Strong woman heads African Union commission

Details

Category: The World

Created on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 00:00

Hits: 3977

Strong woman heads African Union commission

She is the first woman to head the African Union: Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. The expectations for her are big - the South African must work hard to avert crises across the continent.

She is considered assertive and disciplined – characteristics Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma will be able to make good use of in her new job as president of the African Union (AU). After all, she will head one of the largest regional alliances, made up of 53 African countries, for the next four years. Her list of diplomatic challenges is long – it extends from the crisis in Mali, to violence in the Congo and the failed state of Somalia.

{sidebar id=10 align=right}Her journey to the top was not an easy one. After three ballots, she still didn't have the two-thirds majority needed from 34 countries. Only when incumbent Jean Ping from the central Africa country of Gabon withdrew in the fourth round of voting, was Dlamini-Zuma able to get the majority needed in a close election in July.

The candidate celebrated the outcome as a victory for women. "This position is not only important for South Africa, but also for women. A woman has never held this position before and we wouldn't have gotten it if we didn't stand for election – until we finally win," she said.

Strong women from the south

Dlamini-Zuma is one of the most influential politicians in South Africa, and is a veteran in the fight against racial hatred. Born in 1949, she grew up one of eight children in a village near the costal city of Durban, was raised in the Zulu tradition, the largest ethnic group in South Africa. She studied zoology and botany, became involved early on in the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African anti-Apartheid movement. After the uprisings in 1976, she fled to exile in Britain where she studied medicine and in 1978 she married South Africa's current president, Jacob Zuma.

In 1994 Dlamini-Zuma returned to South Africa after the first free and fair elections were held in the country. The country's new president, Nelson Mandela, made her his health minister. After that she was made foreign minister and in 2009 she returned to domestic politics. She was a minister in ex-husband Jacob Zuma's government. The two divorced in 1998. Zuma was one of the first to congratulate her on appointment. "This means a lot for Africa, the continent, the unity and the rights of women," said Zuma.

The new crisis manager

The major goal for the mother of five is to make the African Union "more efficient." Time and time again, the alliance has been criticised as a "toothless tiger" that couldn't bring itself to address the crises in Mali, Libya and Sudan. Such remarks were also directed at outgoing Commission President Jean Ping. "Dlamini-Zuma is now expected to strengthen the AU Commission and make their political voices heard," Julia Leininger from the German Development Institute (DIE) in Bonn said of the South African's appointment. Dlamini-Zuma must therefore not only improve the workflow and recruit well educated Africans for leadership positions, but also settle simple political differences among member states and promote solutions to the conflicts on the continent. After Sunday's crucial vote, the real challenges begin.

Since 2008, Dlamini-Zuma had been locked in conflict with Jean Ping over the top job. The power struggle had paralyzed the organisation and meant the AU was more preoccupied with itself rather with the continent's pressing problems. The first vote, taken at the AU Summit in January, ended without result, because neither candidate reached the two-thirds majority required for election to the top post. The Alliance was torn along linguistic boundaries and interests.

Long power struggle

Even with its candidate, South Africa had broken one of the AUs unwritten laws. That law says that economically powerful states should desist from applying for influential institutional positions. Dlamini-Zuma, however, had the support of large parts of English-speaking Africa, and was the preferred candidate of the South African Development Community (SADC). Ping on the other hand was touted as a favorite of Francophone Africa, the smaller, less powerful countries.

For South Africa, the choice of Dlamini-Zuma has given the country added diplomatic weight. The largest African economy is one of the leading emerging markets and is seeking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

"Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma will serve all member states alike, not just a region or country," a spokesperson for the South African government said after her election. But, cracks in the AU are deep and this could serve as a litmus test for the new boss. "Dlamini-Zuma is very experienced in domestic issues, very assertive, but she has very little experience on a diplomatic level, so we will have to see whether the confrontation before the election will continue during her time in office," says Leiniger from the German Development Insitute.

In addition to the rifts within the organization, the new AU chief will also have to find the answers to the crises on the continent, including the armed conflict in Mali and the disputes between Sudan and South Sudan. She doesn't have a lot of time to sort them out.

Date 16.07.2012

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

Sahel's chronic hunger crisis demands long-term solutions

Details

Category: DateLines

Created on Wednesday, 03 October 2012 00:00

Hits: 3627

28 September 2012

Sahel's chronic hunger crisis demands long-term solutions

Above-average rainfall and falling food prices do not signal an end to food insecurity in Africa's Sahel region

Posted by Celeste Hicks in Bamako

The Niger government took the brave decision last year to sound the alarm early on hunger – the rainy season, from July to September, had been well below average and a drop in food production looked likely.

{sidebar id=11 align=right}One year later, the picture is very different. This time the alarm is being raised by NGOs to help an estimated 500,000 affected by flooding in Niger. "[It's] the last thing Niger needed," said Samuel Braimah, Oxfam's country director.

Despite the flooding, the rains are welcome news for approximately 15 million people in six countries in the Sahel threatened by a food crisis sparked by drought last year. Across the region, above average rainfall has been recorded in 2012. Predictions for southern Mali by Fewsnet, the US early warning system, suggest at least 93% of the millet crop will be successful. Although there have been pockets of drought, and the rains may be in danger of petering out before October in some regions, anecdotal evidence suggests prices in local markets are starting to ease.

But good news on the rains risks signalling that everything is back to normal. Oxfam is trying to stop donor and media attention turning elsewhere, saying: "The food crisis is far from over and an increase in aid is still needed to help farmers and herders overcome the triple challenges of recurrent droughts, persistent poverty and political instability."

{sidebar id=10 align=right}The Sahel crisis is about much more than rain, or lack of it. Yes, in the years when the rains fail more people are pushed into hunger, but the NGO message is that this is something that will take years to fix. "Deep-rooted change is what is needed, not just a good harvest," says Denise Brown, head of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Niger.

Three droughts since 2005 have left millions of families locked out of the food-production cycle. Almost everyone in the region has lost animals, and many have been unable to buy seed for replanting. When crops fail, some families are unable to find the cash to buy supplementary food on the market as prices have been pushed so high. It is thought that the long-term development of millions of children is being affected by "stunting", caused by a poor diet over many years.

These chronic problems need sustained solutions. Efforts to change farming practices to promote irrigation and protection of water sources must go hand in hand with education, the promotion of women's rights, teaching people about child nutrition, and long-term efforts to promote drought-resistant crop varieties and the creation of grain stores. Initiatives such as Niger's Trois N's are homegrown attempts to tackle chronic food security in all its aspects.

"One good harvest doesn't lead automatically to self-sufficiency in food production," says Mamadou Diop from Action Against Hunger, ACF International in Bamako. "It's hard to explain to donors that there are people who have basically been living with malnourishment for many years, even when the harvest has been 'normal'."

And while things may be looking fairly positive in Niger – where the government of President Mahamadou Issoufou, in place since April 2011, has tried to show itself to be committed to tackling food insecurity – the picture is not so rosy elsewhere. The political crisis in neighbouring Mali has only compounded the hunger problem. More than 300,000 people have been displaced in the Islamist takeover of the north, leaving behind animals and untended fields and fleeing to refugee camps, where they depend on handouts.

"Displaced people cannot plant their seeds, and have no access to money to buy food," says Mbacke Niang, Oxfam's country director in Bamako. "Security and logistics for us in the north have become so much more complicated since the collapse of government authority there."

Overall, the donor response to the 2011-12 Sahel appeal has been quite good. Nearly 60% of the funds required have been provided so far. Although there has been an obvious peak in the number of malnourished under-fives being treated in hospitals across the whole region, anecdotal evidence suggests the numbers have been below the 1 million severely acutely malnourished babies predicted by NGOs earlier in the year. The worst of the lean season is now over, and the first harvest is about to be collected.

This seeming success may be attributable to aid agencies sounding the alarm early at the end of 2011 – in part because many had been stung by criticisms of a late response to last year's famine in Somalia. And, according to Brown, the aid effort was co-ordinated. "Everybody played their role – there was no squabbling between NGOs, and the parameters of intervention were clear. High-level visits are still going on, and donors can see a glimmer of hope here."

The Guardian UK

No comments

'Wheat demand growing faster than other staples'

Details

Category: The World

Created on Friday, 12 October 2012 00:00

Hits: 7087

'Wheat demand growing faster than other staples'

Scientists say sub-Saharan farmers only produce a portion of the wheat yield that is possible for the area. DW spoke with Hans-Joachim Braun, head of the world's largest wheat gene bank, about the need for local grains.

DW:google Around the world, wheat is the second most important grain after rice. How important is wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa, compared to other staples?

{sidebar id=11 align=right}Hans-Joachim Braun: Wheat is currently not an important staple in Sub-Saharan Africa with the exception of Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. So it's not a widely-grown crop, but historically we know wheat has a very high yield potential in many wheat areas of Africa. And we have also noticed that the demand for wheat – and consequently the importation of wheat – is growing faster than for any other staple. That has various reasons: one of it is that there is a demand for diversity in diets, and wheat can provide this diversity. And the other reason, perhaps more importantly, is that there is a very strong migration to the cities, in particular of males, and males prefer convenient food. And wheat is a very convenient food, because you can buy it easily and you can store it for several days.

So there is a growing demand for more wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa and that is why many countries have approached CIMMYT [The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center] for help. They would like to get advice on how to grow wheat; they would like to get seed of adapted varieties. And for this reason we've decided to conduct a big study for potential wheat growth in Sub-Saharan Africa and look where wheat could be produced from a biological point of view, where wheat could be produced economically and where wheat eventually would also be competitive with other crops because no farmer will switch to wheat just for the sake of wheat. A farmer will always choose the crops and the crop rotations with which they earn the most.

You're mentioning money and economic benefits. Now one of the reasons why this could be a possibility for Sub-Saharan Africa is that export-prices, or in that case import-prices for wheat are really high at the moment. What's the current price for wheat on the market and who benefits, and how much economic benefit could be reaped from producing wheat locally in Africa instead of importing it?

The wheat price is currently well above $300 (231 euros) per ton, it's approaching $400 (309 euros) per ton, and that of course is for the main exporting countries. Africa imported more than $12 billion of wheat grains last year. And then one has to recognize that there are also huge imports for processed wheat products, because the processing industry in Africa is not very strong, except for North Africa. And consequently that means there is huge industry potential for a wheat industry, if it's developed, and this is one area we would like to look into. The main exporters of wheat are North America, then Australia, Argentina, West Europe, also Kazakhstan, Russia, and the Black Sea area.

Of these $12 billion in wheat imports, how much could be produced locally instead?

I think if Africa is serious, the potential for wheat production in Africa is there. But it's not just the question of producing it, there's also the issue that many of the production areas are not close to the big cities where the main wheat consumption is. We also need to look at local infrastructure: are there roads from the production area to the main cities? Because much of the time, transportation from let's say Canada to a city in Africa could be cheaper then transporting the wheat from the production area in a country to the main cities.

According to climate change projections, when temperatures go up by 2 or 3 degrees, wheat production will be reduced by around 20 percent - is it really advisable for farmers to increase wheat production instead of grains that might be better suited for increasing temperatures?

That is a very good point. Global climate change will hit wheat production most in South Asia. The figures refer in particular to South Asia: India, Pakistan, Nepal. Wheat production in Sub-Saharan Africa is mainly dependant on natural rainfall. And there, the increasing carbon dioxide will compensate for the losses which are caused by global climate change. So the models for wheat production in Africa would indicate that global climate change at least until the end of this century will not have such a big impact on wheat production as it does for example in South Asia.

You have been calling for increased wheat production in Africa for some years now, even before this new report came out. Do you already see any concrete steps being taken to increase wheat production as you suggest in the next couple of years?

I think Ethiopia is looking into it and has introduced some new varieties. I also know that there's some initial research going on in Madagascar, in some of the Eastern Highland countries. And the Minister of Agriculture for Nigeria has declared that Nigeria wants to become independent and self-sufficient for wheat production with the next six to eight years.

Do you think it's possible for countries to become completely independent of imports?

I think several countries definitely have the potential. One has to see that countries like Nigeria or Zimbabwe had a sound wheat production in the 1970s and 80s. And then, when there was an overproduction, and Europeans and North Americans dumped their wheat on the world market at extremely low prices – that destroyed the wheat industry in many countries. Nigeria certainly has the potential to produce quite a bit of wheat. Mali was also looking into it. And one also has to recognize that in many of the highland areas of Africa, the main problem for wheat is the high night-time temperatures. It's not so much the high temperatures during the day. The night temperatures in these areas are quite favourable for wheat production.

You've mentioned South Asia where changes will not be in favour of wheat. Do you suggest similar changes of crops for other world regions as well?

I think in South Asia we have sufficient genetic variability to develop cultivars' which can cope with global climate change. However, it must be clear that investments in research and development for wheat improvement must increase significantly. The global investments in maize research, mostly in developed countries for example, is four times higher than the global investments in wheat. But I'm confident if more funds are allocated to wheat research, then we will produce the varieties and the production systems which are needed. If we look on a global scale in terms of wheat production, there will be regions which will benefit. These are mainly the high latitude regions - Kazakhstan, Russia, Canada and the Northern parts of the United States. In most other parts it will be either neutral, for example in Africa, because increased carbon dioxide will help wheat to produce higher yields. But even in regions like in Western Europe, say France and Germany, we will eventually see that climate change will have a negative impact on wheat yield potential. And that will be a challenge for wheat breeders and economies to develop the systems which allow them to cope with these challenges.

There are still around one billion people in the world who are undernourished, many of them living in Africa. Which role can wheat play in the future for feeding the world?

For Africa, I think wheat can play an important role, but I do not believe that wheat in the near future will replace some of the current staples like maize or casaba. But wheat will allow added diversity. And it will also allow farmers to have a more diverse crop system and by this diversifying their income.

Hans-Joachim Braun heads The Global Wheat Program at the Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) which has the biggest wheat gene bank in the world.

Interview: Anke Rasper / sst

Date 09.10.2012

Editor Jessie Wingard

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

The genocidal Biafran war still haunts Nigeria

Details

Category: DateLines

Created on Wednesday, 03 October 2012 00:00

Hits: 4629

The genocidal Biafran war still haunts Nigeria

The persecution of the Igbos didn't end with the Biafran conflict. Until the nation faces up to this, its mediocrity will continue

Chinua Achebe

Almost 30 years before Rwanda, before Darfur, more than 2 million people – mothers, children, babies, civilians – lost their lives as a result of the blatantly callous and unnecessary policies enacted by the leaders of the federal government of Nigeria.

As a writer I believe that it is fundamentally important, indeed essential to our humanity, to ask the hard questions, in order to better understand ourselves and our neighbours. Where there is justification for further investigation, justice should be served.

{sidebar id=11 align=right}In the case of the Nigeria-Biafra war there is precious little relevant literature that helps answer these questions. Did the federal government of Nigeria engage in the genocide of its Igbo citizens – who set up the republic of Biafra in 1967 – through punitive policies, the most notorious being "starvation as a legitimate weapon of war"? Is the information blockade around the war a case of calculated historical suppression? Why has the war not been discussed, or taught to the young, more than 40 years after its end? Are we perpetually doomed to repeat the errors of the past because we are too stubborn to learn from them?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group ...". The UN general assembly defined it in 1946 as "... a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups". Throughout the conflict the Biafrans consistently charged that the Nigerians had a design to exterminate the Igbo people from the face of the earth. This calculation, the Biafrans insisted, was predicated on a holy jihad proclaimed by mainly Islamic extremists in the Nigerian army and supported by the policies of economic blockade that prevented shipments of humanitarian aid, food and supplies to the needy in Biafra.

Supporters of the federal government position maintain that a war was being waged and the premise of all wars is for one side to emerge as the victor. Overly ambitious actors may have "taken actions unbecoming of international conventions of human rights, but these things happen everywhere". This same group often cites findings, from organisations (sanctioned by the federal government) that sent observers during the crisis, that there "was no clear intent on behalf of the Nigerian troops to wipe out the Igbo people ... pointing out that over 30,000 Igbos still lived in Lagos, and half a million in the mid-west".

But if the diabolical disregard for human life seen during the war was not due to the northern military elite's jihadist or genocidal obsession, then why were there more small arms used on Biafran soil than during the entire second world war? Why were there 100,000 casualties on the much larger Nigerian side compared with more than 2 million – mainly children – Biafrans killed?

It is important to point out that most Nigerians were against the war and abhorred the senseless violence that ensued. The wartime cabinet of General Gowon, the military ruler, it should also be remembered, was full of intellectuals like Chief Obafemi Awolowo among others who came up with a boatload of infamous and regrettable policies. A statement credited to Awolowo and echoed by his cohorts is the most callous and unfortunate: all is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don't see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder.

It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations. However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose – the Nigeria-Biafra war – his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation — eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.

The federal government's actions soon after the war could be seen not as conciliatory but as outright hostile. After the conflict ended, the same hardliners in the Nigerian government cast Igbos in the role of treasonable felons and wreckers of the nation – and got the regime to adopt a banking policy that nullified any bank account operated during the war by the Biafrans. A flat sum of 20 Nigerian pounds was approved for each Igbo depositor, regardless of the amount of deposit. If there was ever a measure put in place to stunt, or even obliterate, the economy of a people, this was it.

After that outrageous charade, Nigeria's leaders sought to devastate the resilient and emerging eastern commercial sector even further by banning the import of secondhand clothing and stockfish – two trade items that they knew the burgeoning market towns of Onitsha, Aba and Nnewi needed to re-emerge. Their fear was that these communities, fully reconstituted, would then serve as the economic engines for the reconstruction of the entire Eastern Region.

There are many international observers who believe that Gowon's actions after the war were magnanimous and laudable. There are tons of treatises that talk about how the Igbo were wonderfully integrated into Nigeria. Well, I have news for them: The Igbos were not and continue not to be reintegrated into Nigeria, one of the main reasons for the country's continued backwardness.

Borrowing from the Marshall plan for Europe after the second world war, the federal government launched an elaborate scheme highlighted by three Rs – for reconstruction, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. The only difference is that, while the Americans actually carried out all three prongs of the strategy, Nigeria's federal government did not.

What has consistently escaped most Nigerians in this entire travesty is the fact that mediocrity destroys the very fabric of a country as surely as a war – ushering in all sorts of banality, ineptitude, corruption and debauchery. Nations enshrine mediocrity as their modus operandi, and create the fertile ground for the rise of tyrants and other base elements of the society, by silently assenting to the dismantling of systems of excellence because they do not immediately benefit one specific ethnic, racial, political, or special-interest group. That, in my humble opinion, is precisely where Nigeria finds itself today.

Read the Guardian's new Africa blog at www.guardian.co.uk/world/africa-blog

Source: The Guardian UK

No comments