Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Ingrida Kerusauskaite speaks to Paul Collier, Flavia Pansieri and Carolyn Miller about Clinton’s role in coordinating relief and reconstruction works in Haiti.

Around a billion pounds in donations from around the world has poured into Haiti since the disastrous earthquake in January. Since then, around 1000 NGOS have registered with the UN, with perhaps just as many more operating in the country without having registered. However such rapid and committed response, despite the good intentions, may at times complicate rather than assist relief operations. Aid workers returning from Haiti have expressed frustration with the numerous NGOs “tripping over each other”, often duplicating other NGO and UN operations. The sheer number of organizations operating in the country also requires a certain degree of bureaucracy, which has slowed down or even jeopardized certain food and water distribution operations. Given such issues, the major task to coordinate relief and reconstruction efforts of the “zoo of different actors”, as the economist Paul Collier puts it, has been tasked to former US president Bill Clinton.

Yet many ask the question, why an American? Some might see the appointment of Clinton as clear evidence of the spread of US imperialism, asking why it is not an international body, such a UN agency, leading the relief operation. However, Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the UN, has himself appointed Bill Clinton. “The UN is saying that Clinton is the right person,” said Collier. Flavia Pansieri, the UN Volunteers Programme Executive Coordinator, pointed out that Clinton had already been formally appointed as the UN’s Special Envoy for Haiti in March 2009, before the earthquake, “and in this capacity he would continue to support Haiti relief efforts”.

Paul Collier believes that the appointment, which will see Clinton forming a decision-making structure alongside senior Haitian politicians, will be ideal for the earthquake stricken country. Collier, who had previously worked for the UN in Haiti, noted that the disastrous collapse of the UN building in Haiti, in which senior ranking officials died, means “the UN is starting in Haiti from scratch again”.

Moreover, numerous UN agencies, as well as the World Bank and other organizations all believe that they should be the ones coordinating the relief and reconstruction operations. It is thus felt that a widely recognized public figure is required to cut through such departmental in-fighting. “So, in my mind, Clinton is ideal,” states Collier, commenting on Clinton’s involvement and popularity in Haiti. Clinton is “uniquely well-placed” to coordinate the private and public sectors in Haiti: via his role in the government, as well as with the ‘Clinton Global Initiative’, which encourages the private sector in the US to invest in Haiti. Far from representing US imperialism, Clinton’s public profile will be intended to boost the Haitian response internationally.

However, such a comprehensive foreign role raises questions about the sustainability of the development and reconstruction effort in Haiti. The troubled country’s infrastructure was extremely poor before the earthquake that has finally focused international attention there. “Haiti has not had a functioning government for as long as most of us can remember”, said Carolyn Miller, Chief Executive of MERLIN (Medical Emergency Relief International). For the past two decades, Haiti had been heavily relying on foreign aid to sustain basic services and infrastructure in the country. According to a 2006 World Bank study, 92% of Haiti’s schools and 70% of healthcare operations were undertaken by NGOs.

This historical reliance has raised concerns that in a couple of year’s time, when the unprecedented aid that is currently being donated to Haiti will cease, there will be a sudden abandonment of such comprehensive reconstruction and relief projects. “You all generously donated now, but will you still donate in three years’ time?” Miller asks. Indeed, how long will the international community need to “guide” Haiti’s politics and development until it can stand on its own two feet?

Collier deems Clinton’s and the international community’s involvement be necessary during the coming 3 or 4 years, and “to do practical things”, such as set up an efficient network of electricity and infrastructure. The fact is that “it’s not that [the power network] has fallen down, it was never there”. One of the most important lessons learned from previous disasters, according to Miller, is that “it takes a very long time to rebuild”, and early abandon of developmental projects could have devastating effects, as seen in Sierra Leone.

However, such statements point to the need for a lengthily international engagement with Haiti that many Western governments may not be keen to honour, despite the efforts of prominent diplomats such as Clinton.

All international responses to crisis manage a balancing act between the immediate need to act and issues of sustainability for the country that will soon be “yesterday’s news”. Despite the robust international response thus far, serious questions remain for Haiti.  How long will it take the country, which has been largely dependent on foreign aid for the past few decades, manage to successfully move away from NGO and international actors’ patronage? Only time will tell if the humanitarianism of the last few months will be sustained by aid donors and the recipient government alike.

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. Tension that had been simmering for nearly a century suddenly exploded into three months of carnage. The majority of those killed were Tutsis, and most of those responsible for their deaths were Hutus.

Even for a country like Rwanda, which is no stranger to violence, the scale and speed of the genocide left its people reeling. The international community did little to prevent the bloodshed, which only ended when a Tutsi rebel group defeated the Hutu-backed government.

Out of this unimaginable genocide, Paul Rusesabagina saved the lives of 1,268 refugees. Seen by many as the ‘Oskar Schindler of Africa,’ Rusesabagina resisted the chaos and turmoil, and sheltered both Tutsis and moderate Hutus within the walls of the hotel he managed.

After talking at the Amnesty International Human Rights Centre on behalf of ‘Save the Congo’, Rusesabagina spoke with Andrew de Castro about the problems facing ordinary Rwandans and Congolese today, and whether the international community are doing enough to help.

“I couldn’t believe my eyes. I took myself as a stranger in my own country”

Last year Rwanda joined the Commonwealth, but today two high-ranking Rwandan military officials were suspended and then arrested. Is it a case of ‘one step forward, two steps back’ for Rwanda?

Rwanda is more or less like a dormant volcano that can erupt at any time. Before, it used to be divisions and subdivisions between Hutus and Tutsis. Today, it is a division – a split – within the Tutsi side. So you can see that there is a tiny group of elite among those ones who came from Uganda. The ones who agree with President Kagame are now his closest people. Those ones who disagreed with him are the ones who he is kicking out of the army.  Today, two other generals were kicked out of the army and arrested. Now, it is actually better because it is no more a Tutsi-Hutu business, it is no longer simple a Tutsi-Hutu thing – it is now a Rwandan conflict.

You mention in your book that your neighbours suddenly became killers overnight – it must be difficult to know who to trust?

That changed me completely. It changed the person I used to be. Before the Rwandan genocide, I could – at least once a month – pop into a bar and offer a round to each and every person in the room. The people used to call me kimaranzara, which in Rwandan is someone that – when he or she comes in – everybody is supposed to be fed; no one is doing to die of hunger. So they used to call me that name; I could just pop in very tired and just offer rounds and everyone knew me for that. So, when I saw what happened with all those neighbours with whom I used to share BBQ’s, beers, drinks – I saw them completely differently to the neighbours I had known for 7 years. I had been staying in that neighbourhood, in the same house, for 7 years and when I saw those people in the militia uniforms with their guns with their machetes and everything, I couldn’t believe my eyes. I took myself as a stranger in my own country. But it paid off as time went on, because they’re the ones who helped me to help others escape the genocide. It paid off.

How has the success of Hotel Rwanda helped you to publicise the Rwandan cause?

If it was not for Hotel Rwanda, the Rwandan cause, the Congolese cause, the cause for the whole region, was never going to come out. I was the first Rwandan to stand up and say “no, this is not what happened.” The Rwandan government had been threatening each and everyone, silencing each and everyone who was raising their voice, telling them that: “Listen, if you talk, we will indict you as a genocideer. Everyone had just been humiliated, shut up.” No-one was talking so I became the only person who started for the first time to talk. Now, I’m surprised to notice that Rwandans from the embassy who were in the audience didn’t raise a voice in saying anything…

“…there where Rwandan embassy members in the audience tonight?”

Yeah, a few of them I recognised. Yes, they were there as a kind of challenge to ask questions about the militias in the Congo – I’m not for the militias! I’m not for people who solve troubles with guns. No.

You also talked a bit about how we – as consumers – are responsible for helping fund the region.

You – as consumers – can also help raise awareness. Tell your elected officials and leaders; let them know what is going on in the region. So that, especially law makers, because many countries in the west, they are the strongest people who can tell the administration that we know that the UK is donor number 1 to the Rwandan government. Stop this – you are fuelling a proxy war that has taken away 7 million lives for nothing. For their own continent, for their own cobalt, for their own gold, for their own minerals. So we – each and everyone – can do this because you can ask your lawmakers – they are your representatives. This is a country where the power is the power of the people, for the people. This is democracy.

In terms of aid donation, do you think that they should just stop giving money to the Rwandan government or is it a problem of allocation?

I’m not asking England or the UK to stop offering aid completely to any countries in conflict, to any killing fields. There is aid which is given to Rwanda, for instance, to help in their annual budget from a British taxpayer. This money is being used in buying weapons and ammunition to go to fight in the Congo. This money is supposed to be sent to the people and has never reached them because it goes through a government – there is no good reason to entertain a proxy war for a British taxpayer. Whereas, humanitarian aid, through NGO’s – if you took away that aid, people would die of hunger. They still need British foreign aid, but we do not need financial aid in the annual budget to help the Rwandan government to entertain that kind of war.

So should they be more accountable about what the money is spent on, or should it simply not go via the State?

It should not go simply through the government. We have a lot of British NGO’s which are helping the people in different regions, in different areas, so these people have got aid. This foreign aid should remain, and we even move around the world asking for it because the we know that the people need to be helped. In the killing fields, people do not have time to work, but they have to eat. But if someone will bring in maize, for instance, or rice – those communities have their basic needs for someone to survive. But money given to governments is money to entertain wars.

But of course you don’t want to become aid-dependent as a country so you will ultimately need a strong government that isn’t corrupt and that isn’t funding wars in other countries.

In any case, if you give money to the government, this money will never do the right thing you want it to be doing; it will always end-up in my pocket. Is there any need to give that money – pretending that you are giving that money to a family – when, in the end, I’ll be taking that money into my own pocket? There’s no need.

Is there not a way to fight corruption within the government?

Within the government, that is different –there are many different ways of fighting corruption but I believe the most important thing is to set rules and regulations, and also to organise meetings and talk to the right people who are in possible positions of being corrupt. But the Rwandan government is not corrupt for that matter – rather, they misuse donations. Instead of using that money to wield projects in the country, for the country and for the people, they use this money to buy weapons to go any fight. I don’t believe that a taxpayer pays his taxes to entertain a war, in my name, or anyone else’s name, no I don’t think so. But if the British donor can give his money, his full help to the people in the rural areas, that is perfect. But directly to the people. Because whatever passes through the government does not reach the people. In Rwanda, we have a saying that all the money and donations from the Bretton Wood institution, World Bank, IMF, comes from Washington DC, flies over the skies of Kigali but it never lands. It comes back to Washington DC under someone else’s name. It does never land. It goes to Europe under someone else’s name. This is what we are fighting against.

The run-up to the election period was marked by numerous political debate and conference sessions, in a general public attempt to analyse the candidates’ stances, as well as present politicians with communities’ and individual groups’ own political priorities.

 “Party politics no longer seem to be about clear ideological differences, or indeed any kind of substantial debate reflecting competing visions for a better society,” stated the Institute of Ideas (IoI) during a -election public summit, the ‘Battle for Politics’, that the organisation held at the Goodenough College this April. During the summit, IoI put forward 21 ‘Pledges for Progress’, concerning freedom, civil liberties, economic development, the constitution and public services. The pledges will be presented to politicians, who in turn will be asked to clearly state their stance regarding the issues put forward. As put by Pam Giddy, the director of Power 2010, the pledges will prevent the MPs from being able to say “nobody ever asked me about that”. The pledges are also expected to generate political debate among the public, thus reengaging people in politics.

Participants of the summit were asked to think about ‘the kind of election and government we could have’. “This election has to be about opening up the structures,” said Pam Giddy, “about policies, not parties”. Wes Streeting, the president of NUS, explained that when students do not use their votes, politicians focus on the part of the society that is politically active, such as pensioners. [ à pullquote] Consequently, ‘politicians can afford to back university cuts and rising fees’ while supporting rising pensions, as it is more likely to get them voted into power.

During this election, however, the NUS and student activists are resolute to make themselves heard. Wes Streeting, NUS president, declared that the NUS is “determined to hold parliamentary candidates to account, and help students in every constituency to understand which of those candidates is prepared to back student interests – on the record, and on a clear promise.” The NUS has launched the campaign ‘Vote for Students’, asking MPs to support the NUS Funding our Future Pledge: “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”. NUS will subsequently offer students information about those standing for election in their local area, and highlight whether those standing for election have signed the NUS Vote For Students pledge to vote against a hike in top-up fees if elected. So far, 725 parliamentary candidates have signed the NUS Vote for Students pledge, among which are more than 175 Labour and 300 Liberal Democrat candidates, but only 10 Conservative candidates. Visit www.voteforstudents.co.uk  to find out more about and support the campaign.

The NUS campaign, however, focuses merely on university fees. Students in London on the other hand are also affected by other issues which have a significant effect on the quality of our education and university experience. The universities are facing large cuts in the upcoming years, and living costs in London are as ever high – affordable housing and cheaper transportation are crucial to attract the most talented and diverse student body to London universities. Join the facebook group ‘Support London Students’ or email the London Student politics editors at politics.editor@london-student.net to have your say regarding your priorities as a student, and what politicians could do about them. The final debated version of London Student stances will be taken to local parliamentary candidates. Moreover, as victories in certain constituencies in London are determined by student votes, these are likely to be taken seriously.

We propose these issues to start with:

• No to funding cuts in universities
• No to rising fees
• Yes to more scholarships and bursaries to home, EU and international students
• No to spying on international students
• Yes to creating conditions for affordable housing and cheaper transport
• Yes to more paid internship opportunities
• Yes to more graduate positions

During the ‘Battle for Politics’, it was strongly stressed that ‘if you don’t vote or get involved, then you can’t complain about the outcome’.  The reason that BNP won two seats at the European Parliament was indeed not massively increased support for the party, but rather low voter turnout. As quite bluntly put by Peter Tatchell, the Green Party human rights spokesman, “people engage when they’re pissed enough, and I don’t think that they’re pissed enough yet”. Get involved before you end up with an enormous debt you will be struggling to repay for numerous years. 

[ in a separate box in the article:]

21 PLEDGES FOR PROGRESS 2010

Re FREEDOM

1. Repeal hate speech legislation, in the interests of free speech, with no ifs, no buts.
2. Repeal the UK’s libel laws, in the interests of free speech, no ifs, no buts.
3. Stop bureaucratic CRB checks and vetting of adults who come into contact with children and vulnerable adults, in the interests of free association between generations and countering the climate of mistrust.
4. Repeal any equality legislation that interferes with the freedom of private organisations like churches and political parties to act on their beliefs, in the interests of free association.
5. Revoke unnecessary and nonsensical health and safety rules and guidelines in the interests of countering today’s risk-averse, safety-first climate of fear.
6. Allow pubs and clubs the option of permitting smoking, and get rid of the new ‘no drinking zones’, in the interests of countering the over-regulation of public spaces.
7. Scrap the ‘database state’, including the ContactPoint database which holds information about every child in the country and the DNA database which includes details of criminal suspects without convictions, in the interests of civil liberties, the privacy of families and the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty.
8. Limit the police’s power to detain people without charge to 24 hours rather than 28 days, in the interests of civil liberties and due process.
9. Declare an amnesty for all illegal immigrants presently in the UK, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, in the interests of recognising the positive aspirations of those who seek to improve their lives by moving countries.
10. Open the borders, revoking all immigration controls, in the interests of the free movement of citizens.

Re CONSTITUTION

1. Get rid of police Tsars and unelected ‘experts’ from government decision-making in the interests of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability.
2. Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords in the interests of a fully elected legislature and executive.
3. Hold a referendum on the EU constitution and any subsequent treaties, in the interests of a national democratic mandate.

Re ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1. Direct state expenditure into infrastructural projects such as power grids and telecommunications, increased facilities for road, rail and air travel, in the interests of productive economic growth.
2. Build new nuclear power stations across the country in the interests of ensuring we have more than sufficient energy to power a new round of economic growth.
3. Reduce the onerous regulation of new scientific and technological developments such as GM technology and biomedicine in the interests of increasing R&D and encouraging innovation.

Re PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Stop excessive centralisation and bureaucratic control of public services, enabling professionals to make judgements in the interests of those using the services rather than artificial targets.
2. Scrap the ‘impact statement’ demands on university research in the interests of valuing knowledge for its own sake and academic freedom from policy outcomes.
3. Support the arts financially, for their own sake, in the interests of liberating them from ever more prescriptive and politicised instrumental demands.
4. Direct state funding of health to biomedical research into cures, the latest drugs and equipment, rather than punitive campaigns to change individual behaviour, in the interests of public health and good cheer.
5. Direct state funding of schools into providing universal access to the highest standard of education in academic subjects, rather than politicised cross curricular themes like sustainability or citizenship, in the interests of passing on real knowledge to our children.

To support or comment on the pledges go to http://www.instituteofideas.com/election2010.html .