Saturday, March 26, 2005

Most tsunami dead female - Oxfam (BBC News)

BBC News
Last Updated: Saturday, 26 March, 2005, 00:27 GMT

Most tsunami dead female - Oxfam

More women than men were killed by the Asian tsunami, Oxfam figures from India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka suggest.

In some regions the disaster claimed four times as many women as men.

The charity says women were worst-hit because they were waiting on beaches for fishermen to return, or at home looking after children at the time.

The research comes exactly three months after the under-sea earthquake caused a wave that devastated coastlines around the Indian Ocean.

Oxfam International focused their research on the Indonesian province of Aceh, the Cuddalore district of India, and took data from camps across Sri Lanka.

In four villages in Aceh Besar district only 189 of 676 survivors were female - men outnumbering women three to one.

'Disproportionate impact'

In four villages in North Aceh district, 82 men died, compared to 284 women.

A staggering 80% of those who died in Kuala Cangkoy in North Aceh were women.

India suffered a similar fate with three times as many women being killed as men in Cuddalore district - the second most seriously affected area in India.

In one Indian village, Pachaankuppam, the only people who died were female.

The story is the same for Sri Lanka where the number of male survivors in the emergency camps far outweigh the women.

Becky Buell, Oxfam's policy director, said the tsunami had dealt a "crushing blow" to both women and men.

"This disproportionate impact will lead to problems for years to come unless everyone working on the aid effort addresses the issue now."

She said there are already reports of rapes, harassment and forced marriages coming from emergency camps around the region.

She urged people to "wake up" to the issue and ensure "protection, inclusion and empowerment" of female survivors.

Errands

The report suggested a number of reasons for the high proportion of female deaths.

On the Indian coast many women were waiting for the fishermen to return with their catches, while in Batticaloa on the east coast of Sri Lanka, the tsunami hit at the exact moment many of the women were taking baths in the sea.

Because it was a Sunday, many of the women in Aceh were at home with the children rather than at work.

The men in most parts of Aceh were either carrying out errands or in their boats out at sea, where the waves were less ferocious.

Ms Buell called on governments and NGOs to help ensure women are given the same opportunities as men to rebuild their lives.

She added it is important to work with men who had lost their wives and teach them how to care properly for their children.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Some thoughts on the terrorist strategy of the Iraqi 'insurgency' (Normblog)

Guest-posted on the weblog of Norman Geras (Normblog)
March 15, 2005

by Jeff Weintraub

One long-term trend in the operations of the Sunni Arab 'insurgency' in Iraq, which was clear even before the January 30 election but now seems to be accelerating, is that the targets of its attacks are overwhelmingly Iraqi Shiite Arabs - not just political figures, government workers, policemen, members of the Iraqi National Guard, people accused of working with the Americans, doctors, and other educated professionals, but also Shiite religious leaders, pilgrims, funeral processions, and random ordinary civilians. (This recent report conveys the general picture.) In a single attack last week, a suicide bomber killed 47 people and wounded many more attending a funeral at a Shiite mosque in Mosul.

The only plausible logic behind this campaign of increasingly indiscriminate terrorism against Iraqi Shiites is to provoke an all-out Sunni-Shiite civil war (as opposed to the mostly one-sided civil war currently under way). Here and elsewhere, the central political purpose of this kind of mass terrorism is to produce a self-reinforcing dynamic of polarization, both directly and by provoking indiscriminate reprisals from the groups under attack. Nor is this merely an outsider's interpretation; many Iraqis quite explicitly describe this as the goal of the ongoing terrorist offensive. That would render the country ungovernable - and, as a bonus, would also prevent any possible political accommodation between potentially moderate tendencies in the Sunni Arab leadership and the main Shiite and Kurdish parties.

The major reason this has not yet happened is that the mainstream Shiite religious and political leadership are determined to prevent it from happening. They have refused to respond violently to these provocations and have made very strenuous efforts to prevent widespread Shiite retaliation against Sunni Arabs - with surprising success. Maintaining this disciplined self-restraint has been an impressive achievement and a promising sign of their long-term political intentions, but the current situation can't go on indefinitely (as suggested, for example, by this report to which Norman Geras has drawn my attention).

As some analysts have pointed out, the Iraqi Shiite leadership has also tended to pin the blame for these attacks on foreign jihadists ('Wahhabis') rather than on Iraqis. This is probably intended not only to prevent reprisals against Iraqi Sunni Arabs but, in addition, to hold open the possibilities for political accommodation with 'moderate' elements within the Sunni Arab elites. Again, this is potentially encouraging, and so are recent signs that some elements in the Sunni Arab religious leadership are getting worried about where all this might be leading. (Whether or not they are worried enough to do something constructive remains to be seen.)

However, the Sunni Arab "insurgents" appear determined to push the Shiites over the edge. One interesting feature of the latest suicide bombing in Mosul is that the Shiite cleric whose funeral provided the occasion for this atrocity was not associated with the mainstream Shiite religious leadership, but instead was a local representative of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers have staged several insurrections against the Americans and who has been locked in an ongoing power struggle with the mainstream Shiite leadership. This aspect of the attack further underlines the indiscriminate character of the terrorist campaign against Shiite civilians. The insurgents are clearly not worried about the danger of uniting all the different wings of the Iraqi Shiite community against them.

Why not? Presumably, the insurgents believe they could win an all-out civil war, even though their base of popular support amounts to less than 20% of the population. This is not inherently implausible, since Sunni Arabs controlled the bulk of the officer corps, the secret-police services, and the Ba'ath Party apparatus during the previous regime, which gives the insurgents important resources of organization and expertise. They are probably also counting on moral and material support from the larger Arab world, which is overwhelmingly Sunni-dominated and extremely unhappy about the idea of an Iraqi government dominated by Shiites and Kurds, and which - unlike Iraqis - overwhelmingly opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

If the "insurgents" are able to panic the US into a precipitate military withdrawal, it's not impossible that this strategy could be successful (at least in Arab Iraq - I suspect Iraqi Kurdistan is another matter). As one informed analyst put it to me when I shared some of my thoughts on this matter, the insurgents figure that if they make it impossible for the Americans to stay, 'they can then take care of the Shiites,' beginning by wiping out the Shiite religious and political leadership. On the other hand, one result of this increasingly all-out assault on Shiite Arabs appears to be that they are less and less inclined to want any rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq - but the insurgents may not think this factor will be significant in the long term.

But even from the most unsentimentally 'realist' point of view, this whole strategy strikes me as a very dangerous all-or-nothing gamble from the perspective of the Sunni Arab community in Iraq. It's unlikely that this worries the more hard-core Ba'athist and jihadist elements in the insurgency (especially the foreign jihadists, who appear to be carrying out most of the spectacular suicide bombings). But by now it must have occurred to some of the more pragmatic (non-fascist and non-jihadist) elements among the Sunni Arab elites that this strategy could potentially lead them and their whole community into catastrophe. If it hasn't occurred to them, they had better wake up and do something about it (and hope that they are not murdered by the hard-liners in the process).

A split within the Sunni Arab leadership along these lines, which would be desirable but is by no means inevitable, could probably be encouraged by a willingness and ability on the part of the Shiite Arab and Kurdish leadership to address some of the concerns of the Sunni minority. (I mean some of their reasonable and legitimate concerns, not wildly unrealistic demands for the immediate departure of US troops, a total halt to de-Ba'athification, and the like). So far, they have signalled their willingness to do so, and it remains to be seen how well they can follow through. And the opposite is also true - signs of a realistic willingness for political accommodation on the part of Sunni Arab elites could increase the willingness of political forces representing the other 80-85% of Iraqis to offer them some sort of acceptable 'historic compromise'. In an optimistic scenario, these two tendencies could be mutually reinforcing. But both of these possibilities remain very problematic. And as I noted earlier, it's safe to assume that a major aim of the ongoing insurgent campaign of assassinations and mass terrorism is precisely to render any such accommodation impossible.

Nevertheless, at this point it still seems quite possible that this strategy of using mass terrorism against Shiite civilians to provoke all-out civil war in Iraq will actually fail, unless the US troops are withdrawn prematurely - something else that the mainstream Shiite leadership will probably do everything it can to prevent. But whether it succeeds or fails, it is certainly appalling. Non-Iraqis who support the insurgency and describe it as a legitimate national 'resistance' should ask themselves whether they really favour mass murder of civilians carried out in order to restore fascist dictatorship (or an Islamist replacement) and rule by the traditionally dominant ethnic minority.

(Jeff Weintraub)

Posted by Norm at 02:46 PM Permalink

Juan Cole on the terrorist strategy of the Iraqi "insurgency"

An exchange with Juan Cole regarding my piece "Some thoughts on the terrorist strategy of the Iraqi 'insurgency'." --Jeff Weintraub

_____________________

=> Juan Cole wrote (March 11, 2005):

Dear Jeff:

The point of provoking civil disturbances is to make it impossible for the Americans to stay. Once the Americans have to leave, the guerrillas can take care of the Shiites fairly easily.

cheers Juan

Hi Juan,

Yes, I'm aware that this is your view (which is one reason I passed along my thoughts to you), and on the whole it makes good sense. Some people who know about Iraq don't seem to think that the insurgents would necessarily be able to take over the whole southern part of the country. But IF they can get the Americans to pull out any time soon, they clearly hold a lot of advantages.

So I think my take on the situation is compatible with yours. One point I would add (just thinking through the logic of this kind of political terrorism) is that provoking an all-out civil war would also have the beneficial effect (from the insurgents' point of view) of locking in any elements of the Sunni Arab population who might be tempted to make a deal with the Shiites & Kurds.

On the other hand, if they DON'T manage to panic the US into withdrawing--which I certainly hope they won't--then this strategy leads potentially to catastrophe, not just for Iraq in general but, especially, for the Sunni Arabs in particular. And as you have mentioned yourself, one result of this strategy is to increase support among the Shiite leadership for the Americans to stay around longer--which might (or might not) be a self-defeating aspect to the insurgents' approach.

Well, politics, war, and insurrection all involve taking gambles (and this is as true for Sistani, Chalabi, SCIRI, Dawa, the PUK, and the KDP as it is for the insurgents). I guess we'll see whose gamble pays off in this multi-sided conflict. To a greater extent than before, it's up to the Iraqis now.

Cheers,
Jeff Weintraub


=> Juan Cole wrote:

In the old days, the Sunnis could control the Shiites and Kurds with helicopter gunships and tanks. Presumably the guerrillas believe that their greater expertise in piloting such vehicles will allow them to redeploy them once the Americans are gone. I suppose they think they can do as the Vietcong did and capture a lot of armor from the departing Americans. The Shiites don't know how to drive a tank or pilot a helicopter gunship. In fact, the failure of the Americans to reconstitute an Iraqi armored division is among the major reasons for continued Iraqi army failure.

I agree that all this is a fantasy on the part of the ex-Baathists, but I'm just trying to understand what in the world they think they are doing.

Right, and I'm trying to do the same. What you say is plausible. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Jeff Weintraub

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The persistence of slavery (Economist & BBC)

How to solve social problems expeditiously:
The government of Niger has cancelled at the last minute a special ceremony during which at least 7,000 slaves were to be granted their freedom.

A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said this was because slavery did not exist. [....]

Acting under pressure, Niger's parliament banned the keeping or trading in slaves in May 2003.

In a ceremony in December 2003, dozens of slaves were liberated, many of them shedding tears of joy as they were given certificates showing they were free.
This comes from a BBC News report, "Niger cancels 'free-slave' event"; you can read the rest below.

=> As a follow-up piece in the Economist (also below) correctly argues, this incident should help draw attention to the persistence of slavery and "slavery-like practices," not just in Niger, but around the world--including 'advanced' societies. Some highlights:
Slavery is like polio. Most westerners associate it with earlier, darker times in human history. Its eradication is a sign of human progress. And yet despite these perceptions slavery, like polio, has not in fact been eradicated. The fact of modern slavery was brought home again this week by the story of a botched manumission in Niger. [....]

Anti-Slavery International, a London-based human rights group, estimates that 43,000 slaves are held in Niger, which the United Nations reckons to be the second-least-developed country in the world. [....] Niger is far from alone. Its class-based form of slavery exists in neighbouring Chad, Mali and Mauritania, too. In Mauritania, estimates SOS Esclaves, another anti-slavery campaigner, 40% of the population are slaves or ex-slaves, who suffer the same stigma and lack of rights as their brethren in Niger. In Sudan, too, slavery is widespread. [....]

Many other slavery-type practices remain widespread, despite having been forbidden by UN conventions. These include forced marriage, wife-transfer, child marriage and the sale of children for labour. [....]

The form of slavery that perhaps affects the greatest number of people is bonded labour, which is particularly rife in India, Pakistan and Nepal. [....]

In Brazil, forced labourers clear Amazonian jungle at gunpoint. In western Europe, prostitutes from the former Soviet block are forced to work without any choice of which or how many clients they sleep with, and with the threat or use of force curtailing their freedom. And in the United States, Free the Slaves, another anti-slavery group, found illegal forced labour in at least 90 cities, involving over 19,000 people. The CIA has estimated the number of slaves in America at 50,000. Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese and others work against their will in the sex trade, domestic service, farms and sweatshops. [....

Like many things that should have been stamped out a long time ago, slavery, it seems, is alive and well.
Read the whole thing.

--Jeff Weintraub

=========================
The Economist
March 9, 2005
Still with us
A botched release of slaves in Niger points up an ugly truth: bondage is alive and well around the world


Slavery is like polio. Most westerners associate it with earlier, darker times in human history. Its eradication is a sign of human progress. And yet despite these perceptions slavery, like polio, has not in fact been eradicated. The fact of modern slavery was brought home again this week by the story of a botched manumission in Niger.

Anti-Slavery International, a London-based human rights group, estimates that 43,000 slaves are held in Niger, which the United Nations reckons to be the second-least-developed country in the world. Slaves in the landlocked west African country form a stigmatised, closed class. Even freed slaves carry the taint of their hereditary status, and their former masters or parents’ masters may claim some or all of their income, property and dowries.

In 2003, Niger finally got around to amending its laws to make slave ownership punishable with up to 30 years in prison. (The practice was outlawed with Niger’s independence from France in 1960, but carried no penalty.) Facing jail, a chieftain in western Niger offered to free the 7,000 slaves held by him and his clansmen in a public ceremony, due to take place on Saturday March 5th. But in the week leading up to the event, Niger’s government came to fear that a massive release of slaves would draw unwelcome attention to slavery’s existence in the country. The government declared that slavery does not exist in Niger, the ceremony was cancelled and the slaves left as slaves. Far from avoiding a public embarrassment, Niger has multiplied its worldwide shame.

Niger is far from alone. Its class-based form of slavery exists in neighbouring Chad, Mali and Mauritania, too. In Mauritania, estimates SOS Esclaves, another anti-slavery campaigner, 40% of the population are slaves or ex-slaves, who suffer the same stigma and lack of rights as their brethren in Niger. In Sudan, too, slavery is widespread. Some 14,000 people were abducted and forced into slavery during the country’s two-decade-long civil war between the Arab-run government in Khartoum and blacks in the south. Most of these were women and children forced into domestic work and herding. Many children of abductees, fathered by the slaves’ masters, in turn become slaves. Around 12,000 Sudanese remain in bondage. And according to a recent UN report, abduction and slavery have been extended to Darfur in western Sudan, where a separate conflict rages.

Beyond chattel

Most people associate “slavery” with the transatlantic chattel slave trade that ended in the 19th century as the United States and later Brazil, the biggest recipients of black African slaves, abolished first the trade and then the practice of slavery itself. But slavery persisted, so much so that the UN made 2004 the snappily-titled International Year to Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. December 2nd 2004 was designated the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, to commemorate the adoption of a 1949 convention against human trafficking. But that convention is still widely flouted.

The form of slavery that perhaps affects the greatest number of people is bonded labour, which is particularly rife in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Desperate workers are given a loan for as little as the cost of medication for a child, and are forced to work to repay the loan and “interest”. But no clear contract is offered—the unfortunate bonded labourer often winds up working years to repay such loans, and the bond is even often passed on to children after the original labourer’s death. Because of the apparently voluntary nature of the bondage, many do not see it as slavery. But the labourer is often so desperate for a loan, without other sources of credit, that there is little real choice involved. And once bonded, the threat of violence and the limitations on personal freedom involved make the practice in effect no different from chattel slavery.

Many other slavery-type practices remain widespread, despite having been forbidden by UN conventions. These include forced marriage, wife-transfer, child marriage and the sale of children for labour. In Brazil, forced labourers clear Amazonian jungle at gunpoint. In western Europe, prostitutes from the former Soviet block are forced to work without any choice of which or how many clients they sleep with, and with the threat or use of force curtailing their freedom. And in the United States, Free the Slaves, another anti-slavery group, found illegal forced labour in at least 90 cities, involving over 19,000 people. The CIA has estimated the number of slaves in America at 50,000. Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese and others work against their will in the sex trade, domestic service, farms and sweatshops.

In America and Europe, there is at least some hope of recourse to the authorities. India and Pakistan have banned debt bondage but struggle to enforce the law. Sudan is a criminal state actively encouraging rampaging militias. And Niger has been a rickety democracy for just over five years, unable even to admit its problem, much less tackle it. Like many things that should have been stamped out a long time ago, slavery, it seems, is alive and well.

=========================
BBC News
Published: 2005/03/05 16:34:44 GMT
Niger cancels 'free-slave' event

The government of Niger has cancelled at the last minute a special ceremony during which at least 7,000 slaves were to be granted their freedom.


A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said this was because slavery did not exist.

It is not clear why the government, which was also a co-sponsor of the ceremony, changed its position.

At least 43,000 people across Niger are thought to be in slavery.

Representatives of the slaves, the government and human rights campaigners had been due to attend the event at In Ates, near the border with Mali.

A local chief had agreed to the release after the introduction of a new law, which punishes those found guilty of slavery with up to 30 years in jail.

Anti-Slavery International had described the ceremony as a historic step forward.

The British-based campaign group said the people who had been due to be freed made up 95% of the local population.

"The government needs to ensure not only that the law is implemented, but that there are the means of support available for former slaves and their children to live their lives in freedom and independence," the group's Africa programme officer, Romana Cacchioli, said before the ceremony was cancelled.

According to a local anti-slavery organisation, Timidria, males slaves are forced to work in farms and tender cattle, while women are confined to domestic duties.

Acting under pressure, Niger's parliament banned the keeping or trading in slaves in May 2003.

In a ceremony in December 2003, dozens of slaves were liberated, many of them shedding tears of joy as they were given certificates showing they were free.

---------------
SEE ALSO:
Testimony: Former Niger slave 03 Nov 04 Africa
Drama as Niger slaves are freed 19 Dec 03 Africa
Niger 'slave' flees castration 04 Sep 02 Africa
Trauma of rescued Niger slaves 07 Dec 01 Africa
Rescued Niger slaves 'tortured' 07 Dec 01 Africa
Country profile: Niger 14 Aug 03 Country profiles

RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
About Timidria
Anti-Slavery International
Slave Trade Site
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites