or Panthou) in Dinka, was one of the
territories depopulated by militias during the second civil war, when Sudan
used paramilitary Popular Defence Forces (PDF) to clear southern residents
from areas around oil-producing sites. For many Dinka at the border,
accepting Sudan’s possession of these territories is tantamount to accepting the ethnic clearings of the 80s and 90s.”

More importantly, on the precise location of Heglig in relation to the North/South border at the time of independence (January 1, 1956),* Douglas
Johnson*—distinguished historian of Sudan and a member of the Abyei
Boundaries Commission established by the Abyei Protocol—has offered me
his own unsurpassably authoritative account of the issue.  He indicates
(most importantly) that* there is no map extant that unambiguously locates
Heglig vis-à-vis the 1/1/56 North/South border*:

“The 1:250,000 Sudan Survey maps, which are the most detailed, and on which all other maps are based, shows the provincial boundary as it was
established in 1931, but they do not show any place with the name Aliny,
Panthou, or Heglig.  There are ‘clumps of Heglig’ marked on the map, both
east and west of the boundary line, but no villages of any sort or locations with any of those place names.  I attach a detail.” [  ]

“Until the line of the 1956 border is agreed and re-established on the ground, we won’t have an answer to the question of which side of the border Heglig is on.” (email received April 26, 2012)

It is important to recall again that the July 2009 Abyei boundary ruling by
the Permanent Court of Arbitration did *not* place Heglig in northern Sudan
or South Sudan; it simply said that Heglig lies to the east of Abyei:

“The eastern boundary of the area of the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms
transferred to Kordofan in 1905 runs in a straight line along longitude 29°
00′ 00″ E, from latitude 10° 10′ 00″ N south to the Kordofan—Upper Nile
boundary as it was defined on 1 January 1956.”

This ruling did nothing to settle where the “1 January 1956 border” actually lies.  It had no mandate to make such a determination, and did not attempt to do so.  This elemental fact has escaped virtually all international actors, in large part because Heglig has been robustly controlled militarily for a great many years by virtue of Khartoum’s militia proxies and ethnic cleansing of precisely the sort *Small Arms Survey* reports.

Declarations and resolutions that presume to judge the location of Heglig/Panthou prior to a negotiated delineation of the 1/1/56 North/South
border will inevitably embolden Khartoum in its ongoing campaign of aerial
bombardment against civilians in the unambiguously sovereign territory of
South Sudan, and deepen the skepticism of Southern leaders about international impartiality.  War is made more, not less likely.

–
Eric Reeves, Smith College
Northampton, MA  01063

Norwegian government reaction to Taylor verdict:

The Special Court for Sierra Leone pronounced judgment in the case against former Liberian President Charles Taylor. “This is the first time since the Nuremberg trials that a former head of state has been convicted by an international court. The judgment is an important milestone in the effort to combat impunity for the most serious international crimes,” said Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

The court found unanimously that Charles Taylor was guilty of having aided and abetted war crimes and crimes against humanity and of other serious violations against international humanitarian law in Sierra Leone in the period 1996-2002. The judgment is not final and may be appealed.

The case against Charles Taylor is the Special Court’s last major case connected with the decade-long civil war in Sierra Leona.

“With today’s verdict, the Special Court for Sierra Leone is on the way to being the first of the modern-day international criminal courts to complete its mandate,” said Mr Støre.

end

source mfa.norway

By Thomas Ochieng in Kenya                                        
 

The new state of South Sudan was proclaimed by many as long overdue. This was seen as the best way to deal with the long conflict that both states Sudan and south Sudan suffered from, a new beginning was envisaged for the  two twin nations, where they were still to co exist side by side as brother and sisters

The survival and development of this new African state is dependent on the support both technical and financial from the world community but most importantly the role that Sudan plays to the development of the young state is of paramount importance. During the Independence Day celebration in Juba the President of Sudan his Excellency Omar Bashir and his Excellency Salva Kiir pledged to forge a path of mutual interest and cooperation as the people
of theses states have lived and worked together as one. This is a commitment
that should not be in vain for peace and prosperity of the two states. One may
ask is this the case of late?

The recent provocation to war by the news state of South Sudan should be viewed in the context of going against the commitment made to the world for the sake of peace taking into account the years of instability and destruction that engulfed this region for to long a time. The president of South Sudan should not yield to the pressure from the hardliners who still view the role of the state in the context of conquering new territories as if the nation is still in a guerrilla struggle. The war that the new stat should wage is fighting, poverty, hunger, diseases, under development and illiteracy, these are massive battles that cannot and should not afford any sideshows. By proclaiming and being granted an independent status by the community of the world and being recognized by bodies such as the United nations, Africa union and recently becoming a member of the IMF means that business cannot be as usual, this new nation must behave responsibly and where there are miss understandings which will occur time to time, the use of peaceful resolution means such as dialogue and arbitration is the norm, in civilized world war is never the first and the available option to solve problems.

This is the stand taken by the world community of nations including the United States, European Union, the United Nations, the Arab League and the Africa Union have all called upon South Sudan to resist the provocation tendencies such as the recent seizing of Heglig,its reassuring though that the military deployed from Juba to the region is withdrawing by the express orders of president Salva Kiir after the deployment of heavy military power from Sudan, this unwarranted confrontation should have been avoided because the cost of war will be too costly for the South Sudan to bear after
all those lost years.

Ends

Situation: The Democratic Republic of the Congo
Case: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

On 24 April 2012, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an order fixing the date to hear oral submissions for sentencing in the case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The hearing is scheduled to start on 13 June 2012.

The Prosecution and the legal representatives of victims are instructed by the Chamber to file submissions by 14 May 2012 on the relevant evidence presented during trial that may be applicable to the sentence, along with their views as to the sentence to be imposed on the convicted person taking  into consideration, inter alia, any specific aggravating and mitigating factors. The Defence is instructed to respond and to file submissions on the sentence to be imposed on Mr Lubanga by 28 May 2012. In addition, the Defence is to notify the Chamber as to whether it will seek authorisation to present new evidence during the sentencing hearing.

At the 13 June 2012 hearing, the order of the oral submissions on sentence will be: the Prosecution, the participating victims, and then the Defence.

The verdict in this case was rendered on 14 March 2012. Mr Lubanga Dyilo was found guilty of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate in hostilities.

End

source ICC.Hague

“We are pleased to note that South Sudan has now withdrawn its armed forces from the disputed Heglig area. However, we see that Sudan has stepped up its bombing of South Sudan’s territory. We call for an immediate halt to the hostilities,” said Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

Norway urges both parties to refrain from statements and actions that could worsen the situation.

“The current tense situation between Sudan and South Sudan risks jeopardising the progress made by the parties since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005,” said Mr Støre.

“Norway will continue to actively promote a peaceful solution to the conflict, for example by supporting the work of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel,” said Minister of International Development Heikki Holmås.

In order to secure a stable security situation it is essential that the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mission is established without delay.

“I urge both countries once again to remove all obstacles to the establishment of the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mission and call on the parties to honour their commitment to establish the mission immediately,” said Mr Støre.

Norway will continue to work closely with its international partners and the two countries to find a solution to the situation.

“The outstanding issues cannot be resolved through military action. It is vital that President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir and President of South Sudan Salva Kiir return to the negotiating table as soon as possible,” said Mr Holmås.

end

source mfa.norway

Photo: Indiana University

Elinor Ostrom: A champion of people power

JOHANNESBURG,  – The governance of natural resources like land, the oceans, rivers and the atmosphere, can affect the impact of some of the world’s biggest crises caused by natural events like droughts and floods. How best to manage those resources has been at the heart of the work by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Elinor Ostrom.

She has been looking at how communities across the world, from developing and rural economies like Nepal and Kenya to developed ones like the USA and Switzerland, manage their commonly shared resources such as fisheries, pasture land and water sustainably.

Ostrom’s faith in the ability of the individual and community to be able to trust each other, take the right course of action and not wait for governments to make the first move is pivotal to her thinking.

Ostrom works with the concept of “polycentrism”, which she developed with her husband Vincent Otsrom. She advocates vesting authority in individuals, communities, local governments, and local NGOs as opposed to concentrating power at global or national levels.

Ostrom recently suggested using this “polycentric approach” to address man-made climate change. She talked to IRIN by email about “polycentrism”, Rio+20, climate change, trust and the power of local action.

Q: You have suggested a polycentric approach as opposed to single policies at a global level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Could you explain how that would work? Do you think a similar approach would work to get all countries and their people to believe in, and adopt, sustainable development?

A: We have modelled the impact of individual actions on climate change incorrectly and need to change the way we think about this problem. When individuals walk a distance rather than driving it, they produce better health for themselves. At the same time that they reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that they are generating. There are benefits for the individual and small benefits for the globe. When a building owner re-does the way the building is insulated and the heating system, these actions can dramatically change the amount of greenhouse gas emissions made. This has an immediate impact on the neighbourhood of the building as well as on the globe.

the solutions that are evolved by local people have a chance of being more imaginative and better ways of solving these problems…

When cities and counties decide to rehabilitate their energy systems so as to produce less greenhouse gas emissions, they are reducing the amount of pollution in the local region as well as greenhouse gas emissions on the globe. In other words, the key point is that there are multiple externalities involved for many actions related to greenhouse gas emissions. While in the past the literature has underplayed the importance of local effects, we need to recognize – as more and more individuals, families, communities, and states are seeing – that they will gain a benefit, as well as the globe, and that cumulatively a difference can be made at the global level if a number of small units start taking action. We have a much greater possibility of impacting global change problems if we start locally.

Q: The earth is our common resource system – yet many countries including China and India feel they also have a right to grow, burn coal to get to where the developed world is – how do you get them out of that frame of mind without compromising the question of equity?

A: We may not be able to convince India and China of all of this. Part of my discouragement with the international negotiations is that we have gotten riveted into battles at the very big level over who caused global change in the first place and who is responsible for correcting [it]. It will take a long time to resolve some of these conflicts. Meanwhile, if we do not take action, the increase to greenhouse gas collection at a global level gets larger and larger. While we cannot solve all aspects of this problem by cumulatively taking action at local levels, we can make a difference, and we should.

Q: Do you think sustainable development did not gain much currency as it was directed at governments and a top-down approach? You think the world is about to repeat that mistake (if you would call it that?) at Rio+20? What would you do – would you ever call such a gathering of governments?

A: Yes, I do think that directing the question of climate change primarily at governments misses the point that actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be taken by individuals, communities, cities, states, residents of entire nations, and the world. Yet, it is important that public officials recognize that there is a role for an international agreement and that they should be working very hard on getting an agreement that establishes international regimes that has a chance to reduce emissions across countries.

Q: You are a great believer in ordinary people’s ability to organize and use their commonly shared resources wisely, but I take it that does not work all the time? But ultimately collective action at the grassroots can force change at the top?

A: I am a believer of the capabilities of people to organize at a local level. That does not mean that they always do. There are a wide variety of collective action problems that exist at a small scale. The important thing is that people at a small scale, who know what the details of the problems are, organize, rather than calling on officials at a much larger scale.

Officials at a larger scale may have many collective-action problems of their own that they need to address. They do not have the detailed information about problems at a small scale that people who are confronting those every day do have. Thus, the solutions that are evolved by local people have a chance of being more imaginative and better ways of solving these problems than allowing them to go unsolved and eventually asking a much larger scale unit to solve it for them.

Q: This approach probably works better in a rural setting where there is a sense of community and of a shared responsibility to take care of their common resources. But how do you get that sense of ownership of the planet in an urban setting?

A: To solve these delicate problems at any scale requires individuals to trust that others are also going to contribute to their solution. Building trust is not something that can be done overnight. Thus, the crucial thing is that successful efforts at a local scale be advertised and well known throughout a developing country.

Developing associations of local communities, where very serious discussions can be held of the problems they are facing and creative ways that some communities, who have faced these problems, have adopted solutions that work. That does not mean that the solutions that work in one environment in a particular country will work in all others, but posing it as a solution that fits a local environment and that the challenge that everyone faces is to know enough about the social-ecological features of the problems they are facing that they can come up with good solutions that fit that local social-ecological system.

Q: I have been covering the recent drought in Niger – I came across people who were going to pack up and leave their village for good… Would that motivate people, countries, governments to take action to reduce emissions? But how do you make people in Europe, the US or Asia think about the people in Niger as their own?

A: There is no simple answer to this question. It is here that churches and NGOs can play a particular role in knowing about the problems being faced by villagers in Niger and other developing countries and trying to help. They can then also write stories about these problems in a way that people in Britain, Europe, and the US may understand better. It is a problem in some cases that officials in developing countries are corrupt, and direct aid to the country may only go into private bank accounts. We have to rethink how we organize governance at multiple scales so as to reduce the likelihood of some individuals having very strong powers and capability of using their public office primarily for private gain.

Q: Do you see the world moving in unison towards sustainability in the next five years? Do you think the world is prepared to take on this question and specially now when we are in a recession?

A: No, I do not see the world moving in unison. I do see some movements around the world that are very encouraging, but they are nowhere the same everywhere. We need to get out of thinking that we have to be moving the same everywhere. We need to be recognizing the complexity of the different problems being faced in a wide diversity of regions of the world. Thus, really great solutions that work in one environment do not work in others. We need to understand why, and figure out ways of helping to learn from good examples as well as bad examples of how to move ahead.

jk/cb
source www.irinnews.org

BUDALANGI,  – Joseph Mbima wades along submerged footpaths as he moves from homestead to homestead in the Bunyala area of western Kenya. His mission: to ask residents to evacuate their homes in the event of flash-flood warnings.

“During floods, many people die because they fail to heed any warning to leave their homes because they think they can climb rooftops or trees and survive and… end up being swept away with their belongings,” Mbima, an early warning volunteer, told IRIN in Bunyala.

Bunyala is in the Budalangi region, which has an estimated population of 64,000, many of whom live in the flood plains of the River Nzoia. 

The Nzoia perennially bursts its banks causing population displacement and damaging crops and infrastructure. In 2008, for example, some 10,000 people were displaced with at least 2,500 others marooned, while in 2007 an estimated 28,000 people were affected, according to the Ministry of Special Programmes.

At present, ongoing rains are increasing farmers’ anxiety in Budalangi. “We need rain to plant our crops, but it will also bring floods and sweep our crops away,” Jack Wasilla, a farmer, told IRIN as he dug a trench to drain water from his farm. “We don’t know what to do but we pray and hope this time there will be no floods.”

Experts are calling for better flood management. 

“There should be sustainable ways of controlling the floods like building a dam and educating people on the dangers of cultivating and destroying trees and vegetation along the river banks. Unless this is done, rains will continue to cause misery to people in Budalangi and other flood-prone areas,” Sylvia Miriwa, an environmental management lecturer at Maseno University, in western Kenya, told IRIN.

But past plans to dam the Nzoia stalled after local members of parliament disagreed on the viability of the project and on where to relocate some 40,000 people. Residents have in the past been reluctant to relocate, saying the flood plains are their ancestral lands blessed by fertile soils brought downstream by floods.

Currently the emphasis is on providing early warning information. A flood alert system is in place to help monitor water levels in the Nzoia.

Dykes (some of which were constructed 40 years ago) to hold back flood waters are also regularly repaired, with the government providing local residents with gunny bags.

Contingency measures

“We have food stocks in our stores for this area and we have evacuation trucks ready and a disaster risk centre as well. But I don’t think floods will strike this time,” Khalif Abdi, Bunyala’s district commissioner, told IRIN.

In 2011, flash-floods displaced thousands in Budalangi. “The other time [in 2011], we were caught unawares, but this time, trust me, we are fully prepared. We have an early warning system in place,” said Khalif, adding that the government has also formed a disaster management committee made up of government and aid agency officials.

Amid ongoing heavy March to May long rains, some residents, fearing the worst, have abandoned their homes and are staying in nearby market centres.

“I lost my husband when floods came in 2011. He died saving our goats and we lost all our property. I have decided to stay here away from that home for the time being,” Julia Othieno, from nearby Port Victoria fish-landing beach, told IRIN.

Flash-floods and storms in other parts of Kenya have led to the deaths of at least 17 people and affected some 58,000, with dozens of livestock swept away and infrastructure destroyed, according to the Kenya Red Cross Society.

ko/aw/cb
source www.irinnews.org

Photo: Andrew Heavens/Flickr

Jabbed in Borena, Ethiopia

LONDON,  – Vaccines against measles have been around for decades and are highly effective, yet the campaign against the disease in recent years has had a bumpy ride.

The first target of the 21st century – to halve the number of deaths from measles between 1999 and 2005 – was successfully met. So the World Health Organization (WHO) set an even more ambitious goal – to reduce deaths by 90 percent from 2000 levels by 2010.

Now some elaborate number crunching by experts from WHO, the US-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Pennsylvania State University has produced disappointing news. Their study, published today in the London-based medical journal, The Lancet, concludes that although gains were rapid between 2000 and 2007, progress slowed towards the end of the decade, and the final reduction in mortality by 2010 was only 74 percent – good, but not nearly as good as had been hoped.

The executive director of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Anthony Lake, says vaccination campaigns now reach around 95 percent of all the world’s children. “This shows,” he says, “that these campaigns can succeed, even in the world’s poorest countries and most remote communities. Really this is one of the most remarkable victories in the history of public health.

“The bad news is that every day measles still claims 382 lives, the vast majority of them children under five, and every one could have been saved by two doses of a 22 cent vaccine.”

Some parts of the world have been more successful than others. Measles has been effectively eliminated in the whole of the Americas since 2002 – reduced to the point where there is no more endemic transmission of the disease, and any cases or outbreaks are the result of imported infections from other regions. China and its neighbours are also getting close to getting rid of measles.

But the disease is so infectious and so efficient at seeking out those who have not been vaccinated that even these regions cannot afford to let their levels of vaccination coverage drop. Rebecca Martin, director of the Global Immunization Division at CDC, warns against complacency. “Measles is a serious and potentially fatal disease that will return when it has the opportunity to do so. In many countries the overwhelming success we have seen with the immunization programme has led to the decreased recognition and risk perception of the severe outcome of this disease, but it is always there and will come back if given the opportunity to do so.”

One of the biggest surprises from the new statistical estimates is that India has now overtaken Africa as the region with the most deaths from measles – 47 percent of estimated measles mortality in 2010, while the African region contributed 36 percent

Almost all the cases now seen in the USA are imported, almost half of them from Europe. Europe has had outbreaks of measles in recent years, but contributes very little to the global death toll; good health care means that very few children there die of measles. It is the very fact that Europeans do not perceive it as a deadly disease that makes some parents careless about vaccinating their children against it.

India overtakes Africa

One of the biggest surprises from the new statistical estimates is that India has now overtaken Africa as the region with the most deaths from measles – 47 percent of estimated measles mortality in 2010, while the African region contributed 36 percent. One of the report’s authors, Peter Strebel from WHO’s expanded programme on immunization, told IRIN that, again, perceptions of how deadly measles is, influenced the priority given to prevention.

“In India they have used a single dose strategy right up until 2010 and really, I think, have not seen measles as a high enough public health priority to embark on the two-dose recommended strategy. The important thing to note is that in the Indian context the risk of dying from measles is less than in the African context… Up to 10 percent of children who get measles in an African setting will die. In India it is estimated at more like 1.5 percent. So there is a big differential in the risk of dying and this may partially explain why they were not as aggressive or as eager to take on the new strategy.”

Steve Cochi of CDC adds that measles also may have lost out to polio in the scale of priorities. “There was a lot of preoccupation with achieving polio eradication in India,” he told IRIN. “But now that polio has been eradicated from India, the last case being more than a year ago, in January 2011, India has been able to step up to the plate and expand greatly its measles activities.”

This new push in India should give a fresh impetus to the drive to cut measles deaths worldwide. There is also a new WHO Strategic Plan on Measles and Rubella which will link vaccines against both diseases in a single immunization. The GAVI Alliance (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) has approved funding to immunize all children under 15 with the combined vaccine in the more than 50 countries which do not at present vaccinate against rubella. The higher age target is important, especially for girls, because rubella (sometimes known as German measles) contracted during pregnancy can cause babies to be born with congenital malformations.

WHO is not ready yet to set a target date to move from the elimination of measles in some regions to complete eradication worldwide, but the vaccines are effective, they are cheap, and experts say it is doable, so soon it may be possible to start planning for a world without measles.

eb/cb
source www.irinnews.org